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.

 RiTides wrote:


Re: Counts as, generally making something to counts as a FW model has less acceptance, for whatever reason (probably just keeping track of everything) than doing the reverse. The Mechanicon document linked to above prohibits it outright.

If it's WYSIWYG and made from majority GW kits I don't understand the restriction. That just makes FW seem more elitist to me. I'm just devils advocate here, I doubt I would ever cough up the cash for FW stuff other than the books. If the interest was truly to have fun and variety of armies then why not counts as? Does it offend the people that paid a premium for their models?

 BladeWalker wrote:
So what about using your own converted models as counts-as FW units? Sure you can use FW models to count as some codex entries in events that don't allow FW but can I convert up my own models and use them in events that do? Just curious if it goes both ways in peoples minds...

IMO, you should be able to.

The problem with counts-as FW units is that far too often it's used as an excuse to "scratchbuild" an ugly proxy so you can save money, not to create an awesome conversion that best matches how you want the unit to look. So I think that's the reason why some people ban counts-as FW units, it's easier to just issue a blanket ban than to decide case-by-case whether it's a legitimate counts-as model or just a money-saving proxy.

(And yes, in theory the same issue exists with codex stuff, but the high price of FW models tends to create more proxying.)

MVBrandt wrote:
Nevertheless, events that forbid the use of some or many codices actually happen quite routinely. What was your point?

My point is that allowing or not allowing FW is no different than allowing or not allowing the Tyranid codex. You have every right to do it since it's your event, but you shouldn't.

And I would agree in theory with your point about variety, except that "variety" right now really means "if you don't live in an area where FW is popular you never get to use your FW stuff". I'm glad that some people get to, but if those events are too far away for me to afford the travel costs the "variety" doesn't exactly help me. How it should really work, IMO:

Most events should follow the standard 40k rules for army construction (everything published by GW and intended for standard 40k, whether it's printed in a codex, FW book, WD, etc) and use mission types fairly similar to the standard book ones (IOW, no "punish flyerspam" type mission). If you have a legal 40k army you should be able to show up and play without having to modify your list to account for house rules, though obviously you shouldn't expect to win if you haven't prepared a competitive army list.

A minority of events should do weird things like codex-only, or fluff-specific events like a Heresy-era tournament. For example, your side event idea is exactly how it should be done, it's available if it's something you're interested in but there is still a "normal" event to play in if you're not. Of course not everyone can run multiple simultaneous events, but as long as weird events are treated as a special thing then nobody should feel like they've been excluded from tournament gaming in general.

The problem is that right now the proportion of events is completely reversed, most events have house rules that limit the accessibility of tournament gaming, while standard events are few and far between for many people.

Quoting this onto this page since you didn't address it Peregrine.

As to your above comment- a TO not allowing the tyranid codec isn't the same as not allowing FW, for all the reasons MVBrandt very clearly tried to explain to you. You are pounding this point, but most folks disagree with you. Certainly, the language you are using about the clause being there for whiners is Not helping you appear any more reasonable.

 RiTides wrote:

muwhe wrote:

I'm simply reinforcing only the position that each TO has the right to do as they please here, and people trying to pressure them NOT to use FW, or TO use FW, are the ones being unreasonable in the 10+ page debate.

Agreed!!

Peregrine, you realize that in taking issue with the above, written by MVBrandt and agreed to by muwhe, you're disagreeing with 2 TOs of some of the biggest US GTs, Nova and Adepticon, right?

You have every right to do that, but these guys know what the heck they're talking about!

 RiTides wrote:
As to your above comment- a TO not allowing the tyranid codec isn't the same as not allowing FW, for all the reasons MVBrandt very clearly tried to explain to you. You are pounding this point, but most folks disagree with you. Certainly, the language you are using about the clause being there for whiners is Not helping you appear any more reasonable.

And the people who actually write the rules for 40k disagree with you. Both the Tyranid codex and FW units are 100% legal and intended for use in standard 40k, and excluding either of them is nothing more than a house rule. Whether or not it's a popular house rule doesn't change this fact.

 RiTides wrote:
Peregrine, you realize that in taking issue with the above, written by MVBrandt and agreed to by muwhe, you're disagreeing with 2 TOs of some of the biggest US GTs, Nova and Adepticon, right?

You have every right to do that, but these guys know what the heck they're talking about!

