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.

 Vaktathi wrote:
Personally, I'd be very surprised, if they haven't after the Vendetta, the Heldrake, the gimmicky paladins and nob bikers, etc, I just don't see it, especially with the concerted effort to extirpate comp scores/rules in 40k events over the last few years.

Again, it's not about power level, it's about the difficulty and complexity involved. Vendettas are powerful but they don't take a completely disproportionate amount of time to resolve their actions.

Instead of banning the unit outright it could also be much easier resolved by a relatively simple unit FAQ for the event saying that for the sake of time just use the original hit location for wound allocation only or something like that.

That would be the other option. I'd be ok with allowing them if you changed their rules to fix the time/complexity problem, my point is that as-printed thudd guns don't belong in timed events.

At worst just set a rule saying "should any issue arise with template placement, defer to your opponent's judgement" really should suffice.

Of course then you have the opposite problem, where TFG maliciously objects to everything and you can't argue back.

 yakface wrote:

 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.

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 forth in the OP.

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.

Here's the problem: when GW playtests their codices for internal/external balance, FW is not taken into consideration. AT ALL.

And if it isn't obvious to you yet, GW is actually taking balance and playtesting a little more seriously this go around. Yes, it was hard to see when 6th first came out, but with each new release GW's vision for the core rules of the game are increasingly coming to light.

It would be extremely hard to argue that FW is doing the same thing. FW makes cool sculpts and spends the minimum amount of time required to give you some semblance of rules with which to actually use them. Don't believe me? Look at the amount of FAQing that was necessary from the latest indy-tourney faq to make half of the units even USEABLE with the current ruleset.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
Personally, I'd be very surprised, if they haven't after the Vendetta, the Heldrake, the gimmicky paladins and nob bikers, etc, I just don't see it, especially with the concerted effort to extirpate comp scores/rules in 40k events over the last few years.

Again, it's not about power level, it's about the difficulty and complexity involved. Vendettas are powerful but they don't take a completely disproportionate amount of time to resolve their actions.

While true, we're also talking about a game that in no way, shape or form even pretends to be a game designed for tournament/timed play, and artificially forcing a timed aspect on it for the sake

That would be the other option. I'd be ok with allowing them if you changed their rules to fix the time/complexity problem, my point is that as-printed thudd guns don't belong in timed events.

Another possibility would be to just reduce it to say, 1 or 2 blasts per gun and quadruple/double each hit. It'd certainly shift it much more toward the "whiff completely or score huge" side of things, but it would clean it up in terms of complexity/speed purposes.

Of course then you have the opposite problem, where TFG maliciously objects to everything and you can't argue back.

True, but that's why Sportsmanship exists (and why I prefer events that weigh that heavier than winning games)

Vaktathi wrote: acknowledge all of that but it won't defend against everything and means squat to half the stuff I mentioned. Bubble-wrap and aegis up all you want, a Heldrake won't care, Terrify and/or Psychic Shriek won't either. Poisoned weapons ignore the T7 and the cover won't matter unless the unit goes to ground in which case it isn't shooting the next round and the guns don't benefit. CCS orders fail 42% of the time on an Ld7 thudd gun battery. Bubblewrap likewise won't last forever and likely is made up of one's scoring units. Tabling an opponent is easier said than done, and the Thudd Guns aren't exactly capable at taking out vehicles, while unless you roll exceptionally well they also aren't going to be particularly effective against stuff like Terminators, Wraights, Nob Bikers, Wraithguard, etc.

Your not taking your argument that extra step that I know you would as a skilled player if you were putting it on the tabletop. The simple solution is to add the Lord Commissar. And/or add a CCS with Banner. Remember the incredible range on it. You can deploy back corner (Hammer and Anvil your really in business) Wrap with said bubble, wrap that with an Aegis or if you really want to protect it use Azarel. It's so easy to make it a nearly impregnable unit and it puts out so much firepower across the entire table regardless of LOS.

Codices like Sisters and Templars are long suffering granted but how many left their ranks just this year with GWs release schedule. Its a very good possiblity if the rumors are close to being true each of these armie will be included in a codex within the next year.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Problem with condensing blasts is that it would really benefit from Prescience. Being able to land just a few shots would multiply quickly and might be even more broken.

 Peregrine wrote:

Breng77 wrote:
Given that they have legacy (allowing more or less everything) and standard limited to fewer cards.

The difference is that:

1) MTG was designed from day one with the set rotation mechanic, while 40k is designed to be played with everything included at once. The better comparison would be if most high-level events banned blue entirely, while WOTC continued to print blue cards as part of the game.

2) Legacy and Standard (and other formats) are both played frequently at every level of competition. No matter what format you want to play you'll have plenty of opportunities to do so.

1. No, of course it wasn't. "Standard", formerly known as Type II, didn't get invented until several years into Magic's existence, after WotC realized that the play environment had become degenerate, and the barrier to entry for original-style (everything included except ante cards) play was too high, because of the cost for new players to acquire long out of print power cards, like the moxen and Black Lotus.

2. It's mostly Standard and Draft, although Legacy does get some play.

 Peregrine wrote:

Target wrote:
You roll a scatter, you just roll again and move on, you roll a hit, you put a template touching it and pick up the first and keep going. You just need 2 templates to do this, and if you can buy 3 thudd guns from FW, you can probably afford 2 small blasts.

No, you have that completely wrong. A "hit" on the scatter die can be placed touching ANY previous template, which means you must keep all of them on the table after they're placed. And then you need to keep them there while resolving wounds, since each template will have a different location for determining the closest model to allocate wounds to. So you need a full 12x small blast templates and some way of holding them all simultaneously (good luck with only two sets of hands in a typical game).

The only situation where you can get away with only using two templates is if the initial shot scatters off into empty space with absolutely no other models close enough that you care about where those shots are landing. And when deciding whether to allow something you have to consider the common worst-case scenario, not the most optimistic one.

