Switch Theme:

Do we still need forge world in tournament play?  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


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.




Made in us
Douglas Bader






 Mannahnin wrote:
People probably would be, if Sisters were as strong as GK or Necrons. The (at least perceived) relatively low power and hobbyist-fanatic appeal of the army leads to it being looked at with more sympathy, IME.


But haven't we established that the top players have done their research and unknown rules is a bigger problem for people in the middle or at the bottom of the standings? You know, the kind of people who would be a lot more likely to lose to SoB?

There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices. 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





Pasadena

 Peregrine wrote:
 Mannahnin wrote:
People probably would be, if Sisters were as strong as GK or Necrons. The (at least perceived) relatively low power and hobbyist-fanatic appeal of the army leads to it being looked at with more sympathy, IME.


But haven't we established that the top players have done their research and unknown rules is a bigger problem for people in the middle or at the bottom of the standings? You know, the kind of people who would be a lot more likely to lose to SoB?


Sorry, only people at the bottom are losing to SoB. That codex is just bad. Even in the hands of some of the best players I know, those far more skilled than I, the army lacks any and all competitive capacity.

Las Vegas Open Head Judge
I'm sorry if it hurts your feelings or pride, but your credentials matter. Even on the internet.
"If you do not have the knowledge, you do not have the right to the opinion." -Plato

 
   
Made in us
Dakka Veteran





Maryland

Here's my two cents for what it's worth. The bottom line for me when it comes to the FW debate is think of it this way -

Anytime a codex gets updated, there are units that are bad, units that are good, and units that are in between. Across the whole game, this balances out because every codex has some stinkers, some winners, and some in-betweeners and for the most part books are somewhere in a general ball park with each other in terms of raw number of unit choices. Now when you add FW to the equation, it becomes statistically impossible to remain balanced. This is because you have one army (IG) that in some cases gets 10 units per every 1 unit another race has (Xenos especially), it's simple math that it's not possible for armies to remain balanced. Imagine if one codex in regular 40k had 10 times the number of units that others do.

Along the same lines since SoB have been brought up, think how they compare to every army with a real codex. What's one glaring difference? They have way less units. It's not a coincidence that they struggle.

One last comment/question for those in favor of FW. So if IA units are not a problem, then why shouldn't Necron players be allowed to take the Dark Harvest (the IA12 stuff)? Or shouldn't Eldar players be allowed to use Corsair lists? On top of already making IG units more often than everything else, half the time in IA books the Xenos armies are technically their own sub-race.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2013/06/11 06:45:41


5000 points (Blue rods are better than green!)
5000 points (Black Legion & Pre-heresy Sons of Horus) 
   
Made in us
Douglas Bader






 morgendonner wrote:
This is because you have one army (IG) that in some cases gets 10 units per every 1 unit another race has (Xenos especially), it's simple math that it's not possible for armies to remain balanced.


This has been brought up many times before, and it's still a misleading argument at best for three reasons:

1) IG and C:SM have the largest number of units, but many of those units are irrelevant in competitive play. Who cares if IG get the Lightning, nobody is ever going to take it when Vendettas are available. Who cares if IG get a cargo loader Sentinel, nobody is ever going to use it outside of a special fluff-based scenario. Etc. Meanwhile the C:SM unit count is vastly inflated by a long list of mediocre Badab War characters.

2) The numbers aren't nearly as bad as 10:1. IG get 31 units, while Tau get 16 (not counting Apocalypse-only stuff). Compare that to 39 codex IG units to 25 codex Tau units, and that's even counting the IG tank squadrons as single "units" even though the tank options in each squadron are so different that most players treat them as separate unit types for strategy purposes. So in this case the FW "IG bias" really isn't any worse than the codex bias.

2) If you look at it in terms of who gets relevant units you find that the distribution is a lot more even. Eldar and Tau, prior to their new codices, probably got the biggest benefit (several key units that were significantly better than the obsolete codex ones) and still get a lot out of it. For example, Barracudas almost entirely replace the weak Tau codex flyers, Necrons get Sabre-style AA artillery, etc.

What's one glaring difference? They have way less units.


No, the glaring difference is that SoB were a zero effort "update" designed primarily to kill off the old allies rules (by replacing the last codex they appeared in) and stop IG players from taking allied inquisitors. Having fewer units is just a side effect of the lack of effort, since creating new units takes effort.

So if IA units are not a problem, then why shouldn't Necron players be allowed to take the Dark Harvest (the IA12 stuff)?


Because the Dark Harvest list is a separate army list. This is like asking if C:SM players can take Deathwing terminators. However, if a Necron player wants to use the Dark Harvest army list instead of the Necron codex then that should be just fine.

Or shouldn't Eldar players be allowed to use Corsair lists?


Same as above: as long as they're using the entire Corsair list no problem.

On top of already making IG units more often than everything else, half the time in IA books the Xenos armies are technically their own sub-race.


Which isn't really a problem. Even if you don't want to use the entire list most of the relevant units are also available to the standard codex list. The only units that are restricted to the special variant lists tend to be "fluffy" stuff that you wouldn't care about in a competitive tournament.

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2013/06/11 07:22:09


There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices. 
   
Made in gb
Tunneling Trygon






So, IG are now not advantaged by FW as Tau get about 2/3 of the options they do. Aren't new Tau probably one of the strongest codexes out there? Recent UK results seem to be supporting this. Maybe you'd like to compare IG against Tyranids and let me know how that comparison looks like. From what I've seen the only Nid units there don't even appear to work in 6th as the rules are completely different.

Allies isn't always the answer, as if you want multiple IG FW units you have to take them as the primary detachment. Or, like my Nids, you don't have that option ...

FW must be fine because SoB are allowed? Just because one mistake happened doesn't mean we should exacerbate the situation. A WD codex was never the answer and at least the monstrosity of the Daemons supplement has gone now. I know people say SoB are not a good army but if you've never played against Celestine before and don't know her rules that could leave a bad taste in your mouth ... SoB supplement was a wrong move and shouldn't be used as a precedent of good practice.

A previous poster suggested FW would be fine as you can proxy other models for them. I don't think I've seen a single tournament where this is allowed. If you want to play a FW unit you have to have the model and that's about the only consistent ruling out there.

