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.

Because of the overwhelming difference in number of options. So we want to look at troop choices (without FOC swaps)

Templars 1
Sisters 1
Dark Angels 2
Space Marines 2
Chaos Space Marines 2
Space Wolves 2
Tau 2
Dark Eldar 2
Necrons 2
Orks 2
Grey Knights 2
Eldar 3
Imperial Guard 3(7 if you count all the different platoon options separately)
Blood Angels 5
Tyranids 5
Daemons 5

SO most armies only have 2 Troop options without force org swaps.

The problem here is that in general FW is not helping out Sisters with another troop option, or Templars with another troop option.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Leo_the_Rat wrote:
Just to adress the FW is GW issue. It's just not true. Forge World is its own legal entity. While it may be a subsidiary of GW it is not GW. If someone sued FW then they would not be able to touch the assets of GW.
As such FW putting an "approved for 40K" stamp on things could be looked at, at best, as a license from GW. I don't see it as anything more than any other company saying that their rules/models are 40K compatable. Until GW makes an official announcement saying that FW is part of the 40K rules set then it can not be held in any higher regard than any other 3rd party company.

I'm going to disagree here. I'm not saying it is truely part of the core game or not, but it should, due to its affiliation with GW, be considered with higher regard than other 3rd party options for GW rules. That is why we are even having a discussion, no one is on here iwth...My homebrew rules should be tournament legal.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Enough with the "all armies have 2+ choices in each FOC" bovine gak; Templars and Sisters have one Troops Choice each. Xenos bias? No, it just means said armies don't get as many options as some others. Where's the outrage over how unfair that is? Why is diversity only seen as a bad thing when it's ForgeWorld?

Have you been living under a rock, there is tons of outrage over Sisters and Black Templars

And Black Templars are seemingly one of the next 2 codii that GW will put out, so that will be addressed!

Sisters have always been in an unfair predicament due to their treatment by GW- this is well documented. They are an outlier, an army that could almost get the squat treatment, but is allowed to soldier on with White Dwarf rules. Once Templars are re-done, 40k armies will be on a pretty level playing field due to the codii, imo. At least, as level as it ever is with GW.

Whereas fantasy will still have a few armies with something like decade-old rules, with no updates in sight

The diversity argument is completely irrelevant ... I don't know why ya'll are taking up several pages with it. If you want to argue many of the codices supplemented by FW expansions aren't benefitted with any desirable choices, you'd be right, but even "desirable" can be bandied about by people who just want to stick to their position for pages and pages on end. I don't get the point. You already had one person go "Oh well it doesn't matter Nids don't have anything, b/c all their good stuff is in the dex!!!" (no offense to whoever it was, just saw the response and was a little surprised by the effort to try and make any point on behalf of a position, even a patently weak one).

 Peregrine wrote:
You have a rather unconventional definition of "demonstrably false" and "evidence". So far we don't have tournament results showing that certain units are overpowered, we have theory and speculation about how they might be overpowered. And of course we also have an endless list of excuses for why it doesn't really count when there's a FW-legal tournament that isn't dominated by FW units.

You seem intelligent so I'm going to assume you're being obtuse for rhetorical purposes. But I'll play along.

The claim was that no evidence (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/evidence) has been presented. If any evidence at all has been presented then this claim is false (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/false). If one can cite instances where evidence is presented, then this is demonstrably (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/demonstrably?show=0&t=1375365335) false. One such citation is evidence presented in the form of the utter dominance of a list taking the maximum number of Thudd Guns in the final round of the Adepticon 2013 Team Tournament, which is referenced as early as the sixth post in this thread (http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/530411.page#5682110), and which is discussed in detail many times thereafter.

Once again, there's a difference between finding the evidence compelling and claiming that no evidence has been presented. The former is a matter of opinion. The latter is objectively false.

Leo_the_Rat wrote:
Just to adress the FW is GW issue. It's just not true. Forge World is its own legal entity. While it may be a subsidiary of GW it is not GW. If someone sued FW then they would not be able to touch the assets of GW.
As such FW putting an "approved for 40K" stamp on things could be looked at, at best, as a license from GW. I don't see it as anything more than any other company saying that their rules/models are 40K compatable. Until GW makes an official announcement saying that FW is part of the 40K rules set then it can not be held in any higher regard than any other 3rd party company.

