Author |
Message |
 |
|
 |
Advert
|
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. |
|
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/06/11 16:36:35
Subject: Re:Do we still need forge world in tournament play?
|
 |
Imperial Guard Landspeeder Pilot
On moon miranda.
|
Norbu the Destroyer wrote:
Why couldnt folks use 2nd edition units? They are also 40k approved.
Largely because they have newer rules and the older ones don't function (what relevance does this M stat have? When is the Psychic Phase? How does an Armour Save Modifier work?) and/or they cost 2-4x as much as they do now (nobody is going to bother with 33pt Tac marines)
Though yes, fundamentally there is no rule on which edition book to use.
Now my opinion, Forgeworld doesnt add much to the game, at least not the things folks take to tournies. There are enough broken units, overpowered vehicles, unbeatable charachters, why the argument to include more?
To shake up the metagame? (something that is lauded by the tournament crew in every respect except when it comes to forgeworld). To try new builds? To expose players to a greater span of the 40k universe?
A forgotten rule on what a forgeworld unit does, having an unknown unit sprung on an opponent, these kinds of things can get a game off to a sour note.
This is something applies to a codex though too. If an opponent has never faced a certain unit or certain army, or forgets what a unit does, the same things can happen. And ultimately, many people are never going to learn these units unless they become exposed at these events and get face time.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/06/11 16:38:26
IRON WITHIN, IRON WITHOUT.
New Heavy Gear Log! Also...Grey Knights!
The correct pronunciation is Imperial Guard and Stormtroopers, "Astra Militarum" and "Tempestus Scions" are something you'll find at Hogwarts. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/06/11 16:38:20
Subject: Re:Do we still need forge world in tournament play?
|
 |
Longtime Dakkanaut
Getting my broom incase there is shenanigans.
|
Besides a small vocal minority like Peregrine, Vaktathi, and Relic07, it seems like most think that FW is not for tournament play, and if it is included in tournaments there must be some kind of limitations put on it.
My work here is done.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/06/11 17:16:03
Subject: Re:Do we still need forge world in tournament play?
|
 |
Dakka Veteran
Peoria, IL
|
Besides a small vocal minority like Peregrine, Vaktathi, and Relic07, it seems like most think that FW is not for tournament play, and if it is included in tournaments there must be some kind of limitations put on it.
My work here is done.
Except for the part that the last time AdeptiCon ran a survey on the subject that majority was in favor. That was some years ago, but in my experience FW has only gotten more acceptance in the community.
The "majority" of posters on this board railed against player placed terrain, what a disaster it would be, how it would eat all sorts of time, and how games would never finish at 1850. The results at AdeptiCon proved otherwise. So I am careful to extrapolate .. the dozen or so of us that care enough to post in this thread to the majority.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/06/11 17:17:23
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/06/11 17:16:06
Subject: Do we still need forge world in tournament play?
|
 |
Decrepit Dakkanaut
|
I'm 100% for TOs playing what their area wants to play. Further, if their group is split, even 25/75, then offer some tournaments with it and some without it.
People unwilling to compromise, on either side of the fence, are being rather silly IMHO.
|
DA:70S+G+M+B++I++Pw40k08+D++A++/fWD-R+T(M)DM+
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/06/11 17:17:19
Subject: Re:Do we still need forge world in tournament play?
|
 |
Bryan Ansell
|
In my mind this argument is circling back towards the old chestnut of the 40k rules themselves being piss poor. what I mean is that It isnt FW ithat has created an OP unit. GW produce rules for its premier game that brings about these supposed imbalances within its supplements.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/06/11 17:17:25
Subject: Re:Do we still need forge world in tournament play?
|
 |
Imperial Guard Landspeeder Pilot
On moon miranda.
|
"I don't like Forgeworld, its bad and there's no way to counter it!"
Well you could try X or Y, these things are vulnerable to Z which X and Y both take advantage of.
"You obviously have no idea how 2play"
Great lengths of discussion by multiple posters on a range of issues
"oh look, some people agree with me, I'll only name a couple posters that disagree with me to make them look less numerous, I'll declare that most agreed with my specific viewpoint and declare GREAT VICTORY! My work here is done".
|
IRON WITHIN, IRON WITHOUT.
New Heavy Gear Log! Also...Grey Knights!
The correct pronunciation is Imperial Guard and Stormtroopers, "Astra Militarum" and "Tempestus Scions" are something you'll find at Hogwarts. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/06/11 17:20:13
Subject: Do we still need forge world in tournament play?
|
 |
Bryan Ansell
|
kronk wrote:I'm 100% for TOs playing what their area wants to play. Further, if their group is split, even 25/75, then offer some tournaments with it and some without it.
People unwilling to compromise, on either side of the fence, are being rather silly IMHO.