So, there seems to be a split between allowing 0-1 or banning specific models. I think the 0-1 would maybe work as if you want fluffy units that aren't that powerful why would you ever want to take 3 maxed units of them? Banning specfic units takes us nearer to the WHFB comp packs which were often fairly arbitrarily decided and just had people working round them. 0-1 allows FW flavour but loses the spam. The problem with Thudd guns, Sabres etc was never single units of them but spam.



"We didn't underestimate them but they were a lot better than we thought."
Sir Bobby Robson 
   
Made in us
Imperial Guard Landspeeder Pilot




On moon miranda.

 ruminator wrote:
So, IG are now not advantaged by FW as Tau get about 2/3 of the options they do. Aren't new Tau probably one of the strongest codexes out there? Recent UK results seem to be supporting this. Maybe you'd like to compare IG against Tyranids and let me know how that comparison looks like. From what I've seen the only Nid units there don't even appear to work in 6th as the rules are completely different.

Allies isn't always the answer, as if you want multiple IG FW units you have to take them as the primary detachment. Or, like my Nids, you don't have that option ...

FW must be fine because SoB are allowed? Just because one mistake happened doesn't mean we should exacerbate the situation. A WD codex was never the answer and at least the monstrosity of the Daemons supplement has gone now. I know people say SoB are not a good army but if you've never played against Celestine before and don't know her rules that could leave a bad taste in your mouth ... SoB supplement was a wrong move and shouldn't be used as a precedent of good practice.
It simply is, and one of the basis for discrimination against FW units applies just as much to them (being expensive and with more difficult to acquire rules). It's simply deconstructing one of many arguments.




So, there seems to be a split between allowing 0-1 or banning specific models. I think the 0-1 would maybe work as if you want fluffy units that aren't that powerful why would you ever want to take 3 maxed units of them?
Theme, same reason you'll often see more than one iteration of a unit in other armies. If one wants to run an Iyanden Ghost army expect to see Elites and/or troops with multiple Wraithguard units and HS filled with Wraithlords or Wraithknights for example, if one wants to run a siege regiment having lots of artillery units is not out of character.


Banning specfic units takes us nearer to the WHFB comp packs which were often fairly arbitrarily decided and just had people working round them. 0-1 allows FW flavour but loses the spam. The problem with Thudd guns, Sabres etc was never single units of them but spam.
Honestly I'm still puzzled by the sudden Thudd Gun hate after being out there for 7 years already but just *now* becomes something for people to pay attention to, but honestly I think a lot of it is just the name Forgeworld for a lot of people. The Hydra, for example, was 200pts under FW rules with no special rules/abilities aside from that it could engage Flyers at normal AA. If FW put it out in its current incarnation, at less than half that cost, squadronable, and ignoring jink saves, some people would scream bloody murder, but since it's in a codex, nobody says a word (I have actually experienced this in person with the Hydra) and in fact the Hydra has seen decreased use of late due to the change from Skyfire. I have zero doubt the label alone is what is causing the angst amongst at least some people.A unit may be tolerated however obscene or benign, as long as it is in a book labeled "Codex"; but once that book says "Imperial Armour", all other things being equal, the attitude changes dramatically for no other reason.

IRON WITHIN, IRON WITHOUT.

New Heavy Gear Log! Also...Grey Knights!
The correct pronunciation is Imperial Guard and Stormtroopers, "Astra Militarum" and "Tempestus Scions" are something you'll find at Hogwarts.  
   
Made in us
Douglas Bader






 ruminator wrote:
So, IG are now not advantaged by FW as Tau get about 2/3 of the options they do.


That's not the point. The point is that the whole "IG get more options" thing is mostly a myth (see previous comment claiming a 10:1 ratio). IG don't get a significantly larger number of units than the codex ratio, and many of the units they do get are "fluff" units that aren't relevant in competitive events.

Maybe you'd like to compare IG against Tyranids and let me know how that comparison looks like.


You're right, Tyranids have kind of been abandoned by all of GW's brand names. No allies, no fortifications, no models for important codex units (drop pod anyone?). Not having FW units is really just insult to injury.

FW must be fine because SoB are allowed?


The point is that "people are unfamiliar with the rules", "the books are hard to get", "my local store can't profit from allowing them" etc, are all ridiculous arguments in any event where SoB are allowed. If you're really concerned about those things instead of using them as an excuse to ban FW rules then you'll ban SoB as well.

I think the 0-1 would maybe work as if you want fluffy units that aren't that powerful why would you ever want to take 3 maxed units of them?


So we're back to the old double standard where FW rules are only acceptable as long as they're weak and nobody would ever want to bring them in competitive lists? Why don't we apply a similar standard to all codex units as well, make everything 0-1.

The problem with Thudd guns, Sabres etc was never single units of them but spam.


Single units are almost as bad since they come in units of 1-3. So 3x thudd guns, 3x earthshakers, 3x LC Sabres, allied marine army with 4x Hyperios AA guns (essentially C:SM Sabres with krak missiles). Sure, it's not quite as efficient as an unrestricted list, but it's still going to cause the same problems. Meanwhile you've put 0-1 limits on a long list of other units that don't need to be restricted as the price of your marginally effective solution.

This is why the answer is to get over the irrational fear of having specific unit bans and make real balance changes if they are needed instead of blanket rules that completely miss the target.



There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices. 
   
Made in us
Potent Possessed Daemonvessel





Yup which is why FW with a relatively shot banned list IMO is the way to go.
   
Made in se
Ferocious Black Templar Castellan






Sweden

Which, interestingly enough, is how it's been played in Sweden the last few years. Then again, we also mostly use comp, so any imput at all from us is completely irrelevant. /sarcasm

For thirteen years I had a dog with fur the darkest black. For thirteen years he was my friend, oh how I want him back. 
   
Made in us
[ARTICLE MOD]
Fixture of Dakka






Chicago

Spacecurves wrote:

Thudd guns, sabers, and vultures are too good. No two ways about it. When I say "too good" I don't mean they are impossible to beat,...


Obviously


I mean they are way to few points for what they do.


How does this differ from an Annihilation Barge, a Nightscythe, a Helldrake, or the Doom of whatever? Are those units not also too few points for what they do?



I agree completely with the that the biggest problem with allowing unrestricted forgeworld is the effect on the middle of the pack in a tournament. One important concept here is that MOST people fall in this category! No one likes getting wiped out by some super-unit they have never heard of and don't understand.


So you're saying that the psychological impact of some middle-roader losing to Alan's list is greater than that of losing to your list? I don't know about that, seems like pandering to weakness, but okay.



