Guest Editorial: Forgeworld and Tournaments by BBF

I just had an interesting conversation yesterday with a local friend regarding the use of Forge World for competitive play. Basically I got the message there is a line drawn in the sand… You’re either pro Forge World or anti Forge World. I think this is a really bad stance to take and I’ll discuss why.

INTRODUCTION

2013 is looking like the year that Forge World will finally have its big chance in the US Indy GT circuit. Lots and lots of tournament organizers (TOs) for major events have said they will allow the use of Forge World and I think it will be very interesting to see how it all plays out because the big events tend to have an effect upon the game. For example the Internet said Draigowing was crap then after Blackmoor took 2nd place at the NOVA two years ago it became on of the most popular armies in fifth edition.

PUSHBACK AND A DISCUSSION ABOUT DOUBLE FOC

Last year several TOs for major events such as the American Team Championship (ATC) and Feast of Blades (FoB) announced they would allow the use of the double Force Organization Chart (2x FOC)… There was some fierce pushback on the Internet and as far as I know all of these TOs eventually capitulated.

At first I bought into the scary arguments against the use of double FOCs… Those dead set against it argued vehemently that we would see very abusive lists such as Necrons featuring six squads of Canoptek Wraiths lead by four Destroyer Lords or Imperial Guard with six Manticores – oh my Henny Penny.

It’s important to take a step back and look at the big picture. These types of uber spammy armies are very unbalanced… Take for example the Necron army with six squads of Canoptek Wraiths – if it comes up against a Space Wolf army with two or more JotWW Rune Priests they are in for a rude surprise. If an army is not properly built to take all comers (TAC) then in a competitive multi day tournament with a well designed system these types of armies eventually fall short. A good tournament will have their system designed so that various armies have a chance to win. Using table quarters as a primary objective is one way to level the playing field and prevent flyer heavy armies from dominating. If you see a lot of the same types of armies on all the top tables then probably the system could have been better designed.

I have seen some very cool designed armies using double FOC such as Chaos Space Marines – wouldn’t it be nice to be able to field a named character such as Typhus, a Sorcerer and a Dark Apostale or Warp Smith? Another good example is the use of double FOC for Tyranids since many of their best choices are all clumped in the Elites section (e.g., Yrmgal genestealers, Hive Guard, Zoanthropes, Doom of Malan’tai, etc).

I am now pro double FOC for these very reasons. I think the very rock paper scissors nature of 40k will take care of the uber spammy armies – it is just my opinion though.

I have been told that the double FOC was designed by the game developers primarily so that older codices can still be competitive and that makes a lot of good sense to me. What we want is a level playing field and the double FOC is a big step in that direction. At the very least give it a chance first before you say no. You might be pleasantly surprised.

FORGE WORLD

In regards to the inclusion of Forge World in the tournament environment there is still very much the possibility there will again be some major pushback against it just like the double FOC last year… Maybe some or even all of the TOs will end up capitulating yet again – only time will tell.

MISINFORMATION

There is a lot of misinformation circulating why Forge World is bad for tournaments. The Hades Breaching Drill and Lucius Pattern assault drop pods are always the first units mentioned when people want to build a case against Forge World… These are just two units though. Should we ban the use of Forge World simply because there are two undercosted overpowered units? There are many units in 40k that are also undercosted and overpowered. To me it’s a better approach to just ban the unpopular Forge World units rather than throw the proverbial baby out with the bath water.

I have found through many discussions with a wide array of gamers that many don’t realize that Forge World now typically will categorize their units as either 40k Approved or Apocalypse. Units such as Thunderhawks and Titans were intended for play in normal 40k. On the other hand a Contemptor dreadnaught is properly costed in my opinion.

Some people don’t even realize that Forge World is owned and operated by GW. The same people developing 40k codices sit right beside the people writing the rules for Forge World. There has been a lot of time and effort put into properly integrating Forge World 40k Approved units for sixth edition. Imperial Armor Apocalypse 2nd Edition and Imperial Armor Aeronautica are two books recently released by Forge World to help meet this goal. Forge World has also produced several PDFs to help incorporate their 40k Approved units for play in sixth edition and this particular information (i.e., PDFs) is right at your fingertips.

