Blackmoor wrote:

 Kain wrote:

It won't kill enough infantry. Punisher vultures can't put enough of a dent in my gant swarms to matter and they can't get enough wounds through my MCs to matter either. Not unless you want to divert three of them to one target, in which case you are better served by the Vendetta, which is still the most unfair unit of all time.

I don't have my books with me but how many MEQs/GEQs can it kill?

 Blackmoor wrote:

 Kain wrote:

It won't kill enough infantry. Punisher vultures can't put enough of a dent in my gant swarms to matter and they can't get enough wounds through my MCs to matter either. Not unless you want to divert three of them to one target, in which case you are better served by the Vendetta, which is still the most unfair unit of all time.

I don't have my books with me but how many MEQs/GEQs can it kill?

And you know how I deal with sabres? I swamp them and assault them at which point they're undersized guardsmen blocks who die in mere moments. This is the edition of massive hordes, you should have enough boys to get into assault range and murder them all without hassle.

And I do mind them being banned, because it punishes people who have put time and effort into their armies to accommodate some gripers. I've been playing since 2e and I'm certainly not going to bend over to some little timmy who's upset that he has to horror of horrors, adapt a little to accomodate to some new units like he does every time a new codex hits.

I have no sympathy to people who can't adapt to meta alterations. Which apparently includes you good sir.

it shows the ignorance of people when they just look at one unit and figure out a way to beat it, and they completely ignore the reality of the game of 40k.

It is how all of these units work together that is the problem. Remember Thudd Guns? You have them with your saber platforms, and they will kill your gant squads. Also they are bubble wrapped with blob guardsmen backed up by rune priests. They can blow your gants off of the table before you can even get close.

You show how little you know about 40k when you make a statement that all you have to do is swamp them in assault.

 Enigwolf wrote:

 Blackmoor wrote:

 Kain wrote:

It won't kill enough infantry. Punisher vultures can't put enough of a dent in my gant swarms to matter and they can't get enough wounds through my MCs to matter either. Not unless you want to divert three of them to one target, in which case you are better served by the Vendetta, which is still the most unfair unit of all time.

I don't have my books with me but how many MEQs/GEQs can it kill?

I have heard a request for Mathhammer! Ask and it shall be so!

Hits (Twin-linked, 20 shots, BS3): 20*(1/2 + ((1-1/2)*1/2)) = 15

MEQs
Inflicted Wounds (S5 vs. T4) = 10
Unsaved Wounds (3+) = 3.33

GEQs
Inflicted Wounds (S5 vs. T3) = 12.5
Unsaved Wounds (5+) = 8.33

No, it's not THAT scary.

 LValx wrote:

 Enigwolf wrote:

 Blackmoor wrote:

 Kain wrote:

It won't kill enough infantry. Punisher vultures can't put enough of a dent in my gant swarms to matter and they can't get enough wounds through my MCs to matter either. Not unless you want to divert three of them to one target, in which case you are better served by the Vendetta, which is still the most unfair unit of all time.

I don't have my books with me but how many MEQs/GEQs can it kill?

I have heard a request for Mathhammer! Ask and it shall be so!

Hits (Twin-linked, 20 shots, BS3): 20*(1/2 + ((1-1/2)*1/2)) = 15

MEQs
Inflicted Wounds (S5 vs. T4) = 10
Unsaved Wounds (3+) = 3.33

GEQs
Inflicted Wounds (S5 vs. T3) = 12.5
Unsaved Wounds (5+) = 8.33

No, it's not THAT scary.

It's definitely not an OP scary unit. But it's very, very good, good enough that I would always take one alongside 2 Vendettas. It offers very good anti-air with the ability to hit rear arc of other Flyers with a ton of Str. 5.

MVBrandt wrote:
Vultures are BS4 vs. Ground Targets. OIne more little bit of data to prove the much bigger point ... MOST players (not noisy pro/con dakka posters like all of us here) don't really know much about FW, and that's exacerbated by the fact that among even the knowledgeable "us" we get things wrong routinely.

MVBrandt wrote:
Vultures are BS4 vs. Ground Targets. OIne more little bit of data to prove the much bigger point ... MOST players (not noisy pro/con dakka posters like all of us here) don't really know much about FW, and that's exacerbated by the fact that among even the knowledgeable "us" we get things wrong routinely.

 Kain wrote:

MVBrandt wrote:
Vultures are BS4 vs. Ground Targets. OIne more little bit of data to prove the much bigger point ... MOST players (not noisy pro/con dakka posters like all of us here) don't really know much about FW, and that's exacerbated by the fact that among even the knowledgeable "us" we get things wrong routinely.

That's like...one more dead marine...

Yay?

 Kain wrote:

MVBrandt wrote:
Vultures are BS4 vs. Ground Targets. OIne more little bit of data to prove the much bigger point ... MOST players (not noisy pro/con dakka posters like all of us here) don't really know much about FW, and that's exacerbated by the fact that among even the knowledgeable "us" we get things wrong routinely.

That's like...one more dead marine...

Yay?

 Enigwolf wrote:

 LValx wrote:

 Enigwolf wrote:

 Blackmoor wrote:

 Kain wrote:

It won't kill enough infantry. Punisher vultures can't put enough of a dent in my gant swarms to matter and they can't get enough wounds through my MCs to matter either. Not unless you want to divert three of them to one target, in which case you are better served by the Vendetta, which is still the most unfair unit of all time.

I don't have my books with me but how many MEQs/GEQs can it kill?

I have heard a request for Mathhammer! Ask and it shall be so!

Hits (Twin-linked, 20 shots, BS3): 20*(1/2 + ((1-1/2)*1/2)) = 15

MEQs
Inflicted Wounds (S5 vs. T4) = 10
Unsaved Wounds (3+) = 3.33

GEQs
Inflicted Wounds (S5 vs. T3) = 12.5
Unsaved Wounds (5+) = 8.33

No, it's not THAT scary.

It's definitely not an OP scary unit. But it's very, very good, good enough that I would always take one alongside 2 Vendettas. It offers very good anti-air with the ability to hit rear arc of other Flyers with a ton of Str. 5.

Vendettas are better for AA. From the perspective of an Elysian player, if you're playing a flyer, knowing your opponent has a Vulture with TL Punishers, and you still set yourself up for a 20 rear-arc Str 5's, then the issue lies with you and not the other flyer. Also, Stormravens laugh at rear arc str 5's.

MVBrandt wrote:

 Kain wrote:

MVBrandt wrote:
Vultures are BS4 vs. Ground Targets. OIne more little bit of data to prove the much bigger point ... MOST players (not noisy pro/con dakka posters like all of us here) don't really know much about FW, and that's exacerbated by the fact that among even the knowledgeable "us" we get things wrong routinely.

That's like...one more dead marine...

Yay?

I wasn't arguing about the Vulture's quality as a unit. I'm not really sure what your point is.

As ever in this discussion, it's not really about whether good players can deal with FW. Arguing they can is utterly pointless to the issues TO's are faced with. I'm not going to stop winning most of my GT games just because FW is added; hell, I'll happily abuse the more powerful FW units to even more potently win games. I don't care about me, or any other vetted successful GT gamer. On their own, know what they're getting into, and know they'll win or lose based on skill against their top peers, and not on whether FW is legal. That's really not the point.

 LValx wrote:

 Enigwolf wrote:

 LValx wrote:

 Enigwolf wrote:

 Blackmoor wrote:

 Kain wrote:

It won't kill enough infantry. Punisher vultures can't put enough of a dent in my gant swarms to matter and they can't get enough wounds through my MCs to matter either. Not unless you want to divert three of them to one target, in which case you are better served by the Vendetta, which is still the most unfair unit of all time.

I don't have my books with me but how many MEQs/GEQs can it kill?

I have heard a request for Mathhammer! Ask and it shall be so!

Hits (Twin-linked, 20 shots, BS3): 20*(1/2 + ((1-1/2)*1/2)) = 15

MEQs
Inflicted Wounds (S5 vs. T4) = 10
Unsaved Wounds (3+) = 3.33

GEQs
Inflicted Wounds (S5 vs. T3) = 12.5
Unsaved Wounds (5+) = 8.33

No, it's not THAT scary.

It's definitely not an OP scary unit. But it's very, very good, good enough that I would always take one alongside 2 Vendettas. It offers very good anti-air with the ability to hit rear arc of other Flyers with a ton of Str. 5.

Vendettas are better for AA. From the perspective of an Elysian player, if you're playing a flyer, knowing your opponent has a Vulture with TL Punishers, and you still set yourself up for a 20 rear-arc Str 5's, then the issue lies with you and not the other flyer. Also, Stormravens laugh at rear arc str 5's.

Sure, a smart player can avoid it. But if the threat of the Vulture forces you to play differently then it's already having a meaningful impact.

 Kain wrote:

MVBrandt wrote:

 Kain wrote:

MVBrandt wrote:
Vultures are BS4 vs. Ground Targets. OIne more little bit of data to prove the much bigger point ... MOST players (not noisy pro/con dakka posters like all of us here) don't really know much about FW, and that's exacerbated by the fact that among even the knowledgeable "us" we get things wrong routinely.

That's like...one more dead marine...

Yay?

I wasn't arguing about the Vulture's quality as a unit. I'm not really sure what your point is.

As ever in this discussion, it's not really about whether good players can deal with FW. Arguing they can is utterly pointless to the issues TO's are faced with. I'm not going to stop winning most of my GT games just because FW is added; hell, I'll happily abuse the more powerful FW units to even more potently win games. I don't care about me, or any other vetted successful GT gamer. On their own, know what they're getting into, and know they'll win or lose based on skill against their top peers, and not on whether FW is legal. That's really not the point.

