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'm starting to wonder what the point of this thread is.

Everyone has put forth their arguments, and its circling now.

If you(being participants in this thread, including myself) aren't convinced out of your entrenched opinion, it seems unlikely that riding this merry-go-round longer is going to help.

Those of us that are TOs can make our own calls, and that's really all that matters. I think the only consensus we have reached here is that this is still an issue that is contentious.

Happy gaming everyone.

 Dracos wrote:
I'm starting to wonder what the point of this thread is.

Everyone has put forth their arguments, and its circling now.

If you(being participants in this thread, including myself) aren't convinced out of your entrenched opinion, it seems unlikely that riding this merry-go-round longer is going to help.

Those of us that are TOs can make our own calls, and that's really all that matters. I think the only consensus we have reached here is that this is still an issue that is contentious.

Happy gaming everyone.

Agreed, plus Warhammer forge hasn't even been mentioned so it's a 40k issue.

Ban the units that are the real reason people want to allow Forge World in competitive play (notably, Hyperios launchers and Sabre platforms) and the problem (such as it is) solves itself. Forge World couldn't write consistent and balanced rules if their lives depended on it, so it's up to tournament organizers to occasionally do the sensible thing and keep their events as balanced as possible. Sometimes that means an outright ban on entire books, sometimes targeted to problematic entries, sometimes making units Unique, etc. It's not rocket science.

TzeentchNet wrote:
Ban the units that are the real reason people want to allow Forge World in competitive play (notably, Hyperios launchers and Sabre platforms) and the problem (such as it is) solves itself. Forge World couldn't write consistent and balanced rules if their lives depended on it,

Have you read the rules for most of their units? I'd assume with a post like this you haven't. It's a small handful of artillery units people are complaining about, while the otherwise vast majority of FW units nobody seems to have an issue with.

so it's up to tournament organizers to occasionally do the sensible thing and keep their events as balanced as possible. Sometimes that means an outright ban on entire books, sometimes targeted to problematic entries, sometimes making units Unique, etc. It's not rocket science.

So, when does this logic apply to codex units and why not ban things like Vendettas? (speaking as someone who owns three vendettas and zero hyperios/sabre/thudd guns platforms)

 Vaktathi wrote:

MVBrandt wrote:And for you guys out there constantly saying 40K ISN'T MADE FOR TOURNAMENTS TRYING TO MAKE IT MORE FAIR IS STUPID, hey ... eff you buddies.

MVBrandt wrote:PS - can we all grow up a little? I know I've had to over the years, from a guy who often [unintentionally] sounded like a dick in every post I made, to someone who at least tries not to. Our hobby feels utterly plagued right now by forum flames, legal battles by litigious donkey-caves, back-biting and sniping all over the place. It's annoying already.

Yea I was a bit shocked by this as well...


Certainly events can be run as TO's see fit and that's fine, obviously, but I think there has been a lack of evidence put forth here to accuse FW as being OP. Lots of angry opinions but no one has had a convincing argument that FW unbalances the game any more then the silly allied matrix.

In case any one missed it, allies lets everyone cherry pick OP units already, and in very broken way considering FW lets me take tesseract AB's for necrons while allies lets me take hmmm well anything from the GK codex.

This thread has wondered but at it's heart it seems like we all want a more balanced game here, yet nobody is willing to look at the other BIGGER issues. I would love to see a large event run withOUT allies and see what fruit it bares.

 Dozer Blades wrote:

Glocknall wrote:

 Dozer Blades wrote:
"Heh, and a caveat again, b/c these convos are so long and they get missed ... I personally use FW when I can in a tourney, attend a few tourneys every year, 50% of which on the nose allow FW, and host 4 tourneys for 40k at NOVA every year, 50% of which on the nose allow FW."

Do as I say not as I do then?

His point was for the purely competitive events universal FW inclusion is not suitable. For more casual, fluffy events its just fine.

He did not make a distinction in regards to the type of events he attends.

Mostly competitive events ... my point had nothing to do with competitiveness or casualness. It's perfectly fine for a TO to use whatever he or she pleases for their event. If you want to try to be more clear about what you THINK I think, Dozer, you can, but I've been pretty clear about it. I question a lot of the uproar about including FW, as I believe a good deal of it is people wanting to use very powerful IG units, now that Infantry is more common in the game (making artillery and the like better), flyers are more common (and FW IG has some easier-mode counters), and due to Allies most competitive gamers can find a way to shoehorn these powerful units into their lists, as has been shown on the circuit so far. I really don't have a beef, I just dislike misrepresenting positions as being about inclusiveness and fun variable FW units, when a lot of the new impetus is about hardcore competitors trying to get any advantage they can. The casual FW fans are just as loud as ever, and have every right to be. And, again, any TO has any right to do whatever they please, and people should leave off cutting them down.

