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.

Peregrine, you are the one who argues for trusting the designers, and they DO playtest. You and Redbeard (who I like and know and respect) saying WELL IT DOESN'T MATTER B/C GW'S PLAYTESTING IS STUPID ANYWAY basically invalidates any and all arguments about playing FW b/c it's "legal" ... because you're calling them amateurs, acknowledging they do things wrong, and saying it's OK to overrule and/or ignore them as a result (aka - it doesn't matter that there's no playtest or balancing interaction, b/c their playtest is bad anyway). This is also a simple assertion of opinion, as opposed to an attempt at a reasonable solution, by a guy who apparently won't even go to the tournaments unless they're 100% his way anyway (unless I mis-read what you wrote).

I am not in favor of banning ANY Codex armies, b/c "overpowered" (or, in my opinion, simply superior cost/effect) units are present in EVERY codex. My problem with a small # of FW units is they ONLY are superior cost/effect for basically one SM HQ, and people who want to play IG Primary or Allied detachments. And, they are good enough that, when given the option, hardcore GT players uniformly choose FW options over codex options within their army lists' competing FOC slots.

My only issue is allowing ONE codex worth of primary/allied detachment to be buffed competitively, and no other ones, which is what full legalization of 40k approved does to a GT.

It is much more analogous to going in and banning every OP unit in the regular codices EXCEPT Heldrakes. "All people with CSM rejoice, everyone else sorry they're going to have an advantage."

A further reiteration - there's NOTHING WRONG with allowing FW in your tournament. At NOVA, half our 4 x 40k events use FW. My only issue is the MAJOR freak-out when you try to prevent people gaining an IG-centric competitive advantage while NOBODY ELSE gets one, when you try to ban a small # of FW units. It pretty much highlights the issue. THOSE people are getting in the way of broad FW allowance at every major GT. Because while FW rules are generally unprofessional, not playtested with codex rules, etc., MOST of their units are fine.

#1 - Adding FW - IG gets boosted, a little SM gets boosted, NOBODY ELSE DOES. Coupled w/ known fact that GW does not balance or playtest FW with Codices.

#2 - Adding FW sans known spammed IG-centric units - everyone gets more variety, no codex really gets any kind of a boost.

Why not just go with option #2?

I'm really glad Peregrine admitted quad launchers should be banned, though. There's hope for this discussion

Given that I thought we had all come to consensus, I don't really know what we're arguing about anymore... Can we all be friends now?

It sounds like the concern over imbalance is at the highest competitive level, while those in favor of allowing the variety that Forgeworld offers would like to see them at local tournaments.

It follows, then, that while Forgeworld should be considered legal by default, it should be banned at the highest level. That should make everyone happy.

 Mannahnin wrote:
No, it's not about your credentials. It's about your participation in the community, and whether you're working from the perspective of a member and participant or someone stridently arguing from an external perspective.

But as I said before, that's a bit of a sideline, and really anyone criticizing your arguments should be able to do so without knowing whether you actually play the game.

It's more of a cheap shot and people should stop using that line as an angle of argument because it only discredits themselves.

Dakka is a larger part of the 40k community then any single tournament, and as Peregin already has over 5500 posts in around 6 months it's just as easy to say he is more involved in the community then you are with ~23000 in 8 years.

It's also worth noting that most of the people arguing against FW and relying on their tournament "credentials" have severely limited experience with FW at said events since most of the "major" events disallow it already.

 Red Corsair wrote:

Dakka is a larger part of the 40k community then any single tournament, and as Peregin already has over 5500 posts in around 6 months it's just as easy to say he is more involved in the community then you are with ~23000 in 8 years.

<- My reaction. That's a lot of posting.

 The Everliving wrote:

No, it's not about your credentials. It's about your participation in the community, and whether you're coming from the perspective of a member or someone stridently arguing from an external perspective.

I really like reading the arguments from the people in the latter camp. Its like getting motorcycle advice from everyone I know who doesn't ride a bike or being given fitness tips from people who havn't done any exercise since they were made to at school.

I really like the elitist attitude in the 40k community that says your arguments only gain merit if you've ever attended adepticon and Nova. It's so incredibly snobbish it isn't funny. If I were to use my own experience in tournaments held in my neck of the woods (Maine) that draw 30-45 players that are not main stream on the web then my experience as a gamer may as well be invalid.

While I certainly don't think FW as a whole should be banned because there are some units that are prone for abuse, I'm completely open to the idea of a restricted or banned list of units - as long as it applies to codex units and IA units alike.

