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.

 Rampage wrote:
I was going to say I thought that they were available for the Ipad and then remembered you have to then get an Ipad too. EDIT: And they're not even available for Ipad anyway.

Also, surely saying that you are going to use Forge World in your tournament because those that don't want to buy the book can just access it online is condoning such activity, and I'm pretty sure that that's not what TOs are going to want to be promoting.

They may also be more available than other things simply because they are on the shelves but then it comes back around to the issue of price, and the fact that it will cost you a heck of a lot more to then purchase all of the Imperial Armour books as well. Plus, seeing a unit entry in a book is often very different to actually encountering it on the table, and very few people actually use Forge World at the minute.

Then it could come back to maybe the reason that we aren't seeing as much Forge World is because it is not accepted by the community at large, and a big part of that is the tournament scene. I could possibly understand tournaments saying that they are going to use Forge World but only from one book to start off with, that way no-one has to break the bank to learn all of these new unit entries, just get one book, then we might start to see the units from that book appearing more commonly and people getting more familiar with them, and then if it can be decided whether or not it is a good thing for the community and whether we want to start including more Forge World.

I'm personally on the fence, but I definately don't think that suddenly implementing a huge number of Forge World units into a tournament is the right way to go, I think if Forge World is going to happen it'll have to be a transitional thing.

I know what you mean mate, its the price that i think is the restrictive element to it, people of my age generally dont have an issue with it, if they want it of course. Its people on lower income that may have an issue,

 Rampage wrote:

 Formosa wrote:

 Rampage wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
Should we also ban the entire Tyranid codex because some guy hasn't bothered to read it yet?

I know that this point has already been made earlier in the discussion, but if they're so comparable then why does GW ban IA units at its own tournaments yet not ban the Tyranid Codex?

The Nid book is more widespread, so more people have acess to it on the ground level, the FW books are just as official but not as widespread.

And there we go. It's not a case of being too lazy and not bothering to read the IA books, it's that they aren't very accessible.

Neither are the rules for the Sisters of Battle, Strorm Talons, Nightspinner, etc. Are you going to ban Sisters of Battle because unless you snagged that WD when it came out there's no place to get the rules but pirating them?

Formosa wrote:

I know what you mean mate, its the price that i think is the restrictive element to it, people of my age generally dont have an issue with it, if they want it of course. Its people on lower income that may have an issue,

The problem here then is that if you bring cost into it, suddenly you realize that the same issues apply to normal GW stuff. Now codex books are going to be $50 right out the gate, 250% of what they were 5 years ago. Imperial Guard and Ork armies typically cost 150-250% of what a Marine army does without Forgeworld at all. Sisters of Battle cost as much or more than Forgeworld DKoK and Elysian infantry.

Reading the rules over and over again will not give you a true understanding of a Units ability until you see it used to great effect. Unless you some kind of genius there is no way you can read through the rules for unit and think up of every singe method of exploiting it.

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Rampage wrote:

 Formosa wrote:

 Rampage wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
Should we also ban the entire Tyranid codex because some guy hasn't bothered to read it yet?

I know that this point has already been made earlier in the discussion, but if they're so comparable then why does GW ban IA units at its own tournaments yet not ban the Tyranid Codex?

The Nid book is more widespread, so more people have acess to it on the ground level, the FW books are just as official but not as widespread.

And there we go. It's not a case of being too lazy and not bothering to read the IA books, it's that they aren't very accessible.

Neither are the rules for the Sisters of Battle, Strorm Talons, Nightspinner, etc. Are you going to ban Sisters of Battle because unless you snagged that WD when it came out there's no place to get the rules but pirating them?

No, because at least you can often get the opportunity to get to play against a Sisters of Battle army so that you can learn what each unit does without having to buy the book, whereas someone paying with Forge World is probably only going to be using 1, maybe 2 FW units per game, and what you can learn about the units from that book as a whole is limited.

