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.

Hi everybody Mulusy here

I recently decided to start csm. I know they are kinda the underdogs but on the other side they get a ton o forgeworld loving. I hade the fire raptor in mind (which is actually better than the loyalist version), the chaos baneblade or the chaos typhon.

My question is: Are there lots of tournaments that ban forgeworld? And my other question: Does it bring csm on a higher level?

By the way I am compleatly new to the 40k scene so sry if it tourns out to be a stupid question.

The answer depends on the tournament. Some play the game as-is and allow FW rules, some still have their FW bans/restrictions. Thankfully these are becoming rarer as GW's "play whatever you want" attitude in 7th makes the anti-FW excuses even more of a joke than they already were, but there are still some TOs and communities that stubbornly cling to their bans. The only way to know the answer is to check the rules for the specific tournament you're interested in and/or ask the TOs in your area.

Edited by RiTides - Keep it polite, please

Ok thx. Do you think it puts chaos on a more competetive level than they are now with just the csm codex?

You'll need to check with whatever events you plan to attend. Many bigger GTs follow the ITC guidelines which allows for most FW units that lack ranged D weapons to be used.

As far as CSM being more viable there are a few cool models that boost their effectiveness. Dreadclaws are cool but they're more gimmicky than effective IMO. Try them out and see.

I thought about fire raptors and some of the tanks from imperial armor...

Mulusy, where do you play? What's your local game store? I take it, by your flag, you are in Germany?

Mulusy wrote:
I thought about fire raptors and some of the tanks from imperial armor...

CSM FW vehicles can be better than some of their loyalist counterparts. Raptor included because they can take malefic ammo (spelling?).

Here in the states (at least in Cali) most Forgeworld stuff seems to be allowed. There are a few rules tweaks here and there, but on the whole folks seem to be fairly open to them.

IA: 13 gives Chaos a lot of nifty and fun things to add to a list. As far as making it more competitive, it really depends on what armies are at your local tournaments.

I run a Fire Raptor and a Dreadclaw drop pod, and both of substantially enhanced the effectiveness of my Night Lords army. The Fire Raptor is an exceptional base of firepower, and the Dreadclaw allows a lot more flexibility and maneuverability, you just can't use it like a standard drop pod.

Most forfeworld stuff is allowed.
First check your local club and friends and see if there ok.
Next id kinda see if it's on the itc ban list as a lot of us tournaments follow it.

AdeptiCon has allowed FW in a number of our events going on 12 years.

After a decade of debating for more FW inclusion in events, supporting FW rules and books, seems that we have turned the corner. The focus of complaints now is on LoW and Str D.

There's no reason to forbid FW use anymore. 7th has thrown all remaining semblances of balance out of the window, so just play with everything there is.

muwhe wrote:
AdeptiCon has allowed FW in a number of our events going on 12 years.

After a decade of debating for more FW inclusion in events, supporting FW rules and books, seems that we have turned the corner. The focus of complaints now is on LoW and Str D.

I'd have to politely disagree. A tournament whose friendly event bans Forgeworld army lists (the only way I can play a fluffy Krieg Death Rider company is to enter the ultra-hardcore exterminatus event why exactly?) and limits forgeworld units to 0-1 still has a long way to go in FW friendliness in my opinion.

muwhe wrote:
AdeptiCon has allowed FW in a number of our events going on 12 years.

After a decade of debating for more FW inclusion in events, supporting FW rules and books, seems that we have turned the corner. The focus of complaints now is on LoW and Str D.

I think the analogy of hitting your finger with a hammer makes you forget about your headache is appropriate. There are much bigger (figuratively and literally) fish to fry since the insanity of 6th edition started.

@Eldar Vampire Hunter -

We will have to politely disagree.

AdeptiCon has produced the Warhammer 40K Approved Imperial Armour Units listing for years to make it possible for people and other events to source the most current rule material for a unit.

AdeptiCon supports a full weekend slate of Horus Heresy Events supporting not only Forge World models but the Horus Heresy rules, and lists.

AdeptiCon allows Forge World models in a large number of our events but as you have correctly pointed out with a 0-1 unique restriction. However, if someone was so inclined they could run a full army of nothing but Forge world models as long as they never replicated a unit entry.

