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.

Glocknall wrote:

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.

While I agree with the latter part of the statement that ignorance of FW stuff is self-created by their business decisions, not every army is available at a store, not all stores routinely have books available to peruse, and not everyone lives in close proximity to a game store (in San Diego we only really had one real store for years and years in the entire metro area)

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.

One will notice they were very rarely taken in previous editions due to their fragility, even the thunderfire was a relative rarity. Perhaps it has swung too far in the opposite direction (basically copy-pasting the Fantasy rule), but using a previous editions rules isn't a good answer, as not everyone may have them (the edition has been out long enough that there are a substantial number of new players) or want to remember them, and this affects Codex units as well like Grot guns and Thunderfire Cannons.

Also I'd be 200% ok with ditching Interceptor for just a "choose each turn if using Skyfire" thing.

 Vaktathi wrote:
One will notice they were very rarely taken in previous editions due to their fragility, even the thunderfire was a relative rarity. Perhaps it has swung too far in the opposite direction (basically copy-pasting the Fantasy rule), but using a previous editions rules isn't a good answer, as not everyone may have them (the edition has been out long enough that there are a substantial number of new players) or want to remember them, and this affects Codex units as well like Grot guns and Thunderfire Cannons.

The problem is that any other solution is going to be even more complicated. Not only will people have to be familiar with it, but you'll have an endless debate over the exact details of how the house rule will work. It might not be a perfect solution, but at least it's a simple one. And it's far better than a blanket ban on FW units if you feel the need to have a house rule to fix the IG "problem".

MVBrandt wrote:

 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

Pretty much, after Killadelphia we were having a chat about the how much internet 40k actually differs from actual 40k. This thread reminds me of that. While everyone is entitled to their own opinion and there is really no right and wrong choice here the GT results clearly speak for themselves. Good players will still win no matter the lists, or the army, especially in 6th ed. All allowing or disallowing fw will do is force the meta to change (for better or worse I do not know). Its the same as enforcing a comp system in 40k. The same players will fine a way to win.

That said I would prefer playing it as is IE no fw but I am not opposed to having some gts include them like wargames con.

 CaptKaruthors wrote:
How many more will there need to be before the conversation about Necrons being uber happens in comparison to what FW brings?

Well, there would need to be more than, you know, three events that include FW. Which is where we're at now (a full year into 6th edition). People aren't going to go out and buy $500 worth of FW units to play in one or two events per year. Until it becomes mainstream, comparing Necrons tournament performance to FW tournament performance doesn't even make sense.

(And is anyone even arguing that Necrons haven't performed extremely well in tournaments?)

(And is anyone even arguing that Necrons haven't performed extremely well in tournaments?)

No, but people are arguing that allowing FW makes IG 'the best'. To which, I have to ask, why shouldn't guard be the best? Why do Necrons, or Tau, or Helldrakes deserve that title? Some codex is going to be "the best", it might as well be IG.

 Redbeard wrote:

(And is anyone even arguing that Necrons haven't performed extremely well in tournaments?)

No, but people are arguing that allowing FW makes IG 'the best'. To which, I have to ask, why shouldn't guard be the best? Why do Necrons, or Tau, or Helldrakes deserve that title? Some codex is going to be "the best", it might as well be IG.

The biggest problem I see with it is the ability to ally IG with so many codexes. I think you'd see Sabres + Thudds everywhere.

That being said, I'm on the fence on the issue. I do believe that GW's intent is to have FW be fully inclusive. Also, in my own experiences, the units aren't too much worse than codex units. My biggest issue with including FW is the disproportionate number of units certain armies receive vs. others. The codices generally have similar amounts of units, FW would upset that balance by giving IG a much larger pool of units to choose from.

I'm also not opposed to modifications of the game's core ruleset. I can understand the argument that if we are to limit FW we should limit other popularly conceived "broken units." However, I think the average player is more open to modifying the FW inclusion, rather than modifying what they can take from the codices.

...when does the GT season actually reset and start over?

AdeptiCon used to be the start of the former GW Tourney Circuit. To my knowledge there really is not a tourney circuit anymore. We go from event to event accepting whatever meta changes take place. Comparing one events result vs another is of dubious value really given the amount of change that is occuring with releases. My event season runs from AdeptiCon to AdeptiCon and I suspect for every other TO .. their event season runs from the end of their event to the start of the next.

 Redbeard wrote:

(And is anyone even arguing that Necrons haven't performed extremely well in tournaments?)