Huh? Everyone that works there is a GW employee, their emails are on the same "@games-workshop.co.uk" domain, their terms and conditions on their website are written as Games Workshop not as Forgeworld, everything on their website shows Copyright GW with no notice of "published under license" on any Forgeworld product the way there is with say, Fantasy Flight Games RPG's. It's not needed, because FW is *not* a separate legal entity.

 Danny Internets wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
You have a rather unconventional definition of "demonstrably false" and "evidence". So far we don't have tournament results showing that certain units are overpowered, we have theory and speculation about how they might be overpowered. And of course we also have an endless list of excuses for why it doesn't really count when there's a FW-legal tournament that isn't dominated by FW units.

You seem intelligent so I'm going to assume you're being obtuse for rhetorical purposes. But I'll play along.

The claim was that no evidence (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/evidence) has been presented. If any evidence at all has been presented then this claim is false (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/false). If one can cite instances where evidence is presented, then this is demonstrably (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/demonstrably?show=0&t=1375365335) false. One such citation is evidence presented in the form of the utter dominance of a list taking the maximum number of Thudd Guns in the final round of the Adepticon 2013 Team Tournament, which is referenced as early as the sixth post in this thread (http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/530411.page#5682110), and which is discussed in detail many times thereafter.

Once again, there's a difference between finding the evidence compelling and claiming that no evidence has been presented. The former is a matter of opinion. The latter is objectively false.

By your own definitions, your "demonstrable evidence" here is an anecdotal example from a single event, subsequently hashed over with no widespread agreement on its final standing. Hardly factual evidence of brokenness.

Legal entity / not doesn't really matter to me (I agree that it's not). But it's treated as a separate division in all other respects, including maintaining their own rulesets, not selling their books in either GW or standard hobby stores, etc.

They could easily make it much more accessible... the fact that it's treated as a boutique item is entirely because they have set it up to be that way.

Entirely true, and I really wish they would, that seems to be the biggest stumbling block, though I also don't know who's decision it was to set it up that way

 Vaktathi wrote:
By your own definitions, your "demonstrable evidence" here is an anecdotal example from a single event, subsequently hashed over with no widespread agreement on its final standing. Hardly factual evidence of brokenness.

Is there some kind of language barrier here of which I'm unaware? I do not nor have I ever claimed that this one example constitutes "factual evidence of brokenness." It does, however, demonstrate that evidence has, in fact, been presented.

For a third time, whether or not you find the evidence convincing as to whether or not FW is broken and should not be included in events is an entirely separate issue from your claim that "no evidence" has been presented in support of that assertion. Many people have made these statements and provided evidence (anecdotal or otherwise) to support them. Ignoring this evidence and then claiming that it was never presented in the first place is a disingenuous mischaracterization of the opposing arguments.

Breng77 wrote:
I like how you get to pick which units FW puts out that actually matter but when GW puts them out, well that matters...Fact remains that GW favors imperials to a smaller extent than FW (45 to 25 in our example, vs FW 43 to 14)

And, again, total number of units is irrelevant. What matters is quality of units, and when you look at more than how many generic and never-used C:SM HQ choices FW has filled pages with the numbers are a lot more even. Non-Imperial armies get fewer units, but mostly because they don't get the pointless "fluff" units that nobody cares about anyway (unless they're trying to "prove" bias).

To address your last piece there: Really FW could not have addressed DE or Tyranids in the last 3 years that they have been released? I'd buy the it's GWs fault prior to that but those books have been out for quite some time.

You realize that making a new book and models takes time, right? And that FW already have a schedule of stuff they're trying to do? Or would you prefer that they rush out some half-finished garbage just for the sake of "fairness"?

Fact is (and I believe they have said it) the FW guys are big Tread heads and IG fans which is why they produce more content for those armies than any other. Every book has imperial stuff in it because every book is Imperium Vs somebody else... Throw in that FW adds more "Broken" stuff to IG than some other units get options (most of the small options armies get crap)

Sure, they love IG tanks. But the point is that this love is typically expressed by making cool models with underwhelming rules, so the actual impact on competitive balance is minimal. The fact that IG hobbyists get cool cargo loader Sentinels while Tau don't get a cargo loader battlesuit is really not relevant to this discussion.

Also, all of the "broken" IG units are the result of GW changing the artillery rules in 6th. In 4th/5th edition, when the "broken" units were created, they were mediocre at best.

Also your whole line of thinking leads toward why people don't want FW, "well most of this stuff is useless but this other stuff is really good and everyone will use it." So we don't get the advertised Moar variety, we get different spam...

