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.

**Dozer Blades**

I find it somewhat ironic the guy who won the la gt spammed a cheap uber powerful broken unit. That is what will happen... Just like anything else. FW does not solve anything - it just creates more problems. I think it only works for highly specialized tournaments run by gaming vets.

**Peregrine**

Dozer Blades wrote:
I find it somewhat ironic the guy who won the la gt spammed a cheap uber powerful broken unit. That is what will happen... Just like anything else. FW does not solve anything - it just creates more problems. I think it only works for highly specialized tournaments run by gaming vets.

So how is that different from all of the other tournaments where FW was banned and the tournament was won by some guy who spammed a cheap uber powerful broken unit?

**Eyjio**

Kaldor wrote:

That's not what the discussion should be about though. The discussion should be about whether or not Imperial Armour units do things to the game that the regular codex units do not.

Are they harder to find out about, and memorise the rules for? No.

Are they more imbalanced than units found in codexes? No.

Do they more of an advantage to certain factions than the codexes? No.

So what reason could you use to ban them that wouldn't also result in the banning of certain codexes, or units from codexes?

Now, before I take this apart, I want to say that I agree accessibility is not an acceptable excuse. This is an expensive hobby with obscure units. Almost everyone in my area plays with Forge World and you get to know most of the rules quickly, as with any other unit in the game. This isn't an issue and if we hadn't been so against FW in the first place, it wouldn't be an issue at all.

That said, I take exception to this quoted set of statements. We have a demonstrably broken unit. The rules are free and found here:
http://www.forgeworld.co.uk/Downloads/Product/PDF/h/Heavy_Artillery.pdf

These have been the main rules for two months. In those 2 months, we have had several large tournaments - a particularly notable one considering FW would be the NOVA open. Had they allowed FW, anyone could have played with these things. At 75 points, they're cheap enough to be cover, let alone putting out their terrifying large blasts. If you allied with IG, you could take 3 as your heavy support choice for 225 points. Imagine Tony Kopachs NOVA list replacing Long Fangs with these. It's ridiculous. An argument that goes "oh, these rules are only temporary" is absurd - events happen all through the year, this sort of unit could pop up in any tournament. It's not even a particularly hard unit to exactly convert either - it's literally the gun from a Basilisk on wheels. So, how do you deal with such a unit?

For the record, I've both emailed Forge World and questioned them on Facebook about these rules. Their response was very dismissive: "It brings them into line with the Artillery unit type rules in the 40k rulebook". They will not be updating these rules for months guys, I would bet this is their stopgap until IA:12 with DKoK in. It's not acceptable rules design that one army can randomly gain an almost impossible to silence set of incredibly cheap artillery. As much as we moan about normal codexes being broken, it's just not the case that the same codex with the same list is sweeping the 40k scene. With FW rules giving IG the best flyers, large blasts and AA, what do you think will happen to the game? How many lists do you think won't at least run IG allies?

**RiTides**

Eyjio wrote:These have been the main rules for two months. In those 2 months, we have had several large tournaments - a particularly notable one considering FW would be the NOVA open. Had they allowed FW, anyone could have played with these things. At 75 points, they're cheap enough to be cover, let alone putting out their terrifying large blasts. If you allied with IG, you could take 3 as your heavy support choice for 225 points. Imagine Tony Kopachs NOVA list replacing Long Fangs with these. It's ridiculous. An argument that goes "oh, these rules are only temporary" is absurd - events happen all through the year, this sort of unit could pop up in any tournament. It's not even a particularly hard unit to exactly convert either - it's literally the gun from a Basilisk on wheels. So, how do you deal with such a unit?

For the record, I've both emailed Forge World and questioned them on Facebook about these rules. Their response was very dismissive: "It brings them into line with the Artillery unit type rules in the 40k rulebook". They will not be updating these rules for months guys, I would bet this is their stopgap until IA:12 with DKoK in. It's not acceptable rules design that one army can randomly gain an almost impossible to silence set of incredibly cheap artillery. As much as we moan about normal codices being broken, it's just not the case that the same codex with the same list is sweeping the 40k scene. With FW rules giving IG the best flyers, large blasts and AA, what do you think will happen to the game? How many lists do you think won't at least run IG allies?

Agreed- this would have caused a huge issue at the Nova Open.

The lag in updating their rules simply illustrates how FW books ≠ GW codexes.

I'd like to again qualify this statement by saying that I am not against FW's inclusion in some events, particularly in a limited fashion (such as muwhe mentioned Adepticon has used- making each FW model unique, and not spammable). But the arguments for including it as if there will be no additional issues to deal with whatsoever, are as bad or worse than the arguments against including it ever.

There's a middle ground here somewhere, fellas

**Amaya**

The only thing that would make IMPERIAL GUARD HEAVY ARTILLERY CARRIAGE BATTERY OOT is a 360 firing arc.

