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.

 Peregrine wrote:

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.

Immobile vehicles. The infantry models on the base are just there for looks.
Wow, that was a whole page of rules right there.

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.

That's cool, you can ignore that you mentioned Interceptor/Skyfire and I was addressing that and throw random stuff like that at me.

 Dozer Blades wrote:
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?

It is very hard for any player with any list to win any major event, but I said several times that forge world IG armies have done disproportionally well at major GTs. There have been only a couple of heavy FW armies at the GTs that have allowed them so far, and they have all done well.

#1. A Forge World IG army won Kingdom Con GT
#2. Forge World armies battled it out before the final round of the Bay Area Open and the truly broken FW IG army lost in this round because the game only went 3 rounds. In the finals the Demon player won only because they had insanely good dice rolls (and this was at the height of the Tzeentch demon White Dwarf brokenness).
#3. A Forge World army almost won Wargames Con, but he had to play 2 games against the best player in the country and even after losing his last 3 games was so far ahead of the field that he still came in 3rd place.

Hey Blackmoor, is there somewhere we can see that truly broken FW IG list?

You've piqued my curiosity there.

 Monster Rain wrote:
Hey Blackmoor, is there somewhere we can see that truly broken FW IG list?

You've piqued my curiosity there.

Took me a while to find the report. since Blackmoor has not produced it.

http://punishers40k.blogspot.com/2013/03/bao-games-5-7.html

Lord Commissar
CCS
PCS
Platoon with various weapons
x5 Lascannon Sabre Platforms
x2 Medusa Artillery Batteries (Forgeworld)
x2 Basilisk Artillery Batteries (Forgeworld)
- Each had like 20 Crewmen
Vulture (Forgeworld)
RunePriest w/ Combi Melta
x9 Grey Hunters, melta, Pod
Defenseline w/ Comms Relay

Read the report , the terrible forge world list got eaten alive.....

By the way its 2/3 rds down the page. This quote is from the guy who played against the terrible list....

To be honest, this game was over before it started. i knew I could beat this list. Once my Beasts make it into combat with the little guys, his guns are toast.

I honestly do not understand why it was listed as an example of the terrible forge world scourge.


Found stuff on another event Black moor mentioned..This was his number one out of three.

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/60/528483.page Not quite how Blackmoor described it but I also found this which may explain the whole thing..

 Blackmoor wrote:
I just canceled my plane ticket yesterday because I do not want to spend a lot of money to travel to a tournemant with Forge World.

Sure I can play IG and spend $800 to make 7 of my opponents miserable, but I rather just skip it.

I am still looking for the last monstrosity of forge world excess he was talking about.

"It is very hard for any player with any list to win any major event, but I said several times that forge world IG armies have done disproportionally well at major GTs. There have been only a couple of heavy FW armies at the GTs that have allowed them so far, and they have all done well."

Could have - should have - would have.

Sorry but that is not good enough for the universal ban hammer you and others advocate. Forge World screws up the meta for you and that is the main reason why you don't like it and don't want to deal with it.

So AdeptiCon just doesn't count?

Biggest single event tourney in the country, right? You can't ignore the biggest example and demand examples in the same statement... Of course, all the other reasons stand regardless of the balance / FW bias issue. It's not the biggest reason for me, anyway... just one of many that point to "all out" FW allowance not being as enjoyable as limited FW allowance, for me personally.

 RiTides wrote:
So AdeptiCon just doesn't count?

Biggest single event tourney in the country, right? You can't ignore the biggest example and demand examples in the same statement... Of course, all the other reasons stand regardless of the balance / FW bias issue. It's not the biggest reason for me, anyway... just one of many that point to "all out" FW allowance not being as enjoyable as limited FW allowance, for me personally.

In the big tourney is not Adepticon 0-1 for Forge World? Wow. overwhelmed, so no....

FW is owned indirectly or directly by GW. And the new Apoc book includes there stuff. I have them in my games to enhance the "blowing up" part. Besides, who cares who wins. If it were that serious then all your "buddys" would pony up a hundred bucks per game and split it amongst the winners. Money is the true indicator of seriousness.

That's why the discussion is about Tournaments. In case you're not aware there are major prizes given out at some of them.

