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.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Purifier wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Purifier wrote:

 Troike wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
I know what Cruddace said, but I remain open to possibility that it doesn't until it gets a model update and that this version never sees print just in case that's what ends up happening.

Interesting point, could be their plan. Though 2014 seems quite solidly booked for the moment, so they could get a physical release of the digi-dex out in ample time if they wanted to. We'll see.

If they release the digi-dex as physical, it might be the first ever codex released with the biggest most obvious glaring YMDC questions fixed before print. Wouldn't that be something?

Brotherhood of Psykers vs Psychic Barrage and how neither rule is more specific than the other in how they handle Perils leading to a constant circular increase and decrease of the number of models suffering from Perils?

Or is there another one?

Celestine specifically ONLY awarded slay the warlord on her second death in the first release of the digidex. You can fail to resurrect her or simply opt not to. Now it takes failure into account but still says nothing about opting not to use the AoF.

I think we can all suss out the RAI on that one versus what RAW is giving us, but fair enough.

 Purifier wrote:
Repentia can only use their FNP right before hitting, meaning it can only be used in CC (that's intentional, but I bring it up to show the limit of what it can do) and never against any unit that is initiative 2 or higher. A lot of initiative 1 weapons will have 6 or more strength too, making FNP not work. Seems a little too limiting for a one use, doesn't it?

Repentia are already hurting by losing FnP in general but I really can't say anyone intended to make Repentia THAT bad (and if they did shame on them!).

So really we have three big issues then. Well I raised the Psyker one with GW DE and if someone else messages the other two to them that might get that resolved too.

I realised we are really going off topic when I read the topic on this thread, but I also remembered that I'm lying about the repentia thing. If they still have the mistress they can activate it at her initiative step, which helps but... still... come on.

Well back on topic, here's where I stand right now: I've found and provided evidence that historically FW was supported by the studio, and that there are rules that allow you to play FW in the game even now. I've yet to see any actual evidence to the contrary from the opposite camp (not that it'll get them to change their minds however, I expect another goal post shift anytime now) so I think we can establish that any arguements about FW being illegal or unofficial are wrong.

As for playing it, I stand by my statement that the option to use FW should be the same as the option to use C: IG, and that homebrew should get the same treatment. Players should be able to turn it down on a case-by-case basis as suits what they want in a game, but it should never be mass banned, especially under any pretense about things being "broken", "cheese" or "op". If you're so concerned about such things then you need to address them for every army and every codex and every combination because right now it's akin to using a flamethrower to get rid of a spider: it's only making things worse.

How then do you deal with tournaments then. FW is always legal at all times? Because players will not be able to turn it down as they want in a game in that case.

The way I see it is tournaments "banning" it is essentially just that they are deciding that they would rather not deal with them, for all players that wish to attend.

Breng77 wrote:
How then do you deal with tournaments then. FW is always legal at all times? Because players will not be able to turn it down as they want in a game in that case.

The way I see it is tournaments "banning" it is essentially just that they are deciding that they would rather not deal with them, for all players that wish to attend.

Tournaments can do as they please. If they players don't want to play against FW, they won't attend tournaments that allow FW, such as Wargamescon.

Breng77 wrote:
How then do you deal with tournaments then. FW is always legal at all times? Because players will not be able to turn it down as they want in a game in that case.

The way I see it is tournaments "banning" it is essentially just that they are deciding that they would rather not deal with them, for all players that wish to attend.

TOs do what they want. That's how tournaments must work to function. That the was never something I was debating. I debate FW in non-tournament settings.

If forgeworld was 100 precent legal in GW's eyes, they would allow them at their own company ran tournaments they still bother running in the UK. The fact they do not speaks volumes about the confidence of the balance of the game should they be used unchecked.

They COULD go thru and ban all blatently overpowered things from forgeworld, but op to one person is fine or even underpowered to another. Then they would have more headaches from people protesting for the inclusion or exclusion of units as legal. So like GW does, they take the cheap. lazy road, avoid playtesting all together and just blanket ban them all.

Until GW comes out and says exactly this "the use of forgeworld models, where they have the stamp of 40k approved, are allowed in any and all standard games" it will not change. You can shout till your blue in the face about why it SHOULD be legal, or try and make others feel small and tell them they are playing by "house rules" by not allowing them. But the fact is most people don't have forgeworld units. and have no stake in letting them play.

