Author |
Message |
 |
|
 |
Advert
|
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. |
|
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2012/10/04 03:01:48
Subject: The Case Against Allowing Forge World at Tournaments
|
 |
The Hive Mind
|
Peregrine wrote:. I would not be surprised at all to hear that GW had no clue stuff like Necron flyerspam was ever going to be played in a real game.
As clueless as I believe they are sometimes, they can't be that clueless.
|
My beautiful wife wrote:Trucks = Carnifex snack, Tanks = meals. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2012/10/04 06:17:44
Subject: The Case Against Allowing Forge World at Tournaments
|
 |
Longtime Dakkanaut
|
Hulksmash wrote:MarkyMark wrote: Hulksmash wrote:. And GW obviously doesn't endorse this since their most recent book had the interceptor rule present zero times and only a single skyfire option outside of the flyer.
Just my read on it.
Quad gun or Icacrus las cannon?
That's pretty out of context. GW allows every army the option to buy a single interceptor/skyfire model. The first codex in 6th has zero interceptor and one skyfire unit that isn't a flyer. Only a single unit was given skyfire at the beginning of 6th across the entire range. So we're up to two non-fortication/flyer units with skyfire. Does it seem they want it as prevelant as Forgeworld gives out?
And that's why I said I feel like allowing forgeworld unlimited is going back to 5th. Since flyers would quickly go down the toilet bowl and Daemons would be back to being nearly unplayable. Yay!
@Gray Templar
The problem is it isn't a single weapon. Forgeworld gives you access to quite a few. That's why I said nearly, not totally.
Ah most recent book i.e CSM, sorry I read most recent as the rule book my bad. Although I do agree interceptor is overpowered in that it can shoot at anything coming in from reserves and as you mention demons, having a large amount of saber or hyperios do usually tear demons a new one.
It does need some balance as at the moment flyer spam cannot be countered by most armies without having flyer spam yourself, did GW intended flyers to be king and hard to hit by most things, did GW intend for interceptor to be rare and special? I have no idea how GW act or think when writing rules so I cant comment on that, but it is at the opposite ends of the scale and currently doesnt seem very fair, FW can help address the balance but it can also be spammed just like every other powerful unit in the game FW or 'core'.
|
40kGlobal AOA member, regular of Overlords podcast club and 4tk gaming store. Blogger @ http://sanguinesons.blogspot.co.uk/
06/2013: 1st at War of the Roses ETC warm up.
08/213: 3rd place double teams at 4tk
09/2013: 7th place, best daemon and non eldar/tau army at Northern Warlords GT
10/2013: 3rd/4th at Battlefield Birmingham
11/2013: 5th at GT heat 3
11/2013: 5th COG 2k at 4tk
01/2014: 34th at Caledonian
03/2014: 3rd GT Final |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2012/10/04 06:42:34
Subject: The Case Against Allowing Forge World at Tournaments
|
 |
Douglas Bader
|
MarkyMark wrote:Although I do agree interceptor is overpowered in that it can shoot at anything coming in from reserves and as you mention demons, having a large amount of saber or hyperios do usually tear demons a new one.
To be fair, we can't really blame FW for that, since it's the fault of whatever idiot GW author thought it would be a good idea to combine "may also shoot at ground targets" and "may take a free shot at incoming reserves" into a single rule without allowing "may also shoot at ground targets" as a separate rule. FW HAD to give those units Interceptor just to let them continue to shoot at ground targets effectively.
|
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2012/10/04 09:07:13
Subject: The Case Against Allowing Forge World at Tournaments
|
 |
Terminator with Assault Cannon
|
I prefer "no Forge World" to "no Flyers." I'm not sure that either one is intrinsically more balanced than the other, but quite frankly, Flyers are a core part of the game and Forge World models aren't, and I'd rather force as few people to change as possible. In particular, allowing Sabre Defense Platforms essentially makes Flyers irrelevant to the game, and slams Codex: Dæmons and Drop Pod armies pretty damn hard to boot. There really isn't much of a reason to field Flyers when Sabre Defense Platforms (and to a lesser extent Hyperios Air Defense Launchers) are in the game,
Since GW's 6th edition balance clearly seems to involve interplay between Flyers and limited ground-to-air choices, I think allowing some of the ridiculous ground-to-air options provided by Forge World substantially reduces the balance and skill involved in 6th edition play.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2012/10/04 09:41:33
Subject: The Case Against Allowing Forge World at Tournaments
|
 |
Douglas Bader
|
Kingsley wrote:I'm not sure that either one is intrinsically more balanced than the other, but quite frankly, Flyers are a core part of the game and Forge World models aren't, and I'd rather force as few people to change as possible.
