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.

MVBrandt wrote:
Is it contradictory? It sounds more like he's saying FW is just as official as Planetstrike, Apocalypse, etc.

I'm talking about the part where he says that "FW tells us FW is for story campaigns, not pickup games", which contradicts what FW have said about FW rules being intended for normal pickup games as long as you show your opponent your rules before the game starts. I wouldn't be at all surprised if this supposed "conversation" never happened and this is just an excuse to avoid saying "sorry, your army doesn't help us sell our core products so we don't want it".

He's making a clear note that there is in fact a Core Game, and expansions and supplements to it. Coupled w/ the Code rules you see a clear statement that the digital supplements and codices are all part of the Core, while the things excluded but still produced by one of GW's design studios (FW, GW, BL, etc.) are Official Expansions.

That's not really the case since GW's events are not run by their game designers. In this context "core" has more to do with "which boxes of space marines can we sell to 15 year olds" and "how many rulebooks do I want to deal with when people start arguing and I don't understand the rules any better than a random player". Meanwhile in the actual published rulebooks and statements by the game design part of the company we see no real separation between "core" products and "expansion" products, and the only difference is if rules are for the standard missions (codex, supplement, "40k approved" FW) or if they introduce new game types (Apocalypse, Planetstrike, CoD).

 Peregrine wrote:

MVBrandt wrote:
Is it contradictory? It sounds more like he's saying FW is just as official as Planetstrike, Apocalypse, etc.

I'm talking about the part where he says that "FW tells us FW is for story campaigns, not pickup games", which contradicts what FW have said about FW rules being intended for normal pickup games as long as you show your opponent your rules before the game starts. I wouldn't be at all surprised if this supposed "conversation" never happened and this is just an excuse to avoid saying "sorry, your army doesn't help us sell our core products so we don't want it".

He's making a clear note that there is in fact a Core Game, and expansions and supplements to it. Coupled w/ the Code rules you see a clear statement that the digital supplements and codices are all part of the Core, while the things excluded but still produced by one of GW's design studios (FW, GW, BL, etc.) are Official Expansions.

That's not really the case since GW's events are not run by their game designers. In this context "core" has more to do with "which boxes of space marines can we sell to 15 year olds" and "how many rulebooks do I want to deal with when people start arguing and I don't understand the rules any better than a random player". Meanwhile in the actual published rulebooks and statements by the game design part of the company we see no real separation between "core" products and "expansion" products, and the only difference is if rules are for the standard missions (codex, supplement, "40k approved" FW) or if they introduce new game types (Apocalypse, Planetstrike, CoD).

I see it differently than you. However, as a supporter of both pro-FW and anti-FW players, I really don't care what GW thinks or says about how to run events in terms of allowed supplements; they're inconsistent enough on their own, and put on their own events where sometimes it's allowed and sometimes it isn't ... so whether I use them as an example or not, the result is "Use FW sometimes, and sometimes don't use FW." I tend to lean in terms of what I think they INTEND for the core game to be as what's referenced per my last post; namely, that you can draw a clear connection (and not contradiction) between comments culimating in a view of the FW rules as being intended for use / play / official to the game, but not part of their core game, and more akin to expansions such as Planetstrike.

In a sense, it doesn't get more clear than:

The reason we have made this call is that Forge World products are, essentially, expansions to the main Warhammer 40,000 game, much like Apocalypse, Cities of Death and Planetstrike.

FW Products being totally official, but also not part of the "main Warhammer 40,000 game." I think that's completely reasonable, too, and really lends little weight to whether any given TO should or shouldn't be pressured to allow their use.

Forgeworld models and specifically rules are going to be about as official as Death From The Skies.....

ie: not at all unless someone specifically chooses to add them to the core game

AlexRae wrote:
Forgeworld models and specifically rules are going to be about as official as Death From The Skies.....

ie: not at all unless someone specifically chooses to add them to the core game

You might want to rethink your example, unless you think that Orks shouldn't be allowed to use the Dakkajet (and variants)...

That was indeed a pretty bad example.

As official as Death From the Skies? So anyone who doesn't allow FW is just a grumpy shopkeeper who wants more profit?

What a great example to further your point!

/sarcasm

MVBrandt wrote:
In a sense, it doesn't get more clear than:

The reason we have made this call is that Forge World products are, essentially, expansions to the main Warhammer 40,000 game, much like Apocalypse, Cities of Death and Planetstrike.

