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.

 Redbeard wrote:

 cerbrus2 wrote:

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

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

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

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

...to sell their sole...

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

Your price comparison is not very accurate because you forgot to add on the cost of the rule books which are very expensive. Perhaps if you are going to label someone completely ignorant of the facts you should get your relevant facts arranged in pretty straight line.

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

AdamLongWalker wrote: Agree with this comment. Especially the snobbery to the game. This becomes a 2 tier system. The haves and the have nots. It comes down to cost.

Oaka beat me to this. Damn it. In addition, most of the other posters here appear to be far more eloquent than myself in expressing their thoughts, so this may not make much sense in comparison.

Anyway, I'm a CSM player. Have been for about 3 years, since I started playing. I don't own any of the following: Heldrakes or flyers. Why? The answer is quite simple, "pay to win". To make a competitive list with my "official" codex, I have to include a Heldrake. There's no doubt about it, and I challenge you to find me a CSM player who placed in the Top 10 of a tournament without using a Heldrake.

What does this mean? It means I need at least one (realistically, two to three) £45 model to have the advantage over my opponent. I must pay for the competitive edge over my opponent. And this is why l find your posts hilarious (please don't take offence). Games Workshop has just as much emphasis on paying for power as Forge World, to the extent that if I can't afford the Heldrake/Riptide/whatever, I'm going to be SOL for competitive play.

So on a smaller scale (I'm 15, I can't afford much), it comes down to the haves and have nots, as you said. If I can't afford a flyer, then I see snobbery, because I have NO WAY to remove them without paying more to outclass yours. It comes down to cost.

If I don't have flyers, what can I do? Allies. Oh yeah. Pay a &@^%-ton more than it would cost to buy flyers for my army.

I'm sorry, but the whole inclusion of flyers is significantly more "pay to win" than Forge World ever will be.

/long, rambling train of thought. Most of it probably doesn't make sense.

Anyway, I'm firmly pro-Forge World. I can't be bothered to properly quote this, so:

MVBrandt-"You want to see the REAL motives behind the FW push, ban sabres, thudds, redth, and maybe three others while freely legalizing the rest, and watch the results and response."

I can already imagine, because it's how I feel. Fine, ban those, so long as you also ban Necron Flyers, Annihilation Barges, Wraiths, Ulmeathi plasma siphon (sp?), Heldrakes, The Black Mace (seriously Kelly? I feel bad when I give it to a Daemon Prince. Having said that, I don't see it recommended much), Riptides, Vendettas, and the list goes on.

Both Forge World and Games Workshop are perfectly legal as far as I am concerned. FW say they should be considered official, and as it's from GW, that's good enough IMHO. What a TO decides is up to them, and I won't hold their decision against them.

Ultimately, I see it as two main groups of people, both of which bought little resin and plastic toys from the same company, and one of which is effectively being told by the other, "No, you can't play with your toys in the sandbox". There are a few people in the middle, trying to say that there could be two sandboxes, and that's basically how I feel. 

Tl,dr: I'm firmly for FW, but at the end of the day, I won't force you to play the game how I want you to.

 Mannahnin wrote:
Peregrine, you're the one who argued that GW has put forward Forgeworld as general-use, and equivalent to the codices.

You're right, I am. It says it in the book in plain English. FW is official and part of standard 40k. This is not up for debate, the only question is whether "no FW" house rules are good for tournaments or not.

The fact that the events GW runs at their own HQ do not treat them that way is contrary evidence.

No it isn't, because the events GW run at their own HQ also have other non-standard rules. The ban on FW units doesn't mean FW isn't part of the game, just like the ban on allies doesn't mean that allies aren't part of the game.

And yes, this is an entirely relevant thing to mention when the only part of how GW HQ runs events that anyone cares about is the "no FW" line. Either GW HQ is the standard all other events need to meet or it isn't. You can't just selectively pull out one house rule they play under and ignore the others.

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

And I'm not going to, because it's a blatant attempt to dismiss what I'm saying because I don't have impressive enough credentials instead of addressing the substance of the argument.

No, it's not about your credentials. It's about your participation in the community, and whether you're working from the perspective of a member and participant or someone stridently arguing from an external perspective.

But as I said before, that's a bit of a sideline, and really anyone criticizing your arguments should be able to do so without knowing whether you actually play the game.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Mannahnin wrote:
The fact that the events GW runs at their own HQ do not treat them that way is contrary evidence.