No, but people are arguing that allowing FW makes IG 'the best'. To which, I have to ask, why shouldn't guard be the best? Why do Necrons, or Tau, or Helldrakes deserve that title? Some codex is going to be "the best", it might as well be IG.

If expectations are that introducing FW will create such an imbalance as to make one army "best," shouldn't that signal to you that it might not be a good idea? The fact that you're able to rattle off three different codices as being in contention for "best" without FW inclusion suggests that 40k isn't quite as unbalanced as many would suggest. The consensus from GT winners (in this thread and elsewhere) seems to be that introducing FW will dramatically unbalance things. As the people who arguably understand the mechanics of the game best, it would probably be wise to weigh their opinions a bit more than community rabble.

I have a feeling that last word "rabble" may not go over so well...

*sarcasm on*
Well I guess we should all give up. Only a dozen top players are winning “events.” The entirety of the 40k tournament environment just started 4 years ago.

Oh wait it did not and in my history of 18+ years of events there has been a huge variety of players that have done well throughout all editions of the game. Some of the best 40k gamers I have known … don’t even play 40k anymore. Many have come and gone. When was the last time Marc Parker won anything? Or Chris Hill? Anyone seen DashofPepper recently? Does anyone remember these guys?

http://web.archive.org/web/20011227203626/http://www.games-workshop.com/Hall_of_Heroes/warhammer_40k/warhammer_40k_heroes.asp

Course Matt got him the following year ..

http://www.adeptuswindycity.com/gallery2/main.php?g2_itemId=1158

Here is an oldie but goodie..



So why it may be true at any given time you have a segment of the 40K community doing well, and maybe even having some sustained success. That fades over time, as life moves on and new players fill the space. No offense to Ben, Tony, Nick, Alan, or anyone else .. but they were not the first, there were a lot of quality guys that came well before and they certainly won’t be the last as there will always be new faces showing up. Fortunately, I have had the pleasure of knowing most of them.

What is my point? In this hobby it is generally a bad idea to base any sort of format on what is “good” or the “now”. Be that units, codexes or players. Things change and evolve. It is good to have an understanding of where we have been to know where we are going.

It is also why I do not get all worked up when unit X .. is really good, or a must have and all the top players are playing it. Because in time .. that changes. Given the rate of releases .. the time in the sun for anything won’t be long .

"The consensus from GT winners (in this thread and elsewhere) seems to be that introducing FW will dramatically unbalance things. As the people who arguably understand the mechanics of the game best, it would probably be wise to weigh their opinions a bit more than community rabble."

Care to provide some quotes to back this up? I'm all ears.

 RiTides wrote:
I have a feeling that last word "rabble" may not go over so well...

Told ya

Also, nice pic muwhe! "Oldie but goodie" indeed

 Dozer Blades wrote:
"The consensus from GT winners (in this thread and elsewhere) seems to be that introducing FW will dramatically unbalance things. As the people who arguably understand the mechanics of the game best, it would probably be wise to weigh their opinions a bit more than community rabble."

Care to provide some quotes to back this up? I'm all ears.

Not speaking against anyone in particular or do I care to read 27 painful pages on a thread that is so young. I will say this. I know the rules for 40k pretty damn well. I know the rules for the vast amount of FW models very little. To encompass the amount of new stuff people could bring to the table would be a little mind numbing. Someone could totally cheat me through a whole game and I wouldn't think twice to question why his unit was so over-powered. Either way to my point. I have not attended a GT with FW models aloud and I dont plan to in the foreseeable future. Just doesn't seem fun to me. When it gets to that point it comes down to who can buy the biggest meanest toys and throw them out there. If every GT switched to FW being allowed I would probably adapt but it is possible I would just stop attending and switch back to fantasy. Just my two cents.

 Tomb King wrote:

 Dozer Blades wrote:
"The consensus from GT winners (in this thread and elsewhere) seems to be that introducing FW will dramatically unbalance things. As the people who arguably understand the mechanics of the game best, it would probably be wise to weigh their opinions a bit more than community rabble."

Care to provide some quotes to back this up? I'm all ears.

Not speaking against anyone in particular or do I care to read 27 painful pages on a thread that is so young. I will say this. I know the rules for 40k pretty damn well. I know the rules for the vast amount of FW models very little. To encompass the amount of new stuff people could bring to the table would be a little mind numbing. Someone could totally cheat me through a whole game and I wouldn't think twice to question why his unit was so over-powered. Either way to my point. I have not attended a GT with FW models aloud and I dont plan to in the foreseeable future. Just doesn't seem fun to me. When it gets to that point it comes down to who can buy the biggest meanest toys and throw them out there. If every GT switched to FW being allowed I would probably adapt but it is possible I would just stop attending and switch back to fantasy. Just my two cents.

