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.

**MechBoyz**

What an interesting thread! Up to 13 pages - 4 of which are after an interesting post over on Faeit 212 which counters the starting post...

http://natfka.blogspot.com/2013/11/the-answer-forgeworld-approved-models.html#more

Please read the full post above, but here is the juicy bit from FW:

Spoiler:

This is no different from what is already happening. Some events allow FW, some try to "balance" the game with their missions or house FAQ's. EVERY event deserves to be made different. There is no "Standard".

There are plenty of options out there from banned FW > limited FW > wider FW use.

I am not sure of any other than MechaniCon that allow all 40K units AND army lists but we are a different event altogether. Most of our attendees are focused on enjoying playing with the models they collected and painted. Models that are featured on GW's site every day and in their monthly magazine - White Dwarf!

My frustration is the same silly arguments about prices, availability and trying to know the rules, I think Reecius' last post sums it up the best :

My point was that you were making it sound like finding information about FW units is somehow a Herculean task, more so than staying on top of GW rules. It isn't, we do it and have done so for years, as do most FW enthusiasts, and that has never been an issue for us.

It is 2013, and you are complaining on a message board on the internet. It is not hard to pop over to FW's site and look up the Table of Contents (from IA11 and on) to see what units are shown in each book. Imperial Armour, Digital Editions and 50 dollar codex prices are all making it harder for most folks to legally own all the rules. The truth is, you don't need to have them all, just the ones for your own models.

Availability is easier than a trip to your FLGS, just pop over to the FW site and place an order delivered to your house! Chances are you will pay less for shipping than you do for gas to get to a local store.

Thanks for the enjoyable thread everyone!

**Peregrine**

Breng77 wrote:
If you don't see a difference between codex inquisition being updated (which is akin to an FAQ update to a hard copy book, which is also not announced, and must be checked for by a player using that book) and a unit found in a book being updated in another book entirely, I cannot help you.

It's not at all like an FAQ. An FAQ is announced on the FAQ page, and you can quickly verify the latest version of that FAQ because it always says what the current version of the rule is. These silent digital updates are completely different, there's absolutely no reference for when or if a change is made. All you have is two different versions of a book. This is a much worse situation than anything FW does, so if you're going to exclude FW units based on the difficulty in verifying that a player is using the correct rules then you need to ban all digital books.

The FW method of updating things would be akin to Gw releasing a unit in codex space marines, hen updating it in codex blood angels and expecting space marine players to know to go to codex blood angels for the rules for their unit.

You mean kind of like what GW did with the flyers in Death From The Skies?

And with FW units there's nothing like that example happening. You don't get a random Tyranid unit updated in the IG vs. Tau book. Updates for an army are either in a book which includes that army (with marines being grouped into a single "army" for this), or in a compilation book which has stuff for everyone. So you know where to look for updates, and you're never going to be surprised by a unit getting updated in a book you didn't know to look at.

**Breng77**

Except the digital iPad codex tells you when updates are pending much more than Gw does with faqs...as for the ePub...just like you check the FAQ page one should routinely go and re download the book.

As for death from the skies...somewhat but Gw released all the changes in their FAQ as well....which FW does not. As for your statement you are essentially saying any player who plays a FW unit must buy every FW book that pertains to his Harry just incase it gets updated. If I don't I end up with possibly out of date rule.

FWs method of updating is terrible, I shouldn't be required to buy multiple different books to determine which rules to use.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Reecius wrote:
I get what you're saying 100%, there is no disconnect. I simply disagree with your conclusion.

All you have to do is pay attention to when a new book is coming out and see what units are in it. That's what we do and it is simple, FW publishes the Table of Contexts for each IA book. Plus, you can just Google it.

My point was that you were making it sound like finding information about FW units is somehow a Herculean task, more so than staying on top of GW rules. It isn't, we do it and have done so for years, as do most FW enthusiasts, and that has never been an issue for us.

And again, the more important point (IMO) is that this entire conversation is moot. 95% of the player base doesn't keep up with the rules anyway! Haha, who cares if they don't know what FW does when they don't know all the rules in their own book! They're still going to have to ask at the table and figure it out as they go.

