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.

Breng77 wrote:

I don't think it is really fair to say that a TO can control what people hear about events. That indicates that the internet will care about everything equally. If NOVA (or any other tournament) pumped up a best theme. most people on here would still look for the best general, or most competitive list.

While I agree that a TO cant control what is talked about on the Internet, I'm not sure the rest is correct.

In my experience, the vast majority of people at tournaments have no illusions about winning or being on the top tables - they're there for the laugh of it. Then you have the 10% of 'competitive crowd' who place highly, but by no means constitute the majority.

That 10% are very vocal on sites like this, but again, not in the majority.

Like me, I imagine the majority of people on Dakka care more about the cool armies, conversions and paint jobs present at events like Adepticon/NOVA than they care about who won Best General. I only bother looking at what the top-tier lists are when I'm gearing up to attend a tournament - and even then I'm under no illusions that I'm going to win one!

In this case, I think Mike is right and it really does matter what the TO promotes as important as his event. If the TO promotes that 'Best Overall' is the most important trophy, he's merely responding to the majority of his customers - who never intended to be playing on the top tales anyway. What the competitive crowd says on the Internet afterwards is irrelevant - the TO's responsibility is to the majority of his attendees...

That said, many "competitive" players on here often compete for, and win, Best Overall. Hulksmash, Mannahnin and Danny Internets come to mind, just as examples . A lot of folks are in both camps, with modeling and gameplay both being important to them.

 RiTides wrote:
That said, many "competitive" players on here often compete for, and win, Best Overall. Hulksmash, Mannahnin and Danny Internets come to mind, just as examples . A lot of folks are in both camps, with modeling and gameplay both being important to them.

Oh, I absolutely agree. Just trying to wave the flag for the silent majority of tournament-goers and website users.

Reo we still need forge world in tournament play?

In the end the better question is....

If it has a "Approved for Warhammer 40K" stamp on it, how do you justify not having in tournament play?

I have read 40 plus pages and in the end it seems the discussions wind up in 3 camps.

1. We are the professional elitist players/ tourney organizers and we decide and you like it or else just do not come to our events.

2. It has the stamp and we should use it, what are you elitist worried about?

3. "It has a stamp, gee I did not know that. Those elitist who run Tau lists with 4 or more Riptides, CRON AIR, and those other broken lists from additional supplemental materials told us it was overpowered and we would need to read additional rules in addition to the ones they had on their IPADS..... Gee if they can ban those approved items why can't they ban riptides or CRON AIR or vendettas or stuff that is not printed on a book from the game makers yet?

In the end I have no doubt Camp one will win. Everyone likes to be surrounded by folks who think and act like them and to be a winner. It's human nature. It does not make it right...

I shall not attend any more tourneys that use such a petty house rule. I hope others do the same.

Let the elitist have their fixed games, for if you do not allow everything the game maker allowed then by what definition are they not fixed games...

My last question is simple. What are they afraid of? Can they still not win?

I think it was DashofPepper that once had a quote on here - Im paraphrasing it:

"If I show up to a 100 meter sprint, overweight, smoking 40 a day and fat, do you blame the other racers?" *sic*

I suppose his and my point is:

If you want to be the best, the elite, then you have to utilise and accept what the best is.
Do you blame the TO/competitors/GW/rules etc. ? Well no.

If the TO (who has ultimately put time, effort, resources, money and passion) into an event says "FW is legal" :

You have (by choice) 3 options:

Accept it and save/ebay/proxy (if allowed) FW.
Attend but not be happy with the FW opponents you face (whether you beat them or not)
Not attend

My point is this:

If you are a hardcore tourney competitor (which many in this thread are) you have to be 100% nay 110% committed to winning it - that includes adapting to the - FW is legal tournament rule.
That is not trying to be arrogant or debasing - it is a truth.

I fully accept FW is an exceptional outlay in terms of money/prices (maybe rules) but if you want to be #1

Repeat #1

in the game/environment it is something that has to be facilitated.

I would not do it myself btw

 Ratius wrote:


I fully accept FW is an exceptional outlay in terms of money/prices (maybe rules) but if you want to be #1

Repeat #1

in the game/environment it is something that has to be facilitated.

I would not do it myself btw

I'd agree, but right now, most of the competitive scene disallows FW for obvious reasons, so I'd differentiate between FW-free and FW-plagued comp.

I do agree with the general idea: if you like FW, go play at the FW-plagued tournaments, if you don't, don't take part in FW-plagued tournaments. Simple as pi(e).

