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.

 Overread wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

HoundsofDemos wrote:
I've never really understood the old school attitude of banning FW or the more recent one of purge the indexes. With a handful of exceptions neither range really has anything that is breaking the game open. I don't get the push to invalid peoples models if they enjoy using those models in a game.

Part of the appeal to me in 40k is that there are so many options and combos.

Index at least has the point that the books are no longer on sale so players are on uneven grounds. Those who bought the books and have more powerful options available and those who didn't and so are stuck without them.

It's also a model aspect, modern GW is aiming for all models to have rules and all rules to have specific models. Which makes it very open and accessible and simple for new gamers. Those with conversions or older collections have access to a wider range of options.

Essentially its a similar argument to FW exclusion and inclusion - basically aiming to ensure that the playerbase for the event has as equal a pool of models to choose from as each other. It gets a little more complicated with FW though as they make several armies of their own.

But FW models ARE available for all. You can go in and buy them and their rules.

Index however? You want them, you can't buy them. Not just models but the rules themselves. Can't buy them. Nope. No can do.

FW rules are now written by the GW rules team. No one has a leg to stand on if they want to ban it.

The models are readily available. They are pretty expensive but as it stands none as mandatory for competitive gaming and the most powerful lists operate without them.

In some cases they expand and flesh out armies, such as in the case of Custodes who have become more varied and interesting thanks to FW options, as opposed to just being built around spamming bikes.

 Ishagu wrote:
FW rules are now written by the GW rules team. No one has a leg to stand on if they want to ban it.

Why not?

TOs can ban whatever they like. Wanna play without named characters? Do it. Wanna play without Tau? Do it. Wanna play without psykers? Do it.

Hell, the ITC bans GW missions, even though they are also written by the GW rules team. That's a far more widereaching and drastic change of the basic game's balancing and character than banning any (or all) of the examples above.



Most tournaments allow FW, but there's no obligation to do so and some just don't (notalby the ETC).

TOs who ban reasonable things represent an anti hobby sentiment and make their events irrelevant. I wouldn't participate in the events of the most small minded members of the community who punish the most dedicated hobbyists.

As it stands FW is 100% a GW product with official GW rules that are cheap and readily available. Maybe we should ban Astra Militarum, Dark Eldar and Orks whilst we're at it.

 Ishagu wrote:
FW rules are now written by the GW rules team. No one has a leg to stand on if they want to ban it.

Source?

I know specialist games is a part of Forgeworld these days, and they were recently recruiting their own editors, which suggests to me they probably have their own writers, even if there may be some cross over?

Note: I don't actually have a problem with either Forgeworld models or rules, but I'm interested in the veracity of your claim.

Banville wrote:
Hi there. I was just wondering about this, as most tourney lists posted don't tend to have any FW models. For instance, Leviathan dreads are pretty decent. As are Vultures and Strike Fighters. Yet, they don't seem to appear in tourney lists. Is that because most TOs frown on FW or is it simply that Codex stuff is more points efficient?

The overwhelmingly vast majority of tournaments allow FW, and have for several editions. At this point the main studio is primarily responsible for the rules and pricing (and FW rules questions get redirected to the main studio)

A relative handful of events do not, these tend to be smaller events, usually because either a store can't sell it and they want to ban it as a result, or because of woefully misbegotten perceptions usually rooted in ignorance (someone played something wrong or made up their own rules or they heard a horror story 3rd hand from some previous edition), or just have an allergy to anything without the word "codex" in the title for its own sake.

There's certainly no game balance reason to ban it. Nothing FW has ever dominated a meta in any edition in the way codex stuff has, and the few times big balance issues pop up they get fixed in far faster order than Codex units do typically.

nareik wrote:

 Ishagu wrote:
FW rules are now written by the GW rules team. No one has a leg to stand on if they want to ban it.

Source?

I know specialist games is a part of Forgeworld these days, and they were recently recruiting their own editors, which suggests to me they probably have their own writers, even if there may be some cross over?

Note: I don't actually have a problem with either Forgeworld models or rules, but I'm interested in the veracity of your claim.

This is common knowledge and has been for a while. As readily available proof you can download the FW Custodes unit rules - they credit the GW design team.

 Ishagu wrote:

nareik wrote:

 Ishagu wrote:
FW rules are now written by the GW rules team. No one has a leg to stand on if they want to ban it.

Source?

I know specialist games is a part of Forgeworld these days, and they were recently recruiting their own editors, which suggests to me they probably have their own writers, even if there may be some cross over?

Note: I don't actually have a problem with either Forgeworld models or rules, but I'm interested in the veracity of your claim.

This is common knowledge and has been for a while. As readily available proof you can download the FW Custodes unit rules - they credit the GW design team.

Thats interesting. I'll have to take your word for it; During my quick scan of the document I was unable to find the credit in the Forgeworld_Custodes_Datasheets.pdf, though in fairness it does suggest to send the 'Beta Adeptus Custodes feedback' to 40kfaq@gwplc.com.