What I'm saying is that if we accept that players don't research the rules for their own army does that not mean that there is a reasonable chance of people showing up with out of date rules for the units in their army?

It is helpful to know though that for more recent books the contents are easily accessible, the were not for a long time...and as I don't buy FW stuff I rarely check their site. I'm not saying it is impossible...I'm just saying that it is far more likely that someone could show up with out of dare FW rules than Gw rules

**BaronIveagh**

RiTides wrote:
FW ships for BFG are freaking awesome. But there aren't nearly as many units for BFG as there are for 40k from FW.

The same is true for fantasy, chaos dwarfs are easy to allow as it's just one list in one book. 40k is a very different beast, and the work required to include it is a lot more severe than for BFG or fantasy.

But maybe you were volunteering

Well, one, as someone who's name appears in the credits for BFG's FAQ 2010, I'm moderately insulted. While I grant there's not as many units (overall) from FW for BFG than there is for 40k, I'll also point out that the FW stuff constitutes a much bigger percentage of the total units in the game, too. GW has enshrined FW lists as 'official' for BFG, including their entire Tau list.

However, this was not what I was refereeing to.

The new SM ships in IA X range from 'Ho-Hum' to 'Unstoppable' (Nicor). Literally in the case of one ship, as it actually could not turn before running off the end of the board (Someone forgot how the movement rules work in the game when writing the rules). Nicor is particular is a Posterchild for WAAC (5 shields, 6 armor, 5 turrets, 10 HP, 25cm speed IIRC, and cheap for the points, even if you can only take 1) We allowed it. It did not suddenly appear in every fleet. The winning fleet did not even contain it. The world did not end.

**RiTides**

MechBoyz- if it were indeed so easy to find which book has the current rules for which unit, AdeptiCon wouldn't need to put out this extensive PDF every year:

http://www.adepticon.org/13rules/201340KIAApoc.pdf

If every event allowing FW did the same, I'd have no problem with it's inclusion. As for the table of contents of the books being available on FW's site- that is certainly not true of all of their books. That would be a good thing for them to implement for all of them, and would make finding rules a lot easier.

Baron- I was referring to volunteering to help maintain a 40k list

but it's awesome that you helped with BFG.

I just don't think it's kosher to run a competitive event and at the same time say things like "No one knows all the rules or buys all the books anyway, so it doesn't matter" (paraphrasing Reecius). Yakface certainly bought all the books, and I know he's an exception. But for Warmachine players it's extremely common for them to own every single book, and know the rules for every army. I know 40k is a "looser" ruleset, but that doesn't mean you can just wave your hand at known issues and say "No one knows the rules anyway"

.

The idea is to make it as easy as possible for the average attendee to be able to know, or at the Very least know where to find, all the rules. The AdeptiCon list above makes that possible. I would have strong reservations participating in an event allowing FW that did not make, or at least reference, a similar list.

It'd be awesome if the TOs who want to allow FW would make such a resource available to others. AdeptiCon posts their, obviously, but it only gets updated for their event. If Frontline would maintain such a list for their more frequent events, it would be a huge help to everybody.

But instead it just gets thrown out that "nobody knows all the rules anyway", which is just a poor excuse, imo. If you're running an event allowing these models, you need to be able to instantly know which is the most current rules for those models, and AdeptiCon's list does just that.

Otherwise, it's a bit off-putting as a casual player that I could face someone, and not have a way to reference if they're using the most current rules for their unit. Heck, even if I call a judge, unless the unit is in one of the more recent books that apparently have their indexes posted, there's going to be a signifcant break while they try to find where to look it up, etc. Whereas with a list like AdeptiCon's, I can print it out and bring it with me, just like I would any other FAQ, and know 100% that the rules my opponent is using are the correct ones.

That's the difference, for me, and no matter how much folks wave away the concern, it's a big one. The organizers do the legwork for me, and I have no problem playing against exotic units... they say "Figure it out yourself" and I'll likely say "No thanks...".

