25751
Post by: gmaleron
Hello eveyone, this is a question that has sparked some serious debate (and a little drama) @ my local gaming store recently and wanted to take it up with the community of Dakka. As the title of the thread says why do people have a beef with taking Forgeworld lists/models in games? I really see no point to it, especially since Forgeworld is part of GW. The most common complaint that I have seen is that "oh Forgeworld lists are totally OP and cheessy" however when actually playtested and using them we have found this to be hugely exaggerated. People can make the argument that the lists are "unbalanced" but with the playing field of 40k in particular already unbalanced I find it to be an empty argument. Seriously what is the point of GW tempting us to buy these amazing models to only be told we cant use them in games, there is nothing in the books that says they are illegal to run in tournaments or friendly games and I think is taking away alot of the diversity of the game. This all started when the local store owner gave no real or good reason as to why you cant run forgeworld lists (we basically have come to the opinion that its because he doesnt know how to power game against them) and it has now forced us to possibly play a tournament @ another game store so we actually can use the books and minitures. So I want to know guys, what are your reasons for and against running/using Forgeworld books and lists in tournaments and friendly games? 
53740
Post by: ZebioLizard2
Seeing as several models from Gray Knights, Space Wolves, and Imperial Guard are legal, my decision is that forgeworld is just like the standard codex's, there's overpowered, underpowered, and just right stuff.
20086
Post by: Andilus Greatsword
ZebioLizard2 wrote:Seeing as several models from Gray Knights, Space Wolves, and Imperial Guard are legal, my decision is that forgeworld is just like the standard codex's, there's overpowered, underpowered, and just right stuff.
But these are the armies that get most of the special stuff on Forge World...
But in all seriousness, I've fought Forge World units before, for the most part they're not so bad that I'd refuse to play them. I'd probably make an exception for a few units, but for the most part it's fun to face off against a special model.
15115
Post by: Brother SRM
There are precious few units Forgeworld has released that are somewhat overpowered/undercosted. People seem to ignore the fact that a good 95% of their stuff is somewhere between fairly costed to overpriced. There's also a fear of the unknown factor, as most people aren't used to playing against Forgeworld units. Personally, I welcome the challenge of an unfamiliar unit. A good commander can adapt his strategy to unknown factors, and if that includes an unusual unit here and there, so be it.
53740
Post by: ZebioLizard2
Andilus Greatsword wrote:ZebioLizard2 wrote:Seeing as several models from Gray Knights, Space Wolves, and Imperial Guard are legal, my decision is that forgeworld is just like the standard codex's, there's overpowered, underpowered, and just right stuff.
But these are the armies that get most of the special stuff on Forge World...
But in all seriousness, I've fought Forge World units before, for the most part they're not so bad that I'd refuse to play them. I'd probably make an exception for a few units, but for the most part it's fun to face off against a special model.
Tau get's a fair bit, surprisingly so.
55363
Post by: Dabansheedude
I think it pointless at my FLGS last week my mate used a shadow sword in a normal game
34906
Post by: Pacific
Brother SRM wrote:There are precious few units Forgeworld has released that are somewhat overpowered/undercosted. People seem to ignore the fact that a good 95% of their stuff is somewhere between fairly costed to overpriced. There's also a fear of the unknown factor, as most people aren't used to playing against Forgeworld units. Personally, I welcome the challenge of an unfamiliar unit. A good commander can adapt his strategy to unknown factors, and if that includes an unusual unit here and there, so be it.
I agree with this.
To the OP, I think it is more to do with the origins of Forge World. When the first IA book came out, it featured rules for super-heavy tanks. I think because of the fear of facing one of these (regardless of the fact that probably 98% of gamers would never do so, because the models were prohibitively expensive) people automatically associated anything 'Forge-World' with being overpowered, perhaps a lot of the time without ever even reading the books.
The fact is that a lot of the stuff is overpriced, and adds character to a lot of armies, I don't see the point in denying their use and most of it is from gamers who don't realise they are playing a game that is already pretty unbalanced.
53740
Post by: ZebioLizard2
Pacific wrote:Brother SRM wrote:There are precious few units Forgeworld has released that are somewhat overpowered/undercosted. People seem to ignore the fact that a good 95% of their stuff is somewhere between fairly costed to overpriced. There's also a fear of the unknown factor, as most people aren't used to playing against Forgeworld units. Personally, I welcome the challenge of an unfamiliar unit. A good commander can adapt his strategy to unknown factors, and if that includes an unusual unit here and there, so be it.
