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.

 Danny Internets wrote:

 Dozer Blades wrote:
"The consensus from GT winners (in this thread and elsewhere) seems to be that introducing FW will dramatically unbalance things. As the people who arguably understand the mechanics of the game best, it would probably be wise to weigh their opinions a bit more than community rabble."

Care to provide some quotes to back this up? I'm all ears.

Feel free to read the thread (probably a good habit to develop in general). I was able to skim through the last five or so pages and count at least four.

I did Danny but did not find any... hence the request. I am not trying to imply you are less than honest... maybe I am just missing something?

 Dozer Blades wrote:

 Danny Internets wrote:

 Dozer Blades wrote:
"The consensus from GT winners (in this thread and elsewhere) seems to be that introducing FW will dramatically unbalance things. As the people who arguably understand the mechanics of the game best, it would probably be wise to weigh their opinions a bit more than community rabble."

Care to provide some quotes to back this up? I'm all ears.

Feel free to read the thread (probably a good habit to develop in general). I was able to skim through the last five or so pages and count at least four.

I did Danny but did not find any... hence the request. I am not trying to imply you are less than honest... maybe I am just missing something?

Danny - I think he's saying he doesn't know who from forum names, are GT winners, you may be taking for granted knowing who a lot of the posters are which is probably the source of confusion.


I'll chime in as a winner of a few and say I (personally) don't feel FW is appropriate for GT play. As always, that's just my opinion, take it for what it's worth. Not trying to say "ermagerd I'm right and everyone else can kick rocks if they haven't won something!". Just my view on it all from having played a lot of games and used the "broken" fw units myself from time to time. YMMV

There's a big difference in understanding the game and winning a dozen games in a row. For one thing, a lot of people who have won the game in the past are still quite capable of doing so, if they felt like it, but have moved on in how they choose to play. I think Muwhe pointed this out quite clearly. The ability to win is not the same as the desire to win.

I fall into this category completely. I used to be all gung-ho- tournament-competitive-guy. Then I realized that the financial cost was stupid for the return in value. Add in the mentality that exists today of the perception of "real competitive 40k" and everything else doesn't count...it soured me to the scene and I walked away from it. I'm also a father now, and don't have much desire to spend my free time and money chasing a plaque or prestige that in a few months time nobody will care about...and it certainly doesn't make me any money either.

I had a streak of top-ten finishes at GTs I attended until 2011, when I decided I'd rather field the best looking army, rather than one designed just to win. That doesn't mean I don't know how to win, it just means it's no longer the most important aspect of my hobby.

Agreed. My involvement is now just a distraction to real life and I'd rather play a casual game or play APOC with friends.

You're invoking two fallacies here. The first is the aforementioned Appeal to Authority. You're claiming that just because some GT winners think one thing, then that one thing must be true (and, ignoring the counter-claims of the GT winners who don't agree with you, while you're at it). The second is asserting that the the GT winners have a better understanding of game balance than others.

Redbeard hits the nail on the head. I would also like to add that to truly define if FW is going to break the tournament scene...it needs to go through a phase of being fully available in all events to clearly show that. Anything else is prognostication of what may happen.

There's a difference between building a list and playing the game. And, in many circles, the people who make the best lists aren't necessarily the ones who make the best in-game decisions. I know several playgroups where the person with the best understanding of the game isn't the best player. They make in-game mistakes too often. No one operates in a vacuum, and it's not like the people winning all the games are making all their list choices themselves. I've seen GT-winners unabashedly "borrow" someone else's list to win a tournament with. I have a friend who knows very little about the metagame, or the game balance, but is really good at playing the game. He won a WFB tournament without having ever played the game before, with a list someone else handed him. He just gets overall strategy and tactics, and doesn't need to know rules or balance issues. I bring this up because there's absolutely no reason to believe that a GT winner knows anymore about game design issues than anyone else. GT winners are winners because they're good at playing the game. Some of them might also be the sorts to dig into a dozen books and find the broken combos, but some are handed those combos by their friends or the internet.

^This 1000%. There are a few people locally here that understand the game and build monster lists...but never play them or have the desire to. They'd be really good top players if they had a ounce of motivation to play in big events regularly.

Warhammer 40K is a game that simulates war. War is not balanced and certain forces will always outperform others in particular areas. This is the by-product of better training, more capital, more resources, better engineers, better general support and yes...tactically superior commanders. Over the past several years, there has been a move to redefine 40K into a contest that simulates a sport. I personally feel that is the the wrong way to look at any sort of casual gaming, especially one like 40K.

Matthias nails it here for sure. I share this sentiment completely.

