40K - Blackmoor, get a tissue cause if this is true, you're going to shed some tears, bud (FW)!

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.

**Dugg**

ClockworkZion wrote:

Emplaced artillery? Can't pivot (they're immobile unless you take a specific vehicle), has a 45 degree firing arc, and if you kill or break the crew the gun automatically dies. Also a number of the guns need LOS to be effective (full distance scatter with no adjustment for BS), or to even shoot. Guess what we don't have enough of on most people's tables that allows Tau to be so good as a turtled up firebase? LOS blocking terrain as well as just terrain in general. There is a severe lack of terrain density on the tables I've seen pictured from tournaments and it often doesn't "fill out" like it needs to according to the rules themselves.

I have seen this before and thought I could just clarify this one rule that people seem to be getting wrong. Artillery models with Crew have a 360 degree firing arc like other "models" they are not vehicles and vehicle hull-mounted weapons are the ones that have the 45 degree arc restriction, if they do not have Sponson, Turret or Pintle Mounted weapons that is, so on. So if you are running a Sabre Platform, a Thunderfire, Aegis Gun or a heavy Artillery model(s) they all have a 360 firing arc at all times. Standard LOS applies but they are like IG Heavy Weapons Team or a Monstrous Creature not a vehicle. Just figured I could spare some misunderstanding that might come up during a tournament. No one likes to get surprised in the middle of a tournament game about a rule they thought they knew.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

kronk wrote:
FW is pretty and should be allowed.

**Peregrine**

One important thing to note here is that those overpowered FW units were mediocre at best until 6th edition changed the artillery and flyer rules in incredibly stupid ways. So it's less a case of FW making overpowered stuff and more that GW just doesn't care about balance and releases game-breaking rules without bothering to playtest them. Banning FW isn't going to help balance very much when you still have frustrating overpowered stuff like re-rollable 2++ death stars or 4-5 Riptide Tau, and almost certainly will continue to get more of those frustrating overpowered lists in the future.

**ClockworkZion**

Not proof of anything I'm sure, but here's a direct quote from GW Digital Edition's Facebook page from one of the people who work on the digital codexes AND work with the GW main studio:

Games Workshop: Digital Editions
Hey Miles,
Our books are primarily to accompany the Citadel Miniatures range as opposed to the Forge World series.
We don't tend to include Forge World only units in any of our codexes.
That said, you are of course welcome to use additional Forgeworld units alongside our codexes, but because they tend to be a bit more exotic, you're probably best letting your opponent know you will beforehand.

- Eddie

So the stance seems to be "use if you like, just don't be a dick about it".

**RiTides**

And your TO will let your opponents know beforehand what they might face, as well

i.e. some Forgeworld, unlimited Forgeworld, unlimited Forgeworld including FW army lists, or no FW. It's not universal and every TO will have to make the call on it, just like they've had to for the last decade or two...

For the record, I've made the case for before, and am a big fan of, limited/restricted FW allowance. But on the internet things tend to gravitate towards the "all or nothing" extremes. Simply making FW choices 0-1 as AdeptiCon has done in the past is an intriguing middle ground that I really like

. It's also a baby-step towards more FW inclusion, and is something I think more "pro FW" players should heartily get behind, because it can only help lead to wider adoption.

It's a lot harder to enact change when you're deadset on trying to get a tractor trailer to go from 0-100mph in 5 seconds. Going from no FW allowance at all to unlimited FW is a lot harder than introducing it gradually, and will meet more resistance... so embrace the events that have put in the work to include it, even if it's not fully unlimited! And who knows what the future will hold

**ClockworkZion**

RiTides wrote:
And your TO will let your opponents know beforehand what they might face, as well i.e. some Forgeworld, unlimited Forgeworld, unlimited Forgeworld including FW army lists, or no FW. It's not universal and every TO will have to make the call on it, just like they've had to for the last decade or two...

For the record, I've made the case for before, and am a big fan of, limited/restricted FW allowance. But on the internet things tend to gravitate towards the "all or nothing" extremes. Simply making FW choices 0-1 as AdeptiCon has done in the past is an intriguing middle ground that I really like

If we're 0-1 FW options then we might as well do that to other things too. Riptides, Heldrakes, Wraithknights...ect. I mean why not apply such restrictions across the board if you're going to do them?

**RiTides**

Ah, the olive branch discarded, and trampled underfoot...

I was still editing my post so I'll quote the relevant parts that I added:

It's also a baby-step towards more FW inclusion, and is something I think more "pro FW" players should heartily get behind, because it can only help lead to wider adoption.