My two cent?

I'd love to have FW opened up everywhere... why? Because it's still 40k!

gak, I still need to ask a bunch of questions with the standard codexes that I don't see often.

*shrugs*

I like seeing new stuff across the table. The only thing that TO should mandate imo regarding FW models is for the players to have the FW rules handy... which, every Tourny that allows FW I've seen requires it.

I just don't buy into that OMG FW are ridiculously powerful.

That's my two cent. I'm out.

Oh yeah forgeworld totally stomped butt in Texas!!!

Oh wait it didn't. You can't buy a forgeworld based army and get the instant win army. They just increase the choices. Do the no forgeworld people think you can buy a tourney victory if you have enough money? I am playing in a forgeworld allowed event this fall. Tell me what this broken combo of instant win is and I will go buy it. Sadly, for you, there isn't a combo so your arguments are invalid.
Imperial guard already has more choices then most armies before adding forge world but when was the last time you saw any of the different leman Russ tanks.
I am painting up my orky forge world for the tourney. I got 8 grot tanks, 1 mega grot tank, fighta bomma, megadred and a classic forge world battle wagon. Yep forgeworld is totally broken and i am going to win by spending the most money.

 skkipper wrote:
Oh yeah forgeworld totally stomped butt in Texas!!!

Oh wait it didn't. You can't buy a forgeworld based army and get the instant win army. They just increase the choices. Do the no forgeworld people think you can buy a tourney victory if you have enough money? I am playing in a forgeworld allowed event this fall. Tell me what this broken combo of instant win is and I will go buy it. Sadly, for you, there isn't a combo so your arguments are invalid.
Imperial guard already has more choices then most armies before adding forge world but when was the last time you saw any of the different leman Russ tanks.
I am painting up my orky forge world for the tourney. I got 8 grot tanks, 1 mega grot tank, fighta bomma, megadred and a classic forge world battle wagon. Yep forgeworld is totally broken and i am going to win by spending the most money.

You have done a fantastic job of refuting all the "Anti-FW" arguments. Well Done Sir!

*Slow Clap*

 Tomb King wrote:

 Dozer Blades wrote:
"The consensus from GT winners (in this thread and elsewhere) seems to be that introducing FW will dramatically unbalance things. As the people who arguably understand the mechanics of the game best, it would probably be wise to weigh their opinions a bit more than community rabble."

Care to provide some quotes to back this up? I'm all ears.

Not speaking against anyone in particular or do I care to read 27 painful pages on a thread that is so young. I will say this. I know the rules for 40k pretty damn well. I know the rules for the vast amount of FW models very little. To encompass the amount of new stuff people could bring to the table would be a little mind numbing. Someone could totally cheat me through a whole game and I wouldn't think twice to question why his unit was so over-powered.

This is why people need to bring their rules and opponents need to ask to read them however. Then this ceases to be an issue.

Either way to my point. I have not attended a GT with FW models aloud and I dont plan to in the foreseeable future. Just doesn't seem fun to me. When it gets to that point it comes down to who can buy the biggest meanest toys and throw them out there.

How is that different than it is now?

Danny Internets wrote:
If expectations are that introducing FW will create such an imbalance as to make one army "best," shouldn't that signal to you that it might not be a good idea?

No. First off, I don't believe that it would make Guard the best. I'm simply acknowledging that others have made the argument. So, while I don't believe that it would be the case, my other response is, "so what". There is always "a best", and so including Forgeworld doesn't actually change the lack of balance in 40k, it just changes what's good right now.

LValx wrote:
The biggest problem I see with it is the ability to ally IG with so many codexes. I think you'd see Sabres + Thudds everywhere.

On the other hand, that might be preferable. If the power units are easily included in any army, that's better for overall game balance than if the power units are found in less flexible selections.

Danny Internets wrote:
The fact that you're able to rattle off three different codices as being in contention for "best" without FW inclusion suggests that 40k isn't quite as unbalanced as many would suggest.

You're mistaking my enumerating three codexes for claiming they're all in contention for the title. And, as Muwhe pointed out, that's because the game is constantly shifting. At Adepticon, I don't think anyone would argue that Necrons weren't "The Best".

