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 wrote:
You can play DKoK models as IG just fine.

Really? How exactly can I use the earthshaker batteries and heavy mortars that my DKoK are supposed to have with just the codex? Don't forget that fluff-wise a siege regiment does not have Basilisks or other artillery tanks, so even if I was allowed to count the earthshakers as Basilisks (the models are completely different) I would be directly contradicting my army's fluff.

(Or did you just forget that DKoK have more than infantry models?)

Breng77 wrote:
I must have missed that announcement, where outside a fw book did it happen

That doesn't matter. The "must appear in a non-FW book" rule is one certain players have invented, not a GW policy. GW has given their answer, and the choice of which book they put it in is irrelevant.

it seems to me that any time a Gw location runs an event FW Is banned

So what? GW runs events for the sole purpose of selling models. A local store manager is never going to want FW allowed because buying FW potentially takes away from their personal sales numbers, and GW is obsessively focused on employee sales statistics. A manager who said "here's something cool you can buy outside my store" is just setting themselves up to be fired for low performance.

....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.).

The "permission" language has been gone for years. There is a statement that you should (note, not must) tell your opponent in advance to be polite and not surprise them with rules they've never heard of before, but that's covered by tournaments having a formal "what is legal" policy.

Say FW is legal is the same as saying planet strike, or dog fighting rules are legal...

No it isn't. Those are explicitly stated to be expansions that introduce optional rules for playing special variant games of 40k. FW rules are explicitly stated to be part of standard 40k.

Hi

Since I have been quoted in this thread, along with Spag, about our respective teams' Adepticon game, I think I will toss in a couple of comments.

1. The Sons of Shatner have no issue with the inclusion of Thudd Guns in any army list for the team tournament. We all new going in that forgeworld was on the table - that we didn't capitalize on it had more to do with not seeing anything that fit our army design well as opposed to a philosophical bias against the use of forgeworld. That being said - Thudd guns for 50 points are a LOT of business.

2. I agree with the overall assessment of Blackmoor (and the 11th company) that with the inclusion of forgeworld that Imperial Guard rises to the top of the pile, and that in a tournament setting it is only the powerful forgeworld units that get introduced meaningfully. In a major tournament - has anyone seen a malanthrope in a bug army? Has anyone seen Ork Mek Boss Buzzgob? I haven't. *shrug* - but if shifting the game in this manner floats a tournament organizers boat, I can choose to attend or not.

3. When I was a tourney organizer (I spent 5 years running tournaments) my personal preference was "no" to forgeworld. That being said, I support a tourney organizer's right to decide "Yes" or "No" in accordance with their taste and the desires of the local community

4. The inclusion or not of Forgeworld at a tourney doesn't really impact my decision to attend an event or not. However, if there were two tourneys on the same date, I would choose the non-forgeworld event. Also, if I attended a GT with forgeworld, it does become a major army list design concern. It is a significant difference.

Cheers,
Nate

 carlosthecraven wrote:
In a major tournament - has anyone seen a malanthrope in a bug army? Has anyone seen Ork Mek Boss Buzzgob? I haven't.

But how is this any different from all the weak codex units? Has anyone seen ratlings or penal legions in a major tournament? Of course not. Whether it's FW or non-FW people will always take the most powerful options and ignore a long list of weak options.

Worthwhile things that have come from this thread sofar:

I now know that Chaos Dwarves are actually a thing, and that FW does Fantasy as well as 40k

That is all.

 carlosthecraven wrote:

2. I agree with the overall assessment of Blackmoor (and the 11th company) that with the inclusion of forgeworld that Imperial Guard rises to the top of the pile, and that in a tournament setting it is only the powerful forgeworld units that get introduced meaningfully.

Why does it matter if IG floats to the top, or if Necrons float to the top? IG does a fairly decent job of floating to the top without FW, I'm not convinced that leafblower armies are any less potent now than a couple of years ago, and that the only reason we don't see more of them is because people got somewhat bored, not because they lose potency.

In a major tournament - has anyone seen a malanthrope in a bug army? Has anyone seen Ork Mek Boss Buzzgob? I haven't. *shrug* - but if shifting the game in this manner floats a tournament organizers boat, I can choose to attend or not.