It's a lot harder to enact change when you're deadset on trying to get a tractor trailer to go from 0-100mph in 5 seconds. Going from no FW allowance at all to unlimited FW is a lot harder than introducing it gradually, and will meet more resistance... so embrace the events that have put in the work to include it, even if it's not fully unlimited! And who knows what the future will hold

You demand all or nothing "On the Internet" (as your location so aptly names

) but ignore the middle ground events that would inexorably lead to greater adoption.

Ah well, twas a moment of peace, goodwill and mutual acceptance, at least in my own mind

. I'll leave you to the "all or nothing" argument, as I've had my hearty fill of it in the past.

**ClockworkZion**

RiTides wrote:
Ah, the olive branch discarded, and trampled underfoot...

Who said anything about discarding anything? I was just making a point that if we're limiting FW to keep it from being abused then limiting the abusable parts of the regular game should similarly be enacted.

RiTides wrote:
I was still editing my post so I'll quote the relevant parts that I added:

It's also a baby-step towards more FW inclusion, and is something I think more "pro FW" players should heartily get behind, because it can only help lead to wider adoption.

It's a lot harder to enact change when you're deadset on trying to get a tractor trailer to go from 0-100mph in 5 seconds. Going from no FW allowance at all to unlimited FW is a lot harder than introducing it gradually, and will meet more resistance... so embrace the events that have put in the work to include it, even if it's not fully unlimited! And who knows what the future will hold

You demand all or nothing "On the Internet" (as your location so aptly names ) but ignore the middle ground events that would inexorably lead to greater adoption.

Ah well, twas a moment of peace, goodwill and mutual acceptance, at least in my own mind . I'll leave you to the "all or nothing" argument, as I've had my hearty fill of it.

I'm 100% FW for normal games. I don't pretend tournaments are normal games however and I've said (this making the third time I'm stating it) that I am fine with tournaments doing whatever they wish because they already have to play with house rules (like preset terrain) to make the game function for their event. I'm just stating that if we're going to limit one thing that has the potential for abuse we should probably limit ALL things that are abusable otherwise we're just playing favorites.

**RiTides**

Indeed, but unless you want to make all codex entries 0-1, you're going to have to play favorites with the route you propose, regardless.

I only point to the 0-1 idea as a workable solution that has in the past been implemented, there are other ideas along those lines, too.

**ClockworkZion**

RiTides wrote:
Indeed, but unless you want to make all codex entries 0-1, you're going to have to play favorites with the route you propose, regardless.

I don't think you're really playing favorites by reducing Riptides to a 0-1 choice. At least then they'd be as uncommon as they are in the fluff.

RiTides wrote:
I only point to the 0-1 idea as a workable solution that has in the past been implemented, there are other ideas along those lines, too.

I'm not saying it can't or won't work I'm just saying that if we're using that mindset there are other things that just as badly need to be addressed and should be addressed too.

**Breng77**

I actually thing rather than a 0-1 restriction (and this I'm sure would piss off a lot of FW people, and not alike) the best way to ease in FW would be to do something like.

Starting Now we will allow 40k approved units in x book (the newest FW book) any future FW release that is 40k approved. This take out any confusion about past units that have been re-printed multiple times, would make it so that there is less to learn for most players at fist. Is no different than adopting a new supplement....etc.

Now people won't like it because for FW players it means lots of their toys won't currently be legal. And anti-FW won't like it because it is including FW.

Alternatively you could state something like only FW books published since the beginning of 6th and forward are legal and get much the same effect.

**happygolucky**

Blackmoor wrote:
happygolucky wrote:
Blackmoor why you don't like FW?

When we talk about FW we are not really talking about the IA: Apoc book (I have not seen the new one yet). What we are talking about is that in the nooks and crannies of almost every IA book there is a broken unit (all imperial btw) and when put together create an broken list. We are not talking about the Chaos Contemptor dread or any other bad units, just the broken ones. Think IG artillery for starters.

Ok well, if that's the case why is it wrong to have a broken list that is FW? I mean I could say the same for Normal Codex's (with the use of Wave Serpent spam/Flying Daemon Circus/Triple Riptide markerlight missileside spam as examples) and their supplement's (also I would ban supplements in tourneys but that is my opinion, for a different thread) I see many a time people in tournaments exploiting their codex's just to win and usually those same lists break the edition, so what is wrong with a broken FW list when there are so many things broken with a normal codex? not having a go just curious..

Also I would highly, highly recommend the current IA Apoc book, I think if you read that your opinion would change a bit about the matter (as it did with me)

**Noir**

ClockworkZion wrote:
RiTides wrote:
And your TO will let your opponents know beforehand what they might face, as well i.e. some Forgeworld, unlimited Forgeworld, unlimited Forgeworld including FW army lists, or no FW. It's not universal and every TO will have to make the call on it, just like they've had to for the last decade or two...

