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 basically echo Carlos on the subject. Nothing wrong with a TO doing as they please, but the heavy push for fw use in sixth edition is buoyed by powerful units competitive players want to take. The casual fw lovers have always been there, but as soon as vocal competitors saw units actually worth taking, the voices multiplied.

Also, it's known now that FW rules are not playtested, and not balanced at all with the GW primary rules. GW actual playtesters came out and said it flatly. That's fine, but can we stop claiming they're official, balanced, etc? There's a reason GW HQ literally never uses them in store tournaments. That doesn't mean a TO should be lambasted for using them himself. It's one of the more awesome things to be able to run your event as you see fit.

Honestly there are plenty of powerful units in the game as is, in every codex ... People hardly need MORE, especially more that aren't balanced or play tested. You want to see the REAL motives behind the FW push, ban sabres, thudds, redth, and maybe three others while freely legalizing the rest, and watch the results and response. We've considered it ourselves. Allowing FW changes list design and planning and is a form of comp itself. Tweaking a little when you're already tweaking isn't all that horrible, after all.

I personally like FW in play.. Do I have or use "broken" fw models... surprise NO, I have Eldar Wasps, Hornets, Shadow Spectres.... None of them are that great or that cost effective. With the new Eldar codex, none are really that great any more, but I still like the models. Have I had a hard time at adepticon with FW models, yes. Do I want them eliminated, no. I think the big scare is the big unknown. More people do not have the books for the models and thus are scared of what they do not know, typical for any human response "fear the unkown". I do think that someone that is going to play the models needs to 1.) have the rules in their mitts for the opponent to look at and 2.) have the model....
I don't think it needs to be a big deal

RiTides wrote:
Simply banning, limiting, or FAQ'ing the few grossly overpowered FW artillery pieces for a GT seems like a decent compromise, imo... Fantasy events do this all the time with even rulebook/army book special characters/items. Just taking out the most egregious handful can answer most problems/critics, imo.

Doing this would go a long way to fixing the entire game, but you'd have to expand it to all OP models, not just FW ones.

However, that's a slippery slope, and one that's philosophically wrong. There's a lot of resistance to restricting what the rules say people can use, and/or using a comp system to manage the OP items, and the main reason for this is that comp systems do not fix a broken system, they only change what is broken.

In order to really address these issues, for OP units, both FW and Codex, someone would really need to create an alternate point system, that covered everything in the game, and that was a living document that evolved with new rules and books.

That's a lot of work. Arguably, the game designers themselves should be doing it, but GW are pretty inept when it come to writing rules (Or have an alternate goal besides designing a balanced game), which is why we always see something being way better than anything else. Not only is it a lot of work, it's a lot of work that's bound to be met with a lot of resistance. People who bought 3 vendettas, or helldrakes don't want to see that $200 lose its effectiveness. It's a lot of work that has very little interest to casual players, but that would require widescale adoption by tournaments in order to have value. As such, it's unlikely that it will be done.

Realistically, the options are embrace the game, flawed as it is, and accept that, in a competitive setting, you're going to see a lot of spammed good units and none of the bad units, OR stop trying to play the game competitively.

And neither of the above are impacted by FW. FW doesn't create imbalance, it just shifts what's on top. If you're already accepting a flawed system, then you should be okay with having whatever on top. As such, the reasons that I see people not wanting to allow FW are because the specific good FW units trump their existing army's units, and they want to protect your own investment. At some point, they're going to have to do this anyway - Helldrakes, for example, deprecated a lot of 3+ save armies. But the inclusion of FW means that now they need to put a lot more into their army, so that they've got a competitive list for FW events, and another for non-FW events.

Of course, this would be solved if FW were universally adopted too.

Blackmoor wrote:I do have one question for you Peregrine, how many GTs have you played in in the last year?

I have one question - why is this at all relevant? This is a logical fallacy, you're attempting to introduce an appeal to authority, implying that your opinion on the matter is more valid than Peregrine's because you've been to more GTs this year.

I've been to very few tournaments since 6th ed came out, because I don't think it's a game well-suited for competitive play, with or without FW. The idea of playing against (essentially) the same army 3 or 4 times over a weekend simply doesn't appeal to me.

I'm not sure it's an appeal to authority. I agree that the argument should be able to stand on and be addressed on its own merits.

However the question of whether or not to include Forgeworld (or anything else) is primarily of relevance to the people who attend events. They're primarily the ones affected by it.

