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.

mikhaila wrote:Some tournaments will allow IA rules, with scatchbuilt or converted models.
Some tournemants will allow IA rules, but only with the appropriate models from FW.

It strikes me as quite arbitrary, and rather silly, really, to have different rules for converted codex models and converted IA models (e.g., only Forge World models being used to represent IA units). Why should these be treated differently? You're simply stating that they will be, without any justification.

mikhaila wrote:
I'm working with a few other people to set up a large 3 day event later this year. The lead guy for 40k wants to run the GT with no IA, and a second tournament that allows it. I enjoy getting to use my ork Mekboy list from IA8, and will probably play in the friday event. But I'm not going to demand he let me use IA in the GT. If I was playing I'd skip the IA list, shift some models around, and run a list from the regular Ork codex. (Only not playing in the 40k GT since i'll be off running the WFB GT.)

I think this raises an interesting point, regarding understanding the real, credible objections to IA rules (I think that the Forge World models argument is too silly to really get into): is it the IA-published army lists or IA-published units that are most commonly objected to?

mikhaila wrote:And there were eldar pirate models back in rogue trader, so not really a good example. I had an entire army of them.

Ah, I guess I forgot about those RT-era models. I think they were OOP by time I started playing (in the mid 90s).

mikhaila wrote:
And there were eldar pirate models back in rogue trader, so not really a good example. I had an entire army of them.
Ah, I guess I forgot about those RT-era models. I think they were OOP by time I started playing (in the mid 90s).

I think I'd prefer converted FW models than someone using RTT eldar pirates(I have a lot of them and they make my soul die everytime I view them)

Kirasu wrote:

mikhaila wrote:
And there were eldar pirate models back in rogue trader, so not really a good example. I had an entire army of them.
Ah, I guess I forgot about those RT-era models. I think they were OOP by time I started playing (in the mid 90s).

I think I'd prefer converted FW models than someone using RTT eldar pirates(I have a lot of them and they make my soul die everytime I view them)

They really were horrible, spawning a generation of "Banana headed Git" jokes. ) I was more pointing out that they actually did have pirate models for the eldar pirate rules, not that you really saw anyone ever use them. The new FW stuff is great I've got 3 squads of the aspect warriors painted up, need to work on getting/painting more of the new stuff.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

austinitor wrote:

mikhaila wrote:Some tournaments will allow IA rules, with scatchbuilt or converted models.
Some tournemants will allow IA rules, but only with the appropriate models from FW.

It strikes me as quite arbitrary, and rather silly, really, to have different rules for converted codex models and converted IA models (e.g., only Forge World models being used to represent IA units). Why should these be treated differently? You're simply stating that they will be, without any justification.

Nope, not stating anything other than that there are different opinions on the subject, and not trying to justify any of those.

Some TO's/groups take the veiw that since you bought the really cool FW model and painted it up, that you should get to use it now and then.

Others look at it as a rules question, and that if the rules are ok, then any model is fine as long as it's WYSIWY by the rules.

And some don't want to use FW/IA rules at all.

Different veiwpoints, different ways to play the game. I don't have opinions on the subject anymore, I run different styles of tournaments, and people can come or not come as they please.

The only thing I'll take a stand on is that different groups/storses/TO's/Tournaments should be free to play the game the way they want. And unless you have a few thousand Commisars to put a gun to every TO's head, I don't really see any way to make them all play the same way.)

So by the looks of the voting, most people think that IA should be a part of regular 40k games, some think there should be limitations. Where I am at people like to see the models, but automatically think they are broken. I played against someone in a casual game and was sure that the Wasps, hornets and warp hunter were completely broken units, even though he was playing GK with three psyfleman dreadnaughts and 2 paladin squads, 1 with draigo and one with libby. The game went to turn 7 and he did manage to win by pushing me off a contested objective and yet he still was upset at my units. I thought it was a really close game and thought both sides were more evenly matched. just my opinion though.

