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.

Grey, my point is that argument doesn't hold water.

If FW was super easy to grasp and understand and all the information was in one cohesive location, that might be an argument FOR including it. It's not, so it can be used as an argument AGAINST including it.

The mainstream codices and supplements are inarguably mainstream, in that they are broadly accepted and used by nearly everyone who plays, and EXPECTED by them. That they possess some of the same problems (in the digital codices) presented by FW items does not make this NOT a problem for FW.

If you had horribly, obviously broken FW rules (and I'm not saying we do), as well as horribly, obviously broken mainstream codex rules, people who played 40k (if any) would still broadly accept and use the codices, but it would be even harder to get people to use FW.

The point is ... constantly saying "FW isn't any worse" is utterly pointless. FW isn't broadly accepted, mainstream dexes are. For FW to be accepted, it needs to uphold a HIGHER standard than those that are already accepted as the mainstream. By holding an equivalently bad standard, it's actually hurting its case substantially.

 Grey Templar wrote:
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.

But I just think the first statement "Realistically you can't keep track of the codices" does not lead to the second, that adding FW "won't make a realistic difference". It definitely would!

I am not against adding it to more events, but that's just the reality of it.

Basically what is happening, is that GW is making their core game worse with the supplements, so FW is screwed out of being used. Strange coincidence that at the exact moment that FW tries to make itself a core part of the game, GW turns around and craps on them.

It is harder to bring FW into the game, while GW is basically torpedoing the existing portion of the game. Does it make anyone else wonder if GW does it on purpose in an attempt to make tournaments harder to organize? Maybe it's subconscious.

 Matt1785 wrote:
Does it make anyone else wonder if GW does it on purpose in an attempt to make tournaments harder to organize? Maybe it's subconscious.

Yes, I was actually wondering about that, too. In the past, they've intentionally tried to play up the fact that their rules are meant to be "cinematic". I don't need rules as tight as Warmachine's, but I agree that it's getting a bit silly with GW lately with all the supplements.

Never attribute to Malice what can be attributed to Incompetence.

 RiTides wrote:

 Matt1785 wrote:
Does it make anyone else wonder if GW does it on purpose in an attempt to make tournaments harder to organize? Maybe it's subconscious.

Yes, I was actually wondering about that, too. In the past, they've intentionally tried to play up the fact that their rules are meant to be "cinematic". I don't need rules as tight as Warmachine's, but I agree that it's getting a bit silly with GW lately with all the supplements.

Oh, I'm sure its quite intentional. GW doesn't give a whit about anyones tournament except their Throne os Skulls, and even I have my doubt about that. All of the supplements, and I'm sure the FW move to "40k approved", are all for the benefit of the other 99% of 40k players who don't play in tournaments, but who still like "officialness" (as unnecessary as that actually is).

I agree with what MVB said - throwing gasoline on the fire is not a solution. I'm not against the use of Forge World but I think its use should be heavily comped. 0-1 is very restrictive though. It just requires a lot of work on the part of the TOs and it's looking like it will only become more labor intensive.

I have no idea why GW seem to be hellbent on walking the path down which 'Forging the narrative' and having a tight competition viable ruleset are mutually exclusive of each other and cannot cross over like the streams from Ghostbusters' Proton Packs

Are we seriously still having this argument?!

What ding-dong started this dumb thread in the first place?!?!?

 Dozer Blades wrote:
I'm not against the use of Forge World but I think its use should be heavily comped.

Why shouldn't similar restrictions be imposed on codices and supplements, given the awful balance and problem-filled rules those books have?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

MVBrandt wrote:
The mainstream codices and supplements are inarguably mainstream

Are they really? Supplements are a new thing, and one that has received a lot of hatred from the community. They might become mainstream if people insist on making them mainstream (while refusing to do the same with FW), but they're starting off with a blank slate. So why not apply the same reasoning behind FW bans and ban supplements before they cause too much harm to tournaments?

 Peregrine wrote:

 Dozer Blades wrote:
I'm not against the use of Forge World but I think its use should be heavily comped.