I've been to a lot of 6th ed events, and overall I find it a pretty exciting and surprisingly balanced play environment and experience. I'll agree with you and Yakface that even within the usual codices, there are overused and overpowered units, and those are indeed cherry-picked. I also agree with Carlos and MVBrandt that I like having variety in events, however my preference leans toward the non-FW-allowing, and it seems that that the top Forgeworld units exacerbate and worsen the problem of cherry-picked overpowered units, rather than mitigating it.

 Redbeard wrote:

RiTides wrote:
Simply banning, limiting, or FAQ'ing the few grossly overpowered FW artillery pieces for a GT seems like a decent compromise, imo... Fantasy events do this all the time with even rulebook/army book special characters/items. Just taking out the most egregious handful can answer most problems/critics, imo.

Doing this would go a long way to fixing the entire game, but you'd have to expand it to all OP models, not just FW ones.

However, that's a slippery slope, and one that's philosophically wrong. There's a lot of resistance to restricting what the rules say people can use, and/or using a comp system to manage the OP items, and the main reason for this is that comp systems do not fix a broken system, they only change what is broken.

In order to really address these issues, for OP units, both FW and Codex, someone would really need to create an alternate point system, that covered everything in the game, and that was a living document that evolved with new rules and books.

That's a lot of work. Arguably, the game designers themselves should be doing it, but GW are pretty inept when it come to writing rules (Or have an alternate goal besides designing a balanced game), which is why we always see something being way better than anything else. Not only is it a lot of work, it's a lot of work that's bound to be met with a lot of resistance. People who bought 3 vendettas, or helldrakes don't want to see that $200 lose its effectiveness. It's a lot of work that has very little interest to casual players, but that would require widescale adoption by tournaments in order to have value. As such, it's unlikely that it will be done.

Realistically, the options are embrace the game, flawed as it is, and accept that, in a competitive setting, you're going to see a lot of spammed good units and none of the bad units, OR stop trying to play the game competitively.

And neither of the above are impacted by FW. FW doesn't create imbalance, it just shifts what's on top. If you're already accepting a flawed system, then you should be okay with having whatever on top. As such, the reasons that I see people not wanting to allow FW are because the specific good FW units trump their existing army's units, and they want to protect your own investment. At some point, they're going to have to do this anyway - Helldrakes, for example, deprecated a lot of 3+ save armies. But the inclusion of FW means that now they need to put a lot more into their army, so that they've got a competitive list for FW events, and another for non-FW events.

Of course, this would be solved if FW were universally adopted too.

Blackmoor wrote:I do have one question for you Peregrine, how many GTs have you played in in the last year?

I have one question - why is this at all relevant? This is a logical fallacy, you're attempting to introduce an appeal to authority, implying that your opinion on the matter is more valid than Peregrine's because you've been to more GTs this year.

I've been to very few tournaments since 6th ed came out, because I don't think it's a game well-suited for competitive play, with or without FW. The idea of playing against (essentially) the same army 3 or 4 times over a weekend simply doesn't appeal to me.

If you don't think 40k is suited to tournaments why spend so much time commenting on a thread in the tournament section? Why are you trying to impose your views on how Tournament 40k should be played if you don't think Tournament 40k should be played?

That is Blackmoors point. If you aren't actually attending these events then you're not only attempting to impose your will on how the game should be played in a setting you don't play in but it feels like you're (by this I mean all who comment here without actually playing competitive 40k not just you personally Redbeard) also continuing to stir the pot on a topic for the sake of stiring the pot.

 OverwatchCNC wrote:

If you don't think 40k is suited to tournaments why spend so much time commenting on a thread in the tournament section? Why are you trying to impose your views on how Tournament 40k should be played if you don't think Tournament 40k should be played?

Well, first off, I'm not trying to impose my views on anyone.

But, secondly, because I used to attend a lot more tournaments, and would like to do so again, but find that the current "competitive > everything else" mentality is what I don't find enjoyable. As such, I feel that I have as much right as anyone else to lobby in favour of tournament structures that I would enjoy.

Ninja'd by the man himself. What I got from that was that Redbeard used to go to a fair amount of tournaments but hasn't recently as he doesn't enjoy 6th Ed. in a competitive environment. Presumably his past tournament experience still holds weight in the conversation, seeing as 6th Ed. isn't the beginning and end of 40k.

