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.

 Blackmoor wrote:
You can't please everyone and there is a sub set of both the pro-FW and the anti-FW crowd that wants only FW models.

Well, there's a subset of both crowds that want ALL units to be limited to the official model only. But if you take away the people who hate proxies/scratchbuilds in general I think you'll find that most of the remaining "only the real FW model" people are opposed to FW in general and want to make it harder to use, or only available for those who 'deserve' it.

 Dozer Blades wrote:
Personally I would be pissed to have to play versus converted models that count as FW unit(s).

Just wondering, but do you feel the same way about other units? For example, would you be upset at having to play against a proxy Helldrake?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Hulksmash wrote:
You might have missed my point. My lists don't beat people, even bad players, on turn 3. They generally win the last turn of the game. Give me FW and that's likely to change. I very well might start slamming people in turn 3-4 instead. Therefore it could be much less fun.

Do you really win the on the last turn of the game, or do you just make it official when your victory has been inevitable since a much earlier point in the game? IOW, do your opponents really have a 50/50 chance of winning right up until the end with relevant decisions to make, or do they just get to roll dice with the illusion that what they are doing matters?

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Hulksmash wrote:
You might have missed my point. My lists don't beat people, even bad players, on turn 3. They generally win the last turn of the game. Give me FW and that's likely to change. I very well might start slamming people in turn 3-4 instead. Therefore it could be much less fun.

Do you really win the on the last turn of the game, or do you just make it official when your victory has been inevitable since a much earlier point in the game? IOW, do your opponents really have a 50/50 chance of winning right up until the end with relevant decisions to make, or do they just get to roll dice with the illusion that what they are doing matters?

 Peregrine wrote:

 Blackmoor wrote:
You can't please everyone and there is a sub set of both the pro-FW and the anti-FW crowd that wants only FW models.

Well, there's a subset of both crowds that want ALL units to be limited to the official model only. But if you take away the people who hate proxies/scratchbuilds in general I think you'll find that most of the remaining "only the real FW model" people are opposed to FW in general and want to make it harder to use, or only available for those who 'deserve' it.

 Dozer Blades wrote:
Personally I would be pissed to have to play versus converted models that count as FW unit(s).

Just wondering, but do you feel the same way about other units? For example, would you be upset at having to play against a proxy Helldrake?

I'm wondering the same thing myself, since frankly, whether it's a Heldrake or a Dreadnought or a Contemptor, Rule of Cool should apply.

I would agree with that, if an event allows FW, and any other conversions, then FW conversions should be allowed. I would say that any conversion should be vetted by organizers as lazy conversions just for OP units should not be encouraged.

Breng77 wrote:
I would agree with that, if an event allows FW, and any other conversions, then FW conversions should be allowed. I would say that any conversion should be vetted by organizers as lazy conversions just for OP units should not be encouraged.

Seconded for the bolded part.

MVBrandt wrote:
You can pick on me, Red, but the event actually caters to the very things you've posted about wanting to see back in GT's in recent post-AdeptiCon posts. Judge not by the past, which I've rather humbly admitted my failings in on podcasts, forums, etc., but on the present now faced ... your comments have little relevance within that metric. The NOVA provides fair avenues for "top flight" competitors to compete, but the vast majority of the formatting, pairing, scoring, awards, etc., is directly catered to hobbyists and people who want to be able to compete without taking spammy hardcore lists.

You don't have to go one way or the other; to suggest you do is as silly as I was 4 years ago when I thought there was no choice.

This one time, at band camp, I was only just learning how to be inclusive as a TO. Openness, fairness, built on personal failures of a sort

Pretty great

And yeah, the black-and-white, All-FW-or-it's-not-truly-competitive is as silly as the "comp wars", imo. It doesn't have to be one or the other, that's the point! And it isn't. Did you see my fantasy example? Certain items are banned there all the time. This isn't pro sports and TOs absolutely have to make event-specific rulings on what to allow, rules clarifications, terrain types and placement, etc. There is no one "pro" way to play... That argument should never be used for either side, imo, it's meaningless.

Forgive the off topic for a minute, but one quick point:

 Blackmoor wrote:


Oh, and one more thing Mr. CV Tuttle (if that is your real name),

That's Carl Tuttle from the Independent Characters. He posts on here from time to time. He apparently has KR multicases scattered all over the house and just attended a painting master class with Mr. Justin of Secret Weapon Miniatures.