Why shouldn't similar restrictions be imposed on codices and supplements, given the awful balance and problem-filled rules those books have?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

MVBrandt wrote:
The mainstream codices and supplements are inarguably mainstream

Are they really? Supplements are a new thing, and one that has received a lot of hatred from the community. They might become mainstream if people insist on making them mainstream (while refusing to do the same with FW), but they're starting off with a blank slate. So why not apply the same reasoning behind FW bans and ban supplements before they cause too much harm to tournaments?

Yes they are really. When they started coming out, every TO out there with few exceptions said "legal." It's a Done, not a To Be. So your question trying to compare FW to dig sup is irrelevant. One has been widely accepted and implemented, one hasn't. Past tense.

Forgeworld, as this thread alone makes clear, obviously isn't inarguably mainstream. Which is why your counter point about codices continues to be pointless. Ref earlier post for full description of the why.

Well, game, set, match.

FW is official. The new FW book says it straight up, FW is official for use in "normal" games, no permission needed, etc.

Yay?

Still up to TO and player discretion as to what they want to use of course, but the argument that it isn't official is now dead and buried.

The argument that the rules are hard to get is also, IMO, moot as with all of the digital stuff GW is pumping out left and right, having all the rules is becoming extremely confusing and difficult.

So, not trying to rub anything in anyone's face at all, but I think it is time for those opposed to it to switch gears to simply saying: we don't WANT to use it and leave it at that.

Oh what a crazy new game we are going towards. I think it is cool in a lot of ways, just need to figure out how to implement this all into organized play.

 Reecius wrote:
Well, game, set, match.

FW is official. The new FW book says it straight up, FW is official for use in "normal" games, no permission needed, etc.

Yay?

Still up to TO and player discretion as to what they want to use of course, but the argument that it isn't official is now dead and buried.

The argument that the rules are hard to get is also, IMO, moot as with all of the digital stuff GW is pumping out left and right, having all the rules is becoming extremely confusing and difficult.

So, not trying to rub anything in anyone's face at all, but I think it is time for those opposed to it to switch gears to simply saying: we don't WANT to use it and leave it at that.

Oh what a crazy new game we are going towards. I think it is cool in a lot of ways, just need to figure out how to implement this all into organized play.

Why would you resurrect this post, Reece?

9 days is hardly threadomancy.


O and FETH YEAH!!!!!!!

 Grey Templar wrote:
9 days is hardly threadomancy.


O and FETH YEAH!!!!!!!

YEAH BUT THE RAGE IS ABOUT TO POUR OUT ANEW.

I.E., "UNTIL GW SAYS IT DIRECTLY IT'S THE SAME AS IT EVER WAS," followed immediately by "FW IS GW STUPIDFACE," etc.

 Reecius wrote:


So, not trying to rub anything in anyone's face at all, but I think it is time for those opposed to it to switch gears to simply saying: we don't WANT to use it and leave it at that.

I think this is really a great point. Between all the protests about legality, standing, price, officialdom, availability, balance, etc, and especially in light of new Black Library releases taken as "standard', statements of officialdom in GW published FW books, and the upcoming Stronghold Assault and Escalation supplements, there's really just no argument against FW left that doesn't just boil down to "I don't like some FW stuff".

MVBrandt wrote:

 Reecius wrote:
Well, game, set, match.

FW is official. The new FW book says it straight up, FW is official for use in "normal" games, no permission needed, etc.

Yay?

Still up to TO and player discretion as to what they want to use of course, but the argument that it isn't official is now dead and buried.

The argument that the rules are hard to get is also, IMO, moot as with all of the digital stuff GW is pumping out left and right, having all the rules is becoming extremely confusing and difficult.

So, not trying to rub anything in anyone's face at all, but I think it is time for those opposed to it to switch gears to simply saying: we don't WANT to use it and leave it at that.

Oh what a crazy new game we are going towards. I think it is cool in a lot of ways, just need to figure out how to implement this all into organized play.

Why would you resurrect this post, Reece?

