BryllCream wrote: Right but simply skim-reading a codex before a battle really doesn't give you any idea of how the codex actually works. I don't think the average wargamer could memorize a complete set of weapons, armour and wargear before a battle. Many xeno lists would simply be unreadable without some sort of crib sheet.
Most FW units won't require you to read an entire book, just have them point out the units to you. In the case of an FW list, most of it will still be very similar to a codex (i.e. if facing an Armoured Battlegroup, if you know how the IGFA and HS slots work, you know 90% of that list).
The only reason you should be completely blindsided is if their rules weren't provided or one didn't read them thoroughly enough, and that's no different than anything else in the game.
You really think a gamer is capable of remembering an entire army's wargear, weapons and special rules, and more importantly remembering which of the units has them? What the stats are for the IC in that unit, what weapons he has, what special rules he has...then the unit itself, then the entire army. That's a huge amount of information to be processed, at the same time as thinking about your own army, the terrain, etc.
Its not alot of information actually, nor is it in of itself, too much to remember for example, I've remembered an entire army's wargear, weapons, special rules, which units have what AND their points costs on top of that. I've done that for my: Tau Orkz Dark Angels Tau again (new codex) Wood Elves Vampire Counts and essentially the entirety of the LotR range.
If you want to play in big competitive events, FW or no FW, the onus is on you to be prepared for anything you could possibly face.
I want to derail this and mention objective placement at Adepticon. Why not have a rule that states if you place an objective within 12" of your table edge, then the next objective you place has to be more than 12" from your table edge and 12" away from another objective. That way all the objectives are not camped in the backfield.
I can understand Allan bringing the army to WGC as an experiment. Much like Stelek bringing his Bolterbacks to NOVA was an experiment. In both cases, I don't think that the results were what either expected and in both cases, I don't think the results were nearly as clear cut as were hoped to be able to make a definitive statement as to the efficacy or non-efficacy of the units chosen. So, I have a question to clarify the issue - @Allan - How easy were your matches?
I guess the point that I'm trying to get to is - is FW an Easy Button?
With what we've seen, FW, in the hands of highly experienced players, can win or come close to winning a tournament. But let's say you gave that list to a mid-tier player. What would they do with it? Would it be an Easy Button for them? Would they (could they) achieve the same results? Or would they still be a mid-tier player with an expensive army?
Part of the tournament scene and part of the challenge of tournaments isn't just the challenge on the table-top at the tournament. Part of it is list-building. Part of it is recognizing the overpowered and undercosted units - and deciding whether or not to use them.
Some people will choose to bring a less-than-optimal list to a tournament knowing that it will be a challenge for them to succeed. I'd actually say that MOST players attending a tournament bring less-than-optimal lists and know that it will be a challenge. Granted, this is often for different reasons. For some players, this may be because they're running a theme list. For many players, they may know what an optimal list looks like, but they can't afford the models to make it so.
Is there anything wrong with the players that are most driven to win buying and playing with the most expensive models? These are the ones that are also investing the most time into the game as well.
In professional sports, it takes money to buy the best equipment and hire the best trainers. How different is this from the Yankees having the biggest budget in baseball? Just as we've seen that having the biggest budget doesn't guarantee winning you the World Series every year, we've also seen that using the most overpowered, underpriced, and expensive models won't consistently win you tournaments.
This is my problem with FW in tournaments:
1) GW doesn't have the best track record for playtesting and balancing its rules and its armies - thus some armies are better and some are worse, some units are better and some are worse.
2) FW's record for developing balanced rules is even worse than GW's. While most of their models have overpriced crap rules, some, as have been described, are underpriced and overpowered.
3) FW is, by its own business model, more difficult to obtain than GW. Can you get FW? Yes, but the cost and difficulty to obtain FW products are higher than getting GW products (SoB notwithstanding - and again, as previously discussed, are not a competitive army or else we would see them ranking in the tourneys).
4) Consequently, if you have the time and money to invest in FW, you have access to some of the more powerful units in the game which other players do not have access to. This puts you at a competitive advantage.
The question before us is: is this competitive advantage greater than should be allowed in tournaments?
With the dominance of Codex: Necrons, I would say that the competitive advantage allowed by FW is within the same range of competitive advantage allowed by Codex: Necrons or by Heldrakes in an otherwise mediocre Chaos Codex. While I don't have any hard data to back this up, I feel pretty comfortable making that analogy.
So, to get to Allan's point of FW being allowed to make up for underperforming armies in 6th Ed., I think this is less of an issue of tournaments and more of an issue of how GW has screwed itself with competitive gamers.
A few years ago, the MtG competitive scene had degenerated to variations on a few highly competitive decks. Folks started losing interest in the game. Wizards recognized this and made changes in newer sets and has successfully broadened things again. The problem with GW is that, despite "GAMES" being in their company name, they are, and have admitted to being, a miniature company first and foremost, and a gaming company second as the rules follow the design of the miniatures and not vice versa. They have also shown disregard to and regularly disenfranchised their competitive player base.
So, we rely on TO's to help balance GW's crappy, flawed system. Should FW be allowed in tournaments just because GW says they are "Chapter Approved"? I don't think that TO's should allow FW just because GW says they should. We've trusted GW to give us a balanced ruleset and look where that's gotten us. I think the TO's need to use their own judgment and discretion to decide whether FW is allowed. It's up to them to decide how that makes their tournament look - if they allow FW, will their tourney be seen as particularly WAAC and possibly dissuade lower- and mid-tier players from attending, while attracting top-tier players (and ones that will bring more internet publicity to the tourney). Or if they don't allow or restrict FW, will they be looked down upon by the competitive gamers the way comp has gone?
/Rant off
tl;dr
Point is this:
Seems to me that this is a similar issue to the direction taken with comp. Should you have comp? Shouldn't you? Same set of questions we're dealing with today. How has removing comp affected tourneys? Answer that and maybe that might provide some insight on the FW question.
Death By Monkeys wrote: With what we've seen, FW, in the hands of highly experienced players, can win or come close to winning a tournament.
Of course we've also seen that codex units, in the hands of highly experienced players, can win or come close to winning a tournament. FW doing the same is only a problem if you have an absurd double standard where FW rules are only acceptable as long as nobody would ever use them competitively.
3) FW is, by its own business model, more difficult to obtain than GW. Can you get FW? Yes, but the cost and difficulty to obtain FW products are higher than getting GW products (SoB notwithstanding - and again, as previously discussed, are not a competitive army or else we would see them ranking in the tourneys).
Difficulty is nonexistent. This is 2013, online shopping is part of life and buying from FW is no more difficult than ordering a book from amazon.com.
4) Consequently, if you have the time and money to invest in FW, you have access to some of the more powerful units in the game which other players do not have access to. This puts you at a competitive advantage.
The same is true for codex units. It's still "pay to win" when you have $80 Riptides, $100+ wraith-things, etc. If you're going to ban FW units over cost issues then you also need to start banning the most expensive codex kits and playing events at lower (and cheaper) point levels. Otherwise you aren't really taking the cost problem seriously.
Seems to me that this is a similar issue to the direction taken with comp. Should you have comp? Shouldn't you? Same set of questions we're dealing with today. How has removing comp affected tourneys? Answer that and maybe that might provide some insight on the FW question.
That's a very good comparison. The biggest problems with comp in 5th edition, outside of stubborn "we're the most hardcore competitive players ever" hatred of the entire concept, was bad comp. Instead of legitimate efforts at improving game balance we saw event after event with comp systems that were little more than an attempt by certain TOs to force people to play the game the way it "should" be played. And it was hated for good reason.
Meanwhile we see the same thing with FW bans. Instead of addressing the real problems of GW's unbelievable idiocy with the artillery and skyfire/interceptor rules in 6th edition we get event after event with comp systems involving blanket FW bans just to get rid of a few problem units. You could almost entirely fix the FW problem with two simple changes:
1) Replace the 6th edition artillery rules with the 5th edition rules (applied to all codex artillery units as well).
2) Replace the interceptor USR on all FW units with "whenever this unit shoots you may choose to give it skyfire until the end of the phase" like the Tau skyfire upgrade.
That would not be comp it would be changing the rules of the game. If you blanket change those rules because you on't like them why not change, random charge distance, or the flyer rules...at which point why not rewrite the game. That also fixes some units which are not broken. Easier to just say...isn't bring these 5 units (or whatever the number) and call it a day, instead of saying "here let me hit your favorite unit with a nerf bat several times...ok now it's allowed."
(SoB notwithstanding - and again, as previously discussed, are not a competitive army or else we would see them ranking in the tourneys).
That's a nice bit of handwaving. The lack of Sisters at a tournament may well have everything to do with their availability, and nothing to do with their power level.
unless your argument extends back to the witch hunter days of that book it holds no water. I see no less sisters armies now then I did then. I'm not saying power level is the reason though (although were they the best army in the game I'm sure we'd at least see "counts as" sisters), they have just never been a super common army.
(SoB notwithstanding - and again, as previously discussed, are not a competitive army or else we would see them ranking in the tourneys).
That's a nice bit of handwaving. The lack of Sisters at a tournament may well have everything to do with their availability, and nothing to do with their power level.
Handwaving, nothing. Doing a quick eBay search, I found both issues of White Dwarf with the SoB rules for under $2.00 each. If SoB were actually competitive, you'd see those going for a lot higher prices.
(SoB notwithstanding - and again, as previously discussed, are not a competitive army or else we would see them ranking in the tourneys).
That's a nice bit of handwaving. The lack of Sisters at a tournament may well have everything to do with their availability, and nothing to do with their power level.
Handwaving, nothing. Doing a quick eBay search, I found both issues of White Dwarf with the SoB rules for under $2.00 each. If SoB were actually competitive, you'd see those going for a lot higher prices.
Again, I disagree. It's not hard to find their rules if you actually look, so eBay prices for the rules seems like a poor choice of tools for analysis. Not to mention, having the rules doesn't mean you have the models. I can think of a lot of armies that would benefit from a power-armoured scoring blob and an HQ who is considerably underpriced and able to ressurect herself. As allies for any imperial force, they've got value, and yet we don't see them in that role either. That doesn't tell me they're not competitive, it tells me they're not easily available.
With a cost approaching a point per dollar, they're one of the most expensive armies you could possibly field. That's why we don't see them. It has very little to do with how good they are.
Not saying they don't have value, but they are battle bros with almost no armies which down grades some of what would be nice with them, throw on top of that those T3 PA bodies lack and they shall know no fear, and have no way to get it. Maybe the value is not all that high combined with their availability and cost. But given how much Counts as takes place in this game, if they were great people would find cheaper alternate models.
Again, I disagree. It's not hard to find their rules if you actually look, so eBay prices for the rules seems like a poor choice of tools for analysis. Not to mention, having the rules doesn't mean you have the models. I can think of a lot of armies that would benefit from a power-armoured scoring blob and an HQ who is considerably underpriced and able to ressurect herself. As allies for any imperial force, they've got value, and yet we don't see them in that role either. That doesn't tell me they're not competitive, it tells me they're not easily available.
With a cost approaching a point per dollar, they're one of the most expensive armies you could possibly field. That's why we don't see them. It has very little to do with how good they are.
A couple points to this:
1) While it's true that finding a PDF of the SoB rules isn't difficult, there are enough TOs that require you to have the books (so as not to abuse FW) that I think that if SoB were as powerful as you're claiming to be then we would see higher prices on the WDs.
2) There are plenty enough SoB models out there for folks to build an effective army. To paraphrase Peregrine above - this is 2013 and we have the Internet. It's not that difficult to get ahold of stuff, even if it is OOP. I used to have a 2000 point Adeptus Arbites army that I used as SM Scouts and Bike Scouts. And that was before the Necromunda Enforcers were out. If folks want to build an army, they will do it. Seriously, if SoBs were that powerful, you'd have folks converting them from SM power armor and female heads. But they're not, so you don't see them in play.
Peregrine wrote: Difficulty is nonexistent. This is 2013, online shopping is part of life and buying from FW is no more difficult than ordering a book from amazon.com.
Spoken like someone who has never actually tried to order anything from FW. They're notorious for canceling, rejecting, delaying, or simply screwing up orders.
To be fair Peregrine has probably placed many orders with FW. But as one of those people who finds it impossible to order from FW I support the gist of Danny's post above.
Peregrine wrote: Difficulty is nonexistent. This is 2013, online shopping is part of life and buying from FW is no more difficult than ordering a book from amazon.com.
Spoken like someone who has never actually tried to order anything from FW. They're notorious for canceling, rejecting, delaying, or simply screwing up orders.
I order from FW 3-4 times a year for the past two years and NEVER had any problems with cancelled, rejected, delaying or screwing up order. Even the huge orders always arrived with everything accounted for.
Death By Monkeys wrote: Seems to me that this is a similar issue to the direction taken with comp. Should you have comp? Shouldn't you? Same set of questions we're dealing with today. How has removing comp affected tourneys? Answer that and maybe that might provide some insight on the FW question.
That's a very good comparison. The biggest problems with comp in 5th edition, outside of stubborn "we're the most hardcore competitive players ever" hatred of the entire concept, was bad comp. Instead of legitimate efforts at improving game balance we saw event after event with comp systems that were little more than an attempt by certain TOs to force people to play the game the way it "should" be played. And it was hated for good reason.
Meanwhile we see the same thing with FW bans. Instead of addressing the real problems of GW's unbelievable idiocy with the artillery and skyfire/interceptor rules in 6th edition we get event after event with comp systems involving blanket FW bans just to get rid of a few problem units. You could almost entirely fix the FW problem with two simple changes:
1) Replace the 6th edition artillery rules with the 5th edition rules (applied to all codex artillery units as well).
2) Replace the interceptor USR on all FW units with "whenever this unit shoots you may choose to give it skyfire until the end of the phase" like the Tau skyfire upgrade.
But that would be comp, and we can't have that...
As someone who is not deathly opposed to reasonable comp, something like this would likely also be acceptable to me. Basically, fixing anything that is out of whack with FW due to edition change, as artillery clearly is and we're what, a year out now? But then, I'm open to almost any fix to try seeing more FW. Any fix except that of doing nothing, and just allowing it all as-is, consequences be damned.
It's possible this will bring out the comp haters to shout down the above statement, but again I just don't get that line-in-the-sand mentality. If something is broken, and it's an easy fix, you fix it. Whether that's doing the broader things (which I know Peregrine doesn't like) such as 0-1 for each FW selection, a limited ban / restricted list, or adjusting artillery rules to bring them in line with 6th ed. Any of that works for me... take your pick
This is why i like hulk and he speaks from personal experiance.
Hulksmash wrote: . I'll happily punch people in the junk with FW if it's allowed. I just don't think it's the best thing for the tournament community at large as a universal blanket acceptance.
I think this statement was missed by a number of people and i think it says alot. I think it can be generalized that if a highly competitive player has an army he can enhance even more with the use of FW units hes going to do it. Does this make for a better tournament experiance...nope not IMHO.
GW includes enough broken units in the game that i dont see the need to add more.
I think we are well past the idea that Forgeworld is "necessary" to balance out other armies.
The above are the two main arguments i see in defending FW inclusion Tournaments.
Am I the only one who has never had a major issue with an order from FW other than the occasional miscast? Between probably a dozen orders (and more money than I care to think about) and over many years, I've never had an order take more than I think 10 days to arrive (in fact I had one order arrive on my doorstep in 42 hours) and never had an order cancelled or missing any items or anything like that.
Hulksmash wrote: To be fair Peregrine has probably placed many orders with FW. But as one of those people who finds it impossible to order from FW I support the gist of Danny's post above.
I agree that Peregrine has probably ordered from FW plenty. However I am with Hulk and Danny on this point, I have had 3 orders with FW go wrong. One was canceled for seemingly no reason, another I waited over 2 months for Inquisition Rhino Doors and hatches, and the third time I got sent half a Contemptor, torso but no leg joints, and had to wait another 2 months for the replacement. Luckily I have all the parts for my pre-heresy army now so I don't foresee the need to order much more from FW, I hope. It is truly a pain to do so.
As a slight counter point to Peregrine though, this is the day and age of internet retail, so you'd think ordering from FW wouldn't be nearly the hassle that it is. They could do a much better job.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Vaktathi wrote: Am I the only one who has never had a major issue with an order from FW other than the occasional miscast? Between probably a dozen orders (and more money than I care to think about) and over many years, I've never had an order take more than I think 10 days to arrive (in fact I had one order arrive on my doorstep in 42 hours) and never had an order cancelled or missing any items or anything like that.
How do you live in the US and have a FW order arrive in 42 hours? Did you pay for overnight?
zedsdead wrote:This is why i like hulk and he speaks from personal experiance.
Hulksmash wrote: . I'll happily punch people in the junk with FW if it's allowed. I just don't think it's the best thing for the tournament community at large as a universal blanket acceptance.
I think this statement was missed by a number of people and i think it says alot. I think it can be generalized that if a highly competitive player has an army he can enhance even more with the use of FW units hes going to do it. Does this make for a better tournament experiance...nope not IMHO.
But it doesn't make it a worse experience either. Just a different one. And for every middle-of-the-roader who gets crushed by someone else's FW army, there's another who got crushed by GW units, and another who's happy to be allowed to play with his non-broken FW models.
GW includes enough broken units in the game that i dont see the need to add more.
I think we are well past the idea that Forgeworld is "necessary" to balance out other armies.
The above are the two main arguments i see in defending FW inclusion Tournaments.
You're not paying attention then. Neither of the above two are the main arguments for including FW in tournament, in fact, more of the pro-FW camp will also agree that FW is not necessary to balance existing armies. You're setting up a strawman here. The main argument for including FW is that people paid for models and want to be allowed to play with them, like the rules for those models say they can.
OverwatchCNC wrote:
Vaktathi wrote: Am I the only one who has never had a major issue with an order from FW other than the occasional miscast? Between probably a dozen orders (and more money than I care to think about) and over many years, I've never had an order take more than I think 10 days to arrive (in fact I had one order arrive on my doorstep in 42 hours) and never had an order cancelled or missing any items or anything like that.
How do you live in the US and have a FW order arrive in 42 hours? Did you pay for overnight?
If you order enough, the 2-day shipping is free. I never order FW unless I hit that number, usually going in with others in my gaming group to do so.
Dozer Blades wrote:I have very few issues ordering from Forge World and their customer support staff are awesome.
I've had some CC issues that have been quickly resolved by calling my CC customer support. I've had some issues with defective models, which have always been replaced, no questions asked, by their customer support people. I don't think it's nearly as difficult to get FW models as people are making it out to be.
zedsdead wrote:This is why i like hulk and he speaks from personal experiance.
Hulksmash wrote: . I'll happily punch people in the junk with FW if it's allowed. I just don't think it's the best thing for the tournament community at large as a universal blanket acceptance.
I think this statement was missed by a number of people and i think it says alot. I think it can be generalized that if a highly competitive player has an army he can enhance even more with the use of FW units hes going to do it. Does this make for a better tournament experiance...nope not IMHO.
But it doesn't make it a worse experience either. Just a different one. And for every middle-of-the-roader who gets crushed by someone else's FW army, there's another who got crushed by GW units, and another who's happy to be allowed to play with his non-broken FW models.
GW includes enough broken units in the game that i dont see the need to add more.
I think we are well past the idea that Forgeworld is "necessary" to balance out other armies.
The above are the two main arguments i see in defending FW inclusion Tournaments.
You're not paying attention then. Neither of the above two are the main arguments for including FW in tournament, in fact, more of the pro-FW camp will also agree that FW is not necessary to balance existing armies. You're setting up a strawman here. The main argument for including FW is that people paid for models and want to be allowed to play with them, like the rules for those models say they can.
OverwatchCNC wrote:
Vaktathi wrote: Am I the only one who has never had a major issue with an order from FW other than the occasional miscast? Between probably a dozen orders (and more money than I care to think about) and over many years, I've never had an order take more than I think 10 days to arrive (in fact I had one order arrive on my doorstep in 42 hours) and never had an order cancelled or missing any items or anything like that.
How do you live in the US and have a FW order arrive in 42 hours? Did you pay for overnight?
If you order enough, the 2-day shipping is free. I never order FW unless I hit that number, usually going in with others in my gaming group to do so.
Dozer Blades wrote:I have very few issues ordering from Forge World and their customer support staff are awesome.
I've had some CC issues that have been quickly resolved by calling my CC customer support. I've had some issues with defective models, which have always been replaced, no questions asked, by their customer support people. I don't think it's nearly as difficult to get FW models as people are making it out to be.
1. I didn't know that, it's good to know.
2. He made it seem like he received just a regular old FW order in 48 hours because FW is so awesome.
How do you live in the US and have a FW order arrive in 42 hours? Did you pay for overnight?
The order was large enough to qualify for free express shipping
But even that notwithstanding, the longest I ever had anything take was 10 days, almost everything is a week, never had an issue with them, and I've been ordering from them since 2006.
How do you live in the US and have a FW order arrive in 42 hours? Did you pay for overnight?
The order was large enough to qualify for free express shipping
But even that notwithstanding, the longest I ever had anything take was 10 days, almost everything is a week, never had an issue with them.
To be fair, and open, my orders that took longer than 10 days were all supply side problems with FW not actual shipping delays. So when they had the actual items I ordered it took about 10 days. It is the supply side problems that I have an issue with, should have been more clear in my OP.
Overwatch, if you do decide to order more FW, the DCMs tend to organize group orders to get to that free shipping level. I'm just about to get my part of it from whalemusic360, probably Friday. So that may help, too
(Same goes for Hulksmash)
Doesn't excuse all the problems etc etc, but does help get around them and they seem to be happy to try to fix problems when they arise. It's been a good experience for me so far!
Yeah, once in a while our local group gets together and puts in an order. It's how I get my FW books. We do it about once a year. Model wise I could do the same thing but I rarely feel like waiting for those events.
RiTides wrote: Overwatch, if you do decide to order more FW, the DCMs tend to organize group orders to get to that free shipping level. I'm just about to get my part of it from whalemusic360, probably Friday. So that may help, too
(Same goes for Hulksmash)
Doesn't excuse all the problems etc etc, but does help get around them and they seem to be happy to try to fix problems when they arise. It's been a good experience for me so far!
Well it seems from this thread that I may need to invest in some Sabre Platforms so I will keep that in mind. In all seriousness though I may hop on for some more HH stuff, I am converting my own Pre-Heresy Salamander Terminators from 3rd party bits companies, beads, and green stuff but I still need 10 or so MkIII and MkIV marines to load out with Special and Heavy weapons to gain versatility. I plan to use it as a replacement for my old Salamanders I sold and to use with the new SM codex whenever it comes out.
zedsdead wrote:This is why i like hulk and he speaks from personal experiance.
Hulksmash wrote: . I'll happily punch people in the junk with FW if it's allowed. I just don't think it's the best thing for the tournament community at large as a universal blanket acceptance.
I think this statement was missed by a number of people and i think it says alot. I think it can be generalized that if a highly competitive player has an army he can enhance even more with the use of FW units hes going to do it. Does this make for a better tournament experiance...nope not IMHO.
But it doesn't make it a worse experience either. Just a different one. And for every middle-of-the-roader who gets crushed by someone else's FW army, there's another who got crushed by GW units, and another who's happy to be allowed to play with his non-broken FW models.
Things get tricky for me here as a TO. I've not had anyone sign up for NOVA just because we have premier events in our offering that permit FW units. I have had people, MANY people, most of whom are NOT hardcore competitors, who said they would not come if we legalized it in the GT. MOST of our attendees are much more interested in fun games and decent looking armies (primarily b/c of the bracketing system, and the heavy weighting of appearance score on best overall), and these are the guys who are often uninterested in FW being there. If I've got a situation where the GT (which is presented as being fair and balanced) attracts many more people w/out FW than with ... and FW itself is not attracting more players by being legalized in some events ... and it is scaring away players who aren't even hardcore or hyper competitive in the GT setting ... what's the incentive when the OTHER things you acknowledge would still be true (average and casual gamers getting their teeth kicked in by armies buffed beyond even their normal expectations by undercosted, terrifyingly good FW units)?
Part of it also is opinion, as usual. Night scythes, Heldrakes, etc., are NOT overpowered, even a little bit (you see, this is my opinion, but I've got just as much anecdotal and personal evidence to back it up as anyone else has for their own view, making them all equally valid). These codex "bullies" are solid units, and every unit has internally powerful units that are more obvious takes than others within the dex, but they aren't helter skelter crushing everything. People are still winning or placing very highly at GT's with everything from Zoanthropes to Meganobz. The reality is good players win GT's regardless of what's legal or not, because they're not only GOOD, they're happy to spam whatever works best. FW gives them things that are better for them IF they play IG or are willing to sacrifice their army preference to shoehorn in IG via allies. Hulksmash is your simple example (I'm another) ... he's happy to punch people in the jimmy with WHATEVER you give him, and if you give him IG ... he's immediately going to take the nasty FWIG stuff, without any hesitation; this should tell you a lot about whether it's broken compared to the various other GW codex units. I don't really care about these guys directly. I care about the people they are curb-stomping *even worse* ... and I care about the people who would otherwise be playing fun games against their peers, but start curbstomping them with the aforementioned units.
This coming paragraph is just about MY event, to help share why we have a 50/50 offering, and why part of that 50/50 isn't the GT: we offer a variety of events all with different presentations and expectations. The GT is "choose your own adventure" while expecting things to be fair, and straightforward. You're going to get a premier prize, recognition, honor, acclaim, etc., whether you win Best Overall based on 50% appearance score, or Battle Master purely off Margin of Victory BP, or Tournament Champ w/ W-L. Adding FW units to this event doesn't make a lot of sense, because mass opinion, feedback (we presented it in our initial primer as an option, and got overwhelming feedback on the FW question), and the reality of the imbalances ADDED (not simply changed, it makes the game LESS balanced, not just imbalanced in a different way) made for its inclusion in the "fair and choose your own adventure" styled GT unreasonable.
BUT we've allowed even Horus Heresy lists in our DC Narrative (which receives the most organizer attention in terms of mission design, testing, etc.). When I get into a situation where the various FW lovers in this thread and elsewhere are actually coming out and showing interest in events like the Narrative (which is a GT in its own right attendance wise) where companies like Secret Weapon Miniatures design themed bases JUST for those players / that event, and all FW is legal, and the missions are balanced but still rocking fun, and tons of people participate ... I'll start to have to think more seriously about FW in the main event. But as long as there already is a wide presentation, and the vast majority of attendees and prospective attendees are voting via e-mail and their wallet for no FW in the GT ... well, it all comes back to different strokes for different folks, and each organizer offering something different.
What I WOULD suggest, is the big FW fans show up to the big FW-legal events ... the more of you there are actually coming out, the more impetus TO's will have to push in that direction. Anyone can post a preference on a forum, but honestly most of us are all about our attendees and giving them the best experience possible ... not foisting our own personal opinions on people from the TO's pulpit. We frankly form our opinions BASED on our attendees' opinions as a result. (And again, it's all about opinion in this discussion).
How do you live in the US and have a FW order arrive in 42 hours? Did you pay for overnight?
The order was large enough to qualify for free express shipping
But even that notwithstanding, the longest I ever had anything take was 10 days, almost everything is a week, never had an issue with them.
To be fair, and open, my orders that took longer than 10 days were all supply side problems with FW not actual shipping delays. So when they had the actual items I ordered it took about 10 days. It is the supply side problems that I have an issue with, should have been more clear in my OP.
Ah, that would be different, I don't think I've ever ordered anything they were having production issues with. I think of late they've taken to just removing said kits from sale until the issues are fixed when they arise (as they have with one of the DKoK Infantry Squads currently) to address that issue.
While I repeatedly see some people refer to GW and FW as though they're interchangeable, nothing could be farther from the truth for your FLGS. Having an account with GW means nothing to FW. No FLGS carries FW because they'd pay full retail for it. This means a few things:
1. If a player wants to know what a new Eldar or Tau unit does they can look on the shelf or at a store copy. If that player wants to know what a hades breaching drill does, they're out of luck unless they order the book.
2.If the player lives in an area with a community of 20+ players, there's a pretty good chance of finding a practice game against someone with a 2000 pt. army from any core codex. If looking to practice against a particular build from a codex army, it is easy to proxy with easily accessible rules. The same can't be said for FW armies and units.
3. Your FLGS has no reason to encourage/support FW. Most tournaments are run/supported by local game stores since GW doesn't support them anymore. Why encourage players to spend their finite cash on a company that will have no partnership with you? That DKOK army might as well be GI Joe proxies for all the good it did any FLGS.
If GW wants FW to be a core part of the game, they should treat it as such on their website and in the stores they partner with. I allow FW in some our tournaments, but I will continue to treat it as outside the core ruleset as long as GW does.
grotblaster wrote: While I repeatedly see some people refer to GW and FW as though they're interchangeable, nothing could be farther from the truth for your FLGS. Having an account with GW means nothing to FW. No FLGS carries FW because they'd pay full retail for it. This means a few things:
...
3. Your FLGS has no reason to encourage/support FW. Most tournaments are run/supported by local game stores since GW doesn't support them anymore. Why encourage players to spend their finite cash on a company that will have no partnership with you? That DKOK army might as well be GI Joe proxies for all the good it did any FLGS.
I just wanted to point out, my FLGS recently started carrying a full range of FW books in-store for perusal and for sale. They do bulk orders monthly or every two months of FW stuff for the free shipping amount so that customers save on shipping, and they don't get hit with the same taxes that I would if I had ordered on my own, since they are a business. In the end, this results in far cheaper FW models for me if I were to order through the store. This was a recent decision, and they actually turn a profit off of it. My FLGS now has regular players including units such as Hyperios and Contemptors, and I have players asking me to play against my Elysian army because they want to fight something different. I believe that we are the only FLGS in the area to support FW so heavily. This draws players. Sure, they don't carry FW stock besides one or two of each book, but they can order whatever you want for delivery in within a week. In fact, this is a good way to go, because FW is geared to the player and hobbyist already knowledgeable of 40k as it exists without FW, and having to order through the store makes you think twice as to whether you really want it or not. It also helps that we have Apocalypse-styled displays including superheavy tanks, superheavy bombers, and soon to have a few Titans.
Including FW into my FLGS did not appear to be a poor choice, and for the cost of a small shelf space (next to the codices) to stock the FW books, they generate essentially free revenue and draw more interest. I disagree with the point that an FLGS has nothing to gain from supporting FW.
grotblaster wrote: ts FW to be a core part of the game, they should treat it as such on their website and in the stores they partner with. I allow FW in some our tournaments, but I will continue to treat it as outside the core ruleset as long as GW does.
The decision to keep FW separate is a business decision, not a gameplay decision. GW officially does not support tournament play, as has been stated about a thousand times now, so logically there's little need for them to "merge" two studios that have radically different design and business goals since they have stated that FW is official. I highly doubt anyone was actually thinking that the declaration of officiality had to be so inclusive for our sake.
There are several people on this post who disagree with me whose opinion I respect (Yakface, Muwhe, Redbeard), and there are also several whose opinion I respect who agree with me.
I think Forge World is going to be a subject like politics. Both sides have good points and we will never get to a unanimous consensus of what is the best route to take.
I think the question in the original post has been answered. There is no longer a “need” for Forge World, but there are still those who desire it in their tournaments.
Blackmoor wrote: There are several people on this post who disagree with me whose opinion I respect (Yakface, Muwhe, Redbeard), and there are also several whose opinion I respect who agree with me.
I think Forge World is going to be a subject like politics. Both sides have good points and we will never get to a unanimous consensus of what is the best route to take.
I think the question in the original post has been answered. There is no longer a “need” for Forge World, but there are still those who desire it in their tournaments.
Blackmoor has spoken! And the topic has been used and abused, time for a mod to lock it?
This was a very well thought-out response, I enjoyed reading a TO's experiences in the matter. I was very surprised to hear that your playerbase that just wants to show up to play some games and have fun are the ones that are vocal against your events including FW. I would have thought the play-for-fun crowd is more likely to include FW units for the models and alternate options. If the casual players don't want FW in your events, does that mean that the competitive players do? That's pretty much the opposite of what I have read so far in this thread.
To disclose, I am a casual player who wants to use FW for the models, not so much the rules, so I am content with counts-as. I would prefer not to, as I have to come up with some strange counts-as choices that don't really make a lot of sense, and then I feel like I'm trying to trick my opponent or something.
We already allow FW models (or really any models) to be proxied as whatever you please, so long as you fit within our WYSIWYG and MFA policies.
The thing is, most people who travel to big major multi-hundred-person tournaments/cons aren't "casual" players. They're hardcore about their hobby, whether they care about winning with optimized lists or not.
Honestly, we heard inquiries and words against FW before and after 6th edition, and a couple things happened in 6th edition that are undeniable in pushing the FW volume.
Suddenly, almost everyone could access IG if they WANTED without abandoning their primary dex. Then, vehicles got really bad, and infantry spam became a big deal. This also caused more players to invest in IG early on - especially competitive min-maxers - in the form of blobs, as everyone went to use Battle Brother IC's w/ guard blobs. Now, more people suddenly had IG models of some sort.
FW units are still not very good vs. vehicles, but now many more people are running flyers (I know, a type of vehicle), FMC's, and infantry (lots and lots of infantry). FWIG is VERY good against Flyers/FMC's, and infantry.
So, when 6th dropped, all of a sudden almost any player could pigeonhole anti-flyer/fmc and anti-infantry into their lists that was extremely powerful, affordable, and/or had other major advantages (i.e. T7 scoring guard infantry, 150 point 12-barrage-shot thudd guns, infiltrating marines / ahazra redth, 20 TL shot vultures, etc.). Suddenly, the volume for FW went through the roof. You can practically google and see the correlation. The volume was heavily amped by players that saw OBVIOUS competitive advantages, and wanted to take them, period.
As per my long write-up on page 21, none of that's bad, really. It just is what it is. But sure enough, the players who don't want us to use FW are almost exclusively casual gamers, or xenos players. Most often we get that nobody plays with FW at their local game shop, and they don't really have anyone to prep against or understand for them against unless proxying happens ... and casual gamers / hobbyists more often dislike proxy games.
I can also say, from being a successful and known competitive GT gamer, and from having a lot of buddies in the same group, we ALL see the issues with the IGFW models of note that are pretty crazy, and there's a reason we all happily and rapidly change our lists up when FW is legalized ... they're just plain better than what we can get with the codices ... they don't shift the meta, they trump it. Moreover, they trump it in a game that is becoming increasingly balanced with each 6th edition codex release ... those who think GW doesn't balance well ... whether or not they are doing it on purpose, they are figuring it out in 6th.
In terms of using FW rules, again as mentioned, we simplify things by offering both. We have a smaller Trios Team event that allows FW as 0-1 choices. We have a smaller hyper hardcore competitive Invitational that does not use it. We have a larger unique (as in, no other narrative event in the country is like it) narrative event that gets a ton of swag and radical focus, with a ton of players ... basically a casual GT in a lot of ways, but with a lot of flair and perks ... and it uses FW completely unbarred. And we have the 40kGT itself, which doesn't use FW. So, for all my opinions on this subject, I present a perfectly split / even handed offering to attendees, and I play in a perfectly split 50% of events I attend with FW and without.
Final reiteration from the pg21 post - if you are a FW fan, ATTEND! You've got FW legality at lots of events ... if those events take an attendance dive in the same year they legalize FW, it's not going to engender TOs to stick with it (even if the correlation is completely coincidental). This is a big key by the way - because as Oaka observes, in this THREAD it seems more like the competitors don't like FW and the casuals do. But there's a big difference when you look at the competitive GT GOERS vs. the casual GT GOERS. That's the audience I'm most directly responsible for / responsive to.
There's an interesting convergence on this topic. As noted, a number of rather high profile tournament players (Hulksmash, MVBrandt, carlosthecraven, Blackmoor, many others) have voiced that they'd rather not have unlimited FW in tournaments. I'd say these are "hardcore" players.
I am a casual player, usually taking a less-than-optimal list intentionally... because I like theme or whatever. I'm also from the old "pro comp" crowd, whereas I would think most of the above would be from the old "anti-comp" crowd. Again, an interesting convergence!
But as part of the "casual" group, I can absolutely see why many players don't want unlimited FW allowance, due to exactly what MVBrandt described above. I just don't want to face IG allied artillery all tournament long. But as part of the "casual" group, this is also why I'm interested in FW with some restrictions- to have the fun/theme parts of it available, but not the broken parts.
To address a few posters directly:
-grotblaster, nice post!
-Enigwolf, what is and where is your FLGS? I am very interested in the fact that they can succeed with this. I would LOVE to be able to buy FW locally!
-Oaka, I think most of my post above was in response to yours. I'm trying to give the perspective of the "casual" player that doesn't want unlimited FW, and why, as I think the "hardcore" players have been actually even more well represented in this thread. But as MVBrandt says, a lot of casual players (imo) feel this way, and that will play a large role in what tournies allow FW... they want to please their attendants and put on the event that most of them want.
As a final note, this again is why I find AdeptiCon so appealing. They've found a way to embrace FW in one of their absolute premier events, the team tournament, in a way that casual players like myself enjoy. I think there's room for improvement, but I think it's the best there is.
My one criticism of the Nova Open (although I haven't participated in the GT I did attend the event last year), is that it seems FW are only allowed in the "side" events. Nobody really wants to be relegated to a "side" event that's just how it is! I like how MVBrandt tries to push these events, but in the end folks want to play in the "main" event, mostly. The Team Tournament at AdeptiCon is one of those, and I think it's allowing limited/restricted FW has been quite a trail-blazer.
