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.

 CaptKaruthors wrote:

But seriously, I might not be the most awesome player ever but I find 40k to be extremely balanced.

Seriously? What would lead you to that conclusion? Lastly, my point still stands: If Necrons win the next big GT. Will the anti FW people finally accept the possibility that Necrons are far more dumb than any BS FW unit that is labeled as a "problem"? How many overalls would it take to reach that possibility? 1 more? 2 more?

Nobody from the anti FW crowd has yet to answer that question.

Pure Tau just won the "next big GT" ... a 60-person affair with a ridiculously high concentration of top tier players ... at Kiladelphia. The Semi-Finals were Vanilla SM/IG, Pure Tau, Tau/SW, and pure Daemons. No Crons. Pure Tau won, over Daemons, in the final. Three of the semi-finalists were members of Team America. Best overall was won by old Eldar + DE allies.


I figured it was a well-timed reply.


Also, smaller GT's with higher concentrations of top tier players are far better evaluators than places where you can luck out in a massive crowd and shoot up the ladder on easier games.

 CaptKaruthors wrote:
Seriously? What would lead you to that conclusion? Lastly, my point still stands: If Necrons win the next big GT. Will the anti FW people finally accept the possibility that Necrons are far more dumb than any BS FW unit that is labeled as a "problem"? How many overalls would it take to reach that possibility? 1 more? 2 more?

Nobody from the anti FW crowd has yet to answer that question.

This is a silly argument. Why would anti-FW people conclude that Necrons are more imbalanced than FW units when the vast majority of competitive events don't permit FW? A smattering of FW events is fairly meaningless if you want to compare the two; even at a competitive level, few people are going to invest in hundreds of dollars and large amounts of time in painting FW units if they're only going to be able to attend one tournament a year that allows their use. Until it becomes fairly mainstream, looking at tournament results to compare FW power to pure codex power won't yield meaningful data.

Yes, obviously Necrons are the dominant codex at the moment. But drawing a conclusion that Necrons are MORE dominant than FW units would be if they were permitted is nonsensical.

Define "next Big GT" are we talking NOVA? OR does Killadelphia (with 50+ players and several GT winners amongst the attendees) if so then ummm....Tau for the win.

Top 8
Eldar/IG allies
Daemons/CSM Allies
Tau
Tau
Tau/SW allies
Necrons
Necrons
Space Marines/IG allies

So only 2 Necron Players make the top 8

Top 4
Daemons/CSM Allies
Space Marines/IG allies
Tau
Tau/SW allies


So No Necrons in the Top 4....

So Yeah Necrons are totally OP broken can't be beat...

If that doesn't count I'll go on record as saying "I'll be surprised if Crons win at Nova."

 RiTides wrote:
That's so wrong, Red! I get pocket kings but run into a guy who somehow stayed in with 6 and 2 unsuited. Flop is low, I slow play, get a king on the turn card, see a low river card and bet big with trip kings.

It's nearly impossible to peg my opponent as 6 and 2, the numbers needed for a straight with that flop, and I lose most of my chips.

Single events that have a lot of randomness to them absolutely affect outcomes in Poker. A bit off-topic, but that's just how it is... it takes skill, but chance is heavily involved, no question.

I'm sorry sir, but the rules of dakka state one must attempt to write in English, and I'm fairly certain you're speaking another language .

I think for the time being, FW being allowed is up to the TO. I wouldn't mind it too much if I had to fight against some things I've never fought before (hell saw some grey knight models I had never fought, and saw my first whirlwind this weekend at a tournament). As long as the TO says what is and isn't allowed, and that if anyone brings something forgeworld, it should be treated as if it were in a codex, you must have the rules for it, and must be able to show your opponent if/when he or she asks.

So 5/8 of the top armies were either Tau or Necrons, and this somehow strengthens the argument that 40K is a balanced game and Forgeworld would upset this balance?

I'm starting to feel sorry for that old dead horse.

