Hi there. I was just wondering about this, as most tourney lists posted don't tend to have any FW models. For instance, Leviathan dreads are pretty decent. As are Vultures and Strike Fighters. Yet, they don't seem to appear in tourney lists. Is that because most TOs frown on FW or is it simply that Codex stuff is more points efficient?

Banville wrote:
Hi there. I was just wondering about this, as most tourney lists posted don't tend to have any FW models. For instance, Leviathan dreads are pretty decent. As are Vultures and Strike Fighters. Yet, they don't seem to appear in tourney lists. Is that because most TOs frown on FW or is it simply that Codex stuff is more points efficient?

Most of the time codex stuff is more pts effective, also moreover most of the FW stuff can't pofit from traits or stratagems which is also a big part in terms off effectiveness.

Tournaments can allow or disallow whatever they want. You have to check with the TO.

Banning FW stuff is pretty common. But not as common as it was in 5ed and prior.

Also FW is absurdly expensive and really, really pain in the ass to assemble and paint, so many folks tries to avoid it and hate to be forced to take it to be competitive.
I have one FW kit for my SW army, and assembling it literally was my worst experience in this hobby. Hope I'll never be forced to get any more resin kits.

All the big tournaments allow FW.

Local tournaments run by people who are jealous they cant afford it, or are tired of the lack of updated rules tend to ban FW models.


There are plenty of FW models that are just plain bad on the tabletop, plenty that don't have updated rules to put them in line with similar codex models, and plenty that even have rules that just plain don't work in 8th properly.


However, they mostly all look pretty good and some are quite a lot of fun to play with.


I find that instead of a blanket "ban all FW" (which is lazy), TO's could easily just look at other bigger tournaments that tend to know which units are a problem and pick and choose which they don't want to deal with.

As noted each tournament is unique, tough the bigger ones tend to be more open to FW whilst local level ones can be far more variable.

It should be noted FW is indeed more common and accepted today than in the past. I think partly because the game has evolved, but also because internet buying is far more common now so that there is far less of a barrier to entry. Don't forget back in the earlier days not everyone "trusted" buying online.

I'd also note that the price divide between GW and FW - at least in the UK market - has come down. In the past GW used to cap at around £35 for something like a Dreadnought or Dragon - whilst FW prices were still often up into the near or beyond £100 mark.
Today we've got a lot more GW models that are far higher in price so the FW stuff actually feels more affordable for many of the models (basically the non-knight/titan sized stuff)


Eg that FW Greater Demon of Slaanesh looked super expensive when it was 2-3 times the size just over £100 whilst the £30 metal one from GW was far smaller, but more affordable.

Today the GW one is way up into £85 and thus the price difference is far less. If you can bite the GW one the FW one is more easily within reach.

ETC did not allowed FW before, don`t know now.

Here tournaments follow ETC style(and as such flowchart units are banned) but FW units are pretty much universally allowed.

Seeing they are generally just prettier models with worse rules than GW units no real reason to ban them unless you want to force people to take the more broken stuff.

Some do ban FW models, not sure why, I suspect it's more to do with FW's patchy history than any current problems. There's one in London that does so because FW apparently doesn't fit their definition of "fun and fluffy".

I bought a Leviathan dreadnought for my Death Guard, and although it wasn't cheap, the model looks amazing, and was a pleasure to build and Nurglify. It also benefits from Death Guard legion traits, so slots easily into a list.

Marin wrote:
ETC did not allowed FW before, don`t know now.

Must be jealous obvs...

Or maybe they don't know what envy is.

Not nececerallly, sometimes its just outside thier comfort zone and they can't be arsed to bother learning what FW is out there.

Given FW's less-than-stellar record of actually telling you what rules are in what book, its slightly understandable.
However, seeing how they didn't advance ANYHTING past the indices in 8th, its more of a lack of updates than having difficulty knowing what is the latest publication.

And honestly, the indices are horrid. lots of unplayable gak.
I mean, I love my Xiphons for chaos, and they are playable enough for small local turnies where we are not too powergamey, but my Tau Tetras, and Ralai...bha, can't even consider them for casual games.

In Spain FW is universally banned. A shame. I bought a Galatus Dreadnought for my Custodes and ended up selling it because I couldn't use it.
A lovely model but I don't buy things just for the looks, I like to use then in the table.

Ask your TO. It doesn't matter if 90% of tournaments allow FW if your tournament is in the 10%.

 Galas wrote:
In Spain FW is universally banned. A shame. I bought a Galatus Dreadnought for my Custodes and ended up selling it because I couldn't use it.
A lovely model but I don't buy things just for the looks, I like to use then in the table.

What a terrible attitude for people to have.

40k does have a huge model pool. Nothing wrong with cutting it down some. Id start with index-only, but i can see giving fw the heave ho.

Banville wrote:
Hi there. I was just wondering about this, as most tourney lists posted don't tend to have any FW models. For instance, Leviathan dreads are pretty decent. As are Vultures and Strike Fighters. Yet, they don't seem to appear in tourney lists. Is that because most TOs frown on FW or is it simply that Codex stuff is more points efficient?

There's an attitude from some people that is quite anti-FW, but it's really quite outdated and unnecessary. Most Forgeworld stuff is not actually that good these days, which is the reason you don't see them even from hardcore tourney players much.

There are some decent units, but a lot of those are in armies that otherwise don't cut it. Leviathans are decent as you say, but Marines are a bit lackluster. Leviathans can't carry the list, and for they're cost they're really only decent which isn't enough - tournament lists need armies that are borderline broken, and FW doesn't really have anything that fits in that category. At least not these days.

FW is largely allowed and accepted now in my experience.

Martel732 wrote:
40k does have a huge model pool. Nothing wrong with cutting it down some. Id start with index-only, but i can see giving fw the heave ho.

Index entries I can see the perspective on, but tbh you may as well ban a codex as much as ban FW.

Well, i think the game needs less power armor, and ba, da, and sw are adding nothing to meta except easy wins for xenos and castellans. Thats three gone.

 blood reaper wrote:

 Galas wrote:
In Spain FW is universally banned. A shame. I bought a Galatus Dreadnought for my Custodes and ended up selling it because I couldn't use it.
A lovely model but I don't buy things just for the looks, I like to use then in the table.

What a terrible attitude for people to have.

Yes, yes it is, but Spain has always been pretty special in relation to Warhammer. Is the land of the CAAC. As much as I say they are greately exaggerated by Peregrine, sadly theres a ton of toxic "casual" attitudes here.

The prevalence of bs 2+ in fw dreads is a little weird.

FW Custodes rules are written and balanced by GW now so banning FW with regards to them is like banning GW.

In the U.S.A. at least, FW seems pretty widely accepted

Thanks for the replies guys. I was wondering as I'm doing up a very heavily converted army to be used as a mixed AdMech/Marine force with a Crusader as a Super Heavy Aux Detachment. Fluff wise it's a Long March remnant. But I know some people object, or at least wrinkle their nose, at Knights so I was hoping to convert up a counts as Leviathan to sub in. Just in case I enter a tourney, I was wondering whether cutting up Redemptors and Contemptors to make a Levi would be worth the effort.

The whole army is a modelling project as much as anything but I'd like it to be 'legal' to play in stores and tournaments.

Banville wrote:
Thanks for the replies guys. I was wondering as I'm doing up a very heavily converted army to be used as a mixed AdMech/Marine force with a Crusader as a Super Heavy Aux Detachment. Fluff wise it's a Long March remnant. But I know some people object, or at least wrinkle their nose, at Knights so I was hoping to convert up a counts as Leviathan to sub in. Just in case I enter a tourney, I was wondering whether cutting up Redemptors and Contemptors to make a Levi would be worth the effort.

The whole army is a modelling project as much as anything but I'd like it to be 'legal' to play in stores and tournaments.

Knights are even MORE accepted than Forgeworld so he should be fine. LVO this year was like 1/3 Knight lists of some sort.

On a related point: Centurions all Robbie-the-Robot-upped are too small to count as Kastelan Robots, right? I'll have to just run them as Centurions?

At this point aside from just being a stick in the mud. No reason to really ban forgeworld or really much of anything. We pay enough for this hobby in time and money and heart. Let people play the armies they want to, if you have issue with their list, just let them find other opponents.

In a tournament standard GW is doing fine making the OP lists from its own models let alone FW.

As for implication of removing index entries, heck with that. I'm not giving up my vendettas, rough riders, chaplain on bike, etc etc. If the game isn't about having fun anymore, what is it for ? Let the people have their fun with who shares that idea.

Tournaments will allow so degenerate stuff so I'd find them banning FW to be a bit pointless. Just imo of course.

I've never really understood the old school attitude of banning FW or the more recent one of purge the indexes. With a handful of exceptions neither range really has anything that is breaking the game open. I don't get the push to invalid peoples models if they enjoy using those models in a game.

Part of the appeal to me in 40k is that there are so many options and combos.

Ahhh, this thread again.

For all my armies the FW options are overcosted and underperform, except for Leviathan Dreads that I don’t own. The ones I use I use because I love the models I’ve built. Outright banning FW is silly given the Codexes hold much stronger options.

HoundsofDemos wrote:
I've never really understood the old school attitude of banning FW or the more recent one of purge the indexes. With a handful of exceptions neither range really has anything that is breaking the game open. I don't get the push to invalid peoples models if they enjoy using those models in a game.

Part of the appeal to me in 40k is that there are so many options and combos.

Index at least has the point that the books are no longer on sale so players are on uneven grounds. Those who bought the books and have more powerful options available and those who didn't and so are stuck without them.

tneva82 wrote:

HoundsofDemos wrote:
I've never really understood the old school attitude of banning FW or the more recent one of purge the indexes. With a handful of exceptions neither range really has anything that is breaking the game open. I don't get the push to invalid peoples models if they enjoy using those models in a game.

Part of the appeal to me in 40k is that there are so many options and combos.

