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.

rigeld2 wrote:

Please tell me how to edit an iBook. I'd love it. I'd send you money for that information.
Or are you spouting fud?

iBook is safe, but you can edit mobi and epub files pretty easily. They're just XML documents. I plan on editing down all my epub codexes for tabletop use to a) remove all the background and unneeded bestiary entries and b) include ibook style rule popouts. I'll have a real version sitting on tablet too in case people really think I edited anything in a rules-changing way.

MVBrandt wrote:
I've said it before, but allowing FW has nothing to do with top tier players and the guys who win events (because usually the same folks are on top no matter what book is out). It's about what happens to everyone's experience, not just the elites.

This...

I'm re-quoting Mike's blurb here... this is important. The TO has the absolute burden to manage a tournament and should be left up to the TO's discretion to include FW units, because at the end of the day, all the TO wants is to have a successful (and largely attended) event. They're the ones getting the feedback... trust in them... let the hate floooooooooow (erm... sorry 'bout that! )

My personal opinion is that I have a "BRING IT BRAH!" mindset... I love seeing new stuff and love trying to tactically overcome when facing a surprising adversary. If you want to fit in a baneblade or War Titan in a 2k pt list? Be my guest... but, I assure you that I'll be formulating plans to bring your ass down!

 Blackmoor wrote:
If you are at a tournament everyone knows what the current codexes are. If you are at a level to find a tournament, you are at a level to know what the current codexes are.

And why can't you say the same about FW rules? If you're at a level to find a tournament you're at a level to know what the current IA books are.

hands_miranda wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Please tell me how to edit an iBook. I'd love it. I'd send you money for that information.
Or are you spouting fud?

iBook is safe, but you can edit mobi and epub files pretty easily. They're just XML documents. I plan on editing down all my epub codexes for tabletop use to a) remove all the background and unneeded bestiary entries and b) include ibook style rule popouts. I'll have a real version sitting on tablet too in case people really think I edited anything in a rules-changing way.

And are the ePub or mobi books released? I didn't think they were yet.

rigeld2 wrote:

hands_miranda wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Please tell me how to edit an iBook. I'd love it. I'd send you money for that information.
Or are you spouting fud?

iBook is safe, but you can edit mobi and epub files pretty easily. They're just XML documents. I plan on editing down all my epub codexes for tabletop use to a) remove all the background and unneeded bestiary entries and b) include ibook style rule popouts. I'll have a real version sitting on tablet too in case people really think I edited anything in a rules-changing way.

And are the ePub or mobi books released? I didn't think they were yet.

I'm 90% certain that at least the Eldar codex is in ePub and mobi. I'll check that now.

EDIT: Currently, we only have the Rulebook, the Eldar Codex, and the Farsight Enclaves Codex Supplement in ePub and mobi, although quite a lot of them are in iBook format.

Breng77 wrote:


Now you can make that argument about say the Daemon WD rules or Death from the Skies, that we had/have 2 sets of rules for units at the same time, in two different sources. I agree that could be confusing, but it was for one book/one supplement, GW included many of these changes in their FAQs, so if you read the FAQ you knew of the difference.

Nothing in Death From the Skies is mentioned in the Black Templars FAQ. For all I know, Death From the Skies could just be some random dude who's taking the piss trying to claim that the rules inside applies to Codex: Black Templars.

Breng77 wrote:
Except that in all those cases unless FAQ'd by GW we were expected to play the appropriate rules from our codex. IN otherwords the Rhino Point costs for Vanilla Marines did not replace those for say Templars. That is not the case for Forgeworld, Saber in One book replaces the rules for the saber in an entirely different book, both for use by IG. So your argument here holds no water.