Vaktathi - quite on the quote, "eff you buddies" with a little bit of a smirk to folks out there trying to tell others how they should be permitted to play their game, or run their events ... we all need to lay off and let people be free to enjoy their hobbies as they see fit.

In regard to controlling Codices when not wanting to add FW in pursuit of fair tournaments, the rationale is that Codices right now from codex-to-codex largely ARE fair. There's wide empirical evidence, and when that changes - when ONE codex is getting all the powerful units and the rest keep getting released with nothing but trash, I think you will hear people talking about pushing fairness more in "fair-as-goal" events by tweaking with codices. Fortunately, GW is pushing with each release more toward EVERY dex having powerful units (if you choose to take them), and so I simply say it's a question TO's seeking fair events should consider in a different light from TOs of events with OTHER goals as to whether they should get too invasive with this new approach by adding rules that - power-wise- only really benefit one dex (and thus have a direct impact on balance that is otherwise being arrived at, by luck or intent on GW's part).

The long and short is a reiteration of the long post I recently made above ... no right or wrong way here, just suggesting the point of the conversation should shift - not about whether FW is supposed to be legal or not by the intent of GW, or whether it's broken or not ... these are in the end only opinions that aren't going to change for those that espouse them. It would be better to talk about what motivates a TO for different event styles, and what considerations they should make for those styles with regard to FW - everything from fairness to fun. Every TO is going to come to his/her own conclusion based upon popular opinion in their region or among their attendees, and upon their own and their staff's opinions about the game. Trying to weedle out what parameters those opinions should be applied to might actually be useful, giving up and coming TOs a roadmap by which to figure out what to do more efficiently, predictably, and reliably ... thus providing the wider population of attendees a better guesstimate about what different events will set forth for them.

Do we still need greyknights? do we still needs flyers? This argument (imo) is kind of invalid because at what point do we stop? everyone will always moan about something being overpowerful etc.

I guess its just another facet that people can use if they so wish (which is never a bad thing in my view) as who wants to see the same army list? At least FW gives something different.

 Dozer Blades wrote:

Glocknall wrote:

 Dozer Blades wrote:
"Heh, and a caveat again, b/c these convos are so long and they get missed ... I personally use FW when I can in a tourney, attend a few tourneys every year, 50% of which on the nose allow FW, and host 4 tourneys for 40k at NOVA every year, 50% of which on the nose allow FW."

Do as I say not as I do then?

His point was for the purely competitive events universal FW inclusion is not suitable. For more casual, fluffy events its just fine.

He did not make a distinction in regards to the type of events he attends.

Umm... What?

Tournament: a series of games or contests that make up a single unit of competition (as on a professional golf tour), the championship play-offs of a league or conference, or an invitational event

He said tourney, tourneys are competitive in nature...

FW does give something different, though every codex release at this rapid pace is giving something different as well, and every army is shifting about with each new codex to deal with.

I think the point is, everyone has a different view on this in some ways. Almost every view is motivated by opinion and preference, and even those opinions/preferences are at different levels.

We've got hundreds (this is probably an exaggeration, I really don't know) of new units that have released for the codices in the past couple of months, most of which haven't even had time to see much tabletop in the tournament world. Do we still need something different? Some would say yes, some would say no.

I think the point is - with everything being different opinion wise, the conversation would be better angled toward what the objective considerations are, to which we're all going to apply our subjective opinions anyway.

For my own part, I'll continue to happily play in FW and non FW casual and competitive events country-wide, and do the same at NOVA (where we have a competitive event with FW, a casual event with FW, and a scaled casual/ competitive/casual event without, and a straight competitive event without). I'm not a FW hater, I just think as of 6th edition's meta and FW rules updates + 6th edition rules changes, IG FW are VERY, VERY good and undercosted, while no other codex really gets any power boosting from FW, just varietal adds. Even that's fine, if you don't want to restrict the IG component, but I wish people would be more forthcoming about it ... a LOT of players really, really, really want to go beat face at tournaments with their anti-flyer and scoring super tough interceptor sabres, or blast apart massive infantry formations and blobs and such with their cheap and uber durable quad guns, etc. Pre-6th, FW noise isn't as loud, mostly crying for variety and fun. Post-6th, FW noise gets super loud, including from known competitors, and right in line with TONS of players who previously couldn't access IG suddenly being able to without abandoning their other army of choice (aka, Allies). That's FINE, too! Just ... you know ... admit it if you're one of the players who actually has that as a motivation.

