The Case Against Allowing Forge World at Tournaments

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.

**OverwatchCNC**

Reecius posted up a big article on BoLS about why Forge World should be allowed in tournaments.
http://www.belloflostsouls.net/2012/09/get-yo-resin-on-forgeworld-and.html

I have been stalwartly against allowing FW in tournaments for a long time and my opinion hasn't changed. I decided to finally organize my thoughts into a cohesive statement and published it on Capture and Control.
http://www.captureandcontrol.com/2012/09/the-case-against-allowing-forgeworld-in.html

This is not a shameless plug for my site, I generate no revenue from C&C as there are no ads on it. It is simply a forum for me to write and express my thoughts on gaming. That being said I will paraphrase for those who still don't wish to leave dakka to visit my blog.

FW adds too many units to a game with an average of 420 core units already. The core units rules as well as the units themselves are readily accessible while the same cannot be said of FW. FW creates an imbalance, not to the game, but with the players themselves. Monetary reasons aside reading the rules to a unit prior to the game starting does not allow enough time to process how the unit will work nor does it provide any real in game experience with the unit. I make a much stronger case on capture and control.

I know similar threads to this have started before but in the light of more tournaments beginning to allow FW I think the issue needs a serious addressing. Hopefully we can keep this from being locked by the mods. This is also not a

bait thread nor am I attempting to troll so lets keep this civil

**whitedragon**

Snipped from the blog, for those that don't want to click over and still be able to follow along with the discussion:

Reecius from Frontline Gaming posted a recent blurb on Bell of Lost Souls regarding his, and his Tournament Organizing groups, views on allowing Forge World in tournaments. Here is a link to his article on BoLS. I want to start by clearly stating that Reece and I are friends and I attend many of his tournaments. If you read this blog then you know I have attended both Bay Area Opens, and I will continue to attend events he runs, I even write for Frontline Gaming's blog on occasion. So this is not a personal attack on Reece, Frontline Gaming, Team Zero Comp, the Bay Area Open, or anything having to do with anything of a personal nature. This is my opinion on why Forge World units should not be allowed in tournaments, it is a simple rebuttal to the opposite argument made by Reece and I trust he knows I am in no way laying a personal attack on him or his group. With that out of the way, on with the show after the break.

Forge World units are not Over Powered. Over powered is a term that gets bandied about too often by our sub-culture lately, the Grey Knight codex at the end of 5th is what I view as the catalyst for the abuse of the term. In particular the seemingly undying thread about how "The Grey Knight codex is the most Over Powered book GW has put out in over a Decade" in which reason, logic, and proof were set aside for a constant barrage of "zomg! GK are so OP, I hate losing!" crying that seemed to spiral way out of control. Thankfully that is now dead but the term OP continues to be used too often now. Some of the FW units are far too cost effective. Reece brought up the Sabre Weapon Platforms that were piloted to victory at Comikaze over the weekend.

They are very points efficient but on their own not OP. What makes this unit OP in my opinion is how it interacts with the new 6th ed fortifications, namely the Aegis Defense Line. If you place them behind the ADL with a CCS, or two, in close proximity you can go to ground for a 2+ cover save and then issue them the get back in the fight order so they suffer none of the negative side effects of going to ground. Now, that isn't any worse than a regular HWS behind an Aegis, except the Sabre is a twinlinked, skyfire, interceptor, las cannon platform which is considerably better than a normal HWS. Even, in this potent combination I still don't find enough justification for banning Forge World from tournaments. The real issue with Forge World isn't the incredibly potent combos that are possible; it is the rarity of playing against those combos and the FW rules and models that should keep them from being allowed in tournaments.

The average army from GW has 30 units, some more, some a few less which gives us a base of about 420 different units in the core game, not including fortifications. These units can be accessed fairly easily at most FLGS' game nights, through arranging games on local forums, or just by showing up to local tournament and even GT style events. Even if you don't have access to an Eldar opponent in your area you can still get access to the codex easily. Becoming familiar with the rules of every unit in the game, by familiar I mean knowing the rules, requires you to read the rules over more than once and requires time to digest and form an idea of how the unit will work on the table top. In order to do this you probably will need to own a copy of the rules. Owning all the codices will run you about $400. That is purchasing all the codices new, I own all the codices but I only bought the rulebooks for factions that I play new. Most FLGS' have a used section, ebay, and forums also provide a place to pick up the codices for much cheaper. Quickly going through eBay and Bartertown allowed me to tally up every codex for a little under $200. In short the core units for the game are easily accessible to play against, the rules are easily accessible, and can be found for 50% or more off if your savvy. The same does not hold true for Forge World, not even close.

