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.

 BrotherOfBone wrote:
You never read 'Today at Adepticon some guy rocked up with a really underpowered FW list which consisted of a load of well-painted, fluffy units and he lost'. You hear 'Today at Adepticon some guy rocked up with a Saberspam/Thudd Gun list and completely obliterated all of his opponents with a shoddy, 3 colour army which he'd bashed together the night before'.

Ha! I don't think I've ever had this situation: "Hey, you mind if I play with this FW unit? It totally sucks, but I really like the way his fluff fits in to my army".

On the other hand, this has happened multiple times: "Hey TO, can I bring X unit from FW? I want to spam them in my list because they're low points and do a lot of damage".

I'm sure there's someone out there who falls into the first category. Probably. Maybe? I've never met them.

MadmanMSU wrote:

 BrotherOfBone wrote:
You never read 'Today at Adepticon some guy rocked up with a really underpowered FW list which consisted of a load of well-painted, fluffy units and he lost'. You hear 'Today at Adepticon some guy rocked up with a Saberspam/Thudd Gun list and completely obliterated all of his opponents with a shoddy, 3 colour army which he'd bashed together the night before'.

Ha! I don't think I've ever had this situation: "Hey, you mind if I play with this FW unit? It totally sucks, but I really like the way his fluff fits in to my army".

On the other hand, this has happened multiple times: "Hey TO, can I bring X unit from FW? I want to spam them in my list because they're low points and do a lot of damage".

I'm sure there's someone out there who falls into the first category. Probably. Maybe? I've never met them.

The second kind of player exists in everything, not just FW options though. Blaming FW for those people's behavior is is like blaming a car for the way it's driven.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

MadmanMSU wrote:

 BrotherOfBone wrote:
You never read 'Today at Adepticon some guy rocked up with a really underpowered FW list which consisted of a load of well-painted, fluffy units and he lost'. You hear 'Today at Adepticon some guy rocked up with a Saberspam/Thudd Gun list and completely obliterated all of his opponents with a shoddy, 3 colour army which he'd bashed together the night before'.

Ha! I don't think I've ever had this situation: "Hey, you mind if I play with this FW unit? It totally sucks, but I really like the way his fluff fits in to my army".

On the other hand, this has happened multiple times: "Hey TO, can I bring X unit from FW? I want to spam them in my list because they're low points and do a lot of damage".

I'm sure there's someone out there who falls into the first category. Probably. Maybe? I've never met them.

The second kind of player exists in everything, not just FW options though. Blaming FW for those people's behavior is is like blaming a car for the way it's driven.

I actually tend to have several army setups that are all based on fluff and "reality".

 ClockworkZion wrote:

MadmanMSU wrote:

 BrotherOfBone wrote:
You never read 'Today at Adepticon some guy rocked up with a really underpowered FW list which consisted of a load of well-painted, fluffy units and he lost'. You hear 'Today at Adepticon some guy rocked up with a Saberspam/Thudd Gun list and completely obliterated all of his opponents with a shoddy, 3 colour army which he'd bashed together the night before'.

Ha! I don't think I've ever had this situation: "Hey, you mind if I play with this FW unit? It totally sucks, but I really like the way his fluff fits in to my army".

On the other hand, this has happened multiple times: "Hey TO, can I bring X unit from FW? I want to spam them in my list because they're low points and do a lot of damage".

I'm sure there's someone out there who falls into the first category. Probably. Maybe? I've never met them.

The second kind of player exists in everything, not just FW options though. Blaming FW for those people's behavior is is like blaming a car for the way it's driven.

This ^^ I'm currently putting together a really fluffy Khorne army :3 Led by Kharn and Zuffor (Or whatever his name is xD), loads of Khorne Berserkers footslogging >=D Khorne Dreadnoughts with 2 CCWs (From FW, might I add ;3) supported by a load of Renegades and Heretics (;-; underpowered)

@BrotherofBane

That is what you would call confirmation bias. People who are against FW will look only for examples of their rules being abuses since it serves their purpose better. So, without any hard statistics Id just chalk those examples as anecdotes with little relevance to the argument.

