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.

Troops are mandatory. Look at the FoC, as far as I can see you have to take at least 2. FW is essentially a new game completely, given how ridiculous thudd guns are along with other units.. Yes I am happy I dont have to face them, because they are too good for their points.

What things in 5th were so imbalanced, please tell me and we can show you tournament results that show you exact opposite over the past years.

So saying people on dakka crying about unit X being too good equates to OP? If you went to more tournaments you would experience this. The vast majority of big tournaments you will see good players make it to top tables, not OP units.

Competitive players are not afraid of the metagame changes, it changes with every codex. Why don't you go ask TOs who run tournaments why they don't allow IA and FW units, then we can get a 1st hand answer instead.

If it was so balanced and accepted, then the logical assumption would be TOs to allow FW to attract players who have FW units which would increase the attendees. So why do they not include FW?


Kain, no, this thread did not have a nice run, it was ridiculous from page one.

Actually Clauss, on this very board many of the TOs from large events have cited more that people have the impression that FW is imbalanced, and its that impression stopping them from allowing FW in their events.

Certainly, some also think this impression is true. There are also many who disagree with this impression.

I'd like to note the irony in your post decrying people for their opinion that various Codex units are OP, while simultaneously disparaging all of IA because "they are too good for their points."

12 str 5 ap 4 barrage blasts for 150 points. Is enough for them to be banned from any major GT. Compare that to any artillery piece in the game, and say that unit is fair for its points. If that unit is fair for its points, then I would have no problem using FW. But is that unit even close to fair?

I am asking him what units he believes are OP, I never said any units in any regular codex are op.

 Clauss wrote:
Troops are mandatory. Look at the FoC, as far as I can see you have to take at least 2.

Sigh. You know it was perfectly obvious in that sentence that I'm talking about taking significant troops, not merely following the FOC rules. The "competitive" players have been telling us all about how the best way to win in 6th is to take large blobs of troops (platoons, Kroot, etc) and an all-tank army with FOC-minimum troops would just lose. And now you're complaining that my all-tank ABG list is so overpowered it can't be allowed. How can it be both? If it's an auto-lose to Kroot blobs how can it be too powerful?

What things in 5th were so imbalanced, please tell me and we can show you tournament results that show you exact opposite over the past years.

Remember MSU Razorback spam? People got tired of it and added comp rules to their tournaments to discourage it (or outright ban it), and the self-titled "competitive" players complained endlessly about how stupid comp is and how players shouldn't ruin the game by second-guessing GW. And now the "competitive" players are arguing to the death for a different kind of comp.

Competitive players are not afraid of the metagame changes, it changes with every codex.

Of course they are. They're terrified of a FW-legal metagame that might require them to buy new armies, so they ban all the FW stuff based on little more than theory and speculation about what might happen. Coming from MTG this is just laughably un-competitive behavior.

Nope, try again. According to GW, the people who actually decide what is and isn't part of the game, FW rules are part of the game. The fact that a lot of self-declared "competitive" players have decided to play under a house rule that excludes those rules does not make it any less of a house rule. It's just funny how the same "competitive" players screamed about comp for all of 5th (remember those "bring more than three dedicated transports and we ban you" events?), but when it comes to the specific form of comp they want they declare any non-comp event "not 'real' 40k".

I know this is a bit tangential, but you are incorrect. The community decides what is part of the game. GW has nothing to do with any kind of organized gaming. Really, GW has nothing to do with the game besides creating the boiler plate rules. You see community consensus and splintering in everything. Just about every video game gets tinkered with by players who want to make the game more competitive or just more to their liking. People turn off items in Super Smash Brothers all the time. Players routinely change the guns on Halo maps. 40k is the same way.

Regardless, just because GW puts something in the book doesn't mean it is the "one true way" to play. I hardly ever see people play with all aspects of the book missions (mysterious terrain...hello?). As I've previously mentioned, there are always "house rules", no matter what. Things like point level, terrain placement, and questions not answered by FAQ are all elements that players must come to a consensus on before games. By your definition, these are "house rules", as they are not explicit in the BRB.

