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.

 carlosthecraven wrote:

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

Dunno what thread you've been reading, because we do (you might especially want to look up Peregrine's posts, seeing as he plays a ForgeWorld army). I personally don't care about the ForgeWorld lists as I don't play them, but they ought to be just as legal as any other army list.

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rules' in 40k, are really inconsistent with the mainstream 40k armies equivalents, have a load of unfun units that use out of date concepts and even the new 'updated' stuff is stuck in 5th edition.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

Would you care to elaborate on some of these points? With some examples perhaps?

NEWS FLASH - Forge World is not auto win GTs. There is no unit that good.

rigeld2 wrote:
You mean other than the fact that Flyers have optional Skyfire? Oh, but that's not in the base rule boo.... oops.

Sure, flyers were there already, but GW's design intent (as of when 6th was first released) was that the way to let an AA unit shoot at ground targets at full BS was the Interceptor USR.

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?

It's more confusing because power level isn't confusing. If Vendettas were suddenly a 10 point model everyone would still know how they function. They'd be unbelievably overpowered, but they'd still be a straightforward transport flyer with 3x TL LCs. On the other hand, if Rhinos in one codex were suddenly infantry models with a special rule that let them 'transport' other infantry models everyone would be confused because you don't expect an obvious vehicle model to somehow have infantry rules. It's the same with artillery, if you see a unit with towed guns and crew models you expect it to be an artillery unit.

Also, are you outraged that GW allowed the ork artillery unit to suddenly increase in power? Or is it only FW units that have to remain weak just to be sure? When you answer this keep in mind that it took the tournament crowd months to figure out that thudd guns were no longer the mediocre unit they used to be, despite having way more time and playtesting games than GW/FW could ever do.

And again - it's not a page of rules. Please stop shifting the bar.

Only if you want to be guilty of really bad design and do it your proposed way.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 OverwatchCNC wrote:
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 five minutes is enough to frequently make a difference in the outcome of a game then you seriously need to extend the round time and/or play at a smaller point level. Games should usually finish with a comfortable margin of error, not consistently run to the very end of the time limit so you can play the biggest possible game.

 Peregrine wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
You mean other than the fact that Flyers have optional Skyfire? Oh, but that's not in the base rule boo.... oops.

Sure, flyers were there already, but GW's design intent (as of when 6th was first released) was that the way to let an AA unit shoot at ground targets at full BS was the Interceptor USR.

"The only way to do it would be super sekrit special confusing rules." "Except for the example in the base rules." "Well yeah but they couldn't use those for reasons!"

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?

It's more confusing because power level isn't confusing. If Vendettas were suddenly a 10 point model everyone would still know how they function. They'd be unbelievably overpowered, but they'd still be a straightforward transport flyer with 3x TL LCs. On the other hand, if Rhinos in one codex were suddenly infantry models with a special rule that let them 'transport' other infantry models everyone would be confused because you don't expect an obvious vehicle model to somehow have infantry rules. It's the same with artillery, if you see a unit with towed guns and crew models you expect it to be an artillery unit.

Also, are you outraged that GW allowed the ork artillery unit to suddenly increase in power? Or is it only FW units that have to remain weak just to be sure? When you answer this keep in mind that it took the tournament crowd months to figure out that thudd guns were no longer the mediocre unit they used to be, despite having way more time and playtesting games than GW/FW could ever do.

I'm not outraged that Thudd guns went up in power - you're reading way too much into this.
And yes - it's frustrating that they jumped in power so much. And why did it take so long when people noticed basically day 1 that TFCs got significantly better?

And again - it's not a page of rules. Please stop shifting the bar.

Only if you want to be guilty of really bad design and do it your proposed way.

They were immobile vehicles with special rules before. They're immobile vehicles with special rules after.
Holy crap that's a huge change and poor design. Throw that right out.

rigeld2 wrote:

They were immobile vehicles with special rules before. They're immobile vehicles with special rules after.
Holy crap that's a huge change and poor design. Throw that right out.

