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 took my FW Necron units to WGC. 9 Acanthrites and a Nightshroud Bomber. I took a non-optimized "lulzy" list aiming to kick around the middle tables to compensate.

The bomber was right on the money for most FW units. Overpriced, underperforming, but a sweet model and fun to use.

The Acanthrites were obscenely overpowered and hampered my enjoyment of the games. 9 of them and a Destroyer Lord made all of my games end up "Acanthrites faceroll and kill everything" or "Acanthrites take 4 turns of an entire army's attention to kill while the rest of my army wins the game. Not terribly fun for any involved, sadly.

Most of the folks I talked to expressed similar feelings. The unrestricted FW format just wasn't enjoyable to folks playing with or against FW units. I'm not even talking about the top tables, just your average Joe gamer.

Would they have had a better time against a wraith-wing, scythe-spam, or AV13 wall? That is the question.

Necrons in general can be a very demoralizing army to face in 6E as so many of their mechanics seem custom fit to take advantage of or side-step so many of the core game mechanics.

Redacted by Mannahnin

It really doesn't.

Actually it does. The AdeptiCon Forgeworld restriction for the past few years has been to treat all Forgeworld selections as 0-1 unique selections. Your Tau can take a Barracuda and a unit of drones. Your entire army can be Forgeworld models if you so desire. The only restriction has been you can have no duplicate selections.

Another possible option would be to limit Forgeworld selections to only the primary detachment.

muwhe wrote:
Actually it does. The AdeptiCon Forgeworld restriction for the past few years has been to treat all Forgeworld selections as 0-1 unique selections. Your Tau can take a Barracuda and a unit of drones. Your entire army can be Forgeworld models if you so desire. The only restriction has been you can have no duplicate selections.

Oh, I thought that people were talking about making a 0-1 limit as in up to one FW unit in your entire army. Having each unit be 0-1 makes a lot more sense, but it's still a very uneven restriction. My pair of Barracudas is worse than a pair of Vendettas, so why should the Barracuda list be banned while the Vendettas are perfectly legal?

Another possible option would be to limit Forgeworld selections to only the primary detachment.

Which still doesn't address the main problem since you can just take IG as your primary detachment. Elite armies can still spend a lot of points as allies, and it's even possible to have the majority of your army be the "allied" detachment.

IMO all of these proposals are just a silly fear of having a unit-specific ban/modification list. Simply saying "Helldrakes and Sabre guns are banned" would do more for balance than trying to accomplish the same goal without actually naming a specific unit.

Hey guys, just wanted to throw my 2 cents in here. I'll keep it brief. Looks like people are throwing wargamescon around as evidence for a variety of positions. I think I may have a valuable perspective seeing as I won.

Thudd guns, sabers, and vultures are too good. No two ways about it. When I say "too good" I don't mean they are impossible to beat, I mean they are way to few points for what they do. Alan B knows this too, he was trying to make a point and get such things excluded in the future. If he had won, the anti-forgeworld camp would be howling in vindication. BUT, just because he did not win does NOT mean unrestricted forgeworld is ok!

I agree completely with the that the biggest problem with allowing unrestricted forgeworld is the effect on the middle of the pack in a tournament. One important concept here is that MOST people fall in this category! No one likes getting wiped out by some super-unit they have never heard of and don't understand. When I walked around the hall, I heard a ton of people very upset about getting thudd gunned to death on turn 2. If you are a normal person you haven't scoured the imperial armor books and carefully thought out how you'll deal with every threat.

All that being said, a very short ban/restrict list is all that is needed to include forgeworld if a TO wants to. The vast majority of units are just cool, not overpowered.

