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.

Good blog post man. It's getting harder and harder to not feel like you "buy your wins" in competitive 40k. I think FW stuff just widens that gap between players. The new edition and all the FW stuff keeps reminding me of this picture I saw right when I got back into the hobby with my wife about 10 years ago:



I guess it's always been that way, you just only notice when you are short on cash...

EDIT: If players feel priced out of a tournament by FW units that are at least perceived as better will attendance go down?

Tyranids obviously don't need any help. That's why they don't have any allies.

I'm for FW models personally. I think for one, they are much better made and more interesting to look at. Compare a FW broadside to a gw one, there is no comparison.
I think the rules for FW models are sometimes imbalanced. This I think is a direct result of them not often being used in tournaments, so not getting a lot of feedback for the same. This doesnt matter though, because there are much MORE imbalanced things in the normal codexes. I'm going to stand on my normal soapbox here and just shout the phrase "REROLLABLE 2 UP INVULNERABLES SUCKS!" ad nauseum. I would much rather face an army of those guard drills and sabre mounts than an archon that has a not insignificant chance of taking every shot you can throw at him for the whole game and ignoring all of them. likely? no, but way more likely than I want. Hell I've had vect take 30 shots before going down without it being rerollable!
Arguments against it for it being too complicated to get the rules can be answered in one easy move. Just allow the 40k OK units that they have in the FAQ's! That cuts down on the number of overpowered units, and makes a globally accessible set of rules that are just as easy to get as going up and looking up erratas.
I do not feel that the argument about it overcomplicating the game is valid. This is not an easy game, and those of us that play it religiously dont want it to be, furthermore I do not feel adding more units to it somehow makes it impossible for good players to adapt. of all the arguments against I think this is just a reactionary "I fear what i dont understand right now" argument, which will never work for me. Variety is great, and my argument for is just simply the opposite. "people dont understand how to work with the models right now and that's bad" changes to "people dont understand how to work with the models right now and that's good"
As to the money concerns, well hell.. I dont think this game is cheap enough when you buy it from any company, its plastic toys that cost a hundred dollars sometimes, and thats just silly. I don't think the forgeworld stuff is any more Silly, just a different brand of silly. take the broadside for example, I think I pay 40 bucks for a GW broadside, and 45 for a FW broadside that just looks so much better I wish i had bought all of them that way. The same argument could be made against allowing flyers into armies, after all they're new and nobody had them already and they cost a lot of money and not everyone knows how they work, but I know a certain OP who runs an airforce of the things.
Put me on the side of let them in, I'll adapt and maybe we'll eventually say those guard drills are way too OP... but I'm going to insist archons stop rerolling 2 ups first, and then I'm going to go down reecius' list of op things and agree with most of those before I start knocking on FW models too.

At least they look interesting while they kill you unlike 3/4's of those ugly looking flyers.

 hyv3mynd wrote:

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?

I think the opposite is true.

How much more can SM+IG actually need with their entirely robust and redundant unit choices in their actual codex? Sure, 90 more units, but they already aren't using most of the their individual codicies since they already have their most economical units. Forge World Imperial units would have to be completely absurd to change that (and they aren't).

On the other hand, for example, Codex Eldar is complete trash. Many FW Eldar units actually fill holes in the existing army (though usually with the 25% points increase Eldar tax, but at least it's something). Eldar can actually compete with the mid-tier armies with FW units/armies.

This again?
AdeptiCon has allowed FW units (with restrictions) for the better part of 8+ years. I think that speaks for itself.

While I understand the argument against allowing Forgeworld models. I think a case can be made that the nature of 6th edition has significantly addressed or reduced it.

So I respectfully disagree and think the advantages/benefits of allowing Forgeworld at our hobby events outweigh the negative.

Most everyone knows I am not a fan of Forge World and I wrote in my blog why.

I do know that Skipper is an exception to the rule where the people who do not like FW will stay home from a tournement that allows it, but those who like FW will still go to a tournament that does not have it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

muwhe wrote:
This again?
AdeptiCon has allowed FW units (with restrictions) for the better part of 8+ years. I think that speaks for itself.

While I understand the argument against allowing Forgeworld models. I think a case can be made that the nature of 6th edition has significantly addressed or reduced it.

So I respectfully disagree and think the advantages/benefits of allowing Forgeworld at our hobby events outweigh the negative.

Well you do not have it at your Adepticon Championships, but it is in the team tournament with limitations, and the Gladiator has always had full FW (and trial rules and anything else you can dig up, heck, one year I played against a player that brought 2 warhound titans!) but the Gladiator has always been more of a mini-apocalypse tournament than a 40k tournament.

Chicago always had more acceptance of Forge World than other parts of the country and I believe in part due to the GW Bunker selling forge world up until a few years ago.
.