Now then, back to the thread already in progress.

 kronk wrote:
Forgive the off topic for a minute, but one quick point:

 Blackmoor wrote:


Oh, and one more thing Mr. CV Tuttle (if that is your real name),

That's Carl Tuttle from the Independent Characters. He posts on here from time to time. He apparently has KR multicases scattered all over the house and just attended a painting master class with Mr. Justin of Secret Weapon Miniatures.


Now then, back to the thread already in progress.

No big deal, of course.

Well, yeah. Obviously. But not everyone can be as handsome as me.

I don't have a problem with FW proxy models so long as they are close to what FW made, so you better be a good sculptor.

 RiTides wrote:

MVBrandt wrote:
You can pick on me, Red, but the event actually caters to the very things you've posted about wanting to see back in GT's in recent post-AdeptiCon posts. Judge not by the past, which I've rather humbly admitted my failings in on podcasts, forums, etc., but on the present now faced ... your comments have little relevance within that metric. The NOVA provides fair avenues for "top flight" competitors to compete, but the vast majority of the formatting, pairing, scoring, awards, etc., is directly catered to hobbyists and people who want to be able to compete without taking spammy hardcore lists.

You don't have to go one way or the other; to suggest you do is as silly as I was 4 years ago when I thought there was no choice.

This one time, at band camp, I was only just learning how to be inclusive as a TO. Openness, fairness, built on personal failures of a sort

Pretty great

And yeah, the black-and-white, All-FW-or-it's-not-truly-competitive is as silly as the "comp wars", imo. It doesn't have to be one or the other, that's the point! And it isn't. Did you see my fantasy example? Certain items are banned there all the time. This isn't pro sports and TOs absolutely have to make event-specific rulings on what to allow, rules clarifications, terrain types and placement, etc. There is no one "pro" way to play... That argument should never be used for either side, imo, it's meaningless.

Indeed, kudos to MV for moderating his position based on paying attendee feedback. I remember having discussions years back asking why he was devoting so much time catering to the 5% of people in the final four nakedly at the expense of the 50% players in the "I lost my first game" lower bracket. Unlike what intolerant comp haters and FW lovers would have you believe, there is a huge and varied middle ground between the binary black and white yes or no positions. I both allow and use limited FW models in my armies but I respect my fellow players enough to simply ask ahead of time as instructed in most FW books. I'll advocate my position strongly (but I don't tend to use any models considered "cheesey" except for a single contemptor) but ultimately if the person doesn't budge at all I have a back up plan (my contemptor is a venerable dread instead). If they don't want to allow the codex substition as well as refuse to allow the wywsiwig FW rules, I simply opt to not play that particular game. I'm glad that some of the bigger named tournaments have opted for the middle ground as well.

Enigwolf wrote:[I'm wondering the same thing myself, since frankly, whether it's a Heldrake or a Dreadnought or a Contemptor, Rule of Cool should apply.

Breng77 wrote:I would agree with that, if an event allows FW, and any other conversions, then FW conversions should be allowed. I would say that any conversion should be vetted by organizers as lazy conversions just for OP units should not be encouraged.

Both of these are on the assumption that the conversion is "cool" or done well. In the case of the quadgun sabre platforms, they were about a 1/3 the size of the actual model. When it comes to conversions you can not model for advantage. What we see is gamers slapping together rough counts-as type conversions to exploit poorly balanced FW rules as opposed to casual gamers wanting to use their extensive collections.

 Darkness wrote:

What we see is gamers slapping together rough counts-as type conversions to exploit poorly balanced FW rules as opposed to casual gamers wanting to use their extensive collections.

I'm not sure that's accurate. What you see in the top-ten finish lists is gamers slapping together rough counts-as conversions to exploit poorly balanced FW rules. I'm sure that if you look over the rest of the field, you'll see a good handful of blight drones, decimators, tetras, hornets and their like - perfectly reasonable models, not unbalanced, and being enjoyed by the casual players who brought them.

 Darkness wrote:

Enigwolf wrote:[I'm wondering the same thing myself, since frankly, whether it's a Heldrake or a Dreadnought or a Contemptor, Rule of Cool should apply.

Breng77 wrote:I would agree with that, if an event allows FW, and any other conversions, then FW conversions should be allowed. I would say that any conversion should be vetted by organizers as lazy conversions just for OP units should not be encouraged.

Both of these are on the assumption that the conversion is "cool" or done well. In the case of the quadgun sabre platforms, they were about a 1/3 the size of the actual model. When it comes to conversions you can not model for advantage. What we see is gamers slapping together rough counts-as type conversions to exploit poorly balanced FW rules as opposed to casual gamers wanting to use their extensive collections.