MadmanMSU wrote:
Ha! I don't think I've ever had this situation: "Hey, you mind if I play with this FW unit? It totally sucks, but I really like the way his fluff fits in to my army".

On the other hand, this has happened multiple times: "Hey TO, can I bring X unit from FW? I want to spam them in my list because they're low points and do a lot of damage".

I'm sure there's someone out there who falls into the first category. Probably. Maybe? I've never met them.

Yeah and how often do you get people coming to a tournement saying, "Hey I want to play my fluffy army and left all my powerful hard-hitting units at home this time out"? I would expect pretty close to zero. So why would someone with a fluffy forgeworld inclusion show up to play in your tourney?

It is pretty pathetic that the problem really isn't WAAC lists spamming undercosted models, but solely that someone is doing it with forgeworld models. All the necron flyer spammers are A-OK to play in a tourney, even though they are doing the same thing as the forgeworld player you are describing above. They just don't have to ask permission before being a jackhole to their opponents. Same goes for all the other netlists and spam out there that make regular appearances in tournements. Yeah that forgeworld list with undercosted units is so much more offensive than people relying on screamstars and the like. Oh yeah. You really dug out the true tournment offenders there. Why should the forgeworld player be held to a standard that no other players have to meet? If that forgeworld player showed up instead with a necron flyer spam army you wouldn't care in the least.

Stop acting like forgeworld is the problem when it is people in the tournies that are the problem. They are all playing with the same attitude of WAAC, but only the forgeworld player is called to task for it.

Skriker

 Skriker wrote:

MadmanMSU wrote:
Ha! I don't think I've ever had this situation: "Hey, you mind if I play with this FW unit? It totally sucks, but I really like the way his fluff fits in to my army".

On the other hand, this has happened multiple times: "Hey TO, can I bring X unit from FW? I want to spam them in my list because they're low points and do a lot of damage".

I'm sure there's someone out there who falls into the first category. Probably. Maybe? I've never met them.

Yeah and how often do you get people coming to a tournement saying, "Hey I want to play my fluffy army and left all my powerful hard-hitting units at home this time out"? I would expect pretty close to zero. So why would someone with a fluffy forgeworld inclusion show up to play in your tourney?

It is pretty pathetic that the problem really isn't WAAC lists spamming undercosted models, but solely that someone is doing it with forgeworld models. All the necron flyer spammers are A-OK to play in a tourney, even though they are doing the same thing as the forgeworld player you are describing above. They just don't have to ask permission before being a jackhole to their opponents. Same goes for all the other netlists and spam out there that make regular appearances in tournements. Yeah that forgeworld list with undercosted units is so much more offensive than people relying on screamstars and the like. Oh yeah. You really dug out the true tournment offenders there. Why should the forgeworld player be held to a standard that no other players have to meet? If that forgeworld player showed up instead with a necron flyer spam army you wouldn't care in the least.

Stop acting like forgeworld is the problem when it is people in the tournies that are the problem. They are all playing with the same attitude of WAAC, but only the forgeworld player is called to task for it.

Skriker

So the argument is let's pile on to the already huge problem with more problems. I fully acknowledge 40k is a bit of a clusterfeth as it is, no question, but the idea that adding more variables to said clusterfeth thus making an even bigger clusterfeth is a good idea is terrible idea.

 Crablezworth wrote:
So the argument is let's pile on to the already huge problem with more problems. I fully acknowledge 40k is a bit of a clusterfeth as it is, no question, but the idea that adding more variables to said clusterfeth thus making an even bigger clusterfeth is a good idea is terrible idea.

Actually I believe the argument is pointing out a serious hypocrisy in crying foul over FW when so much worse already exists in the game.

As for "make the game worse" it won't really change anything. Gak players will always be gak players regardless what limitations you try placing on them. What it does change is freedom the non-gak players have.

Or are you really trying to shove the game into a little box of what you think it "should" be instead of letting it have the options it was clearly written to allow?

If you refuse to play against my Dark Angels army because it includes a Forge World Whirlwind Hyperios - which you consider to be so overpowered that you have no reasonable chance of winning - then I think that says more about you than me.