That expectation came about only after GW stated so, it took them more than a bit of time, and then they eventually reversed themselves on at least the rules portions (if not the points costs) and FAQ'd them to all use the current stats several years later for many of those. I'm not trying to say it's *not* an issue with FW, only that this is something that GW itself has only recently sorted out. FW's issue is that they try to update stuff as time goes on in a reasonably timely manner, GW does not. FW's error is that they don't make clear where the latest updates are, while GW's failing is that they often let stuff rot for 3 editions.

That is true, but at least in GWs case what I have in my book are the correct rules for my army. Where as for FW because they feel the need to update units without re-relaeasing the same book.

The issue would be there even if they gave a list of what was most recent for each unit. The problem is when I have the same unit in multiple books, with different names, there is no reasonable way that at a table a player can know their opponent is using the right rules. It is simply too much to remember. Not sure how many FW 40k legal units there are but lets say 100 total, so I need to be expected as a player to know all 100 units, which books they have been printed in and which of those is the most recent?

Sorry but that is an absurd expectation. Now you can say, well if there is a list, you can bring it with you, and then spend time in a timed event cross referencing your opponents rulebooks with the units in his army and said list. But that too seems a bit much.

So IMO FWs failing is that they don't update units within the books that they were originally placed in, instead they update them in separate releases. Which is confusing. They would have been better served FAQ the existing releases (like they did for 6th ed in many cases.).

Breng77 wrote:
It is simply too much to remember.

No it isn't. It's difficult to remember, but so is keeping track of all of GW's FAQ updates so someone doesn't bring their own fake FAQ that lets them do something they shouldn't be allowed to do.

Not sure how many FW 40k legal units there are but lets say 100 total, so I need to be expected as a player to know all 100 units, which books they have been printed in and which of those is the most recent?

But it's not really going to be 100 units in a competitive tournament. You can cut that list down to a handful of powerful units that you can reasonably expect to see in a tournament list, and only worry about checking rulebook versions if your opponent shows you a powerful unit that isn't on that list of things you were expecting. For example, if my opponent claims that the Lightning is AV 13 with four TL lascannons I'm going to immediately know that something is wrong because the Lightning doesn't even appear at all on my list of tournament units and those stats would clearly put it there if they were real.

Sure, this means that your opponent might be able to cheat a bit and, say, claim that the Lightning has 3 HP instead of 2 HP, but who cares? The advantage gained from making a weak and ignorable unit slightly less weak (but still so weak that you don't notice) is much less than the advantage gained from just taking Vendettas instead.

Sorry but that is an absurd expectation. Now you can say, well if there is a list, you can bring it with you, and then spend time in a timed event cross referencing your opponents rulebooks with the units in his army and said list. But that too seems a bit much.

How is this any different than having to spend time in a timed event cross referencing my opponent's supplements and FAQs and checking the online version of the FAQ to make sure it matches?

 Peregrine wrote:

Breng77 wrote:
It is simply too much to remember.

No it isn't. It's difficult to remember, but so is keeping track of all of GW's FAQ updates so someone doesn't bring their own fake FAQ that lets them do something they shouldn't be allowed to do.

That'd be hard to do when I'm carrying copies of every FAQ on my tablet and in hard copy.

But it's not really going to be 100 units in a competitive tournament. You can cut that list down to a handful of powerful units that you can reasonably expect to see in a tournament list, and only worry about checking rulebook versions if your opponent shows you a powerful unit that isn't on that list of things you were expecting. For example, if my opponent claims that the Lightning is AV 13 with four TL lascannons I'm going to immediately know that something is wrong because the Lightning doesn't even appear at all on my list of tournament units and those stats would clearly put it there if they were real.

That assumes familiarity with every FW unit - at least enough to decide what's going to be competitive.

How is this any different than having to spend time in a timed event cross referencing my opponent's supplements and FAQs and checking the online version of the FAQ to make sure it matches?

You are prepared and have print outs of all the FAQs, right? Also, I don't have to cross reference my opponents Wraithlord with the rules he's using - there's only one place they're listed.
How many books (and experimental rules) list the Hades drill?

rigeld2 wrote:

And are the ePub or mobi books released? I didn't think they were yet.

