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.

MVBrandt wrote:
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.

Neither are the codex units, by standards that any other gaming company would consider play testing.

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.

I go to play a casual game and bring three helldrakes, my opponent is quite likely to tell me that he doesn't want to play against that sort of list. The quote in the FW book actually applies to all games of 40k - you should talk to your opponent and make sure they're cool with the sort of game you're about to play. All games of 40k are, in fact, opponent-permission-based.

Tournaments universally waive this in favour of what the TO has decided is okay. By signing into the tournament, you agree that you're willing to play any list deemed legal by the TO.

Also, if you look at the old threads in this forum you'll see that I, like Mannahnin, have never been screaming for zero restrictions. TOs do this, all the time, in many ways. If you want FW, it's an easy compromise.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Quoting my post over which I meant the above as an edit onto:

 RiTides wrote:
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.

Just thought of something else:
Even if FW rules weren't playtested, why should they be banned and not an equally overpowered codex unit?

Conveniently, I have answered that question above to the best of my ability, as did Mannahnin and MVBrandt on the previous page.

-Shrike- wrote:

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.

40k playtesters for GW have come out on podcasts and elsewise and blatantly stated there is 0 playtest or balance interaction b/tween FW and GW. That they are mutually owned does not infer they house the same design studio or are inherently interactive, same as Fantasy and 40k aren't inherently interactive (even if FW put a stamp on a Fantasy unit that said "also can be used officially in 40k!").

With re: your ruling, that's generally the point - a tournament that says you MUST agree to play with FW is the same as a tournament that says you may NOT use FW - in that both are violating the printed rules with permutations to allow or disallow its legality. So, claiming the 40k approved stamp is the "rule" and should be followed is inherently a pointless argument, since no tournament follows the stamp to the letter anyway. Also, let me caveat that at NOVA, where we have 4 x 40k tournaments of various sort over the weekend, 2 allow FW and 2 do not - I'm certainly not closed minded on it, just occasionally frustrated by a lot of bogus arguments (i.e., players not being ok with 5-6 non-balanced non-tested-with-40k units being disallowed, all of which are concentrated in IG). Restatement of above post by me is also an addition here.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

-Shrike- wrote:
Just thought of something else:
Even if FW rules weren't playtested, why should they be banned and not an equally overpowered codex unit?

OP Codex units are evenly spaced across codices, at the least every codex has overpowered and/or underpriced selections that were balanced and tested by GW playtesters. Adding FW without restricting the 5-6 IG/1-SM unit (Redth) that are absurd, when we know they were at best only internally playtested and NOT crossed through the playtesters of the codices and main rulebook *at all* is not unreasonable, given this. It's also completely NOT analogus to compare banning every unit from every codex you think is OP, with preventing it from being a case where ONLY players willing to have an IG primary/ally detachment from getting major advantages.

Additional note, besides the fact I allow FW in half our 4 40k tourneys at the NOVA each year, I play IG and absolutely love abusing these units when allowed; thudd guns, and Redth most especially, are absurdly broken and undercosted. The lack of cross-playtesting shows (i.e., Redth giving all combat tactics for Infiltrate, which people who tout his Shroud psy power don't even notice). The fact that they're so patently good and useful, both on their own and in synergy with various builds that otherwise wouldn't even exist, is a big part of it ... FW doesn't just sprinkle new OP units into codices that already have them. It dumps a concentration of OP units into a certain couple builds that many people do NOT have access to (no matter how much money they have) unless they want to conform to a spammy, IG-centric "new" meta. You can prevent this by legalizing 40k-approved FW while rendering the IG op concentration invalid, and keep things steady by NOT screwing with the even spacing of "OP" units balanced by GW across all the existing stock codices. As a result, hundreds of perfectly fine (by hook or crook) FW units are legalized for variety and fun, without totally borking the meta and saying "Screw you" to any player who doesn't want to play an IG primary or allied.

There was a thread a while back where someone kept claiming Redth was BS OP and should be banned from everything, without knowing his rules. I'll try and find the community consensus on him in a minute.

Infiltrating / outflanking / shrouded guard blobs, infiltrating thunderfires (advantage going first!), infiltrating terminators (yup, add a techmarine or character, lovely rules oversight by unbalanced / untested writing), and a million other hinky tricks that are only exacerbated by the 5-IC, BB-optioned status of SM in an ally environment. He is, having used him to pretty devastating effect in GT-level settings, I feel pretty fair saying that. That's besides re-rolling initiative, re-rolling failed psychic tests, having a power that's shroud/disordered-to-charge while also getting either Null Zone or Prescience, etc., all for 160 points.

And that's just the weeds detraction from the overall point.

