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.

You have absolutely no business banning Forgeworld models. The rules are written by professional game designers, and are official Warhammer 40,000 rules per the Forgeworld books.

TO's are not professional game designers, and should not be tampering with the game rules. The codex balance and unit power is determined by GW and FW alone. Tampering with it is essentially nerfing an army, which is neither fare nor appropriate.

Codex and army power ebbs and flows. It's just the way it is. Chaos 3.5, Orks 4.0, and Grey Knights 5.0 all dominated when they came out. Not anymore. The game is in a constant state of refinement.

GW, FW, and the official play testers are constantly reading the forums and tournament results. They know exactly what is going on with the game. They knew exactly what they were doing when they changed the artillery rules in 6th edition, and they also knew precisely what units (GW & FW) would benefit from these rules. They are professionals. It is what they do for a living all day.

If GW & or FW wants game or unit rule changes implemented, they will issue official FAQ's or change the rules in an upcoming version of the game.

TO's can and will run events with no comp, with comp, with no FW, with FW... whatever they please. It's their event, and GW takes no part in it. They explicitly stopped supporting any events. So, the TOs make the final call for their own events.

If you don't like that, you can run your own... but good luck using only their own official FAQs and making no rulings of your own of any kind. I think you'll find many rulings are quite necessary just to make the event work... as demonstrated by the extensive information / player packets / etc put out by the TOs of all the major tournaments.

dlight wrote:
You have absolutely no business banning Forgeworld models. The rules are written by professional game designers, and are official Warhammer 40,000 rules per the Forgeworld books.

TO's are not professional game designers, and should not be tampering with the game rules. The codex balance and unit power is determined by GW and FW alone. Tampering with it is essentially nerfing an army, which is neither fare nor appropriate.

GW, FW, and the official play testers are constantly reading the forums and tournament results. They know exactly what is going on with the game. They knew exactly what they were doing when they changed the artillery rules in 6th edition, and they also knew precisely what units (GW & FW) would benefit from these rules. They are professionals. It is what they do for a living all day.

ahahahahahaha

please tell me you're not serious

no one can be this blind

@redbeard: 7/10

Had me going for a second but it was too well written and didn't have enough personal attacks.

 RiTides wrote:
TO's can and will run events with no comp, with comp, with no FW, with FW... whatever they please. It's their event, and GW takes no part in it. They explicitly stopped supporting any events. So, the TOs make the final call for their own events.

If you don't like that, you can run your own... but good luck using only their own official FAQs and making no rulings of your own of any kind. I think you'll find many rulings are quite necessary just to make the event work... as demonstrated by the extensive information / player packets / etc put out by the TOs of all the major tournaments.

They write the rules to their game. Contrary to internet belief, the rules work just fine as is.
Some of the grey areas not covered by a FAQ are a different story. That has nothing to do with banning\limiting different options.

So let's do this:

Necrons: no more than 1 squad wraiths. no more than 1 annihilation barge, no more than 2 scythes.

Grey Knights: no more than 5 Paladins total

Tau: no more than 5 crisis suits

CSM: no more than 1 Heldrake

The rules are written the way they are for a reason. You change the options available to 1 army, and it drastically upsets the balance of the entire game. 1 small rule change can have this effect.

Leave the rules alone (outside any needed FAQ clarification), or go create your own miniature game.

dlight wrote:

The rules are written the way they are for a reason. *SNIP*

Leave the rules alone (outside any needed FAQ clarification), or go create your own miniature game.

Clearly you haven't ever bothered reading "The Most Important Rule" as changing the rules is part of the rules.

He is the rule nazi...No rules for you!!!

In all seriousness, do tournaments NEED FW? No... They NEED people willing to play whatever format the tournament is running. Other than that, it's all up to the TOs and players that support those events.

What you THINK the 40k rules are is irrelevant because a TO can and has every right to change any rule in any way as there are many "house" rules in play in many events I go to and it works out well. If I don't like those rules/ways of running an event, I don't go.

To be fair, Tournaments are already a style of play that the game isn't intended or written for, and they way they already operate generally is outside the scope of the rules (e.g. the rules say nothing about a time limit). TO's, generally by necessity, are writing rules for the game and playing it in a manner that the writers didn't intend (again, for instance, time limits).