I don't mind clarifying for Dozer, btw. I think he's convinced he knows what I think, and can't therefore wrap his head around the fact that I actually think differently than his presumption, maybe? I don't know, I've been pretty opinionated in the past in a negative way, especially years ago, so I may have locked some readers' opinions in a way I can't easily remedy. Suffice to say, examples of events with and without FW I've played, and enjoyed every one of, in the last year include the 40k Friendly (casual, FW), Champs (competitive, no FW), and TT (competitive, FW) at AdeptiCon, as well as the BFS GT (competitive, no FW), plus as above paragraph I host competitive AND non-competitive FW AND non-FW events at NOVA (Trios, competitive, FW; Narrative, casual, FW; invitational, competitive, no FW; GT, scaled competitiveness to casual brackets, no FW).

 Vaktathi wrote:

They can mitigate the painful impact HP's have on many others by being AV13 while Gauss weapons enable them to make more use of it against their foes than other races can, their assault units didn't rely on outflanking or transports to get stuck in and on average became even more effective with longer average and max charge distances (and swarms completely ignore terrain), they have great flyers and their flyer transport ignores all the bad stuff about being a flyer transport, Snapshots are clutch for Necrons with Tesla weaponry allowing them to fire with an average number of hits not much below what they'd normally get (snap-firing Telsa weapons effectively average a hit rate that a BS3 non-tesla weapon would while a Twin Linked tesla weapon snap firing is equivalent to an otherwise BS8 weapon. They also make excellent use of the character rules and challenges and can do more with Nightfight than just about any other army. Their mechanics are astoundingly flush with the 6E core ruleset.

I totally agree with this. They obviously adjusted well to 6th, especially in the flyer department where their troops are untouchable until they come onto the board. However there are counters to the most common builds fully within the 6thed codices. Gunline Tau simply blow wraithwing off the table and down their flyers when they come on. Daemons have the assault to hang with wraiths and the speed to race to objectives. Eldar will perform well I think but we'll have to see there.

And on some level I get that, but at the same time if these units showed up in a codex, nobody would bat an eye which is what puzzles me. It's the double-standard.

I don't actually even own any of the units under discussion (my FW collection consists of a bunch of DKoK infantry and some Death Riders, some Heavy Mortars, some Rapiers, 2 Hades drills, an Eldar Vampire Hunter, Eldar Scorpion, Eldar Nightwing, Chaos Decimator, some IG Chimera Autocannon turrets, a bunch of Iron Warriors dreadnoughts, and some IW Land Raider hatches), but I'm puzzled when people wouldn't simply the book title is what makes the difference between a unit being untouchable or not.

The whether FW is legal standard really doesn't hold much ground for me. GW doesn't run tournaments anymore so its up to TOs to determine its legality. However it is definitely in a different class from Codex units which specifically state it is everything you need to play (insert army) in a game of 40k. FW does have similar wording but also qualifies it saying to get your opponents approval. For me really its the availability of Forgeworld that is its own biggest barrier. Its just not easy for people to get.

The enemy need not sit on them the entire game, just at the end of the game and/or if you get points throughout the game then even if they get smashed they may have so many objective points accumulated the IG may not be able to make it up. If you can remove the Ld buff component and force Ld tests on/attack the Ld of the artillery, they flee, and, aside from Sabres, the resilient artillery aren't scoring units.

That has been discussed. Trying to dig out a LC out of a blob of IG is really difficult for many armies. That's why the blob is run so much. It's not impossible, but take a lot of work. Artillery is so powerful in 6th (Ordnance) because it give long range, turn one firepower. Being able to TL it makes multiple barrage even more so. There are ways to counter it, but ironically counter artillery is probably the best....see where this is headed?







[

Sorry had to do it, but this is what this thread has turned in too.

 pities2004 wrote:



Sorry had to do it, but this is what this thread has turned in too.

It usually does.

