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.

@Tinkrr: No offence, but it feels like you're getting your panties in a bunch over a very trivial thing.

 angelofvengeance wrote:
@Tinkrr: No offence, but it feels like you're getting your panties in a bunch over a very trivial thing.

No offense taken, and my panties aren't bunched at all D:

It's not really that one thing that bothers me, if it was just that I could probably just ignore it and move on, but time and time again I just hear things on here that aren't very flattering about GW. The ITC folks, along with many others really make me want to enjoy the game, but I just don't hear anything that makes me feel like it's not, well, inhospitable.

Back when 400k came out, GW didn't even make the models, Citadel did.
So, FW is no different to that, apart from GW now selling the standard models themselves now.

 Arkaine wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
It limited growth but the idea that FW is a barrier to entry only holds true if you believe FW is mandatory, and it would only be mandatory if its conferring some sort of power advantage, for which there is no evidence.

Power as in winning? Or power as in allowing new tactics? Or even flat out replacing existing units? All of these exist for some FW models and it's not our goal to separate the wheat from the chaff. More options exist, some good and some not so good, and that's enough.

It seems a rather arbitrary, and thin, line to draw in the sand however.

Perhaps you don't understand what is meant by the term mandatory and are taking it too strongly. Strictly speaking, there aren't many models in any codex that are mandatory to play the faction, even a Land Raider is optional. But its existence and the tactics associated with it make grabbing one mandatory if you are looking to employ those options. Denying Forgeworld means you aren't losing out on options by not purchasing the models because the options are forbidden outright.

That's taking the idea to a somewhat absurd extreme however. "Oh man, this army doesn't have X in the codex, if FW allows it it'll totally mess up every game ever and so many things will have to change to adapt!" There's nothing to back that up, particularly with the way GW's codex releases have gone of late. The existence of FW doesn't mean anyone *must* take FW options, or that their counters are radically different from anything a player should already be set up to face, and in general, even where allowed, the overwhelming evidence is that it has no major impact and there's certainly no routine flooding of FW stuff taking over everything.

Very much needed... as in Mandatory? Again, since we're not looking to separate the good from the bad, it's just all prohibited. Like saying Lords of War are prohibited even if mine is an 888 pt tracked behemoth and yours is a 200 pt special character.

Which is a rather silly reason to ban all Lords of War, particularly when many used to be just normal HQ unit and were simply moved to make use of the slot (e.g. Ghazkuul).

That's nice for those tournaments??? But we've been discussing my local meta here for two pages and Allies are indeed banned with multiple detachments/formations occasionally so.

I believe that's the first time you've mentioned that directly unless I'm misreading something. Even then, if you're allowing formations, with free units, free wargear, free special rules, and especially ones that aren't coming from a codex, it sounds like a pretty thin doulbe-standard.

Right, and I totally agree with you that it's not some huge advantage or that it will be taken in every army ever made. But the fact that it would taken at all, that it adds a new way to play CSM, that it can potentially encourage players to purchase it and bring it to the table means it has value.

Right...but since when is that bad? Yes it exists. Someone might bring it. "OH NOES!". It's hard to take that line of thinking seriously when it's not adding something that someone shouldn't be prepared to face anyway. If we were talking a Titan, sure. But this is a capability many similar armies already have, and have better versions of, and are far better able to take advantage of. The fact that someone might not realize that CSM's have a drop pod, and would have to radically alter a playstyle and army list to counter it, and that it would cause any sort of upset, much less be some sort of mandatory inclusion, is absurd.

Forgeworld was banned to eliminate its value so players would not feel the need to pick up something like a Dreadclaw under any circumstances.

Why would they *need* to?

Likewise, what if they just *wanted* to?

Playing with Forgeworld is like playing a video game with all the expansions when some of the players you're up against only went and bought the base game.

This concept is both flawed and outdated. There is no "base" game. It doesn't exist, and GW will be the first to tell you that. With campaign books, supplements, BL dataslates, Web-Store-Excvlusive formations, etc, that concept simply doesn't exist. You're simply discriminating against a single sales channel out of three or four.

You have more options available to you... that's all it takes to make some people not want expansions at all. It may not even provide you with a tactical advantage if you never use the units or features given by the expansions. Yet people who haven't purchased the expansions will always feel like they are at disadvantage. That's the element we're attempting to avoid by evening the playing field (or spending field, in this case).

Then they're viewing the situation rather stiltedly, as above.

Additionally, you run into other situations like with the poor Griffon artillery tank, where it was a Codex unit in 2E and 3E, an FW unit in 3.5E, a codex unit again in 5E, and back to being an FW unit again with the 6E book.

Actually, allies are very much considered a problem, especially in my meta where most of the players play a single faction. Even here on Dakka it's addressed, check out the general discussion boards once in a while.

Aye, but they're typically not banned or restricted.

We do have a problem with Allies and they are banned.

Yours would be the only group I know of that does this. Not that it's a bad thing, it's probably the single best thing you can do for balance, but it's also surprising, as it would be the only playgroup I've heard of that does so.