Breng77 wrote:
Given that they have legacy (allowing more or less everything) and standard limited to fewer cards.

The difference is that:

1) MTG was designed from day one with the set rotation mechanic, while 40k is designed to be played with everything included at once. The better comparison would be if most high-level events banned blue entirely, while WOTC continued to print blue cards as part of the game.

2) Legacy and Standard (and other formats) are both played frequently at every level of competition. No matter what format you want to play you'll have plenty of opportunities to do so.

Neither of these are true there was no set rotation in original magic unit there were several sets released, the base set rotated the same way codices do now and in my area only standard is frequently played. Furthermore they have changed format rules several times jow.Currently 40k has as many major FW events as non-FW. So I fail to see the difference.

 Mannahnin wrote:
1. No, of course it wasn't. "Standard", formerly known as Type II, didn't get invented until several years into Magic's existence, after WotC realized that the play environment had become degenerate, and the barrier to entry for original-style (everything included except ante cards) play was too high, because of the cost for new players to acquire long out of print power cards, like the moxen and Black Lotus.

Actually it was. The original concept for the game was that each new expansion would be an entirely different game (that's where the "the gathering" part of MTG comes from, originally each new expansion would have a new name and new card backs), and it was only a very late decision that made playing an 'everything ever printed' format possible at all.

And of course even if the original 1993 idea of format rotation and the "modern" concept aren't identical the current rotation mechanic has been around for 15+ years now and is a fundamental part of the game. That's entirely different from the FW/no-FW split, where it's an argument over a house rule invented by the players.

2. It's mostly Standard and Draft, although Legacy does get some play.

Maybe it's just my area, but at least one of the local stores has weekly legacy tournaments, and http://www.starcitygames.com/pages/scgop/schedule has plenty of legacy events with thousands of dollars in prizes for the hardcore competitive players.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Mannahnin wrote:
1. No, of course it wasn't. "Standard", formerly known as Type II, didn't get invented until several years into Magic's existence, after WotC realized that the play environment had become degenerate, and the barrier to entry for original-style (everything included except ante cards) play was too high, because of the cost for new players to acquire long out of print power cards, like the moxen and Black Lotus.

Actually it was. The original concept for the game was that each new expansion would be an entirely different game (that's where the "the gathering" part of MTG comes from, originally each new expansion would have a new name and new card backs), and it was only a very late decision that made playing an 'everything ever printed' format possible at all.

And of course even if the original 1993 idea of format rotation and the "modern" concept aren't identical the current rotation mechanic has been around for 15+ years now and is a fundamental part of the game. That's entirely different from the FW/no-FW split, where it's an argument over a house rule invented by the players.

2. It's mostly Standard and Draft, although Legacy does get some play.

Maybe it's just my area, but at least one of the local stores has weekly legacy tournaments, and http://www.starcitygames.com/pages/scgop/schedule has plenty of legacy events with thousands of dollars in prizes for the hardcore competitive players.

By that argument non-FW tournaments have been around for years, so the idea to include them is new. I still see no difference with having 2 separate formats. Essentially non-FW 40k has been a fundamental part of the game for most people for about those same 15 years.

Glocknall wrote:

Your not taking your argument that extra step that I know you would as a skilled player if you were putting it on the tabletop. The simple solution is to add the Lord Commissar. And/or add a CCS with Banner. Remember the incredible range on it. You can deploy back corner (Hammer and Anvil your really in business) Wrap with said bubble, wrap that with an Aegis or if you really want to protect it use Azarel. It's so easy to make it a nearly impregnable unit and it puts out so much firepower across the entire table regardless of LOS.

Yes, if I built the entire army around those thudd guns and allied in HQ's form outside the IG codex, I could make it harder to remove. I wasn't assuming we were dumping 1000pts into buying and protecting the thudd guns though, and fundamentally all it really does is add one more step to the process, which is kill the LC.

There's a lot of counters to a list like this, I play such a list routinely (albeit with the Heavy Mortars and not the Thudd Guns). DS'ing and outflanking units are an issue, and the Thudd Guns aren't very effective against MC's or vehicles (a couple riptides can really put the hurt on a list like this), anything that can target out the LC/Company Command is huge issue and increasingly common. Cover ignoring weapons are also increasingly common. Focusing fire on the CCS/LC will remove them in short order, there's only so much you can do to stop that, fundamentally they are T3 5+ (4+ at best)sv models and not T4 3+sv heroes. Once the Ld reinforcement is gone, then the weapons are vulnerable to Ld attack. A chaos list with 2 or 3 heldrakes and a Telepathy Sorcerer or two will really take a dump on a list like this.

Problem with condensing blasts is that it would really benefit from Prescience. Being able to land just a few shots would multiply quickly and might be even more broken.

Probably true, though again we're talking about solutions to fixing time-related issues in a game where time plays no factor in the creation of the rules or how the game is intended to play.

 Vaktathi wrote:

There's a lot of counters to a list like this, I play such a list routinely (albeit with the Heavy Mortars and not the Thudd Guns). DS'ing and outflanking units are an issue, and the Thudd Guns aren't very effective against MC's or vehicles (a couple riptides can really put the hurt on a list like this), anything that can target out the LC/Company Command is huge issue and increasingly common. Cover ignoring weapons are also increasingly common. Focusing fire on the CCS/LC will remove them in short order, there's only so much you can do to stop that, fundamentally they are T3 5+ (4+ at best)sv models and not T4 3+sv heroes. Once the Ld reinforcement is gone, then the weapons are vulnerable to Ld attack. A chaos list with 2 or 3 heldrakes and a Telepathy Sorcerer or two will really take a dump on a list like this.

Your answer shows you have a fundamental misunderstanding of how an army of FW IG is played and it discredits anything you have to say.