Some think that the inclusion of Forge World breaks the game – I often hear people say that if GW had intended for Space Wolves to have a flyer with transport capacity then they would have released one in their fifth edition codex. We shouldn’t immediately dismiss that out of hand but on the flip side who can truly say other than GW if they didn’t intend for Space Wolves to have access to the Storm Eagle or the Caetus Assault Ram? Like I said GW owns Forge World and their employees all work together – they are driven by profit.

LEVEL PLAYING FIELD AND THE IMPLEMENTATION OF FORGE WORLD

Forge World can be another means to level the playing field. Remember that not everyone has the inclination to play the newest armies released by GW with the best rules written specifically for the latest edition and some armies don’t age as well over time as others.

There is a wide range of Forge World 40k Approved units available to various armies that provide excellent defense versus the much hated flyers. Sure there are certainly some undercosted over powered Forge World units such as the two mentioned above but to me it is the responsibility of a good TO to lay down some well thought out restrictions. Sure that requires a good deal of additional work on the part of the TOs but I think it would definitely serve them very well… Otherwise I think what will happen is the tournament environment will become like the old wild west – we really don’t want that to happen either – the players need guidance from their chosen TOs so that Forge World does not break the game and it doesn’t have to either.

GUIDELINES FOR TOURNAMENTS

I think the following guidelines can help make a smooth transition for the inclusion of Forge World 40k Approved units for the game:

• First and foremost do some serious research to determine which units you will allow. It is okay to ban the use of some units. Forge World now has a category called 40k Approved – units that fall under this category are certified as okay to use in normal 40k games, not just Apocalypse. Forge World has released new books (Imperial Armor 2nd Ediion and the new Aeronautica book) that lists which units are approved for 40k. There are also PDFs available that bring older Forge World units in line with sixth edition.

• Secondly and probably most important of all require army lists that feature Forge World well in advance for review as opposed to armies that don’t. If you spot something not kosher them simply say no, it’s not allowed.

• Thirdly once this is all sorted post a list publically announcing which of the Forge World units are good to go and will be in play. That way you are catering to everyone. Players that don’t want to bring any Forge World will know what to expect and can design their armies accordingly.

•Fourth and finally require players that bring Forge World to provide a copy of the rules for these units for their opponents to review prior to the start of each game.

Over time if Forge World becomes more universally accepted then these guidelines can be relaxed. I think that some restrictions are necessary at this point in time to create a comfort level so that most everyone is okay with the use of Forge World in tournaments… Otherwise it could potentially be another disaster and you’ll have to listen to all the people that will say I told you so.

CONCLUSION

I have been playing the game for a long time and I am a competitive gamer. I am just now realizing though that not everyone who travels to a big tournament is a hard core competitive gamer. There has been a trend over the past few years to design tournaments to mainly reward the more competitive players. A lot of people think that Forge World is yet another tool for the win at all costs (WAAC) mentality. Certainly it can be but then again it doesn’t have to be and it’s the responsibility of the TOs to ensure this doesn’t happen. Maintaining the current ban on the use of Forge World accomplishes that goal but in a way it’s the same type of thing as cutting off your nose to spite your face. In reality some of the the biggest opponents to Forge World are competitive gamers… If they have their way then it’s one less thing to worry about when preparing an army for a tournament.

Change happens and it’s the only thing constant in the end. I’m not here to say Forge World is intended for 40k but then again I can’t turn a blind eye to all the work that has gone towards making it more compatitble. I know there are lots of people who would enjoy using Forge World and not just because it makes their armies all that more competitive. I have played in tournaments that allow Forge World – those that were properly designed were just as much fun as any other tournament… So I know it can work.

At the very least give it a chance first before you say no. You might be pleasantly surprised.

Tags:

About Reecius

The fearless leader of the intrepid group of gamers gone retailers at Frontline Gaming!

48 Responses to “Guest Editorial: Forgeworld and Tournaments by BBF”

  1. Gregorius42 January 7, 2013 3:34 am #

    Great article. I tend to add Forge World pieces for aesthetics and then often run them as GW models to make opponents comfortable. This works out for me too as I do not have to purchase the big heavy FW book to substantiate the stats of my model.