I don't really hold a side in this debate, but I find it interesting to read none-the-less. As an outsider I think the people that are presenting the clearest argument are those for the inclusion of FW units.

 Medium of Death wrote:
Ninja'd by the man himself. What I got from that was that Redbeard used to go to a fair amount of tournaments but hasn't recently as he doesn't enjoy 6th Ed. in a competitive environment. Presumably his past tournament experience still holds weight in the conversation, seeing as 6th Ed. isn't the beginning and end of 40k.

I don't really hold a side in this debate, but I find it interesting to read none-the-less. As an outsider I think the people that are presenting the clearest argument are those for the inclusion of FW units.

No idea how you came to that conclusion?

The arguments for including FW have been this:

1) GW expressly allows it (Incorrect)

2) Their not broken, or at least not as broken as codex units (Not true, powerful Codex units are not nearly as durable and spammable as a Sabre or Thudd.)

3) Doesn't effect tournament play. ( You have a veteran tournament player who has played against these units and is arguing against them. 2 FW heavy armies nearly won BAO open and only lost because they played each other and then lost to broken flamer/screamer demons)

4) Brings Flyers/Necrons in line. (Tau already does that. Eldar will do that. FMC Daemons eat up Night Scythes. Best thing is I know exactly where to go to get these armies. They have the name of the army on the front of the book).

You do have people like Peregrine who want to play their fluffy FW lists, but then for everyone of them you have just as many who want to abuse those untested units to win the tourney.

GW is actually doing a good job of updating their codices. Eldar dropping today will be a good book. Tau is a good book. Daemons is a good book. Dark Angels and Chaos lag behind those three a bit but not by much and have very good, competitive builds in there. The meta is changing and for the better. Wait till wraithwing runs into a Tau gunline. Triple Drake getting shot by Lashing Daemon Princes.

FW is not needed to make a more competitive environment, in fact will have an opposite effect.

nkelsch wrote:I don't think we 'need' them.

I second this sentiment. You don't "need" Forge World, in the same vein as you don't "need" any of the other codexes, nor do you "need" to play Warhammer 40k.

Breng77 wrote:
I must have missed that announcement, where outside a fw book did it happen, it seems to me that any time a Gw location runs an event FW Is banned....also pretty sure FW frequently includes language involving asking opponents permission (not sure if this is in all the books or is left out of new books.). Say FW is legal is the same as saying planet strike, or dog fighting rules are legal... Now I'm all for tournaments making their own choice on the matter. I tend to leave it to my players to decide what they want

In all Forge World books, there is a page which states that FW is intended for and legal for use in classic 40k games. I quoth the following from IA3E2:

Warhammer 40,000: This unit or scenario is intended to be used in 'standard' game of Warhammer 40,000, within the usual limitations of Codex selection and force organisation charts.... As with all of our models these should be considered 'official', but as they may be unknown to your opponent, it's best to make sure they are happy to play a game using Forge World models before you start.

So yes, FW is legal by GW's own statement (FW is under GW), and it basically comes down to this: if you don't want to play against FW, don't play. It's no different from not playing against someone because they are GK players or just because you don't like them as a person.

Glocknall wrote:

No idea how you came to that conclusion?

The arguments for including FW have been this:

1) GW expressly allows it (Incorrect)

Really? If you're going to say something is incorrect, you should present some reasoning behind it.

Here's the reason that GW does allow it:

I have a book, printed by GW, that says the units marked with the 40k logo are for use in standard games of Warhammer 40,000 and should be considered 'official'.

You're going to have to stretch to come up with a better argument than that.

Because without Forgeworld, all the units are balanced against one another...

I'd rather play against Corsairs, Death Korps, or Elysians than Necrons. New units and army lists bring variability and should be encouraged.

 yakface wrote:



Sorry, the problem is that people cherry pick the best units, PERIOD.
[snip!]

I don't see where I disagreed with you, yakface. You're correct. The thing with FW is that you simply increase the number of overpowered stuff and I don't see how this would improve the game at all. And we can both agree that some armies, mostly IG, profit a LOT more than most other armies, making the entire issue even worse. It's the "Opening a can of worms" argument. Lack of playtesting rules is another big issue with FW, even moreso than GW.