I haven't seen Mek Boss Buzzgob (well, apart from in my army), but neither have I seen Kaptin Badrukk. In fact, there are probably more units from standard codexes that I haven't seen in a standard tournament than that I have seen. I've never seen Shining Spears. I've never seen Flayed Ones, or Nork Deddog, or Lukas the Trickster or Pyrovores either.

4. The inclusion or not of Forgeworld at a tourney doesn't really impact my decision to attend an event or not. However, if there were two tourneys on the same date, I would choose the non-forgeworld event. Also, if I attended a GT with forgeworld, it does become a major army list design concern. It is a significant difference.

Just for sake of completeness, if there were two different events on the same date, I'd pick the one that allowed FW units, even if I didn't plan to use any myself. I prefer the additional diversity, even if it changes which unbalanced list is top dog. And I don't think it would greatly impact my list design, except for possibly making it weaker by making sure I got some cool looking thing into my list. But, I also don't spend a whole lot of time planning for events thinking about what all everyone else might bring.

 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.

The reasonable counter to this argument is that Games Workshop sponsors exactly 0 tournaments these days.

For the record, I'm neither for nor against, though I don't like the idea of running into a "Hey, gotcha!" situation unless I pay out the ass for a ton of books I'll never use myself.

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:

though I don't like the idea of running into a "Hey, gotcha!" situation unless I pay out the ass for a ton of books I'll never use myself.

I agree. Those new $50 hardback codexes are a bit steep.

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:
The reasonable counter to this argument is that Games Workshop sponsors exactly 0 tournaments these days.

But the point is FW rules are part of the game, and excluding them should be treated with the same contempt as the comp-heavy events that do stuff like banning allies or making dedicated transports 0-1 because it "isn't fluffy". The default should be that everything in the standard game is legal, and people don't have to worry about the new Eldar codex being randomly banned because some people don't like it.

For the record, I'm neither for nor against, though I don't like the idea of running into a "Hey, gotcha!" situation unless I pay out the ass for a ton of books I'll never use myself.

How is that any different from the situation with codex armies? Buying every codex in the game to be familiar with the armies you don't play costs even more than buying all the FW books, and somehow people manage to deal with it. Either you borrow them from someone else, you ask to look at the relevant rules before each game, or you pirate them like most people already do. And even if you don't want to do any of those things you can still just read tactics forums and get a pretty good idea of what most competitive-level units can do.

And at least, unlike the SoB "codex", you can buy everything. You're going to be pretty surprised if an SoB player shows up at a tournament and you haven't pirated their codex.

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:

 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.

The reasonable counter to this argument is that Games Workshop sponsors exactly 0 tournaments these days.

That is true in the US, but they still run the Throne of Skulls GT in the UK and they do not allow forge world.

In the UK, no Warhammer World tournament allows Forge World - this includes the large interstore tournaments and the Throne of Skulls. It's totally banned except as proxies for codex models. To me, that's very telling.

Here's my gripes with FW currently:

1) Thudd guns have no place in anything timed. They're strong, tough and stupidly cheap for what they do, but that's manageable. However, if you've been on the receiving end of someone trying to resolve the damage of 12 barrage shots, you'll understand this point. It's tedious and it takes an age because you MUST do it one at a time due to wound allocation. It's absurd.

2) Sevrin Loth. Knowing all of the powers from a psychic discipline not enough? ML3 not enough? Then BAM; 2++ save for 1 warp charge. This is a guy who, every single turn, will cast his 2++ thing, enfeeble and endurance every single turn. Yeah, 2++ with FNP is stupid broken but who cares when you can make your heavy weapons relentless? Silly and unjustifiably overpowered. I don't know anyone who can defend this guy.

3) Heavy artillery. This thing... what the hell. So, let's take an incredibly good barrage gun and make it 75 points. To offset the point reduction, let's make it ridiculously durable and give it a smaller model. Yeah. With correct model placement, this thing essentially has 7 T7 wounds. For 75 points. You can upgrade it to a Medusa gun for 25 points but who cares? S8 AP3 ordinance barrage large blast will rip up most stuff and you can have up to 9 in a single list.

4) Sabre platforms. T7 W2 troops with TL heavy weapons, all of which come standard with skyfire/interceptor. Park them on an objective/behind an Aegis with good LOS and make flyers worthless. And drop pods. And deep strikers. Pretty much anything really. 40 points for a TL autocannon which you can take 15 times per infantry platoon. By far the best fire support in any codex available, plus it's scoring.