And for those who are interested, I beat Alan twice (awesome, close games) this weekend in rounds 5 and 6. I played this army:

Necron Destroyer Lord: warscythe, weave, mindshackle scarabs

5 Warriors
Night Scythe

5 Warriors
Night Scythe

5 Warriors
Night Scythe

Wraiths: 6 wraiths, 1 whip coils, 1 particle caster
Scarabs: 5 scarabs

Annihilation Barge
Annihilation Barge
Tomb Spyders: 1 gloom prism

Warboss: mega armor, cybork body, bosspole

Meganobs: 7 nobs: 4 kombi-skorchas, 3 kombi-rokkits
Battlewagon: red paint job, deffrolla, 1 big shoota

Total 1850

My pair of Barracudas is worse than a pair of Vendettas, so why should the Barracuda list be banned while the Vendettas are perfectly legal?

Because at some point you have to compromise, meet folks half way, and have some fun.

 Vaktathi wrote:
Would they have had a better time against a wraith-wing, scythe-spam, or AV13 wall? That is the question.

Necrons in general can be a very demoralizing army to face in 6E as so many of their mechanics seem custom fit to take advantage of or side-step so many of the core game mechanics.

The main difference is that those are known quantities. Your middle of the pack player is at least somewhat aware of what every Codex does. Throw a big book at them with rules they've never heard of and things break bad quickly. I joked with my opponents that it was the "it does what?!" phase and that my army was "Necrons, only less fun to play against", which it pretty much was every game. Blindsiding someone with new rules then having said unit basically solo their army is demoralizing.

That said, 0-1 restrictions won't work because I'd just leave the Bomber at home. If anything, it just encourages more cherry picking of only the broken stuff. I would suggest just leaving it out altogether and letting FW stay in its wheelhouse of narrative play. If that's not doable, then a ban list would have to be put together.

muwhe wrote:
Because at some point you have to compromise, meet folks half way, and have some fun.

Why should anyone compromise on a "solution" that ignores the actual problem in favor of arbitrary bans? Should every ork player have to accept the "compromise" of only being allowed to take one unit of boyz just because I think that Helldrakes are overpowered?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Chumbalaya wrote:
Throw a big book at them with rules they've never heard of and things break bad quickly.

So I assume you're in favor of banning SoB, since their rules are even harder to get than FW rules.

Spacecurves wrote:
Hey guys, just wanted to throw my 2 cents in here. I'll keep it brief. Looks like people are throwing wargamescon around as evidence for a variety of positions. I think I may have a valuable perspective seeing as I won.

Thudd guns, sabers, and vultures are too good. No two ways about it. When I say "too good" I don't mean they are impossible to beat, I mean they are way to few points for what they do. Alan B knows this too, he was trying to make a point and get such things excluded in the future. If he had won, the anti-forgeworld camp would be howling in vindication. BUT, just because he did not win does NOT mean unrestricted forgeworld is ok!

I agree completely with the that the biggest problem with allowing unrestricted forgeworld is the effect on the middle of the pack in a tournament. One important concept here is that MOST people fall in this category! No one likes getting wiped out by some super-unit they have never heard of and don't understand. When I walked around the hall, I heard a ton of people very upset about getting thudd gunned to death on turn 2. If you are a normal person you haven't scoured the imperial armor books and carefully thought out how you'll deal with every threat.

All that being said, a very short ban/restrict list is all that is needed to include forgeworld if a TO wants to. The vast majority of units are just cool, not overpowered.

And for those who are interested, I beat Alan twice (awesome, close games) this weekend in rounds 5 and 6. I played this army:

Necron Destroyer Lord: warscythe, weave, mindshackle scarabs

5 Warriors
Night Scythe

5 Warriors
Night Scythe

5 Warriors
Night Scythe

Wraiths: 6 wraiths, 1 whip coils, 1 particle caster
Scarabs: 5 scarabs

Annihilation Barge
Annihilation Barge
Tomb Spyders: 1 gloom prism

Warboss: mega armor, cybork body, bosspole

Meganobs: 7 nobs: 4 kombi-skorchas, 3 kombi-rokkits
Battlewagon: red paint job, deffrolla, 1 big shoota

Total 1850

It is interesting, because you are running the most broken & undercosted units in the Necron book. Scythes, Wraiths, and Annihilation Barges....
So if we were going to ban Sabres and Thudds, we are going to ban the broken units in your book. And yes, those units are broken relative to most
other codex options.