There is no need to be so dogmatic about anything in life. In my first post in this thread, I made it clear that I don't believe there is a "real" way to play 40k. I personally favor the balance created by many GT missions, but that is my opinion. If things were so clear-cut, there would never be room for disagreement.

 Clauss wrote:
Compare that to any artillery piece in the game, and say that unit is fair for its points.

And compare Vendettas to any (true) 6th edition flyer and they're obviously too good for their points. But yet they're still legal in tournaments.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Clauss wrote:
The rules in those stupid IA books are on the same level as apoc, is it absolutely ridiculous for him to say anything on the topic of actual competitive 40k.

Nope, try again. According to GW, the people who actually decide what is and isn't part of the game, FW rules are part of the game. The fact that a lot of self-declared "competitive" players have decided to play under a house rule that excludes those rules does not make it any less of a house rule. It's just funny how the same "competitive" players screamed about comp for all of 5th (remember those "bring more than three dedicated transports and we ban you" events?), but when it comes to the specific form of comp they want they declare any non-comp event "not 'real' 40k".

But I'm glad to see that you're both obsessed with "competitive" 40k in a thread where I never said I'm just talking about competitive tournaments AND the bad stereotype of the arrogant "competitive" player who can't imagine a world outside of their house rules.

Quark wrote:
So ... your argument is that your list is great when you're not fighting against great lists?

No, my argument is that I've spent a lot of time and money on an army that uses units GW says are part of standard 40k, and I'm not going to play in a comp-heavy event that bans them. If people want to play the game with house rules that restrict what armies and units you're allowed to take they obviously have the right to do so. But I'm not going to support their events.

 LValx wrote:
You seem overly committed to the (poor) rule-set GW provided us.

That's not really it. I'd be willing to play in events with non-standard missions, I just don't see much point in discussing them in a thread that isn't about a specific event. There's just too many different non-standard missions, many of them with contradictory best strategies, to make broad statements about how to win them. Focusing on the book missions is just limiting the scope of the discussion to something where you can talk about these things.

Regardless, you could always play WargamesCon, or Adepticon or BAO. Why don't you?

Travel. I'm not spending hundreds of dollars on airline tickets (on top of hundreds of dollars on a hotel room) and risking damage to my models by letting the airline handle them, so that means the only events I'm interested in are the ones in driving range. NOVA would be great and I'd love to go, but not when they have a house rule that says "you are not welcome".

Well, FWIW, Brandt does have FW events at NOVA. So for a hobbyist, I believe it would still be a fun and rewarding experience.

Troops tend to be worth it in the abstract, though there are certain armies where Troops are underwhelming most armies have something awesome and murderous in the Troops selection, or a way to get it there via "x is Troops" Special Characters. If you're playing Imperial Guard, though, they usually aren't worth it when weighed against your armor, unless they're overarmed Veterans.

I played in dozens of tournaments, and a couple GTs in 5th. None of them had any restriction on razorspam. I dont know what tournaments you were going to, but I never in my tournament life in 5th saw any childish restriction on transports.
FW-Legal metagame is imbalanced by the pure existence of the thudd gun alone. I go back to my previous post, please show me how the thudd gun is equivalent to anything else point wise.


MTG is a completely different game with completely different rules, you cant compare the two effectively.

Poor choice with the vendetta, the scythe is much better, as you spam them for 100 points. At least try to pinpoint the best flyer if you are going to attack them.

Go play in NOVA trios then, some FW is allowed there. Odd how the most serious events like his GT and his invitational of the events don't allow FW.

 Clauss wrote:
Troops are mandatory. Look at the FoC, as far as I can see you have to take at least 2. FW is essentially a new game completely, given how ridiculous thudd guns are along with other units.. Yes I am happy I dont have to face them, because they are too good for their points.

What things in 5th were so imbalanced, please tell me and we can show you tournament results that show you exact opposite over the past years.

So saying people on dakka crying about unit X being too good equates to OP? If you went to more tournaments you would experience this. The vast majority of big tournaments you will see good players make it to top tables, not OP units.

Competitive players are not afraid of the metagame changes, it changes with every codex. Why don't you go ask TOs who run tournaments why they don't allow IA and FW units, then we can get a 1st hand answer instead.