Formations/detachments are still permitted though often restricted in number. They have actually been instrumental in focusing armies and providing the necessary buffs to field lists of units players actually want to paint instead of the ones that are most effective standalone. They have even succeeded in turning some worthless units into solid picks, which made the veterans and inexperienced newbies who bought those models quite happy.

I take it nobody has brought a War Convocation, Canoptek Harvest, or Skyhammer Annihilation force then?

As for FW pricing, think of it this way... playing 40k with just GW means you spent $100 Chaos Dollars. Playing with GW -and- FW means you've probably spent $150 Chaos Dollars.

Why? There's the *option* to spend more, but hardly any hard demand to do so. It's existence and availability to not automatically demand investment. Just because FW exists doesn't mean you have to out and buy FW stuff. Even if it did, with the way GW's prices are, I don't see why you'd need to spend more unless you just have a need to collect everything, in which case FW being banned or not won't matter.

The fact that it exists doesn't mean people have to pay more money simply out of the fact that it does in fact exist.

It's still more money to play the same game

Again though, why? Why does just it's mere existence demand additional investment, and why must that investment be so much more than in core GW stuff? Why aren't newly released GW kits treated them same way when they have the exact same effect and typically cost just as much?

which is bad for the new players and bad for the business being a barrier to entry and all.

When basic infantry for many armies are now $7/model, it's hard to see how.

It doesn't matter if you think FW is similar in price to GW (and I really disagree on that, some models are over $300)

Yes, some models are, but most people aren't going to try and hamfist a Revenant Titan into the game, I can't think of a single non-LoW that fits into that category. As I noted earlier, Character models are on par, or increasingly, more expensive, and. Some of their kits are very expensive yes. Not all, and many can be relatively easily, effectivley, and convincingly proxied for far less.

What matters is it's a greater expense for the community. Even if you don't buy FW yourself, you're up against folks who do, and I've already illustrated why that would be a problem. A huge chunk of the meta is players new to the game and limiting the rules is the best way to ease them into the hobby. These aren't the ancient times of 40k where we could buy a squad and a captain and be done collecting.

Arkaine - From what I'm reading, one of the main reasons that the baning of Forgeworld in your player community is some kind of attempt at "protecting" newer players. Eh? From what? Spending too much money? None of anyone else's business. From trashing your games? How so (specifics please, not hearsay or generalities)?

Hypothetical scenario for you;
You've got a new player who's just started playing and they've been playing about 6-9 months. They've got a reasonable Space Marine force done up quite nicely. Whilst browsing forums and so on, they stumble upon the Forgeworld site and see this little beauty:



And decides "I must have it!" and buys it along with the relevant rule book (Imperial Armour Volume 2 in this case). Receives it a week or so later, paints it up, does a nice job. Later that week, they turn up to play a few games and proudly announces that he's got this, here's the rules and would anyone mind a game or two so they can run it.
What would your playerbase really do: Play a game or two and let him run it? Insist he remove the tank? Shun him? Denounce him and berate him for being a WAAC/powergamer/TFG?

Assume you let him run it and he starts to include it in more games, would that cause problems considering that although it's pretty nifty tank its in no way overpowered?

My only issue with FW is that it should be treated like a superheavy or Gargantuan creature. Before fielding it you should have the decency to tell your opponent "I am going to be fielding X from ForgeWorld" and then give your opponent either the chance to change his list a bit or accept the fact that some people don't want to play against FW because some of the units are overly broken compared to some armies.

For instance, I played a SM player who knew he was going to be facing my orks so he brought two sicarian tanks to the table, knowing that most orks only survive with use of cover.

I played the game and lost spectacularly and then asked him if he would be ok with another game where he didn't use FW units.

And the reverse of your situation happened. he freaked out that I would dare ask him to not bring forgeworld units to the game.

Overall its just a matter of being a good/polite gamer. If your going to inform them and give them a chance to change a few things then good to go, if your going to be TFG who list tailors then you might have a hard time finding a game.

I play the DKoK Siege Regiment and have personally never had a problem, if anything people seem keen to have a look at the army or play it as it's out of the ordinary. Still, I consider that there are certain reasons why some people dislike Forgeworld, and take steps in my game to counteract it.

1. Always have physical copies of all rules, preferably including a spare to give to the opponent. People who dislike FW can do so on the basis that they don't know the rules because they're less common.

2. Always explain the most important units or special rules in particular detail before the game.

3. Give a run down of the particular strengths and weaknesses of your army. Players know, for example, to target the Spyder in a Canoptek Formation; introduce a FW army to them and they can get angry for not knowing which units are the linchpins. For example, I always point out how much damage my artillery is capable of doing, how its Toughness works, and how it has a minimum range so that being inside that the minimum range a good plan.

4. Point out the weaknesses of your army so that the opponent doesn't just think it's all good. With DKoK, that means the normal infantry tends to be overpriced in points and offer no bang for the points buck.

