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.

**OverwatchCNC**

Traceoftoxin wrote:
Blackmoor wrote:
Mannahnin wrote:
I think the cost/durability ratio with FW artillery is way out of whack with the 6th ed change. I think that's pretty clear. Thudd Guns and Helios platforms make Helldrakes and Annihilation Barges look overpriced by comparison.

I don't think the non-FW tournament metagame is really unbalanced, but I do think including those two units indisputably makes it more so.

These are my thoughts nicely summed up.

And long fangs were just as unbalanced when they were released, but we didn't ban them.

Long Fangs were no where near as unbalanced. 15 krak/frag missiles a turn that requires LoS in 5th is no where near as bad as 12-24 indirect firing ordnance weapons a turn in 6th.

**JWhex**

The "no skin in the game" argument against Peregrine participating in the debate is as full of fail as the credential diversion and for exactly the same reason.

It also fails on another level because tournaments can have an influence on how people play in the casual environment, thus he does have some skin in the game. By the way, I dont even agree with Peregrines stance completely because I think he is a bit over the top and over states the case.

@Redbeard, yes your analysis was flawed because you were comparing prices as part of your argument and you did not add on the significant cost of the FW book needed to field the units. Elsewhere in this thread and in others I have said explicitly that if you want to compete in warhammer or practically anything else you will face off against people who will spend the maximum amount of money possible for any gain. I have not said FW should be disallowed on the basis of expense, quite the contrary in fact.

The idea that "GW" knows best does not hold up to close scrutiny or a historical examination of the rules they have produced for fantasy and 40k. Indeed out of their own mouth(s) comes all kinds of nonsense lately about how the games dont need to be nor do they even try to balance units among or within codexes and army books.

**BryllCream**

RiTides wrote:
yak, it's every TO's call to make. There is no "right" imo, which makes it worth discussing (and discussing compromises / common ground).

Note that the official GW tournaments do *not* allow forgeworld.

**Peregrine**

Breng77 wrote:
Furthermore if Gw wanted this stuff to be in base 40k why isn't in the codices (there are examples of units they took from FW. ).

GW does not do it anymore, because they figured out it's much better to just invent new codex units and sell both the new unit and the FW one. It has nothing to do with balance or game design reasons, it's purely a business decision based on maximizing sales.

It is far easier to draw the line at no FW than start pointing to specific units and banning those.

It would also be far easier to ban the entire CSM codex than to fix Helldrakes. That doesn't make it the right thing to do.

Mannahnin wrote:
These are the kind of pronouncements one is unlikely to hear from someone who plays in big events.

But exactly the kind of pronouncements you'd hear from someone who has read this thread. Just look at what people are posting, banning Helldrakes (or even limiting them to 0-1) is absolutely unacceptable despite them being clearly unbalanced (and having an incredibly stupid FAQ to make them even more powerful). I don't see how anyone can read this thread and fail to notice that there's a blatant double standard for balance between codex and FW units.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

BryllCream wrote:
Note that the official GW tournaments do *not* allow forgeworld.

The official GW tournament also doesn't allow allies, but I don't see any crusade to ban allies just because it's what GW HQ does.

**BryllCream**

Nevertheless it sets a precedence. You're claiming that there's no reason to disallow forgeworld because it's a ruleset made by gw to be played in games of 40k...when gw themselves don't allow it in tournaments.

There is no one flavour of 40k. For some forgeworld may be completely legit,others prefer anything goes. Both are equally valid.

**Peregrine**

BryllCream wrote:
Nevertheless it sets a precedence.

Only if it also sets a precedent that allies should be banned because GW's tournament doesn't allow them.

You're claiming that there's no reason to disallow forgeworld because it's a ruleset made by gw to be played in games of 40k...when gw themselves don't allow it in tournaments.

Except GW tournaments exist for the sole purpose of selling models, and it's easy to imagine the sales "experts" saying that GW HQ events should focus on "core" products.

