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.

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Jancoran wrote:

Your "economic balance" argument has no legs to stand on at this point, and feels like a flimsy justification to continue a bias held over from multiple editions ago.

Indeed. Heck, I was against allowing Forge World in 5th ed.

However, as has been shown multiple times in this thread, there isn't a compelling reason based on cost, rules or balance any more.
If you don't like Forge World for personal reasons, that fine. Don't try and pretend it's anything else though

Jancoran, you're pushing a meta where people who take hard (or rough, as you refer to them) lists are actively ostracised.
You also seem to have a personal bias against Forgeworld.

I also haven't noticed you taking best general, which seems to run counter intuitive to what you've been saying. Have I missed some results?

Just what I've found on those links.

nareik wrote:
I have nothing against Forgeworld at all, some of my best friends use Forgeworld! The rulebook is very 'Citadel minature' orientated though.

"An army is a collection of one or more units of Citadel miniatures"
Are Forgeworld models 'Citadel miniatures'?

It also says "The rules for your Citadel miniatures are found in a wide range of Games Workshop's publications such as codexes, codex supplements and datslates".
It doesn't explicitly mention Forgeworld rules, but they aren't excluded either; are they Games Workshop publications?

Personally I am happy to play anything*, the person I am up against is more important to me than the models we happen to be using.

That said, I don't think anyone is wrong for having their own preferences on how they like to play or creating restrictions for their events.

Spoiler:

*as long as it is form the stock chaos marine codex and nothing else

Yes they are GW publications, here are pictures of an IA book I took to prove it.
http://i.imgur.com/HAU9ICB.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/67cRj27.jpg?1

 Jancoran wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Jancoran wrote:
Wait... you think i win no tournaments? Perhaps you need to visit www.warsound.com. perhaps you can get a truer accounting. Since you are so willing to take on that tone.

I'm not going to visit your bloody blog. I will read tournament reports from the sources and the top 16 lists from the same place

Do as you like but do not question my tournament ability again until youve looked deeper. Ive provided you access to do so. Only your own stubborn nature can stop you now.

Your tournament ability?

But your group bans all FW and most of the good formations right?

Even I can win in a race against a bunch of cripples, but that doesn't mean that I'm fast.

 Vash108 wrote:


Yes they are GW publications, here are pictures of an IA book I took to prove it.
http://i.imgur.com/HAU9ICB.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/67cRj27.jpg?1

On top of that, if you read the copyright at the beginning of the book, you will learn that the names, images AND rules are all property of GW. Not FW.

FW is a publisher of GW rules.

And if anyone pulls the ever so stupid argument of: "GW must say it's official, if FW says it, it's not."

GW is a friggin' shark when it comes to it's IP. Can you honestly sit with a straight face and say: GW is letting a company publish stuff in it's name while saying it is official and the lawyers are just.."Nawww let's give these boys a pass." GW would go after them like uncle Bob on a 24 of Coors light.

You can hate FW out of personal reason but saying it's:
- Expensive
- Unbalanced
- Overpowered
- Not official

Is just a lie. You can tell yourself a lie, you can live a lie. You might even convince other people to believe the lie but in the end it's still a lie and you know it.

 Erik_Morkai wrote:

 Vash108 wrote:


Yes they are GW publications, here are pictures of an IA book I took to prove it.
http://i.imgur.com/HAU9ICB.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/67cRj27.jpg?1

On top of that, if you read the copyright at the beginning of the book, you will learn that the names, images AND rules are all property of GW. Not FW.

FW is a publisher of GW rules.

And if anyone pulls the ever so stupid argument of: "GW must say it's official, if FW says it, it's not."

GW is a friggin' shark when it comes to it's IP. Can you honestly sit with a straight face and say: GW is letting a company publish stuff in it's name while saying it is official and the lawyers are just.."Nawww let's give these boys a pass." GW would go after them like uncle Bob on a 24 of Coors light.

You can hate FW out of personal reason but saying it's:
- Expensive
- Unbalanced
- Overpowered
- Not official

Is just a lie. You can tell yourself a lie, you can live a lie. You might even convince other people to believe the lie but in the end it's still a lie and you know it.