Why would I write a letter to GW? If you are obviously offended by the attitude of players / tournaments disallowing FW, why don't you write a long, sad letter about them allowing FW? Or maybe ask them to host FW aka IG-only tournaments

The broken unit argument against FW seems to me to be moot because of the allied matrix allowing you to cherry pick from not one but two broken lists.

@Peregrine, in this thread and others you have repeatedly stated that people that do not agree with how you want to play 40k should be treated with contempt. That is a supremely arrogant position to take and I defy you to defend it.

Most tournament organizers are not making any money from their effort and I strongly support their right to run the tournament how they see fit. As long as they are up front with the rules ahead of time no one has a right to bitch about comp or FW allowed or not allowed. If you dont like the parameters then just dont go, or better, dont be such a goldilocks about events with plastic dollies and go and try and have a good time anyway.

 Enigwolf wrote:

nkelsch wrote:I don't think we 'need' them.

I second this sentiment. You don't "need" Forge World, in the same vein as you don't "need" any of the other codexes, nor do you "need" to play Warhammer 40k.

Breng77 wrote:
I must have missed that announcement, where outside a fw book did it happen, it seems to me that any time a Gw location runs an event FW Is banned....also pretty sure FW frequently includes language involving asking opponents permission (not sure if this is in all the books or is left out of new books.). Say FW is legal is the same as saying planet strike, or dog fighting rules are legal... Now I'm all for tournaments making their own choice on the matter. I tend to leave it to my players to decide what they want

In all Forge World books, there is a page which states that FW is intended for and legal for use in classic 40k games. I quoth the following from IA3E2:

Warhammer 40,000: This unit or scenario is intended to be used in 'standard' game of Warhammer 40,000, within the usual limitations of Codex selection and force organisation charts.... As with all of our models these should be considered 'official', but as they may be unknown to your opponent, it's best to make sure they are happy to play a game using Forge World models before you start.

So yes, FW is legal by GW's own statement (FW is under GW), and it basically comes down to this: if you don't want to play against FW, don't play. It's no different from not playing against someone because they are GK players or just because you don't like them as a person.

So inside FW books counts as where outside FW books? Just saying? Also still says, make sure your opponent is ok playing against them. Language not contained in codices. But like I said I am not against events containing them (at my next event, FW will be allowed in one tournament and not in another.). I still think the biggest issue is the imbalance of units available to each army. If we assume (nothing backing this up) that say 1 in 5 units is broken. Then IG having like 30 new units is a big deal compared to say Eldar having 5 or 6 (numbers here are not accurate.)

Now people can feel free to shot me down on this one. But by including FW models into a tournament based game, is only going to bring snobbery to game. It no longer becomes about using an army to its best in order to gain a win, and becomes more about who has the most amount of money to spend on the model with the most ridicules stat line and rules. And wile the codex's are not a complete balance. There is no army that cannot beat anougher in one way, shape, or form.

MVBrandt wrote:
I basically echo Carlos on the subject. Nothing wrong with a TO doing as they please, but the heavy push for fw use in sixth edition is buoyed by powerful units competitive players want to take. The casual fw lovers have always been there, but as soon as vocal competitors saw units actually worth taking, the voices multiplied.

Also, it's known now that FW rules are not playtested, and not balanced at all with the GW primary rules. GW actual playtesters came out and said it flatly. That's fine, but can we stop claiming they're official, balanced, etc? There's a reason GW HQ literally never uses them in store tournaments. That doesn't mean a TO should be lambasted for using them himself. It's one of the more awesome things to be able to run your event as you see fit.

Honestly there are plenty of powerful units in the game as is, in every codex ... People hardly need MORE, especially more that aren't balanced or play tested. You want to see the REAL motives behind the FW push, ban sabres, thudds, redth, and maybe three others while freely legalizing the rest, and watch the results and response. We've considered it ourselves. Allowing FW changes list design and planning and is a form of comp itself. Tweaking a little when you're already tweaking isn't all that horrible, after all.

Agreed with this... about the variety of events being good, and allowing all but 5-6 FW units in a tourney allowing them being a good compromise. The theme players get to use their toys, and the competitive players don't have to deal with thudd guns- as mentioned even by the player who won the AdeptiCon team tourney with them, Target. Win-win!