In my personal opinion, the Bay Area Open and the like take that too far. But the player base in their area may just have different preferences . But for my preference, AdeptiCon allows the right amount of FW for the "casual" player. I'd like to see just a hair more of it included in the Nova. So that's my feedback from the "casual" player point of view.
grotblaster wrote: While I repeatedly see some people refer to GW and FW as though they're interchangeable, nothing could be farther from the truth for your FLGS. Having an account with GW means nothing to FW. No FLGS carries FW because they'd pay full retail for it. This means a few things:
1. If a player wants to know what a new Eldar or Tau unit does they can look on the shelf or at a store copy. If that player wants to know what a hades breaching drill does, they're out of luck unless they order the book.
Many stores do not carry perusable "store copies", copies on the shelf are there to be sold, not free reference material. that said, this also applies to SoB where you can't even buy the rules short of Ebay.
2.If the player lives in an area with a community of 20+ players, there's a pretty good chance of finding a practice game against someone with a 2000 pt. army from any core codex. If looking to practice against a particular build from a codex army, it is easy to proxy with easily accessible rules. The same can't be said for FW armies and units.
That may often very well be true, but not everyone has a gaming group that big and even many gaming groups that big don't have every army. Not an irrelevant point, but it is highly variable.
3. Your FLGS has no reason to encourage/support FW. Most tournaments are run/supported by local game stores since GW doesn't support them anymore. Why encourage players to spend their finite cash on a company that will have no partnership with you? That DKOK army might as well be GI Joe proxies for all the good it did any FLGS.
Such things still drive incidental sales, paints, brushes, clippers, basing kits, etc. Additionally, they look cool and help build excitement for others.
Some stores do sell FW stuff. My FLGS does, they buy it at retail but in bulk to cover the shipping costs and basically 15% on top so that it roughly equalizes with what one would pay from FW but immediately available in the store/for impulse buys. Admittedly rare, won't try and claim otherwise, though slowly becoming more common. They could definitely do more to improve the business end.
If GW wants FW to be a core part of the game, they should treat it as such on their website and in the stores they partner with. I allow FW in some our tournaments, but I will continue to treat it as outside the core ruleset as long as GW does.
I think the bigger thing with GW is that they just don't care. As long as FW pulls in a profit they really just don't bother with it.
-Enigwolf, what is and where is your FLGS? I am very interested in the fact that they can succeed with this. I would LOVE to be able to buy FW locally!
Back home in a country you've probably never heard of, where taxes jack up the price to almost Aussie levels. I'm actually fairly close to my FLGS' owner, but for the sake of not creating a parallel conversation that's off-topic in this thread I'd be happy to share more about it in a PM or another thread!
As Vaktathi has stated, it is possible. Price the FW models below the 15% surcharge an individual would have to pay for shipping, and above the roughly 9% or 10% of taxes and conversion fees that would have to be paid, and then you have something in the figure of 2% or 3% of free profit for the store, which in an FW order can be quite significant.
Danny Internets wrote: Spoken like someone who has never actually tried to order anything from FW. They're notorious for canceling, rejecting, delaying, or simply screwing up orders.
I just checked my account and I've made 30 orders since the new website began (and a couple more on the old website), plus 3-5 made by other people as gifts for me. And every single one has shipped on time with all of the correct items. Now, each order comes up with new and interesting ways of miscasting a model, but all of the items have been correct. The only times I've had an order fail have been because my bank flagged the transaction as fraud and rejected it.
MVBrandt wrote: Night scythes, Heldrakes, etc., are NOT overpowered, even a little bit
Of course they are. You can't possibly look at Helldrakes/Vendettas/etc and tell me they have a fair point price and reasonable abilities (especially after the Helldrake got a 360* turret for no reason). You can argue all you want that they aren't so overpowered that they ruin the game, but they are clearly too good for their point cost.
BUT we've allowed even Horus Heresy lists in our DC Narrative (which receives the most organizer attention in terms of mission design, testing, etc.). When I get into a situation where the various FW lovers in this thread and elsewhere are actually coming out and showing interest in events like the Narrative (which is a GT in its own right attendance wise) where companies like Secret Weapon Miniatures design themed bases JUST for those players / that event, and all FW is legal, and the missions are balanced but still rocking fun, and tons of people participate ... I'll start to have to think more seriously about FW in the main event.
And I'm glad that event exists. But it's not the same as a competitive tournament. You can say that it isn't a second-tier event, but the simple fact is that it's something very different. A person who wants to play in a competitive tournament (whether they love or hate FW) may have zero interest in a narrative event, while a person who travels across the country for a cool narrative event may have zero interest in a competitive tournament. So I don't think it's reasonable to say "pay a lot of money and support our narrative event if you want to see competitive tournaments".
grotblaster wrote: 1. If a player wants to know what a new Eldar or Tau unit does they can look on the shelf or at a store copy.
As long as the store owner is happy to let people treat their merchandise as a public library instead of telling people to buy the book if they want to use it.
2.If the player lives in an area with a community of 20+ players, there's a pretty good chance of finding a practice game against someone with a 2000 pt. army from any core codex. If looking to practice against a particular build from a codex army, it is easy to proxy with easily accessible rules. The same can't be said for FW armies and units.
And that's just a self-fulfilling prophecy. People don't have as much FW stuff because of no-FW house rules, so we need to continue to have those house rules. If you drop the FW bans it's a lot more likely that people will buy them and have them available to play against.
3. Your FLGS has no reason to encourage/support FW. Most tournaments are run/supported by local game stores since GW doesn't support them anymore. Why encourage players to spend their finite cash on a company that will have no partnership with you? That DKOK army might as well be GI Joe proxies for all the good it did any FLGS.
Exactly. So your FLGS should ban direct-only GW models because they might as well be GI Joe proxies for all the good it did them.
If GW wants FW to be a core part of the game, they should treat it as such on their website and in the stores they partner with.
But they don't, for business reasons. That has nothing to do with what the rules of the game are, or what is best for competitive tournaments.
Why do you think Narrative inherently means noncompetitive?
And, I CAN tell you that about heldrakes and night scythes; I competitively deal with them, with ease, on a regular basis, as do most other competitive players who regularly attend GT's and do so. To the point of GT attendees having weight in the discussion of what is or isn't OP. The less successful competitors who DO struggle with Heldrakes, Night Scythes, or really anything, are exactly the same people who are actually more casual players, and struggle even MORE when faced with poorly designed / tested / costed / etc. FW units. As I've said before, I really don't care about top tier competitors - they'll be fine either way. BUT arguing about what is or isn't overpowered or underpowered is quite the argument of opinion.
I know you were addressing Peregrine, MVBrandt, and I don't think the Narrative is "inherently noncompetitive". But, I do think it's not the premier event of the GT, which is what most people travel for. But it may be getting there
I would say the same about the Gladiator at AdeptiCon, although it is a pretty big deal. But the premier events, that everyone talks about and wants to play in, are the individual GT and the team tournament GT. One of these allows FW. I think for Nova to be equated with that as far as FW allowance, one of it's "top 2" events needs to have some limited FW allowance. Not that it needs to be equated at all, but right now I think FW use has a much bigger presence at AdeptiCon, due to it's allowance in the team tournament in limited form.
Enigwolf- I'm not sure we get hit with the same taxes / conversion fees here... in fact, I'm not sure if I'm paying anything beyond what FW charged, other than what my friend is charging me to ship him the items, since we hit the "free shipping" level.
The difficulty with that at nova is the top bill events are the gt, which you can sign up for, and the invite, which you need to qualify for. So to some extent as far as open events more allow FW than do not.
RiTides - the Narrative is by far one of our top 2 events; that's to say, with nearly 40 people already registered, and about 60-70 estimated, it's by about 40 players one of our Top 2 ... and this is only the 2nd year; additionally, pairings are based heavily on the competitiveness / presentation of lists and similar factors. There are competitive awards. There's also, of course, enormous reward for CASUAL or hobby based play simultaneously (but we do that in general). The point is - it doesn't need to be one or the other, per Peregrine's erroneous assumption. The larger point is - different strokes for different folks, which is why it's good that events country-wide are offering different opportunities for ALL player types and preferences.
MVBrandt wrote: Why do you think Narrative inherently means noncompetitive?
It's inherent in the name "narrative". As in focused on telling a story, not just winning games. That implies an event where fluff is important and showing up with an optimized tournament list (which would be way above everyone else in power) would be TFG behavior. And look at what your own description of the event says:
The Narrative is not a hardcore competitive event, so always prioritizes fun and the cinematic nature of the event over rules debates or organizer inflexibility.
I'm sure it's a fun event and if I could afford to I'd consider going just for that (and a conventional vacation in DC), but it's not the same as the main competitive event.
MVBrandt wrote: Why do you think Narrative inherently means noncompetitive?
It's inherent in the name "narrative". As in focused on telling a story, not just winning games. That implies an event where fluff is important and showing up with an optimized tournament list (which would be way above everyone else in power) would be TFG behavior. And look at what your own description of the event says:
The Narrative is not a hardcore competitive event, so always prioritizes fun and the cinematic nature of the event over rules debates or organizer inflexibility.
I'm sure it's a fun event and if I could afford to I'd consider going just for that (and a conventional vacation in DC), but it's not the same as the main competitive event.
Don't really want to derail into arguing about what the style and design of a specific event I personally style and design is, within a larger FW conversational thread. Recommend taking to PM if desiring of clarification though!
"There's an interesting convergence on this topic. As noted, a number of rather high profile tournament players (Hulksmash, MVBrandt, carlosthecraven, Blackmoor, many others) have voiced that they'd rather not have unlimited FW in tournaments. I'd say these are "hardcore" players."
So should we let them decide everything? Kind of starting to look like INAT versus non INAT barely disguised as a discussion now. :(
No the individual TO's will decide everything based on player feed back for their own events then it will be up for the players to decide what events to attend.
Dozer Blades, I'm going to assume that you unintentionally misread my post, rather than misquoting it on purpose. The "convergence" I talked about I clearly explained in the next paragraph. Not a convergence of "hardcore" players, a convergence of "hardcore" and "casual" players, both wanting limitations on FW. I have underlined the second paragraph below where I describe myself as part of this second group and reiterate the "convergence" statement.
RiTides wrote: There's an interesting convergence on this topic. As noted, a number of rather high profile tournament players (Hulksmash, MVBrandt, carlosthecraven, Blackmoor, many others) have voiced that they'd rather not have unlimited FW in tournaments. I'd say these are "hardcore" players.
I am a casual player, usually taking a less-than-optimal list intentionally... because I like theme or whatever. I'm also from the old "pro comp" crowd, whereas I would think most of the above would be from the old "anti-comp" crowd. Again, an interesting convergence!
But as part of the "casual" group, I can absolutely see why many players don't want unlimited FW allowance, due to exactly what MVBrandt described above. I just don't want to face IG allied artillery all tournament long. But as part of the "casual" group, this is also why I'm interested in FW with some restrictions- to have the fun/theme parts of it available, but not the broken parts.
Paraphrasing from above (I'm sure you'll let me know if I don't capture the intent of your statements )
"Stores don't want people treating their books like a library/perusing books/etc. so there isn't easy access to core codex rules."
If you try to write a list up while sitting next to the counter with a book you haven't bought, someone will say something. If you flip through a book that isn't shrinkwrapped to look up a rule, I've never seen a store that has an issue with that. Or at least one that stays in business long after yelling "you gonna buy that?" at everyone who picks up a book.
"If access to the rules is a determining factor in what should be allowed in tournaments then SoB should be banned."
SoB had their own codex and have been around forever. GW core rule updates in White Dwarf has a long tradition (used to be followed by free copies on their website for this very reason). They are listed on the GW website as an army and can be ordered from GW or your FLGS. Besides, haven't these players suffered enough already?
"Direct order is the equivalent of Forgeworld from a FLGS perspective"
Some Direct Trade items have a lower discount than the general range. No model in the core codex is unavailable to stores at a retailers discount that I know of. The only core item I can think of that wasn't sold through stores at discount was Death from the Skies. I think this was an anomaly that came about due to the fact that people wouldn't buy it if they could see it first.
"My FLGS does/should carry FW"
Most stores with gaming areas have precious little retail space as it is. I do not foresee a widespread use of any of that space, much less the immense amount needed to carry even a decent sampling of what FW sells, in hopes of slender margins based on shipping savings. Some locations may have special circumstances, but until Forgeworld has trade accounts this will be a rare occurrence.
"The GW/FW split is a business decision that has nothing to do with the rules. The only reason there is a perceived difference between the two rulesets is that TOs have house rules banning FW."
Everything GW does is a business decision, rules or otherwise. They are a for profit public company interested in sales. This drives rules development as much as anything. The allies rules, flyer rules, large swings in relative unit power: all sales drivers. Some make the game more interesting/enjoyable, but make no mistake that they are business driven.
Being an online community here, one can forget that the vast majority of sales and gaming occur in local stores. These are businesses as well that have to pay salaries and keep the lights on. Stores can order various ranges of stock from GW. None of these ranges include FW. Any time anyone refers to "the full range of 40k products", there is not a FW model to be seen. Forgeworld's parent company is GW and it makes models, some of which have rules that are made to be used in a regular 40k game. That's fine, but I find it difficult to argue that FW is part of the core business/ruleset when no part of the GW distribution chain (online or brick and mortar) carries it.
Bottom line is that FW is not widely used, not because of bans in tournament use (which most players don't go to anyway), but because of the GW/FW decision to limit its distribution. If I go to the GW website or the average FLGS, I don't even know that FW exists. Yes, this is different for the "hardcore" players with the money to fly around the country for tournaments and buy all the Forgeworld books for reference. It's fine to have a few tournaments just for those folks. In general though, pushing the tournament meta toward spamming Sabre platforms is not good for your average player or FLGS. Given the accelerated GW refresh cycle, I don't think it's necessary for any game balance either.
For me the main argument will always be the disparity of units, both quality and quantity, across the armies. The FW design team pretty much just make whatever they feel like making, which means armies they like (IG, SMs, Tau) get a glut of new toys and the armies that actually could use a little help get left out in the cold. The rules are clearly uneven, too, but that's a whole separate issue and not unique to FW, it just aggravates the issue some more.
I prefer to play without it, except in limited special formats with some soft scores to make people behave. Since the reality is that a small vocal subset of the 40k Internet Celebrity crowd are pushing it hard, for a variety of reasons, I will have my six sabers and three drills on hand when it is allowed and deal with it from there.
Outside of Reece I think it's actually the opposite. Most of the "Internet" celebrities I know aren't for unlimited FW at all events. Or even limited FW at all events. Most seem to be open to multiple format types but many of the guys who regularly win events aren't super keen on adding FW to the mix (mostly because of how it will hurt the enjoyment of others).
p.s. drop the drills and get you some qual launchers. Those are the ugly
grotblaster wrote: Paraphrasing from above (I'm sure you'll let me know if I don't capture the intent of your statements )
"Stores don't want people treating their books like a library/perusing books/etc. so there isn't easy access to core codex rules."
If you try to write a list up while sitting next to the counter with a book you haven't bought, someone will say something. If you flip through a book that isn't shrinkwrapped to look up a rule, I've never seen a store that has an issue with that. Or at least one that stays in business long after yelling "you gonna buy that?" at everyone who picks up a book.
While true, it's also really a loophole, the same way you really can get any 40k book in about 15 minutes online. Looking up rules from a book on a shelf that you don't own at a shop is possible, and typically won't cause an issue, but again, isn't really what they're for.
"If access to the rules is a determining factor in what should be allowed in tournaments then SoB should be banned."
SoB had their own codex and have been around forever. GW core rule updates in White Dwarf has a long tradition (used to be followed by free copies on their website for this very reason). They are listed on the GW website as an army and can be ordered from GW or your FLGS. Besides, haven't these players suffered enough already?
Nobody (or at least not myself) is saying they should be banned, only that there's a double-standard. You can't walk into a shop and reference their rules or buy their models. While your FLGS can order them, they aren't part of the normal lineup and are outrageously expensive, costing more for a squad of Sisters (since you have to buy them in awkward batches of 3 with special/heavy weapons and squad leaders separate) than Death Korps of Krieg forgeworld infantry, and there's nothing a store can do to get you their rules if you didn't get the WD that came out almost two years ago.
Meanwhile, many FW models were once codex units/core models themselves. Thudd Guns date back to RT and 2nd edition for example. Others flop between status, Leman Russ Vanquishers and LR Exterminators and Griffons were codex units, then FW units, then codex units again . Some formerly FW units are now codex units. Pirhanas, Hydras, Skyrays, Medusas, various LR types, Valkyries, etc.
"Direct order is the equivalent of Forgeworld from a FLGS perspective"
Some Direct Trade items have a lower discount than the general range. No model in the core codex is unavailable to stores at a retailers discount that I know of.
There are however some units in Codex books that only have Forgeworld models however that stores are unable to order. While this has been ameleoriated mostly, some still exist. Hydras, Griffons, Collossi, and Medusas come to mind.
"My FLGS does/should carry FW"
Most stores with gaming areas have precious little retail space as it is. I do not foresee a widespread use of any of that space, much less the immense amount needed to carry even a decent sampling of what FW sells, in hopes of slender margins based on shipping savings. Some locations may have special circumstances, but until Forgeworld has trade accounts this will be a rare occurrence.
Entirely true.
"The GW/FW split is a business decision that has nothing to do with the rules. The only reason there is a perceived difference between the two rulesets is that TOs have house rules banning FW."
Everything GW does is a business decision, rules or otherwise. They are a for profit public company interested in sales. This drives rules development as much as anything. The allies rules, flyer rules, large swings in relative unit power: all sales drivers. Some make the game more interesting/enjoyable, but make no mistake that they are business driven.
Yup, but that's also why such a decision for TO's shouldn't be influenced by GW's behavior in that particular regard as GW's reasons for the split are entirely different than why a TO would need to make such a decision.
Bottom line is that FW is not widely used, not because of bans in tournament use (which most players don't go to anyway), but because of the GW/FW decision to limit its distribution.
Yup.
If I go to the GW website or the average FLGS, I don't even know that FW exists.
Hrm, I'd argue that, at least with regards to the website. FW regularly appears on GW's daily blog, just not on their general websales. For most FLGS's, of course, your are correct.
Yes, this is different for the "hardcore" players with the money to fly around the country for tournaments and buy all the Forgeworld books for reference. It's fine to have a few tournaments just for those folks. In general though, pushing the tournament meta toward spamming Sabre platforms is not good for your average player or FLGS. Given the accelerated GW refresh cycle, I don't think it's necessary for any game balance either.
I think the issue here is the assumption that it's going to push the meta towards spamming sabre platforms, which I don't think is necessarily true. We've seen a couple such lists at some major events, but by no means have they dominated them in standings or attendance, and we certainly haven't seen anything near what say, Space Wolves did to the metagame.
Outside of Reece I think it's actually the opposite. Most of the "Internet" celebrities I know aren't for unlimited FW at all events. Or even limited FW at all events. Most seem to be open to multiple format types but many of the guys who regularly win events aren't super keen on adding FW to the mix (mostly because of how it will hurt the enjoyment of others).
Yup. I would also like the choice as to what tournaments to do to as well, but right now I have to travel to outside of California to get a GT without FW.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Dozer Blades wrote: Like it or not more tournies are allowing Forge World this year... more than ever before. My advice is get used to it.
I do not have to get use to it, and there are several ways to fight it. I will continue to speak out against it whenever possible.
I can also either have my money speak and not attend FW events. If enough like-minded individuals do the same and attendance sags, then TOs might change. Another option I can do is take the most abusive FW list that I can and make several other games miserable and then they would be converts to the anti-FW crowd.
Outside of Reece I think it's actually the opposite. Most of the "Internet" celebrities I know aren't for unlimited FW at all events. Or even limited FW at all events. Most seem to be open to multiple format types but many of the guys who regularly win events aren't super keen on adding FW to the mix (mostly because of how it will hurt the enjoyment of others).
Yup. I would also like the choice as to what tournaments to do to as well, but right now I have to travel to outside of California to get a GT without FW.
I think Quentin may have meant "prolific posters and personalities" rather than "famous or great tournament players" when he was talking about internet celebrities who support FW. I still agree with Hulk and Blackmoor though, most of the high quality players accept that there may be FW and prepare but prefer not to have it, outside of Reece. Not a knock on Reece I like him a lot but we do disagree on FW in tournaments, again it doesn't stop me from going to them though.
I really think this conversation is "over" in that most people seem to support having some events with FW and some without. The reason I think Alan may have brought all this up again though is that in So. Cal, and really a lot of the West period Reece and Frontline seem to be the preeminent tournament organizers and their template is taking hold in a lot of the West Coast events. That means that most, if not all I would have to check, of the California events are using either BAO format or are allowing FW. Which is ok for a player like me who will play in a FW allowed event even though I dislike FW but for a player like Alan who is ardently opposed to FW it makes it difficult to find events locally that he can attend and play his style of 40k. Again this is nothing against Reece or his events, if they didn't do such a great job there is no way I would go to them, it is just their success has made it harder for anti-FW tournament players in So Cal to find events.
@Dozerblades why should Blackmoor and others like him have to just suck it up and get used to FW allowed events but the reverse isn't true of players like you and Peregrine? If you don't want us dictating how the game should be played we certainly don't want you dictating it either. Suck it up indeed.
Outside of Reece I think it's actually the opposite. Most of the "Internet" celebrities I know aren't for unlimited FW at all events. Or even limited FW at all events. Most seem to be open to multiple format types but many of the guys who regularly win events aren't super keen on adding FW to the mix (mostly because of how it will hurt the enjoyment of others).
p.s. drop the drills and get you some qual launchers. Those are the ugly
I would rather lose than be that bored. Quads can stay at home.
OverwatchCNC wrote:@Dozerblades why should Blackmoor and others like him have to just suck it up and get used to FW allowed events but the reverse isn't true of players like you and Peregrine? If you don't want us dictating how the game should be played we certainly don't want you dictating it either. Suck it up indeed.
Yakface answered this 22 pages ago. The argument that Blackmoor should just 'suck it up' exists because their side is the one looking to ban official rules and therefore introduce a house rule or a composition restriction to the tournament. The other side is looking for a game of 40K without restrictions. I'm not saying there's a clear right and wrong answer to this, because there isn't, but looking to ban Forgeworld certainly isn't the same thing as looking to keep it allowed, because it's a part of Warhammer 40K by Games Workshop. My opinion as a European GT veteran is as always that having both comped and unrestricted tournaments is a good thing, but once you go comp you better go all the way and start restricting all of the heinous stuff in the game, not just the ones you don't like personally.
As far as small councils ruling over the tournament scene and deciding what's allowed and what isn't and what's a real game of Warhammer that involves skill and what isn't goes, I could write an essay about what's happened to the European Warhammer scene. The ETC system, lauded as somehow bringing balance to an imbalanced game, in my opinion is already a barrier to entry for new players since it's essentially a different game system than the game GW is selling.
Edit- The Cali crowd seems to be big on FW, stemming mostly from two factors. One, a large amount of disposable income relative to the rest of the nation. Two, a general hatred of fliers in general and the Necron ones in particular. As someone who generally plays armies without good built in anti-air options (poor nids and eldar), I don't mind them and like that there is actually some form of air power represented in the game.
The money issue is not a factor for me, but I am kind of dropped 40k as a serious game and do not play it enough to justify going all out towards FW. That's where I think you are going to lose people. The competitive players drive tournaments, but the casuals fill the seats and major FW type stuff will drive them away.
OverwatchCNC wrote:@Dozerblades why should Blackmoor and others like him have to just suck it up and get used to FW allowed events but the reverse isn't true of players like you and Peregrine? If you don't want us dictating how the game should be played we certainly don't want you dictating it either. Suck it up indeed.
Yakface answered this 22 pages ago. The argument that Blackmoor should just 'suck it up' exists because their side is the one looking to ban official rules and therefore introduce a house rule or a composition restriction to the tournament. The other side is looking for a game of 40K without restrictions. I'm not saying there's a clear right and wrong answer to this, because there isn't, but looking to ban Forgeworld certainly isn't the same thing as looking to keep it allowed, because it's a part of Warhammer 40K by Games Workshop. My opinion as a European GT veteran is as always that having both comped and unrestricted tournaments is a good thing, but once you go comp you better go all the way and start restricting all of the heinous stuff in the game, not just the ones you don't like personally.
As far as small councils ruling over the tournament scene and deciding what's allowed and what isn't and what's a real game of Warhammer that involves skill and what isn't goes, I could write an essay about what's happened to the European Warhammer scene. The ETC system, lauded as somehow bringing balance to an imbalanced game, in my opinion is already a 'barrier of entry' to new players since it's essentially a different game system than the game GW is selling.
Yeah and a lot of the pro FW people are not even consistent in these things. A good chunk will advocate allowing FW but then poo poo things actually in the main rulebook like double force orgs and Fortress of Redemption. I can understand wanting to play with the expensive toys, but if you want to buy a win in a game, MTG is still going strong.
Therion, your example of the ETC disproves your earlier argument about "once you go comp you better go all the way" because that's exactly what ETC is, and it's very unpopular with a Lot of gamers, as you point out.
So some restrictions does not equal ETC restrictions. In fact, I'd say ETC is the most extreme I know of (regarding fantasy... I don't even know if it exists for 40k so fantasy is what I'm referring to there).
And again, every tournament has to make rulings, and in fact any tournament allowing FW makes a ruling in that regard . "Official rules", as you say, dictate that an opponent must have permission to use FW in a game, and so a TO has to make that call one way or the other- to allow, disallow, or restrict. There is no "default", and the reality of it, no matter how much people who want unrestricted FW say to the contrary, is that the "default" in most places is NOT to allow FW.
If my persmission is required, and you ask me for a game with 6 quad launchers, I will decline permission. Thus, in going to a tournament I'm passing that decision over to the TO. What call they make on it (to allow, disallow, or restrict) is what this thread was/is about. It's up to each TO, of course, but there is no "default" allowing FW... if anything, it's the opposite, but I think it's fairer to all sides to say that a decision simply must be made one way or the other, and a TO must specify how they want to treat FW for their event.
To reiterate my "convergence" argument from earlier- I was from the old "pro-comp" crowd, which has died out whereas many of the posters here were from the "anti-comp" crowd. The fact that both groups don't like unlimitedFW, in large part, to me indicates what I think has been said here a lot... that for many events, it's just not appropriate.
That said, I'll be very happy to continue to participate in limited/restrictedFW events. Extremely happily, in fact . It lets folks bring out their toys, but I don't have to face 6 quad launchers. Win-win, for me
By no means does doing that equate to ETC-levels of nerfdom... they are by far the most extreme example of comp/restrictions possible, imo, and not one to be emulated. But it also doesn't mean that there aren't going to be any restrictions, ever, which is what the BAO / Frontline Gaming had been pushing for, and I just don't think it's needed or appropriate for most gamers in most events.
It will be interesting to see where this has gone a year from now. I'm hoping FW acceptance will continue to grow, but pushing completely unlimited FW access I do not think will accomplish that... it may accomplish the opposite, in some ways, as a reaction. But I will happily support events allowing FW in some forms, as long as it's within reason
RiTides wrote: Therion, your example of the ETC disproves your earlier argument about "once you go comp you better go all the way" because that's exactly what ETC is, and it's very unpopular with a Lot of gamers, as you point out.
It doesn't disprove anything. I'm not sure why you'd think that. I said that in my opinion it's good if both comped and unrestricted tournaments exist (because then the ones who are extreme with their views can choose the one to their liking and the ones who want to play all types of tournaments can attend everything).
So some restrictions does not equal ETC restrictions. In fact, I'd say ETC is the most extreme I know of (regarding fantasy... I don't even know if it exists for 40k so fantasy is what I'm referring to there).
Of course. Making one change to 40K, let's say banning Heldrakes, or Night Scythes, doesn't equal to ETC restrictions. That would be awful. ETC restrictions aren't bad and I'm not sure why you'd infer that from my post. What ETC restrictions do is create an altogether new game, or a gaming environment atleast, and the rules can be very hard for casual players to keep track of. Once again, I prefer to have options myself and would hate if every tournament was comped a certain way, just like I wouldn't like if no tournament was ever comped.
And again, every tournament has to make rulings, and in fact any tournament allowing FW makes a ruling in that regard
No. A tournament doesn't have to make a ruling to allow FW, just like it doesn't need to make a ruling to allow allies, or fortifications, or Eldar, or Space Marines. They're all a part of the official rules. Unless by ruling you mean a generic statement in the tournament package saying 'This is a Warhammer 40K tournament and follows Warhammer 40K rules'.
It will be interesting to see where this has gone a year from now. I'm hoping FW acceptance will continue to grow, but pushing completely unlimited FW access I do not think will accomplish that... it may accomplish the opposite, in some ways, as a reaction. But I will happily support events allowing FW in some forms, as long as it's within reason
Your view of the game is quite different from the way me and seemingly for example Yakface sees it. The bottomline is that GW does not care. They don't care about balance. They don't care about your or my tournaments. They don't care about what's legal in our games. That's why when you or me decide to make our own rules by not allowing a Warhammer 40K unit to be used in games of Warhammer 40K we're creating composition restrictions. If we go that way, like I said, why would we just ban Heldrakes, or Night Scythes? Why wouldn't we ban all the abusive units?
RiTides wrote: Therion, your example of the ETC disproves your earlier argument about "once you go comp you better go all the way" because that's exactly what ETC is, and it's very unpopular with a Lot of gamers, as you point out.
It doesn't disprove anything. I'm not sure why you'd think that. I said that in my opinion it's good if both comped and unrestricted tournaments exist (because then the ones who are extreme with their views can choose the one to their liking and the ones who want to play all types of tournaments can attend everything).
So some restrictions does not equal ETC restrictions. In fact, I'd say ETC is the most extreme I know of (regarding fantasy... I don't even know if it exists for 40k so fantasy is what I'm referring to there).
Of course. Making one change to 40K, let's say banning Heldrakes, or Night Scythes, doesn't equal to ETC restrictions. That would be awful. ETC restrictions aren't bad and I'm not sure why you'd infer that from my post. What ETC restrictions do is create an altogether new game, or a gaming environment atleast, and the rules can be very hard for casual players to keep track of. Once again, I prefer to have options myself and would hate if every tournament was comped a certain way, just like I wouldn't like if no tournament was ever comped.
And again, every tournament has to make rulings, and in fact any tournament allowing FW makes a ruling in that regard
No. A tournament doesn't have to make a ruling to allow FW, just like it doesn't need to make a ruling to allow allies, or fortifications, or Eldar, or Space Marines. They're all a part of the official rules. Unless by ruling you mean a generic statement in the tournament package saying 'This is a Warhammer 40K tournament and follows Warhammer 40K rules'.
It will be interesting to see where this has gone a year from now. I'm hoping FW acceptance will continue to grow, but pushing completely unlimited FW access I do not think will accomplish that... it may accomplish the opposite, in some ways, as a reaction. But I will happily support events allowing FW in some forms, as long as it's within reason
Your view of the game is quite different from the way me and seemingly for example Yakface sees it. The bottomline is that GW does not care. They don't care about balance. They don't care about your or my tournaments. They don't care about what's legal in our games. That's why when you or me decide to make our own rules by not allowing a Warhammer 40K unit to be used in games of Warhammer 40K we're creating composition restrictions. If we go that way, like I said, why would we just ban Heldrakes, or Night Scythes? Why wouldn't we ban all the abusive units?
An impasse that is NOT going to be gotten by is the simple fact that a LOT of people, from casual retailers through hardcore tourney goers, are quite certain FW is not by default official stock-standard 40k, and a LOT of people, from casual retailers through hardcore tourney goers, are quite certain FW is by default official stock-standard 40k. Neither of these things can actually be proven without a lot more clarity and firm distribution, statements, etc., from GW. No, the stamp and statement (with opponent consent even still) in a FW-produced book is not ironclad. That's regardless of my own opinion on the matter.
The thing is people like Blackmoor want no FW at all in any events whereas I am just glad to see some events allow it. Bringing the most abusive list is both a cop out and hypocritical at the same time.
RiTides wrote: Therion, your example of the ETC disproves your earlier argument about "once you go comp you better go all the way" because that's exactly what ETC is, and it's very unpopular with a Lot of gamers, as you point out.
It doesn't disprove anything. I'm not sure why you'd think that. I said that in my opinion it's good if both comped and unrestricted tournaments exist (because then the ones who are extreme with their views can choose the one to their liking and the ones who want to play all types of tournaments can attend everything).
So some restrictions does not equal ETC restrictions. In fact, I'd say ETC is the most extreme I know of (regarding fantasy... I don't even know if it exists for 40k so fantasy is what I'm referring to there).
Of course. Making one change to 40K, let's say banning Heldrakes, or Night Scythes, doesn't equal to ETC restrictions. That would be awful. ETC restrictions aren't bad and I'm not sure why you'd infer that from my post. What ETC restrictions do is create an altogether new game, or a gaming environment atleast, and the rules can be very hard for casual players to keep track of. Once again, I prefer to have options myself and would hate if every tournament was comped a certain way, just like I wouldn't like if no tournament was ever comped.
And again, every tournament has to make rulings, and in fact any tournament allowing FW makes a ruling in that regard
No. A tournament doesn't have to make a ruling to allow FW, just like it doesn't need to make a ruling to allow allies, or fortifications, or Eldar, or Space Marines. They're all a part of the official rules. Unless by ruling you mean a generic statement in the tournament package saying 'This is a Warhammer 40K tournament and follows Warhammer 40K rules'.
It will be interesting to see where this has gone a year from now. I'm hoping FW acceptance will continue to grow, but pushing completely unlimited FW access I do not think will accomplish that... it may accomplish the opposite, in some ways, as a reaction. But I will happily support events allowing FW in some forms, as long as it's within reason
Your view of the game is quite different from the way me and seemingly for example Yakface sees it. The bottomline is that GW does not care. They don't care about balance. They don't care about your or my tournaments. They don't care about what's legal in our games. That's why when you or me decide to make our own rules by not allowing a Warhammer 40K unit to be used in games of Warhammer 40K we're creating composition restrictions. If we go that way, like I said, why would we just ban Heldrakes, or Night Scythes? Why wouldn't we ban all the abusive units?
I would largely disagree that a tournament that said nothing on the FW front is automatically pro-FW. I think a large part of what people miss is that for Years, tournaments have been Default No FW (GW tournaments and Indiy Tournaments), it has only been a recent thing where TOs have satrted using FW on any large scale. So if a TO did not state specifically in either direction my assumption would be NO-FW not Unrestriced FW.
Edit: Whoops, ninja'ed twice but I'll leave the below post since I already typed a response:
I've quoted the relevant part of your previous post below, since you seemed to misunderstand my post. Underlined for emphasis:
Therion wrote: My opinion as a European GT veteran is as always that having both comped and unrestricted tournaments is a good thing, but once you go comp you better go all the way and start restricting all of the heinous stuff in the game, not just the ones you don't like personally.
As far as small councils ruling over the tournament scene and deciding what's allowed and what isn't and what's a real game of Warhammer that involves skill and what isn't goes, I could write an essay about what's happened to the European Warhammer scene. The ETC system, lauded as somehow bringing balance to an imbalanced game, in my opinion is already a barrier to entry for new players since it's essentially a different game system than the game GW is selling.
You are saying, if you put in any comp, you better go "all the way" to ETC levels... and then you bash ETC. I don't personally like ETC, and I'm not opposed to the "C" (comp) word in some small measure.
In other words, you don't have to go to ETC levels just to put in a restriction. Otherwise, in the US, most events just won't allow any FW.
As for this, in your latest post:
Therion wrote:No. A tournament doesn't have to make a ruling to allow FW, just like it doesn't need to make a ruling to allow allies, or fortifications, or Eldar, or Space Marines. They're all a part of the official rules. Unless by ruling you mean a generic statement in the tournament package saying 'This is a Warhammer 40K tournament and follows Warhammer 40K rules'.
This honestly isn't worth replying to so I'm not going to bother for the most part. It's a tired argument and the "facts on the ground", in the US at least, is that FW Imperial Armor 7 or whatever is not the same as Codex: Space Marines. If you want to view it differently, go right ahead, but most of the world disagrees with you for reasons well hashed out in this thread.
The middle ground is to get past that tired old argument and decide what to do with FW, since every tournament decides this, and clarifies one way or the other in their rules packet whether it is allowed (and if so, how much), or not allowed. There's a lot of middle ground here so I'm not going to get pulled into an argument with you on what is Official (tm) warhammer. Just not worth it, you're free to believe it's FW allowed, and most gamers are free to believe that it has to be specified one way or the other, as every single tournament in the US does.
Dozer Blades wrote: The thing is people like Blackmoor want no FW at all in any events whereas I am just glad to see some events allow it. Bringing the most abusive list is both a cop out and hypocritical at the same time.
I'm pretty sure he said he would be fine with restricted (certain units banned) FW.
I'm just curious about the stance of a lot of people. It sounds like the anti-FW crowd is mainly against the "OP-ness" of certain FW units. Say that Thudd Launchers, Sabre Defence Platforms, and the Chief Librarian don't exist, would you switch camps, or is the "OP-ness" of FW units just one of many arguments because you simply don't want to see FW units in tourneys?
1.) Those units did not exist
or
2.) Those units were not centratlized to more or less IG.
If Thudd Guns were Tyranid units, Sabre Platforms were Eldar, The Vulture IG, Libby For space marines(with some rules tweaking), Hyperios CSM (or whatever)
I would be more ok with some OP units.