I hate FW A) for personal reasons and B) because of the price and C) because I live in the US, so shipping is bananas. Also, England is inferior to the US.

Happy?

so you hate 40k and games workshop.

I pray the tau vs admech book dosent crank up the cheeze to match the tau supremacy debacle, otherwise some locals are going to be pissed when firgeworld gets re-banned here.

 Orock wrote:
I pray the tau vs admech book dosent crank up the cheeze to match the tau supremacy debacle, otherwise some locals are going to be pissed when firgeworld gets re-banned here.

You said the 'B' word! Incoming flamers... no need to take a cover save, templates ignore those.

HoundsofDemos wrote:
so you hate 40k and games workshop.

nope, just certain aspects. Same way I hate all Tau. I can pick and choose what part of the game I want to play, same with how I play D&D or MTG. For instance, I refuse to play tournament banned decks.

My local GW store manager loves FW stuff, and that carries over to the players. Nothing FW is looked down upon (that I'm aware of) at my GW shop.

SG

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Trasvi wrote:

 Jancoran wrote:

Trasvi wrote:
You do realize that your ability to beat the hardcore tournament lists and ForgeWorld models you've never seen before, with an army that is generally considered bottom of the barrel, is evidence in favour of including Forgeworld, right?

No. I don't see that. What I see is that I had to bring my A game. THAT'S what I found out. Lol.

So? You had to bring your A-Game. Isn't that what tournaments are about? I'd hope that people in a tournament aren't going thinking they'l cruise to victory.
But bringing your A-game, with a bottom tier army, you managed to defeat some armies consisting of Forgeworld models you'd never played against before.
That invalidates your 'cumulative experience cost' argument. You could defeat those enemies regardless of having no experience against them. There is no 'cost' to learning to play against these armies, because (like pretty much everything else in 40k) once you know the archetypes you can play against anything.

No it just means Im good. And that Good Generals dont need to get wrapped up as much as you are in the quest to include Forge Wrold. It means the existing units can compete and that suggesting that cannot is not a function of the list itself. In my opinion.

 Jancoran wrote:
And that Good Generals dont need to get wrapped up as much as you are in the quest to include Forge Wrold.

I see. So being a good general means complying with Jancoran's personal version of 40k. That's a rather narcissistic way of looking at things.

 Farseer Anath'lan wrote:
Jancoran, you're pushing a meta where people who take hard (or rough, as you refer to them) lists are actively ostracised.
You also seem to have a personal bias against Forgeworld.

I also haven't noticed you taking best general, which seems to run counter intuitive to what you've been saying. Have I missed some results?

Just what I've found on those links.

Ask around. I've won Best Overall a dozen times and Best general twice that at least. My painting isn't excellent at all, and I had to have cornea transplants last year which should illustrate part of that problem) so I've had to take the Best General quite a few times instead of Best Overall, but I'm okay with that. Didn't win the last one thanks to my gaffe in not moving a couple rhinos when i had the chance, but you can verify all that bluster with the players on that forum. They will also let you know that i win those tournaments using by and large what most consider unothodox lists. I could use the netlists I see here and probably do even better buuuuut...

I run tournaments a lot more frequently than I play in them, as I've devoted a great deal of time to resurrecting the hobby from its 8th Edition Fantasy and 6th Edition 40K wreckage. My last TSHFT I only lost one game ,and i was 5-0 at the OFCC (a comp'd tournament) two years ago and 4-1 this year.

My gaming chops are solid. But in case you doubted it, you can go right to the people who would know, on the forum I'm on all the time and ask them yourself. It's just bragging until someone verifies it, right? =)

I havent attended things like the LVO, BAO and such because its too much money and to prove what, really? I did go to the Seattle GT quite a few years ago and was 3-1-1. Darn Wraith Army in 5E caused 5 wounds out of 20 on two different sisters blobs and sent them off the table right after coming on from reserve! Whuuuut! Had he not, who knows? Jarring way to go but its dice. what can ya do?

