Do we still need forge world in tournament play?

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.

**Blackmoor**

Oh yes, I am opening up this can of worms again.

There was a push after the release of 6th edition to include forge world in tournament play and we were seeing it being adopted into tournaments.

Some of the reasons why were:

#1. Forge World will be embraced by Games Workshop soon so we might as well go ahead and include it.
We all know what happened here, this turned out to be just a rumor.

#2. Alot of codex’s have no way to deal with flyers and Forge World is the only way they can get Skyfire.
Well that was a lot of codexes ago. Let’s take a look at them:
Chaos Space marines
Dark Angels
Chaos Demons
Tau
Eldar
Space Marines (Coming soon)
Also don’t forget the Skies of Blood supplement

GW has been working overtime and cranking out the 6th edition books so now most of them are 6th edition compatible. Almost every army now has some way of dealing with flyers and those that don’t Forge World will not help them. The funny thing is that it really only helped out IG and SM armies who really did not need any help with skyfire. There were also unintended consequences to having all of these units that have skyfire/interceptor. Sure it kept the Necron armies away, but what happens is that you end up hurting armies that are viable builds that use reserves to get onto the board, and it also hurts armies that would like to use fliers (as a means of their only flier defense or for fun) get screwed.

Also the bottom line is that player who takes 12 Hyperios Launchers or Saber Platforms is not looking to protect himself from flyers, but trying to blow his opponent away with an over powered and undercosted unit.

#3. The codexes are getting tired and old, and this will bring a lot of new and interesting units to everyone’s armies.
That sure was a lot of codexes ago. So if you do not have a lot of new toys to play with, you can ally in new and exciting units to your existing army. Also if this is your argument for including forge world in competitive tournaments. I will point to the fact that all you see over and over again are the same units (saber platforms) and the other broken ones since no one uses the fluffy choices.

So now looking back at Forge World in tournaments I have to ask…do we need it?

**Chancetragedy**

I'm of the belief it was never "needed" in the first place. People just wanted to take even more broken stuff and run it behind the guise of "more variety". By allowing forgeworld you've just traded the top armies for IG supremacy.

**Sigvatr**

Oh dear god no, please not another FW thread...long story short: cherry-picking sucks, I am happy with the current solution of having both FW allowed and not allowed tournaments. Everyone is happy. Tadaa.

Oh and inb4 Peregrine.

**nkelsch**

I don't think we 'need' them. I think people just like buying FW models and would like an excuse to get some use out of them.

I do think that the rumor that inspired Point 1 is dead and shalt not be referenced as justification anymore.

And they had an option to add FW to core codexes when they began digidexing and increasing codex releases... and they continue to choose not to.

So I think it is fine as an optional thing which some events have and some don't. It is OK having multiple METAs in play IMHO.

**kronk**

Need? No. You don't need to do anything.

If the players in your area really want it, give it a few tries. Ask them to bring the books and proper models. If it doesn't work in your area, c'est la vie.

Personally, I think some of the ally lists are stronger than any Forge World army list, and find the anti-FW arguments silly as a result.

However, while I'm pro:FW, I'm much more pro: Having fun. If your group doesn't like it, don't bother.

**RiTides**

As Sigvatr says, I am happy that there are events that allow FW, and ones that do not allow FW. I don't think we need a "standard" format of ALL events allowing it or ALL events not allowing it.

I do have to ask, though- did the allowance of FW play a role in Hulk's team tournament winning team? I heard mention of one of the players just feeling bad about how powerful his template-machine was... but not so bad as to stop using it

I personally think that my absolute preference is limited FW events. But again, that's my personal take, and I am glad for the diversity of events.

Also, I'm starting a chaos dwarf army, which thankfully most fantasy events allow. But, I feel it's a little bit of a different issue from single FW units in normal 40k lists, than a FW-book list that allows a fantasy army that has no other means of being fielded to be played.

**kronk**

RiTides wrote:
I heard mention of one of the players just feeling bad about how powerful his template-machine was... but not so bad as to stop using it

Which one? I might need to get 3 or so...