There is no one flavour of 40k. For some forgeworld may be completely legit,others prefer anything goes. Both are equally valid.

You're right, but there is only one standard game as published by GW. Everything else is house rules, including events played at GW HQ (which very obviously use house rules like banning allies and requiring painted models).

**Dozer Blades**

The bottom line is its the decision of the TO whether or not to allow the use of Forge World. Each TO must decide if they think they can draw the number of players they wish to attend if Forge World is allowed. If they think they can meet that number there is no reason not to allow Forge World. Personally I am glad to see more and more big tournaments allowing it. I have not seen any good arguments here against its inclusion... Basically they all boil down to as the OP said "I don't want to play against it." for whatever reason. To me that's not a good a reason.

**Blackmoor**

JWhex wrote:
The "no skin in the game" argument against Peregrine participating in the debate is as full of fail as the credential diversion and for exactly the same reason.

It also fails on another level because tournaments can have an influence on how people play in the casual environment, thus he does have some skin in the game. By the way, I dont even agree with Peregrines stance completely because I think he is a bit over the top and over states the case.
.

Can you give some examples of how tournament play influenced casual play?

**Mannahnin**

It often influences what point sizes and restrictions people use in local pickup games, as players who play in tournaments, or may want to play in tournaments, may want to use those guidelines for practice games. Which is why I said that Peregrine doesn't have to tell us whether he participates in large tournaments (he obviously doesn't); because they may still impact his local play metagame and the expectations for pickup games in his area.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Peregrine wrote:
Mannahnin wrote:
These are the kind of pronouncements one is unlikely to hear from someone who plays in big events.

But exactly the kind of pronouncements you'd hear from someone who has read this thread. Just look at what people are posting, banning Helldrakes (or even limiting them to 0-1) is absolutely unacceptable despite them being clearly unbalanced (and having an incredibly stupid FAQ to make them even more powerful).

No one's said that banning them would be absolutely unacceptable. They've said that any given event can make whatever restrictions it wants. But they've opined that limiting units in a codex unit isn't as easy or likely to be accepted by the general player populace as limiting Forgeworld units. Which is true.

Heldrakes are a very strong unit in some matchups. And pretty useless in others. Trying to argue that they're as bad as cheap spammable Interceptor heavy weapons and Thudd Guns is just silly and makes you look ignorant.

Peregrine wrote:
I don't see how anyone can read this thread and fail to notice that there's a blatant double standard for balance between codex and FW units.

The fact that you feel so strongly about it as to get angry about it and berate people, as opposed to just recognizing it as a fact, and a product of Forgeworld's historically more limited nature and availability, and taking that information in context, is a product of your ignorance about the national tournament scene and its history. Of how GW has consistently treated Forgeworld by comparison to codices and codex units. And how players have established practices and expectations over time. You can make reasonable arguments as to why those practices should be changed (and some have, including you at points), but a lot of the time you seem more focused on lecturing to and harping on others about events you don't even participate in. You catch more flies with honey, man.

**Peregrine**

Mannahnin wrote:
Heldrakes are a very strong unit in some matchups. And pretty useless in others. Trying to argue that they're as bad as cheap spammable Interceptor heavy weapons and Thudd Guns is just silly and makes you look ignorant.

But that's not the point. I'm not saying that the Helldrake is or isn't as bad as a certain FW unit, or that Helldrakes need to be banned. The point is that Helldrakes and Vendettas are obvious balance mistakes that make a joke out of any claim that codex units are thoroughly playtested and balanced. So it's ridiculous to insist that FW can't be allowed as long as it has balance problems while obvious (and easy to fix) balance problems with codex units are ignored.

The fact that you feel so strongly about it as to get angry about it and berate people, as opposed to just recognizing it as a fact, and a product of Forgeworld's historically more limited nature and availability, and taking that information in context, is a product of your ignorance about the national tournament scene and its history. Of how GW has consistently treated Forgeworld by comparison to codices and codex units. And how players have established practices and expectations over time. You can make reasonable arguments as to why those practices should be changed (and some have, including you at points), but a lot of the time you seem more focused on lecturing to and harping on others about events you don't even participate in. You catch more flies with honey, man.