Eldar and Farsight are already out in epub and mobi. Hopefully there will be more to follow, since that's the only mobile format I'd bother buying.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

rigeld2 wrote:

You are prepared and have print outs of all the FAQs, right? Also, I don't have to cross reference my opponents Wraithlord with the rules he's using - there's only one place they're listed.
How many books (and experimental rules) list the Hades drill?

The whole cross-reference thing is a mess in GW's 40K releases too. By including stats for units and weapons in the rulebook, we're now at a point where some weapons are wrong in one of the two profiles (examples, Burst Cannons, and Shuriken weapons but there are plenty more) and also units have the wrong statlines in the summary section. This becomes a mess because some units default to their codex for being correct, some to the summary page. At least the delination is easy to remember (Hardback > Summary > Softback) but it's still a problem into the future. An extra sheet with hull point info would have been sufficient and a much better choice that would keep the rulebook from having this issue, where some statlines are authoritative and some aren't.

rigeld2 wrote:
That'd be hard to do when I'm carrying copies of every FAQ on my tablet and in hard copy.

Great, so why don't you put a list of FW units and the location of their current rules on your tablet?

That assumes familiarity with every FW unit - at least enough to decide what's going to be competitive.

And why is it unfair to expect people playing in competitive events to be familiar with what they could be facing? We wouldn't feel much sympathy for someone who lost to Tau because they didn't know about JSJ, so why should we feel any differently about someone who didn't even bother browsing the forums to see what FW units people are talking about?

You are prepared and have print outs of all the FAQs, right?

So I have to carry copies of the FAQs for all the armies I don't play just in case my opponent tries to cheat? Why don't I just add a single piece of paper with the list of which rules are in each FW book?

How many books (and experimental rules) list the Hades drill?

Who cares? This is about as relevant as asking about how many previous C:SM versions also contain tactical squads.

 Peregrine wrote:
So I have to carry copies of the FAQs for all the armies I don't play just in case my opponent tries to cheat? Why don't I just add a single piece of paper with the list of which rules are in each FW book?

You're the one arguing that it's simply difficult to remember...
And when my opponent says "No, that's wrong, this is the newest book." where do we fall back on? You're adding a significant amount of work for everyone at every tournament like it's nothing.

How many books (and experimental rules) list the Hades drill?

Who cares? This is about as relevant as asking about how many previous C:SM versions also contain tactical squads.

No, it's very relevant. The fact that you cut out part of the quote shows you understand that it is and just declined to address it, instead wanting to make me look foolish.

There's one relevant place to look for a Wraithlord. I know what the Eldar codex looks like because I play 40k and to imply I don't know at least what the cover is would be ... silly.
I literally have no idea what books the Hades was in and which one is current - heck, if I remember right the current rules for it aren't even in a book.

This is not the same thing as trying to use an outdated codex. At all. Please stop comparing the two situations.

rigeld2 wrote:
You're the one arguing that it's simply difficult to remember...

No, my point is that it's just as difficult as the "difficulty" in keeping track of FW rules. There's a double standard here where difficulty in dealing with codex rules is just accepted as part of playing a GW game, while equal difficulty in dealing with FW rules is an impossible obstacle that we can't even attempt to face.

And when my opponent says "No, that's wrong, this is the newest book." where do we fall back on?

You fall back on the same thing that you fall back on when your opponent shows you a FAQ that disagrees with your copy: you go online and find the answer.

There's one relevant place to look for a Wraithlord. I know what the Eldar codex looks like because I play 40k and to imply I don't know at least what the cover is would be ... silly.
I literally have no idea what books the Hades was in and which one is current - heck, if I remember right the current rules for it aren't even in a book.

So why don't you spend a few minutes and look for the answer? I know that it's possible to not know these things, what I don't understand is why "I don't want to go find the answer" should be an acceptable excuse. If you can figure out which version of a codex is current you can figure out where the rules for the Hades drill are.