Eiluj The Farseer wrote:So by the looks of the voting, most people think that IA should be a part of regular 40k games, some think there should be limitations. Where I am at people like to see the models, but automatically think they are broken. I played against someone in a casual game and was sure that the Wasps, hornets and warp hunter were completely broken units, even though he was playing GK with three psyfleman dreadnaughts and 2 paladin squads, 1 with draigo and one with libby. The game went to turn 7 and he did manage to win by pushing me off a contested objective and yet he still was upset at my units. I thought it was a really close game and thought both sides were more evenly matched. just my opinion though.

I suspect this underlies most of the resistance: people with the "win at any cost" attitude who have intentionally selected broken armies and army lists do not want a broader diversity of competitive armies.

austinitor wrote:

Eiluj The Farseer wrote:So by the looks of the voting, most people think that IA should be a part of regular 40k games, some think there should be limitations. Where I am at people like to see the models, but automatically think they are broken. I played against someone in a casual game and was sure that the Wasps, hornets and warp hunter were completely broken units, even though he was playing GK with three psyfleman dreadnaughts and 2 paladin squads, 1 with draigo and one with libby. The game went to turn 7 and he did manage to win by pushing me off a contested objective and yet he still was upset at my units. I thought it was a really close game and thought both sides were more evenly matched. just my opinion though.

I suspect this underlies most of the resistance: people with the "win at any cost" attitude who have intentionally selected broken armies and army lists do not want a broader diversity of competitive armies.

Way to demonize opposing points of view to claim the moral highground with totally false and unsubstantiated generalizations. Good job.

And FW only allows those 'broken' armies to have larger advantages while doing nothing for the tier 2 xenos codexes...

austinitor wrote:

Eiluj The Farseer wrote:So by the looks of the voting, most people think that IA should be a part of regular 40k games, some think there should be limitations. Where I am at people like to see the models, but automatically think they are broken. I played against someone in a casual game and was sure that the Wasps, hornets and warp hunter were completely broken units, even though he was playing GK with three psyfleman dreadnaughts and 2 paladin squads, 1 with draigo and one with libby. The game went to turn 7 and he did manage to win by pushing me off a contested objective and yet he still was upset at my units. I thought it was a really close game and thought both sides were more evenly matched. just my opinion though.

I suspect this underlies most of the resistance: people with the "win at any cost" attitude who have intentionally selected broken armies and army lists do not want a broader diversity of competitive armies.

That's a pretty damn big brush your using to paint anyone that doesn't agree with you.

Demonizing a viewpoint? No, just applying a healthy amount of cynicism to the disingenuous arguments put forward by those in your camp, and admittedly speculating at the true, underlying reasons behind resistance to IA rules. "People don't have debit/credit cards or their banks won't let them make international purchases" and "little Johnny is going to use his shoe to proxy a Caestus Assault Ram, will be allowed to do so because common WYSIWYG rules for tournaments will magically not apply" simply are not credible arguments.

Of course it is a generalization. However, I think it is fair to say that the account Eiluj posted supports the particular suspicion on my part. I'm not suggesting that I have empirical evidence/statistical significance/whatever; this is a forum discussion, not a scientific journal. As such, I'm not calling you out on your lack of empirical evidence for your arguments, and instead applying my judgment to the credibility of your arguments and inferring that, as they are ridiculous on their face, that they are indeed disingenuous and being used as a screen for some other truly held viewpoint (e.g. "I don't like Imperial Armour rules", "I don't want my broken dark lance spam/psy riflemen/nob bikers/leaf blower list to risk losing"). Given your following remark, I suspect you are simply in the "I don't like Imperial Armour rules" camp, as you imply that they've missed an opportunity to up-balance some weaker xenos lists.