How's this different from everyone jumping onto the Necron, Tau, and Eldar bandwagon now that they're the current kings of the meta?

MVBrandt wrote:
I know I said it like a couple posts ago, but can we stop arguing the tactics of dealing with FW units? Not only is it taking players in this thread goign back and forth to even process all the issues with them, how to counter them, and why initially thought of counters don't work after all (which means, in a game when someone sees them the first time and thinks up his initial game plan and is an average player ... OOPS he was wrong, and loses, and that's that), it's completely irrelevant - at least to me as a TO, and I think to most TOs.

MVBrandt wrote:
I know I said it like a couple posts ago, but can we stop arguing the tactics of dealing with FW units? Not only is it taking players in this thread goign back and forth to even process all the issues with them, how to counter them, and why initially thought of counters don't work after all (which means, in a game when someone sees them the first time and thinks up his initial game plan and is an average player ... OOPS he was wrong, and loses, and that's that), it's completely irrelevant - at least to me as a TO, and I think to most TOs.

Whoever the good players are in this day and age, they don't care what is legal or not that much. It may influence their decision to attend an event, but they can and will deal with what's thrown at them, and they will win or lose on skill, and not army list. Has been and will be.

The issue is the large swathe of the majority of GT attendees. MOST of them don't know much about FW, unless FW is already common in their region (I.E., my understanding is FW is common at local game stores on the West Coast). If it's not, when they attend the regionally "big" GT as their one big event of the year, FW units are going to catch them off guard where regular codex-legal units WILL NOT, especially the ones that the other MAJORITY of attendees from their region are already playing around with to begin with.

The argument to be had is about familiarity, access, and fairness toward the "Average" guy. The arguments about exactly HOW powerful things are or whether or not someone can theorycraft a solution to them with the time and space and utter list vacuum of the internet is completely irrelevant and ineffective to those of us making decisions about legalizing them in our events.

 Kain wrote:
Ad hominem attacks, classy as ever I see.

 Kain wrote:

I have no sympathy to people who can't adapt to meta alterations. Which apparently includes you good sir.

 RiTides wrote:
MVBrandt, I agree with your post, and it's why I participated quite a bit in the debate this time. I felt that, at the start of 6th edition, this issue was considered in the wrong light. I think, absolutely, familiarity and what most players would prefer are large factors (I would say the "largest", but I think balance and the distribution of units matter, too).

That said, familiarity and preference, I think, become less pronounced as problems when considering some limitations on FW (like AdeptiCon). The issues are reduced, because nobody's going to be facing a Lot of anything, so it's a way for folks to "get their feet wet" facing FW. I certainly enjoyed doing so, whereas I would likely have been put off by all-out inclusion.

But anyway, I totally agree that arguing with the "average GT attendee" in mind is important. Of course, that's hard to tell since this is internet but maybe you can put out a poll after this year's Nova / hand it out along with the player packet / etc? Muwhe, maybe a similar process at AdeptiCon? I would be curious about the results, if things are trending a certain way, etc.

Cheers again to all the TOs taking part in this discussion, it is much appreciated

 RiTides wrote:
I didn't really mean a comparison between events (I'm a fan of both), just a poll of gamers at those events. If it was the exact same poll, that'd be even better! As you say, might not mean much... but it'd be a hard data point in a sea of hypotheses

Does the team tournament (Trios?) at Nova allow limited instead of full-FW? You mention their having the same policies... if so, that'd be very intriguing to me. One thing keeping me from competing in that is the need to have an entire army painted up to good standards, instead of just the half needed for team play, since players alternate into 1v1 matches too. I've been craving another 2v2 format if you ever decide to go that route (not to take the thread off-topic, but just to put it out there )

MVBrandt wrote:
Whoever the good players are in this day and age, they don't care what is legal or not that much. It may influence their decision to attend an event, but they can and will deal with what's thrown at them, and they will win or lose on skill, and not army list. Has been and will be.

 Hulksmash wrote:

MVBrandt wrote:
Whoever the good players are in this day and age, they don't care what is legal or not that much. It may influence their decision to attend an event, but they can and will deal with what's thrown at them, and they will win or lose on skill, and not army list. Has been and will be.

Speak for yourself. FW is the devil and I would lose all my games to it and never use a single unit and I'm awesome at toy soldiers

But seriously, I'd feel bad for my opponents for the first 2-3 rounds of a GT if FW was fully legal. That is all.

 Blackmoor wrote:

 Kain wrote:
Ad hominem attacks, classy as ever I see.

Would you like me to make it as classy as yours below?

 Kain wrote:

I have no sympathy to people who can't adapt to meta alterations. Which apparently includes you good sir.

MVBrandt wrote:
The issue is the large swathe of the majority of GT attendees. MOST of them don't know much about FW,

...

The argument to be had is about familiarity, access, and fairness toward the "Average" guy.

 Kain wrote:
I made no attack on your credibility as the crux of my argument. It is not logically fallacious to call someone wrong and dumb, it is a fallacy to call them wrong because they are dumb however. Here I'm simply saying that you are apparently to hidebound to a meta that in reality is utterly imbalanced without FW to which the addition of does nothing to worsen and therefore are not worthy of my sympathy.

Necrons, Tau, and Eldar have almost completely gutted the meta and turned it topsy turvy. Shall we ban those three armies because they have forced the entire game to bend around ways to killing them?

No that would be silly.

 Redbeard wrote:

MVBrandt wrote:
The issue is the large swathe of the majority of GT attendees. MOST of them don't know much about FW,

...

The argument to be had is about familiarity, access, and fairness toward the "Average" guy.

Somehow, this just doesn't feel appropriate for a competitive setting. The World Series of Poker doesn't tell Phil Hellmuth he can't play because the average players can't read him.

It had over $800.00 worth of FW models in it..

 Hulksmash wrote:
@Vaktathi

I might not be explaining it well.

First, no event is "ranked" play in the sense of a league or national standings. I just thought I'd throw that out there as it's a fairly important part of my thoughts.

I build solid lists that allow me to win. Maybe not by enormous margins but consistantly win across a spectrum of events. It's tools in a box for me. I think you over estimate how much upper level players use "uber" builds as well.

Forgeworld essentially gives me alternative tools that are cheaper than the current tools and allows me to bring more tools or more alternative tools as the FW is so much more efficient point and damage wise.

And I feel bad for my first 2-3 opponents because generally they are like Ritides. They came to a weekend event to roll dice and have fun. I'd say at least 3/4 of a GT crowd knows going in they aren't going to win. And the majority of the 1/4 don't expect it but entertain the idea they might. The 3/4's came to an event to see friends, get away for a weekend with like minded folks, have some drinks, and generally relax. I come to the events for the same reason. I just know I have a shot at taking home the overall win, best general, best sportsman, or best painted (all but best general so far at GT's this year) unlike many of the people attending.

I'd feel bad because my toolbox army goes from being good enough to win solidly to "I am so sorry about that" level against non-top tier opponents. People generally walk away from games with me knowing they were in it. Give me FW and that won't be the case anymore, even if my opponents have it.

Note: I have dispensed with my humility for this one post. I'm back to viewing being pretty good at playing with toy soldiers where it appropriately goes. Right up there with being awesome at miniature golf

 Blackmoor wrote:

 Kain wrote:
I made no attack on your credibility as the crux of my argument. It is not logically fallacious to call someone wrong and dumb, it is a fallacy to call them wrong because they are dumb however. Here I'm simply saying that you are apparently to hidebound to a meta that in reality is utterly imbalanced without FW to which the addition of does nothing to worsen and therefore are not worthy of my sympathy.

I did not call you dumb (I don't think) I called you ignorant. I.E: “caused by a lack of knowledge, understanding, or experience”

To say that the FW IG units are not vastly overpowered is wrong. Also taken in a vacuum each unit is not all that bad, but when you add the synergy of Rune Priests, Thudd Guns, Vultures, Blob Squads, Saber Defense Platforms, Vendettas, Heavy Artillery Platforms, ADLs, Command Squad orders, Lord Commissars etc. all in one army they you have a problem.

I played against an army with all of the units above (except Thudd Guns) and it blew me off of the table. It had over $800.00 worth of FW models in it, and it was way OP. Given time and money every list will be like the above but we are not there yet. I wish Alan took a better list to WGC so we can see what it can do. He needed Rune Priests and some Heavy Artillery and he would have done great. His mistake was going too heavy anti-infantry and lost to a mech army played by one of the best players in the country...twice

Necrons, Tau, and Eldar have almost completely gutted the meta and turned it topsy turvy. Shall we ban those three armies because they have forced the entire game to bend around ways to killing them?

No that would be silly.

That is my point in the original point. We have all of this change who wants to throw the FW monkey wrench into it?

Also, if I am so unwilling to change and adapt to the changing meta, how come I have no problems with Tau and Eldar, but do not want FW?

 Redbeard wrote:

MVBrandt wrote:
The issue is the large swathe of the majority of GT attendees. MOST of them don't know much about FW,

...

The argument to be had is about familiarity, access, and fairness toward the "Average" guy.

Somehow, this just doesn't feel appropriate for a competitive setting. The NFL doesn't tell RG3 that he can't play because most average players can't keep up with him. The NBA doesn't tell LeBron that he can't play because most average players can't guard him. The World Series of Poker doesn't tell Phil Hellmuth he can't play because the average players can't read him.

Competitive events have no business being governed by how the average player can cope. It might sell tickets, but it's not really establishing who the good players are.

 cvtuttle wrote:

It had over $800.00 worth of FW models in it..

You keep bringing this up - but you realize you can custom make this stuff? You can alter existing GW models, bring in models that aren't from the GW line and with some creativity you can make an appropriate model to represent it.

