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.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Breng77 wrote:
Except unless you are going to go through and ban units across the boad you still get a doubel standard.

1.) There are a Few OP FW units...lets ban those.

Pisses people off just as much as banning it all together (infact it pisses off more people. the Pro FW people are not happy because FW is being targeted, and the anti FW people are pissed because they don't want any FW.)

So unless you include

2.) Some GW units are OP lets ban those....

It is still a double standard. Now you can ban units across the board if you want, but most people don't because they want to be able to use their toys.

Really there are a few broken rules across the game and the rules should be fixed not the units banned if you want to balance the game.

I think this is what da001 was saying, though, he does include both statements.

A normal player, who does not ban any units published in an army's codex, should not ban similar units from Forge World. Seeing that Forge World is meant to be played in 40k, there are no units dissimilar enough to warrant banning on their own.

"I think this is what da001 was saying": wow I am a failure as a writer

I don´t think any unit should be "banned". The players should talk about what kind of game they want, and with what units. Some would say "no" to a Forgeworld unit, others would say "no" to a 3-Riptide army, others would say "no" to a house rule.... An agreement must be reached between the players and no one else. And house rules are always there to fix the broken unit, no need to keep the toys. I know of a CSM player that uses Heldrakes because he likes the model, and uses them with this house rule: "a template weapon can only be fired by a flyer if the flyer is Hovering". Easy, makes sense and fixes a broken unit, thus allowing for fun games.

 DarthOvious wrote:

However, I will refuse to play in a casual game against someone with an overpowered / unfun list, regardless of the origin of the unit. And the choice of who I play with is mine. Which is exactly the position of FW on the matter, "ask the opponent in casual games, ask the tournament organizer in tournaments". I do not like it when someone says that FW "no longer requires consent".

Hmm, this is where we disagree to an extent. Yes, I believe that a player can choose to not play a game against another player but I view FW as being just as legal as the codices. Heck I view the FW units as being part of the codex since their entries say they are.

I apply the same rule to the Codex units, the Forgeworld units and the House Rules. Thus the "regardless of the origin of the unit". So I guess I disagree that we have a disagreement here (except in the House Rules part).

I'm sorry but I just don't understand what you are trying to say here.

Yeah I noticed.

I think you also misunderstand my reply I suppose. This convo is perhaps just one big mess.

Probably my fault, I should be working right now. I am writing in a hurry.

 da001 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Breng77 wrote:
Except unless you are going to go through and ban units across the boad you still get a doubel standard.

1.) There are a Few OP FW units...lets ban those.

Pisses people off just as much as banning it all together (infact it pisses off more people. the Pro FW people are not happy because FW is being targeted, and the anti FW people are pissed because they don't want any FW.)

So unless you include

2.) Some GW units are OP lets ban those....

It is still a double standard. Now you can ban units across the board if you want, but most people don't because they want to be able to use their toys.

Really there are a few broken rules across the game and the rules should be fixed not the units banned if you want to balance the game.

I think this is what da001 was saying, though, he does include both statements.

A normal player, who does not ban any units published in an army's codex, should not ban similar units from Forge World. Seeing that Forge World is meant to be played in 40k, there are no units dissimilar enough to warrant banning on their own.

"I think this is what da001 was saying": wow I am a failure as a writer

I don´t think any unit should be "banned". The players should talk about what kind of game they want, and with what units. Some would say "no" to a Forgeworld unit, others would say "no" to a 3-Riptide army, others would say "no" to a house rule.... An agreement must be reached between the players and no one else. And house rules are always there to fix the broken unit, no need to keep the toys. I know of a CSM player that uses Heldrakes because he likes the model, and uses them with this house rule: "a template weapon can only be fired by a flyer if the flyer is Hovering". Easy, makes sense and fixes a broken unit, thus allowing for fun games.

Sorry about that, it's possible I misinterpreted you.

anchorbine wrote:
Forgeworld isn't available in the GW retail stores, nor are any of the rule books. Further, forgeworld doesn't make complete army additions for each of the 40k armies, which allows for certain armies a huge amount of additional army choices. Nice models, certainly made by a branch of GW, intended for the 40k game, but still not listed in the main rulebook or the main faq. A huge amount of standard codex mini's are listed in the main rulebook, this isn't the case for the forgeworld ones.