The consensus from GT winners (in this thread and elsewhere) seems to be that introducing FW will dramatically unbalance things. As the people who arguably understand the mechanics of the game best, it would probably be wise to weigh their opinions a bit more than community rabble.

Yay, appeal to false authority!

 Redbeard wrote:

Danny Internets wrote:
If expectations are that introducing FW will create such an imbalance as to make one army "best," shouldn't that signal to you that it might not be a good idea?

No. First off, I don't believe that it would make Guard the best. I'm simply acknowledging that others have made the argument. So, while I don't believe that it would be the case, my other response is, "so what". There is always "a best", and so including Forgeworld doesn't actually change the lack of balance in 40k, it just changes what's good right now.

LValx wrote:
The biggest problem I see with it is the ability to ally IG with so many codexes. I think you'd see Sabres + Thudds everywhere.

On the other hand, that might be preferable. If the power units are easily included in any army, that's better for overall game balance than if the power units are found in less flexible selections.

Danny Internets wrote:
The fact that you're able to rattle off three different codices as being in contention for "best" without FW inclusion suggests that 40k isn't quite as unbalanced as many would suggest.

You're mistaking my enumerating three codexes for claiming they're all in contention for the title. And, as Muwhe pointed out, that's because the game is constantly shifting. At Adepticon, I don't think anyone would argue that Necrons weren't "The Best".

The consensus from GT winners (in this thread and elsewhere) seems to be that introducing FW will dramatically unbalance things. As the people who arguably understand the mechanics of the game best, it would probably be wise to weigh their opinions a bit more than community rabble.

Yay, appeal to false authority!

The contention by others is that there is not one "best" army right now. You may disagree, but those that don't would say that yes throwing in one army as the best throws off the balance, especially when what your adding to it won't cycle out when it gets a new codex, therefore potenially cementing it as the "best" for a long time to come. The largest Difference between FW books and their most often comparison WD updates. People would be royally pissed if the Flamer's and Screamers from the WD update were never going away because they were not getting updated.

I agree at Adepticon where missions favored Necrons they were clearly the best army...which could be said of any army dominating a single GT so throughly. One thing I think people need to remember with Crons is that they are a Powerful army that is comparitively cheap to purchase (in comparison with some other top lists) and easy to Paint.

I disagree that it is preferable to seem the same units on Every table. "So bill what did you bring to the tournament?" "Well John, I brought my Triple Heldrake with Sabers and Thudd guns You?" "I brought my Space Wolves with Sabers and Thudd guns?" While it may make for a bit of balance, it produces a boring meta. Furthermore it highly disadvantages those armies that cannot take IG as allies.

The contention by others is that there is not one "best" army right now.

Actually, the contention is that there is not a “best” army right now but if you allowed FW there would be a “best” army that would include IG in some capacity .for Thudd Guns and Saber Platforms.

And my point is .. ok fine but what is your argument when that no longer is the case. Because it was not the case before .. it was Hades Breaching Drills, Lucius Pattern drop pods, and Achilles Land Raiders. It certainly will not be the case in the future given the pending releases aka Space Marine Codex... I am sure Assault Rams or Asterion Moloc will ratchet up the scale, or something else entirely etc.

At AdeptiCon .. Necrons was the top codex regardless of mission format due to the meta at the time with Flyers. That was clear in the months leading up to AdeptiCon and it proved out. As flyer and anti-fyer capacity has improved with recent releases that gap has lessened. So meta has changed a bit with the addition of Tau and Eldar. Re-run AdeptiCon, with the same missions today, attendees would bring different armies and you would get different results. Which is why it is pointless frankly to compare the results of any event and draw any sort of "conclusion", even AdeptiCon because the sample size is so small and the game changes dramatically between events.

40k has always had the "haves" and the "have nots" when it come to codex performance and that is not changing.

muwhe wrote:

The contention by others is that there is not one "best" army right now.

Actually, the contention is that there is not a “best” army right now but if you allowed FW there would be a “best” army that would include IG in some capacity .for Thudd Guns and Saber Platforms.

And my point is .. ok fine but what is your argument when that no longer is the case. Because it was not the case before .. it was Hades Breaching Drills, Lucius Pattern drop pods, and Achilles Land Raiders. It certainly will not be the case in the future given the pending releases aka Space Marine Codex... I am sure Assault Rams or Asterion Moloc will ratchet up the scale, or something else entirely etc.

