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.

 Peregrine wrote:

muwhe wrote:
Under a header of :
Forge World
Warhammer 40,000 6th Edition Rules Updates:

Forge World does a lot of great things ... keeping the download section of the website current is not one of them. Neither is keeping existing rules aligned with the core offerings.

But they don't need to be current because there were very few changes from 6th to 7th.

You realize that header is saying they aren't updated to 6th edition (from 5th), not from 6th to 7th, right?

(If you respond with "So?" I think that might just end the conversation there )

Like I said, muwhe and AdeptiCon have been champions of Forgeworld for a long time - to argue against them is basically saying those who are putting in absolutely the most effort to include Forgeworld aren't doing enough. They already maintain a list of current FW units and rules so that other events and players can reference it, which is quite a task. To ask them to do more is a bit much, I think!

 RiTides wrote:
You realize that header is saying they aren't updated to 6th edition (from 5th), not from 6th to 7th, right?

(If you respond with "So?" I think that might just end the conversation there )

Of course I'm going to respond with "so", because that's the only thing there is to say about the header. It's a website header, not a rules document, and all it demonstrates is that FW is a bit lazy about updating their website. The stuff under that header includes 7th edition rules. So I guess you can email FW and complain about their inaccurate website labels, but I really don't see how this has anything to do with tournament policies.

Like I said, muwhe and AdeptiCon have been champions of Forgeworld for a long time - to argue against them is basically saying those who are putting in absolutely the most effort to include Forgeworld aren't doing enough.

And that's exactly what I'm saying: they aren't doing enough. It's sad that this limited effort is the best that anyone is doing, but that doesn't mean that it's enough.

To ask them to do more is a bit much, I think!

Not really. Removing the 0-1 limit takes what, 30 seconds at most? All they have to do is delete one line of a rules document. And updating the army lists to make them playable doesn't take very long either, as I already demonstrated. I updated the Elysian drop troops and ABG lists to match 7th edition and C:AM in about 5 minutes each. It takes longer to argue about the rules on this forum than it would to just fix them and make the argument irrelevant.

Perhaps it is too much work to update the older FW army lists (although I'd argue that some of the 6th edition lists are perfectly playable unmodified) but that doesn't explain why the DKoK and Vraksian Renegades are banned. Both lists are 100% up to date and 7th compliant (even including unique detachments, which some 7th edition codices don't have) but they're condemned alongside the other FW lists. Is it really that hard to say "only current and up-to-date Forgeworld army lists may be used. list"?

Okay then (regarding your going ahead and replying with "So?")

You're here complaining that TOs aren't completely rewriting FW army lists to make them playable in a competitive event, and I'm saying, you're asking too much. FW specifically says this about themselves:

Forge World does a lot of great things ... keeping the download section of the website current is not one of them. Neither is keeping existing rules aligned with the core offerings.

AdeptiCon goes above and beyond to make FW units usable in a competitive setting. But they can't do everything for them, and rewriting their army lists is where they draw the line. To play in a competitive event, you're going to have to come up with an army list that matches current rules. If you want to complain, you should complain to FW and ask them to update their rules.

I understand it's your tournament and all your reasons for not accepting forgeworld are understandable. I am never attending your tourney (as much as I would like to..sounds amazing..but living across the world and all)

I would like to ask..why not the current renegades from the reprinted vraks? It's up to date? I realise the whole accept one ignore others...but is that your reason?

I know I'm wading in but I keep getting alerts from this thread and actually I would love to field to a renegades list so i'm probably biased..

Hey, my fault for taking this thread off course ..

So ignoring the issues that come with allowing some FW lists and not allowing others…

Picking and choosing just the updated/current ones - That might be the state of them today, but today does not impact AdeptiCon 2016. We have to care about what state they might be, come 31 days out from the event. They could be fine, or they could be a disaster depending on what is released over the next 8 months.

Now, there was a time we knew well in advance the schedule of some releases and it was possible for us knowing the release schedule to understand the event impact of those and plan accordingly. At this point we do not have that level of visibility anymore. At the same time we have to publish event formats and rules several months before the event. People plan and build armies for AdeptiCon sometimes a year or more in advance. We like to avoid being on a phone call with an attendee with a little more than a month out from the event, informing them that the list we documented as legal, has now been invalidated.

 RiTides wrote:
You're here complaining that TOs aren't completely rewriting FW army lists to make them playable in a competitive event, and I'm saying, you're asking too much.

