Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Very true.

A weapon with Interceptor would also be very useful at stopping these

If someone wants to dedicate 3 Elites/Heavy slots and 3 Fast attack slots to pulling this off and 600+ points, I don't see it as being unfair or game winning. A weapon with Interceptor can stop this dead in its tracks, too.

We'll do some more video bat reps showing these units in action so that people can see that they really are nothing to be feared. What the regular codices can pull out now is far worse.

We'll play-test it and see how it goes, but I am honestly not that worried about it.

Janthkin wrote:But their threat range is also significantly larger, given the new Disembark rules and the random charge ranges.

Is that really much of a benefit? Given that Drop Pods are usually pretty darn easy to pinpoint your spot, I don't honestly see that being much of a boost and if anything the random charge range can theoretically leave the Dread with a failed 'double 1's' on his charge range every now and then.

But on the flip-side, how have Dreads gotten even worse in 6th?

• Everyone can use Grenades on them using their normal WS.
• If they get immobilized, you're hitting on back armor.
• Those that don't have any means to hurt a dread are able to auto-fail their morale check to escape when it benefits their army.
• Hull Points...don't need to say more.

And let's not forget that they're a Fast Attack choice, which although it makes the pod able to be a scoring unit in that one mission, it also makes them pretty easy VPs to get as well (being open-topped and immobile, after all).

Honestly I thought Lucius Pods were pretty well balanced by the latest rules update and now I think they're kind of a joke in a tournament format. Yeah, you may draw the right matchup where your dreads coming in from these pods do something amazing, but for the most part they're a kill one unit (if that) and die kind of threat...and with most armies featuring much more infantry, bubble-wrapping to prevent these Dreads from charging anything good shouldn't be that hard.

So I say, bring 'em on.


But I really don't get the 'fear' people seem to have with Forgeworld. There have been cities and even whole countries allowing FW units for years now with no reports of forgeworld somehow ruining the game. But people keep burying their head in the sand acting as though they are afraid of what might happen if Forgeworld were allowed. Why not try allowing it and then if the world collapses in a heap of Forgeworld horribleness then you can go back to banning them from your tournaments.

But to cross your arms and say 'no, I won't try forgeworld in my tournaments' is IMHO like a child refusing to even try a vegetable, even though if they did, they might end up really liking it.

And as for what 'lesser' codexes benefit from FW, I would safely say that Eldar, Tau, Orks & Chaos Daemons all have some nice choices that fill gaps in their codex. And with allies, even all the Imperial FW units have the ability to be utilized in plenty of other armies.

I have posted previously I have dealt with the antics of people using FW models in game play and in my tournaments. Again I see the haves and have nots in this situation. Not many people carry all of the FW books and to me that is not fair to those people.

In my case, as long as I am able to see a sheet on a FW product for myself to keep during the game at any time (as well as the army list in question), It would satisfy the majority of my concerns.

If my health holds I might even go down and be in that tournament because everything Reecus (and crew) are trying to do is to me is an attempt to make the tournament experience enjoyable. If their method of bringing playability to 6th Rules in a competitive fashion I might modify my own structure to make it playable when I run my own, albeit in a smaller venue.

I give credit when credit is due when I believe someone is doing something right. and I hope Reecus and group is successful in their venture.

@Yak

You said it.

I have played against the Lucius multiple times and was always underwhelmed by it.

It drops down, kills one thing (maybe) that I fed it, then dies. And, the person paid 200+ points and gave up to KP and two FOC slots to accomplish that. It really isn't that great. Plus, as Yak pointed out, Dreads got a general nerf this edition. I know Bjorn won't be seeing any play time in 6th! hahaha

Eldar get a HUGE boost with FW. So do Tau, and Orks get some awesome stuff, too. Chaos and Daemons, and Bugs get some awesome stuff, too.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
@Adam

Thanks! We appreciate that.

That is our goal, to make the most fun events we can the grow the community and hopefully help people to make good memories and friendships while also playing a game they love.

Could you post what, if any, changes have been made to your original layout based on the feedback here? It'd be encouraging to know if there have been any changes...

Basically, I think it's valuable to not only hear the other side of the coin, but take their feedback into account. Now that it's past the misunderstanding, I thought Blackmoor made some excellent points.

Since the first post is edited, I can't compare what it was to what it is now... but from what I can see, the main strokes are still there (FW allowed, warlord traits determined by picking one of that number from ANY of the 3 columns, and are the somewhat modified KPs still in somewhere? I didn't see them...).