5) Caestus Assault Rams are the worlds biggest middle finger. Not got skyfire capable of killing AV13? Too bad - ordinance melta 36" ram attack. Not enough? S8 AP1 melta large blast in reserve. It's not hugely strong in a balanced army but even one can knock out otherwise decent balanced armies - just because their army cannot deal with AV13 flyers.

6) Ahazra Redth, the Librarian famous for ruining assault armies. He has a 1 warp charge psychic power that makes a unit gain shrouded and all units charging that unit count as making a disordered charge. He also gets access to SM powers (aka always Null Zone) and Divination. If you haven't played this bull, consider yourself lucky, ESPECIALLY in the wake of the new Tau codex. Know what's more fun than a Riptide? A Riptide with 3+ cover because its toe is in area terrain and still good vs assaults as they all count as disordered. Not good enough? How about trying to assault a Tau gun line without your charge bonus attack/furious charge boosts? Other uses: Kroot/IG blobs with a 4++; misfortune against any IG/Tau gun line; foreboding on an IG blob; perfect timing when joined to almost any heavy weapon in the game. These aren't even the worst abuses of this power and you can already see how crazy it is.

I have other issues, but these are the ones that really need fixing IMO for FW to be taken seriously. Don't get me wrong, in a non-competitive game it's fine because people won't abuse these units so much. In a tournament, these are all inexcusable.

 Blackmoor wrote:
That is true in the US, but they still run the Throne of Skulls GT in the UK and they do not allow forge world.

They also impose a limit on how many points you can spend on allies, but I don't see anyone pushing to include that restriction just because GW's official events include it.

Eyjio wrote:
2) Sevrin Loth.

Is an incredibly overrated gimmick. A 2++ is easily dealt with the way other similar units are dealt with, through volume of fire. Meanwhile his support powers are nice, but it's not like you can't get them from other psykers.

3) Heavy artillery. This thing... what the hell.

Blame GW for changing the artillery rules in 6th and turning mediocre units into overpowered ones. Just like with the Sabre guns nobody complained about them in 5th, so you can put this in the same category as some idiot at GW deciding that Helldrakes need a magic 360* turret for their hull-mounted weapon. I'll take demands to ban these units seriously when they're accompanied by a similar demand to ban Helldrakes.

5) Caestus Assault Rams

And you miss the part where it's completely overpriced and useless unless you're using the transport capacity, which means hovering and having your 300 point flyer instantly blown up by every lascannon in your opponent's army. And that's 300 points in addition to the 400+ points you're going to spend on putting enough of a death star in it to justify taking it over a Stormraven.

6) Ahazra Redth

In other words, you get less of a bonus than Shadowsun, pay a lot more points for it, have to take allies (including troops you probably don't want), and have to cast a psychic power instead of getting it by default. The only Tau players who find that even remotely appealing are the ones who haven't bothered to read their codex yet.

And of course in a C:SM army he's still not all that great. You don't really have any units that benefit enough from hiding in cover better to justify that kind of price increase for the unit, and losing combat tactics for no gain for many of your units is just painful.

I have other issues, but these are the ones that really need fixing IMO for FW to be taken seriously. Don't get me wrong, in a non-competitive game it's fine because people won't abuse these units so much. In a tournament, these are all inexcusable.

So how is this any different than all the overpowered codex units? Should we ban all codex armies until GW fixes Helldrakes? Or are people magically able to cope with balance issues when they involve a particular set of books, but completely incompetent when a unit is published in a different book?

"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. "

This. 1000x this. I'd be all for it if it were actually about the pretty models. However, it is quite clear to anyone walking the tables at a big FW event that this simply isn't the case.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Blackmoor wrote:
You can play DKoK models as IG just fine.

Really? How exactly can I use the earthshaker batteries and heavy mortars that my DKoK are supposed to have with just the codex? Don't forget that fluff-wise a siege regiment does not have Basilisks or other artillery tanks, so even if I was allowed to count the earthshakers as Basilisks (the models are completely different) I would be directly contradicting my army's fluff.

(Or did you just forget that DKoK have more than infantry models?)