There is no GW Governing body on what % of your army has to be GW models any more...

 Hulksmash wrote:
Note: I have dispensed with my humility for this one post. I'm back to viewing being pretty good at playing with toy soldiers where it appropriately goes. Right up there with being awesome at miniature golf

 LValx wrote:

 Redbeard wrote:

MVBrandt wrote:
The issue is the large swathe of the majority of GT attendees. MOST of them don't know much about FW,

...

The argument to be had is about familiarity, access, and fairness toward the "Average" guy.

Somehow, this just doesn't feel appropriate for a competitive setting. The NFL doesn't tell RG3 that he can't play because most average players can't keep up with him. The NBA doesn't tell LeBron that he can't play because most average players can't guard him. The World Series of Poker doesn't tell Phil Hellmuth he can't play because the average players can't read him.

Competitive events have no business being governed by how the average player can cope. It might sell tickets, but it's not really establishing who the good players are.

Terrible analogy. Those are paid athletes, professionals, who are the very best at what they do. Those organizations also make money due to sales of products, etc, etc. Unfortunately, the GT's are generally paid for by the TOs and sponsers/supporters. They NEED to cater at least somewhat to the majority of their attendees. I'm no TO, but i'm sure Mr. Brandt can delve into further detail on that topic.

Most of the top tier players in this thread have expressed that they rather not see FW in a GT setting (of course if they had to play it, they'd adapt). So apparently both the competitive minority and the more casual-leaning majority prefer no/limited-FW.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
@ Kain, your statement concerning Vendettas being better than Vultures versus every target shows a gross misunderstanding of 6th edition. You do realize that infantry based lists are far more likely to be seen than mechanized ones? Lascannons do next to nothing to Xenos infantry (which you are likely to see due to Drakes), Vultures beat them up pretty badly. The weight of fire will also take out light armor fairly easily due to the new HP mechanic. Hell, it's fast and maneuverable enough to get most of the heavier tanks due to side/rear shots.

Heavy artillery is still good vs armies that take MCs. VS. Nids it'll kill Gants, Gargs, Biovores, etc. If you take Vendettas/Sabres, you'll have enough Lascannons to scare MCs, so it's a pretty meaningless thing to bring up. Guard have the tools across slots to deal with just about all armies.

I do agree that Tau are probably more powerful than FW IG.

I don't agree that Necrons are though. Sabre's would have a big impact on Scythes, they can do a fair bit of damage to them AND get to alpha strike (also do well vs Barges). Thudd Guns might not be optimal vs. Wraiths, but they are sure to do some damage. Combine that with other tools they can bring (Rune Priests, big blobs with Prescience) and Necrons start to have a bit of an uphill battle, IMO at least.

 Kain wrote:

As for Tau? Probably? Because the TFG Tau players have gotten tabling FW IG lists by turn 2-3 down to a science (it involves riptides, missilesides, markerlights flying out of their butts, and kroot or firewarriors depending on the player. Farsun bomb optional.) And they are absolutely petty about it.

 LValx wrote:
Vendettas with 2 Heavy Bolters wont be firing nearly as effectively at the common infantry units as a Vulture would be.

Your tactics are ignoring the massive amounts of bodies Guard will be fielding to clog up your ability to effectively engage their shooty units. For example, Doom is good... If he lives, he'll also most likely be forced to land in a spot that doesn't allow him to kill off the Artillery platforms.

You need to give your prospective opponents a little bit more credibility. They won't build bad lists that have obvious weaknesses like that.

As Hulksmash said. Some of the FW options are simply better, cheaper versions of units Guard players already take.

 Enigwolf wrote:

 Kain wrote:

As for Tau? Probably? Because the TFG Tau players have gotten tabling FW IG lists by turn 2-3 down to a science (it involves riptides, missilesides, markerlights flying out of their butts, and kroot or firewarriors depending on the player. Farsun bomb optional.) And they are absolutely petty about it.

You are so bitter about Tau that it's actually really funny. (And I'm not saying that in a condescending, "hur hur hur" manner, I'm stating it as that I actually get a chuckle out of it because I frequently get my butt handed to me by Tau players now and I sympathize with you too.)

 LValx wrote:
Yeah, FW IG isn't unbeatable, but I think it firmly puts them at the top tied with Tau.

 Kain wrote:

 Enigwolf wrote:

 Kain wrote:

As for Tau? Probably? Because the TFG Tau players have gotten tabling FW IG lists by turn 2-3 down to a science (it involves riptides, missilesides, markerlights flying out of their butts, and kroot or firewarriors depending on the player. Farsun bomb optional.) And they are absolutely petty about it.

You are so bitter about Tau that it's actually really funny. (And I'm not saying that in a condescending, "hur hur hur" manner, I'm stating it as that I actually get a chuckle out of it because I frequently get my butt handed to me by Tau players now and I sympathize with you too.)

Well, Tau isn't as bad of a match up as the GKs for me (mentioning them around me gives me the hives) but they are just...so...soul sucking...to fight against...

So of course my wife has a Tau army. FDJSADNZKDASDHAD

KAIN SMASH PUNY WIFE'S ARMY THAT DOESN'T ASSAULT LIKE MEN!

 Redbeard wrote:

MVBrandt wrote:
The issue is the large swathe of the majority of GT attendees. MOST of them don't know much about FW,
...
The argument to be had is about familiarity, access, and fairness toward the "Average" guy.

Somehow, this just doesn't feel appropriate for a competitive setting. The NFL doesn't tell RG3 that he can't play because most average players can't keep up with him. The NBA doesn't tell LeBron that he can't play because most average players can't guard him. The World Series of Poker doesn't tell Phil Hellmuth he can't play because the average players can't read him.

Competitive events have no business being governed by how the average player can cope. It might sell tickets, but it's not really establishing who the good players are.

Breng77 wrote:Except you are talking professional events, when there is a pro 40k league I'm with you but I'm pretty sure you're local 30 and over basketball league is going to ask an MBA player not to play because he will roll all the average guys. 40k is much closer to the later an event the consumer pays to play, rather than one where they get paid.

LValx wrote:
Terrible analogy. Those are paid athletes, professionals, who are the very best at what they do. Those organizations also make money due to sales of products, etc, etc. Unfortunately, the GT's are generally paid for by the TOs and sponsers/supporters. They NEED to cater at least somewhat to the majority of their attendees. I'm no TO, but i'm sure Mr. Brandt can delve into further detail on that topic.

 Hulksmash wrote:
@Redbeard

You might have missed my point. My lists don't beat people, even bad players, on turn 3. They generally win the last turn of the game. Give me FW and that's likely to change. I very well might start slamming people in turn 3-4 instead. Therefore it could be much less fun.

 cvtuttle wrote:

It had over $800.00 worth of FW models in it..

You keep bringing this up - but you realize you can custom make this stuff? You can alter existing GW models, bring in models that aren't from the GW line and with some creativity you can make an appropriate model to represent it.

There is no GW Governing body on what % of your army has to be GW models any more...

 Blackmoor wrote:

 cvtuttle wrote:

It had over $800.00 worth of FW models in it..

You keep bringing this up - but you realize you can custom make this stuff? You can alter existing GW models, bring in models that aren't from the GW line and with some creativity you can make an appropriate model to represent it.

There is no GW Governing body on what % of your army has to be GW models any more...

Oh, and one more thing Mr. CV Tuttle (if that is your real name), Alan used some models that were close at WGC on a lot of people got their knickers in a twist. You can't please everyone and there is a sub set of both the pro-FW and the anti-FW crowd that wants only FW models.

 Blackmoor wrote:
You can't please everyone and there is a sub set of both the pro-FW and the anti-FW crowd that wants only FW models.

 Dozer Blades wrote:
Personally I would be pissed to have to play versus converted models that count as FW unit(s).

 Hulksmash wrote:
You might have missed my point. My lists don't beat people, even bad players, on turn 3. They generally win the last turn of the game. Give me FW and that's likely to change. I very well might start slamming people in turn 3-4 instead. Therefore it could be much less fun.

 Hulksmash wrote:
You might have missed my point. My lists don't beat people, even bad players, on turn 3. They generally win the last turn of the game. Give me FW and that's likely to change. I very well might start slamming people in turn 3-4 instead. Therefore it could be much less fun.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Blackmoor wrote:
You can't please everyone and there is a sub set of both the pro-FW and the anti-FW crowd that wants only FW models.

Well, there's a subset of both crowds that want ALL units to be limited to the official model only. But if you take away the people who hate proxies/scratchbuilds in general I think you'll find that most of the remaining "only the real FW model" people are opposed to FW in general and want to make it harder to use, or only available for those who 'deserve' it.

 Dozer Blades wrote:
Personally I would be pissed to have to play versus converted models that count as FW unit(s).

Just wondering, but do you feel the same way about other units? For example, would you be upset at having to play against a proxy Helldrake?

Breng77 wrote:
I would agree with that, if an event allows FW, and any other conversions, then FW conversions should be allowed. I would say that any conversion should be vetted by organizers as lazy conversions just for OP units should not be encouraged.

MVBrandt wrote:
You can pick on me, Red, but the event actually caters to the very things you've posted about wanting to see back in GT's in recent post-AdeptiCon posts. Judge not by the past, which I've rather humbly admitted my failings in on podcasts, forums, etc., but on the present now faced ... your comments have little relevance within that metric. The NOVA provides fair avenues for "top flight" competitors to compete, but the vast majority of the formatting, pairing, scoring, awards, etc., is directly catered to hobbyists and people who want to be able to compete without taking spammy hardcore lists.

You don't have to go one way or the other; to suggest you do is as silly as I was 4 years ago when I thought there was no choice.