On your more substantive, but somewhat off-topic, point: I take it, then, that you don't consider Craftworld Eldar part of the "tier 2 xenos" codices? For sake of argument, would you care to link to/post what you consider to be the current tiers for the various codices?

nkelsch wrote:
Way to demonize opposing points of view to claim the moral highground with totally false and unsubstantiated generalizations. Good job.

And FW only allows those 'broken' armies to have larger advantages while doing nothing for the tier 2 xenos codexes...

O_o

So, the example just given about how such a "tier 2 xenos" codex was able to compete on an even level with a GK army (an army that is seen as one of, if not *the*, top tier armies) through the use of FW units means that the GK army get more advantages while doing for the "tier 2" xenos army....

What is this, I don't even...


If you were at all familiar with FW's Tau and Eldar offerings, they get a rather large number of cool things from FW that really enhance their competitiveness and unit selection. Stuff like Tetra's, Hornets, Wasps, XV-9 Hazard suits, corsair infantry, alternate suit/hammerhead weapons, etc.

austinitor wrote:Demonizing a viewpoint? No, just applying a healthy amount of cynicism to the disingenuous arguments put forward by those in your camp, and admittedly speculating at the true, underlying reasons behind resistance to IA rules. "People don't have debit/credit cards or their banks won't let them make international purchases" and "little Johnny is going to use his shoe to proxy a Caestus Assault Ram, will be allowed to do so because common WYSIWYG rules for tournaments will magically not apply" simply are not credible arguments.

IA doesn't balance codexes... It is not a credible argument either.

Of course it is a generalization. However, I think it is fair to say that the account Eiluj posted supports the particular suspicion on my part. I'm not suggesting that I have empirical evidence/statistical significance/whatever; this is a forum discussion, not a scientific journal. As such, I'm not calling you out on your lack of empirical evidence for your arguments, and instead applying my judgment to the credibility of your arguments and inferring that, as they are ridiculous on their face, that they are indeed disingenuous and being used as a screen for some other truly held viewpoint (e.g. "I don't like Imperial Armour rules", "I don't want my broken dark lance spam/psy riflemen/nob bikers/leaf blower list to risk losing"). Given your following remark, I suspect you are simply in the "I don't like Imperial Armour rules" camp, as you imply that they've missed an opportunity to up-balance some weaker xenos lists.

I actually like them. I simply don't like them as an all the time or the new default for games. I think both styles of games have value and neither needs to be made the default. Not to mention, in 6 months, 6th edition will come out making all FW units unsuited for competative play as none of them were designed for 6th edition while all the core codexes have been. I care about the meta as a whole, not how my personal codex gets an advantage.

On your more substantive, but somewhat off-topic, point: I take it, then, that you don't consider Craftworld Eldar part of the "tier 2 xenos" codices? For sake of argument, would you care to link to/post what you consider to be the current tiers for the various codices?

Every tourney has loads of number crunching... the tiers are real even if you pretend them not to be. You can pretend to be purposely dense about win/loss ratios and the perceived tiers, but there are loads of hard statistical data from real events which shows it to be true.

Here is an example:
http://www.belloflostsouls.net/2011/09/40k-some-statistics-nova-2011.html

nkelsch wrote:Not to mention, in 6 months, 6th edition will come out making all FW units unsuited for competative play as none of them were designed for 6th edition while all the core codexes have been.

Few or none of the codex's will have been designed for 6E play if 6E comes out in 6 months, certainly likely nothing older than 2011 at best, and whatever comes out this year, meaning not a lot. The situation with the core codex's won't be any different than FW rules will.

I think that IA11 goes a long way towards balancing Codex: Eldar. Do you disagree?

I think that the argument re: "unsuited for competative play as none of them were designed for 6th edition while all the core codexes have been" is quite incorrect, given the number of armies that were "lapped" by 5th edition (i.e. those did not get a 5th edition release, such as Tau, Eldar, and Black Templars). Are you suggesting that xenos codices, spare Orks, are not "core" codices?

I don't disagree that there are "tiers"; I simply wanted to know which list you were using, so thanks for posting that. Quite an interesting article, and with some good number-crunching.