 White Ninja wrote:
Reading the rules over and over again will not give you a true understanding of a Units ability until you see it used to great effect. Unless you some kind of genius there is no way you can read through the rules for unit and think up of every singe method of exploiting it.

This was my main point. It introduces an element into the tournament where the "gotcha" factor becomes the primary element by which the player is winning the game. The only way to truly understand a unit is to use it or see it used, outside of the tournament format seeing FW is pretty rare.

Rampage wrote:
No, because at least you can often get the opportunity to get to play against a Sisters of Battle army so that you can learn what each unit does without having to buy the book, whereas someone paying with Forge World is probably only going to be using 1, maybe 2 FW units per game, and what you can learn about the units from that book as a whole is limited.

How much more often are you going get to play against an SoB army who's rules were only available for a month than Forgeworld? I've seen way more forgeworld usage than Sisters of Battle usage in the last year or so in any of the places I've played.

 Vaktathi wrote:

Rampage wrote:
No, because at least you can often get the opportunity to get to play against a Sisters of Battle army so that you can learn what each unit does without having to buy the book, whereas someone paying with Forge World is probably only going to be using 1, maybe 2 FW units per game, and what you can learn about the units from that book as a whole is limited.

How much more often are you going get to play against an SoB army who's rules were only available for a month than Forgeworld? I've seen way more forgeworld usage than Sisters of Battle usage in the last year or so in any of the places I've played.

I've played SoB 3 times since the WD codex came out and no FW. Still, anecdotal evidence is anecdotal and not very reliable. Obviously.

 OverwatchCNC wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

Rampage wrote:
No, because at least you can often get the opportunity to get to play against a Sisters of Battle army so that you can learn what each unit does without having to buy the book, whereas someone paying with Forge World is probably only going to be using 1, maybe 2 FW units per game, and what you can learn about the units from that book as a whole is limited.

How much more often are you going get to play against an SoB army who's rules were only available for a month than Forgeworld? I've seen way more forgeworld usage than Sisters of Battle usage in the last year or so in any of the places I've played.

I've played SoB 3 times since the WD codex came out and no FW. Still, anecdotal evidence is anecdotal and not very reliable. Obviously.

My latter statement yes, but the point still stands, if we're talking about availability, an army list available for one month from White Dwarf with mini's that cost as much as forgeworld models, versus actual forgeworld stuff where you can at least get the books in *some* stores or at least order online, are we really being fair here?

Same with Dark Eldar for years, you couldn't get them in stores, you had to direct order *everything* online, if you went to a shop you'd never know they even existed.

 Vaktathi wrote:

Rampage wrote:
No, because at least you can often get the opportunity to get to play against a Sisters of Battle army so that you can learn what each unit does without having to buy the book, whereas someone paying with Forge World is probably only going to be using 1, maybe 2 FW units per game, and what you can learn about the units from that book as a whole is limited.

How much more often are you going get to play against an SoB army who's rules were only available for a month than Forgeworld? I've seen way more forgeworld usage than Sisters of Battle usage in the last year or so in any of the places I've played.

Since January, I've played against 4 Sisters of Battle armies and I've only played against 1 Forge World unit.

Then, to be honest, I think you have an abnormally high number of SoB players around because I haven't seen 4 different SoB players in 2 and a half years in three major cities while gaming on a weekly basis aside from major gaming cons and myself, and given the sheer number of armies 40k has coupled with the relative obscurity of the army, 4 in one year (assuming you game once or twice a week) would be statistically abnormal for most people.

Not trying to hate on anyone or anything here, just making a point that Sisters of Battle aren't any more accessible in terms of availability of rules, or price, than Forgeworld is.

Maybe it's a British thing .

That's entirely possible, I've noticed a lot of apparent perception differences. GW in the UK for example apparently tends to have lots of middle/high schoolers play 40k, whereas in the US it's not usually until after high school people get into it.