Index at least has the point that the books are no longer on sale so players are on uneven grounds. Those who bought the books and have more powerful options available and those who didn't and so are stuck without them.

It's also a model aspect, modern GW is aiming for all models to have rules and all rules to have specific models. Which makes it very open and accessible and simple for new gamers. Those with conversions or older collections have access to a wider range of options.

Essentially its a similar argument to FW exclusion and inclusion - basically aiming to ensure that the playerbase for the event has as equal a pool of models to choose from as each other. It gets a little more complicated with FW though as they make several armies of their own.




In my view FW is like Malign Sorcery in AoS. It's basically an expansion to the core game that adds content ontop of the base content found in the codex. In the past this was a clear line and not everyone "used the expansion" content; however today there's generally been a view toward being more open to it. I suspect if it keeps going the way it is FW will eventually become a default automatic include at most places; though on the international scene the recent price hikes have done a lot of damage to that in terms of increasing the price disparity between GW and FW models. It also did not help in the least that GW's marketing on that failed hard by encouraging large numbers to get excited about lower postage costs only to whack on a huge price rise at the very same time that made it worse to order internationally than ever before. A move which has soured many to ordering from FW in the first place.

UK side the disparity has come down a lot over the years. A £100 greater demon from FW is now not much more than the £70-85 ones from GW central. Whereas in the past those GW greater demon models were in the £30-35 bracket or so.

In my experience it varies. I have seen tournaments that have allowed it, not allowed it, denyed induvidual units while including whole FW codexes.

There are a few reasons why FW is not allowe:

- The store that hosts the tournament has no oppertunaty to sell FW models and thus does not allow it. Or something similar.

- The forge world models are unbalanced in some ungodly fashion. This used to be a problem. (6th edition elysian drop tropps flyer (or something) you pay a minimum cost for something I can only hit on 6's that shoots 25 S5 AP1 hitting on 2 and re-rolling misses. Pass please)

However some updates into 8th edition and most forge world units are very balanced. The malanthrope for example is a 9 wound HQ choise for nids with synapse, and gives -1 to hit on close models. Quite good. But it is not something that nids can not just copy with the venomthropes. They can be targeted, but they are many and they cover a lager aria so both units are balanced.

- Lastly the reason FW can not be allowed is because they are very unfamiliar. Warhammer is not a game where information is available to players. True you can ask for it, but to many questions in and you will not have time to finish the game. Compare it with say Mtg. There all cards have the rule text written on them. But there are so much information that can not be seen on a space marine. Let alone Eldar Corsairs. Can you say what there rules are or what their dangerus units are?*

That being said. FW is very well balanced at the moment. Barring reason one and three there are no good reasons to not include FW currently. This is not the 'good old days'.


(*It is a trick question. They are horrible overpiced for their rules. And their rules are bad. But the example is good as you stil don't know what they do.)

 Overread wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

HoundsofDemos wrote:
I've never really understood the old school attitude of banning FW or the more recent one of purge the indexes. With a handful of exceptions neither range really has anything that is breaking the game open. I don't get the push to invalid peoples models if they enjoy using those models in a game.

Part of the appeal to me in 40k is that there are so many options and combos.

Index at least has the point that the books are no longer on sale so players are on uneven grounds. Those who bought the books and have more powerful options available and those who didn't and so are stuck without them.

It's also a model aspect, modern GW is aiming for all models to have rules and all rules to have specific models. Which makes it very open and accessible and simple for new gamers. Those with conversions or older collections have access to a wider range of options.

Essentially its a similar argument to FW exclusion and inclusion - basically aiming to ensure that the playerbase for the event has as equal a pool of models to choose from as each other. It gets a little more complicated with FW though as they make several armies of their own.

But FW models ARE available for all. You can go in and buy them and their rules.

Index however? You want them, you can't buy them. Not just models but the rules themselves. Can't buy them. Nope. No can do.

FW rules are now written by the GW rules team. No one has a leg to stand on if they want to ban it.

The models are readily available. They are pretty expensive but as it stands none as mandatory for competitive gaming and the most powerful lists operate without them.

In some cases they expand and flesh out armies, such as in the case of Custodes who have become more varied and interesting thanks to FW options, as opposed to just being built around spamming bikes.

 Ishagu wrote:
FW rules are now written by the GW rules team. No one has a leg to stand on if they want to ban it.

Why not?

TOs can ban whatever they like. Wanna play without named characters? Do it. Wanna play without Tau? Do it. Wanna play without psykers? Do it.

Hell, the ITC bans GW missions, even though they are also written by the GW rules team. That's a far more widereaching and drastic change of the basic game's balancing and character than banning any (or all) of the examples above.



Most tournaments allow FW, but there's no obligation to do so and some just don't (notalby the ETC).

TOs who ban reasonable things represent an anti hobby sentiment and make their events irrelevant. I wouldn't participate in the events of the most small minded members of the community who punish the most dedicated hobbyists.

As it stands FW is 100% a GW product with official GW rules that are cheap and readily available. Maybe we should ban Astra Militarum, Dark Eldar and Orks whilst we're at it.

 Ishagu wrote:
FW rules are now written by the GW rules team. No one has a leg to stand on if they want to ban it.

Source?

I know specialist games is a part of Forgeworld these days, and they were recently recruiting their own editors, which suggests to me they probably have their own writers, even if there may be some cross over?

Note: I don't actually have a problem with either Forgeworld models or rules, but I'm interested in the veracity of your claim.

Banville wrote:
Hi there. I was just wondering about this, as most tourney lists posted don't tend to have any FW models. For instance, Leviathan dreads are pretty decent. As are Vultures and Strike Fighters. Yet, they don't seem to appear in tourney lists. Is that because most TOs frown on FW or is it simply that Codex stuff is more points efficient?

The overwhelmingly vast majority of tournaments allow FW, and have for several editions. At this point the main studio is primarily responsible for the rules and pricing (and FW rules questions get redirected to the main studio)

A relative handful of events do not, these tend to be smaller events, usually because either a store can't sell it and they want to ban it as a result, or because of woefully misbegotten perceptions usually rooted in ignorance (someone played something wrong or made up their own rules or they heard a horror story 3rd hand from some previous edition), or just have an allergy to anything without the word "codex" in the title for its own sake.

There's certainly no game balance reason to ban it. Nothing FW has ever dominated a meta in any edition in the way codex stuff has, and the few times big balance issues pop up they get fixed in far faster order than Codex units do typically.

nareik wrote:

 Ishagu wrote:
FW rules are now written by the GW rules team. No one has a leg to stand on if they want to ban it.

Source?

I know specialist games is a part of Forgeworld these days, and they were recently recruiting their own editors, which suggests to me they probably have their own writers, even if there may be some cross over?

Note: I don't actually have a problem with either Forgeworld models or rules, but I'm interested in the veracity of your claim.

This is common knowledge and has been for a while. As readily available proof you can download the FW Custodes unit rules - they credit the GW design team.

 Ishagu wrote:

nareik wrote:

 Ishagu wrote:
FW rules are now written by the GW rules team. No one has a leg to stand on if they want to ban it.

Source?

I know specialist games is a part of Forgeworld these days, and they were recently recruiting their own editors, which suggests to me they probably have their own writers, even if there may be some cross over?

Note: I don't actually have a problem with either Forgeworld models or rules, but I'm interested in the veracity of your claim.

This is common knowledge and has been for a while. As readily available proof you can download the FW Custodes unit rules - they credit the GW design team.

Thats interesting. I'll have to take your word for it; During my quick scan of the document I was unable to find the credit in the Forgeworld_Custodes_Datasheets.pdf, though in fairness it does suggest to send the 'Beta Adeptus Custodes feedback' to 40kfaq@gwplc.com.

Sunny Side Up wrote:

 Ishagu wrote:
FW rules are now written by the GW rules team. No one has a leg to stand on if they want to ban it.

Why not?

TOs can ban whatever they like. Wanna play without named characters? Do it. Wanna play without Tau? Do it. Wanna play without psykers? Do it.

Hell, the ITC bans GW missions, even though they are also written by the GW rules team. That's a far more widereaching and drastic change of the basic game's balancing and character than banning any (or all) of the examples above.



Most tournaments allow FW, but there's no obligation to do so and some just don't (notalby the ETC).

i find those places who would ban FW and other models are often places I do not want to really play at/in/ give $ to. But if a tournament flat banned a specific whoel faction that would be increadibly toxic to the community and I would hope ETC/ITC would not recognize that venue for wins. If it is a garage league between friend whatever works, though i would be questioning who they were trying to discourage from showing up.

as for earlier in the thread on balance. I don't really think FW as anything right now that is just too good. Only thing I can think of that is on the verge of broken (though GW has several things above it) is that relic C beamer dreadnaught.

 G00fySmiley wrote:

Sunny Side Up wrote:

 Ishagu wrote:
FW rules are now written by the GW rules team. No one has a leg to stand on if they want to ban it.

Why not?

TOs can ban whatever they like. Wanna play without named characters? Do it. Wanna play without Tau? Do it. Wanna play without psykers? Do it.

Hell, the ITC bans GW missions, even though they are also written by the GW rules team. That's a far more widereaching and drastic change of the basic game's balancing and character than banning any (or all) of the examples above.



Most tournaments allow FW, but there's no obligation to do so and some just don't (notalby the ETC).

i find those places who would ban FW and other models are often places I do not want to really play at/in/ give $ to. But if a tournament flat banned a specific whoel faction that would be increadibly toxic to the community and I would hope ETC/ITC would not recognize that venue for wins. If it is a garage league between friend whatever works, though i would be questioning who they were trying to discourage from showing up.

as for earlier in the thread on balance. I don't really think FW as anything right now that is just too good. Only thing I can think of that is on the verge of broken (though GW has several things above it) is that relic C beamer dreadnaught.

the C beamer of all things should be broken?
How exactly?
It's a gun that can't be fired it the model moved, costs 30 pts, is heavy 1 and only triggers further 2d6 hits if the enemy unit fails that one wound.
it's extremely swingy and overall there are better more reliable pieces of equipment for less pts in both Chaos and loyalist lists, not to mention that it only get's more strentgh the further away you are, generally only getting 1 level higher in the first turn, (not even then on the average board).