 Peregrine wrote:

Target wrote:
You roll a scatter, you just roll again and move on, you roll a hit, you put a template touching it and pick up the first and keep going. You just need 2 templates to do this, and if you can buy 3 thudd guns from FW, you can probably afford 2 small blasts.

No, you have that completely wrong. A "hit" on the scatter die can be placed touching ANY previous template, which means you must keep all of them on the table after they're placed. And then you need to keep them there while resolving wounds, since each template will have a different location for determining the closest model to allocate wounds to. So you need a full 12x small blast templates and some way of holding them all simultaneously (good luck with only two sets of hands in a typical game).

The only situation where you can get away with only using two templates is if the initial shot scatters off into empty space with absolutely no other models close enough that you care about where those shots are landing. And when deciding whether to allow something you have to consider the common worst-case scenario, not the most optimistic one.

Except in my post I was talking about when a shot scatters off into nowhere, which you knew, as you stated i was talking about the most optimistic scenario - so I'm not "completely wrong". I'm just giving you the real world short hand that still follows the rules.

You do not need 12 small blasts under any circumstance however, that's just plain silly. It's like claiming that moving a 30 man ork boy unit is impossible because you need 30 tactical templates or tape measurers to do so.

When actually playing with the thudd gun's, here's how it generally goes:

-First shot hits: Yay! Place template, proceeding templates will either flip (place second template, check number under, move on), or you'll get another hit and place it somewhere touching the first that gives you more guys. Yes, you could walk further from here, but it's never once been the case when I've played that I've needed to. So you need the 1 original, and the one for your second, more optimal not over a base, hit. Any further hits you just add in the number that you should remember from the "optimal" one you did, and any flips are done with your second small blast.

-First shot scatters, too far from anything for scatters to matter: You need the original template to be placed, then you need one more template to walk it back. Place the first one, roll scatter die until you get a hit, when you do, place the new template, pick up the original (since you don't need it and will be now placing off the new one, and scatters cant get anyone), and repeat until you get back to your target/get to another target

-First shot scatters, flips matter: You do exactly as above, but "need" ideally 3 small blasts so you can have the original stay in place to check flips on.

In general, every set of 2 players should contain 2 small blasts - at a GT, it's flat out a requirement to come with all templates and dice. So unless your opponent is stingy, you'll only need one extra. Given that you were willing to afford the trip, the armies, and the thudd guns, I think another 99 cents for a second small blast off ebay is reasonable, and something most players who bring thudd guns will (and do) think of...since they've used the unit before and realize the convenience of having an extra one or two small blasts.

My point was that:
1) In reality, resolving these with reasonable people does not take much time at all
2) Once you play them a few times, resolving them becomes quick and easy due to practice
3) Stating the time it takes to resolve something as even a possible valid reasonable to not allow it in organized play (in which you do not participate as you've said, which is fine) is silly, as you don't actually know whether it does take extra time in organized play (specifically organized as in GTs, which keep tighter schedules then most local events). Folks at GTs are typically fairly well practiced with their armies and the rules, and can be expected to know how to efficiently resolve their own units. Stating the time as an issue to ban it is akin to the silliness of putting a model count cap on armies due to the time it takes to move them "sorry guys, nothing over 60 models, it just takes too long!"

If you want to get rid of them, or of FW, or of specific forgeworld units, do it for the right reasons (or what an event/organizer feels are the right reasons).

Target wrote:
When actually playing with the thudd gun's, here's how it generally goes:

What you're missing is that the direction wounds come from in 6th matters. You have to keep all those templates in place because each shot (other than 'hit' results that you place on the exact same spot) will have a different set of "closest model" to allocate wounds to. If you only have two templates and place one over and over again for each "flip" you won't be keeping track of this properly.

Also, your third case requires more than three templates. Let's say you scatter 5", far enough that you're not doing very much damage with the initial shot but not off the target unit completely. Now let's say you roll two scatter results in two different directions, each hitting models but still not in such an ideal position that you want to stack 'hit' results exactly on that spot. Then finally you get a hit with the fourth shot. The hit can be placed in contact with any of the three previous shots, which are in three different locations. You need to mark each of those locations so you know where you can legally place the hit

Stating the time as an issue to ban it is akin to the silliness of putting a model count cap on armies due to the time it takes to move them "sorry guys, nothing over 60 models, it just takes too long!"

The difference is that a high model count army can't be fixed without completely changing the army. A green tide orks list capped at 60 models isn't a green tide orks list anymore. A thudd gun, on the other hand, can be turned into a heavy mortar (much faster to resolve, equal or better in firepower in most cases) without really losing anything. So there's a legitimate argument for just accepting the slower games as the price of allowing a wide range of high model count armies, but there isn't really a similar argument that thudd guns are an irreplaceable part of an IG list.

So, in ten pages I've seen the same thing. Peregrine has some thread stamina, I'll give him that.

Anyworld, I've said it once and I'll say it again; don't play against it if you don't want to.

If I spend over $100 on any model, regardless of source, I expect to use it. If you buy a FW model and don't expect to use it, you either like painting and modelling a lot or insane.

I don't attend tournaments. I've only played a few games in 6th, since I have other priorities and the people I play with have different schedules. However, I'm not sure that excludes me or anyone in a similar situation from delivering advice. If I spend my money on something, I expect to get the full use out of it. If you get your panties in a bunch because a Mortis Contemptor is somehow more OP than a Heldrake or Riptide with Prescience on it, fine, just don't expect me to play against you.

Every codex and every IA has units that are better than others. It has been that way for quite a while. We know for a fact that GW and FW don't playtest in a competitive environment, so I'm not sure why everyone and their grandmother is so upset about how OP certain units are. This was a point made on page 1 of this thread, yet somehow it has been ignored or something.