At AdeptiCon .. Necrons was the top codex regardless of mission format due to the meta at the time with Flyers. That was clear in the months leading up to AdeptiCon and it proved out. As flyer and anti-fyer capacity has improved with recent releases that gap has lessened. So meta has changed a bit with the addition of Tau and Eldar. Re-run AdeptiCon, with the same missions today, attendees would bring different armies and you would get different results. Which is why it is pointless frankly to compare the results of any event and draw any sort of "conclusion", even AdeptiCon because the sample size is so small and the game changes dramatically between events.

40k has always had the "haves" and the "have nots" when it come to codex performance and that is not changing.

So is your argument then that either FW will fix these rules in the near future, or that when 7th ed drops that these will no longer be over powered. The IA update cycle seems similar to some of the worst of the Old gw update cycle books taking more than one edition to be updated, so we may be looking at these units existing for the next 7 years, so then we are waiting for FW to determine that these units are OP, and FAQing them, or waiting for 7th. Again I am for restricted FW inclusion, mostly because the imbalance of imperial releases Vs what other armies get.

No my argument is there are plenty of other arguments for including or not including Forgeworld that are not dependent the relative strength or weakness a particular unit at a given point in time or on the release/update cycle for GW and FW. Two things that are well outside our control.

Basing ones argument for or against on the above is not a good place as tomorrow new material could be released that shakes it all up, and invalidates it.

My position has been for a mix of events ( all Forgeworld, limited Forgeworld and exclude Forgeworld ) I see all three as having value and can generally play equally under any format.

I think you will find that Forgeworld has moved to align their release schedule with the Games Workshop release schedule. Games Workshop Tau Codex released .. and it was followed up by the IA3 update. Games Workshop will be releasing an update for Apocalypse, you will see an update to the Forgeworld Apocalypse material. Games Workshop will release a new Space Marine Codex, that will be followed by an updated version of IA2. etc... Hopefully that is a trend that we see continue. However, something to always keep in mind that the direction and design philosophy of Games Workshop including Forgeworld, Black Library, White Dwarf etc .. is always highly dependent on who is steering the boat. It can and does change dramatically when you have key turnover of staff.

 Dozer Blades wrote:
"The consensus from GT winners (in this thread and elsewhere) seems to be that introducing FW will dramatically unbalance things. As the people who arguably understand the mechanics of the game best, it would probably be wise to weigh their opinions a bit more than community rabble."

Care to provide some quotes to back this up? I'm all ears.

Feel free to read the thread (probably a good habit to develop in general). I was able to skim through the last five or so pages and count at least four.

True, my actual opinion is close to yours. I think there is a place for all types of events. I would probably prefer to attend, No -FW, or Restricted FW, but was there an event near me that was unlimited FW, that fit my schedule I would probably attend it simply because if I get a chance to play some games I am not usually one to walk away from it.

 Redbeard wrote:

No. First off, I don't believe that it would make Guard the best. I'm simply acknowledging that others have made the argument. So, while I don't believe that it would be the case, my other response is, "so what". There is always "a best", and so including Forgeworld doesn't actually change the lack of balance in 40k, it just changes what's good right now.

Your response of "so what" validates the claim that IG would be the best. Thinking that any one army right now is, without qualification, "the best" demonstrates a very narrow understanding of the game, and suggesting that allowing an army to become, without qualification, "the best" would not be significant further emphasizes that poor understanding. You seem to have a decent grasp on the game so it's unfortunate that you're falling into the trap of hyperbole.

The consensus from GT winners (in this thread and elsewhere) seems to be that introducing FW will dramatically unbalance things. As the people who arguably understand the mechanics of the game best, it would probably be wise to weigh their opinions a bit more than community rabble.

Yay, appeal to false authority!

That's funny, most people would consider it wise to listen carefully to what people who understand the game have to say about balance (particularly when they eloquently express their reasoning, as some have already done here). But surely the average Joe knows better. Right, Joe?

Dental plan...Lisa needs braces....

That's funny, most people would consider it wise to listen carefully to what people who understand the game

Danny - Listening carefully is a valuable skill and definitely important especially in understanding opposing points of view. There are people on both sides of this argument that have a long history of "understanding" the game.

Redbeard has a decade plus of experience playing in "competitive" environments, is a former AWC Tourney Series champion ( a series that includes multiple GT winners ) and is involved in organizing those monthly events. While he and I have certainly not always seen eye to eye on the state of the game. I have certainly always respected and valued his opinion, analysis and understanding of the game. As he does not feel the need to list his tourney record in his signature maybe that was not apparent.