 G00fySmiley wrote:


i find those places who would ban FW and other models are often places I do not want to really play at/in/ give $ to. But if a tournament flat banned a specific whoel faction that would be increadibly toxic to the community and I would hope ETC/ITC would not recognize that venue for wins. If it is a garage league between friend whatever works, though i would be questioning who they were trying to discourage from showing up.

as for earlier in the thread on balance. I don't really think FW as anything right now that is just too good. Only thing I can think of that is on the verge of broken (though GW has several things above it) is that relic C beamer dreadnaught.

I find those places who would ban Chapter Approved missions and other GW win conditiosn are often places I do not want to really play at/in/give $ to. Hell, if tournaments or tournament circuits flat came up with their own weird missions that wouldn't even use things like Maelstrom cards (or the corresponding stratagems and tactics built into the armies that play of these rules) that would be incredibly toxic for the community and I would hope GW would not recognize those venues or events as "warhammer 40K" for anything.

Banning certain models or factions or unit types would be odd, but certainly a far less monumental meddling with the core of the game and how it plays.

I refuse to play with maelstrom cards. And so do many others.

Martel732 wrote:
I refuse to play with maelstrom cards. And so do many others.

And others refuse to play with FW.

Everybody got their pet peeve. One's not better/worse or more/less arbitrary than the other.


Denying, say, Custodes to use and benefit from things like Eyes of the Emperor isn't any less of a balance feth-up in violation of the strategy of that army than is denying them the odd FW Dread or Tank.


If you're happy to throw out "X" because you don't like it, you cannot begrudge other people perhaps throwing out "Y" if that's the thing they don't like in/about the game.

Maelstrom cards are super fun. You can lose a game on a bad draw but it doesn't matter. The fun outweighs the inconsistencies.

People who play more are more open to using them I think. More pressure to make a game into a win if it's only once a month or less.

 Ishagu wrote:
Maelstrom cards are super fun. You can lose a game on a bad draw but it doesn't matter. The fun outweighs the inconsistencies.

People who play more are more open to using them I think. More pressure to make a game into a win if it's only once a month or less.

Maybe, but I oppose anything that takes away player agency. I don't even like to roll dice, really.

 Ishagu wrote:
Maelstrom cards are super fun. You can lose a game on a bad draw but it doesn't matter. The fun outweighs the inconsistencies.

People who play more are more open to using them I think. More pressure to make a game into a win if it's only once a month or less.

Doesn't matter.


You think Maelstrom cards are fun, others, as shown above, think they are garbage. Fine. Everyone's got their opinion.


Some people think FW stuff is fun, others think it's garbage. Fine. Everyone's got their opinion.


People will have different preferences. That's human nature.


But we either are fine with people modifying the game to suit their taste, including throwing out stuff or refusing to play certain things that are in the rules, or we're not.


Throwing out the stuff you don't like (e.g. Maelstrom) but critizising other people for throwing out stuff they perhaps don't like (e.g. FW) is the definition of hypocrisy.

I'm neutral on FW. I'd like to throw out indices, though.

It doesn't take it away at all. It's like extra dynamic objectives to try and achieve. It's worth trying in a few games, trust me.

It's not for tournaments, I agree, but it makes regular games extra spicy.

I used it a lot in 7th. Terrible. It was also about the only hope I had of winning, and still hated it.

Maelstrom is fun for a friendly game, but I'd agree it's bad form for tournaments.

 JNAProductions wrote:
Maelstrom is fun for a friendly game, but I'd agree it's bad form for tournaments.

Because it takes away all player agency. It's now Yugi-OH with models.

This edition has made it very clear. FW is not special. It is completely legal in all formats.

Martel732 wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
Maelstrom is fun for a friendly game, but I'd agree it's bad form for tournaments.

Because it takes away all player agency. It's now Yugi-OH with models.

Play 10 games then judge.

 JNAProductions wrote:
Maelstrom is fun for a friendly game, but I'd agree it's bad form for tournaments.

The ETC seems to have no issue using Maelstrom for hard-core competitive play.

However, I'd agree with the ETC in saying that Forge World may be fun for friendly games by collectors, but just doesn't have a place in tournaments.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Xenomancers wrote:
This edition has made it very clear. FW is not special. It is completely legal in all formats.

As are Maelstrom cards.

Sunny Side Up wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
Maelstrom is fun for a friendly game, but I'd agree it's bad form for tournaments.

The ETC seems to have no issue using Maelstrom for hard-core competitive play.

However, I'd agree with the ETC in saying that Forge World may be fun for friendly games by collectors, but just doesn't have a place in tournaments.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Xenomancers wrote:
This edition has made it very clear. FW is not special. It is completely legal in all formats.

As are Maelstrom cards.

Which they can't actually provide a good reason for in game terms.
It's up to them what they allow but it's not exactly inclusive and I know it puts a number of people off attending events.

Malestrom cards are ok but it needs some reworking otherwise you gwt stuck with kill the psychic vrs Tau etc or kill a LoW vrs hoards.

I've seen tournaments ban them because they couldn't be defined as GW material. So, that's a thing. GW gets hinky sometimes with allowed models. One guy got in with a kit bash Shadowsword that was a walker from admech with a plasma generator mounted to it. It was obvious GW stuff. One guy got his Levi dis-allowed and some of his SMs because it looked like he molded the parts, not bought them.

Honestly, as someone said, best policy is to check with the TO. They have to give you a ruling on it, so you can have time to swap it out or use something else.

I don't get the Yu-Gi-Oh comparison. At all.

Yes, Yu-Gi-Oh is more random than 40k, but there's plenty of stuff you can do to alleviate the randomness, to the point where I'd consider it a better game than 40k. It's obviously also a very DIFFERENT game, but hey.

Why doesn't FW have a place in tournaments?

Official GW product. Official GW rules. Official GW books. Nothing currently broken, overpowered or unplayable.

Give my justifications.

 JNAProductions wrote:
I don't get the Yu-Gi-Oh comparison. At all.

Yes, Yu-Gi-Oh is more random than 40k, but there's plenty of stuff you can do to alleviate the randomness, to the point where I'd consider it a better game than 40k. It's obviously also a very DIFFERENT game, but hey.

I picked something with cards.

Sunny Side Up wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
Maelstrom is fun for a friendly game, but I'd agree it's bad form for tournaments.

The ETC seems to have no issue using Maelstrom for hard-core competitive play.

However, I'd agree with the ETC in saying that Forge World may be fun for friendly games by collectors, but just doesn't have a place in tournaments.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Xenomancers wrote:
This edition has made it very clear. FW is not special. It is completely legal in all formats.

As are Maelstrom cards.

Ehhh....That is a game mode that you can simply just chose not to play though. It's a casual game..."I don't want to play maelstrom" is perfectly acceptable. Tournaments don't play maelstrom because it unfair. The cards you draw determine the total points you can score. It is not interesting for competition. Basically maelstrom has no place in the game of 40k unless you have 2 willing participants that want to play a suboptimal mode. It is essentially as much a part of the game as Narrative play is.

 Xenomancers wrote:

Ehhh....That is a game mode that you can simply just chose not to play though. It's a casual game..."I don't want to play maelstrom" is perfectly acceptable. Tournaments don't play maelstrom because it unfair. The cards you draw determine the total points you can score. It is not interesting for competition. Basically maelstrom has no place in the game of 40k unless you have 2 willing participants that want to play a suboptimal mode. It is essentially as much a part of the game as Narrative play is.

Sure. And "I don't want to play Forge World" is equally acceptable.

Maelstrom is far superior for competitive play precisely because it forces players to improvise and reconsider on the fly, rather than having predictable casual games where points are always scored under the conditions chosen by the players themselves, which largely removes tactical decision-making from the game.


Forge World is a range of collector items that has no place in 40K unless you have 2 willing participants that want to play a suboptimal mode. It is essentially as much a part of the game as narrative play is, nothing more.

AS others have said most tournaments (at least larger GTs) allow FW units, their inclusion in things like Chapter approved include them in the game in a very clear way.

That said local events may ban them for a number of reasons. I know many stores do because those items are not something the store can sell, as such they don't necessarily help the store move product and make money.

Sunny Side Up wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

Ehhh....That is a game mode that you can simply just chose not to play though. It's a casual game..."I don't want to play maelstrom" is perfectly acceptable. Tournaments don't play maelstrom because it unfair. The cards you draw determine the total points you can score. It is not interesting for competition. Basically maelstrom has no place in the game of 40k unless you have 2 willing participants that want to play a suboptimal mode. It is essentially as much a part of the game as Narrative play is.

Sure. And "I don't want to play Forge World" is equally acceptable.

Maelstrom is far superior for competitive play precisely because it forces players to improvise and reconsider on the fly, rather than having predictable casual games where points are always scored under the conditions chosen by the players themselves, which largely removes tactical decision-making from the game.


Forge World is a range of collector items that has no place in 40K unless you have 2 willing participants that want to play a suboptimal mode. It is essentially as much a part of the game as narrative play is, nothing more.

Except as a TO that's a totally different consideration than just a random pickup game.

Also you clearly have some issue with FW but your acting like it's still a part of the game that requires your opponents permission to use, that hasn't been true for a number of edition's.

Ice_can wrote:

Except as a TO that's a totally different consideration than just a random pickup game.

Also you clearly have some issue with FW but your acting like it's still a part of the game that requires your opponents permission to use, that hasn't been true for a number of edition's.

Except people here have criticised TOs for exercising their right to not allow FW while being perfectly fine with TOs exercising their right to not use Maelstrom (as just one example).

I have no issue with FW.

I have an issue with hypocrites.