Except that FW is just as much a core part of the game as flyers. Unless of course by "flyers" you mean only codex units, with the ork and marine flyers banned?
As for forcing people to change, why is this even being considered? Do we ban the use of any codex written after a certain point so that nobody has to change their army to account for new stuff? Do we keep playing 5th because people would have to change their armies to deal with the new changes 6th adds? Do we ban people from trying new army concepts because it might introduce a metagame shift that forces people to change their armies to adapt? Of course we don't. Change is a constant in 40k, and you either deal with it or stop playing, no matter where the change comes from.
In particular, allowing Sabre Defense Platforms essentially makes Flyers irrelevant to the game, and slams Codex: Dæmons and Drop Pod armies pretty damn hard to boot. There really isn't much of a reason to field Flyers when Sabre Defense Platforms (and to a lesser extent Hyperios Air Defense Launchers) are in the game,
Except:
1) Flyers and dedicated AA units exist in balance. If the metagame favors flyers dedicated AA becomes popular. If people stop bringing flyers because of all the Sabre and Hyperios platforms then those AA units become redundant and people stop bringing them. Eventually things will most likely settle at some kind of balance where both exist to some degree but neither dominates.
2) They don't hurt flyers, they hurt flyerspam armies. You know, the armies that have no meaningful on-table presence to blow up the AA units before they get to fire. Sure, that's hard to do against AA spam, but AA spam only exists until it drives flyerspam out of the metagame. Once you're talking about a small number of platforms a list with 1-2 flyers can kill them before the flyers arrive.
Plus, if you're really paranoid about those platforms ruining the game, there's a simple solution: ban aegis lines.
Since GW's 6th edition balance clearly seems to involve interplay between Flyers and limited ground-to-air choices, I think allowing some of the ridiculous ground-to-air options provided by Forge World substantially reduces the balance and skill involved in 6th edition play.
How is there skill involved in "my codex doesn't have any AA weapons"? Or in "throw lots of AC shots at it and hope for 6s"? This isn't really deep strategy we're talking about here.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/10/04 09:43:38
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2012/10/04 09:56:00
Subject: The Case Against Allowing Forge World at Tournaments
|
 |
Terminator with Assault Cannon
|
Peregrine wrote: Kingsley wrote:I'm not sure that either one is intrinsically more balanced than the other, but quite frankly, Flyers are a core part of the game and Forge World models aren't, and I'd rather force as few people to change as possible.
Except that FW is just as much a core part of the game as flyers. Unless of course by "flyers" you mean only codex units, with the ork and marine flyers banned?
Don't play this sort of game, it only makes you look silly. Everyone knows Games Workshop produced models exist on a different level than Forge World produced models. If Games Workshop itself said, in a Games Workshop publication, that Forge World models were legal, then they'd be on the same level. As it stands, they aren't, and the fact that official Games Workshop tournaments don't allow them should be all the proof we need to put this tired old myth to rest.
Peregrine wrote:In particular, allowing Sabre Defense Platforms essentially makes Flyers irrelevant to the game, and slams Codex: Dæmons and Drop Pod armies pretty damn hard to boot. There really isn't much of a reason to field Flyers when Sabre Defense Platforms (and to a lesser extent Hyperios Air Defense Launchers) are in the game,
Except:
1) Flyers and dedicated AA units exist in balance. If the metagame favors flyers dedicated AA becomes popular. If people stop bringing flyers because of all the Sabre and Hyperios platforms then those AA units become redundant and people stop bringing them. Eventually things will most likely settle at some kind of balance where both exist to some degree but neither dominates.
This sounds well and good, but unfortunately Forge World's anti-aircraft units don't exist in balance, because they're very strong choices even if flyers aren't in the game. For instance, Sabre platforms count as Artillery and are thus massively better than the Imperial Guard Heavy Weapon Squads they replace. Normally, there is a balance-- flakk missiles, for instance, are expensive enough that taking them is a serious choice-- but Forge World has several units that counter flyers while still being obvious choices for a normal army. For instance, Forge World rules give normal "Rifleman" Dreadnoughts Interceptor and Skyfire when stationary in a Dark Angels army. Since people already run those all the time, all changes like this do is hose Flyers.
Thus, allowing these units unbalances the Flyer metagame element provided by 6th edition. There's no reason to make tough choices about your balance of Flyers, dedicated anti-air units, and pseudo anti-air units when you can simply take units that are good against ground units and also-- seemingly for free-- get to blow Flyers out of the sky before the Flyers even get a chance to attack.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2012/10/04 10:33:49
Subject: The Case Against Allowing Forge World at Tournaments
|
 |
Douglas Bader
|
Kingsley wrote:Don't play this sort of game, it only makes you look silly. Everyone knows Games Workshop produced models exist on a different level than Forge World produced models. If Games Workshop itself said, in a Games Workshop publication, that Forge World models were legal, then they'd be on the same level. As it stands, they aren't, and the fact that official Games Workshop tournaments don't allow them should be all the proof we need to put this tired old myth to rest.
