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.

I think that tournament organizers should format their tournaments as they see fit. If they listen to the desires of the people who will be playing in said tournament, then they will be successful.

I personally would not play in a tournament that allowed FW models and rules, but I'm sure that there are many who would. I have no problem playing a pick-up game against an opponent with FW stuff though, and actually like seeing models I have never seen before across the table from me.

If a tournament does allow FW models then it shouldn't be just specific units. It should be all or none.

The general consensus at my FLGS is that if you payed that much for a model then yes you can use it. and as far as tournaments go, it seems like the organizers are going to take a look at the units, and if they are the really broken ones then say you cant use them. And if they are otherwise okay then you can use them.

It's getting harder for me to justify banning anything from FW in my events as long as Psyrifle dreads exist

Shrike325 wrote:I'm against IA in competitive play (I have no real problem with it in pick-up games, etc.). Although I am not one of the people who thinks everything in FW is broken, the truth is that are a few REALLY broken things around, and it would unbalance a few armies more than others (Tau get the short end of the stick for example).
quote]

tounements are for taking the broken to your advantage. people expect it. why should someone not take advantage. not in friendly games, but tournements matter.

Kirasu wrote:It's getting harder for me to justify banning anything from FW in my events as long as Psyrifle dreads exist

Indeed. While I still really do not like the dread drop pod, and though now not totally broken still not enamored of the LR Achilles, aside from those two and maybe 1 or 2 others, there's not a whole lot to complain about, and if people are willing to put up with Psyrifleman dreads, 140pt 5ML split fire long fang units, Vendettas, Purifiers, razorspam lists, FNP on damn near everything, etc. then FW stuff isn't going to phase them once they get over the initial "zomg!@(*$" shock .

I am continually amused the way some people will repeatedly face razorfangspam armies with 11 IFV's and 3 long fang units packing more long range AT and AP2/3 than most IG armies with decent CC to boot, but are totally against playing an army with a Hazard Suit, Land Raider Prometheus, Quad Launcher Thudd Gun or Autocannon Chimera.

Once they realize that the "bad" FW stuff isn't any worse and much more limited than the general codex stuff, and that the vast majority of stuff ranged from "ok" to "poor" but can really add a lot to many games, they get over it really fast as long as you don't have goobers fawning over the broken stuff or making FW stuff out to be "zomg the most totally amazing kick ass units in the game!". (had an issue recently where one dude was trying to talk up how badass his FW list was and was just making people not want to play against it and I had to get into how it's really not that badass in reality and get him to stop going over the top with it if he wanted to get people ok with FW stuff).

It's too bad GW had to waffle and still encourage players to "ask permission". This whole argument could of been avoided. Without the option to "opt out" people wouldn't make up things to cry about.

I feel many of those against are playing a lame sort of meta-game: protecting the primacy of their unbalanced armies (i.e., those considered to be in the "top tier" that is often posted about).

Any number of armies have FoC issues that make them especially unbalanced against other common builds (i.e. Tyranids difficulty in getting anti-tank), or simply bad/overcosted units (e.g. Vypers, or really anything in the Eldar FA selections). Forge World "for 40k" items fix some of these issues, which are largely symptoms of codex creep (made ever-worse by the fact that variously colored SMurfs have a nasty habit of "lapping" other armies, especially xenos, with their codex re-dos happening every edition, while some armies seem to only get a new codex every other edition). Forge World now really fills the role that Chapter Approved did in the past.

As to the bogus canard about buying every Forge World book to get the rules your opponents are using, that's really ridiculous. I personally wouldn't play against someone who would not allow me to see the rules for what I was playing against.Do other competitive players really buy the entire library of codexes that are available? There are certainly other legal ways to get your hands on such rules, e.g. a licensed copy of Army Builder (among other army list creating programs).

More to the point, all of the tournament rules I've seen require players to bring their codexes and relevant FAQ (not their opponents codexes and FAQs). Why not simply allow a player using units from IA to bring the IA book (and relevant FAQs), as well?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Go Big Green! wrote:If a tournament does allow FW models then it shouldn't be just specific units. It should be all or none.

I certainly agree with this. If the special rules for a given unit are simply too wonky, address them in the tournsment FAQ and work out some reasonable way for them to work.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Please excuse my ignorance, but which national banks forbid international purchases on debit cards? I've never heard of this being an issue, but I guess I could anticipate getting a "fraud prevention" call.