 Redbeard wrote:

It's not so much about how they choose to play, it's about what they seem to want. Sure, 40k can be played competitively, but it is not designed to be, and many concessions have to be made in order to do so. Players who really wish to test themselves in a competitive game are going to be better served by playing a game that's designed for competitive play. That's not really telling them to go play something else, it's simply pointing out that what they're seeking is better found elsewhere.

That's where I start to suspect that many "competative" 40k players don't want a truly balanced game. The competative 40K group (painting with a broad brush here) is this very small sub group of the player base that has the money, and will power to exploit the imbalances of the game to put themselves at a notable advantage over 2/3 of the tournament field. If they truly wanted a gaming system balanced and designed for tournament play they could jump ship and go to magic or warmachine, or any number of great games. But those communities are nothing but competative players, and I think for a lot of well known 40K personalities success would be much harder to find in those games.

 Oaka wrote:
So 5/8 of the top armies were either Tau or Necrons, and this somehow strengthens the argument that 40K is a balanced game and Forgeworld would upset this balance?

Hugely so, yes. Among those 8, Necron both failed to make semis, and the Tau made about the proper distribution. VANILLA SPACE MARINES made the semis, and lost to brand new and pure daemons off a single dice roll late. The final was between Tau and Daemons. This supports the already-established notion that perceived "imbalanced" or powerful units ROCK the mid-field, but don't do any better or worse against the top tier. That's why adding more mid-field rocking units from FW IG isn't going to help balance, or affect top tables.

More importantly, one of the points that's been made but often overlooked ... is ANY player suggesting the codexes have to do with who places at the top is really missing the results as a whole. The top 4? Tony Kopach, Nick Nanavati, Neil Gilstrap, Andrew Gonyo.

Take a look at those names, and you'll find they are almost ALWAYS in the top "x" in any event they attend, regardless of rules, restrictions, or what codex they play. Nick won at AdeptiCon with Crons/GK. He made final game at Kiladelphia with Daemons/CSM. Tony's done well with SW, and now with vanilla SM + IG. Andrew's won GT's this season with IG/BLOOD ANGELS, and now with Tau. Neil's done well with PURE GK land raider spam + death cults, winning events in his region against tough competitors with them. He did this one with Tau and SW.

Good players are ALWAYS going to do well, regardless of the dex. Additionally, most of these players willingly admit if you add FW, they'd immediately stop with the variety and have at least allied IG.

The picture gets more damning in the mid-tables.

Thing of it is, that's actually not something i have a problem with. There are always best units, within codices and elsewhere. I don't personally like the idea of ALL of my events shifting the meta toward IG at the top tables and in the mid ranges just for the sake of adding un-filtered, un-abridged FW. Some of my events do, some of my events don't, including top billing events both directions. BUT my only real beef in general is with a loud group (NOT all of you!) who refuse to accede to restricted FW units and are simply not willing to admit they really, really, really want to use some of the IG types to "easy-mode" Necron fliers, or try to get a competitive advantage.

Anyone seeking variety at the top tables, you're living in a dreamworld in the sense that the players there are not really changing very often; that in and of itself precludes "variety" except in terms of which models they're buying. There won't be, until other players actually master the game beyond list building and dice rolling aside from those who have, and who consistently place at the top tables as a result of it. These players routinely use both new and old codices to accomplish it, and adding FW isn't going to change it a lick. BUT you are going to dramatically impact the mid-ranges, where Crons are still running rampant over players who aren't skilled enough to deal with them if their list can't on its own, and where IG will do exactly the same (as will a few other FW units) if it's broadly legalized. That's OK if you acknowledge that outcome, but you lose the support of a lot of readers when you refuse to budge, swear the game is imbalanced, and swear FW won't have any real impact on it (or will somehow make it better). A lot of players who are getting in their licks weekend after weekend think otherwise from a lot of practical experience. A more middle ground approach is much more widely supported than one would think ... but it doesn't encourage a TO to go "all in" one way or another when he realizes the noisy parties [on BOTH sides] aren't going to lower the volume at all unless they get things 100% their way.

