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.

 Enigwolf wrote:
One thing to note, Peregrine, is that the BRB missions include Mysterious Objectives as part of the rules, but do you ever see anyone playing them? Other than that, I agree with the rest of your post.

I do see people using them. But even when they don't what people are really doing is saying "let's make a new set of missions that are identical to the standard ones except they don't have mysterious objectives", and making new missions is encouraged by the rules.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Enigwolf wrote:
One thing to note, Peregrine, is that the BRB missions include Mysterious Objectives as part of the rules, but do you ever see anyone playing them? Other than that, I agree with the rest of your post.

I do see people using them. But even when they don't what people are really doing is saying "let's make a new set of missions that are identical to the standard ones except they don't have mysterious objectives", and making new missions is encouraged by the rules.

Fair enough, I'll concede that one and point out that indeed Tourneys use a form of "making new missions" and not using the stock ones.

 Peregrine wrote:

Breng77 wrote:
Only in so far as you are saying that any number of other options (that is what they are) in the game are not being used. There is no official rule stating that you must play with FW, just like there is no rule saying you must play with Mysterious terrain, book missions, or allies or fortifications.

Actually there is. Allies and fortifications are part of the game. Obviously you aren't required to have them in your army (just like you aren't required to take any fast attack choices), but they are always available and if you ban them you're imposing a house rule on your opponent.

Mysterious objectives and new missions are different because the rules say they're optional (mysterious objectives because they're only used in missions that specifically include them). Nobody is being excluded from the game because you invent a new mission, unless you do something stupid like make a mission where orks are banned because you don't like your opponent's ork army.

By including FW and forcing people go give consent to play against it (which GW ask that you get in their own book, or at least they ask that you check with your opponent) you are also playing by a house rule.

That's not true at all. The statement from GW says that you SHOULD check with your opponent, not that you MUST. It's about being polite and not surprising them with rules they aren't familiar with, not the old (and no longer relevant) requirement that you had to ask permission before you could use anything.

As for the argument about being excluded, I still don't 100% buy it it seems to me that players are just as likely to be aware of events at their local stores and their rules (moreso actually ) than anything regarding FW. SO if you know that FW is not allowed, and then you go buy it, and refuse to play without being allowed to use it, you are excluding yourself not the other way around.

What you're missing is the option that you start playing with one group of people then want to go play elsewhere. For example, I started playing primarily with a friend who had no problem with FW, so I invested in a lot of FW stuff. I don't actually own a playable no-FW army, so any event that bans FW is saying "you are not welcome".

Fair enough, but I still find it interesting that the first thing you ever found out about in the game was FW, before you ever even had an army you payed a ton of money to buy books and units not available to you normally, and if you have been playing for any length of time FW was not "official" for most of it, and did require the MUST check statement. I still hold that in Most cases given that you "Should" check with your opponent, by not owning a Codex legal army, you are choosing to exclude yourself from games, because anytime someone says, I'm not comforatable with playing against those rules, you don't play them...tournament is no different if I ask my players in a poll, are you ok playing against FW, and a majority says no, I've been polite and asked, and they said, no thanks I'd rather not.

I'd also argue that you are very atypical for a player in this game if you never purchased a codex army.

As for allies and Fortifications, people "house" rule them all the time, Fortress of Redemption is "banned" at most events, some events don't allow allies, skyshield was/is banned at a lot of events. So having FW with a Banned/restricted list is no different than these generally accepted rules (which is where I stand, and would like to get my players to, but they are not there yet, and I will not force it on them.)

I think you need to get over the idea that people need to admit that they are using house rules if they ban FW, why does that even matter, all tournaments are house rules. Even if play by the book but use GW FAQs techincally you are using GWs "house rules" as that is what their FAQs are stated to be. Then you add a time limit, house rules, a system for determining an overall winner after a given number of games...house rulese. Tournaments ARE house rules, no two ways about it, they are not playable without "house rules", heck the fact that I as the TO decide the point value for you is a "house rule". So saying that I house rule Limited FW, Allowed, FW, or Banned FW are just another piece of the House rules I am already playing with.

