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.

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.

I think that the consequences (if any) can't be measured yet because there isn't that many GTs that allow it. Until you can see over time with some actual data...it's all prognostication at that point. In other words, instead of saying it's going to ruin GTs why not allow it for an entire years worth of GTs and see what outcome may happen?

Necrons continuing to win when the current meta mostly disallows FW means very little as far as a direct comparison goes.

Sure it does. It means that other codexes can't hang with Necrons unless they themselves use Necron allies or some other ally. That's not balance. I've always said that even in an edition of allies (6th) each army should have enough tools in their codex to stand on their own. Otherwise like posted many pages ago what's the difference between cherry picking the best units from two codexes and cherry picking units from FW? Either way, you are creating a discord...so what's the point?

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.

See above. Allies does essentially the same things...but that's okay. Necrons do well, that's ok. In a game that is already unbalanced...adding anything else isn't going to change that. While I agree that FW isn't designed to balance out things..in some cases it does as an unintended effect. For instance, BT armies are much better using FW rhinos, razorbacks, contemptor mortis dreads, etc. as either the cost of those units in their own book suck, or the unit brings more fire power to the army that other armies that have a newer book already get. While that is slightly off topic..it does however demonstrate that FW can and does actually help by creating variety where none can be found.

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.

Comparing the TT to any single 1 on 1 GT is a false comparison. The Adepticon TT is an entirely different beast...from how lists are built to how the game is played with teams of 4 players. You can't use them in a comparison to GT events that is 1 on 1 play. However, at least in that event you can at least use FW...and the impact hasn't been much over the years. I remember when there was no 0-1 restrictions and things ran fine.

So again...after a year+ of GTs, how many Necron top finishes will we have to have to begin the conversation that Necrons are just as uber as anything that may come out of a FW book...and if so...then does it really matter if FW is allowed or not? Top players already pay to play with their various tournament lists of doom. So what difference does it all make at that level?

Breng77 wrote:

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.

I don't necessarily equate codex variety to balance. I think a lack of variety is a sign of imbalance, not the other way around.

My point was only that if the game were perfectly balanced (or more balanced than it’s been in years as some people are saying), wouldn’t we see something like 16 different armies in the top 8? If every army had the same chance to win a major event, people would all play what they liked as opposed to what was good. We all like different things, different models, and different play styles. If it all truly was equally good, there would be close to perfect variety.

Now I don’t expect perfect balance out of any game, I don’t think that’s reasonable. But I do think if it were the field and top players would be pretty close evenly spread throughout all the books.

So Necrons winning 3 GTs is far too much? Far to OP?

Necrons Did not win
NOVA
BAO
Broadside Bash
Killadelphia
Battle For Salvation
Bug Eater GT
Temple Con

Did win
Adepticon
Wargames Con
Indy Open

Something I am missing? I'm sure there are GTs I don't have here, and sure Necrons have all made it to top tables at some of these events, but they are hardly dominating the GT scene. Now this does not mean FW IG will be any better so Far it has 1 GT win in what 3 Events where it was allowed, with fewer people running the list, 2 in 4 if you include the Team tournament. So that is slightly better than the Cron Winning Percentage, and when you include how few people currently play said list compared to Cron air, you tell me what that might mean if it were allowed at Every GT?

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.

So what? That's also mainly coming from one player. Did it place 1st in any? If not, then who cares if it's in the top 5 or even top 10? Why is having a FW army anywhere in the top 10% a bad thing? Isn't that creating parity where none may have existed before? If I placed in the top 10 with a FW Wraithseer or Hornets in my army...is the effect just as bad? Would you even care?

 ArtfcllyFlvrd wrote:

Breng77 wrote:

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.

I don't necessarily equate codex variety to balance. I think a lack of variety is a sign of imbalance, not the other way around.

My point was only that if the game were perfectly balanced (or more balanced than it’s been in years as some people are saying), wouldn’t we see something like 16 different armies in the top 8? If every army had the same chance to win a major event, people would all play what they liked as opposed to what was good. We all like different things, different models, and different play styles. If it all truly was equally good, there would be close to perfect variety.

Now I don’t expect perfect balance out of any game, I don’t think that’s reasonable. But I do think if it were the field and top players would be pretty close evenly spread throughout all the books.

My point was I disagree with the assumption that top players would all choose Different books, that assumes that no 2 would like the same things. IS it not fair to say that 62.5% of players in the top 8 of said event "liked" different things. Furthermore, it is possible to play multiple lists out of several books, or with allies that a person could "like". Back in 5th in my local meta there was a high density of DE players because several players "liked" the army. Assuming that there would be anything close to 16 different armies in the top 8 is silly. IT assumes everyone takes allies, different ally combinations. I run CSM + Daemons, someone else runs Pure Daemons, some other guy runs Daemons + CSM, 3 different builds, but there is no variety because we happened to like the same thing?

 Peregrine wrote:

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.

HEY GUYS!

To be fair to people like MVBrandt and other such TOs, let's compare the tourney scene now to that of half a dozen years ago. FW is much more open and prevalent now. I think it's unreasonable and unacceptable to tell the core of the tournament player base, most of whom have been around for a while, that suddenly FW is allowed in full everywhere. Humans are resistant to change. It's in our bloody nature. I do think that the right steps are being taken in the right direction, slowly opening up more events and more tourneys to varying levels of FW inclusion from none, to full, to even in between with some of 0-1, bans, limitations, etc.