Codex Supplements are digital only then go direct only after 3+ months, 2 codexes out now have no hard copy you can purchase meaning they aren't sold in shops and there are at least 100+ models that aren't available in your local store unless they direct order them (which means slimmer profit margins for them as they pay about 70% on those items). Are those somehow less official because of it?

If you're going to apply this arguement to FW you need to do it to the entire GW line and then you find that it falls very, very, short of being valid.

And Warhammer World sells FW. You know, just a little tidbit for you.

anchorbine wrote:
Solution is pathetically easy, mtg solved it almost immediately. Two basic game formats. 40k Standard and 40k extended. (extended allows forgeworld) Hey guys, I have an extended army, is that ok?

GW went a different route: "EVERYTHING IS LEGAL GUYS!" is what the rulebook says and yet people still try and box 40k in to specifics. Stop being so narrow minded about the game already.

anchorbine wrote:
Problem solved. Nobody is the bad guy, the ongoing argument ceases to exist, and we can all just roll dice without the drama. How about it forgeworld guys, is this a fair enough compromise?

Problem not solved because then you have arguements about what is "standard" and what is "extended" and you don't really fix anything.

I just want to see 40k to stop being shoved into this tiny little box on what it "should" be. What it "should" be is a game that anyone can play with anything they want without being forced into one game type.

Sometimes I swear the whole 40k tournament scene that GW dropped on the community in 3rd has actually set this hobby back in terms of "freedom" and "creativity" and has turned large parts of the community into watchdogs who can't stand to see the game shifted too much too fast lest they lose their competitive advantage.

Not everything is about tournaments or winning. Sometimes you just need to tell a cool story or try something neat for once. Step back from the "I always need to play at my most competetive!" mindset for a while and try playing a game where you try new and crazy things. Who cares if it's the most optimized list you can make? Even if you lose you'll learn more trying stuff out like a Marine Tide army, or running an all Scout list than you will playing the same exact list over and over until the internet comes along and tells you to play something else.

I can't find a single thing I disagree with Clockwork on.

I've said it before and I'll say it again; I care infinitely more about the person behind the list than what the list is. I think more players should take that attitude instead of outright refusing a game based on the inclusion of a single FW unit.

 Blacksails wrote:
I can't find a single thing I disagree with Clockwork on.

That might be a first!

 Blacksails wrote:
I've said it before and I'll say it again; I care infinitely more about the person behind the list than what the list is. I think more players should take that attitude instead of outright refusing a game based on the inclusion of a single FW unit.

Agreed. Player attitude is just as important as anything else. We've got a player locally that I won't play anymore because he's not a good sport.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

anchorbine wrote:
That exact same answer could be used to justify the use of the power 9 in a game of mtg, yet that hasn't created any issues for the MTG community. They understand and comprehend that there are different levels of play and adapted their game to it. It's accepted, nobody complains, and there are still means to utilize all of your magic cards regardless of expansion. They don't have 10 years of ongoing message board wars regarding their formats, they just choose a format and play.

40k isn't MtG though. MtG tries to restore balance with banned and restricted lists, and by participating in tournament events. GW tries to give us a narrative experience where everything is legal and then we have people trying to force that into a competitive setting and getting upset when it doesn't fit. You're basically comparing a Goldfish to a Squirrel. Neither have anything to do with the other and that's perfectly fine. Frankly I'm tired of people trying to shove GW into a box and say that we should say "X" or "Y" is the only thing legal when GW is pretty clear that EVERYTHING is legal (or else a "legal" place to get an army list wouldn't be "your own system" and the "Spirit of the Game" wouldn't say things like players should treat the rules as a framework for an enjoyable experience, not the end all, be all of it).

anchorbine wrote:
I fail to see why people who enjoy forgeworld can't offer the same option without the drama or trying to create division. It's beyond simple. "I have an extended army, would you like to give it a go?" "Sure, let's roll some dice", or "I'm more comfortable with a game of 40k Standard."

Why is it the people who are "pro-FW" are the ones creating the drama? Why is "I'd like to be able to play my stuff that I spent time and money on so I could build and paint it in the hopes of playing it without it being outright banned just for being 'FW'" considered "drama"? Great job to try and make your point by painting pro-FW players as the "bad guys" here. There should be NO division. That's the way the rulebook is written and if you don't want to play something, fine, but stop trying to create a division to support your preffered way of play.

anchorbine wrote:
No drama, no argument, nobody feeling like the other player is forcing them into anything.