If it was so balanced and accepted, then the logical assumption would be TOs to allow FW to attract players who have FW units which would increase the attendees. So why do they not include FW?


Kain, no, this thread did not have a nice run, it was ridiculous from page one.

Allow me to go through a lot of the perceived imbalances with FW and enlighten you.

The main problem with the Thudd gun is that it takes forever to resolve but it's not really all that killy. Even against my Swarmnids list it isn't particularly killy. I have never lost any more than my Tervigons can replace with interest in one turn to them. Now if you want imbalanced, look at the Vendetta, the ability for the Tau to completely ignore large swathes of the rulebook like cover and assault and having to deal with a mediocre BS, the nigh invincible wave serpent, or the current cookie cutter cheese lists the Necrons have.

The Contemptor dread is pretty balanced and is probably one of the only forms of dreads that ever get used this edition as the rest are made of paper.

Lucius drop pod: 250 points for three power fist attacks at initiative out of a drop pod that has a chance of immobilizing your dread outright...whoop de fething doo.

Night shroud bomber: It's just a doomscythe with a different gun, yes S10 AP1 large blast is nasty, no it is not unhandleable. I mean, do Medusas dominate the meta despite firing out more S10 termi killing shots? No.

Tesseract ark: An annihiliation barge that gets an Executioner's gun, can kill much of your own army if it bites it, and can get AV14 from quantum shielding, is otherwise AV12 and costs nearly as much as a land raider.

Land Raider Achilles: With the advent of hull points, the Achilles is now paying for a -1 on the damage chart that's going to come up a lot less, and while ignoring lance and melta is nice, it can still simply be smashed open by the nearest monstrous creature or walker.

Vulture: Largely inferior to the Vendetta in most every way, only one build (double punisher cannons) is really all that viable and even then it won't kill as many infantry as you'd think (not enough shots to kill big 30 model bricks, or kill a good sized MEQ group), it is surprisingly good for hullpoint stripping on rear armor though.

Avenger: While it is very nice, it's quite reasonably priced and doesn't do anything too out of the ordinary, indeed a Heldrake is a better MEQ slayer than it is and is far more durable too.

Sabre gun platform: Undercosted? Yes. Game breaking? No. In the end, they're nothing more than tougher heavy weapons teams that can shoot at fliers without gimping themselves. Still nothing an Ion pieplate that ignores cover can't wipe off the map.

Stonecrusher Carnifex: Yes it has better regeneration, AP1, and a 2+, it is still just a four wound monstrous creature with no ranged options and it still dies just as easily to lascannons.

Nightwing: A very nice fighter, perhaps the best air superiority fighter in the game. It is however, made of paper and if it rolls a one on it's jink save that is probably the last one it'll ever roll, at which point you can kiss your points goodbye.

Hornet: Cheap, very snazzy, but not fliers, and you know what that means? Yes, autocannon time, and unlike the now ridiculously invincible wave serpent it doesn't have that snazzy shield of "feth your high strength."

Shadow spectres: Oh look overpriced MEQ killing Jump infantry in a codex full of MEQ slaying options, next.

Meiotic spores: Spore mines are bad and these are still glorified spore mines.

Malanthrope: Used to be awesome as hell, then nerfed into sucking.

Hades Breaching drill: was one legitimately overpowered, is now unreasonably terrible and will accomplish nothing other than mishapping itself and dying like a second rate mawloc.

DkoK: Are they a nice army in both flavors? Why yes. Are they inarguably superior to the guard? Well no. Peregrine can explain it better than I can.

Elysian Drop troopers: Yes they can spam fliers to an extent only Cron air can match, but most of those fliers are valkyries, whose best options are rocket pods that do little to MCs and vehicles unlike the Vendetta's heavy bolters and lascannons of kill everything.

Siege Assault Vanguard list: Yes they can spam huge numbers of tanks, yes they can reroll armor saves, guess what? If they don't get the objective they need to place in your side of the table, they can only ever tie. And rerollable armor saves means diddly to AP3 or better weapons.

Decimator daemon engine: Only truly good when run with Nurgle, and even then it costs nearly as much as a Land raider. Feth.