Steelmage99 wrote:If one takes the obvious step of excluding the use of super heavies and flyers, then one simply need to ban the Big Five (Lucius Pattern Drop Pod, Deathstorm Drop Pod, Hades Breaching Drill, Land Raider Achilles and the Caestus Assault Ram).

If those steps are taken I dare say that the complaints would be so few that they were basically non-existent.

People who complain about the exclusion of the Big Five are IMO the people who just wish to exploit Imperial Armours lack of play testing.

Having played against all five of those units, I can tell you that this post smacks of someone who has only theoryhammered the rules on paper and never actually seen them used on the tabletop... The Land Raider Achilles can be difficult to handle, this is true, but I find that is more an issue of the player gearing up for S8 spam and forgoing higher strength weaponry. The Deathstorm is a bit of a pain, but its BS2 and chances are it won't accomplish much anyway (although there was the one time my opponent destroyed 500+ points of models with a single one, but the dice rolls were obscenely above average...). The Lucius is actually not that bad either, its hardly different from the usual meltadread drop pod in terms of its anti-tank ability, really it boils down to one of two things: 1. Your opponent took a cc dread, in which case its not shooting, its basically a meltadread drop pod but it does its job in the assault phase instead of the shooting phase. 2. Your opponent took a shooty dread, in which case it shoots at something which it may ormay not blow up and either assaults it or whatever comes up inside of it and gets tarpitted depending. In either case its meh. Caestus is a paper tiger, i've never actually seen it successfully fire its 5" melta template... Hades Breaching Drill... I'm ROFLing that its even on the list...

Vaktathi wrote:

nkelsch wrote:Not to mention, in 6 months, 6th edition will come out making all FW units unsuited for competative play as none of them were designed for 6th edition while all the core codexes have been.

Few or none of the codex's will have been designed for 6E play if 6E comes out in 6 months, certainly likely nothing older than 2011 at best, and whatever comes out this year, meaning not a lot. The situation with the core codex's won't be any different than FW rules will.

Not true, they have said every codex since Tyranids was designed with the new 6th edition in mind which is January 2010. GW has a good history of making codexes with the next edition in mind.

The FW rules people have access to none of this and have never even been attempting to make balanced or fair rules hence a ton of their units being over costed.

This is the problem when people who are not part off the core product development process make an add-on. This is why it should be treated as such... as a 'sometimes' thing. It is not FW's job or mission to rebalance the design teams core codexes with the addition of units. Just people people with poor tier old codexes think it does or want it to accomplish that goal doesn't mean it is. They are nothing more than fun rules for fun models. Claiming they are the fix for everything unfair with the current meta and should become the default ruleset is where I have a problem with that.

I do not agree that IA balances Eldar. Xenos races go neglected because people buy space marines. FW doesn't balance the codexes as even with the new toys, the lower tier codexes are still out gunned in every situation, and ot doesn't close the gap either. FW was not design for or intended to balance and 'fix' 4th edition codexes. If GW attempted to do that they should have said that, but they didn't and they aren't.

I play Orks, my codex does just fine without spamming lifta wagons (which were one of the totally unfair broken unit types before they got the rules nerfed in the latest release.)

It's pretty egregious when you compare the Wasp or Hornet to a Vyper or War Walker, but then you compare something like Mandrakes or half the Tyranid codex to...anything really and you realize that the GW rules don't seem to be polished any better than the IA ones. Most people objecting are probably old-guard neckbeards with PTSD from someone in 1995 stomping their 3rd-ed army with a 1000$ Thunderhawk or something equally absurd.

nkelsch wrote:Not true, they have said every codex since Tyranids was designed with the new 6th edition in mind which is January 2010. GW has a good history of making codexes with the next edition in mind.

Just remember, 'they' in this regard is a rumour source. Not GW.

It'd be cool to be actually able to use my Elysians in non-random games...