Do you have an afternoon to spend while I tell you all of the times where the fluff does not match the rules in game?

No one is telling you that you can't play that army, just not for tournament play. Ironically most Imperial Armor armies like DKoK are still not allowed at even tournaments that do have FW so you still would be unable to use it.

I was planning on buying a DKoK army because I love the models. The difference is that I was going to use them as IG. I like the look of the Earthshaker cannon and I was going to use them as basilisks. I was going to cut a base out that has the same size as the basilisk tank and mount it on that, and put ruined posts and walls around the base to mirror the profile of it. So I can have the look of the DKoK while playing with IG rules.

I also have a harlequin army and do you know what I do with that? I find eldar units that are close approximations to what were in the citadel journal and play with those.


I do have one question for you Peregrine, how many GTs have you played in in the last year?

 Peregrine wrote:

Say FW is legal is the same as saying planet strike, or dog fighting rules are legal...

No it isn't. Those are explicitly stated to be expansions that introduce optional rules for playing special variant games of 40k. FW rules are explicitly stated to be part of standard 40k.

Then why does the recent second edition printing of IA Vol. 3: The Taros Campaign have "Warhammer 40,000 Expansion" printed on the bottom right? By your argument it also includes essential rules, because as far as I know it contains the most up-to-date version of the Elysian army list and rules for Tallarn which are only in that book, but it's still labeled as an expansion.

Eyjio wrote:
In the UK, no Warhammer World tournament allows Forge World - this includes the large interstore tournaments and the Throne of Skulls. It's totally banned except as proxies for codex models. To me, that's very telling.

Can't you buy FW models at Warhammer World, too? Seems kind of odd then to restrict them so heavily when you can buy them right there, especially if GW's intent this whole time has been to make FW a part of "normal" 40k just like any standard codex release.

For myself,
FW units are NOT in the codex of the army that I am bringing, and that just says no use for tourney play.
I am having trouble keeping up with 13+ codexi (sp?) now I gotta get these other forgeworld books on top of that.

 Blackmoor wrote:
No one is telling you that you can't play that army, just not for tournament play. Ironically most Imperial Armor armies like DKoK are still not allowed at even tournaments that do have FW so you still would be unable to use it.

So then why are chaos dwarfs the exception? Why is it ok to tell DKoK players that they can't play their army in tournaments, but not ok to say the same to chaos dwarf players?

 Sidstyler wrote:
Then why does the recent second edition printing of IA Vol. 3: The Taros Campaign have "Warhammer 40,000 Expansion" printed on the bottom right?

Because it's an expansion. GW publishes two different types of expansions:

1) Expansions (like FW books) that add units and/or rules to the standard game of 40k. Just like a codex they are assumed to be included unless you make a house rule otherwise.

2) Expansions (like Planetstrike) that add optional rules for playing variant games. These require an agreement to play a non-standard game and have to be set up in advance (for example, you need to bring appropriate Planetstrike terrain and an army that follows the non-standard FOC).

If you read the entire sentence you quoted you'll see that I said "expansions that introduce optional rules", not just "expansions".

Can't you buy FW models at Warhammer World, too? Seems kind of odd then to restrict them so heavily when you can buy them right there, especially if GW's intent this whole time has been to make FW a part of "normal" 40k just like any standard codex release.

Maybe they got tired of having people bringing FW units and causing a conflict when their pirated copy of the book got them kicked out of the event.

They also impose a limit on how many points you can spend on allies, but I don't see anyone pushing to include that restriction just because GW's official events include it.

No they don't.

Is an incredibly overrated gimmick. A 2++ is easily dealt with the way other similar units are dealt with, through volume of fire. Meanwhile his support powers are nice, but it's not like you can't get them from other psykers.

How do I get rid of him with volume of fire when he hides in a blob squad pray tell? You can't. There's also no other psyker that can reliably always get the entirety of telekinesis/biomancy, so that's also untrue. He's far from overrated.

Blame GW for changing the artillery rules in 6th and turning mediocre units into overpowered ones. Just like with the Sabre guns nobody complained about them in 5th, so you can put this in the same category as some idiot at GW deciding that Helldrakes need a magic 360* turret for their hull-mounted weapon. I'll take demands to ban these units seriously when they're accompanied by a similar demand to ban Helldrakes.