Point taken Sig completely.

But lets play devils advocate here and say:

most of the competitive scene disallows FW for obvious reasons

This, from what I have seen is down to 3 reasons (open to other reasons too)

Imbalance
Cost (for those that dont have FW access)
Lack of knowledge/rules for FW

However:
If one wants to win a tournament, be #1, come top:

The 3 above dont negate using FW models (basically to be the best one can be).

Imbalance - not the players problem - thats down to GW/FW coordinating. If they dont - you cant blame someone who plays/brings FW for that.
Cost - Going to be harsh here ( ) but if one has the money to buy/fund FW, then well done to them (I admit I do have monetary access to FW but it is still a choice)
LoK - this is dictated by a good rules pack/knowledge/sharing/browsing. Lets be honest - no FW rules cant be found on the net realistically.

I've run local tournaments for the past 20 years or so, and for a lot of that time did not allow FW in my tournaments, including our big local event, The Brawl in the Fall. I also went to the BAO and played against a couple of lists that had FW models in them, and didn't really find them to be all that bad. Of course, I didn't run into any of the anti-air stuff either.

That being said, I've come to the conclusion that the real reason many people (myself included) want to run FW models is because there *are* a lot of cool options that the normal books don't have. I've got a Tesseract Ark for my Necrons, not because I think it's going to win me a game, but because I think it looks cool. I'll probably buy a Night Shroud one of these days, and maybe even some Ancathrites.

I think that a lot of the anti-FW view stems from the fact (and it IS an issue) that there are so many different iterations of rules for certain units floating around out there, along with the fact that FW books are not readily accessible to everyone. If a person comes up against FW units that they've never seen before, or read about before, they're counting on their opponent to not screw them on the rules. I did see one player at the BAO (not someone I played against) who was using a FW unit with a set of older, experimental rules, not the most current version. So, he may have gotten away with something to the detriment of his opponents by using an outdated set of rules, or he could've handicapped himself by using those rules if the points cost of the unit had changed in the meantime. It could've been an honest mistake, or it could've been intentional.

I allow the use of FW in my local tournaments now, and will do so for the Brawl in October as well. I also require that people who do play them must bring the book, just as with their core army. No PDF's or copies allowed. I think that's a fair compromise. I may lose some players by requiring them to have their own book, but I think it's a reasonable compromise that will cut down on the shenanigans, and will also give people who don't normally see FW a chance to see the units in action, and to see what they can actually do.

Mark

+1 ^^

 Ratius wrote:
*snip*

Point taken...good post

To me, the main flaw about FW are very specific issues with very specific units that are clearly overpowered - just ban those and it would be fine. The problem is that doing so would take a lot of playtest and thus time and thus it's easier to say "Nope, no FW at all!". Secondly, allowing FW would drastically benefit
IG, as they are FW's absolute love child, and leaving most other factions behind. And thirdly, I think it depends on you define "competitive". Allowing FW with no restrictions would make tournaments a "Pay to win" place as you could drastically increase your win chaces by playing IG and buying the clearly OP stuff. I (personally!) don't consider that being a "competitive" environment but more clever marketing

That's just on top of the points you already made, I think not allowing it because of the rules not being spread around a lot is a point, but...uhm...if FW was allowed, that wouldn't be an issue, would it?

We all can agree that FW models look AWESOME. Yes, they are insanely overpriced, but they look really, really good. I wouldn't mind seeing more different units on the battlefield! ...but I do mind heavily favoring one army out of all on top of shifting the balance to people who pay the most. So in my eyes, a good solution would be to ban the overpowered stuff and allow the rest. But alas...that's wishful thinking.

To me, the main flaw about FW are very specific issues with very specific units that are clearly overpowered - just ban those and it would be fine.

Can you expand Sig, which ones specifically?

First thing that come to my mind are the Quad, Sabre and Vultures.

Why are Vultures more OP than Vendettas? They're more expensive, can't squadron, don't have transport capacity and are worse at anti-tank and anti-AV12+ (read: Heldrakes). It's not like it's broken to add more anti-infantry power to IG, so I'm genuinly curious.

We have a few players in our area that like to buy and use FW stuff, or are netlist gurus. I think one of the points that people miss out those supposedly OP items is that while they can indeed be nasty on the battlefield and work well when they work, a lot of their impact is precisely because many players don't see them all the time. A Vulture, for example, is a pretty nasty unit. But all it takes is one good Interceptor shot, and that fancy expensive Vulture is a steaming pile of junk.