Mr. Tides I want you to know I am in complete agreement with you... I believe the choices for Forge World should be limited. I think this would go a long ways towards making it become more universally excepted and more accepted. Adepticon has allowed the use of Forge World for a long long time and is many ways the great grand father of 40k GTs... They have a lot of experience on their side and that I greatly respect. That is why I didn't include this particular multi event in my question.

If the main and true basis for the desire to impose the ban is to cull a more tightly controlled meta that is what I mainly oppose.

Edit: Ninja'ed by Dozer, I appreciate it . And yeah, I think meta/balance are the weakest argument regarding FW... not sure why I'm participating in it . I got sucked in!

To Needle: Yes, 0-1. For the record, I love 0-1 FW events. But if a FW including list wins even with that restriction, it's a point of evidence. If you want to discuss FW in major wins, that is an objective data point that should at least be considered.

It's only one event out of many. That is not enough for me to be a good reason for the reasons I have given

Yeah, and I actually agree with you that balance isn't the biggest issue with FW (see edit above) so I think we're largely in agreement!

 RiTides wrote:
Edit: Ninja'ed by Dozer, I appreciate it . And yeah, I think meta/balance are the weakest argument regarding FW... not sure why I'm participating in it . I got sucked in!

To Needle: Yes, 0-1. For the record, I love 0-1 FW events. But if a FW including list wins even with that restriction, it's a point of evidence. If you want to discuss FW in major wins, that is an objective data point that should at least be considered.

Ok, I looked it up. The winning team used 3 Thudd guns with a Grey Knight Army. By some strange coincidence the same team won the same team tournament last year with a Grey Knight Army....

I can see how FW made a big difference, I stand corrected.....

2012 list --
HQ
Ordo Xenos Inquisitor – Psycotroke Grenades, Rad Grenades
Troops
3x Acolyte (LP/CCW), Razorback: Psybolts
3x Acolyte (LP/CCW), Razorback: Psybolts
6x Paladin: 2x Psycannon, 2x Sword, 2x Hammer, 2x Halberd
Elites
10x Purifiers: 2x Daemon Hammer, 2x Incinerator, 2x Psycannon, Rhino: Dozer Blade, Searchlight
Heavy Support
1x Dreadnought: 2x Autocannon, Psybolt ammo

HQ
Coteaz
Troops
3x Acolyte (LP/CCW), Razorback: Psybolts, Searchlight
3x Acolyte (LP/CCW), Razorback: Psybolts, Searchlight
5x Paladin: 2x Psycannon, 1x hammer, 2x sword, 2x halberd
Elites
10x Purifiers: 2x Daemon Hammer, 2x Incinerator, 2x Psycannon, 4x Halberd, Rhino: Dozer Blade, Searchlight
Heavy Support
1x Dreadnought: 2x Autocannon, Psybolt ammo

HQ
Ordo Malleus Inquisitor: Terminator Armor, Psycannon, 3x Servo Skull
Troops
3x Acolyte (LP/CCW), Razorback: Psybolts, Searchlight
3x Acolyte (LP/CCW), Razorback: Psybolts, Searchlight
5x Paladin: 2x Master Crafted Psycannon, 1x hammer, 2x sword, 2x halberd
Elites
10x Purifiers: 2x Daemon Hammer, 2x Incinerator, 2x Psycannon, 4x Halberd, Rhino: Dozer Blade, Searchlight
Heavy Support
1x Dreadnought: 2x Autocannon, Psybolt ammo

HQ
Draigo
Troops
3x Acolyte (LP/CCW), Razorback: Psybolts, Searchlight
3x Acolyte (LP/CCW), Razorback: Psybolts, Searchlight
5x Paladin: 2x Master Crafted Psycannon, 1x hammer, 2x sword, 2x halberd
Heavy Support
1x Dreadnought: 2x Autocannon, Psybolt ammo
1x Dreadnought: 2x Autocannon, Psybolt ammo

Where are the Thudd guns? It had to be how they win...