This one time, at band camp, I was only just learning how to be inclusive as a TO. Openness, fairness, built on personal failures of a sort

 Blackmoor wrote:


Oh, and one more thing Mr. CV Tuttle (if that is your real name),

 kronk wrote:
Forgive the off topic for a minute, but one quick point:

 Blackmoor wrote:


Oh, and one more thing Mr. CV Tuttle (if that is your real name),

That's Carl Tuttle from the Independent Characters. He posts on here from time to time. He apparently has KR multicases scattered all over the house and just attended a painting master class with Mr. Justin of Secret Weapon Miniatures.


Now then, back to the thread already in progress.

 RiTides wrote:

MVBrandt wrote:
You can pick on me, Red, but the event actually caters to the very things you've posted about wanting to see back in GT's in recent post-AdeptiCon posts. Judge not by the past, which I've rather humbly admitted my failings in on podcasts, forums, etc., but on the present now faced ... your comments have little relevance within that metric. The NOVA provides fair avenues for "top flight" competitors to compete, but the vast majority of the formatting, pairing, scoring, awards, etc., is directly catered to hobbyists and people who want to be able to compete without taking spammy hardcore lists.

You don't have to go one way or the other; to suggest you do is as silly as I was 4 years ago when I thought there was no choice.

This one time, at band camp, I was only just learning how to be inclusive as a TO. Openness, fairness, built on personal failures of a sort

Pretty great

And yeah, the black-and-white, All-FW-or-it's-not-truly-competitive is as silly as the "comp wars", imo. It doesn't have to be one or the other, that's the point! And it isn't. Did you see my fantasy example? Certain items are banned there all the time. This isn't pro sports and TOs absolutely have to make event-specific rulings on what to allow, rules clarifications, terrain types and placement, etc. There is no one "pro" way to play... That argument should never be used for either side, imo, it's meaningless.

Enigwolf wrote:[I'm wondering the same thing myself, since frankly, whether it's a Heldrake or a Dreadnought or a Contemptor, Rule of Cool should apply.

Breng77 wrote:I would agree with that, if an event allows FW, and any other conversions, then FW conversions should be allowed. I would say that any conversion should be vetted by organizers as lazy conversions just for OP units should not be encouraged.

 Darkness wrote:

What we see is gamers slapping together rough counts-as type conversions to exploit poorly balanced FW rules as opposed to casual gamers wanting to use their extensive collections.

 Darkness wrote:

Enigwolf wrote:[I'm wondering the same thing myself, since frankly, whether it's a Heldrake or a Dreadnought or a Contemptor, Rule of Cool should apply.

Breng77 wrote:I would agree with that, if an event allows FW, and any other conversions, then FW conversions should be allowed. I would say that any conversion should be vetted by organizers as lazy conversions just for OP units should not be encouraged.

Both of these are on the assumption that the conversion is "cool" or done well. In the case of the quadgun sabre platforms, they were about a 1/3 the size of the actual model. When it comes to conversions you can not model for advantage. What we see is gamers slapping together rough counts-as type conversions to exploit poorly balanced FW rules as opposed to casual gamers wanting to use their extensive collections.

 Darkness wrote:

Enigwolf wrote:[I'm wondering the same thing myself, since frankly, whether it's a Heldrake or a Dreadnought or a Contemptor, Rule of Cool should apply.

Breng77 wrote:I would agree with that, if an event allows FW, and any other conversions, then FW conversions should be allowed. I would say that any conversion should be vetted by organizers as lazy conversions just for OP units should not be encouraged.

Both of these are on the assumption that the conversion is "cool" or done well. In the case of the quadgun sabre platforms, they were about a 1/3 the size of the actual model. When it comes to conversions you can not model for advantage. What we see is gamers slapping together rough counts-as type conversions to exploit poorly balanced FW rules as opposed to casual gamers wanting to use their extensive collections.

 skkipper wrote:
I am fine with conversion even though I have a lot of forgeworld and lots of "forged" world (eBay buys from china/eastern Europe). The conversions should look good not drain pipe drop pod quality.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Blackmoor wrote:
You can't please everyone and there is a sub set of both the pro-FW and the anti-FW crowd that wants only FW models.

 Dozer Blades wrote:
Personally I would be pissed to have to play versus converted models that count as FW unit(s).

Just wondering, but do you feel the same way about other units? For example, would you be upset at having to play against a proxy Helldrake?

 warboss wrote:
Indeed, kudos to MV for moderating his position based on paying attendee feedback. I remember having discussions years back asking why he was devoting so much time catering to the 5% of people in the final four nakedly at the expense of the 50% players in the "I lost my first game" lower bracket. Unlike what intolerant comp haters and FW lovers would have you believe, there is a huge and varied middle ground between the binary black and white yes or no positions. I both allow and use limited FW models in my armies but I respect my fellow players enough to simply ask ahead of time as instructed in most FW books. I'll advocate my position strongly (but I don't tend to use any models considered "cheesey" except for a single contemptor) but ultimately if the person doesn't budge at all I have a back up plan (my contemptor is a venerable dread instead). If they don't want to allow the codex substition as well as refuse to allow the wywsiwig FW rules, I simply opt to not play that particular game. I'm glad that some of the bigger named tournaments have opted for the middle ground as well.

 Redbeard wrote:

 Darkness wrote:

What we see is gamers slapping together rough counts-as type conversions to exploit poorly balanced FW rules as opposed to casual gamers wanting to use their extensive collections.

I'm not sure that's accurate. What you see in the top-ten finish lists is gamers slapping together rough counts-as conversions to exploit poorly balanced FW rules. I'm sure that if you look over the rest of the field, you'll see a good handful of blight drones, decimators, tetras, hornets and their like - perfectly reasonable models, not unbalanced, and being enjoyed by the casual players who brought them.

Relic07 wrote:
Forgeworld is here to stay in tournaments. And it is only going to get bigger and more popular as FW and GW expand.

So Blackmoor got tabled by a FW heavy list.... Waaaaahhh, let's whine about it on a dakka forum. Guess what, it is not going to change.

The FW units provide an excellent equalizer for many armies, and keep the "Codex of the Month" crap from GW in check.

Breng77 wrote:

Relic07 wrote:
Forgeworld is here to stay in tournaments. And it is only going to get bigger and more popular as FW and GW expand.

So Blackmoor got tabled by a FW heavy list.... Waaaaahhh, let's whine about it on a dakka forum. Guess what, it is not going to change.

The FW units provide an excellent equalizer for many armies, and keep the "Codex of the Month" crap from GW in check.

If by provide an excellent equalizer you mean, take ig allies, then yes you are right. Also the idea that FW is here to stay is false. It is here to stay in some events and not here at all in others.

 RiTides wrote:

And in that case, I highly doubt the rest of the field would mind a few restrictions that limit the "gamers slapping together rough counts-as conversions to exploit poorly balanced FW rules" from exploiting them. Middle ground, as warboss says so eloquently in the post I quoted above.

 Enigwolf wrote:

Breng77 wrote:

Relic07 wrote:
Forgeworld is here to stay in tournaments. And it is only going to get bigger and more popular as FW and GW expand.

So Blackmoor got tabled by a FW heavy list.... Waaaaahhh, let's whine about it on a dakka forum. Guess what, it is not going to change.

The FW units provide an excellent equalizer for many armies, and keep the "Codex of the Month" crap from GW in check.

If by provide an excellent equalizer you mean, take ig allies, then yes you are right. Also the idea that FW is here to stay is false. It is here to stay in some events and not here at all in others.

Compared to a couple of years ago? The trend is that FW is seeing more inclusion each year in events. I think he was making a safe assumption in that "it would be here to stay".

warboss wrote:
If anything, the "pro unlimited FW" camp (like the anti-comp camp) seems intent on campaigning vocally against any sort of middle ground at events THEY HAVE NO INTENT TO EVER ATTEND... whereas the "anti" FW camp seems content to by and large simply not attend FW allowing events.

There is a huge reasonable middle ground that the two positions and coy sigs ignore the existance of.

... For every poor DKOK player out there who just wants to use his models, there are (from my experience) a half dozen people who just want their regular drop pods (or spray painted gatorade bottles) to allow their dreads to charge you on the turn they come in.

 Vaktathi wrote:
I don't even think that requiring the actual models is all that discriminatory in regards to price and affluence anymore, as GW's prices rapidly approach parity and in some cases exceed FW models prices, whether FW is more expensive or not is on a case by case basis now. GW Tau Broadsides aren't any cheaper than FW Tau Hazard suits, while there are FW Terminator characters that are cheaper than the plastic HQ units GW is now putting out, and Death Korps infantry are cheaper than Dire Avengers are now

Sure, some FW stuff remains expensive, but by no means is Forgeworld always more expensive than normal GW releases.

 warboss wrote:

 RiTides wrote:

And in that case, I highly doubt the rest of the field would mind a few restrictions that limit the "gamers slapping together rough counts-as conversions to exploit poorly balanced FW rules" from exploiting them. Middle ground, as warboss says so eloquently in the post I quoted above.

Thanks. I've largely stayed out of the discussion because I'm not a tourney gamer at all now (largely because I simply don't play 40k except for maybe once a season at best) but MVBrandt's post surprised and impressed me. I've always been annoyed by the ignorant peripherally related comments that pop up derailing threads about the legality of FW products (as well as the sigs that spout the same crap about not playing "real" 40k if you "house rule" no FW) as they simply ignore the muddled rules on the matter as well as completely go against the reality of life that some imagined moral high ground of "everything FW is legal/overpowered regardless of your view!!" can prevent people from simply NOT playing against you.

The reality is that a blanket denial of FW rules and models does indeed inconvience some gamers who have primarily FW armies built around rules that are largely no different on the power per points scale than what you'd find in a codex.