Opening the floodgates to all units and all armies seems like DKOK will further unbalance the meta. Giving armies access to fliers or AA that don't currently have access would actually help balance the meta

Units that would probably help the game include
Eldar Nightwings
Eldar Firestorm
Tau Barracuda
Tau Remora

It would also give access to fliers for SW, BT, and DA.

Other chapter approved units are like nothing in a regular codex. Example blight drones are now 12/11/10 BS2 HP2 fliers with a hover mode with a main gun that is 8/3 large pie. In a heavy MEQ meta the introduction of fliers flinging 8/3 pies will defiantly stir up the meta.

And some forge world armies can get really crazy. DKOK is the poster child. 9 earth shaker cannons with 72 wounds at T7 and 9 heavy mortars (6/4 large pie Twin linked) with 48 wounds at T7 behind an aegis is 1125 points. That's also single force org 3 HS 3 elites.

 Jackal wrote:

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.

The GK codex has 37 unique units.
The Tyranid Codex has 32 unique units.

Hardly the same ratio of loyalist:xenos offerings from FW.

We all know GW doesn't claim to be balanced for the competitive scene. That's why TO's design their own missions; to help balance the strengths and weaknesses or certain armies and builds. That's why the NOVA made flyers non-scoring towards table quarters. That's why the BAO format includes multiple scoring methods. So when you face 9 flyers or a vp denial list like draigowing, you have options to avoid the auto-loss.

It's the same reason some tournaments use comp. Whatever the TO says, it's balance related. Encouraging diversity by reducing spam attempts to create balance by forbidding people from bringing 3/6 of the same best choice.

Tournaments strive to crown a winner based on skill and many tournaments have their own format/missions/comp to attempt to equalize the field. 6th ed made this a much more difficult task by allowing nearly every loyalist army to ally with other loyalists, while xenos armies have 1-2 ally options at best. Loyalists can also bring 3 HQ's, 4 elites, and 4 heavies with the new ally matrix while they decided one xenos codex could never ally and is stuck with 2/3/3 of the same options.

Does a SW+IG player with 70 combined unit selection options who beats a tyranid player with 32 codex options have more skill or more options? Add FW to that mix and the SW+IG player can choose from 100+ unique units to tyranids 37 codex+FW.

Is that the direction you want tournaments to go?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 DarknessEternal wrote:

 hyv3mynd wrote:

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?

I think the opposite is true.

How much more can SM+IG actually need with their entirely robust and redundant unit choices in their actual codex? Sure, 90 more units, but they already aren't using most of the their individual codicies since they already have their most economical units. Forge World Imperial units would have to be completely absurd to change that (and they aren't).

On the other hand, for example, Codex Eldar is complete trash. Many FW Eldar units actually fill holes in the existing army (though usually with the 25% points increase Eldar tax, but at least it's something). Eldar can actually compete with the mid-tier armies with FW units/armies.

There's a lot of people who would disagree with that statement. I'm looking at you Reece. Also, #1 Best General at the 2011 ATC (70 players inlcuding USA's entire 2011 ETC team) was an Eldar player.

hyv3mynd wrote:

Is that the direction you want tournaments to go?

They already did when they made allies part of the core game and made a fluff-based ally matrix which neglected most xenos. They blew the doors off the balance barn with allies to the point that the FW addition actually means very little as quantity of 'options' doesn't equate to 'quality' and most imperial codexes already equipped to plug any and every hole with allies isn't getting anything out of the 70+ FW units where a codex with no allies or no battle brothers is actually getting something out of those 5-10 FW units.

I'm for FW in tournaments for the sole reason that while every point you bring up is correct, allies and 6th edition randomness in general screwed up more things then FW units ever could. I know several people that own them and would like to use them, so i think at this point they should be allowed. Yes, this is basically throwing my arms up in the air and say well it can't make things worse. However I think the look, character, and style FW units bring to the table outweigh the potential balance issues.

That being said, my biggest fear is GW will be GW. "Oh you Americans deem FW legal now? Well how bout we put more uber points effective models out there since we know you'll pay for them to be competitive"

We've been using FW for years and to us it is honestly a silly argument at this point.

I understand the counter arguments but I find they are all based on fear of the unknown.

Here's my response on C&C's blog as I don't want to rehash it all:

I enjoyed reading your counter point.

My issue though is that money isn't a good basis for arguing against FW. A good IG army in 5th cost FAR, FAR more than any other army. A good Grey Knight army was crazy cheap. Should we ban the one because it is cost prohibitive or the other because it is too cheap and like to flood the field? Of course not.