**Chancetragedy**

I assume he's talking about the thudd gun.

**tomjoad**

Blackmoor's griping about this more or less sounds like "The army I want to play isn't best sometimes, and an army I don't play is best instead. I don't like that and I refuse to adapt my tactics/army composition to deal with this change."

Something will always be best. Even if we accept the proposition that Forge World units are far better than codex units (and this proposition is dubious, but that's not the point), so what? GW makes the stuff, they seem to balance it as much as anything else they make, and there's no way to complain about this without it sounding like run of the mill gaming whining.

**RiTides**

Yes, it was Target (who is a fairly local player who I have yet to meet, but am a big fan of in theory

. He even just posted to the local Beltway Gamers forum with one of his tourney experiences) who made the comment, in the post-AdeptiCon thread. For reference:

Target wrote:
carlosthecraven wrote:
Hi

I appreciate Spag's discretion - but the simple truth of the matter is they crushed us. I have no issue sharing the details of the defeat. I have always felt I learn more in defeat than in victory and am not too proud to share some of the gory details.

As the losing team - here is the summary:

On one table, Bill and Cory (Sons of Shatner) face off against Spag and Target. Upon seeing what Target's Guard has in his list - Cory turns to me and says "f*&k my life. It this really what we have to deal with? It is the perfect counter to our list." According to Bill and Cory - roughly half their army dies on turn one to two blobs and thud guns... and oh, hey - a grey knight army, too! It doesn't get any better from there, as two vendettas and a stormraven are still on their way. A crushing and decisive victory for They Shall Know Fear although I am unsure how many turns it took to finish it. (Sorry, I don't know more details and neither Cory or Bill post on Dakka).

On my table, Greg and I face Yermom and Hulksmash. They go first, doing very little damage. We then deviate from our plan which was "kill the plasma cannon henchmen squads giving the terminators the ability to move around effectively" by targeting the land raider crusader full of assassins and crusaders and "kill me first" acolytes. Greg's dice are stone cold and we accomplish maybe a hull point in damage with 6 stationary psycannons. I score first blood killing a dreadknight. The assassins in the crusader get out and proceed to get what they need when they need it (staying locked in combat when we are up next and getting out when they are up next through brilliant use of the alternating power maul then power axe use) and proceed to kill 3 combat squads, a full strike squad plus Coteaz and a dreadnought. They were the MVPs of the game. The storm raven psy-missiles my inquisitor to death (slay the warlord) and I take couple of other casualties to my full squad. They don't like it and run off the board the same turn. Meanwhile, the swarm of combat squads bleeds away at my terminators, eliminating them on turn 4.

On turn 5, we have one last play to deny points. My dreadnought assaults a strike squad pulling it off an objective. Greg's last three terminators assault and break a combat squad on another objective. If the game ends there, They Shall Know Fear still wins, but it is 15-5. But it continues onto turn 6 and Greg's termies die and another squad takes the unclaimed objective for the 25-0 on objectives. I sleep easier at night knowing that They Shall Know Fear won the tourney by 16 points, as a turn 5 ending was a 15 point swing, which would have still given them the one point victory.

Perhaps the highest praise I can give Yermon and Hulksmash is that this is one of the very, very few times where I haven't felt like I was in control of the game, or sharply contesting control. If it means anything, I played Tony Kopach twice at Nova last year, and while I lost, I never felt overwhelmed or out of control.

Afterwords, I said to my teammates that we simply dropped the ball in the last round. Bill replied with "No. They took the ball, spiked it at our heads, kicked us in the junk, and walked away with the glory." The latter interpretation is probably more accurate...

A well deserved victory for They Shall Know Fear - they came in and took it. Well done.

Cheers,
Nate

Tell Bill and Cory I'm so, so so so sorry Thudd Guns (Quad Launchers) were legal. I felt a little bit dirty all day (but not dirty enough to stop firing them!)