My main reason I don't think FW is acceptable for use in tournaments is simple. There is not an equal access to the rules and units for all players. The core units in the game are readily accessible as are the rules. In response to this topic many TOs have said that they require a player using a FW unit to have a copy of the rules readily accessible prior to the start of the game and that they themselves will be sure to have access to said rules. That's great except players may never have seen or heard of that unit until right then and there. Becoming familiar with a unit requires multiple readings and time to process the information, something not possible with the 5-10 minutes of prep time before a match starts. Not to mention reading how a unit works and experiencing how it works in action are two entirely different things. Think about your first game against a Draigo/Coteaz/Paladin Deathstar in 6th, when it was still terribly broken via Character rules. Looks pretty mean on paper but so did the same unit in 5th; then you played against it in 6th and probably got your ass handed to you. Why? Because witnessing it in action is very different than reading about it. Allowing players to use rare FW units, yes they are rare compared to the core units it is an undeniable fact, gives those players a massive advantage over other players. The other argument I have heard is that FW is not as inaccessible as people say, that it isn't as cost prohibitive to become familiar with the rules for the units. TOs have also stated that they don't add a significantly large number of new units and becoming familiar with them on the fly shouldn't be a problem. That is flat out wrong.

Allowing Forge World units in tournaments adds at least 187 units to the game. Most of which are Space Marine of Imperial Guard the two most common factions in the game as core or allied forces. 187 units on top of the core 420 on average. It adds almost 50% more units to the game by simply allowing Forge World. If you want to check my math feel free but the only way to do it is combing the FW site, unless you've shelled out the $517 for the FW books. Sorry, that number is wrong. It isn't $507 they cost 507 pounds sterling, before shipping costs. In dollars, before shipping, they cost $838.67. Good luck finding the Forge World books at a discount online through ebay, barter town, the dakka swap shop etc; so you'll definitely be shelling out close to a grand just to fact check my numbers, which I am confident will end up higher not lower for unit count, let alone spending that much to become familiar with the units. So even buying all the codices new will cost you less than half what the FW books will cost you, not including shipping. That is also assuming the books are in stock, and if they aren't then again good luck finding one on line someplace other than the FW site.

Then we get into the fact that most players don't use Forge World models on a daily basis in their games. Gaining practical real game experience with these units is hard to come by, sure you can proxy them in pick up games to prepare but the proxy is based upon a picture so you still won't have a real idea of LoS, cover, model foot print etc. All the serious tournament players I know, my self included, practice. We practice the missions we know will be in use, if we don't know the missions ahead of time we practice core missions, we use our list against as many opponents and armies as possible on as many different board set ups as possible. If you want to win major events you have to train, that's why I haven't gotten close to winning a GT and always end up in the middle. I have yet to train enough going into a GT to make a good showing but allowing Forge World into tournaments creates an environment where you can't effectively train for an event. The rules and models are too rare.

I don't want to tell people how to play. I own Forge World models, I have two Contemptors, several marks of pre-heresy Space Marine sets, a Venerable Space Wolf Dread, and I used to have some IG stuff as well. What I don't want is to surprise my opponents at a tournament. I don't want Forge World to become a means by which people who can afford it can use inexperience of others to their advantage. I am a power gamer, I play strong lists and in a competitive environment I play hard. I am also lucky enough to have a career and several fully painted armies so if the move to FW goes on I can and will buy the most broken FW combos I can to play in tournaments. The problem with this is sour grapes. We as a community need to be careful about how many sour grapes we create through the introduction of FW into our events. Sure I can build a super combo using Allies and FW with my existing armies but that doesn't mean other players should have to be subjected to playing that list.

The Core units in the game are good. Everyone knows them, or they can if they want, and the game is comfortable with the core. Adding in FW may seem innocuous at first; upon deeper inspection and thought it becomes a potentially harmful step for the tournament scene. My hope by writing this is that we all take a closer look at just how important using Forge World really is and more importantly just how fair and viable such a step is for the competitive community.

As always I welcome discussion on the matter.

**Hulksmash**

My only true line I draw is not in RTT's or local events outside of a once in great while type thing. Why?

Local events are run by stores and generally are helpful in generating revenue as people tweak and tune lists or get excited for upcoming tournaments. Stores can't provide Forgeworld and ever dollar spent on a point from forgeworld is a dollar out of the game stores pocket. Granted not every shops at the FLGS they play at (though they should) but it's something to consider.

At GT's. I'd be leary if the local community doesn't use them as encountering FW has the potential to sour someones time. Not that it happens everytime or even most of the time but it's something to consider.

**blood lance**

Why is it such a big issue just reading the unit profiles before the match? Not to sound aggressive or anything, but from your article, I cant help but think you seem to think everyone in tournaments knows all the rules. I know there are at least 4 armies in this game I know nothing about. The same effect is formed here, but I don't ask to read through the player's codex before the match.

Edit; I also agree with what Hulksmash said. In areas such as a GW tournament in Warhammer World which sell FW, it is less of an impact but in those tournament areas Hulk mentioned I can see his point, and agree.

**Hulksmash**

I think the difference is the availability and for knowledge. You could, for a reasonable amount, learn about those 4 armies if it was remotely important to you. You couldn't, for a reasonable amount, become familiar with all the IG or SM FW items in the game. Those two are extremes but quite a few armies are spread between books at this point.