Secondly, I have never, ever seen a player bring every codex to a tournament. Not once. No one has a complete, encyclopedic knowledge of the game either, and as such, don't carry complete understanding of every army with them. Also, I would be willing to bet that 99% of gamers don't own every codex. Most own only those they play.

And do you need to have every FW book? No, only the IA books that summarize the majority of units. Those are very reasonably priced. Also, there are always PDFs. I don't condone theft of IP, but let's be real, people download these things left and right. They are easily found on the net.

Saying people don't know the rules and therefore these shouldn't be allowed is an argument that perpetuates the problem. The only way to get used to this stuff is to play against it. The only way to do that is to allow it into the game.

And yes, they do bring a LOT of new units to the game. AWESOME! When you play in as many tournaments as we do, you get sick of seeing the same lists over and over. Marines and IG are by far the most common armies, give them more variety and it won't be so repetitive playing them.

It also brings a lot of power increases to Xenos races that really need it.

I understand the counter arguments, I just think they are rooted in fear and a lack of knowledge. When people get used to FW, they won't want to go back, I will put money on that.

Thanks for the input though, I appreciate your point of view and there are no hard feelings at all.

I've been watching the FW issue closely. While the final word remains to be seen, but for now, in my events it's going to stay out.

It boils down to two things.

1. 6th doesn't need it. Including FW seems a bit like a knee-jerk intended to 'fix' things. I have not yet seen anything that tells me the game needs any kind of help. Sure, Cron Air is rough, but I've seen it lose plenty (without Sabres), and it's no different than GK dominating for a while at the end of fifth, or during leafblower's fifteen minutes, or Space Wolves Long Fang spam, or <insert thing that was really good for a while here>. We weren't calling for the inclusion of FW at those times and rationalizing it, in part, with claims that it fixed the balance of power in those cases, why now? I run the game pretty much out of the book at my events, and I haven't had a hitch yet with attendance close to 80 over three events in twelve weeks.

and, potentially more important:

2. Attendance. I think those who have come to my events would mostly agree that I run a pretty good show, and while opinions differ on things like mission organization and such, I've had some great success, despite the general gnashing of teeth out there. And as far as I'm concerned, a bigger event equals more fun, for everyone involved. I get to see more different, cool looking armies, and players get a variety of interesting challenges throughout the day. I'm leery of anything that is going to reduce the number of players who might come to my event. No matter how cool FW is, or how 'no big deal' it really is as far as gameplay and balance is concerned, the fact remains that there are a lot of guys who are going to be reluctant to commit their increasingly precious and limited hobby time to an event they have reservations about, unfounded or no. I'm in Blackmoor's camp here: Guys are not very likely to skip an event solely because FW is disallowed, while there is a very real possibility that at least some will skip an event where it is allowed. It won't matter how many times they read on the internet that FW is ok / not an issue / dissolves easily into the meta / no big deal / whatever, they're going to be reluctant to commit to an event because of it.

We'll be doing another one of our events at Game Empire on October 13, if anyone wants to come try it out! Probably 1750 points this time though.

Reecius, characterizing the counter argument as "rooted in fear and lack of knowledge" is belittling to TOs such as MVBrandt who disagree with you.

I'm ALL FOR limited FW at events, a la Adepticon and Nova.

I am against blanket "have at it" in a normal championship tourney. If you want to do an Adepticon Gladiator type, that's fine. But putting unlimited FW in the normal championship is a bad idea, for all the reasons eloquently expressed- Not "rooted in fear and lack of knowledge".

Again, MVBrandt, Blackmoor, etc all show that characterization is simply wrong, no other way to put it.

Instead of hyperbole, how about a compromise like the Adepticon model- a great event that has it both ways? Limited FW in some events, an all-out FW event in the Gladiator, and championship without FW. Even limited FW in championship may be OK. There is a compromise to be had here- why can't you see it?

 Dok wrote:
Tyranids obviously don't need any help. That's why they don't have any allies.

LOL!! Nids are the Wood Elves of the 40k universe...

Also, I am not afraid of FW units nor do I lack a knowledge of them. I simply do not think they necessarily have a place in regular 40k games.Also, I hardly see how monetary or availability issues are rooted in fear and lack of knowledge.

Primarily, I would love to use a Wraith Seer and various other Eldar FW units but I can't afford them and even if I could, I would not necessarily be able to use them with the impunity that I can as with my codex units. If they were in my codex and official units, I would feel better about using them.

Indeed, something that makes FW seem "not right" is that it is not actually GW official. That kind of makes me feel like its not real 40k if we have FW but more of an off shoot of it. The whole argument of "we are playing with allies and extra force org charts BECAUSE it is in the rulebook" should also be "we are not using FW because they are not in the main rulebook or 40k official."