I would heartily agree.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/06/11 17:31:19
Subject: Re:Do we still need forge world in tournament play?
|
 |
[DCM]
Dankhold Troggoth
|
muwhe wrote:Besides a small vocal minority like Peregrine, Vaktathi, and Relic07, it seems like most think that FW is not for tournament play, and if it is included in tournaments there must be some kind of limitations put on it.
My work here is done.
Except for the part that the last time AdeptiCon ran a survey on the subject that majority was in favor. That was some years ago, but in my experience FW has only gotten more acceptance in the community.
The "majority" of posters on this board railed against player placed terrain, what a disaster it would be, how it would eat all sorts of time, and how games would never finish at 1850. The results at AdeptiCon proved otherwise. So I am careful to extrapolate .. the dozen or so of us that care enough to post in this thread to the majority.
Muwhe, while this is a great point I am curious what the subject of the survey really was. If you take a slice of this discussion, I would say that many are interested in FW but few in it with no restrictions at all. If you took a poll, at a big event allowing some FW, on whether people want to see some FW... I bet you would get a majority saying they would.
But if you made the distinction between completely unlimited / uncomped FW, and somehow limited FW such as at AdeptiCon, I believe you'd see an overwhelming preference for some limitations on FW. I think this trend will only become stronger as people see things like FW artillery in use. The trend being, people are interested in FW, but not in just seeing the same few broken units from FW- it defeats the point of including it at all, imo, and makes it "not worth the hassle" for a TO... or for the players themselves.
Also just wanted to say that those were some great posts by carlosthecraven, Hulksmash, and Norbu the Destroyer on the previous page. For myself, despite having participated in these discussions a number of times, as I have a great interest in FW and as I mentioned am starting FW chaos dwarfs for fantasy, I still have no idea what books I'd need to buy to have all possible units I could face in 40k covered. Forgeworld for 40k is likely always going to remain a bit of a black box to me, and thus I prefer it in limited / comped format so that people with more time than I can restrict the units that are broken beyond repair, and help me to have a fun tourney experience
|
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2013/06/11 17:34:48
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/06/11 17:33:33
Subject: Re:Do we still need forge world in tournament play?
|
 |
Regular Dakkanaut
|
Vaktathi wrote:"I don't like Forgeworld, its bad and there's no way to counter it!" Well you could try X or Y, these things are vulnerable to Z which X and Y both take advantage of. "You obviously have no idea how 2play" Great lengths of discussion by multiple posters on a range of issues "oh look, some people agree with me, I'll only name a couple posters that disagree with me to make them look less numerous, I'll declare that most agreed with my specific viewpoint and declare GREAT VICTORY! My work here is done". TBH your just as guilty of reducing the other sides arguments down during this entire discussion. The "Anti- FW" side as well as many of the "Pro- FW" posters have agreed that some restrictions should be placed on FW units, at least the worst of the bunch. None agree that the same restrictions should be placed on codex units and the reasons have been given at length. Alan's list was a tough nut to crack and excepting a list building mistake including DA instead of SW, he might as well won the tourney in a runaway. That's is conjecture of course but many people have pointed it out. All the top players posting in this thread (this is the data were given to this point as no one does actual scientific polling on this nonsense) are arguing for restrictions on FW in tournaments. In fact the last three winners of WGC are for banning or restricting FW in tournaments. We have multiple TOs who are arguing for restrictions on FW. The only people arguing for full FW in tournaments are the people the least invested in them. Redbeard being the exception.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/06/11 17:33:46
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/06/11 17:37:22
Subject: Do we still need forge world in tournament play?
|
 |
[DCM]
Dankhold Troggoth
|
That's why I keep mentioning compromise- I think that actually many players are interested in restricted FW, but the argument that "All FW must be legal, all the time" is a huge turnoff to that discussion.
In general, folks like new toys.
In general, folks also don't like to have their toys stomped on by some overpowered/undercosted/spammable thing they've never heard of
Restricted FW is a great solution and is part of the reason why I loved AdeptiCon so much in 2012. I couldn't make it this year but I have already committed for 2014
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/06/11 17:57:03
Subject: Re:Do we still need forge world in tournament play?
|
 |
Imperial Guard Landspeeder Pilot
On moon miranda.
|
Glocknall wrote:
TBH your just as guilty of reducing the other sides arguments down during this entire discussion.
My post was in response to the rather one dimensional, one/two-line posts by the OP who really didn't seem interested in the actual discussion, rather just trying to look for reinforcement/vindication of his own views, and not a general commentary on the thread of any other viewpoint as a whole.
Alan's list was a tough nut to crack and excepting a list building mistake including DA instead of SW, he might as well won the tourney in a runaway. That's is conjecture of course but many people have pointed it out.
That may be, but doesn't necessarily point to the FW units being as dramatically overpowered as they are made out to be, instead what we had was additional evidence that, if anything, Necrons are a greater metagame issue having consistently placed first/high at many large events.
All the top players posting in this thread (this is the data were given to this point as no one does actual scientific polling on this nonsense) are arguing for restrictions on FW in tournaments. In fact the last three winners of WGC are for banning or restricting FW in tournaments. We have multiple TOs who are arguing for restrictions on FW.