Says the person who claims FW players are the ones causing the drama.

Have we disagreed on something before? I can't recall. If we did, it certainly didn't blow up or anything. Either way, I certainly hold no ill will towards you and respect a lot of what you write as being well reasoned.

Either way, I've just never understood the issues people have with FW. Its as legal as anything in this game, as legal isn't a term defined by, well, anything. 40k is such a poorly written, poorly balanced mess of a game anyways, that drawing some arbitrary line in the sand for FW just doesn't add up to me. Then again, I'd play against the hardest list you could throw at me, and even from a loss I'd still finish smiling having learned something.

I'm just not cut out for these debates anymore. I guess I'll deal with it if I ever run into a group near me who has issues with FW, but so far, everywhere I've been has been 100% down with using FW anytime.

 Blacksails wrote:
I can't find a single thing I disagree with Clockwork on.

I've said it before and I'll say it again; I care infinitely more about the person behind the list than what the list is. I think more players should take that attitude instead of outright refusing a game based on the inclusion of a single FW unit.

i don't think anyone would disagree with that, the issue is in some people assuming that their own absolute - that people should be forced to play against forgeworld - overrides this.

By contrast i would prefer a case by case basis. I'm happy to play against fluffy or cool forgeworld, but if some dick wants to spam laser platforms or artillery then he can jog on.

xruslanx wrote:

 Blacksails wrote:
I can't find a single thing I disagree with Clockwork on.

I've said it before and I'll say it again; I care infinitely more about the person behind the list than what the list is. I think more players should take that attitude instead of outright refusing a game based on the inclusion of a single FW unit.

i don't think anyone would disagree with that, the issue is in some people assuming that their own absolute - that people should be forced to play against forgeworld - overrides this.

By contrast i would prefer a case by case basis. I'm happy to play against fluffy or cool forgeworld, but if some dick wants to spam laser platforms or artillery then he can jog on.

How's that different than some guy showing up with 3 Heldrakes, a wave serpent spam list, or weird IG/Sm allies shennanigans?

 Vaktathi wrote:

xruslanx wrote:

 Blacksails wrote:
I can't find a single thing I disagree with Clockwork on.

I've said it before and I'll say it again; I care infinitely more about the person behind the list than what the list is. I think more players should take that attitude instead of outright refusing a game based on the inclusion of a single FW unit.

i don't think anyone would disagree with that, the issue is in some people assuming that their own absolute - that people should be forced to play against forgeworld - overrides this.

By contrast i would prefer a case by case basis. I'm happy to play against fluffy or cool forgeworld, but if some dick wants to spam laser platforms or artillery then he can jog on.

How's that different than some guy showing up with 3 Heldrakes, a wave serpent spam list, or weird IG/Sm allies shennanigans?

it's a lot easier to ban forgeworld than it is to ban cheese. It's the same reason shops have signs up saying 'make sure to shower before entering this store' rather than a sign saying 'greg, have a wash you smelly bastard'.

Forgeworld, by virtue of it being forgeworld, makes it easier to ban than normal cheese.

xruslanx wrote:

 Blacksails wrote:
I can't find a single thing I disagree with Clockwork on.

I've said it before and I'll say it again; I care infinitely more about the person behind the list than what the list is. I think more players should take that attitude instead of outright refusing a game based on the inclusion of a single FW unit.

i don't think anyone would disagree with that, the issue is in some people assuming that their own absolute - that people should be forced to play against forgeworld - overrides this.

By contrast i would prefer a case by case basis. I'm happy to play against fluffy or cool forgeworld, but if some dick wants to spam laser platforms or artillery then he can jog on.

Agreed.

This is how I handle forgeworld - I create a reasonable list and amazingly people react reasonably. On a casual game night I'm far more likely to play against a thoughtful forgeworld list rather than a completely legal heldrake/riptide/(insert other FotM unit) army.

It's not about avoiding a challenge, but rather choosing something fun and interesting. I've had great reactions to my forgeworld units as most people can't be bothered to order them or can't afford to purchase them - gaming with them gives others a means of seeing them in action.

 Vaktathi wrote:

xruslanx wrote:

 Blacksails wrote:
I can't find a single thing I disagree with Clockwork on.