(And the current rules are in IA1 second edition, just like almost every IG unit.)

Should be up to the TO.
It is multiplying their work for marginal gain.

Anyone arguing otherwise needs to step up and start running events with FW.

Posts about how others need to do the work are simply wrong.

 Peregrine wrote:
No, my point is that it's just as difficult as the "difficulty" in keeping track of FW rules. There's a double standard here where difficulty in dealing with codex rules is just accepted as part of playing a GW game, while equal difficulty in dealing with FW rules is an impossible obstacle that we can't even attempt to face.

Again, you're representing the difficulty between the two as being similar. They're simply not in any way shape or form.
It's not a double standard when one takes a significant amount more effort.

[quite]

There's one relevant place to look for a Wraithlord. I know what the Eldar codex looks like because I play 40k and to imply I don't know at least what the cover is would be ... silly.
I literally have no idea what books the Hades was in and which one is current - heck, if I remember right the current rules for it aren't even in a book.

So why don't you spend a few minutes and look for the answer? I know that it's possible to not know these things, what I don't understand is why "I don't want to go find the answer" should be an acceptable excuse. If you can figure out which version of a codex is current you can figure out where the rules for the Hades drill are.

(And the current rules are in IA1 second edition, just like almost every IG unit.)

There is a large difference between someone modding faqs and someone brining the wrong rules from FW, and it is simply this, the FAQ discussion does not even come up unless the rule in question comes into play....and we disagree. Whereas the FW from the wrong book will come up every time I see FW because I'll need to vet that we are using the right book.

Furthermore, it is possible (perhaps even likely) that the FW player can (if the to does not do a lot of research beforehand) bring the wrong rules by mistake, he happens to own book a with the rules and never even knew the rules were updated in unrelated book b. so now I need to error check that as his opponent. Don't believe this will happen...it absolutely will I've gotten lists for events that were over on points....by 182 points....people make dumb mistakes all the time.

The same cannot be said of the FAQ because there is only one current FAQ for each army...vs multiple current books with rules for various FW units.

Finally it comes back to this for me:

If my players are not clamoring for FW (most don't want it or are indifferent) , why as a to should I spend hours researching what the most current FW rules for each unit are, then having my players check in at e event and show me each FW book they are using to make sure they have the most current rules?

One interesting dilemma is if you let the Thudd Gun in.. well it is extremely unfun to play against. If you ban it then you are picking and choosing.

I like having some with FW and some without. I would just prefer that the Thudd Gun be fixed or banned. I won't travel to a GT that had Thudd Guns with the exception of LOV but only because that will be a week long vacation for me. If I was flying out just for the weekend I wouldn't go.

 Vaktathi wrote:
There's really no evidence this is true, no evidence that FW would shift balance that much, there's some pretty damn good Xenos stuff, and even if this "nightmare" scenario is true, these units exist in the 40k universe, are made by GW for Warhammer 40,000 play for typical games, since when has it ever been the responsibility of a TO to ensure all armies have a fair shot? They certainly don't do anything about it with regards to Codex issues. Eldar broke the game so much in 2nd that GW revamped half the game mechanics for 3rd just to make SM's playable and TO's didn't do anything about it then, Rhino Rush and Eldar starcannon spam and Disruption tables and CSM's dominated 3rd edition and TO's didn't do anything about it, Eldar Skimmerspam dominated the 2nd half of 4th edition without any action by TO's to curb it, GK/SW/IG/BA/SM's dominated 5th, TO's didn't do anything about it. Why is it relevant *ONLY* to Forgeworld?

This line of thinking is no different than telling someone they can't use their new Eldar codex because Eldar will dominate the metagame.

I have to agree. There's plenty of broken things in regular 40k, so disallowing Forge World because something might be "overpowered" seems truly silly. It becomes even more so when you realize that we are talking about a game where part of the allure is customization of an army and playing it against others.