Everyone has their own points that honestly, are all right in one context or another and no one is truly "wrong". Yes, FW does add imbalances, but so do core rules like allies, etc. Yes, FW is limited to people with the money, but this is the nature of the hobby, and games such as MTG are similar. My point is that as everyone goes back to re-hashing the same arguments, I haven't heard a single one that was so completely wrong that I had to disagree with it. It's a hard-to-swallow concept, but everyone here is right in one way or another. All everyone is now doing is bringing up a counter-point of "Yes, you're right, but it's not the best argument because...". Math-hammer and compare results all you want, but statistics can be used to prove anything. You guys already demonstrated that by using it as proof for both pro-FW and anti-FW.

I think we'll see this matter evolve on its own with time. Baby steps, one at a time, if FW inclusion proves to work out to both players and TOs alike, then our actions will cast the vote and we'll see the community slowly move in that direction. Again, think back to half a dozen years ago and tell me how many events there were that were welcoming to the idea of FW inclusion. Nova's full FW-inclusion Narrative is a prime example of a TO dipping his foot into the metaphorical waters to test them without having to risk the event becoming a flop if it turns out 95% of the potential attendees won't attend if there was FW. While I agree that the name "Narrative" doesn't give it the same prestige as an "Invitational Grand Tournament", it's still something that's better than nothing. As MVBrandt himself has stated, he's open to the idea of wider FW inclusion, but he also has a far bigger responsibility of a TO to entire that the event can still succeed in order to carry it on next year. Who knows, maybe another half dozen years from now we might see full FW inclusion.

There are very little new arguments coming along here, and everyone else is just trying to one-up each other's position and simultaneously beating the dead horse further from a carcass into the next layer of mulch for the grass.

Now can we all just hug and be friends?

Something I am missing? I'm sure there are GTs I don't have here, and sure Necrons have all made it to top tables at some of these events, but they are hardly dominating the GT scene. Now this does not mean FW IG will be any better so Far it has 1 GT win in what 3 Events where it was allowed, with fewer people running the list, 2 in 4 if you include the Team tournament. So that is slightly better than the Cron Winning Percentage, and when you include how few people currently play said list compared to Cron air, you tell me what that might mean if it were allowed at Every GT?

Okay, just so I understand: so you're basically saying that it's okay that Necrons are usually at the top tables in all these events and in 3 cases winning these events...but if an army with FW in events does the same thing...yet not winning a single 1st place spot is somehow worse for the game...or not balanced for the game? How many more big level GTs are there in 2013? And as a measuring stick...when does the GT season actually reset and start over? All these things are necessary to build any sort of relevant data? So Nova to Nova is a full GT season in most people's eyes? If that is true, how many more events do we have left in the calendar year? So if Necrons have 3 1st place wins already and however many top 5 finishes? How many more will there need to be before the conversation about Necrons being uber happens in comparison to what FW brings?

Breng77 wrote:

My point was I disagree with the assumption that top players would all choose Different books, that assumes that no 2 would like the same things. IS it not fair to say that 62.5% of players in the top 8 of said event "liked" different things. Furthermore, it is possible to play multiple lists out of several books, or with allies that a person could "like". Back in 5th in my local meta there was a high density of DE players because several players "liked" the army. Assuming that there would be anything close to 16 different armies in the top 8 is silly. IT assumes everyone takes allies, different ally combinations. I run CSM + Daemons, someone else runs Pure Daemons, some other guy runs Daemons + CSM, 3 different builds, but there is no variety because we happened to like the same thing?

I said pretty close to perfect variety. And for those top players, I do believe there would be more of a spread than we're seeing if the armies were all equally good.

I don't think it's fair to say 62% liked different things. 62% of the winners at Killadelphia built their armies around nercons and Tau, tied for if not the two strongest books. If you can show me that 62% of the player base "likes" necrons and tau the most without their ability to win games factored in, then I'll pipe down. But in my experience, and I think in everyone else's too, people pick their favorite army that can win or just the army most likely to win. If every book had the same chance of winning there would be a roughly equal amount of Dark Eldar, Sisters, and Black Templars players as Necrons, Tau, and Chaos at large events.

FYI - NOVA to NOVA is only a "full season" for 6th ed b/c 6th Ed released right before NOVA (a couple other events had it happen first, but NOVA is the highest profile of them I guess?) [this comment to Karuthors asking about NOVA to NOVA being "one" season]

And, Karuthors, at least from my P.O.V. I'll once again state that top tables have NOTHING TO DO with it. Good players, the SAME good players typically, do well at every event, and have for years at this point, using all sorts of different codices, not just crons or the "newest cheese," as seen as recently as this past weekend with a usual suspect doing very well with 'nilla 'rines. Per Hulksmash and others, they're going to keep right on "kicking people in the jimmies" no matter what armies are good or bad or what units are legal or not. I, at least, as a TO, don't care about them (and I'm also one of them).