 Orock wrote:
If forgeworld was 100 precent legal in GW's eyes, they would allow them at their own company ran tournaments they still bother running in the UK. The fact they do not speaks volumes about the confidence of the balance of the game should they be used unchecked.

They COULD go thru and ban all blatently overpowered things from forgeworld, but op to one person is fine or even underpowered to another. Then they would have more headaches from people protesting for the inclusion or exclusion of units as legal. So like GW does, they take the cheap. lazy road, avoid playtesting all together and just blanket ban them all.

Until GW comes out and says exactly this "the use of forgeworld models, where they have the stamp of 40k approved, are allowed in any and all standard games" it will not change. You can shout till your blue in the face about why it SHOULD be legal, or try and make others feel small and tell them they are playing by "house rules" by not allowing them. But the fact is most people don't have forgeworld units. and have no stake in letting them play.

That was one thing I was wondering.

 Orock wrote:
If forgeworld was 100 precent legal in GW's eyes, they would allow them at their own company ran tournaments they still bother running in the UK. The fact they do not speaks volumes about the confidence of the balance of the game should they be used unchecked.

They COULD go thru and ban all blatently overpowered things from forgeworld, but op to one person is fine or even underpowered to another. Then they would have more headaches from people protesting for the inclusion or exclusion of units as legal. So like GW does, they take the cheap. lazy road, avoid playtesting all together and just blanket ban them all.

Until GW comes out and says exactly this "the use of forgeworld models, where they have the stamp of 40k approved, are allowed in any and all standard games" it will not change. You can shout till your blue in the face about why it SHOULD be legal, or try and make others feel small and tell them they are playing by "house rules" by not allowing them. But the fact is most people don't have forgeworld units. and have no stake in letting them play.

Right, but your two arguments boil down to:
1) Tournaments can do whatever they want. There are how many GW ran tournaments still left? And didn't those tournaments also have restrictions on allies and double force org? Correct me if I'm wrong, please, but that was my understanding.

If those tournaments did restrict the use of allies and/or double force org, than the whole FW aspect of your arguments falls right out.

2) Balance reasons. If balance is the reason to blanket ban OP units, then why not ban Tau and/or Eldar? Balance is an very poor argument for disallowing FW when you take a good, hard look at the balance issues with the current codices.

Your last line could be simply inversed to say the same thing from the FW camp. Look, "You can shout till your blue in the face about why it SHOULDN'T be legal, or try and make others feel small and tell them they are playing by 'house rules' by allowing them." Its the exact same argument either way. There are plenty of gamers who exist in a state of FW acceptance and look incredulously at people who don't, the same way you look at those who naturally accept FW.

The fact is that most players don't have SoB units either. Is that a good enough reason to blanket ban them?

 Orock wrote:
If forgeworld was 100 precent legal in GW's eyes, they would allow them at their own company ran tournaments they still bother running in the UK. The fact they do not speaks volumes about the confidence of the balance of the game should they be used unchecked.

No, it speaks to GWs sales philosophy and who their target market is. Forgeworld is "40k advanced" currently - harder to assemble resin models and extra rules that are overwhelming when presented to newer players. GW just wants to wow hem with cheaper, easy to assemble plastic kits they can sell easily. Older, more experienced players will gravitate to FW naturally so don't need GW marketing to help push the product.

They COULD go thru and ban all blatently overpowered things from forgeworld, but op to one person is fine or even underpowered to another.

Why do you make a distinction between blatantly OP FW units and blatantly OP codex units? 6th has shown us far less balanced codex stuff than what is available from FW.

Until GW comes out and says exactly this "the use of forgeworld models, where they have the stamp of 40k approved, are allowed in any and all standard games" it will not change.

GW *have* said that - FW *is* GW, so the 40k approved stamp in FW books is from GW. To pretend that it's not is disingenuous.

 Orock wrote:
If forgeworld was 100 precent legal in GW's eyes, they would allow them at their own company ran tournaments they still bother running in the UK. The fact they do not speaks volumes about the confidence of the balance of the game should they be used unchecked.

I'm sorry, are you arguing that we should base the non-tournament game on what GW does at tournaments?

First off, tournaments are not indicative of the game. They require a list of rules that are most easily defined as "homebrew" to include: rounds, brackets, prizes, and anything and everything you can think of.

GW's tournaments have both included and banned FW on different occasions. They've also have painting requirements, have banned allies, restricted allies, banned special characters and let's not forget the School League they run. You know, just like every other tournament does. Tournaments don't dictate what the game does ou

Oh, and they're run by the sales/Warhammer World teams and the actual devs have no real fingers in that pie.

