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.

 Vash108 wrote:

 Arkaine wrote:


But don't fret, brother. We occasionally see people like you at the store during RPG nights. Because we all know that if you don't let someone play a class, race, or use a feat, weapon, or spell published in an official Wizards of the Coast supplement book that you are a terrible DM and must be drawn and quartered in the square. Luckily we're in an environment where the PLAYERS decide the rules they use and what splatbooks or sources are permitted and do not accede to the tyrannical WHINING of some random guy on a forum who insists we're doing it wrong.

This is apples and oranges. DM's make their own world and of said race/class/spell doesn't exits it simply doesn't. You are talking about choices made not the break the world or story set fourth by a DM.

Yeah, DMs have nothing to do with 40k. The way RPGs work is very different than wargames..

 Arkaine wrote:

 Vash108 wrote:
This is apples and oranges. DM's make their own world and of said race/class/spell doesn't exits it simply doesn't. You are talking about choices made not the break the world or story set fourth by a DM.

These choices were made by the DM. The Democratic Majority. If the DM decides it doesn't exist... then it doesn't.

Do you allow escalation rules and dataslates?

 Arkaine wrote:

 TheCustomLime wrote:
Did all of them say that reason they started playing again was because FW was banned? Did the majority? Did the majority of the people who came to vote on the matter vote on the ban?

Yes.

 TheCustomLime wrote:
But if all of that is true that doesn't mean that banning FW is a good thing. It just means that the people who play where in your meta are misinformed.

Assuming the meta is misinformed because otherwise it invalidates your opinionated platform. Gotcha. God forbid anyone makes an informed decision to ban Forgeworld. That's like... unheard of.

Informed...
Name a game-breaking FW unit then.

Arkaine wrote:

 TheNewBlood wrote:
I've read through this thread in all its glory, and the best example Arkaine and Jancoran can come up with is...the Dreadclaw Assault Pod!

Hmmm, so now you're inserting words into my posts... interesting. I don't recall ever claiming it was a broken unit to begin with, in fact I only mentioned it on page 2 for an altogether different reason. If you mean the Kharybdis, the only thing I said was that I owned one. Try to refrain from treating two separate people identically and remember... don't shoot the messenger.

My mistake. I'm having difficulty telling one Casual At All Costs mindset from another.

When the message that's being sent is one as stupid as banning all Forge World, messengers will be ventilated. Funny how you cherry-picked only one part of my post to argue against...

Arkaine wrote:

 Vash108 wrote:
This is apples and oranges. DM's make their own world and of said race/class/spell doesn't exits it simply doesn't. You are talking about choices made not the break the world or story set fourth by a DM.

These choices were made by the DM. The Democratic Majority. If the DM decides it doesn't exist... then it doesn't.

In my experience, the vast majority of people are morons who don't know what they're talking about. I'd much rather play a ruleset devised by the intelligent minority than one devised by ignorant mouth-breathers. Fortunately, stupid people are either easily led and persuaded or will be too stubborn and complain in ways that are easy to dismiss.

 TheNewBlood wrote:

Arkaine wrote:

 TheNewBlood wrote:
I've read through this thread in all its glory, and the best example Arkaine and Jancoran can come up with is...the Dreadclaw Assault Pod!

Hmmm, so now you're inserting words into my posts... interesting. I don't recall ever claiming it was a broken unit to begin with, in fact I only mentioned it on page 2 for an altogether different reason. If you mean the Kharybdis, the only thing I said was that I owned one. Try to refrain from treating two separate people identically and remember... don't shoot the messenger.

My mistake. I'm having difficulty telling one Casual At All Costs mindset from another.

When the message that's being sent is one as stupid as banning all Forge World, messengers will be ventilated. Funny how you cherry-picked only one part of my post to argue against...

Arkaine wrote:

 Vash108 wrote:
This is apples and oranges. DM's make their own world and of said race/class/spell doesn't exits it simply doesn't. You are talking about choices made not the break the world or story set fourth by a DM.

These choices were made by the DM. The Democratic Majority. If the DM decides it doesn't exist... then it doesn't.

In my experience, the vast majority of people are morons who don't know what they're talking about. I'd much rather play a ruleset devised by the intelligent minority than one devised by ignorant mouth-breathers. Fortunately, stupid people are either easily led and persuaded or will be too stubborn and complain in ways that are easy to dismiss.

