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.

I hardly think you can class Blackmoor as WAAC by any stretch of the imagination. That's an irrelevant and pretty ugly assertion.

Consider an actual WAAC though. Let's pretend that FW cost no more than a normal army, had all rules online for free and everything was extremely clear as to where the new rules were. I would guess that the anti-FW crowd would remain almost identical, even with such accessibility. Why? Because the main concerns are balance and the vast amount of injected rules. What would a WAAC player do in such a situation? Well, it makes no sense for them to be anti-FW; they're just trying to win regardless of the fun the opponent is having. To that end, they are hugely helped by more rules (introducing yet more confusion and weird RAW arguments) which they can exploit, hugely helped by having unbalanced armies (makes list building easy - spam the best) and totally unaffected by anything else. I find it funny that people say the WAAC players are anti-FW when that stance makes no sense for them. Indeed, almost every time I see it surveyed, a good chunk of the people who want FW are people who do things you'd associate with WAAC players - deliberate rule misreadings, intentional abuse of poor wording, etc. This doesn't even touch on thudd gun+mortar time wasting abuses or the new insane rvarna.

Now, I play against a lot of FW. In most games in the UK, you tend to find a lot of familiarity with the rules. Yet, I've only played in 2 events with FW, because the major ones at WW ban it and the local ones banned it after the winners tables were totally IG+SM alliance dominated. Whether you want FW or not, you have to acknowledge that a lot of contention is nothing to do with unfamiliarity and we should stop pretending it is. Most concerns nowadays are how hard the rules are to find (even I don't know the badab charcter rules now because they were all updated a few days ago, including the minotaurs chapter master, who was in IA12 most recently... It's a mess) and how unbalanced they are towards certain armies (ork FW is totally fine, IG has loads on contentious units, DE may as well have nothing). Saying the main game is not balanced is no excuse - you don't put out a fire by pouring on gasoline. If FW is to be taken into serious account, the balance issues need to be addressed. Heck, I still see people saying Acanthrites are weak, despite how they're about as durable as a Riptide point for point. I saw someone say hornets are bad, yet they're vastly better in damage output currently than war walkers. Things like this need analysis - one side needs to put forwards why they think some given contentious unit is fair/unfair and the other needs to dispell it. Tournament results don't count for this - the sample of FW allowed tournaments is far too small to draw any conclusions except how hard people can beat mostly local players. If this isn't done, we'll just go round in circles for years stuck in the same views.

 Peregrine wrote:

 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.

The metagame changes fairly regularly, with each new codex release come adjustments. The top tournament players are the ones who usually adjust more quickly and effectively to change because they are more invested in competitive 40k than most other people. To assume that they wish to cling to a current meta because they fear change is preposterous, mainly because it is they who do the changing before the rest of us.

Eyjio wrote:I hardly think you can class Blackmoor as WAAC by any stretch of the imagination. That's an irrelevant and pretty ugly assertion.

Consider an actual WAAC though. Let's pretend that FW cost no more than a normal army, had all rules online for free and everything was extremely clear as to where the new rules were. I would guess that the anti-FW crowd would remain almost identical, even with such accessibility. Why? Because the main concerns are balance and the vast amount of injected rules. What would a WAAC player do in such a situation? Well, it makes no sense for them to be anti-FW; they're just trying to win regardless of the fun the opponent is having. To that end, they are hugely helped by more rules (introducing yet more confusion and weird RAW arguments) which they can exploit, hugely helped by having unbalanced armies (makes list building easy - spam the best) and totally unaffected by anything else. I find it funny that people say the WAAC players are anti-FW when that stance makes no sense for them. Indeed, almost every time I see it surveyed, a good chunk of the people who want FW are people who do things you'd associate with WAAC players - deliberate rule misreadings, intentional abuse of poor wording, etc. This doesn't even touch on thudd gun+mortar time wasting abuses or the new insane rvarna.