You are correct, we generally do not support Forge world army lists in our events. I have explained it a number of times on this board. Running any event is a balance of time and resources. Forge World does not update those lists with any sort of regularity. Games Workshop is updating with greater regularity and less certainty. So in many cases the Forge World lists are horribly out of date in terms of unit entries, point costs, and special rule alignment with current GW releases. In order to commit to using them we have to be willing to support and update them to meet our event standards. We feel at this time our resources are better spent supporting aspects of the show that impact more attendees.

muwhe wrote:
AdeptiCon allows Forge World models in a large number of our events but as you have correctly pointed out with a 0-1 unique restriction. However, if someone was so inclined they could run a full army of nothing but Forge world models as long as they never replicated a unit entry.

But this rule doesn't make any sense. Why should there be a 0-1 limit on FW models when there isn't a 0-1 limit on anything else GW publishes?

Forge World does not update those lists with any sort of regularity. Games Workshop is updating with greater regularity and less certainty. So in many cases the Forge World lists are horribly out of date in terms of unit entries, point costs, and special rule alignment with current GW releases.

How exactly is this a problem? It doesn't matter if the IA1 Armored Battlegroup list isn't updated to match the current Codex: Imperial Guard, just like it doesn't matter if Codex: Dark Angels is updated to match the current Codex: Space Marines. The point costs for ABG LRBTs don't have to match the point costs for C:IG LRBTs, just like DA tactical squads don't have to match the point costs for C:SM tactical squads. The only compatibility issues are a very small number of references to old-codex rules, and you could probably fix all of them in an hour at most.

@Peregrine -

But this rule doesn't make any sense.

It does not make sense to you, it never has and that is ok. But it is called compromise for the allowance of Forge World. We maybe turning a corner and it may no longer be needed moving forward. That is a discussion for this year but it has served its purpose.

How exactly is this a problem?

It can be a huge problem if you want to avoid player confusion, complexity and angst. A lot of those lists have units that are left with special rules that no longer exist in the parent codex, no longer make any sense, or are significantly changed from a previous version. Additionally, you now have to account for the ally matrix, and you have the potential for the exact the same models on the table operating with different costs and rules. I for one am not going to commit our staff eight months out from the event, to support, review and re-write Forge World lists depending on what Games Workshop chooses to release so that a handful of attendees can bring them and I find most reasonable people understand that.

you could probably fix all of them in an hour at most.

As someone that has spent a good bit of time updating Forge World unit content to current rules, over and over again for a decade. I can tell you it does not take an hour.
It is a major and persistent time commitment.

muwhe wrote:
It does not make sense to you, it never has and that is ok. But it is called compromise for the allowance of Forge World.

But the point is that there shouldn't be a compromise, just like there shouldn't be a 0-1 limit on tactical squads because that's the compromise between playing the game GW published and my irrational demands to ban tactical squads.

A lot of those lists have units that are left with special rules that no longer exist in the parent codex

And that's the only legitimate argument against FW army lists. However, you've probably spent more time defending the ban on FW army lists than it would take to fix the missing rules.

no longer make any sense, or are significantly changed from a previous version.

And, again, who cares? They're separate armies with their own rules. We don't get confused and demand that the older codices be banned when the newest marine codex gives tactical squads a different rule, so why should we do it when a FW list is involved? As long as the rules function you continue to use the older rules/point costs/etc until the army list is updated, just like you do with an older marine codex that is still waiting for its update to match the newest marine codex.

Additionally, you now have to account for the ally matrix

No you don't, because they're all part of their "parent codex" faction, just like Farsight Tau don't cause any problems with the allies matrix.

and you have the potential for the exact the same models on the table operating with different costs and rules.

You already have this potential with different marine armies, codex supplements, formations, etc. If people can handle all of the "same model, different rules" problems that exist outside of FW rules then adding FW army lists is not going to change anything. And if they can't handle the FW army lists you need to start banning some non-FW rules.

As someone that has spent a good bit of time updating Forge World unit content to current rules, over and over again for a decade. I can tell you it does not take an hour.
It is a major and persistent time commitment.

Err, lol? Are you hand-engraving your updates on stone tablets or something? I'll do IA1 (ABG) and IA13 (Elysian drop troops) since I have the books here, and I'm starting the clock.

Armored Battlegroup (5 minutes)

*Treat all references to "Imperial Guard" as "Astrawhatsit"
*Page 244: replace ".. allowed by the Imperial Guard Orders rule (see page 29 of Codex: Imperial Guard ..." with ".. allowed by the Voice of Command rule (see page X of Codex: Astrastupidname ..."
*Page 248: add Voice of Command to the company commander. Replace Junior Officer with Voice of Command.
*Page 257: replace camo cloaks with camo gear.