The only people arguing for full FW in tournaments are the people the least invested in them. Redbeard being the exception.
Only if you're classifying tournaments as being big independent events and not "tournaments" in general. Just because I didn't attend WGC or Adepticon doesn't mean I don't have an investment in tournaments, I have plenty of investment in "tournaments" in general, local/regional events and the like.
Additionally, what becomes the norm at these big events often is enforced on other events and in many cases pick-up game play, so there's reason for everyone to care.
|
IRON WITHIN, IRON WITHOUT.
New Heavy Gear Log! Also...Grey Knights!
The correct pronunciation is Imperial Guard and Stormtroopers, "Astra Militarum" and "Tempestus Scions" are something you'll find at Hogwarts. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/06/11 18:14:16
Subject: Re:Do we still need forge world in tournament play?
|
 |
Longtime Dakkanaut
Getting my broom incase there is shenanigans.
|
muwhe wrote:Besides a small vocal minority like Peregrine, Vaktathi, and Relic07, it seems like most think that FW is not for tournament play, and if it is included in tournaments there must be some kind of limitations put on it.
My work here is done.
Except for the part that the last time AdeptiCon ran a survey on the subject that majority was in favor. That was some years ago, but in my experience FW has only gotten more acceptance in the community.
The "majority" of posters on this board railed against player placed terrain, what a disaster it would be, how it would eat all sorts of time, and how games would never finish at 1850. The results at AdeptiCon proved otherwise. So I am careful to extrapolate .. the dozen or so of us that care enough to post in this thread to the majority.
#1. Hank, do you believe in unlimited access to Forge World?
#2. There has been a lot of change since that survey. 6th edition changed a lot of things and Nate (carlosthecraven) pointed some of them out. Especially considering how artillery changed which comprises 95% of the units that most people seem to think are overpowered/undercosted.
#3. In my opinion a lot of players do not know about forge world and what it can do. For example, there were only 1 or 2 armies at the BAO that were heavy FW (both ended up in the top 5 FYI), and the rest were just a couple of others with saber platforms (also ended up top 15). So most really did not experience what FW can do so they all said that FW is just fine. Just because a lot of people don't think there is a problem does not mean there is not a problem.
#4. Player placed terrain was an issue, and it did eat time. There were some who timed it and it was not quick. It was not a disaster, but I would not call it a success either. Also placing objectives after knowing deployment zones was a very bad idea and people thought so before the tournament, and their experience confirmed that.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/06/11 18:32:38
Subject: Re:Do we still need forge world in tournament play?
|
 |
[DCM]
Dankhold Troggoth
|
Vaktathi wrote:Glocknall wrote:
TBH your just as guilty of reducing the other sides arguments down during this entire discussion.
My post was in response to the rather one dimensional, one/two-line posts by the OP who really didn't seem interested in the actual discussion, rather just trying to look for reinforcement/vindication of his own views, and not a general commentary on the thread of any other viewpoint as a whole.
True, but you're still posting tit-for-tat! Stop, please, and engage in the discussion more constructively. This applies to anyone posting an "absolute". Blackmoor's post above mine here is a lot more focused on the real issues, so please let's all try to continue in that vein instead of characterizing the "other side" of the argument. Seriously, there is room for compromise here and a lot of us have come around to that... even Peregrine  (I do not mean that as an insult, but as a compliment in his willingness to consider limited FW).
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/06/11 18:56:41
Subject: Re:Do we still need forge world in tournament play?
|
 |
Evil man of Carn Dûm
|
Blackmoor wrote:
#1. Hank, do you believe in unlimited access to Forge World?
#2. There has been a lot of change since that survey. 6th edition changed a lot of things and Nate (carlosthecraven) pointed some of them out. Especially considering how artillery changed which comprises 95% of the units that most people seem to think are overpowered/undercosted.
#3. In my opinion a lot of players do not know about forge world and what it can do. For example, there were only 1 or 2 armies at the BAO that were heavy FW (both ended up in the top 5 FYI), and the rest were just a couple of others with saber platforms (also ended up top 15). So most really did not experience what FW can do so they all said that FW is just fine. Just because a lot of people don't think there is a problem does not mean there is not a problem.
#4. Player placed terrain was an issue, and it did eat time. There were some who timed it and it was not quick. It was not a disaster, but I would not call it a success either. Also placing objectives after knowing deployment zones was a very bad idea and people thought so before the tournament, and their experience confirmed that.
1. I think it is obvious that AdeptiCon does not believe in unlimited FW unit access. We did not allow FW in the 40K Championships this year and all FW units were limited to 0-1 (Unique) choices in the events that did allow them ( 40K Team Tournament, 40K Friendly and Horus Heresy). Only the 40K Gladiator was unlimited, which makes sense.
2. No doubt a new survey post-6th edition would be beneficial for our specific event....but what if the results of that survey favored unlimited access?
