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.

 Xenomancers wrote:

Ehhh....That is a game mode that you can simply just chose not to play though. It's a casual game..."I don't want to play maelstrom" is perfectly acceptable. Tournaments don't play maelstrom because it unfair. The cards you draw determine the total points you can score. It is not interesting for competition. Basically maelstrom has no place in the game of 40k unless you have 2 willing participants that want to play a suboptimal mode. It is essentially as much a part of the game as Narrative play is.

Sure. And "I don't want to play Forge World" is equally acceptable.

Maelstrom is far superior for competitive play precisely because it forces players to improvise and reconsider on the fly, rather than having predictable casual games where points are always scored under the conditions chosen by the players themselves, which largely removes tactical decision-making from the game.


Forge World is a range of collector items that has no place in 40K unless you have 2 willing participants that want to play a suboptimal mode. It is essentially as much a part of the game as narrative play is, nothing more.

AS others have said most tournaments (at least larger GTs) allow FW units, their inclusion in things like Chapter approved include them in the game in a very clear way.

That said local events may ban them for a number of reasons. I know many stores do because those items are not something the store can sell, as such they don't necessarily help the store move product and make money.

Sunny Side Up wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

Ehhh....That is a game mode that you can simply just chose not to play though. It's a casual game..."I don't want to play maelstrom" is perfectly acceptable. Tournaments don't play maelstrom because it unfair. The cards you draw determine the total points you can score. It is not interesting for competition. Basically maelstrom has no place in the game of 40k unless you have 2 willing participants that want to play a suboptimal mode. It is essentially as much a part of the game as Narrative play is.

Sure. And "I don't want to play Forge World" is equally acceptable.

Maelstrom is far superior for competitive play precisely because it forces players to improvise and reconsider on the fly, rather than having predictable casual games where points are always scored under the conditions chosen by the players themselves, which largely removes tactical decision-making from the game.


Forge World is a range of collector items that has no place in 40K unless you have 2 willing participants that want to play a suboptimal mode. It is essentially as much a part of the game as narrative play is, nothing more.

Except as a TO that's a totally different consideration than just a random pickup game.

Also you clearly have some issue with FW but your acting like it's still a part of the game that requires your opponents permission to use, that hasn't been true for a number of edition's.

Ice_can wrote:

Except as a TO that's a totally different consideration than just a random pickup game.

Also you clearly have some issue with FW but your acting like it's still a part of the game that requires your opponents permission to use, that hasn't been true for a number of edition's.

Except people here have criticised TOs for exercising their right to not allow FW while being perfectly fine with TOs exercising their right to not use Maelstrom (as just one example).

I have no issue with FW.

I have an issue with hypocrites.



You either are fine with TOs making changes (whether it's removing FW, maelstrom, tape measures, houserules for terrain, whatever) or you want the game to be played as written (which would be both FW and Maelstrom).

Martel732 wrote:
I'm neutral on FW. I'd like to throw out indices, though.

if indexes why?

i am all for saying no more index options for models where that was replaced by a codx entry, but there are plenty of xenos models that only got an index entry adn did not make it into the codex.

my fav model in my collection is probably my custom warboss on a bike and second chopped up custom painboy on a bike. neither one got a codex entry becaue GW does not sell the model.

Sunny Side Up wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

Ehhh....That is a game mode that you can simply just chose not to play though. It's a casual game..."I don't want to play maelstrom" is perfectly acceptable. Tournaments don't play maelstrom because it unfair. The cards you draw determine the total points you can score. It is not interesting for competition. Basically maelstrom has no place in the game of 40k unless you have 2 willing participants that want to play a suboptimal mode. It is essentially as much a part of the game as Narrative play is.

Sure. And "I don't want to play Forge World" is equally acceptable.

Maelstrom is far superior for competitive play precisely because it forces players to improvise and reconsider on the fly, rather than having predictable casual games where points are always scored under the conditions chosen by the players themselves, which largely removes tactical decision-making from the game.


Forge World is a range of collector items that has no place in 40K unless you have 2 willing participants that want to play a suboptimal mode. It is essentially as much a part of the game as narrative play is, nothing more.

You could legitimately say everything you are saying about FW about any unit in the game and it would be equally non sequitur. People bring armies in to play with quite often with no substitutions available to replace a model you might not want to play against. Before you play a game of 40k you figure out the parameters of the game - Across the board with practically everyone I play with. Most people just say CA missions eternal war good and completely ignore maelstrom. Cause no one wants to play that nonsense.