For the record, I've made the case for before, and am a big fan of, limited/restricted FW allowance. But on the internet things tend to gravitate towards the "all or nothing" extremes. Simply making FW choices 0-1 as AdeptiCon has done in the past is an intriguing middle ground that I really like

If we're 0-1 FW options then we might as well do that to other things too. Riptides, Heldrakes, Wraithknights...ect. I mean why not apply such restrictions across the board if you're going to do them?

Wow, talk about missing the whole point of the post.

**happygolucky**

Noir wrote:
ClockworkZion wrote:
RiTides wrote:
And your TO will let your opponents know beforehand what they might face, as well i.e. some Forgeworld, unlimited Forgeworld, unlimited Forgeworld including FW army lists, or no FW. It's not universal and every TO will have to make the call on it, just like they've had to for the last decade or two...

For the record, I've made the case for before, and am a big fan of, limited/restricted FW allowance. But on the internet things tend to gravitate towards the "all or nothing" extremes. Simply making FW choices 0-1 as AdeptiCon has done in the past is an intriguing middle ground that I really like

If we're 0-1 FW options then we might as well do that to other things too. Riptides, Heldrakes, Wraithknights...ect. I mean why not apply such restrictions across the board if you're going to do them?

Wow, talk about missing the whole point of the post.

Actually, whilst it does slightly miss the point, this is a great Idea imo, as it would allow a lot more list variety than just the usual "Spam Cheese button X and Y" plus it would make people think a lot more and hold a refresh button to people tactics and maybe even make them become better generals as they could take a so called "bad" or "fluffy" unit and incorporate them into their list and make them... good perhaps? plus it would introduce a lot more originality into lists and even balance the so called "Competitive Meta" (if there is one in 6th, since it really does vary across gaming places imo), as everyone would be forced to take the 0-1 choice, therefore perhaps giving all armies a chance of winning a tourney imo

**Matt1785**

Comp scores just limit variety IMHO. As a player of Fantasy, and one that sees a lot of ETC (European Team Championships) ((For those that didn't know it, heck, I didn't for the longest time)), I just find that the more you comp something,t he more limited a list becomes, therefore causing you to see many of the same list.

Tournaments can do whatever they like, the organizer is the boss and he can allow what he likes. We just had a thread like this, and I'll say the same thing, "COME ON GW!! SAY IT"S LEGAL!" I would love to run contemptors in my new Iron Hands army... but does a Master of the Forge allow for Contemptors to be elite and heavy?

**Dugg**

MVBrandt wrote:
You're getting to the point well enough; there's 0 point to arguing about what units are broken or not. I don't think Thudd Guns or Vultures are going to improve the Tournament Experience for anyone, and they provably (and already have if you want to actually go looking) worsen the experience for some. BUT the experience can already be AWFUL if you run into a Screamerstar or Jetcouncil. Both lists can be played to above average success by relatively inexperienced gamers frustrating the hell out of average opponents. When you put them in the hands of a top tier player, it becomes absolutely horrid for your average tourney-goer to play against.

FW DOES have units with similar "ugh" nature to them. Trying to prove or disprove that statement, however, is not really the determining factor for whether or not to include them.

Perhaps the biggest issue, that this thread and no other will ever solve, is that there are a LOT of players who either really don't know anything about FW, or who adamantly are against playing with it. While certain REGIONS may differ, this is still the case across the vast majority of at least the US (and I often see European players echo this).

A tournament can build itself up on the "FW legal" front, or it can be big enough in a con environment that changes will generally be sustained by attendance no matter what, but it's very difficult for events in the midranges to take risky gambles on potentially unpopular moves. TOs lose a SHITTON of money running these things as it is. So when a vocal minority (as most vocal groups on the internets are) starts trashing those who make whatever decisions they make (pro FW or against) ... well, it's silly. They're not making their decisions based upon what somebody said was a good or bad unit on the internets. They're making their decisions with the concert of their volunteers and peers in a way they consider mitigates the most risk to their already-taxed wallets in operating their events.

If you want FW, you need to motivate a clear VAST majority from among the PRESENT CONSTITUENTS and potential constituents of the events you're trying to influence. All the back and forth about individual units and how to counter them and whether they're broken or not is utterly pointless in comparison.