The concern I, as a TO, hear a LOT (I'm talking on the order of dozens upon dozens of objections when we brought it up in the primer, with almost no support for) of middle-ground, casual, hobbyist-first players who tend to be concerned by and worried about the overpowering nature of some FW units, and their ability to prepare for / expect them, within ALL the brackets and records ranges of a tournament setting. These are guys who get great paint scores, wind up firmly in the 4-4 type record range, and come back year after year no matter what for the fun and socializing and everything else ... and ... wait for it ... don't want or are not comfortable with FW.

Enigwolf said it best - there's a gradual increase to be used, if events - especially very large ones - want to maintain a steady growth of their attendee base and not shellshock people out of the scene just b/c a few loud mouths on the internet said FW was fine and "everybody" wants it. This is the same reason events are not outright OUTLAWING FW at their various tournaments (ref: my own again) ... because the small # of loudmouths on the internet who say it's terrible and should never be used are just as much a part of a tiny tiny minority as the ones screaming it needs to be wholesale allowed at every event without restrictions immediately.

 ArtfcllyFlvrd wrote:
If you can show me that 62% of the player base "likes" necrons and tau the most without their ability to win games factored in, then I'll pipe down.

And of course you can't show this. Before the new codex gave them a significant boost in power the Tau were a tiny minority army (and one that wasn't very good at winning tournaments). If they're popular now it's entirely because they're better at winning.

 ArtfcllyFlvrd wrote:

Breng77 wrote:

My point was I disagree with the assumption that top players would all choose Different books, that assumes that no 2 would like the same things. IS it not fair to say that 62.5% of players in the top 8 of said event "liked" different things. Furthermore, it is possible to play multiple lists out of several books, or with allies that a person could "like". Back in 5th in my local meta there was a high density of DE players because several players "liked" the army. Assuming that there would be anything close to 16 different armies in the top 8 is silly. IT assumes everyone takes allies, different ally combinations. I run CSM + Daemons, someone else runs Pure Daemons, some other guy runs Daemons + CSM, 3 different builds, but there is no variety because we happened to like the same thing?

I said pretty close to perfect variety. And for those top players, I do believe there would be more of a spread than we're seeing if the armies were all equally good.

I don't think it's fair to say 62% liked different things. 62% of the winners at Killadelphia built their armies around nercons and Tau, tied for if not the two strongest books. If you can show me that 62% of the player base "likes" necrons and tau the most without their ability to win games factored in, then I'll pipe down. But in my experience, and I think in everyone else's too, people pick their favorite army that can win or just the army most likely to win. If every book had the same chance of winning there would be a roughly equal amount of Dark Eldar, Sisters, and Black Templars players as Necrons, Tau, and Chaos at large events.

There were still 5 different Primary armies (SM, Eldar, Tau, Crons, Daemons) 62.5%, And I would say that that is a decent percent of difference among 8 people. Now if the Tournament as a whole has like 60% of one army, then I'd feel differently.

MVBrandt wrote:
The concern I, as a TO, hear a LOT (I'm talking on the order of dozens upon dozens of objections when we brought it up in the primer, with almost no support for) of middle-ground, casual, hobbyist-first players who tend to be concerned by and worried about the overpowering nature of some FW units, and their ability to prepare for / expect them, within ALL the brackets and records ranges of a tournament setting.

Are these same people also complaining about overpowered (at least to a "middle-ground" player) codex lists like Necron flyerspam and objecting to the lack of comp scoring to fix the "problem"? Or are their complaints entirely focused on FW? And, more importantly, do these people actually understand the units in question or are they just parroting the complaints they've heard elsewhere about "overpowered FW units"? Because if they know the rules well enough to make an informed objection then I can't see how they could be simultaneously complaining about how hard it is to prepare for and expect them.

I also am not saying that every army is exactly the same level of balance, but I don't think that is what people are arguing, simply that there are a lot of armies that can compete.

Tau I always saw as fairly popular but a difficult army to play with. I knew a lot of players that started with Tau and Dropped it because it was hard, they are happy not that they can use it.

But yes surprise people take armies to tournaments that they think can win...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 CaptKaruthors wrote:

Something I am missing? I'm sure there are GTs I don't have here, and sure Necrons have all made it to top tables at some of these events, but they are hardly dominating the GT scene. Now this does not mean FW IG will be any better so Far it has 1 GT win in what 3 Events where it was allowed, with fewer people running the list, 2 in 4 if you include the Team tournament. So that is slightly better than the Cron Winning Percentage, and when you include how few people currently play said list compared to Cron air, you tell me what that might mean if it were allowed at Every GT?

Okay, just so I understand: so you're basically saying that it's okay that Necrons are usually at the top tables in all these events and in 3 cases winning these events...but if an army with FW in events does the same thing...yet not winning a single 1st place spot is somehow worse for the game...or not balanced for the game? How many more big level GTs are there in 2013? And as a measuring stick...when does the GT season actually reset and start over? All these things are necessary to build any sort of relevant data? So Nova to Nova is a full GT season in most people's eyes? If that is true, how many more events do we have left in the calendar year? So if Necrons have 3 1st place wins already and however many top 5 finishes? How many more will there need to be before the conversation about Necrons being uber happens in comparison to what FW brings?