3. I think you will also find a number of players that barely know about anything outside their own codex. FW Units are generally built on a similar foundation as normal 40K units and it shouldn't take someone all that long to get the general grasp of any particular unit, although I suppose this is more about not knowing the strengths/weaknesses of a unit in advance or the second it hits the table - which I'd argue is still the case with many players and standard 40K units, especially when you throw in all the random/purchasable powers.
4. Sure it ate up time, but part of that time was already being used previously to simply reset/adjust a table that was a mess due to display bases or the previous game. I do not believe player-placed terrain had any major impact on games finishing on time. In the 40K Championships on Thursday, we had an average completion rate of 93% each round. There are several other factors within 6th edition that increase setup and gameplay, player-placed terrain played a very minor role.
The problem with objectives arose when an odd number was generated. That can easily be resolved as discussed during the finals be insuring the odd objective is placed in the center of the table or simply forcing an even number of objectives. These ideas, along with tweaks to the Scouring, have already been integrated into the 2014 drafts based on feedback.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/06/11 18:57:43
Subject: Re:Do we still need forge world in tournament play?
|
 |
Regular Dakkanaut
|
Vaktathi wrote: Only if you're classifying tournaments as being big independent events and not "tournaments" in general. Just because I didn't attend WGC or Adepticon doesn't mean I don't have an investment in tournaments, I have plenty of investment in "tournaments" in general, local/regional events and the like.
Additionally, what becomes the norm at these big events often is enforced on other events and in many cases pick-up game play, so there's reason for everyone to care.
You make a good point, I was being overly broad there. I was referring to the "Big Events", but I do agree it filters down and the FW effect becomes more pronounced. My local tournaments include a lot of "fluffy" players who enjoy the opportunity to play a few good games in a day and are not particularly concerned with winning outright. However when these guys get shot off the table by FW heavy lists it discourages them from playing in a tournament again. The difference between the FW power list and a Codex one is that these players are familiar with the codex ones and even might of found ways to make a good game of it against these lists. They will not have had such an opportunity against FW. On top of it they most likely find FW artillery and sabres particularly odious because of the difficultly finding counters to it.
I do play against FW on a regular basis. Units like Wraithseers, Blight Drones, etc...I don't have a problem and reasonable allowance of FW in tournaments is fine IMO.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/06/11 19:45:04
Subject: Do we still need forge world in tournament play?
|
 |
Longtime Dakkanaut
|
I am more open to letting players place the terrain again after playing in the WGC team tourney this past weekend. There were no problems with it in any of my games.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/06/11 20:19:11
Subject: Re:Do we still need forge world in tournament play?
|
 |
Douglas Bader
|
Hulksmash wrote:You must have missed the part of what I wrote when I contacted my customer service for my card I was told that it was FW that cancelled my order. It was not a suspicious charget they put a hold on. FW itself cancelled my order. Three times. I don't even try to order their product anymore. I generally just throw in with others on their orders (rare) or pick up books at Adepticon (even rarer).
As the counter-argument to that I've made more FW orders than I want to think about and I have never had anything canceled by FW, only by my bank's automated fraud detection. And judging by the 'where's my package' posts they get on facebook their policy for dealing with out of stock items is to accept the order and just hold it until everything is ready, not cancel it. So that means it's either FW canceling your stuff out of spite, or something going wrong with your payment.
Glocknall wrote:None agree that the same restrictions should be placed on codex units and the reasons have been given at length.
Sorry, but the only reason for not restricting codex units is "people wouldn't like it". If you're going to insist that FW restrictions are about balance then you need to take balancing the game seriously and do something about balance problems with codex units. Otherwise "it's overpowered" seems like less of a legitimate reason and more of an excuse.
Alan's list was a tough nut to crack and excepting a list building mistake including DA instead of SW, he might as well won the tourney in a runaway. That's is conjecture of course but many people have pointed it out.
Sure, and if I'd bothered to attend that tournament I would have won it. And if the tournament had used straight win/loss scoring the failure of his list would have been ignored by the anti- FW side.
The only people arguing for full FW in tournaments are the people the least invested in them.
Only if you define "invested" as "winning tournaments" and ignore people like me who want to play in tournaments but are excluded by FW bans.
|
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/06/11 20:30:55
Subject: Re:Do we still need forge world in tournament play?
|
 |
Imperial Guard Landspeeder Pilot
On moon miranda.
|
Glocknall wrote:
You make a good point, I was being overly broad there. I was referring to the "Big Events", but I do agree it filters down and the FW effect becomes more pronounced. My local tournaments include a lot of "fluffy" players who enjoy the opportunity to play a few good games in a day and are not particularly concerned with winning outright. However when these guys get shot off the table by FW heavy lists it discourages them from playing in a tournament again.
I can see this but the same can just as easily happen with straight codex armies.
The difference between the FW power list and a Codex one is that these players are familiar with the codex ones and even might of found ways to make a good game of it against these lists. They will not have had such an opportunity against FW.