Oh. That's not cool. That's like modelling a Land Raider to be 1/3 the size of the actual Land Raider. MFA much.

 Darkness wrote:

Enigwolf wrote:[I'm wondering the same thing myself, since frankly, whether it's a Heldrake or a Dreadnought or a Contemptor, Rule of Cool should apply.

Breng77 wrote:I would agree with that, if an event allows FW, and any other conversions, then FW conversions should be allowed. I would say that any conversion should be vetted by organizers as lazy conversions just for OP units should not be encouraged.

Both of these are on the assumption that the conversion is "cool" or done well. In the case of the quadgun sabre platforms, they were about a 1/3 the size of the actual model. When it comes to conversions you can not model for advantage. What we see is gamers slapping together rough counts-as type conversions to exploit poorly balanced FW rules as opposed to casual gamers wanting to use their extensive collections.

You also seem to have failed to read the end of the section you quoted from me where the TO vets the conversions to stop "half -@$$ed" conversions. In addition most events have policies governing MFA. Which ammount to you gain no advantge from being a different model but accept every disadvantage. Os if you are half the size of the model, you lose the LOS benefits for shooting, but do not gain benefits from being smaller (25% cover, being outside of LOS.)

Essentially it is just as likely someone will make a half baked conversion of a codex unit, so they should be getting approved anyway.

I am fine with conversion even though I have a lot of forgeworld and lots of "forged" world (eBay buys from china/eastern Europe). The conversions should look good not drain pipe drop pod quality.

 skkipper wrote:
I am fine with conversion even though I have a lot of forgeworld and lots of "forged" world (eBay buys from china/eastern Europe). The conversions should look good not drain pipe drop pod quality.

I prefer the term Forgery World for those particular kits.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Blackmoor wrote:
You can't please everyone and there is a sub set of both the pro-FW and the anti-FW crowd that wants only FW models.

 Dozer Blades wrote:
Personally I would be pissed to have to play versus converted models that count as FW unit(s).

Just wondering, but do you feel the same way about other units? For example, would you be upset at having to play against a proxy Helldrake?

Definitely if it looks like balls.

Forgeworld is here to stay in tournaments. And it is only going to get bigger and more popular as FW and GW expand.

So Blackmoor got tabled by a FW heavy list.... Waaaaahhh, let's whine about it on a dakka forum. Guess what, it is not going to change.

The FW units provide an excellent equalizer for many armies, and keep the "Codex of the Month" crap from GW in check.

More options is a good thing! I think FW inclusion spices things up quite a bit.

 warboss wrote:
Indeed, kudos to MV for moderating his position based on paying attendee feedback. I remember having discussions years back asking why he was devoting so much time catering to the 5% of people in the final four nakedly at the expense of the 50% players in the "I lost my first game" lower bracket. Unlike what intolerant comp haters and FW lovers would have you believe, there is a huge and varied middle ground between the binary black and white yes or no positions. I both allow and use limited FW models in my armies but I respect my fellow players enough to simply ask ahead of time as instructed in most FW books. I'll advocate my position strongly (but I don't tend to use any models considered "cheesey" except for a single contemptor) but ultimately if the person doesn't budge at all I have a back up plan (my contemptor is a venerable dread instead). If they don't want to allow the codex substition as well as refuse to allow the wywsiwig FW rules, I simply opt to not play that particular game. I'm glad that some of the bigger named tournaments have opted for the middle ground as well.

Fantastic post!

 Redbeard wrote:

 Darkness wrote:

What we see is gamers slapping together rough counts-as type conversions to exploit poorly balanced FW rules as opposed to casual gamers wanting to use their extensive collections.

I'm not sure that's accurate. What you see in the top-ten finish lists is gamers slapping together rough counts-as conversions to exploit poorly balanced FW rules. I'm sure that if you look over the rest of the field, you'll see a good handful of blight drones, decimators, tetras, hornets and their like - perfectly reasonable models, not unbalanced, and being enjoyed by the casual players who brought them.

And in that case, I highly doubt the rest of the field would mind a few restrictions that limit the "gamers slapping together rough counts-as conversions to exploit poorly balanced FW rules" from exploiting them. Middle ground, as warboss says so eloquently in the post I quoted above.

Relic07 wrote:
Forgeworld is here to stay in tournaments. And it is only going to get bigger and more popular as FW and GW expand.

So Blackmoor got tabled by a FW heavy list.... Waaaaahhh, let's whine about it on a dakka forum. Guess what, it is not going to change.