 Crablezworth wrote:
So the argument is let's pile on to the already huge problem with more problems. I fully acknowledge 40k is a bit of a clusterfeth as it is, no question, but the idea that adding more variables to said clusterfeth thus making an even bigger clusterfeth is a good idea is terrible idea.

Yeah thanks for missing the point. The point is the double standard. You can make the most obnoxiously WAAC army as you want from regular codex lists and minis and it is all OK, but as soon as it is done by someone with something from forgeworld suddenly that approach to the game is of the devil and must be stopped and kept from happening. Either spamming undercosted units is bad or it isn't. Forgeworld has nothing to do with it, but the forgeworld player is singled out and ridiculed for asking to include his models that are undercosted in the tourney, when he is really the only one who HAS to ask. Everyone else can spam their undercosted cheese as much as they like.

Your logic isn't unusual from people used against forgeworld, yet GW adds new units and rules to every new codex regularly and people don't complain about that being a terrible idea. I'd rather have some honesty from folks about forgeworld instead of the constant double standard from them. If I complain about an overpowered FW unit I will equally complain about a similar type of undercosted unit from a codex as well. It is just really amusing watching people unload their necron flyer spam army for a game while griping about their opponent's desire to use a single chaos hellblade fighter in their force as so cheesy because it is forgeworld. It is laughable.

Skriker

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Crablezworth wrote:
So the argument is let's pile on to the already huge problem with more problems. I fully acknowledge 40k is a bit of a clusterfeth as it is, no question, but the idea that adding more variables to said clusterfeth thus making an even bigger clusterfeth is a good idea is terrible idea.

Or are you really trying to shove the game into a little box of what you think it "should" be instead of letting it have the options it was clearly written to allow?

I'm trying to imagine the insurmountable task on the shoulders of rules judges and TO's as it is and doubling their stress and halving their ability to do their job. We can barely get FAQ's and errata's for what is out now, already a massive issue for the big events.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Skriker wrote:

 Crablezworth wrote:
So the argument is let's pile on to the already huge problem with more problems. I fully acknowledge 40k is a bit of a clusterfeth as it is, no question, but the idea that adding more variables to said clusterfeth thus making an even bigger clusterfeth is a good idea is terrible idea.

Yeah thanks for missing the point. The point is the double standard. You can make the most obnoxiously WAAC army as you want from regular codex lists and minis and it is all OK, but as soon as it is done by someone with something from forgeworld suddenly that approach to the game is of the devil and must be stopped and kept from happening. Either spamming undercosted units is bad or it isn't. Forgeworld has nothing to do with it, but the forgeworld player is singled out and ridiculed for asking to include his models that are undercosted in the tourney, when he is really the only one who HAS to ask. Everyone else can spam their undercosted cheese as much as they like.

Your logic isn't unusual from people used against forgeworld, yet GW adds new units and rules to every new codex regularly and people don't complain about that being a terrible idea. I'd rather have some honesty from folks about forgeworld instead of the constant double standard from them. If I complain about an overpowered FW unit I will equally complain about a similar type of undercosted unit from a codex as well. It is just really amusing watching people unload their necron flyer spam army for a game while griping about their opponent's desire to use a single chaos hellblade fighter in their force as so cheesy because it is forgeworld. It is laughable.

Skriker

Buddy I own a gakload of forge world, I'm all for forge world, that doesn't change the reality that more and more content = more and more rules issues and in all honesty people can be as entitled as they want about their little toy men, it won't endear you to people with apprehensions and it also won't change the logistical realities that allowing forge world into organized play encompasses.

And you know how I get people to play against forge world? I don’t act like an entitled brat about it.

 Crablezworth wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Crablezworth wrote:
So the argument is let's pile on to the already huge problem with more problems. I fully acknowledge 40k is a bit of a clusterfeth as it is, no question, but the idea that adding more variables to said clusterfeth thus making an even bigger clusterfeth is a good idea is terrible idea.

Or are you really trying to shove the game into a little box of what you think it "should" be instead of letting it have the options it was clearly written to allow?

I'm trying to imagine the insurmountable task on the shoulders of rules judges and TO's as it is and doubling their stress and halving their ability to do their job. We can barely get FAQ's and errata's for what is out now, already a massive issue for the big events.