And you're wrong about that. I updated the Elysian drop troops and ABG lists in about five minutes each. Those TOs have spent more time defending their policy on forums than it would take to just fix the few rule issues that are supposedly keeping those lists out.

FW specifically says this about themselves:

Could you explain what you meant to say here? You say "FW says this about themselves" but then you quote a statement from muwhe.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

muwhe wrote:
Picking and choosing just the updated/current ones - That might be the state of them today, but today does not impact AdeptiCon 2016. We have to care about what state they might be, come 31 days out from the event. They could be fine, or they could be a disaster depending on what is released over the next 8 months.

How is this any different from codex rules? GW could do plenty of things that would make codex rules just as much of a disaster. What do you do if 8th edition is released 31 days before the event and this time GW doesn't bother to publish codex FAQs/updates?

Peregrine, you just have to stop using your yellow snow armies and superheavies and switch exclusively to special snowflakes like Knights.

muwhe wrote:

+1, I do believe RobPro gets the associated issues that go along with supporting Forge World army lists. : )

Maybe we should check the Forge World download section and see what they have posted. Here

Under a header of :
Forge World
Warhammer 40,000 6th Edition Rules Updates:

Forge World does a lot of great things ... keeping the download section of the website current is not one of them. Neither is keeping existing rules aligned with the core offerings.

To be fair, neither does GW. FW stopped doing regular PDF updates about the same time GW largely stopped doing FAQ/Errata as well. I mean...when was the last time GW put out a new Errata/FAQ? Especially one that did more than answer one or two simple things? GW as a whole has largely simply stopped supporting products from a rules standpoint, and FW seems to have been saddled with that as well.

GW's only slightly better off because the pace of their releases has been faster, but we've still got some absurd things like Chimeras with two different sets of rules in two different armies (INQ vs IG), tons of commonly encountered rules issues (e.g. Knight & Ion Shields vs Barrage weapons, the new AdMech robots and their reflection rule, etc)

 Peregrine wrote:

 RiTides wrote:
You're here complaining that TOs aren't completely rewriting FW army lists to make them playable in a competitive event, and I'm saying, you're asking too much.

And you're wrong about that. I updated the Elysian drop troops and ABG lists in about five minutes each.

That sounds great, do you have a link?

If you were to provide and maintain a resource like this for all (or most) FW army lists, it'd be easier for more events to allow these lists. Goodness knows we need one, and you seem to have the interest and passion to not only make it but keep it updated.

I'm being totally serious here, that would be a great service to the community. We might even sticky it in this section if it were comprehensive enough, like the Formation & Dataslate resource sticky that Hulksmash keeps updated (and was even copied elsewhere, the highest form of flattery ).

 RiTides wrote:
That sounds great, do you have a link?

I posted them previously in this thread:

Armored Battlegroup (5 minutes)
*Treat all references to "Imperial Guard" as "Astrawhatsit"
*Page 244: replace ".. allowed by the Imperial Guard Orders rule (see page 29 of Codex: Imperial Guard ..." with ".. allowed by the Voice of Command rule (see page X of Codex: Astrastupidname ..."
*Page 248: add Voice of Command to the company commander. Replace Junior Officer with Voice of Command.
*Page 257: replace camo cloaks with camo gear.


Elysian Drop Troops (3 minutes)
*Treat all references to "Imperial Guard" as "Astrawhatsit"
*Page 212: Add the Voice of Command rule to the Company Commander. Replace Intercept Reserves with Navy Orders.
*Page 214: ignore the Special Operations rule.
*Page 215: replace Junior Officer with Voice of Command.

If you were to provide and maintain a resource like this for all (or most) FW army lists, it'd be easier for more events to allow these lists.

I could do it easily for the IG lists, assuming the changes are limited to the minimum necessary rule updates to make the lists function (I don't have anywhere near enough time or interest to playtest sufficiently to make balance changes). I could probably update the other codices if TOs were sincerely interested in using the updates and I wouldn't be wasting my time trying to learn armies that I don't play, but someone who does play those armies would probably be more familiar with the changes required.

Also, doing this would require agreement on which of three possible approaches to use:

1) Minimum changes: update any references to old codex rules to point to the new codex rule (assuming an obvious equivalent exists, like IG orders), remove any old codex rules that don't exist at all in the current codex. Point costs and similar changes to units remain the same, just like tactical squads in an older marine codex don't change point costs to match C:SM.