Also, you're arguing it's done because of "balance"? If that was the case we'd see a lot more bans on stuff in the codexes as well, or are we pretending the codexes don't have a slew of potentially game breaking combos and options that some people will play regardless?

 Orock wrote:
They COULD go thru and ban all blatently overpowered things from forgeworld, but op to one person is fine or even underpowered to another. Then they would have more headaches from people protesting for the inclusion or exclusion of units as legal. So like GW does, they take the cheap. lazy road, avoid playtesting all together and just blanket ban them all.

I really doubt this balance arguement, because as I've said the codexes are just as bad, if not worse in the ways they can be abused already. Plus there are tournaments and events GW does that allow FW. You can't claim that just because some events don't allow FW that all events don't because it's simply not the case.

And as for "playtesting", everything GW makes is playtested in-house. Is it playtested to the level you'd expect of something like Warmachine? No. It's playtested to make sure the biggest issues are ironed out, the rules make sense and it doesn't feel too imbalanced. They don't have the time nor the team to get it balanced down to a more competitive level and if GW was going to do so (which I doubt since 6th broke from tournaments almost completely, save for the events that are run at Warhammer World).

 Orock wrote:
Until GW comes out and says exactly this "the use of forgeworld models, where they have the stamp of 40k approved, are allowed in any and all standard games" it will not change. You can shout till your blue in the face about why it SHOULD be legal, or try and make others feel small and tell them they are playing by "house rules" by not allowing them. But the fact is most people don't have forgeworld units. and have no stake in letting them play.

IA1 (all rules being considered legal if they use VDR (which FW did for a decade, which makes it far too long to backpedal on without screwing over a very profitable part of the company, not to mention raise a lot of customer and fan ire, something GW does try to not do, at least not intentionally)), IA2 (Imperial Armor books are meant to provide rules for use in 40k. Written by Jervis Johnson, doesn't mention the VDR stipulation and doesn't say anything about special stipulations such as "permission", "comfort" or even that they're somehow separate from "regular" or "normal" 40k itself), and page 108 of the main rulebook (army lists come from the codex, can be altered (FW) or can be your own system (FW army lists or homebrew)) all support that FW started as legal, and is still legal. What more is needed? A notorized note signed in blood by the entire company saying it's legal, on video with the entire 40k Dakka community as witnesses that says the stuff FW makes is meant for play in "normal" and "standard" games?

Give me a break.

The idea of a "normal" or "standard" games is a joke anyways when you look at the Spirit of the Game (page 8 of the main rulebook). The rules are a framework for you to use to craft an enjoyable experiance with. If you think you enjoy the game without FW then it's fine, you just don't use those rules, alternative if you do enjoy FW you do. Same for homebrew, campaigns, expansions, supplements and everything else you can think of. It's all "standard" and your attempts to try and pigeonhole the game into a little box are frankly the reason I argue against the anti-FW crowd. This game isn't as tightly defined as you want to make it and isn't so narrow and restrictive that it needs to have these stipulations. The fact is that this game is bigger than the breadbox you're putting it in and frankly I'm well past sick of people acting like their narrow definition of what they think 40k "is" frankly is disgusting. It's not that small and if you can't understand that I feel bad for you because you're so focused on one color you're missing a whole rainbow of possibility.

 Blacksails wrote:

 Orock wrote:
If forgeworld was 100 precent legal in GW's eyes, they would allow them at their own company ran tournaments they still bother running in the UK. The fact they do not speaks volumes about the confidence of the balance of the game should they be used unchecked.

They COULD go thru and ban all blatently overpowered things from forgeworld, but op to one person is fine or even underpowered to another. Then they would have more headaches from people protesting for the inclusion or exclusion of units as legal. So like GW does, they take the cheap. lazy road, avoid playtesting all together and just blanket ban them all.

Until GW comes out and says exactly this "the use of forgeworld models, where they have the stamp of 40k approved, are allowed in any and all standard games" it will not change. You can shout till your blue in the face about why it SHOULD be legal, or try and make others feel small and tell them they are playing by "house rules" by not allowing them. But the fact is most people don't have forgeworld units. and have no stake in letting them play.

Right, but your two arguments boil down to:
1) Tournaments can do whatever they want. There are how many GW ran tournaments still left? And didn't those tournaments also have restrictions on allies and double force org? Correct me if I'm wrong, please, but that was my understanding.