    Speaking of which, for the BAO do we bring the book or just a photocopy of said rules attached to our list packet? Hint hint- would save weight for some out of town players. Just saying…

  2. Ivestar January 7, 2013 3:52 am #

    All in or all out. Don’t comp it.

  3. Amberclad87 January 7, 2013 5:27 am #

    I’m definitely pro-forgeworld, and one of the big things that irks me about the anti-forgeworld camp is that most tend to not know anything about the forgeworld units before basing there decision. Right now forgeworld is actually helping fight the imbalances in 40k with more anti-flyer units and also like you said helping older codex’s, (Tau).

  4. Tangentical January 7, 2013 5:56 am #

    Nice article, its worthwhile listening to the 40kUK podcast (the bits where the guys aren’t talking about drinking too much and failing to make day 2 of tournaments!) as some of their guys used to be play testers and their main argument against is that FW units aren’t play tested as rigorously pre rules release or proofread as closely.

    FW has been in a fair few UK tournaments and as far as I know it hasn’t started any wars!

    • Vidar January 8, 2013 1:44 am #

      Thats really saying something considering how poorly playtested GW releases usually are.

      • BBF January 8, 2013 9:01 am #

        I agree… I have never been impressed with GW playtesting their own codices nor outside sources.

  5. Zëro January 7, 2013 6:05 am #

    I agree totally with your post, except that there are armies that get much much more love from FW than others (IG and Orks mostly)

    One question, What about Forge World Armies, such as Death Korp, Elysian and the new Imperial Guard Armoured Battlegroup from Imperial Armour Volume One Second Edition?

    • Black Blow Fly January 7, 2013 5:04 pm #

      I think at this point in time it’s best just to go with units officially approved for 40k (mostly from the two Forge World books I mentioned)… Not everyone is ready yet for Forge World so start slowly to build a base. If you’re successful with that then go from there.

  6. Hulksmash January 7, 2013 9:21 am #

    Forgeworld shifts the game back to edition 5.5. 6th edition rules without flyers. Interceptor is spread to liberally thoughout Forgeworld units. And those units can be taken by hordes of people due to allies. Flyers then become a liability. Hence my dislike of Forgeworld. And that doesn’t really touch on the disparity in units added on a per codex basis.

    Dual Force Org I’m down with. I don’t think you can abuse it enough and it makes for some silly and fun builds.

  7. Adam
    Adam January 7, 2013 9:46 am #

    I think you missed a few major issues regarding the case against Forgeworld. First of all is the availability of the rules. While you can walk into any hobby store and flip through a few pages of a codex, you generally only get to read Forgeworld rules when you own the book, know someone who owns the book, or illegally download it (the most popular option it seems). Secondly, while many of the units are more balanced, there is a huge discrepancy in what becomes available to each army. If you play IG or Marines, you clearly are getting much more benefit from Forgeworld than someone like Tyranids or Necrons, who basically get jack. Overall, I am pro-Forgeworld though, because adding any more options is good in my book.

    In your argument supporting double FOC you’re using a weak necron build to show that double FOC isn’t going to be over powered… Nobody competitively plays with maxed out Wraiths. Talk about 6 Doom Scythes, or 6 units of Longfangs or 2 dozen Hyperios launchers (both 840 points actually), now we’re talking about 30 missiles, or 24 twin-linked BS3 skyfire/interceptor missiles… That’s much more of a threat than wraiths, and considering their relative point cost, much more threatening… or 6 Warp Hunters… you get my point.

    • Vidar January 8, 2013 1:53 am #

      In response to your first point, not having access to a forge world book is a personal decision. I own 3. I spent the money on them. I do not own the Necron codex. Does that mean I shouldnt be forced to play them?

      Second point, The Marine and IG are represented in greater numbers b/c the books are called Imperial Armour. I would like some Xenos or Chaos version but the Brits like their Imperial stories.

  8. AboveAllLogic January 7, 2013 10:32 am #

    It doesn’t matter to me whether or not if Forge World is overpowered. What matters to me is the number of things that I have to face when I show up to the table and my ability to understand what these different things are. Forge World rules are not free. They are often not even sold in US stores. Forge World units themselves are often even more expensive then the equivalents that GW sells (which are overpriced as it is). If all of these problems were resolved, I would be open to FW in tournaments. As it currently is though, I can’t support it.