Mortis dreadnought: Delivers much needed skyfire to the Dark Angels, but it's still a dreadnought and is thus still AV12 with no options for added survivability.

Spartan Assault tank: While better than it's smaller land raider brother at everything for only fifty or so points more, you are now investing nearly three hundred points into a 5 HP AV14 all around unit. Which will make you a very sad man indeed when a cheap unit of Eldar drops in, haywires it into oblivion and drops out, or when JSJ fusion suits come in and fry it, or when you roll into rapid fire range of necron warriors and lose all your hull points in one go.

Legions list: Only meant for games in the 2k+ point range, any oddities for smaller games are there because you're trying to use an army that requires horde marines but doesn't make them any cheaper. And why would a primarch be assed to join a 500 pt battle?

Eldar Corsairs: Once better than Craftworld Eldar in every way, now drearily out of date.

Dreadmob list: Like the Armored Battle group, but Orky and with walkers instead of tanks. The only battle brothers you'll ever get for Orks, has all the issues with trying to spam a lot of an expensive unit with no points deduction for said units.

Armored battle group: Yet again, you are trying to spam a lot of tanks that aren't actually cheaper. This is a list that requires skill because even Draigowing lists can outnumber you modelwise.

Maynarch dynasty: The main change is a Necron specific warlord table, the exceedingly overcosted Acranthites, some special characters, flayed one troops with shred, a few special rules, lychguards attatched to HQs, and immortals can't be mandatory troops. Otherwise pretty much the same as Codex Necrons, also not battle brothers with Codex Necrons for some inexplicable reason. Maybe one of them spat in Szarekh's tea.

Lightning fighter: Made of paper with crappy weapons, garbage.

Hell blade: Made of paper with even *crappier* weapons, garbage.

Hell talon: Schizofrenic paper flier, also garbage.

Fighta: Inferior to a dakkajet.

Fighta-bomma: GROT BOMMS! But still has smaller shootas than a plane flown by grots. Huh?

That one ork kopter: An AV11 skimmer, because the Orks need land speeders too. Made of paper, but pretty fun.

Malcador: Probably the worst superheavy ever, actually inferior to it's cost in Leman Russes by a good margin and is overall a really bad tank, taking this in regular 40k is like taking Old One Eye, it eats up so many points for so little in return you're hurting your army.

Thunderbolt: Actually a worse air to air fighter than the Vendetta, which is an armed transport. Funny how things work huh?



I could keep on going but you probably get the point by now.

Kain, thank you for enlightening me on those units. Many of those I did not know.

Yet, again, the thudd gun is still a sore thumb, no matter how many bad units FW has, there is still the thudd gun to show how off certain rules are.

 Clauss wrote:
Kain, thank you for enlightening me on those units. Many of those I did not know.

Yet, again, the thudd gun is still a sore thumb, no matter how many bad units FW has, there is still the thudd gun to show how off certain rules are.

Maybe it's because I play one of the only armies that can actually replace losses in large numbers, but I've never been bothered by the Thudd gun's firepower. It can't kill my MCs and what it can kill (my gants) I can replace in one turn with interest.

My main issue is when you look at it in comparison to a TFC, mortars, eldar artillery or any other artillery. Comparing points and number of blasts it is absolutely horrendous.

But I completely understand where you are coming from, you just lose a few extra gaunts then laugh and make 20 more.

@ Peregrine...

I consider myself a competitive gamer and i'm not the least bit "scared" of FW. I doubt Clauss is and most of the other players i've spoken to don't feel that way either. If it becomes the standard, i'll accept that, adapt and move on. That is fine with me.

I'm not for the standardization of FW. My biggest issue with it is the fact that certain armies receive far more options than others. I could care less about the units that are perceived to be OP, such as Thudds and Sabres (Sabres, IME, haven't been any more OP than Vendettas), it bothers me however that IG receive a much bigger variety of units than say, Tyranids.

If GW were to update all the FW units and rules in a streamlined manner and balance out the amounts of units each codex received, i'd be all for it. But as it stands, i'm not going to support the imperial players receiving an abundance of new toys while many other codices get left with next to nothing new.