You either are fine with TOs making changes (whether it's removing FW, maelstrom, tape measures, houserules for terrain, whatever) or you want the game to be played as written (which would be both FW and Maelstrom).

Martel732 wrote:
I'm neutral on FW. I'd like to throw out indices, though.

if indexes why?

i am all for saying no more index options for models where that was replaced by a codx entry, but there are plenty of xenos models that only got an index entry adn did not make it into the codex.

my fav model in my collection is probably my custom warboss on a bike and second chopped up custom painboy on a bike. neither one got a codex entry becaue GW does not sell the model.

Sunny Side Up wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

Ehhh....That is a game mode that you can simply just chose not to play though. It's a casual game..."I don't want to play maelstrom" is perfectly acceptable. Tournaments don't play maelstrom because it unfair. The cards you draw determine the total points you can score. It is not interesting for competition. Basically maelstrom has no place in the game of 40k unless you have 2 willing participants that want to play a suboptimal mode. It is essentially as much a part of the game as Narrative play is.

Sure. And "I don't want to play Forge World" is equally acceptable.

Maelstrom is far superior for competitive play precisely because it forces players to improvise and reconsider on the fly, rather than having predictable casual games where points are always scored under the conditions chosen by the players themselves, which largely removes tactical decision-making from the game.


Forge World is a range of collector items that has no place in 40K unless you have 2 willing participants that want to play a suboptimal mode. It is essentially as much a part of the game as narrative play is, nothing more.

You could legitimately say everything you are saying about FW about any unit in the game and it would be equally non sequitur. People bring armies in to play with quite often with no substitutions available to replace a model you might not want to play against. Before you play a game of 40k you figure out the parameters of the game - Across the board with practically everyone I play with. Most people just say CA missions eternal war good and completely ignore maelstrom. Cause no one wants to play that nonsense.

Sunny Side Up wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

Ehhh....That is a game mode that you can simply just chose not to play though. It's a casual game..."I don't want to play maelstrom" is perfectly acceptable. Tournaments don't play maelstrom because it unfair. The cards you draw determine the total points you can score. It is not interesting for competition. Basically maelstrom has no place in the game of 40k unless you have 2 willing participants that want to play a suboptimal mode. It is essentially as much a part of the game as Narrative play is.

Sure. And "I don't want to play Forge World" is equally acceptable.

Maelstrom is far superior for competitive play precisely because it forces players to improvise and reconsider on the fly, rather than having predictable casual games where points are always scored under the conditions chosen by the players themselves, which largely removes tactical decision-making from the game.


Forge World is a range of collector items that has no place in 40K unless you have 2 willing participants that want to play a suboptimal mode. It is essentially as much a part of the game as narrative play is, nothing more.

No it's not equally acceptable at all. Players have to agree on what type of game they play. They do NOT dictate each other's armies unless both parties CHOSE to do so.

Lol you sound like a bitter person who can't afford the nice resin models. Not an excuse to try to ruin other people's fun.

 Ishagu wrote:


No it's not equally acceptable at all. Players have to agree on what type of game they play. They do NOT dictate each other's armies unless both parties CHOSE to do so.

Lol you sound like a bitter person who can't afford the nice resin models. Not an excuse to try to ruin other people's fun.

You certainly do dictate people's armies, if you change the game-format they were written to play and the format they were balanced around.

Taking a Tellemon Dread from a Custodes army isn't any different than taking away their edge through the Eyes of the Emperor strat.

To ban FW is to attack the hobby and the most dedicated hobbyists.

Say no to hobby fascism lol

 Ishagu wrote:
To ban FW is to attack the hobby and the most dedicated hobbyists.

Say no to hobby fascism lol

To ban Maelstrom is to attack the game and the most dedicated players.

Say no to gaming fascism lol.

Sunny Side Up wrote:

 Ishagu wrote:
To ban FW is to attack the hobby and the most dedicated hobbyists.

Say no to hobby fascism lol

To ban Maelstrom is to attack the game and the most dedicated players.

Say no to gaming fascism lol.

Maelstrom cards cost... What, $10?

Just checked, they're $12.50.

And, as for actual effort put in, it's as simple as buying, reading, and shuffling the cards. Not hard.

How much is a FW model? And how much effort is it to build and paint?

 JNAProductions wrote:

Sunny Side Up wrote:

 Ishagu wrote:
To ban FW is to attack the hobby and the most dedicated hobbyists.

Say no to hobby fascism lol

To ban Maelstrom is to attack the game and the most dedicated players.

Say no to gaming fascism lol.

Maelstrom cards cost... What, $10?

Just checked, they're $12.50.

And, as for actual effort put in, it's as simple as buying, reading, and shuffling the cards. Not hard.

How much is a FW model? And how much effort is it to build and paint?

I thought the argument against people (or tournaments) choosing not to play with FW was "it's GW official"!!

Now it's price?

Talk about moving goalposts, lol.



And it's not the price of the cards. It's the price of entire, well painted and painstakingly collected armies (often including beautiful FW models) that deserve to be played in the actual game (offically!!) written for these armies.

Sunny Side Up wrote:

 Ishagu wrote:
To ban FW is to attack the hobby and the most dedicated hobbyists.

Say no to hobby fascism lol

To ban Maelstrom is to attack the game and the most dedicated players.

Say no to gaming fascism lol.

You two are comparing apples and oranges. Maelstrom is game mode, forgeworld is a model line. I don't see how they equate to each other at all.

 deviantduck wrote:


You two are comparing apples and oranges. Maelstrom is game mode, forgeworld is a model line. I don't see how they equate to each other at all.

Both are "GW official".

Even if they are apples and oranges, I don't get where the notion comes from that "refusing to play apples" is apparenty perfectly acceptable but "refusing to play oranges" is facism.

You either go with:

A - "GW official is in, if you don't like it, sucks for you"
B - "TOs/players can change/throw out stuff they don't like. Everyone tweak the game to be the most enjoyable for themselves"


If you can "choose" to refuse a certain game mode, if it doesn't appeal to you, you can also choose to refuse a model line (FW, Superheavies, Orks, whatever) if it doesn't appeal to you.

Sunny Side Up wrote:

 deviantduck wrote:


You two are comparing apples and oranges. Maelstrom is game mode, forgeworld is a model line. I don't see how they equate to each other at all.

Both are "GW official".

Even if they are apples and oranges, I don't get where the notion comes from that "refusing to play apples" is apparenty perfectly acceptable but "refusing to play oranges" is facism.

You either go with:

A - "GW official is in, if you don't like it, sucks for you"
B - "TOs/players can change/throw out stuff they don't like. Everyone tweak the game to be the most enjoyable for themselves"

Because people aren't banning Maelstrom they are just electing to play different missions. If I choose to play an ITC mission I'm not banning GW missions, I'm just not using them for an event. Or if we only play GW official missions most Tournaments are only 3 rounds, I can easily select missions without using Maelstrom missions.

For what it is worth the idea of maelstrom is great, the execution is terrible, I've won too many maelstrom games due to luck to ever want to use them in a tournament. It doesn't make the game more tactical because if I draw a bunch of easy missions turn 1 and auto score all those points and my opponent draws difficult missions, the game is over as soon as we start playing.

Breng77 wrote:


Because people aren't banning Maelstrom they are just electing to play different missions. If I choose to play an ITC mission I'm not banning GW missions, I'm just not using them for an event. Or if we only play GW official missions most Tournaments are only 3 rounds, I can easily select missions without using Maelstrom missions.

For what it is worth the idea of maelstrom is great, the execution is terrible, I've won too many maelstrom games due to luck to ever want to use them in a tournament. It doesn't make the game more tactical because if I draw a bunch of easy missions turn 1 and auto score all those points and my opponent draws difficult missions, the game is over as soon as we start playing.

Same thing.

If you go to a tournament that doesn't use Forge World rules, they are just not using them for that event. They obviously aren't banning them globally. They simply elect to use different armies.

IT is different because army building is largely a player choice, vs mission design being an organizer choice.

Look at it this way I could run an event where I randomly roll missions and we never play maelstrom, I don't even need to actively ban it to not play it. This is not the case with FW, I need to actively say it is not allowed.

I agree that organizers can make any rules they want, but mission choice impacts player agency less than restrictions on army construction. FW is largely not different armies, it is additional rules for existing armies. Banning it is more akin to saying, no heavy support allowed, than it is to making a choice about what missions to play.

Let me put it differently and you may see it as semantics

Choosing a mission is a positive (affirmative) choice it is not removing something from the game.

Choosing to not allow certain models is a negative choice, it is removing something from the game.

Sunny Side Up wrote:

 deviantduck wrote:


You two are comparing apples and oranges. Maelstrom is game mode, forgeworld is a model line. I don't see how they equate to each other at all.

Both are "GW official".

Even if they are apples and oranges, I don't get where the notion comes from that "refusing to play apples" is apparenty perfectly acceptable but "refusing to play oranges" is facism.

You either go with:

A - "GW official is in, if you don't like it, sucks for you"
B - "TOs/players can change/throw out stuff they don't like. Everyone tweak the game to be the most enjoyable for themselves"


If you can "choose" to refuse a certain game mode, if it doesn't appeal to you, you can also choose to refuse a model line (FW, Superheavies, Orks, whatever) if it doesn't appeal to you.

This is why I compared malestrom to narrative. They are both official ways to play the game. It's just no one wants to play them because they are the least balanced way to play.

Mission types and models are not the same thing and this topic has become very silly as a result of some very bad arguments being made.

 Xenomancers wrote:

This is why I compared malestrom to narrative. They are both official ways to play the game. It's just no one wants to play them because they are the least balanced way to play.

Where do you get that from? For me narrative missions are the default game mode, pure eternal war/matched play we do only on special occasions (usually because of time restraints).

If you are convinced that your way is better, Run events, make it popular and people will swap to play it. That is how it works. Its just that simple.

Looking at my BCP, till august I'm playing ITC 2K matches. Or a Narrative league. I don't care about Narrative, so here comes the ITC.