When every other similar immobile vehicle turned into something else it'd be pretty bad design to leave one with the old rules, and exactly the sort of thing that GW (rightly) has recieved flak for previously. Just look at the Dreadknight and Riptide; they really have no business being Monstrous Creatures and yet they are, which people aren't super-happy about.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Dunno what thread you've been reading, because we do (you might especially want to look up Peregrine's posts, seeing as he plays a ForgeWorld army). I personally don't care about the ForgeWorld lists as I don't play them, but they ought to be just as legal as any other army list.

Really, just as a blanket statement for any event? Did you see muwhe's post?

muwhe wrote:
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.

And perhaps even much more importantly:

muwhe wrote:
@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.

This is a good enough explanation for me, despite the fact that FW army lists are what I'd be most interested in seeing! Perhaps they would be suitable for other events (like the Gladiator, as muwhe mentions) but not full inclusion for all FW army lists in all events. If their disclaimer is to be believed, some were not ever intended for such, anyway, and they actually wrote down / said as much in the book!

Finally, this really gave me a chuckle:

muwhe wrote:
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. : )

Well said

Also, really cool Mega / Meka dreads on the last page, carlosthecraven!!

Well I could cherry pick parts of quotes and change from past to present in mid sentence but I.m going to keep it simple, and honest....

I run an Elysian Drop Troops Army list. Its 40K Approved.

It has NO disclaimer or statement from an Apocalypse book 3 editions back pertaining to Titans and Super Heavy Vehicles about being fun and might not be fair.....You might as well apply that kind of foolishness by saying the current Necron Codex has the same relationship to another out of date book for a different game. It would be just as foolish and misleading.

My Elysian Drop Troops Army list rules are the 6th Edition Basic Rule Book, the current Imperial Guard Codex and the Taros Companion rules for Elysian Drop Troops in the IA Vol 3 Second edition printed in this year. There is no confusion over it, no mystery to which book. The newest rules for something always overrides the older, just like I quit using my old IG Codex when the newest came out.

The main difference between My Elysian list and the newest Tau stuff is you do not need batteries and an electronic device to read it, both are approved for 40K.

The other difference of course in none of the Tournaments will allow my list in their main events...even with the 40K stamp on it.

It's their events, as I have always said.

I could always run a 9 Vendetta list since the purpose has changed from have a good time to win at all cost at most of the main events for the tournaments. That they would allow...

 NeedleOfInquiry wrote:
I could always run a 9 Vendetta list since the purpose has changed from have a good time to win at all cost at most of the main events for the tournaments. That they would allow...

If you think 9 Vendetta lists are competitively viable (never mind overpowered) then I'm forced to wonder if you've ever even *been* to a tournament.

 Danny Internets wrote:

 NeedleOfInquiry wrote:
I could always run a 9 Vendetta list since the purpose has changed from have a good time to win at all cost at most of the main events for the tournaments. That they would allow...

If you think 9 Vendetta lists are competitively viable (never mind overpowered) then I'm forced to wonder if you've ever even *been* to a tournament.

Le t me be more explicit .I do not claim it is "competitive. It would also not be a fun list to play against. My point was the rules for regular 40 k allow it and the list would be perfectly OK for any main event at any on the tournaments while my Elysian list would not make it in the door.

 NeedleOfInquiry wrote:
Le t me be more explicit .I do not claim it is "competitive. It would also not be a fun list to play against.

So by calling a list "win at all costs" you weren't claiming it was designed to win? Okay...

My point was the rules for regular 40 k allow it and the list would be perfectly OK for any main event at any on the tournaments while my Elysian list would not make it in the door.

So you acknowledge that FW rules fall outside the scope of "regular 40 k." Why is it then such a mystery that people oppose the inclusion of non-regular rules in tournaments? You yourself just pointed out a key difference between the two types of lists.

Wow you're really trolling hard now Danny. Why don't you give it up? It's obvious he's not going to take your bait.

 Danny Internets wrote:

 NeedleOfInquiry wrote:
Le t me be more explicit .I do not claim it is "competitive. It would also not be a fun list to play against.

So by calling a list "win at all costs" you weren't claiming it was designed to win? Okay...

My point was the rules for regular 40 k allow it and the list would be perfectly OK for any main event at any on the tournaments while my Elysian list would not make it in the door.

So you acknowledge that FW rules fall outside the scope of "regular" 40 k.

