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.

 Shinkaze wrote:
Turns out Ra'el or whatever can just pop a drone to hit and tun automatically!

Nope, not anymore. The XV9s now just have standard VRTs from the codex. Your opponent cheated.

(And the "sacrifice drones to hit and run automatically" rule was from 5th edition and the old codex, where it was needed to resolve problems with hit and run, drones, and units where only some models have the rule.)

Yes. See Marneus Calgar.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Shinkaze wrote:
Turns out Ra'el or whatever can just pop a drone to hit and tun automatically!

Nope, not anymore. The XV9s now just have standard VRTs from the codex. Your opponent cheated.

(And the "sacrifice drones to hit and run automatically" rule was from 5th edition and the old codex, where it was needed to resolve problems with hit and run, drones, and units where only some models have the rule.)

And this is kind of the point...did his opponent even know he cheated or was he just using out of date rules he did not know were updated? I honestly don't know this answer. And it is a potential problem I see with using FW because of how they update units. I'm not saying GW is much better at this point (as I pointed to posting my list above about having 9 books at the table) It would make it very difficult for an opponent in a limited time to look at all those different things.

Agreed Breng77, that is exactly the point... and it's an even more widespread problem with the release of Dataslates now and the like, too (we can't pretend it's just FW). Crazy town has arrived, and TOs are going to have to determine what's in and what's out starting fairly soon, imo... which in the end could be a good thing for everybody, if they keep track of things in a more manageable way than GW / FW are currently doing.

 Vaktathi wrote:
I feel equating Forgeworld with 2++rerolls is a bit silly

2+ re-rolls are part of the game, apparently just like FW. Some people think they're too good and don't use them, most don't care, some people (the ones who run the lists) really, really like them...just like FW. Not everyone thinks 2+ re-rolls are unbalanced because it requires large investments of points, luck, or both...just like FW. If you ban 2+ re-rolls you're playing with house rules, because it's clearly GW's intent for people to use 2+ re-rolls or it wouldn't be possible...much like how one would argue that FW wouldn't be making models if GW didn't want to sell them to you. And even if 2+ re-rolls could objectively be proven to be unbalanced, it doesn't really matter because the game isn't balanced anyway, right?

If anything, it's silly to equate FW to 2+ re-rolls because 2+ re-rolls are a core game mechanic now. It would be like banning the shooting phase because the majority of players feel that shooting is too good, which is vastly different from banning optional rules or material that has otherwise been presented as more of a sideline to the "standard" mode of play.

...but yeah. I'm sure they actually are totally different things and the FW supporters aren't being hypocrites in the least by deciding they now get to be the judge of what's allowed and what isn't after years of arguing that everything should be allowed.

= \

 Sidstyler wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
I feel equating Forgeworld with 2++rerolls is a bit silly

2+ re-rolls are part of the game, apparently just like FW. Some people think they're too good and don't use them, most don't care, some people (the ones who run the lists) really, really like them...just like FW. Not everyone thinks 2+ re-rolls are unbalanced because it requires large investments of points, luck, or both...just like FW. If you ban 2+ re-rolls you're playing with house rules, because it's clearly GW's intent for people to use 2+ re-rolls or it wouldn't be possible...much like how one would argue that FW wouldn't be making models if GW didn't want to sell them to you. And even if 2+ re-rolls could objectively be proven to be unbalanced, it doesn't really matter because the game isn't balanced anyway, right?

If anything, it's silly to equate FW to 2+ re-rolls because 2+ re-rolls are a core game mechanic now. It would be like banning the shooting phase because the majority of players feel that shooting is too good, which is vastly different from banning optional rules or material that has otherwise been presented as more of a sideline to the "standard" mode of play.

...but yeah. I'm sure they actually are totally different things and the FW supporters aren't being hypocrites in the least by deciding they now get to be the judge of what's allowed and what isn't after years of arguing that everything should be allowed.

= \

I am one of those Forge World supporters....

I am of the opinion that if the rules allow it it should be allowed....

I also think you have taken what he said out of context.

I suspect most will go back and read what he said in his entirety and look at the comment he was responding to and find a different target for that phrase you used to generalize forge world supporters...

And a good day to you too.

Reecius

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

Which book ?

Thanks !!

@Dozer Blades -

The just released IA2: 2nd Edition.

Speaking of that... how long before we give up on them publishing a spreadsheet of latest rules for each unit this time?

It's like a unicorn, rigeld... something beautiful and mythical, but never actually seen in the flesh

 Sidstyler wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
I feel equating Forgeworld with 2++rerolls is a bit silly

2+ re-rolls are part of the game, apparently just like FW.

I wasn't debating that. What I was debating was that equating rerollable 2+ invul saves, something which not long ago was purely the realm of hyperbole, with all Forgeworld stuff, was silly. Also note that I wasn't actually advocating implementing restrictions, just noting the equation was off.

Some people think they're too good and don't use them, most don't care, some people (the ones who run the lists) really, really like them...just like FW. Not everyone thinks 2+ re-rolls are unbalanced because it requires large investments of points, luck, or both...just like FW. If you ban 2+ re-rolls you're playing with house rules, because it's clearly GW's intent for people to use 2+ re-rolls or it wouldn't be possible...much like how one would argue that FW wouldn't be making models if GW didn't want to sell them to you. And even if 2+ re-rolls could objectively be proven to be unbalanced, it doesn't really matter because the game isn't balanced anyway, right?