 Dozer Blades wrote:

Breng77 wrote:
It is still closer than the Difference in FW where IG adds maybe 50 more to IG and 10 to Dark Eldar.

IG are intergalactic whores... Just about every army can ally with them. Admit it, you don't like FW.

Yup totally hate it it why I said I'd be ok with a few unit bans, and why I you know polled my player base To see what they wanted to do, and you am running 1/2 of my tournaments next month including FW. But yes totally hate it.

 OverwatchCNC wrote:

 pities2004 wrote:



Sorry had to do it, but this is what this thread has turned in too.

It usually does.

Yeah. We've more or less been hearing the same arguments for the past four or five pages now.

Vaktathi wrote:Have you read the rules for most of their units?

-- Uhm, yes. Are you being actually serious here? I've even sent in playtest reports to Forge World. Where I assume they get immediately round filed since they can't even bother to update their books more than once a year or keep the rules for units straight from book to book. I mean jeeze, I've seen some pretty bizarre Forge World defense forces before, but come on son: the rules they write are not very good.

It's a small handful of artillery units people are complaining about while the otherwise vast majority of FW units nobody seems to have an issue with.

-- Well that's a shocker, because that's pretty much exactly what I said. Most FW units are actually pretty garbage for their point costs (looking at you, laughably terrible Dark Eldar flyer). Which sort of reinforces my points about their rules being bad.

So, when does this logic apply to codex units and why not ban things like Vendettas? (speaking as someone who owns three vendettas and zero hyperios/sabre/thudd guns platforms)

-- It should. But it's easier for everyone to swallow bans and limits on fringe stuff like Forge World.

This is the "umpteenth" thread on this and many more will come. I'm sure we can all agree on that! That being said. 40K rules for FW units are legal. Period. As stated throughout this post, FW books do say that you should ask your opponent if using FW is ok. If you accept entering in to a tournament, you're giving permission to your opponent by default. I don't see why so many complain about broken units from FW. Again, as said in previous pages, there are "broken" units in FW and standard 40k. If you have a hard time with particular units, plan accordingly.

Before I owned any FW stuff myself, I saw them being played on the table. My first thought was not "man those are overpowered/cheap". My first thought was "man, I wish I had some". I didn't complain because I had been beaten by an army with FW units. Besides the fact that some of them are beautiful models, I wanted to field them, so I bought some. The only thing that should be complained about is bad players. Again, as stated all over this post, if we lose the "fun", we shouldn't be playing at all. Agreed?

Right so everyone that does not like ig should quit because they have all the "fun" with FW. As to giving consent to players using FW, if I go to a FW approved event then yes I have given that consent, if I go to FW not allowed, I have effectively not given that consent. Different events for different people.

Breng77 wrote:
Right so everyone that does not like ig should quit because they have all the "fun" with FW. As to giving consent to players using FW, if I go to a FW approved event then yes I have given that consent, if I go to FW not allowed, I have effectively not given that consent. Different events for different people.

The problem with the whole "separate but equal" line is that for people like Blackmoor and myself, most of the larger events on the West Coast are FW inclusive. If that's a significant bugbear for you, then you pretty much have to give up going to the large events close to you, which sucks.

Still, if enough people vote with their wallets, current organizers will change their formats, or new event organizers will step up and offer alternatives.

Yup it sucks but that is similar to saying I don't like NOVA missions or BAO missions but events near me use them. Unless at some point all events are standardized there is no way to always get what you want. Unless you run your own events.

Hey, look. Forge World is front-page news on the GW website.

https://www.games-workshop.com/gws/wnt/blog.jsp?pid=9400048

I still really don't understand the big gripe with FW units. I've played in tournaments that allowed FW and didn't use FW units myself, and I still had a great time! There's always going to be some unbalanced units/armies, as stated earlier, as new dexs and books are released. Some armies are in dire need of updating and I'm glad to see that many are. My local store has gaming tournaments and there has never been any complaints about the use of FW items. There has, however, been complaints about players and their sportsmanship (which is also included in our tourney scores). Bad players shouldn't make you allergic to FW, or anything else for that matter. Even for tournaments.........

So you assertion is that anyone who runs all the op fw IG stuff is either a bad sportsman or a bad player? Sorry I know some nice but competitive guys that will run said spam and nice guys though they may be he games won't be fun. So IMO it has nothing to do with the player in this case. As for op units bein in all books you seem to have missed the point where with fw they are more or less centralized in IG.