I mention these since they kind of stuck out to me as controversial ones... in particular, I'm not so sure about the warlord trait "fix"... some numbers are probably still much better than others, so it's still random, why "fix" it? And the modified KPs seemed way too complicated to me, did that get dropped? If so, I think that's very good...

Basically, a summary of the feedback taken that has caused changes would be sweet, if any...

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Put in a break as this is unrelated to the above:

The whole issue with Forgeworld really illustrates to me how GW cannot get their act together on competitive gaming, forcing the community to try to do it for them. For those of you who play this as well as Warmachine/Hordes (I think Zero Comp does, right?) which I do... can you even imagine there being a series of IA equivalent books, with stats for various special-order models all over the place, that you may or may not be able to use in a "normal" game based on the inclusion of a watermark on the page? It just boggles the mind how needlessly complicated this all is, and I think THAT, more than anything, is what gives people pause about the whole issue.

Put it another way- who WOULDN'T want to play with cool models? Everyone I've talked to at the local store who knows I got the Mountain King early for Hordes wants to play against it. But put those rules in a book that has to be ordered from the UK, with certain units marked usable for a "normal" game and others not, and you can see how easily that enthusiasm to play against awesome models would wane.

I still am very interested in playing against FW models, but I just don't think the blame for reluctance to do so should be placed on the players. It's clearly GW's fault for the disorganized approach they have to Forgeworld units and rules, which causes confusion in players, which causes them not to want to have to deal with it in a competitive environment.

robpace wrote:

Blackmoor wrote:Forgeworld
I can write a long piece on why you should not have forgeworld in a 40k tournament, but I will sum it up this way: With the new edition they had the chance to include it into the game but they didn’t. That tells me all I need to know. When (and if) GW embraces it for their games I will be on board, but until them they have no business being in a game of Warhammer 40k.

I would sincerely appreciate it if you would put your thoughts about Forgeworld inclusion at tournaments into a post on your blog.

Expect it tomorrow.

@RiTides

We took Yakface's suggestion on including slightly modified random objectives back in as oposed to just dropping them entirely, Jathkin and MVBrandts suggestion on including Hammer and Anvil deployment (although modified again, for practicality), included FW because the community was largely for it (not just us wanting it), and we altered the basic mission structure to more closely resemble 6th ed. We added in Big Guns Never Tire and the Scouring. That's just what I can think of off the top of my head.

We made a LOT of changes from the first draft all based on community feedback and after our first events, I am sure we will make even more changes.

Warlord traits are so hit or miss. We have been playing 6th ed EVERY DAY since the edition change came and I feel pretty damn confident in saying we have more experience with it than most of the people posting in this thread.

In our games, the Warlord traits have more often than not given one player nothing at all even slightly useful, and the other player has gotten something game winning.

That isn't balanced in our eyes, and so we changed it to make the field more level.

As for the Kill Point system, as I have explained earlier, with the amount of Deathstars we anticipate people using (cheap to buy, easy and super powerful to play, easy to paint) saying a 600+ point unit should be worth what a Grot squad is, is stupid.

And, as there is almost no reason not to go MSU with vehicles now, you need a way to reign that in as well. Our system will result in MSU armies having disproportionately more KP's than armies with less units, but it won't be so unfair as when a Darigowing player with 5 KP faces a Mech Deldar Player with 20+ KP.

VP's can get confusing at the end of a long game so we blended the two.

It seriously isn't complex at all. For every 50 points or fraction thereof a unit is worth, it gives up that many Kill Points if destroyed.

That's it. It isn't complex at all, honestly, particularly if you just put how many points each unit is on your army sheet as we suggest. It's easier than VP's and more fair than KPs. At the end of the game you go, is that unit destroyed? Yes? My opponent get's X points.

I appreciate the thorough reply, even though I don't agree with all the changes you've chosen. I would much rather see VPs than KPs, as I build my dread-pod army up for Nova I hope they're not adding them in (Edit: they are, although it's the tertiary goal in two of the primer missions). It's one of my least favorite mechanics from 5e (don't know if it was in 4th, I skipped from 3rd to 5th). I still hold to my opinion that that and your warlord solution are unnecessary. VPs given up for partial units would handle deathstars just fine. And the point of warlord traits was partially to be committed to one "type", not have a shot at all types.

In particular the KPs just shift what is "good" away from MSU, which if you want to avoid deathstars doesn't make much sense to me. In fantasy VPs are always added up at the end of games, it's easy. I see this as trying to shift the meta, but IMO if you want to do so, pure VPs would be simpler and better than a KP/VP hybrid.