The reality is that a blanket allowance of FW rules and models does indeed inconvience some gamers who have to play on a very unlevel field against armies made designed specifically to capitalize on a small number of badly balanced and overpowered FW models.

If anything, the "pro unlimited FW" camp (like the anti-comp camp) seems intent on campaigning vocally against any sort of middle ground at events THEY HAVE NO INTENT TO EVER ATTEND... whereas the "anti" FW camp seems content to by and large simply not attend FW allowing events. There is a huge reasonable middle ground that the two positions and coy sigs ignore the existance of. This whole discussion reminds me of a situation with a player in an old RPG campaign of mine that was constantly advocating the allowance of a book from a different D&D universe. He kept talking about how great that universe was and how the diversity of backgrounds, races, and builds would really enhance our campaign. I ended up capitulating and the end effect was not him building a character that took advantage of all that but simply taking a broken feat for his existing character that did something much better than the "core" 3.5 feat he already had access to but didn't choose. For every poor DKOK player out there who just wants to use his models, there are (from my experience) a half dozen people who just want their regular drop pods (or spray painted gatorade bottles) to allow their dreads to charge you on the turn they come in.

There are plenty of things that TOs can do (as well as friendly game players) that don't screw over reasonable players of either type completely. My advice is to simply require the actual FW models (no conversions.. sorry... your spare IG heavy bolter and left over sprue mashup is out) as well as legal physical versions of the most recent FW rules (whether the books or print outs of the free updates from FW to the old books). While that technically only discourages less affluent people who want to (ab)use certain model rules, it nonetheless reasonably requires people to do what they should and gets rid of a significant portion of the (ab)using crowd (like the Dreadnought drop pod represented by a solo cup or regular drop pod). No off-scaled bits conversions with pirated PDF printouts of 1 page. Another reasonable restriction is to limit one FW 40k entry per primary detachment of codex armies (none in allies forces) and require preapproval of FW only armies containing actual FW models (like elysians in an elysian list but not "flying" cadians). A combo of those steps won't unnecessarily inconvience most "fluff" players but will weed out most people (but admittedly not all) or severely limt those who simply want to use the minority of broken items.

There is as stated before a huge middle ground that most friendly games as well as tournies can occupy that is completely ignored by zealots on both sides and I'm glad to see the vast and previously silent middle ground finally pushing back in this thread.

 kronk wrote:
Forgive the off topic for a minute, but one quick point:

 Blackmoor wrote:


Oh, and one more thing Mr. CV Tuttle (if that is your real name),

That's Carl Tuttle from the Independent Characters. He posts on here from time to time. He apparently has KR multicases scattered all over the house and just attended a painting master class with Mr. Justin of Secret Weapon Miniatures.


Now then, back to the thread already in progress.

Relic07 wrote:
Requiring the "original FW model" to limit FW is bogus. As long as the model is a well thought out conversion, this should be a non-issue. A big part of the hobby is conversions for a lot of people.
As an example, I don't particularly care for SOME (but not all) of the FW original models. I have made well built conversions that look better IMO.

Another example, I game with a gentleman that took an original drop pod, and did some good conversion work to it to make it look like a luscious. I think such creativity should be applauded.

Exclusions should be "garbage conversions" i.e. Styrofoam cup as luscious, or stock heavy weapons team as Sabre. And pirated books should not be allowed for obvious reasons.

 Darkness wrote:
While still on the topic of conversions, the aforementioned sabre platform/quad guns pose another issue here. They were deployed on top of a sky shield. With them being far smaller, this allowed a lot more being crammed on there for 4++

The average gamer has no idea what a sabre platform looks like so will never question this. Now the average gamer has to contend with unfamiliar rules, possibly an unbalancing unit(s) and not knowing that his opponent is MFA . To me that screams bad experience.

 Darkness wrote:
Thats not an easy task considering an event that large. They may have been approved, or not needed it per the event, or the player may have not known.

MFA is not usually an issue as we all know what virtually every model in GW's range looks like. But with FW, a lot of players do not.

 Enigwolf wrote:

 Darkness wrote:
Thats not an easy task considering an event that large. They may have been approved, or not needed it per the event, or the player may have not known.

MFA is not usually an issue as we all know what virtually every model in GW's range looks like. But with FW, a lot of players do not.

Is it that hard to just pull up the Forgeworld page...?

Breng77 wrote:
Because FW is not included in the events he plays. I don't think he has an issue with separate FW events

 Darkness wrote:
While still on the topic of conversions, the aforementioned sabre platform/quad guns pose another issue here. They were deployed on top of a sky shield. With them being far smaller, this allowed a lot more being crammed on there for 4++

The average gamer has no idea what a sabre platform looks like so will never question this. Now the average gamer has to contend with unfamiliar rules, possibly an unbalancing unit(s) and not knowing that his opponent is MFA . To me that screams bad experience.

Breng77 wrote:
did he play in it? I thought he only played the Championships, which is NO FW.

 Dozer Blades wrote:

Breng77 wrote:
did he play in it? I thought he only played the Championships, which is NO FW.

He has been playing in the TT for over five years. Janthkin and Yakface are on his team too.

 Blackmoor wrote:

 Dozer Blades wrote:

Breng77 wrote:
did he play in it? I thought he only played the Championships, which is NO FW.

He has been playing in the TT for over five years. Janthkin and Yakface are on his team too.

I have been playing in the Team Tournament for well over five years, and up until last year played in the Gladiator as well (i am getting to old for 13 games in a weekend). Several years ago with the 3.5 Chaos Codex the Iron Warrors could take 4 heavy support choices (and super heavys took up 2 HS slots) I played against an army with 2 warhound titans.

 CaptKaruthors wrote:
Dental plan...Lisa needs braces...

 RiTides wrote:
Relic, please don't be so passive aggressive. Blackmoor has no more need of advice on what to do with his life from you than you do from him. Please, if you have an axe to grind, take it to PM!

Also Blackmoor, I did not realize you played in the Gladiator. I assume that's where you faced the warhound titans... pretty cool! I also assume this means your stance on FW is that you don't mind it / actually enjoy it in a dedicated event? I did not realize that... but it's always great to see that things in this debate are not as black and white as they first apppear on the surface

Not to mention that, as Dozer Blades points out, Blackmoor shares an AdeptiCon team tournament squad with yakface, a big proponent of FW in events. So we can all get along, after all and thrive, even! (I believe last year they placed in the top 3 or 5 for pure battle points in the TT, although did not fare as well in the overall rankings).

 pretre wrote:
That's a lot of assumptions! Yikes.

Relic07 wrote:

 RiTides wrote:
Relic, please don't be so passive aggressive. Blackmoor has no more need of advice on what to do with his life from you than you do from him. Please, if you have an axe to grind, take it to PM!

Also Blackmoor, I did not realize you played in the Gladiator. I assume that's where you faced the warhound titans... pretty cool! I also assume this means your stance on FW is that you don't mind it / actually enjoy it in a dedicated event? I did not realize that... but it's always great to see that things in this debate are not as black and white as they first apppear on the surface

Not to mention that, as Dozer Blades points out, Blackmoor shares an AdeptiCon team tournament squad with yakface, a big proponent of FW in events. So we can all get along, after all and thrive, even! (I believe last year they placed in the top 3 or 5 for pure battle points in the TT, although did not fare as well in the overall rankings).

What's wrong with trying to help another gamer out?

I just think a man needs more in his life than spending all time and resources on a game of toy soldiers. Constantly traveling around the country year in and year out, little to no sex, sleeping in hotel rooms night after night, etc.
It is going to take it's toll on your physical and mental health. The game is supposed to be a hobby not a lifestyle.

I used to play paintball & brazilian jiu-jitsu competitively, and got out of the traveling tournament scene for these various reasons. I saw too many of my teammates wreck their lives and finances, for little to no gain.

It's all about balance sir.

 RiTides wrote:
*Sigh* This was actually a useful thread. Unfortunately, Relic, your flamebaiting is making it much less so. Again, posts like the above few only weaken whatever argument you were trying to make.

It's unfortunate that you're unwilling to stop with the text-based barbs and engage in a meaningful discussion. I tried asking nicely... but I'll stop feeding you, now.

 Blackmoor wrote:
I am all for choices. I also think it is a great compromise to have apocalypse events and narrative events that allow FW to run concurrently with tournaments that do not allow FW. Whatever floats your boat, go ahead and get your hobby on.

I am also not as hard line about FW as some seem to think. If Carl wants to bring Zhufor or some of the other choices I am all for it.

The problem is that most tournament players do not worry about whether or not their opponent is having fun. They are there to compete, and to them their winning is fun. So they will not take the Wraithseers, the Plague Drones, and the other interesting units to play with, but they will just load up on IG artillery and Vultures.

In a perfect world I would like to see tournaments with a banned list, but here is the problem.
#1. Tournaments all seem to be all 40k approved FW or no FW.
#2. There is a loud minority who oppose any banned list and do not want to compromise.
#3. No one can agree on what should, or should not be banned.

Because of those problems above my pragmatic response is to campaign for no FW. Since all there is right now is black or white I have to choose a side .

 Dozer Blades wrote:
There should be banned units but most TOs simply find life easier to sweepingly approve everything under the sun.

 Blackmoor wrote:

 Dozer Blades wrote:
There should be banned units but most TOs simply find life easier to sweepingly approve everything under the sun.

I was about to say that TOs are motivated by money, so one way or another they will do whatever will make them the most of it (either allowing FW or not).

This also influences their modeling policy. They might write something strict, but when it comes time to turnimg someone away because of their poor "counts-as" it will not happen.