We called our game on T3 I believe, as they only had ~5-10 models left and we hadnt sustained any sizeable casualties, and it was clear where it was going. I'll echo them on it being about as bad of a match as they could have pulled, though we all seemed to have a blast throughout the game, and I still remember them making me and aaron choose the dice for each damage result that got through (1 each) on a raven and vendetta, and then them subsequently rolling us crashing into the ground. So painful picking your own fate!

**Blackmoor**

tomjoad wrote:
Blackmoor's griping about this more or less sounds like "The army I want to play isn't best sometimes, and an army I don't play is best instead. I don't like that and I refuse to adapt my tactics/army composition to deal with this change."

That is odd since I play several armies, and 2 of them are Demons and Eldar and we have no idea of what they can do. See the post above for just one of many reasons why I don't like forge world.

I can do really well at a Forge World tournament, I just choose not to spend any more money on forge world units. Heck, anyone can do well at a forge world GT if they want to spend the money buying resin.

And I like your counter argument to my points is that I am a whiner. Why don't you make an argument of why forge world should be at a tournament instead of taking the low road? I made points of why it is no londer needed where are yours?

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Sigvatr wrote:
Oh dear god no, please not another FW thread...long story short: cherry-picking sucks, I am happy with the current solution of having both FW allowed and not allowed tournaments. Everyone is happy. Tadaa.

Oh and inb4 Peregrine.

The problem for me is that the closest GT level tournament to me without forgeworld is 2000 miles away. So that is not much of a choice of what to play in.

**Kingsley**

I used to be very anti-FW, but at the BAO I saw several Forge World units fielded and didn't really consider them to be a problem. It kind of changed my mind on the whole thing. That said, there are clearly some balance issues-- most notably, basically all Artillery or Heavy Artillery units from FW are broken, since they don't seem to understand how these models work in the new edition. To be fair, some non-FW Artillery units are broken too (what's up, Thunderfire Cannon), but the Heavy Artillery units really push the boundaries of what's fun to play with and against.

Overall, I think Forge World should be available as a 0-1 choice-- you can have one Forge World unit in your army per primary detachment (it still takes its normal slot). This would allow people to play cool variant models without taking crazy or overwhelming armies that people might not be able to deal with. This would also allow people enough time to easily explain what their one cool FW piece does.

**ItsPug**

Blackmoor wrote:

Also the bottom line is that player who takes 12 Hyperios Launchers or Saber Platforms is not looking to protect himself from flyers, but trying to blow his opponent away with an over powered and undercosted unit.

hyperios platforms x4 - 140 points, 4 BS3, twin linked, S8 shots

quadgun with tactical marine (50 +16 points for the marine) 4 BS4, twin linked, S7 shots

Sure you can get more hyperios platforms in the army, which gives more air defence, but they are nowhere near as overpowered and undercosted as a BS4 (or better) model on a quadgun. add in the fact that certain units can get tank hunters and the difference becomes even greater.

So really your problem isn't that FW is OP/undercosted, its that they can allow an army to take more units with skyfire/interceptor

**Chancetragedy**

ItsPug wrote:
Blackmoor wrote:

Also the bottom line is that player who takes 12 Hyperios Launchers or Saber Platforms is not looking to protect himself from flyers, but trying to blow his opponent away with an over powered and undercosted unit.

hyperios platforms x4 - 140 points, 4 BS3, twin linked, S8 shots

quadgun with tactical marine (50 +16 points for the marine) 4 BS4, twin linked, S7 shots

Sure you can get more hyperios platforms in the army, which gives more air defence, but they are nowhere near as overpowered and undercosted as a BS4 (or better) model on a quadgun. add in the fact that certain units can get tank hunters and the difference becomes even greater.

So really your problem isn't that FW is OP/undercosted, its that they can allow an army to take more units with skyfire/interceptor

Am I missing something? Like the extra 50 points for the aegis for the quadgun? Or is there more FW stuff I don't know about and you can just buy a quad gun?