The Lucious is not a big deal when you are a Marine army, as all your basic guys have krak grenades, fists, or both. Siege dread that hits you instantly still sucks equestrian phallus. I know as an Eldar or Nid player, I really could live without getting instacharged on turn one anywhere on the table the enemy wants, like say my hiveguard or warrior unit. I guess the obvious answer is that if it does not hinder marines, its not a problem, which is reasonable I guess since the bulk of the field is MEQ.

The Deathwind is just stupid, though. especially with focus fire against a xenos player. The whirlwind variant can easily rack up its cost against even a MEQ player, to say nothing of us poor xenos scum wandering around in our 6+ T-Shirts. I have no idea how you can consider hades drills ban worthy and think these are perfectly fine. except that the hades is slightly more spammable and good against MEQ, too.

But I understand the all or nothing approach. Its cuts out a lot of arguing, but expect some ugly lists to surface with no comp system in place.

@RiTides

VP's do fix deathstars, but they don't fix MSU, that's the point.

MSU has a huge mathematical advantage. Too many targets to shoot, too many targets shooting. They are much more efficient and much more durable.

KP is meant to counter-balance MSU. You get punished for taking a lot of units.

You may not like it, a lot of people don't, but it most certainly does punish MSU. The problem is that I think it is too much.

Straight VPs actually favors MSU. It makes MSU better than it already is. That is why I don't think it is the better choice.

A hybrid system brings together elements of both systems. It punishes Deathstars and MSU, but neither is overly punished.

As for Warlord Traits, if it proves to be too much, we'll change it. None of us here like Warlord traits the way they are and feel that the system isn't even remotely balanced. Again, you may disagree, and we expect some people will, but we're making only those changes we feel will make the game more fair ad enjoyable for everyone.

@Phazael

Yup, that is the conclusion we came to as well. Just let it all in and that eliminates the arguments. I was tempted to limit the Hades, but for the exact reason you stated, refrained.

My problem with dropping Warlord traits is that this likely won't be able to last. Rumor has it that the new Chaos Codex has its own custom Warlord traits and other rules that interact with this mechanic. Removing this mechanic makes sense when everyone is running 4th or 5th edition books, but as new books come out that deal with Warlord traits more directly, people are going to want to include them so that they can use their new stuff.

My problem with including Forge World units is that they make flyers completely dead in the water. There's no point in fielding flyers when your opponent's three Mortis dreadnoughts (which they would be taking anyway) all have Skyfire and Interceptor and kill you before you attack. I think that's dumb and that given the choice between flyers (a part of the core game) and Forge World stuff, I'd prefer to choose flyers. Doing so also eliminates the problem with Hades Breaching Drills and the like.

Looks like Nova is going with straight KPs, although it's the tertiary goal in 2 of the 3 primer missions (and you must score 3 more KP than your opponent to win that goal).

That's a bummer for me... I've been thinking about the rulebook scenarios and First Blood, Warlord, and Objectives I can do... but trying to get objectives, table quarters, and preserve my kill points with a dreadnought drop pod army looks like a tall order. Looking forward to giving it a try, but my few scoring/denial units are going to have to go a long way!

I'm alittle confused about this rule:

Forge World Army Lists will not be allowed.
but Forge World units are allowed

Fetterkey wrote:My problem with including Forge World units is that they make flyers completely dead in the water. There's no point in fielding flyers when your opponent's three Mortis dreadnoughts (which they would be taking anyway) all have Skyfire and Interceptor and kill you before you attack. I think that's dumb and that given the choice between flyers (a part of the core game) and Forge World stuff, I'd prefer to choose flyers. Doing so also eliminates the problem with Hades Breaching Drills and the like.

I don't see them as making flyers dead in the water unless you go competely bonkers with flyers and get matched up with an opponent who went gonzo for anti-flyer FW. How is that any different than a horde player getting matched up with a parking lot IG force with 9 templates a turn? If your entire army premise is based on scissors, why is unfair to think that eventually you'll meet a rock based player? In addition, that 600pts they're spending on dreads (which have gotten worse in this edition) is 600pts they're not spending on things that have gotten better instead.

Flyers in 40k are a completely new invented mechanic for this edition that lopsidely affect only the last two years worth of codicies. How is that fair for the people who have none of them in their own codex and ALSO have no viable counter to it either? Not including them when other armies have flyers and anti-flyer units in their codicies is the biggest upset to any percieved balance IMO.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Blackmoor wrote:

Dok wrote:I think the addition of forgeworld fills a lot of holes in armies that wouldn't stand a chance against some of the more overpowered stuff that has come out in 6th. The only thing that seems like it may be a bit over the top is the Caestus assault ram, but I haven't seen that in a game so I can't say for sure.

I thought that is what allies are for.