I'm willing to bet that for the vast majority of cases if you took the worst and best units in a given codex, the variance between their performance would be larger than the variance between an average codex unit and any forgeworld model.

MikeMcSomething wrote:It's pretty egregious when you compare the Wasp or Hornet to a Vyper or War Walker,

If I understand you, here, correctly, I agree. Vypers seem to be widely regarded as inferior Land Speeders for the same points, and thus, unbalanced. Likewise, Shining Spears and (much more so) Swooping Hawks seem to be held as quasi-useful, at best. Essentially, the entire Eldar fast attack section contains poorly functioning, over-costed units, from pretty much everything I've read (though it seems people tend to run, if anything, Vypers, as they're one of the few possible anti-tank options in the section).
Likewise, Eldar Heavy Support is very over-crowded, over-costed, and there are some real stinkers in there, as well (e.g., support weapons; static units with ludicrously short ranges, and in tournament errata, like in this week's Indy open, reduced below their already dubious functionality by granting Vibro Cannon targets normal cover saves).

If anyone is interested, I'll try to chase down some of the commentary on the matter I'm referring to, but my point in adding this cursory analysis is to show that a creating superior unit or two,inside of 5E game balance, was trivial, to do. In my view, this acts to better balance the codex against current armies, as Codex: Eldar did not benefit from a 5E Codex: Space Marines style reduction in points cost, or crazy new special rules (WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARD!)

MikeMcSomething wrote: but then you compare something like Mandrakes or half the Tyranid codex to...anything really and you realize that the GW rules don't seem to be polished any better than the IA ones. Most people objecting are probably old-guard neckbeards with PTSD from someone in 1995 stomping their 3rd-ed army with a 1000$ Thunderhawk or something equally absurd.

For sooth, I think it is more a case of "the one desirable 40k IA Ork unit was broken in its over-power, but is now broken in its underpower, and thus, those other xenos shouldn't have nice things."

-recently re-kindled old timey player, who reminds you that 1995 was indeed 2nd edition days, though I didn't get in 'til '96 or so. That said, I do recall my Armorcast Tempest being pretty sweet when Eldar had no GW-produced vehicles other than walkers and the (still current) jetbike.

Mr Hyena wrote:I think it would be pretty neat. Likewise, it would be cool to see Eldar Corsairs, and that Gretchen tank list. Largely, I think it would be cool to add a few more armies to shake things up a bit and skew the "latest codex wins the tourney" trend.

chaos0xomega wrote: The Lucius is actually not that bad either, its hardly different from the usual meltadread drop pod in terms of its anti-tank ability, really it boils down to one of two things: 1. Your opponent took a cc dread, in which case its not shooting, its basically a meltadread drop pod but it does its job in the assault phase instead of the shooting phase. 2. Your opponent took a shooty dread, in which case it shoots at something which it may ormay not blow up and either assaults it or whatever comes up inside of it and gets tarpitted depending. In either case its meh.

Not only that, but Lucius Pods are a separate FA choice(meaning Dreads taking up 2 FoC choices just to be able to charge on the turn they arrive) and the codex that would most want one(BA for Furiosos and DC Dreads) don't get access to it outside of Apocalypse(which grants it to both them and GKs and moves it to being a Dedicated Transport for all dread types, including Contemptors).

Honestly, the new version with its increased cost, non-dedicated status, and Dangerous Terrain roll for charging actually makes you think about it instead of auto-include.

Even if a given FW choice is better in all cases than a Codex choice, I haven't seen a good argument as to how that's somehow different than the same imbalance within a codex. The fact that the FW choices are usually not better is just icing on the cake.

MikeMcSomething wrote:I'm willing to bet that for the vast majority of cases if you took the worst and best units in a given codex, the variance between their performance would be larger than the variance between an average codex unit and any forgeworld model.

But you see, units in a codex are allowed to be overpowered, because they're in a codex.