That is just your opinion though and there are plenty of TOs for other large national events that have nothing but good things to say about Forge World. NOVA is your event and obviously you should run it as you see fit... and sure a lot of TOs follow your system - but to say what you said as a sweeping generalization is fail.

 Dozer Blades wrote:
That is just your opinion though and there are plenty of TOs for other large national events that have nothing but good things to say about Forge World. NOVA is your event and obviously you should run it as you see fit... and sure a lot of TOs follow your system - but to say what you said as a sweeping generalization is fail.

/sadface at another oneliner response!

I'll reiterate that at NOVA we run half our events, including one of our headline events, as FW legal (one even legalizes HH), and half not FW legal.


PS - YES, it's my opinion. Anything anybody says about balance and powerful units and anything else is opinion.

So why not allow FW for all of your events? Surely there is a difference between a 30k narrative and the invitational, right?

Same reason I don't ban it in all.

Also, it's not a 30k Narrative.

And there is a difference, one of which is the Invitational is at a different points level, and doesn't allow FW! Amazingly, different strokes for different folks, yada yada.

The prerogative of a good TO is not to rule "my way or the highway," nor to follow the vocal exhibitions of those seeking a TO to rule "their way or the highway." There's 25 pages of reasons for and against, vocally argued by numerous people at a fairly even divide. There's also tons of feedback we received when our initial primer went out regarding what attendees wanted in terms of FW or not in different events.

As with most things, our calls about which events do and don't get what rules and missions are generally driven by playtest, feedback, analysis, yada yada. Hence, an even split offering

Unfortunately there will always be people who are unhappy unless their own very narrow view of what a convention should be is hit on perfectly. This applies to all sides of this subject matter, and a hundred other subjects to boot (certain players, for instance, will completely avoid an event and decry it as awful if a single FAQ answer doesn't suit them, i.e. players not attending AdeptiCon purely b/c they didn't like the 180 degree flyer arc ruling). Nothing for it.

You'll have people without any TO responsibilities of their own throwing "THAT WAS FAIL LOL" at you no matter what you do ... so you tend to go with a combination of what your staff and judges and self think works best, coupled w/ respect for the silent majority and ... the majority of the vocal minorities.

 Oaka wrote:
So 5/8 of the top armies were either Tau or Necrons, and this somehow strengthens the argument that 40K is a balanced game and Forgeworld would upset this balance?

You look at the 5 out of 8 and I look at the 3 out of 8. You say that there is imbalance, yet 3 other codexes are able to compete at the top tables against armies that you percieve as unbalanced.

There were 5 codexes represented out of the top 8.

Actually there were 8 Codices represented in the Top 8.

Eldar
IG
Daemons
CSM
Tau
Wolves
Necrons
Space Marines

But yes there were 5 different Primary Codices.

There is nothing extraordinary about those results. They are all competitive armies. I fail to see the connection how this makes Forge World a bad thing. Of course I'm not expecting some people to give a straight answer. Most of the complaints are similar in fashion to all the horror stories we heard about what a big scary monster is double force organization when in fact it's really a lot of fun. It is the TOs own fault if they cannot run their tourneys on time and use lower total points as an excuse.

We just had the Killadelphia Open, which is a first year GT in the east coast with huge competition. Top 8 included 3 Team USA ETC members (Gonyo, Kopach, and Nanavati), Neil Gilstrap, Matt DeFranza (winner of SVDM), myself, Rob Fortin, and a gentleman named Payl. There were lots of other excellent players who didn't make the top 8 so it was an extremely competitive event.