And at a tournament I do expect my opponents to know the rules. I know the rules. And if FW became the norm I'd know those rules too.

@CnC

I don't agree that the issue is for the competitive community. Most of them that I know would just do what they do with normal 40k. Get the books and study them. No real hitch. I think the issue more revolves around the moderately/non-competitive field. It's far more likely to blindside and ruin the majority of tournament goers game than it is to do that the more competitive players (in the sense of those who are relatively serious about trying to win large events).

**OverwatchCNC**

blood lance wrote:
Why is it such a big issue just reading the unit profiles before the match? Not to sound aggressive or anything, but from your article, I cant help but think you seem to think everyone in tournaments knows all the rules. I know there are at least 4 armies in this game I know nothing about. The same effect is formed here, but I don't ask to read through the player's codex before the match.

Edit; I also agree with what Hulksmash said. In areas such as a GW tournament in Warhammer World which sell FW, it is less of an impact but in those tournament areas Hulk mentioned I can see his point, and agree.

Sure, but it is your choice not to be informed on those armies. Should you choose to be completely versed in them you have the opportunity to be. That opportunity is also easy to come by, as opposed to FW which as I said is more difficult to become adequately versed in.

I also agree with Hulk that local RTs shouldn't have FW as a basic rule. Should the BAO choose to allow FW this year I will still attend, schedule allowing, but that doesn't change my overall opinion.

Thanks for cut and pasting, I wasn't sure I wanted subject people to a TLDR moment by doing that myself!

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Hulksmash wrote:
I think the difference is the availability and for knowledge. You could, for a reasonable amount, learn about those 4 armies if it was remotely important to you. You couldn't, for a reasonable amount, become familiar with all the IG or SM FW items in the game. Those two are extremes but quite a few armies are spread between books at this point.

And at a tournament I do expect my opponents to know the rules. I know the rules. And if FW became the norm I'd know those rules too.

@CnC

I don't agree that the issue is for the competitive community. Most of them that I know would just do what they do with normal 40k. Get the books and study them. No real hitch. I think the issue more revolves around the moderately/non-competitive field. It's far more likely to blindside and ruin the majority of tournament goers game than it is to do that the more competitive players (in the sense of those who are relatively serious about trying to win large events).

Ha you

me Hulk! I see your point, I probably should have spelled that out better in my OP.

**MVBrandt**

Fortunately I don't have to have a strong opinion on this one for a while, and can watch how the Heresy books turn out, and GW's opinion-making on this via FAQ and releases.

The issue is that a lot of players like Overwatch invest a great deal of money and time preparing for tournaments. Asking people to expend another several hundred dollars (or asking them to pirate / commit crimes) getting up to speed on the Forgeworld units out there in order to properly build THEIR lists for the more unit-intensive meta subsequently brought into existence is a bit much in many eyes.

Currently, someone preparing for a tournament knows they may face XYZ, and to prepare their lists accordingly and in such balanced fashion if they want to be ready for all comers. Adding 50% or more units to that mix creates a challenge right off the bat. It creates a larger challenge when you consider that now 33% of the units in the game that a person may face lie outside the reach of their finances in terms of prep (and/or in terms of their own ability to even acquire and take them).

This isn't a cheap hobby either way, and the vast majority of GT attendees make very solid incomes (from my experience and survey), so it's not necessarily as big an issue ... but at the same time, the argument is a valid one.

Arguing that it's EASY to prepare for and be ready to understand the implications of so many new units is ... disingenuous. Arguing that the pros outweight that con, on the other hand, has merit. That pros/cons weighing is what festers in the mind of each TO as they try to determine what the right course of action is for their event. It's our responsibility to try our best to consider the whole, and to keep our own prefs out of it as best we can ... TO's are typically the most passionate hobbyists ... and probably are more up to speed with and in tune with Forgeworld units and their implications on the game than the average attendee is (IMO), and that should weigh into decision-making.

In the end, while it's a major discussion, it shouldn't be as big a deal as it is - pressuring TO's to permit Forgeworld is about as uncool as berating them for permitting it. Their inclusion certainly puts the onus on competitive players to invest more time and money in preparation. Their inclusion certainly impacts the results and the game (just look at Comikaze, where the winner put FW units to key use in his army - not necessarily overpowered use, mind you, but they directly and clearly contributed to his success). Whether these are acceptable or bad or good are really decisions best left to each TO as he or she sees fit, and subsequently to their constituency to agree or disagree via attendance decisions.

**OverwatchCNC**

MVBrandt wrote:
Fortunately I don't have to have a strong opinion on this one for a while, and can watch how the Heresy books turn out, and GW's opinion-making on this via FAQ and releases.

The issue is that a lot of players like Overwatch invest a great deal of money and time preparing for tournaments. Asking people to expend another several hundred dollars (or asking them to pirate / commit crimes) getting up to speed on the Forgeworld units out there in order to properly build THEIR lists for the more unit-intensive meta subsequently brought into existence is a bit much in many eyes.