Just FYI IG has been resposible for at least as many GT wins as Crons

Battle For Salvation,
NOVA
Broadside Bash (with FW)


And now Tau has 2 GT wins in 2 Months (Alamo and Killadelphia.)

So not exactly Necron Dominance

Breng77 wrote:
There were still 5 different Primary armies (SM, Eldar, Tau, Crons, Daemons) 62.5%, And I would say that that is a decent percent of difference among 8 people. Now if the Tournament as a whole has like 60% of one army, then I'd feel differently.

Maybe it is. But I could have given you any major GT from a year - year and half ago and probably found GKs, IG, SW, Necrons, and even just one more odd ball codex in the top 8. So why do people think that the game is more balanced now than it was in 5th? You have one or two clearly dominate books, 4-5 that are capable of competing with those and half of the GW published material left in the doldrums.

 Peregrine wrote:

MVBrandt wrote:
The concern I, as a TO, hear a LOT (I'm talking on the order of dozens upon dozens of objections when we brought it up in the primer, with almost no support for) of middle-ground, casual, hobbyist-first players who tend to be concerned by and worried about the overpowering nature of some FW units, and their ability to prepare for / expect them, within ALL the brackets and records ranges of a tournament setting.

Are these same people also complaining about overpowered (at least to a "middle-ground" player) codex lists like Necron flyerspam and objecting to the lack of comp scoring to fix the "problem"? Or are their complaints entirely focused on FW? And, more importantly, do these people actually understand the units in question or are they just parroting the complaints they've heard elsewhere about "overpowered FW units"? Because if they know the rules well enough to make an informed objection then I can't see how they could be simultaneously complaining about how hard it is to prepare for and expect them.

They are not - we brought this up in e-mail exchanges.

One of the things the NOVA does is create brackets of 16 players based upon record and win-path after Round 4. Because of this, players who enjoy tactical, strategic games but willfully or unknowingly bring a less powerful list find themselves locked in amongst peers with records reset, competing against those peers for genuine generalship awards for each bracket. The 4-0's can't lose down and fight back up against 2-2's ... they're stuck with the big boys from 5-8. Same is true for the 2-2's, 0-4',s etc. These players generally know what they are walking into - they know cron air exists, they know trips heldrakes exist, etc. etc. That said, they both do not expect to face these in the later rounds, and know if they want to deal with facing them, they'll do fine. These very same players are generally more CASUAL ... they don't obsess over the game like some of the top tier players or armchair non-attending generals do. They bring a solid enough list that does alright against the common local things from cron air down to pyrovores, and they show up expecting those same things and hoping to do alright, find their way to their peer group, and have a grand time competing against those peers.

These are the things these players have told us in years past and present, and the very same player group that objected most numerously to unhindered allowance of FW in all events this year (we enabled it fuly in the narrative, and followed AdeptiTeam's lead for the Team event, while the Team ALSO is now allowing FW army lists to "break" the unique restriction). The most common concern was that a few overpowered FW units might harm variety in the middle of the pack by adding more and more IG, and/or that they'd end up facing a bunch of FW units they'd never heard of before, and would not enjoy games spent slowly and ploddingly trying to figure out what the heck each model was, what it did, etc.

So, as per the norm, we took the middle ground to FW inclusion that we did, and we'll keep evaluating it and opening it as able in the years to come. *shrug* ... it's, again, not about the loudmouths (of which I obviously am one), and it's not about the hardcore GT winners (of which I am one), because none of them really represent a majority that - while it often doesn't care THAT much - does have an opinion, and doesn't even know forums like Dakka are the place to share it. These are the same people who at most of their LGS have never even seen FW rules or spent the time to google them, and can stand to wind up VERY surprised at what they do; we even had someone in the Narrative last year get fussy/upset b/c a FW unit they'd never seen before beat up a bunch of their stuff. It's a legit concern, expressed by and/or felt by a lot of people who are pretty run of the mill casual gamers, and whose opinion often gets loudly trampled on by more passionate hobbyists and competitors. We're just trying to find a good middle ground for everyone ... NOT dominate the meta, prevent people like you Peregrine from being able to play your radical FW models, and not trying to make sweeping black and white decisions that alienate regular attendees wholesale. *shrug* ... I think that's all ANY TO and his/her crew does.

PS - Another note is that most empathetic people, and certainly us TO's, are not in the business of telling a concerned, repeat attendee and cool person they simply have no value in sharing, b/c they aren't "informed." That's exactly the kind of black and white, kinda rude shut-down that we can't really afford to make. It's like a few pages ago when someone called people who thought 40k was balanced delusional. "Anyone who objects to FW use is not qualified to make an informed decision anyway" - you, in the way it read to me. Kinda off-putting, no? The people who don't spend hours studying every dex and IA unit are the very people who present the vast majority of a GT's population. They're the ones we try to watch out for, and care about the most. Some passionate army-list-obsessed top flight competitor is not going to really struggle one way or another, and thus aren't a major concern.

Just FYI IG has been resposible for at least as many GT wins as Crons

Battle For Salvation,
NOVA
Broadside Bash (with FW)


And now Tau has 2 GT wins in 2 Months (Alamo and Killadelphia.)