The codex breakdown was:

Tau (winner)
Daemons / CSM (runner up)
Tau / SW (semi-finals)
SM / IG (semi-finals)
old Eldar / IG (won best overall)
Tau
Necrons
Necrons / Tau

So we had 8 different armies in use in the top 8, and no Necrons in the top 4. Tau were the most represented army on the top tables. Game seems pretty balanced to me.

 morgendonner wrote:

The codex breakdown was:

Tau (winner)
Daemons / CSM (runner up)
Tau / SW (semi-finals)
SM / IG (semi-finals)
old Eldar / IG (won best overall)
Tau
Necrons
Necrons / Tau

So we had 10 different armies in use in the top 8, and no Necrons in the top 4. Tau were the most represented army on the top tables. Game seems pretty balanced to me.

I'm not sure you're counting right. There were 8 different books total in the top 8 out of 16 possible.

Out of 8 possible primary armies there were only 5.

Again, codex diversity alone does not equate to balance. But when the top 8 slots allow for an appearance by every codex and only half of them show (and some of those as minor portions of the whole army) I don't know how anyone can say that the game is "balanced". Perhaps amongst those armies appearing in the top half the power level is relatively tight, but the game system is leaving out half of its books, background, and possibly player base.

I don't think FW is the key to rebalancing the game, far from it. The current state of the game is not that big of a factor in the FW decision IMO. But I think some people are way over exaggerating the current "balanced" state of the game.

Edit- Whoops, didn't see the page rollover but I'll leave the response below, just note that I didn't see all the replies on this page already referring to it.

 CaptKaruthors wrote:
Lastly, my point still stands: If Necrons win the next big GT. Will the anti FW people finally accept the possibility that Necrons are far more dumb than any BS FW unit that is labeled as a "problem"? How many overalls would it take to reach that possibility? 1 more? 2 more?

Nobody from the anti FW crowd has yet to answer that question.

I'm not from the "anti FW crowd", as I'd like some FW allowance, but I'll answer it.

No, that would not make me reach that conclusion. Currently, there are far more players using Necrons than FW artillery. With greater FW artillery acceptance, that ratio would change, and there would likely be a lot more wins for players using it.

In other words, this thread was about whether or not FW should be allowed (and if so, to what degree, which is what a lot of us "in the middle" were discussing) and what consequences that could have in the future.

Necrons continuing to win when the current meta mostly disallows FW means very little as far as a direct comparison goes. And, if you remember, GK won everything in sight when they first hit, too. It's a powerful codex, people will adapt (or use them as allies, etc). The input from many top-level tournament players in this thread is that unlimited FW artillery is even more unbalancing to the game, and I think that is a reasonable statement to make (even if not all agree with it) given the evidence.

If I were to turn this question back around on you, as you're asking it, I'd point out that even with an 0-1 restriction, a team including an army using Thudd Guns won the team tournament at AdeptiCon this year. And you'd turn that around on me and say that no, there were skilled players using those armies... and I'd say exactly . But, it's about as fair as saying "If Necrons win the next GT, they're clearly more powerful than FW artillery". The two are not easily compared due to the state things are in, which is why we're having this discussion.

Thanks for correcting me, major brain fart... still recovering from lack of sleep over the last several days. Edited my original post.

Anyway, beyond the armies that made the top 8 at this event we know that GK are still very competitive, and Nids and Orks both have been doing well this year. So that brings you to 11. DE aren't a bad army either, they made top 8 at Adepticon. They're a strange army that has bad matchups and struggles dealing with flyers but they also are very anti-meta in a lot of situations.

I'm not sure why Dark Angels aren't more common, but a large part of that is probably due to Drakes. BA also aren't terrible, just other marines do it better. BT are in a similar boat, post-FAQ update they aren't bad just not as good as more recent marine books. What can you expect though when you have so many marine armies that have very little amounts distinguishing them from each other? No matter how well balanced the game is when there's so many MEQ armies you're always going to see some of them fizzle out to make way for whoever the cooler kid on the block is. Beyond those armies we have Sisters which we know are a mess.