And you could say the exact same things about comp-heavy tournaments in 5th edition. There were reasons it started, the players had established practices and expecations, etc. But that didn't do anything to stop the endless lectures about how comp is bad and "real" competitive tournaments allow everything.

**Mannahnin**

Composition is a different subject. It got phased out when 40k itself became more balanced. Primarily by 5th ed's removal of VPs as a common means of determining victory, and that being replaced by objective holding with Troops. What changed was the core rules and the "need" for Comp, or lack thereof.

**Peregrine**

Mannahnin wrote:
Composition is a different subject. It got phased out when 40k itself became more balanced. Primarily by 5th ed's removal of VPs as a common means of determining victory, and that being replaced by objective holding with Troops. What changed was the core rules and the "need" for Comp, or lack thereof.

I'm not saying it was a good idea in 5th (the kind I'm thinking of certainly wasn't, with harsh penalties for transport spam and any other "netlist" the TO didn't like), it's just funny to look at the differences in attitude here. In 5th there were endless rants about how comp was horrible, "real" competitive events would never use it, and comp-heavy events were good for nothing but mocking. But now in 6th certain people want comp restrictions back and the attitude is all about compromise. So what changed? Why do the players suddenly know more than GW about what should and shouldn't be in the game? Why are balance issues suddenly something to fix with house rules instead of just part of the game that everyone has to adapt to?

**Mannahnin**

Maybe you could go back and read some of those old threads and see whether anyone in this thread has changed their position.

Maybe you're misremembering some details.

**Kimchi Gamer**

While some people think that this topic has been done to death, I think it is a relevant topic for discussion that has fairly far reaching implications in tournament play. I've written a fairly detailed post in the blog listed in my signature (shameless plug!) but basically I'm in the camp of no FW until you hit 1750 points and after that it should be a 0-1 option, or no more than one of each unit. If you are having issues against fliers, there is your 0-1. If you need something to help you with close combat, here is your 0-1 etc. The correct models MUST be used, or I'm just going to glue some eyes on a coke can and call it a Contemptor Dread. The same people using 3 Helldrakes or 6 Croissants in their lists are now using 9 Sabre Platforms and 4 artillery pieces.

**JWhex**

Blackmoor wrote:
JWhex wrote:
The "no skin in the game" argument against Peregrine participating in the debate is as full of fail as the credential diversion and for exactly the same reason.

It also fails on another level because tournaments can have an influence on how people play in the casual environment, thus he does have some skin in the game. By the way, I dont even agree with Peregrines stance completely because I think he is a bit over the top and over states the case.
.

Can you give some examples of how tournament play influenced casual play?

A lot of european players use the etc rules in regular games according to many posts in the warhammer forums.

From first hand experience my local group never allowed allies in 5th edition fantasy or 2 edition 40k even though by the book it was possible. In recent editions the pick up games usually have been with tournament rules that are prominent as well as the point values commonly used at tournaments. Special characters were excluded from local play for the most part, especially in fantasy because they were banned in all local tournaments.

Most players that I game with go to local and regional tournaments of which there are a fair number in a days drive in the midwest and practically all the games I play are tournament practice games. The last 3 games I played were to help a friend prepare for the bugeater tournament so naturally we were playing at that point level. Likewise others in town for both fantasy and 40k that are at Bugeater right this moment have been playing at that point level.

I hardly can believe our local group is different than anywhere else in this regard.

**yakface**

Mannahnin wrote:
Peregrine wrote:
But exactly the kind of pronouncements you'd hear from someone who has read this thread. Just look at what people are posting, banning Helldrakes (or even limiting them to 0-1) is absolutely unacceptable despite them being clearly unbalanced (and having an incredibly stupid FAQ to make them even more powerful).
No one's said that banning them would be absolutely unacceptable. They've said that any given event can make whatever restrictions it wants. But they've opined that limiting units in a codex unit isn't as easy or likely to be accepted by the general player populace as limiting Forgeworld units. Which is true.