I also hope people can realize how allowing those winning events to dictate the direction of events will foster feelings of resentment from players that want something different. The system will feel rigged.

Or it generates feelings of elitism and hubris.

FWIW, from myself through Hank, I don't think any of the event organizers in this thread have been promoting decision-making about FW based upon the "elite" GT winners. I know some people like to use them/us/whatever as reference points for those who "know," but that's irrelevant to at least my own decision making - as has been stated, GT winning players do well regardless, when they're in that "mode" (to defer a nod to Hank's commentary, most people don't spend 10 years being top dogs).

Agreed. What about the casual players (like myself, Breng77, and others) who are saying unlimited FW doesn't appeal to us? That argument got shouted down at the start of 6th edition with "It's the GAME of 40k to allow it, anything else is a house rule, if you can't handle it you don't belong at a tournament." The "elitism and hubris" sword cuts both ways!

I've expressed a number of times how intimidating it is to have to prepare for units spread across a dozen books, some really old (or even out of print? I have no idea) but this concern, as I said, gets shouted down.

So, of course then people respond by saying that high level players agree with them... but, imo, the desire not to have unlimited FW is shared by many, many "casual" players.

Which is why AdeptiCon rocks, because you only face unlimited FW in the Gladiator (known as a balls-to-the-wall competitive event, I believe, and from what I saw) or in a themed event (like the 30K horus heresy AgeOfEgos organizes?). It's the majority of tournament players that drive this decision, imo, what the top players say just reinforces this.

I love some, limited FW. I hate the "elitism and hubris" of the argument that if I don't play against full FW, all the time I'm playing by house rules and not really "playing 40k". That argument made on either side is insulting, but it certainly was made on the "pro-full-access-FW" side early on in 6th, and brought about this reaction (imo) justifiably, that top players don't agree that that's the best way to play 40k.

In the end, a variety of events is best, and listening to the other side, extremely valuable. I've become more open to FW as a result of these discussions, and I think that's a good thing. But I just don't desire to play in unlimited FW events, and I think AdeptiCon knows most players feel this way, which is why they allow it, but in limited form, in things like the team tournament... and save unlimited for the Gladiator or themed events.

I think we do, but that's because my only army is a FW army and no, there's no way I can play IG with what I have.

Bob, but my view is that I'd love to see those FW army lists allowed.

I think you see similar feelings about the Tamurkhan chaos dwarf list for fantasy- it's widely accepted for tournaments. Granted, it's only one book to keep track of, but imo players are prettty open to FW army lists (as evidenced by most "casual" posters that I've seen in this thread saying they'd like to see them allowed). It'd be interesting to do a poll on that... I think you'd see a more positive feeling towards FW army lists, than you would towards a blanket full FW allowance.

Whether that's because it's less open to abuse, easier to get a handle on, all contained in one book, etc... but that's what I've observed. Tamurkhan in particular has been mentioned a few times in this thread, with very little negative response. I think fantasy players have been craving chaos dwarfs, and the Tamurkhan book is actually easier to access than the old Ravening Hordes list for chaos dwarfs.

I know it's different for 40k, but I think if someone was pushing for the allowance of FW army lists, they might get more traction, than pushing for unlimited FW allowance. As I said, I'd certainly love to see them allowed, with the only issue being allies- I don't really think they should be allowed to ally with other armies, or else you'd have them "allying with themselves" by taking IG allies. Other than that, my vote to the TOs reading here is to try allowing the FW army lists in more events

What's been odd is that most events that have allowed FW, even unlimited FW units, have not allowed FW lists (like Kingdom Con in San Diego for instance).

I don't really see a problem with both types of tournaments existing.

Other competitive games have different formats.

Magic the Gathering has like 9 different formats, WM/H has multiple formats.Even competitive video games have different approaches. 3v3 or 5v5 in League of Legends and World of Warcraft. Is this an apples to apples comparision? No.

Different champions for different formats is acceptable at this point in Gaming. (Not to say there is an overall 40k champion, by any stretch)

But there is room in this world for both Forgeworld and Non-forgeworld events and they are very different from each other.

Sort of like here on the west coast, where we have the Broadside Bash, which is pretty much a pure fluff event and the competitive edge is not really there. Competitive players still go, but the event is in a different light than say the BAO.

Granted, to concede Blakmoor's point, the west coast is dominated by FW events and it does limit the the variety of things when all of the available formats are not used.

So, my point is, do I think we need Forgeworld to balance 40k, No.
Do I like the idea of allowing people to play Forgewold in tournaments yes.