Pleeeaaaasseee stop using us as an example, both sides. Our team did not win or lose based on thudd guns, as I mentioned on like...page less than 10 of this thread. Hell, they were in my army of the team tournament, and I think I dropped more points then anyone on our team this year, and dropped the least of anyone on our team the year before. Games are way too complex to be boiled down to 150 points of artillery.

That being said, Thudd guns are busted, they're the bearer of indirect consequences due to the edition change to artillery, and are far, far too good for what you pay - on a scale far different than even a heldrake. If they were 1 per slot, or costed 50-100% more, or many other things, they'd be okay. But they're not. But one unit is neither here nor there in this absurd debate. Just like comp, tournament formats, and all of the other major variables we've seen over time/still see, different events do things differently and that's okay. Attend what you like, don't attend what you don't, and stop trying to make everyone else conform just because you're too stubborn to be wrong on the internet - all it does is hurt the community and cause silly drama for absolutely no reason. If there's no Pro-FW events in your area to attend, do something positive and help build one - nothing you do on dakka will impact your local or even regional scene in the slightest.

Man, I thought we won cause of the Thudd Guns....I am disappoint..

http://images3.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20130516091602/anarchyreigns/images/d/d2/Heavy-SON-I-AM-DISSAPOINT.jpg

Target wrote:
as I mentioned on like...page less than 10 of this thread.

You're right, you squeaked in at the bottom of page 9

And agreed with your points! I do think it's an interesting data point, which is why I brought it up in the first place (actually on page 1 of this thread ). But I also think that balance is the weakest argument for/against FW... it was just interesting more than anything, given the timing

The real question is, can you go for the 3-peat!!

warboss wrote:

 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.

So an expansion is released which clearly states that it is legal, but you're ignoring it because OTHER publications make no mention of it's legality???

Nowhere in any GW rulebook does it say Farsight Enclaves are legal - except in the Farsight Enclaves book. Why are Farsight Enclaves allowed but FW disallowed?

quiestdeus wrote: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.

Again, Farsight Enclaves and Iyanden are certainly 'expansions' - do you consider these illegal for tournament play? What about additional units released in WD, or as digital downloads (sorry, Orks, no Dakkajets for you). All of these are 'expansions'.

rigeld2 wrote:
Immobile vehicles. The infantry models on the base are just there for looks.
Wow, that was a whole page of rules right there.

And that is really bad game design. You'd have a unit that was artillery in the previous edition, has guns and crew models, and pretty much looks exactly identical to other artillery units. But somehow it's actually a vehicle model with a bunch of decorative crew models next to it. And why does it work that way? Because of power level concerns. It's completely arbitrary and counter-intuitive, and if FW had done it that way I'm sure people would have complained about how rules like that are so confusing and we shouldn't allow them in tournaments where people won't be familiar with them.

That's cool, you can ignore that you mentioned Interceptor/Skyfire and I was addressing that and throw random stuff like that at me.

Whichever specific rule you're addressing it's still the same. The problem (smaller than the artillery rules, but still a problem) with interceptor Sabre guns only exists because of GW's idiotic decision to combine "may shoot at ground targets" and "gets a free shot at units arriving from reserve" into a single USR instead of splitting them into separate rules like anyone who isn't an idiot would have done. The result is that FW has to give out interceptor so they can still have the ability to shoot at ground targets like they used to.

(And yes, now we have the example of Tau-style optional skyfire, but I suspect that when they were trying to get the updated rules published asap nobody had come up with that idea yet.)


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 warboss wrote:
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.

Sorry, I didn't know that "GW doesn't mention it" was supposed to be "GW doesn't do things exactly the way I want them to".

Annnd FW just announced IA: Apocalypse... which sounds like it will have a mix of tanks, creatures, etc for various races... and, despite the title, some marked for Apocalypse only, and some for 40k

Hi

As the Captain of the other team in the Final Round of the Team Tournament - I'll echo Target - please stopping using that as the example. We got outplayed in the last round, regardless of the presence of Thudd Guns on one of the two tables. They earned the title, and somehow managed to it without the Thudds in 50% of their games.

With that being said, both teams recognize how good Thudd Guns are thanks to the shift to 6th edition. My only regret is that we didn't have a guard player in the mix to have them ourselves.