 Blackmoor wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

There's a lot of counters to a list like this, I play such a list routinely (albeit with the Heavy Mortars and not the Thudd Guns). DS'ing and outflanking units are an issue, and the Thudd Guns aren't very effective against MC's or vehicles (a couple riptides can really put the hurt on a list like this), anything that can target out the LC/Company Command is huge issue and increasingly common. Cover ignoring weapons are also increasingly common. Focusing fire on the CCS/LC will remove them in short order, there's only so much you can do to stop that, fundamentally they are T3 5+ (4+ at best)sv models and not T4 3+sv heroes. Once the Ld reinforcement is gone, then the weapons are vulnerable to Ld attack. A chaos list with 2 or 3 heldrakes and a Telepathy Sorcerer or two will really take a dump on a list like this.

Your answer shows you have a fundamental misunderstanding of how an army of FW IG is played and it discredits anything you have to say.

So, instead of offering a counter-argument, instead of pointing out where I'm wrong, instead of pointing out some flaw in my analysis or experience anywhere (despite the fact that I play an army like this and have been taken apart as such)...

You are unable to actually defend your stance and instead resort to a personal attack that's the equivalent of calling me a poopy-head, taking your toys, and going home.


Three things become clear now. 1: you've got a bug up your butt about FW for some reason. 2: The entire purpose of this thread is basically to feed that bug up there. 3: You really don't like it when it comes out that Forgeworld really doesn't upset anything any more than anything else GW releases does and is basically just more stuff for people to use.

If you don't like hearing then, don't make threads on it. Either way, I think now that the thread's purpose has become clear it is time to close it.

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Blackmoor wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

There's a lot of counters to a list like this, I play such a list routinely (albeit with the Heavy Mortars and not the Thudd Guns). DS'ing and outflanking units are an issue, and the Thudd Guns aren't very effective against MC's or vehicles (a couple riptides can really put the hurt on a list like this), anything that can target out the LC/Company Command is huge issue and increasingly common. Cover ignoring weapons are also increasingly common. Focusing fire on the CCS/LC will remove them in short order, there's only so much you can do to stop that, fundamentally they are T3 5+ (4+ at best)sv models and not T4 3+sv heroes. Once the Ld reinforcement is gone, then the weapons are vulnerable to Ld attack. A chaos list with 2 or 3 heldrakes and a Telepathy Sorcerer or two will really take a dump on a list like this.

Your answer shows you have a fundamental misunderstanding of how an army of FW IG is played and it discredits anything you have to say.

So, instead of offering a counter-argument, instead of pointing out where I'm wrong, instead of pointing out some flaw in my analysis or experience anywhere (despite the fact that I play an army like this and have been taken apart as such)...

You are unable to actually defend your stance and instead resort to a personal attack that's the equivalent of calling me a poopy-head, taking your toys, and going home.


Three things become clear now. 1: you've got a bug up your butt about FW for some reason. 2: The entire purpose of this thread is basically to feed that bug up there. 3: You really don't like it when it comes out that Forgeworld really doesn't upset anything any more than anything else GW releases does and is basically just more stuff for people to use.

If you don't like hearing then, don't make threads on it. Either way, I think now that the thread's purpose has become clear it is time to close it.

Well, no, he's right.

How are those Drakes looking after your properly deployed Sabre's have a go at them? If not Sabre's, then Vendetta's.

Thudd Guns may not be great against MC's, but again, Sabre's are. Ask Janthkin, I watched his Nids crumble to this style of list, piloted by a good player, from about 10 feet away (sorry for creepin' on ya, J!).

If you're going after the CCS, instead of things that can actually hurt you, how much of your army will be left to fight back? That's assuming you have cover ignoring weapons, which are actually quite rare to find reliably at a cost-efficient price for most armies, that can get into range.

What are the odds of rolling Terrify on telepathy? And what is the range? Oh, that's right.. And what kind of troops are you left with taking in that garbage army you propose if you're taking 2 Sorcerers?

Lastly, there's no way in hell I'm risking a deepstrike into a spread out Guard army with mass pie-plates to take advantage of the circular formation I'm forced to drop down in unless I've got a 2++ rerollable.

What you seem to be missing is that it isn't just the one unit that makes IG FW ridiculous. It's how it all works in tandem.

One thing I'll agree on with the pro-FW side is that we all have a choice not to attend. Nobody is forcing anyone to go. It's just tough seeing events you've loved in the past potentially turned into something you simply can't stand the taste of. Personally, I'd attend either style of event as long as it is well run. I'd simply prefer to go to an event where I don't have to either a) buy a Guard army, or b) pray I don't get matched up with Guard. If I have to make a choice between two events on the same weekend, one FW, one not, it's an easy decision for me.

EDIT: P.S. Vultures!

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Blackmoor wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

There's a lot of counters to a list like this, I play such a list routinely (albeit with the Heavy Mortars and not the Thudd Guns). DS'ing and outflanking units are an issue, and the Thudd Guns aren't very effective against MC's or vehicles (a couple riptides can really put the hurt on a list like this), anything that can target out the LC/Company Command is huge issue and increasingly common. Cover ignoring weapons are also increasingly common. Focusing fire on the CCS/LC will remove them in short order, there's only so much you can do to stop that, fundamentally they are T3 5+ (4+ at best)sv models and not T4 3+sv heroes. Once the Ld reinforcement is gone, then the weapons are vulnerable to Ld attack. A chaos list with 2 or 3 heldrakes and a Telepathy Sorcerer or two will really take a dump on a list like this.

Your answer shows you have a fundamental misunderstanding of how an army of FW IG is played and it discredits anything you have to say.

So, instead of offering a counter-argument, instead of pointing out where I'm wrong, instead of pointing out some flaw in my analysis or experience anywhere (despite the fact that I play an army like this and have been taken apart as such)...