 Shinkaze wrote:
One interesting dilemma is if you let the Thudd Gun in.. well it is extremely unfun to play against. If you ban it then you are picking and choosing.

I like having some with FW and some without. I would just prefer that the Thudd Gun be fixed or banned. I won't travel to a GT that had Thudd Guns with the exception of LOV but only because that will be a week long vacation for me. If I was flying out just for the weekend I wouldn't go.

Many people feel the same way about other units however, yet nobody talks about banning or modifying them. While I can certainly understand that facing certain units isn't always fun, one has to expect such things at a tournament, and banning only the Thudd Gun, and not say, Heldrakes, is, as you say, picking and choosing, an arbitrary double-standard.

Monster Rain wrote:

I have to agree. There's plenty of broken things in regular 40k, so disallowing Forge World because something might be "overpowered" seems truly silly. It becomes even more so when you realize that we are talking about a game where part of the allure is customization of an army and playing it against others.

Indeed, and who doesn't like seeing new and interesting models that may otherwise not normally be present?

Not to mention we're talking about competitive events where bringing a "hard" army and things like allies shennanigans is often expected and incentivized

 Vaktathi wrote:
Many people feel the same way about other units however, yet nobody talks about banning or modifying them. While I can certainly understand that facing certain units isn't always fun, one has to expect such things at a tournament, and banning only the Thudd Gun, and not say, Heldrakes, is, as you say, picking and choosing, an arbitrary double-standard.

If anything, this argument underscores the fact that FW is not perceived as a normal part of 40k, and that, even if it were, it is perceived as so imbalanced that its inclusion demands special and selective treatment. Each of these should make proponents of FW inclusion give pause.

 Danny Internets wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
Many people feel the same way about other units however, yet nobody talks about banning or modifying them. While I can certainly understand that facing certain units isn't always fun, one has to expect such things at a tournament, and banning only the Thudd Gun, and not say, Heldrakes, is, as you say, picking and choosing, an arbitrary double-standard.

If anything, this argument underscores the fact that FW is not perceived as a normal part of 40k, and that, even if it were, it is perceived as so imbalanced that its inclusion demands special and selective treatment. Each of these should make proponents of FW inclusion give pause.

On what basis? It's not hard to find people say the same things about non-FW units and refrain from attending events so they don't have to play certain armies/units that exist in codex books.

We have zero evidence of any sort that any of these FW units are any more imbalanced than anything else currently in the game given the last year or so of many FW allowed events (e.g. Feast of Blades, etc)

I'm not arguing there's a perception gap, hell, I remember people complaining about the Hydra Flak Tank's Imperial Armour original incarnation and then seeing them happily playing against them at less than half the original cost, squadronable and much more effective just because it was in a codex. I'm arguing that the arbitrary desire to ban certain FW units, which have in no way been shown to be more abusive than anything in a codex, is largely just because of the book title, and that such suggestions would never be considered otherwise, and that otherwise there aren't even attempts to talk about bans of other units that arguably are at least as abusive and certainly more widespread.

rigeld2 wrote:
They've said that every time I've asked for the past 18 months.
It should take all of 30 minutes. An hour if you type slow. This is just them being lazy.

There is a new book releasing soon and was shown at the recent US Games Day in Tennessee. Between this new book and Aeronautica a TO should have access to all of the most common 40k approved units from Forge World. Each TO must decide if they want to allow the use of campaign books that feature more exotic units or Forge World armies. So it doesn't have to be hard to keep up if you make an effort.

 Dozer Blades wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
They've said that every time I've asked for the past 18 months.
It should take all of 30 minutes. An hour if you type slow. This is just them being lazy.

There is a new book releasing soon and was shown at the recent US Games Day in Tennessee. Between this new book and Aeronautica a TO should have access to all of the most common 40k approved units from Forge World. Each TO must decide if they want to allow the use of campaign books that feature more exotic units or Forge World armies. So it doesn't have to be hard to keep up if you make an effort.