Your pushing the bounds of the rules there mate, remember rule no1 .

Out of interest, how about an example of these rules you guys made?

If it's a good one I'll steal it lol

 TheNewBlood wrote:
...as stupid as banning all Forge World... messengers will be ventilated... the vast majority of people are morons... one devised by ignorant mouth-breathers.... Fortunately, stupid people...

I think it's clear why I outright ignore most of your posts. Sayonara!

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Informed...
Name a game-breaking FW unit then.

Hello, welcome to the conversation, you must be new. Because you truly could not have just asked for something I don't believe in. As stated perpetually throughout the thread, FW was not banned due to "game-breaking units". I own and use FW myself and believe CSM needs it to be competitive, just not at the venue being discussed.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Formosa wrote:
Out of interest, how about an example of these rules you guys made?

See page 3.

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Jancoran wrote:

GrafWattenburg wrote:

Would you know what a War Convocation could do? It's a White Dwarf formation which many people have never faced, yet it's incredibly, incredibly powerful and (imo) you need a lot of knowledge about its tricks to be able to beat it. .

First, I wasnt excuing the Convocation. Second, in our torunaments, we allow two detchments, three if one is a CAD, which as I SAID... stops the most broken issues from showing up. Banning Forge world isnt the extent of the work we do to stop broken things.

To be fair, if you're allowing more than one detachment, you can pretty much get away with the most abusive aspects of the game, you don't need 5 or 6 detachments to break it, 2 will do just find in most instances, particularly exploiting allies abilities, 3 tops. Most armies wouldn't have the points for many more detachments than two or three detachments anyways, especially if they want to take full advantage of their bonuses, unless you're getting into things like the Decurion where it's a detachment composed of other detachments and how do you sort out what at that point?

Its not compliacted. Look to our most recent tournament:

http://www.40kambassadors.com/index.php

The Tournament rules are there (Note: 0-1 Super Heavies is also a restriction now)

Each Detachment, whether it is inside of a Decurion style wrapper or not, counts as one. And as you can see in the actual Ambasadorial Forces section, the lists are there. Several Ambassadors used multiple formations.

Honestly the most crazy list was a three Wraith Knight list. That won't be allowed in future tournaments (and generally wasnt anyways in other tournaments) but it was definitely the most difficult list.

This tournament is a special tournament. We gave $1500 out in Prize support thanks to our sponsors. The people who DECIDED that a Forge World restriction was a deal breaker missed out on a big haul and that's a shame. But on the other hand, both brackets were all but full and that's their loss.

My point is, people can make a big stink out of the restriction or they can play, have fun and win boatloads of cash. It's really their call. But attendance has been higher every year and the prize support has been awesome. New players and returning players alike find it a lot easier to enjoy and keep up with the game with these rules. For some, its very literally the only tournament they choose to attend every year because while disenfranchised by the tournament scene in general, they find this one to be a place where fun is to be had and good Generals are rewarded not for their budget but for their skill.

As I typed earlier, I have played in tournaments that allow this Forge World stuff. It did not hinder my chances. Again most recently, the Tyranid example I gave. Play what you wanna' play. But what you're going to buy. You're not a "bad person" for wanting to anymore than I'm a for not allowing it. But I am just being as expansive as i can in explaining why, since that was the thread.

I think people are weird about Forgeworld just due to the fact that it's not in the regular rule books/codices. If it's not in there then they don't believe it should be used. And, to a point, both sides have merit. I'm personally on the side of allowing forgeworld units, but if someone requested that I don't use those units I'd be fine with it.

 purplkrush wrote:

3. The gentleman whose tournament experience soured him is revealed as a douchebag. He had ONE bad tactical error during the game? The guy was the nicest guy? HE WON?!?! And he still came away acting like a child who got tabled turn 2....?

."

ACTUALLY no. The tournament experience was recent and WASNT what soured me. It was just an example of how unpleasant it is to deal with an army whose rules you're being introduced to on the fly. I didn't make any errors that i can recall, He was nd is a very nice guy and no one acted like a child. I just didn't enjoy it.

Magnify this tenfold for someone who doesnt play three times week, like i do, doesnt win tournaments with regularity as i do and who may be trying to return to the game after a hiatus OR may be new and is collecting their first, possibly second force and learning all there is to know.

Mischaracterizing things is poor form sir. poor form indeed.