You are unable to actually defend your stance and instead resort to a personal attack that's the equivalent of calling me a poopy-head, taking your toys, and going home.


Three things become clear now. 1: you've got a bug up your butt about FW for some reason. 2: The entire purpose of this thread is basically to feed that bug up there. 3: You really don't like it when it comes out that Forgeworld really doesn't upset anything any more than anything else GW releases does and is basically just more stuff for people to use.

If you don't like hearing then, don't make threads on it. Either way, I think now that the thread's purpose has become clear it is time to close it.

I wrote it all out 5 pages ago of why all of your tactics that you think will not. Do you want me to keep re-posting it for you?

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/120/530411.page#5686386

The fact that you think that fliers will not get crushed by Saber defense platforms, or that you can reliably get a psychic power off through the rune priest and the deny the witch roll shows a fundamental misunderstanding of how the FW IG army works.

hippesthippo wrote:

Well, no, he's right.

"You suck at this game" isn't much of a counter

and that's why he's on the ignore list and I'll respond to your counterpoints instead.

How are those Drakes looking after your properly deployed Sabre's have a go at them? If not Sabre's, then Vendetta's.

If we're assuming enough artillery platforms and support to both have 9 thudd guns, an aegis line, a CCS and LC for babysitting support, and say 3 units of TLLC sabres, how many points are left for scoring units?

We're talking 1100-1200pts right there with no upgrades on anything, no allied Azrael for invul bubbles, no Vendettas or anything like that, and no scoring units and a whole lot of immobile artillery units, all squashed up real nice if we're assuming they're all within orders/Ld bubble distance.

Lets say you're playing 1850 since that currently seems to be the most popular, you're left with say 600something points with which to purchase scoring units (hopefully something with some sort of mobility since the rest of your army sure as hell isn't moving), allies and vendettas? that's going to get kinda tight there. Assuming mandatory minimum troops to fill that out and make it legal, say 1 platoon (to get the Sabres) and 1 veteran squad (to make it cheap), none with any upgrades, you're looking at almost 1400pts, with two naked HQ's and four naked T3 5+sv footslogging scoring units that also have to double-duty as bubblewrap. So then there's 400ish points left over for allies and unit upgrades and transports and vendettas and something other than 35 footslogging T3 naked 5+sv models for scoring units.

So yeah, it's a ton of firepower, and the Interceptor's probably a bit overkill, but we're still talking an army with practically zero mobility, a huge vulnerability once one key unit is removed, and the core of the army is going to all be clustered around said key unit relatively closely, making your own blasts and templates relatively effective and limiting what the list can respond to (If we're talking Tyranids, Mawlocs would work wonders here), especially if there's some sort of LoS to block those Sabres.




Fundamentally I think in regards to the Sabres and many other units is that GW made the brainfart of removing the ability to fire at ground units with AA units (many of which had already previously been described also as effective anti-infantry/light vehicle units like the Hydra and Sabre) and then coupled the USR that fixes that with the ability to shoot at oncoming reserves which really wasn't anything that the game needed in the first place. If they remedied that and allowed skyfire units to choose each turn if they'd use skyfire or not, you'd see Interceptor fly off these units.

Thudd Guns may not be great against MC's, but again, Sabre's are. Ask Janthkin, I watched his Nids crumble to this style of list, piloted by a good player, from about 10 feet away (sorry for creepin' on ya, J!).

Sabres are if given lascannons sure, but if we're talking the above type of list, that's not as many lascannons as one might otherwise be facing, and there's ways to mitigate that as well (ideally cover/invul saves/psychic powers/etc)

If you're going after the CCS, instead of things that can actually hurt you, how much of your army will be left to fight back?

The question then is, how much effort is it to remove the CCS/LC. We're talking T3 5+sv models here, not a T4 W4 2+/3++ monster here.

Fundamentally here's what can be done (within the confines of codex:IG, not talking allies yet) to keep the CCS alive.

1: put it in a transport
2: give it carapace armor
3: give it Camo cloaks
3: buy a medic for the unit
4: put it in cover
5: put it out of line of sight.
6: add squadmembers including bodyguards to increase the units size.
7: add a Lord Commissar for Ld10 and an additional model for the unit.
8: upgrade the Company Commander to Iron Hand Straken for T4 and 3+ armor
10: hope for Night Fight turn 1 and that the IG get to go first

The worst case scenario therefore is a CCS upgraded with as many add-on models as possible (3 advisors and 2 bodyguards, 11 if including the Lord Commisar), given a medic, upgraded with carapace armor and Camo Cloaks in a transport out of LoS behind cover (and regimental standard to ensure that Ld bubble always works) and its Nightfight. I guess you could sub-out transport for Bastion but then you couldn't really be out of LoS I'd imagine on most tables.

We are then looking at 1 AV12/10/10 3 HP chimera with 11 T3 4+sv infantry models sporting with Stealth (one T4 3+sv Special Character) and rerollable Ld10 and (assuming we've filled out the weapons compliment on the squad as well) ending up at roughly 500points including the Lord Commissar and whatever gear he's got. That's the worst case scenario for engaging a CCS that doesn't want to die.

Looking at that unit and most tournament armies, knowing that that's the hardiest thing you're likely to face, relative to most other armies "you can't kill me HQ's", how impossible is this to kill? For a unit of guardsmen? Very hard. 500pts hard? Hrm, probably not. Short of being unable to draw LoS/having no barrage weapons/DS options/etc of your own, is this really going to be that much of an issue to take out? Only if it goes to ground behind an aegis line (and then it's not giving any orders), and if you've got anything like a Heldrake floating around, or a barrage weapon of your own, etc, then it won't care.

If we're talking a scenario one might actually run into, then we're likely going to see a CCS with camo cloaks and the LC behind an aegis line sporting a few guns and a regimental standard, 6 T3 models at roughly 180-200pts. Hardest thing to kill ever? Hardly.