Every single FW book is a Games Workshop publication, so your standard has been met.
And who cares what GW allows in their single remaining tournament, they also don't allow more than 500 points of allies. But yet I don't see anyone demanding that everyone follow GW's example and ban lists with more than 500 points of allies.
This sounds well and good, but unfortunately Forge World's anti-aircraft units don't exist in balance, because they're very strong choices even if flyers aren't in the game. For instance, Sabre platforms count as Artillery and are thus massively better than the Imperial Guard Heavy Weapon Squads they replace.
Sure, but HWS aren't that good so it doesn't take much for a unit to be better than them. In the absence of flyerspam lists to worry about the Sabre platforms are good, but a little on the expensive side and not something you can afford to spam.
For instance, Forge World rules give normal "Rifleman" Dreadnoughts Interceptor and Skyfire when stationary in a Dark Angels army. Since people already run those all the time, all changes like this do is hose Flyers.
Yeah, I'm not really seeing the problem with giving the poor Dark Angels player (singular) something decent to make up for the rest of the codex being awful.
There's no reason to make tough choices about your balance of Flyers, dedicated anti-air units, and pseudo anti-air units when you can simply take units that are good against ground units and also-- seemingly for free-- get to blow Flyers out of the sky before the Flyers even get a chance to attack.
You're right, that would be a problem. Fortunately we don't have that problem since FW's AA units aren't like that. At most you could argue that the Sabre guns are too good (though mostly because GW changed the artillery rules, the old Sabre platforms were pretty bad), but all of the other AA units are marginal at best if you don't need to plan against flyerspam.
|
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2012/10/04 10:37:43
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2012/10/04 10:36:32
Subject: The Case Against Allowing Forge World at Tournaments
|
 |
Daemonic Dreadnought
|
Interceptor doesn't autowin against all deamon lists. Sure it would work well against flying circus, but T3/t4 Tzeentch deamons are not a great target for intercepting lascannons, and once they intercept they don't shoot next turn.
|
Chaos isn’t a pit. Chaos is a ladder. Many who try to climb it fail, and never get to try again. The fall breaks them. And some are given a chance to climb, but refuse. They cling to the realm, or love, or the gods…illusions. Only the ladder is real. The climb is all there is, but they’ll never know this. Not until it’s too late.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2012/10/04 11:04:16
Subject: The Case Against Allowing Forge World at Tournaments
|
 |
[ARTICLE MOD]
Fixture of Dakka
|
Kingsley wrote:
Don't play this sort of game, it only makes you look silly. Everyone knows Games Workshop produced models exist on a different level than Forge World produced models.
No, not everyone knows this. Some of us know that Forgeworld models are GW models. That's the portion of us who are literate.
Thus, allowing these units unbalances the Flyer metagame element provided by 6th edition
You have once again made the mistake of believing that the metagame is balanced, with or without Forgeworld. Any argument against the inclusion of Forgeworld that uses the word balance is automatically invalid.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2012/10/04 11:14:07
Subject: The Case Against Allowing Forge World at Tournaments
|
 |
Dakka Veteran
Peoria, IL
|
You have once again made the mistake of believing that the metagame is balanced, with or without Forgeworld. Any argument against the inclusion of Forgeworld that uses the word balance is automatically invalid.
+1 this.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2012/10/04 12:00:01
Subject: The Case Against Allowing Forge World at Tournaments
|
 |
Longtime Dakkanaut
|
Redbeard wrote:Kingsley wrote:
Don't play this sort of game, it only makes you look silly. Everyone knows Games Workshop produced models exist on a different level than Forge World produced models.
No, not everyone knows this. Some of us know that Forgeworld models are GW models. That's the portion of us who are literate.
Thus, allowing these units unbalances the Flyer metagame element provided by 6th edition
You have once again made the mistake of believing that the metagame is balanced, with or without Forgeworld. Any argument against the inclusion of Forgeworld that uses the word balance is automatically invalid.
Totally agree that the 'core' rules arent balanced across the board, and he gave a perfect example of one, Dark Angels, how, bar the can possibly hurt one flyer a turn emplaced guns, can DA's hurt flyers, just shoot everything they have in the air in the hope of getting 6's, ignoring whats on the ground? they have NO flyers without allies and not everyone wants to take allies and they have only the quad and lascannon to take down flyers, facing a flyer heavy army guess whats getting shot to pieces first....
|
40kGlobal AOA member, regular of Overlords podcast club and 4tk gaming store. Blogger @ http://sanguinesons.blogspot.co.uk/
06/2013: 1st at War of the Roses ETC warm up.