I've said it before and I'll say it again; I care infinitely more about the person behind the list than what the list is. I think more players should take that attitude instead of outright refusing a game based on the inclusion of a single FW unit.

i don't think anyone would disagree with that, the issue is in some people assuming that their own absolute - that people should be forced to play against forgeworld - overrides this.

By contrast i would prefer a case by case basis. I'm happy to play against fluffy or cool forgeworld, but if some dick wants to spam laser platforms or artillery then he can jog on.

How's that different than some guy showing up with 3 Heldrakes, a wave serpent spam list, or weird IG/Sm allies shennanigans?

I'd probably prefer the FW list, at least it's something new then Riptide Spam, Heldrake spam, Wave Serpant spam..

xruslanx wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

xruslanx wrote:

 Blacksails wrote:
I can't find a single thing I disagree with Clockwork on.

I've said it before and I'll say it again; I care infinitely more about the person behind the list than what the list is. I think more players should take that attitude instead of outright refusing a game based on the inclusion of a single FW unit.

i don't think anyone would disagree with that, the issue is in some people assuming that their own absolute - that people should be forced to play against forgeworld - overrides this.

By contrast i would prefer a case by case basis. I'm happy to play against fluffy or cool forgeworld, but if some dick wants to spam laser platforms or artillery then he can jog on.

How's that different than some guy showing up with 3 Heldrakes, a wave serpent spam list, or weird IG/Sm allies shennanigans?

it's a lot easier to ban forgeworld than it is to ban cheese.

I guess the question is, isn't it cheese either way? If so, shouldn't the distinction be cheese rather than just FW?

 Vaktathi wrote:

xruslanx wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

xruslanx wrote:

 Blacksails wrote:
I can't find a single thing I disagree with Clockwork on.

I've said it before and I'll say it again; I care infinitely more about the person behind the list than what the list is. I think more players should take that attitude instead of outright refusing a game based on the inclusion of a single FW unit.

i don't think anyone would disagree with that, the issue is in some people assuming that their own absolute - that people should be forced to play against forgeworld - overrides this.

By contrast i would prefer a case by case basis. I'm happy to play against fluffy or cool forgeworld, but if some dick wants to spam laser platforms or artillery then he can jog on.

How's that different than some guy showing up with 3 Heldrakes, a wave serpent spam list, or weird IG/Sm allies shennanigans?

it's a lot easier to ban forgeworld than it is to ban cheese.

I guess the question is, isn't it cheese either way? If so, shouldn't the distinction be cheese rather than just FW?

no, because it's harder to ban 'cheese', wheras it's easy to ban forgeworld. Being unable to ban all cheese doesn't mean you shouldn t bother banning some of it.

Well, while I have xruslanx still on ignore, I can easily follow the conversation with Vaktathi.

First of all, you can't really 'ban' anything, unless you're referring to some all encompassing house-rule your gaming group agrees on. If you're referring to a personal feeling, then you're simply refusing to play it, not ban it.

Now, assuming we're discussing the latter (the former we can't really discuss, as each gaming group is different and no amount of internet discussion will change that), you can very easily just refuse to play against anything you deem 'cheese' or 'overpowered'. Its as easy as looking at your potential opponent's list, and telling him that you won't play him because he has too many riptides, or wave serpents.

If you're going to refuse to play something for being overpowered, at least have the courtesy to be consistent about it. Don't blanket in an entire product line because of a handful of powerful units.

well if i wanted to attend a tournament, they couldn't exactly put 'no cheese' on the list of rules, but they could but 'no forgeworld'.

There is nothing inconsistant about this, since banning codex cheese is simply too difficult. You'd have to ban multiples of units, many allies combinations, certain ics, etc.

xruslanx wrote:
well if i wanted to attend a tournament, they couldn't exactly put 'no cheese' on the list of rules, but they could but 'no forgeworld'.

There is nothing inconsistant about this, since banning codex cheese is simply too difficult. You'd have to ban multiples of units, many allies combinations, certain ics, etc.

We're not discussing tournaments; they are absolutely irrelevant. A tournament could ban anything they choose. Its not an argument for anything. I could create a tournament banning Tau and Eldar.

So what point are you making?

 Blacksails wrote:

xruslanx wrote:
well if i wanted to attend a tournament, they couldn't exactly put 'no cheese' on the list of rules, but they could but 'no forgeworld'.