If those tournaments did restrict the use of allies and/or double force org, than the whole FW aspect of your arguments falls right out.

2) Balance reasons. If balance is the reason to blanket ban OP units, then why not ban Tau and/or Eldar? Balance is an very poor argument for disallowing FW when you take a good, hard look at the balance issues with the current codices.

Your last line could be simply inversed to say the same thing from the FW camp. Look, "You can shout till your blue in the face about why it SHOULDN'T be legal, or try and make others feel small and tell them they are playing by 'house rules' by allowing them." Its the exact same argument either way. There are plenty of gamers who exist in a state of FW acceptance and look incredulously at people who don't, the same way you look at those who naturally accept FW.

The fact is that most players don't have SoB units either. Is that a good enough reason to blanket ban them?

Gw's problem with coming out and restricting or banning things that made it into torunaments is they haven't before, so if they were to try there would be an uproar of fans that they really don't want to deal with. GW today is like the reluctant comic book store owner, who only got into it because his father owned it first. Sure he will sell you comics, but that is where his involvement ends. If you stand there and chat their ears off about your favorite one, they will roll their eyes, sigh, and look disinterested at some corner of the store. If gw could figure out some magic way to sell just their models without ever having to update rules again, they would. But they have to update to keep interest. Again that falls under the blanket forgeworld ban. less headaches for them in official tournaments where people might write in and complain, then they would have to get off the couch and work on actual balance. And no, gw does not restrict double force org or allies, which is why you see so many cheezy tournament winning lists formulated on this site. If they did, they would take into account that restriction.

And I don't look down at people who want to run forgeworld, I would love to run an ork list from IA8 with mega dredds, and about 20 different types of trukks. But these were created with the sole purpose of sales in mind, and its very easy to sell an expensive model if its overpowered. Riptides in the regular games say that. Do you think its weird in magic that one card would be 10 cents, and another hundreds of dollars? People are willing to shell out for power. And the problem is in the last few years forgeworld has figured this out and has been catering to this type of player. Rvanna riptides, Spartan land raiders, the new chaos/marine flyer with redonculous firepower. The people buying these things for a blatant undercosted power boost on the board are the vocal minority, and making all forgeworld look bad. So people shun them. And none of this will change without GW stepping up their game, sitting down for some hard playtesting and decision making, and outright banning the cheese. This banning will cost them dollars in models that ARE the problem in the first place, so will never be addressed. And thus you have the situation you complain about now: nobody likes forgeworld. Nobody likes GW laziness, and its their fault.

Orock, the lists on this site have little to nothing to do with what GW does in tournaments. Or have you forgotten that competitive play exists outside of Warhammer World?

Here's my opinion, as I see it. As evidenced by GW's mentality towards third-party bitz and model producers that make things that even slightly emulate what they consider copyrighted material, the simple fact that FW can freely reproduce long- copyrighted GW material is proof that they are "GW approved". Therefore any material they make for each game system, is just like GW making those kits. there are plenty of "official" GW units/rules that are considered as overpowered as people consider FW stuff to be, and those are perfectly legal.

Once again, I really have to wonder why there is any kind of FW hate that isn't an instance of plain gamer-snobbiness, frankly. When the majority of 40K players likely won't even see a FW unit fielded against them in their gaming career, why else would they be so vehemently supporting the sorts of rulings that would be against a group they won't likely ever meet? Is there some sort of rogue band of FW-using marauders that show up to crash 40K games with their overpowered resin units and rules?

Is there some reason there should be a blanket ruling like this on ALL FW stuff. They already say that Heresy-era stuff is not meant to be balanced against normal 40K material, which is fine. But take things like the Eldar Hornet. Is it somehow horribly OP for an Eldar player to take it "without an opponent's permission", when just from the main codex they are ALREADY allowed to take things "without permission" like Wave Serpents, which actually have a larger group of people outspoken specifically against them because they think they are "overpowered".

GW already has enough rules in their games. Stop trying to put hard-line rules on absolutely everything that could some up in a game, most of which are conveniently and completely circumvented when two people decide to play a friendly game.

Wargaming is *supposed* to be a hobby where you go into a game with the trust that while your opponent will actively be trying to win, they aren't there to screw you over for their own enjoyment.

If you have to worry about your opponent pulling out crazy "overpowered" Forgeworld units to stick it to you, I think you have to wonder why you are choosing to play that person in the first place, before you even see what their army list is.