2) Maintain the old rules: keep all references to codex rules and include the old rules in the update document, maintaining the list in its previous state. Obviously point costs/rules/etc remain as-printed.

3) Maintain RAI: as #1 for most changes, but put removed rules in the update document. So, for example, IG orders are updated to reference the current codex, but stormtroopers in FW variant lists get an update that copy/pastes the old "special operations" rule into their unit entry.

4) Update to modern standards: change the rule references as in option #1, but also change point costs/special rules/etc where units have received new rules in a codex or other FW book. This assumes that the FW army list is supposed to have the same rules as the codex for those units, and may accidentally change things that were supposed to be different (for example, adjusting the point costs of ABG HQ tanks to match the codex assumes that there were no deliberate cost changes in the ABG list as-printed). Note that this option is more than GW does with codex updates.

Well, it's certainly worth considering... If anyone else posting or lurking here is up to date on all/most of the FW army lists and would be up for the challenge, PM me to discuss or post your thoughts here. It wouldn't have to be a totally one man show, but someone would have to be knowledgeable about most of the lists to properly maintain it, and committed to keeping it updated, like Hulksmash has done (55 edits to his OP, last one less than a week ago!).

I'm very open to the idea so like I said, please PM me if anyone wants to seriously discuss it, and of course feel free to post thoughts here, too.

Edit: I agree an "update philosophy" would be needed, so someone who loves YMDC clarifications would be ideal. Like yakface, but he retired from this kind of thing long ago (although I think AdeptiCon still calls on him at times for their FW unit document maintenance!).

The hard part is consensus - there's no real way to know if TO's would use it until the resource was available, and it would likely need to be checked for at least basic game balance. We gamers (and humans ) can't agree on much of anything unless GW says it (or even then!) as even the INAT FAQ that yakface worked on always had folks who wouldn't adopt it. But the more thorough the job, the more likely that an event would use it, especially if it were made with actual gameplay in mind. The more I describe it, the more daunting it sounds, though!

Peregrine wrote:
Armored Battlegroup (5 minutes)

Elysian Drop Troops (3 minutes)

Peregrine - I want to provide you with some additional food for thought from the perspective of me being an AdeptiCon coordinator. I and a lot of other volunteers for other events dedicate hundreds of personal hours to our events. Yet, we always and I mean always have thousands of "it will only take 5, 10, or 15 minutes" improvements that can be made. If you total these up, the amount of time skyrockets into 100s of additional hours that seem to be in your case unappreciated. All over a very, very, very small subset of rules. We have to balance our priorities, which include a lot of work, home and volunteer aspects of life.

As RiTides mentions, I can tell you from personal experience with working on the INAT team, the community is very divisive because there is little compromise on "what is the right way to play". So while you may think these "rules modifications" are great and would be acceptable for events, there will be someone else on the other side of the spectrum saying how we shouldn't include these. It's a no win situation.

Overall, this type of modification or work is always under consideration. However, we direct our very limited resources towards projects that bring the highest amount of value to our attendees, sponsors, volunteers, and venue. In the end, this means we may not pursue modifying rules to "fit" items like this into our events.

As a brief aside, I would love to "modify" the old White Dwarf / Chapter Approved Enslaver rules to fit the current editions. I personally had a lot of fun making models and playing them in games. However, I don't see the value benefit for our attendees, sponsors, volunteers, and venue at this time. Same applies to this scenario along with countless others.

In thinking about this, I think what we could use most here as a first step is just a resource sticky, like the Formation & Dataslate List, showing where the Forgeworld rules for each unit are. ArbitorIan already has one of these as an article that he and yakface maintain here:

http://www.dakkadakka.com/wiki/en/Forge_World_and_Apocalypse_Rules_Index

I've asked ArbitorIan about making a sticky version so people could easily reference it, along with some other useful resources (like his 7th edition reference sheets).

That is just to reference where unit rules are, though... updating army lists to the current edition is definitely another can of worms that I hadn't thought through in more detail until discussing it a bit with Peregrine and some others via PM yesterday. I'm not sure what would be required to get community buy-in on such rules updates... but seemingly, it would be quite a lot! Something like the INAT team would likely be needed, and even then adoption would not be guaranteed. Doesn't mean it isn't worth trying, but people would have to trust that game balance would be maintained after the army lists were updated... and that is a much larger effort!

At minimum we'll get a good FW unit location / other resources sticky out of this discussion, though, so that's a positive

 Sigvatr wrote:
There's no reason to forbid FW use anymore. 7th has thrown all remaining semblances of balance out of the window, so just play with everything there is.