Can we make a sticky for this stuff? It seriously comes up once a month.

My local folks have never allowed FW. Apparently I'm the only one that affects in my area so the impetus to change is small.

You've got a problem in saying "IA in all tournaments", since the TO certainly needs to have a copy of the rules available. A TO who doesn't own the IA books is going to be a lot less likely to allow the rules.

Then of course we can get to the next set of classic arguements:
- Should you have to own the IA book to use the rules?
-Should you have to own the FW models to use the rules?



Automatically Appended Next Post:

helium42 wrote:I think that tournament organizers should format their tournaments as they see fit. If they listen to the desires of the people who will be playing in said tournament, then they will be successful.

.

This statement I whole heartedly agree with.

I think allowing IA: 2 edition and the variant armies (DKoK, Tyrant's Legion, Corsairs) would be nice. I mean, those are as powerful as some 40k books, and adds in more flavor to the game. Just require that the player has the rules for these units/ armies on them.

mikhaila wrote:You've got a problem in saying "IA in all tournaments", since the TO certainly needs to have a copy of the rules available. A TO who doesn't own the IA books is going to be a lot less likely to allow the rules.

That may be true, but the INAT FAQ (in its Appendix) and a number of other tournament FAQs are already doing a good job of addressing IA units/army lists. I suppose this would be an opportunity for Forge World to do a sort of Rogue Trader/Outrider program to educate TOs regarding their expansions to the game. I find it hard to imagine TOs wishing to turn down the gift of IA books, which, IMHO are beautifully done.

mikhaila wrote:Then of course we can get to the next set of classic arguements:
- Should you have to own the IA book to use the rules?

Most tournaments require that you have your codex already; this would simply be an extension of that (and a slight one at that, as for at least a few armies, "your codex" has meant "a couple of White Dwarf issues/articles").

mikhaila wrote:-Should you have to own the FW models to use the rules?

I think that this is somewhat irrelevant, so long as the models are modeled to be WYSIWYG (i.e. converted to be armed with what their army list entry specifies). Most the tournament rules I've seen posted already require this.

austinitor wrote:That may be true, but the INAT FAQ (in its Appendix) and a number of other tournament FAQs are already doing a good job of addressing IA units/army lists. I suppose this would be an opportunity for Forge World to do a sort of Rogue Trader/Outrider program to educate TOs regarding their expansions to the game. I find it hard to imagine TOs wishing to turn down the gift of IA books, which, IMHO are beautifully done.

I would please like to have whatever happyhappy drugs you are smoking!!

Forgeworld will never have an outrider program.) Hell, GW doesn't have any type of outrider/Kommando program anymore. FW offers retailers 0% in discounts. You pay exactly what a store pays. Even offers to order 10-20k at a time have been turned down. For a brief time stores could order IA books off the GW website and sell them as special orders. They just took that away from us. Your right that TO's would never turn down IA books, but what in the world makes you think someone is going to be giving them away?

I brought up the other two points, because they always seem to pop up as well, and follow along with "every tournament should allow FW". Many people don't see why they should have to have an IA book to use the rules, or why they can't use a scratchbuild model, or conversion.

In the end, it's going to up to local groups of players, clubs, stores, or TO's as to whether they allow FW into their tournaments.

mikhaila wrote:
I brought up the other two points, because they always seem to pop up as well, and follow along with "every tournament should allow FW". Many people don't see why they should have to have an IA book to use the rules, or why they can't use a scratchbuild model, or conversion.

... or terrible proxy, or their shoe to represent a forgeworld model... It is a slippery slope. People claim FW is cheap and the same price as GW models and easy to obtain then they turn around and say they shouldn't have to obtain the rules/models to use them.

nkelsch wrote:... or terrible proxy, or their shoe to represent a forgeworld model... It is a slippery slope. People claim FW is cheap and the same price as GW models and easy to obtain then they turn around and say they shouldn't have to obtain the rules/models to use them.

"Slippery slope" fallacy followed by a strawman; weak sauce.

That said, but to humor these bogus arguments in the spirit of good faith, how would a "terrible proxy" or "their shoe" meet the WYSIWYG requirement most tournaments run under?

austinitor wrote:

nkelsch wrote:... or terrible proxy, or their shoe to represent a forgeworld model... It is a slippery slope. People claim FW is cheap and the same price as GW models and easy to obtain then they turn around and say they shouldn't have to obtain the rules/models to use them.