**Kaldor**

Eyjio wrote:
That said, I take exception to this quoted set of statements. We have a demonstrably broken unit. The rules are free and found here:
http://www.forgeworld.co.uk/Downloads/Product/PDF/h/Heavy_Artillery.pdf

That unit is in no way more broken than the codex units. Are you suggesting we ban all books which contain under costed units?

I'm not saying FW units aren't broken. I take exception to the idea that FW units are more broken than codex units, and that by disallowing FW units we are maintaining some standard of balance.

It's just not true.

We don't ban Necrons because they can take an airforce army, nor do we ban Grey Knights because they can take a Purifier army. And we shouldn't ban FW because of an artillery train or breaching drill.

**Peregrine**

Eyjio wrote:
That said, I take exception to this quoted set of statements. We have a demonstrably broken unit. The rules are free and found here:
http://www.forgeworld.co.uk/Downloads/Product/PDF/h/Heavy_Artillery.pdf

Just like if you open the IG codex to the page with the Vendetta you'll find a demonstrably broken unit. It was amazing in 5th and severely undercosted, and 6th edition gave it flyer rules for free. And yet I don't see anyone arguing that we should ban the entire IG codex because it contains a broken unit, and I don't even see anyone seriously arguing that we should ban the Vendetta.

The point is not that everything FW produces is balanced perfectly, it's that their balance problems are no worse than the balance problems that exist in every codex already. I have yet to see anyone explain why winning a tournament by spamming the most overpowered codex units is ok, but the mere possibility that someone might* win a tournament by spamming the most overpowered FW units completely ruins the game for everyone.

*We can't know for sure, since they've never been tested in a competitive tournament environment. It could turn out to be a case where the huge vulnerability in assault makes up for the cheap point cost and nobody really uses them.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

RiTides wrote:
The lag in updating their rules simply illustrates how FW books ≠ GW codexes.

You mean the same GW codices that can go without updates for years (and even for multiple new editions of the core rules), or receive random nonsense FAQs that go against any sensible interpretation of the rules? The same GW codices where older books get fluff-based wargear updates without adjusting points to match, years after the book was published and for no good reason?

**OverwatchCNC**

Peregrine wrote:
Eyjio wrote:
That said, I take exception to this quoted set of statements. We have a demonstrably broken unit. The rules are free and found here:
http://www.forgeworld.co.uk/Downloads/Product/PDF/h/Heavy_Artillery.pdf

Just like if you open the IG codex to the page with the Vendetta you'll find a demonstrably broken unit. It was amazing in 5th and severely undercosted, and 6th edition gave it flyer rules for free. And yet I don't see anyone arguing that we should ban the entire IG codex because it contains a broken unit, and I don't even see anyone seriously arguing that we should ban the Vendetta.

The point is not that everything FW produces is balanced perfectly, it's that their balance problems are no worse than the balance problems that exist in every codex already. I have yet to see anyone explain why winning a tournament by spamming the most overpowered codex units is ok, but the mere possibility that someone might* win a tournament by spamming the most overpowered FW units completely ruins the game for everyone.

*We can't know for sure, since they've never been tested in a competitive tournament environment. It could turn out to be a case where the huge vulnerability in assault makes up for the cheap point cost and nobody really uses them.

You actually had me on the OP argument, which by the way is not my original argument it is what has developed over the 5 pages, until that last bit. You can't claim a units weakness in a phase of the game that has been demonstrably nerfed is an actual weakness. The assault phase is mere shadow of what it once was. Which I wholeheartedly approve of since this is a Sci Fi game based in a future with amazing guns. Otherwise yes, I agree the OP nature of some FW units is no worse than the OP nature of some codex units like the Vendetta, Stormraven, and Nightscythe; then again I was never making that argument so...

**Peregrine**

OverwatchCNC wrote:
You actually had me on the OP argument, which by the way is not my original argument it is what has developed over the 5 pages, until that last bit. You can't claim a units weakness in a phase of the game that has been demonstrably nerfed is an actual weakness. The assault phase is mere shadow of what it once was. Which I wholeheartedly approve of since this is a Sci Fi game based in a future with amazing guns. Otherwise yes, I agree the OP nature of some FW units is no worse than the OP nature of some codex units like the Vendetta, Stormraven, and Nightscythe; then again I was never making that argument so...

I'm not saying that it's necessarily a weakness, just that the unit has (AFAIK) never really been tested in a competitive environment, so it's not really fair to just assume that IG players will take a ton of them and dominate while their opponents can't do anything to stop it. It could turn out to be that bad, or it could be that it's not as good of a unit as the first impression suggests, so we shouldn't say with absolute confidence that allowing it will destroy a tournament.

