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.

 grotblaster wrote:
While I repeatedly see some people refer to GW and FW as though they're interchangeable, nothing could be farther from the truth for your FLGS. Having an account with GW means nothing to FW. No FLGS carries FW because they'd pay full retail for it. This means a few things:
...
3. Your FLGS has no reason to encourage/support FW. Most tournaments are run/supported by local game stores since GW doesn't support them anymore. Why encourage players to spend their finite cash on a company that will have no partnership with you? That DKOK army might as well be GI Joe proxies for all the good it did any FLGS.

I just wanted to point out, my FLGS recently started carrying a full range of FW books in-store for perusal and for sale. They do bulk orders monthly or every two months of FW stuff for the free shipping amount so that customers save on shipping, and they don't get hit with the same taxes that I would if I had ordered on my own, since they are a business. In the end, this results in far cheaper FW models for me if I were to order through the store. This was a recent decision, and they actually turn a profit off of it. My FLGS now has regular players including units such as Hyperios and Contemptors, and I have players asking me to play against my Elysian army because they want to fight something different. I believe that we are the only FLGS in the area to support FW so heavily. This draws players. Sure, they don't carry FW stock besides one or two of each book, but they can order whatever you want for delivery in within a week. In fact, this is a good way to go, because FW is geared to the player and hobbyist already knowledgeable of 40k as it exists without FW, and having to order through the store makes you think twice as to whether you really want it or not. It also helps that we have Apocalypse-styled displays including superheavy tanks, superheavy bombers, and soon to have a few Titans.

Including FW into my FLGS did not appear to be a poor choice, and for the cost of a small shelf space (next to the codices) to stock the FW books, they generate essentially free revenue and draw more interest. I disagree with the point that an FLGS has nothing to gain from supporting FW.

 grotblaster wrote:
ts FW to be a core part of the game, they should treat it as such on their website and in the stores they partner with. I allow FW in some our tournaments, but I will continue to treat it as outside the core ruleset as long as GW does.

The decision to keep FW separate is a business decision, not a gameplay decision. GW officially does not support tournament play, as has been stated about a thousand times now, so logically there's little need for them to "merge" two studios that have radically different design and business goals since they have stated that FW is official. I highly doubt anyone was actually thinking that the declaration of officiality had to be so inclusive for our sake.

There are several people on this post who disagree with me whose opinion I respect (Yakface, Muwhe, Redbeard), and there are also several whose opinion I respect who agree with me.

I think Forge World is going to be a subject like politics. Both sides have good points and we will never get to a unanimous consensus of what is the best route to take.

I think the question in the original post has been answered. There is no longer a “need” for Forge World, but there are still those who desire it in their tournaments.

 Blackmoor wrote:
There are several people on this post who disagree with me whose opinion I respect (Yakface, Muwhe, Redbeard), and there are also several whose opinion I respect who agree with me.

I think Forge World is going to be a subject like politics. Both sides have good points and we will never get to a unanimous consensus of what is the best route to take.

I think the question in the original post has been answered. There is no longer a “need” for Forge World, but there are still those who desire it in their tournaments.

Blackmoor has spoken! And the topic has been used and abused, time for a mod to lock it?

Like it or not more tournies are allowing Forge World this year... more than ever before. My advice is get used to it.

MVBrandt wrote:

Things get tricky for me here as a TO...

This was a very well thought-out response, I enjoyed reading a TO's experiences in the matter. I was very surprised to hear that your playerbase that just wants to show up to play some games and have fun are the ones that are vocal against your events including FW. I would have thought the play-for-fun crowd is more likely to include FW units for the models and alternate options. If the casual players don't want FW in your events, does that mean that the competitive players do? That's pretty much the opposite of what I have read so far in this thread.

To disclose, I am a casual player who wants to use FW for the models, not so much the rules, so I am content with counts-as. I would prefer not to, as I have to come up with some strange counts-as choices that don't really make a lot of sense, and then I feel like I'm trying to trick my opponent or something.

We already allow FW models (or really any models) to be proxied as whatever you please, so long as you fit within our WYSIWYG and MFA policies.

The thing is, most people who travel to big major multi-hundred-person tournaments/cons aren't "casual" players. They're hardcore about their hobby, whether they care about winning with optimized lists or not.

Honestly, we heard inquiries and words against FW before and after 6th edition, and a couple things happened in 6th edition that are undeniable in pushing the FW volume.

Suddenly, almost everyone could access IG if they WANTED without abandoning their primary dex. Then, vehicles got really bad, and infantry spam became a big deal. This also caused more players to invest in IG early on - especially competitive min-maxers - in the form of blobs, as everyone went to use Battle Brother IC's w/ guard blobs. Now, more people suddenly had IG models of some sort.