**Enigwolf**

Kimchi Gamer wrote:
The same people using 3 Helldrakes or 6 Croissants in their lists are now using 9 Sabre Platforms and 4 artillery pieces.

This very well tends to be the case...

(Edit for extra laughs for calling Scythes as Croissants.

)

**Mannahnin**

yakface wrote:
4) If we can focus on that REAL issue and ask ourselves: are there really a few units in Imperial Armor really so powerful that they cannot possibly be countered?

I think this comes off as hyperbole and exaggeration. "Cannot possibly be countered" is an exceedingly high bar, and I don't think that any unit has ever yet reached it. That being said, some have been really over the top and disproportionately damaging to balanced play. One of the reasons that WHFB has kept comp or comp restrictions has been because that game has had more broken stuff in the core books (including the entire Daemons army book throughout 7th edition and 8th ed up until this Spring) during the period of relative balance that 40k enjoyed.

yakface wrote:
And if that is the case, is that really a reason to completely disallow all of Imperial Armor in its entirety instead of just targeting the units that are the issue?

I tend to concur that limiting Imperial Armour units or banning specific ones is probably a better approach then disallowing IA completely.

yakface wrote:
So to make the decision about whether or not to allow or disallow Imperial Armor is being made for any other reason (such as deciding that they are imbalanced) is NOT banning them BECAUSE they are an expansion, it is using the fact that they're an expansion as an excuse for players to address the perceived imbalance in the game.

If imbalance is really a core issue to the point of banning Imperial Armor, then it should be core enough to worry about banning codexes/army books or even units within those books to help maintain that theoretical balance. Or at least there should be discussion about implementing comp of some sort back into tournaments.

I agree that the perceived imbalance of some IA units is what mostly drives the impetus to ban or restrict them. I'd say that the fact that they're in an expansion is less an excuse for then to be restricted than it is a convenient dividing line. And one which has some historic continuity.

I for one wouldn't be reflexively opposed to the re-introduction of Comp. I was one of its last and longest champions, as far as I can recall. That being said, IMO the (sans-IA) 40k 6th ed metagame has been surprisingly balanced so far. Blackmoor's got a point, however, that with the recent rapid introduction of several codices, it's really impossible for any of us to give an informed opinion about how balanced it is or isn't right now. Because there simply hasn't been time to see yet.

The breakdown of units/codices which made the finals at Adepticon are a bit worrying, but they're also representative of a particular metagame, time period, and set of available codices which has now changed. And we still saw Tyranids, Orks, Dark Eldar/Eldar, and no-allies GK place, and seed highly.

**Ozymandias**

I think we can all agree that people who use FW in tournaments are clearly power-mad, cheesy, TFG's while those who want to ban FW are clearly whiny, butthurt babies.

Can't we all just roll some dice and have fun?

**JWhex**

OK here are some reasons that I believe as a TO it would be valid to not allow FW units that are not addressed in yak's post. First I will address smaller local tournaments and treat them separate than larger tournaments.

Small Local Tournaments 20-50 participants, 1 day

One purpose of these tournaments is to build and maintain a local community. This means you are catering to not only advanced but also intermediate and beginner players.

FW books are expensive, you cant buy them locally and I bet a lot of people dont even know someone that actually owns a forge world expansion. This means it is very hard to get info about the units ahead of time because you cant look in a friends codex like you can easily for all the other armies.

So, the general group is not going to be familiar with the rules at the same level as the regular codexes, which can lead to problems and arguments.

Perception can be as important as reality and many people perceive FW as being full of broken units even if that is not an accurate representation of the books.

There are more than sufficient units in the various codexes that the FW rules are not really needed. So for me, if I could be bothered to run tournaments again, the decision is easy, no FW allowed, fewer headaches, problem solved.

