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.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 RiTides wrote:
Grimtooth, I disagree that full FW allowance in all tournies is inevitable. Who knows what the future will bring!

True, but it will probably end up being more common then not.

On the GT level I think most people are actually ok with FW being more common than uncommon. On the local RT level I would personally like the reverse to be true, with neither GTs or RTs going 100% one way or the other.

I think most people agree that Forgeworld units are overcosted for what they do, so it's unlikely that someone takes them simply to win games. I'm bummed because they're some really awesome models that can't be used as a counts-as codex choices in a tournament that bans Forgeworld.

 Oaka wrote:
I think most people agree that Forgeworld units are overcosted for what they do, so it's unlikely that someone takes them simply to win games. I'm bummed because they're some really awesome models that can't be used as a counts-as codex choices in a tournament that bans Forgeworld.

I think almost no one will ban models used as Count's As, or models that are just cooler versions of GW models(like using a FW dreadnought model)

I've certaintly never seen anyone ban FW models.

 Oaka wrote:
I think most people agree that Forgeworld units are overcosted for what they do, so it's unlikely that someone takes them simply to win games. I'm bummed because they're some really awesome models that can't be used as a counts-as codex choices in a tournament that bans Forgeworld.

I regularly used my Forgeworld Ultramarine Dread and Vulnerable Dreads with Rifleman Arms... no one ever thought that I was using them as something different... tournament or not.

 Alfndrate wrote:

 Oaka wrote:
I think most people agree that Forgeworld units are overcosted for what they do, so it's unlikely that someone takes them simply to win games. I'm bummed because they're some really awesome models that can't be used as a counts-as codex choices in a tournament that bans Forgeworld.

I regularly used my Forgeworld Ultramarine Dread and Vulnerable Dreads with Rifleman Arms... no one ever thought that I was using them as something different... tournament or not.

I'm also confused by that statement. Do you have a specific example of what your local tournaments won't let you use in a counts-as basis? I use my Forge World Black Templar dreadnought every time I field a dreadnought, but I suppose that's not really a counts as.

I think I can safely say that any TO that disallows a FW alternative to a codex model like a dreadnought or door kit is someone you don't want to support with your entry fee.

 Oaka wrote:
I think most people agree that Forgeworld units are overcosted for what they do, so it's unlikely that someone takes them simply to win games. I'm bummed because they're some really awesome models that can't be used as a counts-as codex choices in a tournament that bans Forgeworld.

I am not sure about that. I would have a hard time supporting any TO or tournament that didn't allow me to use a FW dread in a game. I use a FW Space Wolf Venerable dread as my Bjorn, I modeled the fist to have claws like Bjorn. I was told I could use my Contemptor as a normal dread or my HH Mk III or Mk VI marines as regular marines.

I've never heard of someone disallowing FW MODELS, just the rules.

The crux of the argument, of course, is whether a TO is "disallowing" them or "allowing" them ... whether the standard requires disallowance or allowance.

I think the fact that the rules still say you should make sure your opponent is comfortable playing with them (aka, ask your opponent's permission) implies TO's have to make the call here.

The funny thing is people who read that quote and claim it says "see opponent's permission no longer matters."

I'm undecided about how we'll handle this issue next year at NOVA '13. I also am really excited as a hobbyist about the Horus Heresy series. Presently we allow FW in some events and not in others, following leads of events like AdeptiCon.

While I enjoy the discussion about whether it is or isn't balanced, I'm not sure that's actually relevant. The cost to prepare issue is one I personally find relevant (as I know how much our attendees already spend to prepare). There are a lot of good points on both sides ... that's why there's a discussion at all.

The only thing I'm passionately in agreement with is the notion that people should not be claiming automatic rightness in pressuring TO's as a whole to allow OR disallow FW. In fact, that kind of pressure goes explicitly against the very nature of the FW 40k stamp rules - the requirement that you make sure your opponent is comfortable using them. When it comes to "comfortable or not" for a tournament setting, that's quite unavoidably the TO's determination to make ... not FW's, or GW's, or pushy internets types (in EITHER direction).