That said, for me, above and beyond anything else, is how whatever becomes standard at tournaments quickly becomes the standard for local event gaming and pickup play, whether such players attend these events or not.

If tournaments commonly restricted or banned, oh say, Codex: Eldar, then getting pickup games with an Eldar army would become more difficult in many places and many local events would follow suit. When GW banned the Kroot Mercs list and Armored Company Chapter Approved rules from Grand Tournaments, these armies quickly became persona non grata at local tournaments and pickup games, despite GW never having said anything about them outside of GT's.

The opening up of FW in the larger Southern California tournaments has helped drive a great explosion of FW units and armies in Southern California clubs and FLGS events and pickup games. This has been wonderful, and I've yet to see anyone spamming Sabres or any of the like. I'd really like to see this trend continue.

My fear is restriction of such will continue to drive a perception that all FW stuff is sillyness like Titans or that they're all powergaming broken units, etc when really you can count on one hand the number of units people have any issue with and largely only with certain weapon loadouts, and their power relative to codex options is often debateable and/or dependent on what else is included with them.

dlight wrote:
You have absolutely no business banning Forgeworld models. The rules are written by professional game designers, and are official Warhammer 40,000 rules per the Forgeworld books.

TO's are not professional game designers, and should not be tampering with the game rules. The codex balance and unit power is determined by GW and FW alone. Tampering with it is essentially nerfing an army, which is neither fare nor appropriate.

Codex and army power ebbs and flows. It's just the way it is. Chaos 3.5, Orks 4.0, and Grey Knights 5.0 all dominated when they came out. Not anymore. The game is in a constant state of refinement.

GW, FW, and the official play testers are constantly reading the forums and tournament results. They know exactly what is going on with the game. They knew exactly what they were doing when they changed the artillery rules in 6th edition, and they also knew precisely what units (GW & FW) would benefit from these rules. They are professionals. It is what they do for a living all day.

If GW & or FW wants game or unit rule changes implemented, they will issue official FAQ's or change the rules in an upcoming version of the game.

So you mean ha gw play tester who play test the game without fw? Gw who doesn't care at all about tournaments? Fw who playtests mostly in a campaign style? I would wager that gw did not take fw into account with any 6th Ed rules. There is no evidence that supports this or really supports any collaboration between he two.

As has been said tos change plenty of things about the game to fit it into a tournament format. FAQ grey areas, tweak missions, add time limits, add overall scoring, leave out mysterious terrain/objectives, pre-place terrain.....

So your argument holds no water.

I agree with the sentiment above that banning fw can reduce its acceptance which is why I believe in ln limited fw, it will allow people to slowly become accustom and help to reduce negative experiences that will drive fw back out of events.

 Vaktathi wrote:
To be fair, Tournaments are already a style of play that the game isn't intended or written for, and they way they already operate generally is outside the scope of the rules (e.g. the rules say nothing about a time limit). TO's, generally by necessity, are writing rules for the game and playing it in a manner that the writers didn't intend (again, for instance, time limits).

Thank you for bringing this up, as I think a lot of people overlook it. It's very unusual to complain about a specific unit as being too influential on the rules when it is not uncommon for tournament games to finish early. Not only is this a drawback to close combat and horde armies, which are unplayable if the opponent takes their time, but it also guarantees both players will know what turn the game will end. Those are extremely disruptive changes to the way games are supposed to be played. Throw in the lack of proper terrain density at most tournaments, and you have a meta balance that shifts towards certain builds in a way that is much more drastic than the existence of a few powerful units.

Terrain density at most event I attend is good and timelimits are a necessary evil for an event to finish on time. If one game takes 5 hours and everyone else finishes in 2 you have large issues.

dlight wrote:
You have absolutely no business banning Forgeworld models. The rules are written by professional game designers, and are official Warhammer 40,000 rules per the Forgeworld books.

TO's are not professional game designers, and should not be tampering with the game rules. The codex balance and unit power is determined by GW and FW alone. Tampering with it is essentially nerfing an army, which is neither fare nor appropriate.

Codex and army power ebbs and flows. It's just the way it is. Chaos 3.5, Orks 4.0, and Grey Knights 5.0 all dominated when they came out. Not anymore. The game is in a constant state of refinement.