FW units are still not very good vs. vehicles, but now many more people are running flyers (I know, a type of vehicle), FMC's, and infantry (lots and lots of infantry). FW IG is VERY good against Flyers/FMC's, and infantry.

So, when 6th dropped, all of a sudden almost any player could pigeonhole anti-flyer/fmc and anti-infantry into their lists that was extremely powerful, affordable, and/or had other major advantages (i.e. T7 scoring guard infantry, 150 point 12-barrage-shot thudd guns, infiltrating marines / ahazra redth, 20 TL shot vultures, etc.). Suddenly, the volume for FW went through the roof. You can practically google and see the correlation. The volume was heavily amped by players that saw OBVIOUS competitive advantages, and wanted to take them, period.

As per my long write-up on page 21, none of that's bad, really. It just is what it is. But sure enough, the players who don't want us to use FW are almost exclusively casual gamers, or xenos players. Most often we get that nobody plays with FW at their local game shop, and they don't really have anyone to prep against or understand for them against unless proxying happens ... and casual gamers / hobbyists more often dislike proxy games.

I can also say, from being a successful and known competitive GT gamer, and from having a lot of buddies in the same group, we ALL see the issues with the IG FW models of note that are pretty crazy, and there's a reason we all happily and rapidly change our lists up when FW is legalized ... they're just plain better than what we can get with the codices ... they don't shift the meta, they trump it. Moreover, they trump it in a game that is becoming increasingly balanced with each 6th edition codex release ... those who think GW doesn't balance well ... whether or not they are doing it on purpose, they are figuring it out in 6th.

In terms of using FW rules, again as mentioned, we simplify things by offering both. We have a smaller Trios Team event that allows FW as 0-1 choices. We have a smaller hyper hardcore competitive Invitational that does not use it. We have a larger unique (as in, no other narrative event in the country is like it) narrative event that gets a ton of swag and radical focus, with a ton of players ... basically a casual GT in a lot of ways, but with a lot of flair and perks ... and it uses FW completely unbarred. And we have the 40k GT itself, which doesn't use FW. So, for all my opinions on this subject, I present a perfectly split / even handed offering to attendees, and I play in a perfectly split 50% of events I attend with FW and without.

Final reiteration from the pg21 post - if you are a FW fan, ATTEND! You've got FW legality at lots of events ... if those events take an attendance dive in the same year they legalize FW, it's not going to engender TOs to stick with it (even if the correlation is completely coincidental). This is a big key by the way - because as Oaka observes, in this THREAD it seems more like the competitors don't like FW and the casuals do. But there's a big difference when you look at the competitive GT GOERS vs. the casual GT GOERS. That's the audience I'm most directly responsible for / responsive to.

There's an interesting convergence on this topic. As noted, a number of rather high profile tournament players (Hulksmash, MVBrandt, carlosthecraven, Blackmoor, many others) have voiced that they'd rather not have unlimited FW in tournaments. I'd say these are "hardcore" players.

I am a casual player, usually taking a less-than-optimal list intentionally... because I like theme or whatever. I'm also from the old "pro comp" crowd, whereas I would think most of the above would be from the old "anti-comp" crowd. Again, an interesting convergence!

But as part of the "casual" group, I can absolutely see why many players don't want unlimited FW allowance, due to exactly what MVBrandt described above. I just don't want to face IG allied artillery all tournament long. But as part of the "casual" group, this is also why I'm interested in FW with some restrictions- to have the fun/theme parts of it available, but not the broken parts.


To address a few posters directly:
-grotblaster, nice post!
-Enigwolf, what is and where is your FLGS? I am very interested in the fact that they can succeed with this. I would LOVE to be able to buy FW locally!
-Oaka, I think most of my post above was in response to yours. I'm trying to give the perspective of the "casual" player that doesn't want unlimited FW, and why, as I think the "hardcore" players have been actually even more well represented in this thread. But as MVBrandt says, a lot of casual players (imo) feel this way, and that will play a large role in what tournies allow FW... they want to please their attendants and put on the event that most of them want.


As a final note, this again is why I find AdeptiCon so appealing. They've found a way to embrace FW in one of their absolute premier events, the team tournament, in a way that casual players like myself enjoy. I think there's room for improvement, but I think it's the best there is.

My one criticism of the Nova Open (although I haven't participated in the GT I did attend the event last year), is that it seems FW are only allowed in the "side" events. Nobody really wants to be relegated to a "side" event that's just how it is! I like how MVBrandt tries to push these events, but in the end folks want to play in the "main" event, mostly. The Team Tournament at AdeptiCon is one of those, and I think it's allowing limited/restricted FW has been quite a trail-blazer.