Sunny Side Up wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

Ehhh....That is a game mode that you can simply just chose not to play though. It's a casual game..."I don't want to play maelstrom" is perfectly acceptable. Tournaments don't play maelstrom because it unfair. The cards you draw determine the total points you can score. It is not interesting for competition. Basically maelstrom has no place in the game of 40k unless you have 2 willing participants that want to play a suboptimal mode. It is essentially as much a part of the game as Narrative play is.

Sure. And "I don't want to play Forge World" is equally acceptable.

Maelstrom is far superior for competitive play precisely because it forces players to improvise and reconsider on the fly, rather than having predictable casual games where points are always scored under the conditions chosen by the players themselves, which largely removes tactical decision-making from the game.


Forge World is a range of collector items that has no place in 40K unless you have 2 willing participants that want to play a suboptimal mode. It is essentially as much a part of the game as narrative play is, nothing more.

No it's not equally acceptable at all. Players have to agree on what type of game they play. They do NOT dictate each other's armies unless both parties CHOSE to do so.

Lol you sound like a bitter person who can't afford the nice resin models. Not an excuse to try to ruin other people's fun.

 Ishagu wrote:


No it's not equally acceptable at all. Players have to agree on what type of game they play. They do NOT dictate each other's armies unless both parties CHOSE to do so.

Lol you sound like a bitter person who can't afford the nice resin models. Not an excuse to try to ruin other people's fun.

You certainly do dictate people's armies, if you change the game-format they were written to play and the format they were balanced around.

Taking a Tellemon Dread from a Custodes army isn't any different than taking away their edge through the Eyes of the Emperor strat.

To ban FW is to attack the hobby and the most dedicated hobbyists.

Say no to hobby fascism lol

 Ishagu wrote:
To ban FW is to attack the hobby and the most dedicated hobbyists.

Say no to hobby fascism lol

To ban Maelstrom is to attack the game and the most dedicated players.

Say no to gaming fascism lol.

Sunny Side Up wrote:

 Ishagu wrote:
To ban FW is to attack the hobby and the most dedicated hobbyists.

Say no to hobby fascism lol

To ban Maelstrom is to attack the game and the most dedicated players.

Say no to gaming fascism lol.

Maelstrom cards cost... What, $10?

Just checked, they're $12.50.

And, as for actual effort put in, it's as simple as buying, reading, and shuffling the cards. Not hard.

How much is a FW model? And how much effort is it to build and paint?

 JNAProductions wrote:

Sunny Side Up wrote:

 Ishagu wrote:
To ban FW is to attack the hobby and the most dedicated hobbyists.

Say no to hobby fascism lol

To ban Maelstrom is to attack the game and the most dedicated players.

Say no to gaming fascism lol.

Maelstrom cards cost... What, $10?

Just checked, they're $12.50.

And, as for actual effort put in, it's as simple as buying, reading, and shuffling the cards. Not hard.

How much is a FW model? And how much effort is it to build and paint?

I thought the argument against people (or tournaments) choosing not to play with FW was "it's GW official"!!

Now it's price?

Talk about moving goalposts, lol.



And it's not the price of the cards. It's the price of entire, well painted and painstakingly collected armies (often including beautiful FW models) that deserve to be played in the actual game (offically!!) written for these armies.

Sunny Side Up wrote:

 Ishagu wrote:
To ban FW is to attack the hobby and the most dedicated hobbyists.

Say no to hobby fascism lol

To ban Maelstrom is to attack the game and the most dedicated players.

Say no to gaming fascism lol.

You two are comparing apples and oranges. Maelstrom is game mode, forgeworld is a model line. I don't see how they equate to each other at all.

 deviantduck wrote:


You two are comparing apples and oranges. Maelstrom is game mode, forgeworld is a model line. I don't see how they equate to each other at all.

Both are "GW official".

Even if they are apples and oranges, I don't get where the notion comes from that "refusing to play apples" is apparenty perfectly acceptable but "refusing to play oranges" is facism.

You either go with:

A - "GW official is in, if you don't like it, sucks for you"
B - "TOs/players can change/throw out stuff they don't like. Everyone tweak the game to be the most enjoyable for themselves"


If you can "choose" to refuse a certain game mode, if it doesn't appeal to you, you can also choose to refuse a model line (FW, Superheavies, Orks, whatever) if it doesn't appeal to you.