    • D0A January 8, 2013 4:40 pm #

      Be resourcefull, there is plenty of cheap forgeworld flying around ebay nowadays and now that codex cost 50 bucks FW books are really not much of a leap. Not to mention a FW books are WORTH the money.

  9. David Key January 7, 2013 11:22 am #

    Nice article. Funny that it posted today. I had just emailed Reece with the Lucious droppod question. HAHA. I hope it gets the ban stick.

    In response to the general meat of the article, I think you make a good point about specific bans and inclusions of FW units. I like when FW units bring old codexes up to speed by giving them essentially updated units. Tau is a good example of this. I just recently had a great game against a competitive Tau army. None of my opponents FW units felt out of place in the Tau list. They actually made it competitive with a feel like Tau should be playing at this level of rule development.

    I also think bringing up the Lucious droppod is relevant. In this particular case, I don’t really see it giving any Marine army something it was lacking due to being outdated. IMHO marine armies are just fine right now. What the Lucious droppod does do is allow a player to break a core rule concept. i.e. units with devastating cc ability should not be allowed a 0% risk opportunity to get into cc without opponent recourse. (I am aware of Vanguard Vet btw. They are high risk/reward and are not similar to the Lucious droppod)

    • BBF January 7, 2013 11:48 am #

      I feel the same way about the Hades Breeching Drill… I think its only like 50 points… kind of crazy IMO.

    • winterman January 7, 2013 3:04 pm #

      Lucius drop pod under its original rules was pretty sick but now hasn’t it been balanced? Correct me if I am wrong but isn’t it now more expensive , takes up an FA slot and requires a dangerous terrain test on the dread assaulting from it? Also BA can’t take it so that seems to curb one of the main complaints about the thing (T1 blood talon shreddage)

      All that said, there was an interesting talk on the 40kUK podcast by one of their returning hosts who spent his hiatus away from the show as a playtester for 40k (Necrons, CSM and 6ed were the ones he addmited to) and he felt that FW was not at all part of the main studios thought process. This goes counter to the rumors that GW intends to push FW for regular play (which still has yet to happen).

      That doesn’t mean I am opposed to FW at events. Played in several Astronomi-cons since 4ed and they have always allowed it. Can be frustrating at times but it was far better to see these cool items on the table then relegated to the shelf or the basement. I do however think the concerns about cost, balance and equity are worth consideration and not allowing FW is a perfectly valid stance as well.

  10. Xzandrate January 7, 2013 12:16 pm #

    I think the major arguements against the biggest changes (forgeworld, allies, double force org) are all for the same reason. Math is hard yo! The more options and variables you add, the harder it is to math hammer a game. People got too set in the idea that they put the men down and knew the math in their head and the game was a foregone conclusion. The changes are all good. Forgeworld is a little independant of the rules though.

    The only argument to ban Forgeworld that I’ve seen is the cost, but even that can be offset by scratch build.

    Overpowered? Has anyone bothered to read the mail rules? ATSKNF is by far the most overpowered rule in the game, and it promotes players who ignore huge chunks of the book, because it doesn’t apply to them. Ban Forgeworld, ban ATSKNF I say, if we want balance start with the race that accounts for over 50% of the game. The game developers won’t do it, so we should ourselves, right?

    Unfamiliarity? How often do you think people go to war knowing exactly what they are going to see? If the opponent has some secret tech, they may now know it’s exact specifications, just like you facing that forgeworld model. Besides, with the new hardcover Codex trend at $50+ a shot, we’re at the point where people are going to be less likely to buy every codex. We are more likely to see the book in passing at a store and be vaguely aware of what’s in the new books. Do you really need so much contingency planning that you’d rather buy that book to make a plan versus everything instead of buying a box of Terminators?

    We are gamers, not Mathletes (OK some of us might be both); put your fancy men down on the table and lets play a game.