 OverwatchCNC wrote:

This was my main point. It introduces an element into the tournament where the "gotcha" factor becomes the primary element by which the player is winning the game. The only way to truly understand a unit is to use it or see it used, outside of the tournament format seeing FW is pretty rare.

This seems incorrect. If it were true that the only way to understand a unit was to use it, then every time a new dex was released, it would dominate the first event it was used at. We don't see that. In fact, the whole idea is ludicrous.

This game is not that hard. It is not that complex. You can draw a parallel between any unit and some other unit in the game and have some idea what it's going to do. You cannot name a single FW unit that can't be quickly assimilated as to what it's going to do in the game by anyone with a modicum of tournament experience, and claiming otherwise, or playing dumb about it just to make a case against the models being used is pathetic.

Yeah, I think there is too much stigma over Forge World units.

Its really no different then when a new codex comes out and you play against that thing for the first time.


Except FW actually puts experimental rules up for free on their website for months prior to actually releasing the official version of the unit in an IA book. And some units remain on the free downloads page forever, the rules always free.

I also firmly believe that FW actually has proper playtesting, compared to GW anyway. And their Experimental Rules also give them the opprotunity to guage the audience's reaction to the unit.

As for avaliability, I say that this really isn't a solid argument against them. GW stuff is already in the moderatly expensive range, Forge World books should come at a premium for the quality they deliver. Which is outstanding by the way. Their books and models are beautiful works of art with lots of original fluff, scenerios, and rules. The models are expensive too, so is GW.

Explaining a forge world unit can be as easy as giving someone a minute to look over the rules. Competitive gamers should aready have a balanced list that can handle everything. Forge World doesn't add new elements. If Forge World had extra core rules showing up in the game you might have a point.

using a (non-super heavy)Flyer in a 5th ed game would indeed throw a curve ball at the opponent because competitive 5th ed games didn't have flyers in them. Something so radically different like that would not be acceptable.

But now that Flyers are in the regular rules its all systems green.

 Redbeard wrote:
This seems incorrect. If it were true that the only way to understand a unit was to use it, then every time a new dex was released, it would dominate the first event it was used at. We don't see that. In fact, the whole idea is ludicrous.

Plus it's hilarious compared to a real competitive game like MTG. So what if a new set came out right before a major tournament with thousands of dollars in cash prizes at stake, it's your responsibility to do the playtesting required (including proxies if you need to) and understand everything. If you lose because you were too lazy to playtest properly and didn't understand every detail of the new cards nobody is going to have any sympathy for you. Oh, and playtesting consists of "spend several hours a day playing every matchup over and over again with small tweaks in your deck", not "play a game occasionally with your friends".

Only in 40k do we see this kind of sense of entitlement that you should be able to skip playtesting entirely and just show up on tournament day and expect to win.

Been lurking this thread, and it's disappointing how some (not the TOs) continue to demand near universal acceptance of FW, as if it were the Tau codex.

Variety in events is good. Enjoy the events that allow FW, but don't demand that all match your view. It's up to the TO... and many have posted why they allow it.

There are reasons not to, and both sides have been exhausted by now... the conversation is starting to go in circles. Live and let live!

/goes to browse absurdly priced, but beautiful, Horus Heresy FW pics

 Peregrine wrote:
Oh, and playtesting consists of "spend several hours a day playing every matchup over and over again with small tweaks in your deck", not "play a game occasionally with your friends".

Someone should tell that to GW and FW both.

 RiTides wrote:
Variety in events is good. Enjoy the events that allow FW, but don't demand that all match your view. It's up to the TO... and many have posted why they allow it.

So by that rule we should be happy and encourage people to run tournaments where entire codices are banned at random just because it adds variety? Should we petition every TO in our area to ban our codex to maintain "variety" when people in other areas allow it?


I don't know about you, but I think we should play 40k as published by GW, not 40k with a bunch of house rules from people who think they know better than GW about what armies you should be allowed to play.