That may be, but the only way that will change is to increase the situations in which players will encounter Forgeworld models and rules, and thus increase awareness. Besides, the same things happens for the first couple months after each new codex release.
On top of it they most likely find FW artillery and sabres particularly odious because of the difficultly finding counters to it.
Force Ld test, if there's an Ld buff unit, focus on that, then force Ld tests. Failing that, get anything into CC and you'll likely slay or break the Ld7 guardsmen crew with even minimal numbers. Units like Tau Sniper drones and Eldar Pathfinders also work exceedingly well against such artillery units and can be of great use against their Ld anchors.
I do play against FW on a regular basis. Units like Wraithseers, Blight Drones, etc...I don't have a problem and reasonable allowance of FW in tournaments is fine IMO.
The issue, that I at least have, with this is that such restrictions have not and would not be leveled on codex units no matter how bad, and given that these FW units are just other units that exist within the Warhammer 40,000 universe (including many, like Thudd guns, that *were* codex at some point in 40k's history) leveling such restrictions on them feels like its being done just because their book says "Imperial Armour" instead of "Codex", as no major TO at this point is going to try and enforce restrictions on Codex units.
RiTides wrote:
True, but you're still posting tit-for-tat!
You're right, I'll refrain in the future
|
IRON WITHIN, IRON WITHOUT.
New Heavy Gear Log! Also...Grey Knights!
The correct pronunciation is Imperial Guard and Stormtroopers, "Astra Militarum" and "Tempestus Scions" are something you'll find at Hogwarts. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/06/11 20:52:53
Subject: Re:Do we still need forge world in tournament play?
|
 |
Longtime Dakkanaut
Getting my broom incase there is shenanigans.
|
Matthias wrote:
1. I think it is obvious that AdeptiCon does not believe in unlimited FW unit access. We did not allow FW in the 40K Championships this year and all FW units were limited to 0-1 (Unique) choices in the events that did allow them ( 40K Team Tournament, 40K Friendly and Horus Heresy). Only the 40K Gladiator was unlimited, which makes sense.
I am not intractable on my views of forge world. I would be perfectly happy with some restrictions on FW.
2. No doubt a new survey post-6th edition would be beneficial for our specific event....but what if the results of that survey favored unlimited access?
It would not surprise me. Most people also think guns are more dangerous to kids than pools.
3. I think you will also find a number of players that barely know about anything outside their own codex. FW Units are generally built on a similar foundation as normal 40K units and it shouldn't take someone all that long to get the general grasp of any particular unit, although I suppose this is more about not knowing the strengths/weaknesses of a unit in advance or the second it hits the table - which I'd argue is still the case with many players and standard 40K units, especially when you throw in all the random/purchasable powers.
I think you are right for the most part, but remember that we are talking about tournament gamers who are generally a bit savvier then home gamers.
4. Sure it ate up time, but part of that time was already being used previously to simply reset/adjust a table that was a mess due to display bases or the previous game. I do not believe player-placed terrain had any major impact on games finishing on time. In the 40K Championships on Thursday, we had an average completion rate of 93% each round. There are several other factors within 6th edition that increase setup and gameplay, player-placed terrain played a very minor role.
93% is a good rate of completion and you guys did do a good job with having extra time and the way that you spread out the games (like the team tournament). My only comments are:
#1. Did the survey say did you get to turn #5 or did you finish your game? (There is a slight difference.)
#2. Games are going to take even longer now with the recent armies that are released (Demons and Eldar) because of all of the rolls that they have to make pre-game for both, and the extra movement for the later. And yes I know that the CD codex was released in time, but not well represented like at WGC.
#3. People knew that time was going to be an issue and it impacted their army choice. For example Mike Brandt said that he wanted to take his Tyranids but he knew that he would be pressed for time (and my guess is that he is not alone),
The problem with objectives arose when an odd number was generated. That can easily be resolved as discussed during the finals be insuring the odd objective is placed in the center of the table or simply forcing an even number of objectives. These ideas, along with tweaks to the Scouring, have already been integrated into the 2014 drafts based on feedback.
The problem with objectives was exacerbated by the terrain placement. What everyone did was pick the biggest LOS blocking terrain piece and place it in their deployment zones knowing that they would place an objective marker behind it. So what happened was that you ended up with all objectives along the back edge of the board hidden by terrain. It turned every objective mission into Emperor’s Will (or Capture and Control for 5th edition. There was a reason it was called draw-bore and roll-dice-and-tie). So everyone camped on their objectives and the person who had the odd one had a huge advantage. If you have an even number of objectives the same thing will happen and the game will come down to who scored first blood. There is no motivation to do anything else with your objectives than place them that way. If the odd objective is placed in the middle that will just turn the game into fighting over that one objective (or if you have gotten fist blood you can just try to contest it).