The "no restrictions, ever" argument doesn't make sense when allowing FW, imo. Why stand by all or nothing when there's an easy compromise? Only makes sense- imo- if you were wanting to field things like thudd guns yourself. Banning them but allowing most would make the "for fun / theme" FW players rejoice, imo.

 cerbrus2 wrote:
It no longer becomes about using an army to its best in order to gain a win, and becomes more about who has the most amount of money to spend on the model with the most ridicules stat line and rules.

I agree with your opinion on fliers, riptides, and wraithknights.

cerbrus2:

"Now people can feel free to shot me down on this one. But by including FW models into a tournament based game, is only going to bring snobbery to game. It no longer becomes about using an army to its best in order to gain a win, and becomes more about who has the most amount of money to spend on the model with the most ridicules stat line and rules. And wile the codex's are not a complete balance. There is no army that cannot beat anougher in one way, shape, or form."


That goes both ways. If you can afford to play you can probably afford some Forge World.

 cerbrus2 wrote:
Now people can feel free to shot me down on this one. But by including FW models into a tournament based game, is only going to bring snobbery to game. It no longer becomes about using an army to its best in order to gain a win, and becomes more about who has the most amount of money to spend on the model with the most ridicules stat line and rules. And wile the codex's are not a complete balance. There is no army that cannot beat anougher in one way, shape, or form.

Well if you can afford an airplane ticket and hotel accommodations etc you can afford Forgeworld models. tournaments always have and always will favor people with relatively unlimited resources to buy the latest and best stuff. This is true for many kinds of sports and hobbies that have a competitive element. That is just the way the world works.

Also, I dont think it is fair to say that all people who buy FW do it for the snob factor.

Since you brought it up, it is kind of funny though thinking about one neckbearded chubby/fat guy with a stained t-shirt being snobby to another one. Yeah I am being unfair and stereotyping but you cant deny this has probably happened.

JWhex wrote:
Most tournament organizers are not making any money from their effort and I strongly support their right to run the tournament how they see fit. As long as they are up front with the rules ahead of time no one has a right to bitch about comp or FW allowed or not allowed. If you dont like the parameters then just dont go, or better, dont be such a goldilocks about events with plastic dollies and go and try and have a good time anyway.

Fortunately, it's not up to you whether or people people have a "right" to criticize events (rightly or wrongly). If you don't like people discussing tournaments then maybe you should reconsider why you're participating in a forum titled "Tournament Discussions."

JWhex wrote:

 cerbrus2 wrote:
Now people can feel free to shot me down on this one. But by including FW models into a tournament based game, is only going to bring snobbery to game. It no longer becomes about using an army to its best in order to gain a win, and becomes more about who has the most amount of money to spend on the model with the most ridicules stat line and rules. And wile the codex's are not a complete balance. There is no army that cannot beat anougher in one way, shape, or form.

Well if you can afford an airplane ticket and hotel accommodations etc you can afford Forgeworld models. tournaments always have and always will favor people with relatively unlimited resources to buy the latest and best stuff. This is true for many kinds of sports and hobbies that have a competitive element. That is just the way the world works.

Also, I dont think it is fair to say that all people who buy FW do it for the snob factor.

Since you brought it up, it is kind of funny though thinking about one neckbearded chubby/fat guy with a stained t-shirt being snobby to another one. Yeah I am being unfair and stereotyping but you cant deny this has probably happened.

Lol that made me chuckle, But I have to say that it does bring a snob factor in it, Or maybe snobby is a poor choice. Maybe the correct way of putting it was to say that by bringing FW models into tournaments is Model Peen, who ever has the biggest and most expensive wins. Not only for the size and cost of the model but because these more pricey models often have the best stats in the Imperial Armour books from which we draw there rules from.

And those Turning up to tournaments with just bog standard run of the mill GW models, because they cannot afford FW prices due to the fact they just had to sell their sole to get to a tournament, and end up leaving the tournament after loosing to an army with much larger model Peen.

I know in most cases people with FW who are commenting on here will be like "Pfft who cares i win with superior model Peen, not my fault they cant afford it." But it does ruin the spirit of the game in my opinion, but only because it is leaving people in a less fortunate position behind in terms of being able to field an effective force.

 cerbrus2 wrote:

Lol that made me chuckle, But I have to say that it does bring a snob factor in it, Or maybe snobby is a poor choice. Maybe the correct way of putting it was to say that by bringing FW models into tournaments is Model Peen, who ever has the biggest and most expensive wins.