 RiTides wrote:
*Sigh* This was actually a useful thread. Unfortunately, Relic, your flamebaiting is making it much less so. Again, posts like the above few only weaken whatever argument you were trying to make.

It's unfortunate that you're unwilling to stop with the text-based barbs and engage in a meaningful discussion. I tried asking nicely... but I'll stop feeding you, now.

 Blackmoor wrote:

 Dozer Blades wrote:
There should be banned units but most TOs simply find life easier to sweepingly approve everything under the sun.

I was about to say that TOs are motivated by money, so one way or another they will do whatever will make them the most of it (either allowing FW or not).

This also influences their modeling policy. They might write something strict, but when it comes time to turnimg someone away because of their poor "counts-as" it will not happen.

rigeld2 wrote:
Ban lists can work.
They just need to not be knee jerk reactions.
A specific unit wins one tourney. Great. Who cares?
A specific unit consistently wins every tourney. Now there's an issue to investigate.

Of course, this only works with a very organized tournament atmosphere and lots of data (not just the GT circuit).

 Enigwolf wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
Ban lists can work.
They just need to not be knee jerk reactions.
A specific unit wins one tourney. Great. Who cares?
A specific unit consistently wins every tourney. Now there's an issue to investigate.

Of course, this only works with a very organized tournament atmosphere and lots of data (not just the GT circuit).

Now, I don't know the global tourney scene, but has any 40k tourney, historically, had a unit ban list? (Let's not drag Fantasy or other games into this either, just plain 40k)

 RiTides wrote:

 Enigwolf wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
Ban lists can work.
They just need to not be knee jerk reactions.
A specific unit wins one tourney. Great. Who cares?
A specific unit consistently wins every tourney. Now there's an issue to investigate.

Of course, this only works with a very organized tournament atmosphere and lots of data (not just the GT circuit).

Now, I don't know the global tourney scene, but has any 40k tourney, historically, had a unit ban list? (Let's not drag Fantasy or other games into this either, just plain 40k)

Why can't we drag fantasy into this? Unit bans I have not seen commonly... but certain character and item bans are absolutely common.

 Hulksmash wrote:
I think making FW units unique would do the trick honestly. I'm just not a fan of gates wide open. Granted if I lived in SoCal still I'd probably have fully embraced it since that's all they seem to offer there anymore

Silly rich west coasters and their silly amount of FW due to having a bunker in one of the largest metros in the country.

Granted a lot of the units that I would feel bad about using would actually fit my army extremely well thematically.

 Hulksmash wrote:
Silly rich west coasters and their silly amount of FW due to having a bunker in one of the largest metros in the country.

Brothererekose wrote:

 Hulksmash wrote:
Silly rich west coasters and their silly amount of FW due to having a bunker in one of the largest metros in the country.

Best gaming stores too, like both Game Empires. Heh, better weather, too.

And according to the Beach Boys, the prettiest girls in the world.

Oh, and staying on topic, 1 FW per, 'unique' is a good balancer.

 Enigwolf wrote:

Brothererekose wrote:

 Hulksmash wrote:
Silly rich west coasters and their silly amount of FW due to having a bunker in one of the largest metros in the country.

Best gaming stores too, like both Game Empires. Heh, better weather, too.

And according to the Beach Boys, the prettiest girls in the world.

Oh, and staying on topic, 1 FW per, 'unique' is a good balancer.

What then happens to FW army lists? Such as Siege Vanguard, DKoK, Elysians?

 OverwatchCNC wrote:

 Enigwolf wrote:

Brothererekose wrote:

 Hulksmash wrote:
Silly rich west coasters and their silly amount of FW due to having a bunker in one of the largest metros in the country.

Best gaming stores too, like both Game Empires. Heh, better weather, too.

And according to the Beach Boys, the prettiest girls in the world.

Oh, and staying on topic, 1 FW per, 'unique' is a good balancer.

What then happens to FW army lists? Such as Siege Vanguard, DKoK, Elysians?

You can't use them.

 Enigwolf wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
Ban lists can work.
They just need to not be knee jerk reactions.
A specific unit wins one tourney. Great. Who cares?
A specific unit consistently wins every tourney. Now there's an issue to investigate.

Of course, this only works with a very organized tournament atmosphere and lots of data (not just the GT circuit).

Now, I don't know the global tourney scene, but has any 40k tourney, historically, had a unit ban list? (Let's not drag Fantasy or other games into this either, just plain 40k)

 Unit1126PLL wrote:


Some of us have lovingly put together entire armies based around those lists, and even from before ForgeWorld picked up the list and when it was publised by GW.

Are you saying we can't play our armies because Thudd Guns, Vultures, and Sabres? The Armored Battlegroup list only has access to Vultures out of those 3, and it's 0-1 IIRC.

 OverwatchCNC wrote:

 Enigwolf wrote:

Brothererekose wrote:

 Hulksmash wrote:
Silly rich west coasters and their silly amount of FW due to having a bunker in one of the largest metros in the country.

Best gaming stores too, like both Game Empires. Heh, better weather, too.

And according to the Beach Boys, the prettiest girls in the world.

Oh, and staying on topic, 1 FW per, 'unique' is a good balancer.

What then happens to FW army lists? Such as Siege Vanguard, DKoK, Elysians?

You can't use them.

Breng77 wrote:
I think my biggest issue with the fw army lists is that they are allowed to ally with basically their own codex. Which can lead to spamming and abuse. Were I to allow them in an event I was running it might very well be with a rule disallowing allying with their parent dex.

 Dozer Blades wrote:
Placing some limitations on choices would help to make FW more accepted. Players then would have a much lesser number of units to contend with in terms of preparation. I think this is the right approach.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Breng77 wrote:
I think my biggest issue with the fw army lists is that they are allowed to ally with basically their own codex. Which can lead to spamming and abuse. Were I to allow them in an event I was running it might very well be with a rule disallowing allying with their parent dex.

As long as you keep different Space Marine books (BT, DA, BA, etc) from allying with Codex: Space Marines, then that follows I guess. But if you aren't going to keep Codex: Blood Angels from allying with Codex: Space Marines (lists which are identical in all but very few ways) then I don't understand why allying between the Forge World list and it's closest relative is.

By the way, they aren't "parent dexes." The Forge World army lists stand alone.

 Bobthehero wrote:
On the other hand you can pile up Thudd guns and Heavy Arty carriages and give them FNP with the Quartermaster

 Oaka wrote:
To the TOs out there who have dealt with this issue- do you ever factor in, even without realizing it, that you ban FW from your tournaments when a gaming store that doesn't sell the models or rules is hosting the tournament? Has a game store owner ever inquired about the possibility of there being units on display at a tournament in his store that he won't be able to sell?

 Vaktathi wrote:
Does the IA 8 Elysian list have that? (don't have my book in front of me). I know the DKoK Siege Regiment does not.

 Vaktathi wrote:
Does the IA 8 Elysian list have that? (don't have my book in front of me). I know the DKoK Siege Regiment does not.

That said, largely that just means they aren't copy-pasting what's identical from the codex book. Functionally it doesn't make it any different than the SM book (which copy-past almost all of their vehicle and wargear rules from each other in addition to numerous common units and the like), it just means it's not reprinting those rules there.

[

 RiTides wrote:

 Dozer Blades wrote:
Placing some limitations on choices would help to make FW more accepted. Players then would have a much lesser number of units to contend with in terms of preparation. I think this is the right approach.

In an ideal world, I agree. I'm surprised to see you post this! But as we've seen so far, TOs currently seem to find 0-1 restrictions less controversial... It will be interesting to see if that could migrate at all. "No FW artillery" doesn't pick on too individual of a unit, and lets someone bring 2 Blight Drones if they wish.

Re: Blood Angels allying with Space Marines- I don't think anyone minds my BA allying with anything in this edition . So nerfed!

Forge World Imperial Armor units (but not army lists) may be used with the following exceptions: Flyers, Super Heavies, Super Heavy Fliers, and Gargantuan Creatures are NOT allowed. The actual ForgeWorld models must be used along with the latest Imperial Armor rules (including Imperial Armour Apocalypse and it's associated ForgeWorld FAQ) with one exception: Space Marine Drop Pods will use the standard GW Codex rules. Failure to use the most current rules will result in losses for all games played using incorrect rules. It is your responsibility as a player using ForgeWorld to know what the most recent rules are. Additionally, you must bring a copy of the latest rules for each of your opponents to review.

Championships/Invitational: Forge World/Imperial Armor units are not allowed in the 40K Championships, however players may still use their Forge World models to represent a unit from their codex.

Team Tournament: Imperial Armor & Apocalypse units (but not army lists) may be used following the rules and restrictions as noted in the
AdeptiCon 2010 Imperial Armor & Apocalypse Units rules.

Championships: Forge World/Imperial Armor units are NOT allowed in the Warhammer 40K Championships; however players may still use their Forge
World models to represent a unit from their codex.

Team Tournament: Each team may field a maximum of one Imperial Armor/Apocalypse unit (see below) following the rules and restrictions as
noted in the AdeptiCon 2011 Allowable Imperial Armor & Apocalypse Units rules. Units allowed in this event will have ‘TT’
noted in the Event column.

Championships: Forge World/Imperial Armor units are NOT allowed in the Warhammer 40K Championships; however players may still use their Forge
World models to represent a unit from their codex.

Team Tournament: Forge World/Imperial Armor units are allowed in the Warhammer 40K Team Tournament, however due to the scarce nature of
these units, each unit is considered unique (0-1) and may only be taken once per Team. Units must follow the rules and
restrictions as noted in the AdeptiCon 2012 Allowable Imperial Armor & Apocalypse Units rules. Units allowed in this event will
have ‘TT’ noted in the Event column. In ALL cases, only the most current published rules for any particular Imperial Armor /
Apocalypse unit will be allowed. Please consult the list above for reference on which publication contains the most current
rules for each particular unit.