Dang that MVBrandt guy speaks sense. I have to say TO's are doing a pretty amazing job these days and that job is not easy. There is just a huge differences between running your local game store event/league and a Major Event like Adepticon, Bay Area Open, Da Boyz and NOVA, to mention a few. I can only image what they go through every year in preparation for their Events. And with 6th and ForgeWorld it has not gotten any easier for them. I have the utmost respect for these guys and appreciate what they do for our gaming community, and I am always ready in any way I can as a gamer to help and support them. It's just to easy to criticize what they are doing from the outside. These guys are making the tough choices of what their event rules/restriction will be and any mistakes they make effect their pocket book directly, in big ways.

**AlexRae**

MVBrandt wrote:
Perhaps unrelated, but the game needs a LOT more LOS-blocking terrain than ANY TOURNAMENT PRESENTLY IS FIELDING (yes, I'm including everybody). The game could also use the removal of 2++ re-rolling units

Once this is done, then we can actually look at things like comps and bans.

Until then it is just basically LeafBlower Vs DeathStar: THE GAME

**Reecius**

AlexRae wrote:
MVBrandt wrote:
Perhaps unrelated, but the game needs a LOT more LOS-blocking terrain than ANY TOURNAMENT PRESENTLY IS FIELDING (yes, I'm including everybody). The game could also use the removal of 2++ re-rolling units

Once this is done, then we can actually look at things like comps and bans.

Until then it is just basically LeafBlower Vs DeathStar: THE GAME

Haha, agreed

That was a funny way to state the truth.

We're working hard on some cost effective, large LoS blocking pieces of terrain and as soon as we get it worked out, or one way to resolve it, we will share it with everyone. It makes the game so much more fun and fair when it is played this way.

**NeedleOfInquiry**

That corner that those who disallow 40K Approved Forge World keep painting themselves into appears to be getting smaller.....

The unbalancing augment is just plain silly in an environment of 4 Riptide armies, allies, hell drakes and the last 3 flavor of the month codices.

The outdated rules/which rules do I use false argument on Forge World material is about to be nailed into its coffin in a few weeks as well.

What will those folks do once the new wording is official I wonder?

In the end Game Workshops, which does include Forge World, is going to do what is in the best interest of their profit...

I suspect they will go with whatever sells more models and expensive rules to new customers, which will be Forge World, and those customers are going to want to use them....

Certain tournament folks have been the tail wagging the dog...I suggest they remember the more new players they turn away for a few who like things the way they are the more dismal their financial future will be....

It's all about the profit....not the past.

**happygolucky**

Dugg wrote:
ClockworkZion wrote:

Emplaced artillery? Can't pivot (they're immobile unless you take a specific vehicle), has a 45 degree firing arc, and if you kill or break the crew the gun automatically dies. Also a number of the guns need LOS to be effective (full distance scatter with no adjustment for BS), or to even shoot. Guess what we don't have enough of on most people's tables that allows Tau to be so good as a turtled up firebase? LOS blocking terrain as well as just terrain in general. There is a severe lack of terrain density on the tables I've seen pictured from tournaments and it often doesn't "fill out" like it needs to according to the rules themselves.

I have seen this before and thought I could just clarify this one rule that people seem to be getting wrong. Artillery models with Crew have a 360 degree firing arc like other "models" they are not vehicles and vehicle hull-mounted weapons are the ones that have the 45 degree arc restriction, if they do not have Sponson, Turret or Pintle Mounted weapons that is, so on. So if you are running a Sabre Platform, a Thunderfire, Aegis Gun or a heavy Artillery model(s) they all have a 360 firing arc at all times. Standard LOS applies but they are like IG Heavy Weapons Team or a Monstrous Creature not a vehicle. Just figured I could spare some misunderstanding that might come up during a tournament. No one likes to get surprised in the middle of a tournament game about a rule they thought they knew.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

kronk wrote:
FW is pretty and should be allowed.

+1

**RiTides**

NeedleOfInquiry, you brought this up again to make a post like that?

NeedleOfInquiry wrote:
The outdated rules/which rules do I use false argument on Forge World material is about to be nailed into its coffin in a few weeks as well.

What will those folks do once the new wording is official I wonder?

The outdated rules argument is entirely valid, how will that be nailed into its coffin? Even if GW 100% says "USE FW ALL THE TIME ALWAYS!" the rules for current units are hard to find, unless you go to the effort AdeptiCon does to make a current list, and it's always changing and the rules are much more scattered than they are for normal codexes... although those are getting harder to track with the release of supplements, that doesn't make FW any easier to track!

Regarding your second statement that I quoted above- those folks will probably buy and use FW

it's just that easy, and if GW ever does come right out and say it clearly, I think we would ALL be happier- no matter what our preference is, 100% clarity would be far better than the mirkwood they currently leave us in.