I am already considering FW with restrictions for the GT I run for next year (I already declared no FW and the event is in a month)
I can only answer for myself, in that I would like to see some FW but don't feel it's worth bothering with if all anyone takes is thudd guns.
Hence, my extreme interest in events with limitations on FW, and lack of interest in events with unlimited FW.
For me, it is not an excuse to say "I don't want to see any FW, ever". I do want to see some FW in some events. Just not all of it in every event, as some posters were trying to push... particularly Frontline Gaming at the start of 6th edition.
Different strokes for different folks, as has already been said!
RiTides wrote: I can only answer for myself, in that I would like to see some FW but don't feel it's worth bothering with if all anyone takes is thudd guns.
Is there any evidence this is the case? Thus far we've had a single list (AFAIK) that has placed well that included them, with no evidence that they are overrunning such events (and indeed 7 years with largely the same barrage placement rules where they were otherwise ignored). Certainly nothing like the takeover of MEQ armies we saw with Space Wolves.
There are prior examples. I believe, before the dreadclaw (drop pod that a dreadnought can assault out of) got nerfed, it was the most common item taken as the single FW allowance at the previous year's AdeptiCon team tournament.
At least, there was talk of such, but that was before I attended and last year I only faced 2 reasonable FW units. I believe that last year it was an 0-1 selection for the entire team, rather than 0-1 per FW unit... but it has been a little while!
My point is simply that, the only reason I see to allow FW is for the variety it brings (there is no "need" for it to balance the game, as put forward at the start of 6th, and if anything it does the opposite!). So, if only one unit is being taken, as a casual player I am fine with that unit being restricted, banned, etc. That's my personal view, but I'm open to a whole spectrum of things other than what was being pushed before... which was, unlimited FW as the "default" version of 40k, which just isn't reasonable imo, for all the reasons listed previously.
We should rename this thread "Warhammer 40k Politics"
IMO- The game is unbalance, the game will stay unbalanced,--> How do you sell more stuff? by making it better than other stuff while staying within the confines of it being reasonable so as not to totally P!s$ off the community. While I haven't exactly agreed with everything Yakface has said, the one statement that he did say which is absolutely correct is that this " is Gamesworkshop's problem". However I most certainly don't disagree with Blackmoor saying that" well then it's within the communities job to try and make the game as balanced as possible".
Here's where the problem persist... this is a company.. not a government. You can vote in a government and the government must comply; You can "vote" as a community member towards making change in a company but " They don't have to comply because it's their company." It's not like this is a major issue of infringing on peoples rights or something where government would step in such a case; this is a miniature toy army game, therefore from an outside community stanpoint, who the F gives a Sh!t? The company will do what it wants and after all this time; one can see they haven't really done anything to adress the issue. Unless you started some kind of union and went on strike and began starving the company of its profits I highly doubt that anything is going to change.
Gamesworkshop has all the rights to do whatever they want to do and they say you can have forgeworld in your army so that's that. To a retrospect at least there are tournaments where gamesowrkshop allows TO's to dissallow FW units and that they haven't stated any dominance in saying that you must allow players to be able to use FW in all events.
I absolutely respect the fact that their are people who want to try and make the game more balanced but the simple truth is, if the unit is good, and gamesworkshop has not disallowed it, it will be in tournaments, hence FW will be in tournaments because people want to be as competitive as possible.
At least their is a gentleman's agreement as it stands now that the community is ok with tournaments that allow FW and those which do not
RiTides wrote: I can only answer for myself, in that I would like to see some FW but don't feel it's worth bothering with if all anyone takes is thudd guns.
Is there any evidence this is the case? Thus far we've had a single list (AFAIK) that has placed well that included them, with no evidence that they are overrunning such events (and indeed 7 years with largely the same barrage placement rules where they were otherwise ignored). Certainly nothing like the takeover of MEQ armies we saw with Space Wolves.
Except that we haven't had seven years of the same barrage rules. In 5th, indirect fire weapons just did wounds that got dumped on scrubs. Now they butcher special weapon and heavy weapon troopers and force multiple LOS rolls on characters. For 6 years, artillery were AV10 vehicles killed by a single glancing hit. Now they're T7 monstrosities that make their crew T7, and can be given orders by a CCS, or buffed with Perfect Timing. In short, everything about artillery got better with 6th which is why there was a mad rush to IG artillery when they became an option.
grotblaster wrote: SoB had their own codex and have been around forever. GW core rule updates in White Dwarf has a long tradition (used to be followed by free copies on their website for this very reason). They are listed on the GW website as an army and can be ordered from GW or your FLGS. Besides, haven't these players suffered enough already?
The point is not that SoB should be banned, obviously they shouldn't. The point is that the same problems of limited access to expensive rules and models apply just as much to SoB as to FW stuff. So if you really see the need to help poor players who can't get all the rules (and aren't just using it as an excuse to ban FW) then you also need to ban SoB.
"Direct order is the equivalent of Forgeworld from a FLGS perspective"
Some Direct Trade items have a lower discount than the general range. No model in the core codex is unavailable to stores at a retailers discount that I know of. The only core item I can think of that wasn't sold through stores at discount was Death from the Skies. I think this was an anomaly that came about due to the fact that people wouldn't buy it if they could see it first.
And if you're a FLGS that doesn't sell at a discount you're depending on charity to stay in business. Selling at full retail price means the only reason to buy in-store instead of from an online store offering a 20% discount (especially since direct-only items from a FLGS still take time to ship) is as a "thank you" for providing gaming space. And if you're forced to sell at a discount then "smaller retailer discount" means your profit margin is gone. Even if you're making some tiny amount of money off the direct-only item your profit-driven events should ban direct-only items in favor of "core" products you can sell at a higher profit margin.
That's fine, but I find it difficult to argue that FW is part of the core business/ruleset when no part of the GW distribution chain (online or brick and mortar) carries it.
The rules of the game and the business GW runs to sell the game are two entirely different things. The rules are (theoretically) based at least in part on what makes a good game, while the business side of it is based entirely on the best way of selling and shipping the products. So it could make perfect sense to put FW in the "core" rules of the game while simultaneously not putting the products required to use those rules into the main distribution chain.
MVBrandt wrote: No, the stamp and statement (with opponent consent even still) in a FW-produced book is not ironclad.
How is it not ironclad? It explicitly says "these are official rules", and the only "ambiguity" is that it isn't the exact statement that certain players want to have.
Dozer Blades wrote: The thing is people like Blackmoor want no FW at all in any events whereas I am just glad to see some events allow it. Bringing the most abusive list is both a cop out and hypocritical at the same time.
Sometimes you have to destroy what you love to save it.
Dozer Blades wrote: The thing is people like Blackmoor want no FW at all in any events whereas I am just glad to see some events allow it. Bringing the most abusive list is both a cop out and hypocritical at the same time.
Sometimes you have to destroy what you love to save it.
He is not the hero 40k needs, but the one it deserves!
Dozer Blades wrote: The thing is people like Blackmoor want no FW at all in any events whereas I am just glad to see some events allow it. Bringing the most abusive list is both a cop out and hypocritical at the same time.
Sometimes you have to destroy what you love to save it.
You've been around long enough to know there's never been balance in any of the editions of the game. Not in 40K or in Warhammer. And in all the editions there have been players who abused the rules and the army lists to their advantage as much as they could. This game doesn't want to be saved, nor could it even if someone tried.
Dozer Blades wrote: The thing is people like Blackmoor want no FW at all in any events whereas I am just glad to see some events allow it. Bringing the most abusive list is both a cop out and hypocritical at the same time.
Sometimes you have to destroy what you love to save it.
You've been around long enough to know there's never been balance in any of the editions of the game. Not in 40K or in Warhammer. And in all the editions there have been players who abused the rules and the army lists to their advantage as much as they could. This game doesn't want to be saved, nor could it even if someone tried.
Balance is a relative term measured in shades of gray, yet most people seem to treat balance like an all-or-nothing attribute. Personally, I think this game is fairly well balanced as evidenced by the variety of armies capable of succeeding in tournaments. It's not mere coincidence that the same players keep winning tournaments using a variety of different armies. If the game was anywhere near as unbalanced as you claim and rife with players looking to exploit said imbalances then you'd see the same armies winning every tournament. This is not the case.
Danny Internets wrote: I think this game is fairly well balanced as evidenced by the variety of armies capable of succeeding in tournaments. It's not mere coincidence that the same players keep winning tournaments using a variety of different armies. If the game was anywhere near as unbalanced as you claim and rife with players looking to exploit said imbalances then you'd see the same armies winning every tournament. This is not the case.
I would disagree with that. In a year of major GTs now we have the following winners
Nova - IG blob tailored to the mission format FoB - White Dwarf tzeetchy demons BOA - White Dwarf tzeetchy demons Adepticon - Necron core with beatsticky ally WGC - Necron core with beatsticky ally
That doesn't seem like a whole lot of variety to me. And yes, the same guys keep showing up at the top. They are the better players, but they aren't playing the same armies they were a year ago either. Codex jumping in and of itself does not make a good player, but in my experience the best players are always playing out of the best books.
Balance is a relative term measured in shades of gray, yet most people seem to treat balance like an all-or-nothing attribute.
I agree with you so far.
Personally, I think this game is fairly well balanced as evidenced by the variety of armies capable of succeeding in tournaments.
I think the game is horribly unbalanced, as evidenced by the lack of variety among armies capable of winning tournaments, compared to the number of potential armies that could exist.
I do not doubt that if you take the best units from every codex, and mix in the best allies from another codex, you can get an army that will compete with other armies created using the same mindset.
I don't see that as evidence of balance though. It's an illusion of balance because every faction can do something, but it's severely lacking in that it doesn't account for the extreme number of crap units in the game that will never make it into a competitive game.
A balanced game wouldn't exhibit the symptom that we see, where when a new codex is released, the competitive players are immediately able to write-off half the units in the book as not being worth using.
When I started playing competitively, at the end of 3rd/beginning of 4th, I was winning tournaments (and getting top-ten finishes at GTs) with a list that included one of every possible choice from my codex, except one of the three HQ options. All the units had a place. Not surprisingly, the codex was written by Andy Chambers, who IMO, was the best designer they ever had. And it wasn't just that codex, either. The tournament scene back then was so much more diverse than it is today. Part of that might be how the internet has spread net-listing and propagated the cult of Spam the Best Unit. But I believe that the game, as a whole, was better balanced back then, and that's what allowed so many different builds to work. I recall that, using the Chaos 3.5 codex, I actually faced nearly every legion in competitive (GT) play at some point. I faced Muwhe's Emperor's Children, Kenny's Deathguard, Bill Kim's Nightlords, Tony Grippando's World Eaters, some Iron Warriors and Word Bearers, though I don't recall the players. And unlike today, those lists had restrictions. Half of them couldn't spam obliterators, even if they wanted to.
The lack of balance in today's game may not exclude any faction from competing, but it excludes an awful lot of units. It excludes an awful lot of concepts. Looking at the new Eldar (and I realize this is a new codex, and so early prognosticating may turn out incorrect, but bear with me), I don't see Biel-Tan (the aspect-heavy craftworld) getting much of a chance, whereas Iyanden (wraiths), Ulthwe (Guardians/Seers), and Sam Hain (Jetbikes) all show more promise.
There's no reason for shelf-only units in a wargame. Some people love to draw comparisons to M:tG, but M:tG, competitively, is based around several different formats, and WoTC deliberately designs different cards that are good in those different formats. Sure, some cards are poor for constructed play, but those same cards can be gold in sealed or draft play, or fit into multi-player formats well. Wargaming doesn't have that excuse. There aren't different formats being supported, even Apocalypse is a constructed list format where one side fights another. A unit that's crap can be uncrapped by lowering its cost; at some point, it will become useful. That the codexes are full of these junk units should be a stain on any of these designer's professional reputation.
The point is, there's internal codex balance and external balance. External balance is VERY good right now (I don't care if they did it by accident or on purpose), in that almost any codex or codex pairing can be built to win at the highest levels, or can be built to compete and do fine in the mid-ranges at almost any GT.
The game will ALWAYS have internal balance issues, because of the size of games and the points systems used, and the design intent of GW - they like having powerful units, and fluffy units, within the same dex. It has yet to occur to them to make all of the fluffy units powerful, or all of the powerful units fluffy.
That said, that's kind of the point of those who are gunshy about adding a ton of IG units that nearly EVERY hardcore competitor willingly goes right after when legalized, shifting codices to do so (and abusing allies to do so). You take a game with codex:codex but not internal codex balance ... and give it no balance at all by overpowering basically just one dex.
I'll reiterate that the argument about FW being "official" or part of the "Core game" is an utterly pointless one, b/c neither side is going to agree, from those who've adamantly decided a position.
We'd have a hell of an easy resolution if folks simply agreed that rather than kill the extant codex vs. codex balance, just cut out or limit quantities of a small handful of IG-specific units, and voila! Magic hour. (Where's Matt McConaughey looking crazypants with an axe when you need him ...)
PS - There's something also worth reiterating - as a TO for one of the major events in the US, I look at the majority and the average a lot more closely, in terms of opinions I care about, than I do at the outliers. There are posters in this thread who want a very narrow specific style of event that suits them to be the "norm." I.E., "Well what if we give you 95% of what you want?" NO NO NO NOT ENOUGH!! RAWR!!! or, similarly, NO NO NO TOO MUCH! RAWR!
The opinions of the noisy but fractional, factional, and overly noisy minority are not nearly as important when they are professed with the ultimate in black and white non-budge. $.02 from an organizer POV
Danny Internets wrote: I think this game is fairly well balanced as evidenced by the variety of armies capable of succeeding in tournaments. It's not mere coincidence that the same players keep winning tournaments using a variety of different armies. If the game was anywhere near as unbalanced as you claim and rife with players looking to exploit said imbalances then you'd see the same armies winning every tournament. This is not the case.
I would disagree with that. In a year of major GTs now we have the following winners
Nova - IG blob tailored to the mission format
FoB - White Dwarf tzeetchy demons
BOA - White Dwarf tzeetchy demons
Adepticon - Necron core with beatsticky ally
WGC - Necron core with beatsticky ally
That doesn't seem like a whole lot of variety to me. And yes, the same guys keep showing up at the top. They are the better players, but they aren't playing the same armies they were a year ago either. Codex jumping in and of itself does not make a good player, but in my experience the best players are always playing out of the best books.
Apart from Necron dominance, there's fairly good representation from a number of armies. Furthermore, there's even more variety among the types of list taken from each of the represented codices.
MVBrandt wrote: The point is, there's internal codex balance and external balance. External balance is VERY good right now (I don't care if they did it by accident or on purpose), in that almost any codex or codex pairing can be built to win at the highest levels, or can be built to compete and do fine in the mid-ranges at almost any GT.
I think external balance is important, but I think it's less important than overall balance, which is not good right now. A competitive scene that's based around the best units from roughly 10 codexes is just not that diverse. I could care less if Codex: Orks can make a viable tournament build if it's not a build I want to play, with the models I own. The idea that a codex is externally balanced simply because it can be competitive IFF built within a very narrow specification doesn't tell me that the game is in a good place, it tells me that it's in a bad place.
The game will ALWAYS have internal balance issues, because of the size of games and the points systems used, and the design intent of GW - they like having powerful units, and fluffy units, within the same dex. It has yet to occur to them to make all of the fluffy units powerful, or all of the powerful units fluffy.
You can have powerful units and less powerful units, that's the beauty of points. Less powerful units can cost less points. And, while I agree with your initial statement, it also is not a black&white issue. You can strive for perfection even as you realize that perfection is impossible to attain. I agree, also, that the biggest reason why the game is so unbalanced right now is because GW's design philosophy is deeply flawed. Balance is simply not a goal they choose to pursue. They seem to believe that a balanced game will scare away casual players. I believe the opposite - a tight ruleset and balanced units should be more appealing to the casual player, as they can pick the models they like and not get crushed by rampantly OP units.
Still, I don't have the cash to buy them out, so...
MVBrandt wrote: The point is, there's internal codex balance and external balance. External balance is VERY good right now (I don't care if they did it by accident or on purpose), in that almost any codex or codex pairing can be built to win at the highest levels, or can be built to compete and do fine in the mid-ranges at almost any GT.
I'd dispute the former part of this statement, as we haven't seen a huge spread of armies winnings GT's of late, we see Necrons followed by 5 or 6 other armies routinely while the other half of the factions in the game largely languish elsewhere (or include as allies the aforementioned strong armies to rise higher). The mid-ranges have always been a melting pot, at least for the last several years, there's not too much new here, but it's also generally not what people care about when looking at GT performance, they look at the top spaces.
Redbeard wrote: I think the game is horribly unbalanced, as evidenced by the lack of variety among armies capable of winning tournaments, compared to the number of potential armies that could exist.
I do not doubt that if you take the best units from every codex, and mix in the best allies from another codex, you can get an army that will compete with other armies created using the same mindset.
I don't see that as evidence of balance though. It's an illusion of balance because every faction can do something, but it's severely lacking in that it doesn't account for the extreme number of crap units in the game that will never make it into a competitive game.
A balanced game wouldn't exhibit the symptom that we see, where when a new codex is released, the competitive players are immediately able to write-off half the units in the book as not being worth using.
When I started playing competitively, at the end of 3rd/beginning of 4th, I was winning tournaments (and getting top-ten finishes at GTs) with a list that included one of every possible choice from my codex, except one of the three HQ options. All the units had a place. Not surprisingly, the codex was written by Andy Chambers, who IMO, was the best designer they ever had. And it wasn't just that codex, either. The tournament scene back then was so much more diverse than it is today. Part of that might be how the internet has spread net-listing and propagated the cult of Spam the Best Unit. But I believe that the game, as a whole, was better balanced back then, and that's what allowed so many different builds to work. I recall that, using the Chaos 3.5 codex, I actually faced nearly every legion in competitive (GT) play at some point. I faced Muwhe's Emperor's Children, Kenny's Deathguard, Bill Kim's Nightlords, Tony Grippando's World Eaters, some Iron Warriors and Word Bearers, though I don't recall the players. And unlike today, those lists had restrictions. Half of them couldn't spam obliterators, even if they wanted to.
The lack of balance in today's game may not exclude any faction from competing, but it excludes an awful lot of units. It excludes an awful lot of concepts. Looking at the new Eldar (and I realize this is a new codex, and so early prognosticating may turn out incorrect, but bear with me), I don't see Biel-Tan (the aspect-heavy craftworld) getting much of a chance, whereas Iyanden (wraiths), Ulthwe (Guardians/Seers), and Sam Hain (Jetbikes) all show more promise.
There's no reason for shelf-only units in a wargame. Some people love to draw comparisons to M:tG, but M:tG, competitively, is based around several different formats, and WoTC deliberately designs different cards that are good in those different formats. Sure, some cards are poor for constructed play, but those same cards can be gold in sealed or draft play, or fit into multi-player formats well. Wargaming doesn't have that excuse. There aren't different formats being supported, even Apocalypse is a constructed list format where one side fights another. A unit that's crap can be uncrapped by lowering its cost; at some point, it will become useful. That the codexes are full of these junk units should be a stain on any of these designer's professional reputation.
I think there are a couple of thins here. First MTG has always had cards in any set that are just bad, no matter the format, there are just so many more cards than units no one cares. Also any particular format is typically dominated by a few particular builds at any one time. So in terms of overall balance I would say 40k is probably better off than MTG. Beyond that (because it is not really the point, it does not matter which is more balanced.) I view the desirability of balance as
1.) Everything, internal and external is balanced: This is very hard to achieve, with the current GW business model. Unless books are all playtested together, with the ruleset at one time achieving both internal and external balance is damn near impossible, because while on paper units in any one book may look useful, start throwing in other codex units, allies, etc, and top units in any book will apear due to the meta. For instance you could have a unit that is great at anti-light infantry, it is not going to be any good if the meta is all armor/heavy infantry. So given the likely hood of this ever happening in a wargame (it has not in any WG I have played or seen) the next best thing is....
2.) External Balance only. Allowing all the factions to fight evenly so long as they make strong army choices within their own book. At least this way every army is viable to play whether it can be played in the ideal way someone wants to do so is a completely different matter.
3.) Internal Balance only: Well every unit in my codex is as good as every other unit in the book, problem is they suck compared to x.... Here you end up with a variety of armies possible from each book, but only certain books will rise to the top.
4.) No Balance: Limited Builds and Limited factions see play, this is the worst. the End of 5th ed was very much in this camp, GKs ruled the land.
SO I would rather play in an environment that has external balance (without FW or with Restricted FW), than one that has No Balance (Unlimited FW)
Danny Internets wrote: Apart from Necron dominance, there's fairly good representation from a number of armies. Furthermore, there's even more variety among the types of list taken from each of the represented codices.
The presence of a wide variety of armies does not in and of itself equate to a balanced game. The more important measure is army representation in the top 10% of finishers.
FoB – utterly dominated by tzeentchy demons
Adepticon – utterly dominated by necron flyers.
WGC – Was actually fairly diverse. But I will say of the 3 really forge world heavy armies two of them made the 2nd day cut, and the 2nd day armies seemed to me to all be very extreme builds (flyer spam, forge world artillery spam, demon cav spam etc).
I don’t know enough about the other tournaments to really say.
But this kind of plays into whether a diverse or narrow meta game is actually better or not for the game. Funny enough, I think a narrow meta game actually gives more armies a chance of WINNING THE WHOLE TOURNAMENT than an open meta game.
The armies people are bringing right now are so diverse and so extreme only one or two books (building on a gimmicky extreme) actually have a reasonable chance of winning the tournament. Whereas in a defined meta every army has a chance to counter build, be reasonably sure of their matchups, and win the tournament.
If your goal is to give as many armies as possible a change to win a tournament, a diverse meta actually makes the game less balanced, because only one or two armies can exist in that environment without hitting an extremely bad match up and losing.
If your measurement of balance is total army diversity, then yes the game is more balanced than I’ve ever seen it. If your measurement is the diversity in the top 10%, or the diversity of armies actually winning, the game is no more balanced than 5th edition was.
Danny Internets wrote: Apart from Necron dominance, there's fairly good representation from a number of armies. Furthermore, there's even more variety among the types of list taken from each of the represented codices.
The presence of a wide variety of armies does not in and of itself equate to a balanced game. The more important measure is army representation in the top 10% of finishers.
You may want to go back and actually read the article I linked. The analysis looked at a set of data composed of the top five finishers of every single GT conducted since 6th edition was released for which results were made available. (Events with less than 5 games or with less than 30 attendees were excluded.) In most cases, these five represented the top 8-12% of finishers, fulfilling what you identify as the "more important measure."
Danny Internets wrote: You may want to go back and actually read the article I linked. The analysis looked at a set of data composed of the top five finishers of every single GT conducted since 6th edition was released for which results were made available. (Events with less than 5 games or with less than 30 attendees were excluded.) In most cases, these five represented the top 8-12% of finishers, fulfilling what you identify as the "more important measure."
I did read it, I didn't come to the same conclusion. It appears to me that armies at the top are not that diverse, at least not any more than they were in 5th.
Plus you are combining many unlike things into one graph. A 40 man 5 round GT with a Sisters and a Tau player in the top 5 is almost meaningless compared to Adepticon’s 250+ players with no sisters or tau in the top 16. Not to mention that NOVA, DA Boyz, and I believe BFS were all conducted with only one or no 6th ed codices. You’re combining vastly different tournaments (in both size and importance) at vastly different points in the game.
Vaktathi wrote: I'd dispute the former part of this statement, as we haven't seen a huge spread of armies winnings GT's of late, we see Necrons followed by 5 or 6 other armies routinely while the other half of the factions in the game largely languish elsewhere (or include as allies the aforementioned strong armies to rise higher). The mid-ranges have always been a melting pot, at least for the last several years, there's not too much new here, but it's also generally not what people care about when looking at GT performance, they look at the top spaces.
I would disagree with the notion that we haven't seen a huge spread of armies winning GT's as of late. I think it's been far better than it ever was in 5th edition where it was basically one book dominating the scene after another until we had the mess that was GK. People keep saying Necrons are winning everything, but I feel like that's really misleading. They definitely do tend to place well, but they really haven't dominated the tournament scene by any sense of the word and the only major GT wins from them came with very distinct allies.
- Nick won Adepticon using Necrons with the addition of Draigo & Paladins. That's extremely different than just a run of the mill Necron build and really shouldn't be lumped in because of how vastly different it works on the table.
- Ben won WGC with the addition of a Warboss and Meganobs in a Wagon, again a considerable difference vs vanilla Crons, and also not one of the standard ally combinations we see.
IIRC, Indy Open was won with some kind of Crons/CSM? Beyond those events, I don't know any major ones this year which Crons won, while plenty were won by other books as well. Pretty sure Necrons have done nothing on the west coast, and they didn't win anything else out east AFAIK. Off the top of my head we had several GTs go to either GK or GK/IG, and obviously in the fall Daemons were a thing.
I'll just point out that while Necrons may have been dominating lately, it will be Tau and Eldar that change that not FW. While certainly not perfectly balanced, the new refresh cycle has gone a long way.
While past tourney results can be helpful, Daemons have a new codex and Tau and Eldar can put out so many TLStr. 6+ shots that I'd be surprised to see many necron airforces placing well in a few months.
So to get back to the OP: FW seems to do more to unbalance than balance at the moment.
Danny Internets wrote: You may want to go back and actually read the article I linked. The analysis looked at a set of data composed of the top five finishers of every single GT conducted since 6th edition was released for which results were made available. (Events with less than 5 games or with less than 30 attendees were excluded.) In most cases, these five represented the top 8-12% of finishers, fulfilling what you identify as the "more important measure."
I did read it, I didn't come to the same conclusion. It appears to me that armies at the top are not that diverse, at least not any more than they were in 5th.
Plus you are combining many unlike things into one graph. A 40 man 5 round GT with a Sisters and a Tau player in the top 5 is almost meaningless compared to Adepticon’s 250+ players with no sisters or tau in the top 16. Not to mention that NOVA, DA Boyz, and I believe BFS were all conducted with only one or no 6th ed codices. You’re combining vastly different tournaments (in both size and importance) at vastly different points in the game.
Well, your previous response indicated that you either did not read the methodology or failed to comprehend it because you attempted to criticize on the grounds that it should have been conducted in exactly the way it was, in fact, conducted.
I can respect your opinion regarding the conclusion, though I disagree that a comparison between a 40-player GT and a 250-player GT is meaningless. Simply having more players does not necessarily increase the validity of an event in evaluating what armies are or are not competitive in 6th edition 40k. Likewise, would could argue that the wacky mission design of Adepticon, despite its large pool of players, renders its results less important. In general, I think that any event meeting the nebulous threshold of respect from the community, and thereby drawing a significant number of attendees from beyond the local area, will contribute meaningfully to our understanding of competitive 40k.
Apart from Necron dominance, there's fairly good representation from a number of armies. Furthermore, there's even more variety among the types of list taken from each of the represented codices.
Vaktathi wrote: I'd dispute the former part of this statement, as we haven't seen a huge spread of armies winnings GT's of late, we see Necrons followed by 5 or 6 other armies routinely while the other half of the factions in the game largely languish elsewhere (or include as allies the aforementioned strong armies to rise higher). The mid-ranges have always been a melting pot, at least for the last several years, there's not too much new here, but it's also generally not what people care about when looking at GT performance, they look at the top spaces.
I would disagree with the notion that we haven't seen a huge spread of armies winning GT's as of late. I think it's been far better than it ever was in 5th edition where it was basically one book dominating the scene after another until we had the mess that was GK. People keep saying Necrons are winning everything, but I feel like that's really misleading. They definitely do tend to place well, but they really haven't dominated the tournament scene by any sense of the word and the only major GT wins from them came with very distinct allies.
- Nick won Adepticon using Necrons with the addition of Draigo & Paladins. That's extremely different than just a run of the mill Necron build and really shouldn't be lumped in because of how vastly different it works on the table.
- Ben won WGC with the addition of a Warboss and Meganobs in a Wagon, again a considerable difference vs vanilla Crons, and also not one of the standard ally combinations we see.
IIRC, Indy Open was won with some kind of Crons/CSM? Beyond those events, I don't know any major ones this year which Crons won, while plenty were won by other books as well. Pretty sure Necrons have done nothing on the west coast, and they didn't win anything else out east AFAIK. Off the top of my head we had several GTs go to either GK or GK/IG, and obviously in the fall Daemons were a thing.
Well, your previous response indicated that you either did not read the methodology or failed to comprehend it because you attempted to criticize on the grounds that it should have been conducted in exactly the way it was, in fact, conducted.
Fair enough. I took the sentiment of the article to be that total army diversity was improving, not just diversity in the top 5.
I generally agree total army diversity is up some. I’m not totally convinced that that means more armies are actually capable of winning a 7-8 round GT than in the past.
And while we can learn some things from a smaller 5 round GT, because of their size and relatively low number or rounds they down play the negative side of a diverse meta that actually limits the number of armies that can win.
For example, a sister’s army has favorable matchups against 80% of the field, neutral to 10%, and a poor against the final 10%. It’s much easier to dodge those bad match ups in a 5 round event than in an 8 round event. And because of the incredible diversity of armies I would suspect the number of “bad” matchups for most lists is more like 33%. Dodging 33% of the field for 8 rounds is almost impossible. So more rounds forces you to confront your bad matchup sooner or later, possibly multiple times, increasing the chances that you will lose. In that environment armies with very few or no “bad” match ups (of which there are only a couple) have an extreme advantage because of the diverse field. That’s a dynamic that doesn’t exist as much in smaller, fewer round GTs.
My other critique would be if you are trying to combine an Adepticon or NOVA with a Colonial or Broadside Bash you DO need to weight the results. The top 10% of finishers at the Colonial probably is the top 5 guys, at Adepticon or Nova it’s more like the top 20-25 guys. If you had taken even just the top 16 guys from Adepticon (about the top 6%) instead of the top 5 your numbers for Necrons and CSM would have exploded. The literal top 5 players for any tournament, especially a smaller GT, can be very eclectic. The full top 10% is very similar.
And I don’t agree with your comment about missions. Every mission system is game-able. Some more than others. In my experience Adepticon’s missions have been some of the fairer, hard to game out of all the major GTs. If you truly want to account for missions you should only combine tournaments that run the exact same missions set up, of which there are very few.
If you only look at 7-8 round GTs (not that you were saying we should, just as a point) that data would be like, what... less than 5 events? So, you have to include 5-round events to get meaningful numbers, as it's far more common.
According to current trends, it does seem like Forgeworld, if it isn't made completely official during sixth edition, it will certainly be official for seventh. I always thought it was official for sixth, but I suppose that is the current argument. Wouldn't it be a good idea to plan for this by allowing it into tournaments as soon as possible?
The necrons did well early on, but now there are several other codexes that have been released and we are starting to see them move to the front.
If you look at Wargames Con’s results there were as many Demons players in the top 16 as Necron players. This will change too when in a few months we see Tau and Eldar more represented.
For the most part 40k is balanced, and the tournament format and missions almost have as much impact on the winning armies as the armies themselves.
I think that a lot of players lose a lot and think it is because of balance, when it is really their bad play.
Blackmoor wrote: The necrons did well early on, but now there are several other codexes that have been released and we are starting to see them move to the front.
If you look at Wargames Con’s results there were as many Demons players in the top 16 as Necron players. This will change too when in a few months we see Tau and Eldar more represented.
For the most part 40k is balanced, and the tournament format and missions almost have as much impact on the winning armies as the armies themselves.
I think that a lot of players lose a lot and think it is because of balance, when it is really their bad play.
I get the impression that you think you have figured the game out tactically, but Forgeworld units give you a curveball. Rather than deal with that, you want them banned.
Oaka wrote: According to current trends, it does seem like Forgeworld, if it isn't made completely official during sixth edition, it will certainly be official for seventh. I always thought it was official for sixth, but I suppose that is the current argument. Wouldn't it be a good idea to plan for this by allowing it into tournaments as soon as possible?
That was my point in the OP. At the end of 5th everyone said that it would be official (From GW prime) in 6th, so we might as well be ahead of the curve and start to include it. Well that never happened, so there is nothing pointing to it being here in 7th (when ever that will be)
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oaka wrote: I get the impression that you think you have figured the game out tactically, but Forgeworld units give you a curveball. Rather than deal with that, you want them banned.
Demons, Eldar, and Tau throw me curveballs. Forge World is just unpleasant.
If have to build my army around beating Forge World it narrows not only the units, and options that I have to choose from, but the armies as well.
I find that ironic since is the opposite effect that most FW proponents claim.
Well, your previous response indicated that you either did not read the methodology or failed to comprehend it because you attempted to criticize on the grounds that it should have been conducted in exactly the way it was, in fact, conducted.
Fair enough. I took the sentiment of the article to be that total army diversity was improving, not just diversity in the top 5.
I generally agree total army diversity is up some. I’m not totally convinced that that means more armies are actually capable of winning a 7-8 round GT than in the past.
And while we can learn some things from a smaller 5 round GT, because of their size and relatively low number or rounds they down play the negative side of a diverse meta that actually limits the number of armies that can win.
For example, a sister’s army has favorable matchups against 80% of the field, neutral to 10%, and a poor against the final 10%. It’s much easier to dodge those bad match ups in a 5 round event than in an 8 round event. And because of the incredible diversity of armies I would suspect the number of “bad” matchups for most lists is more like 33%. Dodging 33% of the field for 8 rounds is almost impossible. So more rounds forces you to confront your bad matchup sooner or later, possibly multiple times, increasing the chances that you will lose. In that environment armies with very few or no “bad” match ups (of which there are only a couple) have an extreme advantage because of the diverse field. That’s a dynamic that doesn’t exist as much in smaller, fewer round GTs.
My other critique would be if you are trying to combine an Adepticon or NOVA with a Colonial or Broadside Bash you DO need to weight the results. The top 10% of finishers at the Colonial probably is the top 5 guys, at Adepticon or Nova it’s more like the top 20-25 guys. If you had taken even just the top 16 guys from Adepticon (about the top 6%) instead of the top 5 your numbers for Necrons and CSM would have exploded. The literal top 5 players for any tournament, especially a smaller GT, can be very eclectic. The full top 10% is very similar.
And I don’t agree with your comment about missions. Every mission system is game-able. Some more than others. In my experience Adepticon’s missions have been some of the fairer, hard to game out of all the major GTs. If you truly want to account for missions you should only combine tournaments that run the exact same missions set up, of which there are very few.
I completely agree about the number of games being of utmost importance in determining how valuable the results with regards to understanding competitive 40k. Unfortunately, there are very few events that feature more than 5 games, so I used this as the cut-off lest the sample size of the data be laughably small (which is not to suggest that the analysis has any kind of statistical validity). That being said, using the top 16 guys from Adepticon would have violated your own standards because the 2013 Qualifiers only featured four games. I think using the top 5 finishers after the 8th game of the Championships yielded more valuable data and didn't violate the 5-game minimum rule.
Regarding missions, I disagree completely about Adepticon's missions. The heavy emphasis on relic and KP-based scenarios was very inconsistent with the rulebook and the missions featured at similar events. Yes, all systems are game-able, but the further a tournament deviates from community standards the less valuable its results are for evaluating said community.
Oaka wrote: According to current trends, it does seem like Forgeworld, if it isn't made completely official during sixth edition, it will certainly be official for seventh. I always thought it was official for sixth, but I suppose that is the current argument. Wouldn't it be a good idea to plan for this by allowing it into tournaments as soon as possible?
That was my point in the OP. At the end of 5th everyone said that it would be official (From GW prime) in 6th, so we might as well be ahead of the curve and start to include it. Well that never happened, so there is nothing pointing to it being here in 7th (when ever that will be)
The change that happened is that every IA book since has incorporated a "THIS IS OFFICIAL" stamp and notice within it. How much more "official" are you expecting GW to get?
Blackmoor wrote: The necrons did well early on, but now there are several other codexes that have been released and we are starting to see them move to the front.
If you look at Wargames Con’s results there were as many Demons players in the top 16 as Necron players. This will change too when in a few months we see Tau and Eldar more represented.
For the most part 40k is balanced, and the tournament format and missions almost have as much impact on the winning armies as the armies themselves.
I think that a lot of players lose a lot and think it is because of balance, when it is really their bad play.
The prevalence of demons was (IMO) a direct result of the missions. Battle points in general favors that style of army, but the missions heavily favored armies that had lots of fast, lots of heavy, and the ability to generate new troops. Most of the demon armies fit into all three of those categories.
There weren't that many necron players at all, not just the top 16. I think that was a direct results of allowing forgeworld. Tau aren't developed enough to scare Necrons away, and even if they were a lot of people aren't convinced that Necrons < Tau. But necrons vs 6 sabers or the pethora of other intercepting skyfire options is typically a losing proposition.
And yes, tactical choices and player skill are the single most important thing in a tournament, you won't win without them. But you can have them and still lose. If we had major GTs every weekend it wouldn't be such a big deal if the format, missions, meta, or whatever caused you to lose a game. But since most people only make it to 1 or 2 a year its important to discuss and understand everything that influences the outcome of a tournament. People want to maximize their chances of winning, understanding ALL the things that are going to decrease their chances of winning is important.
Oaka wrote: According to current trends, it does seem like Forgeworld, if it isn't made completely official during sixth edition, it will certainly be official for seventh. I always thought it was official for sixth, but I suppose that is the current argument. Wouldn't it be a good idea to plan for this by allowing it into tournaments as soon as possible?