The biggest reason that I think players dislike FW is because of the fact you can use FW units either as flavour to add to a Codex army, or as a full army from an IA book. I think using specific FW units is more common, and this is a cause of suspicion because players naturally choose to add only the best and OP units. OP units exist in both FW and GW, but if you play games where only one FW unit is added to a Codex army, it's going to be the powerful unit isn't it? Therefore, players get the impression that FW is all OP, because they're more likely to see OP units in action than a full IA book army including the weak units! Point being: compare adding Thudd Guns to Guard army as opposed to playing a full DKoK army, which has weakness of poor movement, overcosted infantry, poor anti-air, and no psychics.

Because I don't like change!!

Honestly, I really don't care about FW. Much more broken stuff comes from regular GW. As long as you let me read the rules ahead of time, I'll play against you. But if we're in the middle of a game and you just say "Oh, it's S8 AP3 Ignores Cover Large Blast" I'm gonna be pretty pissed. (Had a buddy do this to me, Turn 1 annihilated my newly painted Assault Marines)

 Tinkrr wrote:

Because it's all still ultimately their company and they're allowed to do stupid things if they want to.

Just like they can (and will) prevent you from playing Necromunda or 2nd edition 40k in many stores.

How does anyone support any of this?

I don't play in GW stores, so I don't care what they restrict or don't restrict in GW stores. I neither condone nor condemn it.

I'm fine with FW in pick up games or tournaments. Have the book, have the model.

HoundsofDemos wrote:
I recently played a game with my space marine army accompanied by solomon lok. He was the only forge world unit in my army, i had his stats with me and he doesn't exactly do anything that is out there. one opponent was totally on board and we had a great game.

my second guy of the night started off being a bit weird about it, making comments that forgeworld is outside the game. When i produced the pages that word for word say that most forge world units are meant for standard games he stopped for a while. Latter when he had some bad shooting due to Lok's warlord trait giving my marines fnp while they sat on the deciding objective, he had a mini freakout claiming that Lok's warlord trait is grossly over powered. the game was not fun from there on.

Has anyone else had people react negatively to a forge world unit, even ones that don't seem particularly cheesy (unless someone wants to argue that Lok is OP)

The first reason is because many still confuse the original USA based "forge world" (now gone) that got GW all upset with the current Forgeworld in the UK that actually is part of games workshop. Go to fw site and it clearly states fw is part of gw.

 God In Action wrote:
I play the DKoK Siege Regiment and have personally never had a problem, if anything people seem keen to have a look at the army or play it as it's out of the ordinary. Still, I consider that there are certain reasons why some people dislike Forgeworld, and take steps in my game to counteract it.

1. Always have physical copies of all rules, preferably including a spare to give to the opponent. People who dislike FW can do so on the basis that they don't know the rules because they're less common.

2. Always explain the most important units or special rules in particular detail before the game.

3. Give a run down of the particular strengths and weaknesses of your army. Players know, for example, to target the Spyder in a Canoptek Formation; introduce a FW army to them and they can get angry for not knowing which units are the linchpins. For example, I always point out how much damage my artillery is capable of doing, how its Toughness works, and how it has a minimum range so that being inside that the minimum range a good plan.

4. Point out the weaknesses of your army so that the opponent doesn't just think it's all good. With DKoK, that means the normal infantry tends to be overpriced in points and offer no bang for the points buck.

The biggest reason that I think players dislike FW is because of the fact you can use FW units either as flavour to add to a Codex army, or as a full army from an IA book. I think using specific FW units is more common, and this is a cause of suspicion because players naturally choose to add only the best and OP units. OP units exist in both FW and GW, but if you play games where only one FW unit is added to a Codex army, it's going to be the powerful unit isn't it? Therefore, players get the impression that FW is all OP, because they're more likely to see OP units in action than a full IA book army including the weak units! Point being: compare adding Thudd Guns to Guard army as opposed to playing a full DKoK army, which has weakness of poor movement, overcosted infantry, poor anti-air, and no psychics.

I think that sums it up best. Its always been my experience that when I see someone bringing FW they are bringing the most OP gak they can come by to further break the game . Your post is amazing so have an exalt

My local GW and the players have no problem with my DKOK & Minotaurs.

Look, it is simple. If someone won't allow fw, don't allow their specific models.

"Oh you're using fw Knights? I don't like playing with fw"
" oh that is your models" I only play against everything but them"

As someone who is also not really invested in GW stuff, how dysfunctional the company is also makes me really not want to get invested.

HoundsofDemos wrote:
I recently played a game with my space marine army accompanied by solomon lok. He was the only forge world unit in my army, i had his stats with me and he doesn't exactly do anything that is out there. one opponent was totally on board and we had a great game.

my second guy of the night started off being a bit weird about it, making comments that forgeworld is outside the game. When i produced the pages that word for word say that most forge world units are meant for standard games he stopped for a while. Latter when he had some bad shooting due to Lok's warlord trait giving my marines fnp while they sat on the deciding objective, he had a mini freakout claiming that Lok's warlord trait is grossly over powered. the game was not fun from there on.

