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.

 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.

Sorry, I think my quote was mistaken for what I was trying to convey. I wanted to say that there are some really cool Forgeworld models available for purchase, that cannot simply be used as a 'Counts-As' unit. Personally, I could not use my Forgeworld Great Knarlocs or Knarloc Riders for anything in the 40K Tau Codex, so I have had to use a very blatant Counts-As list (Dark Eldar) in order to use these awesome models. If tournaments actually allowed Forgeworld units, I would definitely build a Kroot-heavy Tau list rather than use 'Counts-As'. This would actually help to avoid confusion for my opponent as he would see Kroot models and know I was playing a Tau army. As of right now, I have to spend about five minutes pre-game explaining to my opponent how all my Kroot models are actually Dark Eldar.

 Redbeard wrote:
I'm not 100% up-to-date on what's available to every army, but what do Tyranids have? As an aside, saying 'every army' is incorrect. Every faction might be better. I've got plenty of armies with no AA options. My Nurgle Daemons, for example, are all assault, all ground-pounding.

Tyranids are boned on a large number of fronts in this edition, honestly, and the air defense issue is simply one of many. Personally (and I love playing my nids) its not worth breaking a ton of other aspects of the game to try and save the book. Better to just wait on a new codex and hope Cruddace dies in a fire before then.

Daemons have some descent flying options, thanks to flying MCs with access to shooting attacks. If anything, its the Skyfire/Interceptor craze of FW that poses a bigger issue to Daemons, at least if you have not played a game with two flying GD and some DPs hosing down the table. When you take Nurgle Daemons you are making a concious choice to limit yourself to one part of the book, despite having the resources to address those problems. Thats a lot different than Nids who literally have nothing to address flyers and are designed almost entirely around assault. Getting angry at the guy picking paper when you picked rock is self defeating when you could have brought a more balanced army.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And again, literally every non-Nid army can ally with IG and toss a blob on the table behind an Aegis, if they want to. But most armies have a descent means to spam multishot mid strength weapons (or have Flyer/FMC single high strength shooters) to work against flyers in a pinch, assuming you can't just ignore them and focus on objectives. Nids have hive guard and some gimmicks in the psychic department, but not much else.

 Redbeard wrote:

 Phazael wrote:
Well Red, perhaps the science fiction game decided to make guns more dominant than guy with pointed stick? (no disrespect intended)

It's a game. There are flying tanks that drop off crazed warriors with power weapons right into close combat. There are units that tunnel through the ground with sharp pointy claws, and others that can teleport right next to you and kill you. The whole bit about "sci fi means guns" is pretty much discounted when the most popular sci-fi series of all time features a sword as it's defining weapon, and arguably the second most popular shows trained colonial marines getting ripped apart by clawed Aliens.

There's nothing inherent in Sci-fi that discounts close combat, as you have so many different ways to rationalize how something got close to your men with a sword. Being able to assault from deep-strike and/or reserve is not based in sci-fi, it's a game design decision (and a poor one, as the example with flamers of tzeentch shows).

Literally every army has access to meaningful AA options.

I'm not 100% up-to-date on what's available to every army, but what do Tyranids have? As an aside, saying 'every army' is incorrect. Every faction might be better. I've got plenty of armies with no AA options. My Nurgle Daemons, for example, are all assault, all ground-pounding.

How about those flying MCs that Tyranids can take, and those upgrades that DPs can take so that they can have wings?

 mikhaila wrote:
You have poor logic skills. Trying to infer that not allowing FW means we should not allow regular books is stupid and dramatic, not an argument in favor of FW.

You said that it's an unfair burden to expect people to learn 6-8 books they don't play. If it's an unfair burden to learn 6-8 FW books it's also an unfair burden to learn 6-8 GW books. Rulebooks are rulebooks, and it doesn't magically get any easier to learn a new army just because it has a different logo on the cover.

(Of course my position is that everything should be legal, and if you're too lazy to learn all the relevant rules then you just get to lose to someone who isn't.)