That was my point in the OP. At the end of 5th everyone said that it would be official (From GW prime) in 6th, so we might as well be ahead of the curve and start to include it. Well that never happened, so there is nothing pointing to it being here in 7th (when ever that will be)
The change that happened is that every IA book since has incorporated a "THIS IS OFFICIAL" stamp and notice within it. How much more "official" are you expecting GW to get?
How about a line on each codex saying, "for additional unit options, see Imperial Armour XX", as an indication that they are meant to be universal bolt ones to the codecies?
Oaka wrote: According to current trends, it does seem like Forgeworld, if it isn't made completely official during sixth edition, it will certainly be official for seventh. I always thought it was official for sixth, but I suppose that is the current argument. Wouldn't it be a good idea to plan for this by allowing it into tournaments as soon as possible?
That was my point in the OP. At the end of 5th everyone said that it would be official (From GW prime) in 6th, so we might as well be ahead of the curve and start to include it. Well that never happened, so there is nothing pointing to it being here in 7th (when ever that will be)
The change that happened is that every IA book since has incorporated a "THIS IS OFFICIAL" stamp and notice within it. How much more "official" are you expecting GW to get?
How about a line on each codex saying, "for additional unit options, see Imperial Armour XX", as an indication that they are meant to be universal bolt ones to the codecies?
It's an unreasonable expectation because Forgeworld books are not aligned to the GW production schedule. Even if they did this, you'll come to have other arguments. Take for example, the Necron 'dex. If it stated "See Imperial Armour XX" but did not include IA12 because the 'dex was released before IA12, it wouldn't state IA12 and then there'd be people that would argue that Necron 'dexes cannot use IA12 as a result.
Don't you think you should play a game like Chess or Magic, that doesn't rely on rolling a dice, if you need to satisfy those cravings to test yourselves against other people when it comes to army composition and execution? This game lends itself to chance, so the best lists can theoretically fail solely on rolling dice. Why ruin it for those of us that like to play this game for fun just because you want to make it more competitive than it was intended for? Forgeworld is official, and should be recognized as such. I don't care if the tournaments at the top level ban it, but it should mention it specifically as a deviation from the official rules. The problem I have is the trickle-down effect. Casual players at the storefront level think Forgeworld is illegal because the tournaments don't allow it, when that is simply not the case. Forgeworld is legal, and it is up to individual tournaments to decide to use house rules to disallow it.
Exactly, particularly when it's been well expressed why many casual players also want limits on FW, why it benefits them, etc... players such as myself who save up and go to 1, maybe 2 GTs a year (last year was AdeptiCon, this year TempleCon and maybe one more, next year AdeptiCon). I love AdeptiCon because FW is intelligently integrated, but not given blanket allowance. Makes for the most enjoyable experience for the casual, not just the super competitive, players imo.
Eight rounds is brutal. I am not against it though, in fact more power to it. I think the most balanced lists are the best. Everybody is going to have at least one bad matchup in such an event, it's unavoidable... Those are the games that make or break you. I was told going into WGC there might be be some Sabre Thudd spam. My prediction was it would fall eventually to the better designed competitive armies which is exactly what happened. If you use Forge World as a crutch in a big highly competitive event it will fold on you at some point... Usually at the most inopportune time. To me it is mostly good for beating down seals in the early rounds. The top players will know how inherently how to counter it. That's why I don't think it's a big deal. If a tournament is billed as competitive and truly designed as such with no overt favoritism then the natural pecking order will fall into place - it's all about who is number one in the end.
One way GW could influence a wider acceptance of FW would be to toot the horn so to speak in WD articles. Until GW becomes more proactive about FW being a part of the game I think the split among players is going to continue and this thread will never die until some mod closes it.
I think that a lot of players lose a lot and think it is because of balance, when it is really their bad play.
Allan - So I am a bad player now? : ) I realize I am an old fart and there is a whole new generation of 40K gamers ok .. maybe two… and that the time I once spent crushing face is now spent organizing AdeptiCon. But for the history of 40K, my decades of playing it, my interactions with the various game designers both past and present over the years it has NEVER been about a balanced system. It was never intended to be a balanced system in the way that some folks want to make it “balanced”. It was intended to be just balanced enough to be a fun game with your mates as a mechanism to sell MODELS!
If balance was even remotely a priority, do you think they would have released the Grey Knight codex in the manner in which it was done. Doing horrible horrible things to the meta at the tail end of 5th edition? Which months later when 6th edition did release it made sense all of a sudden. How was the balance in the mid-term? Need another example. If they cared about balance, they would have launched 6th edition with flyers and anti-flyer support for all codexes right out of the gate. They didn’t and instead will ride the peaks and valleys throughout the various codex releases as they have always done. Why, because it generates a lot more sales! Which ultimately is what is all about.
Sure at points it has been more balanced than others, and at points it has been dangerous close to not being “as fun” and having an adverse effect on sales. ( see the current state of WFB for reference ) 40k is generally close enough to be fun, and have some "competitive" games. Wait around long enough it will go through those same cycles all over again.
Instead .. maybe it is “40k” must be balanced in order to somehow validate all of our competitive juices and if it isn't what does that all mean?
@Hulksmash - Missions always play a role in what codexs do well. Same can be said for the Terrain, the Field, and the Pairings. Heck for this years AdeptiCon the weather certainly played a factor as well given that a number of players had an exhausting time just getting to the convention.
No offense to anyone posting..but if anyone thinks that current 40k is balanced now is simply deluding themselves. With that being said...that doesn't necessarily make the game no fun to play...and it certainly means that including FW overall has little bearing on the perception that many have of "competitive 40k" and this mythical pursuit to make it such. The game isn't balanced period. How is adding anymore units going to really affect that? The imbalance isn't with the units, but with the core mechanics of the rules themselves. Here's a thought: If Necrons win the next big GT. Will the anti FW people finally accept the possibility that Necrons are far more dumb than any BSFW unit that is labeled as a "problem"? How many overalls would it take to reach that possibility? 1 more? 2 more?
JWhex wrote: One way GW could influence a wider acceptance of FW would be to toot the horn so to speak in WD articles. Until GW becomes more proactive about FW being a part of the game I think the split among players is going to continue and this thread will never die until some mod closes it.
Given how much the quality of WD has fluctuated in a downward direction for the past decade, I think we can give up hope on WD.
Another thing people fail to take into account is that newer armies often come out of the gate strong because of a general lack of familiarity with them. Until the combined internet wisdom told Johnny Netlist how you handle Cron Cylon Death Fleet, Crons won a lot. Dark Eldar and GK won a bunch when they hit, as well. Daemons are kind of doing that right now. If a book has an easily spamable power option, people are going to abuse it early for some easy wins until word gets out on it. There is a world of difference between that and books that have been around forever and are still racking up the wins, like IG and SW where people have had years to figure then out and still are getting facerolled by them.
Point of that is, I think any discussion of metagame or balance as it pertains to FW is not relevant to is acceptable use in tournament play, aside from issues with certain armies getting more from it. I think the debate on cost and familiarity is more of an issue. I personally don't care that a Breeching Drill is really good, but how happy can someone be if their first introduction to the thing is the giant wall of text that explains how it works and they have to read this during a tournament?
Dracos wrote:Games of chance are perfectly valid for competition - see Poker if you don't understand why.
Ah, the poker analogy. I love this one, because it's so very wrong. A hand of poker is a random event. But a game of poker isn't one hand, it's many many hands, drawing out over the course of a night (and, in some cases, a week).
A while back, when I was running some events, I had players answer a short questionaire about what happened early in the game. Who won the roll to go first, who actually went first, and whether the initiative was stolen. Turns out picking to go first of second correlates more to winning or losing the game than actually going first or second (and, that makes sense, as that choice will differ with armies and scenarios). But, the biggest correlation between early events and winning was stealing the initiative. When someone successfully stole the initiative, they won like 90% of the time.
Back to poker - so, first hand, you get a crap draw. Okay, fold, you lose the ante, or a blind, or possibly even nothing at all, and play continues. That first hand, the early event, has nearly no correlation to the outcome of the whole game.
Continuing, in poker, the outcome of one set of random events has a minimal impact on later events. Sure, if earlier events leave your opponent with a larger stack than you have, you may be limited, but each hand is a new battle to be won.
In 40k, the results of one random set of events continues throughout the game. If your commander dies first, you lose the warlord point, with no way to get it back. If your opponent gets super-hot and eliminates half your army on turn one, you can't get those models back to try again.
A hand of poker may be a five-ten minute exchange, of which there will be a hundred of more during the course of a tournament. A game of 40k is a two hour affair, which in many tournaments, one loss puts you out of contention.
While you're correct from a very high-level perspective (minimizing the vulnerability to dice is a skill), in practice, the control a player has over the impact of those rolls is significantly smaller than it is in a game like poker.
Its also pretty arrogant to tell others to go play another game just because you don't like how they choose to play - IMO.
It's not so much about how they choose to play, it's about what they seem to want. Sure, 40k can be played competitively, but it is not designed to be, and many concessions have to be made in order to do so. Players who really wish to test themselves in a competitive game are going to be better served by playing a game that's designed for competitive play. That's not really telling them to go play something else, it's simply pointing out that what they're seeking is better found elsewhere.
That's so wrong, Red! I get pocket kings but run into a guy who somehow stayed in with 6 and 2 unsuited. Flop is low, I slow play, get a king on the turn card, see a low river card and bet big with trip kings.
It's nearly impossible to peg my opponent as 6 and 2, the numbers needed for a straight with that flop, and I lose most of my chips.
Single events that have a lot of randomness to them absolutely affect outcomes in Poker. A bit off-topic, but that's just how it is... it takes skill, but chance is heavily involved, no question.
Point of that is, I think any discussion of metagame or balance as it pertains to FW is not relevant to is acceptable use in tournament play, aside from issues with certain armies getting more from it. I think the debate on cost and familiarity is more of an issue.
Cost I don't think is relevant. Nobody is saying that you can't play Eldar because their book costs half again as much as the Dark Eldar book, or that you can't play Imperial Guard because a mech IG army costs twice what a Space Marine list costs to build. That and GW's prices for books and models is in many instances on par or nearing FW's prices.
Familiarity is best solved by increasing its allowance, otherwise it'll remain the shadowy nether thing forever.
I personally don't care that a Breeching Drill is really good, but how happy can someone be if their first introduction to the thing is the giant wall of text that explains how it works and they have to read this during a tournament?
They're actually *really* bad now, though their rules admittedly are long, FW was just rather thorough in explaining how everything works, which is a good thing.
So no offense but you're delusional" I always love that
How about "No offense but if anyone thinks that current 40k isn't balanced simply doesn't know how to play 40k".
See, I can do it too
Lolz. :rolls eyes:
But seriously, I might not be the most awesome player ever but I find 40k to be extremely balanced.
Seriously? What would lead you to that conclusion? Lastly, my point still stands: If Necrons win the next big GT. Will the anti FW people finally accept the possibility that Necrons are far more dumb than any BSFW unit that is labeled as a "problem"? How many overalls would it take to reach that possibility? 1 more? 2 more?
Nobody from the anti FW crowd has yet to answer that question.
But seriously, I might not be the most awesome player ever but I find 40k to be extremely balanced.
Seriously? What would lead you to that conclusion? Lastly, my point still stands: If Necrons win the next big GT. Will the anti FW people finally accept the possibility that Necrons are far more dumb than any BSFW unit that is labeled as a "problem"? How many overalls would it take to reach that possibility? 1 more? 2 more?
Nobody from the anti FW crowd has yet to answer that question.
Pure Tau just won the "next big GT" ... a 60-person affair with a ridiculously high concentration of top tier players ... at Kiladelphia. The Semi-Finals were Vanilla SM/IG, Pure Tau, Tau/SW, and pure Daemons. No Crons. Pure Tau won, over Daemons, in the final. Three of the semi-finalists were members of Team America. Best overall was won by old Eldar + DE allies.
I figured it was a well-timed reply.
Also, smaller GT's with higher concentrations of top tier players are far better evaluators than places where you can luck out in a massive crowd and shoot up the ladder on easier games.
CaptKaruthors wrote: Seriously? What would lead you to that conclusion? Lastly, my point still stands: If Necrons win the next big GT. Will the anti FW people finally accept the possibility that Necrons are far more dumb than any BSFW unit that is labeled as a "problem"? How many overalls would it take to reach that possibility? 1 more? 2 more?
Nobody from the anti FW crowd has yet to answer that question.
This is a silly argument. Why would anti-FW people conclude that Necrons are more imbalanced than FW units when the vast majority of competitive events don't permit FW? A smattering of FW events is fairly meaningless if you want to compare the two; even at a competitive level, few people are going to invest in hundreds of dollars and large amounts of time in painting FW units if they're only going to be able to attend one tournament a year that allows their use. Until it becomes fairly mainstream, looking at tournament results to compare FW power to pure codex power won't yield meaningful data.
Yes, obviously Necrons are the dominant codex at the moment. But drawing a conclusion that Necrons are MORE dominant than FW units would be if they were permitted is nonsensical.
Define "next Big GT" are we talking NOVA? OR does Killadelphia (with 50+ players and several GT winners amongst the attendees) if so then ummm....Tau for the win.
Top 8
Eldar/IG allies
Daemons/CSM Allies
Tau
Tau
Tau/SW allies
Necrons
Necrons
Space Marines/IG allies
So only 2 Necron Players make the top 8
Top 4
Daemons/CSM Allies
Space Marines/IG allies
Tau
Tau/SW allies
So No Necrons in the Top 4....
So Yeah Necrons are totally OP broken can't be beat...
If that doesn't count I'll go on record as saying "I'll be surprised if Crons win at Nova."
RiTides wrote: That's so wrong, Red! I get pocket kings but run into a guy who somehow stayed in with 6 and 2 unsuited. Flop is low, I slow play, get a king on the turn card, see a low river card and bet big with trip kings.
It's nearly impossible to peg my opponent as 6 and 2, the numbers needed for a straight with that flop, and I lose most of my chips.
Single events that have a lot of randomness to them absolutely affect outcomes in Poker. A bit off-topic, but that's just how it is... it takes skill, but chance is heavily involved, no question.
I'm sorry sir, but the rules of dakka state one must attempt to write in English, and I'm fairly certain you're speaking another language .
I think for the time being, FW being allowed is up to the TO. I wouldn't mind it too much if I had to fight against some things I've never fought before (hell saw some grey knight models I had never fought, and saw my first whirlwind this weekend at a tournament). As long as the TO says what is and isn't allowed, and that if anyone brings something forgeworld, it should be treated as if it were in a codex, you must have the rules for it, and must be able to show your opponent if/when he or she asks.
So 5/8 of the top armies were either Tau or Necrons, and this somehow strengthens the argument that 40K is a balanced game and Forgeworld would upset this balance?
It's not so much about how they choose to play, it's about what they seem to want. Sure, 40k can be played competitively, but it is not designed to be, and many concessions have to be made in order to do so. Players who really wish to test themselves in a competitive game are going to be better served by playing a game that's designed for competitive play. That's not really telling them to go play something else, it's simply pointing out that what they're seeking is better found elsewhere.
That's where I start to suspect that many "competative" 40k players don't want a truly balanced game. The competative 40K group (painting with a broad brush here) is this very small sub group of the player base that has the money, and will power to exploit the imbalances of the game to put themselves at a notable advantage over 2/3 of the tournament field. If they truly wanted a gaming system balanced and designed for tournament play they could jump ship and go to magic or warmachine, or any number of great games. But those communities are nothing but competative players, and I think for a lot of well known 40K personalities success would be much harder to find in those games.
Oaka wrote: So 5/8 of the top armies were either Tau or Necrons, and this somehow strengthens the argument that 40K is a balanced game and Forgeworld would upset this balance?
Hugely so, yes. Among those 8, Necron both failed to make semis, and the Tau made about the proper distribution. VANILLA SPACE MARINES made the semis, and lost to brand new and pure daemons off a single dice roll late. The final was between Tau and Daemons. This supports the already-established notion that perceived "imbalanced" or powerful units ROCK the mid-field, but don't do any better or worse against the top tier. That's why adding more mid-field rocking units from FWIG isn't going to help balance, or affect top tables.
More importantly, one of the points that's been made but often overlooked ... is ANY player suggesting the codexes have to do with who places at the top is really missing the results as a whole. The top 4? Tony Kopach, Nick Nanavati, Neil Gilstrap, Andrew Gonyo.
Take a look at those names, and you'll find they are almost ALWAYS in the top "x" in any event they attend, regardless of rules, restrictions, or what codex they play. Nick won at AdeptiCon with Crons/GK. He made final game at Kiladelphia with Daemons/CSM. Tony's done well with SW, and now with vanilla SM + IG. Andrew's won GT's this season with IG/BLOOD ANGELS, and now with Tau. Neil's done well with PURE GK land raider spam + death cults, winning events in his region against tough competitors with them. He did this one with Tau and SW.
Good players are ALWAYS going to do well, regardless of the dex. Additionally, most of these players willingly admit if you add FW, they'd immediately stop with the variety and have at least allied IG.
The picture gets more damning in the mid-tables.
Thing of it is, that's actually not something i have a problem with. There are always best units, within codices and elsewhere. I don't personally like the idea of ALL of my events shifting the meta toward IG at the top tables and in the mid ranges just for the sake of adding un-filtered, un-abridged FW. Some of my events do, some of my events don't, including top billing events both directions. BUT my only real beef in general is with a loud group (NOT all of you!) who refuse to accede to restricted FW units and are simply not willing to admit they really, really, really want to use some of the IG types to "easy-mode" Necron fliers, or try to get a competitive advantage.
Anyone seeking variety at the top tables, you're living in a dreamworld in the sense that the players there are not really changing very often; that in and of itself precludes "variety" except in terms of which models they're buying. There won't be, until other players actually master the game beyond list building and dice rolling aside from those who have, and who consistently place at the top tables as a result of it. These players routinely use both new and old codices to accomplish it, and adding FW isn't going to change it a lick. BUT you are going to dramatically impact the mid-ranges, where Crons are still running rampant over players who aren't skilled enough to deal with them if their list can't on its own, and where IG will do exactly the same (as will a few other FW units) if it's broadly legalized. That's OK if you acknowledge that outcome, but you lose the support of a lot of readers when you refuse to budge, swear the game is imbalanced, and swear FW won't have any real impact on it (or will somehow make it better). A lot of players who are getting in their licks weekend after weekend think otherwise from a lot of practical experience. A more middle ground approach is much more widely supported than one would think ... but it doesn't encourage a TO to go "all in" one way or another when he realizes the noisy parties [on BOTH sides] aren't going to lower the volume at all unless they get things 100% their way.
That is just your opinion though and there are plenty of TOs for other large national events that have nothing but good things to say about Forge World. NOVA is your event and obviously you should run it as you see fit... and sure a lot of TOs follow your system - but to say what you said as a sweeping generalization is fail.
Dozer Blades wrote: That is just your opinion though and there are plenty of TOs for other large national events that have nothing but good things to say about Forge World. NOVA is your event and obviously you should run it as you see fit... and sure a lot of TOs follow your system - but to say what you said as a sweeping generalization is fail.
/sadface at another oneliner response!
I'll reiterate that at NOVA we run half our events, including one of our headline events, as FW legal (one even legalizes HH), and half not FW legal.
PS - YES, it's my opinion. Anything anybody says about balance and powerful units and anything else is opinion.
And there is a difference, one of which is the Invitational is at a different points level, and doesn't allow FW! Amazingly, different strokes for different folks, yada yada.
The prerogative of a good TO is not to rule "my way or the highway," nor to follow the vocal exhibitions of those seeking a TO to rule "their way or the highway." There's 25 pages of reasons for and against, vocally argued by numerous people at a fairly even divide. There's also tons of feedback we received when our initial primer went out regarding what attendees wanted in terms of FW or not in different events.
As with most things, our calls about which events do and don't get what rules and missions are generally driven by playtest, feedback, analysis, yada yada. Hence, an even split offering
Unfortunately there will always be people who are unhappy unless their own very narrow view of what a convention should be is hit on perfectly. This applies to all sides of this subject matter, and a hundred other subjects to boot (certain players, for instance, will completely avoid an event and decry it as awful if a single FAQ answer doesn't suit them, i.e. players not attending AdeptiCon purely b/c they didn't like the 180 degree flyer arc ruling). Nothing for it.
You'll have people without any TO responsibilities of their own throwing "THAT WAS FAIL LOL" at you no matter what you do ... so you tend to go with a combination of what your staff and judges and self think works best, coupled w/ respect for the silent majority and ... the majority of the vocal minorities.
Oaka wrote: So 5/8 of the top armies were either Tau or Necrons, and this somehow strengthens the argument that 40K is a balanced game and Forgeworld would upset this balance?
You look at the 5 out of 8 and I look at the 3 out of 8. You say that there is imbalance, yet 3 other codexes are able to compete at the top tables against armies that you percieve as unbalanced.
There were 5 codexes represented out of the top 8.
There is nothing extraordinary about those results. They are all competitive armies. I fail to see the connection how this makes Forge World a bad thing. Of course I'm not expecting some people to give a straight answer. Most of the complaints are similar in fashion to all the horror stories we heard about what a big scary monster is double force organization when in fact it's really a lot of fun. It is the TOs own fault if they cannot run their tourneys on time and use lower total points as an excuse.
We just had the Killadelphia Open, which is a first year GT in the east coast with huge competition. Top 8 included 3 Team USA ETC members (Gonyo, Kopach, and Nanavati), Neil Gilstrap, Matt DeFranza (winner of SVDM), myself, Rob Fortin, and a gentleman named Payl. There were lots of other excellent players who didn't make the top 8 so it was an extremely competitive event.
The codex breakdown was:
Tau (winner)
Daemons / CSM (runner up)
Tau / SW (semi-finals)
SM / IG (semi-finals)
old Eldar / IG (won best overall)
Tau
Necrons
Necrons / Tau
So we had 8 different armies in use in the top 8, and no Necrons in the top 4. Tau were the most represented army on the top tables. Game seems pretty balanced to me.
Tau (winner)
Daemons / CSM (runner up)
Tau / SW (semi-finals)
SM / IG (semi-finals)
old Eldar / IG (won best overall)
Tau
Necrons
Necrons / Tau
So we had 10 different armies in use in the top 8, and no Necrons in the top 4. Tau were the most represented army on the top tables. Game seems pretty balanced to me.
I'm not sure you're counting right. There were 8 different books total in the top 8 out of 16 possible.
Out of 8 possible primary armies there were only 5.
Again, codex diversity alone does not equate to balance. But when the top 8 slots allow for an appearance by every codex and only half of them show (and some of those as minor portions of the whole army) I don't know how anyone can say that the game is "balanced". Perhaps amongst those armies appearing in the top half the power level is relatively tight, but the game system is leaving out half of its books, background, and possibly player base.
I don't think FW is the key to rebalancing the game, far from it. The current state of the game is not that big of a factor in the FW decision IMO. But I think some people are way over exaggerating the current "balanced" state of the game.
Edit- Whoops, didn't see the page rollover but I'll leave the response below, just note that I didn't see all the replies on this page already referring to it.
CaptKaruthors wrote: Lastly, my point still stands: If Necrons win the next big GT. Will the anti FW people finally accept the possibility that Necrons are far more dumb than any BSFW unit that is labeled as a "problem"? How many overalls would it take to reach that possibility? 1 more? 2 more?
Nobody from the anti FW crowd has yet to answer that question.
I'm not from the "anti FW crowd", as I'd like some FW allowance, but I'll answer it.
No, that would not make me reach that conclusion. Currently, there are far more players using Necrons than FW artillery. With greater FW artillery acceptance, that ratio would change, and there would likely be a lot more wins for players using it.
In other words, this thread was about whether or not FW should be allowed (and if so, to what degree, which is what a lot of us "in the middle" were discussing) and what consequences that could have in the future.
Necrons continuing to win when the current meta mostly disallows FW means very little as far as a direct comparison goes. And, if you remember, GK won everything in sight when they first hit, too. It's a powerful codex, people will adapt (or use them as allies, etc). The input from many top-level tournament players in this thread is that unlimited FW artillery is even more unbalancing to the game, and I think that is a reasonable statement to make (even if not all agree with it) given the evidence.
If I were to turn this question back around on you, as you're asking it, I'd point out that even with an 0-1 restriction, a team including an army using Thudd Guns won the team tournament at AdeptiCon this year. And you'd turn that around on me and say that no, there were skilled players using those armies... and I'd say exactly . But, it's about as fair as saying "If Necrons win the next GT, they're clearly more powerful than FW artillery". The two are not easily compared due to the state things are in, which is why we're having this discussion.
Thanks for correcting me, major brain fart... still recovering from lack of sleep over the last several days. Edited my original post.
Anyway, beyond the armies that made the top 8 at this event we know that GK are still very competitive, and Nids and Orks both have been doing well this year. So that brings you to 11. DE aren't a bad army either, they made top 8 at Adepticon. They're a strange army that has bad matchups and struggles dealing with flyers but they also are very anti-meta in a lot of situations.
I'm not sure why Dark Angels aren't more common, but a large part of that is probably due to Drakes. BA also aren't terrible, just other marines do it better. BT are in a similar boat, post-FAQ update they aren't bad just not as good as more recent marine books. What can you expect though when you have so many marine armies that have very little amounts distinguishing them from each other? No matter how well balanced the game is when there's so many MEQ armies you're always going to see some of them fizzle out to make way for whoever the cooler kid on the block is. Beyond those armies we have Sisters which we know are a mess.
So I'd say at least 13 of the armies are competitive, especially since their best components can be used as allies. I'd say 11 of them are extremely competitive. I'm not sure whether it's been on purpose but I'm very happy with that. Can you really expect a game to be perfectly balanced between so many factions? Competitive Starcraft II has trouble being balanced with just 3, so I think the current state of the game is really impressive.
RiTides wrote:The input from many top-level tournament players in this thread is that unlimited FW artillery is even more unbalancing to the game, and I think that is a reasonable statement to make (even if not all agree with it) given the evidence.
With regards to this particular statement, I'd disagree that it's a reasonable statement, as we haven't seen such an effect from such artillery heavy lists when they are allowed thus far. We've had a few place well, but they certainly haven't dominated anything. Even making allowances for the fact that "this is a new thing at relatively few events so there's not many players making use of it", the lists just have not had the effect at these events that people are claiming they will have. The gut feelings of a few tournament players has not, as yet, jived with the evidence at such events as have allowed these units.
RiTides wrote:The input from many top-level tournament players in this thread is that unlimited FW artillery is even more unbalancing to the game, and I think that is a reasonable statement to make (even if not all agree with it) given the evidence.
With regards to this particular statement, I'd disagree that it's a reasonable statement, as we haven't seen such an effect from such artillery heavy lists when they are allowed thus far. We've had a few place well, but they certainly haven't dominated anything. Even making allowances for the fact that "this is a new thing at relatively few events so there's not many players making use of it", the lists just have not had the effect at these events that people are claiming they will have. The gut feelings of a few tournament players has not, as yet, jived with the evidence at such events as have allowed these units.
Every FW heavy IG army has made top 5 at all FW allowed events. There has not been a FW heavy IG that has placed poorly, or one even in the middle of the field. Considering that these events are very large, and has good competition is even more telling.
Especially when there is any real actual evidence. This entire thread is mostly opinion and hearsay plus others parroting back what has been imprinted upon them.
I have a question for all those asking for a 0-1 FW choice. Are you open to complete FW Army Lists, e.g. Krieg Armored Battle Group, Space Marine Siege Force, Elysian Drop Troops, etc. For the record, these are the lists that typically cannot take your "OP" units like Artillery and Sabres.
Blackmoor wrote: Every FW heavy IG army has made top 5 at all FW allowed events. There has not been a FW heavy IG that has placed poorly, or one even in the middle of the field. Considering that these events are very large, and has good competition is even more telling.
Now WHY is that true? Is the list an auto-win that is so overpowered that any random person with the budget to build it is guaranteed a top-5 finish? Or is it just the case that it's an expensive army that will only be played by the most dedicated (and therefore most skilled) tournament players, people who will consistently finish at the top of the standings no matter what army they use?
Also, I'd love to see some proof of your claim that no FW-heavy IG army has done poorly. Even the best tournament armies do poorly when played by bad players, and I find it really hard to believe that no bad player has ever brought a FW-heavy army to a tournament.
Enigwolf wrote: I have a question for all those asking for a 0-1 FW choice. Are you open to complete FW Army Lists, e.g. Krieg Armored Battle Group, Space Marine Siege Force, Elysian Drop Troops, etc. For the record, these are the lists that typically cannot take your "OP" units like Artillery and Sabres.
Personally, quite open. I think there's a vast majority that would not mind FW legality aside from the couple of taboo units. I think that's a BETTER solution than 0-1, though I think 0-1 is just fine as well. Yada yada. Personal level of course; if only I could make every TO decision on a personal level :p
Enigwolf wrote: I have a question for all those asking for a 0-1 FW choice. Are you open to complete FW Army Lists, e.g. Krieg Armored Battle Group, Space Marine Siege Force, Elysian Drop Troops, etc. For the record, these are the lists that typically cannot take your "OP" units like Artillery and Sabres.
Or when they can, can't take everything (e.g. the DKoK can field Thudd Guns, but no Sabres and very limited flyer access)
Tau (winner)
Daemons / CSM (runner up)
Tau / SW (semi-finals)
SM / IG (semi-finals)
old Eldar / IG (won best overall)
Tau
Necrons
Necrons / Tau
So we had 10 different armies in use in the top 8, and no Necrons in the top 4. Tau were the most represented army on the top tables. Game seems pretty balanced to me.
I'm not sure you're counting right. There were 8 different books total in the top 8 out of 16 possible.
Out of 8 possible primary armies there were only 5.
Again, codex diversity alone does not equate to balance. But when the top 8 slots allow for an appearance by every codex and only half of them show (and some of those as minor portions of the whole army) I don't know how anyone can say that the game is "balanced". Perhaps amongst those armies appearing in the top half the power level is relatively tight, but the game system is leaving out half of its books, background, and possibly player base.
I don't think FW is the key to rebalancing the game, far from it. The current state of the game is not that big of a factor in the FW decision IMO. But I think some people are way over exaggerating the current "balanced" state of the game.
I agree with you that Balance has not alot to do with FW. But asking for every book to be represented and that every primary army be different for the game to be balanced is silly. That would assume a couple things.
1.) That all armies were equally represented at the event. For instance needing all armies to have equal representation on top tables would need them to be equally represented in the field. This is rarely true. People choose armies based on any number of factors.
2.) That the best players all choose different armies. Again this is asking a lot.
MVBrandt wrote: Additionally, most of these players willingly admit if you add FW, they'd immediately stop with the variety and have at least allied IG.
But that's all just theory and speculation about what might happen. It's easy to look at a unit and think about how nice it would be to have it in your list, but that's not the same thing as actually doing it and looking at the results. Maybe it would be a powerful list for a while, but maybe it turns out that cover-ignoring Riptides and Farsight bombs wipe the artillery list off the table and nobody dares to play it in a metagame where Tau are common. And then maybe the next codex gives Tau a really tough matchup and pushes them out of the metagame, allowing the artillery list to make a comeback. But until you make FW legal in all events you're never going to have anything more than theory and speculation.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again: coming from MTG the 40k attitude towards bans is just insane. A real competitive game doesn't ban stuff based on theory, it does it based on results. Results from extensive playtesting and competitive experience that demonstrate a clear need for a ban. If you suggested that WOTC ban cards because someone made top-8 at a pro tour event with them and they might be overpowered you'd be laughed out of the discussion. Only in 40k is it possible to be taken seriously when you argue for blanket bans on a long list of things based on pure speculation about how overpowered some of them might be.
Every FW heavy IG army has made top 5 at all FW allowed events. There has not been a FW heavy IG that has placed poorly, or one even in the middle of the field. Considering that these events are very large, and has good competition is even more telling.
Now that's just not true. I was at WGC and played IG myself with FW. There were probably only 4-5 of us with any sort of significant FW. I missed the second day cut by about 5 pts, and only 2 IGFW players made it to the second day. And all three of us are very experienced, fairly high performing players in the midwest. Then out of the two that went on Alan was the only one in the top 4 (I don't think Tim made top 5, but I'm not sure).
Alan does extremely well in tournaments regardless of FW. So if you're using Alan as your poster boy for "FW elevates bad players" or "FW breaks the game", you're just flatly incorrect. As for the rest of the IG players, I think our places were relatively accurate for our skill levels, the missions that weekend, and everything else that goes into tournament finishes.
Enigwolf wrote: I have a question for all those asking for a 0-1 FW choice. Are you open to complete FW Army Lists, e.g. Krieg Armored Battle Group, Space Marine Siege Force, Elysian Drop Troops, etc. For the record, these are the lists that typically cannot take your "OP" units like Artillery and Sabres.
My only issue with it is that it allows some armies to essentially ally with themselves. DKOK with IG. I think were I to include those army lists I would state that they replace the "core" army in the standard Allies Matrix
In other words, this thread was about whether or not FW should be allowed (and if so, to what degree, which is what a lot of us "in the middle" were discussing) and what consequences that could have in the future.
I think that the consequences (if any) can't be measured yet because there isn't that many GTs that allow it. Until you can see over time with some actual data...it's all prognostication at that point. In other words, instead of saying it's going to ruin GTs why not allow it for an entire years worth of GTs and see what outcome may happen?
Necrons continuing to win when the current meta mostly disallows FW means very little as far as a direct comparison goes.
Sure it does. It means that other codexes can't hang with Necrons unless they themselves use Necron allies or some other ally. That's not balance. I've always said that even in an edition of allies (6th) each army should have enough tools in their codex to stand on their own. Otherwise like posted many pages ago what's the difference between cherry picking the best units from two codexes and cherry picking units from FW? Either way, you are creating a discord...so what's the point?
And, if you remember, GK won everything in sight when they first hit, too. It's a powerful codex, people will adapt (or use them as allies, etc). The input from many top-level tournament players in this thread is that unlimited FW artillery is even more unbalancing to the game, and I think that is a reasonable statement to make (even if not all agree with it) given the evidence.
See above. Allies does essentially the same things...but that's okay. Necrons do well, that's ok. In a game that is already unbalanced...adding anything else isn't going to change that. While I agree that FW isn't designed to balance out things..in some cases it does as an unintended effect. For instance, BT armies are much better using FW rhinos, razorbacks, contemptor mortis dreads, etc. as either the cost of those units in their own book suck, or the unit brings more fire power to the army that other armies that have a newer book already get. While that is slightly off topic..it does however demonstrate that FW can and does actually help by creating variety where none can be found.
If I were to turn this question back around on you, as you're asking it, I'd point out that even with an 0-1 restriction, a team including an army using Thudd Guns won the team tournament at AdeptiCon this year. And you'd turn that around on me and say that no, there were skilled players using those armies... and I'd say exactly . But, it's about as fair as saying "If Necrons win the next GT, they're clearly more powerful than FW artillery". The two are not easily compared due to the state things are in, which is why we're having this discussion.
Comparing the TT to any single 1 on 1 GT is a false comparison. The Adepticon TT is an entirely different beast...from how lists are built to how the game is played with teams of 4 players. You can't use them in a comparison to GT events that is 1 on 1 play. However, at least in that event you can at least use FW...and the impact hasn't been much over the years. I remember when there was no 0-1 restrictions and things ran fine.
So again...after a year+ of GTs, how many Necron top finishes will we have to have to begin the conversation that Necrons are just as uber as anything that may come out of a FW book...and if so...then does it really matter if FW is allowed or not? Top players already pay to play with their various tournament lists of doom. So what difference does it all make at that level?
I agree with you that Balance has not alot to do with FW. But asking for every book to be represented and that every primary army be different for the game to be balanced is silly. That would assume a couple things.
1.) That all armies were equally represented at the event. For instance needing all armies to have equal representation on top tables would need them to be equally represented in the field. This is rarely true. People choose armies based on any number of factors.
2.) That the best players all choose different armies. Again this is asking a lot.
I don't necessarily equate codex variety to balance. I think a lack of variety is a sign of imbalance, not the other way around.
My point was only that if the game were perfectly balanced (or more balanced than it’s been in years as some people are saying), wouldn’t we see something like 16 different armies in the top 8? If every army had the same chance to win a major event, people would all play what they liked as opposed to what was good. We all like different things, different models, and different play styles. If it all truly was equally good, there would be close to perfect variety.
Now I don’t expect perfect balance out of any game, I don’t think that’s reasonable. But I do think if it were the field and top players would be pretty close evenly spread throughout all the books.
So Necrons winning 3 GTs is far too much? Far to OP?
Necrons Did not win
NOVA BAO Broadside Bash
Killadelphia
Battle For Salvation
Bug Eater GT Temple Con
Did win
Adepticon
Wargames Con
Indy Open
Something I am missing? I'm sure there are GTs I don't have here, and sure Necrons have all made it to top tables at some of these events, but they are hardly dominating the GT scene. Now this does not mean FWIG will be any better so Far it has 1 GT win in what 3 Events where it was allowed, with fewer people running the list, 2 in 4 if you include the Team tournament. So that is slightly better than the Cron Winning Percentage, and when you include how few people currently play said list compared to Cron air, you tell me what that might mean if it were allowed at Every GT?
Every FW heavy IG army has made top 5 at all FW allowed events. There has not been a FW heavy IG that has placed poorly, or one even in the middle of the field. Considering that these events are very large, and has good competition is even more telling.