So I'd say at least 13 of the armies are competitive, especially since their best components can be used as allies. I'd say 11 of them are extremely competitive. I'm not sure whether it's been on purpose but I'm very happy with that. Can you really expect a game to be perfectly balanced between so many factions? Competitive Starcraft II has trouble being balanced with just 3, so I think the current state of the game is really impressive.

RiTides wrote:The input from many top-level tournament players in this thread is that unlimited FW artillery is even more unbalancing to the game, and I think that is a reasonable statement to make (even if not all agree with it) given the evidence.

With regards to this particular statement, I'd disagree that it's a reasonable statement, as we haven't seen such an effect from such artillery heavy lists when they are allowed thus far. We've had a few place well, but they certainly haven't dominated anything. Even making allowances for the fact that "this is a new thing at relatively few events so there's not many players making use of it", the lists just have not had the effect at these events that people are claiming they will have. The gut feelings of a few tournament players has not, as yet, jived with the evidence at such events as have allowed these units.

 Vaktathi wrote:

RiTides wrote:The input from many top-level tournament players in this thread is that unlimited FW artillery is even more unbalancing to the game, and I think that is a reasonable statement to make (even if not all agree with it) given the evidence.

With regards to this particular statement, I'd disagree that it's a reasonable statement, as we haven't seen such an effect from such artillery heavy lists when they are allowed thus far. We've had a few place well, but they certainly haven't dominated anything. Even making allowances for the fact that "this is a new thing at relatively few events so there's not many players making use of it", the lists just have not had the effect at these events that people are claiming they will have. The gut feelings of a few tournament players has not, as yet, jived with the evidence at such events as have allowed these units.

Every FW heavy IG army has made top 5 at all FW allowed events. There has not been a FW heavy IG that has placed poorly, or one even in the middle of the field. Considering that these events are very large, and has good competition is even more telling.

Especially when there is any real actual evidence. This entire thread is mostly opinion and hearsay plus others parroting back what has been imprinted upon them.

I have a question for all those asking for a 0-1 FW choice. Are you open to complete FW Army Lists, e.g. Krieg Armored Battle Group, Space Marine Siege Force, Elysian Drop Troops, etc. For the record, these are the lists that typically cannot take your "OP" units like Artillery and Sabres.

 Blackmoor wrote:
Every FW heavy IG army has made top 5 at all FW allowed events. There has not been a FW heavy IG that has placed poorly, or one even in the middle of the field. Considering that these events are very large, and has good competition is even more telling.

Now WHY is that true? Is the list an auto-win that is so overpowered that any random person with the budget to build it is guaranteed a top-5 finish? Or is it just the case that it's an expensive army that will only be played by the most dedicated (and therefore most skilled) tournament players, people who will consistently finish at the top of the standings no matter what army they use?

Also, I'd love to see some proof of your claim that no FW-heavy IG army has done poorly. Even the best tournament armies do poorly when played by bad players, and I find it really hard to believe that no bad player has ever brought a FW-heavy army to a tournament.

 Enigwolf wrote:
I have a question for all those asking for a 0-1 FW choice. Are you open to complete FW Army Lists, e.g. Krieg Armored Battle Group, Space Marine Siege Force, Elysian Drop Troops, etc. For the record, these are the lists that typically cannot take your "OP" units like Artillery and Sabres.

Personally, quite open. I think there's a vast majority that would not mind FW legality aside from the couple of taboo units. I think that's a BETTER solution than 0-1, though I think 0-1 is just fine as well. Yada yada. Personal level of course; if only I could make every TO decision on a personal level :p

 Enigwolf wrote:
I have a question for all those asking for a 0-1 FW choice. Are you open to complete FW Army Lists, e.g. Krieg Armored Battle Group, Space Marine Siege Force, Elysian Drop Troops, etc. For the record, these are the lists that typically cannot take your "OP" units like Artillery and Sabres.