I agree with this.
To the OP, I think it is more to do with the origins of Forge World. When the first IA book came out, it featured rules for super-heavy tanks. I think because of the fear of facing one of these (regardless of the fact that probably 98% of gamers would never do so, because the models were prohibitively expensive) people automatically associated anything 'Forge-World' with being overpowered, perhaps a lot of the time without ever even reading the books.
The fact is that a lot of the stuff is overpriced, and adds character to a lot of armies, I don't see the point in denying their use and most of it is from gamers who don't realise they are playing a game that is already pretty unbalanced.
The sad thing is there's a distinction within forgeworlds own books between the Apocalypse Super heavies/fliers/war titans and the standard game Warhammer 40k stuff. There's a literal seal shown next to the model in the book that tells what it can be used for!
Ignorance is the worst thing when it comes to forgeworlds stuff.
2304
Post by: Steelmage99
*Resets clock*
46926
Post by: Kaldor
Steelmage99 wrote:*Resets clock*
lol!
494
Post by: H.B.M.C.
gmaleron wrote:As the title of the thread says why do people have a beef with taking Forgeworld lists/models in games?
The human condition:
1. People are afraid of things they don't understand (eg. they haven't read the FW rules, therefore they don't know what it does, therefore they are scared of it).
2. People are afraid of losing.
Combine the two and you have the reason why people dislike FW.
36276
Post by: Zweischneid
FW's severe imbalance in what it covers.
Forgeworld offers, for example, well over 100 new options for Imperial Guard. They offer, in contrast, just 2 or 3 for Necrons or Dark Eldar.
Even assuming that ever single thing they offer was balanced (it is not), this severe imbalance heavily skews things in favour of the "favoured" armies like IG and against those that are not, because you have so much more to pick and choose building your list.
What is worse, FW tends to favour those armies that are "favorites" of GW-main in the first place, so rather than mitigating the problem, they are aggravating it. As such, 40K without FW is by definition the more balanced and thus the better version 40K.
34906
Post by: Pacific
Yes there is an imbalance in terms of what it covers, but that doesn't affect the balance of the game too much (which is the important thing). I for one would absolutely love to play against a DKoK or Elysian army, or some other special list, it makes it that much more interesting. I really, really can't understand the mindset that having less options to play the game, less variety for painting and modelling, less campaign setting and padding out of the game universe, can somehow be a bad thing for 40k.
I think the human-focus (and the imbalance in that regard) is more to do with the way the books are written - more like a historical account of something, and certainly closer to the 'World at War' than something like the SM codex describing battles where Marneus Calgar holds a pass against orks for 3 days and 3 nights, or Draigo bestriding the realms of the warp hunting Primarchs (which is firmly in fantasy/comic book territory). I think when they have attempted to apply the same kind of detail to races such as Orcs, with po-faced descriptions of the rather comical ork vehicles ("Pictured: Ork Fighta Bomba, as pictographed by Imperial Recon teams during the seige of Gethema. 'Smash da hoomiez' can be clearly seen written on the side of the vehicle, above the vehicles starboard exhaust port'"), it comes across as contrived and I don't think the two concepts, of 'science fantasy' and detailed military description (where those faults are highlighted) sit well together.
On the other hand, I think books such as number 3 (The Talos, IG/Tau campaign) works well, and is indeed one of the more popular books, because the whole concept of how the Tau and IG fight wars is that much more realistic. There is less of a suspension of disbelief which occurs with the Ork focus book, and to a lesser extent the Vraks, chaos themed, books.
53292
Post by: Kevlar
While the units themselves may not be ridiculously overpowered, they allow you to cover holes in your codex that are there for a reason. Chaos has crappy fast attack choices. But forgeworld has blight drones. Chaos doesn't have a lot of spammable str 8 firepower. Forgeworld has dual butcher cannon decimators.
If you take the really good stuff out of the chaos codex, and add blight drones and butcher cannons
While these choices in a vacuum may not be super powerful, adding them in the right amount to an already solid list will make it unbeatable.