Sunny Side Up wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

Ehhh....That is a game mode that you can simply just chose not to play though. It's a casual game..."I don't want to play maelstrom" is perfectly acceptable. Tournaments don't play maelstrom because it unfair. The cards you draw determine the total points you can score. It is not interesting for competition. Basically maelstrom has no place in the game of 40k unless you have 2 willing participants that want to play a suboptimal mode. It is essentially as much a part of the game as Narrative play is.

Sure. And "I don't want to play Forge World" is equally acceptable.

Maelstrom is far superior for competitive play precisely because it forces players to improvise and reconsider on the fly, rather than having predictable casual games where points are always scored under the conditions chosen by the players themselves, which largely removes tactical decision-making from the game.

or rather, its a mishmash of nonsense objectives without any relevance to the ostensible battle description, that force players to chase random goals to give the appearance of dynamics for its own sake . At least as as currently presented, and thats all GW was aiming for. That doesn't mean however its any less official or usable than FW

Forge World is a range of collector items that has no place in 40K unless you have 2 willing participants that want to play a suboptimal mode. It is essentially as much a part of the game as narrative play is, nothing more.

That is a personal subjective opinion not supported by any rules or statements from GW.

The entire hobby is a range of collector items, like...by definition, the game is there to give people an excuse to play with their collections, and GW will be the first to tell you that. GW is not in the business of making games, what they tell their shareholders in their annual statements is that they are in the business of making models for collectors.


More to the point, what about FW models or rules makes them any less suited to tournament play than Codex units? Nobody seems to have issues with Index units, even those that no longer even have available models. What makes FW different? It's certainly hard to see where there is any balance issues.

 Ishagu wrote:
Mission types and models are not the same thing and this topic has become very silly as a result of some very bad arguments being made.

This. It's an insane argument to make, and the person making it doesn't even agree with FW bans. They're obviously arguing for the sake of arguing, so just ignore the attempt at derailing the thread into nonsense.

 Ishagu wrote:
To ban FW is to attack the hobby and the most dedicated hobbyists.

Say no to hobby fascism lol

I must be some kind of super fascist since I mostly play Kill Team which is pretty much just 40k Troop options and bans pretty much everything else. I suppose it wouldn't be so bad as to allow some select HQ, Elite and Heavy Support options into the game. I think I will allow them into Kill Team this Saturday. But I am totally not going to allow Daemons or vehicles! Those are still banned.

The worst part about the spanish no-FW policy is that my nice Adeptus Custodes army just can't work.

Without FW I lose all kind of tactical tools and I become just a small bunch of useless elite meele troops that have to compete agaisnt the far superior and well rounded jetbikes.

 Galas wrote:
The worst part about the spanish no-FW policy is that my nice Adeptus Custodes army just can't work.

Without FW I lose all kind of tactical tools and I become just a small bunch of useless elite meele troops that have to compete agaisnt the far superior and well rounded jetbikes.

Scream fascisct, on the second thought rather don't.

Ok bad jokes aside is there any actual reason behind this?

Nah, is just that spain has always felt abandoned by GW and china recasters were law, and people really, really fear FW, even when like 80% of people that is playing now has never played agaisnt anything from FW.

But maybe things are changing now. Theres a couple of tournaments that are trying to make things more serious, knocking down on recasters, etc... and mabye in the future they'll start to allow FW. I can only hope.

 Galas wrote:
Nah, is just that spain has always felt abandoned by GW and china recasters were law, and people really, really fear FW, even when like 80% of people that is playing now has never played agaisnt anything from FW.

But maybe things are changing now. Theres a couple of tournaments that are trying to make things more serious, knocking down on recasters, etc... and mabye in the future they'll start to allow FW. I can only hope.

How exactly are you left out?
Can't be worse then us

Well, when GW closed all of their continental HQ's, stopped doing any kind of events in spain, ranking up prices, started with their bad translations or spanglish (Things like translating the text but leting out things like Warriors of Chaos or Warp in english after 20 years of spanish translations for everything), and then killed Fantasy (Spain was a very big fantasy market, much more popular than 40k), etc...

All of that left a very sour taste in most people here, but as I say, things are changing, slowly but steady.

Around here you see lots of FW at tournaments. Well, models using FW rules anyway. Most "FW" models I see are Dreadnaughts (Leviathans, etc), likely because they are much better than their mainstream counterparts in terms of power (invul save, better weapon loadouts). Most of those I see on the table are either "counts as" or knock-offs. I rarely see an actual FW model, and its even rarer to see somebody with the actual rules for their model other than a screenshot.

It would be great if mainstream GW took over production of the popular FW models such as the Leviathan, Deredo etc and did them as plastic kits with rules in the mainstream codexes. I think they'd sell, and might hurt the margin of the forgers. It would also level the playing field somewhat.

Run our own event and make it popular? Fine! I'm gonna run my own tournament! Forgeworld only! None of this OP citadel! Narrative missions, naturally!

Sgt. Cortez wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

This is why I compared malestrom to narrative. They are both official ways to play the game. It's just no one wants to play them because they are the least balanced way to play.

Where do you get that from? For me narrative missions are the default game mode, pure eternal war/matched play we do only on special occasions (usually because of time restraints).

He's from america. America is more of ITC. Europe is more of ETC. And for example where I live pretty much all tournaments are combo of eternal war, maelstrom and kill points(max gap 6).

Forgeworld isn't that expensive. You're typically only buying one or two models.

I wouldn't allow someone to proxy them unless the conversion was spectacular.

Wow, some real fun people who hate some maelstrom and index options.

First maelstrom is not balanced, it can be funish though. Why worry if it ends up in loss ? Are you keeping track of your wins and losses in some odd attempt to win at warhammer life ? Sure don't use it for a tournament but just crossing your arms and going all " I hates it !! " Relax, you don't need to play it, why not just live and let live.

As for the index units. Most of the index rules you can find online people took pics and slid them up there. Find someone who has them near you and see if you can't ya know, get the rules. Banning them because you don't like the fact the books are out of print is just being a tool for stuff that isn't OP in the first place.

As well some of the entries had options that GW placed out just haven't been touched upon in awhile. Like Chaplain on bike, Rough Riders, some of the razorback options to name a few. The mentality of wanting them gone because you don't like them or don't have them is really poor form on many levels. Begrudging someone else for lack of possession.

So I don't have the new assassin rules, couldn't get them where I'm at, should I disallow their use ? I feel left out !! No, I just wish GW would put the rules out somewhere else or maybe I can run into someone who has them so I can get some pics and use my assassins once more.

The idea of denial based on not having something is just silly and feels like bitterness to a large degree.

Yeah I get the impression that a lot of people are very insecure about gaming and are afraid to have a bit of fun.

40k is supposed to be a fun, friendly, social experience. If you can't have that unless you can control variables that make you feel more comfortable then you are very immature. In a tournament is different of course, but most games are player outside of tournaments.

Perhaps the most vocal forum users are just the most socially inept and awkward people in the hobby. It would explain their crazed hyperbole.

TangoTwoBravo wrote:
I rarely see an actual FW model, and its even rarer to see somebody with the actual rules for their model other than a screenshot.

I'd talk to your tournament organisers about your last point - do the event packs not mandate you must fetch an official copy of the rules you're using? In which case you'd expect the FW Index (which is in print) or at least an official PDF copy (I think there is one, but please correct me if I'm wrong), rather than merely a screenshot.

Mandating an actual FW model is trickier, but at the very least people should have to bring the proper rules documents for them.

Yeah. If somebody comes to tournament with screenshot(fakeable) or battlescribe print(fakeable) as only source of rule be prepared to be told model won't be used in game.

No rules, no game. If you can't show actual rules to opponent from source that isn't easily fakeable(battlescribe data is trivial to modify) then don't expect to be able to use the model.

tneva82 wrote:
Yeah. If somebody comes to tournament with screenshot(fakeable) or battlescribe print(fakeable) as only source of rule be prepared to be told model won't be used in game.

No rules, no game. If you can't show actual rules to opponent from source that isn't easily fakeable(battlescribe data is trivial to modify) then don't expect to be able to use the model.

I agree with this. You need the official printed rues, FAQs, Chapter Approved, etc

This applies to everything in the game.

My (so minor it barely exists) with it would be that forgeworld was initially meant to make display pieces rather than gaming pieces. My impression has been that this can make lists rather wonky as rules were rather hastily created for these pieces due to fan demand.

If I were a competitively minded guy I'd say narrative only...then again I'd say that for allegiance traits, strategems and soup too if I were really interested in a balanced game.

And 40k was initially made as a skirmish game.

The current FW rules work perfectly in the game.

 Ishagu wrote:
And 40k was initially made as a skirmish game.

The current FW rules work perfectly in the game.

Cool, I don't actually care in the slightest. I just, like most others on here, love the sound of my own voice.

Due to GW placing a FW point tax... Almost all FW models are pointef out of competitiveness (some exceptions). You're better off just taking codex units usually.

 Dysartes wrote:

TangoTwoBravo wrote:
I rarely see an actual FW model, and its even rarer to see somebody with the actual rules for their model other than a screenshot.

I'd talk to your tournament organisers about your last point - do the event packs not mandate you must fetch an official copy of the rules you're using? In which case you'd expect the FW Index (which is in print) or at least an official PDF copy (I think there is one, but please correct me if I'm wrong), rather than merely a screenshot.

Mandating an actual FW model is trickier, but at the very least people should have to bring the proper rules documents for them.

We're a fairly chill community and I don't get too fussed. These are friends - even at tournaments! Might be different in a larger scale event. I think that it would be healthier for the game if the popular, playable FW models (the Dreads) were made available mainstream as plastic kits. Leave the huge TItans etc for special order. Alternatively, give normal Dreadnaughts an invul save and better weapons loadouts and problem solved.