There is nothing inconsistant about this, since banning codex cheese is simply too difficult. You'd have to ban multiples of units, many allies combinations, certain ics, etc.

We're not discussing tournaments; they are absolutely irrelevant. A tournament could ban anything they choose. Its not an argument for anything. I could create a tournament banning Tau and Eldar.

So what point are you making?

see my above post - it is simply easier to ban forgeworld cheese than it is to ban normal cheese.

The problem with banning the FW in this situation is that you AREN'T BANNING CHEESE. You are banning more versatility for all armies in the hopes that having less options means the cheese will be easier to see coming. That is the ONLY minor gain that could be said.

The basic idea of the Pro and Anti FW camps comes down to this for me, which I take from business school:

When you go to a store and buy something, but later need to return it. How hard is it to return said item? This depends on the philosophy of the store(Gamer being Pro/Anti).

If the store takes the stand that the customer is trying to gain an unfair advantage over the store moreso than actually needing to return the item...they make returning the item more difficult and a general hassle(Anti FW).

If the store assumes the policy of 'the customer is always right', they make returning items easier to return the item and get usable credit back to make more purchaes(Pro FW).

It comes down to attitude. If you want to blanket ban FW based on some fictional idea that it is overpowered you aren't bothering to look at the nuts and bolts of the unit in question and are general being ignorant for the sake a minor amount of simplification in your own army building.

If you are don't ban it, and treat it like you would any other list building and approach it as you would a Triptide, Flying BK Breakfast Sandwiches or super Ally shenanigans...you are treating the other player with more respect instead of thinking yourself instantly more important.

xruslanx wrote:

 Blacksails wrote:

xruslanx wrote:
well if i wanted to attend a tournament, they couldn't exactly put 'no cheese' on the list of rules, but they could but 'no forgeworld'.

There is nothing inconsistant about this, since banning codex cheese is simply too difficult. You'd have to ban multiples of units, many allies combinations, certain ics, etc.

We're not discussing tournaments; they are absolutely irrelevant. A tournament could ban anything they choose. Its not an argument for anything. I could create a tournament banning Tau and Eldar.

So what point are you making?

see my above post - it is simply easier to ban forgeworld cheese than it is to ban normal cheese.

But see my earlier post.

Banning from what? I already pointed this out earlier, but if you're referring to just yourself as an individual, you're not banning anything, you're just refusing to play it. If that's the case, its as easy to refuse to play FW as it is to refuse riptides or wave serpents. If its a rule your gaming group has, then no amount of discussion here will change that and its still irrelevant.

However, my point still stands that banning FW because of its alleged OP nature on some units is silly at best. Many codex units are incredibly overpowered, so why not blanket ban Tau and Eldar? Its easy to ban those codex cheese.

Do you see how that logic train just derails itself?

No amount of discussing this on the internet is going to change people's minds about FW I imagine, but don't pretend banning FW because of a few OP units makes any more sense than banning the entire Eldar or Tau codex because of a few OP units.

could you direct me to a post where someone suggested banning forgeworld because it's op? Go ahead, i'll wait.

xruslanx wrote:
could you direct me to a post where someone suggested banning forgeworld because it's op? Go ahead, i'll wait.

I was under the assumption 'cheese' and 'op' were loosely interchangeable for the purpose of this argument.

Anyways, you can swap any instance I said OP with cheese, and my argument still stands.

Looks like I go to class, come back and I miss all the fun stuff.

Blacksails wrote:Have we disagreed on something before? I can't recall. If we did, it certainly didn't blow up or anything. Either way, I certainly hold no ill will towards you and respect a lot of what you write as being well reasoned.

I could have sworn that we were on different sides of the fence from each other, but no, it was never a big deal. I try to keep my disagreements civil when possibe. And I thank you for the kind words. I try my best.

Blacksails wrote:Either way, I've just never understood the issues people have with FW. Its as legal as anything in this game, as legal isn't a term defined by, well, anything. 40k is such a poorly written, poorly balanced mess of a game anyways, that drawing some arbitrary line in the sand for FW just doesn't add up to me. Then again, I'd play against the hardest list you could throw at me, and even from a loss I'd still finish smiling having learned something.

I find that a lot of it comes from the competitive side of the game who often seems adamant about protecting what they define 40k "should" be instead of accepting it as is. The game is far more fun when you accept it as a narrative tool set for games instead of some hard and fast ruleset meant for competitive play.

xruslanx wrote:i don't think anyone would disagree with that, the issue is in some people assuming that their own absolute - that people should be forced to play against forgeworld - overrides this.