So it would REALLY be
140 points for the hyperios
Vs 116 for the quad gun. So for 24 points you get an extra strength on all your shots. And you can take 12 hyperios in a sub 2k list which you cant do with quad gun. Unless like I said I'm missing something and in that case completely disregard. I'm not really for or against forgeworld. Just reporting the facts.

**ItsPug**

Chancetragedy wrote:
ItsPug wrote:
Blackmoor wrote:

Also the bottom line is that player who takes 12 Hyperios Launchers or Saber Platforms is not looking to protect himself from flyers, but trying to blow his opponent away with an over powered and undercosted unit.

hyperios platforms x4 - 140 points, 4 BS3, twin linked, S8 shots

quadgun with tactical marine (50 +16 points for the marine) 4 BS4, twin linked, S7 shots

Sure you can get more hyperios platforms in the army, which gives more air defence, but they are nowhere near as overpowered and undercosted as a BS4 (or better) model on a quadgun. add in the fact that certain units can get tank hunters and the difference becomes even greater.

So really your problem isn't that FW is OP/undercosted, its that they can allow an army to take more units with skyfire/interceptor

Am I missing something? Like the extra 50 points for the aegis for the quadgun? Or is there more FW stuff I don't know about and you can just buy a quad gun?

So it would REALLY be
140 points for the hyperios
Vs 116 for the quad gun. So for 24 points you get an extra strength on all your shots. And you can take 12 hyperios in a sub 2k list which you cant do with quad gun. Unless like I said I'm missing something and in that case completely disregard. I'm not really for or against forgeworld. Just reporting the facts.

And how much is a codex SM rhino? 35 points right? except by your reasoning its REALLY 125 minimum as you need to buy a squad to get one. You're forgetting that the aegis, like the tactical squad has a benefit itself. So for 116 points you get - 1 strength on all your shots, +1BS, and 30+ inches of 4+ cover terrain to put anywhere in your half of the table.

**tomjoad**

Blackmoor wrote:
tomjoad wrote:
Blackmoor's griping about this more or less sounds like "The army I want to play isn't best sometimes, and an army I don't play is best instead. I don't like that and I refuse to adapt my tactics/army composition to deal with this change."

That is odd since I play several armies, and 2 of them are Demons and Eldar and we have no idea of what they can do. See the post above for just one of many reasons why I don't like forge world.

I can do really well at a Forge World tournament, I just choose not to spend any more money on forge world units. Heck, anyone can do well at a forge world GT if they want to spend the money buying resin.

And I like your counter argument to my points is that I am a whiner. Why don't you make an argument of why forge world should be at a tournament instead of taking the low road? I made points of why it is no londer needed where are yours?

My argument is that this argument is a waste of time and energy. Forge World IS, and your crusade against it is no more rational than if some loon wanted to ban Death from the Skies, or impose some harsh comp rules in their event. Basically, you can vote with your dollars by skipping all FW events. Or become a TO. Or start playing Malifaux or Infinity. Or just play Magic or some MMORPG that actually has a well run tournament system that rewards top players. - Edited by insaniak -. It's bad for the community that such whinging is so commonplace and it makes the 11th Co. less enjoyable to listen to.

**RiTides**

Your argument is much less persuasive due to all the name-calling, tomjoad.

**Blackmoor**

tomjoad wrote:
Blackmoor wrote:
tomjoad wrote:
Blackmoor's griping about this more or less sounds like "The army I want to play isn't best sometimes, and an army I don't play is best instead. I don't like that and I refuse to adapt my tactics/army composition to deal with this change."

That is odd since I play several armies, and 2 of them are Demons and Eldar and we have no idea of what they can do. See the post above for just one of many reasons why I don't like forge world.

I can do really well at a Forge World tournament, I just choose not to spend any more money on forge world units. Heck, anyone can do well at a forge world GT if they want to spend the money buying resin.

And I like your counter argument to my points is that I am a whiner. Why don't you make an argument of why forge world should be at a tournament instead of taking the low road? I made points of why it is no londer needed where are yours?