So what? That's also mainly coming from one player. Did it place 1st in any? If not, then who cares if it's in the top 5 or even top 10? Why is having a FW army anywhere in the top 10% a bad thing? Isn't that creating parity where none may have existed before? If I placed in the top 10 with a FW Wraithseer or Hornets in my army...is the effect just as bad? Would you even care?
I agree with you that Balance has not alot to do with FW. But asking for every book to be represented and that every primary army be different for the game to be balanced is silly. That would assume a couple things.
1.) That all armies were equally represented at the event. For instance needing all armies to have equal representation on top tables would need them to be equally represented in the field. This is rarely true. People choose armies based on any number of factors.
2.) That the best players all choose different armies. Again this is asking a lot.
I don't necessarily equate codex variety to balance. I think a lack of variety is a sign of imbalance, not the other way around.
My point was only that if the game were perfectly balanced (or more balanced than it’s been in years as some people are saying), wouldn’t we see something like 16 different armies in the top 8? If every army had the same chance to win a major event, people would all play what they liked as opposed to what was good. We all like different things, different models, and different play styles. If it all truly was equally good, there would be close to perfect variety.
Now I don’t expect perfect balance out of any game, I don’t think that’s reasonable. But I do think if it were the field and top players would be pretty close evenly spread throughout all the books.
My point was I disagree with the assumption that top players would all choose Different books, that assumes that no 2 would like the same things. IS it not fair to say that 62.5% of players in the top 8 of said event "liked" different things. Furthermore, it is possible to play multiple lists out of several books, or with allies that a person could "like". Back in 5th in my local meta there was a high density of DE players because several players "liked" the army. Assuming that there would be anything close to 16 different armies in the top 8 is silly. IT assumes everyone takes allies, different ally combinations. I run CSM + Daemons, someone else runs Pure Daemons, some other guy runs Daemons + CSM, 3 different builds, but there is no variety because we happened to like the same thing?
MVBrandt wrote: Additionally, most of these players willingly admit if you add FW, they'd immediately stop with the variety and have at least allied IG.
But that's all just theory and speculation about what might happen. It's easy to look at a unit and think about how nice it would be to have it in your list, but that's not the same thing as actually doing it and looking at the results. Maybe it would be a powerful list for a while, but maybe it turns out that cover-ignoring Riptides and Farsight bombs wipe the artillery list off the table and nobody dares to play it in a metagame where Tau are common. And then maybe the next codex gives Tau a really tough matchup and pushes them out of the metagame, allowing the artillery list to make a comeback. But until you make FW legal in all events you're never going to have anything more than theory and speculation.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again: coming from MTG the 40k attitude towards bans is just insane. A real competitive game doesn't ban stuff based on theory, it does it based on results. Results from extensive playtesting and competitive experience that demonstrate a clear need for a ban. If you suggested that WOTC ban cards because someone made top-8 at a pro tour event with them and they might be overpowered you'd be laughed out of the discussion. Only in 40k is it possible to be taken seriously when you argue for blanket bans on a long list of things based on pure speculation about how overpowered some of them might be.
HEY GUYS!
To be fair to people like MVBrandt and other such TOs, let's compare the tourney scene now to that of half a dozen years ago. FW is much more open and prevalent now. I think it's unreasonable and unacceptable to tell the core of the tournament player base, most of whom have been around for a while, that suddenly FW is allowed in full everywhere. Humans are resistant to change. It's in our bloody nature. I do think that the right steps are being taken in the right direction, slowly opening up more events and more tourneys to varying levels of FW inclusion from none, to full, to even in between with some of 0-1, bans, limitations, etc.
Everyone has their own points that honestly, are all right in one context or another and no one is truly "wrong". Yes, FW does add imbalances, but so do core rules like allies, etc. Yes, FW is limited to people with the money, but this is the nature of the hobby, and games such as MTG are similar. My point is that as everyone goes back to re-hashing the same arguments, I haven't heard a single one that was so completely wrong that I had to disagree with it. It's a hard-to-swallow concept, but everyone here is right in one way or another. All everyone is now doing is bringing up a counter-point of "Yes, you're right, but it's not the best argument because...". Math-hammer and compare results all you want, but statistics can be used to prove anything. You guys already demonstrated that by using it as proof for both pro-FW and anti-FW.
I think we'll see this matter evolve on its own with time. Baby steps, one at a time, if FW inclusion proves to work out to both players and TOs alike, then our actions will cast the vote and we'll see the community slowly move in that direction. Again, think back to half a dozen years ago and tell me how many events there were that were welcoming to the idea of FW inclusion. Nova's full FW-inclusion Narrative is a prime example of a TO dipping his foot into the metaphorical waters to test them without having to risk the event becoming a flop if it turns out 95% of the potential attendees won't attend if there was FW. While I agree that the name "Narrative" doesn't give it the same prestige as an "Invitational Grand Tournament", it's still something that's better than nothing. As MVBrandt himself has stated, he's open to the idea of wider FW inclusion, but he also has a far bigger responsibility of a TO to entire that the event can still succeed in order to carry it on next year. Who knows, maybe another half dozen years from now we might see full FW inclusion.
There are very little new arguments coming along here, and everyone else is just trying to one-up each other's position and simultaneously beating the dead horse further from a carcass into the next layer of mulch for the grass.
Something I am missing? I'm sure there are GTs I don't have here, and sure Necrons have all made it to top tables at some of these events, but they are hardly dominating the GT scene. Now this does not mean FWIG will be any better so Far it has 1 GT win in what 3 Events where it was allowed, with fewer people running the list, 2 in 4 if you include the Team tournament. So that is slightly better than the Cron Winning Percentage, and when you include how few people currently play said list compared to Cron air, you tell me what that might mean if it were allowed at Every GT?
Okay, just so I understand: so you're basically saying that it's okay that Necrons are usually at the top tables in all these events and in 3 cases winning these events...but if an army with FW in events does the same thing...yet not winning a single 1st place spot is somehow worse for the game...or not balanced for the game? How many more big level GTs are there in 2013? And as a measuring stick...when does the GT season actually reset and start over? All these things are necessary to build any sort of relevant data? So Nova to Nova is a full GT season in most people's eyes? If that is true, how many more events do we have left in the calendar year? So if Necrons have 3 1st place wins already and however many top 5 finishes? How many more will there need to be before the conversation about Necrons being uber happens in comparison to what FW brings?
My point was I disagree with the assumption that top players would all choose Different books, that assumes that no 2 would like the same things. IS it not fair to say that 62.5% of players in the top 8 of said event "liked" different things. Furthermore, it is possible to play multiple lists out of several books, or with allies that a person could "like". Back in 5th in my local meta there was a high density of DE players because several players "liked" the army. Assuming that there would be anything close to 16 different armies in the top 8 is silly. IT assumes everyone takes allies, different ally combinations. I run CSM + Daemons, someone else runs Pure Daemons, some other guy runs Daemons + CSM, 3 different builds, but there is no variety because we happened to like the same thing?
I said pretty close to perfect variety. And for those top players, I do believe there would be more of a spread than we're seeing if the armies were all equally good.
I don't think it's fair to say 62% liked different things. 62% of the winners at Killadelphia built their armies around nercons and Tau, tied for if not the two strongest books. If you can show me that 62% of the player base "likes" necrons and tau the most without their ability to win games factored in, then I'll pipe down. But in my experience, and I think in everyone else's too, people pick their favorite army that can win or just the army most likely to win. If every book had the same chance of winning there would be a roughly equal amount of Dark Eldar, Sisters, and Black Templars players as Necrons, Tau, and Chaos at large events.
FYI - NOVA to NOVA is only a "full season" for 6th ed b/c 6th Ed released right before NOVA (a couple other events had it happen first, but NOVA is the highest profile of them I guess?) [this comment to Karuthors asking about NOVA to NOVA being "one" season]
And, Karuthors, at least from my P.O.V. I'll once again state that top tables have NOTHING TO DO with it. Good players, the SAME good players typically, do well at every event, and have for years at this point, using all sorts of different codices, not just crons or the "newest cheese," as seen as recently as this past weekend with a usual suspect doing very well with 'nilla 'rines. Per Hulksmash and others, they're going to keep right on "kicking people in the jimmies" no matter what armies are good or bad or what units are legal or not. I, at least, as a TO, don't care about them (and I'm also one of them).
The concern I, as a TO, hear a LOT (I'm talking on the order of dozens upon dozens of objections when we brought it up in the primer, with almost no support for) of middle-ground, casual, hobbyist-first players who tend to be concerned by and worried about the overpowering nature of some FW units, and their ability to prepare for / expect them, within ALL the brackets and records ranges of a tournament setting. These are guys who get great paint scores, wind up firmly in the 4-4 type record range, and come back year after year no matter what for the fun and socializing and everything else ... and ... wait for it ... don't want or are not comfortable with FW.
Enigwolf said it best - there's a gradual increase to be used, if events - especially very large ones - want to maintain a steady growth of their attendee base and not shellshock people out of the scene just b/c a few loud mouths on the internet said FW was fine and "everybody" wants it. This is the same reason events are not outright OUTLAWING FW at their various tournaments (ref: my own again) ... because the small # of loudmouths on the internet who say it's terrible and should never be used are just as much a part of a tiny tiny minority as the ones screaming it needs to be wholesale allowed at every event without restrictions immediately.
ArtfcllyFlvrd wrote: If you can show me that 62% of the player base "likes" necrons and tau the most without their ability to win games factored in, then I'll pipe down.
And of course you can't show this. Before the new codex gave them a significant boost in power the Tau were a tiny minority army (and one that wasn't very good at winning tournaments). If they're popular now it's entirely because they're better at winning.
My point was I disagree with the assumption that top players would all choose Different books, that assumes that no 2 would like the same things. IS it not fair to say that 62.5% of players in the top 8 of said event "liked" different things. Furthermore, it is possible to play multiple lists out of several books, or with allies that a person could "like". Back in 5th in my local meta there was a high density of DE players because several players "liked" the army. Assuming that there would be anything close to 16 different armies in the top 8 is silly. IT assumes everyone takes allies, different ally combinations. I run CSM + Daemons, someone else runs Pure Daemons, some other guy runs Daemons + CSM, 3 different builds, but there is no variety because we happened to like the same thing?
I said pretty close to perfect variety. And for those top players, I do believe there would be more of a spread than we're seeing if the armies were all equally good.
I don't think it's fair to say 62% liked different things. 62% of the winners at Killadelphia built their armies around nercons and Tau, tied for if not the two strongest books. If you can show me that 62% of the player base "likes" necrons and tau the most without their ability to win games factored in, then I'll pipe down. But in my experience, and I think in everyone else's too, people pick their favorite army that can win or just the army most likely to win. If every book had the same chance of winning there would be a roughly equal amount of Dark Eldar, Sisters, and Black Templars players as Necrons, Tau, and Chaos at large events.
There were still 5 different Primary armies (SM, Eldar, Tau, Crons, Daemons) 62.5%, And I would say that that is a decent percent of difference among 8 people. Now if the Tournament as a whole has like 60% of one army, then I'd feel differently.
MVBrandt wrote: The concern I, as a TO, hear a LOT (I'm talking on the order of dozens upon dozens of objections when we brought it up in the primer, with almost no support for) of middle-ground, casual, hobbyist-first players who tend to be concerned by and worried about the overpowering nature of some FW units, and their ability to prepare for / expect them, within ALL the brackets and records ranges of a tournament setting.
Are these same people also complaining about overpowered (at least to a "middle-ground" player) codex lists like Necron flyerspam and objecting to the lack of comp scoring to fix the "problem"? Or are their complaints entirely focused on FW? And, more importantly, do these people actually understand the units in question or are they just parroting the complaints they've heard elsewhere about "overpowered FW units"? Because if they know the rules well enough to make an informed objection then I can't see how they could be simultaneously complaining about how hard it is to prepare for and expect them.
I also am not saying that every army is exactly the same level of balance, but I don't think that is what people are arguing, simply that there are a lot of armies that can compete.
Tau I always saw as fairly popular but a difficult army to play with. I knew a lot of players that started with Tau and Dropped it because it was hard, they are happy not that they can use it.
But yes surprise people take armies to tournaments that they think can win...
Something I am missing? I'm sure there are GTs I don't have here, and sure Necrons have all made it to top tables at some of these events, but they are hardly dominating the GT scene. Now this does not mean FWIG will be any better so Far it has 1 GT win in what 3 Events where it was allowed, with fewer people running the list, 2 in 4 if you include the Team tournament. So that is slightly better than the Cron Winning Percentage, and when you include how few people currently play said list compared to Cron air, you tell me what that might mean if it were allowed at Every GT?
Okay, just so I understand: so you're basically saying that it's okay that Necrons are usually at the top tables in all these events and in 3 cases winning these events...but if an army with FW in events does the same thing...yet not winning a single 1st place spot is somehow worse for the game...or not balanced for the game? How many more big level GTs are there in 2013? And as a measuring stick...when does the GT season actually reset and start over? All these things are necessary to build any sort of relevant data? So Nova to Nova is a full GT season in most people's eyes? If that is true, how many more events do we have left in the calendar year? So if Necrons have 3 1st place wins already and however many top 5 finishes? How many more will there need to be before the conversation about Necrons being uber happens in comparison to what FW brings?
Just FYIIG has been resposible for at least as many GT wins as Crons
Battle For Salvation,
NOVA Broadside Bash (with FW)
And now Tau has 2 GT wins in 2 Months (Alamo and Killadelphia.)
Breng77 wrote: There were still 5 different Primary armies (SM, Eldar, Tau, Crons, Daemons) 62.5%, And I would say that that is a decent percent of difference among 8 people. Now if the Tournament as a whole has like 60% of one army, then I'd feel differently.
Maybe it is. But I could have given you any major GT from a year - year and half ago and probably found GKs, IG, SW, Necrons, and even just one more odd ball codex in the top 8. So why do people think that the game is more balanced now than it was in 5th? You have one or two clearly dominate books, 4-5 that are capable of competing with those and half of the GW published material left in the doldrums.
MVBrandt wrote: The concern I, as a TO, hear a LOT (I'm talking on the order of dozens upon dozens of objections when we brought it up in the primer, with almost no support for) of middle-ground, casual, hobbyist-first players who tend to be concerned by and worried about the overpowering nature of some FW units, and their ability to prepare for / expect them, within ALL the brackets and records ranges of a tournament setting.
Are these same people also complaining about overpowered (at least to a "middle-ground" player) codex lists like Necron flyerspam and objecting to the lack of comp scoring to fix the "problem"? Or are their complaints entirely focused on FW? And, more importantly, do these people actually understand the units in question or are they just parroting the complaints they've heard elsewhere about "overpowered FW units"? Because if they know the rules well enough to make an informed objection then I can't see how they could be simultaneously complaining about how hard it is to prepare for and expect them.
They are not - we brought this up in e-mail exchanges.
One of the things the NOVA does is create brackets of 16 players based upon record and win-path after Round 4. Because of this, players who enjoy tactical, strategic games but willfully or unknowingly bring a less powerful list find themselves locked in amongst peers with records reset, competing against those peers for genuine generalship awards for each bracket. The 4-0's can't lose down and fight back up against 2-2's ... they're stuck with the big boys from 5-8. Same is true for the 2-2's, 0-4',s etc. These players generally know what they are walking into - they know cron air exists, they know trips heldrakes exist, etc. etc. That said, they both do not expect to face these in the later rounds, and know if they want to deal with facing them, they'll do fine. These very same players are generally more CASUAL ... they don't obsess over the game like some of the top tier players or armchair non-attending generals do. They bring a solid enough list that does alright against the common local things from cron air down to pyrovores, and they show up expecting those same things and hoping to do alright, find their way to their peer group, and have a grand time competing against those peers.
These are the things these players have told us in years past and present, and the very same player group that objected most numerously to unhindered allowance of FW in all events this year (we enabled it fuly in the narrative, and followed AdeptiTeam's lead for the Team event, while the Team ALSO is now allowing FW army lists to "break" the unique restriction). The most common concern was that a few overpowered FW units might harm variety in the middle of the pack by adding more and more IG, and/or that they'd end up facing a bunch of FW units they'd never heard of before, and would not enjoy games spent slowly and ploddingly trying to figure out what the heck each model was, what it did, etc.
So, as per the norm, we took the middle ground to FW inclusion that we did, and we'll keep evaluating it and opening it as able in the years to come. *shrug* ... it's, again, not about the loudmouths (of which I obviously am one), and it's not about the hardcore GT winners (of which I am one), because none of them really represent a majority that - while it often doesn't care THAT much - does have an opinion, and doesn't even know forums like Dakka are the place to share it. These are the same people who at most of their LGS have never even seen FW rules or spent the time to google them, and can stand to wind up VERY surprised at what they do; we even had someone in the Narrative last year get fussy/upset b/c a FW unit they'd never seen before beat up a bunch of their stuff. It's a legit concern, expressed by and/or felt by a lot of people who are pretty run of the mill casual gamers, and whose opinion often gets loudly trampled on by more passionate hobbyists and competitors. We're just trying to find a good middle ground for everyone ... NOT dominate the meta, prevent people like you Peregrine from being able to play your radical FW models, and not trying to make sweeping black and white decisions that alienate regular attendees wholesale. *shrug* ... I think that's all ANY TO and his/her crew does.
PS - Another note is that most empathetic people, and certainly us TO's, are not in the business of telling a concerned, repeat attendee and cool person they simply have no value in sharing, b/c they aren't "informed." That's exactly the kind of black and white, kinda rude shut-down that we can't really afford to make. It's like a few pages ago when someone called people who thought 40k was balanced delusional. "Anyone who objects to FW use is not qualified to make an informed decision anyway" - you, in the way it read to me. Kinda off-putting, no? The people who don't spend hours studying every dex and IA unit are the very people who present the vast majority of a GT's population. They're the ones we try to watch out for, and care about the most. Some passionate army-list-obsessed top flight competitor is not going to really struggle one way or another, and thus aren't a major concern.
Just FYIIG has been resposible for at least as many GT wins as Crons
Battle For Salvation,
NOVA Broadside Bash (with FW)
And now Tau has 2 GT wins in 2 Months (Alamo and Killadelphia.)
So not exactly Necron Dominance
Right, but how many events are left to sort out the data that's required? Necrons can still win the majority of GTs this year. Secondly, IG have great flyers (among other great things in their list) and of course can easily snag a 1st place finish. So having them already place without FW is no surprise. But my point is not a single offensive FW army has a 1st place finish. Yet the butthurt about FW in top tournaments continues. The only real way of knowing for sure is to have an entire season with it in every GT 1on1 event and then see if it is truly a problem. As it currently stands, nobody can logically argue that it is a problem...just as much as one can logically argue that it isn't a problem. Currently the sample size for FW in events is too small.
Enigwolf wrote: I have a question for all those asking for a 0-1 FW choice. Are you open to complete FW Army Lists, e.g. Krieg Armored Battle Group, Space Marine Siege Force, Elysian Drop Troops, etc. For the record, these are the lists that typically cannot take your "OP" units like Artillery and Sabres.
Personally, quite open. I think there's a vast majority that would not mind FW legality aside from the couple of taboo units. I think that's a BETTER solution than 0-1, though I think 0-1 is just fine as well. Yada yada. Personal level of course; if only I could make every TO decision on a personal level :p
Enigwolf wrote: I have a question for all those asking for a 0-1 FW choice. Are you open to complete FW Army Lists, e.g. Krieg Armored Battle Group, Space Marine Siege Force, Elysian Drop Troops, etc. For the record, these are the lists that typically cannot take your "OP" units like Artillery and Sabres.
My only issue with it is that it allows some armies to essentially ally with themselves. DKOK with IG. I think were I to include those army lists I would state that they replace the "core" army in the standard Allies Matrix
I agree with both of the above. I am extremely open to complete FW Army Lists... even moreso than I am to random FW added to codex armies. For the latter, I think FW needs to be limited, for the former... I really have no idea, but I'd love to see complete FW army lists allowed at more events. I think they may be needed to be treated like Tyranids, and have no allies... but I'd love to see them gain wider adoption.
To me, it's not nearly the same as every army being able to add in IG artillery as an ally, to have a complete FW army list. So, I'm very open to it, and open to it not being limited... whereas with FW added to other armies, I think limits are pretty important.
CaptKaruthors, you argument has nimbly shifted from "If Necrons win the next major GT...!" to "If Necrons continue to do well...!". The point doesn't seem nearly so relevant now... necrons are good, like many codexes before them were kings for a time, but they're not dominating. The question about whether FW artillery would be good for the game is a different one, and one we don't have nearly the same amount of data for. You're trying hard to equate the two, but the fact is most events on this list don't allow FW, so we have to use theory.
As a casual player, I would like some limits on FW and have seen no good argument why either banning or limiting thudd guns, etc would bother folks who want to run full FW army lists, or bring FW for variety and fun. As for whether or not it's just brokenly powerful... lots of smarter folks than I am seem to think FW artillery is. Regardless, your argument that Necrons are so broken that adding FW doesn't matter is, I think, pretty well addressed by folks above.
Breng77 wrote: So Necrons winning 3 GTs is far too much? Far to OP?
Necrons Did not win
NOVA BAO Broadside Bash
Killadelphia
Battle For Salvation
Bug Eater GT Temple Con
Did win
Adepticon
Wargames Con
Indy Open
Something I am missing? I'm sure there are GTs I don't have here, and sure Necrons have all made it to top tables at some of these events, but they are hardly dominating the GT scene. Now this does not mean FWIG will be any better so Far it has 1 GT win in what 3 Events where it was allowed, with fewer people running the list, 2 in 4 if you include the Team tournament. So that is slightly better than the Cron Winning Percentage, and when you include how few people currently play said list compared to Cron air, you tell me what that might mean if it were allowed at Every GT?
The whole "x book is overpowered" is silly (this isn't in disagreement with the above, just as an expansion), the GT's are over and over won by the same familiar faces more often than not. I'll echo Hulksmash in saying that the game is more balanced now than ever, here's a list of 6th edition GT's I can think of (mostly pirated from the above, couple additions) with player names and army types:
NOVA40k Singles GT - Kopach, SW/IG Bay Area Open - Foster, Daemons (old book)
Adepticon 40k Singles GT - Nanavati, Necron/GK Wargames Con - Mohlie, Necrons/Orks
Broadside Bash - Johnson, IG Killadelphia - Gonyo, Tau
Da Boyz GT - Overall/Undefeated - Gonyo, GK/IG, Also Undefeated and Best General - Mohlie, Necrons
Saint Valentines Day Massacre - DeFranza, Eldar/IG The Colonial GT - Nichols, Grey Knights
Battle For Salvation - Gonyo, GK/IG Bug Eater GT - Root, Tyranids
Temple Con - Nayden, Dark Eldar/Eldar
Indy Open - Perkins, Necrons
Dark Star GT - Townsend, DA/IG 11th Company - Watkins, Orks
I'm sure I'm missing some, but that's a fairly good spread of armies, and what pops out at me most is that it's the usual suspects - not only are there repeats within just the 6th edition GT's, most of those guys have won others (some several) in the last year or two.
An interesting compromise might be to allow all FW, and make all IGFW options 0-1. This minimizes the problem with giving IG too many top units, while allowing people to use their non-IG units.
This compromise is based on the premise that the main issue with FW is that IG becomes too strong.
MVBrandt wrote: They bring a solid enough list that does alright against the common local things from cron air down to pyrovores, and they show up expecting those same things and hoping to do alright, find their way to their peer group, and have a grand time competing against those peers.
So how is unrestricted FW a problem then? If FW lists dominate as much as you think they will then those lists will quickly end up in the top brackets where the 2-2 "fun" player will never have to face them. The middle/low brackets will only have those lists if they aren't overpowered.
The most common concern was that a few overpowered FW units might harm variety in the middle of the pack by adding more and more IG, and/or that they'd end up facing a bunch of FW units they'd never heard of before, and would not enjoy games spent slowly and ploddingly trying to figure out what the heck each model was, what it did, etc.
And this is the point of the post you quoted: how can people simultaneously complain about overpowered FWIG units and not being familiar with the FW units they'll encounter? If they're informed enough to have a valid opinion about the balance of FW units then they know the rules and won't have any problems with understanding what's going on. And if they are going to struggle with units they've never even heard of before I don't see why their complaints deserve any more attention than someone parroting the internet "wisdom" that GK are overpowered and need to be banned.
These are the same people who at most of their LGS have never even seen FW rules or spent the time to google them, and can stand to wind up VERY surprised at what they do; we even had someone in the Narrative last year get fussy/upset b/c a FW unit they'd never seen before beat up a bunch of their stuff. It's a legit concern, expressed by and/or felt by a lot of people who are pretty run of the mill casual gamers, and whose opinion often gets loudly trampled on by more passionate hobbyists and competitors.
But how is that any different than codex units doing the exact same thing? These "casual" players are going to have the same familiarity problems with a codex their local group doesn't use, or armies like Helldrake spam that can crush a less competitive army. So why not include comp rules to ban things like that?
"Anyone who objects to FW use is not qualified to make an informed decision anyway" - you, in the way it read to me.
That's not at all what I said. I said that anyone who isn't familiar with FW rules isn't qualified to make an informed decision. You can't simultaneously complain about being surprised by FW units you've never heard of and having to play against overpowered IG stuff. If you aren't familiar enough with the rules that the "unknown unit" factor doesn't exist then you're just parroting someone else's complaints about what is "overpowered" without understanding anything.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Dracos wrote: An interesting compromise might be to allow all FW, and make all IGFW options 0-1. This minimizes the problem with giving IG too many top units, while allowing people to use their non-IG units.
And it completely ignores the actual balance issue in favor of a "simple" solution. Why should drop Sentinels be 0-1 just because Sabre guns are too powerful? If you want to include house rules to deal with the IG "problem" (if you believe that one exists) the correct answer is to do two things:
1) Make all artillery, FW and codex, use the 5th edition rules. These units were all fine before the sheer idiocy of giving the meatshield crew T7 in 6th, if you go back to the old rules for artillery there's nothing left to complain about.
2) Change all FW units with interceptor to have "when this unit shoots it may choose to gain skyfire for the turn" like the Tau units have. Again this is not really a FW problem, it's caused by the idiocy of 6th edition making it so that the only way to fire at both air and ground targets at full BS (like these units used to be able to do in 5th) is to also gain the ability to take shots at arriving reserves before they can act. Remove that and make them generic AA guns and you deal with the biggest complaint.
It's like a few pages ago when someone called people who thought 40k was balanced delusional.
I made that statement and I'm man enough to stand by it. Nobody can put forth a logical argument that the game is in fact balanced. Competitive or not. However, there is plenty of empirical data to say that the game is not balanced especially for "competitive" play...as demonstrated by the statements of the designers of the games themselves. So yes, anyone that fails to see that is delusional.
Dictionary definition of Delusional: an idiosyncratic belief or impression that is firmly maintained despite being contradicted by what is generally accepted as reality or rational argument.
Does that make anyone a bad person? No. There are many delusional people out there..like Doug Melvin for instance thinking the Brewers didn't need a permanent 1st baseman this year...LOL.
So how is unrestricted FW a problem then? If FW lists dominate as much as you think they will then those lists will quickly end up in the top brackets where the 2-2 "fun" player will never have to face them. The middle/low brackets will only have those lists if they aren't overpowered.
Agreed. Not only that...but not a single FW army has yet to win 1st in any event where it's allowed. The only way to know for sure is play a GT season with the FW allowed and go from there. Anything else is speculation.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
I don't know what more you want if you don't think the game is pretty well balanced at this point.
Most of these armies have also won with allies. If the game were truly balanced, then those armies should have an equal chance to win without allies. For balance to exist, every codex should be able to stand on it's own. Would some of these placings even exist without their ally compadres giving them a shot in the arm? The answer so far in 6th is no. Also where are the BT armies, etc.? If the game had balance you'd see at least see some represented...and furthermore you'd see at least one of those armies in the top 5 from time to time. You aren't even seeing that in the standings. Look, for a game that has books from previous editions still in the mix...no the game isn't balanced.
Peregrine, part of the problem here is that you are not being pragmatic enough.
Certainly, I think the floodgates should be opened and then, if needed, plug in holes where they appear. That is my preferred solution.
Pragmatically, its a hard sell to an Organizer of an event. There is too much negative stigma out there right now about FW in many areas. My local scene has been using FW for a long time, and its no more a problem than codex creep IMHO.
An Organizer, looking at the perception his players have of FW, has to avoid introducing an element they dislike. As such, a system of limited FW is much easier to sell to such a player-base.
Optimally, I don't want any restrictions on FW. Practically, many Organizers will better be able to sell FW to their player base by introducing it slowly. Better slowly than not at all imo.
So how is unrestricted FW a problem then? If FW lists dominate as much as you think they will then those lists will quickly end up in the top brackets where the 2-2 "fun" player will never have to face them. The middle/low brackets will only have those lists if they aren't overpowered.
And this is the point of the post you quoted: how can people simultaneously complain about overpowered FWIG units and not being familiar with the FW units they'll encounter? If they're informed enough to have a valid opinion about the balance of FW units then they know the rules and won't have any problems with understanding what's going on. And if they are going to struggle with units they've never even heard of before I don't see why their complaints deserve any more attention than someone parroting the internet "wisdom" that GK are overpowered and need to be banned.
But how is that any different than codex units doing the exact same thing? These "casual" players are going to have the same familiarity problems with a codex their local group doesn't use, or armies like Helldrake spam that can crush a less competitive army. So why not include comp rules to ban things like that?
That's not at all what I said. I said that anyone who isn't familiar with FW rules isn't qualified to make an informed decision. You can't simultaneously complain about being surprised by FW units you've never heard of and having to play against overpowered IG stuff. If you aren't familiar enough with the rules that the "unknown unit" factor doesn't exist then you're just parroting someone else's complaints about what is "overpowered" without understanding anything.
The difference in availability between Codices and FW has been long explained. You cannot compare niche books that are sent from England, and commonly out of stock, updated slowly, and have units spread across 13 books to an All In One book, available just down the street and currently in stock. The ignorance of FW is created by Forge World and GW. This exacerbates the problem people have when they run into the most powerful and strange FW units. They feel like they have been had.
And it completely ignores the actual balance issue in favor of a "simple" solution. Why should drop Sentinels be 0-1 just because Sabre guns are too powerful? If you want to include house rules to deal with the IG "problem" (if you believe that one exists) the correct answer is to do two things:
1) Make all artillery, FW and codex, use the 5th edition rules. These units were all fine before the sheer idiocy of giving the meatshield crew T7 in 6th, if you go back to the old rules for artillery there's nothing left to complain about.
2) Change all FW units with interceptor to have "when this unit shoots it may choose to gain skyfire for the turn" like the Tau units have. Again this is not really a FW problem, it's caused by the idiocy of 6th edition making it so that the only way to fire at both air and ground targets at full BS (like these units used to be able to do in 5th) is to also gain the ability to take shots at arriving reserves before they can act. Remove that and make them generic AA guns and you deal with the biggest complaint.
I'm actually in agreement here. Only problem is that in the case of Interceptor it has been used for a year now and the army that now gets it will likely feel cheated by the change.
Every FW heavy IG army has made top 5 at all FW allowed events. There has not been a FW heavy IG that has placed poorly, or one even in the middle of the field. Considering that these events are very large, and has good competition is even more telling.
So what? That's also mainly coming from one player. Did it place 1st in any? If not, then who cares if it's in the top 5 or even top 10? Why is having a FW army anywhere in the top 10% a bad thing? Isn't that creating parity where none may have existed before? If I placed in the top 10 with a FW Wraithseer or Hornets in my army...is the effect just as bad? Would you even care?
Necrons Did not win
NOVA BAO Broadside Bash
Killadelphia
Battle For Salvation
Bug Eater GT Temple Con
Did win
Adepticon
Wargames Con
Indy Open
Necrons won 30% of the major GTs this year.
Now let's look at the tournaments that allowed FW:
Forge World Did not win:
BAO Wargames Con
Forge World Did win:
Broadside Bash
For a 33% win rate.
Now look at these factors:
#1. FW was a tiny % of the field unlike necrons. I would also bet that necrons were scattered all over the results finishing both high and low.
#2. The BAO should have been won by a FW army but for insane dice rolls.
So how is unrestricted FW a problem then? If FW lists dominate as much as you think they will then those lists will quickly end up in the top brackets where the 2-2 "fun" player will never have to face them. The middle/low brackets will only have those lists if they aren't overpowered.
Agreed. Not only that...but not a single FW army has yet to win 1st in any event where it's allowed. The only way to know for sure is play a GT season with the FW allowed and go from there. Anything else is speculation.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
I don't know what more you want if you don't think the game is pretty well balanced at this point.
Most of these armies have also won with allies. If the game were truly balanced, then those armies should have an equal chance to win without allies. For balance to exist, every codex should be able to stand on it's own. Would some of these placings even exist without their ally compadres giving them a shot in the arm? The answer so far in 6th is no. Also where are the BT armies, etc.? If the game had balance you'd see at least see some represented...and furthermore you'd see at least one of those armies in the top 5 from time to time. You aren't even seeing that in the standings. Look, for a game that has books from previous editions still in the mix...no the game isn't balanced.
You are ignoring facts and putting unreasonable restrictions on balance.
1.) broadside bash allowed FW, FWig won...so there goes your statement that it has not happened. Same is true for the adepticon team tourney whether you want to count it or not.
2.). Asking for every book to be equally tepresented asks for it to be equally played, this simply does not happen, would not happen if all books were equal. Furthermore there is no rule that states if balance exists ever army list must be equal, which is what you are asking when you say no allies. If a list is enhanced by allies it will get taken, saying that in a wold of allies lists without them all should be able to win, and must have done so is an impossible measure.
Lastly I agree with Franco's as an organizer with money on the line for an event, it is much easier to opt for a sow breaking than open the floodgates and risk my attendance numbers.
Dracos wrote: Peregrine, part of the problem here is that you are not being pragmatic enough.
Certainly, I think the floodgates should be opened and then, if needed, plug in holes where they appear. That is my preferred solution.
Pragmatically, its a hard sell to an Organizer of an event. There is too much negative stigma out there right now about FW in many areas. My local scene has been using FW for a long time, and its no more a problem than codex creep IMHO.
An Organizer, looking at the perception his players have of FW, has to avoid introducing an element they dislike. As such, a system of limited FW is much easier to sell to such a player-base.
Optimally, I don't want any restrictions on FW. Practically, many Organizers will better be able to sell FW to their player base by introducing it slowly. Better slowly than not at all imo.
I tend to agree. And we are mostly already at the point where SOMEONE is going to hammer us with unrealistic expectations, or insults, no matter what we do.
Peregrine, to your initial quoted point and in general - the point is, the midfield already has a chance to have average players rolling powerful units, but these guys know to expect them. They don't seem to want to face UNEXPECTED units in the midfield rolled by average players and just as powerful or more powerful. And again, it's about player perception and desire, not qualified experts debating the merits of FW power on an e-forum that most tourney attendees never even visit.
In regard to commonality, I think you're wrong about the LGS experience; MOST players - even the very casual - are broadly aware of the majority of extant codices, b/c they see them at their LGS on a regular basis, see the codices themselves, etc. It's the FW stuff they don't even know to be aware of. And it's not that they KNOW what is OP and not from FW; it's that there ARE some v ery OPFW units they're likely to see. It'd be as if someone dropped Night Scythes for just one GT, and 100 people in the midfields got crunked by them all weekend long going "what the heck, these are legal??? I've never even seen these before!"
Regardless of your own strong opinions on FW, this is precisely what concerns a large # of casual, average players ... they openly shared these things with us when we asked for feedback on our initial primer re: allowing FW openly in all events. And that's why we're introducing it more slowly, with a calmer pace, while still doing our best to satisfy the majority of FW-eager gamers with both our modeling policies, and the inclusion of broad FW legality in two of our four 40k events for 2013.
CaptKaruthors wrote: Most of these armies have also won with allies. If the game were truly balanced, then those armies should have an equal chance to win without allies. Every codex should be able to stand on it's own. Would some of these placings even exist without their ally compadres giving them a shot in the arm? The answer so far in 6th is no. Also where are the BT armies, etc.? If the game had balance you'd see at least see some represented...and furthermore you'd see at least one of those armies in the top 5 from time to time. You aren't even seeing that in the standings. Look, for a game that has books from previous editions still in the mix...no the game isn't balanced.
So I actually miscounted, there was 11 books (I missed DA in my list of 10). Out of those 11, the only ones who didn't win alone were Eldar, DE, and DA. So you have 8 books who have won solely by themselves (and one of the combo winners was DE/Eldar so it's not like that book was using one of the other sole winners), and that is before Eldar got their shiny new book. I don't think there was a year in 5th (or possibly ever in 40k) where 8 different books won a major GT.
As for the statement 'any book should be able to win on it's own', the fact people take allies does not necessitate that either of the two components cannot win on their own. Some people may simply enjoy being to use two of their armies simultaneously or find that while both can win, they enjoy the synergy of the two together.
The reason BT etc aren't popping up has been mentioned by MVBrandt and Breng77 already, top players are going to always take the books they think give them the best chance to win while also jiving with their own play style and aesthetic preferences.
CaptKaruthors wrote: Most of these armies have also won with allies. If the game were truly balanced, then those armies should have an equal chance to win without allies. Every codex should be able to stand on it's own. Would some of these placings even exist without their ally compadres giving them a shot in the arm? The answer so far in 6th is no. Also where are the BT armies, etc.? If the game had balance you'd see at least see some represented...and furthermore you'd see at least one of those armies in the top 5 from time to time. You aren't even seeing that in the standings. Look, for a game that has books from previous editions still in the mix...no the game isn't balanced.