Normal GW codices are on the shelves, generally with store copies, and readily available. FW books aren't.

So I can take the store copy home with me and study it, use it as a reference for calculating average kills when building my list, etc?

Kudo's that you found all the illegal pdf's of the FW books. Give yourself a pat on the back. They aren't allowed in my store, the same way I don't allow pirated copies of any other game books.

So what? We're talking about learning about units you could encounter, and you don't need to bring the rules into the store with you just in case one of your opponents shows up with something that needs them. It's very simple:

If you want to learn about FW units and be prepared for your opponent to bring them, you BUY OR BORROW LEGAL COPIES OF THE BOOKS. -Mannahnin

If you want to use a FW unit, you buy the book and bring it to the game.

The argument that FW shouldn't be allowed because it's hard to learn the rules and be prepared for what your opponent could bring is just plain stupid in a world where EDITED BY MANNAHNIN


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Hulksmash wrote:
In my opinion it actually is a Forgeworld issue. Artillery in the rest of the game cannot be done on the same scale. Most artillery (in the 3 books it's available out the door) has only 2 wounds. Also note that they don't have the ability to go to ground and then pop back up. And is generally in a rather small unit.

Of course it's a GW problem. When the DKoK artillery guns were first created they were mediocre at best. They were completely immobile (IOW, couldn't turn to aim at new targets), and they could be destroyed by a single glance on AV 11. Now in 6th GW changed the artillery rules entirely, and all FW did was make the obvious changes to keep the concept of the unit intact. AV 11 became extra wounds, and everything else about the unit remained exactly the same.

If you want to fix the artillery problem, do something useful and petition GW to fix the core rules so that the extra gunners don't give a giant pile of T7 wounds (for example, roll to wound one shot at a time and always use the toughness of the closest model).

Artillery has always been weak in prior editions. I personally do not have issue with it being buffed. Its the inexpensive skyfire/interceptor variety that got spammed to all of the imperial books that I take issue at. And its not even generally well thought out what slots those units exist in. If Sabres and Hyperios were Heavy Support choices, they would still be kind of OP, but less problematic and more consistant with how other artillery is handled, which is to say every existing non FW artilery piece. The fact that things like the Hyperios, an immobile heavy weapons platform, is a fast attack option (notoriously useless for marines) suggests a concious effort on the FW guy who wrote the rules to make them an optimum choice with no downside.

And the irony here is that we are mostly talking about Sabres, which comprise one small element of the host of concerns FW presents. But this is most likely because the main focus of the more vocal pro-FW crowd is their obsessive fear of the percieved OPedness of flyers in the new editions and a desire to be able to use their same 5th edition netlist, while swapping out Rhinos/Chimeras for Sabres/Hyperios Platforms and calling it a day. I have been through several 40k edition changes and metagame shifts (as well as several Fantasy ones) and this is nothing new, kind of like how everyone who ran VP denial lists bitched about KPs when 5th hit. A lot of people on both sides of the issue can see this, even if they won't admit it.

Anyhow, I am done spamming the thread for a while. As much as I would love to build a Space Minotaur theme army with a Storm Eagle centerpiece, if letting FW into the game ultimately means no restrictions and I only ever see the same 3-5 busted units fielded (ie welcome to Sabrehammer 40k), I would rather not go down that road.

 Phazael wrote:
If Sabres and Hyperios were Heavy Support choices

But the Sabre was originally created as a troops choice (replacing a HWS in a platoon) way back in 4th edition, and since then has only been given a minimum of updates to keep it functioning properly in the new rules. This isn't some new "screw balance, screw flyers" addition, it's just a handful of units suddenly going from mediocre to powerful because of a change in the core rules.

The fact that things like the Hyperios, an immobile heavy weapons platform, is a fast attack option (notoriously useless for marines) suggests a concious effort on the FW guy who wrote the rules to make them an optimum choice with no downside.

It's probably because the Tarantula sentry guns are also a fast attack choice, for some bizarre reason.