08/213: 3rd place double teams at 4tk
09/2013: 7th place, best daemon and non eldar/tau army at Northern Warlords GT
10/2013: 3rd/4th at Battlefield Birmingham
11/2013: 5th at GT heat 3
11/2013: 5th COG 2k at 4tk
01/2014: 34th at Caledonian
03/2014: 3rd GT Final |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2012/10/04 12:50:48
Subject: The Case Against Allowing Forge World at Tournaments
|
 |
[DCM]
Dankhold Troggoth
|
Hulksmash wrote:I agree with Doc above and second a list with the updated rules that will be allowed at a tournament. That way the most recent rules are going to be used. Every should be able to look at a codex and realize it's the old rules. That's not something that's possible with FW items.
Seperately I'll add that I feel FW heavily favors Imperial forces. Does this mean there are a higher percentage of poop units for Imperials? Sure. But the higher number means even a small percentage of good units is going to be higher for imperial forces, especially with allies.
Personally I think a lot of the drive of certain people to allow forgeworld is because of the percieved OP'ness of flyers in 6th. Personally I don't like the increase numbers of the interceptor rule in FW. If more units were just skyfire I'm cool with that. But being able to take relatively cheap units (Imperially anyway) that can affect flyers and ground units is a little much. And GW obviously doesn't endorse this since their most recent book had the interceptor rule present zero times and only a single skyfire option outside of the flyer.
Just my read on it.
I really liked this post! I read the responses, but imo he explained his point really well and it's a reasonable point to make.
However, that discussion aside, I believe we established pages back that balance or perceived lack thereof is not necessarily the main reason to include/not include FW in a tournament.
Regarding the other point Hulk made above: since knowing exactly what rules are in use at an event is crucial, having an updated list of what book is currently providing the rules for a unit (for ones that have been updated multiple times / are in multiple books / etc) as Doc suggested and Hulk agreed with above, sounds imperative to me.
Saying "that's the responsibility of the player" only reinforces why folks are hesitant to have FW included. There are so many rules all over the place, having a list of exactly what units (or at the minimum, what books!!!) are allowed would be awesome, since it would make it much easier to prepare.
If there were units from say, 3 Imperial Armour books, with appropriate online updates- I feel that's somewhat reasonable. However, as an outsider to FW, I see that we're on IA9 or IA Volume 2 / ?? and get pretty darn intimidated. I don't even know the order / most recent, or which ones to pick up to prepare for a tournament allowing FW. So, (to the TOs) please consider including such a list for the events you decide to allow FW in! It would make the barrier to entry a lot easier to overcome for people who are not very familiar with FW, I think. The Adepticon requirement of asking the person to bring an extra printed out sheet of the rules to easily hand to their opponent to glance over is also a great provision, imo.
|
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2012/10/04 12:57:03
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2012/10/04 13:40:07
Subject: The Case Against Allowing Forge World at Tournaments
|
 |
Shas'o Commanding the Hunter Kadre
Missouri
|
RiTides wrote:If there were units from say, 3 Imperial Armour books, with appropriate online updates- I feel that's somewhat reasonable. However, as an outsider to FW, I see that we're on IA9 or IA Volume 2 / ?? and get pretty darn intimidated. I don't even know the order / most recent, or which ones to pick up to prepare for a tournament allowing FW.
I brought this up in another thread, and while I personally thought it was a valid point to make, I was basically accused of lying about not being able to tell which books had the most current rules in them. According to Yodhrin it should have taken me "two minutes to ascertain the information on my own", and that I was merely pretending not to know so that I could "maintain my fiction that FW rules are hard to find". Which was complete bs by the way, because if it weren't for Peregrine I honestly wouldn't have known which books had the most "current" rules in them. Personally I still doubt that those three books have all the rules.
Crap like that is one of the reasons why I'd simply rather not bother with it at all.
|
Desubot wrote:Why isnt Slut Wars: The Sexpocalypse a real game dammit.
"It's easier to change the rules than to get good at the game." |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2012/10/04 13:46:22
Subject: The Case Against Allowing Forge World at Tournaments
|
 |
[ARTICLE MOD]
Fixture of Dakka
|
RiTides wrote:
However, that discussion aside, I believe we established pages back that balance or perceived lack thereof is not necessarily the main reason to include/not include FW in a tournament.
Regarding the other point Hulk made above: since knowing exactly what rules are in use at an event is crucial, having an updated list of what book is currently providing the rules for a unit (for ones that have been updated multiple times / are in multiple books / etc) as Doc suggested and Hulk agreed with above, sounds imperative to me.