Those players who buy such units hoping that they'll be game-winners often tend to get really bent when their pet unit doesn't pan out for whatever reason. The same thing is true of netlisters. When it works, it works well. But if something goes wrong and it doesn't, then they're often the first ones to rage quit.

I realize I've come pretty late to the debate, and we could probably go item by item to try to determine which ones are and aren't OP, but nobody's every going to agree if it's their "pet" unit that's accused of being OP.

Mark

For me the problem isn't the actual FW its more to do with what the player picks.

For example I may pick up a Mega Dredd in the near future and maybe a Lifta-Droppa wagon, and there not OP or really strong units, but I picked them because they looked cool, or I like the model.

The problem arises is when someone will deliberately cherry picks the units that are maybe a tad too strong or OP just to take advantage of certain aspects of the game mechanics, say saber gun platforms for example, someone may take that just because he or she knowes that it will get him or her, to 1st place. A game like 40k should require tactics and strategic skill to become 1st place, not one two or three units. But then again that's just my opinion, my personal preference is a casual environment, as I see competitive 40k to be all just "90% models 10% skill+strategy" but that's just my opinion.

Other than that I have no problem with FW at all, I like the stuff they produce as it looks awesome, just there will always be the one person to take advantage of what the tournament

NeedleOfInquiry- The only talk of "elite" play, is from you and folks making similar polarized arguments.

I am going to choose the event I think I'll have the most fun with. Right now, that is not unlimited FW. You can boycott all the non-FW events and stick to "elite" ones... because in the end, that's what you're really saying, that not allowing FW isn't hardcore enough for you. And that's really a silly argument.

40k is a fun game, with porous rules. Decrying those who dislike FW as "elitist" and "afraid" is simply making you sound elitist yourself, and is not very effective.

I just want to have fun. I have more fun with limited FW than unlimited. YMMV, live and let live- there are events for both preferences and a whole myriad of varieties thereof.

 RiTides wrote:
NeedleOfInquiry- The only talk of "elite" play, is from you and folks making similar polarized arguments.

I am going to choose the event I think I'll have the most fun with. Right now, that is not unlimited FW. You can boycott all the non-FW events and stick to "elite" ones... because in the end, that's what you're really saying, that not allowing FW isn't hardcore enough for you. And that's really a silly argument.

40k is a fun game, with porous rules. Decrying those who dislike FW as "elitist" and "afraid" is simply making you sound elitist yourself, and is not very effective.

I just want to have fun. I have more fun with limited FW than unlimited. YMMV, live and let live- there are events for both preferences and a whole myriad of varieties thereof.

Phrase your words as you want...I never mentioned hardcore, you did. I am talking about using the rules, all of them that are approved for 40K by the company that produces them and not using convenient house rules.

I am also not talking unlimited FW. I am talking the 40K Approved stuff. I can see why you always want to mix the two, it make it look like I am asking for APOC stuff, which I am not..

The article name is a question "Do we still need forge world in tournament play?" My reply was that the 40K approved stuff should be there since it is 40k approved and its not.

Elitism is the belief or attitude that some individuals, who form an elite—a select group of people with a certain ancestry, intrinsic quality or worth, higher intellect, wealth, specialized training or experience, or other distinctive attributes—are those whose influence or authority is greater than that of others; whose views on a matter are to be taken the most seriously or carry the most weight; whose views or actions are most likely to be constructive to society as a whole; or whose extraordinary skills, abilities, or wisdom render them especially fit to govern.

Elitist is when you pick and chose what you will allow and what you not will allow out of a rule set that the makers of the game said were to be included. The description fits.

If that bothers you that's not my problem, I'm not the one cherry picking rules to use.

By limited or unlimited, I'm referring to how many FW units are allowed (only a single unit, 0-1 for any number of units, or a selection of units). Not Apocalypse versus non-Apocalypse.

That language has been used through this whole thread, which if you'd read, you would know

And as I said, calling all players who don't want unlimited FW "elitist" or "afraid" doesn't help your argument. I am a casual tourney player, attending one big GT a year which I save up and prepare for. I choose the one I like based on many factors, and love AdeptiCon's limited FW allowance in the team tournament in recent years. That's not the only factor, but I prefer it, rather than unlimited. YMMV... and it clearly does

 RiTides wrote:
By limited or unlimited, I'm referring to how many FW units are allowed (only a single unit, 0-1 for any number of units, or a selection of units). Not Apocalypse versus non-Apocalypse.