In my personal opinion, the Bay Area Open and the like take that too far. But the player base in their area may just have different preferences . But for my preference, AdeptiCon allows the right amount of FW for the "casual" player. I'd like to see just a hair more of it included in the Nova. So that's my feedback from the "casual" player point of view.

 grotblaster wrote:
While I repeatedly see some people refer to GW and FW as though they're interchangeable, nothing could be farther from the truth for your FLGS. Having an account with GW means nothing to FW. No FLGS carries FW because they'd pay full retail for it. This means a few things:

1. If a player wants to know what a new Eldar or Tau unit does they can look on the shelf or at a store copy. If that player wants to know what a hades breaching drill does, they're out of luck unless they order the book.

Many stores do not carry perusable "store copies", copies on the shelf are there to be sold, not free reference material. that said, this also applies to SoB where you can't even buy the rules short of Ebay.

2.If the player lives in an area with a community of 20+ players, there's a pretty good chance of finding a practice game against someone with a 2000 pt. army from any core codex. If looking to practice against a particular build from a codex army, it is easy to proxy with easily accessible rules. The same can't be said for FW armies and units.

That may often very well be true, but not everyone has a gaming group that big and even many gaming groups that big don't have every army. Not an irrelevant point, but it is highly variable.

3. Your FLGS has no reason to encourage/support FW. Most tournaments are run/supported by local game stores since GW doesn't support them anymore. Why encourage players to spend their finite cash on a company that will have no partnership with you? That DKOK army might as well be GI Joe proxies for all the good it did any FLGS.

Such things still drive incidental sales, paints, brushes, clippers, basing kits, etc. Additionally, they look cool and help build excitement for others.

Some stores do sell FW stuff. My FLGS does, they buy it at retail but in bulk to cover the shipping costs and basically 15% on top so that it roughly equalizes with what one would pay from FW but immediately available in the store/for impulse buys. Admittedly rare, won't try and claim otherwise, though slowly becoming more common. They could definitely do more to improve the business end.

If GW wants FW to be a core part of the game, they should treat it as such on their website and in the stores they partner with. I allow FW in some our tournaments, but I will continue to treat it as outside the core ruleset as long as GW does.

I think the bigger thing with GW is that they just don't care. As long as FW pulls in a profit they really just don't bother with it.

 RiTides wrote:

-Enigwolf, what is and where is your FLGS? I am very interested in the fact that they can succeed with this. I would LOVE to be able to buy FW locally!

Back home in a country you've probably never heard of, where taxes jack up the price to almost Aussie levels. I'm actually fairly close to my FLGS' owner, but for the sake of not creating a parallel conversation that's off-topic in this thread I'd be happy to share more about it in a PM or another thread!

As Vaktathi has stated, it is possible. Price the FW models below the 15% surcharge an individual would have to pay for shipping, and above the roughly 9% or 10% of taxes and conversion fees that would have to be paid, and then you have something in the figure of 2% or 3% of free profit for the store, which in an FW order can be quite significant.

 Danny Internets wrote:
Spoken like someone who has never actually tried to order anything from FW. They're notorious for canceling, rejecting, delaying, or simply screwing up orders.

I just checked my account and I've made 30 orders since the new website began (and a couple more on the old website), plus 3-5 made by other people as gifts for me. And every single one has shipped on time with all of the correct items. Now, each order comes up with new and interesting ways of miscasting a model, but all of the items have been correct. The only times I've had an order fail have been because my bank flagged the transaction as fraud and rejected it.

MVBrandt wrote:
Night scythes, Heldrakes, etc., are NOT overpowered, even a little bit

Of course they are. You can't possibly look at Helldrakes/Vendettas/etc and tell me they have a fair point price and reasonable abilities (especially after the Helldrake got a 360* turret for no reason). You can argue all you want that they aren't so overpowered that they ruin the game, but they are clearly too good for their point cost.

BUT we've allowed even Horus Heresy lists in our DC Narrative (which receives the most organizer attention in terms of mission design, testing, etc.). When I get into a situation where the various FW lovers in this thread and elsewhere are actually coming out and showing interest in events like the Narrative (which is a GT in its own right attendance wise) where companies like Secret Weapon Miniatures design themed bases JUST for those players / that event, and all FW is legal, and the missions are balanced but still rocking fun, and tons of people participate ... I'll start to have to think more seriously about FW in the main event.

And I'm glad that event exists. But it's not the same as a competitive tournament. You can say that it isn't a second-tier event, but the simple fact is that it's something very different. A person who wants to play in a competitive tournament (whether they love or hate FW) may have zero interest in a narrative event, while a person who travels across the country for a cool narrative event may have zero interest in a competitive tournament. So I don't think it's reasonable to say "pay a lot of money and support our narrative event if you want to see competitive tournaments".

 grotblaster wrote:
1. If a player wants to know what a new Eldar or Tau unit does they can look on the shelf or at a store copy.