So not exactly Necron Dominance

Right, but how many events are left to sort out the data that's required? Necrons can still win the majority of GTs this year. Secondly, IG have great flyers (among other great things in their list) and of course can easily snag a 1st place finish. So having them already place without FW is no surprise. But my point is not a single offensive FW army has a 1st place finish. Yet the butthurt about FW in top tournaments continues. The only real way of knowing for sure is to have an entire season with it in every GT 1on1 event and then see if it is truly a problem. As it currently stands, nobody can logically argue that it is a problem...just as much as one can logically argue that it isn't a problem. Currently the sample size for FW in events is too small.

MVBrandt wrote:

 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

Breng77 wrote:

 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

I agree with both of the above. I am extremely open to complete FW Army Lists... even moreso than I am to random FW added to codex armies. For the latter, I think FW needs to be limited, for the former... I really have no idea, but I'd love to see complete FW army lists allowed at more events. I think they may be needed to be treated like Tyranids, and have no allies... but I'd love to see them gain wider adoption.

To me, it's not nearly the same as every army being able to add in IG artillery as an ally, to have a complete FW army list. So, I'm very open to it, and open to it not being limited... whereas with FW added to other armies, I think limits are pretty important.

CaptKaruthors, you argument has nimbly shifted from "If Necrons win the next major GT...!" to "If Necrons continue to do well...!". The point doesn't seem nearly so relevant now... necrons are good, like many codexes before them were kings for a time, but they're not dominating. The question about whether FW artillery would be good for the game is a different one, and one we don't have nearly the same amount of data for. You're trying hard to equate the two, but the fact is most events on this list don't allow FW, so we have to use theory.

As a casual player, I would like some limits on FW and have seen no good argument why either banning or limiting thudd guns, etc would bother folks who want to run full FW army lists, or bring FW for variety and fun. As for whether or not it's just brokenly powerful... lots of smarter folks than I am seem to think FW artillery is. Regardless, your argument that Necrons are so broken that adding FW doesn't matter is, I think, pretty well addressed by folks above.

Breng77 wrote:
So Necrons winning 3 GTs is far too much? Far to OP?

Necrons Did not win
NOVA
BAO
Broadside Bash
Killadelphia
Battle For Salvation
Bug Eater GT
Temple Con

Did win
Adepticon
Wargames Con
Indy Open

Something I am missing? I'm sure there are GTs I don't have here, and sure Necrons have all made it to top tables at some of these events, but they are hardly dominating the GT scene. Now this does not mean FW IG will be any better so Far it has 1 GT win in what 3 Events where it was allowed, with fewer people running the list, 2 in 4 if you include the Team tournament. So that is slightly better than the Cron Winning Percentage, and when you include how few people currently play said list compared to Cron air, you tell me what that might mean if it were allowed at Every GT?

The whole "x book is overpowered" is silly (this isn't in disagreement with the above, just as an expansion), the GT's are over and over won by the same familiar faces more often than not. I'll echo Hulksmash in saying that the game is more balanced now than ever, here's a list of 6th edition GT's I can think of (mostly pirated from the above, couple additions) with player names and army types:

NOVA 40k Singles GT - Kopach, SW/IG
Bay Area Open - Foster, Daemons (old book)
Adepticon 40k Singles GT - Nanavati, Necron/GK
Wargames Con - Mohlie, Necrons/Orks
Broadside Bash - Johnson, IG
Killadelphia - Gonyo, Tau
Da Boyz GT - Overall/Undefeated - Gonyo, GK/IG, Also Undefeated and Best General - Mohlie, Necrons
Saint Valentines Day Massacre - DeFranza, Eldar/IG
The Colonial GT - Nichols, Grey Knights
Battle For Salvation - Gonyo, GK/IG
Bug Eater GT - Root, Tyranids
Temple Con - Nayden, Dark Eldar/Eldar
Indy Open - Perkins, Necrons
Dark Star GT - Townsend, DA/IG
11th Company - Watkins, Orks

I'm sure I'm missing some, but that's a fairly good spread of armies, and what pops out at me most is that it's the usual suspects - not only are there repeats within just the 6th edition GT's, most of those guys have won others (some several) in the last year or two.

An interesting compromise might be to allow all FW, and make all IG FW options 0-1. This minimizes the problem with giving IG too many top units, while allowing people to use their non-IG units.

This compromise is based on the premise that the main issue with FW is that IG becomes too strong.

MVBrandt wrote:
They bring a solid enough list that does alright against the common local things from cron air down to pyrovores, and they show up expecting those same things and hoping to do alright, find their way to their peer group, and have a grand time competing against those peers.

So how is unrestricted FW a problem then? If FW lists dominate as much as you think they will then those lists will quickly end up in the top brackets where the 2-2 "fun" player will never have to face them. The middle/low brackets will only have those lists if they aren't overpowered.

The most common concern was that a few overpowered FW units might harm variety in the middle of the pack by adding more and more IG, and/or that they'd end up facing a bunch of FW units they'd never heard of before, and would not enjoy games spent slowly and ploddingly trying to figure out what the heck each model was, what it did, etc.