For larger tournaments:(No way i would ever submit to that madness and kudos to those that do)

As shown by this thread there are people that hold strong opinions pro and con about FW. All this will just be magnified at a big tournament. This would make decision even easier. No FW, no drama about FW during the event, many problems solved by avoidance.

I do know from helping run big martial art tournaments that any little problem is magnified by 1000x during the tournament. I cannot believe this is less the case in a huge warhammer tournament because at closed martial art tournaments people are usually on their best behavior and there is a uniform and rather rigid code of behavior that everyone has agreed to follow. The kind of bad sportsmanship you see at warhammer tournaments with people throwing dice or losing their temper would result in being shown the door, immediately. In countless matches as a referee I have disqualified quite a few men and women of all ages from a sparring match but never for unsportsmanlike conduct and never came remotely close to kicking them out of a tournament, not ever.

Anything that could cause disruption or drama of any kind I would just cut out. That is the result of my own experience of dealing with large numbers of people in a high state of anxiety and tension, which you see a lot of at small and large tournaments. Now other people may feel passionately about the inclusion of FW so it is worth any downside to them.

I think that is fine but I am just pointing out there are reasons beyond what Yak wrote about that could lead to the dismissal of FW from a tournament.

**Peregrine**

JWhex wrote:
FW books are expensive, you cant buy them locally and I bet a lot of people dont even know someone that actually owns a forge world expansion. This means it is very hard to get info about the units ahead of time because you cant look in a friends codex like you can easily for all the other armies.

And this is going to be a self-fulfilling prophecy. If events don't allow FW then the local players are a lot less likely to invest money in something they can't use, and continue to be uninformed.

Also, if you're talking about a small local event then the people playing in it are probably all part of the same community and familiar with all the FW units (and non-FW units) in the group.

This would make decision even easier. No FW, no drama about FW during the event, many problems solved by avoidance.

It's the easiest solution, but the easiest solution isn't always the best answer. After all, it would be very easy to solve all the complaints about overpowered flyers if you just banned IG, CSM and Necrons entirely. Sure, the IG/CSM/Necron players might be unhappy about being banned from your event, but so are the FW players who are banned from your event.

**Mannahnin**

This is the kind of thing I was talking about earlier, Peregrine. You have an excellent argument talking about the self-fulfilling prophecy, then you throw in that stuff referring to "FW players" and equating them to IG/CSM/Necron players. It's such an obvious false equivalency that it detracts from your better arguments.

**Peregrine**

Mannahnin wrote:
This is the kind of thing I was talking about earlier, Peregrine. You have an excellent argument talking about the self-fulfilling prophecy, then you throw in that stuff referring to "FW players" and equating them to IG/CSM/Necron players. It's such an obvious false equivalency that it detracts from your better arguments.

How is it a false equivalency? All of them are playing legal armies according to the rules as published by GW, and I don't think you can make a plausible argument that one person has any more right to play in a tournament than another. The IG/CSM/Necron group may be larger, but it's still the same principle of banning an excessively large group of people as the "easiest" solution to a problem.

**BryllCream**

Peregrine wrote:

But that's not the point. I'm not saying that the Helldrake is or isn't as bad as a certain FW unit, or that Helldrakes need to be banned. The point is that Helldrakes and Vendettas are obvious balance mistakes that make a joke out of any claim that codex units are thoroughly playtested and balanced. So it's ridiculous to insist that FW can't be allowed as long as it has balance problems while obvious (and easy to fix) balance problems with codex units are ignored.

I really don't see the logic behind "there is already some imbalance, therefore it's okay to add a huge amount of extra inbalance".

**Enigwolf**

BryllCream wrote:
Peregrine wrote:

But that's not the point. I'm not saying that the Helldrake is or isn't as bad as a certain FW unit, or that Helldrakes need to be banned. The point is that Helldrakes and Vendettas are obvious balance mistakes that make a joke out of any claim that codex units are thoroughly playtested and balanced. So it's ridiculous to insist that FW can't be allowed as long as it has balance problems while obvious (and easy to fix) balance problems with codex units are ignored.