Breng77 wrote:
Fair enough, but I still find it interesting that the first thing you ever found out about in the game was FW, before you ever even had an army you payed a ton of money to buy books and units not available to you normally

That's not what I said. Obviously FW wasn't the first thing I found out about. I started playing with a friend, and while building my army and researching tactics to decide what units to buy I found out about FW. I liked some of the units, so I bought them. And my opponents never had any problems with FW units, so I never bothered to buy a no-FW army. I only had to start thinking about this ridiculous no-FW idea once I'd been playing for a while and started considering playing in tournaments.

And whether or not that kind of thing is common doesn't change the fact that TOs who run no-FW events are telling me that I'm not welcome unless I spend a lot of money to replace my perfectly legal (according to GW) army.

I still hold that in Most cases given that you "Should" check with your opponent, by not owning a Codex legal army, you are choosing to exclude yourself from games, because anytime someone says, I'm not comforatable with playing against those rules, you don't play them.

How is that any different from codex armies? If I don't like orks you can't force me to play against your ork army. FW just adds an explicit note about that to remind you that not everyone is familiar with the rules. Most people are familiar with orks and have a pretty good understanding of whether they want to play against them or not, but the same isn't necessarily true for FW rules so you should let your opponent form that opinion before starting the game.

I think you need to get over the idea that people need to admit that they are using house rules if they ban FW, why does that even matter, all tournaments are house rules.

Because people justify those bans by saying that they're just following the standard rules. People would be outraged if tournaments started banning Eldar and Helldrakes, and the main reason there isn't similar outrage about blanket FW bans is an incorrect belief that the ban isn't a house rule.

 Peregrine wrote:

Breng77 wrote:
Fair enough, but I still find it interesting that the first thing you ever found out about in the game was FW, before you ever even had an army you payed a ton of money to buy books and units not available to you normally

That's not what I said. Obviously FW wasn't the first thing I found out about. I started playing with a friend, and while building my army and researching tactics to decide what units to buy I found out about FW. I liked some of the units, so I bought them. And my opponents never had any problems with FW units, so I never bothered to buy a no-FW army. I only had to start thinking about this ridiculous no-FW idea once I'd been playing for a while and started considering playing in tournaments.

And whether or not that kind of thing is common doesn't change the fact that TOs who run no-FW events are telling me that I'm not welcome unless I spend a lot of money to replace my perfectly legal (according to GW) army.

I still hold that in Most cases given that you "Should" check with your opponent, by not owning a Codex legal army, you are choosing to exclude yourself from games, because anytime someone says, I'm not comforatable with playing against those rules, you don't play them.

How is that any different from codex armies? If I don't like orks you can't force me to play against your ork army. FW just adds an explicit note about that to remind you that not everyone is familiar with the rules. Most people are familiar with orks and have a pretty good understanding of whether they want to play against them or not, but the same isn't necessarily true for FW rules so you should let your opponent form that opinion before starting the game.

I think you need to get over the idea that people need to admit that they are using house rules if they ban FW, why does that even matter, all tournaments are house rules.

Because people justify those bans by saying that they're just following the standard rules. People would be outraged if tournaments started banning Eldar and Helldrakes, and the main reason there isn't similar outrage about blanket FW bans is an incorrect belief that the ban isn't a house rule.

SO you did say what I thought you said, you never bought a full army when you started playing (perhaps you borrowed or proxied or whatever) which is atypical, most people have a full codex army before ever branching into FW. Also you overestimate (more than likely I don't know what models you own) the amount of money you would need to spend to "replace" your army. You play Armored Company or DKOK? So do you not own any infantry models? OR are all your vehicles "special FW only units" that cannot possibly count as something codex? I'd be fully surprised if it cost you more than about $100 bucks to make your army "tournament legal" Instead you want TOs to spend far more than that to familiarize themselves with those rules (or to break the law).

Also the main reason there isn't outrage about blanket FW bans is that FW players are a tiny part of the hobby overall, and FW only players even smaller (I personally know about 2 people that use FW units at all, and know no one that does not own a codex legal army, but owns a FW army). SO the fact is that most people simply don't care, or perhaps more likely they always play NO FW and thus it is a house rule they always use and are used to it. Let me put it this way, if I told all my players that FW was fully legal, I'd get far more outrage than I ever do by saying No FW. It has nothing to do with what we call the ban. The only reason you want to call it "house rules" or "Comp" is to apeal to some sort of Moral high ground, or superiority. That you as a FW player, is playing "real 40k". My whole point is that there is no "real" 40k in tournaments, "real" 40k is not tournament viable.