Now, I play against a lot of FW. In most games in the UK, you tend to find a lot of familiarity with the rules. Yet, I've only played in 2 events with FW, because the major ones at WW ban it and the local ones banned it after the winners tables were totally IG+SM alliance dominated. Whether you want FW or not, you have to acknowledge that a lot of contention is nothing to do with unfamiliarity and we should stop pretending it is. Most concerns nowadays are how hard the rules are to find (even I don't know the badab charcter rules now because they were all updated a few days ago, including the minotaurs chapter master, who was in IA12 most recently... It's a mess) and how unbalanced they are towards certain armies (ork FW is totally fine, IG has loads on contentious units, DE may as well have nothing). Saying the main game is not balanced is no excuse - you don't put out a fire by pouring on gasoline. If FW is to be taken into serious account, the balance issues need to be addressed. Heck, I still see people saying Acanthrites are weak, despite how they're about as durable as a Riptide point for point. I saw someone say hornets are bad, yet they're vastly better in damage output currently than war walkers. Things like this need analysis - one side needs to put forwards why they think some given contentious unit is fair/unfair and the other needs to dispell it. Tournament results don't count for this - the sample of FW allowed tournaments is far too small to draw any conclusions except how hard people can beat mostly local players. If this isn't done, we'll just go round in circles for years stuck in the same views.

Actually a WAAC gamer's perfect game would be 2 broken armies to ally and 1 other army that everyone else will play. This way they have access to the most broken stuff and at least some of the competition will be removed with the 3rd choice. Now matter how many different armies get buffed you can only have 2 (or 3 with Inq...which is GW), therefore more armies becoming viable in a competitive sense will only make a WAAC gamer less pleased as they will have more competition and have to learn more opponent's. It also becomes impossible to win effortlessly the more variety of armies you must face as you must come up with new tactics if someone throws a curve ball.

You also betrayed a hint of misinformation as the R'Vana is NOT a 40K approved unit. It is an experimental unit which should never be played without express permission from the opponent.

BTW are IG+SM the top contenders in the UK right now? I would be shocked as Taudar are the top dogs at the moment while SM+SM, Necron+GK/CSM, and Daemon+CSM are he runners up. Ever since the Tau dex the IG+SM have been in a decline.

 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....

lol

This WAAC player is trying to find an army that is not Eldar, Tau or Demons to play. The mark of a true WAAC player is the avoidance of all of the top codexes.

Their are many reasons why someone votes not to play with FW, It is funny that the only one you can come up with is that they are all ignorant.

Oh, and a zealot is a person who is fanatical and uncompromising in pursuit of their religious, political, or other ideals.

I am perfectly happy to compromise and have 0-1 choice for forge world units. What about you?

"A poll that disagrees with my unyielding opinion?! An astounding 50% response rate that defies standard polling odds by being enormously responsive?! CLEARLY JUST FEAR. I'M SMART AND THEY'RE DUMB! The will of the people is meaningless!"-Needle of Inquiry

Most concerns nowadays are how hard the rules are to find (even I don't know the badab charcter rules now because they were all updated a few days ago, including the minotaurs chapter master, who was in IA12 most recently... It's a mess)

Well that at least I can take care of...:}

Forge World Space Marine Badab Characters V2 (18/11/2013) http://www.forgeworld.co.uk/Downloads/Product/PDF/B/badabupdate-v2.pdf

Forge World Space Marine Chapter Tactics V2 (18/11/2013) http://www.forgeworld.co.uk/Downloads/Product/PDF/B/FWchaptertactics-v2.pdf

Does anyone know what the purple was on the vote for/against Forge World stuff?

WAAC isn't about winning effortlessly and in a game where both players are acting to win, you'll never be able to be in that situation where they face perfect match ups. There's no curveball in adding FW, believe me. Most the units are useless, same as normal codices. It's just another obstacle which isn't there at the moment. Not quite sure about your point here.

Seems you're the misinformed one too. See that big 40k stamp right next to the experimental rules? That means its approved. Yes, they're experimental - and? No more or less valid than any other stamped unit. It's basically just FWs code for "we pushed these out the door without testing so the model can be sold". They've done it many, many times.