The FW units provide an excellent equalizer for many armies, and keep the "Codex of the Month" crap from GW in check.

If by provide an excellent equalizer you mean, take ig allies, then yes you are right. Also the idea that FW is here to stay is false. It is here to stay in some events and not here at all in others.

Breng77 wrote:

Relic07 wrote:
Forgeworld is here to stay in tournaments. And it is only going to get bigger and more popular as FW and GW expand.

So Blackmoor got tabled by a FW heavy list.... Waaaaahhh, let's whine about it on a dakka forum. Guess what, it is not going to change.

The FW units provide an excellent equalizer for many armies, and keep the "Codex of the Month" crap from GW in check.

If by provide an excellent equalizer you mean, take ig allies, then yes you are right. Also the idea that FW is here to stay is false. It is here to stay in some events and not here at all in others.

Compared to a couple of years ago? The trend is that FW is seeing more inclusion each year in events. I think he was making a safe assumption in that "it would be here to stay".

...while completely invalidating anything else he might have said with personal attacks.

Seriously, insults are not going to help in a debate like this. At least, they're not going to sway anyone who didn't already agree with you. There's been a lot of reasoned discussion in this thread... it's a shame you're refusing to take part in that.

I will even agree with you that at the beginning of the thread, Blackmoor may have been painting the situation in the opposite light and with a similar tone. But simply posting "FW is here to stay" followed by attacking the OP... as I said, completely ruins any argument you might have been trying to make.

 RiTides wrote:

And in that case, I highly doubt the rest of the field would mind a few restrictions that limit the "gamers slapping together rough counts-as conversions to exploit poorly balanced FW rules" from exploiting them. Middle ground, as warboss says so eloquently in the post I quoted above.

Thanks. I've largely stayed out of the discussion because I'm not a tourney gamer at all now (largely because I simply don't play 40k except for maybe once a season at best) but MVBrandt's post surprised and impressed me. I've always been annoyed by the ignorant peripherally related comments that pop up derailing threads about the legality of FW products (as well as the sigs that spout the same crap about not playing "real" 40k if you "house rule" no FW) as they simply ignore the muddled rules on the matter as well as completely go against the reality of life that some imagined moral high ground of "everything FW is legal/overpowered regardless of your view!!" can prevent people from simply NOT playing against you.

The reality is that a blanket denial of FW rules and models does indeed inconvience some gamers who have primarily FW armies built around rules that are largely no different on the power per points scale than what you'd find in a codex.

The reality is that a blanket allowance of FW rules and models does indeed inconvience some gamers who have to play on a very unlevel field against armies made designed specifically to capitalize on a small number of badly balanced and overpowered FW models.

If anything, the "pro unlimited FW" camp (like the anti-comp camp) seems intent on campaigning vocally against any sort of middle ground at events THEY HAVE NO INTENT TO EVER ATTEND... whereas the "anti" FW camp seems content to by and large simply not attend FW allowing events. There is a huge reasonable middle ground that the two positions and coy sigs ignore the existance of. This whole discussion reminds me of a situation with a player in an old RPG campaign of mine that was constantly advocating the allowance of a book from a different D&D universe. He kept talking about how great that universe was and how the diversity of backgrounds, races, and builds would really enhance our campaign. I ended up capitulating and the end effect was not him building a character that took advantage of all that but simply taking a broken feat for his existing character that did something much better than the "core" 3.5 feat he already had access to but didn't choose. For every poor DKOK player out there who just wants to use his models, there are (from my experience) a half dozen people who just want their regular drop pods (or spray painted gatorade bottles) to allow their dreads to charge you on the turn they come in.

There are plenty of things that TOs can do (as well as friendly game players) that don't screw over reasonable players of either type completely. My advice is to simply require the actual FW models (no conversions.. sorry... your spare IG heavy bolter and left over sprue mashup is out) as well as legal physical versions of the most recent FW rules (whether the books or print outs of the free updates from FW to the old books). While that technically only discourages less affluent people who want to (ab)use certain model rules, it nonetheless reasonably requires people to do what they should and gets rid of a significant portion of the (ab)using crowd (like the Dreadnought drop pod represented by a solo cup or regular drop pod). No off-scaled bits conversions with pirated PDF printouts of 1 page. Another reasonable restriction is to limit one FW 40k entry per primary detachment of codex armies (none in allies forces) and require preapproval of FW only armies containing actual FW models (like elysians in an elysian list but not "flying" cadians). A combo of those steps won't unnecessarily inconvience most "fluff" players but will weed out most people (but admittedly not all) or severely limt those who simply want to use the minority of broken items.