Just my opinion, of course, but I don't like the belittling tone about "No one knowing all the rules anyway" and how easy it is to find the rules for all FW units, when without a list like AdeptiCon's, it simply is not.

**Eyjio**

Question to those who say FW has easy to find rules, can you say, offhand, which book has the most up to date rules for the following units in, and which FOC slot they occupy (don't cheat nor read further on, that defeats the point)? Should you have no clue, you've proven the point. If you get super stuck, you are allowed to try and find out using the FW website only - you'll be unable to do the FOC thing, but frankly good luck anyway; they never list where rules are on the product page and you'll have to go through books which could be likely candidates for the rules, zoom in on the contents page and read from there. Ready? Okay, so, first 3:

-Necron Acanthrites
-Necron Tomb Sentinel
-Necron Tomb Citadel

I ask these specific ones because it's in no way clear. Here's a run down:

-Necron Acanthrites -

Spoiler:

-Necron Tomb Sentinel -

Spoiler:

-Necron Tomb Citadel -

Spoiler:

Get all of those right? No, you didn't. Not even the Adepticon rules list has these rules on - they, for whatever reason, do not have anything from IA:Apoc nor IA:12.

There is no indication of the chronological release of their rules.
There is no indication of where the most up to date rules are anywhere, including product pages for both the unit and the books.
There is no indication of where they've made a mistake, as they rarely release FAQs, even for huge errors - IA:Apoc 2nd ed never even got one, and that had at least 20 actual errors, not just unclear rules.

This, in a game where it costs a ton of money to buy the books at all (let alone the units), is utterly unacceptable. There is no way you can tell me this is reasonable, and if you attempt to do so you are just flat out lying to yourself. Not even all the IG stuff or SM stuff is in the books explicitly made for them. It's like if GW wrote a codex, say Orks, then updated some (but not all) of their rules in the Eldar codex, then published a conpendium shortly after with most (but not all) of the units from the eldar and ork codex. FW's way of releasing rules is a total mess and despite years of pressure to list the book with the most up to date rules for each unit on that unit's product page, they refuse. Death from the Skies is nothing like this, so don't pretend it is - that added units which had no rules anywhere else but a limited run magazine and published them officially. It will be redundant as soon as the Ork codex is updated and, should you have an ebook codex, you don't ever need it unless you're running their campaign. It's also listed on the product page of every unit within it, and had a large fanfare about which rules would be in it, along with it clearly being about flyers. None of these things have ever been done by FW, and continue not to be. Even if you like FW units and want their inclusion, it's not reasonable to expect everyone to know where the rules are without a big list released by the TO (and in cases like the Tomb Citadel, that would mean emailing FW directly to find out) and you should acknowledge that this IS a problem. "Google it" is a rubbish excuse, as is the argument of always keeping up to date - what about new players? It's just a dumb thing to say. So yeah, this is absolutely an issue and saying attendees are mostly ignorant anyway is absurd.

**NeedleOfInquiry**

Eyjio wrote:
Question to those who say FW has easy to find rules, can you say, offhand, which book has the most up to date rules for the following units in, and which FOC slot they occupy (don't cheat nor read further on, that defeats the point)? Should you have no clue, you've proven the point. If you get super stuck, you are allowed to try and find out using the FW website only - you'll be unable to do the FOC thing, but frankly good luck anyway; they never list where rules are on the product page and you'll have to go through books which could be likely candidates for the rules, zoom in on the contents page and read from there. Ready? Okay, so, first 3:

-Necron Acanthrites
-Necron Tomb Sentinel
-Necron Tomb Citadel

I ask these specific ones because it's in no way clear. Here's a run down:

-Necron Acanthrites -

Spoiler:

Last time these rules were published, they were in IA:12. This is also the most up to date version of these rules, having been experimental before. They are a Fast Attack choice. Nice and easy.

-Necron Tomb Sentinel -

Spoiler:

These rules have only ever been published in IA:12, so you should also have gotten this one immediately. However, they are a fast attack choice for a Dark Harvest army and a heavy support choice for a normal one. This is extremely confusing for someone scanning the rules, as it's the first entry in the fast attack slot, so has FAST ATTACK emblazoned over the top of the rules. Heck, I've had to point out the FOC swap for a normal list, as it's in small print.