You'll notice that I wasn't ignoring mid-range "fair" units. For example, the Avenger is not overpowered but it's still something IG players might use. I'm only ignoring units like the Lightning or cargo loader Sentinel which are either not designed for use outside of special fluff-based scenarios or obsolete 3rd/4th-edition relics.

And yes, there will be spam. What else do you expect in tournaments? It doesn't matter what is or isn't legal, tournaments will always involve spam. So saying that people will spam the best units doesn't really say much.

Yes making a new book takes time, so am I to assume that FW is coming out with DE and Nids soon then? 3 years is a fairly substantial amount of time. Unless their goal is not to provide for all armies, but instead to write books with cool stories, and make units to fit into those stories....which I feel is likely the case, and all of those stories will involve the imperium, because so far they always have....

As far as deciding what is junk or not, I would need to do lots of research, but I get the feeling that what non-imperial armies get is also largely junk filled, (see nids, Daemons, DE) and so still leads to an imbalance of units created for various armies.

As for the Broken IG stuff, they have always had various broken units, which units those are changed with the edition, but broken units existed prior to the edition change. Furthermore, it is not just the change to 6th ed rules, it is the FAQs that FW put out concerning them that created broken units. But even if we go with the GW rules being the only cause, how is that a reason to want to including units (additional to those in the core rules), that will routinely be broken when GW changes the rules?

All of this though really matters little to me, what matters is that the community that I am a part of by and large is uncomfortable with FW inclusion, and that is the only reason I don't include it in most of my events (barring Apoc games, and the Team event I run at my GT.)

Breng77 wrote:
Yes making a new book takes time, so am I to assume that FW is coming out with DE and Nids soon then?

Actually they've mentioned plans for a DE book, the project just hasn't come together yet.

Unless their goal is not to provide for all armies

Their stated goal is to do something for every army, but to do it right. They aren't going to rush out a DE vs. Tyranids book just so everyone can have an equal amount of models.

Furthermore, it is not just the change to 6th ed rules, it is the FAQs that FW put out concerning them that created broken units.

No, it's the 6th edition rule change. The FAQs did the bare minimum to translate the 4th/5th edition rules to 6th edition. The entire balance problem is caused by GW's idiotic decision to make the meatshield crew in artillery units count as T7. Take that away and the broken units go back to being mediocre like they were in 5th.

But even if we go with the GW rules being the only cause, how is that a reason to want to including units (additional to those in the core rules), that will routinely be broken when GW changes the rules?

You would have a point if GW units were any better. After all, this is the same GW that decided there was no need to re-price the Vendetta when it became a flyer.

 Peregrine wrote:

Breng77 wrote:
I like how you get to pick which units FW puts out that actually matter but when GW puts them out, well that matters...Fact remains that GW favors imperials to a smaller extent than FW (45 to 25 in our example, vs FW 43 to 14)

And, again, total number of units is irrelevant. What matters is quality of units, and when you look at more than how many generic and never-used C:SM HQ choices FW has filled pages with the numbers are a lot more even. Non-Imperial armies get fewer units, but mostly because they don't get the pointless "fluff" units that nobody cares about anyway (unless they're trying to "prove" bias).

That's incorrect at worst and a lie at best. Please stop perpetuating it as it's been proven otherwise.

The fact that IG hobbyists get cool cargo loader Sentinels while Tau don't get a cargo loader battlesuit is really not relevant to this discussion.

Stop with the strawman. You're not trying to convince people to allow forge world models so you can play your list full of sentinel cargo loaders.

Also, all of the "broken" IG units are the result of GW changing the artillery rules in 6th. In 4th/5th edition, when the "broken" units were created, they were mediocre at best.

Error: Relevancy not found



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:

But even if we go with the GW rules being the only cause, how is that a reason to want to including units (additional to those in the core rules), that will routinely be broken when GW changes the rules?

You would have a point if GW units were any better. After all, this is the same GW that decided there was no need to re-price the Vendetta when it became a flyer.

It's easier to kill a Vendetta than a group of Thudd Guns.

 Peregrine wrote:

Breng77 wrote:
I like how you get to pick which units FW puts out that actually matter but when GW puts them out, well that matters...Fact remains that GW favors imperials to a smaller extent than FW (45 to 25 in our example, vs FW 43 to 14)

And, again, total number of units is irrelevant. What matters is quality of units, and when you look at more than how many generic and never-used C:SM HQ choices FW has filled pages with the numbers are a lot more even. Non-Imperial armies get fewer units, but mostly because they don't get the pointless "fluff" units that nobody cares about anyway (unless they're trying to "prove" bias).