And this is the point of the post you quoted: how can people simultaneously complain about overpowered FW IG units and not being familiar with the FW units they'll encounter? If they're informed enough to have a valid opinion about the balance of FW units then they know the rules and won't have any problems with understanding what's going on. And if they are going to struggle with units they've never even heard of before I don't see why their complaints deserve any more attention than someone parroting the internet "wisdom" that GK are overpowered and need to be banned.

These are the same people who at most of their LGS have never even seen FW rules or spent the time to google them, and can stand to wind up VERY surprised at what they do; we even had someone in the Narrative last year get fussy/upset b/c a FW unit they'd never seen before beat up a bunch of their stuff. It's a legit concern, expressed by and/or felt by a lot of people who are pretty run of the mill casual gamers, and whose opinion often gets loudly trampled on by more passionate hobbyists and competitors.

But how is that any different than codex units doing the exact same thing? These "casual" players are going to have the same familiarity problems with a codex their local group doesn't use, or armies like Helldrake spam that can crush a less competitive army. So why not include comp rules to ban things like that?

"Anyone who objects to FW use is not qualified to make an informed decision anyway" - you, in the way it read to me.

That's not at all what I said. I said that anyone who isn't familiar with FW rules isn't qualified to make an informed decision. You can't simultaneously complain about being surprised by FW units you've never heard of and having to play against overpowered IG stuff. If you aren't familiar enough with the rules that the "unknown unit" factor doesn't exist then you're just parroting someone else's complaints about what is "overpowered" without understanding anything.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Dracos wrote:
An interesting compromise might be to allow all FW, and make all IG FW options 0-1. This minimizes the problem with giving IG too many top units, while allowing people to use their non-IG units.

And it completely ignores the actual balance issue in favor of a "simple" solution. Why should drop Sentinels be 0-1 just because Sabre guns are too powerful? If you want to include house rules to deal with the IG "problem" (if you believe that one exists) the correct answer is to do two things:

1) Make all artillery, FW and codex, use the 5th edition rules. These units were all fine before the sheer idiocy of giving the meatshield crew T7 in 6th, if you go back to the old rules for artillery there's nothing left to complain about.

2) Change all FW units with interceptor to have "when this unit shoots it may choose to gain skyfire for the turn" like the Tau units have. Again this is not really a FW problem, it's caused by the idiocy of 6th edition making it so that the only way to fire at both air and ground targets at full BS (like these units used to be able to do in 5th) is to also gain the ability to take shots at arriving reserves before they can act. Remove that and make them generic AA guns and you deal with the biggest complaint.

It's like a few pages ago when someone called people who thought 40k was balanced delusional.

I made that statement and I'm man enough to stand by it. Nobody can put forth a logical argument that the game is in fact balanced. Competitive or not. However, there is plenty of empirical data to say that the game is not balanced especially for "competitive" play...as demonstrated by the statements of the designers of the games themselves. So yes, anyone that fails to see that is delusional.

Dictionary definition of Delusional: an idiosyncratic belief or impression that is firmly maintained despite being contradicted by what is generally accepted as reality or rational argument.

Does that make anyone a bad person? No. There are many delusional people out there..like Doug Melvin for instance thinking the Brewers didn't need a permanent 1st baseman this year...LOL.

I don't know what more you want if you don't think the game is pretty well balanced at this point.

The list of 6th edition GT winners includes 11 different books, all of which were primary at least once.

So how is unrestricted FW a problem then? If FW lists dominate as much as you think they will then those lists will quickly end up in the top brackets where the 2-2 "fun" player will never have to face them. The middle/low brackets will only have those lists if they aren't overpowered.

Agreed. Not only that...but not a single FW army has yet to win 1st in any event where it's allowed. The only way to know for sure is play a GT season with the FW allowed and go from there. Anything else is speculation.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

I don't know what more you want if you don't think the game is pretty well balanced at this point.

Most of these armies have also won with allies. If the game were truly balanced, then those armies should have an equal chance to win without allies. For balance to exist, every codex should be able to stand on it's own. Would some of these placings even exist without their ally compadres giving them a shot in the arm? The answer so far in 6th is no. Also where are the BT armies, etc.? If the game had balance you'd see at least see some represented...and furthermore you'd see at least one of those armies in the top 5 from time to time. You aren't even seeing that in the standings. Look, for a game that has books from previous editions still in the mix...no the game isn't balanced.

Peregrine, part of the problem here is that you are not being pragmatic enough.

Certainly, I think the floodgates should be opened and then, if needed, plug in holes where they appear. That is my preferred solution.

Pragmatically, its a hard sell to an Organizer of an event. There is too much negative stigma out there right now about FW in many areas. My local scene has been using FW for a long time, and its no more a problem than codex creep IMHO.

An Organizer, looking at the perception his players have of FW, has to avoid introducing an element they dislike. As such, a system of limited FW is much easier to sell to such a player-base.

Optimally, I don't want any restrictions on FW. Practically, many Organizers will better be able to sell FW to their player base by introducing it slowly. Better slowly than not at all imo.

 Peregrine wrote:

So how is unrestricted FW a problem then? If FW lists dominate as much as you think they will then those lists will quickly end up in the top brackets where the 2-2 "fun" player will never have to face them. The middle/low brackets will only have those lists if they aren't overpowered.