If we take away those units; scythes, wraiths, and annihilation barges, and you built a different Necron list, you wouldn't have won. And you know it.

 Chumbalaya wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
Would they have had a better time against a wraith-wing, scythe-spam, or AV13 wall? That is the question.

Necrons in general can be a very demoralizing army to face in 6E as so many of their mechanics seem custom fit to take advantage of or side-step so many of the core game mechanics.

The main difference is that those are known quantities. Your middle of the pack player is at least somewhat aware of what every Codex does. Throw a big book at them with rules they've never heard of and things break bad quickly. I joked with my opponents that it was the "it does what?!" phase and that my army was "Necrons, only less fun to play against", which it pretty much was every game. Blindsiding someone with new rules then having said unit basically solo their army is demoralizing.

How is that any different than facing a new codex however? Besides, the only way these units will stop blindsiding people and increase awareness about these units is if they are allowed in, and become common course for, such events.

Besides, they should have had an opportunity to review the unit rules before the game began (and there's not much too them, like half a page for everything about the Acanthrites), if they did not, something didn't happen correctly, and, fundamentally, they showed up to an event unprepared.

A unit of 9 Acanthrites is almost 500pts and relies on being within 12" of the enemy to inflict any harm, there are definite counters to this unit.

I think what people are failing to re her is that the fw units people are talking about belong to codices that already have powerful units so saying well if we ban thuds guns or sabers we also need to ban heldrakes makes little sense because IG already have vendettas and blob squads and mantacores etc. it is more the idea of he piling on of extremely powerful units that players are unfamiliar with that is the problem. Heldrakes are strong but I have never seen them table someone turn 2. So the argument seems to be its ok that IG has lots of powerful units but csm should get none. I'd be perfectly happy with fw allowed with a banned list (I think this is the best solution).

muwhe wrote:

It really doesn't.

Actually it does. The AdeptiCon Forgeworld restriction for the past few years has been to treat all Forgeworld selections as 0-1 unique selections. Your Tau can take a Barracuda and a unit of drones. Your entire army can be Forgeworld models if you so desire. The only restriction has been you can have no duplicate selections.

Another possible option would be to limit Forgeworld selections to only the primary detachment.

I think that last idea could also be really good. I was thinking about it after my earlier post, why chaos dwarfs don't draw the ire (at least yet / that I've seen!) that FW in 40k does. I think it's because, with allies, one broken unit might be taken by half the armies out there. If a K'daii Destroyer could be added to any fantasy list, there might be more complaints (bring on 9th edition ). Which is why I'm making a list with no Destroyer as we speak (well, not for it being banned, so much as to play a list without one since most CD lists have one)

Also, Peregrine, I know this is the internet and everyone can post equally, but when one of the most pro-FW tourney organizers out there (imo) is talking to you about a reasonable compromise, and putting forward other possible alternatives (limiting FW to the primary detachment) you should listen! I know you want unrestricted FW... we all want things, but if American politics are any lesson to us at all, it's better to focus on what you can actually get done. Which, for most major GTs at this point, is FW with some restrictions.

If you're able to travel, the BAO and I believe all of Reecius' events now are open to all FW... but from what I've seen that is the exception and not the rule, and more events following AdeptiCon's team tourney lead and allowing restricted FW would be a big boon to the pro-FW camp, not a detriment. More adoption, even if it isn't "full", leads to greater acceptance by the player base (usually), and the cycle continues.

Hold out for "all FW, all the time!" and you'll either be stuck travelling to Cali or the handful of other GTs that have no restrictions for their main event, or playing in other events at those venues (like those at Nova) that allow FW, but not in the main event. I know this is somewhat theoretical since I don't think you are planning to attend these necessarily, but assuming you'd want to in the future, taking steps towards more acceptance will get you further than demanding full acceptance or none... and thus, often getting none.