I don't consider myself a hobby snob, but I do think that models should at least be authentic. I'm not talking about 3rd party bits for cool conversions, but the base model should be real. Maybe that makes me a hobby snob?

tneva82 wrote:
Yeah. If somebody comes to tournament with screenshot(fakeable) or battlescribe print(fakeable) as only source of rule be prepared to be told model won't be used in game.

No rules, no game. If you can't show actual rules to opponent from source that isn't easily fakeable(battlescribe data is trivial to modify) then don't expect to be able to use the model.

What about a printout of the rules? I f.e. am stuck with that since the apple device which i have the rules on is fairly non transportable.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Dai wrote:
My (so minor it barely exists) with it would be that forgeworld was initially meant to make display pieces rather than gaming pieces. My impression has been that this can make lists rather wonky as rules were rather hastily created for these pieces due to fan demand.

If I were a competitively minded guy I'd say narrative only...then again I'd say that for allegiance traits, strategems and soup too if I were really interested in a balanced game.

oh he, let's kill off the rules for armies that existed for 10 years+ in some cases , because GW fethed the recent rulesup.

Logic 100.

 Ishagu wrote:
Yeah I get the impression that a lot of people are very insecure about gaming and are afraid to have a bit of fun.

40k is supposed to be a fun, friendly, social experience. If you can't have that unless you can control variables that make you feel more comfortable then you are very immature. In a tournament is different of course, but most games are player outside of tournaments.

Perhaps the most vocal forum users are just the most socially inept and awkward people in the hobby. It would explain their crazed hyperbole.

I just like variables reduced because i like starcraft more and want 40k to be more similar. Quit making baseless assumptions.

Lol No rules, no play? Little nutz? And how do you enforce it?

If Bob who you play every week forgets to bring his SM dex to your tourney do you tell him "no games Bob pack up and head home"?

And Recasters? How are you telling something is Recast? What is this magic wand? Are you cutting their painted Mini opening and sniffing the Plastic?

The only thing this thread is good for so far is telling who is an actual TO, and who runs their mouth alot.

In game that people literally have to be told to take a shower before they show to play, you guys are hoping that your can ban all sorts of stuff, and change what people bring.

Your event sounds like a recipe for low attendance.

Reemule wrote:
Lol No rules, no play? Little nutz? And how do you enforce it?

It's easy to enforce, you just check the players have the rules with them when they turn up.

Sure if its just the club having a tourney one week instead of regular club night then sure loaning books and the guy who forgets something etc... might all be perfectly allowed.

The National competition though, you can bet they will turn away the one or two who don't turn up with their rules.



Having the rules avoids a huge number of rule conflicts and accidental mistakes. These are not simple games like chess, heck just remember what stats your models have is not easy let alone all the ins and outs of abiltiies and interactions. So yeah having the rules with you is pretty basic requirements for a tournament. It's right up there with bring your dice, tape measure, models and suchlike.
Of course some events might have a spare book here and there and if its at a GW store they might have a store copy you can loan for the day. So there are practical solutions that wont' be turning someone away, however in general most would expect players to turn up to a competitive event with all the equipment to play.

I've had to monitor Eldar players before with their own codex. So no, they have to have it.

Reemule wrote:
Lol No rules, no play? Little nutz? And how do you enforce it?

If Bob who you play every week forgets to bring his SM dex to your tourney do you tell him "no games Bob pack up and head home"?

And Recasters? How are you telling something is Recast? What is this magic wand? Are you cutting their painted Mini opening and sniffing the Plastic?

The only thing this thread is good for so far is telling who is an actual TO, and who runs their mouth alot.

In game that people literally have to be told to take a shower before they show to play, you guys are hoping that your can ban all sorts of stuff, and change what people bring.

Your event sounds like a recipe for low attendance.

Howabout not playing vs you? How you going to force me? Complain to judge? He can't allow you to play without rules.

Or wanna play vs my dda that shoots 3d6 shots autohit? Reads righw here in this printout! Oh and ignores invulnerable saves as well. Let's play!

Martel732 wrote:
I've had to monitor Eldar players before with their own codex. So no, they have to have it.

Even honest players can easily make mistakes. Lets not forget rules change and shift between editions, many expeirenced players can easily end up playing rules "the old way" or miss remembering a stat etc... IT's part of both players duty to help the other in ensuring that things aren't forgotten and that fair play is achieved. It's not playing "gotcha" its just keeping aware of the game state and keeping an eye out for mistakes.

Oh we had two Eldar players who make "mistakes".

I've had players of basically all factions make "mistakes".

The sloppy players are probably making just as many "mistakes" in your favor as theirs, but those are harder to notice.

There have only been a few "that guys" that make notably more "mistakes" in their favor as opposed to yours. And they haven't been Eldar players.

I"m not talking generalities. I mean I've had to do this with two specific players who happened to be Eldar.

Dai wrote:
My (so minor it barely exists) with it would be that forgeworld was initially meant to make display pieces rather than gaming pieces. My impression has been that this can make lists rather wonky as rules were rather hastily created for these pieces due to fan demand.

If I were a competitively minded guy I'd say narrative only...then again I'd say that for allegiance traits, strategems and soup too if I were really interested in a balanced game.

FW rules are handled entirely by the core GW studio now, and have never presented the balance issues many attribute to FW in the past (we've certainly never seen anything like 7E Scatterbikes or Invisiblity, 4E Inviciskimmers, etc out of FW).

More to the point however, everything GW makes is a display piece, by their own admission. GW is in the business of making models for collectors according to what they tell their shareholders, the game and unit rules are just a vehicle to give people and excuse to use and play with their models and thus a reason to buy more models.

What FW makes is stuff that either the main studio isn't interested in or doesn't have time for (30k stuff, alternate IG model lines, tank variants, etc), or stuff that can't be made in plastic due to cost or design issues.

TangoTwoBravo wrote:
I rarely see an actual FW model, and its even rarer to see somebody with the actual rules for their model other than a screenshot.

This sort of thing I think is the big issue. In my experience, a *lot* of the consternation over FW eventually turns out to have been a result of someone in past editions without actual rules on hand making up overpowered stuff on their own with a proxy model or some kitbashed thing they think looks cool and then saying "oh, it's Forgeworld", or just making it up after they bought a model and never bought the appropriate Imperial Armour book, and then that ends up poisoning the well for years. I've seen this more than once on here over the years, and after informing people what the actual rules were and how they worked, it turned out there was nothing actually wrong with the FW unit, someone was just flat out cheating.

I know at one store I frequent people audibly groan and sigh when That Guy breaks out his Astraeus Grav Boat, or his Leviathan Naughts. It's just, people playing to have fun, get their games wrecked by that guy plopping down a stupidly ruled model. To be fair they'd likely feel the same way as if someone plopped down any super-heavy, FW or not.

It's not illegal, and it's some of the best options in the game if you are competitive. You just have to gauge your crowd. Not everyone wants to play that way, and I think the onus is one both parties to state that in the beginning.

I'm here for fun and to learn. I'm here to destroy the earth and drink redbull. Ok, well, we should find other opponents.

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
I know at one store I frequent people audibly groan and sigh when That Guy breaks out his Astraeus Grav Boat, or his Leviathan Naughts. It's just, people playing to have fun, get their games wrecked by that guy plopping down a stupidly ruled model. To be fair they'd likely feel the same way as if someone plopped down any super-heavy, FW or not.

It's not illegal, and it's some of the best options in the game if you are competitive. You just have to gauge your crowd. Not everyone wants to play that way, and I think the onus is one both parties to state that in the beginning.

I'm here for fun and to learn. I'm here to destroy the earth and drink redbull. Ok, well, we should find other opponents.

Any Superheavy?

*Looks at the Stompa.*

Reemule wrote:
Lol No rules, no play? Little nutz? And how do you enforce it?

If Bob who you play every week forgets to bring his SM dex to your tourney do you tell him "no games Bob pack up and head home"?

Either you have to show the books when you sign in for the event, or you have judges spot-check a % of tables each round to ensure they have the materials with them - and appropriate censure is listed in the tournament pack if you do not comply with this. I'd prefer the former approach, myself, but the latter could also work.

And if Bob entered the event and, presumably, read the tournament pack, so knew that he was required to have his books (or ebooks) with him, then yes, Bob gets to go home if he doesn't have his material at an organised event. If he lives close enough, and is OK with eating a loss round 1 while he goes and gets the book, then that would also be acceptable - and you can be fairly confident his is going to make damn sure he has it with him the next time.

Reemule wrote:
And Recasters? How are you telling something is Recast? What is this magic wand? Are you cutting their painted Mini opening and sniffing the Plastic?

Yeah, recasts are a tricky thing - something I noted earlier. I'd prefer it for people to use original models, but I have no idea how you'd enforce it. and if you can't enforce it, you probably shouldn't make it an event rule.

Reemule wrote:
The only thing this thread is good for so far is telling who is an actual TO, and who runs their mouth alot (sic).

"A lot", not "alot" - sheesh.

And while I haven't run an event for a couple of editions, I have run them in the past. If I were to run one today, you can be certain that "Thou shalt have a copy of your rules" would be close to rule #1 in the event pack.

Darned Battlescribe generation, thinking they don;t have to have the books...

What about the people with Tablets? Are you going to spend a 1/2 hour going person to person and checking these? For events that start late and go later?

I thought you were about rules that were enforceable?

Reemule wrote:
What about the people with Tablets? Are you going to spend a 1/2 hour going person to person and checking these? For events that start late and go later?

I thought you were about rules that were enforceable?

Are you really trying to claim it would be impossible for people with tablets to have a method of showing the ebooks/PDFs of their books in a timely fashion?

Having said that, I use the physical versions, but if you can't quickly show the books on a tablet when asked, then I question their usability in a tournament situation.

No Its un-enforceable.

Example I own every Epub from GW. I keep them in a drop box. I show to the event with my ride and he didn't bring his SM book. I share my Drop box with him and now he has the Epub.

Is that okay?

Guy shows up with the old Chaos dex, says he isn't using anything new? You sending him home?