 Vaktathi wrote:
What's been odd is that most events that have allowed FW, even unlimited FW units, have not allowed FW lists (like Kingdom Con in San Diego for instance).

Why is this, by the way? I've seen that mentioned a few times... can anyone explain?

(I.e., a TO for such an event, someone who's talked to a TO about such an event, or just someone who has thought about it...)

 RiTides wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
What's been odd is that most events that have allowed FW, even unlimited FW units, have not allowed FW lists (like Kingdom Con in San Diego for instance).

Why is this, by the way? I've seen that mentioned a few times... can anyone explain?

(I.e., a TO for such an event, someone who's talked to a TO about such an event, or just someone who has thought about it...)

I've wondered about this for a while too, hence why most of my last few posts in this thread have been about that. Talking to local tourney players in the communities I've been in, this stems mostly from one of two mindsets:

A) Forgeworld is unknown, therefore, Forgeworld Army Lists are even more unknown and scary.
B) Forgeworld is OP and imbalanced, therefore, Forgeworld Army Lists are even more OP and imbalanced.

It's just a general mindset of abstraction of the "worst" in Forgeworld. Furthermore, while players have played against singular or a few Forgeworld units, very few have actually played against a full Forgeworld list. In my local meta, I'm the only full Forgeworld player playing an Elysian droptroops list, and the first response is always "Forgeworld Army List?!" followed by "OP!" or "IMBA!"

Huh... That's an unfortunate reaction. But I find it odd that events allowing full FW would not allow these lists... or even that limited FW events wouldn't at least consider allowing them (perhaps they have considered it, and decided against it... I'm just interested if there is a better/different reason than player acceptance behind it).

 RiTides wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
What's been odd is that most events that have allowed FW, even unlimited FW units, have not allowed FW lists (like Kingdom Con in San Diego for instance).

Why is this, by the way? I've seen that mentioned a few times... can anyone explain?

(I.e., a TO for such an event, someone who's talked to a TO about such an event, or just someone who has thought about it...)

I'd really like to find out as well, never really been given a reason for it other than it made more work for the TO to check lists and/or they sounded scarier than just additional units

For a tournament allowing Forgeworld army lists compounds a lot of the issues and hurdles associated with allowing Forgeworld units.

First those lists are generally thematic for a set campaign in the IA book and are intended for campaign play.

Second, it is significantly easier to give a person a rules sheet for one or two units with the expectation they can figure it out in short order. It is more problematic to expect someone to read pages of army specific rules on the fly.

But the main issue is that while generally FW units get updated on a fairly regular basis. Those lists do not. So you end up with a DKOK army list that has a listing for a Hades Breaching drill, with set points and rules but then you got an update in another IA book with the most current version of the rules for the Hades Breaching drill along with likely updated rules for air support and a Thunderbolt in yet another book.

They generally are not over powered but the older the lists are the harder it becomes to sort it all out.

It is a bear to put together and maintain this list : http://www.adepticon.org/13rules/201340KIAApoc.pdf

I would not want to attempt doing it for more than just the unit listings and by “I” … I mean Yakface ..: )

Thanks for the fast answer, muwhe!

I disagree that most of the lists are thematic for a campaign, however, I do agree with the issue that those books include units that get updated in other books, and that would get out of hand. Especially if the FW player is unaware that it gets updated in a recent release book.

The issue of enclosed IA lists not being allowed is something I brought up a few pages ago. The last few IA books that included Xenos races mostly contained the new units in those lists (Eldar Corsairs and Dark Harvest Necrons). A few of the units can be used with their regular book counter-parts but majority cannot be taken. I realize that some Imperium races do the same (DKOK for example), but it's more prevalent on the side of the fence that already gets less units to begin with.

This kinda compounds the issue of IG just getting even more toys to play with. I'm not 100% against FW, but I think that if it were to be used, these lists should be legal just the same as all the other toys.

If anything I would think these lists are less problematic, as they are self contained.

For a variety of reasons I think overall the approach of Nova & Adepticon is the best one. GT's should be kept to Codex only, and then offer additional events with limited or full FW usage.

I hate the "elitism and hubris" of the argument that if I don't play against full FW, all the time I'm playing by house rules and not really "playing 40k".