My argument is that this argument is a waste of time and energy. Forge World IS, and your crusade against it is no more rational than if some loon wanted to ban Death from the Skies, or impose some harsh comp rules in their event. Basically, you can vote with your dollars by skipping all FW events. Or become a TO. Or start playing Malifaux or Infinity. Or just play Magic or some MMORPG that actually has a well run tournament system that rewards top players. But constantly harping on how you don't like the rules for tournaments that you go to anyway makes you sound like a child. It's bad for the community that such whinging is so commonplace and it makes the 11th Co. less enjoyable to listen to.

The point of any argument is persuasion.

I wanted to point out that a lot of the reasons for everyone who argued for forge world in the tournament scene at the beginning of 6th edition are no longer valid. It is important to do that before everyone started to accept that forge world is the norm in tournaments.

I also understand that you have an agenda and I have no idea why any regular 40k player wants to have forge in their tournament games other than to use broken units. Your argument for why we need or want to have forge world in tournaments right now is just personal attacks.

That is not very persuasive

**Dozer Blades**

Something funny... I have used both Angron and Abbadon. Angron is a heck of a lot more points but to be completely honest I have found Abbadon in general to be way more Killy.

I use Contemptor dreadnaughts and everyone I have played said they are appropriately costed.

There is some units I hate like the Lucius pattern assault drop pod and Hades Breecher Drill. I think they should both be banned from tournament playing.

**Redbeard**

You know, the same argument can be made for any book published by GW.

Blackmoor - with a little help from Redbeard wrote:
...
There was a push after the release of 6th edition to include Codex: Necrons in tournament play and we were seeing it being adopted into tournaments.

Some of the reasons why were:

#1. Codex: Necrons will be embraced by Games Workshop soon so we might as well go ahead and include it.
We all know what happened here, this turned out to be just a rumor.

#2. Alot of codex’s have no way to deal with flyers and Codex: Necrons is the only way they can get Skyfire.
Well that was a lot of codexes ago. Let’s take a look at them:
Chaos Space marines
Dark Angels
Chaos Demons
Tau
Eldar
Space Marines (Coming soon)
Also don’t forget the Skies of Blood supplement

GW has been working overtime and cranking out the 6th edition books so now most of them are 6th edition compatible. Almost every army now has some way of dealing with flyers and those that don’t Codex: Necrons will not help them. The funny thing is that it really only helped out IG and SM armies who really did not need any help with skyfire. There were also unintended consequences to having all of these units that have skyfire/interceptor. Sure it kept the Necron armies away, but what happens is that you end up hurting armies that are viable builds that use reserves to get onto the board, and it also hurts armies that would like to use fliers (as a means of their only flier defense or for fun) get screwed.

Also the bottom line is that player who takes 12 Hyperios Launchers or Saber Platforms is not looking to protect himself from flyers, but trying to blow his opponent away with an over powered and undercosted unit.

#3. The codexes are getting tired and old, and this will bring a lot of new and interesting units to everyone’s armies.
That sure was a lot of codexes ago. So if you do not have a lot of new toys to play with, you can ally in new and exciting units to your existing army. Also if this is your argument for including Codex: Necrons in competitive tournaments. I will point to the fact that all you see over and over again are the same units (saber platforms) and the other broken ones since no one uses the fluffy choices.

So now looking back at Codex: Necrons in tournaments I have to ask…do we need it?

I have to say, looking at the Adepticon results, that Codex: Necrons was more harmful to the metagame than Forgeworld, so my vote is definitely to ban Codex: Necrons.

Whatever dude. They're rules, they're published by GW, and say 40k Approved on them. If Saber Platforms (or whatever the current whine is about) are OP, well, so are long fangs and night scythes.

**ItsPug**

Blackmoor wrote:

The point of any argument is persuasion.

I wanted to point out that a lot of the reasons for everyone who argued for forge world in the tournament scene at the beginning of 6th edition are no longer valid. It is important to do that before everyone started to accept that forge world is the norm in tournaments.