So I actually miscounted, there was 11 books (I missed DA in my list of 10). Out of those 11, the only ones who didn't win alone were Eldar, DE, and DA. So you have 8 books who have won solely by themselves (and one of the combo winners was DE/Eldar so it's not like that book was using one of the other sole winners), and that is before Eldar got their shiny new book. I don't think there was a year in 5th (or possibly ever in 40k) where 8 different books won a major GT.
As for the statement 'any book should be able to win on it's own', the fact people take allies does not necessitate that either of the two components cannot win on their own. Some people may simply enjoy being to use two of their armies simultaneously or find that while both can win, they enjoy the synergy of the two together.
The reason BT etc aren't popping up has been mentioned by MVBrandt and Breng77 already, top players are going to always take the books they think give them the best chance to win while also jiving with their own play style and aesthetic preferences.
I think it's a losing battle here. CRONS ARE DOMINATING. Oh, wait, statistics say they actually aren't really. WELL NOBODY CAN DO IT WITHOUT ALLIES. Even if you somehow provide that, most of the people in this thread (present company probably included at the moment) are pretty fixed in their outlook about whether the game is "balanced" or not and in what ways. Every codex as a primary CAN compete, though many units within each codex are pretty bad, in my opinion. So, intra-dex balance (whether intended or not), inter-dex imbalance? Am I using that right? I always screw up the intras and inters. :p
The difference in availability between Codices and FW has been long explained. You cannot compare niche books that are sent from England, and commonly out of stock, updated slowly, and have units spread across 13 books to an All In One book, available just down the street and currently in stock. The ignorance of FW is created by Forge World and GW. This exacerbates the problem people have when they run into the most powerful and strange FW units. They feel like they have been had.
While I agree with the latter part of the statement that ignorance of FW stuff is self-created by their business decisions, not every army is available at a store, not all stores routinely have books available to peruse, and not everyone lives in close proximity to a game store (in San Diego we only really had one real store for years and years in the entire metro area)
1) Make all artillery, FW and codex, use the 5th edition rules. These units were all fine before the sheer idiocy of giving the meatshield crew T7 in 6th, if you go back to the old rules for artillery there's nothing left to complain about.
One will notice they were very rarely taken in previous editions due to their fragility, even the thunderfire was a relative rarity. Perhaps it has swung too far in the opposite direction (basically copy-pasting the Fantasy rule), but using a previous editions rules isn't a good answer, as not everyone may have them (the edition has been out long enough that there are a substantial number of new players) or want to remember them, and this affects Codex units as well like Grot guns and Thunderfire Cannons.
Also I'd be 200% ok with ditching Interceptor for just a "choose each turn if using Skyfire" thing.
Vaktathi wrote: One will notice they were very rarely taken in previous editions due to their fragility, even the thunderfire was a relative rarity. Perhaps it has swung too far in the opposite direction (basically copy-pasting the Fantasy rule), but using a previous editions rules isn't a good answer, as not everyone may have them (the edition has been out long enough that there are a substantial number of new players) or want to remember them, and this affects Codex units as well like Grot guns and Thunderfire Cannons.
The problem is that any other solution is going to be even more complicated. Not only will people have to be familiar with it, but you'll have an endless debate over the exact details of how the house rule will work. It might not be a perfect solution, but at least it's a simple one. And it's far better than a blanket ban on FW units if you feel the need to have a house rule to fix the IG "problem".
CaptKaruthors wrote: Most of these armies have also won with allies. If the game were truly balanced, then those armies should have an equal chance to win without allies. Every codex should be able to stand on it's own. Would some of these placings even exist without their ally compadres giving them a shot in the arm? The answer so far in 6th is no. Also where are the BT armies, etc.? If the game had balance you'd see at least see some represented...and furthermore you'd see at least one of those armies in the top 5 from time to time. You aren't even seeing that in the standings. Look, for a game that has books from previous editions still in the mix...no the game isn't balanced.
So I actually miscounted, there was 11 books (I missed DA in my list of 10). Out of those 11, the only ones who didn't win alone were Eldar, DE, and DA. So you have 8 books who have won solely by themselves (and one of the combo winners was DE/Eldar so it's not like that book was using one of the other sole winners), and that is before Eldar got their shiny new book. I don't think there was a year in 5th (or possibly ever in 40k) where 8 different books won a major GT.
As for the statement 'any book should be able to win on it's own', the fact people take allies does not necessitate that either of the two components cannot win on their own. Some people may simply enjoy being to use two of their armies simultaneously or find that while both can win, they enjoy the synergy of the two together.
The reason BT etc aren't popping up has been mentioned by MVBrandt and Breng77 already, top players are going to always take the books they think give them the best chance to win while also jiving with their own play style and aesthetic preferences.
I think it's a losing battle here. CRONS ARE DOMINATING. Oh, wait, statistics say they actually aren't really. WELL NOBODY CAN DO IT WITHOUT ALLIES. Even if you somehow provide that, most of the people in this thread (present company probably included at the moment) are pretty fixed in their outlook about whether the game is "balanced" or not and in what ways. Every codex as a primary CAN compete, though many units within each codex are pretty bad, in my opinion. So, intra-dex balance (whether intended or not), inter-dex imbalance? Am I using that right? I always screw up the intras and inters. :p
Pretty much, after Killadelphia we were having a chat about the how much internet 40k actually differs from actual 40k. This thread reminds me of that. While everyone is entitled to their own opinion and there is really no right and wrong choice here the GT results clearly speak for themselves. Good players will still win no matter the lists, or the army, especially in 6th ed. All allowing or disallowing fw will do is force the meta to change (for better or worse I do not know). Its the same as enforcing a comp system in 40k. The same players will fine a way to win.
That said I would prefer playing it as is IE no fw but I am not opposed to having some gts include them like wargames con.
CaptKaruthors wrote: How many more will there need to be before the conversation about Necrons being uber happens in comparison to what FW brings?
Well, there would need to be more than, you know, three events that include FW. Which is where we're at now (a full year into 6th edition). People aren't going to go out and buy $500 worth of FW units to play in one or two events per year. Until it becomes mainstream, comparing Necrons tournament performance to FW tournament performance doesn't even make sense.
(And is anyone even arguing that Necrons haven't performed extremely well in tournaments?)
(And is anyone even arguing that Necrons haven't performed extremely well in tournaments?)
No, but people are arguing that allowing FW makes IG 'the best'. To which, I have to ask, why shouldn't guard be the best? Why do Necrons, or Tau, or Helldrakes deserve that title? Some codex is going to be "the best", it might as well be IG.
(And is anyone even arguing that Necrons haven't performed extremely well in tournaments?)
No, but people are arguing that allowing FW makes IG 'the best'. To which, I have to ask, why shouldn't guard be the best? Why do Necrons, or Tau, or Helldrakes deserve that title? Some codex is going to be "the best", it might as well be IG.
The biggest problem I see with it is the ability to ally IG with so many codexes. I think you'd see Sabres + Thudds everywhere.
That being said, I'm on the fence on the issue. I do believe that GW's intent is to have FW be fully inclusive. Also, in my own experiences, the units aren't too much worse than codex units. My biggest issue with including FW is the disproportionate number of units certain armies receive vs. others. The codices generally have similar amounts of units, FW would upset that balance by giving IG a much larger pool of units to choose from.
I'm also not opposed to modifications of the game's core ruleset. I can understand the argument that if we are to limit FW we should limit other popularly conceived "broken units." However, I think the average player is more open to modifying the FW inclusion, rather than modifying what they can take from the codices.
...when does the GT season actually reset and start over?
AdeptiCon used to be the start of the former GW Tourney Circuit. To my knowledge there really is not a tourney circuit anymore. We go from event to event accepting whatever meta changes take place. Comparing one events result vs another is of dubious value really given the amount of change that is occuring with releases. My event season runs from AdeptiCon to AdeptiCon and I suspect for every other TO .. their event season runs from the end of their event to the start of the next.
(And is anyone even arguing that Necrons haven't performed extremely well in tournaments?)
No, but people are arguing that allowing FW makes IG 'the best'. To which, I have to ask, why shouldn't guard be the best? Why do Necrons, or Tau, or Helldrakes deserve that title? Some codex is going to be "the best", it might as well be IG.
If expectations are that introducing FW will create such an imbalance as to make one army "best," shouldn't that signal to you that it might not be a good idea? The fact that you're able to rattle off three different codices as being in contention for "best" without FW inclusion suggests that 40k isn't quite as unbalanced as many would suggest. The consensus from GT winners (in this thread and elsewhere) seems to be that introducing FW will dramatically unbalance things. As the people who arguably understand the mechanics of the game best, it would probably be wise to weigh their opinions a bit more than community rabble.
*sarcasm on*
Well I guess we should all give up. Only a dozen top players are winning “events.” The entirety of the 40k tournament environment just started 4 years ago.
Oh wait it did not and in my history of 18+ years of events there has been a huge variety of players that have done well throughout all editions of the game. Some of the best 40k gamers I have known … don’t even play 40k anymore. Many have come and gone. When was the last time Marc Parker won anything? Or Chris Hill? Anyone seen DashofPepper recently? Does anyone remember these guys?
So why it may be true at any given time you have a segment of the 40K community doing well, and maybe even having some sustained success. That fades over time, as life moves on and new players fill the space. No offense to Ben, Tony, Nick, Alan, or anyone else .. but they were not the first, there were a lot of quality guys that came well before and they certainly won’t be the last as there will always be new faces showing up. Fortunately, I have had the pleasure of knowing most of them.
What is my point? In this hobby it is generally a bad idea to base any sort of format on what is “good” or the “now”. Be that units, codexes or players. Things change and evolve. It is good to have an understanding of where we have been to know where we are going.
It is also why I do not get all worked up when unit X .. is really good, or a must have and all the top players are playing it. Because in time .. that changes. Given the rate of releases .. the time in the sun for anything won’t be long .
"The consensus from GT winners (in this thread and elsewhere) seems to be that introducing FW will dramatically unbalance things. As the people who arguably understand the mechanics of the game best, it would probably be wise to weigh their opinions a bit more than community rabble."
Care to provide some quotes to back this up? I'm all ears.
Dozer Blades wrote: "The consensus from GT winners (in this thread and elsewhere) seems to be that introducing FW will dramatically unbalance things. As the people who arguably understand the mechanics of the game best, it would probably be wise to weigh their opinions a bit more than community rabble."
Care to provide some quotes to back this up? I'm all ears.
Not speaking against anyone in particular or do I care to read 27 painful pages on a thread that is so young. I will say this. I know the rules for 40k pretty damn well. I know the rules for the vast amount of FW models very little. To encompass the amount of new stuff people could bring to the table would be a little mind numbing. Someone could totally cheat me through a whole game and I wouldn't think twice to question why his unit was so over-powered. Either way to my point. I have not attended a GT with FW models aloud and I dont plan to in the foreseeable future. Just doesn't seem fun to me. When it gets to that point it comes down to who can buy the biggest meanest toys and throw them out there. If every GT switched to FW being allowed I would probably adapt but it is possible I would just stop attending and switch back to fantasy. Just my two cents.
Dozer Blades wrote: "The consensus from GT winners (in this thread and elsewhere) seems to be that introducing FW will dramatically unbalance things. As the people who arguably understand the mechanics of the game best, it would probably be wise to weigh their opinions a bit more than community rabble."
Care to provide some quotes to back this up? I'm all ears.
Not speaking against anyone in particular or do I care to read 27 painful pages on a thread that is so young. I will say this. I know the rules for 40k pretty damn well. I know the rules for the vast amount of FW models very little. To encompass the amount of new stuff people could bring to the table would be a little mind numbing. Someone could totally cheat me through a whole game and I wouldn't think twice to question why his unit was so over-powered. Either way to my point. I have not attended a GT with FW models aloud and I dont plan to in the foreseeable future. Just doesn't seem fun to me. When it gets to that point it comes down to who can buy the biggest meanest toys and throw them out there. If every GT switched to FW being allowed I would probably adapt but it is possible I would just stop attending and switch back to fantasy. Just my two cents.
My two cent?
I'd love to have FW opened up everywhere... why? Because it's still 40k!
gak, I still need to ask a bunch of questions with the standard codexes that I don't see often.
*shrugs*
I like seeing new stuff across the table. The only thing that TO should mandate imo regarding FW models is for the players to have the FW rules handy... which, every Tourny that allows FW I've seen requires it.
I just don't buy into that OMG FW are ridiculously powerful.
Oh yeah forgeworld totally stomped butt in Texas!!!
Oh wait it didn't. You can't buy a forgeworld based army and get the instant win army. They just increase the choices. Do the no forgeworld people think you can buy a tourney victory if you have enough money? I am playing in a forgeworld allowed event this fall. Tell me what this broken combo of instant win is and I will go buy it. Sadly, for you, there isn't a combo so your arguments are invalid.
Imperial guard already has more choices then most armies before adding forge world but when was the last time you saw any of the different leman Russ tanks.
I am painting up my orky forge world for the tourney. I got 8 grot tanks, 1 mega grot tank, fighta bomma, megadred and a classic forge world battle wagon. Yep forgeworld is totally broken and i am going to win by spending the most money.
skkipper wrote: Oh yeah forgeworld totally stomped butt in Texas!!!
Oh wait it didn't. You can't buy a forgeworld based army and get the instant win army. They just increase the choices. Do the no forgeworld people think you can buy a tourney victory if you have enough money? I am playing in a forgeworld allowed event this fall. Tell me what this broken combo of instant win is and I will go buy it. Sadly, for you, there isn't a combo so your arguments are invalid.
Imperial guard already has more choices then most armies before adding forge world but when was the last time you saw any of the different leman Russ tanks.
I am painting up my orky forge world for the tourney. I got 8 grot tanks, 1 mega grot tank, fighta bomma, megadred and a classic forge world battle wagon. Yep forgeworld is totally broken and i am going to win by spending the most money.
You have done a fantastic job of refuting all the "Anti-FW" arguments. Well Done Sir!
Dozer Blades wrote: "The consensus from GT winners (in this thread and elsewhere) seems to be that introducing FW will dramatically unbalance things. As the people who arguably understand the mechanics of the game best, it would probably be wise to weigh their opinions a bit more than community rabble."
Care to provide some quotes to back this up? I'm all ears.
Not speaking against anyone in particular or do I care to read 27 painful pages on a thread that is so young. I will say this. I know the rules for 40k pretty damn well. I know the rules for the vast amount of FW models very little. To encompass the amount of new stuff people could bring to the table would be a little mind numbing. Someone could totally cheat me through a whole game and I wouldn't think twice to question why his unit was so over-powered.
This is why people need to bring their rules and opponents need to ask to read them however. Then this ceases to be an issue.
Either way to my point. I have not attended a GT with FW models aloud and I dont plan to in the foreseeable future. Just doesn't seem fun to me. When it gets to that point it comes down to who can buy the biggest meanest toys and throw them out there.
Danny Internets wrote:
If expectations are that introducing FW will create such an imbalance as to make one army "best," shouldn't that signal to you that it might not be a good idea?
No. First off, I don't believe that it would make Guard the best. I'm simply acknowledging that others have made the argument. So, while I don't believe that it would be the case, my other response is, "so what". There is always "a best", and so including Forgeworld doesn't actually change the lack of balance in 40k, it just changes what's good right now.
LValx wrote:
The biggest problem I see with it is the ability to ally IG with so many codexes. I think you'd see Sabres + Thudds everywhere.
On the other hand, that might be preferable. If the power units are easily included in any army, that's better for overall game balance than if the power units are found in less flexible selections.
Danny Internets wrote:
The fact that you're able to rattle off three different codices as being in contention for "best" without FW inclusion suggests that 40k isn't quite as unbalanced as many would suggest.
You're mistaking my enumerating three codexes for claiming they're all in contention for the title. And, as Muwhe pointed out, that's because the game is constantly shifting. At Adepticon, I don't think anyone would argue that Necrons weren't "The Best".
The consensus from GT winners (in this thread and elsewhere) seems to be that introducing FW will dramatically unbalance things. As the people who arguably understand the mechanics of the game best, it would probably be wise to weigh their opinions a bit more than community rabble.
Danny Internets wrote:
If expectations are that introducing FW will create such an imbalance as to make one army "best," shouldn't that signal to you that it might not be a good idea?
No. First off, I don't believe that it would make Guard the best. I'm simply acknowledging that others have made the argument. So, while I don't believe that it would be the case, my other response is, "so what". There is always "a best", and so including Forgeworld doesn't actually change the lack of balance in 40k, it just changes what's good right now.
LValx wrote:
The biggest problem I see with it is the ability to ally IG with so many codexes. I think you'd see Sabres + Thudds everywhere.
On the other hand, that might be preferable. If the power units are easily included in any army, that's better for overall game balance than if the power units are found in less flexible selections.
Danny Internets wrote:
The fact that you're able to rattle off three different codices as being in contention for "best" without FW inclusion suggests that 40k isn't quite as unbalanced as many would suggest.
You're mistaking my enumerating three codexes for claiming they're all in contention for the title. And, as Muwhe pointed out, that's because the game is constantly shifting. At Adepticon, I don't think anyone would argue that Necrons weren't "The Best".
The consensus from GT winners (in this thread and elsewhere) seems to be that introducing FW will dramatically unbalance things. As the people who arguably understand the mechanics of the game best, it would probably be wise to weigh their opinions a bit more than community rabble.
Yay, appeal to false authority!
The contention by others is that there is not one "best" army right now. You may disagree, but those that don't would say that yes throwing in one army as the best throws off the balance, especially when what your adding to it won't cycle out when it gets a new codex, therefore potenially cementing it as the "best" for a long time to come. The largest Difference between FW books and their most often comparison WD updates. People would be royally pissed if the Flamer's and Screamers from the WD update were never going away because they were not getting updated.
I agree at Adepticon where missions favored Necrons they were clearly the best army...which could be said of any army dominating a single GT so throughly. One thing I think people need to remember with Crons is that they are a Powerful army that is comparitively cheap to purchase (in comparison with some other top lists) and easy to Paint.
I disagree that it is preferable to seem the same units on Every table. "So bill what did you bring to the tournament?" "Well John, I brought my Triple Heldrake with Sabers and Thudd guns You?" "I brought my Space Wolves with Sabers and Thudd guns?" While it may make for a bit of balance, it produces a boring meta. Furthermore it highly disadvantages those armies that cannot take IG as allies.
The contention by others is that there is not one "best" army right now.
Actually, the contention is that there is not a “best” army right now but if you allowed FW there would be a “best” army that would include IG in some capacity .for Thudd Guns and Saber Platforms.
And my point is .. ok fine but what is your argument when that no longer is the case. Because it was not the case before .. it was Hades Breaching Drills, Lucius Pattern drop pods, and Achilles Land Raiders. It certainly will not be the case in the future given the pending releases aka Space Marine Codex... I am sure Assault Rams or Asterion Moloc will ratchet up the scale, or something else entirely etc.
At AdeptiCon .. Necrons was the top codex regardless of mission format due to the meta at the time with Flyers. That was clear in the months leading up to AdeptiCon and it proved out. As flyer and anti-fyer capacity has improved with recent releases that gap has lessened. So meta has changed a bit with the addition of Tau and Eldar. Re-run AdeptiCon, with the same missions today, attendees would bring different armies and you would get different results. Which is why it is pointless frankly to compare the results of any event and draw any sort of "conclusion", even AdeptiCon because the sample size is so small and the game changes dramatically between events.
40k has always had the "haves" and the "have nots" when it come to codex performance and that is not changing.
The contention by others is that there is not one "best" army right now.
Actually, the contention is that there is not a “best” army right now but if you allowed FW there would be a “best” army that would include IG in some capacity .for Thudd Guns and Saber Platforms.
And my point is .. ok fine but what is your argument when that no longer is the case. Because it was not the case before .. it was Hades Breaching Drills, Lucius Pattern drop pods, and Achilles Land Raiders. It certainly will not be the case in the future given the pending releases aka Space Marine Codex... I am sure Assault Rams or Asterion Moloc will ratchet up the scale, or something else entirely etc.
At AdeptiCon .. Necrons was the top codex regardless of mission format due to the meta at the time with Flyers. That was clear in the months leading up to AdeptiCon and it proved out. As flyer and anti-fyer capacity has improved with recent releases that gap has lessened. So meta has changed a bit with the addition of Tau and Eldar. Re-run AdeptiCon, with the same missions today, attendees would bring different armies and you would get different results. Which is why it is pointless frankly to compare the results of any event and draw any sort of "conclusion", even AdeptiCon because the sample size is so small and the game changes dramatically between events.
40k has always had the "haves" and the "have nots" when it come to codex performance and that is not changing.
So is your argument then that either FW will fix these rules in the near future, or that when 7th ed drops that these will no longer be over powered. The IA update cycle seems similar to some of the worst of the Old gw update cycle books taking more than one edition to be updated, so we may be looking at these units existing for the next 7 years, so then we are waiting for FW to determine that these units are OP, and FAQing them, or waiting for 7th. Again I am for restricted FW inclusion, mostly because the imbalance of imperial releases Vs what other armies get.
No my argument is there are plenty of other arguments for including or not including Forgeworld that are not dependent the relative strength or weakness a particular unit at a given point in time or on the release/update cycle for GW and FW. Two things that are well outside our control.
Basing ones argument for or against on the above is not a good place as tomorrow new material could be released that shakes it all up, and invalidates it.
My position has been for a mix of events ( all Forgeworld, limited Forgeworld and exclude Forgeworld ) I see all three as having value and can generally play equally under any format.
I think you will find that Forgeworld has moved to align their release schedule with the Games Workshop release schedule. Games Workshop Tau Codex released .. and it was followed up by the IA3 update. Games Workshop will be releasing an update for Apocalypse, you will see an update to the Forgeworld Apocalypse material. Games Workshop will release a new Space Marine Codex, that will be followed by an updated version of IA2. etc... Hopefully that is a trend that we see continue. However, something to always keep in mind that the direction and design philosophy of Games Workshop including Forgeworld, Black Library, White Dwarf etc .. is always highly dependent on who is steering the boat. It can and does change dramatically when you have key turnover of staff.
Dozer Blades wrote: "The consensus from GT winners (in this thread and elsewhere) seems to be that introducing FW will dramatically unbalance things. As the people who arguably understand the mechanics of the game best, it would probably be wise to weigh their opinions a bit more than community rabble."
Care to provide some quotes to back this up? I'm all ears.
Feel free to read the thread (probably a good habit to develop in general). I was able to skim through the last five or so pages and count at least four.
True, my actual opinion is close to yours. I think there is a place for all types of events. I would probably prefer to attend, No -FW, or Restricted FW, but was there an event near me that was unlimited FW, that fit my schedule I would probably attend it simply because if I get a chance to play some games I am not usually one to walk away from it.
No. First off, I don't believe that it would make Guard the best. I'm simply acknowledging that others have made the argument. So, while I don't believe that it would be the case, my other response is, "so what". There is always "a best", and so including Forgeworld doesn't actually change the lack of balance in 40k, it just changes what's good right now.
Your response of "so what" validates the claim that IG would be the best. Thinking that any one army right now is, without qualification, "the best" demonstrates a very narrow understanding of the game, and suggesting that allowing an army to become, without qualification, "the best" would not be significant further emphasizes that poor understanding. You seem to have a decent grasp on the game so it's unfortunate that you're falling into the trap of hyperbole.
The consensus from GT winners (in this thread and elsewhere) seems to be that introducing FW will dramatically unbalance things. As the people who arguably understand the mechanics of the game best, it would probably be wise to weigh their opinions a bit more than community rabble.
Yay, appeal to false authority!
That's funny, most people would consider it wise to listen carefully to what people who understand the game have to say about balance (particularly when they eloquently express their reasoning, as some have already done here). But surely the average Joe knows better. Right, Joe?
That's funny, most people would consider it wise to listen carefully to what people who understand the game
Danny - Listening carefully is a valuable skill and definitely important especially in understanding opposing points of view. There are people on both sides of this argument that have a long history of "understanding" the game.
Redbeard has a decade plus of experience playing in "competitive" environments, is a former AWC Tourney Series champion ( a series that includes multiple GT winners ) and is involved in organizing those monthly events. While he and I have certainly not always seen eye to eye on the state of the game. I have certainly always respected and valued his opinion, analysis and understanding of the game. As he does not feel the need to list his tourney record in his signature maybe that was not apparent.
Danny - Listening carefully is a valuable skill and definitely important especially in understanding opposing points of view. There are people on both sides of this argument that have a long history of "understanding" the game.
Redbeard has a decade plus of experience playing in "competitive" environments, is a former AWC Tourney Series champion ( a series that includes multiple GT winners ) and is involved in organizing those monthly events. While he and I have certainly not always seen eye to eye on the state of the game. I have certainly always respected and valued his opinion, analysis and understanding of the game. As he does not feel the need to list his tourney record in his signature maybe that was not apparent.
Your response of "so what" validates the claim that IG would be the best.
You really don't get it, do you. I already said, I don't believe that IG would be the best. BUT, to those who do say that, I say, so what. That's not validating the claim, it's dismissing it as irrelevant.
Thinking that any one army right now is, without qualification, "the best" demonstrates a very narrow understanding of the game
If you mean "right now", then sure, I have no idea what the top dog in the meta is. I don't think there have been enough events for it to shake out given the rapid release schedule of the last few months. If you rewind three months, pre-Tau, Necrons were easily "the best", and Adepticon's results back that up.
I wouldn't be surprised if there were a best army right now, but that we simply haven't had enough cycles in the meta to establish what it is. And, it wouldn't surprise me if, once it is figured out, it will appear pretty obvious in hindsight.
The consensus from GT winners (in this thread and elsewhere) seems to be that introducing FW will dramatically unbalance things. As the people who arguably understand the mechanics of the game best, it would probably be wise to weigh their opinions a bit more than community rabble.
Yay, appeal to false authority!
That's funny, most people would consider it wise to listen carefully to what people who understand the game have to say about balance (particularly when they eloquently express their reasoning, as some have already done here). But surely the average Joe knows better. Right, Joe?
There's a big difference in understanding the game and winning a dozen games in a row. For one thing, a lot of people who have won the game in the past are still quite capable of doing so, if they felt like it, but have moved on in how they choose to play. I think Muwhe pointed this out quite clearly. The ability to win is not the same as the desire to win. I had a streak of top-ten finishes at GTs I attended until 2011, when I decided I'd rather field the best looking army, rather than one designed just to win. That doesn't mean I don't know how to win, it just means it's no longer the most important aspect of my hobby.
You're invoking two fallacies here. The first is the aforementioned Appeal to Authority. You're claiming that just because some GT winners think one thing, then that one thing must be true (and, ignoring the counter-claims of the GT winners who don't agree with you, while you're at it). The second is asserting that the the GT winners have a better understanding of game balance than others.
There's a difference between building a list and playing the game. And, in many circles, the people who make the best lists aren't necessarily the ones who make the best in-game decisions. I know several playgroups where the person with the best understanding of the game isn't the best player. They make in-game mistakes too often. No one operates in a vacuum, and it's not like the people winning all the games are making all their list choices themselves. I've seen GT-winners unabashedly "borrow" someone else's list to win a tournament with. I have a friend who knows very little about the metagame, or the game balance, but is really good at playing the game. He won a WFB tournament without having ever played the game before, with a list someone else handed him. He just gets overall strategy and tactics, and doesn't need to know rules or balance issues. I bring this up because there's absolutely no reason to believe that a GT winner knows anymore about game design issues than anyone else. GT winners are winners because they're good at playing the game. Some of them might also be the sorts to dig into a dozen books and find the broken combos, but some are handed those combos by their friends or the internet.
But the "average Joe" has an opinion that is equally as valid/valuable. Not everyone approaches the game in the same manner or is concerned with ultimate balance.
Warhammer 40K is a game that simulates war. War is not balanced and certain forces will always outperform others in particular areas. This is the by-product of better training, more capital, more resources, better engineers, better general support and yes...tactically superior commanders. Over the past several years, there has been a move to redefine 40K into a contest that simulates a sport. I personally feel that is the the wrong way to look at any sort of casual gaming, especially one like 40K.
Of course there is room for competitive play, but adhering to dictionary definitions of what a "tournament" can/cannot be in a hobby that encourages and rewards people to be creative and do things for themselves is ultimately restrictive and should be challenged.
Space Wolves were ascendent in 3rd, Grey Knights at the end of 5th, Necrons in 6th when flyers were unchecked....you could give 100 more examples of armies doing well at a particular point during a particular edition's release cycle. The way it is and forever shall be.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I also hope people can realize how allowing those winning events to dictate the direction of events will foster feelings of resentment from players that want something different. The system will feel rigged.
Dozer Blades wrote: "The consensus from GT winners (in this thread and elsewhere) seems to be that introducing FW will dramatically unbalance things. As the people who arguably understand the mechanics of the game best, it would probably be wise to weigh their opinions a bit more than community rabble."
Care to provide some quotes to back this up? I'm all ears.
Feel free to read the thread (probably a good habit to develop in general). I was able to skim through the last five or so pages and count at least four.
I did Danny but did not find any... hence the request. I am not trying to imply you are less than honest... maybe I am just missing something?
Dozer Blades wrote: "The consensus from GT winners (in this thread and elsewhere) seems to be that introducing FW will dramatically unbalance things. As the people who arguably understand the mechanics of the game best, it would probably be wise to weigh their opinions a bit more than community rabble."
Care to provide some quotes to back this up? I'm all ears.
Feel free to read the thread (probably a good habit to develop in general). I was able to skim through the last five or so pages and count at least four.
I did Danny but did not find any... hence the request. I am not trying to imply you are less than honest... maybe I am just missing something?
Danny - I think he's saying he doesn't know who from forum names, are GT winners, you may be taking for granted knowing who a lot of the posters are which is probably the source of confusion.
I'll chime in as a winner of a few and say I (personally) don't feel FW is appropriate for GT play. As always, that's just my opinion, take it for what it's worth. Not trying to say "ermagerd I'm right and everyone else can kick rocks if they haven't won something!". Just my view on it all from having played a lot of games and used the "broken" fw units myself from time to time. YMMV
There's a big difference in understanding the game and winning a dozen games in a row. For one thing, a lot of people who have won the game in the past are still quite capable of doing so, if they felt like it, but have moved on in how they choose to play. I think Muwhe pointed this out quite clearly. The ability to win is not the same as the desire to win.
I fall into this category completely. I used to be all gung-ho- tournament-competitive-guy. Then I realized that the financial cost was stupid for the return in value. Add in the mentality that exists today of the perception of "real competitive 40k" and everything else doesn't count...it soured me to the scene and I walked away from it. I'm also a father now, and don't have much desire to spend my free time and money chasing a plaque or prestige that in a few months time nobody will care about...and it certainly doesn't make me any money either.
I had a streak of top-ten finishes at GTs I attended until 2011, when I decided I'd rather field the best looking army, rather than one designed just to win. That doesn't mean I don't know how to win, it just means it's no longer the most important aspect of my hobby.
Agreed. My involvement is now just a distraction to real life and I'd rather play a casual game or play APOC with friends.
You're invoking two fallacies here. The first is the aforementioned Appeal to Authority. You're claiming that just because some GT winners think one thing, then that one thing must be true (and, ignoring the counter-claims of the GT winners who don't agree with you, while you're at it). The second is asserting that the the GT winners have a better understanding of game balance than others.
Redbeard hits the nail on the head. I would also like to add that to truly define if FW is going to break the tournament scene...it needs to go through a phase of being fully available in all events to clearly show that. Anything else is prognostication of what may happen.
There's a difference between building a list and playing the game. And, in many circles, the people who make the best lists aren't necessarily the ones who make the best in-game decisions. I know several playgroups where the person with the best understanding of the game isn't the best player. They make in-game mistakes too often. No one operates in a vacuum, and it's not like the people winning all the games are making all their list choices themselves. I've seen GT-winners unabashedly "borrow" someone else's list to win a tournament with. I have a friend who knows very little about the metagame, or the game balance, but is really good at playing the game. He won a WFB tournament without having ever played the game before, with a list someone else handed him. He just gets overall strategy and tactics, and doesn't need to know rules or balance issues. I bring this up because there's absolutely no reason to believe that a GT winner knows anymore about game design issues than anyone else. GT winners are winners because they're good at playing the game. Some of them might also be the sorts to dig into a dozen books and find the broken combos, but some are handed those combos by their friends or the internet.
^This 1000%. There are a few people locally here that understand the game and build monster lists...but never play them or have the desire to. They'd be really good top players if they had a ounce of motivation to play in big events regularly.
Warhammer 40K is a game that simulates war. War is not balanced and certain forces will always outperform others in particular areas. This is the by-product of better training, more capital, more resources, better engineers, better general support and yes...tactically superior commanders. Over the past several years, there has been a move to redefine 40K into a contest that simulates a sport. I personally feel that is the the wrong way to look at any sort of casual gaming, especially one like 40K.
Matthias nails it here for sure. I share this sentiment completely.
I also hope people can realize how allowing those winning events to dictate the direction of events will foster feelings of resentment from players that want something different. The system will feel rigged.
FWIW, from myself through Hank, I don't think any of the event organizers in this thread have been promoting decision-making about FW based upon the "elite" GT winners. I know some people like to use them/us/whatever as reference points for those who "know," but that's irrelevant to at least my own decision making - as has been stated, GT winning players do well regardless, when they're in that "mode" (to defer a nod to Hank's commentary, most people don't spend 10 years being top dogs).
Agreed. What about the casual players (like myself, Breng77, and others) who are saying unlimited FW doesn't appeal to us? That argument got shouted down at the start of 6th edition with "It's the GAME of 40k to allow it, anything else is a house rule, if you can't handle it you don't belong at a tournament." The "elitism and hubris" sword cuts both ways!
I've expressed a number of times how intimidating it is to have to prepare for units spread across a dozen books, some really old (or even out of print? I have no idea) but this concern, as I said, gets shouted down.
So, of course then people respond by saying that high level players agree with them... but, imo, the desire not to have unlimitedFW is shared by many, many "casual" players.
Which is why AdeptiCon rocks, because you only face unlimited FW in the Gladiator (known as a balls-to-the-wall competitive event, I believe, and from what I saw) or in a themed event (like the 30K horus heresy AgeOfEgos organizes?). It's the majority of tournament players that drive this decision, imo, what the top players say just reinforces this.
I love some, limited FW. I hate the "elitism and hubris" of the argument that if I don't play against full FW, all the time I'm playing by house rules and not really "playing 40k". That argument made on either side is insulting, but it certainly was made on the "pro-full-access-FW" side early on in 6th, and brought about this reaction (imo) justifiably, that top players don't agree that that's the best way to play 40k.
In the end, a variety of events is best, and listening to the other side, extremely valuable. I've become more open to FW as a result of these discussions, and I think that's a good thing. But I just don't desire to play in unlimited FW events, and I think AdeptiCon knows most players feel this way, which is why they allow it, but in limited form, in things like the team tournament... and save unlimited for the Gladiator or themed events.
Bob, but my view is that I'd love to see those FW army lists allowed.
I think you see similar feelings about the Tamurkhan chaos dwarf list for fantasy- it's widely accepted for tournaments. Granted, it's only one book to keep track of, but imo players are prettty open to FW army lists (as evidenced by most "casual" posters that I've seen in this thread saying they'd like to see them allowed). It'd be interesting to do a poll on that... I think you'd see a more positive feeling towards FW army lists, than you would towards a blanket full FW allowance.
Whether that's because it's less open to abuse, easier to get a handle on, all contained in one book, etc... but that's what I've observed. Tamurkhan in particular has been mentioned a few times in this thread, with very little negative response. I think fantasy players have been craving chaos dwarfs, and the Tamurkhan book is actually easier to access than the old Ravening Hordes list for chaos dwarfs.
I know it's different for 40k, but I think if someone was pushing for the allowance of FW army lists, they might get more traction, than pushing for unlimited FW allowance. As I said, I'd certainly love to see them allowed, with the only issue being allies- I don't really think they should be allowed to ally with other armies, or else you'd have them "allying with themselves" by taking IG allies. Other than that, my vote to the TOs reading here is to try allowing the FW army lists in more events
What's been odd is that most events that have allowed FW, even unlimited FW units, have not allowed FW lists (like Kingdom Con in San Diego for instance).
I don't really see a problem with both types of tournaments existing.
Other competitive games have different formats.
Magic the Gathering has like 9 different formats, WM/H has multiple formats.Even competitive video games have different approaches. 3v3 or 5v5 in League of Legends and World of Warcraft. Is this an apples to apples comparision? No.
Different champions for different formats is acceptable at this point in Gaming. (Not to say there is an overall 40k champion, by any stretch)
But there is room in this world for both Forgeworld and Non-forgeworld events and they are very different from each other.
Sort of like here on the west coast, where we have the Broadside Bash, which is pretty much a pure fluff event and the competitive edge is not really there. Competitive players still go, but the event is in a different light than say the BAO.
Granted, to concede Blakmoor's point, the west coast is dominated by FW events and it does limit the the variety of things when all of the available formats are not used.
So, my point is, do I think we need Forgeworld to balance 40k, No.
Do I like the idea of allowing people to play Forgewold in tournaments yes.
Vaktathi wrote: What's been odd is that most events that have allowed FW, even unlimited FW units, have not allowed FW lists (like Kingdom Con in San Diego for instance).
Why is this, by the way? I've seen that mentioned a few times... can anyone explain?