If anything, it's silly to equate FW to 2+ re-rolls because 2+ re-rolls are a core game mechanic now. It would be like banning the shooting phase because the majority of players feel that shooting is too good, which is vastly different from banning optional rules or material that has otherwise been presented as more of a sideline to the "standard" mode of play.

...but yeah. I'm sure they actually are totally different things and the FW supporters aren't being hypocrites in the least by deciding they now get to be the judge of what's allowed and what isn't after years of arguing that everything should be allowed.

= \

Methinks you're taking things a bit too personally here and are projecting other issues onto my post that didn't exist, and I have a feeling nothing I say is going to have any impact one way or the other here.

If anything, it's silly to equate FW to 2+ re-rolls because 2+ re-rolls are a core game mechanic now. It would be like banning the shooting phase because the majority of players feel that shooting is too good, which is vastly different from banning optional rules or material that has otherwise been presented as more of a sideline to the "standard" mode of play.

@Sid

I hear you but what difference does it make if it is a core game mechanic? So is the mission system and no one bats an eye that nearly every single tournament changes that? I have only been to a single GT that used mysterious terrain or objectives, no one gets upset about that, either. Do we use the book system of putting terrain down? Nope. That is also a core game mechanic. But we all take that for granted as ok to change. Changing missions honestly has more impact on the game for more players than tweaking almost any other rule I can think of aside from movement or shooting, for example. Changing win conditions and how they are achieved is a fundamental change to the game but as it doesn't impact the player's list and army directly, people don't pay that much attention to it. We also have to have player generated FAQs in order to even play the dang game! Haha, that is changing core game mechanics, too.

It's not a question of changing the game's core mechanics as we already do, it's a question of how much do we change it? I think that is the reality that we are in but people seem to look past because changes they accept and are used to slip into the background even though they are changes none-the-less.

Sidestyler made my case pretty well actually, since i didnt equate 2++ saves to fw. What i wanted to adress was in the top 4 latest topics of the tournaments subforum same people are arguing banning certain core game mechanics while favouring for fw inclusion at the same time.

My sway on this matter is not really relevant. I try to play at everygame i possible can and wont reject fw or 2++ armies. Some people jsut seem have to have made their mind bashing what they dont like in disguise of balance while supporting what they like in for their own purposes (tournament attendance).

 pizzaguardian wrote:
Gotta admit, seeing more FW will be fun.


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

Fair point! It is funny coming from people like me who usually fight for inclusion! I think I am just shell-shocked by the magnitude of the changes occurring right now combined with the weight of responsibility we feel to make the LVO as awesome as we can without a lot of time to work through the new material.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 pizzaguardian wrote:
Some people just seem have to have made their mind bashing what they dont like in disguise of balance while supporting what they like in for their own purposes (tournament attendance).

That's a bit presumptive to say the least. Be careful about what story you tell yourself in regards to others' intentions.

Here, to make it plain, this is my intent so there is no confusion at all: We want to make a fun tournament format that promotes fair play, competition and fun.

I as an individual gamer enjoy the challenge of deconstructing "power" builds and finding out how to beat them while playing a balanced list myself.

I hate some of the stuff in the game right now. I always hate some of the stuff in the game at any give time! Haha, it is not if, just what is the target of my current scorn. That is part of the fun of the game for me, having a bad guy in my mind to pit my skill against. That said, I would never tell someone they couldn't bring that against me in a game. I may tease them for it, but that is as far as I go, personally.

As a TO though, it is different. You see things as a bigger picture of everyone who paid money to come and have fun, not just an individual perspective where you may justifiably have the attitude of: suck it up and deal with it.

If you have a situation in the game where (potentially, it hasn't happened yet) things get so far out of control that in order to compete you need to bring a whack-a-doodle list comprised of 4 different armies and a super heavy where the power level is SO high that a "normal" army stands no chance of victory, we may see events suffer as a result. If that happens, everyone loses. What we're talking about here is a compromise as a community to benefit everyone for the longer term.

In the case of the 2+ reroll thing, ask yourself this: would you enjoy the game LESS if it were gone? Do you think the majority of people would enjoy the game MORE if it were gone? I think that helps put into perspective why we're even discussing it.

As we have so much riding on these things, we try and gauge community opinion and debate the pros and cons of what the best choice to make is. Please don't confuse that with turning the game into our personal version of it (even though I totally get that it can appear that way).

Hopefully this clears up any confusion on what we're doing and talking about.

You are ındeeed under great pressure and responsıbılıty ı ımagıne. And ı agree wıth the decısıon you make sınce they are the best ın our cırcumstances.

 Dozer Blades wrote:


Which book ?

Thanks !!

IIRC IA 11 onward has this in it.

Which makes sense. Several previously legal list are now only in IA, such as the armored company list. Conversely, the FW tau fleetlist migrated in the other direction as became part of BFG FAQ 2010.

@Reese

Quote: "I hate some of the stuff in the game right now. I always hate some of the stuff in the game at any give time! Haha, it is not if, just what is the target of my current scorn. That is part of the fun of the game for me, having a bad guy in my mind to pit my skill against. That said, I would never tell someone they couldn't bring that against me in a game. I may tease them for it, but that is as far as I go, personally.

As a TO though, it is different. You see things as a bigger picture of everyone who paid money to come and have fun, not just an individual perspective where you may justifiably have the attitude of: suck it up and deal with it."

I believe the tourney should be a reflection of who you are and what you believe and what you take out of the game. I play in tourneys but I never do well. Mainly because I play what I want and not what I necessarily should. You make the decision on your event. Done. You guys did a good job of managing negative feedback from the BAO when you had the problems with the location and such. You will do so here as well.