That's a strawman arguement. In fact I have yet to see anyone who is "pro-FW" argue anything about forcing people to play anything. We just want people to stop pigeonholing the game and treat turning down a game against a FW army the same as turning one down against Tau. The problem is that in some circles FW isn't even allowed as a topic of discussion and claims about "being forced to play against it" are often lobbied, yet no one claims they can force anyone to play anything.

xruslanx wrote:it's a lot easier to ban forgeworld than it is to ban cheese. It's the same reason shops have signs up saying 'make sure to shower before entering this store' rather than a sign saying 'greg, have a wash you smelly bastard'.

Forgeworld, by virtue of it being forgeworld, makes it easier to ban than normal cheese.

"Easy" does not mean "right" however. It's easy to do a lot of things (and I could bring up a number, but if I use any of the big or well known kinds of things I'll just stir up people complaining that I'm either devaluing the real world event or trying to equate the level of the issue to the level of the real world event, so let's just leave it at "human beings have done a number of things that are not nice to each other and I have a decent sized list of things that were "easy" to do, but were not "right" and avoid that debate, shall we?). "The road to hell is paved with good intentions" comes to mind when people start talking about the "easy" way to handle cheese.

If you want to restrict things in a group setting (as in outside of tournaments) then the right way is to handle each issue individually, not blanket ban anything. Really though, if you're playing 40k as it's stated to be meant to be played (as an enjoyable experience for both players) then this shouldn't even be an issue. The problem is the cheeseball player wants the game to be fun for just them, and doesn't take anyone else into consideration.

xruslanx wrote:well if i wanted to attend a tournament, they couldn't exactly put 'no cheese' on the list of rules, but they could but 'no forgeworld'.

They could also say, "No Allies", "Allies limited to 500 points", "No Special Characters", "No Flyers", "No Double-FOC" but it doesn't mean anything for us in this topic here. Tournaments do what they like, we're discussing "casual" play.

xruslanx wrote:could you direct me to a post where someone suggested banning forgeworld because it's op? Go ahead, i'll wait.

Did you say "OP"? No. But that's the connotations cheese often has (as well as being a dickish player who brings Triptide against a new player's starter box army). You seem to be forgetting that they're synonyms in most cases.

 tybg wrote:

"I think having three Riptides is cool and not very powerful".

Trying to use the 'balance' argument against Forge World is totally nonsensical

I did not realize that riptides were forgeworld only models designed specifically for "non-normal' games. I coulda SWORE that I saw them on the GW site in the tay section. Maybe I was wrong and had the forgeworld page pulled up on accident.
Trying to use balance is not the question. The question is do TO have the right to disallow stuff like titans from tournaments? the answer is yes. The question is also do you have the right to refuse a game based on if the opponent is pulling a titan out of their rear without warning you beforehand (or for any other reason)? the answer to that is also yes.
that is THE bottom line. Anything else is opinions and meaningless discussion.

Again, does that mean I wont play gainst it? Sure I will so long as I am informed beforehand so I can prepare for it. so that it can be a little more even Now come to my house and demand I play you and your 3 warlord titans along with 4 superheavies and 3 primarch models using only 500 points of guard where I am not permitted to use melta bombs or any weapon with a strength of more than 4 and no psychers and I will laugh at you, keep insisting and you may need some assistance in getting back to your car.

EVIL, you keep using a totally absurd example.

No one anywhere is claiming titans are used in normal games of 40k. The basic rules of the game don't cover them; things like destroyer weapons and super heavy vehicles damage and so on don't exist in the core rulebook.

You should just state that anyone can refuse any game for any reason. Titans have nothing to do with it and are completely irrelevant to a discussion about FW usage in a standard 40k game.

 EVIL INC wrote:

 tybg wrote:

"I think having three Riptides is cool and not very powerful".

Trying to use the 'balance' argument against Forge World is totally nonsensical

I did not realize that riptides were forgeworld only models designed specifically for "non-normal' games. I coulda SWORE that I saw them on the GW site in the tay section. Maybe I was wrong and had the forgeworld page pulled up on accident.

I believe the point being made is that trying to argue that you're banning FW for "balance" reasons is a load of bull when you leave the ability to take Triptides in the game.