So because GW made artillery usable in 6th, that's an excuse for Forge World to release a minimal effort update that totally breaks them? No. The Heavy Artillery change is entirely on FW who decided that the step from AV10 to AV11 was equivalent to double the wounds of an artillery piece. They also didn't change the points at all despite how much stronger these units got. It's just poor rules writing. Complain about Heldrakes all you want, at least you can't take 6 of them for 450 points - when a unit makes the Heldrake look underwhelming, you dun goofed.

And you miss the part where it's completely overpriced and useless unless you're using the transport capacity, which means hovering and having your 300 point flyer instantly blown up by every lascannon in your opponent's army. And that's 300 points in addition to the 400+ points you're going to spend on putting enough of a death star in it to justify taking it over a Stormraven.

No I didn't, at all. I even said it's not particularly strong in a balanced army. That doesn't mean it's not an ass. Why would I bother putting something in it? All it needs to do is ram when it enters then melta blast a unit nearby. Unless I get very unlucky, it won't die if I don't hover. As I said, it wrecks otherwise good armies and there's really no way armies like Orks or Dark Eldar can deal with it. That makes it poor.

In other words, you get less of a bonus than Shadowsun, pay a lot more points for it, have to take allies (including troops you probably don't want), and have to cast a psychic power instead of getting it by default. The only Tau players who find that even remotely appealing are the ones who haven't bothered to read their codex yet.

Less of a bonus? You can cast it on any squad within LOS at any time, even if you aren't attached. That's a hell of a lot stronger than Shadowsun who must join the unit she gives shrouding. If you think Tau wouldn't love Space Marine allies, well... Yeah. I don't even know what to say, that's pretty crazy. You're telling me they wouldn't want up to 4 more troops, which are substantially more durable and have better mobility options? It's not a fit for every Tau list certainly, but it's still insanely strong. I also noticed you didn't even attempt to rebut his ridiculous buffs to an IG blob.

I can only assume that you not mentioning thudd guns means you must agree with me on that front. Brill.

So how is this any different than all the overpowered codex units? Should we ban all codex armies until GW fixes Helldrakes? Or are people magically able to cope with balance issues when they involve a particular set of books, but completely incompetent when a unit is published in a different book?

So your argument boils down to this: there's a lot of unbalanced units, there's no harm adding more even though it disproportionately favours IG which are already one of the best codices in the game? That's a pretty bad argument. Even so, I would argue Heavy Artillery and Thudd guns ruin the game far more than anything GW has done as games go from taking a couple of hours to an entire afternoon. Even if you reject all balance issues (of which there are several), this is still a major issue at tournaments. How do you propose we get around that, other than either comp restrictions on FW or not using it at all?

Eyjio wrote:
No they don't.

Oh, you're right. This year they just banned allies entirely. From http://www.games-workshop.com/MEDIA_CustomProductCatalog/m3010062a_Throne_of_Skulls_Rules2013.pdf

Warhammer 40,000:
1500 points chosen from any offi cial and current Warhammer 40.000 Codex

Note the singular "codex". One codex, no allies. I guess you're now going to argue that all tournaments should ban allies because GW HQ bans them? Or do GW's own tournaments only matter when they ban FW?

How do I get rid of him with volume of fire when he hides in a blob squad pray tell? You can't. There's also no other psyker that can reliably always get the entirety of telekinesis/biomancy, so that's also untrue. He's far from overrated.

Who cares about a 2++ if you're hiding in a blob squad and not taking any wounds?

As for the powers, who cares. I'd much rather have two DA divination librarians casting a total of four powers a turn (complete with the ultimate shooting buff as a primaris power) than waste time on biomancy "support" powers.

So because GW made artillery usable in 6th, that's an excuse for Forge World to release a minimal effort update that totally breaks them?

No, I think FW should fix the problem and increase their point cost appropriately. However it's just ridiculous to complain about FW's failure to fix obvious balance issues when GW still can't figure out how to errata the Vendetta to cost more than 130 points. If you're going to ban FW units over this issue then you need to ban all codex units over GW's identical "balance" policy.

Also, the problem with the artillery units isn't having four wounds on the gun, it's that the giant blob of guardsmen in front of it are all counted as being T7. Once you finally get through all the meatshield wounds doing an extra two wounds to the guns is no big deal.