Currently, someone preparing for a tournament knows they may face XYZ, and to prepare their lists accordingly and in such balanced fashion if they want to be ready for all comers. Adding 50% or more units to that mix creates a challenge right off the bat. It creates a larger challenge when you consider that now 33% of the units in the game that a person may face lie outside the reach of their finances in terms of prep (and/or in terms of their own ability to even acquire and take them).

This isn't a cheap hobby either way, and the vast majority of GT attendees make very solid incomes (from my experience and survey), so it's not necessarily as big an issue ... but at the same time, the argument is a valid one.

Arguing that it's EASY to prepare for and be ready to understand the implications of so many new units is ... disingenuous. Arguing that the pros outweight that con, on the other hand, has merit. That pros/cons weighing is what festers in the mind of each TO as they try to determine what the right course of action is for their event. It's our responsibility to try our best to consider the whole, and to keep our own prefs out of it as best we can ... TO's are typically the most passionate hobbyists ... and probably are more up to speed with and in tune with Forgeworld units and their implications on the game than the average attendee is (IMO), and that should weigh into decision-making.

In the end, while it's a major discussion, it shouldn't be as big a deal as it is - pressuring TO's to permit Forgeworld is about as uncool as berating them for permitting it. Their inclusion certainly puts the onus on competitive players to invest more time and money in preparation. Their inclusion certainly impacts the results and the game (just look at Comikaze, where the winner put FW units to key use in his army - not necessarily overpowered use, mind you, but they directly and clearly contributed to his success). Whether these are acceptable or bad or good are really decisions best left to each TO as he or she sees fit, and subsequently to their constituency to agree or disagree via attendance decisions.

I can get behind quite a bit of that. My purpose in posting this was to get as many TOs as possible to take a second hard look at what the inclusion of FW into their events really means for the hobby as a whole and the competitive, and non-competitive, players in their events. Does FW really make the event more competitive? Does it really make the event more fun? Personally I don't think so in either case.

**MVBrandt**

OverwatchCNC wrote:
MVBrandt wrote:
Fortunately I don't have to have a strong opinion on this one for a while, and can watch how the Heresy books turn out, and GW's opinion-making on this via FAQ and releases.

The issue is that a lot of players like Overwatch invest a great deal of money and time preparing for tournaments. Asking people to expend another several hundred dollars (or asking them to pirate / commit crimes) getting up to speed on the Forgeworld units out there in order to properly build THEIR lists for the more unit-intensive meta subsequently brought into existence is a bit much in many eyes.

Currently, someone preparing for a tournament knows they may face XYZ, and to prepare their lists accordingly and in such balanced fashion if they want to be ready for all comers. Adding 50% or more units to that mix creates a challenge right off the bat. It creates a larger challenge when you consider that now 33% of the units in the game that a person may face lie outside the reach of their finances in terms of prep (and/or in terms of their own ability to even acquire and take them).

This isn't a cheap hobby either way, and the vast majority of GT attendees make very solid incomes (from my experience and survey), so it's not necessarily as big an issue ... but at the same time, the argument is a valid one.

Arguing that it's EASY to prepare for and be ready to understand the implications of so many new units is ... disingenuous. Arguing that the pros outweight that con, on the other hand, has merit. That pros/cons weighing is what festers in the mind of each TO as they try to determine what the right course of action is for their event. It's our responsibility to try our best to consider the whole, and to keep our own prefs out of it as best we can ... TO's are typically the most passionate hobbyists ... and probably are more up to speed with and in tune with Forgeworld units and their implications on the game than the average attendee is (IMO), and that should weigh into decision-making.

In the end, while it's a major discussion, it shouldn't be as big a deal as it is - pressuring TO's to permit Forgeworld is about as uncool as berating them for permitting it. Their inclusion certainly puts the onus on competitive players to invest more time and money in preparation. Their inclusion certainly impacts the results and the game (just look at Comikaze, where the winner put FW units to key use in his army - not necessarily overpowered use, mind you, but they directly and clearly contributed to his success). Whether these are acceptable or bad or good are really decisions best left to each TO as he or she sees fit, and subsequently to their constituency to agree or disagree via attendance decisions.

I can get behind quite a bit of that. My purpose in posting this was to get as many TOs as possible to take a second hard look at what the inclusion of FW into their events really means for the hobby as a whole and the competitive, and non-competitive, players in their events. Does FW really make the event more competitive? Does it really make the event more fun? Personally I don't think so in either case.

I actually agree with you - but I'm not sure it makes it LESS fun. I'm also not ENTIRELY sure it makes it less competitive at all ... possibly less evaluative? Or, it's simply evaluating different metrics, which you've touched on a little. It was a no brainer I wasn't going to make people add / adjust to forgeworld in a month along with the brand new edition for NOVA 2012. I'm TBD on NOVA '13, though it will for sure remain in the Narrative, and probably be added to Trios.