You may be surprised to find out that some people like all their units in an army to have a cohesive appearance and dislike having a single snuffaluffagus on their display case between all the big birds. FW units allow alot of armies to fill some gaps (especially important for older books) yet still maintain a visual and mechanical theme for their armies.

@Fetterkey

No, they don't make Flyers obsolete at all.

I think you are overreacting here. I highly doubt we'll see every marine list with 3 Mortis Dreads, they are good, but they aren't that good (we use them at the shop all the time here). Plus, don't forget that we're only playing 1500pts, and what is good against 1 list will be a liability against another.

@Mr. Black Sunshine

Doesn't sound like you are confused at all to me as you got it exactly right.

@RiTides

You have to get 3 more KP? That's a bummer, what about armies that only have 5 or 6 KP?

And that is the point though, with layered missions which all of the bigger tournaments use, they are purposely designed so you can't get them all. It is meant to be really hard to achieve all of the goals in order to make the missions challenging and to stratify the field.

@Warboss

You said it.

I think after we get through this first season and everyone sees FW is really no big deal, this will issue will be gone and forgotten.

Reecius wrote:@Fetterkey

No, they don't make Flyers obsolete at all.

I think you are overreacting here. I highly doubt we'll see every marine list with 3 Mortis Dreads, they are good, but they aren't that good (we use them at the shop all the time here). Plus, don't forget that we're only playing 1500pts, and what is good against 1 list will be a liability against another.

I'm not talking the Mortis Contemptor here (which I agree is not a super mainstream unit), I'm talking the normal Mortis (Rifleman) Dreadnought. It gets this benefit too, though it can only be taken by Dark Angel armies. But wait... what's the next Codex coming out after Chaos...

Well, I'm not worked up over it but if anything, I think having to get 3 more KP than the other person makes it easier for me not to give that up (i.e., they have to get 3 more than me!). MVBrandt also posted that they're going to keep KP as the lower goals in many of the scenarios, since it's only in 1/6 rulebook missions (paraphrasing here).

But I'm going to stop cross-polinating the threads now

Fetterkey wrote:
I'm not talking the Mortis Contemptor here (which I agree is not a super mainstream unit), I'm talking the normal Mortis (Rifleman) Dreadnought. It gets this benefit too, though it can only be taken by Dark Angel armies. But wait... what's the next Codex coming out after Chaos...

So you're saying one dreadnought in one codex that is completely unknown is going to ruin flyers?

Dok wrote:

Fetterkey wrote:
I'm not talking the Mortis Contemptor here (which I agree is not a super mainstream unit), I'm talking the normal Mortis (Rifleman) Dreadnought. It gets this benefit too, though it can only be taken by Dark Angel armies. But wait... what's the next Codex coming out after Chaos...

So you're saying one dreadnought in one codex that is completely unknown is going to ruin flyers?

Yes. It's so overpowered that there's no point in fielding flyers if it's in the game. In any competitive event that allows FW, I would switch from Space Marines to Dark Angels just to be allowed to field these.

Fetterkey wrote:

Dok wrote:

Fetterkey wrote:
I'm not talking the Mortis Contemptor here (which I agree is not a super mainstream unit), I'm talking the normal Mortis (Rifleman) Dreadnought. It gets this benefit too, though it can only be taken by Dark Angel armies. But wait... what's the next Codex coming out after Chaos...

So you're saying one dreadnought in one codex that is completely unknown is going to ruin flyers?

Yes. It's so overpowered that there's no point in fielding flyers if it's in the game. In any competitive event that allows FW, I would switch from Space Marines to Dark Angels just to be allowed to field these.

Even if it were true that one unit can totally dominate flyers, how is that any worse than having flyers totally dominate most games currently without fear or real reprisal?

The reality is, with each new codex released I'm sure we are going to see more and more anti-flyer units filter into the game so people are going to have to get used to the traditional rock-scissor-paper match ups if they decide to go flyer heavy and then run into an army that is designed to take out flyers.

However, the reality is that skyfire + interceptor is not as amazingly powerful against flyers as they think it is, especially on a walker if people interpret the 45 degree arc of fire as a limitation on where the walker is allowed to shoot when making interceptor shots (as I believe most will).

And even when they get to fire with two twin-linked Autocannons at a flyer, these are not AP1 or 2 weapons and with the new damage table it actually makes much less susceptible to being taken out by the random penetration. Can the flyers be glanced to death? Sure, but outside of the AV10 Ork and DE flyers, the Necrons have AV11, the SM's have AV11 & 12 & the IG have AV12.