Why is this 15 pages? Le Sigh

 pities2004 wrote:
Why is this 15 pages? Le Sigh

To be fair, half of the posts are from annoying people who feel the need to tell everyone how disinterested they are in the discussion.

 GrimScorpio wrote:
I still really don't understand the big gripe with FW units. I've played in tournaments that allowed FW and didn't use FW units myself, and I still had a great time! There's always going to be some unbalanced units/armies, as stated earlier, as new dexs and books are released. Some armies are in dire need of updating and I'm glad to see that many are. My local store has gaming tournaments and there has never been any complaints about the use of FW items. There has, however, been complaints about players and their sportsmanship (which is also included in our tourney scores). Bad players shouldn't make you allergic to FW, or anything else for that matter. Even for tournaments.........

Some people go to tournaments to play some games of 40k and do not have any expectations.

Some people go to tournaments to compete at the highest levels.

FW has an impact on the later and not so much on the former.

And what FW units have you played against?

 Danny Internets wrote:

 pities2004 wrote:
Why is this 15 pages? Le Sigh

To be fair, half of the posts are from annoying people who feel the need to tell everyone how disinterested they are in the discussion.

Half of the other half are people being too lazy to read the prior pages and just posted the same thing over again that we've heard.

As for op units bein in all books you seem to have missed the point where with fw they are more or less centralized in IG.

Except that has not always been the case and will not be the case in the future. What is “good” in 40K changes that is the one constant.

Which is exactly why I think creating some “banned” list for specific units is problematic. The changes brought about by every new Codex, Forgeworld book and FAQ update make the long term issue of determining what units are allowed and disallowed a nightmare. Your choices are either gaze into a crystal ball to try to predict what a player base may leverage and ban it or allow it and rely on the players to adapt and come up with counters. In my opinion, outright banning is not an effective long term strategy.

It sounds simple, just ban X unit. But from an event standpoint, you are publishing rules months and months in advance of the event. Collecting signups based on those rules and expectations. Over the course of those months things change new books come out, FAQ documents get published. Potentially tweaking the banned list at the last minute is not exactly fair but then again neither is leaving a flawed banned list in place given a changing a game meta in flux. So what may start off as something that sounds simple and reasonable ends up being unpalatable months later come event go time even with the best intentions.

The core issue is spamming hyper efficient units. So adopting a general 0-1 restriction for Forgeworld goes a long way to mitigate the problem.

Something else I will point out, since it seems to be a focus of this thread is on the “unfairiness” of army X getting more choices then army Y. It has been a fairly standard practice that not all codexs have the same number of choices. As others have pointed out many of those choices are superficial ones. But the key point is it is not strictly how many unit options are available that determines if something is “good” or “over powered”. To steal the Football analogy someone used earlier in this thread. So what if you get you get a choice of 50 football players… as long as I get the choice of taking Aaron Rodgers. The import thing is not the quantity of the options but the quality. All it takes is for one codex to get one unit from Forgeworld and for that one unit to be “good” and it is irrelevant how many choices they have access to selecting. It is the chronic problem we have in codex releases with having no brainer choices in key force organizational slots that leave all other options sub optimal.

Do you want more variety at events? I will get up on my soapbox for a minute .. so bare with me. I used to show up to a GT or RTT, get handed a scenario and play it no questions asked. I had zero expectations of knowing that scenario ahead of the event and I expected to be surprised. In doing so I had to account for the chance I might see anything with my army list. I had to make hard choices. I had to be prepared to adapt to whatever a tourney organizer may throw at me. I did not have weeks to playtest against the exact 4 missions I would play. I also didn’t have the option to optimize my army list to those missions get the maximum advantage.

In some ways, the sameness we now see at events is self created. We have created expectations that players will know everything before hand in the interest of “fairness”. As such players that have the means, knowledge, resources and the time to field the most efficient army for the scenario, rules and terrain mix of any given event have an advantage and will come up with the most efficient force. As with anything there are advantages and disadvantages.

 pities2004 wrote:
Why is this 15 pages? Le Sigh

Yes, you've posted that gif already.

Were you actually born in 2004? Because you sure act the bit.

muwhe wrote:

It sounds simple, just ban X unit. But from an event standpoint, you are publishing rules months and months in advance of the event. Collecting signups based on those rules and expectations. Over the course of those months things change new books come out, FAQ documents get published. Potentially tweaking the banned list at the last minute is not exactly fair but then again neither is leaving a flawed banned list in place given a changing a game meta in flux. So what may start off as something that sounds simple and reasonable ends up being unpalatable months later come event go time even with the best intentions.