You CANNOT compare MTG to 40k. WOTC has an active hand in the competitive arena of that game, whereas GW all but ignores the 40k tournament scene. I'd be very, very happy to see unit bans, etc. in 40k, but I doubt we will see that coming any time soon, as GW seems unwilling to admit to when it makes mistakes.

 LValx wrote:
@ Peregrine...

I consider myself a competitive gamer and i'm not the least bit "scared" of FW. I doubt Clauss is and most of the other players i've spoken to don't feel that way either. If it becomes the standard, i'll accept that, adapt and move on. That is fine with me.

I'm not for the standardization of FW. My biggest issue with it is the fact that certain armies receive far more options than others. I could care less about the units that are perceived to be OP, such as Thudds and Sabres (Sabres, IME, haven't been any more OP than Vendettas), it bothers me however that IG receive a much bigger variety of units than say, Tyranids.

If GW were to update all the FW units and rules in a streamlined manner and balance out the amounts of units each codex received, i'd be all for it. But as it stands, i'm not going to support the imperial players receiving an abundance of new toys while many other codices get left with next to nothing new.

You CANNOT compare MTG to 40k. WOTC has an active hand in the competitive arena of that game, whereas GW all but ignores the 40k tournament scene. I'd be very, very happy to see unit bans, etc. in 40k, but I doubt we will see that coming any time soon, as GW seems unwilling to admit to when it makes mistakes.

You're probably too young to remember this but the last time GW outright banned an element of the game was in 2e when in white dwarf it apologized for the virus outbreak strategy card and asked everyone to burn theirs.

And yes, it was in fact that bad.

This was an edition where single characters could pretty much single handedly wipe out large sections of your army, where Basilisks WOULD ruin a vehicle's day no matter what, the tyranids ignored the strategy card system in favor of monstrously overpowered dice rolls, and it was THIS card that was gamebreaking above all the rest.

I'm with you Peregrine, why play in a tournament you don't really want to tha restricts you taking an army you have spent lots and time and money putting together. I don't see why people can't understand that...

 Peregrine wrote:

 Clauss wrote:
The entire post sounds like: I can't use my super overpower IA book so I will not play in any tournament that doesnt allow me to utilize every tank I have.

Yeah, how dare I want to use the models I paid for just because GW says they're part of the game. Besides, I thought all the "competitive" players agree that troops are mandatory and an all-tank IG army will just lose to the blob squads/kroot/etc? You can't really have it both ways.

Those rules are excluded the majority of the time because they imbalance the game, it is that simple.

So did a lot of things in 5th, but that didn't stop the "competitive" players from screaming about how much comp sucks and we should play the game as written by GW. Why is comp suddenly a good thing when it's limiting the units you want to limit?

Do not find it odd that most people here disagree with you about this?

I do find it odd that so-called "competitive" players are so afraid of their metagame changing. Coming from MTG I can't help laughing at how 40k players have a ban first, ask questions later policy while real competitive games only use bans as a last resort when it is absolutely clear that the thing in question is destroying the game.

Competitive players in 5th didn't have a "play the game as written" mentality. Even in 5th, the NOVA format changed many aspects of the book missions in order to achieve a greater level of balance. That is when I was first introduced to the format and I have loved it ever since.

Adding FW to 40k would be akin to introducing a new set of cards to MTG that featured a highly disproportionate amount of black cards to the others, with no mind paid to equal distribution of new choices. That, IMO, is the biggest problem with FW. I agree with you that GW fully intends for FW to be part of the game, no different than a codex. However, I think GW did not follow through and took the lazy route of simply saying, "FW is now standard 40k" without considering how it effects the game by offering certain codices far more choices than others. If GW were a bit more diligent in trying to balance out the game, I think FW would be more widely accepted.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

BaconUprising wrote:
I'm with you Peregrine, why play in a tournament you don't really want to tha restricts you taking an army you have spent lots and time and money putting together. I don't see why people can't understand that...

I understand that just fine. I do believe that there are still options. NOVA has multiple different "tournaments" throughout its duration and they are designed to accommodate a wide-range of players.

I imagine that if Peregrine played in 5th, he had to have an army that was non-FW reliant, so it should be pretty easy for him to field both FW and non-FW armies.

Lvalx pretty much sums it up real well there.