**OverwatchCNC**

Peregrine wrote:
OverwatchCNC wrote:
You actually had me on the OP argument, which by the way is not my original argument it is what has developed over the 5 pages, until that last bit. You can't claim a units weakness in a phase of the game that has been demonstrably nerfed is an actual weakness. The assault phase is mere shadow of what it once was. Which I wholeheartedly approve of since this is a Sci Fi game based in a future with amazing guns. Otherwise yes, I agree the OP nature of some FW units is no worse than the OP nature of some codex units like the Vendetta, Stormraven, and Nightscythe; then again I was never making that argument so...

I'm not saying that it's necessarily a weakness, just that the unit has (AFAIK) never really been tested in a competitive environment, so it's not really fair to just assume that IG players will take a ton of them and dominate while their opponents can't do anything to stop it. It could turn out to be that bad, or it could be that it's not as good of a unit as the first impression suggests, so we shouldn't say with absolute confidence that allowing it will destroy a tournament.

I am completely on board with the units themselves are not going to break the game. I have always had that opinion, so I suppose that means we are in agreement on that?

I can't even tell anymore

**scimitar**

My point about forgeworld rules being problematic is illustrated with the following issues I found with quick glance. I'd shudder to think what kind of stuff TFG would pull if he did an in-depth look.

Hyperios has no leadership score for taking split fire tests
Flakk Trakk doesn't actually have the AA gun despite name and model.
Big Squiggoths rules not covering all sorts of situations with regards to its passengers.

Bottom line, I wouldn't allow forgeworld at tournaments unless problematic models were either banned or had pre-issued rulings. While its not like 6th doesn't have rule problems, at least GW had a zero day FAQ followed by quick update to deal with the worst problems. Forgeworld currently has a grand total of 1 fix (the supersonic transport issue) in their FAQ months after the release. I like a bunch of the models and wouldn't mind seeing them in tournaments, but the rules really need to be whipped into shape.

**Vaktathi**

OverwatchCNC wrote:
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.

So, are Sisters of Battle out as well? Because their rules are even less accessible than Forgeworld's rules are, and a relative minority of players are familiar with everyone else's units and rules anyway.

If we're applying this standard to Forgeworld, then one must exclude Sisters of Battle armies as well. Also the new Daemon units for anyone who didn't get the White Dwarf, similarly Eldar Nightspinners and many of the new flyer kits as I don't think they've reprinted them elsewhere if you didn't get the White Dwarf with them in it.

With regards to the often brought up monetary issue, the gap in FW prices and GW standard prices is closing fast, and unless something radical changes, they'll converge within the next decade at absolute most, most likely within the lifespan of this edition. The next Codex book coming out is going to be $50, 5 years ago they were $20, a 150% increase. Many model kits have experienced similar cost increases. All across the board GW's prices have been rising at a rate double or triple that of inflation for the last 6 years. This trend is not true of Forgeworld, and thus if continued they'll likely converge in the next 4-6 years.

Even without that, many armies inherently cost vastly different sums to build, paint and play both in time and $$$. A fully kitted 5E mech IG army was likely $900-1200, as Grey Knights army of similar power and identical points could be had for 33-50% the same cost, to say nothing of the time invested building and painting such armies. That FW costs a little more for expanded options, none of which are "must have's or you're screwed", is irrelevant in such a light.

EDIT: to those complaining about the IG heavy artillery, really? immobile guns with no save and an Ld7 crew that are easier to engage and destroy than their tracked counterparts and practically auto-killed in CC are that broken? Yeah, they might be an issue with Allies, they're not the only things and it certainly isn't restricted to FW given that nothing in the current game was designed, intended, or tested to be used in conjunction with other armies.

Really, at it's core, 6E is not a competitive ruleset. The design studio came out and said as much at their Open Day event. Playing competitive tournaments with or without FW is going to run into largely the same issues regardless given that the rules aren't intended or designed for that type of play. However, if you're going to do it, why not let people use all of their Warhammer 40,000 Citadel models?

**Peregrine**

scimitar wrote:
Hyperios has no leadership score for taking split fire tests
Flakk Trakk doesn't actually have the AA gun despite name and model.
Big Squiggoths rules not covering all sorts of situations with regards to its passengers.

Vindicator Demolisher canons printed as ordnance 1, missing the blast rule. How long did that one take to get fixed?

Half the Tau codex having broken rules (how exactly do I take a target priority test in 5th?) for years.

FW may desperately need an editor and a couple WAAC players to review their rules before anything is published, but let's not pretend that GW has a very good record of consistent and immediate errata/FAQ releases.

**Phazael**

You guys are also straw manning me. The point is not how fair or unfair certain units are, but rather that the better units are all going to the stronger (read IG/MEQ) armies an most non xenos armies are allies of those lists. Yes the eldar get hornets and wasps, but they already had vyper and war walkers. The minor power jump is negligable, especially compared along side the IG artillery options or the SM fliers, particlarly the ones with intercptor or the ability to poop out a large unit of terminators into your lap. In case no one has noticed, the vast bulk of xenos (even crons) got shafted on the power axe craze that the impies get to cash in on and a giant term unit that arrives untouched from a 4hp assault flyer really puts the hurt on most xenos. Thats one example of many.