GW, FW, and the official play testers are constantly reading the forums and tournament results. They know exactly what is going on with the game. They knew exactly what they were doing when they changed the artillery rules in 6th edition, and they also knew precisely what units (GW & FW) would benefit from these rules. They are professionals. It is what they do for a living all day.

If GW & or FW wants game or unit rule changes implemented, they will issue official FAQ's or change the rules in an upcoming version of the game.

There is a reason GW no longer supports events. They have made it clear that their game has nothing to do with COMPETITION. Therefore tournaments do need to make some changes in order to create a more competitive game. I'm not saying that this necessarily entails outright bans of units, but there are some changes to be made that make the game feel less like a game of chance (i.e. no random objective values, no D3+2 objectives being placed by players, no mysterious terrain). Play the NOVA format for a couple of games, see what you think. I found it to be a much more "competitive" type of format than what is available in the books (where First Blood or winning objective placement often seems to correlate directly to the outcome).

 LValx wrote:

dlight wrote:
You have absolutely no business banning Forgeworld models. The rules are written by professional game designers, and are official Warhammer 40,000 rules per the Forgeworld books.

TO's are not professional game designers, and should not be tampering with the game rules. The codex balance and unit power is determined by GW and FW alone. Tampering with it is essentially nerfing an army, which is neither fare nor appropriate.

Codex and army power ebbs and flows. It's just the way it is. Chaos 3.5, Orks 4.0, and Grey Knights 5.0 all dominated when they came out. Not anymore. The game is in a constant state of refinement.

GW, FW, and the official play testers are constantly reading the forums and tournament results. They know exactly what is going on with the game. They knew exactly what they were doing when they changed the artillery rules in 6th edition, and they also knew precisely what units (GW & FW) would benefit from these rules. They are professionals. It is what they do for a living all day.

If GW & or FW wants game or unit rule changes implemented, they will issue official FAQ's or change the rules in an upcoming version of the game.

There is a reason GW no longer supports events. They have made it clear that their game has nothing to do with COMPETITION. Therefore tournaments do need to make some changes in order to create a more competitive game. I'm not saying that this necessarily entails outright bans of units, but there are some changes to be made that make the game feel less like a game of chance (i.e. no random objective values, no D3+2 objectives being placed by players, no mysterious terrain). Play the NOVA format for a couple of games, see what you think. I found it to be a much more "competitive" type of format than what is available in the books (where First Blood or winning objective placement often seems to correlate directly to the outcome).

GW has given up on events, because they can't perfectly balance the game. It's impossible with the amount of armies & codexes. But they try to get close, and 6th edition is in a healthy state overall.

Adding a few FAQ entries for grey areas or creating alternate missions is COMPLETELY different than limiting or omitting valid army entries. Don't try to muddy the water by grouping them all together.
The devil is in the details, and 40K (especially 6th Ed) is very subtle. A +1\-1 modifier can be absolutely game changing.

You'll actually find that faqs on units or making alternate missions is not all that different than omitting units why it comes to army selection. Your insistence that Gw and FW are on the same page when it comes to game design has never been show to be true. In fact I would have just as strong an argument if I said Gw did not play test 6th Ed with any FW and thus it should be left home because it was not accounted for in the rules changes.

Further Gw has never been know to make balance rules changes in faqs on a regular basis. So stating they will is just silly.

dlight wrote:

 LValx wrote:

dlight wrote:
You have absolutely no business banning Forgeworld models. The rules are written by professional game designers, and are official Warhammer 40,000 rules per the Forgeworld books.

TO's are not professional game designers, and should not be tampering with the game rules. The codex balance and unit power is determined by GW and FW alone. Tampering with it is essentially nerfing an army, which is neither fare nor appropriate.

Codex and army power ebbs and flows. It's just the way it is. Chaos 3.5, Orks 4.0, and Grey Knights 5.0 all dominated when they came out. Not anymore. The game is in a constant state of refinement.

GW, FW, and the official play testers are constantly reading the forums and tournament results. They know exactly what is going on with the game. They knew exactly what they were doing when they changed the artillery rules in 6th edition, and they also knew precisely what units (GW & FW) would benefit from these rules. They are professionals. It is what they do for a living all day.

If GW & or FW wants game or unit rule changes implemented, they will issue official FAQ's or change the rules in an upcoming version of the game.