 Enigwolf wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

Mysterious objectives and new missions are different because the rules say they're optional (mysterious objectives because they're only used in missions that specifically include them). Nobody is being excluded from the game because you invent a new mission, unless you do something stupid like make a mission where orks are banned because you don't like your opponent's ork army.

One thing to note, Peregrine, is that the BRB missions include Mysterious Objectives as part of the rules, but do you ever see anyone playing them? Other than that, I agree with the rest of your post.

I'd like to point out, the stores where I play use Mysterious Objectives, hell the last tournament I was in had a table where every roll resulted in sabotage! Nothing like trying to score on 3 blowing up objectives >_<

 Alfndrate wrote:

 Enigwolf wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

Mysterious objectives and new missions are different because the rules say they're optional (mysterious objectives because they're only used in missions that specifically include them). Nobody is being excluded from the game because you invent a new mission, unless you do something stupid like make a mission where orks are banned because you don't like your opponent's ork army.

One thing to note, Peregrine, is that the BRB missions include Mysterious Objectives as part of the rules, but do you ever see anyone playing them? Other than that, I agree with the rest of your post.

I'd like to point out, the stores where I play use Mysterious Objectives, hell the last tournament I was in had a table where every roll resulted in sabotage! Nothing like trying to score on 3 blowing up objectives >_<

Every tournament I have played in in 6th has used mysterious objectives, especially early on because it introduced a way to get skyfire into games that were being dominated by the armies with flyers. It was a built in playing field leveler and once people got that they were fine with them. At least in So Cal.

Oddly enough in my experience Tournaments are the *only* place I've used mysterious objectives. Outside of that, everyone always forgets or doesn't care Another of 6E's oddities.

 Enigwolf wrote:

Agreed with this as well, unless you decided to start your first army as an FW army, in which case I don't know what to say, given that Forgeworld is so obscure to someone just starting in the hobby.

*cough*

 OverwatchCNC wrote:

Every tournament I have played in in 6th has used mysterious objectives, especially early on because it introduced a way to get skyfire into games that were being dominated by the armies with flyers. It was a built in playing field leveler and once people got that they were fine with them. At least in So Cal.

Gotta love that the playing field leveler is a 1/6 chance on a random table.



Maybe the issue isn't FW, but the crazed competitive approach to this horribly unbalanced game system that has created incentives for people to run a dozen thudd guns, let alone 3 helldrakes.

Last weekend, here in Chicago, the AWC group ran one of our monthly tournaments. Attendance at these events had been waning a little lately, and so this month was run deliberately as a "less competitive" event, where theme and appearance were worth more in the overall scoring than in events prior,and rather than have secondary prizes as Best General, Best Painted, the secondary awards were Best Heretical, Best Imperial, Best Xenos, factoring in theme as well as battle points.

Attendance was excellent. Not only that, but we had the best variety of armies that I'd seen in quite some time. At least 13 codexes were represented, including Sisters (who I've been told are not competitive). The player who went undefeated (Darthdiggler) actually walked away empty-handed as he didn't have as many theme points as some others. And, he was okay with that.

The event allowed each player to take one FW unit. Not everyone did. I didn't see any Saber guns or Thudd cannons though. I did see (and play against) a Contemptor Dread, used to shore up a Vanilla Marine's anti-air. I saw a couple of other fun FW units too. And, as I've come to expect from 6th ed, more than half my games were decided by matchups. I won my first game because my opponent couldn't kill a large unit of plaguedrones in cover. I lost my second game because I played against a Tau army with enough markerlights to invalidate my Nurgle Daemon's one advantage - their shroudedness.

Where am I going with this?