That language has been used through this whole thread, which if you'd read, you would know

And as I said, calling all players who don't want unlimited FW "elitist" or "afraid" doesn't help your argument. I am a casual tourney player, attending one big GT a year which I save up and prepare for. I choose the one I like based on many factors, and love AdeptiCon's limited FW allowance in the team tournament in recent years. That's not the only factor, but I prefer it, rather than unlimited. YMMV... and it clearly does

I have seen people mix the terms up and yes I had read the whole tread already....who was that on the first page going off on thudd guns :} Not that I disagree about the cost for Thudds, the same can be said for other non FW units...

I do not like not being allowed to play because 40K approved does not mean anything to those who pick and chose which rules they will use. The selection of 0-1 or better does me no good. I desire to play an Elysian Drop Troop Army and that has already been crossed off by the majority even though it is a 40K Approved Army.

Suppose we ban the flavor of the month, which is TAU this month because it is overpowered with riptides. Is that fair? It's allowed by the rules.

I can run two armies.

A 6 Vendetta , 3 Valkyrie Force full of demo charging Imperial Guard Troops that any tournament is going to allow in. I suspect I can clean up rather quickly and table someone. Under the current rules I could even make it a 9 vendetta force.

This force is an abuse similar to CRON AIR or Riptides x 4 or 5 depending on how that discussion comes out.

I do not think the other guy would have a lot of fun vs 6 or more Vendettas. Of course he could table me on turn one if he kills the squads I hide in my deployment zone

If the 40K Approved Elysian is allowed then I can not have demo charges (Elysians lost them) and the same 1850 gets me 6 Valkyries and 3 Vultures. Must put troops in Valkyries, not Vendettas with Elysian Drop Troops.

Which list do you think is more deadly?

It's a fluffy army but its what I play. No tanks, no forts, no allies, no thuds, no sabre platforms, just everything coming in by air. With Vultures being moved to Fast Attack, I do not even have any heavy support choices any more. Maybe time to hit Forge World again.

Anyway, with 6th edition and the first list I have to leave troops hiding on the ground on turn one to forgo the new Auto Win rule. With the Elysian list I do not, half of the Valkyries can come in on turn one.

I was running this list before 6th edition, I will be running them after. Its what I like. It's as close to Air Cav as 40K is going to get.

I just will not be running it in most "40K" tournaments.

 happygolucky wrote:
The problem arises is when someone will deliberately cherry picks the units that are maybe a tad too strong or OP just to take advantage of certain aspects of the game mechanics, say saber gun platforms for example, someone may take that just because he or she knowes that it will get him or her, to 1st place.

So, how is this any different from codex-only 40k? Those people will always pick the most overpowered units regardless of whether they come from a codex or IA book.

 Ratius wrote:
I think it was DashofPepper that once had a quote on here - Im paraphrasing it:

"If I show up to a 100 meter sprint, overweight, smoking 40 a day and fat, do you blame the other racers?" *sic*

I suppose his and my point is:

If you want to be the best, the elite, then you have to utilise and accept what the best is.
Do you blame the TO/competitors/GW/rules etc. ? Well no.

If the TO (who has ultimately put time, effort, resources, money and passion) into an event says "FW is legal" :

You have (by choice) 3 options:

Accept it and save/ebay/proxy (if allowed) FW.
Attend but not be happy with the FW opponents you face (whether you beat them or not)
Not attend

My point is this:

If you are a hardcore tourney competitor (which many in this thread are) you have to be 100% nay 110% committed to winning it - that includes adapting to the - FW is legal tournament rule.
That is not trying to be arrogant or debasing - it is a truth.

I fully accept FW is an exceptional outlay in terms of money/prices (maybe rules) but if you want to be #1

Repeat #1

in the game/environment it is something that has to be facilitated.

I would not do it myself btw

The exact quote is in my sig

 NeedleOfInquiry wrote:

 RiTides wrote:
NeedleOfInquiry- The only talk of "elite" play, is from you and folks making similar polarized arguments.

I am going to choose the event I think I'll have the most fun with. Right now, that is not unlimited FW. You can boycott all the non-FW events and stick to "elite" ones... because in the end, that's what you're really saying, that not allowing FW isn't hardcore enough for you. And that's really a silly argument.

40k is a fun game, with porous rules. Decrying those who dislike FW as "elitist" and "afraid" is simply making you sound elitist yourself, and is not very effective.

I just want to have fun. I have more fun with limited FW than unlimited. YMMV, live and let live- there are events for both preferences and a whole myriad of varieties thereof.