Breng77 wrote:
I think what people are failing to re her is that the fw units people are talking about belong to codices that already have powerful units so saying well if we ban thuds guns or sabers we also need to ban heldrakes makes little sense because IG already have vendettas and blob squads and mantacores etc. it is more the idea of he piling on of extremely powerful units that players are unfamiliar with that is the problem. Heldrakes are strong but I have never seen them table someone turn 2. So the argument seems to be its ok that IG has lots of powerful units but csm should get none. I'd be perfectly happy with fw allowed with a banned list (I think this is the best solution).

I don't buy that. The rules are what they are, and are written by professional game designers.
Implementing "house rules" to ban items is subjective and nothing more than glorified house rules.

And CSM can ally with IG and get 10 Sabres + 3 Thudds per FOC if they really wanted to.....

The really sickening thing about this, is we have a tournament draigo wing player and tournament scythe\wraith\barge player bitching about the units. However, they both feel entitled to go to a tournament using
the most busted, undercosted, overpowered units in their books. Now that they feel threatened they want to wine and complain.... My God if anyone of them started whining like this during a game or event, I would
throw a complete fit. Guess what? You guys aren't "super players". Know what makes you good and lets you win consistenly - YOUR BUSTED BUILD.

And IG + Sabres is nothing compared to the daemon build I used to run before the latest codex. I would literally vaccum entire armies of the table, and out of dozens of games never came close to loosing. The army
composition was fully endorsed and supported by the GW designers, just like the current Sabre + Thudd rules. The only way they will officially change is if GW updates the rules. Period.

Relic, again, throwing around "house rules" in your first two sentences several times, in a thread regarding the rulings tournaments will make, is just going to make people ignore your arguments.

I don't care if you call them little green martians. Every tournament makes rulings, a perfect example being the impossible way to play terrain placement and fortifications at the start of 6th. Most tournaments played with pre-set terrain due to time constraints and fairness, yet the rules said to place fortifications and THEN terrain. What to do? Make a ruling in the player packet, of course!

It's the exact same with Forgeworld. Opponent permission required? Okay, each tournament makes a ruling and puts it in their packet.

So... that's a road to nowhere from a discussion standpoint, and just makes the rest of your post get covered by that same brush and ruins any other points you'd like to make when you start out that way. Tournaments make rulings, who would've thought it

Relic07 wrote:

I don't buy that. The rules are what they are, and are written by professional game designers.
Implementing "house rules" to ban items is subjective and nothing more than glorified house rules.

And CSM can ally with IG and get 10 Sabres + 3 Thudds per FOC if they really wanted to.....

The really sickening thing about this, is we have a tournament draigo wing player and tournament scythe\wraith\barge player bitching about the units. However, they both feel entitled to go to a tournament using
the most busted, undercosted, overpowered units in their books. Now that they feel threatened they want to wine and complain.... My God if anyone of them started whining like this during a game or event, I would
throw a complete fit. Guess what? You guys aren't "super players". Know what makes you good and lets you win consistenly - YOUR BUSTED BUILD.

And IG + Sabres is nothing compared to the daemon build I used to run before the latest codex. I would literally vaccum entire armies of the table, and out of dozens of games never came close to loosing. The army
composition was fully endorsed and supported by the GW designers, just like the current Sabre + Thudd rules. The only way they will officially change is if GW updates the rules. Period.

So what your saying is the last three champions of WGC dating all the way back to 5thed are simply model pushers and dice rollers. That their opinions (informed) on FW are invalid because they use the best units from their codices? Wow that's good to know. I was wasting my time getting advice from people who play this game at the highest levels when all I had to do i turn to the random people of the interwebz. LOL!

Post redacted. --Janthkin

Spacecurves was widely-known for winning big events with Codex: SM in 5th ed when internet know-it-alls thought they were trash. And running untraditional (assault, non-Venom-spam) Dark Eldar similarly well. And for writing a whole series of in-depth articles on fine points of the 40k rules and how to apply them to advanced effect on BOLS.

The idea that you're going to dismiss his wins because this year's list includes a lot of great units (along with a Battlewagon and Meganobs which are not exactly on most folks' radar) is deeply misguided.