No it isn't, because the events GW run at their own HQ also have other non-standard rules. The ban on FW units doesn't mean FW isn't part of the game, just like the ban on allies doesn't mean that allies aren't part of the game.

And yes, this is an entirely relevant thing to mention when the only part of how GW HQ runs events that anyone cares about is the "no FW" line. Either GW HQ is the standard all other events need to meet or it isn't. You can't just selectively pull out one house rule they play under and ignore the others.

That's a legitimate argument. If said restrictions are imposed equally. You've linked one event (this year's Throne of Skulls packet) indicating that allies won't be permitted. A British poster has advised that no events at all at GW HQ allow Foregeworld/Imperial Armour units. Those aren't exactly equivalent, if they're accurate.

Forgeworld as general use? Hmm, so if I can find proof of FW promotion in a book (not WD) published by the GW Design Studio, would that satisfy any arguments?

 Mannahnin wrote:
A British poster has advised that no events at all at GW HQ allow Foregeworld/Imperial Armour units.

That's not true. If nothing else GW HQ runs the Heresy events in which only FW rules are allowed.

Plus, as I said before, there are a variety of possible reasons why FW stuff would be banned even though it's part of the game. It could be for simplicity (same reason they ban allies), it could be because GW's sales "experts" feel that events should promote "core" products, or it could be that GW HQ just got tired of people trying to bring pirated copies of FW books.

No, it's not about your credentials. It's about your participation in the community, and whether you're coming from the perspective of a member or someone stridently arguing from an external perspective.

I really like reading the arguments from the people in the latter camp. Its like getting motorcycle advice from everyone I know who doesn't ride a bike or being given fitness tips from people who havn't done any exercise since they were made to at school.

 The Everliving wrote:

No, it's not about your credentials. It's about your participation in the community, and whether you're coming from the perspective of a member or someone stridently arguing from an external perspective.

I really like reading the arguments from the people in the latter camp. Its like getting motorcycle advice from everyone I know who doesn't ride a bike or being given fitness tips from people who havn't done any exercise since they were made to at school.

If an argument is valid on its own merit and logic then it really does not matter who makes it. You probably are not going to get a lot of good fitness tips from someone who hasnt exercised in ten years but that would not be an argument against good advice if they gave it.

Tournaments are just about impossible to compare with one another so I really dont see how anyones tournament record matters. I guess if you have NEVER been to a tournament you would not be very well informed on the nuts and bolts, but this whole tournament thing with Peregine is just a diversion.

Participating in tournaments and credentials are pretty silly things to put in the same paragraph. Credentials are degrees and certifications, tournaments are just pushing little plastic dollies around and taking it way too seriously, especially with 40k.

 Adam LongWalker wrote:

Spoiler:

ItsPug wrote:

 Adam LongWalker wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I'm sorry, but your argument was that people who have more money and can buy FW models have an unfair advantage over those who cannot, I turn that argument around and state that people who have more money and can buy fliers have an unfair advantage over those without, and you respond with "I have 35 grands worth of models so this argument doesn't apply to me"???

The system is devolving into FW haves and FW have nots, creating a two tiered system, as it allows some people to use their money to load up on broken FW units for an advantage, and this is a huge problem, which is not ok.

The system is devolving into FW aircraft haves and FW aircraft have nots, creating a two tiered system, as it allows some people to use their money to load up on broken FW aircraft units for an advantage, and this is not a problem at all, as you have the money/models to take advantage.

Does that not seem ever so slightly hypocritical to you? Would you have a problem with someone copying the adepticon list

Draigo....£15
10 Paladins....£56
3 Annihilation Barges....£67.50
3 Night Scythes.....£82.50
Necron Overlord.....£11
15 necron Warriors.....£44
Winning a tournament....priceless

and would it make a difference to you if they already had the models, or if they had to go out and buy them?

The problem with the "All codexes have broken units" argument is the amount of units that are broken.

For example: The Necron codex has 18 units in it (not counting HQs). So there are a few good units that you can choose from.

Now look at the Forge world books: How many units are in there?

It is like if you get to take the best units out of every codex and put them together for an army. You can say that the FW books have units for every army, but really they do not. For the most part they are all IG and a few

There are 2 arguments that go nowhere when you talk about forge world.
#1. They are official GW rules.
This can't really be proven one way or another.

#2. The cost
It costs a lot to buy the books and the best FW units which is always countered by this is an expensive hobby and that if you have an army you have already spent a ton of money.