That's assuming you have cover ignoring weapons, which are actually quite rare to find reliably at a cost-efficient price for most armies, that can get into range.

Weapons or abilities that allow this are becoming more common than they once were. CSM's got the Baleflamer and Ignores Cover is standard on Sonic Blasters/Blastmasters, Daemons got the Skull Cannons and have an S6 AP4 Torrent weapon on Soul Grinders, Tau certainly have no issues removing cover between Markerlights and Smart Missile Systems, Eldar have a number of barrage weapons and psychic powers that would be highly useful against such a list.

What are the odds of rolling Terrify on telepathy? And what is the range? Oh, that's right..

24" likely means you just need to survive turn 1 if you've got a transport (and, if playing Eldar, the Hemlock fighter comes standard with Terrify, pods that force all Ld tests to be rerolled, and ID inflicting AP2 blast weapons for those artillery units, and can be coupled with the -3Ld Horrify psychic power).

Mech Eldar likely actually would do very well against such an army, kit whatever you're taking in Wave Serpents with Holofields and Flat Out turn 1 (gogogadget 3+ cover saves and downgrading Penetrating hits to Glances on a 2+, 9 TLLC Sabres are averaging 1.3 HP's and a 1/16 chance between all 9 guns to get through and inflict an Explodes result, so likely squat all happens to the Eldar), and take a couple Farseers and a Seer Council, engage the sabre batteries and CCS first (likely have to sacrifice the seer council admittedly), and when the Hemlocks roll on, engage the thudd guns with those. If first turn is Nightfight (50/50 chance at it) so much the better, especially if Hammer and Anvil and the range on those Thudd Guns and Sabres is neutered.

And what kind of troops are you left with taking in that garbage army you propose if you're taking 2 Sorcerers?

I said "a sorceror or two", you needn't have two, but if we're assuming both then most likely mechanized CSM's, which can be effective against an army like this unless one is of the group that subscribes to the idea that only certain Cult units are useable CSM troops.

Lastly, there's no way in hell I'm risking a deepstrike into a spread out Guard army with mass pie-plates to take advantage of the circular formation I'm forced to drop down in unless I've got a 2++ rerollable.

Hint, there's a minimum range on the Thudd Guns wherein they don't get BS scatter even if firing directly, meaning not only a high likelyhood of missing and having to "walk" the blast back, but of hitting their own troops. It means those blasts are falling amongst their own lines and not being thrown downrange Additionally, if you get in there and get off Terrify or Psychic Shriek on a battery of Thudd Guns, it's not likely to continue to cause you trouble testing on Ld4 or likely taking losing a gun and a couple crew and then having to take an Ld7 morale test again.

What you seem to be missing is that it isn't just the one unit that makes IG FW ridiculous. It's how it all works in tandem.

One thing I'll agree on with the pro-FW side is that we all have a choice not to attend. Nobody is forcing anyone to go. It's just tough seeing events you've loved in the past potentially turned into something you simply can't stand the taste of. Personally, I'd attend either style of event as long as it is well run. I'd simply prefer to go to an event where I don't have to either a) buy a Guard army, or b) pray I don't get matched up with Guard. If I have to make a choice between two events on the same weekend, one FW, one not, it's an easy decision for me.

Ultimately, I'd have to ask, if these are so unstoppable and make for such one-sided unwinnable games, and FW does so little for anyone else, why haven't IG artillery lists simply overrun and consistently dominated at FW allowed events?

EDIT: P.S. Vultures!

They're only really in any way an issue with one armament (the TL punisher cannon, nobody seems to care if they're armed with 4 missile pods for instance), and even then, are more expensive and provide less utility (and certainly don't have the same arrives-on-board potential) relative to Vendettas.

 Vaktathi wrote:
Ultimately, I'd have to ask, if these are so unstoppable and make for such one-sided unwinnable games, and FW does so little for anyone else, why haven't IG artillery lists simply overrun and consistently dominated at FW allowed events?

Ooh, I know! It's because nobody wants to buy FW models just for those events so nobody brought the most powerful FW-based armies. It certainly can't be because those armies aren't as good as the theory and speculation suggest.

Of course you could say the same thing about a lot of other stuff. For example, Riptides are great at killing artillery (wound on a 2+ with no saves, and you're going to hit a lot of models if everything is crammed into a commissar bubble), so we have to throw out all experience with "overpowered" FW armies winning because people haven't had enough time to buy Riptides yet.

Don’t know if i should cry or laugh at this discussion.

I should stay clear I guess, but here’s my 2 cent:

I have been in this hobby for 30 years. In Norway, where I stay, FW has been allowed in GT for years. In small GT with 1500 points, FW it’s usually limited to a 0-1 choice unless you use a FW armylist. In bigger GT, 1850 +, it’s no 0-1 restriction. (only 40k units of course, so no super heavies etc). I have seen no big problems or heated debates like this.

I may have a naive and simple view: We are playing around with small toy soldiers. And the game is from a company who has said that they mainly are a miniatures company, that the game isn’t very well suited for balanced competitive GT-play, and who don’t support that sort of GTs (unlike Privateer press). When playing with toy soldiers, why wouldn’t you allow players to bring even more great looking models, made from the same company and intended for play within the same system?

I think people, on bouth sides, overanalyzes this issue. 40k is an expensive hobby and a inbalanced game. That’s true with or without FW.

Even though I’m a pro-FW-in-GT, there’s some small issues against full-FW-inclusion-at-once:

- Tradition: FW has been a separate thing/universe from 40k for long time. Several things have shaken this up; like the new stamp of 40 in FW-books, the allies table, fliers and so on. But like all things, people like the old ways – like it was before. GT want people at their tournies. And even more books and units, could be a issue against new players attending or old/competitive players who don’t want to handle FW. So to keep everybody happy, FW inclusions should be slow. A 0-1 force slot should be fine the first years. And then after a few year – no restriction.