And seeriously LOL about bubble wrapping against the lucious pod. Show me the xenos army with cheap enough bodies to bubble wrap their entire arm from[one dread, let alone two. Hell, plasma grenades cant even hurt a killa kan, let alone a marine dread. Not everyone gets to have fists and krak in theie entire army.

**Vaktathi**

Phazael wrote:
You guys are also straw manning me. The point is not how fair or unfair certain units are, but rather that the better units are all going to the stronger (read IG/MEQ) armies an most non xenos armies are allies of those lists. Yes the eldar get hornets and wasps, but they already had vyper and war walkers.

Hornets add a huge capability, and Vypers are awful.

The minor power jump is negligable, especially compared along side the IG artillery options or the SM fliers, particlarly the ones with intercptor or the ability to poop out a large unit of terminators into your lap. In case no one has noticed, the vast bulk of xenos (even crons) got shafted on the power axe craze that the impies get to cash in on and a giant term unit that arrives untouched from a 4hp assault flyer really puts the hurt on most xenos. Thats one example of many.

I've got the latest Imperial Armor book here and the Eldar get two *very* capable flyers that can take advantage of 3+ and 2+ jink saves with respectable firepower and the ability to field them in two different FoC slots (thus meaning up to 6 available flyers) and included rules for their own AA unit. That would balance out a whole lot of equations. The Tau likewise get two respectively capable aircraft to address some current balance issues, one of which can be taken in squadrons of up to 5.

I'm seeing a whole lot of positives for xenos with Imperial Armour giving them capabilities they don't currently have to match those of the Imperial armies that do.

And seeriously LOL about bubble wrapping against the lucious pod. Show me the xenos army with cheap enough bodies to bubble wrap their entire arm from[one dread, let alone two. Hell, plasma grenades cant even hurt a killa kan, let alone a marine dread. Not everyone gets to have fists and krak in theie entire army.

Orks, Tau, Tyranids

Not xenos army is an expensive Eldar army.

**Janthkin**

Vaktathi wrote:
And seeriously LOL about bubble wrapping against the lucious pod. Show me the xenos army with cheap enough bodies to bubble wrap their entire arm from[one dread, let alone two. Hell, plasma grenades cant even hurt a killa kan, let alone a marine dread. Not everyone gets to have fists and krak in theie entire army.
Orks, Tau, Tyranids Not xenos army is an expensive Eldar army.

Nonsense. I run a fairly high-bodycount Tyranid army, and I'm crippled if I have to bubblewrap. A single dread can take out an entire Gargoyle screen (which I need for rapid advancing), screw up the movement of the rest of the army (can't walk through the pod/combat, after all), and is safe from counter-assault by TMCs while doing it (as it will be buried in Gargoyles for quite a while). And if there's a second pod coming down next turn, it gets uglier.

**Vaktathi**

And with 6E vehicle/HP rules, without such a pod it's literally never going to do anything to that Tyranid army, the little units will avoid it and the MC's will tear it to pieces before it does anything more than put a wound or two on them, or it'll get shot down before it makes to to anyone's lines. Most tyranid lists can manage a bubble wrap if they need to, at least around critical units for a turn or two.

I used to be a vicious opponent of the Lucius drop pods, thought it was the dumbest thing FW made. Now that it takes an FA slot, has a chance to hurt the walker, and the fact that combat walkers are hilariously worthless with the way vehicle damage works (and typically being requiring half the resources or less to destroy than they previously did), they're pretty much the only way anyone is going to get any use out of combat walkers and they're paying 65pt premium to do it with a large chance to whiff off in an awkward direction.

**Peregrine**

Phazael wrote:
In case no one has noticed, the vast bulk of xenos (even crons) got shafted on the power axe craze that the impies get to cash in on and a giant term unit that arrives untouched from a 4hp assault flyer really puts the hurt on most xenos.

Except you're overlooking the fact that a Stormraven can already deliver enough terminators to get the job done. There really aren't many things that you can do with 10 terminators that you can't do with 5, so you end up spending 700+ points on your death star and killing a couple 100-point meatshield units. You can do it for 200+ points less already, so I really don't see how another overpriced death star changes much.

And this is exactly the problem with the FW debate: people look at the worst case scenario (OMG 10000000 TERMINATORS) of a single aspect of the unit without really considering how it fits into the context of a complete army and how much of an impact on game balance it is likely to have in that context.