Danny - Listening carefully is a valuable skill and definitely important especially in understanding opposing points of view. There are people on both sides of this argument that have a long history of "understanding" the game.

Redbeard has a decade plus of experience playing in "competitive" environments, is a former AWC Tourney Series champion ( a series that includes multiple GT winners ) and is involved in organizing those monthly events. While he and I have certainly not always seen eye to eye on the state of the game. I have certainly always respected and valued his opinion, analysis and understanding of the game. As he does not feel the need to list his tourney record in his signature maybe that was not apparent.

Exalted!

 Danny Internets wrote:

Your response of "so what" validates the claim that IG would be the best.

You really don't get it, do you. I already said, I don't believe that IG would be the best. BUT, to those who do say that, I say, so what. That's not validating the claim, it's dismissing it as irrelevant.

Thinking that any one army right now is, without qualification, "the best" demonstrates a very narrow understanding of the game

If you mean "right now", then sure, I have no idea what the top dog in the meta is. I don't think there have been enough events for it to shake out given the rapid release schedule of the last few months. If you rewind three months, pre-Tau, Necrons were easily "the best", and Adepticon's results back that up.

I wouldn't be surprised if there were a best army right now, but that we simply haven't had enough cycles in the meta to establish what it is. And, it wouldn't surprise me if, once it is figured out, it will appear pretty obvious in hindsight.

The consensus from GT winners (in this thread and elsewhere) seems to be that introducing FW will dramatically unbalance things. As the people who arguably understand the mechanics of the game best, it would probably be wise to weigh their opinions a bit more than community rabble.

Yay, appeal to false authority!

That's funny, most people would consider it wise to listen carefully to what people who understand the game have to say about balance (particularly when they eloquently express their reasoning, as some have already done here). But surely the average Joe knows better. Right, Joe?

There's a big difference in understanding the game and winning a dozen games in a row. For one thing, a lot of people who have won the game in the past are still quite capable of doing so, if they felt like it, but have moved on in how they choose to play. I think Muwhe pointed this out quite clearly. The ability to win is not the same as the desire to win. I had a streak of top-ten finishes at GTs I attended until 2011, when I decided I'd rather field the best looking army, rather than one designed just to win. That doesn't mean I don't know how to win, it just means it's no longer the most important aspect of my hobby.

You're invoking two fallacies here. The first is the aforementioned Appeal to Authority. You're claiming that just because some GT winners think one thing, then that one thing must be true (and, ignoring the counter-claims of the GT winners who don't agree with you, while you're at it). The second is asserting that the the GT winners have a better understanding of game balance than others.

There's a difference between building a list and playing the game. And, in many circles, the people who make the best lists aren't necessarily the ones who make the best in-game decisions. I know several playgroups where the person with the best understanding of the game isn't the best player. They make in-game mistakes too often. No one operates in a vacuum, and it's not like the people winning all the games are making all their list choices themselves. I've seen GT-winners unabashedly "borrow" someone else's list to win a tournament with. I have a friend who knows very little about the metagame, or the game balance, but is really good at playing the game. He won a WFB tournament without having ever played the game before, with a list someone else handed him. He just gets overall strategy and tactics, and doesn't need to know rules or balance issues. I bring this up because there's absolutely no reason to believe that a GT winner knows anymore about game design issues than anyone else. GT winners are winners because they're good at playing the game. Some of them might also be the sorts to dig into a dozen books and find the broken combos, but some are handed those combos by their friends or the internet.

But the "average Joe" has an opinion that is equally as valid/valuable. Not everyone approaches the game in the same manner or is concerned with ultimate balance.

Warhammer 40K is a game that simulates war. War is not balanced and certain forces will always outperform others in particular areas. This is the by-product of better training, more capital, more resources, better engineers, better general support and yes...tactically superior commanders. Over the past several years, there has been a move to redefine 40K into a contest that simulates a sport. I personally feel that is the the wrong way to look at any sort of casual gaming, especially one like 40K.

Of course there is room for competitive play, but adhering to dictionary definitions of what a "tournament" can/cannot be in a hobby that encourages and rewards people to be creative and do things for themselves is ultimately restrictive and should be challenged.

Space Wolves were ascendent in 3rd, Grey Knights at the end of 5th, Necrons in 6th when flyers were unchecked....you could give 100 more examples of armies doing well at a particular point during a particular edition's release cycle. The way it is and forever shall be.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I also hope people can realize how allowing those winning events to dictate the direction of events will foster feelings of resentment from players that want something different. The system will feel rigged.