- Time: GT is usually very timelimited. If you face new FW-units you may be unprepared and want to read their rules. This is possible before the game, because GT imposes players to have the rules with them. If the player has 1 unit – this is no problem. If the player has a lot of unknown units from FW, you may use up a lot of time on this, and the game will start late. Or you want get to read them all. With a 0-1 restriction this is no problem, until FW is a natural thing. GT could make it mandatory for people with FW-unit to send in armylist in advance, or at least report the FW-units in advance. The GT could then made it public on their game site, which FW-units has been reported in, so people could prepare for them.

Happy gaming.

@Vaktathi

Your argument against the power of this army really does sound like you don't think they will be doing anything while you attack them. So turn 1 your proposed eldar list won't be able to terrify (you cannot begin within 24" of the enemy unless you can somehow infiltrate) so chances of killing all of the saber platforms is bad. Turn 2 your hemlocks likely start coming in and oh yeah, get blown away by sabers because well they are AV10 and even if not cannot terrify till turn 3. Oh and that 24" range means you are likely in range for a runic weapon to shut you down...as for ignoring cover, again those weapons will be targeted first by your opponent so sure they'll do some damage, but how long will they live and how much will they kill while they do. Also why is the Thudd gun unit afraid of Bale Flamers exactly. So I spread out to 2" coherency, and you cover maybe 4 models, and wound like 1 time...not really super scarey.


As for why this list has not dominated in Competitive play. Peregrine has it partly right, most people (since FW tournaments are not yet common) feel like McNinja, and therefore don't buy FW models because they are not going to be able to use them much. So they are not all that prevalent yet, if they were allowed everywhere we would see more of them. Furthermore IG armies using FW have done extremely well. (See Adepticon Team Tournament, 2 out of the top 3 or 4 at BAO, There was another GT slightly after BAO that was won by IG with FW(cannot remember the name at the moment) so it is not as if people are not building up to this.

Oh and also apparently the thing takes like 25 min to resolve, so my mobility does not really matter as we are only getting to maybe turn 4 so as long as I can keep you off my objectives, I'll do ok (sarcasm.)


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I guess what it comes down to for me is this, Marine codex + IG is very strong already, so is the argument somehow that adding better weapons to this army at really no increased cost is somehow making it worse?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I guess the other issue here is that a lot of your solutions may not work so well against other good armies. At which point, if I'm the IG player if I don't see you round 1 in an event, likelyhood is that I won't. The issue is beating the list with a TAC list not one tailored to beat it.

Oh and the argument that other blasts and template will be super effective also essentially means more IG...So the argument that FW inclusion will mostly lead to IG ruling events seems even more likely. You mention the Mawloc, which will hit one time, then get shot to pieces by Interceptor lascannons. As well as being a unit that does not appear in many top tier Nid lists.

 Peregrine wrote:

Of course you could say the same thing about a lot of other stuff. For example, Riptides are great at killing artillery (wound on a 2+ with no saves, and you're going to hit a lot of models if everything is crammed into a commissar bubble), so we have to throw out all experience with "overpowered" FW armies winning because people haven't had enough time to buy Riptides yet.

You're assuming the Riptide Nova Charged, and wrongly assuming the Artillery is not behind LOS blocking terrain or an Aegis. The artillery simply goes to ground and tanks the wounds on a 2+ cover save. Markerlights? Have a 36" range. The guard blob ensures they do not get to close.

Wow .. this again.

Here is what I know.

40K is not a balanced game … and I am pretty sure on the white board priority list balance is not in the top 5 of concerns at Games Workshop Design Studio or Forgeworld. Once you accept the fact that 40K is an evolving meta, cyclical, and at times has sweeping power changes the happier your hobby life will be. Balance I am pretty sure falls somewhere behind appeal to 14 year olds, sell kit X, but maybe slightly in front of “tournament” concerns. The game system only ever has to be enjoyable and playable to continue to sell models and attract players. End of story ..

Forgeworld and Black Library target audience is different than that of Main-line Games Workshop. So the fact that “official” Games Workshop events do not allow Forgeworld models to me is not some indication that these are sub-standard, and not approved. But rather they do not support the core marketing mission of Main-line Games Workshop. Principally grow the business through “new hobbyists” and keeping the game accessible to the entry level gamer. That said plenty of official events held at Warhammer World support Forgeworld models.

This one for instance: http://www.gamesworkshop.com/MEDIA_CustomProductCatalog/m3050151a_Praedis_Zeta_rules_pack_V.1.pdf

Forgeworld has a track record of revising model rules based on community feedback, they have done this routinely. I do not see anyone claiming the Hades Breaching Drill is still an issue that is because they saw an issue and revised the rules for them. They did the same for the Lucius Pod and the Achilles both now significantly less an issue, Mieotic Spore Sacks before that etc. For the Quad Launcher, Sabre Platforms or Heavy Mortar they operate as they had in 5th. The issue is with the change to the artillery rules in 6th edition and in time I am sure these will be addressed by the Forgeworld one way or another. That is the beauty of Forgeworld they have greater flexibility in this regard to adjust and tweak things between releases. Regardless, the argument for inclusion or exclusion should never be about codex or unit strengths. The game changes, codex and unit effectiveness comes and goes.

Just for clarity …having a GW “playtester” say that Forgeworld models are not playtested is not the same thing as Forgeworld models are not playtested. It just means that in the limited playtesting that individual was involved in Forgeworld was not a concern. Given what we know of Games Workshop playtesting and limited resources available this is not surprising. Which means for Forgeworld the playtesting and acceptability of these rules is responsibility of Forgeworld. That said, a number of main line Games Workshop designers have Forgeworld units and play with Forgeworld models so there certainly is a level of awareness.