**shasolenzabi**

In all honesty, considering the amount of money sunk into a FW unit or tank, and the points sinks that the are, I have amused myself when one goes up in a huge cloud as the rolls of the dice went against the person who brought such thing. many could be easily replaced by cheaper and more plentiful units or vehicles, and they happen to be cool models, and if the TO makes sure that any player using FW makes photo-copies for their opponent to look at so they are familarized enough for the battle, then why worry? And they have made the rules more balanced, my 325 point Valdor Tank hunbter is as much a danger to itself as any leman russ out there.(If I do no damage to the russ after hitting it, Say I roll under the armor value, I take a d-3 glancing hits due to power feedback.) So with things like that I tend to not really care. Many of the supposedly "balanced" squads and such in codex are far nastier for the points when matched to a "similar" valued unit in an older or other codex.

**RiTides**

Peregrine, as Phazael said, you're arguing against a strawman.

My point was that there's a lag between FW units getting updated and GW FAQs being released. We all know there are old codexes, but they get FAQ'ed at the same time as every other codex. FW books are on their own schedule.

scimitar wrote:
My point about forgeworld rules being problematic is illustrated with the following issues I found with quick glance. I'd shudder to think what kind of stuff TFG would pull if he did an in-depth look.

Hyperios has no leadership score for taking split fire tests
Flakk Trakk doesn't actually have the AA gun despite name and model.
Big Squiggoths rules not covering all sorts of situations with regards to its passengers.

Bottom line, I wouldn't allow forgeworld at tournaments unless problematic models were either banned or had pre-issued rulings. While its not like 6th doesn't have rule problems, at least GW had a zero day FAQ followed by quick update to deal with the worst problems. Forgeworld currently has a grand total of 1 fix (the supersonic transport issue) in their FAQ months after the release. I like a bunch of the models and wouldn't mind seeing them in tournaments, but the rules really need to be whipped into shape.

Exactly... again, Peregrine, you mention FW getting an editor to read through things to make all their units suitable for tournament play (rules and stats-wise). That is a hypothetical.

The premise of this thread was the pressure some people had been putting on ALL tournaments to start allowing FW. Clearly, it could/would cause a lot of problems. That's a valid point.

It doesn't mean that some events can't allow it fully, with in-house FAQs to deal with these things, or other events start allowing it in a more limited fashion. But there ARE unique problems to adding FW into an event, that are NOT identical to allowing all codex books. Several of you keep making the argument that they are identical... they simply aren't, it's a different can of worms that has to be treated differently.

I'm not saying we shouldn't treat it, but let's not belittle the issues or pretend they aren't there. FW brings a unique set of challenges for a TO to deal with, and I applaud those that are tackling it. But it'd be much better to honestly discuss how to tackle those issues, than to gloss over them as an attempt to gain wider acceptance (imo, this will completely backfire).

If you were to run a tournament next week, with full FW allowance, do you see yourself as having to make any special provisions... or do you anticipate it being identical to allowing all codex armies to be used? I am curious if you really perceive there to be no additional challenges, or if you are perceiving those challenges, what steps you would take to deal with them.

**nkelsch**

So the core argument against is that FW rules have holes in them that make them not functional and require extensive FAQs to make them fully work in regular gameplay.

While I can agree to that, that is also why events have extensive FAQs. And it seems like most of the time GW relies on the community and tourneys to write the FAQ and hand it to GW on a silver platter.

If the concern is non functional rules opposed to simply overpowered rules then why don't people attempt to FAQ them and submit the fixes to GW and FW?

**Redbeard**

RiTides wrote:

If you were to run a tournament next week, with full FW allowance, do you see yourself as having to make any special provisions... or do you anticipate it being identical to allowing all codex armies to be used? I am curious if you really perceive there to be no additional challenges, or if you are perceiving those challenges, what steps you would take to deal with them.

I've done this. There are no extra challenges, there is no extra complexity, it is all in your heads. Reality is that FW units are just different units. Every single argument that has been made against Forgeworld in this thread is about perception, not reality.

The reality is that GW doesn't update its codexes well, or often, and does stupid stuff like disable target locks for two months. Whatever faults FW writers and editors suffer from - and I'm certainly not claiming they're perfect, or even competent - GW writers suffer from the same faults.

Trying to sum it all up:

- I can't get FW stuff - You're on dakka, learn to use the internet for buying things.
- I can't be expected to memorize all the possible FW units - You'll get over it. The quiz scores from Adepticon show that you weren't actually very good at memorizing all the stats of the codex stuff either.
- I can't find the rules - You'll figure it out. And your opponent will be required to bring them to use them.
- FW is so much more powerful - Because we're suddenly forgetting about Long Fangs and Doom Scythes and Lash and Nob Bikers.
- FW stuff lets you do things that you couldn't do with just the codex - Every new codex lets you do stuff you couldn't do with the older codex too, big deal.
- FW rules have holes - So do GW codexes. So does the GW main rulebook.
- FW FAQs aren't updated regularly - FW had their 6th ed updates ready sooner than GW.
- FW doesn't update on the same schedule as GW - GW's update schedule is ridiculous anyway. I've got a great idea, let's make a game where you can have flyers, and no army can have weapons that shoot at them until we figure that out later.
- FW stuff favours Imperials - I'm not going to go through the examples of xenos stuff that makes those armies better yet another time. Instead, let's just remember, ALL GW stuff favours Imperials. Have you seen the Ally Chart?
FW stuff is expensive - Have you seen the costs for GW stuff? Finecast models? You're not playing this game if you're on wellfare, and I don't see the minimal extra cost to buy the FW items breaking anyone. Besides, all the "broken" stuff is the little stuff. It's the apocalypse-only items that aren't part of this discussion that command the big bucks. Given the number of people I see at GTs (and RTTs) who have FW doors on their Rhinos, an upgrade that provides no extra in-game effectiveness, I'm simply not buying the cost argument.

Am I missing any? It's all just a matter of perception. You stick the FW sign on it and all of a sudden you're complaining about the exact same stuff that the rest of GW does. This is a piss-poor game system that's designed to push model sales. It's not balanced competitively, and so adding more stuff doesn't actually hurt. It just lets more people use different toys, and construct armies with different themes or approaches. Variety is good, otherwise all we'll ever see is more of those Long Fangs (Have I mentioned how much I hate them, they're probably FW infiltrators...)

I played a game against a friend last night, I used a FW wraithseer, he used the new necron codex. His annihilation barges were far more effective than my FW toy. I had, essentially, an expensive D-Cannon, that he largely ignored while killing other things. Big deal.

**RiTides**

The argument of "GW is broken, too" doesn't make FW less broken.

Adding more problematic rules, without FAQs, and units to the mix does indeed add problems.

And while my question was directed at Peregrine, I'd welcome experienced folks to answer. As nkelsch said, perhaps a FAQ (like the INAT) aimed at addressing issues with FW would help.

But it's an additional problem as that does not currently exist. Just because it's analogous (not equivalent) to problems GW proper has doesn't mean it's nonexistent or adds no extra complexity, as it clearly does.

I'm trying to imagine another company like PP approaching rules this way- offering them as direct only books full of unit rules that are optional and not updated at the same time as their main books, with way more offerings for some armies than others. It's crazy, and it's left to the tourney community to try to fix it if they want to use it.

But like any problem, the first step is to acknowledge there is one

. Given the above paragraph, it's hard to believe someone could say there isn't one (not directed at anyone in particular, just a general comment).

**Redbeard**

RiTides wrote:
The argument of "GW is broken, too" doesn't make FW less broken.

Nope, no one said it did. It just makes the argument that FW shouldn't be allowed because it is broken moot. If we disallow all broken things, we're not playing a GW game.

Adding more problematic rules, without FAQs, and units to the mix does indeed add problems.

No, it doesn't. I've run tournaments with FW allowed. There are no more problems. It's no more complicated. As Yoda said, ""No! No different. Only different in your mind." Get past the mindset issue, and it's just 40k with a different unit. The first time you do it, it's no different than the first tournament you'll run after a new codex has been released. After that, it's no different than any other.

Issues may come up - they come up with normal rules too. You evaluate them, FAQ them for later. I've seen less arguments over anything to do with FW than I've seen about whether someone gets a cover save.

**Buttons**

schadenfreude wrote:
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.

And? IG can already field 9 artillery guns in 3 HS slots, and if you wanted to, you could fit up to 21 heavy weapons (mortars, missile launchers, lascannons, autocannons) in a single troop choice. It honestly isn't that broken considering that the guns are organized into groups of 3, and 3 earthshaker cannon shots at one unit is generally overkill.

Edit: If you want to talk broken, lets talk Death Korps engineers, or Elysian Special Weapon Squads (3 deepstriking demo charges in one squad).

**Dozer Blades**

Redbeard wrote:
RiTides wrote:

If you were to run a tournament next week, with full FW allowance, do you see yourself as having to make any special provisions... or do you anticipate it being identical to allowing all codex armies to be used? I am curious if you really perceive there to be no additional challenges, or if you are perceiving those challenges, what steps you would take to deal with them.

I've done this. There are no extra challenges, there is no extra complexity, it is all in your heads. Reality is that FW units are just different units. Every single argument that has been made against Forgeworld in this thread is about perception, not reality.

The reality is that GW doesn't update its codexes well, or often, and does stupid stuff like disable target locks for two months. Whatever faults FW writers and editors suffer from - and I'm certainly not claiming they're perfect, or even competent - GW writers suffer from the same faults.