There is a reason GW no longer supports events. They have made it clear that their game has nothing to do with COMPETITION. Therefore tournaments do need to make some changes in order to create a more competitive game. I'm not saying that this necessarily entails outright bans of units, but there are some changes to be made that make the game feel less like a game of chance (i.e. no random objective values, no D3+2 objectives being placed by players, no mysterious terrain). Play the NOVA format for a couple of games, see what you think. I found it to be a much more "competitive" type of format than what is available in the books (where First Blood or winning objective placement often seems to correlate directly to the outcome).

GW has given up on events, because they can't perfectly balance the game. It's impossible with the amount of armies & codexes. But they try to get close, and 6th edition is in a healthy state overall.

Adding a few FAQ entries for grey areas or creating alternate missions is COMPLETELY different than limiting or omitting valid army entries. Don't try to muddy the water by grouping them all together.
The devil is in the details, and 40K (especially 6th Ed) is very subtle. A +1\-1 modifier can be absolutely game changing.

You say 6th edition is in a healthy state overall. What do you base that off of? Your FLGS? Or tournaments? If it's tournaments that you are basing this off of then its important to note that more GTs have had FW restrictions or bans than have had full acceptance of FW. So we really have no idea how healthy 6th would be with FW. Once again, i'm not taking a particular stance here, just giving food for thought.

The Heldrake FAQ is all the proof that I need to say that GW does not care AT ALL about game balance (not to mention the fact that it makes very little sense from a financial standpoint, considering Marines are their most popular product).

GW doesn't care about game balance for competition, I honestly believe that. So while GW may endorse full acceptance of FW, that doesn't mean the competitive scene ought to do so blindly without first considering the impact it would have.

If you are willing to alter the missions or have third party FAQs, you should also be open to the idea of FW limitations. Both are modifications to the core ruleset.

 LValx wrote:
If you are willing to alter the missions or have third party FAQs, you should also be open to the idea of FW limitations. Both are modifications to the core ruleset.

It's not really the same at all. New missions are encouraged by the core rules, and the six standard missions are clearly presented as being just a generic set you can use if you just want an easy pickup game. Third-party FAQs are not supported by the rules, but a good third-party FAQ also doesn't contradict those rules, it just does offers the minimum clarification to prevent rule arguments. FW bans (or other unit bans/changes), on the other hand, directly contradict the standard rules. And, most importantly, they directly contradict those rules in a way that excludes people from participating. New missions and third-party FAQs don't invalidate perfectly legal (according to GW) armies, FW bans do.

And of course the real problem here is that we have blanket bans on FW to resolve a small number of "problem" units, while the thought of (for example) revoking the Helldrake FAQ and making the flamer a hull-mounted weapon is just unacceptable. It isn't a consistent standard about what kind of changes should be made to the rules to improve competitive play, and often seems to be little more than "I don't like X, therefore you can't use it".

One thing I have seen come up lately in regards to FW is confusion about what rules to use for units prior to them being updated upon the release of new codices. Furthermore they require a good deal more effort (and perhaps money) by TOs to learn the rules in order to judge effectively as units often appear in more than one FW book I would need to go through and identify which was most recent, inform my players (who may or may not know) etc.

dlight wrote:
You have absolutely no business banning Forgeworld models. The rules are written by professional game designers, and are official Warhammer 40,000 rules per the Forgeworld books.

TO's are not professional game designers, and should not be tampering with the game rules. The codex balance and unit power is determined by GW and FW alone. Tampering with it is essentially nerfing an army, which is neither fare nor appropriate.

Codex and army power ebbs and flows. It's just the way it is. Chaos 3.5, Orks 4.0, and Grey Knights 5.0 all dominated when they came out. Not anymore. The game is in a constant state of refinement.

GW, FW, and the official play testers are constantly reading the forums and tournament results. They know exactly what is going on with the game. They knew exactly what they were doing when they changed the artillery rules in 6th edition, and they also knew precisely what units (GW & FW) would benefit from these rules. They are professionals. It is what they do for a living all day.

If GW & or FW wants game or unit rule changes implemented, they will issue official FAQ's or change the rules in an upcoming version of the game.

There is some really funny stuff here, starting with this guy telling people how to run their tournaments.