Or when they can, can't take everything (e.g. the DKoK can field Thudd Guns, but no Sabres and very limited flyer access)

 ArtfcllyFlvrd wrote:

 morgendonner wrote:

The codex breakdown was:

Tau (winner)
Daemons / CSM (runner up)
Tau / SW (semi-finals)
SM / IG (semi-finals)
old Eldar / IG (won best overall)
Tau
Necrons
Necrons / Tau

So we had 10 different armies in use in the top 8, and no Necrons in the top 4. Tau were the most represented army on the top tables. Game seems pretty balanced to me.

I'm not sure you're counting right. There were 8 different books total in the top 8 out of 16 possible.

Out of 8 possible primary armies there were only 5.

Again, codex diversity alone does not equate to balance. But when the top 8 slots allow for an appearance by every codex and only half of them show (and some of those as minor portions of the whole army) I don't know how anyone can say that the game is "balanced". Perhaps amongst those armies appearing in the top half the power level is relatively tight, but the game system is leaving out half of its books, background, and possibly player base.

I don't think FW is the key to rebalancing the game, far from it. The current state of the game is not that big of a factor in the FW decision IMO. But I think some people are way over exaggerating the current "balanced" state of the game.

I agree with you that Balance has not alot to do with FW. But asking for every book to be represented and that every primary army be different for the game to be balanced is silly. That would assume a couple things.

1.) That all armies were equally represented at the event. For instance needing all armies to have equal representation on top tables would need them to be equally represented in the field. This is rarely true. People choose armies based on any number of factors.

2.) That the best players all choose different armies. Again this is asking a lot.

MVBrandt wrote:
Additionally, most of these players willingly admit if you add FW, they'd immediately stop with the variety and have at least allied IG.

But that's all just theory and speculation about what might happen. It's easy to look at a unit and think about how nice it would be to have it in your list, but that's not the same thing as actually doing it and looking at the results. Maybe it would be a powerful list for a while, but maybe it turns out that cover-ignoring Riptides and Farsight bombs wipe the artillery list off the table and nobody dares to play it in a metagame where Tau are common. And then maybe the next codex gives Tau a really tough matchup and pushes them out of the metagame, allowing the artillery list to make a comeback. But until you make FW legal in all events you're never going to have anything more than theory and speculation.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: coming from MTG the 40k attitude towards bans is just insane. A real competitive game doesn't ban stuff based on theory, it does it based on results. Results from extensive playtesting and competitive experience that demonstrate a clear need for a ban. If you suggested that WOTC ban cards because someone made top-8 at a pro tour event with them and they might be overpowered you'd be laughed out of the discussion. Only in 40k is it possible to be taken seriously when you argue for blanket bans on a long list of things based on pure speculation about how overpowered some of them might be.

 Blackmoor wrote:

Every FW heavy IG army has made top 5 at all FW allowed events. There has not been a FW heavy IG that has placed poorly, or one even in the middle of the field. Considering that these events are very large, and has good competition is even more telling.

Now that's just not true. I was at WGC and played IG myself with FW. There were probably only 4-5 of us with any sort of significant FW. I missed the second day cut by about 5 pts, and only 2 IG FW players made it to the second day. And all three of us are very experienced, fairly high performing players in the midwest. Then out of the two that went on Alan was the only one in the top 4 (I don't think Tim made top 5, but I'm not sure).

Alan does extremely well in tournaments regardless of FW. So if you're using Alan as your poster boy for "FW elevates bad players" or "FW breaks the game", you're just flatly incorrect. As for the rest of the IG players, I think our places were relatively accurate for our skill levels, the missions that weekend, and everything else that goes into tournament finishes.

 Enigwolf wrote:
I have a question for all those asking for a 0-1 FW choice. Are you open to complete FW Army Lists, e.g. Krieg Armored Battle Group, Space Marine Siege Force, Elysian Drop Troops, etc. For the record, these are the lists that typically cannot take your "OP" units like Artillery and Sabres.

My only issue with it is that it allows some armies to essentially ally with themselves. DKOK with IG. I think were I to include those army lists I would state that they replace the "core" army in the standard Allies Matrix