**BaronIveagh**

Personally, I'm in favor of allowing FW, if only because IG tanks.

**kronk**

That's pretty!

But isn't that just the FW model Leman Russ with the plasma flinger turret and the plasma cannon side sponsons from the normal IG codex?

**Vaktathi**

RiTides wrote:

Regarding your second statement that I quoted above- those folks will probably buy and use FW it's just that easy, and if GW ever does come right out and say it clearly, I think we would ALL be happier- no matter what our preference is, 100% clarity would be far better than the mirkwood they currently leave us in.

Well, I guess the issue is, we're talking about GW products with GW copyrights written by GW staff at GW HQ for a GW game to be sold on a GW website and featured in other GW publications and GW's periodical, how much more "official" can you get than that? You can see FW products featured on GW's main page on "White Dwarf Daily" section quite often, the latest was just yesterday on Nov 6.

From GW's perspective...why is such a statement necessary given the above? It would appear to be pretty clear already

**Blackmoor**

BaronIveagh wrote:
Personally, I'm in favor of allowing FW, if only because IG tanks.

That is what the popular thought is by players who do not go to tournaments.

There is a big difference between tournaments and home games because all you will see on the top tables are all of the broken units. I have never seen anyone take a FW Tank at a tournament, so allowing FW does nothing if you hope to see more of them.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Vaktathi wrote:
RiTides wrote:

Regarding your second statement that I quoted above- those folks will probably buy and use FW it's just that easy, and if GW ever does come right out and say it clearly, I think we would ALL be happier- no matter what our preference is, 100% clarity would be far better than the mirkwood they currently leave us in.

Well, I guess the issue is, we're talking about GW products with GW copyrights written by GW staff at GW HQ for a GW game to be sold on a GW website and featured in other GW publications and GW's periodical, how much more "official" can you get than that? You can see FW products featured on GW's main page on "White Dwarf Daily" section quite often, the latest was just yesterday on Nov 6.

From GW's perspective...why is such a statement necessary given the above? It would appear to be pretty clear already

Where do you see forge world in non-forge world publications? Are they ever in WD?

**muwhe**

@Blackmoor - every month.

**BaronIveagh**

Blackmoor wrote:

That is what the popular thought is by players who do not go to tournaments.

There is a big difference between tournaments and home games because all you will see on the top tables are all of the broken units. I have never seen anyone take a FW Tank at a tournament, so allowing FW does nothing if you hope to see more of them.

My local tourney scene would disagree with you. But that's meta here. See, back before the current guard codex, the only way IG could take things like Vanquishers and Executioners was to go FW. A lot of players like to forget that when they're talking about what a bad idea it is to have FW stuff, etc.

kronk wrote:
That's pretty!

But isn't that just the FW model Leman Russ with the plasma flinger turret and the plasma cannon side sponsons from the normal IG codex?

Now, sure. When I built it, that 'plasma flinger' was FW only, along with several other IG tanks.

**Vaktathi**

Blackmoor wrote:

Where do you see forge world in non-forge world publications? Are they ever in WD?

They've been included in many White Dwarf's *very* frequently, and are featured every so often on GW's main front page in the White Dwarf Daily blog, and are featured in part in other GW books like Battle Missions and Apocalypse to varying degrees.

**Reecius**

You're either with Forgeworld....or you're with the terrorists!

**hotsauceman1**

So is the LVO then just a trap to lure terrorists? Anyone that doesnt bring forgeworld will be round up?

**RiTides**

You can state it however you like, Vaktathi, but it's pretty darn obvious that, given the long-term and widespread NON-acceptance of FW in events, they need to clarify their stance on it if they think it should be included.

Because as clear as it is to you, it isn't as clear to a signifcant percentage of gamers... and given all the logistical challenges of including FW, they need to make it clear that it's worth the trouble.

There's lots of arguments about why FW should be considered fully accepted by default, but it's hard to argue that most gamers consider it that way. With the exception of the west coast nowadays, I think most groups do not consider FW required, but as optional... if GW doesn't think of it that way, they should come out and say so clearly.

Saying they don't need to say it just doesn't ring true given the reality of events and tournaments for the last... decade? More? Most don't allow FW, and the ones that do specifically have to say that they do. That means gamers are not viewing acceptance as default, but as something that needs to be specified. If GW feels differently, they should you know, specify more clearly

I probably just said the same thing 5 ways, but it's an easy fix, and it's up to GW to do it. Saying "they don't need to do anything" isn't looking at the reality on the ground / facts of actual events and mindset of gamers about FW.