If you want to make a 40k tournament, stick to the 40k rulebook and official 40k units IMO.

Ok, so let's accept the premise that adding FW makes things too complicated. It's unfair to expect people to buy more rules (even though the vast majority of players already pirate most of the codices they don't play), it's unfair to expect people to spend more time learning about and playtesting against all those new units, etc. Now where do you draw the line?

Should tournaments ban all pre-5th edition armies because few people play them and it's probably hard to find a Tau player to do thorough playtesting against?

Should tournaments ban the entire SoB army because you can't buy the rules from GW anymore?

Should tournaments ban all models over $50?

Should tournaments ban everything except C:SM? After all, it's not fair to expect people to buy all those other codices to learn about them when you can just limit things to a single shared codex that everyone has access to.

Why not even go all the way, and make everyone play the same space marine list? You could even require that it be the one from the current starter set just to make things even more cheap and accessible.

If you don't like these things, how do you justify drawing the line at one GW product (FW) but not others? Why does it suddenly become an unfair burden when FW units are allowed but not when non-C:SM units are allowed? And why is it unfair to non-FW players when FW players bring units the non-FW player can't afford, but not unfair to force FW players to buy an entire second army if they want to play in tournaments? And let's not ignore the importance of that last part, I absolutely refuse to attend any tournament which does not allow ALL GW products, including FW, WD rules, etc.

 hyv3mynd wrote:
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?

Very little actually. What you have to consider is that many of those 90+ units simply aren't top-tier units compared to what's already available from the codex lists. For example, giving IG the ability to take Trojans or Sentinel powerlifters (two fluff-focused units which are garbage in anything but a special scenario game) changes nothing because no IG player is ever going to take them. Even giving IG stuff like the Thunderbolt isn't going to make much impact because, while it's a decent unit, it's still probably worse than just bringing more Vendettas. End result: of that 90+ units only some of them can even attempt to compete with the existing strong and well-rounded codex choices, and only a very small fraction are going to have any meaningful impact on competitive lists.

The xenos options, while fewer in total numbers, tend to have a much higher impact on the game. Whether or not it's because xenos books are out of date, the simple fact is that FW's xenos stuff tends to have a similar number of "I'd take one of those" units compared to the Imperial stuff, they just don't get all the weak fluff units to go with their top-tier options. So while an Eldar or Tau player might not have the "option" to take 90+ units, they do have the option to take 5-10 things that can make a difference in their army.

 DarknessEternal wrote:

On the other hand, for example, Codex Eldar is complete trash. Many FW Eldar units actually fill holes in the existing army (though usually with the 25% points increase Eldar tax, but at least it's something). Eldar can actually compete with the mid-tier armies with FW units/armies.

You know I came in 2nd at Comikazi Con with Eldar right? (No Forge World). I am an eldar player I am against FW. I can use the units that I have in the codex, allies, and tactics to plug that gaps that you think they need FW for.


I also find it funny that so far the 2 best units out there seem to be the Hades Breaching Drill and Sabre Defense Platforms...both IG!!!

So if you are battle brothers with IG you are in great shape...Xenos, you are screwed.

 Blackmoor wrote:
I also find it funny that so far the 2 best units out there seem to be the Hades Breaching Drill

TBH I'm kind of tired of hearing this. I play IG and I regularly use 1-3 drills, and they're not overpowered at all. It's very easy to look at the best-case scenario where it arrives and kills a bunch of stuff, but people always seem to forget the many times where it scatters and does nothing but keep a 100+ point veteran squad off the table for 2-3 turns and then drop them in a suicidal position where they die to bolter fire next turn. Or the times where they're able to block the hole and keep that 100+ point unit off the table forever. Or even the times where you pay 50 points to kill about 50 points worth of infantry when it arrives.

I also think that with the new chaos codex coming in at close to $50, we can finally stop using the expense of forgeworld as an excuse for its exclusion. In many cases now, its actually cheaper to buy the FW equivalents than the regular GW models.

And I also don't get how including FW all of a sudden makes the tournament "not 40k". I don't think there are any tournaments that can claim to actually be "40k". They're all heavily FAQ'd using INAT or NOVA, they introduce wonky missions, they exclude parts of the core rules (last editions KPs), etc. all in the name of "balance". They end up being the TOs version of how the TO thinks 40k should be, with a smattering of 'seeking community input' to keep it kosher.

 Cruentus wrote:

And I also don't get how including FW all of a sudden makes the tournament "not 40k". I don't think there are any tournaments that can claim to actually be "40k". They're all heavily FAQ'd using INAT or NOVA, they introduce wonky missions, they exclude parts of the core rules (last editions KPs), etc. all in the name of "balance". They end up being the TOs version of how the TO thinks 40k should be, with a smattering of 'seeking community input' to keep it kosher.