Just to put it out there, what does everyone think should qualify a unit for an appearence on a banned list (none at all) and a restricted list (0-1).

What I'm meaning is a test/idea/quality that merits action. A generic idea that can be applied to units to see if they fit.

If we had a basis for evaluating units to see if a unit should be banned/restricted, it would go a long way to eiminating a fear of bias.

I think equal application is very important to eliminate bias, and the starting point of equal application is an articulated basis for the ban/restriction.

MVBrandt wrote:


#1 - Adding FW - IG gets boosted, a little SM gets boosted, NOBODY ELSE DOES. Coupled w/ known fact that GW does not balance or playtest FW with Codices.

#2 - Adding FW sans known spammed IG-centric units - everyone gets more variety, no codex really gets any kind of a boost.

Why not just go with option #2?

#1 is the main problem, correct, and given the discussion in most forums (incl. Dakka, e.g. Peregrine), the main pro-FW people tend to be WAAC IG players...for obvious reasons.

 Sigvatr wrote:

MVBrandt wrote:


#1 - Adding FW - IG gets boosted, a little SM gets boosted, NOBODY ELSE DOES. Coupled w/ known fact that GW does not balance or playtest FW with Codices.

#2 - Adding FW sans known spammed IG-centric units - everyone gets more variety, no codex really gets any kind of a boost.

Why not just go with option #2?

#1 is the main problem, correct, and given the discussion in most forums (incl. Dakka, e.g. Peregrine), the main pro-FW people tend to be WAAC IG players...for obvious reasons.

...But I want Contemptor and Stormeagles for my CSM army. :(
(I'm very, very, very pro-FW, but I'm not a WAAC IG player, to prove a point.)

 Sigvatr wrote:

MVBrandt wrote:


#1 - Adding FW - IG gets boosted, a little SM gets boosted, NOBODY ELSE DOES. Coupled w/ known fact that GW does not balance or playtest FW with Codices.

#2 - Adding FW sans known spammed IG-centric units - everyone gets more variety, no codex really gets any kind of a boost.

Why not just go with option #2?

#1 is the main problem, correct, and given the discussion in most forums (incl. Dakka, e.g. Peregrine), the main pro-FW people tend to be WAAC IG players...for obvious reasons.

Plenty of other people get boosts with FW. Necrons, Tau, and Eldar get some nice units available to them.

I think this is a bit of a generalization, I'm pro-FW and I don't play IG.

I had quite a bit to post, but Dracos basically beat me to it. I think the only reason for banning or limiting the Thudd Gun is time, and that's fair enough. Nobody likes 12 Barrage Blasts. Even if you're firing them.
But if you start actually limiting units in the interests of game balance, then I think an equivalent system should be imposed for the codices. After all, they are equally legal.

 Red Corsair wrote:

 The Everliving wrote:

No, it's not about your credentials. It's about your participation in the community, and whether you're coming from the perspective of a member or someone stridently arguing from an external perspective.

I really like reading the arguments from the people in the latter camp. Its like getting motorcycle advice from everyone I know who doesn't ride a bike or being given fitness tips from people who havn't done any exercise since they were made to at school.

I really like the elitist attitude in the 40k community that says your arguments only gain merit if you've ever attended adepticon and Nova. It's so incredibly snobbish it isn't funny. If I were to use my own experience in tournaments held in my neck of the woods (Maine) that draw 30-45 players that are not main stream on the web then my experience as a gamer may as well be invalid.

Well, Red Corsair, you whom I respect from here on Dakka, this thread is about the high level competitiveness of GTs & RTTs and FW units effecting it. So, I think some opinions *do* carry less weight. And this is a discussion of opinions.

... perhaps the following example might address the 'elitist' angle of some of the guys who are basically saying, "We're tourney goers, so you non-RTT hayseeds don't have as authoritative a say."

Let's say Tiger Woods, Chi Chi Rodriguez, Ben Hogan and which ever other golfing legends/masters are debating about some new driver or iron or ball that is really giving an edge, an OverPowered edge, at their level of play. Let's call it a ForgeWorld Driver and costs a lot.

You and I, being weekend guys who hold beers longer than we hold clubs and spend more time flirting with the cocktail girl driving the golf-cart-bar than paying attention to the 'lay' of Hole 6's approach ... well, we might have reasonably informed opinions on said OverPowered equipment, the ForgeWorld Driver; we've read the magazine articles and paid attention/watched the important games. And you and I are joining the discussion with these high level guys.