I just sat down and pointed up the 50 man blob squad w/ flamer and Power Weapon plus commisar and sabers with defense line. It is 990 in points. Just food for thought and each three sabres will run about $110 before shipping.

vhwolf wrote:
I just sat down and pointed up the 50 man blob squad w/ flamer and Power Weapon plus commisar and sabers with defense line. It is 990 in points. Just food for thought and each three sabres will run about $110 before shipping.

That is immaterial when events like the BAO will allow counts as for FW models.

 OverwatchCNC wrote:

vhwolf wrote:
I just sat down and pointed up the 50 man blob squad w/ flamer and Power Weapon plus commisar and sabers with defense line. It is 990 in points. Just food for thought and each three sabres will run about $110 before shipping.

That is immaterial when events like the BAO will allow counts as for FW models.

Nice try on the arguement but almost every orginizer has said it has to be an acceptable counts as so it is still going to cost a bit of cash to make something that looks and feels correct. Also I was just giving the info not saying anything else one way or the other.

And its 900 points of "this quarter of the of the table is mine and if you even come near it, I will light you up like a christmas tree" thats not going anywhere. And remember those last 500 points can go a long way in a guard army, like two vet (or special weapons) squads in Vendettas/Drills and a Manticore with camo cloak fit very comfortably in the remaining points. Good luck scoring first blood or warlord on that list.

 Phazael wrote:

Daemons have some descent flying options, thanks to flying MCs with access to shooting attacks. If anything, its the Skyfire/Interceptor craze of FW that poses a bigger issue to Daemons, at least if you have not played a game with two flying GD and some DPs hosing down the table. When you take Nurgle Daemons you are making a concious choice to limit yourself to one part of the book, despite having the resources to address those problems. Thats a lot different than Nids who literally have nothing to address flyers and are designed almost entirely around assault. Getting angry at the guy picking paper when you picked rock is self defeating when you could have brought a more balanced army.

But that's the thing - it WAS a balanced army. It's now been forced into an unbalanced game. An army that could win 2-of-3 phases had a good chance of winning any game previously. Now we've got a new unit type added into the mix, one that looks good on paper, and probably sells model kits, but that makes assault, and any army (not codex) that's dependent on assault into an afterthought. If FW guns deter flyers, I'm all for their addition to the meta.

Your own discription was a dedicated assault army. I mean, I am sure the Zulus were pissed when the Brits showed up with a shooting army, too, but unless you want to share their fate you need to balance your army out. Really, the simple addition of two flying MCs with a shooting attack would address the AA issues and thats a minor alteration, plus they are not exactly terrible outside of the AA role. The whole point of a new edition is, in fact, to change the way the game is played.

 Phazael wrote:
Your own discription was a dedicated assault army. I mean, I am sure the Zulus were pissed when the Brits showed up with a shooting army, too,

This is a bit unfair as a comparison. Firstly, the Zulu's actually won several battles against the British - see Isandlwana. Secondly, the Zulu's didn't have infinite numbers, teleporters, jump packs or assault transports. Zulu's didn't have the advantage of being able to materialize out of the warp right next to the British, they had to run over an open field. And yet, even having to run over that open field, they scored some victories.

but unless you want to share their fate you need to balance your army out.

Let's not make this about me. I know how to change an army to a new system. That doesn't mean I like the new system, or even think it's worthy of being called amateur game design.

Really, the simple addition of two flying MCs with a shooting attack would address the AA issues and thats a minor alteration, plus they are not exactly terrible outside of the AA role.

Do you really think that two MCs with shooting attacks can do enough to prevent a flyer-based army from killing those MCs? Your opponent has a brain too, right? Their primary target is going to be whatever can hurt their flyers.

The whole point of a new edition is, in fact, to change the way the game is played.

I think that's a naive view. The point of a new edition is to sell more rulebooks and models. By degrading the models that everyone already has, and making an entirely new type that are both powerful, and require dedicated other new units to kill, they force people to buy buy buy (or quit). I'd love to know the sales figures on aegis defense lines since 6th came out. They're not even good wall models, and that's saying something. But, they're now necessary, so everyone has to buy one (or concede to those with flyers).