 Jancoran wrote:
The people who DECIDED that a Forge World restriction was a deal breaker missed out on a big haul and that's a shame.

I see. So not spending hundreds to thousands of dollars to buy a new army because my existing one isn't legal under your house rules is "deciding not to play"? No amount of trying to present it as pro-FW people voluntarily missing out on fun and prizes is going to change the fact that you are openly saying "you are not welcome here" to people who don't have armies that comply with your personal version of 40k.

 War Kitten wrote:
I think people are weird about Forgeworld just due to the fact that it's not in the regular rule books/codices. If it's not in there then they don't believe it should be used. And, to a point, both sides have merit. I'm personally on the side of allowing forgeworld units, but if someone requested that I don't use those units I'd be fine with it.

Perfect attitude. I also feel like this is the way to think.

In tournaments, the T.O. doesnt have the luxury of waffling. A choice has to be made OR you have to do what the ITC did: allow some, not allow others, make an enormous FAQ that REWRITES rules in places, interprets them in others... And still makes someone unhappy that their toy isn't allowed or its modified or whatever.

holy cow. At some point... You just gotta play the game.

 Jancoran wrote:
ACTUALLY no. The tournament experience was recent and WASNT what soured me. It was just an example of how unpleasant it is to deal with an army whose rules you're being introduced to on the fly. I didn't make any errors that i can recall, He was nd is a very nice guy and no one acted like a child. I just didn't enjoy it.

Magnify this tenfold for someone who doesnt play three times week, like i do, doesnt win tournaments with regularity as i do and who may be trying to return to the game after a hiatus OR may be new and is collecting their first, possibly second force and learning all there is to know.

You're right, it does suck to have to learn a new set of rules in a few minutes at the beginning of the game. Therefore any codex I am not already familiar with should be banned. And that probably includes whatever army you want to play.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 War Kitten wrote:
I think people are weird about Forgeworld just due to the fact that it's not in the regular rule books/codices.

It is in the regular rulebooks.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Jancoran wrote:
In tournaments, the T.O. doesnt have the luxury of waffling. A choice has to be made OR you have to do what the ITC did: allow some, not allow others, make an enormous FAQ that REWRITES rules in places, interprets them in others... And still makes someone unhappy that their toy isn't allowed or its modified or whatever.

IOW, it's exactly like codex-only 40k.

I would say this is the worst possible game for your example player to get into.

I don't see how Forge World is your information overload point when the game is at an unprecedented level of high speed releases and rules source bloat.

Forge World rules are currently the most stable and easy to keep appraised of part of the "core game"

 Jancoran wrote:

 purplkrush wrote:

3. The gentleman whose tournament experience soured him is revealed as a douchebag. He had ONE bad tactical error during the game? The guy was the nicest guy? HE WON?!?! And he still came away acting like a child who got tabled turn 2....?

."

ACTUALLY no. The tournament experience was recent and WASNT what soured me. It was just an example of how unpleasant it is to deal with an army whose rules you're being introduced to on the fly. I didn't make any errors that i can recall, He was nd is a very nice guy and no one acted like a child. I just didn't enjoy it.

Magnify this tenfold for someone who doesnt play three times week, like i do, doesnt win tournaments with regularity as i do and who may be trying to return to the game after a hiatus OR may be new and is collecting their first, possibly second force and learning all there is to know.

Mischaracterizing things is poor form sir. poor form indeed.

Mischaracterization may be poor form, but willful and deliberate ignorance is a mortal sin.

Are you seriously complaining that you had to (gasp!) read some rules provided to you? I'd take it as a lesson in just how limited my own knowledge of the game's breadth is. As long as the rules for the model are legitimate and provided for the opponent, the opponent has no grounds to complain.

 Jancoran wrote:

 purplkrush wrote:

3. The gentleman whose tournament experience soured him is revealed as a douchebag. He had ONE bad tactical error during the game? The guy was the nicest guy? HE WON?!?! And he still came away acting like a child who got tabled turn 2....?

."

ACTUALLY no. The tournament experience was recent and WASNT what soured me. It was just an example of how unpleasant it is to deal with an army whose rules you're being introduced to on the fly. I didn't make any errors that i can recall, He was nd is a very nice guy and no one acted like a child. I just didn't enjoy it.

Magnify this tenfold for someone who doesnt play three times week, like i do, doesnt win tournaments with regularity as i do and who may be trying to return to the game after a hiatus OR may be new and is collecting their first, possibly second force and learning all there is to know.