That is why I tried to tackle the other reasons.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

JWhex wrote:

 The Everliving wrote:

No, it's not about your credentials. It's about your participation in the community, and whether you're coming from the perspective of a member or someone stridently arguing from an external perspective.

I really like reading the arguments from the people in the latter camp. Its like getting motorcycle advice from everyone I know who doesn't ride a bike or being given fitness tips from people who havn't done any exercise since they were made to at school.

If an argument is valid on its own merit and logic then it really does not matter who makes it. You probably are not going to get a lot of good fitness tips from someone who hasnt exercised in ten years but that would not be an argument against good advice if they gave it.

The reason why I ask is that if you do not play any tournaments you have no "skin in the game". It has no impact on you one way or another and you are just telling other people how they should play their games of 40k.

I would like to point out that most of the people who do not want FW at tournaments are tournament players, and the people who are for it are generally not.

 Blackmoor wrote:
The problem with the "All codexes have broken units" argument is the amount of units that are broken.

For example: The Necron codex has 18 units in it (not counting HQs). So there are a few good units that you can choose from.

Now look at the Forge world books: How many units are in there?

It is like if you get to take the best units out of every codex and put them together for an army.

Judging from the top 16 Adepticon lists, and if I didn't own the Necron codex, I'd assume there wasn't that many units in it, where the Necron Codex was the primary...

Annihilation Barges accounted for 22/23 heavy support choices
Night Scythes accounted for 24/26 dedicated transports
Wraith squads accounted for 15/16 fast attack choices

Where allies were taken they mainly consisted of Chaos Marines out of 4 allied forces we have
Cultists 7/7 and Heldrakes 3/4

Newsflash, people are already cherry picking the best units, and picking the best units out of two codexes and putting them together to make an army, and it doesn't matter if only the Annihilation barge, wraiths and night scythes are broken if thats all that people take in their army. The rest of the codex may be absolute gak, it only matters by how much the unit is overpower/undercosted.

edit:spelling

 Blackmoor wrote:
I would like to point out that most of the people who do not want FW at tournaments are tournament players, and the people who are for it are generally not.

I'm not sure that's fair. I would say the biggest proponent for Forge World that I know of is Reecius, who is a veteran tournament player (and tournament organizer) himself. While I certainly disagree with him on some things, I would never claim that he is anything but a highly experienced tournament player.

ItsPug wrote:
[

Judging from the top 16 Adepticon lists, and if I didn't own the Necron codex, I'd assume there wasn't that many units in it, where the Necron Codex was the primary...

Annihilation Barges accounted for 22/23 heavy support choices
Night Scythes accounted for 24/26 dedicated transports
Wraith squads accounted for 15/16 fast attack choices

Where allies were taken they mainly consisted of Chaos Marines out of 4 allied forces we have
Cultists 7/7 and Heldrakes 3/4

Newsflash, people are already cherry picking the best units, and picking the best units out of two codexes and putting them together to make an army, and it doesn't matter if only the Annihilation barge, wraiths and night scythes are broken if thats all that people take in their army. The rest of the codex may be absolute gak, it only matters by how much the unit is overpower/undercosted.

edit:spelling

Again you can't look at the adepticon results and draw any meaningful conclusions from them since that was 3 codexes ago. If this was GWs prior release schedule that would have been 18 months worth of codexes ago, so that is like saying that what happened in a tournament back 2011 has some impact today.

BJ who is on the 40k UK podcast worked for GW and he said that they knew that 6th edition would be unbalanced when it first came out, but once they release the new codexes then everything will balance out. And you you know what? He was right.

That is why I made the post. The game has changed in the last year, and has also changed a lot since adepticon so that some of the prior arguments for Forge World are not longer valid.

And on the other side (not necessarily opposed to, but preferring non- or at least limited FW) I've seen Mannahnin, carlosthecraven, MVBrandt, and others. My quote from Target (not originally from this thread) apologized on behalf of the particular FW unit he used being allowed.

Imo, limited is a great compromise. People not considering that makes the theme/fluff argument less convincing. Your theme is all thudd guns? Heh

And as Blackmoor points out, there are tons of FW units. It's simply not the same as a single codex's worth of units, no matter how many times people make that comparison.

 Kingsley wrote:

 Blackmoor wrote:
I would like to point out that most of the people who do not want FW at tournaments are tournament players, and the people who are for it are generally not.