Trying to sum it all up:

- I can't get FW stuff - You're on dakka, learn to use the internet for buying things.
- I can't be expected to memorize all the possible FW units - You'll get over it. The quiz scores from Adepticon show that you weren't actually very good at memorizing all the stats of the codex stuff either.
- I can't find the rules - You'll figure it out. And your opponent will be required to bring them to use them.
- FW is so much more powerful - Because we're suddenly forgetting about Long Fangs and Doom Scythes and Lash and Nob Bikers.
- FW stuff lets you do things that you couldn't do with just the codex - Every new codex lets you do stuff you couldn't do with the older codex too, big deal.
- FW rules have holes - So do GW codexes. So does the GW main rulebook.
- FW FAQs aren't updated regularly - FW had their 6th ed updates ready sooner than GW.
- FW doesn't update on the same schedule as GW - GW's update schedule is ridiculous anyway. I've got a great idea, let's make a game where you can have flyers, and no army can have weapons that shoot at them until we figure that out later.
- FW stuff favours Imperials - I'm not going to go through the examples of xenos stuff that makes those armies better yet another time. Instead, let's just remember, ALL GW stuff favours Imperials. Have you seen the Ally Chart?
FW stuff is expensive - Have you seen the costs for GW stuff? Finecast models? You're not playing this game if you're on wellfare, and I don't see the minimal extra cost to buy the FW items breaking anyone. Besides, all the "broken" stuff is the little stuff. It's the apocalypse-only items that aren't part of this discussion that command the big bucks. Given the number of people I see at GTs (and RTTs) who have FW doors on their Rhinos, an upgrade that provides no extra in-game effectiveness, I'm simply not buying the cost argument.

Am I missing any? It's all just a matter of perception. You stick the FW sign on it and all of a sudden you're complaining about the exact same stuff that the rest of GW does. This is a piss-poor game system that's designed to push model sales. It's not balanced competitively, and so adding more stuff doesn't actually hurt. It just lets more people use different toys, and construct armies with different themes or approaches. Variety is good, otherwise all we'll ever see is more of those Long Fangs (Have I mentioned how much I hate them, they're probably FW infiltrators...)

I played a game against a friend last night, I used a FW wraithseer, he used the new necron codex. His annihilation barges were far more effective than my FW toy. I had, essentially, an expensive D-Cannon, that he largely ignored while killing other things. Big deal.

So this is basically a laundry list of excuses why it is okay to use FW... like I said it is not fixing anything in the game... just creating more issues. When GW gives it the official green light I will be fully behind it but not until then. This crops up every time a new edition begins.

**paidinfull**

RiTides wrote:

But it's an additional problem as that does not currently exist.

Would you be kind enough to please elaborate how new rules requiring FAQs is "an additional problem as that does not currently exist"?

I ask honestly, because if I'm not mistaken there is even an entire sub-forum dedicated to this issue, but perhaps I'm misunderstanding your point?
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/forums/show/15.page

I think it also warrants being pointed out, that it is widely accepted that it is also the responsibility of the TO to address potential conflicts prior to the event and that it is the participant's responsibility to be aware of those conclusions/rulings prior to the event. Even in those instances the TO might make a ruling that is contradicted by GW or FW within days or even a few weeks. That doesn't make the TO ruling wrong for the record, because at that time there were no false pretenses under how the rules worked.

As someone who has participated in and hosted my fair share of tournaments I think we're also forgetting that even with the FAQs and rules clearly spelled out that doesn't prevent human error, such as judge rulings or players misinterpreting the rules.

The one thing I think is interesting here, is that in 40k and even Fantasy or other systems like MTG, the power curve and meta change with each release. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but this is how it's always been so this is not a new or unique situation. Vampire Hexmage is released and suddenly you have a Dark Depths combo, capable of winning on Turn 2. Codex Chaos Space Marines was released and the Lash lists came out and in fact, that year's Baltimore GT winner was a Chaos player. Vampire Counts came out in 7th and immediately took over the power curve. In each of these systems, rules releases, new formats, FAQs, players and tournament organizers all came up with solutions.

My point after all of this is, and this is directed to the general discussion, I don't happen to see how this is any different from anything the hobby had previously experienced, so should this be an issue?

**Buttons**

Dozer Blades wrote:
Redbeard wrote:
RiTides wrote:

If you were to run a tournament next week, with full FW allowance, do you see yourself as having to make any special provisions... or do you anticipate it being identical to allowing all codex armies to be used? I am curious if you really perceive there to be no additional challenges, or if you are perceiving those challenges, what steps you would take to deal with them.

I've done this. There are no extra challenges, there is no extra complexity, it is all in your heads. Reality is that FW units are just different units. Every single argument that has been made against Forgeworld in this thread is about perception, not reality.

The reality is that GW doesn't update its codexes well, or often, and does stupid stuff like disable target locks for two months. Whatever faults FW writers and editors suffer from - and I'm certainly not claiming they're perfect, or even competent - GW writers suffer from the same faults.