It's a combination of the fear of the unknown and a resistance to meta shifts.

People prefer the overpowered nonsense they expect and plan for.

It's funny because it would really open up the game if people would just give it a chance.

I wonder if I'll be quoted in the next "But Titans!!!!!!!" rant.

Forgeworld is owned by games workshop, so technically its a way for them to make premium models and sell them.

And nobody is running over to a board and knocking someones forgeworld models to the ground and calling them cheaters. If someone agrees to play forgeworld models other than using them as proxies for existing units, that's a decision made between two people. But on the same token they cant sit down some random forgeworld model that nobody has ever heard before, and show you a mag made in 1998 with its rules and points cost and say you have to accept it as legal. What if it was updated recently to be more in line for what it can do, like when some jerk tried to convince me his contemptor dread could do this and that for this many points, and only another guy overhearing stepped in and cleared up the NEW rules for it. He claimed he dident know, and when he went to pull up the rules, accidentally pulled up the most recent rules and tried to close it quickly on his pad like it was a mistake.

And also I am going to need some kind of citation on GW EVER allowing forgeworld units (not proxy models) in any of their run tournaments.

And yes, a tournament run by the company who produces the game SHOULD be indicative of how the rules are meant to be played. Do they allow homebrew rules at GW tournaments? Even super popular fan made ones like some versions of kill team on the net, considered superior to gws afterthought rules made for it? No because they can't control the effects on the game. Its the same as this, forgeworld adds sooooo many units, rules, and situations that to balance it for any kind of competitive play is all but impossible. And competitive play is really all anyone is argueing about anyway, because again, in a friendly game for fun anyone should be able to run them if both parties agree. And friendly games is really what this system is best for anyway. Terrible competitive lists with cheese and spamming really kill the fun in this game.

 Orock wrote:
Terrible competitive lists with cheese and spamming really kill the fun in this game.

And you'll find the worst examples of them from the "Sanctioned" Codexes and supplements. Seer Council, Screamerstar, Serpents IC Riptides etc.

 Eldarain wrote:

 Orock wrote:
Terrible competitive lists with cheese and spamming really kill the fun in this game.

And you'll find the worst examples of them from the "Sanctioned" Codexes and supplements. Seer Council, Screamerstar, Serpents IC Riptides etc.

sorry but you will never find a unit more broken to use as an example than the rvanna riptide. que people that claim that it will never make it "live" with those stats and points cost, and ignore that the Spartan was in a similar boat, and literally had zero changes. Because it sells. The Rvanna was the 3rd most popular sale item for forgeworld last month, and for the last few in the top 5. Do you really think they want to deal with customer complaints of "bait and switch" by bringing it in line?

Why does this thread keep coming back to tournaments instead of what two guys decide to field against each other in a friendly game to have fun, which is what the hobby is all about?

Tournaments can decide anything under the sun is either legal or illegal in that tournament. They could say "in the next tourney, Helldrakes are illegal because the TO doesn't like them".

People just want some official ruling to fall back on to enforce what they prefer their opponents to be able to field. The argument that your opinion should be enforced over the opponent's is hypocritical, and counter to the sportsmanship and fellowship of the hobby.

Orock, if that was the case we'd not be allowed to play with allies as the events at Warhammer World BANNED them at the start of 6th. Or are we playing the double standard card here on that?

Seriously, can you provide a single document from the design studio about the disapproval of FW in games? Anything at all that comes after 2000 is fair game (as that's when IA1v1 came out), if not your argument is based on what a tournament is doing and trying to apply it to everyone else's games. And that my friend, is just a load of bull that I don't think anyone is buying (well maybe one person, but I don't think you want "EVERYTHING ENDS IN TITANS" being in your camp).

Especially after we spent a few pages establishing tournaments can do what they want because they're already removing themselves from the standard game.

 AegisGrimm wrote:
Why does this thread keep coming back to tournaments instead of what two guys decide to field against each other in a friendly game to have fun, which is what the hobby is all about?

Tournaments can decide anything under the sun is either legal or illegal in that tournament. They could say "in the next tourney, Helldrakes are illegal because the TO doesn't like them".

People just want some official ruling to fall back on to enforce what they prefer their opponents to be able to field. The argument that your opinion should be enforced over the opponent's is hypocritical, and counter to the sportsmanship and fellowship of the hobby.

I think because a lot of people are practicing for tournaments.