In the meantime, iconic 40k armies are rendered toothless or forced to convert to shooty armies. World Eaters? Orks, Tyranids, Chaos Daemons - sure, those codexes might have options to add extra shooting to a list, but really, is the tyranid swarm idealized by gunbugs or gribblies? Is the iconic vision of an Ork Waaagh the handful of boyz who had to sit at the back with the grots and the gunz or is it the lunatics yelling Waaaagh and charging with a choppa?

I keep hearing everyone say "that's what you get for not having a balanced army". My armies were balanced. For three prior versions of this game, an army that used an adequate number of powerklaws, grenades or other anti-tank weapon was balanced. It could deal with any threat an opponent presented. The game had two phases in which you could remove your opponent's models (ignoring special cases here), and you could use either phase to do so. Now there's a new unit type that cannot be impacted in one of those phases. Is that an example of an unbalanced army, or an unbalanced game?

Orks have a tradition of "moar dakka" not just choppas. Shoota boyz and lootas being king is fine with me for a change. And with their terrible BS but lots of shots, and now snapfire, they should be able to generate enough dakka to deal with fliers, imo.

I agree changes are made to sell models. But I also agree with Hulk that if someone's reason for allowing FW is to counter fliers, as many have admitted, then that's not a good reason to allow FW.

There are other good reasons, but just like saying the game is balanced isn't reason enough to disallow FW, saying it would balance out fliers isn't reason enough to allow it.

Edited ... mods please remove, a little off topic! My b.

vhwolf wrote:

 OverwatchCNC wrote:

vhwolf wrote:
I just sat down and pointed up the 50 man blob squad w/ flamer and Power Weapon plus commisar and sabers with defense line. It is 990 in points. Just food for thought and each three sabres will run about $110 before shipping.

That is immaterial when events like the BAO will allow counts as for FW models.

Nice try on the arguement but almost every orginizer has said it has to be an acceptable counts as so it is still going to cost a bit of cash to make something that looks and feels correct. Also I was just giving the info not saying anything else one way or the other.

Acceptable Counts as... I am glad the standard is well set, clear, and easy to understand and apply across different tournaments. This isn't an issue solely for FW in tournaments but for all units but since you brought up the cost for FW I addressed it specifically. By the way not all counts as conversions cost a lot of money. I have literally 6 10 gallon bins full of bits, half of which are vehicle bits, I could easily make 9 platforms for a traitor guard IG contingent that would be acceptable at most tournaments and it wouldn't cost me anywhere near the price of 3 sabers let alone 9.

*edit maybe I will do this for the BAO this year since they are allowing FW. 60 CSMs backed up by a small blob of traitor guard with sabres, seems legit.

Wow, 24+ pages of going back and forth.

Ultimately, isn't the question of allowing FW a personal preference question? If so, this is simply an airing of personal preference arguments on par with trying to convince someone else what their favorite color should be and why and that doesn't make sense.

I mean seriously, what is the basis for determining if FW should or shouldn't be allowed?

In essence it seems to be a fairness/fair play and efficiency argument and really, what is the standard/rule to be looked at if FW or anything is to be allowed?

Phazel & Hulk seem to be pointing out that CERTAIN but not ALL FW units greatly imbalance the game in a way that it is more harmful to allow FW than not allow FW therefore either don't allow those units or don't allow FW (unless I am mistaken on what they are saying).

Other people are basically saying "its not that bad as most everyone can get these things so get over it." (but that's not necessarily true).

As I mentioned before, for me, it is my personal preference not to play with FW, it adds another level of complexity onto the game that doesn't necessarily need to be there and my friend's don't play with FW unless its one-off game we wana test something out.

Can someone bullet-point the reasons why we should have forge world in tournament play?

For an example the anti-forge world would be:

Price: Makes an expensive game more expensive

Inaccessible Rules: You need to order the books from Forge World and are not readily available.