I mention it, because by all accounts it was a successful event. We drew players from several hours away - our normal "competitive" events don't do that often. What was the difference? The incentive to create themed armies rather than beatstick armies. Toning down the "competitive" scale, just a touch, to where people weren't worried about having to face tri-helldrakes (or 4 thudd guns), and felt comfortable in bringing lists they wouldn't have played normally. And this wasn't done with comp or restrictions, it was done by tweaking the soft-scoring at the event. Getting tabled in one game, as I did, didn't put someone out of the running, so there wasn't the subconscious "must win all" mentality.

I believe that it's the uber-competitive approach to a game that's not designed for it that is the real cause of issues at tournaments. The need to prove who is best at toy soldiers causes more problems than allowing FW possibly could. When you disincentivise this behaviour, people aren't going to run 12 thudd guns (or three helldrakes), which in turn opens up a far more diverse environment, and a more enjoyable experience for all. It does nothing to diminish quality of play on the table.

I think the real issue is deeper than FW or no FW. Sure, it's possible that the best of the FW units are more underpriced and overpowered than the best of the codex units, but on a conceptual level, the emphasis on spamming best-units is unchanged with the addition of FW. What we really need is a mentality shift, not a banned list. And that's hard with so many bloggers eager to point out what the best things are, and few voices encouraging things like theme. Until this is addressed, a FW banned list, or limited FW events may put a bandaid on the problem, but we'll still see the same non-FW OP lists. Limiting FW may address one symptom, possibly even the most glaring symptom, but doesn't address the underlying problem, and that's that we've taken the competitiveness of the tournament scene too far. We've created this "winning is the most important thing" mentality, that's led to events where half the field plays the same army.

Fortunately, as our AWC event last weekend showed, we can change it too.

Insane double post. Apologies.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:
The reasonable counter to this argument is that Games Workshop sponsors exactly 0 tournaments these days.

But the point is FW rules are part of the game, and excluding them should be treated with the same contempt as the comp-heavy events that do stuff like banning allies or making dedicated transports 0-1 because it "isn't fluffy". The default should be that everything in the standard game is legal, and people don't have to worry about the new Eldar codex being randomly banned because some people don't like it.

For the record, I'm neither for nor against, though I don't like the idea of running into a "Hey, gotcha!" situation unless I pay out the ass for a ton of books I'll never use myself.

How is that any different from the situation with codex armies? Buying every codex in the game to be familiar with the armies you don't play costs even more than buying all the FW books, and somehow people manage to deal with it. Either you borrow them from someone else, you ask to look at the relevant rules before each game, or you pirate them like most people already do. And even if you don't want to do any of those things you can still just read tactics forums and get a pretty good idea of what most competitive-level units can do.

And at least, unlike the SoB "codex", you can buy everything. You're going to be pretty surprised if an SoB player shows up at a tournament and you haven't pirated their codex.

This is from the thread on the Iyanden supplement.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Zweischneid wrote:
But why would anyone want to? Without the context of the Iyanden Background, which is in turn brought to life in the missions, they are just random numbers and stats. What's the point? I can write you 10 pages of random rule-swap-gak and "this-item-lets-one-HQ-do-X" for a dollar if that's what you're looking for.

Sigh. Again you ignore the point I've made several times, that for many of us it's about what other people are using. If the Iyanden supplement rules are legal for use in general games outside of the special Iyanden missions then my Eldar opponent might have them in their army, and I want to know what those rules are. I don't really care about the fluff, I just don't want to be surprised by rules I've never seen before.

So why is it that GW "should" include all the rules in Codices for use in standard games of 40k sometimes but not all the time? Why should there not be an Iyanden supplement but we should all have to buy a bunch of FW books to cobble together a working knowledge of all the IG and SM units we may face in a competitive environment? Seems to me that is a pretty big double standard.

I don't see any issues with players wanting to bring the best possible lists. I personally enjoy playing the game much more when I am playing against lists that are extremely well-built piloted by players that are also very good at playing the game. That is just my 0.02$.

I don't think FW inclusion will change that enjoyment either, I just don't like the idea of adding a wider variety of choices to some codices while others receive very little. If that changes, i'll be a more vocal FW supporter.

Peregrine wrote:

 Blackmoor wrote:
f you do not understand that past events are meaningless because of codex releases this shows that you have a fundamental misunderstanding about tournaments and meta changes.