2 demon princes
9 obliterators
3 decimators w/dual butcher cannons
3 blight drones
a bunch of plague marines and berzerkers
Its a lot scarier than anything the standard codex can put out. Decimators are ridiculously more powerful than regular chaos dreads. And blight drones are land speeders with battle cannons.
47547
Post by: CthuluIsSpy
Decimators are also a hell lot more expensive and inaccurate.
53292
Post by: Kevlar
CthuluIsSpy wrote:Decimators are also a hell lot more expensive and inaccurate.
They are a little more expensive, but they repair and ignore damage, and have ridiculous firepower. BS3 with 8 crack missiles is still a lot better than a regular dread, and they are much better in close combat than a regular dread with no dccw.
53851
Post by: Erik_Morkai
Fear is the main reason.
Fear of the unknown
Fear of losing
Fear of having their cookie-cutter meta upset.
I find Forgeworld units bring some fresh air at amore frequent rate than codex releases.
Models are awesome-looking and if you respect the actual rules, there is no problem.
I DO believe that you need opponents permission to play a model with experimental rules. Fully approved stuff is fine
39296
Post by: gpfunk
I was under the impression that anything produced by Forgeworld that did not have "experimental rules" were allowed in any sort of game of 40k.
If I look at a forgeworld unit and it has its rules listed as "approved" (which I can only assume means GW says so), then it is allowed in the game whether I agree with it or not. I suppose that would be akin to saying "I don't agree with Draigo's rules, you're not allowed to field him."
In friendly games, a point could be made that you can say this. But in a tournament, tough nuts.
36276
Post by: Zweischneid
gpfunk wrote:I was under the impression that anything produced by Forgeworld that did not have "experimental rules" were allowed in any sort of game of 40k.
If I look at a forgeworld unit and it has its rules listed as "approved" (which I can only assume means GW says so), then it is allowed in the game whether I agree with it or not. I suppose that would be akin to saying "I don't agree with Draigo's rules, you're not allowed to field him."
In friendly games, a point could be made that you can say this. But in a tournament, tough nuts.
A tournament has tournament rules. If tournament rules say no FW, it'll be no FW. If tournament rules say no Draigo, it'll be no Draigo. If tournament rules say everyone not wearing a pink dress is disqualified, that'll be the rule. So the point is rather mute.
For one-off pick-up games (or games with your friends, or clubs), as you've said, one can choose to refuse anything. One does not have to fight GKs, or FW, or unpainted armies, or whatever one does not want to waste his spare time on.
This aside, most people (in my parts at least) don't "expect" an expansion/ FW game if they "meet to play 40K". Whether its FW, Spearhead or Cities of Death. In my area, the "normal" practice would be to meet "to play 40K", or it would be to "play 40K, but lets mix it up and do Spearhead/Cities of Death/ FW/etc..). Just a way of communication really. If one faces a guy across the table and suddenly he lets me know at the last minute that he's (or she's) fielding a "Spearhead-formation", I'd find it odd. Same for a FW unit.
55500
Post by: bmoleski
I think there's a time and place for Forge World stuff. Also, it depends on the model. If someone challanged me to a 1500 point game and slapped down a Baneblade, I'd be a little reluctant to accept the challenge. On that same note, if he challanged me to a 2000 pointer with said Baneblade, then maybe I'd me more apt to playing.
Aside from stuff like that, if someone wants to play FW stuff in a game against me, I'm usually ok with it as long as they allow me to familiarlize myself with that units rules so I know they're playing fair. I once witnessed a game where player was trying to take advantage of his opponent by using a FW model incorrectly. He said it had wargear that it didn't actually have and the opponent was none the wiser. Eventually I grabbed the IA book and looked it up as I was suspicious of Tom Foolery and showed the player.
As long as my opponent is willing to show me the model's profile, I'll let him/her field it against me.
35785
Post by: Avatar 720
Kevlar wrote:CthuluIsSpy wrote:Decimators are also a hell lot more expensive and inaccurate.
They are a little more expensive, but they repair and ignore damage, and have ridiculous firepower. BS3 with 8 crack missiles is still a lot better than a regular dread, and they are much better in close combat than a regular dread with no dccw.
They are also experimental. If and when they get included in an IA book, chances are that these imbalances will have been ironed out.