Your inability to express your argument without insulting them also doesn't help that argument or your credibility.

 RiTides wrote:
Also, Peregrine, I know this is the internet and everyone can post equally, but when one of the most pro-FW tourney organizers out there (imo) is talking to you about a reasonable compromise, and putting forward other possible alternatives (limiting FW to the primary detachment) you should listen!

The point is that it isn't a compromise, it's a completely random rule that does nothing to solve any relevant problems. A reasonable compromise would be putting restrictions on the few overpowered FW units, not randomly making units nobody has a problem with 0-1.

Peregrine wrote:

muwhe wrote:
Because at some point you have to compromise, meet folks half way, and have some fun.

Why should anyone compromise on a "solution" that ignores the actual problem in favor of arbitrary bans? Should every ork player have to accept the "compromise" of only being allowed to take one unit of boyz just because I think that Helldrakes are overpowered?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Chumbalaya wrote:
Throw a big book at them with rules they've never heard of and things break bad quickly.

So I assume you're in favor of banning SoB, since their rules are even harder to get than FW rules.

I don't think anyone has said it but let me. SoB is a bad codex which is not played very widely and really isn't going to give people trouble. But besides that fact the entire book is basically Codex Space Marines with T3. If you've played against a SM army, really any SM army, and you play against a WYSIWYG SoB army it won't be a problem for you if you've got half a brain and aren't totally trashed. Comparing SoB and the entirety of the FW range and books is ridiculous, period, end of story. Attempting to draw that correlation is stretching far beyond the scope of what is reasonable in this conversation, or any comparison between FW and its use in tournaments to the limitation of codex usage.

Mannahnin wrote:Spacecurves was widely-known for winning big events with Codex: SM in 5th ed when internet know-it-alls thought they were trash. And running untraditional (assault, non-Venom-spam) Dark Eldar similarly well. And for writing a whole series of in-depth articles on fine points of the 40k rules and how to apply them to advanced effect on BOLS.

The idea that you're going to dismiss his wins because this year's list includes a lot of great units (along with a Battlewagon and Meganobs which are not exactly on most folks' radar) is deeply risible.

Your inability to express your argument without insulting them also makes clear how little substance your points have.

QFT.

 Peregrine wrote:

 RiTides wrote:
Also, Peregrine, I know this is the internet and everyone can post equally, but when one of the most pro-FW tourney organizers out there (imo) is talking to you about a reasonable compromise, and putting forward other possible alternatives (limiting FW to the primary detachment) you should listen!

The point is that it isn't a compromise, it's a completely random rule that does nothing to solve any relevant problems. A reasonable compromise would be putting restrictions on the few overpowered FW units, not randomly making units nobody has a problem with 0-1.

I'd be fine with that route, too

"Game Designers" ?? I don't think that means what you think it does, given that this conversation has been about tournament gaming. Your "professional game designers" don't have a clue about tournaments and expressly have no desire to get a clue.

Relic07 wrote:

Glocknall wrote:

Relic07 wrote:

I don't buy that. The rules are what they are, and are written by professional game designers.
Implementing "house rules" to ban items is subjective and nothing more than glorified house rules.

And CSM can ally with IG and get 10 Sabres + 3 Thudds per FOC if they really wanted to.....

The really sickening thing about this, is we have a tournament draigo wing player and tournament scythe\wraith\barge player bitching about the units. However, they both feel entitled to go to a tournament using
the most busted, undercosted, overpowered units in their books. Now that they feel threatened they want to wine and complain.... My God if anyone of them started whining like this during a game or event, I would
throw a complete fit. Guess what? You guys aren't "super players". Know what makes you good and lets you win consistenly - YOUR BUSTED BUILD.

And IG + Sabres is nothing compared to the daemon build I used to run before the latest codex. I would literally vaccum entire armies of the table, and out of dozens of games never came close to loosing. The army
composition was fully endorsed and supported by the GW designers, just like the current Sabre + Thudd rules. The only way they will officially change is if GW updates the rules. Period.