I agree. This is why all past experience with FW rules is worthless and you can not declare that any of them are overpowered. After all, the metagame has changed since the last FW-legal event.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Blackmoor wrote:
#1. They are official GW rules.
This can't really be proven one way or another.

Of course it can be proven. GW has said explicitly that they are official and part of the standard game. The question here is not whether FW is official, it's whether or not a "no FW" house rule is appropriate for tournaments.

Peregrine wrote:

Breng77 wrote:
(as there are what 13 or so FW IA books)

Depends on the army. For my Tau I just need the codex and IA3. And when the codex costs $50 and Riptides are $80 each spending another $80-90 on IA3 isn't a big deal.

 hippesthippo wrote:
Now imagine what it will be like once everyone else has finished buying/painting their IG armies, bc it has only just started.

Now imagine what it will be like once the metagame shifts to counter the IG lists. That's the problem with all this speculation, you can reasonably guess one step ahead but you can't tell what the counters to the counters will be. That's why companies who make true competitive games (MTG, for example) only make changes/bans after analyzing a solid record of high-level results that include enough time for the metagame to attempt to counter the problem.

Peregrine wrote:

Breng77 wrote:
Fair enough, but I still find it interesting that the first thing you ever found out about in the game was FW, before you ever even had an army you payed a ton of money to buy books and units not available to you normally

That's not what I said. Obviously FW wasn't the first thing I found out about. I started playing with a friend, and while building my army and researching tactics to decide what units to buy I found out about FW. I liked some of the units, so I bought them. And my opponents never had any problems with FW units, so I never bothered to buy a no-FW army. I only had to start thinking about this ridiculous no-FW idea once I'd been playing for a while and started considering playing in tournaments.

And whether or not that kind of thing is common doesn't change the fact that TOs who run no-FW events are telling me that I'm not welcome unless I spend a lot of money to replace my perfectly legal (according to GW) army.

I still hold that in Most cases given that you "Should" check with your opponent, by not owning a Codex legal army, you are choosing to exclude yourself from games, because anytime someone says, I'm not comforatable with playing against those rules, you don't play them.

How is that any different from codex armies? If I don't like orks you can't force me to play against your ork army. FW just adds an explicit note about that to remind you that not everyone is familiar with the rules. Most people are familiar with orks and have a pretty good understanding of whether they want to play against them or not, but the same isn't necessarily true for FW rules so you should let your opponent form that opinion before starting the game.

I think you need to get over the idea that people need to admit that they are using house rules if they ban FW, why does that even matter, all tournaments are house rules.

Because people justify those bans by saying that they're just following the standard rules. People would be outraged if tournaments started banning Eldar and Helldrakes, and the main reason there isn't similar outrage about blanket FW bans is an incorrect belief that the ban isn't a house rule.

Yet you stated in the thread about the Iyanden Supplement that in order to be competitive you now have to pay an unfair amount of money for two pages of rules but you want everyone else to have to pay even more to be familiar with FW? You can't have it both ways.

 Redbeard wrote:

 OverwatchCNC wrote:

Every tournament I have played in in 6th has used mysterious objectives, especially early on because it introduced a way to get skyfire into games that were being dominated by the armies with flyers. It was a built in playing field leveler and once people got that they were fine with them. At least in So Cal.

Gotta love that the playing field leveler is a 1/6 chance on a random table.



Maybe the issue isn't FW, but the crazed competitive approach to this horribly unbalanced game system that has created incentives for people to run a dozen thudd guns, let alone 3 helldrakes.

Last weekend, here in Chicago, the AWC group ran one of our monthly tournaments. Attendance at these events had been waning a little lately, and so this month was run deliberately as a "less competitive" event, where theme and appearance were worth more in the overall scoring than in events prior,and rather than have secondary prizes as Best General, Best Painted, the secondary awards were Best Heretical, Best Imperial, Best Xenos, factoring in theme as well as battle points.

Attendance was excellent. Not only that, but we had the best variety of armies that I'd seen in quite some time. At least 13 codexes were represented, including Sisters (who I've been told are not competitive). The player who went undefeated (Darthdiggler) actually walked away empty-handed as he didn't have as many theme points as some others. And, he was okay with that.