-Necron Tomb Citadel -

Spoiler:

Well, this is obviously a fortification. The last time the rules were printed was IA:Apoc, but these had a layout error whereby the Resurrection Amplifier is not listed under the rules created by the power crucible. Hence, the most up to date, correct rules are still in IA:12. The only way you will find this out is to own both copies of the rules, spot the discrepancy, then personally email the FW rules team with your query. That's what I did, which is how I know the IA:Apoc rules are incorrect. They have never published an FAQ, nor acknowledged this in public.

Get all of those right? No, you didn't. Not even the Adepticon rules list has these rules on - they, for whatever reason, do not have anything from IA:Apoc nor IA:12.

There is no indication of the chronological release of their rules.
There is no indication of where the most up to date rules are anywhere, including product pages for both the unit and the books.
There is no indication of where they've made a mistake, as they rarely release FAQs, even for huge errors - IA:Apoc 2nd ed never even got one, and that had at least 20 actual errors, not just unclear rules.

This, in a game where it costs a ton of money to buy the books at all (let alone the units), is utterly unacceptable. There is no way you can tell me this is reasonable, and if you attempt to do so you are just flat out lying to yourself. Not even all the IG stuff or SM stuff is in the books explicitly made for them. It's like if GW wrote a codex, say Orks, then updated some (but not all) of their rules in the Eldar codex, then published a conpendium shortly after with most (but not all) of the units from the eldar and ork codex. FW's way of releasing rules is a total mess and despite years of pressure to list the book with the most up to date rules for each unit on that unit's product page, they refuse. Death from the Skies is nothing like this, so don't pretend it is - that added units which had no rules anywhere else but a limited run magazine and published them officially. It will be redundant as soon as the Ork codex is updated and, should you have an ebook codex, you don't ever need it unless you're running their campaign. It's also listed on the product page of every unit within it, and had a large fanfare about which rules would be in it, along with it clearly being about flyers. None of these things have ever been done by FW, and continue not to be. Even if you like FW units and want their inclusion, it's not reasonable to expect everyone to know where the rules are without a big list released by the TO (and in cases like the Tomb Citadel, that would mean emailing FW directly to find out) and you should acknowledge that this IS a problem. "Google it" is a rubbish excuse, as is the argument of always keeping up to date - what about new players? It's just a dumb thing to say. So yeah, this is absolutely an issue and saying attendees are mostly ignorant anyway is absurd.

Necron Acanthrites
Experimental– So no use in tournaments…
But to make you happy…
www.forgeworld.co.uk/Downloads/Product/PDF/a/acanthrite.pdf

Necron Canoptek Tomb Sentinel
In the ages-old Necron panoplies of war, the Canoptek Tomb Sentinel is all but unique. One of the last war machines designed by the Cryptek master-artificer Toholk the Blinded, at the Silent King’s command it was given over to the Praetorians for wider dissemination across the Necron dynasties before the Great Sleep.
Both guardian and aggressor, the Canoptek Tomb Sentinel is a heavily modified variant of the insectile Tomb Stalker, which forgoes that device’s hellish close combat ability and instead mounts an Exile cannon, a powerful weapon which blasts objects out of existence, casting them into other dimensional realms beyond the material universe. Phasing through the paltry defences of lesser races like a phantom, the Canoptek Tomb Sentinel can deploy this terrible device into the close confines of an enemy stronghold with devastating effects.

Experimental– So no use in tournaments…
But to make you happy…
http://www.forgeworld.co.uk/Downloads/Product/PDF/t/tstalker.pdf

Necron Tomb Citadel -
You mean this? Really?
http://www.forgeworld.co.uk/Warhammer-40000/Necrons/REALM_OF_BATTLE_NECRON_TOMB_CITADEL.html

So to be clear you throw out two items that explicitly can not be used in tournaments and a terrain piece for Realms of battle? And I provide the links at Forge World... Total time 3 minutes, rest was getting a doughnut....

Did I get that right...