Orock, the GW run tournaments (there's what, one that is run in the UK, and none anywhere else?) have zero bearing on the 'legality' of FW models. There are dozens of larger tournaments across NA and indeed the world that do allow FW. Are you going to argue that a GW tournament rule is now a hard and fast rule that everyone must follow?

The 2012 Throne of Skulls tournament had a restriction of 500pts of allies. Is that a rule we all have to follow whenever using allies? By logical extension of there being no FW at the event, it must also follow that no one may take more than 500pts of allies.

You can ask your opponent for the rules of whatever FW unit is in question. We're working under the assumption that the player has the latest rules available, which can be checked by looking at the table of contents for the books on their site. If you have any questions, just ask your opponent. Don't use one poor player as an example to rule out FW. Its the same assumption that I would make with SoB players, or Inquisition players, and so on. If you have any questions or issues, ask your opponent. FW has no relevance to that, as any player could do a stunt like that with any codex or unit.

Are you also seriously arguing that FW somehow upsets the delicate balance of 40k in a competitive sense? With 2++ re-rollable deathstars, wave serpents with 4+ cover everywhere, and Tau in general; yet you claim FW would ruin 40k's balance. I hope you acknowledge that current codices are incredibly unbalanced and have beyond broken/OP combinations available without FW.

 Blacksails wrote:

Are you also seriously arguing that FW somehow upsets the delicate balance of 40k in a competitive sense? With 2++ re-rollable deathstars, wave serpents with 4+ cover everywhere, and Tau in general; yet you claim FW would ruin 40k's balance. I hope you acknowledge that current codices are incredibly unbalanced and have beyond broken/OP combinations available without FW.

I can't speak for Orock, but I personally think that the current codexes are reasonably balanced. And that not all of the Forgeworld offerings are. This seems to be a fairly divisive issue amongst people. Hmm. I wonder how the numbers shake out on that. Now I'm curious as to WHO is in the minority opinion on that...

Take my advice. Forget about 40K and play something else. You have more fun, better rules and nicer people to game with.

ClockworkZion wrote:Personally, at least with what I post I feel you're misreading it. I think people shouldn't need to be, bargin or plead to be able to play their cool toys. I feel that the current attitude of "no Forgeworld for anyone ever" is poisonious and shuts down creative thinking, freedom and the chance to really see what this game is.

See, and there we go with the radicalisation again. It may well be that some people are argueing "no FW ever". At the same time there is a large group of people - like me - who are like "just ask, mkay?", but instead of even making this miniscule distinction you throw any and all critics into a big box ... but then go on to complain when somebody does the same to the "pro-FW crowd".

This is why we can't have nice things.

ClockworkZion wrote:What I do think is that players should communicate exactly what they want before the game starts: FW, codex, points levels, allies, double FOC, narrative, casual, campaign, homebrew, special scenario, Altar of War, ect. None of that should be treated any differently than any other part of it. That is what I think and what I've been trying to get across since post one several threads ago.

Then you've done a bad job getting that point across. Or, perhaps more likely, such fine points are drowned out by the radicals from both sides of the argument.

ClockworkZion wrote:It's not about the state of the game now, I've addressed the fact that we're dealing with a genie that's been out of the bottle for 10 years now, it's where it comes from. It's the "proof" that's so often demanded that GW has supported FW from book one.

But .. they didn't? "As long as FW uses our rules like any other player, they're okay" is no more support than GW has extended to any random player using the rules in their books. Hence my opinion that FW is like the "professional hobbyist" corner of the company - a bit like with the Citadel Magazine when it was still being printed. What, did no-one notice how CJ rules never had the "Chapter Approved" stamp usually featured in WD articles?

As for the proof you keep asking about, it's in the very same "evidence" you have fielded. The condition that FW acts like your random gamer from next door, rather than being "empowered" to write their own stuff. In this light, GW is actually supporting Forge World now more than ever, because before 6E there was apparently still the issue of "legality" (as mentioned in the VDR thingy), whereas now everything is equally okay. Yet instead of making use of this new-found freedom and campaign for greater voluntary acceptance, we're now seeing a war being waged on message boards focused on rules this rules that.

I'm sorry, but I just can't subscribe to this train of thought.

ClockworkZion wrote:I'll continue supporting homebrew regardless what people are claiming, but let me deal with one battle at a time, eh? This thread is about FW, and that's a tall enough peak as is, give people some time to climb this summit before we start pushing them to climb another one.