PS - Continued caveat from anyone "end-reading" only ... big fan of FW rules, think they're fun to play, allow them in 2 of 4 40k tourneys at NOVA, but also realize they aren't playtested with GW primary rules, and are being heavily pushed NOW because a concnetration of IG units that many players can take due to allies are actually absurdly good, and they want to take them to beat face more effectively at tournaments. That's the biggest reason you get tons of flak about preventing ONE codex (+ redth) from getting a concentration of OP units, and the reason you get silly detractor arguments that aren't analogous like "well then why don't you ban OP units from every regular codex?!" (agian, because every codex has them evenly distributed, and GW actually tests their rules from codex to codex, whether you like the results of that testing or not)

Herpaderp herp derp herpa derpa derp. Read the current edition rules kids, it helps.
Also, his shrouded power only works on the unit he's in, and he only gets one re-roll for psychic tests per turn.
And he's 165 points.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
The last time people complained about (mostly) the Vulture, Thudd Guns, Redth, and Sabres:
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/527079.page

Ummm...you do realize everything he stated is legit right...l

Infiltrate confers from ics to their unit so even though the terminators don't have infiltrate if you add an IC with infiltrate they can infiltrate, same with it blobs. It also says all infantry models not infantry units, so again that model confers infiltrate to its unit. So again buy transport for squad attach IC infiltrate transport...etc... So you can see the not play tested for 6th all over this guy

Given that MVBrandt stated he has used Redth thusly in a GT setting, I believe he knows what he's talking about regarding his rules.

And agreed with his above post. It's an easy compromise, and keeps FW-inclusion from dumping a plethora of absurd units for IG and just a sprinkling for everyone else. Everyone wins, and honestly I think you'll see more TOs who are considering FW take that route in the future. It's completely the call of the TO, but it's a good compromise and some common ground!

Also: Note it's the tourney players themselves pointing this out, as I quoted Target telling the 2nd place AdeptiCon team tourney players he was so sorry Thudd guns were legal. There's easily room in the tourney landscape to allow more FW but disallow these egregious units, as the tourney players themselves who are using them are saying, ie Target and MVBrandt here.

Given that ForgeWorld as a design studio are far more responsive to the community than GW's designers, I'm actually curious to know what their input would be on a thread like this...

As you can see, RiTides and Breng77, I already realised my mistake about Infiltrate. But it is worth pointing out that he got the points cost and one of the other rules wrong.
Breng77: I don't get what you mean by "not playtested for 6th all over this guy". You do realise that the book was written in 2010?

-Shrike- wrote:
My god, you don't have a clue what you are talking about.
Redth forces SPACE MARINE INFANTRY UNITS to lose combat tactics and gain infiltrate. IT DOES NOT WORK FOR TERMINATORS OR DEDICATED TRANSPORTS! Also, his shrouded power only works on the unit he's in, and he only gets one re-roll for psychic tests per turn.
And he's 165 points.

MVBrandt wrote: having used him to pretty devastating effect in GT-level settings

I can't believe it. If you did half of the things you just mentioned, you have cheated at GT-level. You just lost all credibility in my eyes.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
The last time people complained about (mostly) the Vulture, Thudd Guns, Redth, and Sabres:
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/527079.page


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ahh... I see what you did. Ignore the part about Infiltrate, because I just realised 6th Ed. gives it to the unit if an IC has the rule.

This rant makes me so happy we decided to further muddy the switch to 6th edition by throwing in several more books of rules by allowing FW in more and more tournaments.

Yet, your original reaction shows exactly the problem MVBrandt is referring to. As a pretty hardcore GT organizer and player, he found and used that FW model in a way that was extremely effective and likely not intended. Players such as him, Mannahnin, Target, etc who regularly compete at the highest level are pointing out how these units benefit IG/SM disproportionately to other armies, two armies that are already in great shape in 6th ed. Allowing FW but restricting those few choices makes extreme sense from a competitive standpoint. It's truly win-win, and avoids unnecessarily drawing a line in the sand, to the detriment of the event.

-Shrike- wrote:
As you can see, RiTides and Breng77, I already realised my mistake about Infiltrate. But it is worth pointing out that he got the points cost and one of the other rules wrong.
Breng77: I don't get what you mean by "not playtested for 6th all over this guy". You do realise that the book was written in 2010?

And so could have been updated troth FAQ into balance for the edition and was not at all. They also gave him access to a psychic discipline otherwise not allowed to codex marines. We have people on here claiming that FW fixes their rules consistently...

 RiTides wrote:
Yet, your original reaction shows exactly the problem MVBrandt is referring to. As a pretty hardcore GT organizer and player, he found and used that FW model in a way that was extremely effective and likely not intended. Players such as him, Mannahnin, Target, etc who regularly compete at the highest level are pointing out how these units benefit IG/SM disproportionately to other armies, two armies that are already in great shape in 6th ed. Allowing FW but restricting those few choices makes extreme sense from a competitive standpoint. It's truly win-win, and avoids unnecessarily drawing a line in the sand, to the detriment of the event.