Saying "that's the responsibility of the player" only reinforces why folks are hesitant to have FW included. There are so many rules all over the place, having a list of exactly what units (or at the minimum, what books!!!) are allowed would be awesome, since it would make it much easier to prepare.
If there were units from say, 3 Imperial Armour books, with appropriate online updates- I feel that's somewhat reasonable. However, as an outsider to FW, I see that we're on IA9 or IA Volume 2 / ?? and get pretty darn intimidated.
I own all of the books, and I need to spend a little time to figure out which is the most recent rule for any given model. But I also own three Space Marine codexes and four Tyranid codexes, and a few White Dwarves with rules in them, so that's a task without FW too. I honestly wouldn't know what to do if my opponent showed up with one of those shadowweaver eldar tank things, and that's a " gw model".
I don't even know the order
Well, they start at Volume 1, and go up through Volume 11, pretty much numerically.
So, (to the TOs) please consider including such a list for the events you decide to allow FW in! It would make the barrier to entry a lot easier to overcome for people who are not very familiar with FW, I think. The Adepticon requirement of asking the person to bring an extra printed out sheet of the rules to easily hand to their opponent to glance over is also a great provision, imo.
This is actually a good point/idea. Though asking for print-outs is questionable legally. (Not a lawyer). Automatically Appended Next Post: Sidstyler wrote:
I brought this up in another thread, and while I personally thought it was a valid point to make, I was basically accused of lying about not being able to tell which books had the most current rules in them. According to Yodhrin it should have taken me "two minutes to ascertain the information on my own", and that I was merely pretending not to know so that I could "maintain my fiction that FW rules are hard to find". Which was complete bs by the way, because if it weren't for Peregrine I honestly wouldn't have known which books had the most "current" rules in them. Personally I still doubt that those three books have all the rules.
To be fair, two minutes is a little too short. 10-15, however, and you'd be good to go, provided you actually put in the effort. It's not that Peregrine got you info that's not available, it's that you didn't even bother trying to get it on your own.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/10/04 13:50:14
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2012/10/04 14:10:50
Subject: The Case Against Allowing Forge World at Tournaments
|
 |
The Hive Mind
|
Redbeard wrote:
I own all of the books, and I need to spend a little time to figure out which is the most recent rule for any given model. But I also own three Space Marine codexes and four Tyranid codexes, and a few White Dwarves with rules in them, so that's a task without FW too. I honestly wouldn't know what to do if my opponent showed up with one of those shadowweaver eldar tank things, and that's a " gw model".
You're going to honestly say it would take you longer than 10 seconds to remember which is the most recent Tyranid codex versus which of 11 Forgeworld books has the most recent rules for whichever unit?
I can't believe you'd make that comparison.
|
My beautiful wife wrote:Trucks = Carnifex snack, Tanks = meals. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2012/10/04 14:13:21
Subject: The Case Against Allowing Forge World at Tournaments
|
 |
Dakka Veteran
|
Perhaps a non FW tournament or two could be won by the cylon deathfleet before we open the floodgates and let FW in whole hog? This is a lot like all the GK whining for the last two years, but meanwhile SW and IG were still dominating all the events. Let the game be played as it is and let some actual hard data come in before taking a correcting pencil to it.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2012/10/04 14:16:42
Subject: The Case Against Allowing Forge World at Tournaments
|
 |
[DCM]
Dankhold Troggoth
|
Redbeard- I thought IA Vol 2 was the most recent? Like they changed the numbering? Honest question...
I was just throwing the number 3 out there, but Sidstyler mentioned 3 after, so now I'm curious. Are there 3 IA books that would contain all "non-Apocalypse only" units? That'd be great, and could entice me to pick them up. I know I'm not the only one in this boat- I tend to be one of the better-informed of my gaming group. But there's just not much FW use here, so it's hard to know what's really needed. Any clarifications/tips would be great!
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/10/04 14:17:48
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2012/10/04 14:18:25
Subject: The Case Against Allowing Forge World at Tournaments
|
 |
Decrepit Dakkanaut
|
Redbeard wrote:
I don't even know the order
Well, they start at Volume 1, and go up through Volume 11, pretty much numerically.
I know you're being silly, but I have to call Shenanigans here. Yes, the IA books are numbered 1-11, but
1. Not all of them have a table of contents on the FW site, so how do you know what's in each book?
2. They absolutely don't have the same units in the books.
3. There is also IA Apocalypse 2, IA Apocalypse Second Edition, and IA Aeronautica that were published in between the IA 1-11 books that made some units in IA 1-11 obsolete.