And for those who are interested, I beat Alan twice (awesome, close games) this weekend in rounds 5 and 6. I played this army:...


As several others have pointed out, you used a number of units that are too good for their points in your list. I'm having a hard time seeing why you're lobbying in support of banning only some too-cheap units from the game (the FW ones) and not all too-cheap units.


   
Made in us
Potent Possessed Daemonvessel





 Redbeard wrote:

I mean they are way to few points for what they do.


How does this differ from an Annihilation Barge, a Nightscythe, a Helldrake, or the Doom of whatever? Are those units not also too few points for what they do?



I agree completely with the that the biggest problem with allowing unrestricted forgeworld is the effect on the middle of the pack in a tournament. One important concept here is that MOST people fall in this category! No one likes getting wiped out by some super-unit they have never heard of and don't understand.


So you're saying that the psychological impact of some middle-roader losing to Alan's list is greater than that of losing to your list? I don't know about that, seems like pandering to weakness, but okay.



And for those who are interested, I beat Alan twice (awesome, close games) this weekend in rounds 5 and 6. I played this army:...


As several others have pointed out, you used a number of units that are too good for their points in your list. I'm having a hard time seeing why you're lobbying in support of banning only some too-cheap units from the game (the FW ones) and not all too-cheap units.



A lot of this has already been answered. They differ from Codex units in that they are almost entirely for IG. Every Codex has a few units that are "undercosted" or "Overpowered", people accept that, what they don't like is taking a codex that is already full of several and throwing more into the mix.

I also agree that losing to Alan's list is probably a greater psycological blow for a middle of the roader than playing a codex list. Simply because they know what the stuff in the codex list is likely to do, and have faced those units before, so they have a plan. I can tell you right now going back to my first GT, that playing against units that you are not used to playing makes for some very helpless feeling games. Something I have not run into in a long while (and I speak from being an upper middle of the road player). I'm not saying this does not happen with other books when they are new. I especially see it with lower tier players (wait that unit does what?, I'm looking at you mindshackles, and Psykobroke Grenades), but mid tier players have seen these things and know what they do and so are not surprised by them. Now you are basically throwing the same feeling at them.

I'll admit this may be "pandering" to weakness, but as a TO the point of events is not to find the most Bad A__ player but instead to ensure that all players have a good time, as that is why people attend events more often than not. So if the players attending think that FW is no good, or if they want it unrestricted/restricted, as a TO that is what I am going to look to do to provide the best experience for my players.
   
Made in us
Been Around the Block




 Mannahnin wrote:
Relic07 wrote:
 Mannahnin wrote:
Spacecurves was widely-known for winning big events with Codex: SM in 5th ed when internet know-it-alls thought they were trash. And running untraditional (assault, non-Venom-spam) Dark Eldar similarly well. And for writing a whole series of in-depth articles on fine points of the 40k rules and how to apply them to advanced effect on BOLS.

The idea that you're going to dismiss his wins because this year's list includes a lot of great units (along with a Battlewagon and Meganobs which are not exactly on most folks' radar) is deeply misguided.

Your inability to express your argument without insulting them also doesn't help that argument or your credibility.

Doesn't matter. He is still using the most undercosted, overpowered units to win.

Of course it matters. I'm not disputing that he's got some of the best units in the game right now in this list (except the Battlewagon, really), but your earlier arguments that he (among others) is just a flavor of the month player, dependent on overpowered crutches and jealously and hypocritically criticizing others for wanting FW is just laughable. Not that your attitude toward other folks is less rude or more appropriate, but Ben's a particularly funny choice of target.

"dependent on overpowered crutches"
This is the devil in the detail. His list was completely dependant on overpowered crutches, period.
He abused some of the most undercosted, overpowered units in the game. I am not saying it is wrong to do that in this type of environment, but it is wrong to throw a hissy fit because others want to do the same thing.

The daemon player was the only person not running a cheese list in the top spots.
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut






is it me, or does the "pro Forgeworld" argument now seems to have moved to accepting them as counters to low cost units in GW dexes ?

doesnt seem like a good enough reason to me to include something that requires a "single point" access to aquire.

 
   
Made in us
[ARTICLE MOD]
Fixture of Dakka






Chicago

Breng77 wrote:
A lot of this has already been answered. They differ from Codex units in that they are almost entirely for IG. Every Codex has a few units that are "undercosted" or "Overpowered", people accept that, what they don't like is taking a codex that is already full of several and throwing more into the mix.


Currently, I see more must-have units in other codexes.

Adding two additional underpriced units to IG may tip the scales slightly in their favour, but I have yet to see a compelling argument why IG shouldn't have the most OP units. Some codex is going to. Without FW, it's pretty apparent that Necrons have the most (or best?) OP stuff to pick from. Why are Necrons more deserving of this status than IG?

Is the argument really, "IG doesn't deserve to be the best"?


I also agree that losing to Alan's list is probably a greater psycological blow for a middle of the roader than playing a codex list. Simply because they know what the stuff in the codex list is likely to do, and have faced those units before, so they have a plan. I can tell you right now going back to my first GT, that playing against units that you are not used to playing makes for some very helpless feeling games. Something I have not run into in a long while (and I speak from being an upper middle of the road player). I'm not saying this does not happen with other books when they are new. I especially see it with lower tier players (wait that unit does what?, I'm looking at you mindshackles, and Psykobroke Grenades), but mid tier players have seen these things and know what they do and so are not surprised by them. Now you are basically throwing the same feeling at them.


Great, so now we're turning wargaming all touchy-feely. It feels worse to lose to one unit than another. This is a pathetic argument. Maybe some people need to put their big boy pants on.


I'll admit this may be "pandering" to weakness, ...


Damn skippy it's pandering to weakness. It is also propagating the myth that FW stuff is evil and bad and will take your children. If you look at it critically, without falling back on wishy-washy tales of how it feels different, what's really needed is a mindset shift.



zedsdead wrote:is it me, or does the "pro Forgeworld" argument now seems to have moved to accepting them as counters to low cost units in GW dexes ?


Not at all.

The Pro-FW mindset, as far as I'm aware, is very simple.

FW models are toy soliders that are produced by Games Workshop, that are designed for use in Warhammer 40k, and say such in their rules, also published by Games Workshop.

As such, they should be considered legal and allowed for play, unless a compelling argument can be made to disallow them.