As long as the store owner is happy to let people treat their merchandise as a public library instead of telling people to buy the book if they want to use it.

2.If the player lives in an area with a community of 20+ players, there's a pretty good chance of finding a practice game against someone with a 2000 pt. army from any core codex. If looking to practice against a particular build from a codex army, it is easy to proxy with easily accessible rules. The same can't be said for FW armies and units.

And that's just a self-fulfilling prophecy. People don't have as much FW stuff because of no-FW house rules, so we need to continue to have those house rules. If you drop the FW bans it's a lot more likely that people will buy them and have them available to play against.

3. Your FLGS has no reason to encourage/support FW. Most tournaments are run/supported by local game stores since GW doesn't support them anymore. Why encourage players to spend their finite cash on a company that will have no partnership with you? That DKOK army might as well be GI Joe proxies for all the good it did any FLGS.

Exactly. So your FLGS should ban direct-only GW models because they might as well be GI Joe proxies for all the good it did them.

If GW wants FW to be a core part of the game, they should treat it as such on their website and in the stores they partner with.

But they don't, for business reasons. That has nothing to do with what the rules of the game are, or what is best for competitive tournaments.

Why do you think Narrative inherently means noncompetitive?
And, I CAN tell you that about heldrakes and night scythes; I competitively deal with them, with ease, on a regular basis, as do most other competitive players who regularly attend GT's and do so. To the point of GT attendees having weight in the discussion of what is or isn't OP. The less successful competitors who DO struggle with Heldrakes, Night Scythes, or really anything, are exactly the same people who are actually more casual players, and struggle even MORE when faced with poorly designed / tested / costed / etc. FW units. As I've said before, I really don't care about top tier competitors - they'll be fine either way. BUT arguing about what is or isn't overpowered or underpowered is quite the argument of opinion.

I know you were addressing Peregrine, MVBrandt, and I don't think the Narrative is "inherently noncompetitive". But, I do think it's not the premier event of the GT, which is what most people travel for. But it may be getting there

I would say the same about the Gladiator at AdeptiCon, although it is a pretty big deal. But the premier events, that everyone talks about and wants to play in, are the individual GT and the team tournament GT. One of these allows FW. I think for Nova to be equated with that as far as FW allowance, one of it's "top 2" events needs to have some limited FW allowance. Not that it needs to be equated at all, but right now I think FW use has a much bigger presence at AdeptiCon, due to it's allowance in the team tournament in limited form.

Enigwolf- I'm not sure we get hit with the same taxes / conversion fees here... in fact, I'm not sure if I'm paying anything beyond what FW charged, other than what my friend is charging me to ship him the items, since we hit the "free shipping" level.

The difficulty with that at nova is the top bill events are the gt, which you can sign up for, and the invite, which you need to qualify for. So to some extent as far as open events more allow FW than do not.

RiTides - the Narrative is by far one of our top 2 events; that's to say, with nearly 40 people already registered, and about 60-70 estimated, it's by about 40 players one of our Top 2 ... and this is only the 2nd year; additionally, pairings are based heavily on the competitiveness / presentation of lists and similar factors. There are competitive awards. There's also, of course, enormous reward for CASUAL or hobby based play simultaneously (but we do that in general). The point is - it doesn't need to be one or the other, per Peregrine's erroneous assumption. The larger point is - different strokes for different folks, which is why it's good that events country-wide are offering different opportunities for ALL player types and preferences.

MVBrandt wrote:
Why do you think Narrative inherently means noncompetitive?

It's inherent in the name "narrative". As in focused on telling a story, not just winning games. That implies an event where fluff is important and showing up with an optimized tournament list (which would be way above everyone else in power) would be TFG behavior. And look at what your own description of the event says:

The Narrative is not a hardcore competitive event, so always prioritizes fun and the cinematic nature of the event over rules debates or organizer inflexibility.

I'm sure it's a fun event and if I could afford to I'd consider going just for that (and a conventional vacation in DC), but it's not the same as the main competitive event.

 Peregrine wrote:

MVBrandt wrote:
Why do you think Narrative inherently means noncompetitive?

It's inherent in the name "narrative". As in focused on telling a story, not just winning games. That implies an event where fluff is important and showing up with an optimized tournament list (which would be way above everyone else in power) would be TFG behavior. And look at what your own description of the event says:

The Narrative is not a hardcore competitive event, so always prioritizes fun and the cinematic nature of the event over rules debates or organizer inflexibility.

I'm sure it's a fun event and if I could afford to I'd consider going just for that (and a conventional vacation in DC), but it's not the same as the main competitive event.