Confusion: Even TOs and people who use them are unaware of the nuances of their rules.

Balance: Only units that you will see at tournaments are the broken overpowered ones.

Access: Imperials get the lion’s share of the units and the best ones.

Perceived Imbalance: With allies 6th edition is balanced.

Irrational fear of Fliers: No proof that fliers are dominating without forge world.

Pro:

* The TO wants to use them.

* The Players in his area want to use them.

 kronk wrote:
Pro:

* The TO wants to use them.

* The Players in his area want to use them.

That is certainly the case for smaller tournaments, what I and I believe Blackmoor have been discussing is the inclusion in larger gt style events.

 RiTides wrote:
Orks have a tradition of "moar dakka" not just choppas. Shoota boyz and lootas being king is fine with me for a change. And with their terrible BS but lots of shots, and now snapfire, they should be able to generate enough dakka to deal with fliers, imo.

I agree changes are made to sell models. But I also agree with Hulk that if someone's reason for allowing FW is to counter fliers, as many have admitted, then that's not a good reason to allow FW.

There are other good reasons, but just like saying the game is balanced isn't reason enough to disallow FW, saying it would balance out fliers isn't reason enough to allow it.

This is pretty much my entire view of this subject, in much simpler form.

And as for two flying MCs, both the Khorne shooting version and the Tzeench one are more than a match for a couple AV12 fliers and they can hold their own against the Cron spam variety. Its easy to forget that they can basically completely outmanuever other fliers and absorb a ton of abuse. The goal is not to beat them at their own game, but to simply buy time for the ground guys to do their thing. I've seen it done, and they are still damn good against non-flier armies..... until FW enters the fray and they (or anything else landing to close) get shot to ribbons on arrival. Also, last time I checked, your guys can man fortifications just like everyone else (except Nids /sadface), so there is that.

 OverwatchCNC wrote:


That is certainly the case for smaller tournaments, what I and I believe Blackmoor have been discussing is the inclusion in larger gt style events.

Ah, yes. That would require a lot more thought. Sorry. Wasn't trying to be rude there, Blackmoor.

 Blackmoor wrote:
Can someone bullet-point the reasons why we should have forge world in tournament play?

For an example the anti-forge world would be:

Price: Makes an expensive game more expensive

You don't need to bring forgeworld

Inaccessible Rules: You need to order the books from Forge World and are not readily available.

easier to get forge world then demon update or flyers or sisters codex from white dwarf

Confusion: Even TOs and people who use them are unaware of the nuances of their rules.

example?

Balance: Only units that you will see at tournaments are the broken overpowered ones.

really i would bring grot tanks and decimators. most forgeworld would be brought for fun

Access: Imperials get the lion’s share of the units and the best ones.

allies?

Perceived Imbalance: With allies 6th edition is balanced.

yep allies

Irrational fear of Fliers: No proof that fliers are dominating without forge world.

does forgeworld break flyers? nope

reason to allow forgeworld
1: cool models that add more depth to the game.

Blackmoor wrote:Can someone bullet-point the reasons why we should have forge world in tournament play?

For an example the anti-forge world would be:

Price: Makes an expensive game more expensive

Inaccessible Rules: You need to order the books from Forge World and are not readily available.

Confusion: Even TOs and people who use them are unaware of the nuances of their rules.

Balance: Only units that you will see at tournaments are the broken overpowered ones.

Access: Imperials get the lion’s share of the units and the best ones.

Perceived Imbalance: With allies 6th edition is balanced.

Irrational fear of Fliers: No proof that fliers are dominating without forge world.

Well, it's hard to create such a long list for why you should include them, but it's pretty easy to point out why every item in your list are either non-issues or no different than the rest of the game.

For as valid as your reasons are, I might as well say you should include ForgeWorld because otherwise the skies will split asunder, your womenfolk will be savaged by marauding bands of vikings and Honey Boo-Boo will be the only thing left on TV.

Off the top of my head ..