I also understand that you have an agenda and I have no idea why any regular 40k player wants to have forge in their tournament games other than to use broken units. Your argument for why we need or want to have forge world in tournaments right now is just personal attacks.

That is not very persuasive

I fail to see why any regular 40K player wants to use grey knights (or necrons etc) as their tournament army other than to use broken units. have you considered that maybe people like the background? the look of the models? no? of course not! they're just looking for every advantage they can get.

I like FW, I like running an armoured battlegroup, being able to use a lot more of the leman russ battletanks that i own is great, but not really competitive. Here in Ireland we have one tournament that allows unrestricted FW 40k approved units and lists, it is one of the most laid back, friendly tournaments you could wish for.

I think the problem is with your outlook. Take for example Cron air, a Night Scythe is far more OP and undercosted than anything FW produce, ut I assume you're ok with this?

**Chancetragedy**

@itspug touché ;p

**Blackmoor**

I thought that would be a common argument for forge world was the necron results at adepticon.

I would like you to remember that it was several codexes ago, and really demons where not represented there since their codex just came out. If you read Goatboy’s adepticon result you can see that his demon army took apart necrons.

That is my point being that things change so fast that you can’t look at a tournament result 3 months ago because the landscaped changed so much since then.

It will be interesting to see what happens at Wargames Con to see what happens in a major GT with Forge World next weekend.

I was about to add in my bullet points the forge world argument that the Heldrake is so broken why not just have other broken units? Well the Heldrake does not seem like much of a threat anymore since everyone now can counter it without resorting to taking forge world units.

And if Necrons are broken (and I do not play them) why am I ok with Necrons and not forge world?

Automatically Appended Next Post:

ItsPug wrote:

I fail to see why any regular 40K player wants to use grey knights (or necrons etc) as their tournament army other than to use broken units. have you considered that maybe people like the background? the look of the models? no? of course not! they're just looking for every advantage they can get.

People do not bring all of the forge world artillery pieces and vultures because they like the look of them (well, maybe the vulture because that is a sweet looking model).

**jdjamesdean@mail.com**

ItsPug wrote:

I think the problem is with your outlook. Take for example Cron air, a Night Scythe is far more OP and undercosted than anything FW produce, ut I assume you're ok with this?

Not really, take a look at that Vector dancing thing.

**Redbeard**

Blackmoor wrote:
I thought that would be a common argument for forge world was the necron results at adepticon.

I would like you to remember that it was several codexes ago, and really demons where not represented there since their codex just came out. If you read Goatboy’s adepticon result you can see that his demon army took apart necrons.

Sure, it's always going to be easier to add 5 FW models to an existing army than make a new one when a new codex drops. But, that doesn't change the underlying point. There are things that are unbalanced. There are always going to be things that are unbalanced. The very nature of GW's cyclical releases guarantees that you never actually have a complete game designed with one single philosophy, there are always a couple of things ahead of the curve (such as Necrons at Adepticon this year), and a couple of things behind the curve.

So, the argument you're making is flawed from the get go. Forgeworld isn't needed, because it's never needed. Nothing is ever needed. We can say "Black Templars need a new codex" - but no, not really. They're just behind the cycle right now, and something will always be in that position.

The question regarding FW shouldn't be one of need, and realistically, should be entirely separated from what's hot at any given time. Basing the argument on any specific model is flawed because the game is never complete and never balanced.

So, my question is, what good argument exists for telling someone else that they can't use one of their toy soldiers in a game of toy soldiers, when all evidence provided by the toy manufacturer points to their inclusion?

- Balance isn't that good argument, for the reasons stated above.

- Cost? FW models cost more? Because Thudd guns are more expensive than Wraithknights and Riptides. Nope, not a good argument. This is an expensive game. We play it knowing that, and also knowing that, realistically, it's cheaper than hookers and blow.

- Availability? Maybe 10 years ago, but if you're posting on Dakka, you can have FW delivered to your house. So, no, not a good argument.