In that case I think you are already fighting a losing battle, because in the end all you'll achieve is your current allies turning away from you. In terms of perception, it also makes you seem a bit hypocritical when you seemingly ignore negative remarks about homebrewed rather than being consistent and setting everyone straight who is "doing it wrong".

I know this can be difficult - often enough, I've taken a "step back" from discussions myself, thinking it'd be better for me if I let them fight that one out on their own so as to not "sabotage" my own argument or just because I feel like I don't want to waste time on an issue that has no priority for me, but it never really quite feels right to do so, so maybe I am a bit hypocritical myself. Maybe we all are.

ClockworkZion wrote:Are we clear now, or do I need to worry about any more accusations on my character caused by you reading into things that aren't there? You know, sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

I can only judge you by your actions (or rather the manner of your posts), and if I feel they clash with your supposed intentions, or even leave out critical information, then I have to point it out. Especially when I feel that my character is being accused as well.
Maybe this is all just a big misunderstanding, and I'm sure we would have no problem agreeing on a game if we ever had one, but unfortunately it seems we just can't level with each other on this one topic.

Well, at least we've already once again said all we had to say. Same time again next week?

DarthOvious wrote:Just thought I would put my opinion here. Personally I have nothing against homebrewed rules, my earlier post was just making a statement ealier on in regards to the difference between homebrewed and Forge World. i.e. FW I would consider to be from an impartial source whereas homebrewed rules are from a biased source. This doesn't mean I wouldn't play against somebody who used homebrewed rules, it just means I am very much more likely to want to read their rules before playing them and making a judgement based on balance issues.

Ah, but you realise that this is a matter of interpretation? You are biased yourself if you categorically treat homebrewed as less likely to be fun/balanced. It's an understandable bias, mind you (given that many or most homebrewed rules are focusing on one's personal favourite army), but at the same time other people are categorically biased against FW based on what they hear on the nets, or perhaps in some few cases based on exceptional individual experience.

Don't get me wrong - I understand where you're coming from, and personally I even agree with your assessment. But still, at the end of the day, it's all a matter of perspective. And I feel threads like these will only widen the gap in the playerbase rather than heal it, just because of how forcefully some few posters argue, and because the debate is still focused on such abstract terms like "legal" or "official" when GW themselves, with their newest rulebook, have made it clear that they don't care and that it's up to the players to sort it out.

 Jimsolo wrote:

 Blacksails wrote:

Are you also seriously arguing that FW somehow upsets the delicate balance of 40k in a competitive sense? With 2++ re-rollable deathstars, wave serpents with 4+ cover everywhere, and Tau in general; yet you claim FW would ruin 40k's balance. I hope you acknowledge that current codices are incredibly unbalanced and have beyond broken/OP combinations available without FW.

I can't speak for Orock, but I personally think that the current codexes are reasonably balanced. And that not all of the Forgeworld offerings are. This seems to be a fairly divisive issue amongst people. Hmm. I wonder how the numbers shake out on that. Now I'm curious as to WHO is in the minority opinion on that...

The current codices are not balanced well at all.

 Jimsolo wrote:

 Blacksails wrote:

Are you also seriously arguing that FW somehow upsets the delicate balance of 40k in a competitive sense? With 2++ re-rollable deathstars, wave serpents with 4+ cover everywhere, and Tau in general; yet you claim FW would ruin 40k's balance. I hope you acknowledge that current codices are incredibly unbalanced and have beyond broken/OP combinations available without FW.

I can't speak for Orock, but I personally think that the current codexes are reasonably balanced. And that not all of the Forgeworld offerings are. This seems to be a fairly divisive issue amongst people. Hmm. I wonder how the numbers shake out on that. Now I'm curious as to WHO is in the minority opinion on that...

Out of curiosity, which FW units (besides the R'varna, as even I admit its OP, but it is experimental only for now) are OP? I'm genuinely curious which FW are OP or in combination with some current codex unit would make it more so?

Do you think the wave serpent is balanced? Both internally and externally? Many would say it is an OP unit, and I would agree. It is very durable, very shoot, and very mobile, takes up no force org slot, and ferries around units that can add to its firepower. The 2++ re-rollable deathstars Eldar and Daemons can field are very clearly overpowered. Tau in general have some incredible combinations that are very powerful. Then C: CSM only has the Heldrake to really keep it afloat on its own, and C: DA has suffered compared to the offerings in C:SM.