Everything else that the "pro-FW" people say isn't really arguing in favour of their inclusion, it's refuting the arguments that the anti-FW people are making.

For example, the "anti-FW" set says "they're uncounterable". - Well, no, they're not, and WGC pretty much showed that. That doesn't change my argument to "FW should be allowed because they didn't win", it simply says that "they're uncounterable" is false, and therefore is not the compelling argument to deny FW that the anti side needs to produce.

Breaking it down debate style:

Pro: FW should be allowed because it is legal.
Supporting evidence: Book says it is legal, published by GW.

Anti: Either try to tear down the main point, or create a compelling argument to ban in in spite of it being legal.

If Anti goes down the "tear down the main point" approach, they have a tough road ahead of them, because the printed material says it is. They resort to:
Anti: GW doesn't allow FW in their events.

But Pro retorts: They also don't allow allies. Pro is not saying FW should be allowed because GW events don't allow allies, they're saying anti's argument here is not strong.

It's a really hard sell to try and ban FW on the grounds that it's not legal, when the printed material says it is.

So instead, the best anti gambit is to attack it on nebulous grounds, such as how it's unbalanced, how it favours one army, how it's uncounterable, how it makes people feel bad, how it costs more, and so on. The thing is, each of these attacks (apart, possibly from how it makes people feel) is easily discarded with data from events at which it has been allowed.

Which is why now we're at the point where we're talking about feelings. Because all the other anti arguments fall by the wayside when presented with data.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2013/06/11 14:21:41


   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




It's a lot of blunt "what I say is fact, what you say is not fact" argument on both sides. If you play the game of 40k, all codices are allowed whether you want to play against them or not, so long as you agree to play in the first place. The FW rules still say you should make sure your opopnent is comfortable with it, which is NOT blatant legality, nor is it a simplistic GW publication.

The thing is, that issue doesn't matter, but it's a turn-off in an argument when people go NO IT'S LEGAL, IT'S JUST LEGAL, IT'S LEGAL, THEY SAID IT'S LEGAL! when there's obviously still a lot of fuzz-ground.

On a personal level, I'm probably going to remain where I am ... well aware that I firmly believe several IG-specific FW units are broken and undercosted WAY beyond anything in any of the codices, to the point that they do cause players - especially average every-day attendees - to feel utterly boned by what happens to them (i.e. turn 2 thudd gun tablings when they barely even knew what thudd guns were before ... and YES, most players respond to the unknown and unexpected smashing them a lot worse than "oh yeah you have night scythes or heldrakes, I know these will hurt").

BUT I'll happily use them at FW events I attend (because why woulldn't you?), and I'll happily leave them legal at 50% of the 40k events I host (because lots of more casual players love FW, including the broken units, regardless ... and often also tend to be the ones who swear GW codices are always full of broken units and the game is never balanced anyway).

FW in the tournament circuit is still a fringe thing, and probably will remain so, in part because of the very fact that even without big long forum arguments, a tourney has to actually SAY "FW Legal" for players to know and expect that ... it's not the "norm," b/c it's not legal without a specific policy enabling it (whether or not it should be is irrelevant to that point). That doesn't mean it's inherently bad, and it's always different strokes for different folks.

BUT this ENTIRE argument, on both sides, is an opinion-based one ... for either side to claim their opinions are all unassailable facts and the others' opinions are all soapy weak emotions is unfair, and kinda derogatory to a lot of heartfelt posting and such. My opinions about FW units being broken, but still worth using and allowing in some events are also just that ... opinions. We're all opining about a plastic soldier game.

That said, it's also important to note when it comes to the big bad events, people attending invest thousands of dollars into it, and a great deal of emotions into what they expect the event to deliver them. THAT investment of money and emotion is not "just plastic toy soldier games." That's people spending their hard-earned money in a tough economy on traveling for a hobby they're passionate about. This is why it really should be more about what people want, and presenting a wide range of people with a wide range of opportunities ... and not about slamming down the other side or being so black and white about each of our positions that we refuse to let everyone play the game their way and think about it their way (from my "look, some of these units are way more broken and unexpected than codex units, but FW is still fun and radical! ... to "NEVER USE FW EVER" opinions ... to "FW is legal and should always be allowed no mater what").

/rantish

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2013/06/11 14:36:57


 
   
Made in us
[ARTICLE MOD]
Fixture of Dakka






Chicago

But, Mike, there ARE facts to fall back on.

Facts: FW books says they're legal. FW books are published by GW.

Also facts: Throne of Skulls is a tournament run by GW that does not allow FW.

Also facts: the so-called uncounterable FW units, in the hand of a very good player, were not uncounterable, and were, in fact, defeated twice by another very good player who did not use FW units last weekend at WGC.


To write off everything as just opinions is untrue. We have facts at our disposal, and should be framing this debate around them.


   
Made in us
Potent Possessed Daemonvessel





 Redbeard wrote:
Breng77 wrote:
A lot of this has already been answered. They differ from Codex units in that they are almost entirely for IG. Every Codex has a few units that are "undercosted" or "Overpowered", people accept that, what they don't like is taking a codex that is already full of several and throwing more into the mix.


Currently, I see more must-have units in other codexes.

Adding two additional underpriced units to IG may tip the scales slightly in their favour, but I have yet to see a compelling argument why IG shouldn't have the most OP units. Some codex is going to. Without FW, it's pretty apparent that Necrons have the most (or best?) OP stuff to pick from. Why are Necrons more deserving of this status than IG?

Is the argument really, "IG doesn't deserve to be the best"?



Really you see one other codex that has more "must have" units?

IGVendettas
Blob Squads
Mantacores
(FW added)
Vultures
Thudds
Sabers
Hyperious


Crons

Barges
Wraiths
Scythes

CSM
Heldrakes
Oblits?

Anything else I am really missing?

What book is touting 6-7 Undercosted/OP units? I get 3 From "Broken" Crons. Take out FW and Look IG still has 3 (at least you could argue for some more), oh and without FW IG is still at top army.... What I am saying is not that IG does not deserve to be on top, it is why do they deserve to recieve so many more OP/Under Costed units than anyone else?

Also there are no facts
you presented

FW books state they are legal, but left out the run it by your opponent first part of that statement.
You also included the fact that GW does not allow them in their tournaments.

SO based on those facts tournaments should "house rule" either Accept FW or Reject FW as the answer to the first of these facts.
   