- It changes the unbalanced environment from one that I'm comfortable with, to one that I'm less comfortable with? Well, from a personal standpoint, maybe, but I'm not really too sympathetic to you in that case. I don't like a competitive environment dominated by one or two codexes and their broken stuff, but I'm not about to tell someone who paid for three helldrakes that they shouldn't use them.

And if Necrons are broken (and I do not play them) why am I ok with Necrons and not forge world?

That's a question that only you can answer. If you analyze the issue clinically and dispassionately, you will realize that FW stuff is no different than any other stuff. The only difference is in what the specific items are, at any given snapshot in time, that are pushing the envelope. Sometimes those may be FW units, more often, they're not. Saber Platforms and Thudd Guns have been out for years. It's only the dominance of flyers in the early going of 6th that pushed Sabers to the forefront. FW wasn't an issue at all during the SW dominance period a year or two ago, Long Fangs were so much better for the cost than anything FW was making. Thudd guns haven't changed in the last two years (if not more), but weren't an issue two Adepticons ago. It wasn't the gun that changed, it was the fact that more infantry are on foot now. But you could make the exact same argument about aegis lines.

So, the only difference is in your mind. You're drawing a distinction between the two. I don't know why. Maybe you lost to a FW model as a small child (were you ever a small child?) and it scarred you for life?

**Dozer Blades**

So what if Goatboy's daemons ripped apart Necrons? He designed an army to counter the current meta. Good for him. I fail to see how that in and of itself makes Forge World a bad thing.

My guess is Forge World will not have a drastic effect on the results at WarGamesCon. I applaud them for being bold enough to allow it.

**Breng77**

Redbeard wrote:
Blackmoor wrote:
I thought that would be a common argument for forge world was the necron results at adepticon.

I would like you to remember that it was several codexes ago, and really demons where not represented there since their codex just came out. If you read Goatboy’s adepticon result you can see that his demon army took apart necrons.

Sure, it's always going to be easier to add 5 FW models to an existing army than make a new one when a new codex drops. But, that doesn't change the underlying point. There are things that are unbalanced. There are always going to be things that are unbalanced. The very nature of GW's cyclical releases guarantees that you never actually have a complete game designed with one single philosophy, there are always a couple of things ahead of the curve (such as Necrons at Adepticon this year), and a couple of things behind the curve.

So, the argument you're making is flawed from the get go. Forgeworld isn't needed, because it's never needed. Nothing is ever needed. We can say "Black Templars need a new codex" - but no, not really. They're just behind the cycle right now, and something will always be in that position.

The question regarding FW shouldn't be one of need, and realistically, should be entirely separated from what's hot at any given time. Basing the argument on any specific model is flawed because the game is never complete and never balanced.

So, my question is, what good argument exists for telling someone else that they can't use one of their toy soldiers in a game of toy soldiers, when all evidence provided by the toy manufacturer points to their inclusion?

- Balance isn't that good argument, for the reasons stated above.

- Cost? FW models cost more? Because Thudd guns are more expensive than Wraithknights and Riptides. Nope, not a good argument. This is an expensive game. We play it knowing that, and also knowing that, realistically, it's cheaper than hookers and blow.

- Availability? Maybe 10 years ago, but if you're posting on Dakka, you can have FW delivered to your house. So, no, not a good argument.

- It changes the unbalanced environment from one that I'm comfortable with, to one that I'm less comfortable with? Well, from a personal standpoint, maybe, but I'm not really too sympathetic to you in that case. I don't like a competitive environment dominated by one or two codexes and their broken stuff, but I'm not about to tell someone who paid for three helldrakes that they shouldn't use them.

And if Necrons are broken (and I do not play them) why am I ok with Necrons and not forge world?