4. Did you miss the discussion a few pages back where I had to correct the guy using the pdf from 2008 to add a Lucious Pattern Drop pod to a Blood Angels army despite IA Apocalypse Second Edition forbidding BA, adding points, adding a FO slow, and adding a dangerous terrain test before assaulting, none of which the guy was using?
The simple fact that someone has to research for 10 minutes which IA book has the most recent rules for Unit X shows that there is a knowledge gap. I'll repeat what I said earlier, if a TO is going to allow FW units, he had better own or have friends bring ALL of the F'ing IA books with him or you'll have someone bring an old IA book (either unknowingly or maliciously), and using outdated rules.
|
DA:70S+G+M+B++I++Pw40k08+D++A++/fWD-R+T(M)DM+
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2012/10/04 14:24:06
Subject: The Case Against Allowing Forge World at Tournaments
|
 |
Dakka Veteran
Peoria, IL
|
I don't think Redbeard is saying that at all.
The reality is you are never going to have 1 book that has everything you need in the hobby. It's a matter of degrees.
The current space marine codex is out of date. It and all other 5th edition and older books require the updated 6th edition FAQs in order to function. In fact, unless you have the Space Marine Codex on the IPAD, you also need a copy of the White Dwarf with the Storm Talon rules to have all the Space Marine Codex rules on hand.
Does that mean we shouldn't allow the Storm Talon? The Space Marine Codex on the Ipad is a different version than the combined Space Marine Codex + FAQ. Which are the current rules?
The point is ... there is some overhead in being in this hobby and playing this game. That is not strictly a Forgeworld issue.
AdeptiCon produces this document every year to layout what book has the most current version of the rules and what AdeptiCon events allow Forgeworld models.
http://www.adepticon.org/12rules/201240KIAApoc.pdf
As we get closer to AdeptiCon we will update it for 2013 as well.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2012/10/04 14:30:21
Subject: The Case Against Allowing Forge World at Tournaments
|
 |
Decrepit Dakkanaut
|
muwhe wrote: The current space marine codex is out of date. It and all other 5th edition and older books require the updated 6th edition FAQs in order to function. In fact, unless you have the Space Marine Codex on the IPAD, you also need a copy of the White Dwarf with the Storm Talon rules to have all the Space Marine Codex rules on hand. Sorry, but that is not a valid comparison at all. The 5th edition Space Marine Codex makes everything in the 4th edition Space Marine codex obsolete. Any TO worth his salt will know the 5th edition codex from the 4th, and catch any errors. However, subsequent IA books DO NOT make other IA books obsolete. What subsequent IA books do is make Unit X from IA book A obsolete, and Unit Y from IA Book B obsolete. If you aren't familiar with ALL of the FW books or at least have access to them, you're going to F-up. That Adepticon link is Aces by the way. GREAT idea and good work, there!  That will be very useful for a TO running FW units and will help prevent players from using the wrong rules.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/10/04 14:30:40
DA:70S+G+M+B++I++Pw40k08+D++A++/fWD-R+T(M)DM+
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2012/10/04 14:40:30
Subject: The Case Against Allowing Forge World at Tournaments
|
 |
[ARTICLE MOD]
Fixture of Dakka
|
kronk wrote:
I know you're being silly, but I have to call Shenanigans here.
What does that mean, calling shenanigans? Is that from a movie?
The simple fact that someone has to research for 10 minutes which IA book has the most recent rules for Unit X shows that there is a knowledge gap.
And yet, it's still easier to get this information than to get the rules for the Eldar Shadowtank, or even the entire Sisters army. The points you raise are valid concerns, but they're nothing new. I've attended tournaments (in the past) where my opponent was running Kroot Mercenaries. I've played against Lost and the Damned. These were never printed codexes, and their rules weren't widely available. Did they break the game? No. Did I still have a good time at the tournament? Yes. Did I know everything those lists could do before encountering them? No. Did it matter? No. My opponent had the rules with them, and I was able to ask them questions and check their rules during the game.
This is not a complicated game. It's not a balanced game. All these arguments stem from fear of the unknown, nothing more. But, really, what's to fear? My opponent might use a model that I haven't seen before, and, in a game where things have AVs and Wounds, I might not be able to figure out how to kill it? My opponent might spring a hidden synergy on me? My opponent might find an "unfair" advantage?? (As if using the Space Wolf codex at all isn't an unfair advantage). You might have to think on your feet a little. Is that so scary? Are you admitting that you can't think on your feet? That you can't come up with a strategy to handle a model you hadn't seen before? God forbid you get put on a table with terrain you didn't expect, you'd probably lose the whole tournament. It might change the Meta?? Seriously? Every new White Dwarf might change the Meta... The level of paranoia here is just disgusting. They're toy soldiers. They look cool. They're not going to ruin your universe.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2012/10/04 14:46:30
Subject: The Case Against Allowing Forge World at Tournaments
|
 |
Decrepit Dakkanaut
|
I'm ignoring all of your "Is that so scary questions" as you are crossing into personal attacks and straw man arguments.