There's playing an army you have and playing an army you want to take. I have lots and lots of space marines geared up from 5th. Sure they would have worked well in 5th now they suck. They are also badly painted and not an army I would want to take to a tournament, just because you have anther army it doesn't mean you are going to want to take it...

BaconUprising wrote:
There's playing an army you have and playing an army you want to take. I have lots and lots of space marines geared up from 5th. Sure they would have worked well in 5th now they suck. They are also badly painted and not an army I would want to take to a tournament, just because you have anther army it doesn't mean you are going to want to take it...

Sure, but you could always play in the events that allow FW (which NOVA has, because MVBrandt didn't want to alienate those players who want to use their FW models). Hell, I'd attend NOVA even if I couldn't play, but I enjoy watching others, seeing the armies and just being there. It's a really good time that i'd recommend to everyone!

 LValx wrote:
Adding FW to 40k would be akin to introducing a new set of cards to MTG that featured a highly disproportionate amount of black cards to the others, with no mind paid to equal distribution of new choices.

They actually did that, a deliberately black-heavy set (for "fluff" reasons). Tournaments continued to work just fine.

I imagine that if Peregrine played in 5th, he had to have an army that was non-FW reliant, so it should be pretty easy for him to field both FW and non-FW armies.

I played in 5th, but only against people who were willing to play against FW rules. So no, I can't field a non-FW army, and even if I could I still wouldn't support events with ridiculous comp systems.

 Clauss wrote:
Yet, again, the thudd gun is still a sore thumb, no matter how many bad units FW has, there is still the thudd gun to show how off certain rules are.

So because one unit is overpowered you need a blanket ban on dozens of unrelated units? This makes about as much sense as banning IG because the Vendetta is obviously too cheap.

 LValx wrote:
Sure, but you could always play in the events that allow FW (which NOVA has, because MVBrandt didn't want to alienate those players who want to use their FW models).

I'm not really interested in spending a lot of time and money on traveling so I can play in the side events. I'm sure somebody enjoys them, but I don't see any need to support that kind of second-tier policy.

 Clauss wrote:
I played in dozens of tournaments, and a couple GTs in 5th. None of them had any restriction on razorspam. I dont know what tournaments you were going to, but I never in my tournament life in 5th saw any childish restriction on transports.

Then go spend a few minutes searching for 5th edition comp debates, you'll find endless pages of "competitive" players complaining about comp-heavy events with restrictions designed specifically to penalize transport spam.

MTG is a completely different game with completely different rules, you cant compare the two effectively.

I'm comparing the community attitudes towards bans, not the rules of the games.

MTG players accept that the game exists as it is published by WOTC and bans are only used as an absolute last resort, once there is indisputable evidence (from high-level competitive play) that a card is ban-worthy. Cards are never banned without that evidence, no amount of theoretical analysis and forum speculation will get a card banned. Only consistent dominance of sanctioned competitive tournaments counts as evidence, and even then the standard for "dominance" is a hard one to meet. And once WOTC decides to use that last resort policy only the narrowest possible bans are used, not a blanket ban of everything vaguely related to the offending deck.

40k players, on the other hand, impose blanket bans on entire classes of units just because someone read the rules and speculated that it would be too powerful. There's no need for actual evidence, just a feeling that "it would be too powerful".

Poor choice with the vendetta, the scythe is much better, as you spam them for 100 points. At least try to pinpoint the best flyer if you are going to attack them.

You're missing the point there. Regardless of other 5th edition flyers (note that the Helldrake was probably written under 5th edition design standards) and whether or not they're overpowered the Vendetta is clearly better than the "true" 6th edition flyers. So if thudd guns need to be banned just because their point cost is too cheap, without any evidence that they would dominate tournaments to an unfair degree, so do Vendettas (along with all of the IG codex).

Not really seeing how the IA debate adds anything to the discussion...

Personally, I think good troops are just as important in standard missions as they are in most tournament formats. They provide cheap bodies that generally have to be dealt with in most games, often requiring a higher "firepower-per-point" ratio to remove. In non-objective games they can always act as bubble wrap or fodder to keep more killy stuff alive. I guess my thought is everything in moderation.