The fact that the forgeworld units are officially unofficial means that they are not regular 40k...Using FAQs to address confusing issues that are unclear in the actual rulebook is not even comparable. its one thing to try and clarify how the game is supposed to be played according to the rulebook and quite another to suggest that players should use units that are not in their official codex nor are sanctioned by the creating company for official 40k games.

Another valid point that others brought up was how the amount of units available for imperial armies is disproportionately larger than that for the xenos armies.

lastly, it is an assumption that no tournaments are "40k" as they are heavily FAQd. I frequent several tournaments where the only rules are the 40k rulebook and official GW faqs... it doesn't get any more 40k than that =/.

The simple truth of this argument is this: We aren't going to do something that will make our events a financial liability. If we do, we go under and can't run any more events.

We asked our attendees and this year had a 90% positive response to Forgeworld.

Last year it was only 50/50.

So we went forward with it. At Comikaze the vast majority of people we talked to were happy to have it there.

So we continue to go forward with it.

If you do not like FW in events, that is fine. If you choose not to come because of that, that is your choice as a gamer, but it is a bit of cutting off your nose to spite your face.

If you think you can run a better, more enjoyable event without Forgeworld, then go for it.

Me saying that opposition to FW is based in fear and a lack of knowledge is neither hyperbole or intended as an insult, it is my honest opinion. Those who play with FW on a regular basis that I have spoken to and aren't just speculating on what it is like, almost universally think it is no big deal. Not everyone who is against FW lacks knowledge of it, but they do fear it or vice versa. They fear it will upset the game, lower their attendance figures, etc. It is a decision based in fear. Fear of what may happen. Like I said, not an insult, just my opinion.

Could we run multiple events at our tournaments with FW and without? Yeah, but that is dramatically increasing our workload, and splitting our player base. We'd rather just have one event, with everyone playing in it and having fun. No reason to create more work for no reason and further perpetuate this division.

So there you have it. I have a ton of emails form people excited to buy FW goodies and bring them to our events. A lot of people are for it or neutral. We are excited for how much this opens up the game and to see what cool things come as a result!

If anyone else wants to run their events in a different way, by all means, go for it! Variety is the spice of life after all, and we understand that not everyone enjoys the game the same way.

We at Frtonline honestly don't even see this is a big deal. From our perspective it feels like making a mountain out of a molehill, but we also understand that is just our perspective and not everyone sees it that way.

 mortetvie wrote:
The fact that the forgeworld units are officially unofficial means that they are not regular 40k...

Except they aren't. All of the recent FW books clearly state that, other than the specifically marked Apocalypse stuff (superheavies, etc), all of their units are 100% official and intended for use in standard games of 40k. There's a token note about informing your opponent about your FW units before the game (mostly as a way of saying "some people irrationally hate FW, so you should identify them early and not play against them"), but that's covered by the fact that a tournament's rules would clearly state that FW rules are allowed.

and quite another to suggest that players should use units that are not in their official codex nor are sanctioned by the creating company for official 40k games.

Which is why tournaments should not include third-party rules like fan codices. However, since FW is part of GW and produces official GW products (complete with clearly given sanction as official) this is not a problem.

Another valid point that others brought up was how the amount of units available for imperial armies is disproportionately larger than that for the xenos armies.

A point which has been brought up and addressed. Imperial armies get more units in total, but many of them are either fluff-focused units that you'd only use in a special scenario (for example, a Sentinel with no gun) and many of the rest are clearly lower-tier units that won't have much of an impact on competitive tournaments. The xenos armies, on the other hand, tend to get fewer units but a higher proportion of them are things you'd actually use in a competitive list. The end result is that the gap in options, if it exists at all, is much narrower than the raw unit numbers suggest.

 Reecius wrote:

Not everyone who is against FW lacks knowledge of it, but they do fear it or vice versa. They fear it will upset the game, lower their attendance figures, etc. It is a decision based in fear. Fear of what may happen. Like I said, not an insult, just my opinion.

It is one thing to say something is your opinion and quite another to assert something as a fact-like when you make the above assertion. Its not ONLY because of a lack of knowledge or fear or combination of those.