I agree that it's very clear, but the person saying it has no more authority than you or I declaring that FW products are expansions and therefore separate from the standard game. GW's events are run by the sales department, not the people who make the games. And with that in mind there are very clear sales reasons for banning FW: a desire to focus events on selling "core" products, and to avoid having to deal with GW's ideal customer (young and no experience playing outside of GW stores, where FW products aren't available) being unhappy about facing an army they've never seen before. It's kind of like how they invent rules like "two models on a swarm base isn't enough" to increase sales. And so their opinions on the rules of the game should be about as relevant as their opinions of the people who answer GW's rule question email. That is, not relevant at all.

On the other hand, when you look at what GW's rule authors are saying, you have explicit statements that FW rules are part of the game and a general policy of releasing non-codex rules (supplements and FW books) that add to the standard game and treating them all as being equivalent to a codex. The only division we see in the published rules is between rules for the standard game and missions (codex, supplement, FW "40k approved") and rules that add entirely new game types/campaigns/etc (Apocalypse and similar expansions).

MVBrandt wrote: Coupled w/ the Code rules you see a clear statement that the digital supplements and codices are all part of the Core, while the things excluded but still produced by one of GW's design studios (FW, GW, BL, etc.) are Official Expansions.

So does the new Inquisition codex count as 'produced by one of GWs design studios', since it was published and sold by Black Library, with no 'game designer author' credited, or does that get hand-waved away?

Its really clear that GW really can't be bothered to address the issue of 'legality' and that goes all the way back to Andy Chambers tenure at GW (so its not really new). I particular, this new release schedule, supplements, mini dexes (and I use the term loosely), etc. really throw legality out the window.

Fortunately there is enough variety in events that TOs will be able to provide something for everyone's taste.

Yeah, they're certainly making a mess of things, I'll give you that

MVBrandt wrote:
That was indeed a pretty bad example.

Unless the example was meant to be that new units are fine, but new scenario types aren't...

ok I wanted to keep the adepticon thread clear of any heat from the pro/anti forgeworld debating, so here was a thought i had. I'm not flatly saying forgeworld is imbalanced and should never be allowed, but here was my thought. Based on the adepticon survey results:

I think its interesting to see that while roughly 46% of people would like some form of forgeworld allowance, less than half of that number would be ok with full forgeworld. Coming from a non-forgeworld meta myself I'm wondering the rationale behind why most 'pro forgeworld' people want forgeworld in a sort of 'pseudo comped' form, as if there is a notion that too much of it would be overpowered or imbalanced.

thanatos67 wrote:
I think its interesting to see that while roughly 46% of people would like some form of forgeworld allowance, less than half of that number would be ok with full forgeworld. Coming from a non-forgeworld meta myself I'm wondering the rationale behind why most 'pro forgeworld' people want forgeworld in a sort of 'pseudo comped' form, as if there is a notion that too much of it would be overpowered or imbalanced.

From the way you asked your question I take it you are in the 20%.

Part of the reason why is that it is unbalanced when you cherry pick the best units out of 10+ books.

To give you just another example: from a tournament standpoint if my opponent just takes one FW unit I can see what it does before the game and memorize it. I can't do that with an army of FW.

I have not seen the survey.

Did it ask of all Forge World which would have included Bane Blades and such designed for APOC only playing or was it about the "Approved for 40K" stamped material like Tauros, Venators, Vultures, stuff like that...?


Never mind I found the survey....

So less than half with valid email addresses responded so it might be safe to say they did not care one way or another about any of the questions asked...

Out of the less than half that did respond just over half (52%) of them wanted no Forge World while the just under half replied they were OK with some "Approved for 40K" stamped (0-1 units etc..) and a little less than half of that group OK with Full "Approved for 40K" stamped units and armies.

Did I read that right? By the way what does the purple mean since there is no definition for it on the Forge World pie chart?

Link here for those who want to see what we are talking about....http://dev.adepticon.org/2013/11/warhammer-40k-championships-survey.html

I was in the 50% that wanted no forgeworld. I voted that way based on unfamiliarity coupled with a non forgeworld local/regional meta and personal 'bad experiences' with people playing on forgeworld unfamiliarity. Im interested from a standpoint that if you are a pro forgeworld person why you would vote to have it 'comped' when you know the rest of the tournament that is using standard 40k units is not.

IE if you voted pro limited forgeworld, you're saying that they should restrict things like multiple thudguns/artillery batteries/whatever else you can do with forgeworld, knowing I could take my quad tide ovesa star, screamer council, or jetseer army, because the former is somehow overpowered compared to the latter. At least that's how it would appear to me, which doesnt really make a whole lot of sense, hence the question to rationalize that viewpoint.

To me, it'd be an all or nothing vote, not a 'well maybe, just a little bit.' The middle vote didnt even cross my mind as viable.

As my forum record and my signature shows I am for full "Approved for 40K" Stamped armies (Elysian is what I prefer) and equipment.