"Slippery slope" fallacy followed by a strawman; weak sauce.

That said, but to humor these bogus arguments in the spirit of good faith, how would a "terrible proxy" or "their shoe" meet the WYSIWYG requirement most tournaments run under?

Because there are people who don't believe tourneys should run under WYSIWYG and there are people who believe any plastic dreadnought with any weapon options should be able to count as any other dreadnought with any other weapon options. People will be wanting to use GW plastic dreadnoughts as contemptor dreadnoughts and claim it is WYSIWYG even though it is not. We already see this with the different types of space marine dreadnoughts where people don't care the difference between a regular and ironclad and claim they are WYSIWYG.

Very much for IA and FW in standard 40K tournaments, I think the diversity reflects the mess that is the warhammer 40K universe, and will enhance the hobby. A touch of the wackiness that occurs in apocalypse games should be in every 40K game.

Units marked for 40K not apocalypse should only be used. A copy of the rules must be on hand and easily available.

Models should be the correct ones, absolutely no proxies, and painted to the correct scheme for force used.

Anything that enhanced the game and inspirers players to do something new and different should be encouraged.

The TO always has final say and would need to publish what is allowed in advance.

It would all be so much easier if since they are the same company, just merge and stamp things for 40k and for appoc games and be done with it. That being said, I do not see the two coming together anytime soon as 1.) we are dealing with two different groups that each have their own ideas and are each kings of their own court and 2.) GW can never get its head out of its arse and do anything in an efficient and timely manner. I have been playing since 1989 and it has always been like this.

Eiluj The Farseer wrote:It would all be so much easier if since they are the same company,

They are the same company.

nkelsch wrote:
Because there are people who don't believe tourneys should run under WYSIWYG and there are people who believe any plastic dreadnought with any weapon options should be able to count as any other dreadnought with any other weapon options. People will be wanting to use GW plastic dreadnoughts as contemptor dreadnoughts and claim it is WYSIWYG even though it is not. We already see this with the different types of space marine dreadnoughts where people don't care the difference between a regular and ironclad and claim they are WYSIWYG.

As long as they have the proper weapons on the Dreadnought, why wouldn't you be able to run it as an Ironclad? There's no other Dreadnoughts in the book that can have dual DCCWs or a Hurricane Bolter anywway, is there?

AlmightyWalrus wrote:As long as they have the proper weapons on the Dreadnought, why wouldn't you be able to run it as an Ironclad? There's no other Dreadnoughts in the book that can have dual DCCWs or a Hurricane Bolter anywway, is there?

Totally agreed; I don't care if your model is a scrathbuild or conversion; there is no reason to create special restrictions on modelling units that appear only in Imperial Armor when conversions are already a necessary part of the game (especially for units from Codexes that GW is not timely in providing models for. Here are some prominent examples:

the latest Tyranid models that took two years, post codex, 'til release

the various Space Wolf wolves

Eldar Shining Spears (rules appeared early in 2nd edition; models did not appear 'til late in 3rd)

Eldar corsairs (rules appeared in 2nd edition under the name "pirates"; models did not appear 'til late in 5th, along with new rules and being re-named "Corsairs")

Forgeworld is expensive plus you need to buy more books to use them. I do not want to see it become commonly allowed in tournaments for those reasons. There is a lot of broken stuff in there.

I think it would be a great thing for the hobby in general and for the tournament scene to allow IA units into the tournament circuit. That is of course the ones that are designated "40k" not "apocalypse". I am also all for allowing well made counts as models. They just need to be wsiwyg and properly sized.

-666- wrote:Forgeworld is expensive plus you need to buy more books to use them. I do not want to see it become commonly allowed in tournaments for those reasons. There is a lot of broken stuff in there.

"Broken" you say. Just what, exactly, is so broken? There's a discussion going on in 40k General Discussion, and I'd like to hear your input on it.

As for expensive plus buying more books, I honestly don't care what someone else pays for his army, all the better for him and GW. But if he has to bring his book/rules like every other person has to in a tournament, I don't see what's so hard about taking a look yourself. Especially if TOs include the provision of a player bringing copies to pass out to his opponents (temporarily).

Where are the tournament police who prevent really interested parties from hosting tournaments using FW units?

mikhaila wrote:In the end, it's going to up to local groups of players, clubs, stores, or TO's as to whether they allow FW into their tournaments.