  11. Black Blow Fly January 7, 2013 12:48 pm #

    Mathletes… Awesome bro !! : )

  12. JGrand January 7, 2013 4:24 pm #

    I don’t see why anyone would be in favor of double FOC. 5th edition was incredibly stale and mindless by the end. The reason was that almost every army was constricted to a mono, mech-spam-based build for competitive play. Very few were lucky enough to have substantial options. Almost all good lists had a relatively cut and paste core.

    Double FOC only exacerbates this issue. For example:

    Baron
    Haemonculi with 15 points of wargear
    12 Venoms with 3x Wracks
    6 Ravagers

    is 2k

    2x D-Lords with Weave
    6 Night Scythes with 5 Warriors
    6 Anni Barges
    5 Wraiths

    is 2k

    Both lists are painfully unimaginative. Both are also painfully broken, boring, and spammy. Neither is fun to play with or against. I’ll break any army with double FOC in a matter of minutes. So will any competitive player with half a brain.

    We have entered a new era of 40k with 6th edition. List building is incredibly fun now, and there has been new life breathed into the game. Why ruin that by going to the mindlessness of double FOC?

    • BBF January 8, 2013 9:03 am #

      More boogie man stories… sorry but paper airplanes die to a stiff wind. Just because you can spam something doesnt necessarily mean it becomes better or more powerful.

      • JGrand January 8, 2013 10:37 am #

        How are these lists “boogie man stories”? Again, you can do this type of thing with just about every codex. It becomes especially boring and broken with the newer ones.

        And yes, some things become exponentially worse. 6 Annihilation Barges is broken. Especially when you consider that they are only 540 points. These lists were made in literally 2 minutes. If players really sit down to break the codices with double FOC, it only gets worse.

        Again, my main concern is the boring-mindlessness of these double FOC lists. It’s 5th edition on steroids. I don’t know about you, but I don’t really want to go down that road when we have a perfectly good game as it stands.

        • BBF January 8, 2013 11:47 am #

          If you think they are broken that is okay by me. Personally I don’t think they are.

          • JGrand January 8, 2013 12:33 pm
            #

            Broken for many armies, yes. Boring for all armies is something that I am certain of.

            The only defense you have in your article is that it would be “cool” to see some armies that have a glut of fun choices at certain spots. The reality will be that the “coolness” of allowing CSM to take 4 HQ choices will be offset by the lameness of all Necron lists taking 6 Annihilation Barges. Not a good trade IMO.

            In addition, the idea that older codices benefit more from double FOC is false. It would only balance out if those older codices were the only ones allowed to double FOC. Codices with newer, better, cheaper units will be able to spam these units just as easily as the older ones. They will simply do it better.

            Armies like Tyranids are already fine. You see units like Ymgarls and the Doom now because 3×3 Hive Guard are no longer essential to having a chance at winning. The game has shifted for the better already. Double FOC is a slide back.

          • Reecius
            Reecius January 8, 2013 1:41 pm
            #

            I honestly don’t think double FOC is anything to be that scared of. Yes, you can make some wonky lists, but don’t forget, you HAVE to have 2 HQs and 4 troops. For a lot of armies that is a PITA, and you still only have 2K to work with. Most tuned tournament lists won’t change much with double FOC as they already have a maximum blend of efficient unit choices. The increase in HQ and troops often offsets the razor thin balance of points that a fully tuned list has.

    • BBF January 8, 2013 9:04 am #

      And you forgot MSS for the D Lords .

    • Reecius
      Reecius January 8, 2013 12:30 pm #

      But, it also opens up a lot of possibilities for non-spam lists, too. Will that be as prevelant? No, probably not, but it is there. People will always play bland builds if they are going to be the “better” build, it is incumbent on GW to offer more options. The way to do this, I think, is by allowing units to combo off of one another so that their is incentive to not take all of the same unit.

      • BBF January 8, 2013 1:28 pm #

        Reecius – I think that JGrand is against what he considers boring armies which I think can be a subjective call for some cases.

        • Reecius
          Reecius January 8, 2013 1:38 pm #

          Well yeah, for sure. What is or is not boring is purely subjective.

        • JGrand January 8, 2013 2:28 pm #

          I just don’t think that list building will be affected by double FOC in the way that you are Reecius do. You are both competitive tourney gamers, and know how things go. Efficiency trumps all in tourney games. Yes, you HAVE to take 2 HQ and 4 Troops, but good lists already have at least 4 troop choices at 2k. HQs are army dependent.