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/06/11 21:00:40
Subject: Re:Do we still need forge world in tournament play?
|
 |
Regular Dakkanaut
|
Vaktathi wrote: I can see this but the same can just as easily happen with straight codex armies. Absolutely but the major difference is..... That may be, but the only way that will change is to increase the situations in which players will encounter Forgeworld models and rules, and thus increase awareness. Besides, the same things happens for the first couple months after each new codex release.
We would all love to raise more awareness, but the people who apparently are not on board with this is GW. You still don't find forgeworld in most FLGS, its never mentioned in Codices, briefly in the BRB describing campaign games, White Dwarf features it only from a hobby perspective, there is no store requirement to carry it for independents, can only be order from overseas, commonly out of stock, etc... In the run up to a new codices there of course is rumormongering, leaks, teaser trailers, and just a general buzz surrounding a new release. People who play these armies expect to see new and nasty stuff across from them. What they don't expect to see is new units from a codex they have been playing against for years blowing them off the table. I hope you can see the difference between these examples. The issue, that I at least have, with this is that such restrictions have not and would not be leveled on codex units no matter how bad, and given that these FW units are just other units that exist within the Warhammer 40,000 universe (including many, like Thudd guns, that *were* codex at some point in 40k's history) leveling such restrictions on them feels like its being done just because their book says "Imperial Armour" instead of "Codex", as no major TO at this point is going to try and enforce restrictions on Codex units.
I agree with you that there is a double standard between Codex units and FW, but the reason for that is GW. FW is treated like the illegitimate child in the family. Its not spoken of, but exists in some kind of strange wargaming limbo. Until that changes and FW gets better at updating their existing units its not going to change. Codicies say specifically this is the definitive guide to play this army in Warhammer 40k. I know that FW books have some similar language (with qualifications) but until GW decides to resolve this legality limbo FW was in then nothing will change.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/06/11 21:04:03
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/06/11 21:10:10
Subject: Re:Do we still need forge world in tournament play?
|
 |
Douglas Bader
|
Glocknall wrote:We would all love to raise more awareness, but the people who apparently are not on board with this is GW. You still don't find forgeworld in most FLGS, its never mentioned in Codices, briefly in the BRB describing campaign games, White Dwarf features it only from a hobby perspective, there is no store requirement to carry it for independents, can only be order from overseas, commonly out of stock, etc...
In the run up to a new codices there of course is rumormongering, leaks, teaser trailers, and just a general buzz surrounding a new release. People who play these armies expect to see new and nasty stuff across from them. What they don't expect to see is new units from a codex they have been playing against for years blowing them off the table. I hope you can see the difference between these examples.
But we aren't talking about newbies playing their first games with the starter set, we're talking about the minority of players that are dedicated enough to build tournament armies and attend events. I think the vast majority of them have at least heard of FW (and effectively 100% for a major event with travel involved), so if they decide not to prepare for it then it's entirely their fault. It's no different than a hypothetical person who doesn't read forums and doesn't have any Tau players nearby being surprised by the new Tau codex. We'd feel a bit of sympathy when they lose a game that probably isn't going to be much fun for them, but we wouldn't even consider forcing all of the Tau players to use the old codex to accommodate that one person.
I agree with you that there is a double standard between Codex units and FW, but the reason for that is GW. FW is treated like the illegitimate child in the family. Its not spoken of, but exists in some kind of strange wargaming limbo. Until that changes and FW gets better at updating their existing units its not going to change. Codicies say specifically this is the definitive guide to play this army in Warhammer 40k. I know that FW books have some similar language (with qualifications) but until GW decides to resolve this legality limbo FW was in then nothing will change.
This is not real ambiguity. GW has settled the issue by saying "this is part of the game" in every FW book, which tells 'advanced' players what the rules are without having to worry about some 12 year old getting an expensive FW kit for christmas because their non-gamer parents didn't realize how difficult they are to work with. The only "problem" here is that certain players demand an answer in the form that they want, and assume that if GW doesn't provide it there is no way to know what GW's position is.
|
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/06/11 22:13:53
Subject: Re:Do we still need forge world in tournament play?
|
 |
Ian Pickstock
Nottingham
|
Redbeard wrote:
Great, so now we're turning wargaming all touchy-feely. It feels worse to lose to one unit than another. This is a pathetic argument. Maybe some people need to put their big boy pants on.
Lines like this make me laugh. I work a manual job in a factory, am six foot tall and built like a gak brick house. Doesn't mean I'm cool with people using armies/units against me thats rules are not known to me. It doesn't make me a pansy little girl to be annoyed when I find out turn three that the land raider on the table is immune to melta fire, or that a unit has some uber special rule that's about to nerf me.
Please don't conflate masculinity with using ambiguous rules to win a wargame.
|
Naaa na na na-na-na-naaa.
Na-na-na-naaaaa.