Maybe to some it's the quality that matters. To me it's the fact that FW is very dedicated to some armies while fully ignoring others. We're talking about tournament play here. With the core set and codexes, the game is fully playable by all armies. What's being discussed here is taking a functioning system and adding models and rules from a different label that provides biased favoritism to some armies over the others. Bias and favoritism should be kept out of tournaments, not added. Yes, some armies only have 1 troop but the fact stands that every army has a codex with selections from every FO. Forgeworld does not.

rigeld2 wrote:
That's incorrect at worst and a lie at best. Please stop perpetuating it as it's been proven otherwise.

You know, it's funny, this supposed "proof" seems to consist of "quality doesn't matter, I just care about total numbers".

Stop with the strawman. You're not trying to convince people to allow forge world models so you can play your list full of sentinel cargo loaders.

Stop with the strawman. I never said allowing FW is all about getting to play with cargo loader Sentinels, I said that the supposed "bias" towards IG is the result of units like the cargo loader Sentinel: things that add to the "how many units IG get" total without actually being relevant to competitive play.

Error: Relevancy not found

The point is you can't use them as an example of how FW rules are somehow lower quality or poorly tested compared to GW. The overpowered FW units are overpowered because of GW's idiotic decisions about skyfire/interceptor and artillery in 6th edition's core rules, not because FW designed them that way.

It's easier to kill a Vendetta than a group of Thudd Guns.

So what? The point is you can't complain about how FW units could become overpowered at any time because of changes in the core rules when GW blatantly ignores codex units that get to be overpowered because of changes in the core rules. It's a ridiculous double standard.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 hyv3mynd wrote:
Maybe to some it's the quality that matters.

Yes, I know that some people prefer to look at total units instead of quality units because it's easier to see the "bias" they want to see as an excuse to ban FW. However, if you want a balanced tournament game then quality of units is what matters, not how many irrelevant cargo loader Sentinels each army gets.

What's being discussed here is taking a functioning system and adding models and rules from a different label that provides biased favoritism to some armies over the others.

No, what is being discussed here is taking a functioning system and removing models and rules from it. FW is already part of the game just like everything else, if you want to justify removing it (as opposed to just declaring your arbitrary house rule) then you need to show that it is actually damaging the game badly enough that it needs to be removed. Simply quoting how many irrelevant units each army gets without considering power levels is not providing that justification.

 hyv3mynd wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

Breng77 wrote:
I like how you get to pick which units FW puts out that actually matter but when GW puts them out, well that matters...Fact remains that GW favors imperials to a smaller extent than FW (45 to 25 in our example, vs FW 43 to 14)

And, again, total number of units is irrelevant. What matters is quality of units, and when you look at more than how many generic and never-used C:SM HQ choices FW has filled pages with the numbers are a lot more even. Non-Imperial armies get fewer units, but mostly because they don't get the pointless "fluff" units that nobody cares about anyway (unless they're trying to "prove" bias).

Maybe to some it's the quality that matters. To me it's the fact that FW is very dedicated to some armies while fully ignoring others. We're talking about tournament play here. With the core set and codexes, the game is fully playable by all armies. What's being discussed here is taking a functioning system and adding models and rules from a different label that provides biased favoritism to some armies over the others. Bias and favoritism should be kept out of tournaments, not added. Yes, some armies only have 1 troop but the fact stands that every army has a codex with selections from every FO. Forgeworld does not.

GW wants players to use FW units, by producing rulesets and models that sems to be their intention. GW fall down on the ambivilent way they themselves mention their use within the 40k game.

Question. Should GW clarify the inroduction of FW rules would you then play?

hyv3mynd wrote:
Maybe to some it's the quality that matters. To me it's the fact that FW is very dedicated to some armies while fully ignoring others. We're talking about tournament play here.

There is something not being mentioned in this analysis.

This game was not conceived of for, designed for, or intended for tournament play.

The design studio came right out and said as such at their Open Day event last year. Tournament play is done *in spite of* the ruleset, not facilitated by it. Hell, the general deployment and terrain rules can't functionally be used for most tournaments.

The big problem, more than anything else, with large events and FW, is that conventions/standards for the big events filter down to smaller events and very often to pickup and league play and ultimately affects much more than just those events.

With the core set and codexes, the game is fully playable by all armies.

Playable, yes. Able to evenly match each other? That's another story. Balanced? Hardly. That's not something most will argue.