I'm not sure that's fair. I would say the biggest proponent for Forge World that I know of is Reecius, who is a veteran tournament player (and tournament organizer) himself. While I certainly disagree with him on some things, I would never claim that he is anything but a highly experienced tournament player.

I was referring to this thread, and not in general. I would also like to point out that Reese does not play in FW tournaments and only runs them.

Until we are discussing a way to artificially rebalance codex units, the "unbalanced" reason is not worth addressing.

Either you are concerned that the game is unbalanced and want to rebalance it - including all codex or FW units, or that is not really the issue.

Hellturkies and vendettas are easily among the worst offenders, yet the opposition is not in their direction.

As for claims that FW units are not official, the books are quite explicit to the effect that they are - as others have quoted directly.

"Need" is too strong a term for a game. Especially given that the word "need" is used without a context of goal.

All needs are contextualized by a goal. In a vacuum, no one needs anything. We need air, but only with the goal of breathing.

Before we can answer if we "need" FW, you have to give a goal.

If you are looking for consensus on how tournaments should be run, you won't get it. There is no sport or activity that a consensus exists on organization. If all you want to do is use a thread to browbeat others to agree with you, this seems like a good start.

 RiTides wrote:
Imo, limited is a great compromise. People not considering that makes the theme/fluff argument less convincing. Your theme is all thudd guns? Heh

Agreed. I think that FW being a 0-1 per primary detachment (just like fortifications) would allow people to use their cool FW stuff without causing problems for game speed (time needed to explain unfamiliar FW rules), army balance, etc.

 Blackmoor wrote:


Again you can't look at the adepticon results and draw any meaningful conclusions from them since that was 3 codexes ago. If this was GWs prior release schedule that would have been 18 months worth of codexes ago, so that is like saying that what happened in a tournament back 2011 has some impact today.

I'm so sorry, I thought I was discussing the lists used at Adepticon 2013, which happened about 40 days ago, oh wait I was. If you're going to make the argument that because a new codex has come out all prior tournament results are invalid then you don't have a leg to stand on. Unless, that is, there has been a major tournament completed today? No? ah well then.

Oh and by the way, where are you getting 3 codex releases from? It was at most 2 codexes ago, as tau came out the start of april, eldar came out today. Also, how quickly GW used to release codexes has no balance on what people are using today.

While we're at it, making Helldrakes and Vendettas 0-1 per primary detachment (just like fortifications) would allow people to use their cool GW stuff without causing problems for army balance.

Including "game speed" and "etc" is a joke there Kingsley, cause its obvious there is no etc and game speed is a pretty weak reason.

 Dracos wrote:
While we're at it, making Helldrakes and Vendettas 0-1 per primary detachment (just like fortifications) would allow people to use their cool GW stuff without causing problems for army balance.

That's neither here nor there. FW stuff has "stood apart" from GW stuff for a long time, regardless of your thoughts on how official/part of GW Forge World rules are. Since there isn't yet a consensus on how to handle FW among the community, we have a much more significant opportunity to tailor the tournament ruleset to the wishes of the players. While some might certainly wish that Heldrakes were 0-1, the opportunity really isn't there in the same way.

 Dracos wrote:
Including "game speed" and "etc" is a joke there Kingsley, cause its obvious there is no etc and game speed is a pretty weak reason.

Uh, game speed is IMO a very strong reason. I actually consider it a much more serious issue than balance concerns. Most FW units are more or less fine and I'm happy to play against them. I've had totally fun games against people with Sabre Defense Platforms, Mortis Contemptors, etc. But it's also always taken extra time before the game to go over the FW rules, make sure I understand what they do, and clear up any confusions or ambiguities. In a tournament environment, where time is a very important concern, if someone shows up with 5 or 6 different units that we will have to go over together before the game, that could very well mean we get one fewer turn in, which could in turn decide the outcome.

To be honest, I think the fact that there are tournaments where the majority of games do not finish on time is very bad for the game. People talk about balance issues, but games ending in a nonrandom fashion/before "lategame" pieces can have their full influence strikes me as really extremely bad from a balance perspective-- far worse than any specific balance issues or undercosted units in the Codexes. I would gladly be willing to play in an event that drops down to 1500 points if it meant all my games finished properly, and allowing lots of FW really exacerbates this problem.

ItsPug wrote:

 Blackmoor wrote:


Again you can't look at the adepticon results and draw any meaningful conclusions from them since that was 3 codexes ago. If this was GWs prior release schedule that would have been 18 months worth of codexes ago, so that is like saying that what happened in a tournament back 2011 has some impact today.