Has anyone else had people react negatively to a forge world unit, even ones that don't seem particularly cheesy (unless someone wants to argue that Lok is OP)

But Eldar...



Seriously though, It's almost a Pavlovian response in some people.

AlsoTHOSE people find things to freak out about FW or not.

I love FW models and would have no issue playing against what you describe considering how "broken" some official 40K units/rules/formations are...

 Vaktathi wrote:
Right...but since when is that bad? Yes it exists. Someone might bring it. "OH NOES!". It's hard to take that line of thinking seriously when it's not adding something that someone shouldn't be prepared to face anyway. If we were talking a Titan, sure. But this is a capability many similar armies already have, and have better versions of, and are far better able to take advantage of. The fact that someone might not realize that CSM's have a drop pod, and would have to radically alter a playstyle and army list to counter it, and that it would cause any sort of upset, much less be some sort of mandatory inclusion, is absurd. Why would they *need* to? Likewise, what if they just *wanted* to?

Remember that allowing FW doesn't just let Dreadclaws into the mix. It'd have to all be included and we've already seen FW hit the table before and this is the result. The simplest solution was to say no more FW. There are plenty of models that are fair and allowable but we'd have to keep a comprehensive list of what those are. Like before LoWs and Gargantuan Creatures were banned, someone decided to bring a Wraithknight and Windrider Host to a 1000 pt tourney. The community agreed not to let that happen in the future as most of them were unable to deal with it with so few points without list tailoring. The Imperial Knights are kind of a catch all of LoWs for the armies that don't have their own yet that also means buying models the players don't have or want to keep up with the power creep. It's totally possible to take these guys down with normal units, just not using the average list that gets brought to the table. Rather than picking what's allowed and what's not, it's easier to say it's all banned.

 Vaktathi wrote:
Additionally, you run into other situations like with the poor Griffon artillery tank, where it was a Codex unit in 2E and 3E, an FW unit in 3.5E, a codex unit again in 5E, and back to being an FW unit again with the 6E book.

I had no idea that was even a thing they did. Still, for simplicity sake, if it's FW right now it's prohibited because it's a whole lot easier than keeping track of which FW models are banned and which are allowed.

 Vaktathi wrote:
Yours is the only playgroup I've ever heard with *that* many outright bans in that case.

Thank you! Glad to hear it, makes the games much more friendly to all comers. Typically people who own FW stuff have already invested in Core stuff and can still play at the venue.

 zedmeister wrote:
Arkaine - From what I'm reading, one of the main reasons that the baning of Forgeworld in your player community is some kind of attempt at "protecting" newer players. Eh? From what? Spending too much money? None of anyone else's business. From trashing your games? How so (specifics please, not hearsay or generalities)?

It prevents the "arms race" syndrome that competitive players often face. Like with Magic the Gathering, new sets are usually balanced with the previous one, yet the options and possibilities the new cards allow result in the players outspending each other for the perfect decks. As the 40k community is desired to be more friendly and open to all types than that, restricting certain elements like FW or LoWs or Allies keeps everyone from feeling the pressure to upgrade their collection every time some new gamechanger hits the shelves. It happens plenty often enough with just Core GW material so it's strange to see a few people argue that it wouldn't happen with Forgeworld (which again was only banned after everyone saw models from it played in several events).

 zedmeister wrote:
Hypothetical scenario for you;
What would your playerbase really do: Play a game or two and let him run it? Insist he remove the tank? Shun him? Denounce him and berate him for being a WAAC/powergamer/TFG?
Assume you let him run it and he starts to include it in more games, would that cause problems considering that although it's pretty nifty tank its in no way overpowered?

We would let him know that FW wasn't allowed for the events. If he wanted to use in casual games with the permission of his opponent, he's more than welcome to as whether or not the tank is OP never comes into question. It's just that permitting the use of the tank would mean permitting the use of everything from FW as no one wants to be burdened with arbitrarily deciding what FW items are allowable and which are banned. I mean what kind of arbitrary guidelines would be used? Personal gut feeling? Nay, the players made the right call. Ban it all and let them sort it out on their own in private games.

Thank you! Glad to hear it, makes the games much more friendly to all comers. Typically people who own FW stuff have already invested in Core stuff and can still play at the venue.

Really? I would see this as an arbitrary imposition. Had I just moved to your area and showed up and been told you had all these arbitrary house rules that I had no say in, rules that would take away some of my more interesting and fun units like hazard suits (that are underpowered if anything) which I've spent a lot of time and effort to paint and model, I would feel incredibly alienated and marginalized. Probably wouldn't show up to organized events actually.

It is simple just to ban all forgeworld models, it's also lazy and unfair. It punishes some armies more than others. What you are doing is throwing away an entire bushel of apples because of a small few rotten ones.