-Loki- wrote:

MikeMcSomething wrote:I'm willing to bet that for the vast majority of cases if you took the worst and best units in a given codex, the variance between their performance would be larger than the variance between an average codex unit and any forgeworld model.

But you see, units in a codex are allowed to be overpowered, because they're in a codex.

Now it all makes perfect sense!

chaos0xomega wrote:

Steelmage99 wrote:If one takes the obvious step of excluding the use of super heavies and flyers, then one simply need to ban the Big Five (Lucius Pattern Drop Pod, Deathstorm Drop Pod, Hades Breaching Drill, Land Raider Achilles and the Caestus Assault Ram).

If those steps are taken I dare say that the complaints would be so few that they were basically non-existent.

People who complain about the exclusion of the Big Five are IMO the people who just wish to exploit Imperial Armours lack of play testing.

Having played against all five of those units, I can tell you that this post smacks of someone who has only theoryhammered the rules on paper and never actually seen them used on the tabletop... The Land Raider Achilles can be difficult to handle, this is true, but I find that is more an issue of the player gearing up for S8 spam and forgoing higher strength weaponry. The Deathstorm is a bit of a pain, but its BS2 and chances are it won't accomplish much anyway (although there was the one time my opponent destroyed 500+ points of models with a single one, but the dice rolls were obscenely above average...). The Lucius is actually not that bad either, its hardly different from the usual meltadread drop pod in terms of its anti-tank ability, really it boils down to one of two things: 1. Your opponent took a cc dread, in which case its not shooting, its basically a meltadread drop pod but it does its job in the assault phase instead of the shooting phase. 2. Your opponent took a shooty dread, in which case it shoots at something which it may ormay not blow up and either assaults it or whatever comes up inside of it and gets tarpitted depending. In either case its meh. Caestus is a paper tiger, i've never actually seen it successfully fire its 5" melta template... Hades Breaching Drill... I'm ROFLing that its even on the list...

I have no problem with you disagreeing with me on the relative "brokenness" of the various units. That wasn't really my point either.

Relative power-level or not, the units mentioned are the ones I hear complaints about every time I bring up IA.
So my solution was simply to remove those "offending" units, in order to play with all the others. Sort of like a sacrifice for the greater good, ie the ability to freely play with IA (with the mentioned units banned).

The thing I failed to articulate properly in my previous post was the reactions I received when proposing this.
I have, in my experience, found that people who champions the use of IA usually argues that the units in IA, as a whole, are not unbalanced and then proceeds to bring up a number of units from IA that most certainly are not broken, all the while carefully avoiding the Big Five mentioned earlier.
When I talk to opponents of the use of IA, they usually argues that some units are unbalanced and then proceeds to bring up the Big Five.

Here is the kicker;

When I bring the two parties together and suggest a modification that should leave all parties involved happy (exclude the Big Five, allow everything else save Super Heavies/Flyers), I get a lot of resistance.
Not from the previously opposed to IA-crowd (they are mostly fine with IA being allowed like that), but from the pro-IA-crowd.

The side that previously talked about all those units not being unbalanced (while avoiding the Big Five) don't like the Big Five being excluded!

You know what that tells me?

It tells me that the pro-IA crowd clearly knows which IA-units are the "better" ones, and they want to use those units.
It tells me that the not-broken units mentioned earlier are simply a smoke-screen used in an attempt to "sneak in" the Big Five.

This is, of course, just my experience in attempting to mediate between the two opposing sides in my gaming circle.
All attempts motivated by a desire to find a way to include IA that leaves everybody happy, I might add.

Steelmage99 wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:

Steelmage99 wrote: -Stuff-

-Morestuff!-

I have no problem with you disagreeing with me on the relative "brokenness" of the various units. That wasn't really my point either.

Relative power-level or not, the units mentioned are the ones I hear complaints about every time I bring up IA.
So my solution was simply to remove those "offending" units, in order to play with all the others. Sort of like a sacrifice for the greater good, ie the ability to freely play with IA (with the mentioned units banned).