I suspect most people are turned off by Forge World because they think of the Apocalypse stuff which is and has never been OK to use in a 40K game.

I think the difference between cheaters who pry on "Forge World unfamiliarity" and those who do so with players with regular armies who pry on new players or folks like me who just plain are going to trust their opponent not to cheat since it is just a game is that everybody hears about when Forge World is involved so it is Forge Worlds fault but when it is some guy with a "normal" army cheating it is just that he is "that kind of guy" and not his armies fault so it is not cumulative...

Can someone point a Forge World Army that is as bad as the current "bring all the giant robots" army that currently places at the top of all the tournaments?

Really?

Fear of the unknown is what got the bulk of those 52%. I can not count the times in these forums someone has complained about how broken this or that unit is and then have someone tell the person, well that's not correct about that unit and then their opinion changed. Are there any broken Forge world units that have a Approved for 40K stamp? I can think of two...

I can better than number in any top 5 armies for the current tournaments, and none of them are banned.......because they are too popular....

 NeedleOfInquiry wrote:
Fear of the unknown is what got the bulk of those 52%.

You see, that questionnaire was put out to people who played in the Warhammer 40k championships at Adepticon. Those are players that literally come from all over the world and are a cut above even the average tournament player.

Saying the reason why they do not want FW is because they fear the unknown is wrong. They are making a logical choice.

This is what it is like being a FW zealot. You have to discredit anything that runs contrary to your beliefs.

I have always considered the main reason people don't want forgeworld in tournaments is introduces dozens more army types to the meta. This further complicates creating a balanced list as there are now more variables to consider. There is also the fact keeping up with forgeworld units can get expensive and not knowing what something can do can knock you out of the running.

Therefore it behooves competitive players to reduce the number of units/armies that will be in the tournament as much as possible.

 Blackmoor wrote:
Saying the reason why they do not want FW is because they fear the unknown is wrong. They are making a logical choice.

I don't know why you think it can't be fear of the unknown. The "best" players have obviously had success with their combination of skills/strategy/army list, and changing the metagame means they might not be the best anymore and would have to develop new strategies and army lists. It's much easier to just limit what is allowed and keep the nice safe metagame they're already comfortable with, especially if you can make a silly argument about "officialness" to avoid saying "too much change". Obviously not everyone is doing that, but it's not a completely absurd concept.

And when a common response to allowing FW is speculation about how it might lead to overpowered lists (in a game that's already full of them) "fear of the unknown" is a pretty good description.

This is what it is like being a FW zealot. You have to discredit anything that runs contrary to your beliefs. "

This is what it is like being a WAAC player. You have to discredit anything that runs contrary to your chance to win. I fixed your statement for you.

This "Forge World Zealot" thinks you should look in a mirror....

And even if it isn't "fear of the unknown," it could also just be something as simple as being uninformed. For example, how many people who voted against Forgeworld still believe that you can assault out of a Lucius drop pod on the turn you arrive? As another example, I just came from a thread discussing the merits of Tigurius vs. Loth, and two of the nine posters didn't know Loth's rules, despite the rules being posted for free on FW's downloads page.

 NeedleOfInquiry wrote:

This is what it is like being a FW zealot. You have to discredit anything that runs contrary to your beliefs. "

This is what it is like being a WAAC player. You have to discredit anything that runs contrary to your chance to win. I fixed your statement for you.

This "Forge World Zealot" thinks you should look in a mirror....

Man you guys just don't get it.

The anti-FW crowd don't need to do much when the pro-FW crowd have spokesmen like Peregrine and NeedleOfInquiry.

Yeah, we should go quietly into that good night...well sorry ... I do not roll over easy.

You have your beliefs... I have mine...

You insult me, I reply.

I'm not the one with the following signature....

We shall go on to the end, we shall fight Forge World in France,
we shall fight on the seas and oceans,
we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air, we shall defend our game, whatever the cost may be,
we shall fight on the beaches,
we shall fight on the landing grounds,
we shall fight in the fields and in the streets,
we shall fight in the hills;
we shall never surrender, and even if, which I do not for a moment believe, this game or a large part of it were subjugated and starving, then our 40k beyond the seas, armed and guarded by the rules, would carry on the struggle, until, in God’s good time, Games Workshop, with all its power and might, steps forth to the rescue and the liberation from the resin.”

Or you could debate with respect and an intelligent approach instead of insulting and degrading those who play the game with a different set of beliefs.

 hyv3mynd wrote:
Or you could debate with respect and an intelligent approach instead of insulting and degrading those who play the game with a different set of beliefs.

I started this off asking questions.

I did not throw the zealot word out there, I replied to it...and rephrased his statement.