Tournaments don't have to give a single gak about any of this. They solve their problem about the "complexity" of this by banning or restricting anything they want. They've been doing it for years, heck, even GW did it. It's called "Comp".

Tournaments exist outside of the core rules and are use a number of house rules and don't have a single thing to do with games outside of tournaments. Trying to drag tournaments into it is silly because they're their own planet in terms of the game. Let's stop trying to dilute the issue of players not showing each other the same respect based on the name on the package of their toy soldiers came in.

Yes, it's that silly of an issue but one that never seems to die.

 Skriker wrote:
Yeah and how often do you get people coming to a tournement saying, "Hey I want to play my fluffy army and left all my powerful hard-hitting units at home this time out"?

Quite a bit, actually. We have a few fairly high ranked players around these parts who deliberately use underpowered lists and/or codexes in order to see if they can do well with them.

 insaniak wrote:

 Skriker wrote:
Yeah and how often do you get people coming to a tournement saying, "Hey I want to play my fluffy army and left all my powerful hard-hitting units at home this time out"?

Quite a bit, actually. We have a few fairly high ranked players around these parts who deliberately use underpowered lists and/or codexes in order to see if they can do well with them.

Speaking from experience there is a lot of reward in winning with an army that doesn't measure up to what people call "competitive".

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

 Skriker wrote:
Yeah and how often do you get people coming to a tournement saying, "Hey I want to play my fluffy army and left all my powerful hard-hitting units at home this time out"?

Quite a bit, actually. We have a few fairly high ranked players around these parts who deliberately use underpowered lists and/or codexes in order to see if they can do well with them.

Speaking from experience there is a lot of reward in winning with an army that doesn't measure up to what people call "competitive".

I agree :3 It's nice to know your list is more about you, and your tactics, than skill-less power. (I'm looking at you triptides..)

 BrotherOfBone wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

 Skriker wrote:
Yeah and how often do you get people coming to a tournement saying, "Hey I want to play my fluffy army and left all my powerful hard-hitting units at home this time out"?

Quite a bit, actually. We have a few fairly high ranked players around these parts who deliberately use underpowered lists and/or codexes in order to see if they can do well with them.

Speaking from experience there is a lot of reward in winning with an army that doesn't measure up to what people call "competitive".

I agree :3 It's nice to know your list is more about you, and your tactics, than skill-less power. (I'm looking at you triptides..)

To put it a nerdier way: Batman doesn't beat Bane by being stronger than him, he does it by being better than him.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 BrotherOfBone wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

 Skriker wrote:
Yeah and how often do you get people coming to a tournement saying, "Hey I want to play my fluffy army and left all my powerful hard-hitting units at home this time out"?

Quite a bit, actually. We have a few fairly high ranked players around these parts who deliberately use underpowered lists and/or codexes in order to see if they can do well with them.

Speaking from experience there is a lot of reward in winning with an army that doesn't measure up to what people call "competitive".

I agree :3 It's nice to know your list is more about you, and your tactics, than skill-less power. (I'm looking at you triptides..)

To put it a nerdier way: Batman doesn't beat Bane by being stronger than him, he does it by being better than him.

Exactly ^_^ Also because of the GADGETS but yeah, because he knows Bane's weakness and exploits it to beat him :3 Every army has a weakness, and if you're smart enough to use that weakness then you can beat them

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Crablezworth wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Crablezworth wrote:
So the argument is let's pile on to the already huge problem with more problems. I fully acknowledge 40k is a bit of a clusterfeth as it is, no question, but the idea that adding more variables to said clusterfeth thus making an even bigger clusterfeth is a good idea is terrible idea.

Or are you really trying to shove the game into a little box of what you think it "should" be instead of letting it have the options it was clearly written to allow?

I'm trying to imagine the insurmountable task on the shoulders of rules judges and TO's as it is and doubling their stress and halving their ability to do their job. We can barely get FAQ's and errata's for what is out now, already a massive issue for the big events.

Tournaments don't have to give a single gak about any of this. They solve their problem about the "complexity" of this by banning or restricting anything they want. They've been doing it for years, heck, even GW did it. It's called "Comp".