          The problem is overly efficient units in the heavy, fast attack, and elite slots. I keep bringing up Anni Barges as one of those. Long Fangs have been mentioned as another. Really, most armies have something that is a bit too good. This was especially true in 5th edition as some things were “auto includes”.

          In addition, double FOC puts an even higher premium on newer codices with stronger and more efficient troop choices. It’s hard to win a largely objective based (and troop based) game when the opponent can take up to 12 efficient troop units and you are using an older dex that really doesn’t have good troops. Case in point, I can use Eldar now because I don’t have to fully rely on sub-par troop choices with the inclusion of allies. My Eldar/DE list has 5 troop choices-not great ones mind you-but good enough ones. I can make 5 work in a game in which the opponent is capped at a max of 8 with allies. It is far less possible in double FOC.

          Overall, boring lists are a major concern to me. I don’t really pine for 5th edition 2.0. 5th was fun, but got stale by the end. Why go backward?

          In addition, I love seeing a variety of armies and army lists. I believe we would see less older dexes with double FOC. Then again, it seems that many tournies are opting for 1750 or 1850 now, so it may be a moot point.

          • Reecius
            Reecius January 8, 2013 2:41 pm
            #

            The thing is, I don’t know if I would take 6 units of long fangs. They are hyper efficient, for sure, but 4 units of Grey Hunters and 6 units of Long fangs and 2 HQ is going to run almost all of your points at 2K. You can certainly make the argument that you don’t need anything else, but that type of list is very one dimensional and if you come up against someone that has your counter, you have nothing to be flexible with. I played missile wolves a lot in 5th, and I know for certain that some armies don’t care about all the missiles, and when you draw that match-up, you’re boned.

            I think the best lists in 6th are flexible. That means a variety of unit types. I know not everyone agrees with me on this, but that is how I am building my armies.

            The other really important thing to remember is that 90% of the people that go to an event use what they have. Not very many people are going to buy, build and paint 36 long fangs. It is usually a very small percentage of players that have that “net list” that makes a lot of people so mad.

  13. JGrand January 7, 2013 4:33 pm #

    As for Forgeworld, I am opposed for a myriad of reasons.

    First, the unfamiliarity that most players will have with the rules. I have all the codices, and can tell you the points cost and rules of most units off the top of my head. Not everyone is like that though. Why add in a ton of other books to this mix? In addition, many are hard to track down and expensive. The pdf online rules are generally “experimental.”

    Second, there is an exclusionary aspect to Forgeworld. Models have to be ordered from the company. There is a long wait for shipping. Prices are very high as well. Perhaps most problematic is the fact that it is difficult to buy Forgeworld models secondhand. As a college student, I feed my 40k addition via ebay and other secondhand sources. Players cannot do this with Forgeworld.

    Finally, you mention that there are a host of undercosted and problematic units. Sure, these units already exist in stock 40k. But why add more? There is already enough variety through the codices and allies. Why risk these awful, non-playtested outlier units becoming the norm?

    I just don’t see why people would want Forgeworld. The anti-flyer excuse is a cop-out as well. All armies can beat flyers. This will only get easier as time goes on.

    • Vidar January 8, 2013 2:08 am #

      First, your argument here seems to be that you have already put the work into memorizing the current codex and dont want to do any more work by memorizing the FW units. Why add more books into the mix? Well, to expand the hobby, allow for more flavorful and unique armies and to destroy the extremely stale 5th edition meta game. You are just incorrect about the pdf’s. Since 6th ed released most of the pdf’s are designed to bring FW units in-line with the new BRB.

      Second, you not being able to afford a model is no reason why others should not be able to spend their money of beautiful models. I cant afford a Heldrake right now. Takes a major asset away from me, but thats MY problem not the TOs.

      Third, diversity. I know you want to walk into a gun fight knowing how many rounds are in every enemies guns and which one can run a 5 second 40, but surprise can be exhilarating and a lot of fun.