I am familiar with a lot of FW and I am not afraid of anything FW. I think that FW units can easily be played around. To me, it is a personal preference thing as if something is not an official addition to a codex or officially in a codex I don't feel right using it. That is maybe my OCD but it definitely isn't fear or lack of knowledge. Maybe it's because I am studying law and like things to be neat and tidy and official, I dunno. =)

Sabre platforms combined with heavy artillery, IMO, breaks the game. I don't know of an army that can withstand 6 S9 AP3 ordinance barrage large blasts AND 30 TL S7 AP4 skyfire interceptor shots easily. That's basically sticking 6 basilisks and 6 dreads on the table in terms of fire power (BS3 vs BS4 makes the difference for those wondering why 6). Using normal codex rules, such fire power would cost 1500 points and consequently neuter your list as you've got no points for troops/HQ. With FW rules, it would cost 1050, which is exactly 70% of the cost. On top of that, it's all T7 compared to AV12. T7 cannot be killed in one shot. It doesn't care about your AP1 or your melta - it just sits there and shoots you. So, you end up with 15 T7 W2 3+ scoring units, for a total of 30 T7 3+ scoring wounds (already more than any other army can muster) and THEN you get 42 wounds worth of artillery to crack. That's 72 T7 wounds, more heavy fire power than any other army and it's just over half a list. 72 wounds is more than most armies have, let alone at T7. So, shooting them with traditional weapons is an exercise in futility - a group of sabre platforms needs to be shot with 11 lascannons/13 missiles to die on average if they have no cover (with cover it's more like 20) and they have 5 platforms. So, we need to either have poison/sniper weapons with low AP (none exist in large enough quantities) or we need to assault them. To reliably get into assault (read: not get shot to death by 15 autocannons and 6 large blasts), we need a way to protect them. Outflanking and Deep Striking are totally out - 15 interceptor autocannons will shred all but the toughest units, plus as you can't assault off either, expect to take those pie plates to the face as well. So, what do you do? Even assuming you can get there, the crew is only IG. Essentially, you'll kill one unit in assault, then the rest kill you next turn as you're not locked in combat as IG is so frail. On top of that, the IG player could easily bubble wrap their stuff, which, in the case of the cannons will be hidden behind LOS blocking terrain. Flyers die, thanks to skyfire. Ground units explode, thanks to ordinance barrage. Everything else needs to push against the hordes of men that fill up the rest of the army.

It's just stupid. Before FWs new updates, I'd say go for it. Now? They've just released an unplayable mess of a book and horribly broken heavy artillery. I have no confidence in their ability to write rules any more. The worst bit is I think all stuff not in Aeronautica/with experimental rules is fine. I mean, I used to play against it in 5th all the time, it wasn't a huge problem. Having played against the army I just described, it's totally demoralised me. The rest of his army was just normal foot guard essentially, nothing fancy. Hell, you could make it worse again with Eldar allies as you could shut down all psychic powers AND gain access to their new 2+ cover flyer/the Warp Hunter. I'll change my opinion if someone posts a way to beat a list with this as its foundation. Until then, I never want to see that stuff at tournaments, which is a shame as it really buffs Tau/Orks.

 Reecius wrote:
We at Frtonline honestly don't even see this is a big deal. From our perspective it feels like making a mountain out of a molehill, but we also understand that is just our perspective and not everyone sees it that way.

I appreciate your saying that. Variety is indeed good, and it's great that you're having success with this.

However, you often state this as if it's black and white, not accounting for the fact that in your meta, maybe it truly is no big deal.

But to continue to insinuate (or rather, openly state) that you think anyone who disagrees with you does so out of lack of experience or fear is extremely disappointing language to use. Blackmoor placed highly at the very event you reference running, and is against it.

Janthkin, a mod on this site, is against it and helped run the Gladiator at Adepticon this past year.

Your premise on that count is simply wrong, and your case would be much stronger without it. Saying "FW works great with full inclusion in the events that we run" is fine. Saying anyone who disagrees with you is either inexperienced or afraid is simply not, and detracts from what would otherwise be a very persuasive position.

I would love to try out more FW in events, on a limited basis. Being pressured to do so because someone, even with experience, vouches "It's no big deal / it's a non-issue", turns me off to it, however. I'd much rather hear specifically why it was good for you guys- than the fact that you think anyone who doesn't think it's good is afraid or inexperienced. I'm harping on that language because you stood by it in your last post, ignoring the fact that posters who are very experienced, playing against and running events allowing FW, disagree with you about the full, no restrictions, inclusion in regular tournaments.

I underline this last part because I think it is the key issue. Imo, by overstating your case you weaken it. Lots of us would like to see more FW. However, MANY of us are not ready to fully swallow that full FW inclusion will cause no problems. Baby steps, right? If you want this to advance, again I think you'd do better highlighting specifically (not generally) why it has worked well for you (not simply, "It's just a non-issue", but why) and not belittle or pressure those who disagree with you by making assumptions that are simply incorrect.

As I said before- there IS ground for compromise here, and tons of events are doing it. It's not nearly as black and white an issue as you are making it. With your writing off the opposing argument, you're drawing a line in the sand that doesn't need to be there. Honestly addressing the concerns people have about FW would go a lot further to easing people's minds about it, and helping it gain more widespread acceptance, since that's clearly something you would like to see.