Tournaments exist outside of the core rules and are use a number of house rules and don't have a single thing to do with games outside of tournaments. Trying to drag tournaments into it is silly because they're their own planet in terms of the game. Let's stop trying to dilute the issue of players not showing each other the same respect based on the name on the package of their toy soldiers came in.

Yes, it's that silly of an issue but one that never seems to die.

Im confused. Sholdnt this discussion be ONLY about the legality or not of using forgeworld in tournaments, since everything else can just be agreed or disagreed on by the players if its just casual games. I thought the whole point was trying to get forgeworld accepted into every main tournament type. Or is it just trying to get a few people on the fence to see it as a legitimate part of the game. To be clear, I find that for casual games, most forgeworld is perfectly fine, as the regular game has cheese too. But throw all those unacounted for units in a tournament setting, and it becomes to complicated and unpredictable. Your not gonna settle a ruling with a dice off when cash and prizes are on the line.

 Orock wrote:
Im confused. Sholdnt this discussion be ONLY about the legality or not of using forgeworld in tournaments, since everything else can just be agreed or disagreed on by the players if its just casual games.

If that was the case this would need to be in the "Tournament Discussions" sub-forum not "General 40k". Also they have (had?) a thread about it and the even the pro-FW folks said tournaments do what they need to for their events.

 Orock wrote:
I thought the whole point was trying to get forgeworld accepted into every main tournament type. Or is it just trying to get a few people on the fence to see it as a legitimate part of the game.

It's about getting people to stop accusing people of really gakky reasons for wanting FW, to make it clear the game supports FW for normal games just fine and that people who keep trying to create this imaginary box that 40k sits in that needs the Word of God (or Tom Kirby) to change are doing a lot more harm than good, as well as pushing something that shouldn't even exist.

At least that's my stance.

 Orock wrote:
To be clear, I find that for casual games, most forgeworld is perfectly fine, as the regular game has cheese too. But throw all those unacounted for units in a tournament setting, and it becomes to complicated and unpredictable. Your not gonna settle a ruling with a dice off when cash and prizes are on the line.

Personally I give half an imaginary gak about tournaments anymore. I've seen people get too carried away about what is supposed a fun game to care about them anymore. Plus a lot of this "No FW on my watch!" stuff comes from tournament players who don't want their meta, even the meta outside of tournaments, screwed with. It's not every anti-FW person, but it' has been a thing I've noticed.

Crablez - allowing FW into our tournaments, and those I go to regularly, hasnt noticeably increased the headache and stress on a TOs head. Hell, almost none of the stress of running a tournament is making rules calls - the vast majority are sorted between players. Most of the stress is before the day, and before / during game one. After that mostly plain sailing

Yes, it is a litlte more prework, making sure you have an idea where the most recent rules are - however that is just part and parcel of being a TO.

I personally find having FW included in tournaments vastly increases my enjoyment in attending and running them, as frankly you see far more pretty models that way.

Oh. and as for the peopel saying they dont see people asking to use underpowered FW stuff? I run a twin CCW decimator, MoK, because it looks awesome. No other reason.

I can create a filthy army with dark angels and scars allies, add in a contemptor and I'm a filthy dirty fw player... Hmmm ok

Armies taken from fw books are legal in gw tournements but apocalypse formation therein are not. if people are going to be ah's about it simply use the models as proxies (supposing your doing it for the models that is).

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Crablez - allowing FW into our tournaments, and those I go to regularly, hasnt noticeably increased the headache and stress on a TOs head. Hell, almost none of the stress of running a tournament is making rules calls - the vast majority are sorted between players. Most of the stress is before the day, and before / during game one. After that mostly plain sailing

Yes, it is a litlte more prework, making sure you have an idea where the most recent rules are - however that is just part and parcel of being a TO.

I personally find having FW included in tournaments vastly increases my enjoyment in attending and running them, as frankly you see far more pretty models that way.

Oh. and as for the peopel saying they dont see people asking to use underpowered FW stuff? I run a twin CCW decimator, MoK, because it looks awesome. No other reason.

How many players? Where was it held?