There is as stated before a huge middle ground that most friendly games as well as tournies can occupy that is completely ignored by zealots on both sides and I'm glad to see the vast and previously silent middle ground finally pushing back in this thread.

I don't even think that requiring the actual models is all that discriminatory in regards to price and affluence anymore, as GW's prices rapidly approach parity and in some cases exceed FW models prices, whether FW is more expensive or not is on a case by case basis now. GW Tau Broadsides aren't any cheaper than FW Tau Hazard suits, while there are FW Terminator characters that are cheaper than the plastic HQ units GW is now putting out, and Death Korps infantry are cheaper than Dire Avengers are now

Sure, some FW stuff remains expensive, but by no means is Forgeworld always more expensive than normal GW releases.


That said I'm still all for conversions and whatnot, but obviously they should at the very least be subject to judges approval and evidence extensive labor and care in their creation, done not to be cheap but to provide a more appropriate/thematic/cooler look, as opposed to being 4 plasticard tubes done over with a bit of boltgun metal for a Thudd gun or some lascannon bits stuck to a plastic Pizza Table for a Sabre battery .

 Enigwolf wrote:

Breng77 wrote:

Relic07 wrote:
Forgeworld is here to stay in tournaments. And it is only going to get bigger and more popular as FW and GW expand.

So Blackmoor got tabled by a FW heavy list.... Waaaaahhh, let's whine about it on a dakka forum. Guess what, it is not going to change.

The FW units provide an excellent equalizer for many armies, and keep the "Codex of the Month" crap from GW in check.

If by provide an excellent equalizer you mean, take ig allies, then yes you are right. Also the idea that FW is here to stay is false. It is here to stay in some events and not here at all in others.

Compared to a couple of years ago? The trend is that FW is seeing more inclusion each year in events. I think he was making a safe assumption in that "it would be here to stay".

So as opposed to almost no inclusion we have some events with FW now it must be here to stay in all events?

There has been lots of good discussion in this thread. I think it has been very useful. It seems like Forge World is gaining more acceptance this year at the tournament level. It is up to the TOs who run the big events to help facilitate the acceptance and show that it can work. Sure some people are dead set against it but that happens with anything. Blackmoor has played at Adepticon for years and I don't seem to remember him ever making a fuss about it there.

Because FW is not included in the events he plays. I don't think he has an issue with separate FW events

warboss wrote:
If anything, the "pro unlimited FW" camp (like the anti-comp camp) seems intent on campaigning vocally against any sort of middle ground at events THEY HAVE NO INTENT TO EVER ATTEND... whereas the "anti" FW camp seems content to by and large simply not attend FW allowing events.

I don't see it like that at all, and it shows a bit of a bias that this is how you choose to portray it. We don't have a separate thread for each event that may or may not allow FW. As such, if I want to put forth the arguments for why FW should be allowed, I have to do it here, in the general thread. The fact that I may end up not attending some events doesn't change that. On the other hand, there is a vocal group of anti-FWers who seem to relish the idea of telling TOs that if they don't get their way, they won't attend the event.

Yeah, you can spin it that way too.

There is a huge reasonable middle ground that the two positions and coy sigs ignore the existance of.

No one is ignoring it, it's just not an interesting intellectual discussion. The TOs posting here have already figured out middle grounds that work for them. Should we all just agree that they can choose to run their events in different ways and then just all stop posting at the same time? Boring...

... For every poor DKOK player out there who just wants to use his models, there are (from my experience) a half dozen people who just want their regular drop pods (or spray painted gatorade bottles) to allow their dreads to charge you on the turn they come in.

Well, what's wrong with that. It's not like their CC dreads are of any value in a competitive setting otherwise

 Vaktathi wrote:
I don't even think that requiring the actual models is all that discriminatory in regards to price and affluence anymore, as GW's prices rapidly approach parity and in some cases exceed FW models prices, whether FW is more expensive or not is on a case by case basis now. GW Tau Broadsides aren't any cheaper than FW Tau Hazard suits, while there are FW Terminator characters that are cheaper than the plastic HQ units GW is now putting out, and Death Korps infantry are cheaper than Dire Avengers are now

Sure, some FW stuff remains expensive, but by no means is Forgeworld always more expensive than normal GW releases.

Better comparison, 10 metal Kasrkins vs 10 DKoK Grenadiers, the Kasrkins are about 9$ cheaper, not a whole lot, and it was closer when the Canadian dollar was stronger (under 5$, IIRC) and now that they're troops...