At the end of the day I do not think there is a way for either side to "prove" their point, though. I think I am going to just agree to disagree.

What was the black heavy set? And was it followed by other color heavy sets? When was it? Because in all the time I played MTG (admittedly a while ago, last time I played was around Mirrodin), the different colors all had similar numbers of available card choices (I'm actually just curious about this now!).

Comparing the MTG community to the 40k community doesn't work too well. Due to the support from WOTC, the MTG competitive community is far better developed than the 40k one. As someone who played both games, I definitely see a much larger dichotomy between casual and competitive 40k players than I ever saw when I played MTG.

Competitive MTG is part of MTG as a whole because WOTC supports it. Competitive 40k is it's own thing because GW shows little support. It's unfortunate. I am also inclined to agree that blanket bans are silly.

If GW emulated WOTC just a bit more, we wouldn't need to have silly FW arguments. GW hatred should unite us all!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Gornall wrote:
Not really seeing how the IA debate adds anything to the discussion...

Personally, I think good troops are just as important in standard missions as they are in most tournament formats. They provide cheap bodies that generally have to be dealt with in most games, often requiring a higher "firepower-per-point" ratio to remove. In non-objective games they can always act as bubble wrap or fodder to keep more killy stuff alive. I guess my thought is everything in moderation.

At the end of the day I do not think there is a way for either side to "prove" their point, though. I think I am going to just agree to disagree.

 Gornall wrote:
Not really seeing how the IA debate adds anything to the discussion...

It doesn't really. Someone just had to come in and declare that even though I never said this thread was about major competitive tournaments the fact that I'm talking about FW units means I'm not competitive and therefore the thread is pointless.

The fact that they had to complain about my "overpowered" ABG list right after all the other competitive players said how much it sucks and will never win games just makes it especially funny.

 Peregrine wrote:

I played in 5th, but only against people who were willing to play against FW rules. So no, I can't field a non-FW army, and even if I could I still wouldn't support events with ridiculous comp systems.

"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."

(Sorry... couldn't help it!)

 Peregrine wrote:

 Gornall wrote:
Not really seeing how the IA debate adds anything to the discussion...

It doesn't really. Someone just had to come in and declare that even though I never said this thread was about major competitive tournaments the fact that I'm talking about FW units means I'm not competitive and therefore the thread is pointless.

The fact that they had to complain about my "overpowered" ABG list right after all the other competitive players said how much it sucks and will never win games just makes it especially funny.

Hey!

I never said your list sucked and you wouldn't win games!

 LValx wrote:
What was the black heavy set? And was it followed by other color heavy sets? When was it? Because in all the time I played MTG (admittedly a while ago, last time I played was around Mirrodin), the different colors all had similar numbers of available card choices (I'm actually just curious about this now!).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torment_%28Magic:_The_Gathering%29

It was balanced out in the next set (which had fewer black cards), but the other colors never got their own sets. But IIRC even when the following set hadn't been released yet it was just a weird new mechanic, not a complete tournament-disrupting mistake.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 LValx wrote:
I never said your list sucked and you wouldn't win games!

Well, not in those exact words. And I'm not complaining about your criticism, it's just funny that after a few pages of discussing the weaknesses of the minimal-troops list compared to the tournament-winning troops blob lists Clauss came and declared that it was too overpowered to allow in tournaments.

Yeah I remember Torment, that was around the same time that I was playing.

If GW hurried up and released more FW supplements for all the armies, i'd be much more inclined to support it! I've got nothing against FW and don't find the FW units to be inherently more OP than codex units. We at least agree when it comes to that.

I think the idea of min/max is very important in some armies. Especially with the Tau. A minimum amount of fire warriors to hold objectives with a maximized amount of fire power.

 Nafarious wrote:
I think the idea of min/max is very important in some armies. Especially with the Tau. A minimum amount of fire warriors to hold objectives with a maximized amount of fire power.

I tried this route and was impressed, but still found myself wanting to at least have 6 troops. For me it's all about being balanced and having numerous troops squads helps me achieve that, regardless of format.

I don't build a list for tournament A, then change it for tournament B. Once I finalize a list, that is my list and i'll stick with it regardless of format. A good list should be able to handle various missions.