I really don't see the logic behind "there is already some imbalance, therefore it's okay to add a huge amount of extra inbalance".

So let's stop releasing codices then? I fail to see where you're going with this argument, sorry. FW has its own fair share of balanced and imbalanced units like any other codex.

**JWhex**

Peregrine wrote:
Mannahnin wrote:
This is the kind of thing I was talking about earlier, Peregrine. You have an excellent argument talking about the self-fulfilling prophecy, then you throw in that stuff referring to "FW players" and equating them to IG/CSM/Necron players. It's such an obvious false equivalency that it detracts from your better arguments.

How is it a false equivalency? All of them are playing legal armies according to the rules as published by GW, and I don't think you can make a plausible argument that one person has any more right to play in a tournament than another. The IG/CSM/Necron group may be larger, but it's still the same principle of banning an excessively large group of people as the "easiest" solution to a problem.

There is no excessively large group of FW players and its not a self fullfilling prophecy. I simply gave some reasons why as a TO I would ban FW at small tournaments and hypothetically why I would do it a larger tournament if I was the TO. It doesnt have anything to do with arguments about legality or balance, or discrimination against FW players.

Its up to GW not me to get their specialty products in wider circulation, but I am not sure GW even has a great desire to do so. GW has disavowed themselves from the entire USA tournament scene so that leaves it to the TO to correct their mistakes and there are other measures I would take as well. I probably will run a fantasy tournament(s) in the future but not bother with 40k because there are plenty of people doing it locally.

Dumping FW is probably one of the least painful changes I would make to a 40k tournament environment.

**MVBrandt**

People keep saying you cant ban FW units unless you also ban overpowered codex units. Missing the major point.

Forge world units are NOT play tested, at all, by public record. Moreover, the powerful and undercosted FW units are uniformly and exclusively IG and perhaps 2 SM (Redth, at any rate).

Codices are both play tested and across the board inclusive of their own perceived-as-OP units.

Adding a high concentration of IG untested units to the game is not at all even remotely similar to every stock dex having superior unit choices. Neither is the notion of a ban list similar for either.

Banning 4-6 key FW units that are all non play tested and exclusively IG/1sm is not even remotely analogous to cherry picking bans across every play tested codex.

More importantly, it's not about deleting OP units, but preventing the cherry picking of a dense addition of untested new OP units by a rules-restricted % of your attendees (imperials). Money has nothing to do with it: instead it's, "If you aren't willing to conform and play IG primary or secondary, we just weakened you at this event."

Why not simplify, and simultaneously highlight the new vocals simply seeking whatever competitive advantage they can get by deleting access to this small, untested, not-evenly-distributed set of units while allowing all other FW?

Finally, "stop with the FW is official in all games because of the 40k approved" argument. That very 40k approved quote states you should make sure your opponent is OK playing against FW rules. To follow the 40k approved stamp to the letter in a tournament setting would be to give every opponent the right to say you cannot use your FW in THAT round because they aren't comfy/familiar with it. The FE rulers/permissions haven't really changed much from the past. Untested, not mixed with codices by gw at their own events, and still opponent-permission-based. Simplify by banning the small # of units that create the conflicts in the first place.

**Breng77**

yakface wrote:

The problem I have is that the issue is being twisted around and the WRONG questions are being asked and discussed.

Just look at the title of this thread and the premises put

What I want is for all the BS smokescreen arguments to be thrown out the window and the real issues discussed. THEN, if a TO wants to disallow using all Imperial Armor, then so be it. But the reasons typically thrown out as the reasons why Imperial Armor needs to be disallowed are NOT the real reasons.