Don't really want to derail into arguing about what the style and design of a specific event I personally style and design is, within a larger FW conversational thread. Recommend taking to PM if desiring of clarification though!

"There's an interesting convergence on this topic. As noted, a number of rather high profile tournament players (Hulksmash, MVBrandt, carlosthecraven, Blackmoor, many others) have voiced that they'd rather not have unlimited FW in tournaments. I'd say these are "hardcore" players."

So should we let them decide everything? Kind of starting to look like INAT versus non INAT barely disguised as a discussion now. :(

No the individual TO's will decide everything based on player feed back for their own events then it will be up for the players to decide what events to attend.

The smart TOs will do that most certainly.

Dozer Blades, I'm going to assume that you unintentionally misread my post, rather than misquoting it on purpose. The "convergence" I talked about I clearly explained in the next paragraph. Not a convergence of "hardcore" players, a convergence of "hardcore" and "casual" players, both wanting limitations on FW. I have underlined the second paragraph below where I describe myself as part of this second group and reiterate the "convergence" statement.

 RiTides wrote:
There's an interesting convergence on this topic. As noted, a number of rather high profile tournament players (Hulksmash, MVBrandt, carlosthecraven, Blackmoor, many others) have voiced that they'd rather not have unlimited FW in tournaments. I'd say these are "hardcore" players.

I am a casual player, usually taking a less-than-optimal list intentionally... because I like theme or whatever. I'm also from the old "pro comp" crowd, whereas I would think most of the above would be from the old "anti-comp" crowd. Again, an interesting convergence!

But as part of the "casual" group, I can absolutely see why many players don't want unlimited FW allowance, due to exactly what MVBrandt described above. I just don't want to face IG allied artillery all tournament long. But as part of the "casual" group, this is also why I'm interested in FW with some restrictions- to have the fun/theme parts of it available, but not the broken parts.

Paraphrasing from above (I'm sure you'll let me know if I don't capture the intent of your statements )
"Stores don't want people treating their books like a library/perusing books/etc. so there isn't easy access to core codex rules."
If you try to write a list up while sitting next to the counter with a book you haven't bought, someone will say something. If you flip through a book that isn't shrinkwrapped to look up a rule, I've never seen a store that has an issue with that. Or at least one that stays in business long after yelling "you gonna buy that?" at everyone who picks up a book.

"If access to the rules is a determining factor in what should be allowed in tournaments then SoB should be banned."
SoB had their own codex and have been around forever. GW core rule updates in White Dwarf has a long tradition (used to be followed by free copies on their website for this very reason). They are listed on the GW website as an army and can be ordered from GW or your FLGS. Besides, haven't these players suffered enough already?

"Direct order is the equivalent of Forgeworld from a FLGS perspective"
Some Direct Trade items have a lower discount than the general range. No model in the core codex is unavailable to stores at a retailers discount that I know of. The only core item I can think of that wasn't sold through stores at discount was Death from the Skies. I think this was an anomaly that came about due to the fact that people wouldn't buy it if they could see it first.

"My FLGS does/should carry FW"
Most stores with gaming areas have precious little retail space as it is. I do not foresee a widespread use of any of that space, much less the immense amount needed to carry even a decent sampling of what FW sells, in hopes of slender margins based on shipping savings. Some locations may have special circumstances, but until Forgeworld has trade accounts this will be a rare occurrence.

"The GW/FW split is a business decision that has nothing to do with the rules. The only reason there is a perceived difference between the two rulesets is that TOs have house rules banning FW."
Everything GW does is a business decision, rules or otherwise. They are a for profit public company interested in sales. This drives rules development as much as anything. The allies rules, flyer rules, large swings in relative unit power: all sales drivers. Some make the game more interesting/enjoyable, but make no mistake that they are business driven.

Being an online community here, one can forget that the vast majority of sales and gaming occur in local stores. These are businesses as well that have to pay salaries and keep the lights on. Stores can order various ranges of stock from GW. None of these ranges include FW. Any time anyone refers to "the full range of 40k products", there is not a FW model to be seen. Forgeworld's parent company is GW and it makes models, some of which have rules that are made to be used in a regular 40k game. That's fine, but I find it difficult to argue that FW is part of the core business/ruleset when no part of the GW distribution chain (online or brick and mortar) carries it.

Bottom line is that FW is not widely used, not because of bans in tournament use (which most players don't go to anyway), but because of the GW/FW decision to limit its distribution. If I go to the GW website or the average FLGS, I don't even know that FW exists. Yes, this is different for the "hardcore" players with the money to fly around the country for tournaments and buy all the Forgeworld books for reference. It's fine to have a few tournaments just for those folks. In general though, pushing the tournament meta toward spamming Sabre platforms is not good for your average player or FLGS. Given the accelerated GW refresh cycle, I don't think it's necessary for any game balance either.