But at some point, one of us is bound to make an assertion or observation that just won't jibe with their experiences. Chi Chi or Arnold Palmer will look over and say, "Um, where did you place in the last Masters?"

You and I look at each other and admit, "Never played in one."

They'll be nice, but anything else we posit will promptly be ignored. Being casual players doesn't necessarily invalidate our opinions, but it does take away *some* weight of authority when contributing to the discussion.

Snobbish? Yep.

It is, but it's a level of *earned* merit that makes me, (using TheEverliving's example) a non-motorcycle rider someone who ought to keep his mouth closed when discussing rice-rockets versus cruisers or anything else about riding motorcycles.

And for *regular* tourney attendees, like MVBrandt, Blackmoor, HulkSmash, etc, some of those FW units do alter a player's approach to a list (edit: man, this onel line needs a whole post in of itself!)

So, non-tourney players might just want to admit that they don't play/attend and that their opinions can be weighed accordingly.

For the record: *my* opinion/expertise on this topic is a light one, having only a couple GTs under my belt, and a mostly losing record in a couple years of monthly RTTs.

 Enigwolf wrote:

 Red Corsair wrote:

Dakka is a larger part of the 40k community then any single tournament, and as Peregin already has over 5500 posts in around 6 months it's just as easy to say he is more involved in the community then you are with ~23000 in 8 years.

<- My reaction. That's a lot of posting.

A lot of posting. How much playing? How much playing in tournaments? Brothererekose hit it on the head with his post on that topic.

Enigwolf- Which is why, the more I see this discussion, the more convinced I am #2 is a great compromise. Lets Enigwolf use his contemptor, doesn't force competitive players to have to use/face tons of FW IG artillery. Even Peregrine agrees

 Sasori wrote:


I think this is a bit of a generalization, I'm pro-FW and I don't play IG.

Oh, it wasn't my intention to claim all IG players in favor of FW being WAAC gamers. It's just that it has always been, and still is, the situation that some of the most vocal pro-FW people are WAAC IG players looking for another (completely unnecessary) power spike to their army. There certainly are people looking for cool models as well, but there's a very vocal group. The "can of worms" thingy is my main worry about allowing FW - the "Balance is already bad, what would FW do worse?" argument is a really weak argument. If sth. has major balance problems, what good is there to dump more terribly balanced stuff in the mix? 2nd argument is spreading FW / the word / knowledge about it.

That's why I'd favor restrictions on FW stuff, but those need careful evaluation and time to work out...time most TO obviously do not want to invest, I, currently, do not see the potential gains outweighting the potential problems either, not by a long shot.

FW's inclusion was never as a "need", and it certainly hasn't overturned the metagame or been overrunning tournaments and majorly shifting standings. It was always a "welp, here's this mess of an edition, and with these allies rules there no longer any pretence of a balance reason to keep FW out, there's a small handful of units that can be abused but it's no different than what happens with normal codex stuff...why were we banning it again?"

As noted earlier, Codex Necrons has done more to affect tournament standings and tournament events in general than Forgeworld has. Allowing it for a bit and then pulling back just because "well there's more flyers for everyone now" is a an evasion for someone who has a bias and just doesn't want to openly admit it, nothing more.



I'm also wondering when suddenly everyone got their panties in a twist over Thudd Guns, they've been around since 2006 and not a word until the last couple weeks...

 Vaktathi wrote:
I'm also wondering when suddenly everyone got their panties in a twist over Thudd Guns, they've been around since 2006 and not a word until the last couple weeks...

... because 6e made artillery so much better?

... and it's taken someone until the last six weeks to finally dig 'em up and implement them? Not totally unthinkable in 6e's 11 month existence (holy crap, it's been almost a year! release date June 23rd, '12). There's a lot of permutations to this game, continually evolving, too.

No sarcasm or malice intended.

 Red Corsair wrote:

 Mannahnin wrote:
No, it's not about your credentials. It's about your participation in the community, and whether you're working from the perspective of a member and participant or someone stridently arguing from an external perspective.

But as I said before, that's a bit of a sideline, and really anyone criticizing your arguments should be able to do so without knowing whether you actually play the game.

It's more of a cheap shot and people should stop using that line as an angle of argument because it only discredits themselves.