Sunny Side Up wrote:

 deviantduck wrote:


You two are comparing apples and oranges. Maelstrom is game mode, forgeworld is a model line. I don't see how they equate to each other at all.

Both are "GW official".

Even if they are apples and oranges, I don't get where the notion comes from that "refusing to play apples" is apparenty perfectly acceptable but "refusing to play oranges" is facism.

You either go with:

A - "GW official is in, if you don't like it, sucks for you"
B - "TOs/players can change/throw out stuff they don't like. Everyone tweak the game to be the most enjoyable for themselves"

Because people aren't banning Maelstrom they are just electing to play different missions. If I choose to play an ITC mission I'm not banning GW missions, I'm just not using them for an event. Or if we only play GW official missions most Tournaments are only 3 rounds, I can easily select missions without using Maelstrom missions.

For what it is worth the idea of maelstrom is great, the execution is terrible, I've won too many maelstrom games due to luck to ever want to use them in a tournament. It doesn't make the game more tactical because if I draw a bunch of easy missions turn 1 and auto score all those points and my opponent draws difficult missions, the game is over as soon as we start playing.

Breng77 wrote:


Because people aren't banning Maelstrom they are just electing to play different missions. If I choose to play an ITC mission I'm not banning GW missions, I'm just not using them for an event. Or if we only play GW official missions most Tournaments are only 3 rounds, I can easily select missions without using Maelstrom missions.

For what it is worth the idea of maelstrom is great, the execution is terrible, I've won too many maelstrom games due to luck to ever want to use them in a tournament. It doesn't make the game more tactical because if I draw a bunch of easy missions turn 1 and auto score all those points and my opponent draws difficult missions, the game is over as soon as we start playing.

Same thing.

If you go to a tournament that doesn't use Forge World rules, they are just not using them for that event. They obviously aren't banning them globally. They simply elect to use different armies.

IT is different because army building is largely a player choice, vs mission design being an organizer choice.

Look at it this way I could run an event where I randomly roll missions and we never play maelstrom, I don't even need to actively ban it to not play it. This is not the case with FW, I need to actively say it is not allowed.

I agree that organizers can make any rules they want, but mission choice impacts player agency less than restrictions on army construction. FW is largely not different armies, it is additional rules for existing armies. Banning it is more akin to saying, no heavy support allowed, than it is to making a choice about what missions to play.

Let me put it differently and you may see it as semantics

Choosing a mission is a positive (affirmative) choice it is not removing something from the game.

Choosing to not allow certain models is a negative choice, it is removing something from the game.

Sunny Side Up wrote:

 deviantduck wrote:


You two are comparing apples and oranges. Maelstrom is game mode, forgeworld is a model line. I don't see how they equate to each other at all.

Both are "GW official".

Even if they are apples and oranges, I don't get where the notion comes from that "refusing to play apples" is apparenty perfectly acceptable but "refusing to play oranges" is facism.

You either go with:

A - "GW official is in, if you don't like it, sucks for you"
B - "TOs/players can change/throw out stuff they don't like. Everyone tweak the game to be the most enjoyable for themselves"


If you can "choose" to refuse a certain game mode, if it doesn't appeal to you, you can also choose to refuse a model line (FW, Superheavies, Orks, whatever) if it doesn't appeal to you.

This is why I compared malestrom to narrative. They are both official ways to play the game. It's just no one wants to play them because they are the least balanced way to play.

Mission types and models are not the same thing and this topic has become very silly as a result of some very bad arguments being made.

 Xenomancers wrote:

This is why I compared malestrom to narrative. They are both official ways to play the game. It's just no one wants to play them because they are the least balanced way to play.

Where do you get that from? For me narrative missions are the default game mode, pure eternal war/matched play we do only on special occasions (usually because of time restraints).

If you are convinced that your way is better, Run events, make it popular and people will swap to play it. That is how it works. Its just that simple.

Looking at my BCP, till august I'm playing ITC 2K matches. Or a Narrative league. I don't care about Narrative, so here comes the ITC.

Sunny Side Up wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

Ehhh....That is a game mode that you can simply just chose not to play though. It's a casual game..."I don't want to play maelstrom" is perfectly acceptable. Tournaments don't play maelstrom because it unfair. The cards you draw determine the total points you can score. It is not interesting for competition. Basically maelstrom has no place in the game of 40k unless you have 2 willing participants that want to play a suboptimal mode. It is essentially as much a part of the game as Narrative play is.