While I do agree that a few FW units are indeed imbalanced (and not intentionally so, they were released in 2010 when 6th Ed was years in coming) with the changes in 6th Ed, to be fair, I think Forge World is slowly getting their act together with their more recent releases as well. I can't speak for IA12, but in IA3E2, the imbalanced 9-flyer Elysian list with tons of deepstriking multi-melta Sentinels is gone due to points increases and FOC shifts, and a number of the changes to the Tau units make them fairly competitive and balanced options too.

Edit:

Breng77 wrote:

-Shrike- wrote:
As you can see, RiTides and Breng77, I already realised my mistake about Infiltrate. But it is worth pointing out that he got the points cost and one of the other rules wrong.
Breng77: I don't get what you mean by "not playtested for 6th all over this guy". You do realise that the book was written in 2010?

And so could have been updated troth FAQ into balance for the edition and was not at all. They also gave him access to a psychic discipline otherwise not allowed to codex marines. We have people on here claiming that FW fixes their rules consistently...

Not everyone gets it right the first time round. Does anyone else remember the Draigowing with wound-allocation shenanigans? That happened for a fair bit until GW FAQ'd it such that they were no longer characters. Playtesting that happens doesn't always catch everything 100% of the time. How often do videogames get released with bugs? EA Games is notorious for terrible launches, SimCity being their latest debacle, but that doesn't stop them from putting out high-quality games that get fixed in due time, and they never seem to learn their lesson either. The point is, give FW a chance to fix themselves.

Edit 2: Also, quick pause for me to celebrate my 500th post! *claps self on back*

Gw is currently doing a good job of quickly updating for 6th (this may change) however, FW books don't update, thus anything that they don FAQ will stay broken for the entire edition. Perhaps it would be fair to only allow FW units release d during the current edition of the game? But I'm sure people will say that we don't do this for other codices.

IA1 an IA3 have both had second editions, and FW have said that IA2 will be updated with the SM codex. I'd say that they do update.

Some books and not others, so should we only use books that they have updated for 6th then?

 RiTides wrote:
Yet, your original reaction shows exactly the problem MVBrandt is referring to. As a pretty hardcore GT organizer and player, he found and used that FW model in a way that was extremely effective and likely not intended. Players such as him, Mannahnin, Target, etc who regularly compete at the highest level are pointing out how these units benefit IG/SM disproportionately to other armies, two armies that are already in great shape in 6th ed. Allowing FW but restricting those few choices makes extreme sense from a competitive standpoint. It's truly win-win, and avoids unnecessarily drawing a line in the sand, to the detriment of the event.

Can I exalt twice please?

I think units that have been brought in line with 6th edition should be allowed.

The next step is the problem of accessible rules aka only allow 100% original, entire IA books at tournaments. The most important thing would be informing everyone ahead of time, long before the tournament, that FW would be allowed in order to allow everyone to alter the lists andgiving everyone ample to...get...the books on their own and have a look at the rules.

 Sigvatr wrote:

 RiTides wrote:
Yet, your original reaction shows exactly the problem MVBrandt is referring to. As a pretty hardcore GT organizer and player, he found and used that FW model in a way that was extremely effective and likely not intended. Players such as him, Mannahnin, Target, etc who regularly compete at the highest level are pointing out how these units benefit IG/SM disproportionately to other armies, two armies that are already in great shape in 6th ed. Allowing FW but restricting those few choices makes extreme sense from a competitive standpoint. It's truly win-win, and avoids unnecessarily drawing a line in the sand, to the detriment of the event.

Can I exalt twice please?

I'm in favor of this too. I feel like this is the line where we can all agree to say "Yes, this is a compromise!", no?

Hypothetically speaking, which units would you like to see either banned or limited?
I'm guessing it begins with:
Ahazra Redth - banned.

As a sidenote, I sent an e-mail to FW pointing out the problem with his Infiltrate/Chapter Tactics rule (more specifically, you can infiltrate Thunderfire cannons and anything you can attach an IC to, including transports, none of which was originally intended), so I might get something back from them within the next few days.

-Shrike- wrote:
Hypothetically speaking, which units would you like to see either banned or limited?
I'm guessing it begins with:
Ahazra Redth - banned.

As a sidenote, I sent an e-mail to FW pointing out the problem with his Infiltrate/Chapter Tactics rule (more specifically, you can infiltrate Thunderfire cannons and anything you can attach an IC to, including transports, none of which was originally intended), so I might get something back from them within the next few days.