Made in ca
Roarin' Runtherd





Kitchener

Hi

As MVB states - there is a whole lot of opinion, and some very entrenched positions. Since I haven't posted since page 2 - I respect TOs decisions either way, non-FW is slightly more attractive to me if given two options on the same day, but the inclusion of FW isn't a deal-breaker, including forge world army lists. When I ran tournaments, I said no to FW because of its potential to create "have a bad day" impact on the average gamer. You may or may not share that opinion, but it was my call as the TO and I made it.

I do want to take a moment to talk about the thudd gun question that Vaktathi keeps raising - Why is it a big deal now? It should be obvious... but here goes...

In my view it is a matter of a disproportionate increase in its resilience from shooting related to its points cost. The offensive potential isn't dramatically different if your first shot was accurate, but I don't recall seeing templates walk back 8" and still devastate units in previous editions of the game. Also, the fact that indirect sniping is now part of how indirect fire works adds to their lethality substantially.

Rather it is the shift in durability. Previously it was a unit that was a mix of t3 guardsmen and AV 10 armour where any unsaved glancing or penetrating hit silenced a gun. A unit of war walkers/lootas/crisis teams with missile pods/a unit of podding marines with plasma/melta could take care of them effectively at range early on. Cover could help the crew consistently, but the artillery piece needed 25% obscurement to get a save. Artillery had high offence potential but were very, very vulnerable to both shooting and assault.

Example:
3 scatter walkers in 5th ed: 12 hits (without guide), 8 hits on the gun, 4 glance/pens, destroyed without cover, or crippled with 2 gone using the 4+ standard cover save of 5th. The loss of 2-3 crew from the 4 that hit them could add a morale test that ends the threat as well, however unlikely with Ld 10 and a re-roll.

Now the unit has t7 at range with 2 wounds and a 3+ save on the gun, both pieces benefit from cover if it is available (or purchased as part of the army). Any crewman beyond the first per gun is entirely expendable, which in the case of a thud guns means at least 3 or as many as 9 expendable wounds before you get to anything meaningful. Extra crew used to simply be protection from morale and the ability to sustain fire over time. Now it is a means to protect the guns as well. This is a HUGE shift in durability that is entirely unaccounted for within the points cost of the unit.

Same Example:
3 scatter walkers (using the old BS 3 dex for consistency): 12 hits, 4 wounds, covered down to (3) 2.6 with a 5+ cover. This may be enough for a morale test, or an ld 10 re-roll if properly supported. There are still 6 ablative wounds to go before doing anything meaningful to the thudd gun.

The net difference is a crippled artillery battery with dramatically reduced offensive potential VS a virtually unscathed artillery battery firing at full effect.It also indirectly increases the offensive potential as the amount of firepower required to silence even one gun is far higher than before.

If you don't recognize the incongruence between how artillery operated within the game from 1998-2012 and now it operates from 2012-onward, you really need to use your plastic toy soldiers more often. That, or you are being willfully blind. Neither option adds credibility to your position, especially when placed against the weight of various and sundry tourney veterans that understand just what this means and have said so repeatedly.

Cheers,
Nate

This message was edited 6 times. Last update was at 2013/06/11 15:56:05


Sons of Shatner - Adepticon 40K Team Tournament: 2010 Champions, 2011 Best Tacticans (2nd Overall); 2012 Best Display (9th Overall); 2013 2nd Overall
Astronomi-con Toronto 2010 & 2012 Champion
Da Boyz GT 2011 2nd Overall
Nova Open 2012 Invitational: 4-1, second on Ren Man 
   
Made in us
[ARTICLE MOD]
Fixture of Dakka






Chicago

Breng77 wrote:

Really you see one other codex that has more "must have" units?


Yes, because I don't think your analysis is correct. Currently, I think the only really undercosted IG CODEX unit is the Vendetta. Blob squads provide scoring bodies, but I don't think you can legitimately call them undercosted when the meta also has ork boyz, and chaos cultists at similar costs.

Manticores might be close, but I've seen plenty of IG lists without them, so I wouldn't consider them must-haves.

So, yeah, I think in the current meta, before FW is considered, crons definitely have more OP stuff than guard. And your list doesn't include things like Mindshackle scarabs, which are huge for a minimal cost.


Also there are no facts


Well, okay then.


you presented

FW books state they are legal, but left out the run it by your opponent first part of that statement.


As MVBrandt pointed out, ALL games have the requirement to check with your opponent first, because your opponent can always say, "no, I don't feel like playing against that". It's a red herring sentence that FW has included as a way of trying to encourage manners, but it doesn't actually change the social contract between two gamers.

And, as I think you're trying to say, in a tournament environment, it really is up to the TO to decide what's allowed. This thread, from my understanding, is meant to debate the pros and cons of doing so. No one is arguing that a TO has no right to set up their own tournament rules.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/06/11 15:37:52


   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut









zedsdead wrote:is it me, or does the "pro Forgeworld" argument now seems to have moved to accepting them as counters to low cost units in GW dexes ?


Redbeard wrote:Not at all.

The Pro-FW mindset, as far as I'm aware, is very simple.

FW models are toy soliders that are produced by Games Workshop, that are designed for use in Warhammer 40k, and say such in their rules, also published by Games Workshop.

As such, they should be considered legal and allowed for play, unless a compelling argument can be made to disallow them.

Everything else that the "pro-FW" people say isn't really arguing in favour of their inclusion, it's refuting the arguments that the anti-FW people are making.


I think the onus is on the pro-FW people to present a compelling argument for the inclusion of FW units into tournaments. Having read most of posts here i see a pattern people defending FW use by using over powered and under costed units in the Codexs as reasons to Allow FW. There seems to be a lot of tit-for-tat reasoning going on here that really is a pretty weak defense.

Redbeard wrote:For example, the "anti-FW" set says "they're uncounterable". - Well, no, they're not, and WGC pretty much showed that. That doesn't change my argument to "FW should be allowed because they didn't win", it simply says that "they're uncounterable" is false, and therefore is not the compelling argument to deny FW that the anti side needs to produce.


Actually i would argue that the results of WGC did a pretty good job of showing the overpowering prescence of FW units in a tournament setting. Dominating so efficiently in the lower to mid rounds was able overcome 2 losses to come within a 6 point margin of winning the tournament ?! I would also add that 1 Tournament doesnt make a pattern. However adding this to Tournaments such as BAO where ig FW units were at the top Table and the Adepticon Team Tournament was won using ig-FW units. yea... sorry but i see a pattern here.