Quote in question, btw, after stating that they are now official:

Forgeworld wrote:but owing to the fact they may be unknown to yout oponent, its best to make sure they are happy to play a game useing forge world models before you start"

This applies just as much to pick-up games. The rules require you to ask an opponent at a local game store who you don't even know if he's happy to play with Forgeworld rules. If he says, NO, I don't know them at all, I'm not happy with that ... he's NOT the douche for saying no. Social pressure on rules that give free choice to both answers is uncool.

This quote from the actual rules is also why there's no comparison between Codex and FW/IA. People can't refuse to let you play with a part of your codex that they're not as familiar with. They can refuse to play with a part of FW rules they aren't familiar with.

This also of course highlights the only real question - FW's officiality and playability isn't restricted by balance issues, or cost issues, or any of that. It's restricted by familiarity. Therein lies the rub for me - do participants have a reasonable opportunity to become familiar with the various FW rules? MOST people won't develop an encyclopedic familiarity with every Codex or even the Rulebook, but they have a very reasonable opportunity to do so, should they so choose. Even local Game Stores, and all GW's, have free readable copies of all the codices/rulebook. The same cannot as easily be said about FW. The breadth to which you permit FW use in your tourneys, then, is directly related to this question as a TO, IMO.

 kronk wrote:

 Alfndrate wrote:

 Oaka wrote:
I think most people agree that Forgeworld units are overcosted for what they do, so it's unlikely that someone takes them simply to win games. I'm bummed because they're some really awesome models that can't be used as a counts-as codex choices in a tournament that bans Forgeworld.

I regularly used my Forgeworld Ultramarine Dread and Vulnerable Dreads with Rifleman Arms... no one ever thought that I was using them as something different... tournament or not.

I'm also confused by that statement. Do you have a specific example of what your local tournaments won't let you use in a counts-as basis? I use my Forge World Black Templar dreadnought every time I field a dreadnought, but I suppose that's not really a counts as.

Land Speeder Tempest, Tauros, Grot Tanks, Hell Blade, Lightning Fighter, Thunderbolt, Hell Talon, Dreadclaw, Barracuda, Remora Drones, Void Dragon, Nightwing,Firestorm, Phoenix,Groyt Bombs, Squiggoth,Vulture,Valkyrie Sky Talon,WarKopta, Hornet, Tomb Stalker,and Blight Drones.

These are all from the Imperial Armor Apocalypse books which all cost less than $50. None of these Items have a codex entry that is close to the same except the Landspeeder tempest but then it would not be WYSWIG.

Then what are you Counts-As, then?

Dreadclaw as counts-as drop pod? Very similar. I doubt I'd mind.

Beyond that, they aren't nearly the same size or shape. I suppose I might be missing a few models that might be similar, though.

vhwolf wrote:

 kronk wrote:

 Alfndrate wrote:

 Oaka wrote:
I think most people agree that Forgeworld units are overcosted for what they do, so it's unlikely that someone takes them simply to win games. I'm bummed because they're some really awesome models that can't be used as a counts-as codex choices in a tournament that bans Forgeworld.

I regularly used my Forgeworld Ultramarine Dread and Vulnerable Dreads with Rifleman Arms... no one ever thought that I was using them as something different... tournament or not.

I'm also confused by that statement. Do you have a specific example of what your local tournaments won't let you use in a counts-as basis? I use my Forge World Black Templar dreadnought every time I field a dreadnought, but I suppose that's not really a counts as.

Land Speeder Tempest, Tauros, Grot Tanks, Hell Blade, Lightning Fighter, Thunderbolt, Hell Talon, Dreadclaw, Barracuda, Remora Drones, Void Dragon, Nightwing,Firestorm, Phoenix,Groyt Bombs, Squiggoth,Vulture,Valkyrie Sky Talon,WarKopta, Hornet, Tomb Stalker,and Blight Drones.