And this is the point of the post you quoted: how can people simultaneously complain about overpowered FW IG units and not being familiar with the FW units they'll encounter? If they're informed enough to have a valid opinion about the balance of FW units then they know the rules and won't have any problems with understanding what's going on. And if they are going to struggle with units they've never even heard of before I don't see why their complaints deserve any more attention than someone parroting the internet "wisdom" that GK are overpowered and need to be banned.

But how is that any different than codex units doing the exact same thing? These "casual" players are going to have the same familiarity problems with a codex their local group doesn't use, or armies like Helldrake spam that can crush a less competitive army. So why not include comp rules to ban things like that?

That's not at all what I said. I said that anyone who isn't familiar with FW rules isn't qualified to make an informed decision. You can't simultaneously complain about being surprised by FW units you've never heard of and having to play against overpowered IG stuff. If you aren't familiar enough with the rules that the "unknown unit" factor doesn't exist then you're just parroting someone else's complaints about what is "overpowered" without understanding anything.

The difference in availability between Codices and FW has been long explained. You cannot compare niche books that are sent from England, and commonly out of stock, updated slowly, and have units spread across 13 books to an All In One book, available just down the street and currently in stock. The ignorance of FW is created by Forge World and GW. This exacerbates the problem people have when they run into the most powerful and strange FW units. They feel like they have been had.

And it completely ignores the actual balance issue in favor of a "simple" solution. Why should drop Sentinels be 0-1 just because Sabre guns are too powerful? If you want to include house rules to deal with the IG "problem" (if you believe that one exists) the correct answer is to do two things:

1) Make all artillery, FW and codex, use the 5th edition rules. These units were all fine before the sheer idiocy of giving the meatshield crew T7 in 6th, if you go back to the old rules for artillery there's nothing left to complain about.

2) Change all FW units with interceptor to have "when this unit shoots it may choose to gain skyfire for the turn" like the Tau units have. Again this is not really a FW problem, it's caused by the idiocy of 6th edition making it so that the only way to fire at both air and ground targets at full BS (like these units used to be able to do in 5th) is to also gain the ability to take shots at arriving reserves before they can act. Remove that and make them generic AA guns and you deal with the biggest complaint.

I'm actually in agreement here. Only problem is that in the case of Interceptor it has been used for a year now and the army that now gets it will likely feel cheated by the change.

 CaptKaruthors 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.

So what? That's also mainly coming from one player. Did it place 1st in any? If not, then who cares if it's in the top 5 or even top 10? Why is having a FW army anywhere in the top 10% a bad thing? Isn't that creating parity where none may have existed before? If I placed in the top 10 with a FW Wraithseer or Hornets in my army...is the effect just as bad? Would you even care?

Necrons Did not win
NOVA
BAO
Broadside Bash
Killadelphia
Battle For Salvation
Bug Eater GT
Temple Con

Did win
Adepticon
Wargames Con
Indy Open

Necrons won 30% of the major GTs this year.

Now let's look at the tournaments that allowed FW:

Forge World Did not win:
BAO
Wargames Con

Forge World Did win:
Broadside Bash

For a 33% win rate.

Now look at these factors:
#1. FW was a tiny % of the field unlike necrons. I would also bet that necrons were scattered all over the results finishing both high and low.
#2. The BAO should have been won by a FW army but for insane dice rolls.

 CaptKaruthors wrote:

So how is unrestricted FW a problem then? If FW lists dominate as much as you think they will then those lists will quickly end up in the top brackets where the 2-2 "fun" player will never have to face them. The middle/low brackets will only have those lists if they aren't overpowered.

Agreed. Not only that...but not a single FW army has yet to win 1st in any event where it's allowed. The only way to know for sure is play a GT season with the FW allowed and go from there. Anything else is speculation.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

I don't know what more you want if you don't think the game is pretty well balanced at this point.

Most of these armies have also won with allies. If the game were truly balanced, then those armies should have an equal chance to win without allies. For balance to exist, every codex should be able to stand on it's own. Would some of these placings even exist without their ally compadres giving them a shot in the arm? The answer so far in 6th is no. Also where are the BT armies, etc.? If the game had balance you'd see at least see some represented...and furthermore you'd see at least one of those armies in the top 5 from time to time. You aren't even seeing that in the standings. Look, for a game that has books from previous editions still in the mix...no the game isn't balanced.

You are ignoring facts and putting unreasonable restrictions on balance.

1.) broadside bash allowed FW, FW ig won...so there goes your statement that it has not happened. Same is true for the adepticon team tourney whether you want to count it or not.

2.). Asking for every book to be equally tepresented asks for it to be equally played, this simply does not happen, would not happen if all books were equal. Furthermore there is no rule that states if balance exists ever army list must be equal, which is what you are asking when you say no allies. If a list is enhanced by allies it will get taken, saying that in a wold of allies lists without them all should be able to win, and must have done so is an impossible measure.

Lastly I agree with Franco's as an organizer with money on the line for an event, it is much easier to opt for a sow breaking than open the floodgates and risk my attendance numbers.

 Dracos wrote:
Peregrine, part of the problem here is that you are not being pragmatic enough.

Certainly, I think the floodgates should be opened and then, if needed, plug in holes where they appear. That is my preferred solution.