Sure. And "I don't want to play Forge World" is equally acceptable.

Maelstrom is far superior for competitive play precisely because it forces players to improvise and reconsider on the fly, rather than having predictable casual games where points are always scored under the conditions chosen by the players themselves, which largely removes tactical decision-making from the game.

or rather, its a mishmash of nonsense objectives without any relevance to the ostensible battle description, that force players to chase random goals to give the appearance of dynamics for its own sake . At least as as currently presented, and thats all GW was aiming for. That doesn't mean however its any less official or usable than FW

Forge World is a range of collector items that has no place in 40K unless you have 2 willing participants that want to play a suboptimal mode. It is essentially as much a part of the game as narrative play is, nothing more.

That is a personal subjective opinion not supported by any rules or statements from GW.

The entire hobby is a range of collector items, like...by definition, the game is there to give people an excuse to play with their collections, and GW will be the first to tell you that. GW is not in the business of making games, what they tell their shareholders in their annual statements is that they are in the business of making models for collectors.


More to the point, what about FW models or rules makes them any less suited to tournament play than Codex units? Nobody seems to have issues with Index units, even those that no longer even have available models. What makes FW different? It's certainly hard to see where there is any balance issues.

 Ishagu wrote:
Mission types and models are not the same thing and this topic has become very silly as a result of some very bad arguments being made.

This. It's an insane argument to make, and the person making it doesn't even agree with FW bans. They're obviously arguing for the sake of arguing, so just ignore the attempt at derailing the thread into nonsense.

 Ishagu wrote:
To ban FW is to attack the hobby and the most dedicated hobbyists.

Say no to hobby fascism lol

I must be some kind of super fascist since I mostly play Kill Team which is pretty much just 40k Troop options and bans pretty much everything else. I suppose it wouldn't be so bad as to allow some select HQ, Elite and Heavy Support options into the game. I think I will allow them into Kill Team this Saturday. But I am totally not going to allow Daemons or vehicles! Those are still banned.

The worst part about the spanish no-FW policy is that my nice Adeptus Custodes army just can't work.

Without FW I lose all kind of tactical tools and I become just a small bunch of useless elite meele troops that have to compete agaisnt the far superior and well rounded jetbikes.

 Galas wrote:
The worst part about the spanish no-FW policy is that my nice Adeptus Custodes army just can't work.

Without FW I lose all kind of tactical tools and I become just a small bunch of useless elite meele troops that have to compete agaisnt the far superior and well rounded jetbikes.

Scream fascisct, on the second thought rather don't.

Ok bad jokes aside is there any actual reason behind this?

Nah, is just that spain has always felt abandoned by GW and china recasters were law, and people really, really fear FW, even when like 80% of people that is playing now has never played agaisnt anything from FW.

But maybe things are changing now. Theres a couple of tournaments that are trying to make things more serious, knocking down on recasters, etc... and mabye in the future they'll start to allow FW. I can only hope.

 Galas wrote:
Nah, is just that spain has always felt abandoned by GW and china recasters were law, and people really, really fear FW, even when like 80% of people that is playing now has never played agaisnt anything from FW.

But maybe things are changing now. Theres a couple of tournaments that are trying to make things more serious, knocking down on recasters, etc... and mabye in the future they'll start to allow FW. I can only hope.

How exactly are you left out?
Can't be worse then us

Well, when GW closed all of their continental HQ's, stopped doing any kind of events in spain, ranking up prices, started with their bad translations or spanglish (Things like translating the text but leting out things like Warriors of Chaos or Warp in english after 20 years of spanish translations for everything), and then killed Fantasy (Spain was a very big fantasy market, much more popular than 40k), etc...

All of that left a very sour taste in most people here, but as I say, things are changing, slowly but steady.

Around here you see lots of FW at tournaments. Well, models using FW rules anyway. Most "FW" models I see are Dreadnaughts (Leviathans, etc), likely because they are much better than their mainstream counterparts in terms of power (invul save, better weapon loadouts). Most of those I see on the table are either "counts as" or knock-offs. I rarely see an actual FW model, and its even rarer to see somebody with the actual rules for their model other than a screenshot.

It would be great if mainstream GW took over production of the popular FW models such as the Leviathan, Deredo etc and did them as plastic kits with rules in the mainstream codexes. I think they'd sell, and might hurt the margin of the forgers. It would also level the playing field somewhat.