Furthermore comparing warhammer to mtg is a major false equivalency. For one models are not randomized and given varying degrees of rarity. Two, there is no equivalent to something like mox's or black lotus, some ultra-rare ancient, mega-overpowered card. 3 when a codex gets released it updates 1 army, and rarely (if at all) makes any models illegal. In MTG whenever a new set is released an old one is retired, obsoleting (virtually) every competitive deck which forces player to buy the new set (and as much as they can as fast as they can to get those needed rares) to create a new playable deck... the exact model of pay to win. And every new set effects everyone. They come at such a fast pace that to allow every set that ever existed would add 3000%+ more cards to chose from, as opposed to allowing forgeworld which adds roughly 40% more models. I can't even say this is an apples to oranges comparison, that would be an understatement, it's more like an apples to nuclear power plant comparison.

You see at my FLG we are mostly adults and use what some may call an honour system, where we discuss the game before hand with players and try to play lists of roughly equal power to ensure a good game for everyone. Or you can just make sweeping, polarizing, arbitrary, unbalanced carpet banning house rules. I'll leave the folks on dakka to decide which is more welcoming.

"It makes games much more friendly to new comers"

How in the bloody hell do you figure restricting how people build their armies makes the game more friendly?

 chalkobob wrote:

Thank you! Glad to hear it, makes the games much more friendly to all comers. Typically people who own FW stuff have already invested in Core stuff and can still play at the venue.

Really? I would see this as an arbitrary imposition. Had I just moved to your area and showed up and been told you had all these arbitrary house rules that I had no say in, rules that would take away some of my more interesting and fun units like hazard suits (that are underpowered if anything) which I've spent a lot of time and effort to paint and model, I would feel incredibly alienated and marginalized. Probably wouldn't show up to organized events actually.

It is simple just to ban all forgeworld models, it's also lazy and unfair. It punishes some armies more than others. What you are doing is throwing away an entire bushel of apples because of a small few rotten ones.

Furthermore comparing warhammer to mtg is a major false equivalency. For one models are not randomized and given varying degrees of rarity. Two, there is no equivalent to something like mox's or black lotus, some ultra-rare ancient, mega-overpowered card. 3 when a codex gets released it updates 1 army, and rarely (if at all) makes any models illegal. In MTG whenever a new set is released an old one is retired, obsoleting (virtually) every competitive deck which forces player to buy the new set (and as much as they can as fast as they can to get those needed rares) to create a new playable deck... the exact model of pay to win. And every new set effects everyone. They come at such a fast pace that to allow every set that ever existed would add 3000%+ more cards to chose from, as opposed to allowing forgeworld which adds roughly 40% more models. I can't even say this is an apples to oranges comparison, that would be an understatement, it's more like an apples to nuclear power plant comparison.

You see at my FLG we are mostly adults and use what some may call an honour system, where we discuss the game before hand with players and try to play lists of roughly equal power to ensure a good game for everyone. Or you can just make sweeping, polarizing, arbitrary, unbalanced carpet banning house rules. I'll leave the folks on dakka to decide which is more welcoming.

Nice post, exalted.

 chalkobob wrote:
Really? I would see this as an arbitrary imposition. Had I just moved to your area and showed up and been told you had all these arbitrary house rules that I had no say in, rules that would take away some of my more interesting and fun units like hazard suits (that are underpowered if anything) which I've spent a lot of time and effort to paint and model, I would feel incredibly alienated and marginalized. Probably wouldn't show up to organized events actually.

Likewise, our EXISTING playerbase was feeling alienated and marginalized by Forgeworld and collectively decided to stick with just the GW stuff. The chance that you might not show up versus the guarantee that some would quit the hobby... not that hard a call when you think about it.

 chalkobob wrote:
It is simple just to ban all forgeworld models, it's also lazy and unfair. It punishes some armies more than others. What you are doing is throwing away an entire bushel of apples because of a small few rotten ones.

Ah but it's not about apples being rotten. Think of it as some people are getting their apples from Pathmark and others are shopping at Whole Foods. To be fair to those unwilling to shop at Whole Foods, you're now only allowed to bring apples from Pathmark. The reverse just doesn't happen as often... (people unwilling to play GW rules who are 100% invested in Forgeworld)

 chalkobob wrote:
Furthermore comparing warhammer to mtg is a major false equivalency.

But the games are not being compared, the business models and competitive scenes are. The games themselves can be quite different but the manner in which players react to an OP card is quite similar to the way they react to a Wraithknight.

 chalkobob wrote:
For one models are not randomized and given varying degrees of rarity.

Rarity doesn't really exist in MtG either, competitive players normally buy singles off the secondary market which the store provides as well as trade with other players. Every card in the game is accessible on Ebay, it's just about how much it costs.

 chalkobob wrote:
Two, there is no equivalent to something like mox's or black lotus, some ultra-rare ancient, mega-overpowered card.