These are all from the Imperial Armor Apocalypse books which all cost less than $50. None of these Items have a codex entry that is close to the same except the Landspeeder tempest but then it would not be WYSWIG.

That's kinda understandable.

A proper Count's As needs to be easily identified and of similer size and shape to what its counting as.

A Dreadclaw counts as drop pod. Thats cool. A Blight Drone counting as a Defiler, thats more of a stretch.

A dread claw counts as a drop pod for a Marine army but the CSM book currently does not have drop pods as an option. So in order to use it you would need to counts as your chaos army into a Imperial one.

Well thats an obvious stupulation.

...or, you've painted a Dread Claw to match your Imperial Fists for some reason.

Fantastic post, MVBrandt! Fully agree... which is to say, agree it's up to each individual TO, and with your thoughts on the wording of the clause at the start of the book.

For those thinking about running an event with FW, here is the info we have available to our players:

http://www.themechanicon.com/1/rules-info/rules-faqs/

Playing any game of 40k requires your opponents permission.

So that applies to both Games Workshop and Forgeworld models. It's part and parcel of playing a game vs a live opponent.

I've seen players refuse to play opponents that have standard 40K army builds and withdraw from a game.

I've seen players refuse to play certain opponents and withdraw from a match.

Certainly, few and far between. I don't advocate doing so especially at an event but it happens. The end result is people have the right to say I don't want to spend the next 2.5 hours playing against an opponent or army having a miserable time.
Forgeworld or no Forgeworld.

So Forgeworld spells it out, but it applies to even "standard" 40k.

MVBrandt wrote:
I've never heard of someone disallowing FW MODELS, just the rules.

The crux of the argument, of course, is whether a TO is "disallowing" them or "allowing" them ... whether the standard requires disallowance or allowance.

I think the fact that the rules still say you should make sure your opponent is comfortable playing with them (aka, ask your opponent's permission) implies TO's have to make the call here.

The funny thing is people who read that quote and claim it says "see opponent's permission no longer matters."

I'm undecided about how we'll handle this issue next year at NOVA '13. I also am really excited as a hobbyist about the Horus Heresy series. Presently we allow FW in some events and not in others, following leads of events like AdeptiCon.

While I enjoy the discussion about whether it is or isn't balanced, I'm not sure that's actually relevant. The cost to prepare issue is one I personally find relevant (as I know how much our attendees already spend to prepare). There are a lot of good points on both sides ... that's why there's a discussion at all.

The only thing I'm passionately in agreement with is the notion that people should not be claiming automatic rightness in pressuring TO's as a whole to allow OR disallow FW. In fact, that kind of pressure goes explicitly against the very nature of the FW 40k stamp rules - the requirement that you make sure your opponent is comfortable using them. When it comes to "comfortable or not" for a tournament setting, that's quite unavoidably the TO's determination to make ... not FW's, or GW's, or pushy internets types (in EITHER direction).

Quote in question, btw, after stating that they are now official:

Forgeworld wrote:but owing to the fact they may be unknown to yout oponent, its best to make sure they are happy to play a game useing forge world models before you start"

This applies just as much to pick-up games. The rules require you to ask an opponent at a local game store who you don't even know if he's happy to play with Forgeworld rules. If he says, NO, I don't know them at all, I'm not happy with that ... he's NOT the douche for saying no. Social pressure on rules that give free choice to both answers is uncool.

This quote from the actual rules is also why there's no comparison between Codex and FW/IA. People can't refuse to let you play with a part of your codex that they're not as familiar with. They can refuse to play with a part of FW rules they aren't familiar with.