I also didn't say the events were current when I went to them. I can see you don't play FW super frequently though, as imperial army use goes way up and Necron presence is reduced to almost nothing due to sabres. The top contenders in FW atm are IG+SM, Daemons and Taudar. They're further propelled up the ladder by the FW units whereas things like orks and csm with mediocre FW tend to keep doing poorly. Again, this makes me want to see FW even less frankly - I prefer diversity, which FW very arguably stifles considerably due to their unit distribution.

MVBrandt wrote:
"A poll that disagrees with my unyielding opinion?! An astounding 50% response rate that defies standard polling odds by being enormously responsive?! CLEARLY JUST FEAR. I'M SMART AND THEY'RE DUMB! The will of the people is meaningless!"-Needle of Inquiry

OK.....50 percent response rate with just over 50% against any Forge World 40K....Am I right? Yes/ no will do....

! CLEARLY JUST FEAR. I'M SMART AND THEY'RE DUMB! The will of the people is meaningless!"

Not what I said..... The post just over my original questions was one of those who voted against the Forge World perhaps you should read it... if you are finished with the CAPS lock....

Since you did the survey what was the purple about in that pie chart, just want to know, no drama....

 NeedleOfInquiry wrote:

Most concerns nowadays are how hard the rules are to find (even I don't know the badab charcter rules now because they were all updated a few days ago, including the minotaurs chapter master, who was in IA12 most recently... It's a mess)

Well that at least I can take care of...:}

Forge World Space Marine Badab Characters V2 (18/11/2013) http://www.forgeworld.co.uk/Downloads/Product/PDF/B/badabupdate-v2.pdf

Forge World Space Marine Chapter Tactics V2 (18/11/2013) http://www.forgeworld.co.uk/Downloads/Product/PDF/B/FWchaptertactics-v2.pdf

Does anyone know what the purple was on the vote for/against Forge World stuff?

I know where they are, I need to keep up to date with FW rules because, as I said, I play vs them a lot. I just haven't memorised the entire update yet. I'd barely gotten used to the last one from about 2 months ago. My point was it's in no way clear to a new player what they need to get for what rules unless you're 100% on the ball constantly.

" See that big 40k stamp right next to the experimental rules?"

Actually those are two different stamps, so you know.

Something can be "Experimental" - never to be used in tournaments...

Other things are "Approved for 40K" - exactly what it sounds like...

Is there something out there with both, I guess there is since you are talking about it but it could never be used in a tournament with the experimental stamp on it.

Did that clear it up for you?

 NeedleOfInquiry wrote:
" See that big 40k stamp right next to the experimental rules?"

Actually those are two different stamps, so you know.

Something can be "Experimental" - never to be used in tournaments...

Other things are "Approved for 40K" - exactly what it sounds like...

Is there something out there with both, I guess there is since you are talking about it but it could never be used in a tournament with the experimental stamp on it.

Did that clear it up for you?

...
There's 2 stamps on the pdf. One is the experimental one, the other is the 40k stamp used in all the IA books. It IS 40k approved, it's just not a final rule set. Tournaments decide for themselves whether to use it, thats a TO choice. There's certainly no rule saying it's not usable and there's no reason not to use those rules in casual games. It's in the same boat as all FW, just as acanthrites, heavy artillery, fire raptor, etc all have been experimental.

" I can see you don't play FW super frequently though..."

If you had read earlier I state I am not about the winning but I do play using my Elysian army as a 40 IG..in tournament and as Elysians in my gaming group and on other events...

You point about Sabres makes my point. Guys that say no to Forge World armies but then via Allies grabs one of the 2 most broken Forge World items.

I do not see anyone banning Tau over riptides but lets ban Forge World 40K stamped armies because Sabres are broken...


Automatically Appended Next Post:
"There's 2 stamps on the pdf. One is the experimental one, the other is the 40k stamp used in all the IA books"

Which pdf are you talking about?