I think the 'people don't know the rules' or 'its too expensive or unreasonable' defences are very weak.

Primarily, there are many units in the game that people don't have a chance to play against ever, because they are either rare or dysfunctional. I've never seen a Tau player field Vespids or an IG player field a Deathstrike. I've never played against Black Templars. I've never seen a Sisters of Battle player. In fact, it is probably easier to get hold of the forge world rules than to get the Sisters of Battle rules now.
Given the huge amount of variety in this game, it is easy to come up with *lists* that people have never seen before, even from the common codices. Is that a reason to ban those lists or codices, just because they're uncommon?

As for a shift in the meta, that is a dubious claim IMHO. To have such a shift, the units on offer need to be significantly different and more powerful than what is on offer in their codex already. For example, you say that IG get potentially +60 more units on top of their ~40 already. But half of those 40 they have are uncompetitive, a quarter of the FW 60 are just alternative turrets or whatever for Russ' and another quarter are fluff units like Lifter sentinels or fuel trailers or what have you. With the units you have let that are actually game-worthy, most are outclassed by their codex equivalents or similar enough that most people won't notice the difference. They still follow the rules for normal units and as such a 'take-all-comers' list should have the ability to deal with those threats.

Finally, in terms of a meta shift: Allies have already done this far worse than addition of any FW stuff could. FW stuff at least tends to follow the theme and existing rules for the army. Forge World eldar tanks are still eldar tanks. But throw allies into the mix and suddenly you have close-combat-heavy tau or accurate highly shooty orcs. That, in my opinion, is far more difficult for people to work out how to deal with than adding another Leman Russ variant.

RE: the heavy artillery issue:

One thing that I don't see mentioned is the fact that this is probably a temporary issue. Those heavy artillery guns used to be immobile. As in, you can't move them, and you can't even pivot them to aim at new targets. With the extremely narrow firing arc the model offers (maybe 15* of pivot) you pretty much had to put them down aimed at a single point on the table and hope your opponent didn't just move out of that spot. The problem is that GW screwed up the artillery rules and made them just ordinary infantry, allowing the big guns to ignore that firing arc restriction and shoot in a 360* arc. Hopefully FW will correct this problem eventually and they'll go back to being a niche unit that most lists don't want to take.

In short: the heavy artillery update is frustrating, but it's not really representative of FW as a whole, and it probably won't last forever.

 mortetvie wrote:
To me, it is a personal preference thing as if something is not an official addition to a codex or officially in a codex I don't feel right using it. That is maybe my OCD but it definitely isn't fear or lack of knowledge. Maybe it's because I am studying law and like things to be neat and tidy and official, I dunno. =)

It is lack of knowledge, because everything FW publishes is 100% official and they've clearly stated that all of their non-Apocalypse rules are intended for use in standard games of 40k. A FW unit that says "X is a Y FOC choice in army Z" is just as much of an official codex addition as a WD unit that says the same thing.

 Peregrine wrote:

 mortetvie wrote:
To me, it is a personal preference thing as if something is not an official addition to a codex or officially in a codex I don't feel right using it. That is maybe my OCD but it definitely isn't fear or lack of knowledge. Maybe it's because I am studying law and like things to be neat and tidy and official, I dunno. =)

It is lack of knowledge, because everything FW publishes is 100% official and they've clearly stated that all of their non-Apocalypse rules are intended for use in standard games of 40k. A FW unit that says "X is a Y FOC choice in army Z" is just as much of an official codex addition as a WD unit that says the same thing.

Doesn't a lack of knowledge need just that... a lack of knowledge? I KNOW what FW units do, I know about them, that is not a lack of knowledge. It is a matter of preference.

The units are NOT officially sanctioned for 40k play as you suggest in the same way codex or WD amendments like the Night Spinner. Otherwise, nobody could have a basis for objecting to the use of forge world.

 Cruentus wrote:
I also think that with the new chaos codex coming in at close to $50, we can finally stop using the expense of forgeworld as an excuse for its exclusion. In many cases now, its actually cheaper to buy the FW equivalents than the regular GW models.

And I also don't get how including FW all of a sudden makes the tournament "not 40k". I don't think there are any tournaments that can claim to actually be "40k". They're all heavily FAQ'd using INAT or NOVA, they introduce wonky missions, they exclude parts of the core rules (last editions KPs), etc. all in the name of "balance". They end up being the TOs version of how the TO thinks 40k should be, with a smattering of 'seeking community input' to keep it kosher.

I have this nice banquet hall that I use to run my larger tournaments.

I know much time, effort, and logistics to run a large event so no one can pull the rug over my eyes. I've been there. I done it. And it was successful.