No I didn't, at all. I even said it's not particularly strong in a balanced army. That doesn't mean it's not an ass. Why would I bother putting something in it? All it needs to do is ram when it enters then melta blast a unit nearby. Unless I get very unlucky, it won't die if I don't hover. As I said, it wrecks otherwise good armies and there's really no way armies like Orks or Dark Eldar can deal with it. That makes it poor.

Oh, I see. So you're going to cheat and melta blast on a turn you ram (check the ramming rules), and pretty much turn your 300 point flyer into a really expensive combi-melta Sternguard pod? How exactly is the Caestus even remotely appealing as a one-shot anti-tank weapon?

Less of a bonus? You can cast it on any squad within LOS at any time, even if you aren't attached.

Sigh. You should read the rules before you complain about them, the power can only be cast on the character and his own unit (or vehicle he's being transported in).

And it's less of a bonus because Shadowsun gives shrouded AND stealth. A +3 cover bonus is much better than a +2 bonus.

I also noticed you didn't even attempt to rebut his ridiculous buffs to an IG blob.

You're right, I didn't. Because DA are already handing out a 4++ to blobs, and I haven't seen you post a demand to ban DA from tournaments because of how overpowered blobs with a 4++ are.

I can only assume that you not mentioning thudd guns means you must agree with me on that front. Brill.

You're right, I agree that 6th edition's barrage rules are stupid and thudd guns are a time problem. I'd also say the same thing about a codex IG list that spams as many mortars as possible to slow down the game and win by running out of time.

How do you propose we get around that, other than either comp restrictions on FW or not using it at all?

Ban the single unit that causes a time problem, for time problem issues (not power level issues), stop trying to play high-point games in too little time, and actually enforce slow play rules. It's just insane to ban a huge list of units just because one unit is a time issue.

Oh yay. This again. I guess I'll bite.

 Blackmoor wrote:


#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.

How is Games Workshop supposed to embrace something made by Games Workshop. We do all understand that Forgeworld is a division of Games Workshop and the Imperial Armor books are official expansions to the game, correct?

#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.

And anyone who is making the argument that FW should be allowed because it somehow addresses power balance is putting an unfair onus on Imperial Armor that the company itself does not. Imperial Armor exists solely to expand the breadth and width of the game of 40K, no more, no less.

#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?

How can I answer this question? Why did you think we 'need' Imperial Armor in the first place? If you're judging this by any of the misguided points above then obviously your answer is 'no'.

But if you're asking the question based on the actual reason to why Imperial Armor is 'needed' (to add breadth and width to the game of 40k), then the answer should always be 'yes' (at least in some tournaments).

The reason that these models and these rules should be allowed is because the company that makes the game makes them as part of the game. I can buy those models from the company and they have rules for using them in the game of Warhammer 40K, so why can't I use them?

Who are you (we) to judge that everyone taking Sabres or Thudd Guns is somehow worse than everyone taking Annihilation Barges? Games Workshop makes these rules and they DO NOT CARE, so why is Imperial Armor suddenly the place where the line gets drawn?

If it is true that allowing IA suddenly makes Imperial Guard the top army, then WHO CARES? Why is this suddenly worse then whatever other army (probably Necrons) would be 'top dog' when IA isn't allowed?


So in short:

I bought my Tetras from Games Workshop (Forgeworld) and Games Workshop (Forgeworld) makes rules for them in games of Warhammer 40k (just got my brand spanking new IA3, 2nd edition today!), so why the hell can't I use them in a tournament?

Do you think I care if everyone is taking a bunch of Sabres and Thudd Guns (I don't)? I just want to use the damn models that I paid for and I don't understand why when it comes to Forgeworld and Imperial Armor suddenly everyone thinks its totally cool to be the armchair games designer and make the decision that Imperial Armor needs to be banned from tournaments for 'balance' reasons, when the company that makes the game (which IA is a part of) does not care in the least.

If they wanted to fix Sabres, Thudd Guns, etc, they could and they would. Until they do, we have a couple more super-powerful units in the game, and so be it. It's GW's problem to fix, not ours.

 Blackmoor wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Blackmoor wrote:
You can play DKoK models as IG just fine.