Does he really believe the design studio knows wtf which way is up and which way is down. GW has NEVER had their act together when it comes to writing fantasy or whfb rules, keeping things screwy is part of the sales and marketing plan.

I would be willing to bet there are more posts in this crazy thread than the sum total of ForgeWorld models that have been used in tournaments in North America so far this year.

JWhex wrote:
GW has NEVER had their act together when it comes to writing fantasy

Gotrek and Felix disagree with the above statement. It's not as edgy as Game of Thrones, sure, but sometimes I like to read fantasy for entertainment rather than essays discussing the flaws of the human condition.

On-topic, Sisters aren't generally considered tourney-competitive, so the fact that 25% of their tanks and 100% of their flyers are FW tends to be overlooked when discussing Forgeworld's impact (positive or negative) on tournament balance. Personally, I like the option to field the SoB FW models, but I guarantee that if any TO said "No Forgeworld for the real Codices, but Sisters can field Repressors", someone would claim that the inclusion of said Repressors would shatter the delicate balance of the game and make Sisters of Battle unbeatable and broken.

Mythal wrote:

On-topic, Sisters aren't generally considered tourney-competitive, so the fact that 25% of their tanks and 100% of their flyers are FW tends to be overlooked when discussing Forgeworld's impact (positive or negative) on tournament balance. Personally, I like the option to field the SoB FW models, but I guarantee that if any TO said "No Forgeworld for the real Codices, but Sisters can field Repressors", someone would claim that the inclusion of said Repressors would shatter the delicate balance of the game and make Sisters of Battle unbeatable and broken.

I don't think anyone's complaining about the use of FW models, only FW units that are found typically in the IA books.

dlight wrote:

 LValx wrote:

dlight wrote:
You have absolutely no business banning Forgeworld models. The rules are written by professional game designers, and are official Warhammer 40,000 rules per the Forgeworld books.

TO's are not professional game designers, and should not be tampering with the game rules. The codex balance and unit power is determined by GW and FW alone. Tampering with it is essentially nerfing an army, which is neither fare nor appropriate.

Codex and army power ebbs and flows. It's just the way it is. Chaos 3.5, Orks 4.0, and Grey Knights 5.0 all dominated when they came out. Not anymore. The game is in a constant state of refinement.

GW, FW, and the official play testers are constantly reading the forums and tournament results. They know exactly what is going on with the game. They knew exactly what they were doing when they changed the artillery rules in 6th edition, and they also knew precisely what units (GW & FW) would benefit from these rules. They are professionals. It is what they do for a living all day.

If GW & or FW wants game or unit rule changes implemented, they will issue official FAQ's or change the rules in an upcoming version of the game.

There is a reason GW no longer supports events. They have made it clear that their game has nothing to do with COMPETITION. Therefore tournaments do need to make some changes in order to create a more competitive game. I'm not saying that this necessarily entails outright bans of units, but there are some changes to be made that make the game feel less like a game of chance (i.e. no random objective values, no D3+2 objectives being placed by players, no mysterious terrain). Play the NOVA format for a couple of games, see what you think. I found it to be a much more "competitive" type of format than what is available in the books (where First Blood or winning objective placement often seems to correlate directly to the outcome).

GW has given up on events, because they can't perfectly balance the game. It's impossible with the amount of armies & codexes. But they try to get close, and 6th edition is in a healthy state overall.

Adding a few FAQ entries for grey areas or creating alternate missions is COMPLETELY different than limiting or omitting valid army entries. Don't try to muddy the water by grouping them all together.
The devil is in the details, and 40K (especially 6th Ed) is very subtle. A +1\-1 modifier can be absolutely game changing.

OK so rather than disregard your statements as GW pandering i'm going to ask you two questions to prove a point:

Do YOU play in a non-compt tournament condition on a regular basis?

And, In those tournaments do you see all armybooks/codexes represented and acheiving a well rounded set of results?

If you answer No to the first, your complaints are as good as hearsay.
If you answere yes to both of these question's could you tell us the location/details of these tournaments, because honestly i wouldn't mind going to them.

In the end most tournament most tournament "meddling" with the rules is an attempt to balance the armies to the standard of the second question. Unfortunately IMHO there is no quick fix to how badly balanced the armies are in GW games, so even in comped tournaments certain armies will be seen to be superior.