**OverwatchCNC**

I think the Narrative and team events are perfect places to allow FW. I am not against FW use across the board, just at the main GT style events. I actually like many of the FW models and their rules but it is the rarity of them that in my mind makes them unacceptable for major GT use.

I understand that stating FW makes the game less fun and less competitive is an opinion of mine but I think the case I made was fairly solid.

**nkelsch**

The main reason FW core legal was even being discussed was based upon a rumor that FW would have a US factory and begin selling directly in the US which changes the whole debate. Realistically this is primarily a 'US INDY GT' issue.

The only thing argument I disagree with is people who don't want to see the 'meta' expanded. I agree that FW for FLGS makes no as it is out-of-store purchases. I agree it is very hard as only people with FW rules buy a 100$ book from overseas but if there was a US distribution available, I feel like a lot of the monetary and availability issues become moot for US audiences.

And honestly 'expanding the meta' isn't the end of the world as most of the stuff is simply expanding into 'more mech, more shooty stuff, more iguard, more orks' so it is not so different someone is going to be drastically confused with how those rules work.

I do feel that it has minimal impact on competitiveness since allies basically blew the doors off of balance, and only people who think they are better players than they really are are going to be taken by surprise by FW units any more than the new ally matrix. I do think it makes it more fun as it allows people to play with their toys and allows for more themes and people to bring different stuff and people like to see neat models and play with their toys.

Good players are good players usually regardless of the circumstance... I really can't see the real winners at these events crumbling because they face a land raider with a different gun. I do see angry middle-of-the-pack people who will get angry and blame FW for their loss when it probably had no impact on the game and then try to explain away their loss not on getting beat but on playing a deviant version of 40k.

I feel like both ways are valid ways to play... and I dislike when one group is trying to posture 'their' way of playing as the 'competative' or 'valid' meta game and any changes to that as a broken or noncompetitive metagame, which is basically what people who want no FW ever try to do which is fundamentally wrong. I feel like a GT format can be fun and competative regardless if it includes FW or not...

**skkipper**

most of the forgeworld rules can be found online. I buy the forge world books. I play models out of but can read up on the rest if i want. I have no idea how most armies work in detail. I don't play those armies.
currently flyers are overpowered, FW opens up access to anti-flyer stuff to lots of armies who will have next to nothing for the next 3-5 years.
I play FW stuff because I like the models. Most gamers play for fun. Power gamers hate FW because it makes their job harder. There is a 2 day tourney in November in seattle and I am considering not showing up since forgeworld isn't allowed.

so you arguements against FW are.
1. too expensive to get all the rules for you to study
2. makes your games unfun because some crazy forgeworld rule killed your finely tuned list

my arguements for.
1. cool models
2. access to airdefense to armies with non.

will you ban sisters of battle and new flyers that came out in white dwaf or the demon update? you can't buy those rules from GW. all of those white dwarf's are e-bay only now.

**Skarboy**

The issue is really up to the Tournament Organizers and should end there, barring future developments. GW in no way, shape, or form has any hand in the tournament scene, so their "standards" for that are, in essence, moot. Without GW involved, for example, you aren't technically required to even have GW models... unless the TO says you do. The decision to use or not use Forgeworld, therefore, falls into the same category of "TO discretion," like use of FAQs, use of tournament-specific missions, terrain interpretation, or allowance of counts-as, conversions, and/or fan-dexes. Even if GW someday officially "endorses" Forgeworld as canon, it would still have to be approved by individual TOs as GW essentially has cut themselves out of any tournament decision-making. People can vote with their attendance at these events if they want FW or not; it doesn't really merit a significant discussion, IMO.

**blood lance**

Considering how much FW costs, how much effort it takes to set up, the fact that GW owns it, the fact it is licensed by it, and that for no real reason made by GW itself it isnt in tournaments, I could understand why many FW model owners would want it in tournaments. My ultimate opinion is its up to the tournament organisers. To me, no offense to the people with this opinion, the idea it makes the game unbalanced and ruins it, sounds a lot like the early complaints in sixth edition that "Flyers ruined the game".

**Jackal**

So your issue is with there being too many units at the current time as it is?
Im sorry, but variety is allways good.
It means you wont allways see the same old lists being thrown onto tables.

Rules wise, FW do pretty good.
Nothing too OTT, and seems to be pretty balanced, if not, over costed in places.

Only rules i dont like is experimental ones they have for new units until they get a true profile in a book.
New necron Canoptek Acanthrites.
Only a few £ more expensive than a wraith, so they are nice and cheap.

However, 45 points for a T5, W3 3+ model with an AP2 melta weapon, stealth and JI profile.
Seems pretty heavy, but it can also fight in combat to a decent standard aswell.

So, multi-role, can only ID it with S10, moves quick-ish.

They are a bloody nightmare.
I played against a crons list with twin FO and ended up facing 12 of those and 12 wraiths.
The 4 units alone work to a stupidly high level.