Elysian Drop Troops (3 minutes)
*Treat all references to "Imperial Guard" as "Astrawhatsit"
Page 212: Add the Voice of Command rule to the Company Commander. Replace Intercept Reserves with Navy Orders.
Page 214: ignore the Special Operations rule.
Page 215: replace Junior Officer with Voice of Command.

 Peregrine wrote:

Err, lol? Are you hand-engraving your updates on stone tablets or something? I'll do IA1 (ABG) and IA13 (Elysian drop troops) since I have the books here, and I'm starting the clock.

I think it would be a nightmare to update the Necron Dark Harvest army to be compatible with the current one.

For the OP with regards to forgeworld chaos units..
My usual opponent fields a decimator with mark of nurgle....not only a beautiful model but a complete pain in the aquila to remove from the board! IWND and it can come back to life. Paired with twin lasers ap3 and I think D3 shots...it's fun fluffy and is a cool thing to play against.

Also I just bought the updated siege of vraks and find the detachments for the renegades probably one of the few lists I would run in my other gamer group where wraithknights, D weapons and scatter-bikes abound...I still have to fight the decurion(?).

Good luck with your purchases and a few small tournies in the UK (30+players) I have attended don't have a problem. I think the other posters are correct when they simply advise contacting the organisers.

 RobPro wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

Err, lol? Are you hand-engraving your updates on stone tablets or something? I'll do IA1 (ABG) and IA13 (Elysian drop troops) since I have the books here, and I'm starting the clock.

I think it would be a nightmare to update the Necron Dark Harvest army to be compatible with the current one.

Asides from appropriate price cuts and new abilities, they'd follow the CAD and not the Decurion. Flensing Scarabs or whatnot need a new ability though.

 RobPro wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

Err, lol? Are you hand-engraving your updates on stone tablets or something? I'll do IA1 (ABG) and IA13 (Elysian drop troops) since I have the books here, and I'm starting the clock.

I think it would be a nightmare to update the Necron Dark Harvest army to be compatible with the current one.

Not for anyone with enough free time to be on Dakka all day anyway. Right?

I honestly don't see the restrictions put on FW; models, lists, or otherwise, being an issue that needs to be addressed. Peregrine is sort of the lone voice in the void on this topic, there is no push by the community to move in that direction which is why I rarely take the time to comment on it. Since it went on for a few posts I figured I'd weigh in but really this isn't, by and large, an issue. As I said before though it's really up to individual TOs what they want to do with FW and the vast majority are ok with it, but only the most recent lists which does make sense. Adepticon has been great at it for a long time.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 RobPro wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

Err, lol? Are you hand-engraving your updates on stone tablets or something? I'll do IA1 (ABG) and IA13 (Elysian drop troops) since I have the books here, and I'm starting the clock.

I think it would be a nightmare to update the Necron Dark Harvest army to be compatible with the current one.

Asides from appropriate price cuts and new abilities, they'd follow the CAD and not the Decurion. Flensing Scarabs or whatnot need a new ability though.

What about for wargear that is defined and listed in DH but not the Necron Codex anymore (like Phaeron)? Do you allow it, not allow it, or change it? No matter what call you make, people won't be happy and people will misunderstand it.

This all makes a difference because nearly everything list in the DH book is tweaked from the necron codex or the text was copy/pasted from the old one so it exists in the FW book while being removed from the codex. You're basically writing a fandex in your efforts to let it be playable. This goes way beyond CAD vs Decurion or a few unit updates.

+1, I do believe RobPro gets the associated issues that go along with supporting Forge World army lists. : )

Maybe we should check the Forge World download section and see what they have posted. Here

Under a header of :
Forge World
Warhammer 40,000 6th Edition Rules Updates:

Forge World does a lot of great things ... keeping the download section of the website current is not one of them. Neither is keeping existing rules aligned with the core offerings.

Forge World Army lists are just where we draw the line of what we are willing to take on to make Forge World material playable in our events.

muwhe wrote:

+1, I do believe RobPro gets the associated issues that go along with supporting Forge World army lists. : )

Maybe we should check the Forge World download section and see what they have posted. Here

Under a header of :
Forge World
Warhammer 40,000 6th Edition Rules Updates:

Forge World does a lot of great things ... keeping the download section of the website current is not one of them. Neither is keeping existing rules aligned with the core offerings.

Forge World Army lists are just where we draw the line of what we are willing to take on to make Forge World material playable in our events.