As for your 'holes in codex' argument, that's a crap argument. The holes in the CSM book aren't there for a reason, they're there because it's a badly written book. No army book should have purposeful holes, every book should have good units available for every slot, and saying that since CSM don't have good FA, therefore they should never have good FA, is BS. What about Eldar? They have even worse FA, does that mean they shouldn't get Wasps or Hornets or Shadow Spectres, despite them being balanced units?
A lot of other books have good units available for all slots, do you mean to say that Chaos and Eldar are not allowed this luxury (and are therefore being put an an unfair disadvantage) purely because they are badly written or old respectively?
41324
Post by: beigeknight
As long as someone isn't trying to wedge a Super Heavy or Gargantuan Creature into a normal game, I don't see a problem.
37549
Post by: Clumpski
but as far as things go, looking at the appocolypse books they have rules that allow them in normal games such as the vulture, it says "this model sounds as a fast attack in a imperial guard army" o.o so my mate lets me use them, but he wont (for good reason) my baneblade for the simple fact its part of a war machine rather than fit into any normal section of FOC, so aslong as it follows the rules of the FOC it shouldnt really matter should it? aslong as it states clearly under which section it is allowed
2304
Post by: Steelmage99
gpfunk wrote:I was under the impression that anything produced by Forgeworld that did not have "experimental rules" were allowed in any sort of game of 40k.
What do you base that impression on?
If I look at a forgeworld unit and it has its rules listed as "approved" (which I can only assume means GW says so),
That is just odd. If a Forgeworld unit in a Forgeworld book is said to be "approved", surely that means that Forgeworld says so, not GW.
106
Post by: wolf13
some people look for any advantage, and denying FW units is a good way to throw an opposing player off balance before the game even starts since most of the time they will pull out non FW units and play anyway. Some people fear of the unknown since those are units they might not be familiar with. Some people are jealous you spent money on FW, And of course, some people are just jerks or honestly beleive the game is totally balanced within the codexs. To be fair though, Forgeworld did have a bit of a reputation, seems it still does.
even throwing out warmachines and fliers (back when there were minimal rules for fliers) Forgeworld used to be very unbalanced: rules were mostly arbitrary, and points costs varied from insanely overpriced to decently priced depending on the army, for the armies that had FW offerings.
Looking at the lists now, this forgeworld is a whole lot more balanced then it was a decade ago. Units are still over priced, but seem to be more consistently over priced across the board with a rare few exceptions. Rules fit within the main game and are fairly consistent. Yes they do fill some roles not addressed in the codex's, but I fall in the codex's are inconsistently written anyway category, so don't mind that. Honestly, if they didn't fill certain niches, why even make rules for them?
I Have no problem with an opponent running FW, I used to run VDR (now THAT was controversial, even if it was insanely overpriced) and FW, returning to the game most of my really want list is FW. Admittedly, I would take a couple of lists to open play just in case opponents objected, but most once they looked over the rules and stats didn't have objections recognizing I was more giving them a handicap in points then gaining an advantage beyond extra flexability.
FW is GW and the intro to IA 11 says it all to me:
"Warhammer 40,000 unit: This unit is intended to be used in "standard" games of warhammer 40k, within the usual limitations of codex selection and force org charts. as with all our models these should be considered official, but owing to the fact they may be unknown to your opponent, its best to make sure they are happy to play the game before using forge world models before you start. "
In another words, as always the game is played by common consent and your opponent has the right to refuse to play you if you have units he objects to. In theory, he could object to a codex unit in your army and threaten to not play you if you include it. Hopefully there are other opponents you can play instead.
25751
Post by: gmaleron
I can understand a few things such as that the Imperial Guard and Space Marines have more options, but @ the same time those are the two most popular armies in the game and FW (which is GW) is going to put more into the armies that sell the best plain and simple. I also realize that the Forgeworld books may fill slots in codexs but @ the same time they take away from them to. For example, the Elysian drop troop list in Raid of Kastofore book has NO ACCESS to any leman russ variants or artillery pieces, which is a big part in IG armies today. We get to spam Vendettas, Valkyries and drop sentinels along with Taurus' but the army has no armor 14 @ all whatsover and almost no big blast template weapons, so there are drawbacks to playing such a list (also their troops are way more expensive then other guard). In references to the mention of Super Heavies those vehicles where designed for apocalypse not friendly/normal Warhammer 40k games. I can understand the fear of the unknown but as Brother SRM said, a good general can fight anything, especially now since FW has gotten better with balance, but even then 40k is an unbalanced game anyways so its not exactly completely changing the look of the game
15115
Post by: Brother SRM
Clumpski wrote:but as far as things go, looking at the appocolypse books they have rules that allow them in normal games such as the vulture, it says "this model sounds as a fast attack in a imperial guard army" o.o so my mate lets me use them, but he wont (for good reason) my baneblade for the simple fact its part of a war machine rather than fit into any normal section of FOC, so aslong as it follows the rules of the FOC it shouldnt really matter should it? aslong as it states clearly under which section it is allowed
Could you write that again in English? I think I sort of get the gist of what you're writing but your grammar, emoticons, punctuation and so on are REALLY making that hard to read.