 Peregrine wrote:

 LValx wrote:
If you are willing to alter the missions or have third party FAQs, you should also be open to the idea of FW limitations. Both are modifications to the core ruleset.

It's not really the same at all. New missions are encouraged by the core rules, and the six standard missions are clearly presented as being just a generic set you can use if you just want an easy pickup game. Third-party FAQs are not supported by the rules, but a good third-party FAQ also doesn't contradict those rules, it just does offers the minimum clarification to prevent rule arguments. FW bans (or other unit bans/changes), on the other hand, directly contradict the standard rules. And, most importantly, they directly contradict those rules in a way that excludes people from participating. New missions and third-party FAQs don't invalidate perfectly legal (according to GW) armies, FW bans do.

And of course the real problem here is that we have blanket bans on FW to resolve a small number of "problem" units, while the thought of (for example) revoking the Helldrake FAQ and making the flamer a hull-mounted weapon is just unacceptable. It isn't a consistent standard about what kind of changes should be made to the rules to improve competitive play, and often seems to be little more than "I don't like X, therefore you can't use it".

Like I said, I'm not against FW. I don't think the reasons for banning it are that compelling. I'm also not against the idea of third-party FAQs to re-balance some of the units, however, I think that logistically it would be a very difficult thing to organize. A blanket ban on FW is easy to do, forming a third-party institution that will heavily test and re-balance the game is a bit more difficult.

 LValx wrote:
A blanket ban on FW is easy to do, forming a third-party institution that will heavily test and re-balance the game is a bit more difficult.

We have a saying around my office: nothing worth doing is easy.

 Redbeard wrote:

 LValx wrote:
A blanket ban on FW is easy to do, forming a third-party institution that will heavily test and re-balance the game is a bit more difficult.

We have a saying around my office: nothing worth doing is easy.

I agree 100%. But you have to think about logistics. Also have to consider the fact that most players are probably more averse to modifications to codices than something like a blanket ban of FW (not that I agree with this position).

 LValx wrote:

 Redbeard wrote:

 LValx wrote:
A blanket ban on FW is easy to do, forming a third-party institution that will heavily test and re-balance the game is a bit more difficult.

We have a saying around my office: nothing worth doing is easy.

I agree 100%. But you have to think about logistics. Also have to consider the fact that most players are probably more averse to modifications to codices than something like a blanket ban of FW (not that I agree with this position).

Logistics for a TO is ultimately a wash, as the tournament entry fee ought to compensate him for any labor or time that he spends which he deems is unnecessary - we are paying him to give us a good experience, and "it's too hard" isn't an excuse I accept from people I pay to do things.

Your point about player adversity is true but it is a self-fulfilling prophecy: the more bans on forgeworld there are, the more ok with them tournament attendees are.

Having read all the pages....

The main argument against 40K approved Forge World models and armies is that they are either:

Too overpowering

Too expensive to buy

Too cheap point wise

Another clump of unit data I have to learn.



The reason to use them is well, Game Workshops said they were legal to use in 40K and even makes them...


Forgive me if I find the too overpowering, too expensive to buy and too cheap point wise lacking when such a very large number of tourny players in the top brackets use Heldrakes or Necron favorites and all tend to be carrying Grey Knights or Chaos for some reason. All the arguments tend to ring hollow at that point...

As for another clump of data to learn, that's why folks are required to carry their books to the matches for the other player to view, is it not?

All the winners in the top tourneys make power lists and they all look alike....and there is nothing wrong with that. GW sells those codex and models. They also the Approved for 40K Forge World stuff...


Tourny owners can do what they want like banning officially approved lists, codecs and models because they do not like them, but do not do it because they are too powerful or game breaking, it just sounds hollow when I see all those Heldrakes and allies builds....

If its just too hard logistically, just say so. Eventually as more tourneys allow the Approved for 40K models and Armies folks will have a choice and the market will decide.

I prefer to play by all of the rules. It seems immature to turn away someone who has an army that says approved for 40K by the game company that produces the game....

 NeedleOfInquiry wrote:
Having read all the pages....

The main argument against 40K approved Forge World models and armies is that they are either:

Too overpowering

Too expensive to buy

Too cheap point wise

Another clump of unit data I have to learn.