I find AdeptiCon's Forgeworld policies to be an excellent compromise, and absolutely love them. They're what got me to be open to Forgeworld in the first place! They have been champions of it for a long time, and have done more for Forgeworld acceptance in the hobby than probably any other organization other than, well, Forgeworld! From what I've seen . Although I think the Independent Characters podcast, to draw from another category, is right up there, too.

 RobPro wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 RobPro wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

Err, lol? Are you hand-engraving your updates on stone tablets or something? I'll do IA1 (ABG) and IA13 (Elysian drop troops) since I have the books here, and I'm starting the clock.

I think it would be a nightmare to update the Necron Dark Harvest army to be compatible with the current one.

Asides from appropriate price cuts and new abilities, they'd follow the CAD and not the Decurion. Flensing Scarabs or whatnot need a new ability though.

What about for wargear that is defined and listed in DH but not the Necron Codex anymore (like Phaeron)? Do you allow it, not allow it, or change it? No matter what call you make, people won't be happy and people will misunderstand it.

This all makes a difference because nearly everything list in the DH book is tweaked from the necron codex or the text was copy/pasted from the old one so it exists in the FW book while being removed from the codex. You're basically writing a fandex in your efforts to let it be playable. This goes way beyond CAD vs Decurion or a few unit updates.

If it doesn't exist in the parent codex, it would likely be removed (and change World Killer to just give his unit Relentless). It isn't writing a fandex; it really is updating it to new standards.

How exactly is this a problem? It doesn't matter if the IA1 Armored Battlegroup list isn't updated to match the current Codex: Imperial Guard, just like it doesn't matter if Codex: Dark Angels is updated to match the current Codex: Space Marines. The point costs for ABG LRBTs don't have to match the point costs for C:IG LRBTs, just like DA tactical squads don't have to match the point costs for C:SM tactical squads. The only compatibility issues are a very small number of references to old-codex rules, and you could probably fix all of them in an hour at most.

Step 1: Complain that any event that doesn't allow full and unchecked 40k including Forgeworld is using "house rules"

Step 2: Demand that TOs spend their time instituting house rules in order to fix Forgeworld's lazy, scattered, and outdated rules.

The irony is just amazing here.

 OverwatchCNC wrote:
I honestly don't see the restrictions put on FW; models, lists, or otherwise, being an issue that needs to be addressed.

Obviously not, because you aren't excluded from tournaments over those rules. But the fact that you personally don't lose anything by having those rules doesn't mean that they aren't a problem.

As for being the "lone voice", perhaps I'm just the only person stubborn enough to keep having this fight and most of the other people with FW armies have just given up and accepted that they aren't welcome in tournaments? You really shouldn't be so proud of how your community has managed to drive off people who wanted to be part of it.

muwhe wrote:
Under a header of :
Forge World
Warhammer 40,000 6th Edition Rules Updates:

Forge World does a lot of great things ... keeping the download section of the website current is not one of them. Neither is keeping existing rules aligned with the core offerings.

But they don't need to be current because there were very few changes from 6th to 7th. Look at the list of "updates" for the ABG and Elysian lists I did. Other than ignoring one unit rule (stormtrooper special operations) that doesn't exist anymore it's just incredibly obvious things that only need to be explicit because some TFG might rules lawyer it in a tournament if it isn't. And even then it took about 5 minutes per list to update the few things that even TFG rules lawyers could exploit. For the vast majority of players no update is needed, because they're smart enough to figure out that "Imperial Guard" and "Astra Stupidname" are the same thing.

Forge World Army lists are just where we draw the line of what we are willing to take on to make Forge World material playable in our events.

IOW, "we don't want to spend 5 minutes making your army list legal". I'll say it again: you've spent more time defending your "no FW army lists" policy than it would take to update the lists and make them playable.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 JGrand wrote:
Step 1: Complain that any event that doesn't allow full and unchecked 40k including Forgeworld is using "house rules"

That's not what I said. Every tournament uses house rules, and that's fine. The problem here isn't that tournaments use house rules, it's that tournaments use stupid house rules.

That's not what I said. Every tournament uses house rules, and that's fine. The problem here isn't that tournaments use house rules, it's that tournaments use stupid house rules.

The issue is that you use the term "house rules" as a way to deride anything that doesn't align with your vision of how the game operates. 40k requires "house rules" to operate in general--there is no "standard" game of 40k. The reason you don't call something a "tournament format" is because "house rules" gives you a rhetorical device in which you attempt to slyly insinuate that TOs are somehow changing the game.