Hey Jude. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/06/11 22:33:55
Subject: Do we still need forge world in tournament play?
|
 |
Imperial Guard Landspeeder Pilot
On moon miranda.
|
That's why you ask for the rules ahead of time, just like you would a new codex that you haven't yet perused, or a White Dwarf unit, or anything of the like.
|
IRON WITHIN, IRON WITHOUT.
New Heavy Gear Log! Also...Grey Knights!
The correct pronunciation is Imperial Guard and Stormtroopers, "Astra Militarum" and "Tempestus Scions" are something you'll find at Hogwarts. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/06/11 22:38:17
Subject: Re:Do we still need forge world in tournament play?
|
 |
Ian Pickstock
Nottingham
|
Right but simply skim-reading a codex before a battle really doesn't give you any idea of how the codex actually works. I don't think the average wargamer could memorize a complete set of weapons, armour and wargear before a battle. Many xeno lists would simply be unreadable without some sort of crib sheet.
|
Naaa na na na-na-na-naaa.
Na-na-na-naaaaa.
Hey Jude. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/06/11 22:44:02
Subject: Re:Do we still need forge world in tournament play?
|
 |
Quick-fingered Warlord Moderatus
|
BryllCream wrote:Right but simply skim-reading a codex before a battle really doesn't give you any idea of how the codex actually works
This is achieved by actually playing against the army, in which case it's a self-fulfilling prophecy where you will never get experience if you don't play against it. Or by doing research and reading up. In any case, the majority of FW army lists are variations of the base codex. Armoured Brigade? IG with lots of tanks. Elysian droptroops? Expensive IG with lots of flyers, no heavy weapons, everything can deepstrike. Vraksian Renegades? Chaos IG. Et cetera.
|
Click here for my Swap Shop post - I'm buying stuff!
DR:90-S++G++M+B++I+Pw40kPbfg99#+D++A++/eWDR++T(T)DM+
Black Legion/Iron Warriors/Night Lords Inquisitorial Friends & Co. (Inq, GK, Elysians, Assassins) Elysian Droptroops, soon-to-add Armored Battlegroup Adeptus Mechanicus Forge World Lucius
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/06/11 22:55:59
Subject: Re:Do we still need forge world in tournament play?
|
 |
Imperial Guard Landspeeder Pilot
On moon miranda.
|
BryllCream wrote:Right but simply skim-reading a codex before a battle really doesn't give you any idea of how the codex actually works. I don't think the average wargamer could memorize a complete set of weapons, armour and wargear before a battle. Many xeno lists would simply be unreadable without some sort of crib sheet.
Most FW units won't require you to read an entire book, just have them point out the units to you. In the case of an FW list, most of it will still be very similar to a codex (i.e. if facing an Armoured Battlegroup, if you know how the IG FA and HS slots work, you know 90% of that list).
The only reason you should be completely blindsided is if their rules weren't provided or one didn't read them thoroughly enough, and that's no different than anything else in the game.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/06/11 22:56:46
IRON WITHIN, IRON WITHOUT.
New Heavy Gear Log! Also...Grey Knights!
The correct pronunciation is Imperial Guard and Stormtroopers, "Astra Militarum" and "Tempestus Scions" are something you'll find at Hogwarts. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/06/11 23:28:25
Subject: Re:Do we still need forge world in tournament play?
|
 |
Ian Pickstock
Nottingham
|
Vaktathi wrote: BryllCream wrote:Right but simply skim-reading a codex before a battle really doesn't give you any idea of how the codex actually works. I don't think the average wargamer could memorize a complete set of weapons, armour and wargear before a battle. Many xeno lists would simply be unreadable without some sort of crib sheet.
Most FW units won't require you to read an entire book, just have them point out the units to you. In the case of an FW list, most of it will still be very similar to a codex (i.e. if facing an Armoured Battlegroup, if you know how the IG FA and HS slots work, you know 90% of that list).
The only reason you should be completely blindsided is if their rules weren't provided or one didn't read them thoroughly enough, and that's no different than anything else in the game.
You really think a gamer is capable of remembering an entire army's wargear, weapons and special rules, and more importantly remembering which of the units has them? What the stats are for the IC in that unit, what weapons he has, what special rules he has...then the unit itself, then the entire army. That's a huge amount of information to be processed, at the same time as thinking about your own army, the terrain, etc.
I just don't buy that someone could turn up and play against an army they'd never seen before and not be at a huge disadvantage. This is mitigated to an extent since most Imperial armies will be easy enough to grasp though.
|
Naaa na na na-na-na-naaa.
Na-na-na-naaaaa.
Hey Jude. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/06/11 23:32:58
Subject: Re:Do we still need forge world in tournament play?
|
 |
Imperial Guard Landspeeder Pilot
On moon miranda.
|
BryllCream wrote:
You really think a gamer is capable of remembering an entire army's wargear, weapons and special rules, and more importantly remembering which of the units has them? What the stats are for the IC in that unit, what weapons he has, what special rules he has...then the unit itself, then the entire army. That's a huge amount of information to be processed, at the same time as thinking about your own army, the terrain, etc.