So what your saying is the last three champions of WGC dating all the way back to 5thed are simply model pushers and dice rollers. That their opinions (informed) on FW are invalid because they use the best units from their codices? Wow that's good to know. I was wasting my time getting advice from people who play this game at the highest levels when all I had to do i turn to the random people of the interwebz. LOL!

Given that GW's "professional game designers" are overtly hostile to tournament play, and dedicate several pages of their monthly catalog to openly insulting anyone playing 40k competitively, the idea that the game can be competitive without trampling on some of the work is preposterous.

Admittedly, as time has gone on, more and more of the rules in the main book have been embraced, and once everyone has a Warlord Traits table that isn't mostly useless even that last hurdle will fade.

But how's this for an argument against including FW in tournaments. I can't walk into my FLGS that's hosting an RTT and buy any of it. I can't buy the books, or the models, or the weathering powders. When I faceroll someone with eight drop pods full of Space Wolves, they can walk across the room and buy some drop pods and some Grey Hunters. They can even special order the Finecast Standard Bearer and all the special characters.

If they want to get Bran Redmaw, they can't buy the model from the store, which means that an event meant to drum up business for the store is actually driving business away from the store. This is less of an issue at a 2 day event in a hotel, but even then, the retailers who are sponsoring the event can't turn around and sell you a Barracuda, 4 Tetras, a Sensor Tower, three Hazard Suits, and a squadron of Hornets.

Would you want to sponsor an event that would potentially hurt your business?

DaddyWarcrimes wrote:
Would you want to sponsor an event that would potentially hurt your business?

Good question. This is why any FLGS that runs an event should ban anything that has a direct-only model (since those don't make them any profit). In fact, why not take the obvious next step and ban any model that doesn't have a receipt proving that it was bought in the store hosting the event?

DaddyWarcrimes wrote:
Given that GW's "professional game designers" are overtly hostile to tournament play, and dedicate several pages of their monthly catalog to openly insulting anyone playing 40k competitively, the idea that the game can be competitive without trampling on some of the work is preposterous.

Admittedly, as time has gone on, more and more of the rules in the main book have been embraced, and once everyone has a Warlord Traits table that isn't mostly useless even that last hurdle will fade.

But how's this for an argument against including FW in tournaments. I can't walk into my FLGS that's hosting an RTT and buy any of it. I can't buy the books, or the models, or the weathering powders.

You can't buy the Sisters of Battle rules or any of their models just walking into a store either.

Nobody is talking about banning them.

OverwatchCNC wrote:

I don't think anyone has said it but let me. SoB is a bad codex which is not played very widely and really isn't going to give people trouble. But besides that fact the entire book is basically Codex Space Marines with T3. If you've played against a SM army, really any SM army, and you play against a WYSIWYG SoB army it won't be a problem for you if you've got half a brain and aren't totally trashed. Comparing SoB and the entirety of the FW range and books is ridiculous, period, end of story.

You're intentially straying from the point here by trying to change the argument from "their rules aren't any more accessible than FW's, likely less so, and nobody wants to ban them" to "well the army is bad and it's got bolters and rhinos so you should totally know how it plays."

Whether they are similar or not and whether they suck or not is not the point, the point, if it were nobody would care about most FW lists either because most of the time they're rather similar to codex lists and very often suck as well. The point is that SoB rules are even less available than FW rules and their models likewise must be specially ordered at high price and nobody think they should be banned yet the same reasons are somehow applied to forgeworld and result in a different conclusion.

On top of that there's a number of other key differences, primarily the Faith mechanic and some of the SC's that will really trip up a player who has never encountered them before. Yeah, they've got 3+sv's,rhinos and common weapons available in all Imperial armies. That's where the commonalities largely end.

Attempting to draw that correlation is stretching far beyond the scope of what is reasonable in this conversation, or any comparison between FW and its use in tournaments to the limitation of codex usage.