Pragmatically, its a hard sell to an Organizer of an event. There is too much negative stigma out there right now about FW in many areas. My local scene has been using FW for a long time, and its no more a problem than codex creep IMHO.

An Organizer, looking at the perception his players have of FW, has to avoid introducing an element they dislike. As such, a system of limited FW is much easier to sell to such a player-base.

Optimally, I don't want any restrictions on FW. Practically, many Organizers will better be able to sell FW to their player base by introducing it slowly. Better slowly than not at all imo.

I tend to agree. And we are mostly already at the point where SOMEONE is going to hammer us with unrealistic expectations, or insults, no matter what we do.

Peregrine, to your initial quoted point and in general - the point is, the midfield already has a chance to have average players rolling powerful units, but these guys know to expect them. They don't seem to want to face UNEXPECTED units in the midfield rolled by average players and just as powerful or more powerful. And again, it's about player perception and desire, not qualified experts debating the merits of FW power on an e-forum that most tourney attendees never even visit.

In regard to commonality, I think you're wrong about the LGS experience; MOST players - even the very casual - are broadly aware of the majority of extant codices, b/c they see them at their LGS on a regular basis, see the codices themselves, etc. It's the FW stuff they don't even know to be aware of. And it's not that they KNOW what is OP and not from FW; it's that there ARE some v ery OP FW units they're likely to see. It'd be as if someone dropped Night Scythes for just one GT, and 100 people in the midfields got crunked by them all weekend long going "what the heck, these are legal??? I've never even seen these before!"

Regardless of your own strong opinions on FW, this is precisely what concerns a large # of casual, average players ... they openly shared these things with us when we asked for feedback on our initial primer re: allowing FW openly in all events. And that's why we're introducing it more slowly, with a calmer pace, while still doing our best to satisfy the majority of FW-eager gamers with both our modeling policies, and the inclusion of broad FW legality in two of our four 40k events for 2013.

 CaptKaruthors wrote:
Most of these armies have also won with allies. If the game were truly balanced, then those armies should have an equal chance to win without allies. Every codex should be able to stand on it's own. Would some of these placings even exist without their ally compadres giving them a shot in the arm? The answer so far in 6th is no. Also where are the BT armies, etc.? If the game had balance you'd see at least see some represented...and furthermore you'd see at least one of those armies in the top 5 from time to time. You aren't even seeing that in the standings. Look, for a game that has books from previous editions still in the mix...no the game isn't balanced.

So I actually miscounted, there was 11 books (I missed DA in my list of 10). Out of those 11, the only ones who didn't win alone were Eldar, DE, and DA. So you have 8 books who have won solely by themselves (and one of the combo winners was DE/Eldar so it's not like that book was using one of the other sole winners), and that is before Eldar got their shiny new book. I don't think there was a year in 5th (or possibly ever in 40k) where 8 different books won a major GT.

As for the statement 'any book should be able to win on it's own', the fact people take allies does not necessitate that either of the two components cannot win on their own. Some people may simply enjoy being to use two of their armies simultaneously or find that while both can win, they enjoy the synergy of the two together.

The reason BT etc aren't popping up has been mentioned by MVBrandt and Breng77 already, top players are going to always take the books they think give them the best chance to win while also jiving with their own play style and aesthetic preferences.

 morgendonner wrote:

 CaptKaruthors wrote:
Most of these armies have also won with allies. If the game were truly balanced, then those armies should have an equal chance to win without allies. Every codex should be able to stand on it's own. Would some of these placings even exist without their ally compadres giving them a shot in the arm? The answer so far in 6th is no. Also where are the BT armies, etc.? If the game had balance you'd see at least see some represented...and furthermore you'd see at least one of those armies in the top 5 from time to time. You aren't even seeing that in the standings. Look, for a game that has books from previous editions still in the mix...no the game isn't balanced.

So I actually miscounted, there was 11 books (I missed DA in my list of 10). Out of those 11, the only ones who didn't win alone were Eldar, DE, and DA. So you have 8 books who have won solely by themselves (and one of the combo winners was DE/Eldar so it's not like that book was using one of the other sole winners), and that is before Eldar got their shiny new book. I don't think there was a year in 5th (or possibly ever in 40k) where 8 different books won a major GT.

As for the statement 'any book should be able to win on it's own', the fact people take allies does not necessitate that either of the two components cannot win on their own. Some people may simply enjoy being to use two of their armies simultaneously or find that while both can win, they enjoy the synergy of the two together.

The reason BT etc aren't popping up has been mentioned by MVBrandt and Breng77 already, top players are going to always take the books they think give them the best chance to win while also jiving with their own play style and aesthetic preferences.

I think it's a losing battle here. CRONS ARE DOMINATING. Oh, wait, statistics say they actually aren't really. WELL NOBODY CAN DO IT WITHOUT ALLIES. Even if you somehow provide that, most of the people in this thread (present company probably included at the moment) are pretty fixed in their outlook about whether the game is "balanced" or not and in what ways. Every codex as a primary CAN compete, though many units within each codex are pretty bad, in my opinion. So, intra-dex balance (whether intended or not), inter-dex imbalance? Am I using that right? I always screw up the intras and inters. :p