I was defending his right to participate in the discussion. And no, it's not a cheap shot. Think it through. A person's perspective and priorities shape their position. Peregrine does not attend any large tournaments, and may not even attend local ones. This is largely an academic argument for him, as participating in tournaments is not part of his hobby. His army is Death Korps of Krieg, one which is not presently allowed at nearly any tournament. If he wishes to use this under the DKoK rules as opposed to regular IG, he has a vested interest in seeing them treated like a regular codex army. His perspective clearly shapes his arguments. Including his inaccurate assessments of the level of imbalance among regular codices, and what units are overpowered. Ask folks who play in the big events how balanced the current play environment is, and you'll hear a lot of pretty positive comments.

Several of the participants who post in this thread do regularly attend tournaments, including national ones. Traveling to and attending these events around the country is a major part of their hobby, and so how and whether those events are balanced and organized is a substantial concern to them. It's relevant to their real-world expenditures of time, energy, money and vacation hours. They're also the folks who are spending their time learning to counter stuff like Helldrakes and Wraithspam, and can speak in an informed way about whether any of the IA units go above and beyond those codex units in terms of power and difficulty to counter. If you think Peregrine is a better source of info on that sort of thing than Carlosthecraven, Target, MVBrandt, TheEverliving, or me, than we're never going to find common ground.

 Red Corsair wrote:
Dakka is a larger part of the 40k community then any single tournament, and as Peregin already has over 5500 posts in around 6 months it's just as easy to say he is more involved in the community then you are with ~23000 in 8 years.

I have a lot more posts than that, and it's over 14 years. Dakka's had a couple of site resets. And they're irrelevant to my point. I'm talking about the real world community of players who actually attend events. Of which (as far as I can tell) Peregrine is not actually a member, and can't legitimately speak with the kind of authority he habitually assumes.

That, Mannahnin, is the post I'd been considering but couldn't quite pull off so eloquently.

Oh, ad wouldn't 23k plus posts involve being a MOD and all that?

Attempting to close off the conversation of which units are more overpowered than others based on "GT experience" is a wonderful way to insulate your position from criticism and opposing points of view.

I'm not sure there is anyone saying "Peregrin is a better source of info on (...) than (...)". Even if you can find one person who said something to that effect, its a strawman.

You are using a strawman to make your appeal to authority more powerful. This is a weak tactic.

Instead of trying to be right by virtue of deriving a position of authority, maybe you could actually try to articulate what makes some particular units in FW more OP than particular units in a given codex.

That would hold a lot more weight than your fallacious arguments Mannahnin

Get over yourself, Dracos. I specifically argued in Peregrine's defense and asserted that questioning his level of participation is a sideline. That he's perfectly welcome to participate in the discussion and his lack of participation in tournaments should not be a barrier to do so. It does need to be taken in context, however, when evaluating the accuracy of his expressed opinions on GW's playtesting, on the overall balance of the game or of individual units like Helldrakes and Vendettas. He does make some reasonable and valid arguments. but he tends to mix them in with plainly inaccurate statements of opinion expressed with the exact same lecturing tone and attitude of authority.

 Peregrine wrote:

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.

Here's a great example of goalpost-shifting, of term-redefining, and of talking down to MVBrandt in a way which makes everyone in this thread who's participated in discussions about competitive play with MVBrandt and with Peregrine make us laugh out loud or shake our heads in disbelief.

Brothererekose wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
I'm also wondering when suddenly everyone got their panties in a twist over Thudd Guns, they've been around since 2006 and not a word until the last couple weeks...

... because 6e made artillery so much better?

... and it's taken someone until the last six weeks to finally dig 'em up and implement them? Not totally unthinkable in 6e's 11 month existence (holy crap, it's been almost a year! release date June 23rd, '12). There's a lot of permutations to this game, continually evolving, too.

No sarcasm or malice intended.

Artillery is better in 6E true (though it was also awful in previous editions), but it's still odd to me that *that* particular artillery unit is one people get upset about, immobile Ld7 artillery platforms that, while having a high damage potential, have a huge whiff potential and thoroughly mediocre average damage output against anything that isn't a T3 5+sv unit in the open and clumped up *real* nicely. . Likewise there's the Heavy Mortar in the same entry that doesn't seem to be getting complained about, which is a much more reliable weapon.

S5 small blasts with no scatter reduction, that whiffs entirely if the first shot badly whiffs never seemed quite so ridiculous to me

 Dracos wrote:
Attempting to close off the conversation of which units are more overpowered than others based on "GT experience" is a wonderful way to insulate your position from criticism and opposing points of view.