**Peregrine**

Eyjio wrote:
There is no indication of where they've made a mistake, as they rarely release FAQs, even for huge errors - IA:Apoc 2nd ed never even got one, and that had at least 20 actual errors, not just unclear rules.

So, just like codex-only 40k you mean.

**Eyjio**

NeedleOfInquiry wrote:

Necron Acanthrites
Experimental– So no use in tournaments…
But to make you happy…
www.forgeworld.co.uk/Downloads/Product/PDF/a/acanthrite.pdf‎

Necron Canoptek Tomb Sentinel
In the ages-old Necron panoplies of war, the Canoptek Tomb Sentinel is all but unique. One of the last war machines designed by the Cryptek master-artificer Toholk the Blinded, at the Silent King’s command it was given over to the Praetorians for wider dissemination across the Necron dynasties before the Great Sleep.
Both guardian and aggressor, the Canoptek Tomb Sentinel is a heavily modified variant of the insectile Tomb Stalker, which forgoes that device’s hellish close combat ability and instead mounts an Exile cannon, a powerful weapon which blasts objects out of existence, casting them into other dimensional realms beyond the material universe. Phasing through the paltry defences of lesser races like a phantom, the Canoptek Tomb Sentinel can deploy this terrible device into the close confines of an enemy stronghold with devastating effects.

Experimental– So no use in tournaments…
But to make you happy…
http://www.forgeworld.co.uk/Downloads/Product/PDF/t/tstalker.pdf

Necron Tomb Citadel -
You mean this? Really?
http://www.forgeworld.co.uk/Warhammer-40000/Necrons/REALM_OF_BATTLE_NECRON_TOMB_CITADEL.html

So to be clear you throw out two items that explicitly can not be used in tournaments and a terrain piece for Realms of battle? And I provide the links at Forge World... Total time 3 minutes, rest was getting a doughnut....

Did I get that right...

0/3. The experimentals are out of date by months (years for the stalker), you linked rules for the tomb stalker instead of the tomb sentinel and the realm of battle board has rules for normal 40k. Looks like I proved my point.

**NeedleOfInquiry**

No, read the description....

....Tomb Sentinel is a heavily modified variant of the insectile Tomb Stalker,... it is the one...so sorry...

You did bring two experimentals and a board piece, none of which would ever get in a tournament....

**Eyjio**

Peregrine wrote:So, just like codex-only 40k you mean.

Yeah, I mean, if only GW had a page full of FAQs and Erratas or something. Nothing like that, right?

Oh wait. See, the thing is "infrequently publishing several page long FAQs" is still a mile better than "never publishes an FAQ at all". GW is slow, but they do at least fix most of the issues when they get there.

NeedleOfInquiry wrote:
No, read the description....

....Tomb Sentinel is a heavily modified variant of the insectile Tomb Stalker,... it is the one...so sorry...

...Is this actually a joke? I mean, really? Those rules were made in 2010 for a different model. I'm about 99% sure you're either too stubborn to admit you're wrong, or deliberately trolling.

**NeedleOfInquiry**

Eyjio wrote:
Peregrine wrote:So, just like codex-only 40k you mean.

Yeah, I mean, if only GW had a page full of FAQs and Erratas or something. Nothing like that, right?

Oh wait. See, the thing is "infrequently publishing several page long FAQs" is still a mile better than "never publishes an FAQ at all". GW is slow, but they do at least fix most of the issues when they get there.

NeedleOfInquiry wrote:
No, read the description....

....Tomb Sentinel is a heavily modified variant of the insectile Tomb Stalker,... it is the one...so sorry...

...Is this actually a joke? I mean, really? Those rules were made in 2010 for a different model. I'm about 99% sure you're either too stubborn to admit you're wrong, or deliberately trolling.

No a mistake, I do not play Necrons..

Imperial Armour 12: Fall of Orpheus[url] has the one I got wrong. page 116

I could post its rules but that would be a violation.

So one experimental, one terrain piece half the size of a tournament playing area and one in a still valid book....

So

**MechBoyz**

RiTides: You should remember that Adepticon's list (which is fantastic!) also is needed to cover the eligibility for different events.