Yes there is, as mentioned above, every card in the game is accessible to you for the right price. Likewise, there are expensive Forgeworld and Limited Edition models available to players for the right price.

 chalkobob wrote:
3 when a codex gets released it updates 1 army, and rarely (if at all) makes any models illegal. In MTG whenever a new set is released an old one is retired, obsoleting (virtually) every competitive deck which forces player to buy the new set (and as much as they can as fast as they can to get those needed rares) to create a new playable deck... the exact model of pay to win.

It was felt that Forgeworld was doing the same. While GW releases new codexes that reuse the same models, Forgeworld continually outputs new models and new rules to go with them. There's a finite cap on GW stuff, we have players using 2nd edition Space Marines because they are still viable. The same cannot be said for FW stuff which are more of a Flavor of the Month approach to design that promotes larger collections.

 chalkobob wrote:
You see at my FLG we are mostly adults and use what some may call an honour system, where we discuss the game before hand with players and try to play lists of roughly equal power to ensure a good game for everyone. Or you can just make sweeping, polarizing, arbitrary, unbalanced carpet banning house rules. I'll leave the folks on dakka to decide which is more welcoming.

Whereas at mine we have already experienced players bringing what they felt honorable to the table and it was disliked. The bans are the result of months of discussion on each subject. House rules are present at every major tournament, they're not a new thing, what with how poorly described many of GW's rules are. Have you visited You Da Make Call lately?

It is truly of no concern what Dakka thinks is welcoming to anyone. Dakka also thinks that Storm Bolters need to be S5 AP4 Assault 3 without a cost increase. Opinions vary and yours are unnecessary for us to continue to enjoy ourselves with the rules decided upon by majority decision.

That's because Storm Bolters are gak. They don't need those stats listed, but as they currently are, they're essentially unusable.

"Dakka also thinks that Storm Bolters need to be S5 AP4 Assault 3 without a cost increase."

They are currently useless. So....

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/530411.page#top

Frankly, it seems to be you're more interested in forcing players to allow the use of Forgeworld when they don't want to play with or against those models. As the decision was reached by our community, one you're not part of currently, it's selfish to demand we play by your rules. But as the saying goes... "Our House, OUR rules".

You're welcome to join the community and deliberate with its subjects on the merits of reinstating Forgeworld. Just remember you'll be but a single vote when it comes down to the decision.

 Ghazkuul wrote:

 God In Action wrote:
I play the DKoK Siege Regiment and have personally never had a problem, if anything people seem keen to have a look at the army or play it as it's out of the ordinary. Still, I consider that there are certain reasons why some people dislike Forgeworld, and take steps in my game to counteract it.

1. Always have physical copies of all rules, preferably including a spare to give to the opponent. People who dislike FW can do so on the basis that they don't know the rules because they're less common.

2. Always explain the most important units or special rules in particular detail before the game.

3. Give a run down of the particular strengths and weaknesses of your army. Players know, for example, to target the Spyder in a Canoptek Formation; introduce a FW army to them and they can get angry for not knowing which units are the linchpins. For example, I always point out how much damage my artillery is capable of doing, how its Toughness works, and how it has a minimum range so that being inside that the minimum range a good plan.

4. Point out the weaknesses of your army so that the opponent doesn't just think it's all good. With DKoK, that means the normal infantry tends to be overpriced in points and offer no bang for the points buck.

The biggest reason that I think players dislike FW is because of the fact you can use FW units either as flavour to add to a Codex army, or as a full army from an IA book. I think using specific FW units is more common, and this is a cause of suspicion because players naturally choose to add only the best and OP units. OP units exist in both FW and GW, but if you play games where only one FW unit is added to a Codex army, it's going to be the powerful unit isn't it? Therefore, players get the impression that FW is all OP, because they're more likely to see OP units in action than a full IA book army including the weak units! Point being: compare adding Thudd Guns to Guard army as opposed to playing a full DKoK army, which has weakness of poor movement, overcosted infantry, poor anti-air, and no psychics.

I think that sums it up best. Its always been my experience that when I see someone bringing FW they are bringing the most OP gak they can come by to further break the game . Your post is amazing so have an exalt

Eh, It depends. I have a barracuda and a unit of remoras. Although both good, they are in no way overpowered.

Likewise, our EXISTING playerbase was feeling alienated and marginalized by Forgeworld and collectively decided to stick with just the GW stuff. The chance that you might not show up versus the guarantee that some would quit the hobby... not that hard a call when you think about it.

Fair enough, you're community can play however it wants, though being marginalized because someone uses forgeworld, is as strange to me as being marginalized by yellow T-shirts. Being marginalized because an entire gaming community are telling you can't use a large portion of you're collection or they won't play just makes more sense to me, but you're community can do what it wants.

Ah but it's not about apples being rotten. Think of it as some people are getting their apples from Pathmark and others are shopping at Whole Foods. To be fair to those unwilling to shop at Whole Foods, you're now only allowed to bring apples from Pathmark. The reverse just doesn't happen as often... (people unwilling to play GW rules who are 100% invested in Forgeworld)

This analogy doesn't make sense. Because some people are unwilling to shop at whole foods NO ONE should be allowed to shop at whole foods?! That is an even more arbitrary analogy than my comparison.