You appear to be completely ignorant of the facts. The Forgeworld models that are Good for tournament play are considerably less expensive than the models that are Good from the standard GW range. A FW thudd gun is $36 from the 2013 FW catalog, a vendetta is $66. A FW saber platform is $ 30, while a Helldrake is $74. Two tau FW$ tetras are $56, while two Piranha are $60. When add in Riptides and Wraithknights, there's really very little difference in cost between the GW line and the FW line.

Not only for the size and cost of the model but because these more pricey models often have the best stats in the Imperial Armour books from which we draw there rules from.

Actually, the really pricey FW models are typically underpowered in the games. It's the smaller FW stuff that ends up being good.

...to sell their sole...

You mean their shoes or a fish? Cheap shot, but there you go.

Breng77 wrote:

Ummm...thud guns did change they went from dying to a glance to making an entire unit of wounds T7... The biggest 2 arguments against FW inclusion IMO are:

1.) units in these books are not frequently updated and do not cycle with codex change. Meaning if something is op now it will not change with a new dex release. Furthermore something that is not op in one edition can be in the next and while this is true with codices they at least some day get updated FW not so much..

2.) Imbalance in army releases, imperial armies get an overwhelming number of the FW units, as well as getting most of the really good units.

I realise this is a few pages ago, but both these points apply to Allies too. Which Allies combos are powerful does not cycle with codex change, as only one of the two codecs has to change to unbalance the complete list. Also, some armies have much better and more varied allies options. So, I presume you also think that all allies should be banned??

 cerbrus2 wrote:
Now people can feel free to shot me down on this one. But by including FW models into a tournament based game, is only going to bring snobbery to game. It no longer becomes about using an army to its best in order to gain a win, and becomes more about who has the most amount of money to spend on the model with the most ridicules stat line and rules. And wile the codex's are not a complete balance. There is no army that cannot beat anougher in one way, shape, or form.

Agree with this comment. Especially the snobbery to the game. This becomes a 2 tier system. The haves and the have nots. It comes down to cost. This is why the game in general is dying. The cost to play this game.

As far as the tournament scene? Like everything else, I vote with my wallet. I want to have fun, winning or losing. If I see complete inclusion of FW into a tournament? I won't go. If I see that the TO has made a concerted effort on making a tournament as balanced as possible? I go. I spend lots of money, make new friends and try to have some fun.

 Adam LongWalker wrote:

Agree with this comment. Especially the snobbery to the game. This becomes a 2 tier system. The haves and the have nots. It comes down to cost. This is why the game in general is dying. The cost to play this game.

As far as the tournament scene? Like everything else, I vote with my wallet. I want to have fun, winning or losing. If I see complete inclusion of FW into a tournament? I won't go. If I see that the TO has made a concerted effort on making a tournament as balanced as possible? I go. I spend lots of money, make new friends and try to have some fun.

I agree with this comment. This has become a 2 tier system, by allowing people to buy wins with Necron air forces (with allied in heldrakes for extra cheese). Its created a system of haves and have nots. It comes down to cost, I can't afford to buy 6/7 aircraft to have a shot at winnning a tournament, and no one else should be allowed to buy models if I cant afford to. This is why the game in general is dying. The cost to play this game.

As far as the tournament scene? Like everything else, I vote with my wallet. I want to have fun, winning or losing. If I see complete inclusion of Necrons or flyer heavy lists into a tournament? I won't go. If I see that the TO has made a concerted effort on making a tournament as balanced as possible by banning aircraft? I go. I spend lots of money, so I want to make new friends who agree with me and want to play the game like its 2010 again...

Gamers with more disposable incomes are always going to have an advantage in the arms race. but that doesn't equate to an auto win. Necrons aren't the newest codex, or the most expensive to collect (that honour goes to IG), but they are still the "top tier army" at the moment

 ArbitorIan wrote:

Breng77 wrote:

Ummm...thud guns did change they went from dying to a glance to making an entire unit of wounds T7... The biggest 2 arguments against FW inclusion IMO are:

1.) units in these books are not frequently updated and do not cycle with codex change. Meaning if something is op now it will not change with a new dex release. Furthermore something that is not op in one edition can be in the next and while this is true with codices they at least some day get updated FW not so much..

2.) Imbalance in army releases, imperial armies get an overwhelming number of the FW units, as well as getting most of the really good units.