Yes, I know who they are, and it doesn't change my disagreement one bit.

Our status as TO's doesn't make us genius arguers, or game designers. That said, intentionally ignoring the points I was trying to make actively makes you not a genius arguer. I'm happy to engage further if you want to address the differences that were delineated.

My primary point remains as this: TO's aren't right OR wrong in how they design their events, especially with regard to how they address the FW 40k stamp requiring you make sure your opponents are happy/familiar with using FW rules.

In light of that unique language being blatantly used in ONLY the rules for FW units, and not for any other units, it puts the onus on TO's to have to choose one way or another ... but does not make them right or wrong for doing so.

In regard to your Tyranid codex inclusive reply, again ... you're simply ignoring the points made and restating your own, which has the effect of rendering your arguments irrelevant.

MVBrandt wrote:
My primary point remains as this: TO's aren't right OR wrong in how they design their events, especially with regard to how they address the FW 40k stamp requiring you make sure your opponents are happy/familiar with using FW rules.

And I've already agreed with this: TOs aren't "right" or "wrong" in how they design individual events. What I object to is the overall trend where the default is different from the actual rules of the game and excludes legal armies and the players who own them. I would be content if most events allowed all legal armies according to the standard rules of 40k and a few special events had different rules. That's what genuine variety looks like, not the current situation where the only way to use your legal army is to spend a lot of money on traveling to distant events.

In light of that unique language being blatantly used in ONLY the rules for FW units, and not for any other units, it puts the onus on TO's to have to choose one way or another ... but does not make them right or wrong for doing so.

And my point is the most likely reason for this "unique language" isn't that GW is setting two separate policies, it's the historical fact that many people dislike FW rules and don't want to allow them, while the same kind of dislike for codex units isn't nearly as common. Even though they're wrong and unjustified in that dislike they still exist, so FW adds the disclaimer to say "be polite and make sure you aren't setting up a game with someone who hates FW before you show up with FW units".

In fact, you'll note that the statement says that you SHOULD make sure they're happy, not that you MUST make sure that they're happy. It's an optional thing that you should probably do if you want to avoid arguments, not a mandatory requirement for using the rules.

I just want a 'battle brother' for my allied force and Ork Dredbash the FW codex is the only 'battle bro' orks get. I just hate the current 6th edition allied matrix (and Eldrad) soooooo much!

 RiTides wrote:

muwhe wrote:

I'm simply reinforcing only the position that each TO has the right to do as they please here, and people trying to pressure them NOT to use FW, or TO use FW, are the ones being unreasonable in the 10+ page debate.

Agreed!!

Peregrine, you realize that in taking issue with the above, written by MVBrandt and agreed to by muwhe, you're disagreeing with 2 TOs of some of the biggest US GTs, Nova and Adepticon, right?

You have every right to do that, but these guys know what the heck they're talking about!

And a Horus Heresy evening event at Nova sounds just plain awesome

Re: Counts as, generally making something to counts as a FW model has less acceptance, for whatever reason (probably just keeping track of everything) than doing the reverse. The Mechanicon document linked to above prohibits it outright.

Our "Counts As" rule could be misinterpreted. We would not deny a player from scratch building their own stuff following our modeling guidelines - instead it is used to keep shenanigans to a minimum. For example, a couple years ago a player checked in to see if he could use regular drop pods to represent the Lucius Pattern ones because he thought he would have a killer army. Our event is more focused on the models - it is a miniatures game after all. That would go against our definition of "Counts As". On the other hand, this year we have a player who has scratch built many of his own vehicles for IG to have a Soviet theme - and this is completely legal for us as it would instead be a "Conversion". If any of you have ever seen Tinners work you would never deny playing against his fantastic scratch built vehicles.

As for arguing a single sentence in a book about permission to use FW as the basis for exclusion from tournaments - IT DOES NOT SAY PERMISSION - IT SAYS HAPPY.

While we are talking about silly sentences, how about these two?

"With the points limit agreed, players need to pick their forces. The best way to do this is make use of the army list in the relevant codex, although, of course, players are free to either adapt the army list or use their own system if they wish"

Use their own system... Yes, there in the rulebook is says you can make your own rules. Would it be tournament legal? Usually not, but there will be exceptions. Take the fan made Chaos Dwarf list for WHFB - it was widely accepted by many TO's for their events.