Most flyers have 3 Hull Points, so to reliably glance them out with S7 shooting its going to take an average of:

• 5 hits for an AV10 flyer.
• 6 hits for an AV11 flyer.
• 9 hits for an AV12 flyer.

So even with an AV10 flyer, you're talking about needing two Mortis to be within range and LOS to take one flyer out. If we're talking about a Necron flyer army, then even all 3 are going to maybe take 1 or 2 if you're really lucky before the Necrons obliterate your Dreadnoughts (as Necrons have no trouble taking out armor as we all know). And that's not even taking into account the flyer utilizing 'dive' to get jink saves.

The AV12 IG and SM flyers can feel pretty comfortable flying directly into the teeth of all 3 Mortis and trusting jink to protect them from death.

And of course if the Dreads fire this way they only fire snap shots in their own turn, and if they need to move at all, then they don't get the Interceptor & skyfire rules at all in the opponent's turn.

And taking 3 Autocannon dreads is not going to do you any favors against a non-flyer army. You lack the S8 instakill and armor punch that Grey Knight Dreads do and its really not that hard to get the 3 Hull Points needed against Dreads to take them out.


So long story short, I think 3 Mortis's would put you in a great position against armies that only take one or two light flyers. But those that have a bunch or those that have higher AV flyers are still going to be fine, and depending on the deployment types some movement phases there might be options for flyers to get out of the Dread's LOS arc and/or stay out of their range (in the case of Hammer and Anvil Deployment).

So bring on FW and if it causes flyers to become obsolete, then so be it. But living in fear of what might happen is just silly and punitive against the people who just want to play with the models they've purchased from Games Workshop that have rules written by Games Workshop.

yakface wrote:So bring on FW and if it causes flyers to become obsolete, then so be it. But living in fear of what might happen is just silly and punitive against the people who just want to play with the models they've purchased from Games Workshop that have rules written by Games Workshop.

I would rather disallow Forge World than de facto disallow flyers. Interceptor is a completely insane rule that should really be one per army. GW kept it restricted-- and rightfully so, but FW is poised to break that balance open.

I have multiple Forge World models, think they're awesome, and frequently use them. But I don't think Forge World's rules are ready for prime time.

Yak, you keep focusing on the players with your comments about them being like "a child refusing to try a vegetable" and now this is the second time just on this page that you've characterized them as "living in fear".

You also ignored my point above. Imo, your focus is wrong. It's the obligation of GW to lay out clear rules to follow. They've waffled on FW (in particular, you and Reece seem to think the 40k watermark in their books is irrelevant? How is that NOT confusing?) and so of course players do as well.

To restate, as another poster did, I like seeing some FW. However, due to their rarity, I like the event to require a printed out sheet, like the army list, that my opponent will be able to give me to consult. I think that's a fair requirement.

But continuing to characterize people with another viewpoint as analogous to children or as somehow "afraid" is just silly. Blackmoor thinks differently than you on this, and we all know the experience/success he's had. Not that that's required- but since Reece mentioned their playtesting experience I think it's worth noting.

Luckily, Reecius thinks similarly to you, and has an event near you. But I definitely think most other events should not feel pressured to allow FW if they don't want to (which really is what you're doing with that language).

If nothing else, they can see how this early 6th ed tourney does with it, and compare to an early 6th ed tourney without (like Nova) and make a judgment call.

Room for everybody and different style events under the tent, right? And even at Nova, I think you can use FW in several events, just not the main GT.

RiTides wrote:Yak, you keep focusing on the players with your comments about them being like "a child refusing to try a vegetable" and now this is the second time just on this page that you've characterized them as "living in fear".

You also ignored my point above. Imo, your focus is wrong. It's the obligation of GW to lay out clear rules to follow. They've waffled on FW (in particular, you and Reece seem to think the 40k watermark in their books is irrelevant? How is that NOT confusing?) and so of course players do as well.

To restate, as another poster did, I like seeing some FW. However, due to their rarity, I like the event to require a printed out sheet, like the army list, that my opponent will be able to give me to consult. I think that's a fair requirement.

But continuing to characterize people with another viewpoint as analogous to children or as somehow "afraid" is just silly. Blackmoor thinks differently than you on this, and we all know the experience/success he's had. Not that that's required- but since Reece mentioned their playtesting experience I think it's worth noting.

Luckily, Reecius thinks similarly to you, and has an event near you. But I definitely think most other events should not feel pressured to allow FW if they don't want to (which really is what you're doing with that language).

If nothing else, they can see how this early 6th ed tourney does with it, and compare to an early 6th ed tourney without (like Nova) and make a judgment call.

Room for everybody and different style events under the tent, right? And even at Nova, I think you can use FW in several events, just not the main GT.