And in my opinion 40k "as published by GW" includes the main rulebook and codices, with supplemental material like Apocalypse, Planetsrike, etc. if you're bored with the core game and want to try something new. The way I see it Forge World is like an expansion, it's designed for use with 40k rules but obviously isn't part of the "core", supported by the fact that you can't buy it in stores or on GW's main website.

By your logic we might as well allow everything with a 40k logo on it. If you argue that FW should be legal in all events then why can't I make the same argument for the scenarios in Battle Missions or Planetstrike? Why should the TO dictate the missions after all, what makes him think he knows any better than GW? Why can't I bring Apocalypse units and formations, Apocalypse is 40k so it's obviously all balanced and meant to be used in regular games, and it's a 40k tournament after all.

GW owns forgeworld. Forgeworld has a stamp "40k approved unit" an the bottom of any unit that is approved for 40k games. FW unit development team is simply another team in GW. We still install Microsoft updates even though they were produced by another team from the team that developed windows 7, so in the same way forgeworld is legitimate in games of normal 40k.

Now as to what TO's should do, thats up to them. We had a big discussion at my lgs when 12 of the 31 entries were GK about a month after necrons came out and of the top 10, only 2 were not GK (me in eldar and a regular with chaos demons). Same discussion goes on here, should you limit or ban FW.

I say ban a few of the rediculous units, but keep the vast majority. Dred drop pods are pretty silly when you consider that BA can get them and they are so cheap. The new pred infernus with the magna melta is pretty OP with a multimelta large blast weapon for 120. The Vulture with its TL punisher cannon, vector thrusting, hover mode for 150 points is just silly. However, the vast majority of other units are fine and very good additions to the game.

FW allows me to run eldar with a decent chance to compete with more modern codexes. The eldar book has been hit by so many nerfs in 6th that im migrating entirely to the Corsairs book (IA11) and taking eldar only as allies. Without FW i have to rely on overcosted units(harlequins, rangers, jetbikes) with overcosted transports (WS, falcons) and underpowered long ranged AT options (prisms, ranged Wraithlords).

Adding to your Sisters argument, we have ZERO sisters players at my lgs. I have seen one sisters player in about 25 tournies in the largest game shop in 300 miles. We have quite a number of FW models though, from the tau prototype commander to the cestus assault ram to the LR achiles to the scattering of contemptor dreds in multiple armies. I even saw one of those necron tomb stalker MC things in a tourney back before crons new codex. Just because you are not experienced with a unit does not mean you should ban them from tournies. I dont know SoB and i have never faced a BT player in competitive play, so should they also be banned?

Saber platforms are only strong when you compare them to HV weapons teams which are very weak. Compare them to vendettas and they dont look so amazing.

zephoid wrote:
I say ban a few of the rediculous units, but keep the vast majority.

And I say there's no reason that shouldn't apply to all GW codexes as well.

Progress is inevitable and that is what the OP is rallying against.

With exposure to FW, at all levels of play, your main concern over the limited knowledge of FW units and their synergy within the current roster of armies lessens greatly. The fact that you propose that it only be allowed at the highest levels of competition actually blunts that process.

Lastly, the availability of FW units based upon cost is ridiculous. Where do you set the standard? What if someone cannot afford flyers? Should flyers now be considered exclusively for the highest levels of competition? That almost soinds like a socialist view basing the availaibilty of units upon the ability of the gamers able to purchase them.

As I said, progress is inevitable. Gamers of all levels can and will eventually absorb and overcome the knowledge gap that you believe exists. It is already underway and a prime example is displayed by those weapon platforms mentioned earlier in the thread. People will read or hear about those battle reports and that information will be dessimated and absorbed for the next tournament that an opponent puts them in a list.

In the end youpersonally can choose to attend or not attend events that allow or disallow FW, however standing in the way of inevitable progress will just have you being runover. Pick and choose, but accepting that FW is becoming part of Warhanner 40k now will allow you to begin filling your own knowledge gap of FW.

zephoid wrote:
FW unit development team is simply another team in GW.