The thing I failed to articulate properly in my previous post was the reactions I received when proposing this.
I have, in my experience, found that people who champions the use of IA usually argues that the units in IA, as a whole, are not unbalanced and then proceeds to bring up a number of units from IA that most certainly are not broken, all the while carefully avoiding the Big Five mentioned earlier.
When I talk to opponents of the use of IA, they usually argues that some units are unbalanced and then proceeds to bring up the Big Five.

Here is the kicker;

When I bring the two parties together and suggest a modification that should leave all parties involved happy (exclude the Big Five, allow everything else save Super Heavies/Flyers), I get a lot of resistance.
Not from the previously opposed to IA-crowd (they are mostly fine with IA being allowed like that), but from the pro-IA-crowd.

The side that previously talked about all those units not being unbalanced (while avoiding the Big Five) don't like the Big Five being excluded!

You know what that tells me?

It tells me that the pro-IA crowd clearly knows which IA-units are the "better" ones, and they want to use those units.
It tells me that the not-broken units mentioned earlier are simply a smoke-screen used in an attempt to "sneak in" the Big Five.

This is, of course, just my experience in attempting to mediate between the two opposing sides in my gaming circle.
All attempts motivated by a desire to find a way to include IA that leaves everybody happy, I might add.

That or they just play Space Marines! Given that four of the 'Big Five' are all SM units, it kinda makes sense on that. I particularly don't care about playing with the Big Five, I play Xenos!

So the text you actually responded to, you replaced with "Stuff"?!?


...

@ Steelmage99: I've experienced a bit of the same thing you have, since I run tournaments that both allow, and disallow IA. Those 5 tend to be the ones brought up all of the time, and cause the most discussion, regardless of whether someone feels they are overpowered or not.

I've told people that say they don't like playing in IA tournaments to just skip them, and the majority show up and play anyway, if they are regular tournament players to start with. They may not like playing with IA, but won't skip a tournament. And for a non IA event, the guys with FW models just play standard armies. Very few people will actually draw some line in the sand and skip playing altogether, even if they argue it to death.

At the same time, I notice the majority of the people who argue locally for the inclusion of IA units don't show up and play in the tournaments, because they haven't bought the models, or they are still in the bag they came in, sitting on a shelf.) There are even some very sad Reaver Titans that are still waiting assembly for use in apoc games.

TwilightWalker wrote:

Steelmage99 wrote:

It tells me that the pro-IA crowd clearly knows which IA-units are the "better" ones, and they want to use those units.
It tells me that the not-broken units mentioned earlier are simply a smoke-screen used in an attempt to "sneak in" the Big Five.

This is, of course, just my experience in attempting to mediate between the two opposing sides in my gaming circle.
All attempts motivated by a desire to find a way to include IA that leaves everybody happy, I might add.

That or they just play Space Marines! Given that four of the 'Big Five' are all SM units, it kinda makes sense on that. I particularly don't care about playing with the Big Five, I play Xenos!

But that is the thing... Xenos again already have a weaker codex in the regular metabase, and while they do get some new toys with inclusion of IA, whatever ork or eldar or tau unit is used is completely overshadowed by the marine units which blow it out of the water and further imbalance the meta.

The only way the xenos IA units have a balancing effect is basically if the marine units are not included int he game, so IA tau and IA eldar becomes closer in balance with core codex marine units... (still not enough in my opinion)

The Big 5 show FW has no ability to design rules which makes them a 'fun-sometimes' thing not a 'competative-allthetime' thing. If you ever show up with 3 deathwind drop pods when you hear I am playing orks, thank goodness for optional rulesets!

Oh, and GW has said in 4th edition and 5th edition at gamesday when they were begining writing rulesets to be with the next edition in mind. I have seen no evidence that FW has that in mind especially since they have to re-do the same units rules 2-3 times per edition due to imbalance issues.