This wasn't exactly true until recently but now I agree 100% - if new eldar and necrons are allowed - by all means bring broken forgeworld too and have an OP party.

I'm for Forgeworld except their armies because a lot of people aren't familiar with their rules.

 Dozer Blades wrote:
I'm for Forgeworld except their armies because a lot of people aren't familiar with their rules.

Terrible reasoning. I don't have a single Space Wolves player at my locals, and I'm unfamiliar with their rules. That doesn't mean I'd ask to not have Space Wolves lists. Just use Battlescribe and basic Google searching to become familiar with anything you don't know.

It's really not that easy. Plus the example given using SW is not a good analogy... I'm sure on average most people are familiar with at least their basic rules but the same can't be said about Renegades for example.

I support Peregrine's project. Forge World really needs wider acceptance, if for the cool models and no other reason. Also to get rid of this silly notion of "FW units are broken/OP/complicated/whatever", because they're really not.

 Dozer Blades wrote:
It's really not that easy. Plus the example given using SW is not a good analogy... I'm sure on average most people are familiar with at least their basic rules but the same can't be said about Renegades for example.

The Adeptus Mechanicus are very new. Does that mean nobody should be allowed to play with them until the community has magically attained familiarity?

Another bad analogy which really hurts your position here. Honestly FW is widely accepted now.

Why is it a bad analogy? I doubt most people are familiar with the rules of the new Mechanicus models, or those of any new GW release. I'm certainly not familiar with even the Skitarii.

You mention Renegades, but what about them is so problematic? I don't know much about them, but I think I could guess enough at a glance. The Mechanicus and Skitarii are full of all kinds of USRs, and they have a lot of unusual and unique weaponry that (unlike Renegades, who I assume have standard things like lascannons, autocannons, lasguns, etc) can't be really figured out without just learning the rules.

EDIT:

Honestly FW is widely accepted now.

Maybe in your area, but this thread and many others indicate the exact opposite.

Here's a more important question: why does it matter if people are familiar with rules? Part of being a successful competitive player in any game is doing the research and learning about the opponents you might face. If you aren't familiar with a FW army list then you have only yourself to blame, you shouldn't get to deny your opponents the ability to use that list just to save yourself the effort of learning about it.

How can people familiarize themselves with lists that don't fully function in 7th edition, and lack FAQs allowing them to? That's where there is a disconnect with the idea that doing research is all that required here.

Frozen Ocean, we're specifically discussing FW army lists, not just stand alone FW units, this last page.

 RiTides wrote:
How can people familiarize themselves with lists that don't fully function in 7th edition, and lack FAQs allowing them to? That's where there is a disconnect with the idea that doing research is all that required here.

The IA13 renegades list being discussed is a 7th edition list.

Peregrine wrote:Here's a more important question: why does it matter if people are familiar with rules? Part of being a successful competitive player in any game is doing the research and learning about the opponents you might face. If you aren't familiar with a FW army list then you have only yourself to blame, you shouldn't get to deny your opponents the ability to use that list just to save yourself the effort of learning about it.

I don't think it's important at all. I'm agreeing with you, I just mean that the whole idea of "it's outside of what people know and therefore it must be banned" is silly, because apparently nobody has ever played a game in which they did not have comprehensive knowledge of all the rules of their opponent's army. I don't know what all the results of the Chaos Boon Table are, but the logic that people continue to use as a reason to ban FW means that I must be, and so must my opponent. It's absurd!

RiTides wrote:Frozen Ocean, we're specifically discussing FW army lists, not just stand alone FW units, this last page.

I know, and I'm asking why those don't follow the same standard that GW Codex releases do (or Dataslates or anything else, for that matter). It applies to lists and units both, anyway.

lol most GW codexes don't function 100% properly or have relevant FAQ's, either.

 gigasnail wrote:
lol most GW codexes don't function 100% properly or have relevant FAQ's, either.

Which is why most events have their own FAQs.

It's an investment vs return issue, though... It's worth organisers taking the time to ensure that all of the standard codex armies are functional, because that's what the majority of their attendees will want to use. It's only worth taking the time to do the same with Forgeworld if that's actually going to have some sort of positive effect on attendance and/or enjoyment of the event.