That's a question that only you can answer. If you analyze the issue clinically and dispassionately, you will realize that FW stuff is no different than any other stuff. The only difference is in what the specific items are, at any given snapshot in time, that are pushing the envelope. Sometimes those may be FW units, more often, they're not. Saber Platforms and Thudd Guns have been out for years. It's only the dominance of flyers in the early going of 6th that pushed Sabers to the forefront. FW wasn't an issue at all during the SW dominance period a year or two ago, Long Fangs were so much better for the cost than anything FW was making. Thudd guns haven't changed in the last two years (if not more), but weren't an issue two Adepticons ago. It wasn't the gun that changed, it was the fact that more infantry are on foot now. But you could make the exact same argument about aegis lines.

So, the only difference is in your mind. You're drawing a distinction between the two. I don't know why. Maybe you lost to a FW model as a small child (were you ever a small child?) and it scarred you for life?

Ummm...thud guns did change they went from dying to a glance to making an entire unit of wounds T7... The biggest 2 arguments against FW inclusion IMO are:

1.) units in these books are not frequently updated and do not cycle with codex change. Meaning if something is op now it will not change with a new dex release. Furthermore something that is not op in one edition can be in the next and while this is true with codices they at least some day get updated FW not so much..

2.) Imbalance in army releases, imperial armies get an overwhelming number of the FW units, as well as getting most of the really good units.

**Peregrine**

You missed the most important reason to include FW in tournament play:

#4. Games Workshop has explicitly stated that (non-Apocalypse) FW rules are official and part of standard 40k.

That's really all there is to it, it's part of the game and "no FW" house rules should be treated with the same contempt as every comp-heavy event run by a TO who banned anything that could be a threat to their favorite army or wasn't "fluffy" enough. Asking if we need to include FW makes about as much sense as asking if we need to include the new Eldar codex.

RiTides wrote:
I heard mention of one of the players just feeling bad about how powerful his template-machine was... but not so bad as to stop using it

Let's be realistic here, you could find plenty of similar quotes involving non-FW units in other events. I'm sure there have been plenty of people who have felt bad about crushing their opponents with Necron flyerspam/WD demons/etc. The fact that one of these incidents happened to involve a FW unit doesn't mean anything.

But, I feel it's a little bit of a different issue from single FW units in normal 40k lists, than a FW-book list that allows a fantasy army that has no other means of being fielded to be played.

But how is that any different from my DKoK that require FW rules to be played? Why are chaos dwarves special?

**Breng77**

Peregrine wrote:
You missed the most important reason to include FW in tournament play:

#4. Games Workshop has explicitly stated that (non-Apocalypse) FW rules are official and part of standard 40k.

That's really all there is to it, it's part of the game and "no FW" house rules should be treated with the same contempt as every comp-heavy event run by a TO who banned anything that could be a threat to their favorite army or wasn't "fluffy" enough. Asking if we need to include FW makes about as much sense as asking if we need to include the new Eldar codex.

RiTides wrote:
I heard mention of one of the players just feeling bad about how powerful his template-machine was... but not so bad as to stop using it

Let's be realistic here, you could find plenty of similar quotes involving non-FW units in other events. I'm sure there have been plenty of people who have felt bad about crushing their opponents with Necron flyerspam/WD demons/etc. The fact that one of these incidents happened to involve a FW unit doesn't mean anything.

But, I feel it's a little bit of a different issue from single FW units in normal 40k lists, than a FW-book list that allows a fantasy army that has no other means of being fielded to be played.

But how is that any different from my DKoK that require FW rules to be played? Why are chaos dwarves special?

I must have missed that announcement, where outside a fw book did it happen, it seems to me that any time a Gw location runs an event FW Is banned....also pretty sure FW frequently includes language involving asking opponents permission (not sure if this is in all the books or is left out of new books.). Say FW is legal is the same as saying planet strike, or dog fighting rules are legal... Now I'm all for tournaments making their own choice on the matter. I tend to leave it to my players to decide what they want

**Blackmoor**

Peregrine wrote:

But how is that any different from my DKoK that require FW rules to be played? Why are chaos dwarves special?

You are an Imperial Guard player? Glad I was sitting down for that.

You can play DKoK models as IG just fine.