All politics are local. Decisions are market-driven. Location location location. There's a large number of cliches to choose from, but Mike covers it right there - there is no centralized authority to argue with here, as each tournament makes their own decisions. Some have started testing the waters (looking at you, BAO); others have had limited inclusions for years (Adepticon's Team & Gladiator tournaments). If enough people care enough to deal with the headaches of organizing an event, then they're free to allow FW units, and see if enough other people are interested in attending to make the event viable.

Not many people own Forgeworld as compared to the total number of people who play 40k and there is a good reason for that. I own lots of Forgeworld but think it has its place in Apocalypse. I don't think it will come to pass as generally accepted for these reasons.

austinitor wrote:

AlmightyWalrus wrote:As long as they have the proper weapons on the Dreadnought, why wouldn't you be able to run it as an Ironclad? There's no other Dreadnoughts in the book that can have dual DCCWs or a Hurricane Bolter anywway, is there?

Totally agreed; I don't care if your model is a scrathbuild or conversion; there is no reason to create special restrictions on modelling units that appear only in Imperial Armor when conversions are already a necessary part of the game (especially for units from Codexes that GW is not timely in providing models for. Here are some prominent examples:

the latest Tyranid models that took two years, post codex, 'til release

the various Space Wolf wolves

Eldar Shining Spears (rules appeared early in 2nd edition; models did not appear 'til late in 3rd)

Eldar corsairs (rules appeared in 2nd edition under the name "pirates"; models did not appear 'til late in 5th, along with new rules and being re-named "Corsairs")

There's not much of a link between converting models for things GW has rules for but no models, and using a conversion instead of models that FW has a model and rules for.

Some tournaments will allow IA rules, with scatchbuilt or converted models.
Some tournemants will allow IA rules, but only with the appropriate models from FW.
Some tournaments will insist you need to have the IA book, some will just ask for a copy of the rules off the FW website.
Some tournaments may even let you proxy a coke can as a contemtor and use rules you illegally downloaded.

It's up to the TO to set the rules for the tournament. Players can choose to support, or not support, based on whether they want to play with that rules set.

I'm working with a few other people to set up a large 3 day event later this year. The lead guy for 40k wants to run the GT with no IA, and a second tournament that allows it. I enjoy getting to use my ork Mekboy list from IA8, and will probably play in the friday event. But I'm not going to demand he let me use IA in the GT. If I was playing I'd skip the IA list, shift some models around, and run a list from the regular Ork codex. (Only not playing in the 40k GT since i'll be off running the WFB GT.)

And there were eldar pirate models back in rogue trader, so not really a good example. I had an entire army of them.

-666- wrote:Forgeworld is expensive plus you need to buy more books to use them. I do not want to see it become commonly allowed in tournaments for those reasons.

FW models aren't much more expensive now in many cases than normal GW models. In fact, in some places FW is now cheaper than GW stuff, and many models GW are releasing now in others are on par with FW pricing. It was cheaper for me to buy Forgeworld dreadnoughts than buy the GW kits.

At the current rate of GW price increases, there will no longer be a difference in price in 3-5 years at all pretty much anywhere.

As for the rules, many units and lists have free PDF rules online, and most people don't own all the codex's anyway, so expecting everyone to *have* to buy the FW books is a bit silly.


Cost shouldn't have anything to do with it, already there are vast differences in cost for mainline codex armies, you could build a kitted FW Space Marine army for less than many IG or Ork tournament lists. If we're going to take cost into consideration as a Tournament requirement, then we might as well ban Sisters, Imperial Guard, and Orks right now.

There is a lot of broken stuff in there.

There's relatively little in there that's broken if you actually look at it, especially compared with Long Fangs, Purifiers, Vendettas, etc that's in normal codex books.

DarknessEternal wrote:

Eiluj The Farseer wrote:It would all be so much easier if since they are the same company,

They are the same company.

That is what I said "since they are the same company"


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I just wish since technically it is the same game we are talking about, that everything could be used.

But I see what has been previously posted and I agree it is more of a US thing and there is no way to "make" it integrated. I have talked with many people on DAKKA from outside the US and using forgeworld stuff is not a big deal at all to them and commonly accepted. I think most of it does stem from Forgeworld wanting everyone to order direct instead of in stores, for if there were forgeworld or GW with FW stuff, I think all of this would not be an issue at all. I know one of my FLGS does not allow them in tournements there because they do not like that FW will not deal with them or that they can stock their stuff and thus it is reflected in the tourneys.