Just because you say so doesn't make it so. Overgeneralizing the army with a "well it sucks and it's just T3 marines so it's not a problem" is irrelevant and intentionally misdirecting from the actual point, which is that the the army's rules cannot be obtained other than from 2nd hand sources or by pirating them yet nobody bats an eye about them.

People probably would be, if Sisters were as strong as GK or Necrons. The (at least perceived) relatively low power and hobbyist-fanatic appeal of the army leads to it being looked at with more sympathy, IME.

 Vaktathi wrote:

DaddyWarcrimes wrote:
Given that GW's "professional game designers" are overtly hostile to tournament play, and dedicate several pages of their monthly catalog to openly insulting anyone playing 40k competitively, the idea that the game can be competitive without trampling on some of the work is preposterous.

Admittedly, as time has gone on, more and more of the rules in the main book have been embraced, and once everyone has a Warlord Traits table that isn't mostly useless even that last hurdle will fade.

But how's this for an argument against including FW in tournaments. I can't walk into my FLGS that's hosting an RTT and buy any of it. I can't buy the books, or the models, or the weathering powders.

You can't buy the Sisters of Battle rules or any of their models just walking into a store either.

Nobody is talking about banning them.

I direct you to my previous statement on SoB.

 Mannahnin wrote:
Spacecurves was widely-known for winning big events with Codex: SM in 5th ed when internet know-it-alls thought they were trash. And running untraditional (assault, non-Venom-spam) Dark Eldar similarly well. And for writing a whole series of in-depth articles on fine points of the 40k rules and how to apply them to advanced effect on BOLS.

The idea that you're going to dismiss his wins because this year's list includes a lot of great units (along with a Battlewagon and Meganobs which are not exactly on most folks' radar) is deeply misguided.

Your inability to express your argument without insulting them also doesn't help that argument or your credibility.

Doesn't matter. He is still using the most undercosted, overpowered units to win.

If you can't comprehend the message being delivered across several posts, I am sorry. There are lot's of other people "that get it".

And Meganobz are among the very best Ork units in 6th edition. I have been warning and coaching local Ork players about using them for some time. Ork players who thought they were done in 6th have been
seeing a resurgence because of Meganobz. Spacecurves knows this, that is why he ran them.

 OverwatchCNC wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

DaddyWarcrimes wrote:
Given that GW's "professional game designers" are overtly hostile to tournament play, and dedicate several pages of their monthly catalog to openly insulting anyone playing 40k competitively, the idea that the game can be competitive without trampling on some of the work is preposterous.

Admittedly, as time has gone on, more and more of the rules in the main book have been embraced, and once everyone has a Warlord Traits table that isn't mostly useless even that last hurdle will fade.

But how's this for an argument against including FW in tournaments. I can't walk into my FLGS that's hosting an RTT and buy any of it. I can't buy the books, or the models, or the weathering powders.

You can't buy the Sisters of Battle rules or any of their models just walking into a store either.

Nobody is talking about banning them.

I direct you to my previous statement on SoB.

Was busy editing my post to address your statement

Relic07 wrote:

 Mannahnin wrote:
Spacecurves was widely-known for winning big events with Codex: SM in 5th ed when internet know-it-alls thought they were trash. And running untraditional (assault, non-Venom-spam) Dark Eldar similarly well. And for writing a whole series of in-depth articles on fine points of the 40k rules and how to apply them to advanced effect on BOLS.

The idea that you're going to dismiss his wins because this year's list includes a lot of great units (along with a Battlewagon and Meganobs which are not exactly on most folks' radar) is deeply misguided.

Your inability to express your argument without insulting them also doesn't help that argument or your credibility.

Doesn't matter. He is still using the most undercosted, overpowered units to win.

Of course it matters. I'm not disputing that he's got some of the best units in the game right now in this list (except the Battlewagon, really), but your earlier arguments that he (among others) is just a flavor of the month player, dependent on overpowered crutches and jealously and hypocritically criticizing others for wanting FW is just laughable. Not that your attitude toward other folks is less rude or more appropriate, but Ben's a particularly funny choice of target.