This also of course highlights the only real question - FW's officiality and playability isn't restricted by balance issues, or cost issues, or any of that. It's restricted by familiarity. Therein lies the rub for me - do participants have a reasonable opportunity to become familiar with the various FW rules? MOST people won't develop an encyclopedic familiarity with every Codex or even the Rulebook, but they have a very reasonable opportunity to do so, should they so choose. Even local Game Stores, and all GW's, have free readable copies of all the codices/rulebook. The same cannot as easily be said about FW. The breadth to which you permit FW use in your tourneys, then, is directly related to this question as a TO, IMO.

Yes. On all points yes.

muwhe wrote:
Playing any game of 40k requires your opponents permission.

So that applies to both Games Workshop and Forgeworld models. It's part and parcel of playing a game vs a live opponent.

I've seen players refuse to play opponents that have standard 40K army builds and withdraw from a game.

I've seen players refuse to play certain opponents and withdraw from a match.

Certainly, few and far between. I don't advocate doing so especially at an event but it happens. The end result is people have the right to say I don't want to spend the next 2.5 hours playing against an opponent or army having a miserable time.
Forgeworld or no Forgeworld.

So Forgeworld spells it out, but it applies to even "standard" 40k.

I agree here. The fact that it is not spelled out explicitly has bearing, however .. it is also spelled out explicitly in the game rules that the codices in full are used, and it spells out how they are used. They do not say you can/should/mightwantto build an army using subsidiary company FW rules.

That said, I think they mean what they say when they say these new FW 40k stamps are official. I also think they mean what they say when they say opponents should be OK with and happy to play with them prior to commencing a game.

Even in regard to regular codices though, tournament organizers intentionally or incidentally decide that "comfort zone" of what's playable and not when they design their missions. Narrative, 40kfriendly, team, apoc, GT's, etc., all have missions and rules and restrictions that directly (comp) or indirectly (mission design) influence what should be brought.

The overarching point of my post was simply that: not only am I not personally sure what all events I want to allow or disallow FW in (and it may be, "allowed in all"), there's an explicitly written FW statement that familiarity and happiness need to be taken into account when considering their use. Official and "opponent's permission" are BOTH included still within that 40k approved stamp. As tournaments cannot leave that up to each game (i.e. Round 1 my opponent said he wasn't familiar so I couldn't use 250 points of my army), the TO has to make that decision for his/her attendees. Without at all stating my PERSONAL choice for NOVA 2013 on this issue (I haven't made a decision, won't for a while, and that decision has no bearing on the argument anyway), I'm simply reinforcing only the position that each TO has the right to do as they please here, and people trying to pressure them NOT to use FW, or TO use FW, are the ones being unreasonable in the 10+ page debate.

I like FW and would like to see it used, but anyone who thinks its fair in a vacuum is deluding themselves to fit their personal agenda. There has been this massive push against comp in the 40k community for the last few years, as the Warmahordes crowd has taken over, but the reality is I think if you guys want to use it and want the game to be something other than "SW with IG Allies vs IG w SW Allies" at table one every event that there needs to be some discussion about bringing soft scores back into the game. Hell, I would argue that 6th edition in general needs comp again in some form, but thats a different discussion....

MVBrandt wrote:
This quote from the actual rules is also why there's no comparison between Codex and FW/IA. People can't refuse to let you play with a part of your codex that they're not as familiar with. They can refuse to play with a part of FW rules they aren't familiar with.

Err, lol? Since when do I have to allow someone to play with every part of their codex? If I don't want to let a marine player take tactical squads I can say "I'm not playing against tactical squads" and not play a game against them until they remove the unit from their list.

I'm simply reinforcing only the position that each TO has the right to do as they please here, and people trying to pressure them NOT to use FW, or TO use FW, are the ones being unreasonable in the 10+ page debate.

Agreed!!

 Peregrine wrote:

MVBrandt wrote:
This quote from the actual rules is also why there's no comparison between Codex and FW/IA. People can't refuse to let you play with a part of your codex that they're not as familiar with. They can refuse to play with a part of FW rules they aren't familiar with.