The event allowed each player to take one FW unit. Not everyone did. I didn't see any Saber guns or Thudd cannons though. I did see (and play against) a Contemptor Dread, used to shore up a Vanilla Marine's anti-air. I saw a couple of other fun FW units too. And, as I've come to expect from 6th ed, more than half my games were decided by matchups. I won my first game because my opponent couldn't kill a large unit of plaguedrones in cover. I lost my second game because I played against a Tau army with enough markerlights to invalidate my Nurgle Daemon's one advantage - their shroudedness.

Where am I going with this?

I mention it, because by all accounts it was a successful event. We drew players from several hours away - our normal "competitive" events don't do that often. What was the difference? The incentive to create themed armies rather than beatstick armies. Toning down the "competitive" scale, just a touch, to where people weren't worried about having to face tri-helldrakes (or 4 thudd guns), and felt comfortable in bringing lists they wouldn't have played normally. And this wasn't done with comp or restrictions, it was done by tweaking the soft-scoring at the event. Getting tabled in one game, as I did, didn't put someone out of the running, so there wasn't the subconscious "must win all" mentality.

I believe that it's the uber-competitive approach to a game that's not designed for it that is the real cause of issues at tournaments. The need to prove who is best at toy soldiers causes more problems than allowing FW possibly could. When you disincentivise this behaviour, people aren't going to run 12 thudd guns (or three helldrakes), which in turn opens up a far more diverse environment, and a more enjoyable experience for all. It does nothing to diminish quality of play on the table.

I think the real issue is deeper than FW or no FW. Sure, it's possible that the best of the FW units are more underpriced and overpowered than the best of the codex units, but on a conceptual level, the emphasis on spamming best-units is unchanged with the addition of FW. What we really need is a mentality shift, not a banned list. And that's hard with so many bloggers eager to point out what the best things are, and few voices encouraging things like theme. Until this is addressed, a FW banned list, or limited FW events may put a bandaid on the problem, but we'll still see the same non-FW OP lists. Limiting FW may address one symptom, possibly even the most glaring symptom, but doesn't address the underlying problem, and that's that we've taken the competitiveness of the tournament scene too far. We've created this "winning is the most important thing" mentality, that's led to events where half the field plays the same army.

Fortunately, as our AWC event last weekend showed, we can change it too.

I think it's less putting hate on people who want to play competitively, and instead opening up more opportunities for all player types to bring and enjoy what they want to within the same events. I understand if you've been exposed to too many events where the emphasis and reward seems fixated on the top handful, but that isn't universally the case. That said, heaping vitriol on those who DO wish to have a fair format in which to compete seems as unfair as it would be to heap vitriol on those who want to just play more casual or varied lists and feel rewarded in some way for doing so.

Nobody needs FW in tournament play; nobody needs comp in tournament play. Nobody really needs anything at all in tournament play. I'm not sure there's really a place for hate in any one direction. Everything is WELCOME in tournament play if a TO wants to use it or not use it ... and it's kinda up to the attendees what to do from there in terms of support.

Redbeard, I'm all for more themed-emphasis events. Limited FW allowance (such as saying you can take as many FW units as you want, but they're all 0-1) is a great way of encouraging that. All-out FW allowance, I think, does not cater to making that kind of event as much, for exactly the reasons you point out- the blogosphere telling people what best unit to spam, and all the theme players staying home because of the competitive vibe.

It sounds lie the event you went to is exactly the kind of compromise a lot of us in this thread are seeking / hoping for

 RiTides wrote:
Redbeard, I'm all for more themed-emphasis events. Limited FW allowance (such as saying you can take as many FW units as you want, but they're all 0-1) is a great way of encouraging that. All-out FW allowance, I think, does not cater to making that kind of event as much, for exactly the reasons you point out- the blogosphere telling people what best unit to spam, and all the theme players staying home because of the competitive vibe.

It sounds lie the event you went to is exactly the kind of compromise a lot of us in this thread are seeking / hoping for

I agree, that event sounds fun and competitive. Just the right mix of FW allowed.