Really? How exactly can I use the earthshaker batteries and heavy mortars that my DKoK are supposed to have with just the codex? Don't forget that fluff-wise a siege regiment does not have Basilisks or other artillery tanks, so even if I was allowed to count the earthshakers as Basilisks (the models are completely different) I would be directly contradicting my army's fluff.

(Or did you just forget that DKoK have more than infantry models?)

Do you have an afternoon to spend while I tell you all of the times where the fluff does not match the rules in game?

No one is telling you that you can't play that army, just not for tournament play. Ironically most Imperial Armor armies like DKoK are still not allowed at even tournaments that do have FW so you still would be unable to use it.

I was planning on buying a DKoK army because I love the models. The difference is that I was going to use them as IG. I like the look of the Earthshaker cannon and I was going to use them as basilisks. I was going to cut a base out that has the same size as the basilisk tank and mount it on that, and put ruined posts and walls around the base to mirror the profile of it. So I can have the look of the DKoK while playing with IG rules.

I also have a harlequin army and do you know what I do with that? I find eldar units that are close approximations to what were in the citadel journal and play with those.


I do have one question for you Peregrine, how many GTs have you played in in the last year?

While I was refusing to jump into this conversation when I already caused this storm once a few months ago with: http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/477448.page I would like to know the answer to Blackmoors question highlighted in red.

I imagine it will be a number near 0 and the reason will be because he can't use DKoK in tournaments. Then again I may be assuming too much and since this is the internet nothing is really verifiable unless someone has actually been to the same events and knows who he is in real life.

j_p_chess wrote:
For myself,
FW units are NOT in the codex of the army that I am bringing, and that just says no use for tourney play.
I am having trouble keeping up with 13+ codexi (sp?) now I gotta get these other forgeworld books on top of that.

Why should they put the rules in codices? Makes no sense at all.

Why wasn't the [Insert FOTM] codex banned upon release for having units multiple times better than [Insert outdated codex] at reduced cost?

So why should Forgeworld be?

It's not fun to play against overpowered/undercosted units no matter where they come from, and disallowing Forgeworld doesn't change that at all.

Carlosthecraven- Thanks for sharing your thoughts, I thought the team tourney results at AdeptiCon might be relevant since it is such a big event, and so recent. Also given Target's comments as part of the winning side. I certainly don't blame anyone for using what is available! But, it's something to consider.

Simply banning, limiting, or FAQ'ing the few grossly overpowered FW artillery pieces for a GT seems like a decent compromise, imo... Fantasy events do this all the time with even rulebook/army book special characters/items. Just taking out the most egregious handful can answer most problems/critics, imo.

 RiTides wrote:
Simply banning, limiting, or FAQ'ing the few grossly overpowered FW artillery pieces for a GT seems like a decent compromise, imo... Fantasy events do this all the time with even rulebook/army book special characters/items. Just taking out the most egregious handful can answer most problems/critics, imo.

"FW legal except Artillery and Heavy Artillery" is certainly simple and effective.

The main problem with FW isn't FW overall. A lot of people buy their units because they love the looks, they are high quality overall.

The main problem is the extreme cherry-picking with FW stuff, especially some ridiculously overpowered crap...yes, I am looking at you, IG, love-child of FW.

Restricting it would solve that problem but as far as I am aware of it, and correct me here please, the US is very new to limiting games or armies and thus, it might take a lot of time to get some well-working restrictions out.

 Sigvatr wrote:
The main problem is the extreme cherry-picking with FW stuff, especially some ridiculously overpowered crap...yes, I am looking at you, IG, love-child of FW.

The ironic part is the 'big 3' powerful FW units aren't IG, they're Space Marine (Caestus, Achilles and Lucius drop pod)

It goes in cycles, Sigvatr, in the US tourney scene I think. Right now, the tourney scene is largely "no restrictions", but a simple FW artillery fix (and perhaps a handful of others) would address most concerns.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Blackmoor wrote:
That is true in the US, but they still run the Throne of Skulls GT in the UK and they do not allow forge world.

They also impose a limit on how many points you can spend on allies, but I don't see anyone pushing to include that restriction just because GW's official events include it.

Regardless, GW prohibit the use of Forgeworld in their official tournaments, so you're wrong when you say that GW explicitly allow them.

I like how nobody addressed either of my concerns about FW.