Err, lol? Since when do I have to allow someone to play with every part of their codex? If I don't want to let a marine player take tactical squads I can say "I'm not playing against tactical squads" and not play a game against them until they remove the unit from their list.

You can do whatever you like, but the Codex and Rulebook do not have a specific rule that says you must make sure your opponent is happy to play against tactical squads. The FW Official stamp MAKES them official, but it ALSO says you have to make sure your opponent is happy to play with those rules. This is explicitly unique to FW, no matter how you want to draw inferences to how you could behave toward someone with just a Codex. Do note I'm not arguing what is or isn't official. I'm not even arguing the tournament import of the 40k Forgeworld stamp (I think each TO should decide independently what they think of it). I'm just pointing out something VERY unique to Forgeworld - the requirement to make sure your opponent is familiar with and happy to play with FW rules before commencing a game of 40k. This is a step beyond the inherent and unspoken requirement of being happy to simply play a game of rulebook+codex 40k against someone. This is reinforced by the fact that no 40k codex has any mention of making sure your opponent is familiar with and happy to use that codex in a game prior to playing. There's ALWAYS an unspoken rule that nobody has to play a game they don't want to, but clearly the FW stamp goes a step further - it speaks it, and speaks exactly how it works.

This differentiation is what causes some hesitation on the part of many reasonable and intelligent people. It's neither "right" nor "wrong" as a TO to allow or disallow FW in any of the given events you run.

MVBrandt wrote:
I'm just pointing out something VERY unique to Forgeworld - the requirement to make sure your opponent is familiar with and happy to play with FW rules before commencing a game of 40k. This is a step beyond the inherent and unspoken requirement of being happy to simply play a game of rulebook+codex 40k against someone.

Except it really isn't different. Whether it says so explicitly in the rulebook or not a two-player game requires both people to agree on what armies they're going to use (or agree to a TO's policy by entering a tournament). It's still the exact same principle in both cases.

The FW statement is really just a concession to the whiners. The best way to read it is "everything here is 100% official, we've said it dozens of times, but there are still TFGs who refuse to believe it so you should make sure you aren't playing against one of them before bothering to set up your army". It's a useful policy for avoiding extended arguments with people who still think the old "opponent's permission" line exists, but it doesn't say a whole lot about official policies about what should and shouldn't be used.

This differentiation is what causes some hesitation on the part of many reasonable and intelligent people. It's neither "right" nor "wrong" as a TO to allow or disallow FW in any of the given events you run.

Just like it's not right or wrong to ban the entire Necron and GK codices because the TO doesn't like silver armies, or ban armies with more than two dedicated transports. It's just hilarious to see 40k players whine and cry about comp because we should play the game as GW wrote it, not according to some individual TO's house rules about how it should be, but then argue that we shouldn't allow FW rules because they're too powerful.

 Peregrine wrote:

MVBrandt wrote:
I'm just pointing out something VERY unique to Forgeworld - the requirement to make sure your opponent is familiar with and happy to play with FW rules before commencing a game of 40k. This is a step beyond the inherent and unspoken requirement of being happy to simply play a game of rulebook+codex 40k against someone.

Except it really isn't different. Whether it says so explicitly in the rulebook or not a two-player game requires both people to agree on what armies they're going to use (or agree to a TO's policy by entering a tournament). It's still the exact same principle in both cases.

The FW statement is really just a concession to the whiners. The best way to read it is "everything here is 100% official, we've said it dozens of times, but there are still TFGs who refuse to believe it so you should make sure you aren't playing against one of them before bothering to set up your army". It's a useful policy for avoiding extended arguments with people who still think the old "opponent's permission" line exists, but it doesn't say a whole lot about official policies about what should and shouldn't be used.

This differentiation is what causes some hesitation on the part of many reasonable and intelligent people. It's neither "right" nor "wrong" as a TO to allow or disallow FW in any of the given events you run.