But how as a to do I know that those two books have the most current rules for those units? And why arbitrarily should only those be allowed?

FW should start adding FAQs

 ThouShallNotHeal wrote:
FW should start adding FAQs

Sometimes they post erratas and also complete army list updates in pdf. (and if I'm correct, they correct the later printings.)

 Vaktathi wrote:
On what basis? It's not hard to find people say the same things about non-FW units and refrain from attending events so they don't have to play certain armies/units that exist in codex books.

I've been playing in 40k tournaments for about thirteen years and I've yet to come across someone who refuses to play in tournaments because it allows specific codex units or codex armies. I find that the people who claim to boycott tournaments because codex unit X or codex army Y is overpowered are just blowhards who had no intention of attending tournaments in the first place. However, I do know avid tournament-goers who refrain from participating in events that permit FW.

Despite the anecdotal nature of these observations, I'm confident in their generalizability. There's no denying that people react differently to the restriction of FW units/armies (either as a whole or in part) than they do to the restriction of codex units/armies. The differential treatment may be a result of perceived and/or actual differences in FW units versus standard 40k units. I'm usually dismissive of community rabble about balance, but there are many respected competitive players who acknowledge the severe balance issues introduced by FW inclusion.

We have zero evidence of any sort that any of these FW units are any more imbalanced than anything else currently in the game given the last year or so of many FW allowed events (e.g. Feast of Blades, etc)

This is a demonstrably false statement. Others have cited evidence countless times in this thread and others. Perhaps you mean that there is zero evidence which you personally deem satisfactory, which is another matter entirely. Any such statement would, of course, be completely meaningless without defining your parameters for satisfaction.

Whether a FW army has won an event is also a meaningless statistic in EITHER direction. If Alan B won WGC w/ FW spammed IG, that would have said NOTHING about whether FW was overpowered.

The people who win GT's are good players, and they tend to bring very strong lists w/in what's legal and then play them well. Most GT's within any given timeframe are typically won or highly placed in by the same folks, regardless of list. We've had 2 NOVA primers in the last month, raised close to 2 grand for charity between 'em (yeah, shameless plug, whatever), and one was won by Eldar (Overall) and Daemons (General), while the other was won by Daemons (Overall) and Necron (General). Does that mean Tau isn't OP? Well, Tau went something like 14-3 over the course of the two events, while Eldar, Daemons, and Necron all had worse records than that by a noticeable margin. Does that mean Tau IS OP, since in most games they beat up on people? The same measuring stick could be applied to anything ... you could argue "clearly" Daemons and Necron and Eldar are OP, since they won these events, yada yada yada. It's all pointless stat-grabbing from data pools both large and small, and from all sorts of different "places" within the pools. This is why such metrics don't influence most TO's ... as I've said, the reason I offer major events with a wide variety of FW legality or illegality is there's a desire for all of the above by at least SOME people, and the reason our largest event disallows it is because the vast MAJORITY of our attendees and interested attendees voiced a desire not to have it in that setting. Really has nothing to do with lengthy and pointless and unprovable arguments like "what's op."

The issue, again, is about what happens "in the crowd." When you hear stories about players like Chumbalaya taking a cheeseball Acanthracite list and having a bunch of disgusted opponents in the middle of the pack, those are the stories that tell you the reality of its impact. How do FW inclusive or armies using the FW "cheeseball" units do as a whole, not "does a FW using player win an event?"

The biggest problem with this discussion as a whole is it is not inclusive of those "average" joes who go to tournaments to have an enjoyable time, play some games to the best of their ability, and socialize. When they get nailed out of the blue by surprises and ill-tested units from books they've never seen or heard of, they tend to enjoy it less than getting punked by the occasional triple-heldrake that they'd heard of, seen before at the local shop, and knew to expect.