(I.e., a TO for such an event, someone who's talked to a TO about such an event, or just someone who has thought about it...)
Vaktathi wrote: What's been odd is that most events that have allowed FW, even unlimited FW units, have not allowed FW lists (like Kingdom Con in San Diego for instance).
Why is this, by the way? I've seen that mentioned a few times... can anyone explain?
(I.e., a TO for such an event, someone who's talked to a TO about such an event, or just someone who has thought about it...)
I've wondered about this for a while too, hence why most of my last few posts in this thread have been about that. Talking to local tourney players in the communities I've been in, this stems mostly from one of two mindsets:
A) Forgeworld is unknown, therefore, Forgeworld Army Lists are even more unknown and scary.
B) Forgeworld is OP and imbalanced, therefore, Forgeworld Army Lists are even more OP and imbalanced.
It's just a general mindset of abstraction of the "worst" in Forgeworld. Furthermore, while players have played against singular or a few Forgeworld units, very few have actually played against a full Forgeworld list. In my local meta, I'm the only full Forgeworld player playing an Elysian droptroops list, and the first response is always "Forgeworld Army List?!" followed by "OP!" or "IMBA!"
Huh... That's an unfortunate reaction. But I find it odd that events allowing full FW would not allow these lists... or even that limited FW events wouldn't at least consider allowing them (perhaps they have considered it, and decided against it... I'm just interested if there is a better/different reason than player acceptance behind it).
Vaktathi wrote: What's been odd is that most events that have allowed FW, even unlimited FW units, have not allowed FW lists (like Kingdom Con in San Diego for instance).
Why is this, by the way? I've seen that mentioned a few times... can anyone explain?
(I.e., a TO for such an event, someone who's talked to a TO about such an event, or just someone who has thought about it...)
I'd really like to find out as well, never really been given a reason for it other than it made more work for the TO to check lists and/or they sounded scarier than just additional units
For a tournament allowing Forgeworld army lists compounds a lot of the issues and hurdles associated with allowing Forgeworld units.
First those lists are generally thematic for a set campaign in the IA book and are intended for campaign play.
Second, it is significantly easier to give a person a rules sheet for one or two units with the expectation they can figure it out in short order. It is more problematic to expect someone to read pages of army specific rules on the fly.
But the main issue is that while generally FW units get updated on a fairly regular basis. Those lists do not. So you end up with a DKOK army list that has a listing for a Hades Breaching drill, with set points and rules but then you got an update in another IA book with the most current version of the rules for the Hades Breaching drill along with likely updated rules for air support and a Thunderbolt in yet another book.
They generally are not over powered but the older the lists are the harder it becomes to sort it all out.
I disagree that most of the lists are thematic for a campaign, however, I do agree with the issue that those books include units that get updated in other books, and that would get out of hand. Especially if the FW player is unaware that it gets updated in a recent release book.
The issue of enclosed IA lists not being allowed is something I brought up a few pages ago. The last few IA books that included Xenos races mostly contained the new units in those lists (Eldar Corsairs and Dark Harvest Necrons). A few of the units can be used with their regular book counter-parts but majority cannot be taken. I realize that some Imperium races do the same (DKOK for example), but it's more prevalent on the side of the fence that already gets less units to begin with.
This kinda compounds the issue of IG just getting even more toys to play with. I'm not 100% against FW, but I think that if it were to be used, these lists should be legal just the same as all the other toys.
If anything I would think these lists are less problematic, as they are self contained.
For a variety of reasons I think overall the approach of Nova & Adepticon is the best one. GT's should be kept to Codex only, and then offer additional events with limited or full FW usage.
I hate the "elitism and hubris" of the argument that if I don't play against full FW, all the time I'm playing by house rules and not really "playing 40k".
I don't disagree with you. My point was more about the fact that the current "40k competitive" scene thinks they have all the answers at times. Which is demonstrated by some of the responses in the thread. Furthermore, if the argument is: Allowing full FW breaks the tournament scene...then I think the counter point to that I and others have said is: "how can you know that if you've got less than a handful of GTs that allow it and the only full way of knowing is to run full FW for a season and measure the results (and to universally decide when in fact, a season begins and ends). And finally, in a game that's always been unbalanced and balance never being a corner stone to the game...does allowing FW even matter at that point? Couldn't people just simply "enjoy the ride" and enjoy the game for what it is? However, the insistence of trying to turn it into a sporting event (Like Matthias stated earlier) runs contrary to that. :shrug:
I hate the "elitism and hubris" of the argument that if I don't play against full FW, all the time I'm playing by house rules and not really "playing 40k".
I don't disagree with you. My point was more about the fact that the current "40k competitive" scene thinks they have all the answers at times. Which is demonstrated by some of the responses in the thread. Furthermore, if the argument is: Allowing full FW breaks the tournament scene...then I think the counter point to that I and others have said is: "how can you know that if you've got less than a handful of GTs that allow it and the only full way of knowing is to run full FW for a season and measure the results (and to universally decide when in fact, a season begins and ends). And finally, in a game that's always been unbalanced and never has been a corner stone to the game...does allowing FW even matter at that point? Couldn't people just simply "enjoy the ride" and enjoy the game for what it is? However, the insistence of trying to turn it into a sporting event (Like Matthias stated earlier) runs contrary to that. :shrug:
People on the internet in general think they have all the answers all the time.
Nobody is going to budge at this point. TOs always have the final say in what events they are presenting to the public and we as the public can vote for the legitimacy of said event with their dollars. Time to end the thread.
Capt, if you have nothing more to add, just don't post! On this very page, we got a response from the organizer of AdeptiCon on why they don't allow FW army lists in some events. It's very useful, so please, allow it to continue to be so rather than posting YouTube videos.
Capt, if you have nothing more to add, just don't post!
That's the best suggestion I've heard all day. And since nothing further can possibly be added to this discussion (even the humor of how circular it's become)...I'm out.
Blackmoor wrote: Did the Demons of Chaos army book have any impact on Fantasy at the end ot 7th edition?
Blackmoor, what do you mean? The new daemons book didn't hit until 8th edition fantasy was already out. The old book was absolutely dominant in 7th edition fantasy, though.
Blackmoor wrote: Did the Demons of Chaos army book have any impact on Fantasy at the end ot 7th edition?
Blackmoor, what do you mean? The new daemons book didn't hit until 8th edition fantasy was already out. The old book was absolutely dominant in 7th edition fantasy, though.
I apologize if I misunderstood your question.
Some people are saying that we should allow FW and try it for a year to see how it goes.
If FW is as bad as some people think I was wondering what impact the old demon codex had on 7th edition fantasy. Since both are perceived to be overpowered we might try to draw a parallel to see what would happen to 40k .
Since I am not a fantasy player I have no idea what it did to the tournament scene over there.
Daemons had multiple issues in 7E fantasy, in fact largely had *every* issue, they were too cheap, too choppy, too magic-y, too fast, too tough, too ignoring of morale and unable to be broken, too able to break the enemy with morale, too often no lynchpin to concentrate against, etc. I initially started into Fantasy with Daemons and moved to Warriors in part because of this (also because I liked the Warrior models better).
I doubt that FW would make armies on anywhere near the same level. That said, even if they did, there were still several other armies that showed very strong during that time, Vampire Counts and Dark Elves and certain Warriors of Chaos builds, so it wasn't All Daemons all the Time, Daemons were just clearly on top.
Daemons were extremely discouraging at the end of 7th ed for me... but as I mostly played fantasy at that time, and not much 40k, I can't make much of a comparison.
I have to believe, though, that they were more dominant than any other book in recent memory. Scooter won AdeptiCon multiple times with daemons, and every event I heard of near me in Maryland... it was almost a forgone conclusion!
That said, as Vaktathi says, Vampire Counts and Dark Elves could compete, and just 1 WoC build (I believe it was chosenstar at the time) so it wasn't Only daemons... but daemons were indeed laughably overpowered. I would do almost anything to avoid a repeat of that, but if GW puts out a book that bad for fantasy, there's not much we could do about it.
For 40k, on the other hand, people could take them as allies and so at least might not need it to be their primary detachment.
Daemons were ridiculous in the narrow time frame from their release until the new Dark Elf book came out (6 months or so), at which point they slowly got nudged down by each subsequent book, until the new edition pushed them into the mid tier and the new book cemented their place there. They get a lot of overt hate from the playerbase for a few reasons:
1) It was the first book of a new and briefly maintained power paradigm, written by Matt Ward no less. It was even more rushed than the current book (if you can believe that), but its errors were in the power army direction. What followed were even more undercosted power combo laden books, but this was the first in a long line of books that continue to plague the balance of the game. Dark Elves, Vampire Counts, Lizardmen, and Skaven all were far more abusive, but everyone remembers the first one and that was DoC.
2) Its release coincided with GW renewing interest in its own GT events, which were comp free exercises of cheesey list construction. As a result, a lot of people in remote areas got exposed to what a small number of unethical players could do with an unbalanced list, when no limits were placed upon them. I especially remember taking Daemons to the Baltimore and Vegas GWGTs that year and people saying "thank god its only a bloodthirster!" which were words I thought I would never hear in my life.
3) It was a cheap list to start up from scratch and easy to paint to a respectable standard. Thus, it was an easy army for bandwagon power gamers to get into, especially compared to a lot of other fantasy armies of the time. This combined with the second point meant that a lot of powergamer types jumped in and made armies that scarcely looked like armies on the table, but were rather just models of mathematical precision. This is generally acceptable in the Kobra Kai world of 40k, but in most regions it was a major offense in Fantasy to be that unsporting. And yet here was a low model count light detail army with lots of power combos to exploit that, until Dark Elves came out, had nothing with its level of power.
So, really, that small six month window stuck out in a lot of people's minds. Dark Elves took over as the most powerful army in Fantasy almost immediately upon release and Fantasy turned into a DE > DoC > VC > DE circle jerk that persisted for a couple of years until the introduction of 8th took DoC mostly out of the running.
One of the interesting things that came out of the Chapterhouse lawsuit was the distance that GW has with its Forge World subsidiary.
Allan, which really means nothing as if it had been vital to the case to show the interconnectedness of Games Workshop and Forgeworld to prove the case that is what would have been presented and argued.
Who has final say in what models can be produced and marketed?
Who has final say in setting pricing?
What POS system do sales go through?
Where do the profits end up?
Answering those questions will tell you how much distance and control exists and when the rubber hits the road on the above 4 questions the answer is as expected Games Workshop.
Firms do this all the time and setup “independent” groups. So that when it is favorable to be able to show independence they can do so even though the “reality” is they are not independent at all but a wholly owned subsidiary with final authority coming from the parent company. The compliance and consulting industry has been doing this sort of thing for years.
muwhe, I agree and I think how connected FW / GW are on the corporate level is rather irrelevant.
The bigger issue is the artificial separation they impose on the ground, which is the reality of what most gamers see. GW creates the division and it makes it harder to gain acceptance for FW for "normal" games.
But maybe the new Apoc expansion that's coming this summer will provide a good opportunity for full-FW-inclusion (I was going to say full-FW-madness, but I'm trying to say this as a good thing / something I would personally be looking forward to!)
Well... I'm still ambivalent about Forge World in Tourny.
But... I just got back from a Tournament last weekend.
Guess what list won the tournament? Yup, a primary detachment filled will Thudd Guns and Saber LasCannon platforms (and I think he had Terminator Allies). He totally obliterated his opponents. I can see why folks want to disallow Forge World units because of this as no one had fun being shot to smithereens.
I'd submit to the TO's that if you're going to allow Forge World units in a 2000 pt list... then, at 2000 pts, allow double-force organization lists in standard codex only.
The only hard counter to that Thudd/Saber list the we can think of, is a pure Deathwing Terminator list. Belil can deepstricke w/o scatter really close (then can run up to 1" away)... that way, only the lasconnan shots would be done as he wouldn't want to shoot his thudd gun that close.
The funny thing is that one of the most broken units in Forge World is the Heavy Artillery Platform and we have not really seen them yet.
Imagine a couple of Basilisks or Medusas.
Now imagine them:
#1. Being nearly unkillable.
#2. Re-rolling all misses.
#3. Ignoring cover.
#4. Being cheaper than the IG vehicles of Medusa and Basilisk.
Getting hammered by these is as rough as getting hit by the thudd guns, only they can kill vehicles.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Vaktathi wrote: Those weapons occupy the same FoC slot except in a DKoK assault brigade IIRC, so there wouldn't have been many of them, and the DKoKAB lacks access to stuff like sabres and vendettas and cheap chimeras and manticores and the like.
Nobody seems to mind the idea of artillery spam from Ork and/or Eldar armies I've noticed
Sabers are taken as Troops, Thudd Guns are Heavy Support.
They're Ld7, the guardsmen crew still only get a 5+sv, they only ignore intervening cover (not cover that your unit is standing in), they're completely immobile, and where are they getting rerolls from?
Sabers are taken as Troops, Thudd Guns are Heavy Support.
Right, for some reason thinking Rapiers....silly sword names.
Vaktathi wrote: They're Ld7, the guardsmen crew still only get a 5+sv, they only ignore intervening cover (not cover that your unit is standing in), they're completely immobile, and where are they getting rerolls from?
This is the synergy of the IG artillery and why 6th edition broke them.
You have 2 rune priests that cast prescience on them. If they get Perfect Timing on the divination table (Ignore cover) they can then add themselves to the unit (unlike the vehicles) and have them ignore cover. Also, can't you use the order that makes your oppoenent re-roll cover saves?
Again as I have mentioned, you have a Lord Commisar giving them LD 10, and then they get a re-roll with the company standard/banner. They are behind a ADL being screened by guard blob so you are never getting close to them. Also you can use the gone-to-ground/get-back-in-the-fight for a 2+ cover save with toughness 7.
Ok, but now we're talking about a significant investment, 400something points between just 2 of the cheaper guns and the runeprists and a single LC assuming no upgrades. That's 3 HQ's sitting around an artillery unit and hoping that you get the right psychic powers. Powerful? Yeah, but that's also not an insignificant investment. You can get a similar setup out of the Eldar with 6 S10 AP2 Blast D-cannons and a Farseer for fewer points.
I dont think that arguing about perceived "imbalanced" units is the best way to argue against those that want the inclusion of FW at events.
IMO, the best argument and one that I don't often hear folks make is that FW introduces a very uneven amount of new units to the various codices.
If you look at the newest codices, they all have similar numbers of unique units to use. FW completely does away with that by introducing many more new imperial units while doing next to nothing for certain armies (Nids).
That is my biggest issue with FW. If GW would go ahead and pump out a bunch of books that gave equal (or at least close to) units to each codex, i'd be happy with that.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Vaktathi wrote: Ok, but now we're talking about a significant investment, 400something points between just 2 of the cheaper guns and the runeprists and a single LC assuming no upgrades. That's 3 HQ's sitting around an artillery unit and hoping that you get the right psychic powers. Powerful? Yeah, but that's also not an insignificant investment. You can get a similar setup out of the Eldar with 6 S10 AP2 Blast D-cannons and a Farseer for fewer points.
well.. If someone is allying SW and IG they are likely to include Priests either way, at they are a basically an auto-include. They also do more than buff Thuddguns, so you can't just look at it that way.
The biggest issue with the artillery pieces, IMO, is not the damage they put out, but rather their absurd durability. T7 is not easy to destroy, especially with 4+ cover.
LValx wrote:
well.. If someone is allying SW and IG they are likely to include Priests either way, at they are a basically an auto-include. They also do more than buff Thuddguns, so you can't just look at it that way.
If they're joining the arty units that's likely all they're doing
The biggest issue with the artillery pieces, IMO, is not the damage they put out, but rather their absurd durability. T7 is not easy to destroy, especially with 4+ cover.
They're tough when shooting at them for sure, but usually need an Ld babysitter, still have 5+svs typically for the crew, and are T3 once anything gets into combat.
Again though, I just find it odd nobody complains about artillery units from other armies, like T7 multi-wound artillery units tossing S6 large blasts or S10 blast weapons around with excellent psyker support is only a problem if it's Imperial guard, but for Eldar it's not even mentioned
LValx wrote:
well.. If someone is allying SW and IG they are likely to include Priests either way, at they are a basically an auto-include. They also do more than buff Thuddguns, so you can't just look at it that way.
If they're joining the arty units that's likely all they're doing
The biggest issue with the artillery pieces, IMO, is not the damage they put out, but rather their absurd durability. T7 is not easy to destroy, especially with 4+ cover.
They're tough when shooting at them for sure, but usually need an Ld babysitter, still have 5+svs typically for the crew, and are T3 once anything gets into combat.
Again though, I just find it odd nobody complains about artillery units from other armies, like T7 multi-wound artillery units tossing S6 large blasts or S10 blast weapons around with excellent psyker support is only a problem if it's Imperial guard, but for Eldar it's not even mentioned
The eldar artillery isn't nearly as good as the FWIG artillery. You cant buy as many extra ablative wounds, which makes a decent size difference.
Also, an IC can detach at any point and contribute more to the fight. They can also buff other units as needed. Not to mention the inherent bonus of having the best psychic defense in the game. The only time the RP would realistically attach himself to Thuddguns would be in the case of receiving ignores cover. In most other cases I would bet that they'd be attached to a blob or something else, since you don't have to be attached to the squad you Prescience.
I wonder if the Heavy Artillery Carriage crew for the Siege Regiment army will have that rule that makes them ignore ld test if they lose 25% of the squad.
Hilarity could very ensue, stack FNP from a quarter-master and let loose the troll faces.
whembly wrote: Well... I'm still ambivalent about Forge World in Tourny.
But... I just got back from a Tournament last weekend.
Guess what list won the tournament? Yup, a primary detachment filled will Thudd Guns and Saber LasCannon platforms (and I think he had Terminator Allies). He totally obliterated his opponents. I can see why folks want to disallow Forge World units because of this as no one had fun being shot to smithereens.
I'd submit to the TO's that if you're going to allow Forge World units in a 2000 pt list... then, at 2000 pts, allow double-force organization lists in standard codex only.
The only hard counter to that Thudd/Saber list the we can think of, is a pure Deathwing Terminator list. Belil can deepstricke w/o scatter really close (then can run up to 1" away)... that way, only the lasconnan shots would be done as he wouldn't want to shoot his thudd gun that close.
*shrugs*
That's my 2 cent.
If FW wasn't allowed he would have showed up with 9 necron fliers or some other codex only BS. The point is this guy is going to do that no matter what the rules are. By not allowing forge world you just hurt the people who want to take cool fluffy units that aren't even very good in the game.
If FW wasn't allowed he would have showed up with 9 necron fliers or some other codex only BS. The point is this guy is going to do that no matter what the rules are. By not allowing forge world you just hurt the people who want to take cool fluffy units that aren't even very good in the game.
That's a very good point... hence, why I was ambivalent about the whole thing. Just wished I had my Deathwing army and get a go against that list.
haroon wrote: If FW wasn't allowed he would have showed up with 9 necron fliers or some other codex only BS. The point is this guy is going to do that no matter what the rules are. By not allowing forge world you just hurt the people who want to take cool fluffy units that aren't even very good in the game.
If that's your motivation, then FW-allowed with a ban list, or FW-allowed except artillery, should suit you just fine
The Eldar D-cannon weapon platform is quite good against vehicles, but lacks the ablative wounds that compound the durability to sustained fire power ratio that the FWIG has. This is a critical difference. At most, I have to successfully inflict 3 wounds to a full battery to get to something meaningful, unlike the 9 wounds I need to do to the fully manned IGFW thudd gun battery. Any experienced player (not running something like paladins or nob Bikers) is more concerned about 12 st5 ap5 blasts from the thudds to their infantry than 3 str 10 Ap2 blasts to the same unit.
As for the orks, you can crank up the durability to the same level, but the fire power is a fraction of what you have with IGFW. You can have two full ork batteries of lobbas for the exact same cost (with LD 5 as the slaver upgrade unbalances the points spend) as full thud battery (186 each). So for the same points cost, you have double the wounds, but 1/2 the firepower (and vastly reduced potential because of the placement rules for blasts when applying 12 at once is far more potent than 2 x 3 in a volley.) You can spend 10 more points per unit for a slaver with a hound for ld 7 and a re-roll, but that isn't as potent as a lord commissar leading a blob within 6" or a CCS issuing orders within 12" with a regimental standard. There is no divination option for orks.
Ork Lobbas and Eldar D-platforms are good, but no where near as good as the thuddgun for reasons that have been explained before - vastly improved durability leading to sustained high levels of firepower in a ruleset that strongly favours massed templates from a single source.
whembly wrote: Well... I'm still ambivalent about Forge World in Tourny.
But... I just got back from a Tournament last weekend.
Guess what list won the tournament? Yup, a primary detachment filled will Thudd Guns and Saber LasCannon platforms (and I think he had Terminator Allies). He totally obliterated his opponents. I can see why folks want to disallow Forge World units because of this as no one had fun being shot to smithereens.
I'd submit to the TO's that if you're going to allow Forge World units in a 2000 pt list... then, at 2000 pts, allow double-force organization lists in standard codex only.
The only hard counter to that Thudd/Saber list the we can think of, is a pure Deathwing Terminator list. Belil can deepstricke w/o scatter really close (then can run up to 1" away)... that way, only the lasconnan shots would be done as he wouldn't want to shoot his thudd gun that close.
*shrugs*
That's my 2 cent.
If FW wasn't allowed he would have showed up with 9 necron fliers or some other codex only BS. The point is this guy is going to do that no matter what the rules are. By not allowing forge world you just hurt the people who want to take cool fluffy units that aren't even very good in the game.
9 Necron flyer lists more or less do not win tournaments, and have only barely made top tables at the bigger ones. You're right "that guy" if you think he's a bad person (Which is silly if anyone does) is going to take a powerful list either way. When given access to FWIG arty units and a couple others, he will often lean toward that over anything else ... they really are that much better than the "OP" lists from existing codices, AND far less understood by average players. Most GT attendees know to expect Scythe spam and other things; they're often not FW savvy at all. Knowing what you're walking into when you invest thousands of bucks in army building and traveling is a MAJOR factor, hence - again back-ref'ing - all the "middle ground" players we heard anti-FW e-mails from (while quite few from hardcore competitors).
9 Necron flyer lists more or less do not win tournaments, and have only barely made top tables at the bigger ones. You're right "that guy" if you think he's a bad person (Which is silly if anyone does) is going to take a powerful list either way. When given access to FWIG arty units and a couple others, he will often lean toward that over anything else ... they really are that much better than the "OP" lists from existing codices, AND far less understood by average players. Most GT attendees know to expect Scythe spam and other things; they're often not FW savvy at all. Knowing what you're walking into when you invest thousands of bucks in army building and traveling is a MAJOR factor, hence - again back-ref'ing - all the "middle ground" players we heard anti-FW e-mails from (while quite few from hardcore competitors).
Hey Mike... as a TO, what's your opinion on allowing double-force organization in a tournament? If nothing else, I think it'll move folks off of this eternal FW debate.
I'd rather see something like 4 DarkAngel HQs or 4 Dark Eldar HQs on the table than the rare FW units. *shrugs* But, like I said earlier... if there's a "tough" list out there, even if's it's FW, I'd thumb my nose and say "Bring it brah!".
The Eldar D-cannon weapon platform is quite good against vehicles, but lacks the ablative wounds that compound the durability to sustained fire power ratio that the FWIG has. This is a critical difference. At most, I have to successfully inflict 3 wounds to a full battery to get to something meaningful, unlike the 9 wounds I need to do to the fully manned IGFW thudd gun battery.
Yeah, if you're shooting it from the front the Thudd Guns bought 2 extra crew each and lined them all up in front (and all you're caring about is casualties and not a break test), sure. I guess it's a good thing wound allocation is directional and things like maneuver, Deep Strike, and Outflanking exist.
Any experienced player (not running something like paladins or nob Bikers) is more concerned about 12 st5 ap5 blasts from the thudds to their infantry than 3 str 10 Ap2 blasts to the same unit.
(speaking of being willfully blind...) Sure if all we're looking at is light infantry and pretending MEQ's (it takes 4 S5 AP5 hits to roughly equal the killing power of S10 AP2), heavy infantry, MC's, tanks, and multi-wound models don't exist.
Or by the same token the Eldar can take 6 S6 (S7 if I3 or lower/vehicles) mini-Rending Large blast weapons for basically the same points, between the larger blast, higher strength (especially against vehicles/I3 units) and mini-rending, that's at least as much hitting power.
Not to mention they can attach a Warlock with Conceal to give them Shrouded and don't have to ally in a Divination psyker.
As for the orks, you can crank up the durability to the same level, but the fire power is a fraction of what you have with IGFW.
At a much lower cost as well.
You can have two full ork batteries of lobbas for the exact same cost (with LD 5 as the slaver upgrade unbalances the points spend) as full thud battery (186 each). So for the same points cost, you have double the wounds, but 1/2 the firepower (and vastly reduced potential because of the placement rules for blasts when applying 12 at once is far more potent than 2 x 3 in a volley.)
Wait, are we arguing about the firepower or the resiliency? Because you'd think if the issue is the resiliency, this would be more of an issue (or the Eldar units with access to Shrouding Warlocks). If it's the firepower, Eldar can put out similiar firepower for similar points (and inherent Divination/Concealment).
(and where was this concern over the the possibility of 12 S5 blasts in the preceding *two* editions?)
You can spend 10 more points per unit for a slaver with a hound for ld 7 and a re-roll, but that isn't as potent as a lord commissar leading a blob within 6" or a CCS issuing orders within 12" with a regimental standard.
And you're talking about ~150pts after kit at that point to babysit the artillery, 150pts of stuff that's not exactly impossible to remove.
There is no divination option for orks.
There isn't for IG either without allies either, but sure, yeah, Orks don't have a way to get Divination at all.
I'm not saying the Thudd Guns aren't good, but really, if we're concerned about firepower, the Eldar units can match them point for point. If we're concerned about resiliency, well, again, Eldar can match that with a Warlock sporting Conceal and Orks can make far more resilient artillery units.
LValx wrote: \
IMO, the best argument and one that I don't often hear folks make is that FW introduces a very uneven amount of new units to the various codices.
If you look at the newest codices, they all have similar numbers of unique units to use. FW completely does away with that by introducing many more new imperial units while doing next to nothing for certain armies (Nids).
That is my biggest issue with FW. If GW would go ahead and pump out a bunch of books that gave equal (or at least close to) units to each codex, i'd be happy with that.
We covered this issue about three or four times already in this thread. This is a mostly untrue argument to use given that half the IG units are Apocalypse Superheavies or are Leman Russ/Chimera variants already present in the Codex. If you are lumping ALL Imperials together, then that's a flawed argument to use given that you have like 5 SM Codices, SOB, IG, GK already lumped together compared to the next "racial group" of Chaos which is only 2, CSM and Daemons.
Clauss wrote: Troops are mandatory. Look at the FoC, as far as I can see you have to take at least 2. FW is essentially a new game completely, given how ridiculous thudd guns are along with other units.. Yes I am happy I dont have to face them, because they are too good for their points.
What things in 5th were so imbalanced, please tell me and we can show you tournament results that show you exact opposite over the past years.
So saying people on dakka crying about unit X being too good equates to OP? If you went to more tournaments you would experience this. The vast majority of big tournaments you will see good players make it to top tables, not OP units.
Competitive players are not afraid of the metagame changes, it changes with every codex. Why don't you go ask TOs who run tournaments why they don't allow IA and FW units, then we can get a 1st hand answer instead.
If it was so balanced and accepted, then the logical assumption would be TOs to allow FW to attract players who have FW units which would increase the attendees. So why do they not include FW?
Kain, no, this thread did not have a nice run, it was ridiculous from page one.
Allow me to go through a lot of the perceived imbalances with FW and enlighten you.
The main problem with the Thudd gun is that it takes forever to resolve but it's not really all that killy. Even against my Swarmnids list it isn't particularly killy. I have never lost any more than my Tervigons can replace with interest in one turn to them. Now if you want imbalanced, look at the Vendetta, the ability for the Tau to completely ignore large swathes of the rulebook like cover and assault and having to deal with a mediocre BS, the nigh invincible wave serpent, or the current cookie cutter cheese lists the Necrons have.
The Contemptor dread is pretty balanced and is probably one of the only forms of dreads that ever get used this edition as the rest are made of paper.
Lucius drop pod: 250 points for three power fist attacks at initiative out of a drop pod that has a chance of immobilizing your dread outright...whoop de fething doo.
Night shroud bomber: It's just a doomscythe with a different gun, yes S10 AP1 large blast is nasty, no it is not unhandleable. I mean, do Medusas dominate the meta despite firing out more S10 termi killing shots? No.
Tesseract ark: An annihiliation barge that gets an Executioner's gun, can kill much of your own army if it bites it, and can get AV14 from quantum shielding, is otherwise AV12 and costs nearly as much as a land raider.
Land Raider Achilles: With the advent of hull points, the Achilles is now paying for a -1 on the damage chart that's going to come up a lot less, and while ignoring lance and melta is nice, it can still simply be smashed open by the nearest monstrous creature or walker.
Vulture: Largely inferior to the Vendetta in most every way, only one build (double punisher cannons) is really all that viable and even then it won't kill as many infantry as you'd think (not enough shots to kill big 30 model bricks, or kill a good sized MEQ group), it is surprisingly good for hullpoint stripping on rear armor though.
Avenger: While it is very nice, it's quite reasonably priced and doesn't do anything too out of the ordinary, indeed a Heldrake is a better MEQ slayer than it is and is far more durable too.
Sabre gun platform: Undercosted? Yes. Game breaking? No. In the end, they're nothing more than tougher heavy weapons teams that can shoot at fliers without gimping themselves. Still nothing an Ion pieplate that ignores cover can't wipe off the map.
Stonecrusher Carnifex: Yes it has better regeneration, AP1, and a 2+, it is still just a four wound monstrous creature with no ranged options and it still dies just as easily to lascannons.
Nightwing: A very nice fighter, perhaps the best air superiority fighter in the game. It is however, made of paper and if it rolls a one on it's jink save that is probably the last one it'll ever roll, at which point you can kiss your points goodbye.
Hornet: Cheap, very snazzy, but not fliers, and you know what that means? Yes, autocannon time, and unlike the now ridiculously invincible wave serpent it doesn't have that snazzy shield of "feth your high strength."
Shadow spectres: Oh look overpriced MEQ killing Jump infantry in a codex full of MEQ slaying options, next.
Meiotic spores: Spore mines are bad and these are still glorified spore mines.
Malanthrope: Used to be awesome as hell, then nerfed into sucking.
Hades Breaching drill: was one legitimately overpowered, is now unreasonably terrible and will accomplish nothing other than mishapping itself and dying like a second rate mawloc.
DkoK: Are they a nice army in both flavors? Why yes. Are they inarguably superior to the guard? Well no. Peregrine can explain it better than I can.
Elysian Drop troopers: Yes they can spam fliers to an extent only Cron air can match, but most of those fliers are valkyries, whose best options are rocket pods that do little to MCs and vehicles unlike the Vendetta's heavy bolters and lascannons of kill everything.
Siege Assault Vanguard list: Yes they can spam huge numbers of tanks, yes they can reroll armor saves, guess what? If they don't get the objective they need to place in your side of the table, they can only ever tie. And rerollable armor saves means diddly to AP3 or better weapons.
Decimator daemon engine: Only truly good when run with Nurgle, and even then it costs nearly as much as a Land raider. Feth.
Mortis dreadnought: Delivers much needed skyfire to the Dark Angels, but it's still a dreadnought and is thus still AV12 with no options for added survivability.
Spartan Assault tank: While better than it's smaller land raider brother at everything for only fifty or so points more, you are now investing nearly three hundred points into a 5 HP AV14 all around unit. Which will make you a very sad man indeed when a cheap unit of Eldar drops in, haywires it into oblivion and drops out, or when JSJ fusion suits come in and fry it, or when you roll into rapid fire range of necron warriors and lose all your hull points in one go.
Legions list: Only meant for games in the 2k+ point range, any oddities for smaller games are there because you're trying to use an army that requires horde marines but doesn't make them any cheaper. And why would a primarch be assed to join a 500 pt battle?
Eldar Corsairs: Once better than Craftworld Eldar in every way, now drearily out of date.
Dreadmob list: Like the Armored Battle group, but Orky and with walkers instead of tanks. The only battle brothers you'll ever get for Orks, has all the issues with trying to spam a lot of an expensive unit with no points deduction for said units.
Armored battle group: Yet again, you are trying to spam a lot of tanks that aren't actually cheaper. This is a list that requires skill because even Draigowing lists can outnumber you modelwise.
Maynarch dynasty: The main change is a Necron specific warlord table, the exceedingly overcosted Acranthites, some special characters, flayed one troops with shred, a few special rules, lychguards attatched to HQs, and immortals can't be mandatory troops. Otherwise pretty much the same as Codex Necrons, also not battle brothers with Codex Necrons for some inexplicable reason. Maybe one of them spat in Szarekh's tea.
Lightning fighter: Made of paper with crappy weapons, garbage.
Hell blade: Made of paper with even *crappier* weapons, garbage.
Hell talon: Schizofrenic paper flier, also garbage.
Fighta: Inferior to a dakkajet.
Fighta-bomma: GROT BOMMS! But still has smaller shootas than a plane flown by grots. Huh?
That one ork kopter: An AV11 skimmer, because the Orks need land speeders too. Made of paper, but pretty fun.
Malcador: Probably the worst superheavy ever, actually inferior to it's cost in Leman Russes by a good margin and is overall a really bad tank, taking this in regular 40k is like taking Old One Eye, it eats up so many points for so little in return you're hurting your army.
Thunderbolt: Actually a worse air to air fighter than the Vendetta, which is an armed transport. Funny how things work huh?
I could keep on going but you probably get the point by now.
Tags added for brevity.
reds8n
Because it's worth repeating.
Vaktathi- You do seem to be waving your hand a bit, as they say here, at the stats. Even when talking guardsmen, why are you harping on the 5+ save? They're likely behind an aegis, can go to ground for a 2++, and get the order to get back in the fight next turn.
You have some good points but I think you're understating the differences.
RiTides wrote: Vaktathi- You do seem to be waving your hand a bit, as they say here, at the stats. Even when talking guardsmen, why are you harping on the 5+ save? They're likely behind an aegis, can go to ground for a 2++, and get the order to get back in the fight next turn.
You have some good points but I think you're understating the differences.
All of which can be eradicated by one trigger happy Iontide and some markerlights.
LValx wrote: \
IMO, the best argument and one that I don't often hear folks make is that FW introduces a very uneven amount of new units to the various codices.
If you look at the newest codices, they all have similar numbers of unique units to use. FW completely does away with that by introducing many more new imperial units while doing next to nothing for certain armies (Nids).
That is my biggest issue with FW. If GW would go ahead and pump out a bunch of books that gave equal (or at least close to) units to each codex, i'd be happy with that.
We covered this issue about three or four times already in this thread. This is a mostly untrue argument to use given that half the IG units are Apocalypse Superheavies or are Leman Russ/Chimera variants already present in the Codex. If you are lumping ALL Imperials together, then that's a flawed argument to use given that you have like 5 SM Codices, SOB, IG, GK already lumped together compared to the next "racial group" of Chaos which is only 2, CSM and Daemons.
Since I don't have all the FW books, just a few IA ones, could someone be bothered to break it down?
How many units are FW approved for each specific codex? I'd like to see the numbers on that
This list also has units that are strictly Apocalypse only.
Which is a fantastic document, thanks for posting it... and, of course, for organizing the event it is for, even if you didn't personally make this document!
However, it highlights the problems:
First 2 pages of units- IG Next page - Various SM 2 units total - Necrons (Admittedly, I've faced one of them and it's really cool . At AdeptiCon, no less! Huzzah for limited FW!)
3 units total - Dark Eldar
7 units total, at least 2 of which are Apocalypse Only - Tyranids
Given that Tyranids already are unable to ally, this makes their lack of selection compared to other armies even more drastic.
Not to mention, the minefield that is the column of where the rules are. That's an absolute clusterfeth... who honestly has all of those books? Yakface, I'm sure . And what are the chances players will be using the most up to date ones, with how convoluted that is? Again, it's amazing that AdeptiCon makes this document, and imo a document like this is an absolute necessity for allowing FW in an event. Cheers to AdeptiCon for doing it!
Yeah, me personally, i've got no bias against FW. I don't think any of the units are THAT outrageous and i've played most of the supposed broken units (Contemptors, Sabres, Thudds, Heavy Artillery, Vultures).
But I think GW needs to show a little more support before it can be accepted in tournaments. That would entail offering equal choices to every codex. Streamlining it all into less books would also be helpful. As well as offering FW at more stores and in greater quantity.
Hey Mike... as a TO, what's your opinion on allowing double-force organization in a tournament? If nothing else, I think it'll move folks off of this eternal FW debate.
I'd rather see something like 4 DarkAngel HQs or 4 Dark Eldar HQs on the table than the rare FW units. *shrugs* But, like I said earlier... if there's a "tough" list out there, even if's it's FW, I'd thumb my nose and say "Bring it brah!".
We allow the double FOC in two of our four events. I think if you play 2000+ points, per the rulebook, you should use two FOC. I think if you play 1999- points, per the rulebook, you should not. I think there's nothing wrong with choosing ANY points level as a TO (whether it be 500, 1500, 1850, 1999, 2001, 7324, or 42).
As for the tough list out there, the decisions about FW that most TO's make have nothing to do with players who are aware of what's coming and can handle it.
muwhe wrote: Any of the units listed as usable only in the Gladiator “GL” in that document are for Apocalypse only.