I just don't buy that someone could turn up and play against an army they'd never seen before and not be at a huge disadvantage. This is mitigated to an extent since most Imperial armies will be easy enough to grasp though.
Again, if you're just playing against FW units, there's not a whole lot to remember, if you're playing against an FW army, the majority of it is going to be identical or very similar to the codex list. My DKoK AB list I have been able to explain and my opponents understand with few if any questions in 2-3 minutes each game.
There isn't a huge gob of information, it's not like you're cramming for an organic chemistry test, and regardless, at *worst* it's no different than playing against a new codex release.
If someone can't handle that, then there's likely other issues that are going to be much more pressing. Yes I do believe the average wargamer can handle that, just as they can handle learning the various armies in the first place and new codex books as they are released.
|
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2013/06/11 23:34:03
IRON WITHIN, IRON WITHOUT.
New Heavy Gear Log! Also...Grey Knights!
The correct pronunciation is Imperial Guard and Stormtroopers, "Astra Militarum" and "Tempestus Scions" are something you'll find at Hogwarts. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/06/11 23:40:33
Subject: Re:Do we still need forge world in tournament play?
|
 |
Dakka Veteran
Peoria, IL
|
Sorry guys I'm in Mexico City, Mexico for work and my access is a bit limited.
93% is a good rate of completion and you guys did do a good job with having extra time and the way that you spread out the games (like the team tournament). My only comments are:
#1. Did the survey say did you get to turn #5 or did you finish your game? (There is a slight difference.)
Survey asked: Finished Yes or No and then defined it *Finished games are those that are ended by a Variable Game Length die roll ( pg. 122) or where all 7 game turns were fully played out.
#2. Games are going to take even longer now with the recent armies that are released (Demons and Eldar) because of all of the rolls that they have to make pre-game for both, and the extra movement for the later. And yes I know that the CD codex was released in time, but not well represented like at WGC.
I do not know. Could be. People said that 6th edition games would take longer. Maybe they do. Games always take longer when you have a recent release. There is unfamiliarity associated that tends to level out with time. I do know that we could give some players 3+ hours for a game and they still would not finish. While the rest of us who paid to be playing are sitting around waiting. That is not good either. Event formats are a balancing act and a series of trade offs.
#3. People knew that time was going to be an issue and it impacted their army choice. For example Mike Brandt said that he wanted to take his Tyranids but he knew that he would be pressed for time (and my guess is that he is not alone),
Sure. Time is always an issue. People make all sorts of judgement on what to bring to an event. Some people did bring Tyranids to AdeptiCon. Others made army selection choices based on format, missions, and terrain. I am certain there is a fair number of people that just brought what they had painted and available as well. I will take 9 out of 10 games finishing on dice any year. Let alone on the cusp of a new edition.
#1. Hank, do you believe in unlimited access to Forge World?
Allan, I believe in having events with no Forgeworld, with limited Forgeworld and unlimited FW (30K Horus Heresy Events, Gladiator ). The AdeptiCon position aka my position is a well-documented over the years.
However if you are serious about Forgeworld acceptance you have to get people exposed to it and thinking about it. The more exposure people have to it the more comfortable the community will become and the more events that will consider allowing it. People also need to consider that running events that allow Forgeworld is not a simple matter either. There is a considerable amount of work involved. Thankfully we got some good people involved in making that happen. *cough* yakface *cough* rhysk *cough*
What I think is somewhat ironic to this whole discussion. There used to be a 40K “Comp” crowd. I do not know maybe there still is or will be again. These sort of things tend to go in cycles and heavily depends on if the game ever goes through a phase of being “un-fun” to play. I will not go into a comp discussion here … and for the record I was never a “comp” guy..
But the short version.
“Anti-comp” crowd ( including a large segment of the competitive 40k crowd ) : Taking 3 Hell Drakes is allowed by the rules and legal. I should be able to play with my legal units without suffering any subjective penalties at an event.
“Comp” Crowd: It may be legal but it is no fun to play against. So we are going to have a comp system for our event.
“Anti-Comp” crowd: All comp systems do is change what is good they do not fix the core problem so if you are using comp we are not going to come.
Now you have the :
“ FW Crowd’: Hey Forgeworld units are 40k approved, allowed by the rules and I should be able to play with them at events.
“Anti- FW Crowd” (including a large segment of the competitive 40k crowd): It may be legal but it is no fun to play against so we are not in favor of allowing it. If an event is using Forgeworld we are not going to come.
How times have changed.
|
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2013/06/12 01:26:39
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/06/12 00:20:08
Subject: Re:Do we still need forge world in tournament play?
|
 |
Douglas Bader
|
I suspect that's part of the reason people are opposed to banning specific units, because that would be the C word and you can't be a serious competitive player if you support the C word. So instead it has to be about "availability" or whatever, and everything has to be banned instead of just the worst offenders.
|
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices. |
|
 |
 |
|