I would say the CD list example is bad, considering that FW has its own CD book now(that just about all fantesy tournaments I've seen seem to allow)

MechBoyz wrote:
For example, a couple years ago a player checked in to see if he could use regular drop pods to represent the Lucius Pattern ones because he thought he would have a killer army.

I should point out that this would actually be illegal, since the Lucius-pattern pods are larger than the standard ones and this can have a major effect on gameplay.

(Which just proves my point about lazy proxies and why they should be excluded.)

 Peregrine wrote:

MechBoyz wrote:
For example, a couple years ago a player checked in to see if he could use regular drop pods to represent the Lucius Pattern ones because he thought he would have a killer army.

I should point out that this would actually be illegal, since the Lucius-pattern pods are larger than the standard ones and this can have a major effect on gameplay.

(Which just proves my point about lazy proxies and why they should be excluded.)

While that would be true for the rules of our event - some events might actually allow that.

I think that many of us have agreed that each event may be different, we shared opinions on points, debated whether our opponents points are valid and either looked at another point of view or ignored our opponents valid points. All in all, I think this was a good thread and enjoyed joining it. Thanks everyone!

For me it just highlights that there is no one way to play this game. People enjoy this hobby and events for different reasons. Which is a good thing.

muwhe wrote:
For me it just highlights that there is no one way to play this game. People enjoy this hobby and events for different reasons. Which is a good thing.

the question comes up is what will adepticon do with forge world this year?
limited in the team?
allowed in the championship?

Skkipper,

Strictly speaking Forgeworld wise,

I suspect that the 40K TT rules will be very similar to last year if not the same. Personally, I am pretty happy with last years compromise as it allows people to bring and play with FW models without the extreme issues associated when a team spams multiple instances. The 40K TT by design already has a limited force organization chart so it fits in well as currently designed.

The question is whether those allowances carry over to the Championship format for 2013 and what other 40K event formats exist on the schedule.

Decisions are ultimately up to our 40K Team Tourney and 40K Championship staff and we still got a bit of time.

I know everyone says FW units are overpriced, but back in 5th edition Contemptor Dreadnoughts were ferocious yes it was nearly 200 pts, but it was Fleet, and did have some nifty special rules and could sport a "Kheres Pattern Assault Cannon".

The one with a Twin DCCW and a Missile Launcher combined with Fleet was especially nasty.

In 6th the change of Fleet makes it a bit more meh...

Eh, they were good, better than some codex alternatives, but certainly not overpowered, certainly a 200pt dread with an extra attack and a missile launcher was nothing like a 140pt 5 ML long fang squad or a 130pt triple TL-lascannon vendetta or the like.

Well, it wasn't just an extra attack. It has AV13 and an Invulnerable save too. But 200 points is more then fair for that.

Compare to a Furioso Dreadnought. The Furioso has AV13 on the sides as well as the rear and has the option for 2 DCCWs or 2 Blood Talons. its far cheaper then the 200 point Contemptor.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Well, it wasn't just an extra attack. It has AV13 and an Invulnerable save too. But 200 points is more then fair for that.

Compare to a Furioso Dreadnought. The Furioso has AV13 on the sides as well as the rear and has the option for 2 DCCWs or 2 Blood Talons. its far cheaper then the 200 point Contemptor.

Even then, close combat dreads were generally a waste of points, I can't think of any that were commonly used in armies that commonly saw top tables. Close combat contemptors, while cool, were terrible for their cost in fifth. You could as easily get 5 th/ss termies with 10 str 8 attacks and five 2+/3++ wounds. Given that sixth is even worse for assault, and you can't punch a flyer out of the sky the discussion seems academic. I've yet to see anything FW has released compare to the Vendetta, Palladin, Rune Priest, Vet squad, psyfledread, or any of the other spammed tourney winning units. If anything forge world is very conservative with it's rules and rulings while the games codex writers might as well be pulling point costs out of a hat.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 BladeWalker wrote:

 RiTides wrote:


Re: Counts as, generally making something to counts as a FW model has less acceptance, for whatever reason (probably just keeping track of everything) than doing the reverse. The Mechanicon document linked to above prohibits it outright.

If it's WYSIWYG and made from majority GW kits I don't understand the restriction. That just makes FW seem more elitist to me. I'm just devils advocate here, I doubt I would ever cough up the cash for FW stuff other than the books. If the interest was truly to have fun and variety of armies then why not counts as? Does it offend the people that paid a premium for their models?