**Irdiumstern**

When building a list, do you plan for every unit you are liable to face at a tournament? Does every army you build have a separate response for every enemy you are liable to face?
I rather doubt it. While you may plan in broad strokes, I think most players plan for generalities, not certain choices they may or may not face. Heavy Infantry, Light Infantry, Heavy Armor, Light Armor, Flyers, MC's, ect. If your list can deal with the general form, then you should be able to handle a specific form. Essentially, I'm trying to say that a well built take-all-comers list should not have to plan specifically for which enemy units are taken. List Tailoring should not be a requirement for success, and Forge World units do not change that.

In effect, your argument's logical conclusion is that someone taking a rarely used, but less effective choice from their codex over a commonly used choice should have a higher chance of winning solely because the opponent does not have a specific plan for engaging that unit.

**OverwatchCNC**

blood lance wrote:
Considering how much FW costs, how much effort it takes to set up, the fact that GW owns it, the fact it is licensed by it, and that for no real reason made by GW itself it isnt in tournaments, I could understand why many FW model owners would want it in tournaments. My ultimate opinion is its up to the tournament organisers. To me, no offense to the people with this opinion, the idea it makes the game unbalanced and ruins it, sounds a lot like the early complaints in sixth edition that "Flyers ruined the game".

I don't think the FW units themselves make the game unbalanced, I even said so in the OP. I feel the restricted availability of the rules and the rarity of the units in terms of availability for adequate practice against them makes it unbalanced.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Irdiumstern wrote:
When building a list, do you plan for every unit you are liable to face at a tournament? Does every army you build have a separate response for every enemy you are liable to face?
I rather doubt it. While you may plan in broad strokes, I think most players plan for generalities, not certain choices they may or may not face. Heavy Infantry, Light Infantry, Heavy Armor, Light Armor, Flyers, MC's, ect. If your list can deal with the general form, then you should be able to handle a specific form. Essentially, I'm trying to say that a well built take-all-comers list should not have to plan specifically for which enemy units are taken. List Tailoring should not be a requirement for success, and Forge World units do not change that.

In effect, your argument's logical conclusion is that someone taking a rarely used, but less effective choice from their codex over a commonly used choice should have a higher chance of winning solely because the opponent does not have a specific plan for engaging that unit.

FW units do change that. They increase the number of units available in the pool by almost 33%. FW units often have rules that are very different to the core and their type(s) often behave differently as well making it harder to adjust and account for. Especially when the chance to play against those units in practice is much lower than core units.

**4oursword**

OverwatchCNC wrote:
blood lance wrote:
Why is it such a big issue just reading the unit profiles before the match? Not to sound aggressive or anything, but from your article, I cant help but think you seem to think everyone in tournaments knows all the rules. I know there are at least 4 armies in this game I know nothing about. The same effect is formed here, but I don't ask to read through the player's codex before the match.

Edit; I also agree with what Hulksmash said. In areas such as a GW tournament in Warhammer World which sell FW, it is less of an impact but in those tournament areas Hulk mentioned I can see his point, and agree.

Sure, but it is your choice not to be informed on those armies. Should you choose to be completely versed in them you have the opportunity to be. That opportunity is also easy to come by, as opposed to FW which as I said is more difficult to become adequately versed in.

How is FW harder to learn about? Are the big books a bit too hard for you to read? /sarcasm

In all seriousness, I don't think everyone needs to be familiar with every unit in the core game, nor should they be. In a real war, not that realism and 40k should go in the same sentence, you don't know everything your opponent'll spring on you. For this reason, FW is simply a strategic asset, if you like.
I'm for it- FW stuff's cool looking and characterful.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

blood lance wrote:
Considering how much FW costs, how much effort it takes to set up, the fact that GW owns it, the fact it is licensed by it, and that for no real reason made by GW itself it isnt in tournaments, I could understand why many FW model owners would want it in tournaments. My ultimate opinion is its up to the tournament organisers. To me, no offense to the people with this opinion, the idea it makes the game unbalanced and ruins it, sounds a lot like the early complaints in sixth edition that "Flyers ruined the game".

Also this.

**Jackal**

Im sorry, but no one is ever going to know the rules for every unit from the top of thier head, so why do more units matter?

I could quote the entire nids / daemons codex to you with all units, points costs and upgrades (and weapons) without having to think too hard.
With guard though, i need to see a book for the odd thing here and there.
With space pups, i need that book or im lost.

Aslong as people have the book to hand with said units profile in it, i dont care.
If i see a FW model and the book, ill do the smart thing and have a quick look at what it is and what it can do before the game.

**Irdiumstern**

OverwatchCNC wrote:

FW units do change that. They increase the number of units available in the pool by almost 33%. FW units often have rules that are very different to the core and their type(s) often behave differently as well making it harder to adjust and account for. Especially when the chance to play against those units in practice is much lower than core units.