Trying to sum it all up:

- I can't get FW stuff - You're on dakka, learn to use the internet for buying things.
- I can't be expected to memorize all the possible FW units - You'll get over it. The quiz scores from Adepticon show that you weren't actually very good at memorizing all the stats of the codex stuff either.
- I can't find the rules - You'll figure it out. And your opponent will be required to bring them to use them.
- FW is so much more powerful - Because we're suddenly forgetting about Long Fangs and Doom Scythes and Lash and Nob Bikers.
- FW stuff lets you do things that you couldn't do with just the codex - Every new codex lets you do stuff you couldn't do with the older codex too, big deal.
- FW rules have holes - So do GW codexes. So does the GW main rulebook.
- FW FAQs aren't updated regularly - FW had their 6th ed updates ready sooner than GW.
- FW doesn't update on the same schedule as GW - GW's update schedule is ridiculous anyway. I've got a great idea, let's make a game where you can have flyers, and no army can have weapons that shoot at them until we figure that out later.
- FW stuff favours Imperials - I'm not going to go through the examples of xenos stuff that makes those armies better yet another time. Instead, let's just remember, ALL GW stuff favours Imperials. Have you seen the Ally Chart?
FW stuff is expensive - Have you seen the costs for GW stuff? Finecast models? You're not playing this game if you're on wellfare, and I don't see the minimal extra cost to buy the FW items breaking anyone. Besides, all the "broken" stuff is the little stuff. It's the apocalypse-only items that aren't part of this discussion that command the big bucks. Given the number of people I see at GTs (and RTTs) who have FW doors on their Rhinos, an upgrade that provides no extra in-game effectiveness, I'm simply not buying the cost argument.

Am I missing any? It's all just a matter of perception. You stick the FW sign on it and all of a sudden you're complaining about the exact same stuff that the rest of GW does. This is a piss-poor game system that's designed to push model sales. It's not balanced competitively, and so adding more stuff doesn't actually hurt. It just lets more people use different toys, and construct armies with different themes or approaches. Variety is good, otherwise all we'll ever see is more of those Long Fangs (Have I mentioned how much I hate them, they're probably FW infiltrators...)

I played a game against a friend last night, I used a FW wraithseer, he used the new necron codex. His annihilation barges were far more effective than my FW toy. I had, essentially, an expensive D-Cannon, that he largely ignored while killing other things. Big deal.

So this is basically a laundry list of excuses why it is okay to use FW... like I said it is not fixing anything in the game... just creating more issues. When GW gives it the official green light I will be fully behind it but not until then. This crops up every time a new edition begins.

So the minute GW proper arbitrarily decides to allow it in all official tournaments you will suddenly fully support it? Why not support it based one the rules and diversity it allows? I support FW because it allows for newer, more exotic units, because it provides parts to make more common armies unique (old marks of power armour and special IG models and conversion kits). Will I meet a unit I am unfamiliar with? Perhaps, but then I just look at the rules devise a strategy to deal with it for the game and then build that new unit into my overall game plan. It is just like when a new codex comes out and new units come out with it, I don't refuse to play them, I check the rules, play them, and mold them into my overall list building strategy.

**Vaktathi**

Buttons wrote:
Edit: If you want to talk broken, lets talk Death Korps engineers, or Elysian Special Weapon Squads (3 deepstriking demo charges in one squad).

What on earth is wrong with the DKoK Engineers being 10pt 4+sv guardsmen? And the Elysian unit is a huge "win big/lose big" unit, if it doesn't make it within 6" of it's intended target, it's wasted.

Dozer Blades wrote:
So this is basically a laundry list of excuses why it is okay to use FW... like I said it is not fixing anything in the game... just creating more issues. When GW gives it the official green light I will be fully behind it but not until then. This crops up every time a new edition begins.

You're expecting a green light for GW allowing FW at tournaments? You'll never get it. Tournaments are not normal 40k play, GW doesn't care about tournaments and doesn't write rules for tournaments, and point blank said they didn't design 6th edition for any sort of balanced, competitive play. FW is already as good to go for normal 40k play as anything else, tournaments exist outside of that and organizers can ban everything but Tau if they want as there is no set universal standard set of rules for tournament play. For example Chapter Approved Armored Companies and Kroot Merc lists were legal in US GT's until 2007 running 1750pt play while they were banned after 2005 in UK GT's running 1500pt events.

It's a TO decision, if you're expecting GW to weigh in, they're going to say you're playing the game in a manner they didn't write the rules for in the first place so it's up to the TO.

**Redbeard**

Dozer Blades wrote:
When GW gives it the official green light I will be fully behind it but not until then. This crops up every time a new edition begins.

What do you believe "giving it the official green light" means? Because as far as I can tell, the FW books state that they're official for games of 40k. If you're going to ask for official green lights, you can't get much clearer than that. You're going to wait for something more than a statement in the book that says it's official? Why would anyone ever publish that? If I ignore the Tau codex, there's nothing that says that the Tau Codex is legal either.