I'm not sure there is anyone saying "Peregrin is a better source of info on (...) than (...)". Even if you can find one person who said something to that effect, its a strawman.

No, he used no Strawman Fallacy. Care to point it out?

 Dracos wrote:
You are using a strawman to make your appeal to authority more powerful. This is a weak tactic.

Someone is showing off his Debate Class notes!

 Dracos wrote:
Instead of trying to be right by virtue of deriving a position of authority, maybe you could actually try to articulate what makes some particular units in FW more OP than particular units in a given codex.

Let's say my wife complains about Sabres (she doesn't play 40k). Hulksmash complains about them. Both say the same thing. Exact same thing.

Still, I think Brad's opinion carries the day.

Now *that* is a Strawman Fallacy on Appeals To Authority!

 Mannahnin wrote:
Get over yourself, Dracos. I specifically argued in Peregrine's defense and asserted that questioning his level of participation is a sideline. That he's perfectly welcome to participate in the discussion and his lack of participation in tournaments should not be a barrier to do so. It does need to be taken in context, however, when evaluating the accuracy of his expressed opinions on GW's playtesting, on the overall balance of the game or of individual units like Helldrakes and Vendettas. He does make some reasonable and valid arguments. but he tends to mix them in with plainly inaccurate statements of opinion expressed with the exact same lecturing tone and attitude of authority.

Coming from a mod the attack "get over yourself" is somewhat surprising...

In what way am I in need of "getting over myself"?

You sir, are the one making an authoritative argument.

You are the one patronizing others by attempting to marginalize opinions based on a white/black "has or has not participated in a GT".

MVBrandt wrote:Peregrine, you are the one who argues for trusting the designers, and they DO playtest. You and Redbeard (who I like and know and respect) saying WELL IT DOESN'T MATTER B/C GW'S PLAYTESTING IS STUPID ANYWAY basically invalidates any and all arguments about playing FW b/c it's "legal" ... because you're calling them amateurs, acknowledging they do things wrong, and saying it's OK to overrule and/or ignore them as a result (aka - it doesn't matter that there's no playtest or balancing interaction, b/c their playtest is bad anyway). This is also a simple assertion of opinion, as opposed to an attempt at a reasonable solution, by a guy who apparently won't even go to the tournaments unless they're 100% his way anyway (unless I mis-read what you wrote).

My argument, which may well be different from Peregrins, is not that it doesn't matter because GW's playtesting is poor, but rather, arguing that FW should be banned because their playtesting is poor infers a level of playtest quality that simply doesnt' exist at GW, and is somewhat hypocritical.

In debate terms, I'm not making an argument for including Forgeworld, I am refuting your argument for banning FW.

Does that make sense?

I believe that the default state, across the board, should be that any book published should be valid for play, and that denying any book should require a strong argument. The quality of playtesting at FW is not that strong argument.

 Vaktathi wrote:

Brothererekose wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
I'm also wondering when suddenly everyone got their panties in a twist over Thudd Guns, they've been around since 2006 and not a word until the last couple weeks...

... because 6e made artillery so much better?

... and it's taken someone until the last six weeks to finally dig 'em up and implement them? Not totally unthinkable in 6e's 11 month existence (holy crap, it's been almost a year! release date June 23rd, '12). There's a lot of permutations to this game, continually evolving, too.

No sarcasm or malice intended.

Artillery is better in 6E true (though it was also awful in previous editions), but it's still odd to me that *that* particular artillery unit is one people get upset about, immobile Ld7 artillery platforms that, while having a high damage potential, have a huge whiff potential and thoroughly mediocre average damage output against anything that isn't a T3 5+sv unit in the open and clumped up *real* nicely. . Likewise there's the Heavy Mortar in the same entry that doesn't seem to be getting complained about, which is a much more reliable weapon.

S5 small blasts with no scatter reduction, that whiffs entirely if the first shot badly whiffs never seemed quite so ridiculous to me

Two or so pages ago there is a comprehensive scenario listing how a Thudd Gun battery can be properly abused.

I never understand all of this fallacy stuff.