I'm wondering however what the primary impetus for limiting FW is, that either wouldn't apply in other instances as well thus creating a double standard, unless it's an introductory path to eventually increasing such availability?

As otherwise, a double-standard exists for these units primarily just on "because it's book doesn't have the word Codex in the title", as nobody limits Heldrakes or Vendettas or anything else based on balance, nobody limits Sisters based on availability, nobody limits new codex books for unfamiliarity typically unless released like the day of the event, etc.

It's not like events can't be overrun by power lists that can wreck peoples fun with just codex lists, and people can be unfamiliar with codex rules just as much as FW stuff, while rules for "codex" units/armies can also often be similarly limited/unavailable (e.g. the Nightspinner rules were practically non-existent for several years).

I'd like to not put a limit on Heldrakes, that way I don't look like a d-bag for bringing the 1 Heldrake I have in my army .

I'd like the same for when I bring some autocannon chimeras or a couple rapier units

 Enigwolf wrote:

One thing to note, Peregrine, is that the BRB missions include Mysterious Objectives as part of the rules, but do you ever see anyone playing them? Other than that, I agree with the rest of your post.

Yes. My group plays them. If you roll up a mission with them, you play it.

 Vaktathi wrote:
I'm wondering however what the primary impetus for limiting FW is, that either wouldn't apply in other instances as well thus creating a double standard, unless it's an introductory path to eventually increasing such availability?

As otherwise, a double-standard exists for these units primarily just on "because it's book doesn't have the word Codex in the title", as nobody limits Heldrakes or Vendettas or anything else based on balance, nobody limits Sisters based on availability, nobody limits new codex books for unfamiliarity typically unless released like the day of the event, etc.

It's not like events can't be overrun by power lists that can wreck peoples fun with just codex lists, and people can be unfamiliar with codex rules just as much as FW stuff, while rules for "codex" units/armies can also often be similarly limited/unavailable (e.g. the Nightspinner rules were practically non-existent for several years).

Just a note most events limit new codices for 1 month post release due to unfamiliarity.

 Vaktathi wrote:
It's not like events can't be overrun by power lists that can wreck peoples fun with just codex lists, and people can be unfamiliar with codex rules just as much as FW stuff, while rules for "codex" units/armies can also often be similarly limited/unavailable (e.g. the Nightspinner rules were practically non-existent for several years).

I would like to say, as someone that doesn't play competitive 40k, and doesn't know many of the codex specific rules of the game since the Grey Knight release, the most comment questions I ask are, "What does that do?" and "can I see your codex?" The latter generally follows the former. And then I follow it all up with, "I can't believe it fething does that!"

But no one should ever be afraid to say, "can I see your codex?" The same holds true with army lists, etc...

You honestly can't have it both ways.

"The problem with 40k tournaments is they're too competitive, here's an event encouraging theme and allowing some FW that did excellent!"

Followed by:

"People spam Helldrakes anyway, so why not allow all FW?"

If you're trying to encourage theme, as Redbeard posted, then unlimited FW doesn't help do that. I think you should ask the opposite question- why not restrict Helldrakes in some events? Pointing at one of the most powerful codex units and saying you can spam it is no reason to allow folks to spam FW... If, as Redbeard posted, you're wanting to make an event encouraging theme and getting away from "competitive" 40k.

 RiTides wrote:
You honestly can't have it both ways.

"The problem with 40k tournaments is they're too competitive, here's an event encouraging theme and allowing some FW that did excellent!"

Followed by:

"People spam Helldrakes anyway, so why not allow all FW?"

If you're trying to encourage theme, as Redbeard posted, then unlimited FW doesn't help do that. I think you should ask the opposite question- why not restrict Helldrakes in some events? Pointing at one of the most powerful codex units and saying you can spam it is no reason to allow folks to spam FW... If, as Redbeard posted, you're wanting to make an event encouraging theme and getting away from "competitive" 40k.

Actually I think his point is that we can have it both ways.

Read this in corporate advertisement voice:
Tired of competition on your 40k tables? Sick of having to trash talk to look tough? Tired of being unable to take real 40k options, and instead having to spam the same units over and over again? Then try Forge World! Equipped with dozens of books and hundreds of options, most of the coolest looking and most-badass-sounding units in Forge World's line-up aren't worth a damn! So head on over and run fluffy units that look awesome in droves!