The codices in general are poorly balanced both internally and externally. There are units in each that are vastly superior and see a lot of play time, while others are nearly forgotten. Then, codices like Tau and Eldar are rather distinctly on a different power level than CSM or C: DA. Torrent of Fire data would back all of this up.

PM'ed so as not to drag the thread off topic.

 Orock wrote:
Forgeworld is owned by games workshop, so technically its a way for them to make premium models and sell them.

It's not even that they're owned by Games Workshop, they're a division of GW no different than Accounting, Facilities, etc. They just pursue stuff that the main Design Studio can't. Their books are written by people on GW payroll, have a GW logo on them, and state they are copyright and published by Games Workshop (not "forgeworld under license from games workshop").

But on the same token they cant sit down some random forgeworld model that nobody has ever heard before, and show you a mag made in 1998 with its rules and points cost and say you have to accept it as legal.

Nobody is going to claim that. Most especially because no such rules would be legal or even function.

What if it was updated recently to be more in line for what it can do, like when some jerk tried to convince me his contemptor dread could do this and that for this many points, and only another guy overhearing stepped in and cleared up the NEW rules for it. He claimed he dident know, and when he went to pull up the rules, accidentally pulled up the most recent rules and tried to close it quickly on his pad like it was a mistake.

Then that's cheating. That's no different than someone saying "well they FAQ'd it" which almost everyone can attest to someone having on them. Not unique to FW.

And also I am going to need some kind of citation on GW EVER allowing forgeworld units (not proxy models) in any of their run tournaments.

In the past their rules have been extremely non-standard, what was legal in a US GT was not legal in UK GT and what was legal in an EU GT was not legal in a US GT and so on. For instance, in 2007 US GT's allowed Armored Companies and Kroot Mercenaries and played at 1750pts, UK GT's did not allow those lists and played at 1500pts.

They don't run big GT events anymore, they just have their Throne of Skulls tournament a couple times a year for Nottingham locals, all the big GT events around the world are run independently by clubs and private groups, and each has their own rules, missions, and standards.

That said, Tournaments != normal play. GW itself has said this innumerable times.

And yes, a tournament run by the company who produces the game SHOULD be indicative of how the rules are meant to be played.

Aside from the fact that GW no longer runs Tournaments anymore really, can you show me in the rules where time limits, opponent matchups, etc are covered in the rules? Tournament rules and standards have no bearing on how the game is intended to be played. This is because 40k, especially 6th edition, was not designed as a competitive ruleset, such events are an afterthought because people like to make everything into competitive events. GW came right out and said as much at their Open Day event last year. Competitive balance is not something GW aims for or intends to achieve with their rules. It's not a secret. Warhammer 40,000 6th edition is simply a framework with which to construct a narrative environment for people to play with their Citadel models, a set of guidelines on how to play with their plastic army men. That's how GW views the rules. FW is a subdepartment of GW that produces plastic army men that the main design studio/production processes can't do or doesn't want to do. Ultimately you're still playing with GW's plastic army men either way.

Do they allow homebrew rules at GW tournaments?

You mean the ones they don't run anymore?

Even super popular fan made ones like some versions of kill team on the net, considered superior to gws afterthought rules made for it? No because they can't control the effects on the game. Its the same as this, forgeworld adds sooooo many units, rules, and situations that to balance it for any kind of competitive play is all but impossible. And competitive play is really all anyone is argueing about anyway, because again, in a friendly game for fun anyone should be able to run them if both parties agree. And friendly games is really what this system is best for anyway. Terrible competitive lists with cheese and spamming really kill the fun in this game.

This seems to dovetail nicely into my above point, nothing in the game was designed or intended for competitive tournament play, rather to provide a framework to play with their models. With that as the primary aim, it's odd that it's so consistently difficult to play with one's models just because they come from a different sales channel of the same company.

Just a second to quote some wise words:

 AegisGrimm wrote:

Wargaming is *supposed* to be a hobby where you go into a game with the trust that while your opponent will actively be trying to win, they aren't there to screw you over for their own enjoyment.

Well said. Everything depends on the person you are playing the game with.

As an aside at least some evidence would be how many US tournaments considered Chapter Approved stuff to be legal. And at least in Armored Companies, that included several Forgeworld tanks, such as the Vanquisher, Conqueror, Salamander and Destroyer Tank Hunter. Weren't the rules for those that were published in CA the same as Forgeworlds rules for them? If so, there you go.

Also if they were, that was an official GW publication, therefore showing at least SOME GW support for FW stuff.