Still all in all, I think I'm qualified to speak on 40K. hehehe.

Saying you went 5-0 at the OFCC, an event where lists are actively managed, judged, and pre-approved by committee, isn't saying much.

Either way, we're getting off topic here. Throwing around e-peens and touting results of small local events that nobody has any inclination to check up on is utterly immaterial to the greater point.

Which is "why people are still so weird about FW" when, as Erik_Morkai noted, arguments about, cost, balance, officaldom, and the concepts of a "core game" have all been debunked.

I agree the new tau suits rules are silly, but doing what the ITC does makes more sense than blanket bans. If a unit or power or ability is such an outlier in power, then ban or modify that particular thing. Banning forge world unfairly hobbles several armies, takes away variety from the game, and does little to balance anything.

Local TO's don't have the time or interest to go thru and green light/red light firgeworld, so its infinatley easier. You look at them as super fans of the game willing to bend over backwards to ensure fair and fun competitive play. When its closer to the opposite, them lamenting that Ithey can't just make enough to be profitable off magic alone and disgruntled about having to put effort into making sure leagues and tournaments happen to keep interest and thus customers buying. The day my local shops can support themselves on magic alone (ironically at least one could if the other didn't exist to split the sales) they will probably throw their tabletop terrain in the dumpster and take a flame thrower to it. Dont like it? Drive 2 hours to the next store.

 Orock wrote:
Local TO's don't have the time or interest to go thru and green light/red light firgeworld, so its infinatley easier.

If they're not red-light/gree-lighting non-FW stuff like codex books, campaigns, dataslates, etc, why would they need to do so with FW?

I mean, if they are doing so, great, FW shouldn't add much more work to that, but if they aren't, why would they need to go out of their way to do anything with FW either way?

You look at them as super fans of the game willing to bend over backwards to ensure fair and fun competitive play. When its closer to the opposite, them lamenting that Ithey can't just make enough to be profitable off magic alone and disgruntled about having to put effort into making sure leagues and tournaments happen to keep interest and thus customers buying.

In a lot of places this is not the case, events like 40k tournaments are labors of love, not great profit drivers to cover what Magic will not, particularly in recent years as GW's market share has receded. At least in my own experience, there are fewer tournaments in general, there's more and more centralization around a handful of events while smaller venues are seeing attendance drop dramatically or cease entirely (my own local store had tournaments typically of ~15-24 people in 4E and 5E, their last few 7E events had half a dozen people show up), and in those places they're putting on tournaments because they want to and/or to support a core of longstanding regulars, not to cover a profit gap that Magic doesn't cover.

 Orock wrote:
Local TO's don't have the time or interest to go thru and green light/red light firgeworld, so its infinatley easier. You look at them as super fans of the game willing to bend over backwards to ensure fair and fun competitive play. When its closer to the opposite, them lamenting that Ithey can't just make enough to be profitable off magic alone and disgruntled about having to put effort into making sure leagues and tournaments happen to keep interest and thus customers buying. The day my local shops can support themselves on magic alone (ironically at least one could if the other didn't exist to split the sales) they will probably throw their tabletop terrain in the dumpster and take a flame thrower to it. Dont like it? Drive 2 hours to the next store.

Sounds like you have more problems than just FW, my friend.

 Vaktathi wrote:
In a lot of places this is not the case, events like 40k tournaments are labors of love, not great profit drivers to cover what Magic will not, particularly in recent years as GW's market share has receded. At least in my own experience, there are fewer tournaments in general, there's more and more centralization around a handful of events while smaller venues are seeing attendance drop dramatically or cease entirely (my own local store had tournaments typically of ~15-24 people in 4E and 5E, their last few 7E events had half a dozen people show up), and in those places they're putting on tournaments because they want to and/or to support a core of longstanding regulars, not to cover a profit gap that Magic doesn't cover.

Sounds like you have more problems than anti-Forgeworld people, my friend.

 Vaktathi wrote:
Saying you went 5-0 at the OFCC, an event where lists are actively managed, judged, and pre-approved by committee, isn't saying much.