I did not see you mentioned the person who did throw it out as insulting...Might I ask why?

 NeedleOfInquiry wrote:

 hyv3mynd wrote:
Or you could debate with respect and an intelligent approach instead of insulting and degrading those who play the game with a different set of beliefs.

I started this off asking questions.

I did not throw the zealot word out there, I replied to it...and rephrased his statement.

I did not see you mentioned the person who did throw it out as insulting...Might I ask why?

Zealot is a fanatical person by dictionary definition. Hardly an insult. I'm a painting zealot and would take it as a compliment if someone addresses me as such.

However you've associated anti-FW vocalists with racists from the segregation area as well as WAAC players just a couple posts up. Your M.O. and tone remain predictable and unchanged over the past 6 months or so in every FW related thread on this forum. Like I said, your attitude and approach do more damage to your cause than good.

 hyv3mynd wrote:

 NeedleOfInquiry wrote:

 hyv3mynd wrote:
Or you could debate with respect and an intelligent approach instead of insulting and degrading those who play the game with a different set of beliefs.

I started this off asking questions.

I did not throw the zealot word out there, I replied to it...and rephrased his statement.

I did not see you mentioned the person who did throw it out as insulting...Might I ask why?

Zealot is a fanatical person by dictionary definition. Hardly an insult. I'm a painting zealot and would take it as a compliment if someone addresses me as such.

However you've associated anti-FW vocalists with racists from the segregation area as well as WAAC players just a couple posts up. Your M.O. and tone remain predictable and unchanged over the past 6 months or so in every FW related thread on this forum. Like I said, your attitude and approach do more damage to your cause than good.

Actually no, that is only half the definition;

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/zealot
zeal·ot noun \ˈze-lət\: a person who has very strong feelings about something (such as religion or politics) and who wants other people to have those feelings : a zealous person

So you want others to share your passion for painting? Fair enough. I could definitely see that being a negative (or positive) depending.

Thanks for paraphrasing on that smear job...

I used the term go to the back of the bus which is how some treat us as we should quietly just take it.

You have now said I called someone a racist... Pull the quote.......

I did say WAAC and yes I can think of someone on this forum that meets my definition of one....and I do not think the one that called me a zealot was complementing me, do you?

 NeedleOfInquiry wrote:
Thanks for paraphrasing on that smear job...

I used the term go to the back of the bus which is how some treat us as we should quietly just take it.

You have now said I called someone a racist... Pull the quote.......

I did say WAAC and yes I can think of someone on this forum that meets my definition of one....and I do not think the one that called me a zealot was complementing me, do you?

Funny how terms can be misinterpreted with Internet tone and sensitivity to a given topic.

I've actually played blackmoor in person have you? Out of all the tournament pro/40k celebs he's one of the furthest from a WAAC mindset I've faced and our game was very light and fun. Maybe you have a valid experience or reason to label him with such a tag?

To hyv3mynd .... I shall make a serious attempt to be civil even to those who are not to me...just to prove a point... watch what happens...

 Tannhauser42 wrote:
And even if it isn't "fear of the unknown," it could also just be something as simple as being uninformed. For example, how many people who voted against Forgeworld still believe that you can assault out of a Lucius drop pod on the turn you arrive? As another example, I just came from a thread discussing the merits of Tigurius vs. Loth, and two of the nine posters didn't know Loth's rules, despite the rules being posted for free on FW's downloads page.

Case in point, I didn't know what Loth does until i clicked on the link to the fw page. I always assumed that he was a mephiston level cc character (i knew he had a 2++, but assumed it was coupled with an egregious cc statline and 4 wounds). And I also assume lucius pods allow assault on the deepstrike. Because I have never seen a book that indicates otherwise.

Ultimately my personal concern over forgeworld is very weak. If it became an accepted thing at the tournaments i attend I'd just buy all of the books and build (insert X terrible nightmare army) out of those books. I think as far as rules exclusivity goes we're quickly seeing forgeworld rules have an equivalent in the online supplements: how many of you guys own every single one of those right now and feels like toting an Ipad around with you at a gt? I voted no because most of the tournaments i attend already dont allow it, along with not knowing the rules and not really wanting to go out and buy everything. It seems like the majority agrees. I still dont get the 'limited admittance' crowd. Ultimately i feel like the perception of that statistic in particular heavily favors the 'no forgeworld' group because it creates a notion that a vast majority of people feel forgeworld is imbalanced and either shouldnt be allowed or only be allowed under comp restrictions. Again I still dont see that as being the case compared to the current top tier lists in 40k's standard dexes, but maybe someone can drop me a forgeworld-centric list that flattens jetseer or screamerstar? As i said I'm pretty unfamiliar so there could be some gems in there.