The folks on either extreme side of this discussion and ones like it on the internet are generally have their fixed opinions, and select whichever arguments benefit them from a complex subject whose "obviousness" is ... quite obviously ... not so obvious. Yeah, I wrote that sentence.

Danny Internets wrote:I've been playing in 40k tournaments for about thirteen years and I've yet to come across someone who refuses to play in tournaments because it allows specific codex units or codex armies. I find that the people who claim to boycott tournaments because codex unit X or codex army Y is overpowered are just blowhards who had no intention of attending tournaments in the first place.

I agree, however that's also largely my perception of those who make such statements regarding specific FW units if they're fully aware of the unit rules and not just running off hearsay that so many do.

However, I do know avid tournament-goers who refrain from participating in events that permit FW.

Most of which, at least in my experience, do so largely out of ignorance of FW units or because it'll upset their particular metagame plan. As I noted earlier, I had to explain to a TO as to what a DKoK army could and could not do, as he banned DKoK armies on the thought that they could make all their Troops T7 (they cannot, nor can they take artillery units at all as Troops) and take gobs and gobs of interceptor artillery (they have no interceptor options) because of something he heard without bothering to confirm it. This is hugely widespread, even with the army list up for free online as a PDF.

There's no denying that people react differently to the restriction of FW units/armies (either as a whole or in part) than they do to the restriction of codex units/armies.

I don't disagree.

The differential treatment may be a result of perceived and/or actual differences in FW units versus standard 40k units. I'm usually dismissive of community rabble about balance, but there are many respected competitive players who acknowledge the severe balance issues introduced by FW inclusion.

And yet they don't see any issues when a codex introduces the exact same issues. That's what I'm trying to get across.

This is a demonstrably false statement. Others have cited evidence countless times in this thread and others.

I've been in most of this thread, there's been lots of conjecture, argument and discussion about certain units, but nothing concrete showing that anything FW produces is any more imbalanced than Heldrakes, Vendettas, etc, or that any higher % of their units are abuseable than codex units, and no tournament results/standings/attendence %'s that reflect this to be true. There were a couple armies that placed reasonably well run by players that had previously placed reasonably well, but no overrunning or complete domination by FW stuff. If there's something specific you'd like to reference that you feel I may be missing, I'd gladly discuss it.

As far as I can tell, the armies that seem to be doing well in Feast of Blades qualifiers appear to not in fact be armies including lots of FW, but in general appear to be armies making best use of cover allies synergy and cover save utility, such as Eldar/Tau as noted earlier.

MVBrandt wrote:
Whether a FW army has won an event is also a meaningless statistic in EITHER direction.

Perhaps, but the rate of appearance and relative standings/win rates (do FW armies generally have higher win rates/place higher than Codex armies?) can inform us of certain things. Thus far, FW inclusion does not seem to particularly heavily influence relative standings/win rates/etc or be appearing to overrun events where it's allowed.

The people who win GT's are good players, and they tend to bring very strong lists w/in what's legal and then play them well. Most GT's within any given timeframe are typically won or highly placed in by the same folks, regardless of list. We've had 2 NOVA primers in the last month, raised close to 2 grand for charity between 'em (yeah, shameless plug, whatever), and one was won by Eldar (Overall) and Daemons (General), while the other was won by Daemons (Overall) and Necron (General). Does that mean Tau isn't OP? Well, Tau went something like 14-3 over the course of the two events, while Eldar, Daemons, and Necron all had worse records than that by a noticeable margin. Does that mean Tau IS OP, since in most games they beat up on people? The same measuring stick could be applied to anything ... you could argue "clearly" Daemons and Necron and Eldar are OP, since they won these events, yada yada yada. It's all pointless stat-grabbing from data pools both large and small, and from all sorts of different "places" within the pools. This is why such metrics don't influence most TO's ... as I've said, the reason I offer major events with a wide variety of FW legality or illegality is there's a desire for all of the above by at least SOME people, and the reason our largest event disallows it is because the vast MAJORITY of our attendees and interested attendees voiced a desire not to have it in that setting. Really has nothing to do with lengthy and pointless and unprovable arguments like "what's op."