We had toyed with the idea of allowing forgeworld (small tournament, 10 players) in the past and ran into another problem, it was being held in a FLGS that was concerned about people not having the actual books, which was a massive problem because everyone just pirates the FW books, and for obvious reasons only have print out sheets of the rules. I'm not condoning piracy, but that was the reality of the situation and in a lot of ways I can't fault somone who already owns the original taros campaign for not wanting to drop another 100$ to run a couple units. Basically requiring people have the current FW book required to run their unit or units was enough to remove FW from t he menu right from the get go. I like forgewolrd but it's not just a political problem its a logistical quagmire. I can understand an FLGS not wanting to risk losing their ability to sell GW stuff, it also is a pissoff for them because they sell codex and they can obviously see a slippery slope for their own bottom line and I don't blame them.

Reecius runs some of the biggest tournements in the US, and he allows 40k approved FW units.

 BarBoBot wrote:
Reecius runs some of the biggest tournements in the US, and he allows 40k approved FW units.

The bay area open also doesn't allow scratch built stuff so he is a business man first, nothing wrong with that I guess. I believe you're required to have the appropriate fw book or books no?

I think we can debate legality forever, how about we debate practicality?

 Crablezworth wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Crablez - allowing FW into our tournaments, and those I go to regularly, hasnt noticeably increased the headache and stress on a TOs head. Hell, almost none of the stress of running a tournament is making rules calls - the vast majority are sorted between players. Most of the stress is before the day, and before / during game one. After that mostly plain sailing

Yes, it is a litlte more prework, making sure you have an idea where the most recent rules are - however that is just part and parcel of being a TO.

I personally find having FW included in tournaments vastly increases my enjoyment in attending and running them, as frankly you see far more pretty models that way.

Oh. and as for the peopel saying they dont see people asking to use underpowered FW stuff? I run a twin CCW decimator, MoK, because it looks awesome. No other reason.

How many players? Where was it held?

We had toyed with the idea of allowing forgeworld (small tournament, 10 players) in the past and ran into another problem, it was being held in a FLGS that was concerned about people not having the actual books, which was a massive problem because everyone just pirates the FW books, and for obvious reasons only have print out sheets of the rules. I'm not condoning piracy, but that was the reality of the situation and in a lot of ways I can't fault somone who already owns the original taros campaign for not wanting to drop another 100$ to run a couple units. Basically requiring people have the current FW book required to run their unit or units was enough to remove FW from t he menu right from the get go. I like forgewolrd but it's not just a political problem its a logistical quagmire. I can understand an FLGS not wanting to risk losing their ability to sell GW stuff, it also is a pissoff for them because they sell codex and they can obviously see a slippery slope for their own bottom line and I don't blame them.

Your post is really confusing me.

How is allowing FW in a tournment risks a FLGS's losing their ability to sell GW stuff?

I also wish to point out even people who own the FW books, will make copies of their own book's army lists instead of bringing the whole book to a tournament. Most people don't want their fancy/expensive FW books getting beat up in the hustle and bustle of tournament play.

In all honesty I can tell you why most FLGS's probly don't allow FW. FLGS's usely don't let FW in their tournaments not because it's a "logistics nightmare", like you said. Most store owners don't want to allow it because they can't sell it to you... Tournaments help promote sales at the FLGS that hosts them. But if the tournament allows FW and starts to encourage people to but a product that the store owner isn't even able to sell you? Well that just defeated the purpose of WHY he hosted the tournament in the 1st place.

Potentially this is lost revenue from the gaming space not pulling it's weight and making enough money to pay for it's square footage and bringing in employees to support the events.

If you could walk into thows stores and buy FW off the self like any other GW product this wouldn't be a issue.

Lockark has the truth of it, FLGS's don't risk anything having customers pirate FW books, GW's not going to take it out on them. They ban FW because they don't sell FW, and FLGS Touranments are events designed to help drive in-store sales.

 Vaktathi wrote:
Lockark has the truth of it, FLGS's don't risk anything having customers pirate FW books, GW's not going to take it out on them. They ban FW because they don't sell FW, and FLGS Touranments are events designed to help drive in-store sales.

Exactly.