Redbeard wrote:Breaking it down debate style:

Pro: FW should be allowed because it is legal.
Supporting evidence: Book says it is legal, published by GW.

Anti: Either try to tear down the main point, or create a compelling argument to ban in in spite of it being legal.

If Anti goes down the "tear down the main point" approach, they have a tough road ahead of them, because the printed material says it is. They resort to:
Anti: GW doesn't allow FW in their events.

But Pro retorts: They also don't allow allies. Pro is not saying FW should be allowed because GW events don't allow allies, they're saying anti's argument here is not strong.

It's a really hard sell to try and ban FW on the grounds that it's not legal, when the printed material says it is.


I wouldnt use GW events as any indicator since they barely run them in this country anymore. As much as pro-FW want to use the "Warhammer 40k approved" argument to allow them to use it, there is nothing in the GW published BRB or its Codexes that include them. There is no discussion of them or allowences so in my IMHO there inclusion is on a premission basis only. If the BRB included them than i can see there allownce without question.However this isnt the case.

Redbeard wrote:So instead, the best anti gambit is to attack it on nebulous grounds, such as how it's unbalanced, how it favours one army, how it's uncounterable, how it makes people feel bad, how it costs more, and so on. The thing is, each of these attacks (apart, possibly from how it makes people feel) is easily discarded with data from events at which it has been allowed.


As i said before recent data actually shows that there is an overpowered aspect to FW. IG units in particular as reflected in recent tournaments including them.

Redbeard wrote:Which is why now we're at the point where we're talking about feelings. Because all the other anti arguments fall by the wayside when presented with data.


As far as feeling go, the emotional impact games have on players is important. If players feel (justifiably or not) taken advantage of doesnt create a fun or competitvly enjoyable situation. Highly competitve players are going to use list building plus there gaming skill to take every advantage to compete at a high level. Theres nothing wrong with that as long as it doesnt include cheating. However it can be disheartening to the mid-road competitors as the upper tier players run" rough- shod" through them on there way up the tournament. As a TO this is important to me because i want to run a competitive event that people enjoyed and didnt feel taken advantage of.

As a player its way more acceptable to me to get my a$$ handed to me by a good player with a good list than a good player using units i know very little about. That "WTF" moment is much more acceptable to most players when it deals with GW codexes than a "WTF" moment using FW because we can accept it as something we "should" have known and learn from it because of its inclusion in the core rules set.

There is no requirement for me to know anything about FW to play 40k. Forgeworld is a niche company that reqires me to go to one source to buy from. A source that is not redily available to most people.

 
   
Made in us
Archmagos Veneratus Extremis






Home Base: Prosper, TX (Dallas)

It's anecdotal but I'm pretty sure the Quad Launcher cost us our only missed sportsmanship point at Adepticon....

I'm fine with 0-1 per choice for primary factions only. Outside of that I see to much potential to hurt the tournament scene as the players showing up to play that don't reasonably expect to win (i.e. 75% of the players) but just want to have fun get smashed by the top players on the way up. Anything that makes people less likely to attend an event is a bad thing and a poor experience will lead people to not attend the next year.

I'm with Brandt on a lot of this. I'll happily punch people in the junk with FW if it's allowed. I just don't think it's the best thing for the tournament community at large as a universal blanket acceptance.

Oh, and having FW cancel my orders 3 times (I check with my bank, they cancelled it, not my bank) means that I'm basically unable to get FW books outside of jumping on orders with someone who's credit card FW likes or attending things like Adepticon. Illegal torrents or ridiculous hoops shouldn't be the only ways for me to get information to play. And before you say SoB I count it differently. It's no longer in print so a torrent is just fine by me.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/06/11 15:48:25


Best Painted (2015 Adepticon 40k Champs)

They Shall Know Fear - Adepticon 40k TT Champion (2012 & 2013) & 40k TT Best Sport (2014), 40k TT Best Tactician (2015 & 2016) 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut






 Redbeard wrote:


As MVBrandt pointed out, ALL games have the requirement to check with your opponent first, because your opponent can always say, "no, I don't feel like playing against that". It's a red herring sentence that FW has included as a way of trying to encourage manners, but it doesn't actually change the social contract between two gamers.



Actually my reaction would be "no, give me a reason to play against that" would be my question, putting the responsability on the other guy to include FW.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/06/11 15:47:23


 
   
Made in us
Imperial Guard Landspeeder Pilot




On moon miranda.

Breng77 wrote:
 Redbeard wrote:
Breng77 wrote:
A lot of this has already been answered. They differ from Codex units in that they are almost entirely for IG. Every Codex has a few units that are "undercosted" or "Overpowered", people accept that, what they don't like is taking a codex that is already full of several and throwing more into the mix.


Currently, I see more must-have units in other codexes.

Adding two additional underpriced units to IG may tip the scales slightly in their favour, but I have yet to see a compelling argument why IG shouldn't have the most OP units. Some codex is going to. Without FW, it's pretty apparent that Necrons have the most (or best?) OP stuff to pick from. Why are Necrons more deserving of this status than IG?

Is the argument really, "IG doesn't deserve to be the best"?



Really you see one other codex that has more "must have" units?

IGVendettas
Blob Squads
Mantacores
(FW added)
Vultures
Thudds
Sabers
Hyperious
As a point of note, Hyperios platforms are not Imperial Guard units, they're Space Marine units.

I'd argue Vultures here, they are only really potent with one weapon and their utility relative to a Vendetta is quite debateable, especially as the Vulture with the TL punisher cannon is 20% more, and up until the last month or two Thudd Guns were never anywhere near a list like this in the last 7 years.

IRON WITHIN, IRON WITHOUT.

New Heavy Gear Log! Also...Grey Knights!
The correct pronunciation is Imperial Guard and Stormtroopers, "Astra Militarum" and "Tempestus Scions" are something you'll find at Hogwarts.  
   
Made in us
Potent Possessed Daemonvessel





 Redbeard wrote:
Breng77 wrote:

Really you see one other codex that has more "must have" units?


Yes, because I don't think your analysis is correct. Currently, I think the only really undercosted IG CODEX unit is the Vendetta. Blob squads provide scoring bodies, but I don't think you can legitimately call them undercosted when the meta also has ork boyz, and chaos cultists at similar costs.