We have all the FW rules and any players interested in using FW units get in touch and we verify they have the correct book or PDF from their Download page - and we also have links to some of the older FAQs on our site (FW has not taken them down - the links are just not up on the DL page).

Since we have a dialog withe the players bringing FW units or army lists we know who to contact when a recent update has come out and push that info out to all registered players as well. This year we had the SM Characters update come out before our deadline and the player with Lamenters was able to have Malakim Phoros' newest rules updated properly.

Also, Like I mentioned above, the ToC is now up from IA11 and on (date of publishing - so IA1-2E and IA3-2E also have it).

Eyjio: IA12 was first available the same time as the date of Adepticon 2013 (I know for a fact since I waited in line to buy one with my VIG pass only to miss out by them moving the line 3 times and the eventual rush of the table and missed out) and Apocalypse came out after that (when the new Apocalypse was released). I think you will find that they (Adepticon) will have the units in those books in their next update to the 2014 rules pack.

**RiTides**

MechBoyz, that is great and definitely appropriate for your event, since (like you mentioned above) I believe you have pre-event list submission.

But for events that aren't working with players ahead of time on their lists/rules, a list to quickly make sure they're using the correct rules for a random FW model would be basically a requirement, imo.

As demonstrated by the example / confusion further up the page on where the rules are for the units Eyjio posted. The idea that you can easily look up any FW unit on the FW website and know what book has the most up-to-date rules for it is simply not true. To do so, you need a list like the one that AdeptiCon has made, listing where the current rules for any given FW unit are.

**NeedleOfInquiry**

I am the one that made that mistake by not following my own suggested rule which is to look at the indexes which are published for the IA books.

Forge word is coming out with a consolidated list soon to eliminate that problem.

Both of these do not require you to buy a book to see which has the current rules...from the company that makes the rules.

Can the same be said of digital codex?

**MechBoyz**

oops, missed a line... Darn Quick Reply!

Eyjio: I can see your point that it is frustrating that all the units for an army are not in one book but that has almost never been a trend of 40K going back to Rogue Trader (while it did wane for a long time). White Dwarf, Citadel Journal, and Chapter Approved had rules for new models that were released or developed separately.

Also there are mistakes in the books and you pointed out a perfect example. There just tend to be less of them these days - how many books had the wrong stats in multiple areas of the same book!

Where would you find rules for the Night Spinner when it came out? White Dwarf and eventually as a download from GW.

There are plenty of players who will be happy to help dig this info up, obviously this thread has quite a few who visit this site.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
RiTides: I see where you are coming from about some events having more problems with FW source checking.

My biggest pet peeve as a TO is folks who show up with Army Builder lists and do not make a separate list where they double check their points. I have been to events where players hacked the files to deliberately cheat. I have also seen folks get screwed out of points or had illegal builds because of the buggy software.

Airing out these frustrations and problems is a good thing, it helps us make decisions on our formats or how to refine our play styles. Keep the feedback rolling!

**RiTides**

Agreed, MechBoyz!

NeedleOfInquiry wrote:
Forge word is coming out with a consolidated list soon to eliminate that problem.

And when that day comes, as it's been talked about for some time now, I will be very happy

I am just pointing out, you have to be honest here, and the hand-waving can be aggravating. It's not easy to find where a random FW unit's rules are right now. If Frontline, or FW, or anyone else would keep an updated list, it'd go a long way towards solving the problem.

I really am not against more FW use, I just don't like ignoring the problems it poses for the sake of making a case for it. Better to acknowledge those problems, tackle them head-on, and Then include it with a much broader consensus. Instead, I see problems being ignored with statements like "No one knows all the rules, anyway". Somewhere, warmachine player's eyebrows just started twitching

. It's possible to know all the rules, and if for this game system it is more difficult than for others, than everything possible needs to be done to make it possible. Not the opposite- saying it's hard to know everything, so we might as well just figure it out on the fly!

To me, making a list like AdeptiCon's so you can at least instantly know where to go and look up the rules is the minimum. At least then, players have the tools at their disposal to check basic rules disputes without calling over the organizers. Without that, players are just left guessing, imo, which is not what I want to encounter at a tourney.