I don't disagree with you. My point was more about the fact that the current "40k competitive" scene thinks they have all the answers at times. Which is demonstrated by some of the responses in the thread. Furthermore, if the argument is: Allowing full FW breaks the tournament scene...then I think the counter point to that I and others have said is: "how can you know that if you've got less than a handful of GTs that allow it and the only full way of knowing is to run full FW for a season and measure the results (and to universally decide when in fact, a season begins and ends). And finally, in a game that's always been unbalanced and balance never being a corner stone to the game...does allowing FW even matter at that point? Couldn't people just simply "enjoy the ride" and enjoy the game for what it is? However, the insistence of trying to turn it into a sporting event (Like Matthias stated earlier) runs contrary to that. :shrug:

 CaptKaruthors wrote:

I hate the "elitism and hubris" of the argument that if I don't play against full FW, all the time I'm playing by house rules and not really "playing 40k".

I don't disagree with you. My point was more about the fact that the current "40k competitive" scene thinks they have all the answers at times. Which is demonstrated by some of the responses in the thread. Furthermore, if the argument is: Allowing full FW breaks the tournament scene...then I think the counter point to that I and others have said is: "how can you know that if you've got less than a handful of GTs that allow it and the only full way of knowing is to run full FW for a season and measure the results (and to universally decide when in fact, a season begins and ends). And finally, in a game that's always been unbalanced and never has been a corner stone to the game...does allowing FW even matter at that point? Couldn't people just simply "enjoy the ride" and enjoy the game for what it is? However, the insistence of trying to turn it into a sporting event (Like Matthias stated earlier) runs contrary to that. :shrug:

People on the internet in general think they have all the answers all the time.

People on the internet in general think they have all the answers all the time.

Which is why I've said this thread has basically turned into: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fk6JJ875x20

Nobody is going to budge at this point. TOs always have the final say in what events they are presenting to the public and we as the public can vote for the legitimacy of said event with their dollars. Time to end the thread.

Thanks for Exalting!

(your post)

Capt, if you have nothing more to add, just don't post! On this very page, we got a response from the organizer of AdeptiCon on why they don't allow FW army lists in some events. It's very useful, so please, allow it to continue to be so rather than posting YouTube videos.

Capt, if you have nothing more to add, just don't post!

That's the best suggestion I've heard all day. And since nothing further can possibly be added to this discussion (even the humor of how circular it's become)...I'm out.

Did the Demons of Chaos army book have any impact on Fantasy at the end ot 7th edition?

I can never understand this altitude of not allowing others to field anything from Forge World because I can't afford them.

 Blackmoor wrote:
Did the Demons of Chaos army book have any impact on Fantasy at the end ot 7th edition?

Blackmoor, what do you mean? The new daemons book didn't hit until 8th edition fantasy was already out. The old book was absolutely dominant in 7th edition fantasy, though.

I apologize if I misunderstood your question.

 RiTides wrote:

 Blackmoor wrote:
Did the Demons of Chaos army book have any impact on Fantasy at the end ot 7th edition?

Blackmoor, what do you mean? The new daemons book didn't hit until 8th edition fantasy was already out. The old book was absolutely dominant in 7th edition fantasy, though.

I apologize if I misunderstood your question.

Some people are saying that we should allow FW and try it for a year to see how it goes.

If FW is as bad as some people think I was wondering what impact the old demon codex had on 7th edition fantasy. Since both are perceived to be overpowered we might try to draw a parallel to see what would happen to 40k .

Since I am not a fantasy player I have no idea what it did to the tournament scene over there.

Daemons had multiple issues in 7E fantasy, in fact largely had *every* issue, they were too cheap, too choppy, too magic-y, too fast, too tough, too ignoring of morale and unable to be broken, too able to break the enemy with morale, too often no lynchpin to concentrate against, etc. I initially started into Fantasy with Daemons and moved to Warriors in part because of this (also because I liked the Warrior models better).

I doubt that FW would make armies on anywhere near the same level. That said, even if they did, there were still several other armies that showed very strong during that time, Vampire Counts and Dark Elves and certain Warriors of Chaos builds, so it wasn't All Daemons all the Time, Daemons were just clearly on top.

We could also consider the impact Grey Knights followed by Necrons had on fifth edition.

Daemons were extremely discouraging at the end of 7th ed for me... but as I mostly played fantasy at that time, and not much 40k, I can't make much of a comparison.

I have to believe, though, that they were more dominant than any other book in recent memory. Scooter won AdeptiCon multiple times with daemons, and every event I heard of near me in Maryland... it was almost a forgone conclusion!

That said, as Vaktathi says, Vampire Counts and Dark Elves could compete, and just 1 WoC build (I believe it was chosenstar at the time) so it wasn't Only daemons... but daemons were indeed laughably overpowered. I would do almost anything to avoid a repeat of that, but if GW puts out a book that bad for fantasy, there's not much we could do about it.

For 40k, on the other hand, people could take them as allies and so at least might not need it to be their primary detachment.