What makes this argument even sillier is the lack of WYSYG enforcement in allies, something that is altogether more confusing and an order of magnitude more common.

Note that that's not my Wysiwyg argument- just what I've observed and also read in event guidelines... not necessarily my take.

My take as an orginizer and player is that its ok to scratch build/convert to make forgeworld stuff but dont try to just use stock stuff. You have to make it WYSWIG and put some effort into rule of cool.

I'm going to support rule of cool here. I really don't care in ANY capacity - FW or otherwise - if you aren't using GW stock models or GW parts ... all our events are independent of GW, and they are by dramatic leaps and bounds are smallest sponsors (in fact, it's not even appropriate to call them sponsors anymore).

That said, it's generally not as OK anymore (especially with allies) to field a bunch of grey hunters w/ ccw and bp and call them tactical marines. It's similarly probably not ok to field a bunch of grey hunters w/ ccw and bp and call them heresy era Emperor's Children.

Makes sense to me

MVBrandt wrote:
I'm going to support rule of cool here. I really don't care in ANY capacity - FW or otherwise - if you aren't using GW stock models or GW parts ... all our events are independent of GW, and they are by dramatic leaps and bounds are smallest sponsors (in fact, it's not even appropriate to call them sponsors anymore).

That said, it's generally not as OK anymore (especially with allies) to field a bunch of grey hunters w/ ccw and bp and call them tactical marines. It's similarly probably not ok to field a bunch of grey hunters w/ ccw and bp and call them heresy era Emperor's Children.

Agreed. The allies system has forced our local RTs to tighten up the counts as policy.

 OverwatchCNC wrote:

MVBrandt wrote:
I'm going to support rule of cool here. I really don't care in ANY capacity - FW or otherwise - if you aren't using GW stock models or GW parts ... all our events are independent of GW, and they are by dramatic leaps and bounds are smallest sponsors (in fact, it's not even appropriate to call them sponsors anymore).

That said, it's generally not as OK anymore (especially with allies) to field a bunch of grey hunters w/ ccw and bp and call them tactical marines. It's similarly probably not ok to field a bunch of grey hunters w/ ccw and bp and call them heresy era Emperor's Children.

Agreed. The allies system has forced our local RTs to tighten up the counts as policy.

They're gonna sell a lot more space wolves if every marine codex can't pretend to be them anymore!

Allowing conversions for FW starts off as must having to look cool but it opens the door for cardboard cutouts eventually in my opinion and there are people who will gladly do so. I'll never forget a local tournament where the TO's brother brought a stuffed bunny rabbit to proxy a Tyranid Hierodule. It was absurd.

 Dozer Blades wrote:
Allowing conversions for FW starts off as must having to look cool but it opens the door for cardboard cutouts eventually in my opinion and there are people who will gladly do so. I'll never forget a local tournament where the TO's brother brought a stuffed bunny rabbit to proxy a Tyranid Hierodule. It was absurd.

The key word is "cool"

Cardboard cutouts and stuffed bunnys are not cool.

Yes I agree but allowing non FW models is the first step down the wrong road in my opinion... Once that becomes excepted then people will demand the standards be lowered... "I have a very busy work schedule and don't have the spare time." blah blah blah.

It only open the door if the players let it. As a player you should not allow the standards to drop. You don't have to play someone who would do this and you don't have to go to an event that would allow the low standards.

vhwolf wrote:
It only open the door if the players let it. As a player you should not allow the standards to drop. You don't have to play someone who would do this and you don't have to go to an event that would allow the low standards.

I fail to see the difference between counts as forge world models and converted or fully custom 40k models from places like microartstudio. It seems to me like there are double standards going on.

 ShumaGorath wrote:
I fail to see the difference between counts as forge world models and converted or fully custom 40k models from places like microartstudio. It seems to me like there are double standards going on.

I think the "double standard" is just the fact that when most people ask about using converted/counts-as FW models what they're really saying is "FW is too expensive, can I bring this cheap proxy instead?", not "can I use the FW rules for my awesome scratchbuilt model that looks better than anything GW makes". I suspect "rule of cool" takes priority and most of the people banning counts-as FW stuff would allow a legitimate scratchbuilt/converted model if you asked for a special exception to the rule.