Phrase your words as you want...I never mentioned hardcore, you did. I am talking about using the rules, all of them that are approved for 40K by the company that produces them and not using convenient house rules.

I am also not talking unlimited FW. I am talking the 40K Approved stuff. I can see why you always want to mix the two, it make it look like I am asking for APOC stuff, which I am not..

The article name is a question "Do we still need forge world in tournament play?" My reply was that the 40K approved stuff should be there since it is 40k approved and its not.

Elitism is the belief or attitude that some individuals, who form an elite—a select group of people with a certain ancestry, intrinsic quality or worth, higher intellect, wealth, specialized training or experience, or other distinctive attributes—are those whose influence or authority is greater than that of others; whose views on a matter are to be taken the most seriously or carry the most weight; whose views or actions are most likely to be constructive to society as a whole; or whose extraordinary skills, abilities, or wisdom render them especially fit to govern.

Elitist is when you pick and chose what you will allow and what you not will allow out of a rule set that the makers of the game said were to be included. The description fits.

If that bothers you that's not my problem, I'm not the one cherry picking rules to use.

Stating that non FW 40k is elitist is silly, when TOs poll attendees and most say they don't want it. That is what you get. The fact is most people do not play this game with or against FW on any kind of regular basis. That fact is more responsible for its exclusion than anything else. People don't want surprises at events and that is more true for the casual player than the super elite gamer. Inclusion of FW is also a lot if work for a to unless they already know all the rules (see adepticon rules pack). And FW is at fault for this given that the rules for armies and units are printed multiple times in multiple books, meaning e to needs to research which are the most current printing etc..

 Peregrine wrote:

 happygolucky wrote:
The problem arises is when someone will deliberately cherry picks the units that are maybe a tad too strong or OP just to take advantage of certain aspects of the game mechanics, say saber gun platforms for example, someone may take that just because he or she knowes that it will get him or her, to 1st place.

So, how is this any different from codex-only 40k? Those people will always pick the most overpowered units regardless of whether they come from a codex or IA book.

Exactly. adding more FW 40k would just make it further unbalancing and tbh when have you seen something 40k approved that had taken a major effect on game with Orks? or CSM? or even DE? no because of the variety of units has it in favour of the Imperium, and yes whilst I agree that some lists do break the game with just standard 40k at least there are certain units and rules to take it out with each codex. We add FW and whilst most people would pick stuff that is cool (which is awesome ), there will be someone taking obvious units just to get in first place.. then because the Imperium could have said units it would become the meta, and imperium would once again be top of the chain again... atm the meta is varied between each area and to me that's cool, it means we are living in the golden age of 40k as every army has a chance to get to the top. With certain cherry picked units, we would be living in 5th ed. where SM and IG and anything inquisition ruled the game, and that's kind of boring tbh..

Like I say I have nothing against FW I like they stuff they produce, just the Meta would change so quickly tournament wise that certain army's would never have the chance to win a tournament, and that in a competitive environment should never be the case imo. that being said I am slightly biased against "Competitive 40k" as I find the game becomes "90% models 10% Skill + strategy" and I like the casual environment a lot more, so take my perceptions and opinions with a pinch of salt.

Breng77 wrote:

 NeedleOfInquiry wrote:

 RiTides wrote:
NeedleOfInquiry- The only talk of "elite" play, is from you and folks making similar polarized arguments.

I am going to choose the event I think I'll have the most fun with. Right now, that is not unlimited FW. You can boycott all the non-FW events and stick to "elite" ones... because in the end, that's what you're really saying, that not allowing FW isn't hardcore enough for you. And that's really a silly argument.

40k is a fun game, with porous rules. Decrying those who dislike FW as "elitist" and "afraid" is simply making you sound elitist yourself, and is not very effective.

I just want to have fun. I have more fun with limited FW than unlimited. YMMV, live and let live- there are events for both preferences and a whole myriad of varieties thereof.

Phrase your words as you want...I never mentioned hardcore, you did. I am talking about using the rules, all of them that are approved for 40K by the company that produces them and not using convenient house rules.

I am also not talking unlimited FW. I am talking the 40K Approved stuff. I can see why you always want to mix the two, it make it look like I am asking for APOC stuff, which I am not..

The article name is a question "Do we still need forge world in tournament play?" My reply was that the 40K approved stuff should be there since it is 40k approved and its not.