I think the best way to treat Forgeworld units is the same way you'd treat any expansion of the game. If you two agree to play with Forgeworld rules, then go for it. The more recent Imperial Armour books have said to use superheavies only in Apocalypse level games though, and for good reason. My gaming group is happy to use Forgeworld rules whenever and wherever, so it's a bit of a different environment than some of your stodgier groups.
37549
Post by: Clumpski
Brother SRM wrote:
Could you write that again in English? I think I sort of get the gist of what you're writing but your grammar, emoticons, punctuation and so on are REALLY making that hard to read.
I think the best way to treat Forgeworld units is the same way you'd treat any expansion of the game. If you two agree to play with Forgeworld rules, then go for it. The more recent Imperial Armour books have said to use superheavies only in Apocalypse level games though, and for good reason. My gaming group is happy to use Forgeworld rules whenever and wherever, so it's a bit of a different environment than some of your stodgier groups.
yes just excuse my dyslexia, no one is perfect but here you go.
But as far as things go, looking at the Apocalypse book(s), (rulebook/expansions etc) they have rules that allow the use of forgeworld (For the most part) models to be used within a normal games.
An example of such would be the vulture gunship, it states as of "Imperial Armour - Apocalypse II (2010)" page number 24 under the Imperial Navy section that:
----- a) "The Vulture counts as a fast skimmer in non-Apocalypse games"
----- b) "A Vulture Gunship is a fast attack choice for an imperial Army."
This is model that is only sold by Forgeworld.
So an example, while playing a game with my mate he lets me use the Vulture Gunship, but another example would be a Baneblade, naturally since a it cannot be classed under a normal FOC chart using a Baneblade is out of strictly out of the question along with wanting to use other models such as the Lightning and Tau Manta, so as long as it fits within the normal chart AND you can provide the rules (as proven above) such things like the Death-storm Drop pod (pg 28) and the Chaplin Dreadnought (pg 29) both which have rules stating they can be used Heavy Support and Elites with a Space Marine/Black Templar/Dark Angels army respectively so I personally cannot see why they cannot be used in there respective places within a normal game so long as the correct rules are provided, and it states something along the lines of what has been said above.
51365
Post by: kb305
gmaleron wrote:Hello eveyone, this is a question that has sparked some serious debate (and a little drama) @ my local gaming store recently and wanted to take it up with the community of Dakka. As the title of the thread says why do people have a beef with taking Forgeworld lists/models in games? I really see no point to it, especially since Forgeworld is part of GW. The most common complaint that I have seen is that "oh Forgeworld lists are totally OP and cheessy" however when actually playtested and using them we have found this to be hugely exaggerated. People can make the argument that the lists are "unbalanced" but with the playing field of 40k in particular already unbalanced I find it to be an empty argument. Seriously what is the point of GW tempting us to buy these amazing models to only be told we cant use them in games, there is nothing in the books that says they are illegal to run in tournaments or friendly games and I think is taking away alot of the diversity of the game. This all started when the local store owner gave no real or good reason as to why you cant run forgeworld lists (we basically have come to the opinion that its because he doesnt know how to power game against them) and it has now forced us to possibly play a tournament @ another game store so we actually can use the books and minitures. So I want to know guys, what are your reasons for and against running/using Forgeworld books and lists in tournaments and friendly games?
the game is unbalanced enough as it is without it. if you like the model that's fine, use your "contemptor" as a normal dread. doesnt forgeworld have a drop pod that you can assault out of? that right there is fricken stupid and enough for me not to want to play against any forgeworld rules.
it's also not fair if your opponent isnt fielding any forgeworld stuff. if you and your friends wanna load up on forgeworld and go at it against eachother, that's fine. but dont try to spring all these new rules and crap onto unsuspecting people.