Sabres are one of a few. It's not about banning FW because 40k is fair, it's about not adding more unbalance to a game already struggling for it. FW has many issues around it. I wouldn't be saying this if I believed FW to be a good option. I own a cool Dark Harvest list, as well as a little bit of FW IG and Nids. I would love to use them, but I don't see that as more important than the general tip of balance. That's all there is to it from my side really - I don't want to play some of the armies I've faced with FW inclusion. When I see a Riptide list for a casual game, I normally ask my opponent to change it as I find 3 Riptide lists no fun to play. In a tournament, I see no reason to add more lists like that when there's a wholly feasible option not to.

My point was it's in no way clear to a new player what they need to get for what rules unless you're 100% on the ball constantly.

I agree, that's what I meant by my "fear of the unknown" that got taken badly.

My question to you how is that any different than all of the electronic supplements that are popping up like ...well...popcorn...?

How would a fairly new player who does not read the forums and does not have a tablet or follow that stuff take it when someone shows up with 2 extra headquarters and 3 more kinda troop choices all mounted on Valkyries that did not take up any of the normal force chart?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
"In a tournament, I see no reason to add more lists like that when there's a wholly feasible option not to. '

Given the option if a tournament organizer chose to ban riptides would you go to it, or would you consider it bad behavior...?

 NeedleOfInquiry wrote:

My point was it's in no way clear to a new player what they need to get for what rules unless you're 100% on the ball constantly.

I agree, that's what I meant by my "fear of the unknown" that got taken badly.

My question to you how is that any different than all of the electronic supplements that are popping up like ...well...popcorn...?

How would a fairly new player who does not read the forums and does not have a tablet or follow that stuff take it when someone shows up with 2 extra headquarters and 3 more kinda troop choices all mounted on Valkyries that did not take up any of the normal force chart?

I have issues with those too honestly. Any time the most recent rules aren't easily accessible and clear, I take issue. Codex:Inquisition particularly annoys me as it breaks core rules. However, they're still in a "codex", which is what the rulebook says to reference. If FW did similar, or even just linked the latest rules on every product page, I'd be okay with it as it's at least a handy guide.

As for Riptides, I'd question it but yes, it's probable that if I wanted to go to an event, the ban wouldn't stop me. I'm not massively against unit restrictions in tournaments; I find them strange as all it does is show who can exploit the restrictions best but it's not a large factor for me.

Fair enough.

 Blackmoor wrote:
I am perfectly happy to compromise and have 0-1 choice for forge world units. What about you?

I'm perfectly happy to compromise between "no codex units allowed" and "codex units unrestricted". How's a 0-1 limit on every codex unit sound?

Eyjio wrote:
What would a WAAC player do in such a situation? Well, it makes no sense for them to be anti-FW; they're just trying to win regardless of the fun the opponent is having. To that end, they are hugely helped by more rules (introducing yet more confusion and weird RAW arguments) which they can exploit, hugely helped by having unbalanced armies (makes list building easy - spam the best) and totally unaffected by anything else. I find it funny that people say the WAAC players are anti-FW when that stance makes no sense for them.

It makes sense because you have to consider what the WAAC player already owns and what metagame they're already familiar with and able to exploit. The WAAC player probably already has a codex-only army and knows all the ways to abuse the rules and win with it. Adding FW complicates things and introduces the chance that the WAAC player might not have the best tools anymore. And it's easier for the WAAC player to insist on banning FW and keep their winning position than it is for them to buy a new FW-legal army, memorize all the FW rule abuses, etc. That's why it's WAAC behavior: it doesn't matter if that policy excludes people who bought the "wrong" army, all that matters is protecting the WAAC player's chances of winning.

Indeed, almost every time I see it surveyed, a good chunk of the people who want FW are people who do things you'd associate with WAAC players - deliberate rule misreadings, intentional abuse of poor wording, etc. This doesn't even touch on thudd gun+mortar time wasting abuses or the new insane rvarna.

Indeed, almost every time I see it surveyed, a good chunk of the people who want codices are people who do things you'd associate with WAAC players - deliberate rule misreadings, intentional abuse of poor wording, etc. This doesn't even touch on re-rollable 2++ time wasting abuses or the new insane Riptide.