Agreed... Reecius, you really have to work on this internet thing, man . "Game, set, match" followed by "I'm not trying to rub anything in anyone's face". Lol

Good luck to you TOs, you're gonna need it. If you allow formations, escalation, FW... well, like I said, good luck

Only people who don't allow the new rules, can't afford the new models, simple as that.

Man up get a real job and move on.

The more models and the more rules the better, keep the Meta changing!

MVBrandt wrote:


Why would you resurrect this post, Reece?

Seemed like the appropriate place?

@RiTides

The trick with internet communication is that you miss tone. I joke a lot, like most of me communicating is laughing at the same time. You miss that online. I meant it, as this entire thread, as a lighthearted ribbing.

And maybe you just need to work on your understanding skillz!

See, that there was a joke, not meant to be taken seriously! Maybe I just need to add a #joke tag to my writing! haha

TIME to Break out my Uber list

Rune Priest
2 x 5 Grey Hunters

SW Contemptor Dread

CCS

Vet squad

Thudd gun

Baneblade

Riptide

2 Broadsides

Storm Raven

2 Storm Talons

Skyshield

Ox Inquisitor

9 Boooks in one list FTW....

Reecius, fair enough, but it can also be a passive aggressive way of communicating.

For example, if someone says this in-person:

"You're such a powergamer! Just joking!"

Often, there is a kernel of seriousness to it. So, if you say "Game, set, match", you actually are rubbing it in- following up and saying you're not doesn't negate the first statement.

And same with this thread. You have had this stance for a really long time, and posted quite seriously about it in this thread a number of times, but then joke about it after. That sends really confusing signals and it's very hard to determine when you are doing which!

I'm honestly cool with you, and cool with your joking around with friends, but if enough people are misunderstanding something (I am far, far, FAR from the only person to mention it in this thread) it's worth re-evaluating how you're communicating something, if you really do mean it as light hearted joking.

Just my $0.02, again, I'm cool with you but it's come up enough times (with this thread being the prime example) that I thought it was worth stating directly. It's much easier to understand online when people say exactly what they mean- joking is easy to misunderstand.

Cheers, no hard feelings honestly

 RiTides wrote:
Reecius, fair enough, but it can also be a passive aggressive way of communicating.

For example, if someone says this in-person:

"You're such a powergamer! Just joking!"

Often, there is a kernel of seriousness to it. So, if you say "Game, set, match", you actually are rubbing it in- following up and saying you're not doesn't negate the first statement.

And same with this thread. You have had this stance for a really long time, and posted quite seriously about it in this thread a number of times, but then joke about it after. That sends really confusing signals and it's very hard to determine when you are doing which!

I'm honestly cool with you, and cool with your joking around with friends, but if enough people are misunderstanding something (I am far, far, FAR from the only person to mention it in this thread) it's worth re-evaluating how you're communicating something, if you really do mean it as light hearted joking.

Just my $0.02, again, I'm cool with you but it's come up enough times (with this thread being the prime example) that I thought it was worth stating directly. It's much easier to understand online when people say exactly what they mean- joking is easy to misunderstand.

Cheers, no hard feelings honestly

Probably less passive aggression and more just the risks of joking on the internet as you would in real life. I've been bitten repeatedly by typing things out in a hurry that if I were saying them out loud would be taken the "right" way ... and end up being taken the very "wrong" way. Leshrug.

Yeah, "Leshrug" is right . It's not a big deal, but as this thread ended up being basically just one big miscommunication, I thought it was worth mentioning. No hard feelings... and you have totally earned the right to say "I told you so", Reecius

@RiTides

As my friend Mr. Brandt said, it is most definitely, definitely not passive aggressive =) If anything, I am too direct!

But, fair play, communication is tough no matter what, on the net without expressions and tone of voice it's even harder.

 Reecius wrote:
Well, game, set, match.

FW is official. The new FW book says it straight up, FW is official for use in "normal" games, no permission needed, etc.

Yay?

Still up to TO and player discretion as to what they want to use of course, but the argument that it isn't official is now dead and buried.