But the games are not being compared, the business models and competitive scenes are. The games themselves can be quite different but the manner in which players react to an OP card is quite similar to the way they react to a Wraithknight.

I understand that. My point is the games are sufficiently different in how they are collected, updated and played, that the business models and competitive scenes between GW and mtg are not congruous at all and can not be compared in a relevant way.

Rarity doesn't really exist in MtG either, competitive players normally buy singles off the secondary market which the store provides as well as trade with other players. Every card in the game is accessible on Ebay, it's just about how much it costs.

Fair point. I'll concede that one.

Yes there is, as mentioned above, every card in the game is accessible to you for the right price. Likewise, there are expensive Forgeworld and Limited Edition models available to players for the right price.

This one I will not concede, the difference in power and price of forgeworld models are far closer to basic GW equivalents, than Black lotuses are to modern OP cards by huge margins.

It was felt that Forgeworld was doing the same. While GW releases new codexes that reuse the same models, Forgeworld continually outputs new models and new rules to go with them. There's a finite cap on GW stuff, we have players using 2nd edition Space Marines because they are still viable. The same cannot be said for FW stuff which are more of a Flavor of the Month approach to design that promotes larger collections.

The rate at which forgeworld introduces new models is no where near as quick as MtG, not even close. Makes it really easy to keep up with. Just enough to give a little more variety, and unless you're FLG is full of TFG's that only ever take most OP stuff, I fail to see how it's pay to win when 95% of the forgeworld models are reasonable or underpowered. That's pay to lose and look cool doing it.

Whereas at mine we have already experienced players bringing what they felt honorable to the table and it was disliked.

If it was honourable, why would it be disliked? if it was something like a revenant titan, why not just explain why it's not cool to use it in small points games?

House rules are present at every major tournament, they're not a new thing, what with how poorly described many of GW's rules are. Have you visited You Da Make Call lately?

True, but take ITC for instance, they don't just blanket ban forgeworld and allies, which punishes many for no reason, they carefully consider each unit and rule, and it's overall impact on balance. It's far more considered and specific (IE not simple and lazy), which is why it is as commonly used as it is.

It is truly of no concern what Dakka thinks is welcoming to anyone. Dakka also thinks that Storm Bolters need to be S5 AP4 Assault 3 without a cost increase. Opinions vary and yours are unnecessary for us to continue to enjoy ourselves with the rules decided upon by majority decision.

It's of no concern to you and that's fine. This is dakka dakka, a public forum, when you post something people read it and form opinions. What members of dakka dakka think is relevant to people on dakka dakka, otherwise why come to this forum at all? If you and you're friends enjoy playing a certain way no one here is stopping you, just don't expect everyone on an internet forum to blindly agree with you're reasoning.

P.S. For the record dakka dakka isn't a hive mind, some people don't think storm bolters should be S5 AP4 Assault 3 (though they definitely do need buffing).

I gotta say, I'm pretty shocked at how strong peoples opinions are on the subject of FW. I thought this would be a quick "one-pager" thread; boy was I wrong.

 Arkaine wrote:
There is a ban on loads of things, actually.

No Allies
No Lords of War
No Super Heavies
No Gargantuan Creatures
No Fortifications other than Aegis Defense Line
No ForgeWorld rules
No Apocalypse formations
No more than two CAD/detachments/formations/auxiliary

This sounds like an absolutely terrible place to play.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Arkaine wrote:
I mean what kind of arbitrary guidelines would be used? Personal gut feeling?

How is that any different from what you're already doing? You're already banning a long list of things based on personal gut feelings, so please stop pretending that your bans have more legitimacy behind them than me saying "no tactical squads allowed".


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Arkaine wrote:
While GW releases new codexes that reuse the same models, Forgeworld continually outputs new models and new rules to go with them.

...

Have you seen the latest GW releases? Tau just got a new LoW, a new stealth suit MC, a new troops unit, a new FMC suit, and a new fortification. The new codex will probably contain blatantly overpowered formations that require most players to buy more copies of current-codex models to complete their formations and unlock the overpowered bonuses. And this is happening after the current codex introduced the blatantly overpowered Riptide (which every Tau player had to buy), nerfed railgun Broadsides and tanks (which every Tau player already had) to the point where you can't use them anymore, and replaced them with missile Broadsides that require you to buy a new model. It was pretty fortunate that the codex flyers sucked so Tau players could keep using their FW Barracudas...

Oh wait, you banned the Barracuda so Tau players were forced to buy the new codex flyers if they wanted to have a flyer in their army. So much for your idea of protecting everyone's wallets.

 chalkobob wrote:
This analogy doesn't make sense. Because some people are unwilling to shop at whole foods NO ONE should be allowed to shop at whole foods?! That is an even more arbitrary analogy than my comparison.