 Matthias wrote:


No Forge World Units Allowed
Warhammer 40K Championships
Warhammer 40K Youngbloods Tournament
Warhammer 40K Combat Patrol
Horus Heresy - Betrayal

 Blackmoor wrote:
I was about to say that TOs are motivated by money, so one way or another they will do whatever will make them the most of it (either allowing FW or not).

This also influences their modeling policy. They might write something strict, but when it comes time to turnimg someone away because of their poor "counts-as" it will not happen.

 warboss wrote:
Thanks for the detailed rundown through the years (not being sarcastic in case it sounds it). I'm not sure if the above italicized part is a typo as it's a FW scenario book with FW only units making up parts of every list.

 Matthias wrote:
In 2011, they were banned outright from the 40K Championships and teams were limited one single unit in the 40K Team Tournament:

Championships: Forge World/Imperial Armor units are NOT allowed in the Warhammer 40K Championships; however players may still use their Forge
World models to represent a unit from their codex.

Team Tournament: Each team may field a maximum of one Imperial Armor/Apocalypse unit (see below) following the rules and restrictions as
noted in the AdeptiCon 2011 Allowable Imperial Armor & Apocalypse Units rules. Units allowed in this event will have ‘TT’
noted in the Event column.

In 2012 we finally settled on a happy medium for both events and introduced an easy to implement rule for FW inclusion that has been since adopted by a few other large events like The NOVA Open:

Championships: Forge World/Imperial Armor units are NOT allowed in the Warhammer 40K Championships; however players may still use their Forge
World models to represent a unit from their codex.

Team Tournament: Forge World/Imperial Armor units are allowed in the Warhammer 40K Team Tournament, however due to the scarce nature of
these units, each unit is considered unique (0-1) and may only be taken once per Team. Units must follow the rules and
restrictions as noted in the AdeptiCon 2012 Allowable Imperial Armor & Apocalypse Units rules. Units allowed in this event will
have ‘TT’ noted in the Event column. In ALL cases, only the most current published rules for any particular Imperial Armor /
Apocalypse unit will be allowed. Please consult the list above for reference on which publication contains the most current
rules for each particular unit.

We continued this format in 2013 and will most likely do so going forward.

 RiTides wrote:
You quoted my post but seem to be confirming what I said, that 0-1 or "unique" restriction has come to be, as you say, a "happy medium / easy to implement" solution that several of the major TOs have settled on for some events.

I quite like this solution- my only hesitation is that I wish there could be an exception, in certain events, for full FW-army-lists. But as you have events that allow unlimited FW, even those folks have events to participate in.

So, I am a big fan of AdeptiCon's (and now Nova's) solutions to this

 Matthias wrote:

 Blackmoor wrote:
I was about to say that TOs are motivated by money, so one way or another they will do whatever will make them the most of it (either allowing FW or not).

This also influences their modeling policy. They might write something strict, but when it comes time to turnimg someone away because of their poor "counts-as" it will not happen.

I am sorry you feel this way, but it is woefully offbase. As an example - AdeptiCon sold out both the 40K Championships (with a 40+ person wait list) and the 40K Team Tournament this year before the event rules were even released.. Looking at the flux of Forge World inclusion over the back 5 years, how could anyone have known exactly what would and would not be allowed? Our inclusion of FW has nothing to do with selling tickets and taking your money - it has everything to do with trying to craft the best event possible for a majority of out attendees.

Breng77 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Breng77 wrote:
I think my biggest issue with the fw army lists is that they are allowed to ally with basically their own codex. Which can lead to spamming and abuse. Were I to allow them in an event I was running it might very well be with a rule disallowing allying with their parent dex.

As long as you keep different Space Marine books (BT, DA, BA, etc) from allying with Codex: Space Marines, then that follows I guess. But if you aren't going to keep Codex: Blood Angels from allying with Codex: Space Marines (lists which are identical in all but very few ways) then I don't understand why allying between the Forge World list and it's closest relative is.

By the way, they aren't "parent dexes." The Forge World army lists stand alone.

As for them not being "Parent Dexes" I beg to differ
Ork Dread Mob army list
"In order to use this army list you will need a copy of the Ork Codex"

Elysian Drop Troops

Look at the special rules of many units and you will see the text "See Imperial Guard Codex"

Again indicating you need an IG codex to use the list.

This is not true for a regular codex army.

Allowing these lists to ally with the "parent codex", allows you to even further spam some of the percieved broken units. If we Ban those broken units (or restrict them to 0-1 choices) Then I have no issue including these lists with no restriction.

 Phazael wrote:
I have stated this prior, but really I think if FW is going to be allowed in any capacity, then it should be done whole hog but only in formats with significant comp scores implemented in them. If some guy wants to roll out his themed mech guard with a bunch of towing vehicles or their Ork mech list with multiple Megadreads, they should have that option but the guy who rolls in with a wall of IG/SM artillery pieces should be playing for best general and almost nothing else.

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Phazael wrote:
I have stated this prior, but really I think if FW is going to be allowed in any capacity, then it should be done whole hog but only in formats with significant comp scores implemented in them. If some guy wants to roll out his themed mech guard with a bunch of towing vehicles or their Ork mech list with multiple Megadreads, they should have that option but the guy who rolls in with a wall of IG/SM artillery pieces should be playing for best general and almost nothing else.

To be fair, there are lists where artilllery is perfectly fluffy. My DKoK assault brigade runs 7 rapiers, 4 heavy mortars and a quad gun, for a total of 12 artillery models, but nobody would think that that's out of character for the army.

 Blackmoor wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Phazael wrote:
I have stated this prior, but really I think if FW is going to be allowed in any capacity, then it should be done whole hog but only in formats with significant comp scores implemented in them. If some guy wants to roll out his themed mech guard with a bunch of towing vehicles or their Ork mech list with multiple Megadreads, they should have that option but the guy who rolls in with a wall of IG/SM artillery pieces should be playing for best general and almost nothing else.

To be fair, there are lists where artilllery is perfectly fluffy. My DKoK assault brigade runs 7 rapiers, 4 heavy mortars and a quad gun, for a total of 12 artillery models, but nobody would think that that's out of character for the army.

Comp has nothing to do with theme. It is based on the power of the army (or at least that is the way it should work).

 Matthias wrote:

 Oaka wrote:
To the TOs out there who have dealt with this issue- do you ever factor in, even without realizing it, that you ban FW from your tournaments when a gaming store that doesn't sell the models or rules is hosting the tournament? Has a game store owner ever inquired about the possibility of there being units on display at a tournament in his store that he won't be able to sell?

This is not an issue for us at AdeptiCon, since Forge World is an onsite vendor.

 Enigwolf wrote:


So in order to include FW, we need to bring back comp?

 Hulksmash wrote:
Dark Eldar have flyers and therefore have skyfire.

 Enigwolf wrote:
So in order to include FW, we need to bring back comp?

 Redbeard wrote:
I played in a tournament today. It allowed 1 FW unit in 1500 points.

My first round opponent used a contemptor dread. He asked if I knew what it did...

dlight wrote:
You have absolutely no business banning Forgeworld models. The rules are written by professional game designers, and are official Warhammer 40,000 rules per the Forgeworld books.

TO's are not professional game designers, and should not be tampering with the game rules. The codex balance and unit power is determined by GW and FW alone. Tampering with it is essentially nerfing an army, which is neither fare nor appropriate.

GW, FW, and the official play testers are constantly reading the forums and tournament results. They know exactly what is going on with the game. They knew exactly what they were doing when they changed the artillery rules in 6th edition, and they also knew precisely what units (GW & FW) would benefit from these rules. They are professionals. It is what they do for a living all day.

 RiTides wrote:
TO's can and will run events with no comp, with comp, with no FW, with FW... whatever they please. It's their event, and GW takes no part in it. They explicitly stopped supporting any events. So, the TOs make the final call for their own events.

If you don't like that, you can run your own... but good luck using only their own official FAQs and making no rulings of your own of any kind. I think you'll find many rulings are quite necessary just to make the event work... as demonstrated by the extensive information / player packets / etc put out by the TOs of all the major tournaments.

dlight wrote:

The rules are written the way they are for a reason. *SNIP*

Leave the rules alone (outside any needed FAQ clarification), or go create your own miniature game.

dlight wrote:
You have absolutely no business banning Forgeworld models. The rules are written by professional game designers, and are official Warhammer 40,000 rules per the Forgeworld books.

TO's are not professional game designers, and should not be tampering with the game rules. The codex balance and unit power is determined by GW and FW alone. Tampering with it is essentially nerfing an army, which is neither fare nor appropriate.

Codex and army power ebbs and flows. It's just the way it is. Chaos 3.5, Orks 4.0, and Grey Knights 5.0 all dominated when they came out. Not anymore. The game is in a constant state of refinement.

GW, FW, and the official play testers are constantly reading the forums and tournament results. They know exactly what is going on with the game. They knew exactly what they were doing when they changed the artillery rules in 6th edition, and they also knew precisely what units (GW & FW) would benefit from these rules. They are professionals. It is what they do for a living all day.

If GW & or FW wants game or unit rule changes implemented, they will issue official FAQ's or change the rules in an upcoming version of the game.

 Vaktathi wrote:
To be fair, Tournaments are already a style of play that the game isn't intended or written for, and they way they already operate generally is outside the scope of the rules (e.g. the rules say nothing about a time limit). TO's, generally by necessity, are writing rules for the game and playing it in a manner that the writers didn't intend (again, for instance, time limits).

dlight wrote:
You have absolutely no business banning Forgeworld models. The rules are written by professional game designers, and are official Warhammer 40,000 rules per the Forgeworld books.