All great points that I have no problem with expanding upon.

First off, GW has not ever waffled on Imperial Armor...in fact, if you look at the 13+ books they've produced they've actually been remarkably consistent with their verbiage. The only thing that makes it seem like they may be waffling is that players keep trying to apply labels onto Forgeworld and Imperial Armor that they've never come out and said themselves.

And the '40K' stamps in the newer books are actually a great example of precisely that.

So what do we know for sure about Imperial Armor?

1) It is produced by Games Workshop. The stamp is on the front of the book and that makes it a product of that company. I know some people want to pretend that Forgeworld is a separate company from Games Workshop, but as far as their rulebooks are concerned, they are clearly not.

2) They are expansions, as the books say so right on the front cover. What does that mean? As explained in both the 6th edition rulebook and the Imperial Armor books themselves, this means they are rules to be included in your games of 40K if you'd like to use them, just like a game of Planetstrike, Apocalypse, Cityfight, Spearhead, etc, with the big difference here being that these rules can be used within standard games of 40K (or within one of those themed expansion games too).

3) As clearly explained in the Imperial Armor prefaces, the rules for their units are as official as any other rules produced by Games Workshop, but your opponent should be notified ahead of time about their use and should be happy to play against them.

4) Some Imperial Armor units are only useable in Apocalypse games and some are usable in any type of 40K game. In older books, you actually had to read into the unit entry to see if a unit was allowed in a standard 40K game, but in more recent books they've included a stamp on the unit entry to help make it easy to spot which units are 'Apoc only' and which are useable in any game of 40K. However, these stamps alone do not carry any sort of new level 'officialness' to them, because these rules are already classified as being 'official' in the preface of the book! The stamp is simply an easy way to tell what type of game the unit can be included in.


To recap then:

Imperial Armor is a Games Workshop expansion for 40K that contains 'official' rules additions that requires both players to agree to play with.

---

So now you're probably thinking: Well, at a tournament there may always be one or more people who don't want to play with Imperial Armor stuff, so that means these rules should never be allowed in a tournament.

Well, that's where the role of the tournament organizer comes into play. A tournament organizer is the one who chooses which rules will or will not be utilized, including tournament FAQs, tournament special mission rules, etc. All of these things are published ahead of time as being included in a tournament which means that when players show up to play they are implicitly agreeing to play under the conditions set by the TO.

Which brings me to the point of me saying people are acting purely out of fear when it comes to Forgeworld.

We all know that tournament organizers listen to their players and as with anything in life, the people who are unhappy about something are the ones who take the time to complain the loudest. So when people moan and complain about Imperial Armor, tournament organizers choose to err on the side of caution and disallow Imperial Armor.

But this is where the comments about 'fear' and the child not eating vegetable analogy apply: You will be hard pressed to find someone complaining about Forgeworld/Imperial Armor causing trouble in a tournament that has actually regularly played with Imperial Armor in their tournaments.

In fact, all the comments you hear from tournament organizers who actually regularly allow forgeworld in their tournaments is that its no big deal. There are no reports of massive Forgeworld armies ruling the day because they are so wickedly overpowered allowing only those with deep pockets to rule the day.

THESE ARE ALL SPECULATIVE MYTHS that don't actually happen when put to the test of real life tournament gameplay.

But the crazy thing about all of this is that as long as people refuse to allow Imperial Armor into their tournaments, than the 'legend' of how Forgeworld will break the game gets to persist and as long as that legend persists then this mythical reason to not allow Forgeworld into tournaments exists. It is a never-ending cycle that perpetuates itself!

The ONLY way to break the cycle is to try allowing Forgeworld. And what's the worst that can happen? If FW-heavy armies start dominating your tournaments and your players now complain based on REAL ACTUAL EXPERIENCE, then the tournament organizer can take steps to neuter or ban IA completely again.

But what does it hurt to give it a try? The answer is absolutely nothing. But what does it hurt to continue to deny IA to be allowed in tournaments? You keep people from playing with some of the coolest models in the game that they've spent tons of money and time buying and painting.

At the end of the day like you say, every tournament organizer is the captain of their own ship and needs to create the event they want, and if they've tried allowing Forgeworld units and it didn't work out for them in their tournaments, then god bless their decision to now allow those units into their event.

However, what I am trying to hammer home is to those players and tournament organizers who have not given IA units even a shot to prove whether they will completely ruin everything, is that this is a fear-based reaction that being made. All I ask is that the shot be given to see what happens, because there really is no worst-case scenario that can occur...if IA does feel like it breaks your tournaments, then you go right back to where you are now (not allowing it), but if it doesn't break everything then all of a sudden you've made a whole bunch of players who own these models very happy that they can finally use their toys in their tournament games.