I'm so sorry, I thought I was discussing the lists used at Adepticon 2013, which happened about 40 days ago, oh wait I was. If you're going to make the argument that because a new codex has come out all prior tournament results are invalid then you don't have a leg to stand on. Unless, that is, there has been a major tournament completed today? No? ah well then.

That is exactly what I am saying. Are we all here talking about how overpowered the grey knights are because they won adepticon 2012 and that half of the armies in the final 16 were grey knights? If you do not understand that past events are meaningless because of codex releases this shows that you have a fundamental misunderstanding about tournaments and meta changes.

Oh and by the way, where are you getting 3 codex releases from? It was at most 2 codexes ago, as tau came out the start of april, eldar came out today. Also, how quickly GW used to release codexes has no balance on what people are using today.

Chronologically you are right because there have been 2 codexes released since adepticon but there is a lag between the codex releases and the armies showing up at tournaments (all of the prep work like buying and painting models and play testing wtc.) So really I would say that the last release that was well represented there was Chaos Space Marines.

 Kingsley wrote:

Uh, game speed is IMO a very strong reason. I actually consider it a much more serious issue than balance concerns. Most FW units are more or less fine and I'm happy to play against them. I've had totally fun games against people with Sabre Defense Platforms, Mortis Contemptors, etc. But it's also always taken extra time before the game to go over the FW rules, make sure I understand what they do, and clear up any confusions or ambiguities. In a tournament environment, where time is a very important concern, if someone shows up with 5 or 6 different units that we will have to go over together before the game, that could very well mean we get one fewer turn in, which could in turn decide the outcome.

And if you turn up to a tournament with Tau, and I have never played them before and have you go through your 5-6 different units so that I can "understand what they do, and clear up any confusions or ambiguities" is this not a problem too? Tau have a lot of special rules and equipment that breaks the basic rules, if I have you explain these to me does that not also use up valuable time, resulting in the game possibly not reaching its natural conclusion? Unfamiliarity is not a good reason to disallow something, especially when new rules are being released every few months anyway.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Mannahnin wrote:
Peregrine, you're the one who argued that GW has put forward Forgeworld as general-use, and equivalent to the codices.

You're right, I am. It says it in the book in plain English. FW is official and part of standard 40k. This is not up for debate, the only question is whether "no FW" house rules are good for tournaments or not.

The fact that the events GW runs at their own HQ do not treat them that way is contrary evidence.

No it isn't, because the events GW run at their own HQ also have other non-standard rules. The ban on FW units doesn't mean FW isn't part of the game, just like the ban on allies doesn't mean that allies aren't part of the game.

And yes, this is an entirely relevant thing to mention when the only part of how GW HQ runs events that anyone cares about is the "no FW" line. Either GW HQ is the standard all other events need to meet or it isn't. You can't just selectively pull out one house rule they play under and ignore the others.

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

And I'm not going to, because it's a blatant attempt to dismiss what I'm saying because I don't have impressive enough credentials instead of addressing the substance of the argument.

No one is asking for credentials. This isn't a job interview where you must supply proof of a Law Degree and passage of the Bar Exam.

I am not about to waltz over to a thread about Warmahordes tournaments or Fantasy tournaments and start lobbying for Deathclock only, or Named Character allowance respectively across the board. Why? Because I have no business doing that, I don't play in those tournaments so I am going to keep my nose out of it. I have an opinion on the topic(s) sure; but having an opinion does not mean I must, or even should, always voice it. Particularly when I have no real "skin in the game" as Blackmoor put it.

Breng77 wrote:
So inside FW books counts as where outside FW books? Just saying? Also still says, make sure your opponent is ok playing against them. Language not contained in codices. But like I said I am not against events containing them (at my next event, FW will be allowed in one tournament and not in another.). I still think the biggest issue is the imbalance of units available to each army. If we assume (nothing backing this up) that say 1 in 5 units is broken. Then IG having like 30 new units is a big deal compared to say Eldar having 5 or 6 (numbers here are not accurate.)

I will answer this again. FW is part of GW. FW's books say that FW rules are official, therefore GW has said that FW rules are official. There are also instances where the BRB states that "make sure your opponent is okay with..." Just because an FW book includes this doesn't make it any less official, and it's based off of the fact that certain players may not be comfortable with it because they are unfamiliar with the units. In the same vein, again, it's like choosing not to play against someone because they play Necron, GK, or WD Daemons, or just because you don't like them.