Yet, I've only played in 2 events with FW, because the major ones at WW ban it and the local ones banned it after the winners tables were totally IG+SM alliance dominated.

How is that any different from codex-only events where Tau/Eldar dominate?

Saying the main game is not balanced is no excuse - you don't put out a fire by pouring on gasoline.

It's not just the fact that the "main" game isn't balanced, it's that the people opposing FW are making no credible effort to fix that balance. It's all "comp is evil, we play the game we're given" when it comes to codex units and their poor balance, but suddenly balance is an issue as soon as FW is mentioned. And it certainly doesn't make any sense when you're talking about using blanket bans on a whole category of rules just to deal with a small number of potential balance problems.

 NeedleOfInquiry wrote:

MVBrandt wrote:
"A poll that disagrees with my unyielding opinion?! An astounding 50% response rate that defies standard polling odds by being enormously responsive?! CLEARLY JUST FEAR. I'M SMART AND THEY'RE DUMB! The will of the people is meaningless!"-Needle of Inquiry

OK.....50 percent response rate with just over 50% against any Forge World 40K....Am I right? Yes/ no will do....

80% want to put restrictions on forge world. Also 1 unit of FW is very different than unrestricted access to it.

I can read a pie chart.

Just over 50 - no forge world

Just under 50 some forge world

Each can claim the middle but why be silly about it...

The decision has been made. I like how you clipped the rest of my response out of the quote. Wasn't that just precious....

I just went and got since you missed it in your quoting me...

MVBrandt wrote:
"A poll that disagrees with my unyielding opinion?! An astounding 50% response rate that defies standard polling odds by being enormously responsive?! CLEARLY JUST FEAR. I'M SMART AND THEY'RE DUMB! The will of the people is meaningless!"-Needle of Inquiry

Not what I said..... The post just over my original questions was one of those who voted against the Forge World perhaps you should read it... if you are finished with the CAPS lock....

Since you did the survey what was the purple about in that pie chart, just want to know, no drama....

If Las Vegas Open was 0-1 FW, I'd buy my ticket tomorrow. As it is, I'm still waffling. 0-1 lets the hobby only people take their "pretty," unit. It also prevents people who only want another broken ruleset to abuse.

Seeing as how non-FW is currently the norm, I'd say that's a fair compromise.

I see no reason for a 0-1 Codex Unit restriction.. Who am I compromising with on that one? Maybe a handful, at best, of crazy people who spend way too much time arguing on the internet? Nah.. Majority rules, buddy.

 NeedleOfInquiry wrote:
I can read a pie chart.

Just over 50 - no forge world

Just under 50 some forge world

Excellent, then please stop arguing for "all or nothing" Forgeworld.

"Some" Forgeworld is much more palatable to many more people. Under 20% want unrestricted FW... go with what is possible, compromise. It's the only path to getting anywhere in this debate!

Cheers

 hippesthippo wrote:
I see no reason for a 0-1 Codex Unit restriction..

0-1 lets the hobby only people take their "pretty," unit. It also prevents people who only want another broken ruleset to abuse.

 hippesthippo wrote:
If Las Vegas Open was 0-1 FW, I'd buy my ticket tomorrow. As it is, I'm still waffling. 0-1 lets the hobby only people take their "pretty," unit. It also prevents people who only want another broken ruleset to abuse.

Seeing as how non-FW is currently the norm, I'd say that's a fair compromise.

I see no reason for a 0-1 Codex Unit restriction.. Who am I compromising with on that one? Maybe a handful, at best, of crazy people who spend way too much time arguing on the internet? Nah.. Majority rules, buddy.

Yes, a man who sees reason! Cheers

Needle- MVBrandt runs the Nova Open, not AdeptiCon... AdeptiCon did the survey, as should've been pretty clear from the link

"Needle- MVBrandt runs the Nova Open, not AdeptiCon... AdeptiCon did the survey, as should've been pretty clear from the link " My mistake...I clicked the link to the results and did not look where I was. I am sorry.