And if it comes to a vote like that, then any gameplay related discussion goes out the window, just as if they all voted to ban Necrons or Space Marines. We can't really trade points on something like that, only the reasons people may vote a certain way or not (e.g. many people assuming FW equates to seeing Reaver titans on tables for example).

The issue, again, is about what happens "in the crowd." When you hear stories about players like Chumbalaya taking a cheeseball Acanthracite list and having a bunch of disgusted opponents in the middle of the pack, those are the stories that tell you the reality of its impact.

And certainly people feel the same way about certain codex builds. How's that different than a Paladin or Razorfang spam build in 5th or multiple baleflamer heldrakes in 6th?

The biggest problem with this discussion as a whole is it is not inclusive of those "average" joes who go to tournaments to have an enjoyable time, play some games to the best of their ability, and socialize. When they get nailed out of the blue by surprises and ill-tested units from books they've never seen or heard of, they tend to enjoy it less than getting punked by the occasional triple-heldrake that they'd heard of, seen before at the local shop, and knew to expect.

I'd take issue with the concept of ill-tested, we don't know FW or GW's testing routines, FW usually at least puts out test rules that are often changed before final inclusion (e.g. the Caestus and Achilles). Additionally, it's not much different than facing a new codex for the first few times really, and people don't seem to have an issue with "surprise" there.

That said, we're looking at a chicken and egg problem here, until they are more widespread, people won't know about them and will get surprised by them, and they won't get to be more widespread if people keep banning them based on how people will be surprised by them.

 Danny Internets wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
On what basis? It's not hard to find people say the same things about non-FW units and refrain from attending events so they don't have to play certain armies/units that exist in codex books.

I've been playing in 40k tournaments for about thirteen years and I've yet to come across someone who refuses to play in tournaments because it allows specific codex units or codex armies. I find that the people who claim to boycott tournaments because codex unit X or codex army Y is overpowered are just blowhards who had no intention of attending tournaments in the first place. However, I do know avid tournament-goers who refrain from participating in events that permit FW.

Despite the anecdotal nature of these observations, I'm confident in their generalizability. There's no denying that people react differently to the restriction of FW units/armies (either as a whole or in part) than they do to the restriction of codex units/armies. The differential treatment may be a result of perceived and/or actual differences in FW units versus standard 40k units. I'm usually dismissive of community rabble about balance, but there are many respected competitive players who acknowledge the severe balance issues introduced by FW inclusion.

We have zero evidence of any sort that any of these FW units are any more imbalanced than anything else currently in the game given the last year or so of many FW allowed events (e.g. Feast of Blades, etc)

This is a demonstrably false statement. Others have cited evidence countless times in this thread and others. Perhaps you mean that there is zero evidence which you personally deem satisfactory, which is another matter entirely. Any such statement would, of course, be completely meaningless without defining your parameters for satisfaction.

+1 to everything Danny said.

The argument that "it's not any more broken than codex units" is getting tired because FW doesn't treat every army like codexes do. When you buy a codex, you get a complete army with several choices from every FO. Every army has good and bad choices, but the for the most part get a similar number of choices.

FW does not represent each army equally. Xenos get a small fraction of additional units in comparison to IG/SM. Yes, there is undercosted or overpowered units from both core codex units and FW, but every army in the core of 40k has an entire codex to choose from. Until FW releases units approaching equality between Tyranids and IG, my vote will always be that FW does not get included into tournaments.

My local meta doesn't have the hardcore gamers that others do. I've never even seen triple heldrakes, triptides, or any other spammy list locally. We've run a few 40k approved FW events and I've supported them because I know with certainty that nobody around here has thudd guns, sabres, vultures, or artillery carriages to spam. If they did start showing up, I would withdraw my support of the FW events.