Or this one in corporate advertisement voice:
Following the rules for Warhammer 40,000? Until you've played Forge World, you've been missing out! These books are the 100% genuine article, approved for use in normal games of Warhammer by Games Workshop itself! They bring many options to the table, many of which may not be competitive but some of which I think y'all might just find useful. Have at it, folks!

 RiTides wrote:
You honestly can't have it both ways.

"The problem with 40k tournaments is they're too competitive, here's an event encouraging theme and allowing some FW that did excellent!"

Followed by:

"People spam Helldrakes anyway, so why not allow all FW?"

Why can't you have both of those.

Premise 1: 40k tournaments would be better served if the competitive side was turned down a touch.

Premise 2: If you're not going to do 1, you might as well go full-bore and allow all FW


These are not mutually exclusive. What's more, if you do 1, you can also do 2, and the FW excesses will be kept out because of the theme requirements.

The idea of mysterious objectives is so foreign to me... In all the local tourneys at home and in the US that I've played, none of them included MO's. My apologies for making that widespread assumption.

I agree with premise 1. I completely disagree with premise 2 (unless you add restrictions, ie premise 1!).

Saying things should be more themed, but if not, just make them more broken is a contradictory argument. You can argue genuinely from one perspective or the other, not both, imo. Unless you don't really mean it when you argue for premise 1 (more themeed events being good for the tourney scene).

Ie- Don't say limited FW encourages theme, and full FW is the only real/hardcore/macho way to play 40k at the same time. I agree with the first (in line with premise 1) but the second is utter bollocks.

 RiTides wrote:
You honestly can't have it both ways.

I'm not advocating having both or neither or just one or the other either which way, just trying to point out a double-standard that seems to boil down to what the book is called, though adding in FW certainly does add a whole lot of new theming opportunities.

If you're trying to encourage theme, as Redbeard posted, then unlimited FW doesn't help do that.

Why not?

Taking lots of certain units is often key to theme. Wraithguard for Iyanden, Jetbikes for Saim Hann, Plague Marines for Death Guard, etc. That doesn't seem to be an issue there. Nobody recommends 0-1 limits on such things. A couple squadrons of Tauros squadrons and a Salamander might be perfectly fluffy for someone wanting to replicate a recon company or the like for IG. I was running Rapiers with a couple heavy mortars for a list inspired the the Flames of War Sperrverband list for my IG. Such things would be disallowed with a 0-1 enforcement.

I think you should ask the opposite question- why not restrict Helldrakes in some events?

That may indeed be a good question to ask, but not strictly related to the FW discussion and really should be another discussion altogether. As is, there aren't any events in the US or UK that I know of that put restrictions on codex unit availability.

Given that this is the state of things, limiting FW seems silly. If limiting codex units were commonplace, then I'd have less of an issue with limiting FW as well. What irks me is the double-standard. If people want to limit certain abusive units, fine, just be consistent about it or there's no point.

Again, saying the tourney scene needs more emphasis on theme, so allow FW... is contradictory to the "If codex units are broken, why not allow all FW?" argument. If you truly think codex units are broken, fix them. Don't say "It sucks so bad, let's just make the problem worse". That's just wordplay, imo.

 RiTides wrote:
Again, saying the tourney scene needs more emphasis on theme, so allow FW... is contradictory to the "If codex units are broken, why not allow all FW?" argument. If you truly think codex units are broken, fix them. Don't say "It sucks so bad, let's just make the problem worse". That's just wordplay, imo.

This assumes the problem will be made worse as opposed to just different. That said, I'm working off the assumption that nobody is going to be addressing codex units because comp and 0-1 restrictions have largely died off over the last few years and nobody seems interested in supporting them. If a discussion on that were brought up I'd be all for discussing it, but working off the assumption that this is not the case and there will be no comp/0-1 restrictions on codex stuff, it makes little sense to target the FW stuff only.


If events are designed such that game wins are not what's emphasized but sportsmanship and painting are, then, unlimited FW or not, the issue will largely take care of itself.