But apparently anyone who feels IA is a nice 'sometimes' thing is a drooling neckbeard afraid to lose because all they play is grey knights right?

I still think that the codexes that are present right now, esp. GK, Space Wolves and to some extent Blood Angels still be competitive if IA was allowed. I still do not get people complaints about broken units when you have codexes with already broken units and lists.

I know I keep bringing up Eldar, but using some of the new units i.e. Hornets, Wasps does help give Eldar some far more Viable FA that they so desperately need and are lacking.

I do not see anything the Eldar get in the IA as cheap or overpowered, but I do think this makes them more competitive

I still do not understand the argument that people can not get them or have access to them, I ordered mine from FW direct, got them in 7-10 days. I agree that the person running the tourney needs to have an idea on what they do, but I think with enough advance warning, people running the games could be shown the book or units intended to be used, furnished by the person wanting to play them. As for other players, I do not have the Codices for all of my opponents armies, I do not expect them to have mine, but I am willing to explain and show them the rules in the books upon request. I still think most of the arguments presented for NOT allowing IA and FW stuff are not valid with currently broken codexes out there like GK (this is my opinion, not saying it is right). However the one point brought up that I will concede on is....I do agree that the place running the tournement should have the right to choose, but if more places would try running them with IA, I would bet that it would not be that difficult and if became the norm, people would not complain so. Do any of you that run tournies have a lot of 'problems' arise at tournies you run with IA allowed in them? I am genuinly interested, because if it is a real pain in the arse I would fight less for it, as I have not run a tourney, only played in them, I do not have that perspective.
I do believe people who complain to have them and have not assembled or painted their models yet, that is a little sad to see, however if they were allowed regular play, I bet more would become assembled and painted. Just my thought. Thanks for all the posts and cheers.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
I did want to add one more thing... Someone did post that Marines get the most attention, because the most people play them... I do not agree with this statement. I think GW has since Rogue Trader, geared people towards Space Marines, making them out to be the coolest and hence, this is why they are the most popular. They also have the most Codexes, the most frequent updates, when has an edition not come out where some space marine unit was not updated or sold in the starter packs (Second Edition 40k - Space Marines and Orks, Third Edition - Space Marines and Dark Eldar, never got 4th editions sorry don't know that one, 5th Edition - Space Marines and Orks). Space Marines are the most prominantly shown in Battle Reports when shown in White Dwarf. Am I bitter about it, sure since I play a lot of Xenos armies, but my point is, I do not think the fans dictated the massive Space Marine Presence in 40k, I believe it was GW. Again this is my Hypothesis

nkelsch wrote:
But that is the thing... Xenos again already have a weaker codex in the regular metabase, and while they do get some new toys with inclusion of IA, whatever ork or eldar or tau unit is used is completely overshadowed by the marine units which blow it out of the water and further imbalance the meta.

Unlikely, and even if it did, it's already grossly imbalanced so what really are you losing? given the better costing and additional capabilities the FW units add to xenos armies, they likely have a much greater marginal value to such 'tier 2" armies than the available FW units add to the assumed "tier 1" armies here. Eldar with access to FW stuff gain a whole lot more in terms of competitveness than SM's with their FW stuff. Sure the SM's may be stronger because their core rules have been more recently updated, but FW likewise will add marginally less value.

Oh, and GW has said in 4th edition and 5th edition at gamesday when they were begining writing rulesets to be with the next edition in mind. I have seen no evidence that FW has that in mind especially since they have to re-do the same units rules 2-3 times per edition due to imbalance issues.

Which FW units have had their rules redone 3 times within the space of a single edition (not including "experimental" playtest rule)? A few have had them redone once, I can't think of any that had them redone twice off the top of my head except the dread drop pod.

FW can also much easier re-write their rules (and often do) in response to fairness issues and edition changes. FW units don't go up to two editions without updates the way GW codex's do.