What's being discussed here is taking a functioning system and adding models and rules from a different label that provides biased favoritism to some armies over the others. Bias and favoritism should be kept out of tournaments, not added.

You're addressing this as if there's some semblance of perfect balance and equal access that exists to be thrown off by the introduction of FW. This is not true, it only exists insofar as yes, each codex provides *some* HQ/Elites/Troops/FA/HS for each army with a current codex book, nonwithstanding that some things that have had books in the past no longer due and certain units have come and gone and come again., or that fundamentally these numbers vary drastically between books.

FW adds to some of those choices, but because they don't do it equally for everyone, despite the fact that the current system doesn't even remotely do so either aside from providing at least 1 unit in each slot for everyone, it's somehow not kosher?

Yes, some armies only have 1 troop but the fact stands that every army has a codex with selections from every FO. Forgeworld does not.

All FW does is add to those selections, whether they have equal numbers or any for all armies should be irrelevant, as nothing else in the game attempts to have equal numbers for all aside from providing at least *something* for each FoC slot (which FW simply adds additional choices for). If they all of a sudden all got added to the codex books, would you still be against them?

Ultimately, you keep referring back to this point...but fundamentally all you're saying is "because I don't get anything I like, I don't want to let you have it". Well, sorry, yes, not every one of the games 16(?) factions gets a ton of cool stuff from the botique range, just as some armies don't have models for all of their codex choices, some don't have plastics, many are Direct-Order only, some armies have half a dozen troops, some only have one, some get a dozen heavy support choices while some get three.

Danny Internets wrote:

Is there some kind of language barrier here of which I'm unaware? I do not nor have I ever claimed that this one example constitutes "factual evidence of brokenness." It does, however, demonstrate that evidence has, in fact, been presented.

I guess my apologies then, I guess I wasn't considering a statement by a poster about possibly having overheard some player in a team event that may have felt bad about some sort of setup involving FW units (as in the post you linked earlier) as...well, evidence. I guess it is if you're looking at the most literal and pedantic viewpoint it qualifies, but it's certainly not particularly strong evidence...

 Mr. Burning wrote:

 hyv3mynd wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

Breng77 wrote:
I like how you get to pick which units FW puts out that actually matter but when GW puts them out, well that matters...Fact remains that GW favors imperials to a smaller extent than FW (45 to 25 in our example, vs FW 43 to 14)

And, again, total number of units is irrelevant. What matters is quality of units, and when you look at more than how many generic and never-used C:SM HQ choices FW has filled pages with the numbers are a lot more even. Non-Imperial armies get fewer units, but mostly because they don't get the pointless "fluff" units that nobody cares about anyway (unless they're trying to "prove" bias).

Maybe to some it's the quality that matters. To me it's the fact that FW is very dedicated to some armies while fully ignoring others. We're talking about tournament play here. With the core set and codexes, the game is fully playable by all armies. What's being discussed here is taking a functioning system and adding models and rules from a different label that provides biased favoritism to some armies over the others. Bias and favoritism should be kept out of tournaments, not added. Yes, some armies only have 1 troop but the fact stands that every army has a codex with selections from every FO. Forgeworld does not.

GW wants players to use FW units, by producing rulesets and models that sems to be their intention. GW fall down on the ambivilent way they themselves mention their use within the 40k game.

Question. Should GW clarify the inroduction of FW rules would you then play?

Clarity of rules is a non-issue.

We're playing 40k in tournaments which is not what the game is designed for, so we're already "breaking a rule" by doing something with their game that wasn't intended by design. The reason it works is every army has a codex with enough variety to build unique armies. A vast majority of tournaments don't allow FW despite being "official" because of reasons stated by MVB, Breng, and other TO's. Namely, it would effect their attendance in a negative fashion due to unfamiliarity of units, difficulty of finding current rules, overpowered/undercosted units, and a company bias towards IG and SM.

If your question is directed towards me, the only thing that would change my stance would be FW treating each and every army on a more equal footing with available units. Think of it this way:

Imagine having 100 people, each with entrance to a dinner buffet which offers 20 items. Now imagine that the buffet offers 40 items to people who wear green shirts. Everyone will not eat all 40 items, or even like them, but more people will start wearing green shirts because people like variety.