Manticores might be close, but I've seen plenty of IG lists without them, so I wouldn't consider them must-haves.

So, yeah, I think in the current meta, before FW is considered, crons definitely have more OP stuff than guard. And your list doesn't include things like Mindshackle scarabs, which are huge for a minimal cost.
.


Midnshackle scarabs are wargear not units, and they are only powerful in some instances. Good surely, but again not a unit on their own.

If you don't think Blob squads are more powerful than Chaos Cultists, I'm not sure what to say. They shoot better, fight better in CC, have better weapon options, have better support options especially with allies. Not saying they are necessarily undercosted but they have proven to be quite a powerful tool in many tournaments. Sure Ork boyz are good, but unfortunately they lose out to the IG in many important ways (cannot run from fights they cannot win, are poor at hurting high armor/toughness, cannot use challange tricks with only 1 character.....

I agree as I have said all along I am not opposed to FW events let players and TOs decide has always been my point.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Vaktathi wrote:
Breng77 wrote:
 Redbeard wrote:
Breng77 wrote:
A lot of this has already been answered. They differ from Codex units in that they are almost entirely for IG. Every Codex has a few units that are "undercosted" or "Overpowered", people accept that, what they don't like is taking a codex that is already full of several and throwing more into the mix.


Currently, I see more must-have units in other codexes.

Adding two additional underpriced units to IG may tip the scales slightly in their favour, but I have yet to see a compelling argument why IG shouldn't have the most OP units. Some codex is going to. Without FW, it's pretty apparent that Necrons have the most (or best?) OP stuff to pick from. Why are Necrons more deserving of this status than IG?

Is the argument really, "IG doesn't deserve to be the best"?



Really you see one other codex that has more "must have" units?

IGVendettas
Blob Squads
Mantacores
(FW added)
Vultures
Thudds
Sabers
Hyperious
As a point of note, Hyperios platforms are not Imperial Guard units, they're Space Marine units.

I'd argue Vultures here, they are only really potent with one weapon and their utility relative to a Vendetta is quite debateable, especially as the Vulture with the TL punisher cannon is 20% more, and up until the last month or two Thudd Guns were never anywhere near a list like this in the last 7 years.


Point taken on Hyperios (though with allies it might as well be imperial V non-imperial in many cases.). Vultures are potent due to Vector Dancer (ignoring Flyer downside) and in an INfantry heavy Meta they are arguably stronger than vendettas. Thudd guns have already been addressed. First few large 6th FW events were less than 6 months ago. Prior to ~1 year ago (or whenever Thudds were updated by FW) they were Crap because artillery rules sucked in previous editions.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/06/11 15:58:30


 
   
Made in us
[ARTICLE MOD]
Fixture of Dakka






Chicago

zedsdead wrote:

I think the onus is on the pro-FW people to present a compelling argument for the inclusion of FW units into tournaments.


I think Yakface did this pages ago. To paraphrase, they're models produced by GW, with rules saying they're legal for play. The goal should be to include as many people's toy soldiers as possible, as this creates a more inclusive atmosphere, and also increases the variety of things you're likely to see.


Having read most of posts here i see a pattern people defending FW use by using over powered and under costed units in the Codexs as reasons to Allow FW.


Not at all. No one is saying that because there are OP units in the codexes, FW should be allowed. This is logically disconnected.

What we're saying is that FW should be allowed unless there's a reason not to. The "anti" stance then says "but some of it is OP". To which we ask, why ban all FW is some is OP, you're not banning other codexes because they have OP units.



Actually i would argue that the results of WGC did a pretty good job of showing the overpowering prescence of FW units in a tournament setting. Dominating so efficiently in the lower to mid rounds was able overcome 2 losses to come within a 6 point margin of winning the tournament ?! I would also add that 1 Tournament doesnt make a pattern. However adding this to Tournaments such as BAO where ig FW units were at the top Table and the Adepticon Team Tournament was won using ig-FW units. yea... sorry but i see a pattern here.


I'm not (and I don't think any of the other pro-FW people are either) saying that there aren't some very good FW units. However, WGC was won by... Necrons. Adepticon was won by... Necrons. Isn't that also a pattern?





I wouldnt use GW events as any indicator since they barely run them in this country anymore.


I agree - but it is a point that others have raised. It's also a fairly easy point to knock down, given that they also don't allow allies. But, yeah, it's really an aside.


As much as pro-FW want to use the "Warhammer 40k approved" argument to allow them to use it, there is nothing in the GW published BRB or its Codexes that include them.


Is there anything in the BRB that says Codex: Necrons is legal? How do we know that Codex: Necrons is legit?



Redbeard wrote:Which is why now we're at the point where we're talking about feelings. Because all the other anti arguments fall by the wayside when presented with data.


As far as feeling go, the emotional impact games have on players is important. If players feel (justifiably or not) taken advantage of doesnt create a fun or competitvly enjoyable situation. Highly competitve players are going to use list building plus there gaming skill to take every advantage to compete at a high level. Theres nothing wrong with that as long as it doesnt include cheating. However it can be disheartening to the mid-road competitors as the upper tier players run" rough- shod" through them on there way up the tournament. As a TO this is important to me because i want to run a competitive event that people enjoyed and didnt feel taken advantage of.


My experience is that the experienced top-tier players run roughshod over the mid-level players on a regular basis, with or without FW.


As a player its way more acceptable to me to get my a$$ handed to me by a good player with a good list than a good player using units i know very little about.


How do you handle new codexes?


That "WTF" moment is much more acceptable to most players when it deals with GW codexes than a "WTF" moment using FW because we can accept it as something we "should" have known and learn from it because of its inclusion in the core rules set.


What defines the core ruleset? Again, I ask, where does the BRB specify which codexes are legal? It doesn't, as far as I'm aware. Instead, each codex legitimizes itself. But that's exactly how FW books work too. They're legal, because they say they are. Just like the codexes.


There is no requirement for me to know anything about FW to play 40k.


I could replace FW with Codex Necrons in this sentence and it would still be true.


Forgeworld is a niche company that reqires me to go to one source to buy from. A source that is not redily available to most people.


This is a myth. It's 2013. You're posting on Dakka, you can buy FW stuff. The internet should not be scary to anyone these days. FW stuff is readily available to anyone who is going to be attending a GT.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
Hulksmash wrote:
Oh, and having FW cancel my orders 3 times (I check with my bank, they cancelled it, not my bank) means that I'm basically unable to get FW books outside of jumping on orders with someone who's credit card FW likes or attending things like Adepticon.