Anyway, Vakthathi, it's not how OP it is, it's trying to resolve 12 barrage blasts using 6th Ed. rules. As even Peregrine said, he would probably limit it because of the timed nature of tournaments, and that takes up a lot of time. But that should only really be for very competitive environments where every minute matters; I wouldn't like to see that enforced at a normal tournament, and (personally) I would never do anything like that because timing is a very odd argument to make.
Because this is now coming up a lot, I will point out that I am arguing from the detached viewpoint of an external observer, who does not regularly compete in tournaments. Feel free to attack me based on my lack of credentials/experience/fallacies.

 Vaktathi wrote:

FW's inclusion was never as a "need", and it certainly hasn't overturned the metagame or been overrunning tournaments and majorly shifting standings. It was always a "welp, here's this mess of an edition, and with these allies rules there no longer any pretence of a balance reason to keep FW out, there's a small handful of units that can be abused but it's no different than what happens with normal codex stuff...why were we banning it again?"

As noted earlier, Codex Necrons has done more to affect tournament standings and tournament events in general than Forgeworld has. Allowing it for a bit and then pulling back just because "well there's more flyers for everyone now" is a an evasion for someone who has a bias and just doesn't want to openly admit it, nothing more.

Simply saying 6thed sucks and GW is bad at rules is not a valid argument. Sure when it launched it was a mess but the ruleset is getting tighter with every codex and FAQ released and many people like myself are really enjoying it. How on earth do you balance something in less than a year when your have 14 or so factions and infinite number of possible army lists? These arguments are coming from the same people who dislike flyers, hull points, and oher 6th ed changes and instead of adapting as so many of us have done they are sticking their heads in the sand.

Artillery is better in 6E true (though it was also awful in previous editions), but it's still odd to me that *that* particular artillery unit is one people get upset about, immobile Ld7 artillery platforms that, while having a high damage potential, have a huge whiff potential and thoroughly mediocre average damage output against anything that isn't a T3 5+sv unit in the open and clumped up *real* nicely. . Likewise there's the Heavy Mortar in the same entry that doesn't seem to be getting complained about, which is a much more reliable weapon.

S5 small blasts with no scatter reduction, that whiffs entirely if the first shot badly whiffs never seemed quite so ridiculous to me

You're not arguing the actual rules of multiple barrage honestly. Yes you can scatter on the first shot, but with 12 shots (4 HIT!) in total you can literally walk back the template to hit the unit your shooting for. Using Prescience your getting even more hits. Multiple Barrage is very potent and since wounds are allocated from each template placed you can literally pick out specific models in units and snipe them out.

 Dracos wrote:
While I certainly don't think FW as a whole should be banned because there are some units that are prone for abuse, I'm completely open to the idea of a restricted or banned list of units - as long as it applies to codex units and IA units alike.

This is an interesting thought, but I think there are multiple legitimate reasons to treat them differently. Ease of access to the rules is one. Another is the time factor, where being introduced to/reading the rules for IA units adds another time demand to events already tight on time.

But one of the pro-FW folks' real points was that unfamiliarity breeds unfamiliarity. That introducing IA units to events will tend to create more knowledge of them and greater comfort with them in the player base. So I do think it's worth allowing them in general. The question of exactly what criteria should be used to decide which ones to exclude is a good one. And I suspect that it's going to come down to individual TOs.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Dracos wrote:

 Mannahnin wrote:
Get over yourself, Dracos. I specifically argued in Peregrine's defense and asserted that questioning his level of participation is a sideline. That he's perfectly welcome to participate in the discussion and his lack of participation in tournaments should not be a barrier to do so. It does need to be taken in context, however, when evaluating the accuracy of his expressed opinions on GW's playtesting, on the overall balance of the game or of individual units like Helldrakes and Vendettas. He does make some reasonable and valid arguments. but he tends to mix them in with plainly inaccurate statements of opinion expressed with the exact same lecturing tone and attitude of authority.

Coming from a mod the attack "get over yourself" is somewhat surprising...

In what way am I in need of "getting over myself"?

You sir, are the one making an authoritative argument.

You are the one patronizing others by attempting to marginalize opinions based on a white/black "has or has not participated in a GT".

What attack? The one you made on me by repeatedly accusing me of things I obviously wasn't doing? Accusing me of using Strawman arguments or attempting to close off debate? You can and should do better. You're escalating this discussion into a less friendly disagreement . Knock it off, please.

The question of whether a given unit is overpowered, abusive, or an actual problem that needs to be addressed within the context of competitive play is an inherently subjective one. Whether a person can make a good assessment of that is going to be dependent on their base of knowledge and experience. Some of the folks speaking authoritatively in this discussion have no or very little experience on which to make those judgments.