(since I only drop in every 15 pages or so, my position: slight preference to no forgeworld if given the option of two events on the same day, one with, one without; however, yes to forgeworld isn't a deal-breaker; when I used to organize tourneys, I said no, mostly because limited access to rules leading to a bad day for unsuspecting players. I will add I don't know why the pro-Forgeworld camp isn't pushing for army list inclusion. EDIT: (I forgot to add) I also respect tourney organizers right to make the decision they feel is best for their event/local players).

Also, just to lighten things up a little, here is a pic of the Mega and Meka Dreads I took to Astronomi-con Toronto playing my Dreadmob (IA 8). Things didn't go real well thanks to only having one scoring unit of 15 boys, but it was a blast:

Cheers,
Nate

Well said Nate. And those look awesome!

 Peregrine wrote:
(And yes, now we have the example of Tau-style optional skyfire, but I suspect that when they were trying to get the updated rules published asap nobody had come up with that idea yet.)

You mean other than the fact that Flyers have optional Skyfire? Oh, but that's not in the base rule boo.... oops.

And your point to the Thudd guns - rules change with editions. How is it more confusing to be an immobile vehicle with decorative dudes than to suddenly ramp up in power?
And again - it's not a page of rules. Please stop shifting the bar.

Man this thread is like a bad rash that won’t go away without the fun involved in getting the rash!

@Nate - My reasons are pretty straight forward. To include the FW army lists it requires an additional layer of overhead above and beyond what we do currently at AdeptiCon to include FW units. Given only a small percentage of the players would use them the potential resources involved to include them is problematic.

The issue being that when a Forgeworld Army List gets released, eventually down the road units in that army list get updated, but the army list does not always get updates or sometimes AdeptiCon falls such that we are between an updates etc. So when an Army list has units X,Y, Z and provides rules and points for them. Eventually down the road the most current rules for unit X is in a separate book with slightly different rules and points, unit Y is in another book again with tweaked rules, etc ..

Leaving you with two choices:
1. Have the army lists play as written, with the rules and points presented for the units in that army list.
2. Create some sort of cross reference matrix for each army list for the current rules.

Very often we look at the Forgeworld Army lists and some of them could be included with little additional effort but there is always a number of them that are problematic depending on the game cycle and year.

All that said, some years the AdeptiCon Gladiator has allowed a few of them.

@Thread in general - I also feel the need to point out that as the digital products continue to develop, the problem of availability and how do we know we are using the current rules or how do we all know everyone is using the same rules is going to move from being mostly a Forgeworld issue to being a Games Workshop one.

Some of these digital products have been updated 3 or 4 times already meaning that you in some cases you could have 3 or more potentially different versions of the electronic book in the hall. Who is the gate keeper of making sure everyone is using the most updated version? Who is the gate keeper of what changes are being made to the electronic versions, the differences to the printed version, and FAQ documents? Are Epub files going to be updated in the same manner as the IBooks. What do we do when products are only available digitally and not in print?

It is a lot different from the document of record being the printed codex. To be fair we even had some issues with those and stealth reprints of army books making changes. ( Chaos and Necron books come to mind .. )

The future with digital releases is bright, I certainly have been pushing for it for a long time and we absolutely need to embrace it but comes at some costs and some definite trade-offs that the tourney community is going to have to address. Given how flexible and accommodating we all are .. that should not be a problem. : )

Forge World rules break a load of 'unwritten rules' in 40k, are really inconsistent with the mainstream 40k armies equivalents, have a load of unfun units that use out of date concepts and even the new 'updated' stuff is stuck in 5th edition.

I would give a blanket 'no' for the time being, at least until they do a proper rules overhaul (and maybe get some new rules writers in who don't only play Guard).

I really don't understand the whole 'buy to win' concept of FW. The same people that bought 2-3 Helldrakes could have bought the same cost in OP FW units and had the same effective win % at their respective type of tournaments.

I know plenty of 'I love to win, the game and fluff is irrelevant' players that feel the need to buy into and play one of the top two tournament lists available and burn as much money, if not more, on those armies as anybody who adds FW to their established armies of choice.