It's kinda a crap shoot allowing FW in your store events... =/ If the event just starts getting people to go out and start buying FW stuff, then the event failed...

Unless you got a bunch of ork players.... Because no ork player buys the FW stuff. They just convert the units.
XD

Eh, depends, I go to my store specifically because it allows FW, they sometimes order and sell FW stuff as well, and I buy stuff there because they let me use my FW stuff that I'd normally buy elsewhere.

 Lockark wrote:

 Crablezworth wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Crablez - allowing FW into our tournaments, and those I go to regularly, hasnt noticeably increased the headache and stress on a TOs head. Hell, almost none of the stress of running a tournament is making rules calls - the vast majority are sorted between players. Most of the stress is before the day, and before / during game one. After that mostly plain sailing

Yes, it is a litlte more prework, making sure you have an idea where the most recent rules are - however that is just part and parcel of being a TO.

I personally find having FW included in tournaments vastly increases my enjoyment in attending and running them, as frankly you see far more pretty models that way.

Oh. and as for the peopel saying they dont see people asking to use underpowered FW stuff? I run a twin CCW decimator, MoK, because it looks awesome. No other reason.

How many players? Where was it held?

We had toyed with the idea of allowing forgeworld (small tournament, 10 players) in the past and ran into another problem, it was being held in a FLGS that was concerned about people not having the actual books, which was a massive problem because everyone just pirates the FW books, and for obvious reasons only have print out sheets of the rules. I'm not condoning piracy, but that was the reality of the situation and in a lot of ways I can't fault somone who already owns the original taros campaign for not wanting to drop another 100$ to run a couple units. Basically requiring people have the current FW book required to run their unit or units was enough to remove FW from t he menu right from the get go. I like forgewolrd but it's not just a political problem its a logistical quagmire. I can understand an FLGS not wanting to risk losing their ability to sell GW stuff, it also is a pissoff for them because they sell codex and they can obviously see a slippery slope for their own bottom line and I don't blame them.

Your post is really confusing me.

How is allowing FW in a tournment risks a FLGS's losing their ability to sell GW stuff?

I also wish to point out even people who own the FW books, will make copies of their own book's army lists instead of bringing the whole book to a tournament. Most people don't want their fancy/expensive FW books getting beat up in the hustle and bustle of tournament play.

In all honesty I can tell you why most FLGS's probly don't allow FW. FLGS's usely don't let FW in their tournaments not because it's a "logistics nightmare", like you said. Most store owners don't want to allow it because they can't sell it to you... Tournaments help promote sales at the FLGS that hosts them. But if the tournament allows FW and starts to encourage people to but a product that the store owner isn't even able to sell you? Well that just defeated the purpose of WHY he hosted the tournament in the 1st place.

Potentially this is lost revenue from the gaming space not pulling it's weight and making enough money to pay for it's square footage and bringing in employees to support the events.

If you could walk into thows stores and buy FW off the self like any other GW product this wouldn't be a issue.

Buddy I have no idea what the store is actually risking by allowing people to bring print outs instead of requiring the ownership of the actual books, however they're hosting the tournament in their store. I could be a petulant child and end up having to rent expensive hotel space or I could play ball and acquiesce to their demands. You still have to bring the codex for your army, those money grubbing bastard flgs owners, it’s a conspiracy to make us pay for things in their store… Look whether their fear of GW cancelling their trade accounts is just a cover for their own apparently “malevolent” agenda I don't know, but it seems like a valid concern on their part because word spreads fast and anyone can write an e-mail.

It doesn't seem worth the headache or financial loss to try and rent a hall for a very small tournament, so there it is.

The point is, just requiring players to own the actual rulebook for their fw model was enough to kill the idea, which says something about how much pirating goes on in relation to running FW models and is a valid concern when it comes to the practicality of allowing FW in organized gaming.






Think of it like this, with all the ebook and ipad stuff, its a bit harder to verify whether one's codex and or supplement legit or not, some bring tablets, others prints, and hell even if its on a tablet or phone or laptop or whatever, no guarantee it isn't pirated. Right now, FW stuff is not digital, maybe it will be less of an issue if they go digital, but right now, physical books.