      I dont see why people WOULDNT want Forgeworld. The price point and playtesting BS is a cop out. All armies can beat FW. Including them only make things more fun as time goes on

      • JGrand January 8, 2013 8:43 am #

        If you read it again, notice that I said that I personally had no problem memorizing new books. The issue I see is with the average player. Most people have trouble getting the core books and rules under control. I see no need to add in additional, hard to find, expensive tomes to the game. It slows everything down even more.

        Second, I never said that because I can’t afford Forgeworld, I don’t want others to use it. I said that the cost of Forgeworld creates a further divide between players. I can make a 2k army from between $250-350 via second-hand models and ebay. Players can’t do this with Forgeworld. You don’t find it secondhand. In addition, many of the kits are expensive upgrade kits for already expensive models. If you don’t have a brand new, un-assembled model, then you have to try to hack up your old stuff.

        I know plenty of guys with well-paying jobs and disposable incomes that still don’t order Forgeworld due to the cost. The people I do know that order it pool orders to try to keep other costs down.

        I personally don’t like even higher costs and further divides between players. 40k is an already exclusionary game due to the cost of the hobby. When you make Forgeworld standard, you drive that higher. I’d rather not up the bar any higher for new players entering the hobby and tourney scene. But if you want to kill off the game, go ahead.

        As to your final point, I do like knowing what the opponent can and can’t do. In tournaments, you don’t want to win based on luck or because you used an obscure unit from Imperial Armor 1. You want to win based on skill. Winning because your opponent has never seen a unit before is lame.

        I like list diversity in the game, but list diversity is already there due to 6th edition. Recent tourneys are already full of new and interesting builds. Maybe, maybe if all of the Forgeworld rules were easily accessible to all, then I would consider changing my opinion. However, the exclusionary aspect is really key. I want an expanding and diverse player base. You don’t get that by making units cost twice as much because of a need for expensive resin that takes a month to ship.

        • J4ck_Fr0st January 8, 2013 10:17 am #

          I don’t feel that your first point is valid. If someone is playing the models, they’re going to have the rules to show you. The nice thing about books is you don’t have to memorize them, because they’re books. Just reference them as needed.

          • JGrand January 8, 2013 10:39 am
            #

            In order to make a list that can effectively deal with all comers, you have to know what’s out there. Not knowing is not an option for tourney players.

          • BBF January 8, 2013 11:09 am
            #

            Yes exactly and TOs can provide a list of approved units… it is not a big deal.

    • D0A January 8, 2013 4:58 pm #

      you need to troll ebay more, Theres so much “cheap” FW nowadays theres little room to complain about price.As for the books, they are no different then any GW dex. I only own only 5 GW codexs and i have no issues playing against any of the ones I dont because the guys across from me has the book just like many gamers who dont own every codex.

  14. An Enemy January 7, 2013 5:52 pm #

    I’d like to bring my Legion Crusade Army. How about it? Honestly, people see 10 lascannons in a squad and they don’t realize the unit is within spitting distance of costing 500 pts. It’s a reasonably balanced book imo.

    • Black Blow Fly January 8, 2013 5:11 am #

      It’s not approved for 40k.

      • An Enemy January 8, 2013 11:41 am #

        And yet one of the first sentences in the army list section states that it was designed with normal 6th Edition rules in mind.

        • BBF January 8, 2013 11:52 am #

          Like I said start slowly, gain some acceptance and go from there. WGC is going to have a Heresy Narrative this year – you might be interested in that.

  15. DevianID January 7, 2013 11:08 pm #

    The issue with both double force org and forgeworld is the same. Both allow certian armies to reap amazing benefits, while other armies gain no boost at all.

    Space wolves were mentioned as being an all out winner in double force org, and its true for anyone that has a low costed but slot limited choice. 6 long fang squads are not only cheap, but extremely desirable units. 6 anni barges also fit the mold as cheap and very desirable. Vendettas as 6 individuals would be awesome, ravagers have always been the DE go to choice, daemons with more units of screamers so they can engage more targets without bloating a squad to 9 strong, ect. All double force org does is make the books with strong cheap units able to get more powerful for zero opportunity cost. Meanwhile, armies with no exceptional unit probably dont even use the second force org. No spacemarine army will want 6 storm talons, BA dont want 6 furiosos, ect.