---


Oh, and of course you absolutely have the right for your opponent to bring a copy of the rules for every unit they are playing with. I don't know about forcing people to make a copy of the rule, but they MUST bring either a copy of it or the actual book itself or those players should be booted from the event the same as if they don't bring a copy of their codex.

Players are absolutely responsible for bringing the rules for their entire army to a tournament with no exceptions, IMHO.

Yakface Wrote:

However, what I am trying to hammer home is to those players and tournament organizers who have not given IA units even a shot to prove whether they will completely ruin everything, is that this is a fear-based reaction that being made. All I ask is that the shot be given to see what happens, because there really is no worst-case scenario that can occur...if IA does feel like it breaks your tournaments, then you go right back to where you are now (not allowing it), but if it doesn't break everything then all of a sudden you've made a whole bunch of players who own these models very happy that they can finally use their toys in their tournament games.

I have already posted my situations dealing with people with FW, models. My comment still stands.

Oh, and of course you absolutely have the right for your opponent to bring a copy of the rules for every unit they are playing with. I don't know about forcing people to make a copy of the rule, but they MUST bring either a copy of it or the actual book itself or those players should be booted from the event the same as if they don't bring a copy of their codex.

Players are absolutely responsible for bringing the rules for their entire army to a tournament with no exceptions, IMHO.

In my case I will enforce the person making a copy of the rule set of the FW model in question If I decide to bring them in the tournaments I run. I own many of the FW books. That is not the problem. The problem is that people including myself have been stung by people using FW models without complete reference material in a tournament. Too many people on the interwebs have made this same complaint to the point that it is a valid concern.

That is the nature of the beast for some people to win at all costs. Any angle that they can get. One angle is the use of FW models without the relevant information to give to your opponent or TO in question.

That is how I am going to deal with FW and in my case there is no exceptions. No printout/copy of the rule set for FW equates to no model getting into that tournament.

As I have posted previously Reecus's format satisfies most of my complaints and am interested to see how it all goes down with his tournament.

Adam LongWalker wrote:In my case I will enforce the person making a copy of the rule set of the FW model in question If I decide to bring them in the tournaments I run.

That's reasonable and I don't think anyone here who advocates allowing FW has expressed an opinion that it isn't. I'd even say that requiring a *LEGAL* copy of the most recent rules (i.e. the latest phsycial dead tree book with rules for that model or an older book with a printout of its official pdf update) to use with the official FW model or suitably converted plastic variant would be fine.

yakface wrote:But the crazy thing about all of this is that as long as people refuse to allow Imperial Armor into their tournaments, than the 'legend' of how Forgeworld will break the game gets to persist and as long as that legend persists then this mythical reason to not allow Forgeworld into tournaments exists. It is a never-ending cycle that perpetuates itself!

Unfamiliarity with FW rules and models is only half the problem. The other half of people's reticence in allowing FW stuff comes from people who use FW rules from memory (or at best pirated printouts) with inaccurate counts as models (like a regular drop pod or even plastic cup as a lucius pod). Increasing the quality of gamers' experiences with FW rules and models is just as if not more important as the quantity of experiences.

yakface wrote:But this is where the comments about 'fear' and the child not eating vegetable analogy apply: You will be hard pressed to find someone complaining about Forgeworld/Imperial Armor causing trouble in a tournament that has actually regularly played with Imperial Armor in their tournaments.

Language like this doesn't help your persuasiveness, for the usual reasons.

I can tell you that my primary concern about including FW rules stems from Adepticon (both the TT and the Gladiator, from playing against, playing with, and helping to run a tournament), and it's solely time-driven. Adding FW units makes games take longer. People aren't used to seeing them, so have to read the rules beforehand. They take longer thinking about how to deal with the FW units. Often, the owning player takes longer, because he's not as familiar with the unit. And given how hard it is to play a game to its natural conclusion under time pressure in any tournament, much less 6e right now, I'd rather not have to deal with the complications.

Give me 3 hour rounds, and my concerns go away.

But what does it hurt to continue to deny IA to be allowed in tournaments? You keep people from playing with some of the coolest models in the game that they've spent tons of money and time buying and painting.

This would be more compelling, if Reece wasn't allowing people to "convert their own" FW units.

I think part of it, too, from Yak's perspective is that the Tau anr Ork units are all pretty much balanced. At the very least, there are not units that grant large access to abilities the armies did not originally have or make people go "how is my army going to deal with that?". A lot of the MEQ (and a couple of the Guard) units fall into either the Contemptor catgory (ie buttloads of extra skyfire and interceptor) or the Cestus/Lucious catagory of gee my nids/eldar/sisters are autoboned by this unit.