Chess clocks mean my time is my time. If I choose to spend it checking a epub, its good to go. You checking an out of date physical copy isn't good. Sounds shady.

I understand this conversation is hypothetical man some of these suggestions are play silly.

Reemule wrote:


Example I own every Epub from GW. I keep them in a drop box. I show to the event with my ride and he didn't bring his SM book. I share my Drop box with him and now he has the Epub.

Is that okay? .

Reemule wrote:

If by "share" you mean that you use your same tablet and thus the same file in your Dropbox then its perfectly legal, but likely not practical in a major tournament as you both might require the tablet at the same time. Chances are your friend would not be playing because they would not have access to the rules for their army during the game. .

If by share you mean that you copy the document to his dropbox and his tablet then its not legal because you've distributed material you don't have the right to. However in a practical sense unless you told or did this in front of the officials of the event you'd likely get away with it.

Reemule wrote:

Guy shows up with the old Chaos dex, says he isn't using anything new? You sending him home?.

I'm not aware of what has specifically changed in the new Codex, however one would expect the player to bring the old codex AND the updated rules document with them*, at least if any core rules have changed. If the new codex only adds new models that that player is not using then sure they can play as they would have access to all the rules for their army for the game.

Reemule wrote:

Chess clocks mean my time is my time. If I choose to spend it checking a epub, its good to go. You checking an out of date physical copy isn't good. Sounds shady.

No one said anyone was using out of date codex; the whole premise is that each player brings their updated material to the game. GW doesn't even issue updated PDFs after releasing errata/faq so either way you've still got to have them with you.


Honestly you're trying really hard to argue playing without the rules, which is odd because almost all tournaments have run very easily for decades with the simple rule of bringing the rules with you to play.

*I believe GW published such a document for those who currently own the old codex.

Again, it comes back to the same thing.

Some people keep saying "We want to stop these things"

Me: Cool how you going to do that?

Them: We can't.

Me?????

And then add in that there seems to be this idea you can run wierd formats and people are going to show up begging to play?

Reemule wrote:

And then add in that there seems to be this idea you can run wierd formats and people are going to show up begging to play?

I didn't mention formats at all.
Only that bringing the rules to a tournament is a standard practice and has been done for several decades now whilst being perfectly expected, enforceable and normal.

In fact I'm not aware of a tournament format that doesn't require players to bring all the rules for their army with them.

Yes, that is the norm to have your rules.

But there hasn't be a book check that I've seen. Or some kind of Recast check.

And that was the discussion.

tneva82 wrote:

Sgt. Cortez wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

This is why I compared malestrom to narrative. They are both official ways to play the game. It's just no one wants to play them because they are the least balanced way to play.

Where do you get that from? For me narrative missions are the default game mode, pure eternal war/matched play we do only on special occasions (usually because of time restraints).

He's from america. America is more of ITC. Europe is more of ETC. And for example where I live pretty much all tournaments are combo of eternal war, maelstrom and kill points(max gap 6).

Yeah ITC is big here but really it's just matched play rules + beta rules. For example - we do use TLOS even though we don't have the best terrain. Plus we play 2000-2500 points and sometimes bigger games. We use matched play rules though...like points...I can't even imagine playing the game without points.

Local events allow it - but it tends to be LOW choices/2k points.

They do not allow forgeworld codex/rulesets for armies. Local player had a fairly outdated Red Scorpions list and they said no to it. I run my Barbed Hierodule in most 2k games

Reemule wrote:
Yes, that is the norm to have your rules.

But there hasn't be a book check that I've seen. Or some kind of Recast check.

And that was the discussion.

If you don't do a book/file check, how do you know people have their rules with them?

And I think you're the only person who has mentioned checking for recasts - we've had people say that they would prefer it if people used the original/proper models, but no-one other than you has said anything about checking for recasts, as it is something which is massively impractical to check for. Certainly nowhere as simple as confirming that you have the required rules with you.

If they started checking for recasts....50% of armies would be disqualified. It would be bad for business. I only have 1 FW model it's is legit bought from FW in Nottingham in person (Relic Levi OMG I LOVE THIS) however a fair majority of the FW I see are fakes. If they are painted you can't even tell the difference. I am not even sure how you would check for that.

 Xenomancers wrote:
If they started checking for recasts....50% of armies would be disqualified. It would be bad for business. I only have 1 FW model it's is legit bought from FW in Nottingham in person (Relic Levi OMG I LOVE THIS) however a fair majority of the FW I see are fakes. If they are painted you can't even tell the difference. I am not even sure how you would check for that.

...and the lack of a feasible way of checking for recasts is a good reason not to try to check for them at an event.

Though I would hope the proportion of lists using recasts was nowhere near 50%.

The argument is being brought up by one person as a reason why it is a bad idea to ensure that everyone has their rules with them - which, in turn, came out of the problem of people not fetching the rules for certain FW units to them. Simplest way to solve the latter is to enforce the former, either with physical books or legit ebook/PDFs.

Not Online!!! wrote:

Banville wrote:
Hi there. I was just wondering about this, as most tourney lists posted don't tend to have any FW models. For instance, Leviathan dreads are pretty decent. As are Vultures and Strike Fighters. Yet, they don't seem to appear in tourney lists. Is that because most TOs frown on FW or is it simply that Codex stuff is more points efficient?

Most of the time codex stuff is more pts effective, also moreover most of the FW stuff can't pofit from traits or stratagems which is also a big part in terms off effectiveness.

yes and no. if you look at what precentage of FW stuff is overpowered you're right, most are not point efficient.

but at the same time, the most overpowered and undercoated models are also FW. For example the decimator and the contemptor are hands the best chaos units by such a large margin it's laughable. And for that matter the contemptors tend to be wildly better than anything in any codex that can take them.

Almost every army has one or two FW models who's balance is so out of wack that you see it spammed and suggested to be spammed constantly for every list.

Danny slag wrote:
the most overpowered and undercoated models are also FW.

{citation needed}

Last time I checked guardsmen, castellans, Eldar soup, etc, are not FW units.

Even if we take "FW broken is more broken than GW broken" as true, wouldn't it make sense to just address the few broken models, and not ban everything?

I feel like I'm back in the early 2000s where FW was the devil and the reason for all imbalance. Those days are far behind us.

Tournaments can do whatever they like but when I don't feel like bringing every book I own I do have all the needed points, pages and unit entries as pics for quick reference. Have never had even one person question it as I taught most who I play with and end up knowing their armies like my own.

Sure could someone cheat with digital information, I suppose but isn't that just a reason then to demand paper books ? Anything else is suspect, the evil is creeping in while the cheats grow in the darkness ?

Seems just a touch paranoid, I'd probably say if you feel someone you play with is such a cheating guy, perhaps don't play them anymore ? I guess I'm blessed to just have the rare honest mistake and not feel like each opponent is cut throat for the warhammer win. Would hate to have to be so suspicious each and every game.

Don't worry though, my precious hardback copies are around and ready. So if I get called out for the truth, they can receive the knowledge they crave. Though as said, aside from the rare instance that doesn't happen much.

Danny slag wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

Banville wrote:
Hi there. I was just wondering about this, as most tourney lists posted don't tend to have any FW models. For instance, Leviathan dreads are pretty decent. As are Vultures and Strike Fighters. Yet, they don't seem to appear in tourney lists. Is that because most TOs frown on FW or is it simply that Codex stuff is more points efficient?

Most of the time codex stuff is more pts effective, also moreover most of the FW stuff can't pofit from traits or stratagems which is also a big part in terms off effectiveness.

yes and no. if you look at what precentage of FW stuff is overpowered you're right, most are not point efficient.

but at the same time, the most overpowered and undercoated models are also FW. For example the decimator and the contemptor are hands the best chaos units by such a large margin it's laughable. And for that matter the contemptors tend to be wildly better than anything in any codex that can take them.

That's probably more a function of much of the codex being subpar rather than these units being particularly spectacular. These units certainly aren't dominating the metagame nor defining these armies, they're not coming up in conversations about overpowered units in general, and they're not featuring in literally every list run by these codexes.

I think this is the first time I've ever seen someone call the Decimator overpowered.

Almost every army has one or two FW models who's balance is so out of wack that you see it spammed and suggested to be spammed constantly for every list.

Umm...if there are, it must be a secret to both me and the larger tournament crowd...because I'm certainly not seeing significant FW presence in most armies at all. Mostly where you see it is in SM armies, that have significant functionality issues to begin with.

In fact, going down the first page of the Army List subforum, I don't think I found a single list calling itself competitive that ran any FW units at all.

I think this is the first time I've ever seen someone call the Decimator overpowered.

Aren't they or the contemptors used in winning chaos soups? Plus with castellan gone, as well as Ynari, they got better. Maybe the people that played them before FAQ, used them because they knew they were going to be better.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 JNAProductions wrote:
Even if we take "FW broken is more broken than GW broken" as true, wouldn't it make sense to just address the few broken models, and not ban everything?

Not to GW. They nerfed flying or first turn deep strike, instead of dealing with hive tyrants or BA jump masters.

I have seen a few top chaos lists with deredeos, but not contemptors that I know of.

Danny slag wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

Banville wrote:
Hi there. I was just wondering about this, as most tourney lists posted don't tend to have any FW models. For instance, Leviathan dreads are pretty decent. As are Vultures and Strike Fighters. Yet, they don't seem to appear in tourney lists. Is that because most TOs frown on FW or is it simply that Codex stuff is more points efficient?

Most of the time codex stuff is more pts effective, also moreover most of the FW stuff can't pofit from traits or stratagems which is also a big part in terms off effectiveness.

yes and no. if you look at what precentage of FW stuff is overpowered you're right, most are not point efficient.

but at the same time, the most overpowered and undercoated models are also FW. For example the decimator and the contemptor are hands the best chaos units by such a large margin it's laughable. And for that matter the contemptors tend to be wildly better than anything in any codex that can take them.