 EVIL INC wrote:
Trying to use balance is not the question. The question is do TO have the right to disallow stuff like titans from tournaments? the answer is yes. The question is also do you have the right to refuse a game based on if the opponent is pulling a titan out of their rear without warning you beforehand (or for any other reason)? the answer to that is also yes. that is THE bottom line. Anything else is opinions and meaningless discussion.

Tournaments have already been discussed to death and that's not really the point here because everyone, as far as I know at least, agrees that they run whatever they want.'

As for normal play, you're missing the mark. The way you say it is the way it should be 100%, but the problem is that some people create a "shield" (albeit a poorly constructed one) of claims that FW isn't legal, official or even that it isn't supported by the devs. This is the real issue as it's telling people to be less creative and less open about this hobby and that we have individuals who want to restrict what others play based on the brand on the box/bag/blister.

 EVIL INC wrote:
Again, does that mean I wont play gainst it? Sure I will so long as I am informed beforehand so I can prepare for it. so that it can be a little more even Now come to my house and demand I play you and your 3 warlord titans along with 4 superheavies and 3 primarch models using only 500 points of guard where I am not permitted to use melta bombs or any weapon with a strength of more than 4 and no psychers and I will laugh at you, keep insisting and you may need some assistance in getting back to your car.

No one here is claiming any nonsense like that. I could easily argue something just as insane claiming "4 Heldrakes and 3 Riptides and you can only take 500 points of Scouts and no psykers or special characters" and it'd still miss the mark of what this discussion is about.

Please people stop dragging the Heldrake into this! Please show me one tournament list in the top 10 with more than 1 Heldrake.

herpguy wrote:
Please people stop dragging the Heldrake into this! Please show me one tournament list in the top 10 with more than 1 Heldrake.

Just because Tau bumped it (and the Necron Flying Circus) out of the top tournament meta (in national open tournaments that is) does not mean it's incredibly unfair and impolite to drop three on the table unannounced against someone who wanted to run a Black Tide army.

 EVIL INC wrote:

 tybg wrote:

"I think having three Riptides is cool and not very powerful".

Trying to use the 'balance' argument against Forge World is totally nonsensical

I did not realize that riptides were forgeworld only models designed specifically for "non-normal' games. I coulda SWORE that I saw them on the GW site in the tay section. Maybe I was wrong and had the forgeworld page pulled up on accident.
Trying to use balance is not the question. The question is do TO have the right to disallow stuff like titans from tournaments? the answer is yes. The question is also do you have the right to refuse a game based on if the opponent is pulling a titan out of their rear without warning you beforehand (or for any other reason)? the answer to that is also yes.
that is THE bottom line. Anything else is opinions and meaningless discussion.

This shows a fundamental misunderstanding of how FW stuff works. Even in a fully FW allowed event, you couldn't just pull out a titan. To start with, they aren't cleared for "normal" 40k play. Second, exactly which FoC slot would they fit into? Mechanically there's no way to take a Titan in a normal game.

the point (and the only one that really matters in this whole long drawn out conversation is comprised of two parts.

1. Does a TO have the RIGHT to decide what is allowed in their tournament? The answer is yes. They have the RIGHT to disallow people from bringing titans to 1500 point tournaments if they so desire. They have the RIGHT to eject someone who is disturbing the tournament or who shows up drunk or sets the tables on fire. They have the RIGHT to ban nyone who is wearing socks that have holes in the heels (this woulda put me out on at least one occasion).

2. Do players have the RIGHT to not play a game is someone if bringing a warlord titan to to a 500 point squd match? Yes Do players have the RIGHT to turn down a game because they feel ill? yes Does a player have the RIGHT to turn down a game against a player who shows up with 3 riptides? yes. Does a player have the RIGHT to turn down a game against a person who uses vulgar language,mishandles models and stinks to high heaven while digging down the front of their pants and then insisting they reach their grubby mitts into your potato chip bag (I know I would turn this game down) yes.

What seems to be being overlooked is that regardless ofwho is argueing what side, thee basic gaming rights are being totally ignored in the vain attempt to "one up" the other side and get the last jab in.

Vaktathi, that is EXACTLY what is being proposed and it is being proposed that TO and players forfeit their rights to make the single person at the shop who owns the titan happy and why they are posting here supporting that. I am well versed in how FW stuff "works".