Introducing "40k approved" items to every tournament everywhere would encourage more and more people to shift over to IG and SM because they get more options both competitively and for the hobbyists and fluff lovers. Diversity would suffer and we'd be making backward progress as IG become the overwhelmingly represented codex both for primary and allied detachments. You even have top tier competitive players in this very thread saying they would shift over to IG. "If you can't beat them, join them" mentality would gain popularity and guard vs guard games would become the norm.

The 40k universe needs bad guys. We need a diverse selection of opponents. The best way to do that (until all armies receive equal treatment) is to keep FW out of tournaments.

 hyv3mynd wrote:
Imagine having 100 people, each with entrance to a dinner buffet which offers 20 items. Now imagine that the buffet offers 40 items to people who wear green shirts. Everyone will not eat all 40 items, or even like them, but more people will start wearing green shirts because people like variety.

Except that's a bad analogy. The correct analogy would be that if wearing a green shirt gave you a buffet of 40 items, 18 of which were spoiled milk, rotting meat, etc. Would you really insist that all 100 people have to go home hungry just because we can't let green shirt people have such an unfair advantage?

Introducing "40k approved" items to every tournament everywhere would encourage more and more people to shift over to IG and SM because they get more options both competitively and for the hobbyists and fluff lovers. Diversity would suffer and we'd be making backward progress as IG become the overwhelmingly represented codex both for primary and allied detachments. You even have top tier competitive players in this very thread saying they would shift over to IG. "If you can't beat them, join them" mentality would gain popularity and guard vs guard games would become the norm.

And coming from MTG this is just a joke. You don't make balance decisions for competitive games based on theory and speculation about what might happen, you base them on results. If you posted on a MTG forum arguing that WOTC ban a newly released card because you think it's going to be too powerful in tournaments you'd be laughed out of the forum. Why? Because WOTC understands that bans should only be used once there are consistent high-level tournament results to prove that a ban is needed and that the metagame can't adapt properly.

The best way to do that (until all armies receive equal treatment) is to keep FW out of tournaments.

Lol, no. The best way to do that is to re-write the rules from the beginning and then playtest them professionally. Banning FW is the lazy way to pretend that you're doing something productive without actually having to invest the effort required to do the job right. It's like congratulating yourself for fixing that leaking pipe while your house burns down around you.

 Vaktathi wrote:

 RiTides wrote:
Legal entity / not doesn't really matter to me (I agree that it's not). But it's treated as a separate division in all other respects, including maintaining their own rulesets, not selling their books in either GW or standard hobby stores, etc.

They could easily make it much more accessible... the fact that it's treated as a boutique item is entirely because they have set it up to be that way.

Entirely true, and I really wish they would, that seems to be the biggest stumbling block, though I also don't know who's decision it was to set it up that way

I added my quote that you were responding to here... just wanted to say that yours was an excellent, reasonable post! Glad to see that people on both "sides" can find common ground here

 Peregrine wrote:

 hyv3mynd wrote:
Imagine having 100 people, each with entrance to a dinner buffet which offers 20 items. Now imagine that the buffet offers 40 items to people who wear green shirts. Everyone will not eat all 40 items, or even like them, but more people will start wearing green shirts because people like variety.

Except that's a bad analogy. The correct analogy would be that if wearing a green shirt gave you a buffet of 40 items, 18 of which were spoiled milk, rotting meat, etc. Would you really insist that all 100 people have to go home hungry just because we can't let green shirt people have such an unfair advantage?

Introducing "40k approved" items to every tournament everywhere would encourage more and more people to shift over to IG and SM because they get more options both competitively and for the hobbyists and fluff lovers. Diversity would suffer and we'd be making backward progress as IG become the overwhelmingly represented codex both for primary and allied detachments. You even have top tier competitive players in this very thread saying they would shift over to IG. "If you can't beat them, join them" mentality would gain popularity and guard vs guard games would become the norm.

And coming from MTG this is just a joke. You don't make balance decisions for competitive games based on theory and speculation about what might happen, you base them on results. If you posted on a MTG forum arguing that WOTC ban a newly released card because you think it's going to be too powerful in tournaments you'd be laughed out of the forum. Why? Because WOTC understands that bans should only be used once there are consistent high-level tournament results to prove that a ban is needed and that the metagame can't adapt properly.

The best way to do that (until all armies receive equal treatment) is to keep FW out of tournaments.

Lol, no. The best way to do that is to re-write the rules from the beginning and then playtest them professionally. Banning FW is the lazy way to pretend that you're doing something productive without actually having to invest the effort required to do the job right. It's like congratulating yourself for fixing that leaking pipe while your house burns down around you.