Almost every army has one or two FW models who's balance is so out of wack that you see it spammed and suggested to be spammed constantly for every list.

The decimator? ( i field one regularly thank you)
Are you now having an actual laugh mate?


Did it maybee ocure to you that the alternatives to the leviathan and the deredo just plain suck?
Also there is a massive difference between a leviathan which costs more points compared to a hellbrute for marginally better stats and armament?

ALSO ALL ARMIES: Stop generalizing, it get's annoying, then take a look at the FW lists themselves which are included in all armies and tell me what excactly is overpowered in these i wait, or what Ork stuff from FW is overpowered, or what IoM non SM vehicle is overpowered, or how well the leviathans and deredos actually compare.

As for the deredo or Leviathan and why it is suggested for Chaos often, because it fills a niche AA role, a role that Chaos often struggles with since GW thought it a good thing to remove Flakk missiles or cost missile launchers overall to the point of WTF.
Secondly: Even the feared butcher autocannon that is on many of these reccomended because it is a good weapon, frankly only better because it is on a 3+ model and not stuck with the forgefiend. (Ironically if you were allowed to equip a Predator with an Hades autocannon or a normal dreadnought / Hellbrute) you would not field them due to stratagems and traits then tipping the balance massively to mainline units.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Vaktathi wrote:

Danny slag wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

Banville wrote:
Hi there. I was just wondering about this, as most tourney lists posted don't tend to have any FW models. For instance, Leviathan dreads are pretty decent. As are Vultures and Strike Fighters. Yet, they don't seem to appear in tourney lists. Is that because most TOs frown on FW or is it simply that Codex stuff is more points efficient?

Most of the time codex stuff is more pts effective, also moreover most of the FW stuff can't pofit from traits or stratagems which is also a big part in terms off effectiveness.

yes and no. if you look at what precentage of FW stuff is overpowered you're right, most are not point efficient.

but at the same time, the most overpowered and undercoated models are also FW. For example the decimator and the contemptor are hands the best chaos units by such a large margin it's laughable. And for that matter the contemptors tend to be wildly better than anything in any codex that can take them.

That's probably more a function of much of the codex being subpar rather than these units being particularly spectacular. These units certainly aren't dominating the metagame nor defining these armies, they're not coming up in conversations about overpowered units in general, and they're not featuring in literally every list run by these codexes.

I think this is the first time I've ever seen someone call the Decimator overpowered.

Almost every army has one or two FW models who's balance is so out of wack that you see it spammed and suggested to be spammed constantly for every list.

Umm...if there are, it must be a secret to both me and the larger tournament crowd...because I'm certainly not seeing significant FW presence in most armies at all. Mostly where you see it is in SM armies, that have significant functionality issues to begin with.

In fact, going down the first page of the Army List subforum, I don't think I found a single list calling itself competitive that ran any FW units at all.

Also this, if FW would be so broken you would've seen a lot higher presence in the tournament scene, in 8th one FW model showed up in a soup list, that got nerfed into the ground and is now equally available surprisngly in a better overall version in the regular IG codex, i am talking about the MAlefic lord brimstone spam, and that was INDEX era.
which ironically had a lot other worse problems.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Karol wrote:

I think this is the first time I've ever seen someone call the Decimator overpowered.

Aren't they or the contemptors used in winning chaos soups? Plus with castellan gone, as well as Ynari, they got better. Maybe the people that played them before FAQ, used them because they knew they were going to be better.

The decimator?
You realize the average dred with an reaper autocannon is nearly as good (even better in many cases due to it beeing A LOT cheaper) .

Do some people dislike FW because they are old fashioned and unable to grasp new concepts, or because they are jealous that they can't afford it?

There's no game related reason to do so.

 Ishagu wrote:
Do some people dislike FW because they are old fashioned and unable to grasp new concepts, or because they are jealous that they can't afford it?

There's no game related reason to do so.

Mostly inexperience against playing against FW which makes people make mistakes and or beeing afraid of the unknown.

Ironically when people realize that they are not the be all end all they look like (the models) people don't even bother batting an eye anymore.

You might be right. It's better for everyone to have more model variety. FW is not necessary for success in the game.

Who doesn't want to look at cool units during a game?
The rules are so cheap too. The FW index and free PDFs online...

 Ishagu wrote:
You might be right. It's better for everyone to have more model variety. FW is not necessary for success in the game.

Who doesn't want to look at cool units during a game?
The rules are so cheap too. The FW index and free PDFs online...

Honestly i had people suggesting i should have picked 200-300 pts more then them after they read the R&H rules in order to get a balanced match in.
Never did so, still have a decent win loss ratio and fun, altough it get's grinding when you get that tripple 1 for a LD off 4 for fanatical elite units

Morale of the story tough, now that GW makes the overall rules aswell for FW we might see a power surge for FW due to GW's "infamous competency" of rules design.
Who could forget the glorious combos of the past and present. (albeit with CA balance overall has improved)

Not Online!!! wrote:

Morale of the story tough, now that GW makes the overall rules aswell for FW we might see a power surge for FW due to GW's "infamous competency" of rules design.

More like nerf to ensure gamers buy plastic that has bigger profit rate than resin. GW has already nerfed before FW units that were already weak units and 300% price hikes to units that weren't even appearing on top lists...That's like making tactical marines cost 49 pts per model.

Well that's the thing, isn't it?

Resin kits are much cheaper to design but more expensive to produce as they are done by hand and defects can't be recycled.
Plastic kits are much more expensive to design but mass production is very cheap...

 Ishagu wrote:
Well that's the thing, isn't it?

Resin kits are much cheaper to design but more expensive to produce as they are done by hand and defects can't be recycled.
Plastic kits are much more expensive to design but mass production is very cheap...

On the otherhand, GW showed with the design of the BSF and Cultists (etC) i remain hopefull somewhat atleast, that not all hope is lost for Traitor guard atleast.

Not Online!!! wrote:
Also this, if FW would be so broken you would've seen a lot higher presence in the tournament scene, in 8th one FW model showed up in a soup list, that got nerfed into the ground and is now equally available surprisngly in a better overall version in the regular IG codex, i am talking about the MAlefic lord brimstone spam, and that was INDEX era.
which ironically had a lot other worse problems.

Well, there was the Fire Raptor, too - but, as noted, far fewer FW models this edition have caused major balance concerns compared to models from the Codex line.

 Dysartes wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:
Also this, if FW would be so broken you would've seen a lot higher presence in the tournament scene, in 8th one FW model showed up in a soup list, that got nerfed into the ground and is now equally available surprisngly in a better overall version in the regular IG codex, i am talking about the MAlefic lord brimstone spam, and that was INDEX era.
which ironically had a lot other worse problems.

Well, there was the Fire Raptor, too - but, as noted, far fewer FW models this edition have caused major balance concerns compared to models from the Codex line.

Was that really an issue with the Fire Raptor or more it just bei g a model that could maximise the idiotic reroll your rerolls aura?
Which is still in the dang codex

 Ishagu wrote:
Do some people dislike FW because they are old fashioned and unable to grasp new concepts, or because they are jealous that they can't afford it?

There's no game related reason to do so.

i find a lot of the same players who hate everything forgworld are the same players who say knights etc. should never be allowed to have been in 40k. they fall usually into 3 catagories

1) started the game pre 5th edition and enjoyed a game with no imperial knights and where there were some forgeworld units were actually just brokenly good. These same players often think orks shoudl only have a horde of boys and that tyranids should not have monstrous creatures at all and instead be just hordes of gaunts for them to shoot

2) new players who are introduced to the game by the above type player who indoctrinates them against forgeworld and larger models.

3) Players that have heard rumors (often from the 1st type of players) and never try a game against any forgeworld models and/or they did play against somebody really good that had forgeworld models and after being beaten badly decide that it could not possible have been that the other player was better... no it must have been pay to win AKA its thier ego not allowing them to see reason.

 G00fySmiley wrote:

 Ishagu wrote:
Do some people dislike FW because they are old fashioned and unable to grasp new concepts, or because they are jealous that they can't afford it?

There's no game related reason to do so.

i find a lot of the same players who hate everything forgworld are the same players who say knights etc. should never be allowed to have been in 40k. they fall usually into 3 catagories

1) started the game pre 5th edition and enjoyed a game with no imperial knights and where there were some forgeworld units were actually just brokenly good. These same players often think orks shoudl only have a horde of boys and that tyranids should not have monstrous creatures at all and instead be just hordes of gaunts for them to shoot

2) new players who are introduced to the game by the above type player who indoctrinates them against forgeworld and larger models.

3) Players that have heard rumors (often from the 1st type of players) and never try a game against any forgeworld models and/or they did play against somebody really good that had forgeworld models and after being beaten badly decide that it could not possible have been that the other player was better... no it must have been pay to win AKA its thier ego not allowing them to see reason.

I can understand that, and there is something called Kill Team, Smaller games and narrative play for those players to enjoy. There shouldn't be impositions in matched play.

On the topic of the fire raptor - it was too powerful when 8th launched. It was dominating before most armies had a codex and I doubt i would make the same splash now. At the same time many other units from GW have caused even more problems. Are people expecting FW to NEVER cause even a slight issue? lol

Ice_can wrote:

 Dysartes wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:
Also this, if FW would be so broken you would've seen a lot higher presence in the tournament scene, in 8th one FW model showed up in a soup list, that got nerfed into the ground and is now equally available surprisngly in a better overall version in the regular IG codex, i am talking about the MAlefic lord brimstone spam, and that was INDEX era.
which ironically had a lot other worse problems.

Well, there was the Fire Raptor, too - but, as noted, far fewer FW models this edition have caused major balance concerns compared to models from the Codex line.

Was that really an issue with the Fire Raptor or more it just bei g a model that could maximise the idiotic reroll your rerolls aura?
Which is still in the dang codex

I mean, same as above in the malefic lord exemple, most of the stuff that made them broken was core rules, malefics for beeing cheapo smite spammers and the raptor for beeing easily maximizable with auras.