I disagree, it accurately describes our stance. No one may shop at Whole Foods, or if they do, please leave the apples you purchased there at home. I must stress this is how the majority of our players wish it to be done, else they would have elected to retain Forgeworld in the legal pool of resources. It's truly no different from playing something like Dominion and forbidding the use of the Prosperity expansion by popular vote. We're merely removing a certain pool of resources from the table wholesale rather than going through the expansion and picking which cards will never be used. You may argue that it's more prudent to use the latter method, but it also comes with more prejudice and management of ban lists and checking to see if someone's model is on the list any time it comes into question. Wide bans are easier to manage for the community than specific bans.

 chalkobob wrote:
This one I will not concede, the difference in power and price of forgeworld models are far closer to basic GW equivalents, than Black lotuses are to modern OP cards by huge margins.

I humbly disagree. A Black Lotus on its own is useless. It's what you can do in tandem with it that makes it desirable. Just as while individually a Forgeworld model may appear balanced or even useless, the tactics that can be pulled off with them warranted their removal to keep the playing field level.

 chalkobob wrote:
If it was honourable, why would it be disliked? if it was something like a revenant titan, why not just explain why it's not cool to use it in small points games?

For the same reason that what was originally an explanation on my group's decision to disallow Forgeworld has bloomed into a multi-page discussion. People get quite defensive when they feel like their models are being restricted, especially if it's at a specific level ("You shouldn't be bringing THAT to a game!"). Blanket bans like "No Forgeworld" or "No LoWs" are easier to swallow and don't leave anyone feeling singled out. Heck, we even ban unique characters at low point values, but as long as everyone's are banned it remains "fair". I use quotations because Tyranids love when we do that.

 chalkobob wrote:
True, but take ITC for instance, they don't just blanket ban forgeworld and allies, which punishes many for no reason, they carefully consider each unit and rule, and it's overall impact on balance. It's far more considered and specific (IE not simple and lazy), which is why it is as commonly used as it is.

That would require the community putting a great deal of faith in one person or a group of people or even the community's understanding of each model if we put it to a vote. It's okay when you're running the tournament and want to establish rules for it. It's not okay if you're democratically deciding house rules and aren't keen on establishing a special committee for the review and oversight of Forgeworld model allowance.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:

This sounds like an absolutely terrible place to play.

Considering you've been adamantly campaigning for Forgeworld usage for over two years, it doesn't surprise me that you feel that way. Nevertheless, you are welcome to join the community and persuade it to reinstate Forgeworld. Your single vote and points of view may convince others. But until then, realize we are running democratically and these decisions were made after months of deliberation and voting.

 Arkaine wrote:
I humbly disagree. A Black Lotus on its own is useless. It's what you can do in tandem with it that makes it desirable.

You can humbly disagree, but you're just plain wrong. A black lotus is so ridiculously overpowered that it makes GW's balance problems look trivial. It's a card from the old days when WOTC didn't really understand the fine points of balancing their game yet, and was willing to make overpowered cards because they thought nobody would spend more than $20 on the game and the internet didn't exist yet to turn "this is a rare and legendary card you may never even see" into "this card is common and you can buy it with one click, if you have enough cash". No equivalent to that exists in 40k.

Blanket bans like "No Forgeworld" or "No LoWs" are easier to swallow and don't leave anyone feeling singled out.

I see, so I'm not going to feel singled out if I show up at your store and I'm told that I need to spend hundreds or even thousands of dollars to buy a new army if I want to play there?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Arkaine wrote:
Considering you've been adamantly campaigning for Forgeworld usage for over two years, it doesn't surprise me that you feel that way.

I'm not just talking about your FW ban. All of those rules are terrible.

Nevertheless, you are welcome to join the community and persuade it to reinstate Forgeworld. Your single vote and points of view may convince others. But until then, realize we are running democratically and these decisions were made after months of deliberation and voting.

Why would I want to join your community? From the outside it looks like a thoroughly unpleasant group of people to play with, and I have no more interest in fighting people just to be allowed to play with my army. I'll just take my money elsewhere if a group insists on terrible rules like yours, and warn new players to avoid you.

HoundsofDemos wrote:
I recently played a game with my space marine army accompanied by solomon lok. He was the only forge world unit in my army, i had his stats with me and he doesn't exactly do anything that is out there. one opponent was totally on board and we had a great game.

my second guy of the night started off being a bit weird about it, making comments that forgeworld is outside the game. When i produced the pages that word for word say that most forge world units are meant for standard games he stopped for a while. Latter when he had some bad shooting due to Lok's warlord trait giving my marines fnp while they sat on the deciding objective, he had a mini freakout claiming that Lok's warlord trait is grossly over powered. the game was not fun from there on.

Has anyone else had people react negatively to a forge world unit, even ones that don't seem particularly cheesy (unless someone wants to argue that Lok is OP)

You might have played that wrong, actually. The rules for his warlord trait say Lok and his retinue get FNP, not Lok and any unit he has joined. So it should only work for Lok and any Inquisitorial Retinue purchased for him.

Even then, how is that any more powerful than some tooled up command squad or equivalent with an apothecary in it?