53740
Post by: ZebioLizard2
doesn't forgeworld have a drop pod that you can assault out of? that right there is fricken stupid and enough for me not to want to play against any forgeworld rules.
It's also a fast attack choice, costs about 60 points, and has a chance of immobilizing your dread on assault.
I'm not so sure why that's not okay but drop pod sternguard with full out melta able to combat squad and hit two vehicles is A-okay. At least they'd do far more vehicle damage, and it'd make ironclads more useful.
it's also not fair if your opponent isnt fielding any forgeworld stuff. if you and your friends wanna load up on forgeworld and go at it against eachother, that's fine. but dont try to spring all these new rules and crap onto unsuspecting people.
Ahh jealousy, least your honest about it rather than trying for the overpowered rules bit.
42494
Post by: nomotog
Maybe it has something to do with how you get the rules. You have to roll up with a book that looks unlike any warhammer rule book or have a print out from the internet. Just picture how it must look form the other end of the table.
51365
Post by: kb305
ZebioLizard2 wrote:doesn't forgeworld have a drop pod that you can assault out of? that right there is fricken stupid and enough for me not to want to play against any forgeworld rules.
It's also a fast attack choice, costs about 60 points, and has a chance of immobilizing your dread on assault.
I'm not so sure why that's not okay but drop pod sternguard with full out melta able to combat squad and hit two vehicles is A-okay. At least they'd do far more vehicle damage, and it'd make ironclads more useful.
it's also not fair if your opponent isnt fielding any forgeworld stuff. if you and your friends wanna load up on forgeworld and go at it against eachother, that's fine. but dont try to spring all these new rules and crap onto unsuspecting people.
Ahh jealousy, least your honest about it rather than trying for the overpowered rules bit.
assaulting dreads out of drop pods with blood talons is alot worse than those sternguards. pretty obvious.
what are you talking about jealousy? its more about not being a Dbag. i like the forgeworld models but i would never expect or try to use the special rules against random people.
53740
Post by: ZebioLizard2
kb305 wrote:ZebioLizard2 wrote:doesn't forgeworld have a drop pod that you can assault out of? that right there is fricken stupid and enough for me not to want to play against any forgeworld rules.
It's also a fast attack choice, costs about 60 points, and has a chance of immobilizing your dread on assault.
I'm not so sure why that's not okay but drop pod sternguard with full out melta able to combat squad and hit two vehicles is A-okay. At least they'd do far more vehicle damage, and it'd make ironclads more useful.
it's also not fair if your opponent isnt fielding any forgeworld stuff. if you and your friends wanna load up on forgeworld and go at it against eachother, that's fine. but dont try to spring all these new rules and crap onto unsuspecting people.
Ahh jealousy, least your honest about it rather than trying for the overpowered rules bit.
assaulting dreads out of drop pods with blood talons is alot worse than those sternguards. pretty obvious.
what are you talking about jealousy? its more about not being a Dbag. i like the forgeworld models but i would never expect or try to use the special rules against random people.
I'd use the rules for contemptors, but its mainly cause their so damn cool, why would it be douchebaggish? I'd show them the rules specifically if they ask, being Dbaggish is loading it up, but not taking the rules and just telling them how it works, but the issue there is that people can actually do that with standard codex's too, the forum has plenty of examples where people try to cheat even with a standard codex listing.
As for blood talons, sure, but It's only for BT, DA, C: SM, SW unless its an apoc game. Blood angels dreads specifically cannot be used in them, along with gray knights.
Apparently even they realized Blood Angel dreads should not be getting that close so soon. 
52878
Post by: jgehunter
kb305 wrote:
. doesnt forgeworld have a drop pod that you can assault out of? that right there is fricken stupid and enough for me not to want to play against any forgeworld rules.
If we apply your logic we may as well not play anything because GK's exist
15115
Post by: Brother SRM
Clumpski wrote:
But as far as things go, looking at the Apocalypse book(s), (rulebook/expansions etc) they have rules that allow the use of forgeworld (For the most part) models to be used within a normal games.
An example of such would be the vulture gunship, it states as of "Imperial Armour - Apocalypse II (2010)" page number 24 under the Imperial Navy section that:
----- a) "The Vulture counts as a fast skimmer in non-Apocalypse games"
----- b) "A Vulture Gunship is a fast attack choice for an imperial Army."