Janthkin points out most of the major logistical issues that the inclusion of FW in a normal event presents, at least from an organizer perspective. It would help a lot of many of the more popular FW units did not have walls of rules text longer than some people's army lists, as well. I also agree with Fetter in that I would like to see how the actual core rules work with the core codex units before dropping wide access to intercept/skyfire to the entire playerbase. Talk about being fearful, the mental and semantic gymnastics people are going through to try and nerf the Cron Air army (that has not seen one major event yet) makes the GK qhining look reasonable, in comparison. Like the GK whining, no one seems too terribly interested in actual hard data and event results, because those contradicted the hyperbole. Consider that handing out Skyfire/Intercept all over the place is pretty much going to make things a lot harder for some of the already weaker armies (especially Daemons), because nothing is more fun than eating a bunch of S7-8 shots every time a unit hits the table...

I will go with the crowd on this, but I really think that FW is one of those elements (like mysterious terrain) that should be introduced about a year into the life cycle of the edition, so people have some time to learn all the other new stuff. Consider also that the forge world guys are basically rewriting stuff in a rush to match the new edition and the capacity for them to botch something is a lot greater (which is saying something) compared to the core GW rules team. The fantasy community took a staggered approach to these things and they had a lot less to deal with. I do not think it would hurt the 40k crowd to ease into things.

I'm starting to question if some of the folks here have read the tournament guidelines I posted! haha

WE REQUIRE PLAYERS TO HAVE THE RULES FOR ANY UNIT TO BE ON HAND!!!!*%!&*$%

It says it point blank in the tournament guidelines. No rules for the unit=no dice. Seems like Adam Longwalker seems to be the only one who read that, or at least the only one who acknowledged it. There will be no surprises.

@Janthkin

2 hours 15minutes for 1500pts is plenty of time, I doubt we will have any issues. That is exactly why we are giving so much time at low points levels, for people to acclimate to the new core rules, any FW stuff, etc.

And yes, we are allowing people to scratch build stuff. That gets around the arguments of not being able to afford FW.

And, if someone slaps some multi-meltas and a thunderfire cannon barrel on a Land Raider and says it's an Achilles, so what? Close enough to the real thing.

A lot of the Characters in the books such as the Baddab war, don't have a model and can be easily modeled up with conversions.

If someone has a normal drop pod and tries to use it as a Lucius, we'll say no go (just as it says in the tournament guidelines). We will not allow abuses in modeling. So don't worry about that.

@Fetterkey

Dude, talk about the definition of overreaction! hahahaha, one unit completely destroys flyers? Bro, you have to see how preposterous that is.

Interceptor/Skyfire is cool, but it is far from a game ending combination. A Necron Air Force will laugh at 3 Mortis Dreads.

And there are a lot of units with Interceptor and Skyfire, big deal? One unit in a very seldom used Codex by no stretch of the imagination is game breaking. If it means we see more Dark Angels that aren't Deathwing? Awesome. I see that as a win.

Our most competitive lists so far don't even use Flyers. Flyers are good but with smart movement you can get around them, and they are balls at taking objectives. If you build a list JUST to counter Flyers, you are barking up the wrong tree in 6th ed.

Anyway, the decision is made on this matter and I will bet money right now, that after the first event, it will be no big deal at all, and all of this hand wringing will have been for nothing.

Reecius wrote:I'm starting to question if some of the folks here have read the tournament guidelines I posted! haha

WE REQUIRE PLAYERS TO HAVE THE RULES FOR ANY UNIT TO BE ON HAND!!!!*%!&*$%

It says it point blank in the tournament guidelines. No rules for the unit=no dice. Seems like Adam Longwalker seems to be the only one who read that, or at least the only one who acknowledged it. There will be no surprises.

Take a deep breath and then take your own advice about actually reading the thread. No one has said that you're allowing the units without the rules on hand; we're simply discussing the concept.

Reece, I do think there are a couple logistical things to consider as it pertains to forgeworld:

The requirement to have the official GW printed material is a good one, but in theory people are required to have their army books on hand at every event and I know for a fact that TOs have been lax on that one. Consider also that someone flying is already limited in what they can drag along. I just do not see someone dragging a Fortress of Redemption on a plane as it is and the addition of several FW books to one's luggage is effectively another logistical issues that the locals do not have to contend with. From personal experience I can tell you that expensive resin models do not travel well on a plane, either. Obviously these concerns are not on the top of your priority list, but it is something to weigh when considering the inclusion of FW at major events.