So I guess what I'm saying is that, when someone allows or disallows a certain army at a tournament, all it means is...well...exactly that: an army is allowed or disallowed at that tournament. It doesn't mean anything for ordinary games and it only means something to other tournaments because the organisers may be influenced by it. But that's their neuroses and shouldn't be read into. Don't blame GW for it, that's all I'm saying.
Thing is, for me at least, tournaments are a way of playing against new people instead of the usual half dozen mates I play every week. I do play a LOT of Warhammer and while I don`t take it seriously enough to engineer WAAC armies (I prefer converting and theming) I am a good player and very much enjoy playing against new people who are also good players. If I can`t use my favourite army (with the new list its FINALLY been granted after 12/15 years) at the biggest event on the calendar its really really annoying. If GW really are ambivalent towards game balance, I don`t understand why they didn`t allow the LoA - it would even boost sales too. And overall, yes, its fine - I`ll take them to the Maul and the Maelstrom Incursions and all that, but the ToS is still kinda special and I was looking forward to the next time someone asked, "Omg, are those Chaos Dwarfs?" as I thought I would be able to say, "Yes :)" instead of "Nah, just counts-as Dwarfs :~". Disappointing for me.
If GW really are ambivalent towards game balance, I don`t understand why they didn`t allow the LoA
This is my point though: this isn't some decision from on high. It's just one small group of people saying one thing. Jervis Johnson and Matt Ward and Jeremy Vetock and whoever else is working in the design studio these days didn't get together, look over Tamurkhan and hand down a missive about it not being tournament legal. And, yes, I know people are looking to GW tournaments for that stamp of approval for their own events but...yeah...they're wrong. Because this isn't policy. There is no policy. There's a problem with Warhammer gaming mentality whereby people think it's a tournament system and the guys in charge have an interest in supporting that concept. And they just don't.
I guess I'm talking philosophy rather than pragmatics but, as I say, it's not fair to blame the guys in GW for "banning" LoA and therefore ruining your fun: they don't even think about that kind of thing, because they don't care, and I think they do everything they can to try and bust people out of the mindset that divides Warhammer rules into legal and illegal or whatever. You can lead a horse to water, I guess...
I guess I'm talking philosophy rather than pragmatics but, as I say, it's not fair to blame the guys in GW for "banning" LoA and therefore ruining your fun: they don't even think about that kind of thing, because they don't care, and I think they do everything they can to try and bust people out of the mindset that divides Warhammer rules into legal and illegal or whatever
Well, I`m just talking from a purely hobby perspective that to me its irritating that they didn`t allow them. I`m not hurling my nerdfury at any individuals in particular, I just thought that the default would be to include LoA rather than not, especially considering their viewpoint that Warhammer isn`t meant to be a balanced, tournament thing between a carefully tweaked set of armies (which I agree it isn`t). Ho hum.
What I’m saying though is that I don’t think this is a decision based on any consideration like balance. I honestly think the “not everyone has access to it” reason is genuine. It may not be accurate per se but I think it is valid to suggest that not everyone is going to go out and buy a £45 Forge World book so they can get their heads around one little part of it (Tamurkhan is not Warhammer: Chaos Dwarfs, after all…) on the off chance someone will bring Chaos Dwarfs to a tournament. Forge World is a small, boutique corner of the GW corporation, and the main studio has kept it at arm’s length for a reason - by definition, its output is aimed at specialists, not the general hobby-buying public.
What I'm saying though is that I don't think this is a decision based on any consideration like balance. I honestly think the "not everyone has access to it" reason is genuine. It may not be accurate per se but I think it is valid to suggest that not everyone is going to go out and buy a £45 Forge World book so they can get their heads around one little part of it (Tamurkhan is not Warhammer: Chaos Dwarfs, after all...) on the off chance someone will bring Chaos Dwarfs to a tournament. Forge World is a small, boutique corner of the GW corporation, and the main studio has kept it at arm's length for a reason - by definition, its output is aimed at specialists, not the general hobby-buying public.
Thommy H
Yeah, that is likely I guess. :( Well in that case, bring on the 8th ed Dwarfs book!
...I think it is valid to suggest that not everyone is going to go out and buy a £45 Forge World book so they can get their heads around one little part of it ...
Thommy H
I´m with you in this discussion here, but this (not yours) argument is a non issue because I´m pretty sure most people, even tourny-players don´t have every army book at home... and if they do it´s probably a pdf.
yeah stop being a whining moaning argumentative antagonist ! im always up for a healthy debate but seriously! ive just come back to the site after a 4 year hiatus and every FW thread i’ve read has you in it bashing somebody down, talking down to somebody or arguing and contesting every single point ! its not cool man!