We don't know each other from Adam, but I (and my group) are very Pro-FW.
The points I am making is that a TO needs to take it upon himself to know what rules are current to avoid someone cheating or using the wrong version unintentionally.
Further, players need to make the choice to either be familiar with what the current rules are for each unit or just not play in a FW tournament. It doesn't do you any good to read the guy's IA book if it's the outdated IA book for the unit in question, as an example.
|
DA:70S+G+M+B++I++Pw40k08+D++A++/fWD-R+T(M)DM+
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2012/10/04 14:56:44
Subject: The Case Against Allowing Forge World at Tournaments
|
 |
[ARTICLE MOD]
Fixture of Dakka
|
kronk wrote:I'm ignoring all of your "Is that so scary questions" as you are crossing into personal attacks and straw man arguments.
They might not be your arguments, but they'r enot straw men - these are the exact reasons that others have posted, in this thread, for not wanting to allow FW at tournaments.
The points I am making is that a TO needs to take it upon himself to know what rules are current to avoid someone cheating or using the wrong version unintentionally.
Agreed. Although, I don't really know if it would be all that bad if someone used an older version, if that's the version of the rules they brought with them. As long as both players can look at the same page in a book and agree that it's what they're using, if it's the most recent version or not isn't going to matter.
Further, players need to make the choice to either be familiar with what the current rules are for each unit or just not play in a FW tournament. It doesn't do you any good to read the guy's IA book if it's the outdated IA book for the unit in question, as an example.
I don't think people need to know all the current rules to play in a tournament. That's the mindset that's scaring people away from FW. Again, this isn't that complex of a game. You don't need to know everything about every unit you might potentially encounter in order to play and have fun (and even win). There's nothing out there that's going to be so surprising that simply talking to your opponent at the beginning of the game won't address. Six questions: "What is that? What is it's statline? How does it move? What does it shoot and what's it's range? What does it do in assault? Does it have any special rules?" As long as they have whatever version of the rules they're using, you can play a game with them.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2012/10/04 15:09:51
Subject: The Case Against Allowing Forge World at Tournaments
|
 |
Infiltrating Oniwaban
|
kronk wrote:
That Adepticon link is Aces by the way. GREAT idea and good work, there!  That will be very useful for a TO running FW units and will help prevent players from using the wrong rules.
That does look like a good, comprehensive product and a nightmare to maintain. What happens when it's wrong? For example, I went looking for the one FW unit I care about, the Wraithseer. I have Imperial Armor Apocalypse, Second Edition. I bought it because of the Wraithseer. The Adepticon document shows IA11 as the proper reference for the Wraithseer. I think IAA:2E is newer than IA11. Shouldn't the list show that instead of IA11? Are the rules the same in both books? (I don't own IA11 to check) How many other units have this kind of discrepancy?
|
The Imperial Navy, A Galatic Force for Good. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2012/10/04 15:18:07
Subject: The Case Against Allowing Forge World at Tournaments
|
 |
Decrepit Dakkanaut
|
I think you have IA11 and Apoc 2nd edition backwards, Arshbombe, but my books are at home.
Redbeard wrote:
Further, players need to make the choice to either be familiar with what the current rules are for each unit or just not play in a FW tournament. It doesn't do you any good to read the guy's IA book if it's the outdated IA book for the unit in question, as an example.
I don't think people need to know all the current rules to play in a tournament. That's the mindset that's scaring people away from FW. Again, this isn't that complex of a game. You don't need to know everything about every unit you might potentially encounter in order to play and have fun (and even win). There's nothing out there that's going to be so surprising that simply talking to your opponent at the beginning of the game won't address. Six questions: "What is that? What is it's statline? How does it move? What does it shoot and what's it's range? What does it do in assault? Does it have any special rules?" As long as they have whatever version of the rules they're using, you can play a game with them.
I agree that you don't need to know all of the units to play the game. I agree that it's not that complex. I agree that all of your questions are good ones to ask and will let you know how to play against that unit.
However, you are not addressing my point so I'll say it again. For the 3rd time: If the TO isn't familiar with the current rules, how is he going to prevent someone from bringing the old rules. This is not 4th edition codex Space Marine codex versus 5th Edition codex sort of thing. This is a Unit A from book B is superseded by Unit A in Book C sort of thing. Again, look at the back and forth 5 or 6 pages ago concerning the Lucious Pattern Drop Pod. The guy thought he was in the right, despite it no longer being BA allowed, or having it's points increased, or taking up a FO slot, or forcing dangerous terrain.