Who don't actually collaborate at all with the team from GW who writes the core rules for 40k and all the codices. It's really no different (at least in my opinion) from a group like BoLS writing their own codices for use with 40k, the only difference is GW owns FW and can put the "official" stamp on them.

 Kaldor wrote:

zephoid wrote:
I say ban a few of the rediculous units, but keep the vast majority.

And I say there's no reason that shouldn't apply to all GW codexes as well.

Except there's nothing in 40k codices that comes off as being so incredibly broken that it deserves outright banning. The main cause of 40k's imbalance isn't some codices being too good, it's others being too bad. And then the poorly-thought-out allies matrix which feths things up even more, but nothing we can do about that until 7th now.

 Sidstyler wrote:
And in my opinion 40k "as published by GW" includes the main rulebook and codices, with supplemental material like Apocalypse, Planetsrike, etc. if you're bored with the core game and want to try something new. The way I see it Forge World is like an expansion, it's designed for use with 40k rules but obviously isn't part of the "core", supported by the fact that you can't buy it in stores or on GW's main website.

GW's webstore has nothing to do with gameplay...you can't get every legal codex unit off their either, does that mean it shouldn't be playable?

By your logic we might as well allow everything with a 40k logo on it. If you argue that FW should be legal in all events then why can't I make the same argument for the scenarios in Battle Missions or Planetstrike? Why should the TO dictate the missions after all, what makes him think he knows any better than GW? Why can't I bring Apocalypse units and formations, Apocalypse is 40k so it's obviously all balanced and meant to be used in regular games, and it's a 40k tournament after all.

Most Forgeworld stuff is designed to be used with the existing core rules and existing codex books or on their own without modification to the core rules in any way. You can use a Forgeworld Leman Russ Annihilator without needing a new FoC chart, you can play a Death Korps Siege Regiment list without needing Strategems or new missions. It can all be set up and played identically to a game where only codex stuff is used, nothing is different. Apocalypse, Planetstrike, etc all require a change to the primary rules to function. Forgeworld does not, no more than Codex: Space Marines does.

 Sidstyler wrote:

zephoid wrote:
FW unit development team is simply another team in GW.

Who don't actually collaborate at all with the team from GW who writes the core rules for 40k and all the codices. It's really no different (at least in my opinion) from a group like BoLS writing their own codices for use with 40k, the only difference is GW owns FW and can put the "official" stamp on them.

Except their books are published at GW headquarters, their copyright and publisher is not "Forgeworld" but very specifically "Games Workshop". When you buy a Forgeworld model, it's copyright symbol says Games Workshop, not Forgeworld. The distinction you are making here is one based on GW's internal corporate structure, not one based on the the rules or the company's intent.

 Sidstyler wrote:
And in my opinion 40k "as published by GW" includes the main rulebook and codices, with supplemental material like Apocalypse, Planetsrike, etc. if you're bored with the core game and want to try something new. The way I see it Forge World is like an expansion, it's designed for use with 40k rules but obviously isn't part of the "core", supported by the fact that you can't buy it in stores or on GW's main website.

The people who actually make 40k have clearly stated otherwise, that FW rules are intended for use in standard 40k, not as an expansion.

By your logic we might as well allow everything with a 40k logo on it. If you argue that FW should be legal in all events then why can't I make the same argument for the scenarios in Battle Missions or Planetstrike? Why should the TO dictate the missions after all, what makes him think he knows any better than GW? Why can't I bring Apocalypse units and formations, Apocalypse is 40k so it's obviously all balanced and meant to be used in regular games, and it's a 40k tournament after all.

You can't bring Planetstrike stuff in 40k because it has an entirely separate scenario with different FOCs, different gameplay rules, etc. It is not possible to play a Planetstrike game while your opponent plays standard 40k.