" Why is it then such a mystery that people oppose the inclusion of non-regular rules in tournaments? You yourself just pointed out a key difference between the two types of lists.

Just got back...

So you acknowledge that FW rules fall outside the scope of "regular 40 k.

Not at all, what i meant was that people who like to use terms like "community rabble" to describe the majority of 40k players would be apposed to letting an Elysian list in.

Why is it then such a mystery that people oppose the inclusion of non-regular rules in tournaments

The mystery is why you think they are "non-regular" It says 40K Approved on it.

You yourself just pointed out a key difference between the two types of lists.

No, I just pointed out a difference between the mindset of tournaments designed for a win at all costs vs getting together to play a game and how the first is affecting the second. The professional tournament players are the tail wagging the 40k dog. As rules are set down in tournaments so do they flow down to FLGS and that affects folks who might, or might not decide to start playing 40K, and we need more players.

There are two kinds of players in 40K, those who spend an immense amount of their time in tournaments and those who do not jet to each and every tournament in America and know all the Tournament winners by first name. A small amount of the first group has let it get to their heads. You can spot them. They use terms like community rabble in forums..... , they base everything off of how many tournaments one has gone to that month... and so on. They are giants in their own minds...Then there are other like Mr Bryant whom I may disagree with on the forum about the 40K approved stuff but has distinguished himself by calmly presenting his views without insults and even injecting humor into it. If you read this Mr Bryant I wish you the best on your Tournaments.

I am opinionated, no doubt about it but the only time I have ever used the terms like rabble etc.... is when I have quoted someone else in the forums....whom I disagreed with. I can do a search for community rabble on the forums . It comes up more than once...

It's a game, most go to have fun, not too many I am aware of are building their lives around it.... We need to remember its the new players coming in who will keep this game alive.

Some think using 40K approved will scare new players off.

I think it's the attitude displayed and encouraged by the Win at all costs that will do it...

Forge World models and lists are attractive to new players. 40K approved is set up so they can use those models they have brought. How many do we lose when they find out that despite what the makers of the game say they can not bring their army into their first tournament because they do not like them.....

Remember, for everyone of us posting on these forums there are tens , if not hundreds more who never get a forum account and protest. They may never make it to a tournament. They just sell their models and move on to something else...

I suggest we remember that. Game Workshops/Forge World will never stay in business if their sole customers are folks who go to tournaments... There are a lot more folks out there.

So I suggest we loosen up. We at least need to lighten up.. If I have hurt anyone's feelings, I have not meant to. I hope all of use have the games long term interests at heart.

Needle, the term "rabble" came up over 25 pages ago and was instantly denounced by everybody! No need to stir the pot with terms like that (or, as we previously discussed, the opposite such as "elitism") in this discussion, imo.

rigeld2 wrote:
"The only way to do it would be super sekrit special confusing rules." "Except for the example in the base rules." "Well yeah but they couldn't use those for reasons!"

I never said the AA fix would involve confusing rules, that was about the artillery units. The problem with skyfire/interceptor comes from the fact that at the time the rules were published the Tau codex didn't exist yet and GW's current design intent was that the Interceptor USR was the way to let AA units fire at ground targets at full BS. FW's AA units just follow that precedent.

And why did it take so long when people noticed basically day 1 that TFCs got significantly better?

I have no idea why, but it did. And when 6th was first released thudd guns were an elites choice even. But somehow the tournament crowd didn't say a word about how overpowered they were until someone happened to do well in a major tournament with them, and suddenly they were the end of the world.

Anyway, the point here is that the tournament community has a lot more people and a total of a lot more playtesting time than GW/FW. If the tournament community can't spot the balance issues with thudd guns until months after they were released and then slightly nerfed then it's unreasonable to expect FW to be so worried about their power level that they don't use the natural unit type that everyone expects them to have.

They were immobile vehicles with special rules before. They're immobile vehicles with special rules after.

No, they were artillery before. Artillery were their own unit type with their own rules in the core rulebook. And so the natural expectation is that they continue to be artillery.

Eldercaveman wrote:

 Daba wrote:
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).

Would you care to elaborate on some of these points? With some examples perhaps?