Just like it's not right or wrong to ban the entire Necron and GK codices because the TO doesn't like silver armies.

The comment that FW wrote the statement to make a concession to "whiners" lowers your merit in argument, I would think. However and whyever upset you are about toy soldier games, there's a dramatic difference between "unspoken rules of gaming" and "printed specific rule about how to introduce an opponent to FW rules." Suggesting we re-write a rule in our minds to claim everyone on the other side of your position is a whiner and TFG ... well, I'm not sure why I'm even replying.

I'll reiterate that there's nothing in my opinion that makes FW rules unofficial, or illegal. That said, they explicitly state permission-seeking above and beyond the natural flow of 2-player gaming.

In regard to your right/wrong TO comment, I agree of course! I don't know what your point is? I think it would be far less common, though - as I said in the more relevant above post, the Necron codex includes no clearly printed requirement for you to make sure your opponent is happy to play with that part of rulebook 40k. The FW stamp DOES explicitly state that requirement. So it's more natural for a TO to consider a printed requirement than an unprinted one. Nevertheless, events that forbid the use of some or many codices actually happen quite routinely. What was your point?

I don't find it hilarious, I find it representative of the nature of gamers. Some like comp, some like no comp, some like FW, some like no FW, some like comp but no FW, some like FW and comp. Me, I kinda enjoy playing any of them. I actually think this argument is rather pointless, because I think the vast majority of tournament-goers are like me in that regard. I run into a lot of the same crowd at AdeptiCon as at BFS or NOVA. Some people like to play in tournaments for reasons other than the nuances of what the TO felt comfortable allowing or disallowing.



In positive news, this discussion has made me consider running both a FW-only and/or Horus Heresy evening tourney next year at NOVA ... and/or of running a "softdex" tourney, where only the codices perceived as old and/or weak are allowed to be played. Both would be perfectly within the rights of a TO, and I'll bet we'd get at least 32 people playing in each in just the first year! Good idea with the whole "no silver robot dex" comment.

So what about using your own converted models as counts-as FW units? Sure you can use FW models to count as some codex entries in events that don't allow FW but can I convert up my own models and use them in events that do? Just curious if it goes both ways in peoples minds...

I'd be down for some of those events Mike.

I would allow you to.

My Armored Company utilizes several Forge World models, including a pair of Ryza-pattern Vanquishers, a squadron of Hydras, a Forge World executioner, and some other Forge World goodies like Chimera turrets.

Of course, however, the core of any good armored regiment is the humble (and formidable) standard Leman Russ battletank, which is by no means a Forge World exclusive model. So if I can use 9x LRBT, 1x Vanquisher, and some other stuff as a Forge World army, I don't see why you can't.


OTOH I see the reasoning behind, for example, making DKoK players use DKoK models. So IDK.

muwhe wrote:

I'm simply reinforcing only the position that each TO has the right to do as they please here, and people trying to pressure them NOT to use FW, or TO use FW, are the ones being unreasonable in the 10+ page debate.

Agreed!!

Peregrine, you realize that in taking issue with the above, written by MVBrandt and agreed to by muwhe, you're disagreeing with 2 TOs of some of the biggest US GTs, Nova and Adepticon, right?

You have every right to do that, but these guys know what the heck they're talking about!

And a Horus Heresy evening event at Nova sounds just plain awesome

Re: Counts as, generally making something to counts as a FW model has less acceptance, for whatever reason (probably just keeping track of everything) than doing the reverse. The Mechanicon document linked to above prohibits it outright.

 RiTides wrote:
Re: Counts as, generally making something to counts as a FW model has less acceptance, for whatever reason (probably just keeping track of everything) than doing the reverse. The Mechanicon document linked to above prohibits it outright.

Which makes no sense - if you're going to say there's no difference between a codex unit and a Forgeworld unit but only allow conversions/counts-as for the former... I'd love to hear some reasoning.