You have a very interesting perspective that's pretty obviously driven by bias due to the armies you play.

I'm not making "people go hungry" or "denying their carrot" because everyone has a codex to play with and can build fully functioning tournament armies without FW inclusion.

If you want to base decisions on results, how about FW spam taking 2nd at WGC, the aforementioned Adepticon team dominating with thudd guns, and Chumbalaya mentioning how his acanthrite list ruined people day? Or the TO's who state with confidence that their tournament attendance would suffer with full "40k approved" inclusion?

The house is not burning down. Tournaments are not dominated by broken codex units or flyers. Top finishers are diverse across the board now that we're a year past 6th ed release. The OT is "do we need FW in tournament play" and based on the results you want, the answer is "no". There isn't a single legitimate reason we NEED FW in tournament play, that the tournament scene will suffer without it.

While I would prefer Forgeworld rules be allowed in tournaments, I understand they are still debatable. The one thing I hope all tournaments do is have a lenience when it comes to what Forgeworld models can 'counts-as'. Some of the models are awesome but simply don't look like a codex option.

We still have a long way to go if we're going to get more pages and replies than the chapterhouse lawsuit thread, I mean, um, come to a decision... so we should probably repeat these arguments a couple more times.

Vendettas and Necrons are overpowered so we should allow more overpowered units into events, just to be fair. But as we have no real evidence that anything is overpowered, we should ban all units from all events to ensure we only base our decisions on internet approved facts.

It is also definitely worth comparing 40k to MTG since they are essentially the same card-based-miniature game anyways, and their parent companies clearly have the same competitive/tournament-focused goal in mind for their products.

I know, I know, this all old hat. Instead, let us talk some more about how the fact that FW is an expansion ruleset renders all of this discussion moot. I mean, if GW and FW were the same entity then they clearly would just put the FW rules in the BRB and finally make FW legal.

I mean, all FW lists are easily replaceable by a standard codex list anyways... so I do not understand why people who want FW do not just use the cooler FW models as counts-as units in order to play standard 40k like the rest of us.

Taking a middle-ground approach where some FW is allowed, or actually just supporting events that are trying to include the entire FW line to help popularize and make it more mainstream would cause the world to end, so we better make sure we pick the right extreme to champion!

 hyv3mynd wrote:
You have a very interesting perspective that's pretty obviously driven by bias due to the armies you play.

You're right, I don't like being told that I'm not welcome at an event because some third-party TO doesn't like my choice of army/units.

I'm not making "people go hungry" or "denying their carrot" because everyone has a codex to play with and can build fully functioning tournament armies without FW inclusion.

Except you are, because not everyone wants to build their armies under arbitrary house rules about what is legal. It's the same reason people hated comp-heavy events in 5th, if GW publishes something for the standard game you should be allowed to use it. I shouldn't be forced to buy a whole new codex-only army, just like you shouldn't be forced to buy a new army because I don't like your codex.

If you want to base decisions on results, how about FW spam taking 2nd at WGC, the aforementioned Adepticon team dominating with thudd guns, and Chumbalaya mentioning how his acanthrite list ruined people day? Or the TO's who state with confidence that their tournament attendance would suffer with full "40k approved" inclusion?

Yeah, I'm not impressed. That's one tournament where the "overpowered" list didn't win, one success, and one anecdote about how it wasn't "fun" (just like lots of anecdotes about how codex-only armies ruin days). If you tried to post this as justification for banning a card in MTG you'd be laughed off the forum.

There isn't a single legitimate reason we NEED FW in tournament play, that the tournament scene will suffer without it.

Other than playing the game by the rules as published by GW, you mean. But I guess it's easy to see the absence of a "need" if you define the tournament scene as only the people currently playing in major tournaments and don't count those of us who would like to play but are excluded by anti-FW policies.

PS: you don't NEED anything but C:SM to play tournaments.

 Peregrine wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
That's incorrect at worst and a lie at best. Please stop perpetuating it as it's been proven otherwise.

You know, it's funny, this supposed "proof" seems to consist of "quality doesn't matter, I just care about total numbers".

I thought including FW was about introducing variety?

Stop with the strawman. You're not trying to convince people to allow forge world models so you can play your list full of sentinel cargo loaders.

Stop with the strawman. I never said allowing FW is all about getting to play with cargo loader Sentinels, I said that the supposed "bias" towards IG is the result of units like the cargo loader Sentinel: things that add to the "how many units IG get" total without actually being relevant to competitive play.