The core issue is spamming hyper efficient units. So adopting a general 0-1 restriction for Forgeworld goes a long way to mitigate the problem.

I agree in principle with you here but IG have a lot of ways of manipulating the FoC. 0-1 for IG can mean 5 Sabre platforms, or 3 thudd guns, or 3 earthshaker batteries. All very potent units that can ignore FoC in one way or another. It might prevent the outright dominance of FW iG in tournaments but not homogenization. You'll see a lousy number of IG allies with a 0-1 restriction.

Do you want more variety at events? I will get up on my soapbox for a minute .. so bare with me. I used to show up to a GT or RTT, get handed a scenario and play it no questions asked. I had zero expectations of knowing that scenario ahead of the event and I expected to be surprised. In doing so I had to account for the chance I might see anything with my army list. I had to make hard choices. I had to be prepared to adapt to whatever a tourney organizer may throw at me. I did not have weeks to playtest against the exact 4 missions I would play. I also didn’t have the option to optimize my army list to those missions get the maximum advantage.

In some ways, the sameness we now see at events is self created. We have created expectations that players will know everything before hand in the interest of “fairness”. As such players that have the means, knowledge, resources and the time to field the most efficient army for the scenario, rules and terrain mix of any given event have an advantage and will come up with the most efficient force. As with anything there are advantages and disadvantages.

I really like this idea thoughI think its a little unfair though for a tournament player to shell out a thousand dollars to attend a tournament only to arrive and see the missions stacked against his faction/list. I'd prefer some kind of mission disclosure but perhaps not every mission verbatim.

Breng77 wrote:So you assertion is that anyone who runs all the op fw IG stuff is either a bad sportsman or a bad player? Sorry I know some nice but competitive guys that will run said spam and nice guys though they may be he games won't be fun. So IMO it has nothing to do with the player in this case. As for op units bein in all books you seem to have missed the point where with fw they are more or less centralized in IG.

You're missing the point. No, those bringing IG stuff are not automatically bad players. It's just how they'd like to play. It's not just IG that has some pretty strong FW stuff either. Did you see the new Necron stuff? Stronger FW units just need to be dealt with in a different manner.

Same with Strong 40k units. ie Thunderfire cannons. I've seen more than one in a game before, and that chews up infantry like no other. Shooting at them tends to be fruitless due to the T7 and average 3+ cover. I outflank or DS, then assualt next turn. That almost guarentees me that they'll only fire for 1 more turn.

How about Necrons and their RP? Drop the whole unit and they don't get to roll it.

What about IG FW executioner Tank. It's still just a Tank. How about a full armoured regiment? Again, all tanks with 3 hull points, just need melta, armourbane (for CC), or lascannons (or equiv).

I've never had a hard time being defeated repeatedly by the same list in tournaments. To me, that meant I had flaws in my list and needed to adjust weak points in my list for the next tournament. The point is to have a list that's flexable enough to deal with whatever is thrown against you. Just because a list creams you, doesnt mean they'll fair that well against other lists.

Then again, as per the quote below, I guess I'm one of those players who play for fun with no expectations, not necessarily just to win.

Blackmoor wrote:

 GrimScorpio wrote:
I still really don't understand the big gripe with FW units. I've played in tournaments that allowed FW and didn't use FW units myself, and I still had a great time! There's always going to be some unbalanced units/armies, as stated earlier, as new dexs and books are released. Some armies are in dire need of updating and I'm glad to see that many are. My local store has gaming tournaments and there has never been any complaints about the use of FW items. There has, however, been complaints about players and their sportsmanship (which is also included in our tourney scores). Bad players shouldn't make you allergic to FW, or anything else for that matter. Even for tournaments.........

Some people go to tournaments to play some games of 40k and do not have any expectations.

Some people go to tournaments to compete at the highest levels.

FW has an impact on the later and not so much on the former.

And what FW units have you played against?

DKOK, IG armoured company, Chaos decimator, Tau tetras, Tau hammerhead w/ plasmacannon turrets, various SM vehicle variants, Necron Tomb stalker, Necron Acanthrites, just to name a few. This doesn't include APOC games, but we're talking about 40k legal only on this thread.