I used this hall for many years. Had access to a full bar and dinner menu. There was a time that you could have fun and still be as competitive in a tournament style format. But over the years people that were into the "GT" scene started to change. I got completely disgusted on just how "far" people will do for the sake of winning. In my eyes, The "Spirit of the Game" went by the wayside and was replaced by "To Win at All Cost mentality. This is a big world and I know that there are excellent players that don't have that attitude, but in my case the large venue Tournament scene has soured me to the point of not running larger events anymore. I only run smaller venues now because of the friendliness of the game and the people who are in it.

This line of thought of FW models, Rules sets and other aspects of thought continues as we argue on what is good or what is not for a tournament. It is a polarized position that I see that there will be no end in site.

To me the fact is that the hobby in general is dying. And one of the Key contributors is cost.

If people are being turned away from the hobby because of the increased cost to play in general, why should they bother going to a tournament? This goes for newer players trying to get more into the hobby. Why should they be penalized if they do not have the financial resources to have the information to compete with an army that uses FW models or get FW models of their own in order to compete?

These are key issues why I do not allow FW models in my past tournaments and every year I re-evaluate this position if it as viable option or not

Every tournament will be ran according to the Meta of their sphere of their influence. If FW works in your area then that is just as important as some other tournament that does not allow FW Models. They are both Right as it fits their meta in their sphere of influence.

But don't try to dictate to others on how they should or should not allow things in any tournament scene.

For you will get opposition and lots of it.

 mortetvie wrote:
Doesn't a lack of knowledge need just that... a lack of knowledge? I KNOW what FW units do, I know about them, that is not a lack of knowledge. It is a matter of preference.

It is lack of knowledge because you apparently don't know that GW has stated multiple times that FW units are 100% official and intended for use in standard 40k.

The units are NOT officially sanctioned for 40k play as you suggest in the same way codex or WD amendments like the Night Spinner. Otherwise, nobody could have a basis for objecting to the use of forge world.

They are sanctioned in the exact same way, people either don't know (and just repeat "FW is unofficial" because that's what they've heard) or don't like it.

And since when did people need a "legal" reason for objecting to the use of something? Does the trend of "1999+1" tournaments mean that GW didn't officially sanction the use of two FOCs in games of 2000 points or more?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Adam LongWalker wrote:
Why should they be penalized if they do not have the financial resources to have the information to compete with an army that uses FW models or get FW models of their own in order to compete?

Why should I be penalized if I don't have the financial resources to buy a Vendetta or 99999 Necron flyers? Why should I be penalized if I don't have the resources to buy any codex except my own? Should we limit tournaments to the starter set models and rules because that's the cheapest way to play the game? If not, why should we allow some expensive elements of the game but not others?

And what about the players who bought armies that use FW units? Why should they be penalized and kept out of tournaments because they don't have the financial resources (or time and interest in building/painting) to build an entire second tournament army?

 Peregrine wrote:

 mortetvie wrote:
To me, it is a personal preference thing as if something is not an official addition to a codex or officially in a codex I don't feel right using it. That is maybe my OCD but it definitely isn't fear or lack of knowledge. Maybe it's because I am studying law and like things to be neat and tidy and official, I dunno. =)

It is lack of knowledge, because everything FW publishes is 100% official and they've clearly stated that all of their non-Apocalypse rules are intended for use in standard games of 40k. A FW unit that says "X is a Y FOC choice in army Z" is just as much of an official codex addition as a WD unit that says the same thing.

So who makes warhammer 40k? (It’s a rhetorical question) The answer is Games Workshop, not Forge World. So why have they never said that it is official just like all the rumors that said that they were a few months ago?

Again, it is not official until the Games Workshop part of Games Workshop makes it so.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Blackmoor wrote:
I also find it funny that so far the 2 best units out there seem to be the Hades Breaching Drill

TBH I'm kind of tired of hearing this. I play IG and I regularly use 1-3 drills, and they're not overpowered at all. It's very easy to look at the best-case scenario where it arrives and kills a bunch of stuff, but people always seem to forget the many times where it scatters and does nothing but keep a 100+ point veteran squad off the table for 2-3 turns and then drop them in a suicidal position where they die to bolter fire next turn. Or the times where they're able to block the hole and keep that 100+ point unit off the table forever. Or even the times where you pay 50 points to kill about 50 points worth of infantry when it arrives.

They are so bad that you always take 1-3 of them? If they are as bad as you are claiming do you always take 1-3 bad units? Do you take1-3 Ogryns? How about Rough Riders? I could go on but you get the point. If they were bad you would not always be taking them. Yes sometimes they do nothing, just like every unit in 40k. but that does not mean that they are a bad unit.