For me the main argument will always be the disparity of units, both quality and quantity, across the armies. The FW design team pretty much just make whatever they feel like making, which means armies they like (IG, SMs, Tau) get a glut of new toys and the armies that actually could use a little help get left out in the cold. The rules are clearly uneven, too, but that's a whole separate issue and not unique to FW, it just aggravates the issue some more.

I prefer to play without it, except in limited special formats with some soft scores to make people behave. Since the reality is that a small vocal subset of the 40k Internet Celebrity crowd are pushing it hard, for a variety of reasons, I will have my six sabers and three drills on hand when it is allowed and deal with it from there.

@Phazael

Outside of Reece I think it's actually the opposite. Most of the "Internet" celebrities I know aren't for unlimited FW at all events. Or even limited FW at all events. Most seem to be open to multiple format types but many of the guys who regularly win events aren't super keen on adding FW to the mix (mostly because of how it will hurt the enjoyment of others).

p.s. drop the drills and get you some qual launchers. Those are the ugly

The drills got nerfed...very hard.

 grotblaster wrote:
Paraphrasing from above (I'm sure you'll let me know if I don't capture the intent of your statements )
"Stores don't want people treating their books like a library/perusing books/etc. so there isn't easy access to core codex rules."
If you try to write a list up while sitting next to the counter with a book you haven't bought, someone will say something. If you flip through a book that isn't shrinkwrapped to look up a rule, I've never seen a store that has an issue with that. Or at least one that stays in business long after yelling "you gonna buy that?" at everyone who picks up a book.

While true, it's also really a loophole, the same way you really can get any 40k book in about 15 minutes online. Looking up rules from a book on a shelf that you don't own at a shop is possible, and typically won't cause an issue, but again, isn't really what they're for.

"If access to the rules is a determining factor in what should be allowed in tournaments then SoB should be banned."
SoB had their own codex and have been around forever. GW core rule updates in White Dwarf has a long tradition (used to be followed by free copies on their website for this very reason). They are listed on the GW website as an army and can be ordered from GW or your FLGS. Besides, haven't these players suffered enough already?

Nobody (or at least not myself) is saying they should be banned, only that there's a double-standard. You can't walk into a shop and reference their rules or buy their models. While your FLGS can order them, they aren't part of the normal lineup and are outrageously expensive, costing more for a squad of Sisters (since you have to buy them in awkward batches of 3 with special/heavy weapons and squad leaders separate) than Death Korps of Krieg forgeworld infantry, and there's nothing a store can do to get you their rules if you didn't get the WD that came out almost two years ago.

Meanwhile, many FW models were once codex units/core models themselves. Thudd Guns date back to RT and 2nd edition for example. Others flop between status, Leman Russ Vanquishers and LR Exterminators and Griffons were codex units, then FW units, then codex units again . Some formerly FW units are now codex units. Pirhanas, Hydras, Skyrays, Medusas, various LR types, Valkyries, etc.

"Direct order is the equivalent of Forgeworld from a FLGS perspective"
Some Direct Trade items have a lower discount than the general range. No model in the core codex is unavailable to stores at a retailers discount that I know of.

There are however some units in Codex books that only have Forgeworld models however that stores are unable to order. While this has been ameleoriated mostly, some still exist. Hydras, Griffons, Collossi, and Medusas come to mind.

"My FLGS does/should carry FW"
Most stores with gaming areas have precious little retail space as it is. I do not foresee a widespread use of any of that space, much less the immense amount needed to carry even a decent sampling of what FW sells, in hopes of slender margins based on shipping savings. Some locations may have special circumstances, but until Forgeworld has trade accounts this will be a rare occurrence.

Entirely true.

"The GW/FW split is a business decision that has nothing to do with the rules. The only reason there is a perceived difference between the two rulesets is that TOs have house rules banning FW."
Everything GW does is a business decision, rules or otherwise. They are a for profit public company interested in sales. This drives rules development as much as anything. The allies rules, flyer rules, large swings in relative unit power: all sales drivers. Some make the game more interesting/enjoyable, but make no mistake that they are business driven.

Yup, but that's also why such a decision for TO's shouldn't be influenced by GW's behavior in that particular regard as GW's reasons for the split are entirely different than why a TO would need to make such a decision.

Bottom line is that FW is not widely used, not because of bans in tournament use (which most players don't go to anyway), but because of the GW/FW decision to limit its distribution.

Yup.

If I go to the GW website or the average FLGS, I don't even know that FW exists.

Hrm, I'd argue that, at least with regards to the website. FW regularly appears on GW's daily blog, just not on their general websales. For most FLGS's, of course, your are correct.