Sunny Side Up wrote:

 Ishagu wrote:
FW rules are now written by the GW rules team. No one has a leg to stand on if they want to ban it.

Why not?

TOs can ban whatever they like. Wanna play without named characters? Do it. Wanna play without Tau? Do it. Wanna play without psykers? Do it.

Hell, the ITC bans GW missions, even though they are also written by the GW rules team. That's a far more widereaching and drastic change of the basic game's balancing and character than banning any (or all) of the examples above.



Most tournaments allow FW, but there's no obligation to do so and some just don't (notalby the ETC).

i find those places who would ban FW and other models are often places I do not want to really play at/in/ give $ to. But if a tournament flat banned a specific whoel faction that would be increadibly toxic to the community and I would hope ETC/ITC would not recognize that venue for wins. If it is a garage league between friend whatever works, though i would be questioning who they were trying to discourage from showing up.

as for earlier in the thread on balance. I don't really think FW as anything right now that is just too good. Only thing I can think of that is on the verge of broken (though GW has several things above it) is that relic C beamer dreadnaught.

 G00fySmiley wrote:

Sunny Side Up wrote:

 Ishagu wrote:
FW rules are now written by the GW rules team. No one has a leg to stand on if they want to ban it.

Why not?

TOs can ban whatever they like. Wanna play without named characters? Do it. Wanna play without Tau? Do it. Wanna play without psykers? Do it.

Hell, the ITC bans GW missions, even though they are also written by the GW rules team. That's a far more widereaching and drastic change of the basic game's balancing and character than banning any (or all) of the examples above.



Most tournaments allow FW, but there's no obligation to do so and some just don't (notalby the ETC).

i find those places who would ban FW and other models are often places I do not want to really play at/in/ give $ to. But if a tournament flat banned a specific whoel faction that would be increadibly toxic to the community and I would hope ETC/ITC would not recognize that venue for wins. If it is a garage league between friend whatever works, though i would be questioning who they were trying to discourage from showing up.

as for earlier in the thread on balance. I don't really think FW as anything right now that is just too good. Only thing I can think of that is on the verge of broken (though GW has several things above it) is that relic C beamer dreadnaught.

the C beamer of all things should be broken?
How exactly?
It's a gun that can't be fired it the model moved, costs 30 pts, is heavy 1 and only triggers further 2d6 hits if the enemy unit fails that one wound.
it's extremely swingy and overall there are better more reliable pieces of equipment for less pts in both Chaos and loyalist lists, not to mention that it only get's more strentgh the further away you are, generally only getting 1 level higher in the first turn, (not even then on the average board).

 G00fySmiley wrote:


i find those places who would ban FW and other models are often places I do not want to really play at/in/ give $ to. But if a tournament flat banned a specific whoel faction that would be increadibly toxic to the community and I would hope ETC/ITC would not recognize that venue for wins. If it is a garage league between friend whatever works, though i would be questioning who they were trying to discourage from showing up.

as for earlier in the thread on balance. I don't really think FW as anything right now that is just too good. Only thing I can think of that is on the verge of broken (though GW has several things above it) is that relic C beamer dreadnaught.

I find those places who would ban Chapter Approved missions and other GW win conditiosn are often places I do not want to really play at/in/give $ to. Hell, if tournaments or tournament circuits flat came up with their own weird missions that wouldn't even use things like Maelstrom cards (or the corresponding stratagems and tactics built into the armies that play of these rules) that would be incredibly toxic for the community and I would hope GW would not recognize those venues or events as "warhammer 40K" for anything.

Banning certain models or factions or unit types would be odd, but certainly a far less monumental meddling with the core of the game and how it plays.

I refuse to play with maelstrom cards. And so do many others.

Martel732 wrote:
I refuse to play with maelstrom cards. And so do many others.

And others refuse to play with FW.

Everybody got their pet peeve. One's not better/worse or more/less arbitrary than the other.


Denying, say, Custodes to use and benefit from things like Eyes of the Emperor isn't any less of a balance feth-up in violation of the strategy of that army than is denying them the odd FW Dread or Tank.


If you're happy to throw out "X" because you don't like it, you cannot begrudge other people perhaps throwing out "Y" if that's the thing they don't like in/about the game.

Maelstrom cards are super fun. You can lose a game on a bad draw but it doesn't matter. The fun outweighs the inconsistencies.

People who play more are more open to using them I think. More pressure to make a game into a win if it's only once a month or less.

 Ishagu wrote:
Maelstrom cards are super fun. You can lose a game on a bad draw but it doesn't matter. The fun outweighs the inconsistencies.

People who play more are more open to using them I think. More pressure to make a game into a win if it's only once a month or less.

Maybe, but I oppose anything that takes away player agency. I don't even like to roll dice, really.