Mischaracterizing things is poor form sir. poor form indeed.

This seems to be a problem with the player you were facing, not their units. If I faced a person that was acting like rude and childish, I would not have a fun game regardless of whether they were using forgeworld, codex only, or my main rulebook only list.

You also mention that you are do not play regularly, so why does it surprise you that you are not familiar with every rule? I had to ask to look through the new Dark Angels book the first few times that I played against it and will need to review the new Tau rules before my next game. Codices are pushed so quickly that unless you devote an absurd amount of time to it, you can't be expected to have memorised everything. Imperial Armour novels would even be preferable if you want to be able to memorise every combination because their rules are more stable and they are published at a slower rate.

Please learn when to capitalise letters. It hurts to read your randomly capitalised words THAT you seem to ADD for emphasis in random locations.

 Eldarain wrote:
I would say this is the worst possible game for your example player to get into.

I don't see how Forge World is your information overload point when the game is at an unprecedented level of high speed releases and rules source bloat.

Forge World rules are currently the most stable and easy to keep appraised of part of the "core game"

Their choice to particpate is theirs. Not yours.

Ironically and totally off topic: Everyone and their mother kept saying "gosh GW should be more like Privateer Press and when a new edition comes out, they should get all the rules out a ton faster". For YEARS I heard this.

Then they did it. and nothing but complaining about rules bloat and other obscure, fairly meaningless terminology for what is essentially them TRYING to release everything as FAST as their company can for 7E AS REQUESTED!!! LOL

It's only been 16 months and already they have almost replaced all codexes! This is unprecedented for them by a very long ways. Off topic. But sense you bring it up.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 the Signless wrote:

 Jancoran wrote:

 purplkrush wrote:

3. The gentleman whose tournament experience soured him is revealed as a douchebag. He had ONE bad tactical error during the game? The guy was the nicest guy? HE WON?!?! And he still came away acting like a child who got tabled turn 2....?

."

ACTUALLY no. The tournament experience was recent and WASNT what soured me. It was just an example of how unpleasant it is to deal with an army whose rules you're being introduced to on the fly. I didn't make any errors that i can recall, He was nd is a very nice guy and no one acted like a child. I just didn't enjoy it.

Magnify this tenfold for someone who doesnt play three times week, like i do, doesnt win tournaments with regularity as i do and who may be trying to return to the game after a hiatus OR may be new and is collecting their first, possibly second force and learning all there is to know.

Mischaracterizing things is poor form sir. poor form indeed.

This seems to be a problem with the player you were facing, not their units. If I faced a person that was acting like rude and childish, I would not have a fun game regardless of whether they were using forgeworld, codex only, or my main rulebook only list.

You also mention that you are do not play regularly, so why does it surprise you that you are not familiar with every rule? I had to ask to look through the new Dark Angels book the first few times that I played against it and will need to review the new Tau rules before my next game. Codices are pushed so quickly that unless you devote an absurd amount of time to it, you can't be expected to have memorised everything. Imperial Armour novels would even be preferable if you want to be able to memorise every combination because their rules are more stable and they are published at a slower rate.

Please learn when to capitalise letters. It hurts to read your randomly capitalised words THAT you seem to ADD for emphasis in random locations.

Umm... Read that again. Lol. I think you're misunderstanding ewverything I typed. hehehe.

 Jancoran wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Jancoran wrote:

GrafWattenburg wrote:

Would you know what a War Convocation could do? It's a White Dwarf formation which many people have never faced, yet it's incredibly, incredibly powerful and (imo) you need a lot of knowledge about its tricks to be able to beat it. .

First, I wasnt excuing the Convocation. Second, in our torunaments, we allow two detchments, three if one is a CAD, which as I SAID... stops the most broken issues from showing up. Banning Forge world isnt the extent of the work we do to stop broken things.

To be fair, if you're allowing more than one detachment, you can pretty much get away with the most abusive aspects of the game, you don't need 5 or 6 detachments to break it, 2 will do just find in most instances, particularly exploiting allies abilities, 3 tops. Most armies wouldn't have the points for many more detachments than two or three detachments anyways, especially if they want to take full advantage of their bonuses, unless you're getting into things like the Decurion where it's a detachment composed of other detachments and how do you sort out what at that point?