Having choices does not equal value. Standard 40k has a lot of choices, most of them we do not see at events.
That doesn't matter though, I think each army should have within the same ballpark of unique choices. The goodness or badness of the individual units can't be balanced out, but you can at least balance out the amount of choices available to players. That to me would help legitimize the product, as it would be more in-line with what has in the past been standard 40k (Codices).
muwhe wrote: Any of the units listed as usable only in the Gladiator “GL” in that document are for Apocalypse only.
Having choices does not equal value. Standard 40k has a lot of choices, most of them we do not see at events.
Ah, in that case it becomes more like: 1 page of IG units, 1 page of various SM units... 1 unit total for Necrons (admittedly, it's really cool ), 3 units total for DE, and 4 units total for Tyranids.
Agreed that having tons of choices doesn't necessarily equal having more good ones, but it usually plays out that if you've got a larger pool to pull from, you're going to have more units on the extremes (both good and bad) since you've got more "chances" at landing one given the way the rules are written.
Most of the units mentioned as problems come from IG / SM, and that's no coincidence- that's the largest pool. Again, it just exacerbates a problem that is there with the codii, but not as extreme. Limiting the amount of FW that can be taken, or at least limiting the most overpowered units (which will likely lie with IG / SM) alleviates this issue, imo. As AdeptiCon usually does this for everything but the Gladiator, I'm perfectly happy with the way AdeptiCon deals with FW units.
I just think it's telling how much work it would be to put that kind of document together. AdeptiCon does the legwork to make FW work. You can't just toss it into a small tourney where the TO doesn't even know what certain units do, and thus can't easily make a rules judgement on it. It's got to be handled responsibly... hence, this thread!
RiTides wrote: Vaktathi- You do seem to be waving your hand a bit, as they say here, at the stats. Even when talking guardsmen, why are you harping on the 5+ save?
Because it very definitely can be taken advantage of in many situations. Not always, but it very much can come into play. (as I noted, outflanking, deep striking, etc are great tools against such units and the game has such mechanics for a reason).
They're likely behind an aegis, can go to ground for a 2++, and get the order to get back in the fight next turn.
Likely true if the list is built around spamming artillery as much as possible, but again, requires the artillery units to be grouped in a clumped up area around an expensive babysitting service to work well, which certainly causes its own issues (and puts a strain on orders that could otherwise be used for putting out more firepower). Eldar artillery can be placed anywhere and joined by a Warlock giving them Shrouded without having to worry about it
You have some good points but I think you're understating the differences.
It's possible, we all have our own biases and blindnesses, but I really feel that there's a lot that's being made out about stuff like Thudd Guns that's either universal to artillery units or is replicatable by other armies to similar extent without the same outcry, and it's just exceedingly odd that this unit existed for 7 years and two editions (in its current incarnation at least, it did exist before that as an Imperial Army/Space Marine/Squat unit) before people thought "zomg that's so much blast firepower, it'll annihilate entire armies!"
The problem Vak, is that the game has dramatically changed on multiple fronts to make it so, since most of the past 7 years ago.
No artillery unit can stack 12 blasts, and this is initially important b/c at two separate times that I can think of in just the AdeptiTeam tournament, our team and Target's team (ours placed 14th despite mis-counting where we stood, and conceding the entire last round so teammates could take care of sick significant others ... aka, we were in contention for generalship and did very well against our opponents) scattered a full 12" off the first shot, and were able to walk the blast back to destroy entire units.
Entire armies are now consisted entirely of infantry, more often than not, and that hasn't been the case in 7 years. Fifth edition was a MECH edition, which means AV10 vehicles were easy targets for the firepower out there (which is what artillery was prior to 6th), and S5 wasn't exactly useful (since most of the mech armies out there were razorspam and similar, with AV11-12 being prevalent).
Suddenly, the artillery pieces are more durable, and infantry is the dominant presence on the battlefield, and you have a unit whose updates have also buffed it (no longer has to reload every third turn, the initial balancer that showed even FW knew the rules were a little silly), that's nearly impossible to kill with most conventional means, and whose best buffs - twin-linking and LD10 w/ re-roll - are inherent to the best builds it fits within (that's to say, while some people have made the claim, they're mistaken - the things that make Thudd Guns better against their only real weaknesses are inherent to the builds anyway).
It's not the same as eldar platforms that fire 1/4th as many blasts, or ork platforms that fire 1/4th as many blasts.
It's akin to a Thunderfire battery of 3, that costs half as much, and has numerous additional crewmen to soak wounds.
Yup, I'm with MVBrandt on that one, saying it has been the same for 7 years is not true due to rules changes.
In 5th, as described, it was AV10 that took 1 glance to kill, it was shooting against AV11+ in many cases, and Blasts only did full strength damage if the hole hit the target. Further that by glances doing very little (if any) damage.
So shooting 12 S5 blasts (even if we assume they all hit) meant that you averaged 2 Glancing hits....hardly a big deal.
muwhe wrote: Any of the units listed as usable only in the Gladiator “GL” in that document are for Apocalypse only.
Having choices does not equal value. Standard 40k has a lot of choices, most of them we do not see at events.
Ah, in that case it becomes more like: 1 page of IG units, 1 page of various SM units... 1 unit total for Necrons (admittedly, it's really cool ), 3 units total for DE, and 4 units total for Tyranids.
Agreed that having tons of choices doesn't necessarily equal having more good ones, but it usually plays out that if you've got a larger pool to pull from, you're going to have more units on the extremes (both good and bad) since you've got more "chances" at landing one given the way the rules are written.
Most of the units mentioned as problems come from IG / SM, and that's no coincidence- that's the largest pool. Again, it just exacerbates a problem that is there with the codii, but not as extreme. Limiting the amount of FW that can be taken, or at least limiting the most overpowered units (which will likely lie with IG / SM) alleviates this issue, imo. As AdeptiCon usually does this for everything but the Gladiator, I'm perfectly happy with the way AdeptiCon deals with FW units.
Imperials also typically have more "useless" fluff units than any other race out there, from Sentinel Power Lifters to Arvus Lighters and Atlas Recovery Vehicles. Once you've removed all of those, as well as all of the "variants" entries (such as the 2 Salamander variants, the 4ish Leman Russ variants, Chimera Variants etc.) you'll realize that they have only marginally more, if not on-par to, other races. Bearing in mind how many Imperial codices there are compared to other races, this is merely an extension of the ratio that exists. Arguing that FW units need to be balanced in the number of choices each race gets is a rather pointless argument given the current state of codices. For example, Imperial Guard already get more tank and artillery options than any other race, and have typically been that way. That's not going to change in future codices.
RiTides wrote:
Not to mention, the minefield that is the column of where the rules are. That's an absolute clusterfeth... who honestly has all of those books?
I do.
And what are the chances players will be using the most up to date ones, with how convoluted that is?
Pretty good. Adepticon puts out this nice table to tell us which version of the rules will be the valid ones at their events, and it's not exactly rocket science to consult that list when picking what models you want to use.
Chancetragedy wrote: I'm of the belief it was never "needed" in the first place. People just wanted to take even more broken stuff and run it behind the guise of "more variety". By allowing forgeworld you've just traded the top armies for IG supremacy.
Enigwolf wrote: Imperials also typically have more "useless" fluff units than any other race out there, from Sentinel Power Lifters to Arvus Lighters and Atlas Recovery Vehicles. Once you've removed all of those, as well as all of the "variants" entries (such as the 2 Salamander variants, the 4ish Leman Russ variants, Chimera Variants etc.) you'll realize that they have only marginally more, if not on-par to, other races. Bearing in mind how many Imperial codices there are compared to other races, this is merely an extension of the ratio that exists. Arguing that FW units need to be balanced in the number of choices each race gets is a rather pointless argument given the current state of codices. For example, Imperial Guard already get more tank and artillery options than any other race, and have typically been that way. That's not going to change in future codices.
Marginally more?
Spoiler:
Spoiler:
Spoiler:
I missed the second salamander in there accidentally but that's still 24 "extra" models just for IG (not counting the ones shared with SoB).
Please correct me if I missed any. And before you start arguing "Well not all of those are worth the points." there isn't a single Tyranid unit from FW that's worth the points. None.
RiTides wrote:
Not to mention, the minefield that is the column of where the rules are. That's an absolute clusterfeth... who honestly has all of those books?
I do.
You cut off my quote of "Yakface, I'm sure ". Next time, I'll say "Yakface and Redbeard, I'm sure ".
Anyone else?
Seriously, you can make light of the point but you are a serious outlier in regards to FW familiarity . That's a good thing, regarding both you and yakface, but my point remains that that list of books the rules are scattered throughout is Immense!
I've already started to notice this with chaos dwarfs, which I'm starting. Thankfully, it's only one book and so much easier to keep track of. But there are tons of posters over at Chaos Dwarf Online who come on and have the rules wrong. With only one book to learn, the chances of an opposing player (or, at the very least, a TO) being able to correct them on a ruling they have wrong is a lot higher. With that list of 40kFW supplements... heck, the VAST majority of TOs aren't going to know how to make rulings on half of it. Let alone players having any idea.
Thankfully, AdeptiCon has resources like yakface (and you, I believe, also have been involved in the past). But most tournies won't have that, and as I said, that list of additional books, pdfs, etc is Immense. That will get most TOs in over their heads, imo... unless they put in at least a fraction of the preparation that AdeptiCon puts in to be able to allow and make rulings on FW units in major events.
Clauss wrote: Troops are mandatory. Look at the FoC, as far as I can see you have to take at least 2. FW is essentially a new game completely, given how ridiculous thudd guns are along with other units.. Yes I am happy I dont have to face them, because they are too good for their points.
What things in 5th were so imbalanced, please tell me and we can show you tournament results that show you exact opposite over the past years.
So saying people on dakka crying about unit X being too good equates to OP? If you went to more tournaments you would experience this. The vast majority of big tournaments you will see good players make it to top tables, not OP units.
Competitive players are not afraid of the metagame changes, it changes with every codex. Why don't you go ask TOs who run tournaments why they don't allow IA and FW units, then we can get a 1st hand answer instead.
If it was so balanced and accepted, then the logical assumption would be TOs to allow FW to attract players who have FW units which would increase the attendees. So why do they not include FW?
Kain, no, this thread did not have a nice run, it was ridiculous from page one.
Allow me to go through a lot of the perceived imbalances with FW and enlighten you.
The main problem with the Thudd gun is that it takes forever to resolve but it's not really all that killy. Even against my Swarmnids list it isn't particularly killy. I have never lost any more than my Tervigons can replace with interest in one turn to them. Now if you want imbalanced, look at the Vendetta, the ability for the Tau to completely ignore large swathes of the rulebook like cover and assault and having to deal with a mediocre BS, the nigh invincible wave serpent, or the current cookie cutter cheese lists the Necrons have.
The Contemptor dread is pretty balanced and is probably one of the only forms of dreads that ever get used this edition as the rest are made of paper.
Lucius drop pod: 250 points for three power fist attacks at initiative out of a drop pod that has a chance of immobilizing your dread outright...whoop de fething doo.
Night shroud bomber: It's just a doomscythe with a different gun, yes S10 AP1 large blast is nasty, no it is not unhandleable. I mean, do Medusas dominate the meta despite firing out more S10 termi killing shots? No.
Tesseract ark: An annihiliation barge that gets an Executioner's gun, can kill much of your own army if it bites it, and can get AV14 from quantum shielding, is otherwise AV12 and costs nearly as much as a land raider.
Land Raider Achilles: With the advent of hull points, the Achilles is now paying for a -1 on the damage chart that's going to come up a lot less, and while ignoring lance and melta is nice, it can still simply be smashed open by the nearest monstrous creature or walker.
Vulture: Largely inferior to the Vendetta in most every way, only one build (double punisher cannons) is really all that viable and even then it won't kill as many infantry as you'd think (not enough shots to kill big 30 model bricks, or kill a good sized MEQ group), it is surprisingly good for hullpoint stripping on rear armor though.
Avenger: While it is very nice, it's quite reasonably priced and doesn't do anything too out of the ordinary, indeed a Heldrake is a better MEQ slayer than it is and is far more durable too.
Sabre gun platform: Undercosted? Yes. Game breaking? No. In the end, they're nothing more than tougher heavy weapons teams that can shoot at fliers without gimping themselves. Still nothing an Ion pieplate that ignores cover can't wipe off the map.
Stonecrusher Carnifex: Yes it has better regeneration, AP1, and a 2+, it is still just a four wound monstrous creature with no ranged options and it still dies just as easily to lascannons.
Nightwing: A very nice fighter, perhaps the best air superiority fighter in the game. It is however, made of paper and if it rolls a one on it's jink save that is probably the last one it'll ever roll, at which point you can kiss your points goodbye.
Hornet: Cheap, very snazzy, but not fliers, and you know what that means? Yes, autocannon time, and unlike the now ridiculously invincible wave serpent it doesn't have that snazzy shield of "feth your high strength."
Shadow spectres: Oh look overpriced MEQ killing Jump infantry in a codex full of MEQ slaying options, next.
Meiotic spores: Spore mines are bad and these are still glorified spore mines.
Malanthrope: Used to be awesome as hell, then nerfed into sucking.
Hades Breaching drill: was one legitimately overpowered, is now unreasonably terrible and will accomplish nothing other than mishapping itself and dying like a second rate mawloc.
DkoK: Are they a nice army in both flavors? Why yes. Are they inarguably superior to the guard? Well no. Peregrine can explain it better than I can.
Elysian Drop troopers: Yes they can spam fliers to an extent only Cron air can match, but most of those fliers are valkyries, whose best options are rocket pods that do little to MCs and vehicles unlike the Vendetta's heavy bolters and lascannons of kill everything.
Siege Assault Vanguard list: Yes they can spam huge numbers of tanks, yes they can reroll armor saves, guess what? If they don't get the objective they need to place in your side of the table, they can only ever tie. And rerollable armor saves means diddly to AP3 or better weapons.
Decimator daemon engine: Only truly good when run with Nurgle, and even then it costs nearly as much as a Land raider. Feth.
Mortis dreadnought: Delivers much needed skyfire to the Dark Angels, but it's still a dreadnought and is thus still AV12 with no options for added survivability.
Spartan Assault tank: While better than it's smaller land raider brother at everything for only fifty or so points more, you are now investing nearly three hundred points into a 5 HP AV14 all around unit. Which will make you a very sad man indeed when a cheap unit of Eldar drops in, haywires it into oblivion and drops out, or when JSJ fusion suits come in and fry it, or when you roll into rapid fire range of necron warriors and lose all your hull points in one go.
Legions list: Only meant for games in the 2k+ point range, any oddities for smaller games are there because you're trying to use an army that requires horde marines but doesn't make them any cheaper. And why would a primarch be assed to join a 500 pt battle?
Eldar Corsairs: Once better than Craftworld Eldar in every way, now drearily out of date.
Dreadmob list: Like the Armored Battle group, but Orky and with walkers instead of tanks. The only battle brothers you'll ever get for Orks, has all the issues with trying to spam a lot of an expensive unit with no points deduction for said units.
Armored battle group: Yet again, you are trying to spam a lot of tanks that aren't actually cheaper. This is a list that requires skill because even Draigowing lists can outnumber you modelwise.
Maynarch dynasty: The main change is a Necron specific warlord table, the exceedingly overcosted Acranthites, some special characters, flayed one troops with shred, a few special rules, lychguards attatched to HQs, and immortals can't be mandatory troops. Otherwise pretty much the same as Codex Necrons, also not battle brothers with Codex Necrons for some inexplicable reason. Maybe one of them spat in Szarekh's tea.
Lightning fighter: Made of paper with crappy weapons, garbage.
Hell blade: Made of paper with even *crappier* weapons, garbage.
Hell talon: Schizofrenic paper flier, also garbage.
Fighta: Inferior to a dakkajet.
Fighta-bomma: GROT BOMMS! But still has smaller shootas than a plane flown by grots. Huh?
That one ork kopter: An AV11 skimmer, because the Orks need land speeders too. Made of paper, but pretty fun.
Malcador: Probably the worst superheavy ever, actually inferior to it's cost in Leman Russes by a good margin and is overall a really bad tank, taking this in regular 40k is like taking Old One Eye, it eats up so many points for so little in return you're hurting your army.
Thunderbolt: Actually a worse air to air fighter than the Vendetta, which is an armed transport. Funny how things work huh?
I could keep on going but you probably get the point by now.
Tags added for brevity.
reds8n
Because it's worth repeating.
If all of those units are as bad as you seem to think, then you will not mind them being banned.
Kain wrote: Sabre gun platform: Undercosted? Yes. Game breaking? No. In the end, they're nothing more than tougher heavy weapons teams that can shoot at fliers without gimping themselves. Still nothing an Ion pieplate that ignores cover can't wipe off the map.
So what you are saying is that a TL Lascannon, that has skyfire, that is very, very hard to kill is just a little bit better than a heavy weapons team? Also, one is not game breaking, it's the amount that you can take.
Vulture: Largely inferior to the Vendetta in most every way, only one build (double punisher cannons) is really all that viable and even then it won't kill as many infantry as you'd think (not enough shots to kill big 30 model bricks, or kill a good sized MEQ group), it is surprisingly good for hullpoint stripping on rear armor though.
First off, you will only see it with the punisher cannons so saying that the basic build is not that great is irrelevant. How many Valkeries have you seen? I know that I have never played against one because it is inferior to the Vendetta. It will not kill infantry? You are kidding right?
MVBrandt wrote: The problem Vak, is that the game has dramatically changed on multiple fronts to make it so, since most of the past 7 years ago.
True of course.
No artillery unit can stack 12 blasts, and this is initially important b/c at two separate times that I can think of in just the AdeptiTeam tournament, our team and Target's team (ours placed 14th despite mis-counting where we stood, and conceding the entire last round so teammates could take care of sick significant others ... aka, we were in contention for generalship and did very well against our opponents) scattered a full 12" off the first shot, and were able to walk the blast back to destroy entire units.
That would require 4 Hits however, and, on average, by the time you hit that you'd have exhausted your complement of blasts for the unit. A relatively rare occurrence, much less with enough punch to really hurt once you did walk it back.
Entire armies are now consisted entirely of infantry, more often than not, and that hasn't been the case in 7 years.
It certainly was the case in 2006/2007 and most of 2008, only the Skimmerspam armies were mech really, almost everything else was generally infantry based.
Fifth edition was a MECH edition, which means AV10 vehicles were easy targets for the firepower out there (which is what artillery was prior to 6th), and S5 wasn't exactly useful (since most of the mech armies out there were razorspam and similar, with AV11-12 being prevalent).
True, but that doesn't mean that infantry killing firepower wasn't necessary or desired.
Suddenly, the artillery pieces are more durable, and infantry is the dominant presence on the battlefield
Entirely true. That said, they were far too fragile beforehand
and you have a unit whose updates have also buffed it (no longer has to reload every third turn, the initial balancer that showed even FW knew the rules were a little silly)
IIRC it was a fluff rule harkening back to its 2E incarnation that they got rid of after everyone only ever took the heavy mortars.
that's nearly impossible to kill with most conventional means
Yes, if all you do is shoot at it frontally across an aegis line. Same thing if you stuck a Leman Russ with camo netting behind one. If you get into the side/rear you can more readily start putting wounds on the guns and bypassing the cover save, and if you get almost anything at all into CC, the unit evaporates (2 or 3 marines getting into a full Thudd Gun unit will generally break it).
It's not the same as eldar platforms that fire 1/4th as many blasts, or ork platforms that fire 1/4th as many blasts.
Which also cost significantly fewer points. And the number of blasts alone isn't showing the whole picture, strength, AP/rending-like abilities and size of the blast very much matters, a unit of IGHWS's with mortars have 3x as many blasts as a Medusa...but there's a world of difference there.
A unit of 3 Shadow Weavers sporting a Conceal warlock are entirely capable of proving similarly resilient (2+ cover saves without needing an Aegis line specifically and not needing orders to get back into the fight) and with fearsome firepower themselves (3 S6/7 Large Blasts that get AP1 on to-wound rolls of 6 vs 12 S5 small blasts) for fewer points. You can get three such units and two Farseers (9 S6/7 Large Blasts with mini-rending and two Divination psykers and Conceal on everything) for about the same price as two fully kitted Thudd Gun units+CCS and Lord Commissar.
EDIT: Apparently this got FAQ'd and the Shadow Weaver no longer has a large blast (unfortuante for the Eldar), so admittedly, the Thudd guns do gain there now.
It's akin to a Thunderfire battery of 3, that costs half as much, and has numerous additional crewmen to soak wounds.
In a sense, but with lower S on primary blast, no ignores cover option (only intervening cover), no tertiary blast option, no 2+sv crew sporting a plasma weapon and a powerfist attack, no cover reinforcement (big one), significantly lower Ld, and lower BS for direct fire.
RiTides wrote:
Not to mention, the minefield that is the column of where the rules are. That's an absolute clusterfeth... who honestly has all of those books?
I do.
You cut off my quote of "Yakface, I'm sure ". Next time, I'll say "Yakface and Redbeard, I'm sure ".
Anyone else?
Seriously, you can make light of the point but you are a serious outlier in regards to FW familiarity . That's a good thing, regarding both you and yakface, but my point remains that that list of books the rules are scattered throughout is Immense!
I've already started to notice this with chaos dwarfs, which I'm starting. Thankfully, it's only one book and so much easier to keep track of. But there are tons of posters over at Chaos Dwarf Online who come on and have the rules wrong. With only one book to learn, the chances of an opposing player (or, at the very least, a TO) being able to correct them on a ruling they have wrong is a lot higher. With that list of 40kFW supplements... heck, the VAST majority of TOs aren't going to know how to make rulings on half of it. Let alone players having any idea.
Thankfully, AdeptiCon has resources like yakface (and you, I believe, also have been involved in the past). But most tournies won't have that, and as I said, that list of additional books, pdfs, etc is Immense. That will get most TOs in over their heads, imo... unless they put in at least a fraction of the preparation that AdeptiCon puts in to be able to allow and make rulings on FW units in major events.
I own every Forgeworld book and every codex. Even though I am no longer running tournaments I still like to read about everything. Most of the people I play with own most of the stuff also.
Clauss wrote: Troops are mandatory. Look at the FoC, as far as I can see you have to take at least 2. FW is essentially a new game completely, given how ridiculous thudd guns are along with other units.. Yes I am happy I dont have to face them, because they are too good for their points.
What things in 5th were so imbalanced, please tell me and we can show you tournament results that show you exact opposite over the past years.
So saying people on dakka crying about unit X being too good equates to OP? If you went to more tournaments you would experience this. The vast majority of big tournaments you will see good players make it to top tables, not OP units.
Competitive players are not afraid of the metagame changes, it changes with every codex. Why don't you go ask TOs who run tournaments why they don't allow IA and FW units, then we can get a 1st hand answer instead.
If it was so balanced and accepted, then the logical assumption would be TOs to allow FW to attract players who have FW units which would increase the attendees. So why do they not include FW?
Kain, no, this thread did not have a nice run, it was ridiculous from page one.
Allow me to go through a lot of the perceived imbalances with FW and enlighten you.
The main problem with the Thudd gun is that it takes forever to resolve but it's not really all that killy. Even against my Swarmnids list it isn't particularly killy. I have never lost any more than my Tervigons can replace with interest in one turn to them. Now if you want imbalanced, look at the Vendetta, the ability for the Tau to completely ignore large swathes of the rulebook like cover and assault and having to deal with a mediocre BS, the nigh invincible wave serpent, or the current cookie cutter cheese lists the Necrons have.
The Contemptor dread is pretty balanced and is probably one of the only forms of dreads that ever get used this edition as the rest are made of paper.
Lucius drop pod: 250 points for three power fist attacks at initiative out of a drop pod that has a chance of immobilizing your dread outright...whoop de fething doo.
Night shroud bomber: It's just a doomscythe with a different gun, yes S10 AP1 large blast is nasty, no it is not unhandleable. I mean, do Medusas dominate the meta despite firing out more S10 termi killing shots? No.
Tesseract ark: An annihiliation barge that gets an Executioner's gun, can kill much of your own army if it bites it, and can get AV14 from quantum shielding, is otherwise AV12 and costs nearly as much as a land raider.
Land Raider Achilles: With the advent of hull points, the Achilles is now paying for a -1 on the damage chart that's going to come up a lot less, and while ignoring lance and melta is nice, it can still simply be smashed open by the nearest monstrous creature or walker.
Vulture: Largely inferior to the Vendetta in most every way, only one build (double punisher cannons) is really all that viable and even then it won't kill as many infantry as you'd think (not enough shots to kill big 30 model bricks, or kill a good sized MEQ group), it is surprisingly good for hullpoint stripping on rear armor though.
Avenger: While it is very nice, it's quite reasonably priced and doesn't do anything too out of the ordinary, indeed a Heldrake is a better MEQ slayer than it is and is far more durable too.
Sabre gun platform: Undercosted? Yes. Game breaking? No. In the end, they're nothing more than tougher heavy weapons teams that can shoot at fliers without gimping themselves. Still nothing an Ion pieplate that ignores cover can't wipe off the map.
Stonecrusher Carnifex: Yes it has better regeneration, AP1, and a 2+, it is still just a four wound monstrous creature with no ranged options and it still dies just as easily to lascannons.
Nightwing: A very nice fighter, perhaps the best air superiority fighter in the game. It is however, made of paper and if it rolls a one on it's jink save that is probably the last one it'll ever roll, at which point you can kiss your points goodbye.
Hornet: Cheap, very snazzy, but not fliers, and you know what that means? Yes, autocannon time, and unlike the now ridiculously invincible wave serpent it doesn't have that snazzy shield of "feth your high strength."
Shadow spectres: Oh look overpriced MEQ killing Jump infantry in a codex full of MEQ slaying options, next.
Meiotic spores: Spore mines are bad and these are still glorified spore mines.
Malanthrope: Used to be awesome as hell, then nerfed into sucking.
Hades Breaching drill: was one legitimately overpowered, is now unreasonably terrible and will accomplish nothing other than mishapping itself and dying like a second rate mawloc.
DkoK: Are they a nice army in both flavors? Why yes. Are they inarguably superior to the guard? Well no. Peregrine can explain it better than I can.
Elysian Drop troopers: Yes they can spam fliers to an extent only Cron air can match, but most of those fliers are valkyries, whose best options are rocket pods that do little to MCs and vehicles unlike the Vendetta's heavy bolters and lascannons of kill everything.
Siege Assault Vanguard list: Yes they can spam huge numbers of tanks, yes they can reroll armor saves, guess what? If they don't get the objective they need to place in your side of the table, they can only ever tie. And rerollable armor saves means diddly to AP3 or better weapons.
Decimator daemon engine: Only truly good when run with Nurgle, and even then it costs nearly as much as a Land raider. Feth.
Mortis dreadnought: Delivers much needed skyfire to the Dark Angels, but it's still a dreadnought and is thus still AV12 with no options for added survivability.
Spartan Assault tank: While better than it's smaller land raider brother at everything for only fifty or so points more, you are now investing nearly three hundred points into a 5 HP AV14 all around unit. Which will make you a very sad man indeed when a cheap unit of Eldar drops in, haywires it into oblivion and drops out, or when JSJ fusion suits come in and fry it, or when you roll into rapid fire range of necron warriors and lose all your hull points in one go.
Legions list: Only meant for games in the 2k+ point range, any oddities for smaller games are there because you're trying to use an army that requires horde marines but doesn't make them any cheaper. And why would a primarch be assed to join a 500 pt battle?
Eldar Corsairs: Once better than Craftworld Eldar in every way, now drearily out of date.
Dreadmob list: Like the Armored Battle group, but Orky and with walkers instead of tanks. The only battle brothers you'll ever get for Orks, has all the issues with trying to spam a lot of an expensive unit with no points deduction for said units.
Armored battle group: Yet again, you are trying to spam a lot of tanks that aren't actually cheaper. This is a list that requires skill because even Draigowing lists can outnumber you modelwise.
Maynarch dynasty: The main change is a Necron specific warlord table, the exceedingly overcosted Acranthites, some special characters, flayed one troops with shred, a few special rules, lychguards attatched to HQs, and immortals can't be mandatory troops. Otherwise pretty much the same as Codex Necrons, also not battle brothers with Codex Necrons for some inexplicable reason. Maybe one of them spat in Szarekh's tea.
Lightning fighter: Made of paper with crappy weapons, garbage.
Hell blade: Made of paper with even *crappier* weapons, garbage.
Hell talon: Schizofrenic paper flier, also garbage.
Fighta: Inferior to a dakkajet.
Fighta-bomma: GROT BOMMS! But still has smaller shootas than a plane flown by grots. Huh?
That one ork kopter: An AV11 skimmer, because the Orks need land speeders too. Made of paper, but pretty fun.
Malcador: Probably the worst superheavy ever, actually inferior to it's cost in Leman Russes by a good margin and is overall a really bad tank, taking this in regular 40k is like taking Old One Eye, it eats up so many points for so little in return you're hurting your army.
Thunderbolt: Actually a worse air to air fighter than the Vendetta, which is an armed transport. Funny how things work huh?
I could keep on going but you probably get the point by now.
Tags added for brevity.
reds8n
Because it's worth repeating.
If all of those units are as bad as you seem to think, then you will not mind them being banned.
Kain wrote: Sabre gun platform: Undercosted? Yes. Game breaking? No. In the end, they're nothing more than tougher heavy weapons teams that can shoot at fliers without gimping themselves. Still nothing an Ion pieplate that ignores cover can't wipe off the map.
So what you are saying is that a TL Lascannon, that has skyfire, that is very, very hard to kill is just a little bit better than a heavy weapons team? Also, one is not game breaking, it's the amount that you can take.
Vulture: Largely inferior to the Vendetta in most every way, only one build (double punisher cannons) is really all that viable and even then it won't kill as many infantry as you'd think (not enough shots to kill big 30 model bricks, or kill a good sized MEQ group), it is surprisingly good for hullpoint stripping on rear armor though.
First off, you will only see it with the punisher cannons so saying that the basic build is not that great is irrelevant. How many Valkeries have you seen? I know that I have never played against one because it is inferior to the Vendetta. It will not kill infantry? You are kidding right?
It won't kill enough infantry. Punisher vultures can't put enough of a dent in my gant swarms to matter and they can't get enough wounds through my MCs to matter either. Not unless you want to divert three of them to one target, in which case you are better served by the Vendetta, which is still the most unfair unit of all time.
And you know how I deal with sabres? I swamp them and assault them at which point they're undersized guardsmen blocks who die in mere moments. This is the edition of massive hordes, you should have enough boys to get into assault range and murder them all without hassle.
And I do mind them being banned, because it punishes people who have put time and effort into their armies to accommodate some gripers. I've been playing since 2e and I'm certainly not going to bend over to some little timmy who's upset that he has to horror of horrors, adapt a little to accomodate to some new units like he does every time a new codex hits.
I have no sympathy to people who can't adapt to meta alterations. Which apparently includes you good sir.
Kain wrote:I have no sympathy to people who can't adapt to meta alterations. Which apparently includes you good sir.
Actually, as has been well documented in this thread, most of the top tournament players (of which Blackmoor is definitely a part) have said they will certainly take FW artillery when it is allowed. It's the average players that the debate is really about. Although they will take them, many top players have noted (in this thread!) that they don't think it would be good for the game.
Good luck finishing a tournament game with enough gaunts to "swamp" thudd guns. I assume you already polished off the intervening guard blob, too...?
If this is the edition of swarms THAT big, then point levels need to be revisited, too. That's already probably true, even without any additional variables, though.
So the answe to FW is to play giant horde lists that swamp artillery and don't get dented by twin punisher shots? Does adapting to the meta mean you can only play one type of army? FW doesn't sound so fun when only giant swarms can ignore their units.
RiTides wrote:
Not to mention, the minefield that is the column of where the rules are. That's an absolute clusterfeth... who honestly has all of those books?
I do.
You cut off my quote of "Yakface, I'm sure ". Next time, I'll say "Yakface and Redbeard, I'm sure ".
Anyone else?
I have all but IA2, IA3, and IA12, but I have 2 people in my group with IA2, and it's laughably out of date, anyway.
DarthDiggler wrote: So the answe to FW is to play giant horde lists that swamp artillery and don't get dented by twin punisher shots? Does adapting to the meta mean you can only play one type of army? FW doesn't sound so fun when only giant swarms can ignore their units.
I'd argue that the standard Deathwing can take 'em on.
Shoot... I can see a Termigon-heavy list + Yrmagl can give this list loads trouble.
*shrug* Those artillery list are strong... the meta will adapt.
Jeez... I remember when TWC and Nob Bikers were the cheese.
Kain wrote: Punisher vultures can't put enough of a dent in my gant swarms to matter and they can't get enough wounds through my MCs to matter either. Not unless you want to divert three of them to one target, in which case you are better served by the Vendetta, which is still the most unfair unit of all time.
I see this straw man argument over an over when discussing Forge World. The Vendetta is OP/undercosted red herring. Yes its potent, yes its undercosted (but not by the 50-100 points) and its completely possible to counter. The Vendetta is one of the most predictable units in 40k. You know its role, you know exactly when it will enter the game, from which table edge, and what targets it will go after. No Vendetta spam army has won a major GT, in fact I cant remember a list in the past year that won with a Vendetta that didn't also feature FW. Over and over is see arguments for FW in tourneys who turn around and point and yell about the Vendetta as the reason we need FW or at the very least FW is equivalent to them. Now that we have seen the last two codices come out with excellent anti-air its silly to keep turning to the Vendetta rationale. It was very powerful at the dawn of 6thed. Now its a good unit.
Kain wrote: Punisher vultures can't put enough of a dent in my gant swarms to matter and they can't get enough wounds through my MCs to matter either. Not unless you want to divert three of them to one target, in which case you are better served by the Vendetta, which is still the most unfair unit of all time.
I see this straw man argument over an over when discussing Forge World. The Vendetta is OP/undercosted red herring. Yes its potent, yes its undercosted (but not by the 50-100 points) and its completely possible to counter. The Vendetta is one of the most predictable units in 40k. You know its role, you know exactly when it will enter the game, from which table edge, and what targets it will go after. No Vendetta spam army has won a major GT, in fact I cant remember a list in the past year that won with a Vendetta that didn't also feature FW. Over and over is see arguments for FW in tourneys who turn around and point and yell about the Vendetta as the reason we need FW or at the very least FW is equivalent to them. Now that we have seen the last two codices come out with excellent anti-air its silly to keep turning to the Vendetta rationale. It was very powerful at the dawn of 6thed. Now its a good unit.
Heldrakes, Night Scythes, Doom Scythes, Annihilation Barges, the ability of the Tau codex to say "assault phase? Son you won't even survive shooting phase" and ignore cover saves, invincible wave serpents, Coteaz henchmen armies, Wraiths, D-scythes (Assault, what's that?), Necron AV13 spam, Necrons ignoring any nerfs 6e gave to old dex armies, and did I mention that the Tau codex is silly with it's ability to ignore night fighting, cover, it's mediocre BS, an utterly irrelevant weakness (assault, you won't live to see assault against a Tau list, you'll be lucky to see overwatch anyway), interceptor and skyfire out the wazoo, and effectively hard countering everything? Because I find the Tau to be the most fun-sucking army ever.
Sure the Necrons are perhaps stronger, but the Tau are just not fun to play against.
Pro-FW advocates too often label anti-FW folks as being resistant to change. I don't think that's the case. If FW becomes the standard, I wouldn't quit, I'd adapt by building IG!
If you're a TO, and you want to minimize these sorts of spammed out Artillery lists, but don't necessarily outright ban them.
Why not "control" it on the table scenery?
First announce it (I think BugEater did this)... saying that there will be at least one big LOS blocking terrain on the table.
I'm not advocating to completely neuter shooty army by putting a crap ton of scenery on the table. But, in the given scenario, have the terrain provide some cover if you need to hide from a gunline army.
If you announce it ahead of time, then the players will take that into account when building their list.
It won't kill enough infantry. Punisher vultures can't put enough of a dent in my gant swarms to matter and they can't get enough wounds through my MCs to matter either. Not unless you want to divert three of them to one target, in which case you are better served by the Vendetta, which is still the most unfair unit of all time.
I don't have my books with me but how many MEQs/GEQs can it kill?
And you know how I deal with sabres? I swamp them and assault them at which point they're undersized guardsmen blocks who die in mere moments. This is the edition of massive hordes, you should have enough boys to get into assault range and murder them all without hassle.
And I do mind them being banned, because it punishes people who have put time and effort into their armies to accommodate some gripers. I've been playing since 2e and I'm certainly not going to bend over to some little timmy who's upset that he has to horror of horrors, adapt a little to accomodate to some new units like he does every time a new codex hits.
I have no sympathy to people who can't adapt to meta alterations. Which apparently includes you good sir.
it shows the ignorance of people when they just look at one unit and figure out a way to beat it, and they completely ignore the reality of the game of 40k.
It is how all of these units work together that is the problem. Remember Thudd Guns? You have them with your saber platforms, and they will kill your gant squads. Also they are bubble wrapped with blob guardsmen backed up by rune priests. They can blow your gants off of the table before you can even get close.
You show how little you know about 40k when you make a statement that all you have to do is swamp them in assault.
. Any fix except that of doing nothing, and just allowing it all as-is, consequences be damned.
and they seem to be happy to try to fix problems when they arise. It's been a good experience for me so far!
. It lets folks bring out their toys, but I don't have to face 6 quad launchers. Win-win, for me 