As to the 0-1 Forgeworld limit, there are plenty of good reasons for it. Your argument that it is intended to be part of 40k by GW is valid. So is the argument that the units are generally not any worse than the craziness that GW has given us lately. That being said, Forgeworld has a number of issues that the GW codices do not.

1. Forgeworld rules are spread out in numerous sources, which are often difficult to get due to their age.
2. Forgeworld rules have numerous versions, which makes it difficult for players (particularly new players) to know if they are using the correct version of the rules.
3. Forgeworld rules are messy and outdated.
4. This messy, outdatedness requires substantial time for TOs to fix.

Moreover, there is the issue of balance. If a Magic expansion was released that had 100 new red cards, 100 new blue cards, 20 new green cards, 3 new white cards, and 0 new black cards, players would not be so keen on it. Forgeworld is no different. The Imperium receives tons of new units, while some factions receive under five. This creates even further imbalance in the game.

Finally, there is the ever-present issue of demand. Players simply don't seem to care about adding the Forgeworld mess into competitive 40k. We have seen this sentiment erode over time, and I'm sure that we will see a more open attitude toward Forgeworld expansion as time goes on. As it stands, TOs have enough to worry about already without asking them to re-write Dark Harvest so that the one person out of 200 attendees who owns the models can use it.

 JGrand wrote:
The reason you don't call something a "tournament format" is because "house rules" gives you a rhetorical device in which you attempt to slyly insinuate that TOs are somehow changing the game.

I'm not "slyly insinuating" anything, I'm stating it explicitly: TOs change the game. The only question here is whether the changes a TO makes are good or bad. Most people believe that banning unbound armies and doing something to fix the problem with impossible maelstrom cards are good changes. Banning/restricting FW rules is a stupid change.

As to the 0-1 Forgeworld limit, there are plenty of good reasons for it.

No there aren't. The only reason for it is to appease the anti-FW zealots. None of the four reasons you give in any way justify the 0-1 limit because all of them are just as much of a problem when you bring one copy of a unit. If a unit's rules are hard to find then why does it matter if there's one copy of it or five copies of it in an army? In fact, the 0-1 limit makes your problems worse because you're forced to take multiple different units instead of 2+ copies of the same one, which means more rules to keep track of.

1. Forgeworld rules are spread out in numerous sources, which are often difficult to get due to their age.

GW rules are also spread out in numerous sources. Have you noticed how many different books GW has published lately? And how they've put random formations in a bunch of different sources? TBH "main GW" rules are worse.

2. Forgeworld rules have numerous versions, which makes it difficult for players (particularly new players) to know if they are using the correct version of the rules.

So do codex rules.

3. Forgeworld rules are messy and outdated.

So are codex rules.

4. This messy, outdatedness requires substantial time for TOs to fix.

Just like codex rules.

Moreover, there is the issue of balance. If a Magic expansion was released that had 100 new red cards, 100 new blue cards, 20 new green cards, 3 new white cards, and 0 new black cards, players would not be so keen on it. Forgeworld is no different. The Imperium receives tons of new units, while some factions receive under five. This creates even further imbalance in the game.

You would have a point here if codex-only 40k had equal numbers for each faction. But, unfortunately, it doesn't. If you're willing to allow things like Imperial armies having battle brothers options with half the game while non-Imperial players get one army at most then I can't see how you can make any reasonable objection to FW's Imperial bias.

Players simply don't seem to care about adding the Forgeworld mess into competitive 40k.

Alternatively, people who care about FW rules have given up and decided that "competitive" 40k is a bunch of TFGs.* Not everyone is as stubborn as I am, and even I have been tempted to just give up and accept that I'm not welcome in "competitive" 40k. So, as I said before, don't be so proud of the fact that you've managed to exclude people from your little clique.

*I'm not necessarily agreeing with the "TFG" point of view, of course, or accusing anyone here of being a TFG.

 Peregrine wrote:
You really shouldn't be so proud of how your community has managed to drive off people who wanted to be part of it.

Do you have any evidence of people choosing to not enter Adepticon events as a result of their Forgeworld rules policy?

The problem here isn't that tournaments use house rules, it's that tournaments use stupid house rules.

That's always going to be a matter of personal preference, though. Any house rule a tournament institutes is going to be seen as stupid by some players. The TO simply needs to go with the option that is seen as positive to the greater number of players.

The fact that you personally see this as a stupid rule means nothing more than that you personally see this as a stupid rule.