Its not compliacted. Look to our most recent tournament:

http://www.40kambassadors.com/index.php

The Tournament rules are there (Note: 0-1 Super Heavies is also a restriction now)

Each Detachment, whether it is inside of a Decurion style wrapper or not, counts as one. And as you can see in the actual Ambasadorial Forces section, the lists are there. Several Ambassadors used multiple formations.

Ok, so you're treating each sub-formation as it's own detachment, allright. That does knocks out some things, though many of the most powerful army builds are still very much possible within that freamwork (particularly Daemon deathstar, flyrant spam, and TWC-deathstar builds).

Honestly the most crazy list was a three Wraith Knight list. That won't be allowed in future tournaments (and generally wasnt anyways in other tournaments) but it was definitely the most difficult list.

Are you aware that even with the rules you have above, no FW, 0-1 sueprheavies, etc, you can still run Titans?

For some, its very literally the only tournament they choose to attend every year because while disenfranchised by the tournament scene in general, they find this one to be a place where fun is to be had and good Generals are rewarded not for their budget but for their skill.

And here we are, back to the ultimate point. We keep coming back to this. You keep bringing budget in, and additionally equating it with power, and despite that none of the big power units or formations comes from FW. The correlation you keep attempting to draw with FW simply does not exist and is not reflected in any results from any event that allows FW.

There's no merit to the idea that having more money to spend on FW is going to result in more wins, or that players that can afford to buy FW stuff (which is increasingly no different than any other GW stuff) are using some sort of "crutch" that takes away from needed "skill", yet you keep insisting upon it.

Hell, my "codex only" mech IG army would cost more to rebuild than my DKoK Assault Brigade list, just as a green-tide horde Ork army would cost more than either, with or without FW.

As I typed earlier, I have played in tournaments that allow this Forge World stuff. It did not hinder my chances. Again most recently, the Tyranid example I gave. Play what you wanna' play. But what you're going to buy. You're not a "bad person" for wanting to anymore than I'm a for not allowing it. But I am just being as expansive as i can in explaining why, since that was the thread.

And since you've inserted yourself and your events into the thread, people are going to point out the fundamental flaws in your reasoning.

Seemingly everyone wants to, at least, on the surface, agree that FW isn't overpowered. Nobody even wants to argue that their rules are particularly out of the realm of reason anymore either (at least nobody is responding to that point when I make it). Nobody seems to have issues with rules from other sources that aren't in the codex like Dataslates and Campaign books. Where's the problem with FW then?

 Jancoran wrote:

 Eldarain wrote:
I would say this is the worst possible game for your example player to get into.

I don't see how Forge World is your information overload point when the game is at an unprecedented level of high speed releases and rules source bloat.

Forge World rules are currently the most stable and easy to keep appraised of part of the "core game"

Their choice to particpate is theirs. Not yours.

Ironically and totally off topic: Everyone and their mother kept saying "gosh GW should be more like Privateer Press and when a new edition comes out, they should get all the rules out a ton faster". For YEARS I heard this.

Then they did it. and nothing but complaining about rules bloat and other obscure, fairly meaningless terminology for what is essentially them TRYING to release everything as FAST as their company can for 7E AS REQUESTED!!! LOL

It's only been 16 months and already they have almost replaced all codexes! This is unprecedented for them by a very long ways. Off topic. But sense you bring it up.

It's not really the raw speed of releases that are the problem. It's that there's very little structure or coherency behind it, and are pushing things through four or five different sales channels, with increasingly insane levels of power & expense across the board, with basically no organization, and are changing design philosophies about every 12-18 months before they can actually finish anything coupled with a total lack of rules support in the form of FAQ & Errata.

 Jancoran wrote:

 Eldarain wrote:
I would say this is the worst possible game for your example player to get into.

I don't see how Forge World is your information overload point when the game is at an unprecedented level of high speed releases and rules source bloat.

Forge World rules are currently the most stable and easy to keep appraised of part of the "core game"

Their choice to particpate is theirs. Not yours.

Ironically and totally off topic: Everyone and their mother kept saying "gosh GW should be more like Privateer Press and when a new edition comes out, they should get all the rules out a ton faster". For YEARS I heard this.

Then they did it. and nothing but complaining about rules bloat and other obscure, fairly meaningless terminology for what is essentially them TRYING to release everything as FAST as their company can for 7E AS REQUESTED!!! LOL

It's only been 16 months and already they have almost replaced all codexes! This is unprecedented for them by a very long ways. Off topic. But sense you bring it up.