I've had this happen, and it's my credit card company thinking that it's suspicious that I'm ordering from a "toy store" in the UK. Calling the CC's customer service line has always cleared it up.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/06/11 16:02:45


   
Made in sg
Quick-fingered Warlord Moderatus





Lost in the Warp

 Redbeard wrote:

And, as I think you're trying to say, in a tournament environment, it really is up to the TO to decide what's allowed. This thread, from my understanding, is meant to debate the pros and cons of doing so. No one is arguing that a TO has no right to set up their own tournament rules.


And quite frankly, I haven't posted anything in the past few pages, because every single argument and point is just being repeated and rehashed over and over and over again. There's nothing new being added anymore. Now that we've all said our piece as tournament-goers and non-tounament-goers alike, and we have TOs present in the thread too, can we let this topic die peacefully if there's nothing new to add? We can't do anything more besides let the TOs absorb all of this information and decide what they want to do with it next time they run an event - it's not like arguing ever more fervently in either case will "win" anything.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/06/11 16:03:07


Click here for my Swap Shop post - I'm buying stuff!
DR:90-S++G++M+B++I+Pw40kPbfg99#+D++A++/eWDR++T(T)DM+
Black Legion/Iron Warriors/Night Lords Inquisitorial Friends & Co. (Inq, GK, Elysians, Assassins) Elysian Droptroops, soon-to-add Armored Battlegroup Adeptus Mechanicus Forge World Lucius

 
   
Made in us
Potent Possessed Daemonvessel





Actually THe BRB legitimizes codices in general. I covered that pages ago, with page quotes where it refers you to the codices. IA are not codices. That is a weak argument
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





Eye of Terror

I would like to point out that Mr. Pajama Pants had EPIC FAIL at WGC this weekend if his intent was to show how broken is FW... a 4-3 record is nothing to brag about IMO even if the scoring system put him at 3rd overall... that is just not a good record.

My blog... http://greenblowfly.blogspot.com

Facebook...
https://m.facebook.com/Terminus6Est/

DT:60+S++++G++++M+++B+++I+++Pw40k89/d#++D+++A++++/eWD150R++++T(T)DM+++ 
   
Made in us
Tail-spinning Tomb Blade Pilot




I remember in 5th edition, units got the 40k "approved" stamp and there were murmors in different forums about allowing forge world. This grew a lot louder when 6th ed. hit and fliers were going to ruin 40k. Our only hope.......forge world. I guess thats maybe just how I remember it, but I think Blackmoors original post holds true, folks wanting to include Forgeworld were doing it under the guise of "its needed to balance fliers". Some time has past and nearly every codex has access to fliers/anti flier weaponry.

So why the inclusion of Forgeworld? It has a 40k approved stamp. Ok....I can buy that. Argument deffinately has merit.

Why couldnt folks use 2nd edition units? They are also 40k approved. Now T.O.'s usually put out you must use the latest codex, but GW has no rule that says all previous books are illegal. Throne of skulls enforces this, but there is no real rule for it that Im aware of. Why is there no argument for using old codices at major tournament because folks want cheap carnifexes, or 2 wound termies? TOs usually want a streamlined, smooth running tournament, low on drama and high on fun and laughs.

Also, 40k, at least from folks I talk to that play all sorts of games, has a bad reputation for "just spend the most money, and your army is the best." Including Forgeworld does nothing to help the argument that a more exspensive army isnt always better.

Lets take 100 random 40k players from around the country. How many know what a Helldrake is/does? 80%......90%......98%.......How many of those random 100 40k players knows what a Hades Breaching drill is/does? 20%.......25%........10%. Well why dont they just head down to their local store and check it out.......oh yeah, stores have all the codices for folks to buy/ look at. Forgeworld has to be ordered, book by book, by the individual.

It gets better though, because most folks say, well that doesnt matter, go online and you can find an illegal pdf of all the Forgeworld books at this site, or that site. As someone who works in the gaming industry, this seems to be the course of action, and once people start getting dirtected to these sites, they now have access to all sorts of illegal pdf's. Why buy a codex at all.....just download it. I dont have any hard Facts or Figures, but people have to know this is the case.

Now sisters and Templar fall in the category that not many folks know what they do. Templar can at least be found on your local gaming store shleves. Sisters......not so much. So do you ban Sisters because of this, well if access is the precedent, sure. You may offend the 1 person thinking of taking sisters, but if it is to encourage folks to use units that all players have relative easy access to I say do it.

Now my opinion, Forgeworld doesnt add much to the game, at least not the things folks take to tournies. There are enough broken units, overpowered vehicles, unbeatable charachters, why the argument to include more? Is that going to add to the gaming experience folks come to tournies to have? Does it detract to the gaming experience people will have. More often than not, most folks I talk to think it detracts. A forgotten rule on what a forgeworld unit does, having an unknown unit sprung on an opponent, these kinds of things can get a game off to a sour note.

At Adepticon, there were folks upset about having to face 3 Helldrakes during the championships for multiple games, is the inclusion of Forgeworld helping the Spam/Waac listbuilding, or thwarting it.

I myself think Forgeworld creates some problems during games, not because of the power level of the units, but because of the relative access to the rules. It also encourages illegal pdf searches further detracting form the gaming community. I wont ever attend/ not attend a tourney because of Forgeworld, but I just wanted to state why I dont think its a good idea for organized/large scale tournaments. Im getting older though, and maybe Im just a stick in the mud and I should just embrace the craziness of FW in tournies.

   
Made in us
Archmagos Veneratus Extremis






Home Base: Prosper, TX (Dallas)

@Redbeard

You must have missed the part of what I wrote when I contacted my customer service for my card I was told that it was FW that cancelled my order. It was not a suspicious charget they put a hold on. FW itself cancelled my order. Three times. I don't even try to order their product anymore. I generally just throw in with others on their orders (rare) or pick up books at Adepticon (even rarer).

Either way Nobru makes several good points as well.

Best Painted (2015 Adepticon 40k Champs)

They Shall Know Fear - Adepticon 40k TT Champion (2012 & 2013) & 40k TT Best Sport (2014), 40k TT Best Tactician (2015 & 2016) 
   
 
Forum Index » Tournament and Local Gaming Discussion
Go to: