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.

 RiTides wrote:

 Deacis657 wrote:
Also as a FW user I make sure I always have the current rules on me so that if there is any questions I have it there. So it really just comes down personal responsibility to the player playing FW. Also if you're worried about FW and rules, the TO should make sure people have their up to date rules, it goes for both sides, not just FW.

While this is true, it creates a Lot more work for a TO to make sure of this (they don't rely on player responsibility to write lists that are the correct point values, either- honest mistakes happen all the time).

For an example of just such an honest mistake, there is one just a few posts above yours:

 grotblaster wrote:
I have forgeworld units that I've played using old rules because I didn't realize an update came out in a book a year later. Adepticon does a large listing showing the current rules which is helpful once a year when it's current. There is a reason they don't do a 7 page "where to find the rules" document for GW units. They're all in the applicable codex.

The amount of work for a TO to check that players are using the most up-to-date version of rules for any particular FW unit is crazy. Hence, AdeptiCon's amazing list. But most tournaments just don't have that kind of resources to put behind organizing what the most current rules are for units. FW needs to do it... and until they do, FW use in tournaments is not going to be nearly as widespread as it would be otherwise- simply because of the massive work a TO needs to do to allow it.

Yeah, I completely understand that, and completely agree; but it should be the responsibility of the player to bring the rules if they want to rules FW. If people who use FW bitch about having to bring the rules they should have understood that some people have a problem with FW and in the case that it's someone new to FW they informed that people should have the rules to be able to play it.

FW does need to consolidate the rules BIG TIME. But really, from my experience it isnt to hard keeping up with FW rules, unless they keep on making just rules books like they are now with apoc . If I'm saying I playing a DKoK Siege list it's going to be in any one of the three Vraks books. IT wouldn't be in the Doom of some planet name. Plus with technology these days everything is just one google search away.

Ok see here is the part that people are not seeing coming from the TO aspect.

So I as the TO am sent a list containing FW units, Either the player includes which book he got the rules from, or he does not. IN either case I need to check to see which book contains the newest rules...then check the points costs, then if the unit is either unmarked or from the wrong book I need to email the player in question to confirm the rules.

IF it turns out he/she is using the wrong book I need to tell them that they need to rework their list using the current book. Which if they don't have it means they cannot use the list they want.

If I don't jump through all these hoops (which other than point cost checking I need not do for Codex units), then I end up with this fun situation.

Player shows up at my RTT (people don't always send lists, but as long as I am not full up I don't turn people away, maybe the missed sending me their list), with the wrong book, I then must tell them they are not welcome to play....which is a total fail.

You can say it is their responsibility to get the rules right, but when you want players to show up, turning players away is bad.

Breng77 wrote:
Ok see here is the part that people are not seeing coming from the TO aspect.

So I as the TO am sent a list containing FW units, Either the player includes which book he got the rules from, or he does not. IN either case I need to check to see which book contains the newest rules...then check the points costs, then if the unit is either unmarked or from the wrong book I need to email the player in question to confirm the rules.

IF it turns out he/she is using the wrong book I need to tell them that they need to rework their list using the current book. Which if they don't have it means they cannot use the list they want.

If I don't jump through all these hoops (which other than point cost checking I need not do for Codex units), then I end up with this fun situation.

Player shows up at my RTT (people don't always send lists, but as long as I am not full up I don't turn people away, maybe the missed sending me their list), with the wrong book, I then must tell them they are not welcome to play....which is a total fail.

You can say it is their responsibility to get the rules right, but when you want players to show up, turning players away is bad.

So I am failing to see it through a TO eyes seeing i've never been one. I can only imagine that it can be stressful and hectic but that comes with the role of TO. I also am coming from a more casual gamer perspective see I don't play tourneys often.

The only response I have to that is that make it clear that you need some form of the rules. If my friends ever need to barrow one of my books it's not a problem they know that if they lose it it's their head.

The issue is not that they won't bring the rules, it is that they may not realize until too late that they are using the wrong ones quoit possible extensive fact checking on my part. Furthermore plenty of more casual Tories don't even require submitted lists, which means it is entirely possible for someone to play the entire event using the wrong rules. I'm not saying all this cannot be done, or handled but it seems to be the belief that there is little difference between FW and codex units and it is simply untrue.

Breng77 wrote:
I'm not saying all this cannot be done, or handled but it seems to be the belief that there is little difference between FW and codex units and it is simply untrue.

If you wouldn't mind Breng, would you mind explaining what difference there is. From what I can tell there isnt much of a difference besides where the rules are located, at least that's what I see. It is FW fault for doing a poor job at consolidating their rules so it's easy to find out what units are where and which book has the latest book and that's about it . But I've never been a TO so I don't know all the issues that come with it and i've only have done a few tourneys and hope to do more.

I also hope I don't come across as rude or belligerent, I not trying to do so. But you know... It's the internet

He... He literally just explained the difference.

It is essentially that As a TO to appropriately check lists with fw I need to know which hooks contain the most recent publications of each unit. Making said list is not a small undertaking. Throw on top of that paging though a bunch of separate books for points costs (which could be less than standard but could also be much more). But mostly it is generating and maintaining a list of current fw units for referencing.

@rigeld2 I wasn't sure if there was anymore....


@Breng77 And yeah, Like I said, It really comes down to FW fault for doing a poor job about keeping it all in one place.

The amount of work for a TO to check that players are using the most up-to-date version of rules for any particular FW unit is crazy. Hence, AdeptiCon's amazing list. But most tournaments just don't have that kind of resources to put behind organizing what the most current rules are for units. FW needs to do it... and until they do, FW use in tournaments is not going to be nearly as widespread as it would be otherwise- simply because of the massive work a TO needs to do to allow it.

This is very true! Allowing a subset of Forge World is a lot easier for many people. Hopefully the new book (which looks very similar to Imperial Armour Apocalypse Second Edition) and Aeronautica will help to facilitate this type of approach for say mid tiered events that don't have as many resources to draw from for their staff.

The issue I have with those books is they are a large part of the problem, unless we are only allowing the units as they appear in those book reprinting compilations of units with updated rules, exacerbates the issue. Now if those books were simple re-prints...I.e. same rules but just all the units without the campaign book extras I'd be totally for it. The problem with that would be that it makes updating all the units difficult if they want the rules between campaign books and compilations consistent.

I think you're throwing out the baby with the bath water so to speak - basically it seems there is no viable solution for you and I pretty much have to disagree with what you just posted. Sorry mate.

There is absolutely a viable solution....several actually.

1.). Someone pro FW creates and updates a database of FW units and lists and the most recent FW publications of those units that players and TOs can use as reference.

2.)FW stops reprinting units with updated rules, I. Different books. If x unit is found in ia 5 that is the only is book in which its rules reside. Then if they decide to print a compilation of units, it needs to be just a reprint of rules not an update. Then rules in both need to be updated simultaneously. Perhaps what this means is the compilation book needs to be a digital release or constantly faq'd to keep it up to date with the other releases.

3.) I would like to see compilation books be per army. That way if I want to find the imperial guard units there is only one book I need refer to...which if consistently updated...makes thing much easier.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
The current problem with say IA :apoc second Ed is that unless we decide to ignore updates that happen outside it I cannot just say we will only use units in that book and aeronautica and ignore the rest of the books for FW implementation. Otherwise someone will complain at their unit has been updated and we should use the current rules not the outdated one.

Breng77 wrote:

1.). Someone pro FW creates and updates a database of FW units and lists and the most recent FW publications of those units that players and TOs can use as reference.

Ive already done this for TO's in the UK, so it does exist. Apparently FW are making their own tho, when that come out who knows.

Is the list available online? Or do you just provide it to those uk TOs? Does it get updated with each release or just for specific tournaments?

Adepticon has a similar list for just units but it is only updated for adepticon, and thus not so useful when new releases come out.

Its available to all its just not available online yet but will be soon I hope through the 40k Global Podcast website or infact anyone else who wishes to host it (just get in contact), it is constantly kept upto date as I buy every IA book as soon as they are available to me as I find them fantastic books to own and have a lot of FW models so need the rules as soon as their out to try new things..

If anyone wants a copy pm me your email and ill send it to you, but it will be having a massive update next week due to the release of the new IA Apocalypse book so ill be sending it out then.

That's great, Boomstick, and a globally available list like that which is frequently updated would go a long way towards addressing the issues with FW! And towards coming up with a viable solution for it's inclusion in events with less resources, as Dozer Blades and Breng77 indicated the need for (and that possibility of, with a bit of work!).

Forgeworld had a list once and they could be working on anther one.

The working AdeptiCon list is current it just has not been updated on the website : )

The issue is these sort of lists are only viable if they are maintained which can be a task ..

So what you're saying is we need an AdeptiCon team mole

muwhe wrote:
The working AdeptiCon list is current it just has not been updated on the website : )

The issue is these sort of lists are only viable if they are maintained which can be a task.