**NeedleOfInquiry**

To me, making a list like AdeptiCon's so you can at least instantly know where to go and look up the rules is the minimum. At least then, players have the tools at their disposal to check basic rules disputes without calling over the organizers. Without that, players are just left guessing, imo, which is not what I want to encounter at a tourney.

I agree.

What I would like to see Forge World do, since they have that website...is to make it not a download by itself but an active webpage that is always updated.

They could add a link to buy the book off the active page listed which current rules are where, even make more money..

**RiTides**

Agreed 100%, Needle! And you're right, it'd make them even more money

and would help everybody know where to find the current rules for their units.

**Peregrine**

Eyjio wrote:
Yeah, I mean, if only GW had a page full of FAQs and Erratas or something. Nothing like that, right?

They do. They also have a YMDC forum full of rule issues. FW rule problems are just like GW problems, the only difference is that certain players have decided that they're willing to deal with rule problems published under one of GW's brand names no matter how bad they are, but will come up with an endless list of excuses for why similar rule problems published under a different brand name are just an impossible obstacle.

Oh wait. See, the thing is "infrequently publishing several page long FAQs" is still a mile better than "never publishes an FAQ at all". GW is slow, but they do at least fix most of the issues when they get there.

FW does publish FAQs, eventually. And when you're talking about GW taking months or even years to fix something, if they bother fixing it at all, the difference between an FAQ and no FAQ isn't really a very big one.

**muwhe**

Not even the Adepticon rules list has these rules on - they, for whatever reason, do not have anything from IA:Apoc nor IA:12.

As Mechboyz pointed out we generally only update our IA listing for the current year AdeptiCon rule packet. As such, updates are pending to the listing for a number of books ( IA:12, IA:Apoc, HH:2, IA:9 and IA:10 pdf updates and the yet to be released IA 2: 2nd Edition). We have considered maintaining that list year round but have yet to do so.

My experience has been that Forge World is very responsive to customer feedback and to providing pdf updates to support material they do not intend to revisit in the near term. Just look at the pdf updates to IA:9 and Ia10, Zone Mortalis rules, .. great after the sale sort of support.

**NeedleOfInquiry**

"My experience has been that Forge World is very responsive to customer feedback "

Damn, that kinds of point to them not being the same company as GW.... hate to admit it....:}

**AlexRae**

At competitive tournaments, it's not really viable to cover your bases and know every Forgeworld unit ESPECIALLY given the new digital supplement releases needing to be absorbed along with the rapid Codex release schedule.

Perhaps when the meta and release schedule settles down people can realistically look at learning all of the FW units on top of the main line 40K ones for tournaments. But not in the current state of the game surely.

And really you break Forgeworld users down into two categories... people who want to use cool different models.... and people who want to use the most broken gak they can find with the added bonus of little to no experience in how to deal with it from their opponent. It is the latter that make FW a minefield for competitive play.

**Grey Templar**

AlexRae wrote:
At competitive tournaments, it's not really viable to cover your bases and know every Forgeworld unit ESPECIALLY given the new digital supplement releases needing to be absorbed along with the rapid Codex release schedule.

That actually points toward allowing forge world.

You can't make the argument of "I can't keep track of all the Forge World stuff" work because its also true for all the Codex stuff. What difference does a few more books and rules make? None really.

I certainly haven't got a handle of every GW release. I can barely keep up with the armies I play or used to play. Let alone every army, adding some more stuff from Forge World doesn't make a lick of difference.

**Peregrine**

AlexRae wrote:
At competitive tournaments, it's not really viable to cover your bases and know every Forgeworld unit ESPECIALLY given the new digital supplement releases needing to be absorbed along with the rapid Codex release schedule.

Why isn't it viable? It might be difficult, but it's not impossible. I don't see why we need to ban entire classes of units/armies just so some players don't have to spend as much time preparing for tournaments.

Perhaps when the meta and release schedule settles down people can realistically look at learning all of the FW units on top of the main line 40K ones for tournaments. But not in the current state of the game surely.

