Rebuttal to Raw Dogger’s Article by Skari: It’s About Points Values


A guest editorial from Skari in response to Raw Doggers article about Forgeworld in tournaments.

Welcome to the Friday post! It has been a great week full of awesome hobby content and today is no different. Here on SkaredCast I like to chat about things that make our gaming experience better. I am writing up a small rebuttle to an article that was posted up on FrontLineGaming yesterday:

Raw Dogger: A Gentleman’s Case Against Forgeworld (kind of)

So head over, and read the original article. RawDogger makes some very good points on the matter of FW when related to the point values within the 40k game. I am just going to touch on a few key points that he made and elaborate on my point of view on them.

Lets Dive In:

Key Points- 2000pts is too much. Takes list building skill out of the equation, and helps armies that have an abundance of powerfull units to choose from.  Also that FW units allowed does not help (as the most powerfull options are for the Imperial Guard).

– I do indeed think that 2k points are a lot for a tournament. Now, RD touches on the issue that at that point level you can take all the “toys” you want and then some within a list. I think that is indeed the case… the ability to take multiple units to add redundancy to a list is almost unparalleled at that point level… why only take 2 chimeras when you can have 12? I believe that smaller point games are key for tournament play, not only to encourage more thought put into list building but also, and I believe this is more important -time-. A 2k game takes 2-3 hrs to play… and at a tournament time is prime. The tournaments in the region that I play at are usually 1500pts and we have anywere from 1.5 – 2 hrs to play a game and this is plenty of time for that point value, and also allows for 4 games in a day. This format is great for a RTT format event.

Sometimes a few models are enough:  photo TheVanusTemple-SanguinaryGuardArmy_zps8526e283.jpg

Secondly, the options within army lists. I think that the point value of 2k is not meant to hinder armies that have overloaded FOC slots… simple reason? That you  should be considering the double force organization! This is something that is often overlooked at 2k events (AKA 1999+1pts.. lame). Armies like dark eldar, tyrannids, eldar and other armies that really like specialty units can benefit greatly from having more than three choices in a slot. And I think this is kew when considering large point value tournamets. So I think that the format for larger tournaments is there but that the full rule set should be embraced, so far… no one has really given it a chance at the larger GT’s so there is no framework in place or anything to really use as a measuring stick and untill larger tournaments that run large point values embrace the idea of double FOC then we cant really tell.

Thirdly – Forgeworld is always a sore issue for many a player. I have touched on it before, the basic premise being – cheapness for awesomeness and if you have more money = win…

Yes, sometimes money can buy awesome:  photo the-painting-bunker-dispaly-cabinet-forge-world-titans_zpsa3c854ac.jpg

Now, I can see how the addition of Sabres and Hyperios platforms has really become the main topic of this discussion because of the prevalence of the “flier armies” such as triple Helldrakes and 9 scythes and what not… then again you have voltures that do annihilate units of infantry with their punishers. I think that Tau will slowly see this move aside and become more prevalent I also feel that many options for the other armies are overlooked, some of the eldar stuff is really good! and some of the space marine units are also awesome. Nids might not get as big a selection (but i reiterate the 2K double FOC point i made earlier).

So, this brings me to the final point of the article. That limiting the point value will cut down on spam.

I feel that no matter the point value, spam will exist… within redundancy or within a single unit. Even if you play at 1000pts or if you play at 2500pts, the ability to maximize the army is there. Will it take more skill to pull off? I believe so. But at the same time instead of taking 9 sabres sometimes 6 will do… This makes the point  sort of fall within a grey area… I disagree with comping a tournament and forcing arbitrary restrictions on armies but at the same time I feel that something can be done to increase the experience for all gamers. Is there a “perfect” point value? Nope.

Anyhow, these are some of my thoughts. I hope you enjoyed them. Do you have any thoughts on the matter?

Thanks for reading!

Skari – out


About Reecius

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

14 Responses to “Rebuttal to Raw Dogger’s Article by Skari: It’s About Points Values”

  1. skari May 4, 2013 3:07 am #

    And thats the way the cookie crumbles 😀

  2. Rawdogger May 4, 2013 8:23 am #

    I’m not really sure that this is a rebuttal, as you are basically reinforcing the points I made in the original article. I was writing that the use of Forgeworld should be limited when considering several factors, one of them being point levels at tournaments.

    • Skari May 5, 2013 4:02 am #

      Yes. I am aware :). Hence the sublets humour on the title, more like an exploration of the article. As you can see I do agree on some points and disagree on others but it’s not a direct overturn.