So let's start of with the basic premises of what exactly Imperial Armor represents:

1) Imperial Armor is an official expansion for Warhammer 40k, made by the company who produces the game allowing players to purchase and play with additional models that aren't in their codex. Or to put it another way, Imperial Armor gives players additional choices of units to include in their armies.

That begs the question: Do we need more models/units available? Based on the reaction you see when a new codex is released that only contains a few new units, I would posit that the *vast* majority of players continually prefer to have additional unit choices available to them...as people seem to believe that more variety of choice is a positive thing and of course cool looking models with interesting fluff behind them always seems to be welcome.

So in conclusion, Imperial Armor provides what most players generally speaking want: more variety of models and units to use in their armies.

2) Although imperial Armor is an 'expansion' to 40k, unlike other expansions (such as Cities of Death, Planetstrike, etc) much of this expansion is designed to be played in 'standard' games of 40k. Therefore, given that at its core, Imperial Armor provides something that most players think is a good thing (more variety of choices and more cool models), and that it is designed to be used in standard 40k games, the 'default' option for whether or not to allow Imperial Armor in a tournament (considering just what I've presented so far) seems like it should be a no-brainer: yes.

3) Now, obviously there have been LOTS of reasons posited as to why actually allowing Imperial Armor in tournaments is a bad thing. But the truth is that all but one of these reasons is just a smokescreen. The reason you know this to be the case is this premise:

What if every single Imperial Armor unit was completely and totally over-pointed and had crap rules. If that were the case, do you think anyone would complain about how much money Forgeworld models cost? Do you think anyone would complain about the time it takes to learn about the IA units their opponent has before each game? Do you think anyone would complain about having to buy all the IA books to keep up with every IA unit rules. Of course not. If IA was completely and totally crap, then nobody would have ANY issues at all with them being allowed in every tournament.

The ONLY TRUE reason that drives people to lobby for IA to not be included is because they think some of those units are just 'too good'. If we could just cut all the other ancillary crap and discuss that one true issue, then we would be so much better off.

4) If we can focus on that REAL issue and ask ourselves: are there really a few units in Imperial Armor really so powerful that they cannot possibly be countered? And if that is the case, is that really a reason to completely disallow all of Imperial Armor in its entirety instead of just targeting the units that are the issue?

The reason this issue needs to be discussed is because it cuts back to the heart of what role players and TOs are willing to have in order to create that concept of a 'balanced' or 'fun' game/tournament experience. If Games Workshop were to put out a codex or army book that was legitimately so powerful that it had NO counters, would the same people be making the same arguments to ban that entire codex/army book? If no, why is this situation different?

Or if that situation were to arise, would people just argue that we have to suck it up and deal with it for as long as GW allows it to exist? Or if people DID feel something had to be done, then would they maybe argue to just alter the worst offending units to 'fix' the issue without completely disallowing the faction?

5) I know the argument is that the situation is 'different' because IA is an expansion and a codex/army book is a 'core' part of the game.

But Games Workshop has never made any claims about Imperial Armor being something that is designed to balance or imbalance the 'core' game. As explained in the preface of their IA books, they are an expansion to include additional models/units in the game for reasons I explained above (because players like more choice and more cool models).

So to make the decision about whether or not to allow or disallow Imperial Armor is being made for any other reason (such as deciding that they are imbalanced) is NOT banning them BECAUSE they are an expansion, it is using the fact that they're an expansion as an excuse for players to address the perceived imbalance in the game.

If imbalance is really a core issue to the point of banning Imperial Armor, then it should be core enough to worry about banning codexes/army books or even units within those books to help maintain that theoretical balance. Or at least there should be discussion about implementing comp of some sort back into tournaments.

6) Because if IA is being banned because people think a few units are imbalanced, ultimately what is happening is player controlled composition restrictions...we're saying that, despite what the authors of the game think is balanced, IA can't be taken because we as players and TOs think it is just too powerful.

And if we can make that decision above and beyond the Games' authors, then there's no reason we shouldn't be able to instead restrict the individual IA units that are the perceived issue, as we're already playing 'game designer' at that point and making a judgement that the Games Designers have written completely imbalanced rules despite the fact that the authors believe that they are fine.