Yes, this is different for the "hardcore" players with the money to fly around the country for tournaments and buy all the Forgeworld books for reference. It's fine to have a few tournaments just for those folks. In general though, pushing the tournament meta toward spamming Sabre platforms is not good for your average player or FLGS. Given the accelerated GW refresh cycle, I don't think it's necessary for any game balance either.

I think the issue here is the assumption that it's going to push the meta towards spamming sabre platforms, which I don't think is necessarily true. We've seen a couple such lists at some major events, but by no means have they dominated them in standings or attendance, and we certainly haven't seen anything near what say, Space Wolves did to the metagame.

 Hulksmash wrote:
@Phazael

Outside of Reece I think it's actually the opposite. Most of the "Internet" celebrities I know aren't for unlimited FW at all events. Or even limited FW at all events. Most seem to be open to multiple format types but many of the guys who regularly win events aren't super keen on adding FW to the mix (mostly because of how it will hurt the enjoyment of others).

Yup. I would also like the choice as to what tournaments to do to as well, but right now I have to travel to outside of California to get a GT without FW.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Dozer Blades wrote:
Like it or not more tournies are allowing Forge World this year... more than ever before. My advice is get used to it.

I do not have to get use to it, and there are several ways to fight it. I will continue to speak out against it whenever possible.

I can also either have my money speak and not attend FW events. If enough like-minded individuals do the same and attendance sags, then TOs might change. Another option I can do is take the most abusive FW list that I can and make several other games miserable and then they would be converts to the anti-FW crowd.

 Blackmoor wrote:

 Hulksmash wrote:
@Phazael

Outside of Reece I think it's actually the opposite. Most of the "Internet" celebrities I know aren't for unlimited FW at all events. Or even limited FW at all events. Most seem to be open to multiple format types but many of the guys who regularly win events aren't super keen on adding FW to the mix (mostly because of how it will hurt the enjoyment of others).

Yup. I would also like the choice as to what tournaments to do to as well, but right now I have to travel to outside of California to get a GT without FW.

I think Quentin may have meant "prolific posters and personalities" rather than "famous or great tournament players" when he was talking about internet celebrities who support FW. I still agree with Hulk and Blackmoor though, most of the high quality players accept that there may be FW and prepare but prefer not to have it, outside of Reece. Not a knock on Reece I like him a lot but we do disagree on FW in tournaments, again it doesn't stop me from going to them though.

I really think this conversation is "over" in that most people seem to support having some events with FW and some without. The reason I think Alan may have brought all this up again though is that in So. Cal, and really a lot of the West period Reece and Frontline seem to be the preeminent tournament organizers and their template is taking hold in a lot of the West Coast events. That means that most, if not all I would have to check, of the California events are using either BAO format or are allowing FW. Which is ok for a player like me who will play in a FW allowed event even though I dislike FW but for a player like Alan who is ardently opposed to FW it makes it difficult to find events locally that he can attend and play his style of 40k. Again this is nothing against Reece or his events, if they didn't do such a great job there is no way I would go to them, it is just their success has made it harder for anti-FW tournament players in So Cal to find events.

@Dozerblades why should Blackmoor and others like him have to just suck it up and get used to FW allowed events but the reverse isn't true of players like you and Peregrine? If you don't want us dictating how the game should be played we certainly don't want you dictating it either. Suck it up indeed.

 Hulksmash wrote:
@Phazael

Outside of Reece I think it's actually the opposite. Most of the "Internet" celebrities I know aren't for unlimited FW at all events. Or even limited FW at all events. Most seem to be open to multiple format types but many of the guys who regularly win events aren't super keen on adding FW to the mix (mostly because of how it will hurt the enjoyment of others).

p.s. drop the drills and get you some qual launchers. Those are the ugly

I would rather lose than be that bored. Quads can stay at home.

OverwatchCNC wrote:@Dozerblades why should Blackmoor and others like him have to just suck it up and get used to FW allowed events but the reverse isn't true of players like you and Peregrine? If you don't want us dictating how the game should be played we certainly don't want you dictating it either. Suck it up indeed.

Yakface answered this 22 pages ago. The argument that Blackmoor should just 'suck it up' exists because their side is the one looking to ban official rules and therefore introduce a house rule or a composition restriction to the tournament. The other side is looking for a game of 40K without restrictions. I'm not saying there's a clear right and wrong answer to this, because there isn't, but looking to ban Forgeworld certainly isn't the same thing as looking to keep it allowed, because it's a part of Warhammer 40K by Games Workshop. My opinion as a European GT veteran is as always that having both comped and unrestricted tournaments is a good thing, but once you go comp you better go all the way and start restricting all of the heinous stuff in the game, not just the ones you don't like personally.