You can't bring Battle Missions stuff because the TO picks the missions, and the players have no say in it. If the TO wants to run missions from that book there is no problem with it.

You can bring Apocalypse units and formations when you can tell me how you add them to your army.

You CAN bring FW units without changing the core rules of the game, just like you can choose between codex units without changing the game. And in fact that's what GW tells you to do, the units are for standard 40k and all of them clearly state which armies can take them and what FOC slot they occupy.

Dred drop pods are pretty silly when you consider that BA can get them and they are so cheap.

BA can't take them. This is why it's important to actually know the FW rules when you're discussing them, not just second-hand rumors of what they do.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Sidstyler wrote:
Who don't actually collaborate at all with the team from GW who writes the core rules for 40k and all the codices. It's really no different (at least in my opinion) from a group like BoLS writing their own codices for use with 40k, the only difference is GW owns FW and can put the "official" stamp on them.

And that's the only difference that matters. Whether you like their development process (which clearly doesn't work as you claim it does, since they released their first 6th edition book early enough that they had to have collaborated on it) or not doesn't change the fact that GW has clearly said that's how things are.

 Kaldor wrote:
Except there's nothing in 40k codices that comes off as being so incredibly broken that it deserves outright banning. The main cause of 40k's imbalance isn't some codices being too good, it's others being too bad. And then the poorly-thought-out allies matrix which feths things up even more, but nothing we can do about that until 7th now.

Err, lol? Do you even play the same 40k that the rest of us do? There are horribly broken units in 40k, and the only reason we accept them is because banning is a last resort that few people are willing to use. If those same units were published by FW instead of in a codex you'd be whining about how overpowered they are and how it would ruin the game to allow them.

 Sidstyler wrote:
Except there's nothing in 40k codices that comes off as being so incredibly broken that it deserves outright banning.

Nor is there in the Imperial Armour books.

Err, lol? Do you even play the same 40k that the rest of us do?

Apparently I don't, since the few people around here who do play 40k don't really use Forge World, and it's not allowed in store tournaments anyway.

 RiTides wrote:
Been lurking this thread, and it's disappointing how some (not the TOs) continue to demand near universal acceptance of FW, as if it were the Tau codex.

Variety in events is good. Enjoy the events that allow FW, but don't demand that all match your view. It's up to the TO... and many have posted why they allow it.

There are reasons not to, and both sides have been exhausted by now... the conversation is starting to go in circles. Live and let live!

/goes to browse absurdly priced, but beautiful, Horus Heresy FW pics

How is it disappointing? That's an offensive and presumptuous remark to make. Are people who want FW to be allowed some how inferior to those who are against it? Because that is how you're coming off right now.

I dont think hes coming off like that at all. Hes simply saying, let the tournys that allow FW allow them, and the ones that dont, dont. I agree with that. I mostly play for fun of the game, and seeing my horde on the table. I wouldnt however, like to play in a tourny that allows some incredibly over priced FW unit, that in many opinions, is undercosted, kick my pants off because I cant/dont want to afford the FW counter that also costs a boat load of money. So if all tournys allowed this, I most definitely wouldnt want to play in a tourny ever. Simply because again, I wouldnt have fun getting my face kicked in by what I previously mentioned

^this.

It's nice to go to the Odd Tournament and see Ork Deff/ MEGA Dreads or Storm-Eagles etc etc.

It's also nice to have tournaments that are GW core range only so no FW stuff.

The problem comes when there is a blurring of the lines. Better to have some Tournaments that do and some that don't, exceptions just end up being abused.

WAAC players make up a good portion of Tourney Play, they come to these events because they want the Silverware. People seek to exploit the RAW anyway they can, like someone the other day saying that if he fires his Leman Russ Battle Cannon (Ordance) last, he doesn't have to snap fire the other weapons and can use the full BS because the Rules say the if you fire the Battle Cannon first.... Fecking nonsense.