I realise this is a few pages ago, but both these points apply to Allies too. Which Allies combos are powerful does not cycle with codex change, as only one of the two codecs has to change to unbalance the complete list. Also, some armies have much better and more varied allies options. So, I presume you also think that all allies should be banned??

Ummm... What ally combos are powerful absolutely changes with the codex cycle. How any csm necron players did we see before the new csm book? How many more tau allies will we see with the new book, eldar? Point is as new books come out the balance changes, the FW books really don't change much.

Also you do realize that those codifies with the most allies have the most FW units. So adding to the problem is sure to help. FW also has ways for armies to essentially ally with themselves in some cases, if you allow FW army lists.

 RiTides wrote:
Agreed with this... about the variety of events being good, and allowing all but 5-6 FW units in a tourney allowing them being a good compromise. The theme players get to use their toys, and the competitive players don't have to deal with thudd guns- as mentioned even by the player who won the AdeptiCon team tourney with them, Target. Win-win!

I agree with this as long as a similar rule is applied to overpowered codex units. If you're going to ban thudd guns I expect to see Vendettas and Helldrakes on your banned list as well.

ItsPug wrote:

 Adam LongWalker wrote:

Agree with this comment. Especially the snobbery to the game. This becomes a 2 tier system. The haves and the have nots. It comes down to cost. This is why the game in general is dying. The cost to play this game.

As far as the tournament scene? Like everything else, I vote with my wallet. I want to have fun, winning or losing. If I see complete inclusion of FW into a tournament? I won't go. If I see that the TO has made a concerted effort on making a tournament as balanced as possible? I go. I spend lots of money, make new friends and try to have some fun.

I agree with this comment. This has become a 2 tier system, by allowing people to buy wins with Necron air forces (with allied in heldrakes for extra cheese). Its created a system of haves and have nots. It comes down to cost, I can't afford to buy 6/7 aircraft to have a shot at winnning a tournament, and no one else should be allowed to buy models if I cant afford to. This is why the game in general is dying. The cost to play this game.

As far as the tournament scene? Like everything else, I vote with my wallet. I want to have fun, winning or losing. If I see complete inclusion of Necrons or flyer heavy lists into a tournament? I won't go. If I see that the TO has made a concerted effort on making a tournament as balanced as possible by banning aircraft? I go. I spend lots of money, so I want to make new friends who agree with me and want to play the game like its 2010 again...

Gamers with more disposable incomes are always going to have an advantage in the arms race. but that doesn't equate to an auto win. Necrons aren't the newest codex, or the most expensive to collect (that honour goes to IG), but they are still the "top tier army" at the moment

First of all I can afford this game (got 35 grand wrapped up into this hobby and 25+ years) and its upgrades so the italic comments are not valid. Secondly please check on how the armies are being played in the major tournaments. Allies are the key to winning. Necron's which I own 4000 points I use as allies only as there are gaping holes that can be exploited. This is not about auto wins, this is about the health of 40K overall. Tournaments are included in this aspect. I don't think the overall heath of 40K is good. I do see some TO's trying to make that effort to make it as enjoyable as possible. Luckily some these TO are the more larger ones.

These are the people that are going to keep 40K alive by compromise so that Newcommers can enjoy the tournament experience, instead of being curb stomped into the ground by someone with an unfair advantage. Regardless of it being FW or not.

I have expressed similar opinions in the past and probably will continue to do so. Compromise is needed to keep the tournament scene healthy.

MVBrandt wrote:
Also, it's known now that FW rules are not playtested, and not balanced at all with the GW primary rules. GW actual playtesters came out and said it flatly. That's fine, but can we stop claiming they're official, balanced, etc?

It's also well known that codex units aren't playtested. Remember the "playtesting" story a while back where they set up a cool (and unbalanced) scenario and then had a third player enter halfway through the game? That's not competitive playtesting, that's just screwing around. And it's not providing any useful information outside of "will casual 'fluff' players enjoy the game".

There's a reason GW HQ literally never uses them in store tournaments.

And GW HQ doesn't allow allies in their tournament. Do you advocate banning allies because that's what GW HQ does, or do GW HQ's tournament rules only matter when they say "no FW"?

Peregrine, you're the one who argued that GW has put forward Forgeworld as general-use, and equivalent to the codices. The fact that the events GW runs at their own HQ do not treat them that way is contrary evidence. Shifting the focus onto the other person's position is dodging the point.

You still haven't answered the question about what events you've attended. That's okay though. You don't have to.