Elitism is the belief or attitude that some individuals, who form an elite—a select group of people with a certain ancestry, intrinsic quality or worth, higher intellect, wealth, specialized training or experience, or other distinctive attributes—are those whose influence or authority is greater than that of others; whose views on a matter are to be taken the most seriously or carry the most weight; whose views or actions are most likely to be constructive to society as a whole; or whose extraordinary skills, abilities, or wisdom render them especially fit to govern.

Elitist is when you pick and chose what you will allow and what you not will allow out of a rule set that the makers of the game said were to be included. The description fits.

If that bothers you that's not my problem, I'm not the one cherry picking rules to use.

Stating that non FW 40k is elitist is silly, when TOs poll attendees and most say they don't want it. That is what you get. The fact is most people do not play this game with or against FW on any kind of regular basis. That fact is more responsible for its exclusion than anything else. People don't want surprises at events and that is more true for the casual player than the super elite gamer. Inclusion of FW is also a lot if work for a to unless they already know all the rules (see adepticon rules pack). And FW is at fault for this given that the rules for armies and units are printed multiple times in multiple books, meaning e to needs to research which are the most current printing etc..

What Breng said. Calling a poll of the masses and rulings built to protect the majority elitist is probably inaccurate. Also, throwing ad hominems at TOs is not a good way to convert them to your way of thinking.

Brings some variety to armies

What Breng said. Calling a poll of the masses and rulings built to protect the majority elitist is probably inaccurate. Also, throwing ad hominems at TOs is not a good way to convert them to your way of thinking.

I am not trying to covert anymore, just pointing out inconsistencies. It is elitism when you chose which rules you will use and not use. If the word bothers you I will use something else. Not sure what the " throwing ad hominems at TOs" is about..

What I am saying is a game company came up with rules to play their game. Those rules include stuff with the Approved for Warhammer 40k. Do not expect me to be appreciative that you have added a little Approved for Warhammer 40k for appearances sake at some of the event.

Separate water fountains never worked for those forced to use the other fountain.

You have decided which rules you will include and not include based on "to protect the majority"?

I did not see the poll or its results. Where there questions about CRON AIR and RIPTIDES x4? Was it a FW question in general or on Approved For 40K?

For that matter what other things are open to vote in your tournaments?

My point is you say you are running a 40K event. Isn't it really a 40K event with the rules I desire and not the ones I do not like event? Honestly?

The initial question was "Do we still need forge world in tournament play?"

My point is is we make the question "Do we still need "fill in your army here" in tournament play everyone would say "we can not ban them, its a part of 40K" and they would be right.

Forge World is both stuff totally unsuited for 40k and stuff which has a stamp saying it can be used in 40K.

When you chose to ban the Approved for 40K stuff you are making a choice to not use part of the rules.

You say it is to protect folks? Do you jump into matches that are lopsided and remove the winning players advantage? Did not think so....

Was the survey not rather to see what was popular, and what was not? Who participated in it, I did not see it.

In the end none of these questions matter and you do not need to answer any of them of course.

When it's your event, you can obviously run your event any way you want...

However, this thread is not about your event.

Again the question at the top of the tread is [u]"Do we still need forge world in tournament play?"
[/u]
I say yes because the Approved for 40K stuff is part of 40K and you either play with all the rules or you do not in a 40k tournament.

 NeedleOfInquiry wrote:

What Breng said. Calling a poll of the masses and rulings built to protect the majority elitist is probably inaccurate. Also, throwing ad hominems at TOs is not a good way to convert them to your way of thinking.

Separate water fountains never worked for those forced to use the other fountain.

I think comparing FW-allowed or FW-restricted/semi-allowed to racial segregation is... well, at best a reach, and at worse offensive.

This thread hadn't been posted in for weeks and to bring it up using language like this (after saying you wouldn't use "elitist" anymore if it bothered people, as it clearly did) really isn't advancing the pro-FW argument... at all.

I'll stop responding to you now as I don't think it's going to get anywhere and everything you're bringing up has already been discussed, you're just using more extreme language for it to get a reaction.

Forgeworld Models really bring the battlefield alive

 happygolucky wrote:
atm the meta is varied between each area and to me that's cool, it means we are living in the golden age of 40k as every army has a chance to get to the top. With certain cherry picked units, we would be living in 5th ed. where SM and IG and anything inquisition ruled the game, and that's kind of boring tbh..

Necrons, Eldar and Tau. Honorable mention to Imperial Guard with X allied MEQ HQ. How is that different from Space Wolves, Blood Angels, Imperial Guard and Grey Knights, other than the fact that they're different factions?

Everything's OP'd at first until something new comes out.