This engages no point of my argument, and simply restates your position. To simplify, I am stating that an all comers list should be able to deal with any forge world unit, and that lack of knowledge of another race's precise abilities has never constituted more than a small disadvantage. I would say that getting one's preferred turn order (I.e. first or second) will have a greater impact than your opponent having a unit which you have only read through before the match.

Could you happen to tell me where to find the Sabre Gun Platform rules you mentioned? The only reference I found is in IA4, which doesn't hold any reference to Skyfire or Interceptor, as far as I can see.

**nkelsch**

Jackal wrote:
Im sorry, but no one is ever going to know the rules for every unit from the top of thier head, so why do more units matter?

Especially when 60% of the units in the metagame are 'marine equivilant' already. A huge portion of FW is basically slight variations of marines and I-guard which have the same armor values and statlines which people are already aware of and prepared for.

**erewego86**

I respect the fact that some players are willing to memorize most or all of the stats in the game, but I don't think Forgeworld overcomplicates 40k by clogging it with a bunch of new units. Here's why:

An earlier poster said that forgeworld increases the pool by 33% (from about 420 units to about 590). However, not every forgeworld unit is going to be tournament caliber, just as in core. So in reality the number is less than 33% and probably a lot less than 33%.

Further, most forgeworld units are both vehicles and variants off an already existing vehicle (Tau Piranha TX-42, Land Raider Achilles, etc.). Players are already familiar with the basic version of these models and the usually the alterations made by forgeworld doesn't change the unit's battlefield role--a land raider achilles serves much the same purpose as a land raider, for example. Because of this, it is not necessary to memorize every single variant.

Finally, opponents are nearly always entitled to inspect stats before a match, doubly so with Forge World models. This is enough forewarning to prevent most deployment and tactical errors.

I'd also like to add that of all the reasons to oppose something, "I don't know about it and don't want to learn about it and don't want to be penalized for not knowing about it." is about the worst reason I can think of, and that's basically the mindset proferred in this blogpost. 40k is partially about creativity and confronting new situations. Anything within reason that promotes creativity ought to be encouraged. Forgeworld models certainly promote more creativity and they certainly aren't too complicated so they should be allowed.

**OverwatchCNC**

Irdiumstern wrote:
OverwatchCNC wrote:

FW units do change that. They increase the number of units available in the pool by almost 33%. FW units often have rules that are very different to the core and their type(s) often behave differently as well making it harder to adjust and account for. Especially when the chance to play against those units in practice is much lower than core units.

This engages no point of my argument, and simply restates your position. To simplify, I am stating that an all comers list should be able to deal with any forge world unit, and that lack of knowledge of another race's precise abilities has never constituted more than a small disadvantage. I would say that getting one's preferred turn order (I.e. first or second) will have a greater impact than your opponent having a unit which you have only read through before the match.

Could you happen to tell me where to find the Sabre Gun Platform rules you mentioned? The only reference I found is in IA4, which doesn't hold any reference to Skyfire or Interceptor, as far as I can see.

My position itself is a counter to your argument. In an environment that allows FW the basis of an all comers list is forced to change by the inclusion of a large number of new units. Being able to create a new all comers list with the meta shift that FW creates requires access to the rules and units to practice against. Something that is hard to accomplish given the availability, or lack there of, of FW in local metas.

Your second statement only further reinforces my primary argument about the potential confusion of including FW. The Sabre Gun Platform is given Skyfire and Interceptor by the FW 6th ed FAQs iirc.

**Mohoc**

We generally allow FW at the store I play at. Up until 6th Edition though, we generally did not allow FW units in tournaments though. This is now changing mostly due to the anti aircraft units FW allows players to field. It reduces the issues with armies like IG air cav and Night Scythe spam and gives a lot of flavor to the armies fielded at the tournaments.

The Meta game is shifting right now. What better time to include even more possibilities?

**hyv3mynd**

How many unique units does FW offer to marines and IG?

How many unique units does FW offer to Tyranids?

My problem is opening up a new range that blatantly favors some armies and fully neglects others. (Assuming tournament context is non-super heavy, non-gargantuan FW units)

**MVBrandt**

FAQ's have been applied, which probably accounts for the sabre platforms having interceptor and skyfire.

Most players plan for generalities, and popular specifics. I.E., it is unwise not to consider if your list can tackle a fortuned harlie star now that they have a 2+ cover save almost always. It is unwise not to consider if your list can tackle an all flyer list a la Necrons. There are many examples, and they differ from "plan to handle tough units" and "plan to handle flyers." The existence of specific differences to certain combos (hit and run for harlies, ALL flyer for Necrons) overrides the basic generalities of being able to handle deathstars and flyers, and mandates that someone's army must be able to at least compete against a deathstar that is re-rollable 2+ saved and can break combat with tarpits, or an army with overwhelming flyer quantities.

There are SOME things in the FW arsenal of 40k-stamped units that have similar impact on the game, not necessarily to as dramatic a degree, but enough that a well-rounded list needs to make sure it has capabilities beyond the "standard for type" to tackle them.