This is not about power level, but what they do to the game. They could be overcosted and even bad, but are incredibly unfun. This isn't an extensive list, but just what comes to mind.

Assault Vehicle Drop Pods: This is basically a 'free' way of getting into assault that is specifically being clamped down on in 6th. It reduces the interaction of movement and feels horrible to be on the receiving end. Even if it is 'balanced' with points, this is something that simply should not exist in the game, and the function should be changed.

Vehicles immune to Lance and Melta: These are old concepts that are rare in the current edition. It basically takes specialist weapons designed for a purpose and poo-poos in their face. Even if the vehicle is overcosted and bad, the reason it exists seems more like a 'feth you' than a legitimate game reason, and fluff behind it seems tacked on for a gaming advantage. These 'counter-counters' shouldn't be in the game, and they have been slowly removed in mainstream 40k by GW (the SR still has is from Death from the Skies, but it remains to be seen if this changes in Codex:SM in september).

Wraithseer powers: 6th edition, apart from some squad upgrade guys (and even some of them obey it) use random tables for psykers and their powers, and are generated from a list based on mastery. Why is the Wraithseer stuck in 5th edition with it's set powers? It seems like the designer was married to those powers; if so, why not make them a random table, and recost the Wraithseer? Maybe because it takes effort? This one stinks of laziness and/or being overly nostalgic to 5th edition.

Warp Hunter weapon: This weapon flies in the face of the other Distort weapons that GW have made. It basically shares none of the common features every single one of the other weapons have apart from the 'distort' special rule, which isn't the only thing that ties the weapons together. The way they've done is as if a Contemptor Dreadnaught's Lascannons were different to normal, and behaved exactly like twin-linked Multilasers. Mind-boggling and random.

And these are the ones that I could think of right now; I don't have access to many of the books but I'm sure there are a plethora of other mistakes and problems in them.

 Daba wrote:
Assault Vehicle Drop Pods: This is basically a 'free' way of getting into assault that is specifically being clamped down on in 6th. It reduces the interaction of movement and feels horrible to be on the receiving end. Even if it is 'balanced' with points, this is something that simply should not exist in the game, and the function should be changed.

Apparently no longer exists as of the new IA Apocalypse book. This is a 5th edition relic that is going away in the first 6th edition book to include the dread pod.

These 'counter-counters' shouldn't be in the game, and they have been slowly removed in mainstream 40k by GW (the SR still has is from Death from the Skies, but it remains to be seen if this changes in Codex:SM in september).

You have a strange definition of "removed" if it includes printing new units with the rule. There's no reason to believe that the Stormraven's rules will change in the foreseeable future, and since DftS is a 6th edition book GW clearly supports having melta immunity as part of the game.

And let's not forget that the Avatar, in the most recent codex, still has its traditional melta immunity that goes beyond what the FW tanks get.

Why is the Wraithseer stuck in 5th edition with it's set powers?

Because the new Eldar codex and its psychic powers table wasn't out yet when the Wraithseer's rules were updated for 6th.

Warp Hunter weapon: This weapon flies in the face of the other Distort weapons that GW have made. It basically shares none of the common features every single one of the other weapons have apart from the 'distort' special rule, which isn't the only thing that ties the weapons together.

You realize that you're talking about a unit from before the current Eldar codex, right? When the Warp Hunter's rules were published its gun worked just like other distort weapons. The only reason it's different is that it hasn't been updated to match the new codex yet.

 Dozer Blades wrote:
Wow you're really trolling hard now Danny. Why don't you give it up? It's obvious he's not going to take your bait.

If you really insist on being a douchebag, please feel free to send me a PM. Otherwise, kindly shut up.

Oooh, the e-peens are out.

I'm glad I stayed subscribed to this thread.

 NeedleOfInquiry wrote:
There are two kinds of players in 40K, those who spend an immense amount of their time in tournaments and those who do not jet to each and every tournament in America and know all the Tournament winners by first name. A small amount of the first group has let it get to their heads. You can spot them. They use terms like community rabble in forums..... , they base everything off of how many tournaments one has gone to that month... and so on. They are giants in their own minds...Then there are other like Mr Bryant whom I may disagree with on the forum about the 40K approved stuff but has distinguished himself by calmly presenting his views without insults and even injecting humor into it. If you read this Mr Bryant I wish you the best on your Tournaments.