If the majority of attendees aren't miserable at the lack of anyone playing FOrgeworld armies, and not allowing Forgeworld armies doesn't have a negative impact on attendance (as is clearly the case with Adepticon, where the main events generally sell out within hours of tickets going on sale) then there is no compelling reason to take the time to work on them when there are so many other demands on organisers' time.

 insaniak wrote:

 gigasnail wrote:
lol most GW codexes don't function 100% properly or have relevant FAQ's, either.

Which is why most events have their own FAQs.

It's an investment vs return issue, though... It's worth organisers taking the time to ensure that all of the standard codex armies are functional, because that's what the majority of their attendees will want to use. It's only worth taking the time to do the same with Forgeworld if that's actually going to have some sort of positive effect on attendance and/or enjoyment of the event.

If the majority of attendees aren't miserable at the lack of anyone playing Forgeworld armies, and not allowing Forgeworld armies doesn't have a negative impact on attendance (as is clearly the case with Adepticon, where the main events generally sell out within hours of tickets going on sale) then there is no compelling reason to take the time to work on them when there are so many other demands on organisers' time.

Which is a fine reason, but that's not what we're talking about. We're discussing the bizarre reasons for why FW should be banned; reasons that almost always apply to GW products equally or more. "People are less familiar with FW rules", for instance, or the long-lasting "FW is overpowered". These may be barriers to some tournament organisers who might, otherwise, think it worth the effort. If that's the reason, that should be the reason. Not all this nonsense that is often said.

 Frozen Ocean wrote:
Which is a fine reason, but that's not what we're talking about. We're discussing the bizarre reasons for why FW should be banned; reasons that almost always apply to GW products equally or more. "People are less familiar with FW rules", for instance, or the long-lasting "FW is overpowered". These may be barriers to some tournament organisers who might, otherwise, think it worth the effort. If that's the reason, that should be the reason. Not all this nonsense that is often said.

While the stereotypes definitely aren't helpful (where every FW unit is considered taboo because of one bad apple), I definitely don't think it's the case that the same reasoning we're discussing regarding FW army lists applies "to GW products equally or more". There's always a bit of a shell game in these discussions, which is why I underlined exactly what I'm referring to (FW army lists specifically, as most of us are pro FW unit inclusion in this thread). The main reason the AdeptiCon organizers stated they don't allow FW army lists is because many of them are not up to date and it would be a lot of work errata'ing them to make them so.

In that case, I think it's pretty clear that the same reasoning does not "apply to GW products equally or more". You would need a team dedicated to altering these lists to make most of them have rules that would be usable in tournaments. Most tournaments already have such a team in place just to deal with the basic codex army lists, and those people are pushed to the limit keeping up with the new formations / dataslates / etc, so you need to either expand that team or create a new one to handle these. It's just not an easy task - which doesn't mean it's not worth undertaking, just that the level of effort required should be recognized for what it is.

 RiTides wrote:

 Frozen Ocean wrote:
Which is a fine reason, but that's not what we're talking about. We're discussing the bizarre reasons for why FW should be banned; reasons that almost always apply to GW products equally or more. "People are less familiar with FW rules", for instance, or the long-lasting "FW is overpowered". These may be barriers to some tournament organisers who might, otherwise, think it worth the effort. If that's the reason, that should be the reason. Not all this nonsense that is often said.

While the stereotypes definitely aren't helpful (where every FW unit is considered taboo because of one bad apple), I definitely don't think it's the case that the same reasoning we're discussing regarding FW army lists applies "to GW products equally or more". There's always a bit of a shell game in these discussions, which is why I underlined exactly what I'm referring to (FW army lists specifically, as most of us are pro FW unit inclusion in this thread). The main reason the AdeptiCon organizers stated they don't allow FW army lists is because many of them are not up to date and it would be a lot of work errata'ing them to make them so.

In that case, I think it's pretty clear that the same reasoning does not "apply to GW products equally or more". You would need a team dedicated to altering these lists to make most of them have rules that would be usable in tournaments. Most tournaments already have such a team in place just to deal with the basic codex army lists, and those people are pushed to the limit keeping up with the new formations / dataslates / etc, so you need to either expand that team or create a new one to handle these. It's just not an easy task - which doesn't mean it's not worth undertaking, just that the level of effort required should be recognized for what it is.

Most wouldn't require much in the way of work to properly update them (which is why it's so exasperating that FW doesn't do it themselves), most of them you could just do just with "in the case of a unit having a newer Codex entry than what the FW book reflects, use the newer Codex entry instead" and that would solve 90% of the issues.