The argument that the rules are hard to get is also, IMO, moot as with all of the digital stuff GW is pumping out left and right, having all the rules is becoming extremely confusing and difficult.

So, not trying to rub anything in anyone's face at all, but I think it is time for those opposed to it to switch gears to simply saying: we don't WANT to use it and leave it at that.

Oh what a crazy new game we are going towards. I think it is cool in a lot of ways, just need to figure out how to implement this all into organized play.

Any chance that we can get a screen cap of this?

Not that I don't believe you...

Gotta admit, seeing more FW will be fun.

Although the stamp thing is not new as stated somewhere in the thread, it is in IA 11 as well. But for some reason nafka had to state it twice for som reason, coming borderline fanaticism for FW in my eyes.

" http://natfka.blogspot.com/2013/10/forgeworld-becomes-official-for.html "

" http://natfka.blogspot.com/2013/12/imperial-armour-2-rules-clearly-stating.html "

But what is more fun is seeing the same people (looking at you reecius ) talking about banning certain builds, not even publications mind you just builds; of 40k armies and at the same time allowing forgeworld with open arms. I assume you think allowing fw and banning 2++ reroll armies will be better your events and i agree with you, i wish that wasn't the case and you didn't need to ban anything.

Feels a bit wrong though

 pizzaguardian wrote:

But what is more fun is seeing the same people (looking at you reecius ) talking about banning certain builds, not even publications mind you just builds; of 40k armies and at the same time allowing forgeworld with open arms.

I feel equating Forgeworld with 2++rerolls is a bit silly, particularly as FW spans a huge amount of stuff, while 2+ reroll saves have long been the archetypal "metaphorical example" used in hyperbolic statements, now made disturbing reality.

That's just my take on it anyway

Breng77 wrote:
TIME to Break out my Uber list

Rune Priest
2 x 5 Grey Hunters

SW Contemptor Dread

CCS

Vet squad

Thudd gun

Baneblade

Riptide

2 Broadsides

Storm Raven

2 Storm Talons

Skyshield

Ox Inquisitor

9 Boooks in one list FTW....

Sounds like an interesting list to play. Quite the investment though!


By default, the following are available in all games of warhammer 40k (are are, of course, expected to use the most up-to-date version of rules, i.e. don't use something from IA1 over IA1-2ndEd any more than you would an out of date 3st ed codex):

Main rule book (i.e. BRB)
Codex rule books (i.e. Daemons, Space Marines, etc.)
Supplement rule books (i.e. Black Legion, Inquisition, etc.)
Imperial Armour rule books (Imperial Armour 1 - 2nd edition, IA 11, etc.)
Escalation rule book (released this week)
Stronghold Assault rule book (released this week)
Dataslates (releasing over the next 20 days)

Now, any change from that is using house (or singular 'game') rules to remove them.

 Reecius wrote:
FW is official. The new FW book says it straight up, FW is official for use in "normal" games, no permission needed, etc.

But Reece, the FW book says that. Not a GW book.



(I'm playing Devil's Advocate here - I actually completely agree with Reece here and find the double standard that "FW is imbalanced/hard to keep track of" when regualr Codices are not balanced and regular rules are scattered everywhere to be rather galling)

I think it would be helpful if a player fielding more than 1 FW unit would have to have printed out copies of the pages. I was given a large tome before a game to read about 3 units(I knew at least 1 of them had changed recently) and since time is very limited in tournaments I skimmed over them instead of spending 10 minutes reading the tons of little stupid flavor rules they have.

Turns out Ra'el or whatever can just pop a drone to hit and tun automatically! Sweet I would have charged the crisis suit unit instead of him had I known that. Oh well at least the Tau player got to use his FW stuff, luckily FW makes lots of units for all races so I will be using some soon too.... wait a second...

Just so you know I am not bitter but it is very annoying to have people talk down to you on the internet about how you are over reacting about FW when you simply have legitimate concerns. And then have something dumb like that happen. So now between me and Blackmoor I guess we have an official 1.5 FW problems

Do the GW codex have anything that makes you automatically pass a characteristic test? If so for anything really good like Hit and Run?