Limit artillery batteries, simply because of the way 6th ed made them pretty hard to kill.

-Shrike- wrote:


I can't believe it. If you did half of the things you just mentioned, you have cheated at GT-level. You just lost all credibility in my eyes.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
The last time people complained about (mostly) the Vulture, Thudd Guns, Redth, and Sabres:
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/527079.page

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ahh... I see what you did. Ignore the part about Infiltrate, because I just realised 6th Ed. gives it to the unit if an IC has the rule.

Myself and others voiced the same concerns in that thread only to be shouted down by yourself and others like Peregrine when it turns out we were pretty much right. How about that?

The point is we're all arguing over a few forgeworld units that have been ably demonstrated by Blackmoor and MVB to harmful to the tournament scene. A ban list would be ideal I think but brings the problem of accessibility for local level GT organizers like Breng77. Having these books spread across multiple books from multiple editions and not locally available makes it difficult for our local tournament organizers to allow it. Furthermore GW does not give much if any retail discount to FLGS for Forgeworld limiting their accessibility and preventing us from supporting our FLGS if we wanted FW. We play our tournaments in our FLGS and its nice to reward him by playing with models that we purchased in his store.

Agreed on the suggested list Enigwolf/Shrike, and I think you'd get a pretty strong consensus on both of those (Artillery and Redth). Beyond that, I would like to hear those more experienced with FW weigh in on whether they think anything else would be necessary.

-Shrike- wrote:
Hypothetically speaking, which units would you like to see either banned or limited?
I'm guessing it begins with:
Ahazra Redth - banned.

Sabres and Medusa (?) platforms, limited.

Two examples for limiting them:
1. At the BAO, one opponent had two platforms of LasCan sabres. His was a BA/IG list with Corbulo and not at all a cut-throat WAAC tourney stomping list. With my 3 Drop Pods I got to the sabres and eliminated their threat, although they bagged one of my Vendettas. Good close game until the end.

2. Also at the BAO, last opponent had spammed the medusa (checks FW website for the correct name), well that's not right; it's the platform that is a krak missile launcher. Anyway, surrounded by IG blobs, I never did get to assault them. He had a line of 8 of them, making my Long Fangs quite jealous. They did all the damage and shrugged off my efforts to hurt 'em. I think I bagged *one* with shooting. My two Vendettas, 3 Long Fang crews and all else were quickly neutralized and I was decently spanked.

And the "assault of out it on arrival" drop pod (Lucius?). Banned. Let people pay through the nose for Vanguard or take Ymgarls for an "Assault on Arrival" unit.

edit: I typed this while the last 3 posts were submitted, so it wasn't a bandwagon post, just slightly ninja'd.

MVBrandt wrote:
40k playtesters for GW have come out on podcasts and elsewise and blatantly stated there is 0 playtest or balance interaction b/tween FW and GW.

Which doesn't matter because there is zero playtesting done by GW at all. Compare MTG's professional playtesting to GW's "we played a cool scenario once". If you can show evidence of MTG-level playtesting I'll concede that you might have a point about FW/GW interaction, but until then I don't really see how whether or not FW participates directly in GW's laughably minimal "playtesting" attempts should be relevant.

infiltrating terminators

Doesn't work. See all the Shadowsun threads, by the time you're allowed to attach an IC to a unit it's already on the table and it's too late to infiltrate it. The only benefit you could get would be outflanking the unit, and you can already outflank terminators with a pure codex list (along with vehicles).

Also, do you feel that Shadowsun should be banned (or banned from C:SM armies) for giving out even better cover bonuses and allowing terminators to outflank?

-Shrike- wrote:
Hypothetically speaking, which units would you like to see either banned or limited?

Quad launcher, for time reasons (resolving a 12-shot barrage weapon in 6th is a nightmare, you need more templates than anyone has and several people to hold them all in place).

Nothing else should be banned, because nothing else has established dominance at a level that would justify a ban. So far the entire anti-FW case is purely speculation about what might happen, rushing to ban it makes about as much sense as banning something out of the new Eldar codex based on theoretical analysis of what it might be capable of. I hate to keep saying it, but learn from MTG, a real competitive game: cards are only banned after clearly dominating multiple high-level tournaments and establishing beyond any doubt that they need to be banned for the overall health of the format. You will never see WOTC banning something because some people on a forum decided it's too powerful.

Except mtg has far more big events and costs far less money. So what you suggest is having players go out, spend a ton of money on an army, paint it, then have those lists create an ig dominated meta for what half an edition, then invalidate those units? I'm pretty sure that will be more harmful to the game than anything else might be. Also the first mtg cards to be banned had nothing to do with winning events, they were simply banned for the perceived health of the game. CCGs ar simply not a good comparison to miniatures games because they are far too different on a core level.