TO's are not professional game designers, and should not be tampering with the game rules. The codex balance and unit power is determined by GW and FW alone. Tampering with it is essentially nerfing an army, which is neither fare nor appropriate.

Codex and army power ebbs and flows. It's just the way it is. Chaos 3.5, Orks 4.0, and Grey Knights 5.0 all dominated when they came out. Not anymore. The game is in a constant state of refinement.

GW, FW, and the official play testers are constantly reading the forums and tournament results. They know exactly what is going on with the game. They knew exactly what they were doing when they changed the artillery rules in 6th edition, and they also knew precisely what units (GW & FW) would benefit from these rules. They are professionals. It is what they do for a living all day.

If GW & or FW wants game or unit rule changes implemented, they will issue official FAQ's or change the rules in an upcoming version of the game.

 LValx wrote:

dlight wrote:
You have absolutely no business banning Forgeworld models. The rules are written by professional game designers, and are official Warhammer 40,000 rules per the Forgeworld books.

TO's are not professional game designers, and should not be tampering with the game rules. The codex balance and unit power is determined by GW and FW alone. Tampering with it is essentially nerfing an army, which is neither fare nor appropriate.

Codex and army power ebbs and flows. It's just the way it is. Chaos 3.5, Orks 4.0, and Grey Knights 5.0 all dominated when they came out. Not anymore. The game is in a constant state of refinement.

GW, FW, and the official play testers are constantly reading the forums and tournament results. They know exactly what is going on with the game. They knew exactly what they were doing when they changed the artillery rules in 6th edition, and they also knew precisely what units (GW & FW) would benefit from these rules. They are professionals. It is what they do for a living all day.

If GW & or FW wants game or unit rule changes implemented, they will issue official FAQ's or change the rules in an upcoming version of the game.

There is a reason GW no longer supports events. They have made it clear that their game has nothing to do with COMPETITION. Therefore tournaments do need to make some changes in order to create a more competitive game. I'm not saying that this necessarily entails outright bans of units, but there are some changes to be made that make the game feel less like a game of chance (i.e. no random objective values, no D3+2 objectives being placed by players, no mysterious terrain). Play the NOVA format for a couple of games, see what you think. I found it to be a much more "competitive" type of format than what is available in the books (where First Blood or winning objective placement often seems to correlate directly to the outcome).

dlight wrote:

 LValx wrote:

dlight wrote:
You have absolutely no business banning Forgeworld models. The rules are written by professional game designers, and are official Warhammer 40,000 rules per the Forgeworld books.

TO's are not professional game designers, and should not be tampering with the game rules. The codex balance and unit power is determined by GW and FW alone. Tampering with it is essentially nerfing an army, which is neither fare nor appropriate.

Codex and army power ebbs and flows. It's just the way it is. Chaos 3.5, Orks 4.0, and Grey Knights 5.0 all dominated when they came out. Not anymore. The game is in a constant state of refinement.

GW, FW, and the official play testers are constantly reading the forums and tournament results. They know exactly what is going on with the game. They knew exactly what they were doing when they changed the artillery rules in 6th edition, and they also knew precisely what units (GW & FW) would benefit from these rules. They are professionals. It is what they do for a living all day.

If GW & or FW wants game or unit rule changes implemented, they will issue official FAQ's or change the rules in an upcoming version of the game.

There is a reason GW no longer supports events. They have made it clear that their game has nothing to do with COMPETITION. Therefore tournaments do need to make some changes in order to create a more competitive game. I'm not saying that this necessarily entails outright bans of units, but there are some changes to be made that make the game feel less like a game of chance (i.e. no random objective values, no D3+2 objectives being placed by players, no mysterious terrain). Play the NOVA format for a couple of games, see what you think. I found it to be a much more "competitive" type of format than what is available in the books (where First Blood or winning objective placement often seems to correlate directly to the outcome).

GW has given up on events, because they can't perfectly balance the game. It's impossible with the amount of armies & codexes. But they try to get close, and 6th edition is in a healthy state overall.

Adding a few FAQ entries for grey areas or creating alternate missions is COMPLETELY different than limiting or omitting valid army entries. Don't try to muddy the water by grouping them all together.
The devil is in the details, and 40K (especially 6th Ed) is very subtle. A +1\-1 modifier can be absolutely game changing.

 LValx wrote:
If you are willing to alter the missions or have third party FAQs, you should also be open to the idea of FW limitations. Both are modifications to the core ruleset.

dlight wrote:
You have absolutely no business banning Forgeworld models. The rules are written by professional game designers, and are official Warhammer 40,000 rules per the Forgeworld books.

TO's are not professional game designers, and should not be tampering with the game rules. The codex balance and unit power is determined by GW and FW alone. Tampering with it is essentially nerfing an army, which is neither fare nor appropriate.

Codex and army power ebbs and flows. It's just the way it is. Chaos 3.5, Orks 4.0, and Grey Knights 5.0 all dominated when they came out. Not anymore. The game is in a constant state of refinement.

GW, FW, and the official play testers are constantly reading the forums and tournament results. They know exactly what is going on with the game. They knew exactly what they were doing when they changed the artillery rules in 6th edition, and they also knew precisely what units (GW & FW) would benefit from these rules. They are professionals. It is what they do for a living all day.

If GW & or FW wants game or unit rule changes implemented, they will issue official FAQ's or change the rules in an upcoming version of the game.

JWhex wrote:
GW has NEVER had their act together when it comes to writing fantasy

Mythal wrote:

On-topic, Sisters aren't generally considered tourney-competitive, so the fact that 25% of their tanks and 100% of their flyers are FW tends to be overlooked when discussing Forgeworld's impact (positive or negative) on tournament balance. Personally, I like the option to field the SoB FW models, but I guarantee that if any TO said "No Forgeworld for the real Codices, but Sisters can field Repressors", someone would claim that the inclusion of said Repressors would shatter the delicate balance of the game and make Sisters of Battle unbeatable and broken.

dlight wrote:

 LValx wrote:

dlight wrote:
You have absolutely no business banning Forgeworld models. The rules are written by professional game designers, and are official Warhammer 40,000 rules per the Forgeworld books.

TO's are not professional game designers, and should not be tampering with the game rules. The codex balance and unit power is determined by GW and FW alone. Tampering with it is essentially nerfing an army, which is neither fare nor appropriate.

Codex and army power ebbs and flows. It's just the way it is. Chaos 3.5, Orks 4.0, and Grey Knights 5.0 all dominated when they came out. Not anymore. The game is in a constant state of refinement.

GW, FW, and the official play testers are constantly reading the forums and tournament results. They know exactly what is going on with the game. They knew exactly what they were doing when they changed the artillery rules in 6th edition, and they also knew precisely what units (GW & FW) would benefit from these rules. They are professionals. It is what they do for a living all day.

If GW & or FW wants game or unit rule changes implemented, they will issue official FAQ's or change the rules in an upcoming version of the game.

There is a reason GW no longer supports events. They have made it clear that their game has nothing to do with COMPETITION. Therefore tournaments do need to make some changes in order to create a more competitive game. I'm not saying that this necessarily entails outright bans of units, but there are some changes to be made that make the game feel less like a game of chance (i.e. no random objective values, no D3+2 objectives being placed by players, no mysterious terrain). Play the NOVA format for a couple of games, see what you think. I found it to be a much more "competitive" type of format than what is available in the books (where First Blood or winning objective placement often seems to correlate directly to the outcome).

GW has given up on events, because they can't perfectly balance the game. It's impossible with the amount of armies & codexes. But they try to get close, and 6th edition is in a healthy state overall.

Adding a few FAQ entries for grey areas or creating alternate missions is COMPLETELY different than limiting or omitting valid army entries. Don't try to muddy the water by grouping them all together.
The devil is in the details, and 40K (especially 6th Ed) is very subtle. A +1\-1 modifier can be absolutely game changing.

 Peregrine wrote:

 LValx wrote:
If you are willing to alter the missions or have third party FAQs, you should also be open to the idea of FW limitations. Both are modifications to the core ruleset.

It's not really the same at all. New missions are encouraged by the core rules, and the six standard missions are clearly presented as being just a generic set you can use if you just want an easy pickup game. Third-party FAQs are not supported by the rules, but a good third-party FAQ also doesn't contradict those rules, it just does offers the minimum clarification to prevent rule arguments. FW bans (or other unit bans/changes), on the other hand, directly contradict the standard rules. And, most importantly, they directly contradict those rules in a way that excludes people from participating. New missions and third-party FAQs don't invalidate perfectly legal (according to GW) armies, FW bans do.

And of course the real problem here is that we have blanket bans on FW to resolve a small number of "problem" units, while the thought of (for example) revoking the Helldrake FAQ and making the flamer a hull-mounted weapon is just unacceptable. It isn't a consistent standard about what kind of changes should be made to the rules to improve competitive play, and often seems to be little more than "I don't like X, therefore you can't use it".

 LValx wrote:
A blanket ban on FW is easy to do, forming a third-party institution that will heavily test and re-balance the game is a bit more difficult.

 Redbeard wrote:

 LValx wrote:
A blanket ban on FW is easy to do, forming a third-party institution that will heavily test and re-balance the game is a bit more difficult.

We have a saying around my office: nothing worth doing is easy.

 LValx wrote:

 Redbeard wrote:

 LValx wrote:
A blanket ban on FW is easy to do, forming a third-party institution that will heavily test and re-balance the game is a bit more difficult.

We have a saying around my office: nothing worth doing is easy.

I agree 100%. But you have to think about logistics. Also have to consider the fact that most players are probably more averse to modifications to codices than something like a blanket ban of FW (not that I agree with this position).