I am opinionated, no doubt about it but the only time I have ever used the terms like rabble etc.... is when I have quoted someone else in the forums....whom I disagreed with. I can do a search for community rabble on the forums . It comes up more than once...

Not sure why you're taking such offense at the term "rabble." Whenever you have large groups of people engaging in discussion without any barrier to entry the discourse tends towards to be disorganized and full of uninformed opinions. That's just the nature of people and the community on Dakka is no exception.

Forge World models and lists are attractive to new players. 40K approved is set up so they can use those models they have brought. How many do we lose when they find out that despite what the makers of the game say they can not bring their army into their first tournament because they do not like them.....

In what world are players new to 40k going out and building Forgeworld armies as their introduction to the game? I've introduced at least a dozen people to 40k and have met hundreds more who play and I've never come across anyone who started the hobby with FW units/armies. The only people I know who even own any FW models (and this represents a small minority) are those who have been playing and collecting for many years. And even then, those I know who own FW models usually buy them as replacements for standard GW models. Those that buy FW models without GW rules seem to represent a minority within a minority.

EDIT: Misread your post

 Danny Internets wrote:

 Dozer Blades wrote:
Wow you're really trolling hard now Danny. Why don't you give it up? It's obvious he's not going to take your bait.

If you really insist on being a douchebag, please feel free to send me a PM. Otherwise, kindly shut up.

I rest my case.

 Monster Rain wrote:
Oooh, the e-peens are out.

I'm glad I stayed subscribed to this thread.

I had to google that....

I was drinking a soda when I read it.... good thing I had a spare keyboard.....never going to get that soda out of the old one....

 Danny Internets wrote:
In what world are players new to 40k going out and building Forgeworld armies as their introduction to the game?

In this world. I had my first Barracuda before I even finished building my battleforce, and my IG army was started from day one as a FW army.

My only army is a Death Korps of Krieg Siege Regiment

 Bobthehero wrote:
My only army is a Death Korps of Krieg Siege Regiment

by choice, and if there was an issue you could absolutely play it as a core IG army.

 davou wrote:
by choice, and if there was an issue you could absolutely play it as a core IG army.

But why should they have to spend the time and money to build a different army? DKoK is a legal army according to GW, and not all of its models can be used in a codex IG army. This is about as reasonable as telling a DA player that their army is banned, but it's ok because they can just play C:SM with their models.

 davou wrote:

 Bobthehero wrote:
My only army is a Death Korps of Krieg Siege Regiment

by choice, and if there was an issue you could absolutely play it as a core IG army.

Without FW units? No, not at all, unless everything count as everything else.

Peregrine, I'm talking about the really new FW IAA book. They put some previews up and the Wraithseer was really lazily updated (they even misprinted it) and has set powers. The Warp Hunter gun I'm talking about is not the old version which I do understand was just old and un-updated. The new one in IAA is completely mangled and makes no sense as a distort weapon; worse than if they kept it as is (though the old one was OP).

The Avatars melta and flame immunity is a different thing due to being an MC and also has a legacy reason for it. The FW ones have no excuse, and is on a vehicle which is different.

They put some previews up and the Wraithseer was really lazily updated (they even misprinted it) and has set powers.

Well of course it has set powers, wasn't Doom released in 2011, while 6th dropped in 2012? Or does wiki lie to me...wouldn't be the first time. If it did though, it'd explain both the Wraithseer and the Warp Hunter differences to current ways that it works.

And

The FW ones have no excuse, and is on a vehicle which is different.

What about the stormraven and what not? That's a vehicle, and has been updated for 6th and retained the rule.

The Wiki is not up to date I'm afraid; I'm referring to the update that's happening next Friday, and there are previews up on the FW site.

The Stormraven has no excuse either, but I'm waiting for C:SM in September to see if it retains it. Currently, only legacy codices use it, so I'm wondering if it will be changed in a proper overhaul codex rather than an update 'patch'. The thing about the Storm Raven is it's only AV12 too, which makes a world of difference compared with AV14 (and the AV14 having Lance immunity as well).