FW units allow armies that currently don't compete at a level equal to the top three to find more parity. FW has shown that those 'OMG you brought THAT FW model' units some people cling to will more than likely get fixed (Lucius Dreadnaught Droppod being a solid example).

While I do agree with arguements that FW rules are harder to come by and prepare for than GW Codex units, I don't think that matters. Irregardless of planning, each player should be presented with their opponents list to look at and understand before the match. This allows for tactical changes in how you play the game, and gives players the same advantage without having to study the meta environment. The only thing this hurts are the players that feel the need to know all rules that could affect their decisions and heavily research, and counter if necessary, prior to the tournament(Sorry, couldn't give two shakes for these people anyways...just my two cents).

The third main arguement is power level. I'd love to see a summary of army lists brought to FW and non-FW tournaments and those that score in the top 3. I'd imagine there is no large jump in army domination due to these FW models being so much more powerful...more than likely the 'power' acquired from these units is more linked to some players not playing against them as often or at all.

Quick summary. I've never played against a Vindicare Assassin in 6th Edition...I'm guessing I shouldn't know anything about it and be in uproar if somebody brought it to the table and sniped the key to my army with it? No...I'd suck it up and move on...just as I feel the non-FW people should do.

Hi

@ Hulksmash - thanks!

@ Muhwe - I understand why Adepticon makes the decision it does (and I agree with it and, more importantly, respect your decision to draw it where you feel is best for your event.).

What I don't understand why those who argue "I must have forgeworld units because it is a legit GW product" don't also argue that "I must have forgeworld lists because they are printed in a legit GW product." It strikes me as odd to want one but not necessarily the other...

Cheers,
Nate

 Farseer Faenyin wrote:
I really don't understand the whole 'buy to win' concept of FW. The same people that bought 2-3 Helldrakes could have bought the same cost in OP FW units and had the same effective win % at their respective type of tournaments.

I know plenty of 'I love to win, the game and fluff is irrelevant' players that feel the need to buy into and play one of the top two tournament lists available and burn as much money, if not more, on those armies as anybody who adds FW to their established armies of choice.

FW units allow armies that currently don't compete at a level equal to the top three to find more parity. FW has shown that those 'OMG you brought THAT FW model' units some people cling to will more than likely get fixed (Lucius Dreadnaught Droppod being a solid example).

While I do agree with arguements that FW rules are harder to come by and prepare for than GW Codex units, I don't think that matters. Irregardless of planning, each player should be presented with their opponents list to look at and understand before the match. This allows for tactical changes in how you play the game, and gives players the same advantage without having to study the meta environment. The only thing this hurts are the players that feel the need to know all rules that could affect their decisions and heavily research, and counter if necessary, prior to the tournament(Sorry, couldn't give two shakes for these people anyways...just my two cents).

The third main arguement is power level. I'd love to see a summary of army lists brought to FW and non-FW tournaments and those that score in the top 3. I'd imagine there is no large jump in army domination due to these FW models being so much more powerful...more than likely the 'power' acquired from these units is more linked to some players not playing against them as often or at all.

Quick summary. I've never played against a Vindicare Assassin in 6th Edition...I'm guessing I shouldn't know anything about it and be in uproar if somebody brought it to the table and sniped the key to my army with it? No...I'd suck it up and move on...just as I feel the non-FW people should do.

Do people in this thread in the tournament section buy units to lose?

However while players should be presented with a list before the match adding in FW to the lists will lengthen the amount of pre game unit explanation necessary. In an edition of the game that already has too much time consuming pre game steps this causes a problem with timed tournament rounds. FW shouldn't be used simply for the complexity it adds and the time it adds to games in a timed environment. No matter what Peregrine says the inclusion of FW does add a significant amount of time to a match, even if it is one unit and adds only 5 minutes of explanation time spread throuout a match those 5 minutes could be the difference between a win and a loss. If the FW rules were as available and clear as to what is most recent as GW codices then I would say the time constraints would be less of an issue.

Irregardless isn't a word.

@Nate - Ah, I misread your post. : )

I imagine it is rooted in the earlier books. Some of the Forgeworld Army Lists had a disclaimer with them that they were for "fun and might not be fair". So it was clear the intention of the lists to be used for theme and campaign sort of games not standard 40k.