So not going to actually address anything I said? I should know better by now...

You are claiming it is no trouble to keep well informed about the releases GW prime puts out but FW is a bridge too far.

This doesn't hold up as there has been constant releases of new rules codexes almost every month (some which are replaced in under 2 years) and many supplementary sources including obscure WD, Online store exclusive, Advent calendar DLCs etc.

Forge World rules on the other hand go many years between updates with FaQs for edition changes being the only semi challenging aspect.

Your argument is deeply flawed.

 Vaktathi wrote:



And here we are, back to the ultimate point. We keep coming back to this. You keep bringing budget in, and additionally equating it with power, and despite that none of the big power units or formations comes from FW.

Its not a comparison. And I have tacitly separated the issue of power from the issue of cost and other issues. I have said repeatedly that the power is not the main or only consideration. It IS a consideration. Denyinfg that is completely disingenuous of course.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Jancoran wrote:

It's not really the raw speed of releases that are the problem. It's that there's very little structure or coherency behind it, and are pushing things through four or five different sales channels, with increasingly insane levels of power & expense across the board, with basically no organization, and are changing design philosophies about every 12-18 months before they can actually finish anything coupled with a total lack of rules support in the form of FAQ & Errata.

This paragraph is so filled with glittering generalities I cant respond to it meaningfully. "little structure" and "Coherency" is way too vague, while it being through 5 different sales channel is immaterial to the discussion, "insane power levels" is a relative term and not entirely my view of things globally, "basically no organization" also is too vague and its only been 16 months since 7E so i mean... Most of this paragraph is just too difficult to respond to coherently.

 Arkaine wrote:

 TheCustomLime wrote:
Did all of them say that reason they started playing again was because FW was banned? Did the majority? Did the majority of the people who came to vote on the matter vote on the ban?

Yes.

 TheCustomLime wrote:
But if all of that is true that doesn't mean that banning FW is a good thing. It just means that the people who play where in your meta are misinformed.

Assuming the meta is misinformed because otherwise it invalidates your opinionated platform. Gotcha. God forbid anyone makes an informed decision to ban Forgeworld. That's like... unheard of.

It doesn't invalidate my platform. It's just strange that your group singles out FW above all else. Do you ban dataslates, supplements, Sisters of Battle and web bundle formations too?

 Eldarain wrote:

You are claiming it is no trouble to keep well informed about the releases GW prime puts out but FW is a bridge too far.

Ah... no. Again. Mischaracterizing = poor form. What I said was that the game WAS coming at us fast and furious and its a fire hose, yet you'd have players take second fire hose and attach it. I would not.

THAT is what, in fact, was said. What I love most is how you sugesst I said something irrational so that you can tell me how irrational that thing I never said is. Lol.

So lets try again, shall we? I'll answer any fair minded question you put to me. I ignore the ones wherein you do THIS.

 Jancoran wrote:

 purplkrush wrote:

3. The gentleman whose tournament experience soured him is revealed as a douchebag. He had ONE bad tactical error during the game? The guy was the nicest guy? HE WON?!?! And he still came away acting like a child who got tabled turn 2....?

."

ACTUALLY no. The tournament experience was recent and WASNT what soured me. It was just an example of how unpleasant it is to deal with an army whose rules you're being introduced to on the fly. I didn't make any errors that i can recall, He was nd is a very nice guy and no one acted like a child. I just didn't enjoy it.

Magnify this tenfold for someone who doesnt play three times week, like i do, doesnt win tournaments with regularity as i do and who may be trying to return to the game after a hiatus OR may be new and is collecting their first, possibly second force and learning all there is to know.

Mischaracterizing things is poor form sir. poor form indeed.

I don't understand this logic. I don't know the rules for Adepta Sororitas, Necrons or Orks so I would have to be introduced to them on the fly. Should my local tournament ban them too?

 TheCustomLime wrote:

 Jancoran wrote:

 purplkrush wrote:

3. The gentleman whose tournament experience soured him is revealed as a douchebag. He had ONE bad tactical error during the game? The guy was the nicest guy? HE WON?!?! And he still came away acting like a child who got tabled turn 2....?

."