No problem

I know these debates tend to go in circles, but just to look at this "glass half full" as muwhe said- Almost half of those surveyed were open to some FW allowance! So, that is pretty exciting from the "pro FW" point of view and for hobbyists, etc.

It's never going to make folks who want to run a FW army list (like Peregrine) happy, but even events that allow unrestricted FW tend to not allow FW army lists, so I don't think anything's going to satisfy him

For most people, though, this indicates people are open to seeing more FW in tournaments, just not ready to "open the floodgates" and see it included with no restrictions at all yet.

Yeah but my Elysian army is missing out on those tournaments as Elysians. The problem with letting in just a little is power gamers will bring in the broken units and those who do not know the armies will assume the Forge World Armies are broken...

That aside did anyone find out what the purple referenced in the pie chart? It was less than 2% but still would like to know what it represented...

 NeedleOfInquiry wrote:
The problem with letting in just a little is power gamers will bring in the broken units and those who do not know the armies will assume the Forge World Armies are broken...

Not from what I've seen- at the AdeptiCon team tourney last year, I faced 2 FW units, the nurgle plague drone and the big necron monster. Neither seemed broken and just facing one of each made it much more manageable for me to understand the rules for them on the fly, despite having never been exposed to either before.

I actually didn't understand why even events that allow FW tend to disallow the FW army lists. Muwhe (the organizer of AdeptiCon) made a great post explaining the reason for that:

muwhe wrote:
The issue with 40k Forge World army lists is pretty simple. Forge World might release a book and that book may contain a some new units along with some army list for the “theme of the book” that allows those units to be taken in the army list section. That is all well and good. It also works generally well for a bit. However, at some future point Forge World will include updated versions of those units in an IA: Apocalypse book, or IA: Aeronautica or another compendium type book. Generally this involves some tweak to the unit rules, and/or a point change.

So now the most current version of these unit rules exist in the latest book release. At the same time it is pretty seldom that the entire army list from that book gets an updated. So most of the time you are left with an army list still having the old listing.

By my thought process you are left with two options if you want to allow Forge World army lists.
1. Take it upon yourself to tie out all the army lists to the most current unit rules and make any needed adjustments to the army lists.
2. Allow the older lists, and accept that you will have the same model being played under different rules. Including the distinct possibility that someone may have that same model in both a primary and ally detachment functioning differently.

Option 1: This could be a lot of work depending on the release schedule. Events as you well know have to balance time and resources. Even at events like AdeptiCon the percentage of people that would take advantage and run a Forge World army are pretty small. Is the effort required worth it or is that time and effort better spent someplace it can have a bigger impact on more attendees? I generally feel it is to small of an impact for the work required and as an event organizer my time is better spent elsewhere.

Option 2: One of biggest complaints we hear with regard to Forgeworld is “knowing” the rules. I just think that it is a bad idea to have identical models on the table or being played at the event, that are using different rules. It is asking for trouble, can lead to bad feelings and misunderstandings. All things we prefer to avoid.

So in the end, it is one thing to allow Forge World units. Allowing army lists creates additional considerations.

All that said we have at times, with the Gladiator allowed some selected army lists. I also think you can make a stronger case to allow the Warhammer Forge WFB lists, as generally there is a lot less change happening at Warhammer Forge.

@NeedleofInquiry - The purple or the 1.92% was "No preference on Forge World".

@Peregrine: Check the last few sentences from the paragraph of mine you paraphrased. The fact that the majority is willing to compromise at all with the minority shouldn't be taken for granted. Extreme opinions like yours serve only to put-off those who are on the fence from even discussing the issue. Start running your own tournaments; good luck finding 10 people that want to play by your rules.

@Needle: With the new Codex:Inquisitor, you should have no problem fielding a very reasonable Counts-As Elysian IG/C:I army.

Dang!! I didn't vote. Pro-ForgeWorld here.

I have fun playing with FW but will be happy Tabling Reecius with or without FW in my list. Adepticon just tell me the rules and I'll table him either way. :p