• Forgeworld books say they are “official” for use in games of 40k.
• Allowing Forgeworld produces more variety and diversity in armies.
• You enjoy the additional challenges and complexity of having more variety and diversity in the game.
• Your opponent / attendees want to play with them.
• You like to support a portion of the company that speaks, listens, and supports veteran hobbyists.
• The game is about playing with great looking models and Forgeworld produces fantastic models.
• Playing with Forgeworld models at events allows other people a chance to experience and enjoy them.
• The addition of Forgeworld models and rules brings additional visual and tactical interest to the meta that at times can grow old and stale.
• They are cool and fun!

Edit: Ninja'ed, and that's a great list, muwhe! Doesn't necessarily outweigh Blackmoor's list for me for what I'd like to participate in in "most" events, but definitely shows why I'd like to see FW in some events, either in limited form or even with full-on allowance.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Redbeard, So you're saying his reasons are valid so you might as well list nonsense ones? (Not being rude, actually found the post funny)

It's a decent point, though- most of the reasons to include are neutral things, such as "the game isn't balanced anyway" rather than positives. Obviously, the reasons against inclusion are mostly negatives (just like the reason for "not doing" anything usually is).

The "non-neutral" reasons I can think of to include FW are:

#1 Awesome models
#2 Variety of units and rules

But for #1 I am a lover of counts-as (Contemptor as a regular dreadnought is fine with me!). And for #2, I got back into this game recently after mostly playing in 3rd edition. So it's varied enough rules-wise for me already

The main reason to include FW is very simple: the default rules for tournaments should be the actual rules of 40k as published by GW, not house rules imposing the TO's personal preferences about how the game should be. GW has explicitly stated that FW rules are part of standard 40k, so the default should be to include them, just like the default should be that every codex is allowed.

Banning things should be an absolute last resort, used only if the game is completely broken by including them, and so far I have yet to see a single argument that comes even remotely close to establishing that 6th edition with FW rules is broken.

muwhe wrote:


Off the top of my head ..

• Forgeworld books say they are “official” for use in games of 40k.
• Allowing Forgeworld produces more variety and diversity in armies.
• You enjoy the additional challenges and complexity of having more variety and diversity in the game.
• Your opponent / attendees want to play with them.
• You like to support a portion of the company that speaks, listens, and supports veteran hobbyists.
• The game is about playing with great looking models and Forgeworld produces fantastic models.
• Playing with Forgeworld models at events allows other people a chance to experience and enjoy them.
• The addition of Forgeworld models and rules brings additional visual and tactical interest to the meta that at times can grow old and stale.
• They are cool and fun!

Thanks Hank!

I just wanted to see the points for and against succinctly put.

 Blackmoor wrote:

muwhe wrote:


Off the top of my head ..

• Forgeworld books say they are “official” for use in games of 40k.
• Allowing Forgeworld produces more variety and diversity in armies.
• You enjoy the additional challenges and complexity of having more variety and diversity in the game.
• Your opponent / attendees want to play with them.
• You like to support a portion of the company that speaks, listens, and supports veteran hobbyists.
• The game is about playing with great looking models and Forgeworld produces fantastic models.
• Playing with Forgeworld models at events allows other people a chance to experience and enjoy them.
• The addition of Forgeworld models and rules brings additional visual and tactical interest to the meta that at times can grow old and stale.
• They are cool and fun!

Thanks Hank!

I just wanted to see the points for and against succinctly put.

Allan reasoned statements like that haven't been seen in this thread for pages. How dare you attempt to do so now!

 OverwatchCNC wrote:

Allan reasoned statements like that haven't been seen in this thread for pages. How dare you attempt to do so now!

The problem is that there is no correct answer to the question of whether or not there should be Forge World at tournaments. Both sides have some valid points, and everyone has their opinions.

At this point it is out of the players hands and into the hands of the Tournaments Organizers to decide if they want to have Forge World at their events or not. All the players can do is vote with their wallets. If you like Forge World then you should attend these events that allow it, and if you do not, then you should stay at home.