    As for forge world, in addition to favoring certain armies much more than others, the rules are 1) difficult to get 2) expensive 3) in a transition state for any book other than IA1:2nd ed.

    For all the talk about how balanced most of the units are, it doesnt matter because the stand out units are the only ones many people will take. I myself like the cheaper, 7 inch s9 low ap manticore battery that gets a further discount because it cant move. Its win win in almost every way over the 160 point manticore tank. It is, what, 50 points cheaper for a clearly better missile and better side armor, and its supposed downside of immobility is completely moot because you can fire indirectly to any spot on the table.

    Are there many forgeworld units that would be fair and fun additions? Absolutely. I always felt the space marine book dropped the ball by not including the deathstorm drop pod since it is one of the main tactical units marines use almost all the time. But I dont think a tourney should open the floodgates of forgeworld because of a few fun and fluffy units. I think the base rulebook and codex armies, with allies especially, offer more than enough variety in the game, and while nice looking, forgeworld does nothing to improve the game from a balance point of view.

    • Vidar January 8, 2013 2:18 am #

      Can I have 6 Thunderfire Cannons? That would be super fun.

      As for FW, yes Imperial armies are favored more heavily in Imperial Armour. The rules are 1) easy to get, just order it, 2) money is a personal responsibility and the cost is scalable to income, 3) True enough but include some characters from Badab and Vraks that were updated in the Character and Psycher pdf updates.

      Cherry picking FW units is as ridiculous as cherry picking codex units. If I cant use a Lucious then you cant use Long Fangs, or JoTWW or most of the Space Wolf and GK books. Pointing at source material from one part of the company and ok-ing it while gainsaying another, even after the company itself has allowed its inclusion is a mark of poor sportsmanship.

    • BBF January 8, 2013 9:06 am #

      Imperials got all the love in fifth edition… only Necrons right at the tail end got some love for xenos. There are actually some decent units for orks, Tau, eldar, Necrons… do some research and I think you will then agree.

  16. Casey January 8, 2013 10:37 am #

    I’m all for Forge World. I kind of agree a bit that there is too much interceptor in the FW book but I’m not sure it tips the balance too badly. There will always be times where having flyers is a godsend. There should ALSO be times where having flyers is a weakness. Anything that adds diversity to the game I’ve pretty much decided I’m a fan of. There are so many good options now that there are no obvious choices. This also means that you cannot assume what anyone else is going to bring (Demons are an exception to this sadly). Build an army that works well and has the tools to deal with everything. Bring your A game. Bring a good attitude. Enjoy.

  17. Turn 7 Wargaming January 8, 2013 2:01 pm #

    My position, and that of most of the people I meet in the MN tournament scene, is that if local stores can’t carry forgeworld then it should not be allowed in tournaments. This is not an availability issue, but rather us being committed to community and the local stores. there are six stores within twenty minutes of where I live that host 40K events. For the most part the TO’s and the store owners/managers are very engaged in the community. They all support each other rather than treating on another as competition. Why should they support product they can not profit from in their events. Yes, people (including myself) use 3rd party bits, but this is in conjunction with models that they sell at their store. Both the TO’s and us the players realize the role forgeworld plays fully outside our communities business model. Even independent tournaments are supported by these local stores and are engaged in our community. Until forgeworld can be part of that community, at least around here, I can’t see it becoming the norm.

    • Reecius
      Reecius January 8, 2013 2:36 pm #

      That’s a good point, but a lot of folks are going to buy FW based just on the fact that they are beautiful models. The way we look at it (as a retailer that also makes no money from FW) is that why not let people use what they already have?

    • Black Blow Fly January 8, 2013 3:28 pm #

      What if someone wants to include one Contemptor dreadnaught in their army because they think it’s cool? I think that is unfair to them. I don’t think you’re going to see lots of armies that have a high percentage of Forge World units if you were to allow it.

      I do know some shop owners who agree with what you’ve said and don’t allow the use of Forge World for that very reason but that’s like saying you can only use race cars built in the US for the Grand Prix… Step back and take a look at the forest. I bet there are a good number of players in your area that would like to use some Forge World if it were allowed.

Leave a Reply