ACTUALLY no. The tournament experience was recent and WASNT what soured me. It was just an example of how unpleasant it is to deal with an army whose rules you're being introduced to on the fly. I didn't make any errors that i can recall, He was nd is a very nice guy and no one acted like a child. I just didn't enjoy it.

Magnify this tenfold for someone who doesnt play three times week, like i do, doesnt win tournaments with regularity as i do and who may be trying to return to the game after a hiatus OR may be new and is collecting their first, possibly second force and learning all there is to know.

Mischaracterizing things is poor form sir. poor form indeed.

I don't understand this logic. I don't know the rules for Adepta Sororitas, Necrons or Orks so I would have to be introduced to them on the fly. Should my local tournament ban them too?

Nah. You should just keep acting obtuse instead.

No, explain it to me. Your platform is that "Players don't know the rules and will have a hard time adapting to them". Why do you assume your players know all of the units in all of the codices to the extent that they can adapt to them on the fly? If you don't assume that then your argument falls apart.

 Jancoran wrote:
Nah. You should just keep acting obtuse instead.

And yep, that's what you have to resort to. You can't answer the question because it would require admitting that your FW bans are arbitrary and make no sense.

 Jancoran wrote:
while it being through 5 different sales channel is immaterial to the discussion

If the use of different sales channels is irrelevant then why are you banning an entire class of rules based on nothing more than what sales channel they were sold through?

 TheCustomLime wrote:
It doesn't invalidate my platform. It's just strange that your group singles out FW above all else. Do you ban dataslates, supplements, Sisters of Battle and web bundle formations too?

Democracy is strange. We disallow baby murder yet allow fetus abortions. It isn't your place to judge the group's decisions, only to cast your vote responsibly if you are a part of it. See pg 3 for the full list.

 Vaktathi wrote:
And since you've inserted yourself and your events into the thread, people are going to point out the fundamental flaws in your reasoning.

That'd be neat to see when entering a thread. Not just attacks and insults by people who have no factual arguments to make and claims that what we're doing is stupid based entirely on conjectured opinion. Which is the same basis for how our rules came about in the first place so.... the number one most used argument against us here is "My opinion is better than those of your entire community".

 Eldarain wrote:
So not going to actually address anything I said? I should know better by now...

And what did you say exactly? That this is a terrible game for a type of person? That you refuse FW as too much when GW is already too much? That FW is better than GW? I mean... what kind of response to that are you looking for? They're opinions, same as the one he's giving. You act like there will be less or about the same number of rules to learn by adding FW to the pile after acknowledging there's a ton of GW stuff being released already. If GW is already the source of information overload, why add more to the pile? Your logic would actually suggest that we BAN GAMES WORKSHOP and only play with Forgeworld. Yes yes, same company, we'll figure it out. Ban all of the Codices!

DISCLAIMER: FW rules being excessive are not the reason for my location's FW ban and these comments are purely in defense of the Pro-Choice movement.

 Arkaine wrote:
Your logic would actually suggest that we BAN GAMES WORKSHOP and only play with Forgeworld. Yes yes, same company, we'll figure it out. Ban all of the Codices!

Exactly. Any argument in favor of banning FW rules is even more effective as an argument for banning codex rules and only allowing FW rules. So really the anti-FW side has no argument at all beyond "I don't want to use it".

 TheCustomLime wrote:
No, explain it to me. Your platform is that "Players don't know the rules and will have a hard time adapting to them". Why do you assume your players know all of the units in all of the codices to the extent that they can adapt to them on the fly? If you don't assume that then your argument falls apart.

I didn't assume that so why are you suggesting I DID assume that?

I think a CLOSER restatement of my argument as i have already stated (Bricks: head. Head: bricks), is that there IS in fact a LOT for you to learn; and it's coming fast. New players already have enough on their plates as do returning ones, just trying to keep up to speed with THAT. Hell I'm a veteran of the game and I find it difficult, maybe because I have a life or something weird like that. So given that the core game includes these codeci, that's the MOST I want to inflict on them. I'm not saying that this on its own won't be challenging. I'm saying it absolutely will. That is the point. I personally lost my first eight games and the first 13 of 15 that I played. I know all about that fire hose. I've been there. Done that. Only my deep involvement with the hobby has made that less daunting, but even I cannot claim to be a master of all the codex's, and most would tell you that if there's one person who knows 40K, it's me. I certainly know it well enough to play in any tournament. =)

So THAT is closer to the mark than what you said.