I personally am proponent of just limiting the more powerful FW options, since if you limit FW units to 0-1, how about the people who field Forgeworld lists? Elysian Droptroops, Siege Regiment, Armoured Regiment anyone?

 Kingsley wrote:
While some might certainly wish that Heldrakes were 0-1, the opportunity really isn't there in the same way.

Of course the opportunity is there. If you're running a tournament you say "Helldrakes are 0-1" and that's the end of it. People either bring 0-1 Helldrake, or they don't play in your event.

It's just like how people ran comp-heavy tournaments in 5th with all kinds of restrictions on "overpowered" units. If you want a game in which the players veto parts of the rules that they don't like it's very easy to do so. The only question is how many people will attend your event.

In a tournament environment, where time is a very important concern, if someone shows up with 5 or 6 different units that we will have to go over together before the game, that could very well mean we get one fewer turn in, which could in turn decide the outcome.

So why don't you advocate banning all codices except C:SM? That would be the only way to ensure that nobody ever faces unfamiliar rules.

And yes, you could say "do the research" about unfamiliar codices, but you can also do the research about FW units. Even ignoring piracy (and let's be honest, most tournament players probably have a pdf of every codex) it's not exactly hard to figure out what the top-tier FW units are and get a good idea of what they do so that on tournament day you're just briefly confirming the exact details.

 Blackmoor wrote:

That is exactly what I am saying. Are we all here talking about how overpowered the grey knights are because they won adepticon 2012 and that half of the armies in the final 16 were grey knights? If you do not understand that past events are meaningless because of codex releases this shows that you have a fundamental misunderstanding about tournaments and meta changes.

So what tournaments are you basing your idea that we no longer "need" FW in a tournament upon?

 Dracos wrote:
While we're at it, making Helldrakes and Vendettas 0-1 per primary detachment (just like fortifications) would allow people to use their cool GW stuff without causing problems for army balance.

Including "game speed" and "etc" is a joke there Kingsley, cause its obvious there is no etc and game speed is a pretty weak reason.

Again you also show a fundamental misunderstanding of the meta because of the release of the 6th edition codexes now have counters to Helldrakes and Vendettas. That is my point in the original post.

There are no counters to the FW artillery unlike fliers.

 Blackmoor wrote:
f you do not understand that past events are meaningless because of codex releases this shows that you have a fundamental misunderstanding about tournaments and meta changes.

I agree. This is why all past experience with FW rules is worthless and you can not declare that any of them are overpowered. After all, the metagame has changed since the last FW-legal event.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Blackmoor wrote:
#1. They are official GW rules.
This can't really be proven one way or another.

Of course it can be proven. GW has said explicitly that they are official and part of the standard game. The question here is not whether FW is official, it's whether or not a "no FW" house rule is appropriate for tournaments.

 Blackmoor wrote:

 Dracos wrote:
While we're at it, making Helldrakes and Vendettas 0-1 per primary detachment (just like fortifications) would allow people to use their cool GW stuff without causing problems for army balance.

Including "game speed" and "etc" is a joke there Kingsley, cause its obvious there is no etc and game speed is a pretty weak reason.

Again you also show a fundamental misunderstanding of the meta because of the release of the 6th edition codexes now have counters to Helldrakes and Vendettas. That is my point in the original post.

There are no counters to the FW artillery unlike fliers.

Yes there are. Deepstriking anti-tank and flyers. I'm pretty sure a whole bunch of them have minimum ranges, too. Heck, bring some of your own artillery too.

 Blackmoor wrote:

 Dracos wrote:
While we're at it, making Helldrakes and Vendettas 0-1 per primary detachment (just like fortifications) would allow people to use their cool GW stuff without causing problems for army balance.

Including "game speed" and "etc" is a joke there Kingsley, cause its obvious there is no etc and game speed is a pretty weak reason.

Again you also show a fundamental misunderstanding of the meta because of the release of the 6th edition codexes now have counters to Helldrakes and Vendettas. That is my point in the original post.

There are no counters to the FW artillery unlike fliers.

poison would be the main one, such as used by pretty much every dark eldar unit, sternguard, etc
forcing a morale text via terrify, as artillery units usually have low leadership, psychic shriek also works as it gets around the high tougness and decent armour save.
eldar shuriken weapons now automatically wound on a 6 and ignore the armour.

theres 3 off the top of my head.