Forgeworld has different concerns and priorities than the main line Games Workshop. Main-line Games Workshop has different concerns and priorities than Forgeworld. It is as it should be.

I choose to play either and find enjoyment in both.

@muhwhe,

I'm fine with that attitude if you want to admit you are OK with IG being the Dominant tournament army for the remainder of 6th Edition (how fast does FW update these rules I remember those Broken units being broken for quite a while before they got fixed.). The issue is that A majority of FW units are Imerial units, and so it shifts the balance of OPTIONS, very much in favor of anyone choosing to play imperial armies. As most people have said if you want to ban those Imperial units that are most offensive most would be ok with using FW. Furthermore, just because GW is not concerned with balance, does not mean players or TOs are not (or should not be), how many tournaments play GW stock book missions? How many Major tournaments? There is already tons of house ruling going on (FAQs for questions GW has not answered, Deciding new missions, eliminating random terrain, or terrain placement in general, setting time limits.) all of this is done for events to run smoothly and for games to be more balanced (based on skill rather than lots of random luck). I see no reason why FW is any different, some people choose to accept it, others don't, others accept some of it, any of these are already house ruling something.

SO I guess we should just get over "Playing Official 40k" no competitive games do, because it is near impossible to make work.

muwhe wrote:
That said plenty of official events held at Warhammer World support Forgeworld models.

This one for instance: http://www.gamesworkshop.com/MEDIA_CustomProductCatalog/m3050151a_Praedis_Zeta_rules_pack_V.1.pdf

Forgeworld has a track record of revising model rules based on community feedback, they have done this routinely. I do not see anyone claiming the Hades Breaching Drill is still an issue that is because they saw an issue and revised the rules for them. They did the same for the Lucius Pod and the Achilles both now significantly less an issue, Mieotic Spore Sacks before that etc. For the Quad Launcher, Sabre Platforms or Heavy Mortar they operate as they had in 5th. The issue is with the change to the artillery rules in 6th edition and in time I am sure these will be addressed by the Forgeworld one way or another. That is the beauty of Forgeworld they have greater flexibility in this regard to adjust and tweak things between releases. Regardless, the argument for inclusion or exclusion should never be about codex or unit strengths. The game changes, codex and unit effectiveness comes and goes.

This wasn't the argument. Plenty of places allow Forge World at campaigns/narrative events. The point was GW don't allow them at tournaments in any way. In fact, it's possibly more damning this way because it shows they are aware of Forge World units, allow their use (meaning it's not a piracy issue or anything) but ban them from the more competitive events. To me, that's saying someone at GW thinks that FW rules are not balanced enough to make the event, which considering their events are barely competitive anyway is pretty bad.

Your second point is okay though, but ultimately flawed. It took years for them to change the Lucius/Hades. The Heavy Artillery update was a deliberate official change and yet was made totally broken. When many people, including myself, mentioned how absurdly undercosted they were, we all got the same reply of "these rules were written as an update for 6th edition". It's not good enough and they have known of this problem for over 9 months. The psyker update is in a similar position. We still have no update to IA:A 2nd ed, despite that having been out almost 2 years and having many, many issues (some units don't even say which FOC slot they occupy). There are several arguments for including FW but never think that they update rules quickly or regularly because that's not true.

The topic of this thread was whether or not we NEED FW in tournaments. All I see is ten pages of arguing over whether or not people WANT FW or not. I think it is well established that some people WANT FW, some are OK either way, and some do not want FW.

Lets get back to the topic of whether tournaments NEED FW armies and units.

The premise of needing anything has been shown to be faulty. You don't need FW, you don't need IG. You don't need anything - this is a game. There is no such thing as "need" in this context.

What would you "need" it for?

Then the answer has always been No, tournaments don't need anything other than tables(though in theory you could play on the floor) and players, nearly everything else is a want not a need. I could run this tournament.

No Allies
No fortifications
2000 points single FOC
Only Codex Space Marines Allowed
No rules updates of anykind (NO Death From the Skies, NO WD, NO FW.)
All missions will be Kill points (so NO objective markers needed)
No Terrain.

Not saying people want to play this, but you could run it.

@Breng77 - I am ok with IG being dominate at any given point in time as I am with any other codex. Such is the case with the game system. The alternative is TO or Community Comp a path that was well traveled once upon a time.

@Eyjio - My point was that Forgeworld units are used at Offical Warhammer World events. Last I checked Games Workshop does not really have a competitive tourney format? or am I mistaken? As for updates .. sure in some cases it took years. Which in my mind is better than never or not until we release a new codex. Some happen much quicker in the case of feedback to experimental rules they post. My point is they still have a business model that allows it and they do it. As for IA2v2. It makes zero sense for Forgeworld to update that book given the pending release of Codex: Space Marine. I would rather wait for an update to IA2v2 that accounts for the new codex then get an immediate update that is made obsolete in 6 months.

@JWhex - So back on topic .. I think we need FW in some events and I think we need some events without FW. : )

muwhe wrote:
@JWhex - So back on topic .. I think we need FW in some events and I think we need some events without FW. : )

Or we could just have a single tournament running parallel to one another where one series has FW and one doesn't, thereby catering to both crowds...

@Muwhe, I would rather (as we are beginning to see) not have one dominatant, army, it makes for a boring game (like we had at the end of 5th ed.) I have really enjoyed playing against all the different factions in 6th rather than game after game against IG, and GKs at the end of 5th.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Enigwolf wrote:

muwhe wrote:
@JWhex - So back on topic .. I think we need FW in some events and I think we need some events without FW. : )

Or we could just have a single tournament running parallel to one another where one series has FW and one doesn't, thereby catering to both crowds...

Most events are not large enough for this (I would think you would need 64ish players to make this really work) and also have an even spread of people that desired to play in both types of events (in my local area it is probably 5 to 1 prefer no FW.)