This is model that is only sold by Forgeworld.
So an example, while playing a game with my mate he lets me use the Vulture Gunship, but another example would be a Baneblade, naturally since a it cannot be classed under a normal FOC chart using a Baneblade is out of strictly out of the question along with wanting to use other models such as the Lightning and Tau Manta, so as long as it fits within the normal chart AND you can provide the rules (as proven above) such things like the Death-storm Drop pod (pg 28) and the Chaplin Dreadnought (pg 29) both which have rules stating they can be used Heavy Support and Elites with a Space Marine/Black Templar/Dark Angels army respectively so I personally cannot see why they cannot be used in there respective places within a normal game so long as the correct rules are provided, and it states something along the lines of what has been said above.
Thank you for clearing that up. I'm in full agreement with you on your point - if it doesn't have a designated slot in an FOC, it generally shouldn't be in a standard 40k game. Even in my gaming group where Forgeworld stuff is always allowed, nobody fields superheavies outside of Apocalypse. Some fliers do see use though, but as with the example you stated, they take up FOC slots.
25751
Post by: gmaleron
Brother SRM wrote:Clumpski wrote:
But as far as things go, looking at the Apocalypse book(s), (rulebook/expansions etc) they have rules that allow the use of forgeworld (For the most part) models to be used within a normal games.
An example of such would be the vulture gunship, it states as of "Imperial Armour - Apocalypse II (2010)" page number 24 under the Imperial Navy section that:
----- a) "The Vulture counts as a fast skimmer in non-Apocalypse games"
----- b) "A Vulture Gunship is a fast attack choice for an imperial Army."
This is model that is only sold by Forgeworld.
So an example, while playing a game with my mate he lets me use the Vulture Gunship, but another example would be a Baneblade, naturally since a it cannot be classed under a normal FOC chart using a Baneblade is out of strictly out of the question along with wanting to use other models such as the Lightning and Tau Manta, so as long as it fits within the normal chart AND you can provide the rules (as proven above) such things like the Death-storm Drop pod (pg 28) and the Chaplin Dreadnought (pg 29) both which have rules stating they can be used Heavy Support and Elites with a Space Marine/Black Templar/Dark Angels army respectively so I personally cannot see why they cannot be used in there respective places within a normal game so long as the correct rules are provided, and it states something along the lines of what has been said above.
Thank you for clearing that up. I'm in full agreement with you on your point - if it doesn't have a designated slot in an FOC, it generally shouldn't be in a standard 40k game. Even in my gaming group where Forgeworld stuff is always allowed, nobody fields superheavies outside of Apocalypse. Some fliers do see use though, but as with the example you stated, they take up FOC slots.
+1 to this. And Kb305 your telling me that because someone who has a Forgeworld book or Forgeworld models should not be allowed to play with them because their opponent has neither? Where is the sense in that? I am not saying that you should take super heavies in a normal 40k game but as stated above, as long as there is a FOC chart with the list I see and or have no problem with fighitng against forgeworld stuff (such as the Raid on Kastofore Drop Troop IG list). Also even if they have a unique unit or two that can be sloted into an existing FOC I dont see any problem with that @ all either. How hard is it really to be like "what does that do" and then have the rules explained to you or even better ask to read the rules and figure it out for yourself. Jgehunter made a good point, if we applied your logic of "its stupid OP rule" that can be said with multiple things already in place in the regular game.
nomotog wrote:Maybe it has something to do with how you get the rules. You have to roll up with a book that looks unlike any warhammer rule book or have a print out from the internet. Just picture how it must look form the other end of the table.
I think the phrase "never judge a book by its cover" is relevant here, just because it doesnt look like a standard GW codex doesnt mean that it is not legal or cant be used
7936
Post by: SDFarsight
ZebioLizard2 wrote:Andilus Greatsword wrote:ZebioLizard2 wrote:Seeing as several models from Gray Knights, Space Wolves, and Imperial Guard are legal, my decision is that forgeworld is just like the standard codex's, there's overpowered, underpowered, and just right stuff.
But these are the armies that get most of the special stuff on Forge World...
But in all seriousness, I've fought Forge World units before, for the most part they're not so bad that I'd refuse to play them. I'd probably make an exception for a few units, but for the most part it's fun to face off against a special model.