 Ishagu wrote:
Maelstrom cards are super fun. You can lose a game on a bad draw but it doesn't matter. The fun outweighs the inconsistencies.

People who play more are more open to using them I think. More pressure to make a game into a win if it's only once a month or less.

Doesn't matter.


You think Maelstrom cards are fun, others, as shown above, think they are garbage. Fine. Everyone's got their opinion.


Some people think FW stuff is fun, others think it's garbage. Fine. Everyone's got their opinion.


People will have different preferences. That's human nature.


But we either are fine with people modifying the game to suit their taste, including throwing out stuff or refusing to play certain things that are in the rules, or we're not.


Throwing out the stuff you don't like (e.g. Maelstrom) but critizising other people for throwing out stuff they perhaps don't like (e.g. FW) is the definition of hypocrisy.

I'm neutral on FW. I'd like to throw out indices, though.

It doesn't take it away at all. It's like extra dynamic objectives to try and achieve. It's worth trying in a few games, trust me.

It's not for tournaments, I agree, but it makes regular games extra spicy.

I used it a lot in 7th. Terrible. It was also about the only hope I had of winning, and still hated it.

Maelstrom is fun for a friendly game, but I'd agree it's bad form for tournaments.

 JNAProductions wrote:
Maelstrom is fun for a friendly game, but I'd agree it's bad form for tournaments.

Because it takes away all player agency. It's now Yugi-OH with models.

This edition has made it very clear. FW is not special. It is completely legal in all formats.

Martel732 wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
Maelstrom is fun for a friendly game, but I'd agree it's bad form for tournaments.

Because it takes away all player agency. It's now Yugi-OH with models.

Play 10 games then judge.

 JNAProductions wrote:
Maelstrom is fun for a friendly game, but I'd agree it's bad form for tournaments.

The ETC seems to have no issue using Maelstrom for hard-core competitive play.

However, I'd agree with the ETC in saying that Forge World may be fun for friendly games by collectors, but just doesn't have a place in tournaments.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Xenomancers wrote:
This edition has made it very clear. FW is not special. It is completely legal in all formats.

As are Maelstrom cards.

Sunny Side Up wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
Maelstrom is fun for a friendly game, but I'd agree it's bad form for tournaments.

The ETC seems to have no issue using Maelstrom for hard-core competitive play.

However, I'd agree with the ETC in saying that Forge World may be fun for friendly games by collectors, but just doesn't have a place in tournaments.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Xenomancers wrote:
This edition has made it very clear. FW is not special. It is completely legal in all formats.

As are Maelstrom cards.

Which they can't actually provide a good reason for in game terms.
It's up to them what they allow but it's not exactly inclusive and I know it puts a number of people off attending events.

Malestrom cards are ok but it needs some reworking otherwise you gwt stuck with kill the psychic vrs Tau etc or kill a LoW vrs hoards.

I've seen tournaments ban them because they couldn't be defined as GW material. So, that's a thing. GW gets hinky sometimes with allowed models. One guy got in with a kit bash Shadowsword that was a walker from admech with a plasma generator mounted to it. It was obvious GW stuff. One guy got his Levi dis-allowed and some of his SMs because it looked like he molded the parts, not bought them.

Honestly, as someone said, best policy is to check with the TO. They have to give you a ruling on it, so you can have time to swap it out or use something else.

I don't get the Yu-Gi-Oh comparison. At all.

Yes, Yu-Gi-Oh is more random than 40k, but there's plenty of stuff you can do to alleviate the randomness, to the point where I'd consider it a better game than 40k. It's obviously also a very DIFFERENT game, but hey.

Why doesn't FW have a place in tournaments?

Official GW product. Official GW rules. Official GW books. Nothing currently broken, overpowered or unplayable.

Give my justifications.

 JNAProductions wrote:
I don't get the Yu-Gi-Oh comparison. At all.

Yes, Yu-Gi-Oh is more random than 40k, but there's plenty of stuff you can do to alleviate the randomness, to the point where I'd consider it a better game than 40k. It's obviously also a very DIFFERENT game, but hey.

I picked something with cards.

Sunny Side Up wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
Maelstrom is fun for a friendly game, but I'd agree it's bad form for tournaments.

The ETC seems to have no issue using Maelstrom for hard-core competitive play.

However, I'd agree with the ETC in saying that Forge World may be fun for friendly games by collectors, but just doesn't have a place in tournaments.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Xenomancers wrote:
This edition has made it very clear. FW is not special. It is completely legal in all formats.

As are Maelstrom cards.

Ehhh....That is a game mode that you can simply just chose not to play though. It's a casual game..."I don't want to play maelstrom" is perfectly acceptable. Tournaments don't play maelstrom because it unfair. The cards you draw determine the total points you can score. It is not interesting for competition. Basically maelstrom has no place in the game of 40k unless you have 2 willing participants that want to play a suboptimal mode. It is essentially as much a part of the game as Narrative play is.