Except that's not true. Calling the sub-optimal units "cargo loaders" is a massive exaggeration and you know it.

Error: Relevancy not found

The point is you can't use them as an example of how FW rules are somehow lower quality or poorly tested compared to GW. The overpowered FW units are overpowered because of GW's idiotic decisions about skyfire/interceptor and artillery in 6th edition's core rules, not because FW designed them that way.

Because it's completely not possible for FW to invent their own rules... they are required to only use GW rules.
FW is the one that gave those units the special rules they have. They are that way because FW designed them that way.

 RiTides wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Enough with the "all armies have 2+ choices in each FOC" bovine gak; Templars and Sisters have one Troops Choice each. Xenos bias? No, it just means said armies don't get as many options as some others. Where's the outrage over how unfair that is? Why is diversity only seen as a bad thing when it's ForgeWorld?

Have you been living under a rock, there is tons of outrage over Sisters and Black Templars

And Black Templars are seemingly one of the next 2 codii that GW will put out, so that will be addressed!

The outrage hasn't been aimed at banning Codex: Imperial Guard or Codex: Space Marines due to them having too many options, because that's be insanely petty. Instead, the hopes has been aimed at bringing Templars and Sisters up to par. Why is the complete opposite true with ForgeWorld?

Templars as one of the next two Codices is only supported by a rumormonger with 50/50 accuracy and directly contradicts Hastings. It's possible, but improbable.

Bretonnia's army book is 9 years old (10 in February) whereas Codex: Black Templars is 7 years old (8 years old this November), being 2 months behind Wood Elves in age. The second-oldest Codex is Codex: Orks, which is 5 years old (6 in January). Dunno why I typed this out, seeing as it's irrelevant, but there it is.

rigeld2 wrote:
I thought including FW was about introducing variety?

It's about including the entire game as published by GW, not just the units/armies that certain people favor.

Except that's not true. Calling the sub-optimal units "cargo loaders" is a massive exaggeration and you know it.

It's an exaggeration, but not much of one. The difference between the Lightning and cargo loader Sentinel is negligible in competitive play, nobody is going to use either of them unless they're deliberately sacrificing their chances of winning to play a "fluffy" list.

Because it's completely not possible for FW to invent their own rules... they are required to only use GW rules.

Of course FW is required to use GW's rules when you're talking about the core rules. That's the whole point of making new units for standard 40k, they're supposed to be compatible with the standard rules of the game. If GW decides that in 6th edition the "artillery" unit type will have X rules then what is FW supposed to do, add a whole page of rules explaining that their artillery units use completely different rules? If they did then everyone would just complain that FW stuff is too weird and different and will confuse everyone.

FW is the one that gave those units the special rules they have. They are that way because FW designed them that way.

Except it's not the unit-specific special rules that are the problem, it's the core rule changes to the artillery unit type. The only reason those units are overpowered is that 6th edition changed artillery units to always be T7 against shooting instead of randomly allocating hits and rolling against (usually) T3/AV10.

 RiTides wrote:
Legal entity / not doesn't really matter to me (I agree that it's not). But it's treated as a separate division in all other respects, including maintaining their own rulesets, not selling their books in either GW or standard hobby stores, etc.

They could easily make it much more accessible... the fact that it's treated as a boutique item is entirely because they have set it up to be that way.

Indeed. Imperial Armour books have been out in the wild since before the 4th edition rulebook work got started. GW has *CHOSEN* for three full editions to make no mention of the legality/use of FW books. Until they do so, claims of "I can use this without your permission!" fall flat. I can and do use FW rules and products in regular 40k games; I just respect my opponents enough and both the spirit in all and the letter of most FW books to simply ask first. I've said that earlier in the thread but since a troll decides to reignite the flames apparently a few pages back, IMO it deserves restating.

 warboss wrote:
GW has *CHOSEN* for three full editions to make no mention of the legality/use of FW books

Nope. GW has mentioned it many times, in every recent FW book.

 Peregrine wrote:

 warboss wrote:
GW has *CHOSEN* for three full editions to make no mention of the legality/use of FW books

Nope. GW has mentioned it many times, in every recent FW book.

I think I've found the problem... it's reading comprehension. Next time, please read the entire post as I'm clearly referring to the 40k rulebooks.

I believe it bares repeating the inevitable question... What major event has been won by a army with Forge World not including Adepticon? Wouldn't it be hilarious if Tony Kopache wins the NOVA Open with a cheesy Forge World army and why should anyone really care?