  3. Invok93 May 4, 2013 11:43 am #

    How come comp in fantasy is widely used and accepted? Skaven limitations no more than x war machines etc. Don’t see why there is so much more drama in a 40k universe

    • Reecius May 7, 2013 3:06 pm #

      40K doesn’t need comp anymore but folks still hang on to it in some cases because they are used to it.

  4. Shane May 4, 2013 12:46 pm #

    Personaly I don’t have a problem with Forgeworld in tournaments, my problem is with people that then spam the most points efficent Forgeworld options.

    How about simple yes you can bring Forgeworld to “X” tournament but you are only allowed 0-1 of each unit entry and it must be part of your primary detachment or if it’s allies you must spend equal or greater points from the core 40K codex.
    I think that would allow people to build some interesting armies at the fun end of the field while still giveing the competative types access to options that shoare up gaps in their builds without going over the top.

    Maybe I’m wrong, what does everyone think?

  5. Lyokos May 4, 2013 12:56 pm #

    As eldar I use 2 warp hunter tanks but with these rules I wouldn’t but my army isn’t OP at all. Restrictions would effect things like this. I like warp hunters there not OP but I I wouldn’t get to play what ive bought.

    • Reecius May 7, 2013 3:17 pm #

      Very good point. Warp Hunters are excellent, fill an important role in the Eldar army but are far from OP.

  6. jy2 May 4, 2013 2:21 pm #

    I really don’t see the difference in bringing 3 sabre platforms as opposed to bringing 3 vendettas, heldrakes, manticores, riptides or necron wraith units. If the unit is good, whether codex unit or FW, it will be spammed by the more competitive, optimized lists (and players).

    If someone wants to bring 9 sabres, so what? He may do better against heldrakes, but he’s also shooting himself in the foot when he goes up against daemons with 60 fleshhounds or the Green Tide or other armies that don’t rely on flyers. The key to a decent army is balance. While spam-lists are powerful, they are more rock-paper-scissors lists. Just watch out for when you meet your “kryptonite” in a tournament.

  7. Casey May 5, 2013 7:44 pm #

    Jy2 hit the nail on the head I think. There are great units that are spammable in many if not all codexes. Dumping 40-50% of your army into one unit pigeon holes you against certain armies. Sabres, Contemptors, and Artillery are great, but they have their weaknesses. My only issue with FW is that those who play FW units do not always play them correctly and or their conversions are rarely accurate. Some of the pics of converted FW units I saw were pretty bad. IMHO if you can’t readily identify the model without asking the owner or if the footprint is off then it should be a no go in a competitive environment. I’ve seen some excellent conversions (especially Sabres) by those who care enough to try. The fact is most are just trying to gain an edge with the least amount of invested time/money. I wouldn’t care except for this… I own the actual FW models I use and I can tell you there are without a doubt gameplay differences that arise due to model discrepancies. Minor? Sure, but not insignificant. Just my .02 :).

    • Reecius May 7, 2013 3:38 pm #

      I think you said it best. Yes, some of those FW units have great utility, but they also have weaknesses and it takes time and practice to find how to beat them.

  8. Douglas of Wolfbrothers May 6, 2013 11:07 am #

    2k is THE Edge of competitive play.

    We have a lot of folks wearing expert hats telling us how hard is is to fit into a tournament or how easy it is to build lists. Neither is true. 2k is the hardest points value to build lists. 2k fits into the same time spot it has always fit. 2k is working just fine on time at large national events. But the same expert hats need to constantly modify the game for whatever reason they justify – time, balance, fairness, brokeness of the main rule book – excluding mission types (relic mostly,) fortifications that are “too big, unmanagable”, and outright modifications like equally weighting Scourging objectives. The experts all have their reasons (and hats,) that’s why they are experts after all.

    …and THEN we either Need or Cant Handle [broken] FW units to deal with broken army archtypes. The expert hats have created a modified meta-game, with mutated list archtypes and then look around and go “huh?”

    Crazy talk.

    Include it all, Then turn around and modify what truely needs it for whatever reason. We have yet to go there, but are spending a lot of internet time going “huh?” All of it. 2xFOC. FW stamped 40k legal. And unmodified full range of book missions, secondary objectives, mysterious terrain and objectives. Lets have an unmodified un-expert-hatted metagame, Then complain about what is “overpowered” or “abused.” Agendas say we wont have that.

    • Reecius May 7, 2013 3:40 pm #

      You make some really interesting points. Playing 2K with double FOC, no modifications to the book at all, and all FW allowed is honestly the most competitive format, really. I don’t think anyone can argue that point. That really does allow the most powerful combinations in the game.

      The issue we have found though, is time. I prefer 2K, I just don’t see the games getting finished in less than 3 hours with a high average completion ratio.

Leave a Reply