Either way, we're getting off topic here. Throwing around e-peens and touting results of small local events that nobody has any inclination to check up on is utterly immaterial to the greater point.

Which is "why people are still so weird about FW" when, as Erik_Morkai noted, arguments about, cost, balance, officaldom, and the concepts of a "core game" have all been debunked.

I said it was comp'd. so. I mean... Whatever man. Same comp for everyone. Just letting ya' know. I dont particularly care what you think of it. Play me and prove me wrong but dont hide behind the keyboard and tell me those wins arent legit.

 Jancoran wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
Saying you went 5-0 at the OFCC, an event where lists are actively managed, judged, and pre-approved by committee, isn't saying much.

Either way, we're getting off topic here. Throwing around e-peens and touting results of small local events that nobody has any inclination to check up on is utterly immaterial to the greater point.

Which is "why people are still so weird about FW" when, as Erik_Morkai noted, arguments about, cost, balance, officaldom, and the concepts of a "core game" have all been debunked.

I said it was comp'd. so. I mean... Whatever man. Same comp for everyone. Just letting ya' know. I dont particularly care what you think of it. Play me and prove me wrong but dont hide behind the keyboard and tell me those wins arent legit.

Come at me scrublord, I'm ripped!

We may have played each other at some point. I've attended the OFCC (an event where "winning" games and win rates are intentionally de-emphasized and not treated as terribly relevant, in favor of sportsmanship and having a good time) and other area events (such as at Guardian, the old Deep Strike tournaments in Vancouver, etc), but this is irrelevant deflection from the actual topic of discussion, which was my point. We can all compare e-peens all we want, but the topic of discussion is "why people are still so weird about FW" when, arguments about, cost, balance, officaldom, and the concepts of a "core game" all seem to be non-issues.

 jreilly89 wrote:

 Jancoran wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
Saying you went 5-0 at the OFCC, an event where lists are actively managed, judged, and pre-approved by committee, isn't saying much.

Either way, we're getting off topic here. Throwing around e-peens and touting results of small local events that nobody has any inclination to check up on is utterly immaterial to the greater point.

Which is "why people are still so weird about FW" when, as Erik_Morkai noted, arguments about, cost, balance, officaldom, and the concepts of a "core game" have all been debunked.

I said it was comp'd. so. I mean... Whatever man. Same comp for everyone. Just letting ya' know. I dont particularly care what you think of it. Play me and prove me wrong but dont hide behind the keyboard and tell me those wins arent legit.

Come at me scrublord, I'm ripped!

You look ripped.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Vaktathi wrote:
We may have played each other at some point. I've attended the OFCC (an event where "winning" games and win rates are intentionally de-emphasized and not treated as terribly relevant, in favor of sportsmanship and having a good time) and other area events (such as at Guardian, the old Deep Strike tournaments in Vancouver, etc), but this is irrelevant deflection from the actual topic of discussion, which was my point. We can all compare e-peens all we want, but the topic of discussion is "why people are still so weird about FW" when, arguments about, cost, balance, officaldom, and the concepts of a "core game" all seem to be non-issues.

OFCC is awesome, but dont claim its uncompetitive. Saw plenty of competitive lists. Two years ago, my 5-0 was against TWO Eldar Wave spam lists, a Triple Dreadknight list, a Dark Eldar that brought Venomspam AND a beast star WITH his Wraith Knight and then there was the one opponent who actually showed up with a friendly list (Blood angels and IG festooned with Forge World).

And if OFCC was the only tournament I'd gone to... You'd have a point. =)
Farseer Anath'lan was the one that wanted to question my record so I gave him the tool with which to prove himself right or wrong.

Well, then it has changed since the last time I attended one, because it was very much an uncompetitive event last time I attended one, and a true serpent spam army is the type of thing they wouldn't have allowed last time I was there (I remember getting any sort of Mech IG list in was basically a no-go and they balked at the CSM list I ran because it had so many 2+ saves with 12 Terminators and 6 Obliterators).

But again, we're talking about FW, and it doesn't seem like allowing FW is causing any issues with balance.