I am not of the opinion that they UNBALANCE the game - I think they probably make things even more painful for Tyranids and a couple of other pigeonholed codices, especially in the AA department, but I don't think they cause the game to suddenly only have one or two power builds and thus be crappy.

They DO force changes on what a balanced army constitutes ... some peoples' balanced armies become more balanced by their inclusion, and some peoples' balanced armies become less balanced by no longer being as well prepared as they otherwise were.

Evaluating whether this is ideal - a change from the non-FW 6th edition to the FW 6th edition - is up to each TO, and is firmly an opinion. Some of us have an opinion on it (i.e. Reece), some of us don't or don't yet (i.e. Me).

Also, someone made a comment about FW rules being readily available online ... it's not a TO's right to consider illegal downloads when trying to evaluate the impact of their decisions on their attendees. So that's sorta pointless.

Long story short ... allowing FW for your tournament does a couple of things irrevocably -
1) Changes the meta (no comment here on "to what degree")
2) Adds some quantity of power units to the existing pool of power units (no comment on how many or how powerful)
3) Places a requirement on players who try to prepare to tackle any build to prepare further
4) Allows people to take a greater variety of units
5) Adds Forgeworld models that can actually be played with their rules and not just counts-as
6) Generates annoying forum threads

How these things all interact are what muddle through a TO's head when they make decisions. Again, another reason why it's best not to pressure or berate them for it ... we're not doing it to try and make friends or enemies, just trying to run good events.

Final note on 2) above - the # of power units that are added is a far more meaningful metric than the # of units in total. If there are around 200 units added by legalizing FW, who cares? Many of them are largley just a different version of the same old - combat units, shooty units, etc. The big change comes in the form of power units that people obviously want to take, and that can have meaningful impacts on the game through their combination of spammability and/or power for points. Also, some of them buck peoples' lists in ways that are hard to counter ... i.e., if a player was relying on melta to tackle heavy armor (a completely reasonable thing to do within the standard game), they could get "boned" by an Achilles or something. So, people will have to have in their minds and lists a better answer for heavy armor.

These little things can change the game dramatically ... but for me at least, I'm not yet sold on whether it's a good or bad change.

**Jackal**

My problem is opening up a new range that blatantly favors some armies and fully neglects others. (Assuming tournament context is non-super heavy, non-gargantuan FW units)

Im sorry, but have you been playing any 40k games?
Look at the space marine line, now look at any alien race.
See my point?
Marine units out number any alien army 5:1 with options.
FW is simply doing the same.

**nkelsch**

OverwatchCNC wrote: Something that is hard to accomplish given the availability, or lack there of, of FW in local metas.

Can we ban Tyranids then? I haven't seen someone play them in 4 years. They are always drastically under-represented in almost all formats... If the availability to practice and become a big-shot good player against a unit is what deems a unit meta-worthy of existing, then NIDS should be banned from every tourney int he US it seems (or at least until they get a new codex).

How are we even to know the lack of availability until units are available to use and then not used? I don't think I now anyone who plays this game and collects thousands of dollars of models who doesn't own FW units.

The thing is... people who practice are not going to be impacted by this. People who don't practice will get spanked by eldrad ally combos and new 6th edition META. It really does boil down to 'I dislike learning new things and I like being on top of the current meta and don't want to change.'

**OverwatchCNC**

hyv3mynd wrote:
How many unique units does FW offer to marines and IG?

How many unique units does FW offer to Tyranids?

My problem is opening up a new range that blatantly favors some armies and fully neglects others. (Assuming tournament context is non-super heavy, non-gargantuan FW units)

As best I could tell, and this is a low ball assessment.

IG (Army and Navy) get 67 Units

Space Marines (incl BA and SW) 33

Tyranids 5

edit* No Super heavy or Gargantuan Creatures included in the numbers.

**hyv3mynd**

OverwatchCNC wrote:
hyv3mynd wrote:
How many unique units does FW offer to marines and IG?

How many unique units does FW offer to Tyranids?

My problem is opening up a new range that blatantly favors some armies and fully neglects others. (Assuming tournament context is non-super heavy, non-gargantuan FW units)

As best I could tell, and this is a low ball assessment.

IG (Army and Navy) get 67 Units

Space Marines (incl BA and SW) 33

Tyranids 5

edit* No Super heavy or Gargantuan Creatures included in the numbers.

So what happens when you add a new model range to the tournament scene that offers 90+ units to loyalist and their battle brother allies while xenos players get 5-10 options?

Pretty soon all you'll see in tournaments is SM+IG vs IG+SM. There will be little to no incentive to playing xenos. 40k will cease to be a galaxy at war and it will become Imperial Civil War 40k.

Xenos in general got screwed out of battle brother allies compared to the cherished MEQ.Tyranids can't take allies or use fortification weapons. Why would you want to introduce changes to the tournament scene that create further imbalances and further shift the player base away from xenos?