The pace of new releases is unlikely to ever settle down. Right now it looks like GW is determined to shovel out mediocre rules as fast as possible for the indefinite future, so waiting for some hypothetical future once the rules are all finished really means a permanent ban. If you want a permanent ban at least be honest and ask for one, don't offer a "compromise" that will never happen.

And really you break Forgeworld users down into two categories... people who want to use cool different models.... and people who want to use the most broken gak they can find with the added bonus of little to no experience in how to deal with it from their opponent. It is the latter that make FW a minefield for competitive play.

And really you break codex users down into two categories... people who want to use cool different models.... and people who want to use the most broken gak they can find with the added bonus of little to no experience in how to deal with it from their opponent. It is the latter that make codex rules a minefield for competitive play.

**MVBrandt**

Peregrine wrote:
AlexRae wrote:
At competitive tournaments, it's not really viable to cover your bases and know every Forgeworld unit ESPECIALLY given the new digital supplement releases needing to be absorbed along with the rapid Codex release schedule.

Why isn't it viable? It might be difficult, but it's not impossible. I don't see why we need to ban entire classes of units/armies just so some players don't have to spend as much time preparing for tournaments.

Perhaps when the meta and release schedule settles down people can realistically look at learning all of the FW units on top of the main line 40K ones for tournaments. But not in the current state of the game surely.

The pace of new releases is unlikely to ever settle down. Right now it looks like GW is determined to shovel out mediocre rules as fast as possible for the indefinite future, so waiting for some hypothetical future once the rules are all finished really means a permanent ban. If you want a permanent ban at least be honest and ask for one, don't offer a "compromise" that will never happen.

And really you break Forgeworld users down into two categories... people who want to use cool different models.... and people who want to use the most broken gak they can find with the added bonus of little to no experience in how to deal with it from their opponent. It is the latter that make FW a minefield for competitive play.

And really you break codex users down into two categories... people who want to use cool different models.... and people who want to use the most broken gak they can find with the added bonus of little to no experience in how to deal with it from their opponent. It is the latter that make codex rules a minefield for competitive play.

You generally refer back to the pointless strawman of "well there's broken stuff and players / etc. in codices and supplements too!"

The issue facing TOs is they have constraints on them where they MUST use codices/codex supplements because they are WIDELY considered by the vast majority to be "standard" 40k, so outlawing or screwing with them carries enormous risk and impact on attendance.

THe same isn't true with FW; most people who even wouldn't mind FW legalization generally show up anyway, whereas there are a lot of players who WON'T show up to a FW event that was previously non-FW.

So countering with WELL CODICES ARE THE SAME is utterly pointless, b/c it's like saying everyone should play baseball since baseball is as difficult as driving a car to work. They're utterly unrelated, b/c one is accepted as the norm and one still isn't, therefore applying to FW a higher mandate of reasonability and balance than is on GW's mainstream codices (b/c even though some components of them aren't balanced, literally everyone accepts and expects their use).

**RiTides**

I admit it, I really don't understand the "Something is bad, so why not make it worse" argument.

The fact that GW is releasing digital codex updates makes the codex rules harder to keep track of. How does this lead people to the conclusion that they should automatically add in the full range of FW units, unrestricted, on top of that?

1 +7 ≠ 2 to me, here

**Grey Templar**

Its not a point that we should.

Its that the argument that "Forge World stuff is hard to keep track of and also broken = we shouldn't allow it" is complete horsegak. Because that same argument holds true for regular codices.

**RiTides**

Yes, but if I grant you that normal codices are hard to keep track of... will you grant me that adding Forgeworld is not an insignificant change, and will make things even harder to keep track of?

I think that's a pretty obvious conclusion, personally...

If you just acknowledge that, then it's possible to move forward to talking about how to mitigate that issue and work around it to aid in wider FW allowance / acceptance. But if that basic premise isn't acknowledged, it's hard to talk about anything because there isn't even a starting point...

**Grey Templar**

Maybe it will make things harder in a technical sense. Realistically you can't keep track of the codices, so adding a few more units to each codex won't make a realistic difference.