IMO were I allowing FW I would limit its use to the 2 or 3 most recent FW book containing rules for a particular army. That way the rules cycle just as the do for codices, and there is more balance in the number of options available to each faction.

I also disagree with the idea that FW books are not expansions that provide optional rules for game play (they are) and we might consider that the lists and units are designed with use in those types if games.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also funny how people want to use stuff and lists from old supplements. So why not allow squats then I bought e models so I should be able to use them. I also don't buy the why are Chaos dwarves allowed. Are they in ever fantasy event? Why does that matter for 40k? And why only that one list, would FW players be happy if I said well the only FW allowed is eldar corsairs.

Sigvatr wrote:The main problem with FW isn't FW overall. A lot of people buy their units because they love the looks, they are high quality overall.

The main problem is the extreme cherry-picking with FW stuff, especially some ridiculously overpowered crap...yes, I am looking at you, IG, love-child of FW.

Restricting it would solve that problem but as far as I am aware of it, and correct me here please, the US is very new to limiting games or armies and thus, it might take a lot of time to get some well-working restrictions out.

Sorry, the problem is that people cherry pick the best units, PERIOD.

This is not an issue with just Imperial Armor, yet people suddenly have an issue when people do it with an IA because they are expansion rules.

When's the last time you saw someone take Praetorians or Lychguard in a tournament Necron army? Its like all people do is 'cherry pick' the Wraiths, Sycthes & Ann Barges...so clearly those units are the problem and should be banned from tournaments.

Here's a news flash people:

GAMES WORKSHOP MAKES ARMIES THAT CONTAIN UNITS THAT ARE WAAAAAY BETTER THAN OTHERS IN THE ARMY. THIS IS NOT EXCLUSIVE TO IMPERIAL ARMOR.


So to gripe about Imperial Armor being a 'problem' because people seem to only take the 'best' units from it, is ridiculous. Its like chastising SW players for taking a bunch of Long Fangs or CSM players for taking Heldrakes.

Games Workshop has never, ever, ever, ever trumpeted Imperial Armor as being any kind of 'solution' or 'balancing' formula for their codexes, and anybody who acts like this should be a reason to allow them or disallow them is playing armchair games designer.

The fact is, these are RULES published by the company for their game. Are these rules an expansion? Of course, they say so right on their front covers and in the intro for every IA book...but just because they are an expansion is NOT A REASON TO DISALLOW THEM FROM BEING USED.

If you want to run your tournament not allowing IA rules, then fine, everybody has a right to run their tournaments the way they want. But for anyone to act like its not appropriate to include IA in a tournament simply because the rules are an expansion or because they think the rules are 'unbalancing' is poppycock.

The people who write the game have made these rules. They are rules for their game. I bought models for their game using the rules they have written for their game. I should be able to use those models in my games, tournament or no. If the designers have no issues with Imperial Armor being unbalanced like their codexes, then who are you exactly to step in and try to say that this 'needs' to be done to preserve some theoretical 'balance'?

If you don't like the fact that you feel IA unbalances the game, then write GW a letter or consider quitting the game because it is inherently imbalanced. But please don't randomly highlight and try to restrict IA rules from being used because they're just as unbalanced as units in the codex.

Breng77 wrote:I like how nobody addressed either of my concerns about FW.

IMO were I allowing FW I would limit its use to the 2 or 3 most recent FW book containing rules for a particular army. That way the rules cycle just as the do for codices, and there is more balance in the number of options available to each faction.

I also disagree with the idea that FW books are not expansions that provide optional rules for game play (they are) and we might consider that the lists and units are designed with use in those types if games.

Also funny how people want to use stuff and lists from old supplements. So why not allow squats then I bought e models so I should be able to use them. I also don't buy the why are Chaos dwarves allowed. Are they in ever fantasy event? Why does that matter for 40k? And why only that one list, would FW players be happy if I said well the only FW allowed is eldar corsairs.

I don't even understand the point of your post.

Of course the most current published rules for every IA unit need to be used if they're going to be played just like the most current codex has to be used. I mean, you can agree with opponents to go back and play out of date rules, but in general any discussion involving IA is simply talking about using the most current rules version of any given unit.

And yes, of course IA is an expansion, it says so on their front covers. However, just because it is an expansion shouldn't be an automatic reason not to allow them. They are still part of the game written by the company who makes the game.