If the TO doesn't have the books or some other resource, this will happen and players will feel cheated. All I am saying, AGAIN, is that the TO had better be up on what's the most recent rules/version of each units, and players should either do the same, or not care if their opponent is using the wrong version (always an option), or just not bother (also, always an option).
As I've said this multiple times and am not getting honest replies to it, I'm out of this conversation. Enjoy.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/10/04 15:24:37
DA:70S+G+M+B++I++Pw40k08+D++A++/fWD-R+T(M)DM+
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2012/10/04 15:41:59
Subject: The Case Against Allowing Forge World at Tournaments
|
 |
[ARTICLE MOD]
Fixture of Dakka
|
kronk wrote:
However, you are not addressing my point so I'll say it again. For the 3rd time: If the TO isn't familiar with the current rules, how is he going to prevent someone from bringing the old rules.
I did address that point. I agreed with you:
Redbeard wrote: kronk wrote:The points I am making is that a TO needs to take it upon himself to know what rules are current to avoid someone cheating or using the wrong version unintentionally.
Agreed.
I also went on to say that I really don't think the game is harmed that much by someone using an older version as long as both players agree that it's what's in the book, but yes, absolutely, TOs should know the rules.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2012/10/04 15:56:10
Subject: The Case Against Allowing Forge World at Tournaments
|
 |
[DCM]
Dankhold Troggoth
|
You think it's OK to use an old version, RB? That seems off.
Shenanigans is a good expression  surprised you don't know it!
Muwhe's Adepticon link is ace!
Attacking kronk is a bad idea RB- he's super pro- FW, and making a valid point.
Nobody replied to say what books I need!  Do I honestly need them all dating back to IA1, or will the 3 most recent (what are they?) suffice?
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2012/10/04 15:59:08
Subject: Re:The Case Against Allowing Forge World at Tournaments
|
 |
The Conquerer
Waiting for my shill money from Spiral Arm Studios
|
I believe the recent ones will be fine, IIRC they are updates of all the old stuff. And IA1 and IA2 are out of print due to being outdated anyway.
|
Self-proclaimed evil Cat-person. Dues Ex Felines
Cato Sicarius, after force feeding Captain Ventris a copy of the Codex Astartes for having the audacity to play Deathwatch, chokes to death on his own D-baggery after finding Calgar assembling his new Eldar army.
MURICA!!! IN SPESS!!! |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2012/10/04 15:59:24
Subject: The Case Against Allowing Forge World at Tournaments
|
 |
Archmagos Veneratus Extremis
Home Base: Prosper, TX (Dallas)
|
Technically all but IA1 & IA 2 aren't available anymore. I think they are going to be reprinted updated for 6th but right now they don't exist outside of ebay legitimately. In reality, it would depend on what you'd want to know the rules for. The three most recent won't cover some of the ork or eldar stuff. Though I don't currently have an IA Aeronatica (sp?) yet so maybe that has some of the missing units. Naturally characters and such are in their relevent books like Badab 9-10 for a ton of space marine ones.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/10/04 16:01:06
Best Painted (2015 Adepticon 40k Champs)
They Shall Know Fear - Adepticon 40k TT Champion (2012 & 2013) & 40k TT Best Sport (2014), 40k TT Best Tactician (2015 & 2016) |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2012/10/04 16:20:58
Subject: The Case Against Allowing Forge World at Tournaments
|
 |
Terminator with Assault Cannon
|
Redbeard wrote:Kingsley wrote:
Don't play this sort of game, it only makes you look silly. Everyone knows Games Workshop produced models exist on a different level than Forge World produced models.
No, not everyone knows this. Some of us know that Forgeworld models are GW models. That's the portion of us who are literate.
Stop playing dumb, it got old a long time ago.
Redbeard wrote:Thus, allowing these units unbalances the Flyer metagame element provided by 6th edition
You have once again made the mistake of believing that the metagame is balanced, with or without Forgeworld. Any argument against the inclusion of Forgeworld that uses the word balance is automatically invalid.
And I believe you on this... why? You seem to tout stupid Internethammer memes like Space Wolves being "unfair," so I'm not sure that I trust your opinions on balance.
Peregrine wrote: At most you could argue that the Sabre guns are too good (though mostly because GW changed the artillery rules, the old Sabre platforms were pretty bad), but all of the other AA units are marginal at best if you don't need to plan against flyerspam.
Since Imperial Guard can ally with practically everyone, it only takes one broken unit to throw off the balance for everyone else. If Sabre Platforms and a few other units were banned, I'd be fine with Forge World, but blanket allowing it does more harm than good IMO.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/10/04 16:21:16
|
|
 |
 |
|