As far as small councils ruling over the tournament scene and deciding what's allowed and what isn't and what's a real game of Warhammer that involves skill and what isn't goes, I could write an essay about what's happened to the European Warhammer scene. The ETC system, lauded as somehow bringing balance to an imbalanced game, in my opinion is already a barrier to entry for new players since it's essentially a different game system than the game GW is selling.

Edit- The Cali crowd seems to be big on FW, stemming mostly from two factors. One, a large amount of disposable income relative to the rest of the nation. Two, a general hatred of fliers in general and the Necron ones in particular. As someone who generally plays armies without good built in anti-air options (poor nids and eldar), I don't mind them and like that there is actually some form of air power represented in the game.

The money issue is not a factor for me, but I am kind of dropped 40k as a serious game and do not play it enough to justify going all out towards FW. That's where I think you are going to lose people. The competitive players drive tournaments, but the casuals fill the seats and major FW type stuff will drive them away.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Therion wrote:

OverwatchCNC wrote:@Dozerblades why should Blackmoor and others like him have to just suck it up and get used to FW allowed events but the reverse isn't true of players like you and Peregrine? If you don't want us dictating how the game should be played we certainly don't want you dictating it either. Suck it up indeed.

Yakface answered this 22 pages ago. The argument that Blackmoor should just 'suck it up' exists because their side is the one looking to ban official rules and therefore introduce a house rule or a composition restriction to the tournament. The other side is looking for a game of 40K without restrictions. I'm not saying there's a clear right and wrong answer to this, because there isn't, but looking to ban Forgeworld certainly isn't the same thing as looking to keep it allowed, because it's a part of Warhammer 40K by Games Workshop. My opinion as a European GT veteran is as always that having both comped and unrestricted tournaments is a good thing, but once you go comp you better go all the way and start restricting all of the heinous stuff in the game, not just the ones you don't like personally.

As far as small councils ruling over the tournament scene and deciding what's allowed and what isn't and what's a real game of Warhammer that involves skill and what isn't goes, I could write an essay about what's happened to the European Warhammer scene. The ETC system, lauded as somehow bringing balance to an imbalanced game, in my opinion is already a 'barrier of entry' to new players since it's essentially a different game system than the game GW is selling.

Yeah and a lot of the pro FW people are not even consistent in these things. A good chunk will advocate allowing FW but then poo poo things actually in the main rulebook like double force orgs and Fortress of Redemption. I can understand wanting to play with the expensive toys, but if you want to buy a win in a game, MTG is still going strong.

Therion, your example of the ETC disproves your earlier argument about "once you go comp you better go all the way" because that's exactly what ETC is, and it's very unpopular with a Lot of gamers, as you point out.

So some restrictions does not equal ETC restrictions. In fact, I'd say ETC is the most extreme I know of (regarding fantasy... I don't even know if it exists for 40k so fantasy is what I'm referring to there).

And again, every tournament has to make rulings, and in fact any tournament allowing FW makes a ruling in that regard . "Official rules", as you say, dictate that an opponent must have permission to use FW in a game, and so a TO has to make that call one way or the other- to allow, disallow, or restrict. There is no "default", and the reality of it, no matter how much people who want unrestricted FW say to the contrary, is that the "default" in most places is NOT to allow FW.

If my persmission is required, and you ask me for a game with 6 quad launchers, I will decline permission. Thus, in going to a tournament I'm passing that decision over to the TO. What call they make on it (to allow, disallow, or restrict) is what this thread was/is about. It's up to each TO, of course, but there is no "default" allowing FW... if anything, it's the opposite, but I think it's fairer to all sides to say that a decision simply must be made one way or the other, and a TO must specify how they want to treat FW for their event.

To reiterate my "convergence" argument from earlier- I was from the old "pro-comp" crowd, which has died out whereas many of the posters here were from the "anti-comp" crowd. The fact that both groups don't like unlimited FW, in large part, to me indicates what I think has been said here a lot... that for many events, it's just not appropriate.

That said, I'll be very happy to continue to participate in limited/restricted FW events. Extremely happily, in fact . It lets folks bring out their toys, but I don't have to face 6 quad launchers. Win-win, for me

By no means does doing that equate to ETC-levels of nerfdom... they are by far the most extreme example of comp/restrictions possible, imo, and not one to be emulated. But it also doesn't mean that there aren't going to be any restrictions, ever, which is what the BAO / Frontline Gaming had been pushing for, and I just don't think it's needed or appropriate for most gamers in most events.

It will be interesting to see where this has gone a year from now. I'm hoping FW acceptance will continue to grow, but pushing completely unlimited FW access I do not think will accomplish that... it may accomplish the opposite, in some ways, as a reaction. But I will happily support events allowing FW in some forms, as long as it's within reason