I completely disagree with OP units being the only real reason people want FW banned in events. As a TO it ranks maybe 4th or 5th on my list of reasons for not including it in all my events (and I am trying to do so In some cases) so here are my biggest reasons.

1.) I am not familiar with all of the options. As a judge not being familiar with the rules makes it difficult to make rules calls when they arise.

2.) Time limits in events, everyone says that FW players should explain units to their opponents, when I already have players struggling to finish games I see anything slowing down that process is bad.

3.) my players don't want it. I've asked and really only 1 player in my area even owns FW stuff, which means my players don't know all the rules, which again leads to more lost time and rules calls. Furthermore if players don't show up I have no event.

4.) so this might be op units, and I would believe in comp instead of banning ia entirely but again see #1 and #3, I am not familiar with nor do I play against FW so anything I banned would simply be based on Internet hearsay.

5.) unbalance of options presented/options not being updated etc. this is why my solution may eventually be allowing use of the newest x IA books for each army. But again I need to learn more before I decide to do anything of the sort.

**-Shrike-**

MVBrandt wrote: Forge world units are NOT play tested, at all, by public record.

Huh, that's strange, guess I just imagined the acknowledgements in Horus Heresy Betrayal where they list playtesters. Oh wait, I didn't. Alan Bligh even thanks them in the afterword. [I know this book is not intended to be used with standard 40k in the same way, it was balanced primarily with itself. It's different to other FW books in this respect. And I'm only using this as an example because I don't have access to the others at the moment.]
I guess I must also have imagined experimental rules. Where FW releases rules as a PDF, then they change them before publishing in a book based on the feedback they receive. That sounds like community playtesting to me.

MVBrandt wrote: To follow the 40k approved stamp to the letter in a tournament setting would be to give every opponent the right to say you cannot use your FW in THAT round because they aren't comfy/familiar with it.

To follow the 40k approved stamp to the letter:
"owing to the fact they may be unknown to your opponent, it's best to make sure they are happy to play a game using FW models before you start."
"It's best" is not a direct order, and nowhere does it say they must be familiar with it in order to play. And in a FW tournament, I thought that by signing up, that would be an act of permission to use FW against you.

**RiTides**

Totally agree with Mannahnin's and MVBrandt's posts above. Just because 40k, relative to fantasy, has not needed restrictions* (*Believe me, I have played both for the last 2 editions and DE/VC/Daemons in 7th ed fantasy make 40k balance look perfect) in the latest editions as much, does not mean there is somehow a blanket "no restrictions" clause on the game.

TOs can run events with their own interpretations of the rules, and own restrictions. Custom missions do this. Consistent terrain layouts. Bracketing. Previously, the INAT FAQ, which yak worked so much on. All of these are outside the "core" rules, to make the game work at a tourney.

TOs absolutely have the discretion to block 5-6 of IG/SM's FW toys and allow all the rest, and doing so is Not analogous to banning one of CSM's best codex units. CSM isn't winning events as a primary army that I can see, and taking them as allies restricts how many helldrakes can be taken already.

It's an obvious compromise and drawing a line in the sane saying "No restrictions, ever!" puts you at odds with what TOs actually already do, and always have. IG/SM have a plethora of FW options, meaning more powerful ones out of that, and it exacerbates that already existing issue. Saying it already exists doesn't mean you can't address it when adding in FW. That's just ignoring the reality of it.

Oh, and by the way, most fantasy events still use a handful of restrictions- even if it's the barebones "No Kairos, Teclis, or folding fortress". Once you accept that restrictions aren't the end of the world, the discussion becomes more relevant. And absolutely, restricting some IG FW is not the same as restricting a powerful unit from an Okay codex. That's the discussion that should be taking place, imo. Restricting the top 5-6 FW units would be a no-brainer to most tourney players, I believe.