If that's what you came up with then you really didn't read all the pages. The arguments both for and against FW are alot more nuanced and faceted than your post would indicate.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 LValx wrote:

 Redbeard wrote:

 LValx wrote:
A blanket ban on FW is easy to do, forming a third-party institution that will heavily test and re-balance the game is a bit more difficult.

We have a saying around my office: nothing worth doing is easy.

I agree 100%. But you have to think about logistics. Also have to consider the fact that most players are probably more averse to modifications to codices than something like a blanket ban of FW (not that I agree with this position).

Logistics for a TO is ultimately a wash, as the tournament entry fee ought to compensate him for any labor or time that he spends which he deems is unnecessary - we are paying him to give us a good experience, and "it's too hard" isn't an excuse I accept from people I pay to do things.

Your point about player adversity is true but it is a self-fulfilling prophecy: the more bans on forgeworld there are, the more ok with them tournament attendees are.

Most tourneys barely break even, I'm sure. TOs are usually volunteers and are unpaid. But yes, there is a self-fulfilling prophecy here, that's why a slow phase-in works to "test the waters" and see if it can really be implemented fully in a workable state.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 LValx wrote:

 Redbeard wrote:

 LValx wrote:
A blanket ban on FW is easy to do, forming a third-party institution that will heavily test and re-balance the game is a bit more difficult.

We have a saying around my office: nothing worth doing is easy.

I agree 100%. But you have to think about logistics. Also have to consider the fact that most players are probably more averse to modifications to codices than something like a blanket ban of FW (not that I agree with this position).

Logistics for a TO is ultimately a wash, as the tournament entry fee ought to compensate him for any labor or time that he spends which he deems is unnecessary - we are paying him to give us a good experience, and "it's too hard" isn't an excuse I accept from people I pay to do things.

Your point about player adversity is true but it is a self-fulfilling prophecy: the more bans on forgeworld there are, the more ok with them tournament attendees are.

Lol....as a TO I had to laugh at this, dude you have a good time because I and others put in the effort free of charge (or often at personal cost) to make it so. Speaking for myself the money players pay for my events goes into paying either only for prize support, or to help pay for the venue etc. sometimes also it will be used for terrain(not usually in my case that either gets borrowed from my local store, or payed for by the convention.). Never have I been paid for my time. But let's go ahead and assume I wanted to get paid for my time (and I'm hardly the hardest working to out there). So the weekend of the GT alone is probably 40ish (if not more) hours of work.so if I felt like getting minimum wage in the state where I am that would be $8.25 per hour. So $330 now my attendees are alreadying paying $50-60 to cover expenses/prize support, so that goes up by $10 per person. But wait I probably put in say 200 or more hours planning, advertising etc the event and spent money out of pocket, not I need to buy the FW books and learn all the rules, lets say that's 100 hours of work minimum and $900+ in books. So at minimum wage for 340 hours of work and $900 of books. That's $3705. So divide that by my 32 players and we are looking at $175 per ticket. You going to pay that for an event? I didn't think so....and that's assuming I'd work for minimum wage. Now I could try to spread that out over multiple events but then that is more work.....




Automatically Appended Next Post:
Essentially you pay for...a space for the event, terrain on the tables, and prize support. I take a wash on tournament packets, objective markers, staying at a hotel to run my gt, paying for food during the gt, etc... So maybe I could work buying FW rules into my budget over say the next 5-10 years. It's too much work is absolutely something you should expect for a volunteer, or someone paying to make your experience better. If not find a different event that is more to your liking.

But don't delude yourself that you "pay TO's to do a job"

Breng77 wrote:

Essentially you pay for...a space for the event, terrain on the tables, and prize support. I take a wash on tournament packets, objective markers, staying at a hotel to run my gt, paying for food during the gt, etc... So maybe I could work buying FW rules into my budget over say the next 5-10 years. It's too much work is absolutely something you should expect for a volunteer, or someone paying to make your experience better. If not find a different event that is more to your liking.

But don't delude yourself that you "pay TO's to do a job"

I second this. The work we put into the BFS GT, for example, equates to many, many hours of contributions made by many people and anything that would be considered "profit" goes right back into prize support. Fortunately, we've never been in the red, but we also don't walk away with any money whatsoever to compensate for the 200+ hours of work.