So allow what you like. This discussion should have given you a lot to think about (if you were open to thinking about it and not just jumping the gun to express your own opinion) and you can take whatever parts of what I've said that makes sense and consider them. You could also be like the other sheeple and use ITC as is. Or make your own. Whatevs. I have no personal stake in your decision.

I'm going to keep growing the hobby in my area. If people like Forge World, there will be LOTS of players to play instead of the 6-8 we used to have.

 Jancoran wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:



And here we are, back to the ultimate point. We keep coming back to this. You keep bringing budget in, and additionally equating it with power, and despite that none of the big power units or formations comes from FW.

Its not a comparison. And I have tacitly separated the issue of power from the issue of cost and other issues. I have said repeatedly that the power is not the main or only consideration. It IS a consideration. Denyinfg that is completely disingenuous of course.

In regards to power, again, there's no evidence that FW has any noticable effect on tournament balance, but when you use a phrase like "good Generals are rewarded not for their budget but for their skill", it's incredibly disingenuous when all the evidence points to the contrary and is basically telling people who want to use FW stuff that they're using it as a power crutch.

What sorts of FW units would realistically cause any major balance issues, particularly any worse than what you can get from a codex or dataslate?

And again, if we're going into cost, rules costs are not that different anymore, often not different at all, while model costs are increasingly being matched and exceeded by GW.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Jancoran wrote:

It's not really the raw speed of releases that are the problem. It's that there's very little structure or coherency behind it, and are pushing things through four or five different sales channels, with increasingly insane levels of power & expense across the board, with basically no organization, and are changing design philosophies about every 12-18 months before they can actually finish anything coupled with a total lack of rules support in the form of FAQ & Errata.

This paragraph is so filled with glittering generalities I cant respond to it meaningfully. "little structure" and "Coherency" is way too vague, while it being through 5 different sales channel is immaterial to the discussion, "insane power levels" is a relative term and not entirely my view of things globally, "basically no organization" also is too vague and its only been 16 months since 7E so i mean... Most of this paragraph is just too difficult to respond to coherently.

 Jancoran wrote:

GrafWattenburg wrote:

Would you know what a War Convocation could do? It's a White Dwarf formation which many people have never faced, yet it's incredibly, incredibly powerful and (imo) you need a lot of knowledge about its tricks to be able to beat it. .

First, I wasnt excuing the Convocation. Second, in our torunaments, we allow two detchments, three if one is a CAD, which as I SAID... stops the most broken issues from showing up. Banning Forge world isnt the extent of the work we do to stop broken things or unwanted things.

So the War Convocation and all the examples like it are also not awesome. And we have taken the step to disallow those. But you're talking about power...again. And I...again... reiterate that this isnt the only issue with Forge World. It isn't even THE issue. Because it takes ll of four seconds to come up with an example of something in forge World that isn't AS broken as X, Y, and Z. I get it. Ive sid I get it. So why are we STILL on that?

He's not talking about power. Its an example of uncommon rules, that just happen to be powerful.

(One of) You position is that forgeworld shouldn't be allowed because it is too difficult/time consuming/whatever for players to learn the rules.
Our counter is that the rules are ALREADY difficult/time consuming/whatever to learn, and adding Forgeworld doesn't add anything to the mix that doesn't already exist.
It is already very difficult to keep up with the sheer number of special rules available - and a large number of these rules come from non-codex sources. There are rules in White Dwarf, on Black Library, in Codex supplements, Campaign Supplements, in the box sets, and limited-edition GW-web-store-only rules.
Forgeworld rules are actually significantly easier to acquire than a number of these rules, because at least they are still in print! And you can reasonably expect Forgeworld to keep its rules the same for an extended period of time, compared to GW where a codex might be added to / replaced in less than a year!

There are new dataslates and codexes and formations being released every month. I still haven't played against the new Marine Codex despite how 'long' its been around: I'd need to take some time before a game to learn the rules and formations and still have the 'oh no how do I beat that' thoughts. I've never played against Sisters of Battle EVER, I haven't played against Blood Angels or Space Wolves since 4th edition, and I have only 2 games against Necrons this edition. Each of those I would need to take time to learn and possibly be surprised by their tricks. But that is part of the game.

Difficulty / time to learn the rules isn't (to me) an acceptable reason for banning Forgeworld, because GW's 'core' 'codex' rules are just as hard, if not much harder, to keep up with.