 Vaktathi wrote:
Well, then it has changed since the last time I attended one, because it was very much an uncompetitive event last time I attended one, and a true serpent spam army is the type of thing they wouldn't have allowed last time I was there (I remember getting any sort of Mech IG list in was basically a no-go and they balked at the CSM list I ran because it had so many 2+ saves with 12 Terminators and 6 Obliterators).

But again, we're talking about FW, and it doesn't seem like allowing FW is causing any issues with balance.

It has changed. A lot. So yeah their new thing is "Fair Friendly matchups" and then they just put the hard lists against the hard lists. I guess... But I DIDNT bring that kind of list so i was fighting up hill in four of those games.

I am hoping for a return to the old OFCC ways but at the moment the power curve is way up there with any other tournament Ive been to recently. But I DO understand your perception.

As for Forge World (which OFCC allowed without STATED restrictions), it does cause issues with balance. Numerous examples have been given. That some are willing to look past those issues completely is a matter of choice, but the issues themselves are well chronicled here.

s I've said repeatedly: play your game. I just don't want it in tournament play. Like all other comp, which the majority agree is necessary, this is just a matter of WHERE the line is being drawn not whether it should be.

 Jancoran wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
Well, then it has changed since the last time I attended one, because it was very much an uncompetitive event last time I attended one, and a true serpent spam army is the type of thing they wouldn't have allowed last time I was there (I remember getting any sort of Mech IG list in was basically a no-go and they balked at the CSM list I ran because it had so many 2+ saves with 12 Terminators and 6 Obliterators).

But again, we're talking about FW, and it doesn't seem like allowing FW is causing any issues with balance.

It has changed. A lot. So yeah their new thing is "Fair Friendly matchups" and then they just put the hard lists against the hard lists. I guess...

I am hoping for a return to the old OFCC ways but at the moment the power curve is way up there with any other tournament Ive been to recently. But I DO understand your perception.

As for Forge World (which OFCC allowed without STATED restrictions), it does cause issues with balance. Numerous examples have been given. That some are willing to look past those issues completely is a matter of choice, but the issues themselves are well chronicled here.

s I've said repeatedly: play your game. I just don't want it in tournament play. Like all other comp, which the majority agree is necessary, this is just a matter of WHERE the line is being drawn not whether it should be.

"Numerous examples"? I think I saw the titans, and that's about it. And, again, FW causes not more balance issues than those in the codexs.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

"Numerous examples"? I think I saw the titans, and that's about it. .

read more. thats the only cure for that problem.

 Jancoran wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
Well, then it has changed since the last time I attended one, because it was very much an uncompetitive event last time I attended one, and a true serpent spam army is the type of thing they wouldn't have allowed last time I was there (I remember getting any sort of Mech IG list in was basically a no-go and they balked at the CSM list I ran because it had so many 2+ saves with 12 Terminators and 6 Obliterators).

But again, we're talking about FW, and it doesn't seem like allowing FW is causing any issues with balance.

It has changed. A lot. So yeah their new thing is "Fair Friendly matchups" and then they just put the hard lists against the hard lists. I guess...

I am hoping for a return to the old OFCC ways but at the moment the power curve is way up there with any other tournament Ive been to recently. But I DO understand your perception.

As for Forge World (which OFCC allowed without STATED restrictions), it does cause issues with balance. Numerous examples have been given. That some are willing to look past those issues completely is a matter of choice, but the issues themselves are well chronicled here.

s I've said repeatedly: play your game. I just don't want it in tournament play. Like all other comp, which the majority agree is necessary, this is just a matter of WHERE the line is being drawn not whether it should be.

You say we can'tbring Forgeworld units to your tournament games. Guess ill just have to pull out my Armorcast Revenant Titan. It has (as you put it) "official" GW rules (Escalation AND Apocalypse) and is not an apocalypse formation. Pic for reference if you need any proof.

 Jancoran wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

"Numerous examples"? I think I saw the titans, and that's about it. .

read more. thats the only cure for that problem.

Or, you could just state one of your numerous examples. If they are really that common, they I'm sure you can name at least a few off the top of your head.