Tau get's a fair bit, surprisingly so.
Indeed. FW gave the Tau everything on their Christmas list.
A bit of trivia: The Broadside Battlesuit in Dawn of War 1 had the body of a FW Broadside yet the weapons positioning of the GW Broadside (top-heavy shoulder mounted).
51365
Post by: kb305
jgehunter wrote:kb305 wrote:
. doesnt forgeworld have a drop pod that you can assault out of? that right there is fricken stupid and enough for me not to want to play against any forgeworld rules.
If we apply your logic we may as well not play anything because GK's exist
.. you make a valid point lol
15115
Post by: Brother SRM
kb305 wrote:jgehunter wrote:kb305 wrote:
. doesnt forgeworld have a drop pod that you can assault out of? that right there is fricken stupid and enough for me not to want to play against any forgeworld rules.
If we apply your logic we may as well not play anything because GK's exist
.. you make a valid point lol
Also that's not really a big deal. Imagine a dreadnought assaulting out of a drop pod. That's what, one unit it ties up? Instead of dropping and instantly dying, it now drops, gets into assault with something, and if it actually wins said fight it gets to assault. It's not really a big deal, but people hear "assault out of deep strike" and crap themselves. People aren't saying Zagstrukk or Vanguard Vets are cheesy, and you pay a points premium for said drop pod.
52878
Post by: jgehunter
Brother SRM wrote:kb305 wrote:jgehunter wrote:kb305 wrote:
. doesnt forgeworld have a drop pod that you can assault out of? that right there is fricken stupid and enough for me not to want to play against any forgeworld rules.
If we apply your logic we may as well not play anything because GK's exist
.. you make a valid point lol
Also that's not really a big deal. Imagine a dreadnought assaulting out of a drop pod. That's what, one unit it ties up? Instead of dropping and instantly dying, it now drops, gets into assault with something, and if it actually wins said fight it gets to assault. It's not really a big deal, but people hear "assault out of deep strike" and crap themselves. People aren't saying Zagstrukk or Vanguard Vets are cheesy, and you pay a points premium for said drop pod.
It also features a 1/6 chance of immobilizing. If it does your CC dread is going to sit for the game looking weirdly at the techmarine that patented the drop pod.
5301
Post by: Milisim
If I cant use FW units as a Tau player because it makes my army better, then for future reference I will not allow anyone to play GK against me as that is GW's version of shyte and I have the right NOT to play a broken codex.........
Pretty much the same logic...
I wont refuse a game because of FW models since it is GW. I would however like a heads up im up against FW stuff so I can go read up on it....
11
Post by: ph34r
ZebioLizard2 wrote:it's also not fair if your opponent isnt fielding any forgeworld stuff. if you and your friends wanna load up on forgeworld and go at it against eachother, that's fine. but dont try to spring all these new rules and crap onto unsuspecting people.
Ahh jealousy, least your honest about it rather than trying for the overpowered rules bit.
Nice, attacking someone as "jealous" instead of just concerned about fair play and balance, and then ignorance about the power of FW rules. An average day for a "my little pony" internet fanboy.
10097
Post by: Ensis Ferrae
gmaleron wrote:Brother SRM wrote:Clumpski wrote:
But as far as things go, looking at the Apocalypse book(s), (rulebook/expansions etc) they have rules that allow the use of forgeworld (For the most part) models to be used within a normal games.
An example of such would be the vulture gunship, it states as of "Imperial Armour - Apocalypse II (2010)" page number 24 under the Imperial Navy section that:
----- a) "The Vulture counts as a fast skimmer in non-Apocalypse games"
----- b) "A Vulture Gunship is a fast attack choice for an imperial Army."
This is model that is only sold by Forgeworld.
So an example, while playing a game with my mate he lets me use the Vulture Gunship, but another example would be a Baneblade, naturally since a it cannot be classed under a normal FOC chart using a Baneblade is out of strictly out of the question along with wanting to use other models such as the Lightning and Tau Manta, so as long as it fits within the normal chart AND you can provide the rules (as proven above) such things like the Death-storm Drop pod (pg 28) and the Chaplin Dreadnought (pg 29) both which have rules stating they can be used Heavy Support and Elites with a Space Marine/Black Templar/Dark Angels army respectively so I personally cannot see why they cannot be used in there respective places within a normal game so long as the correct rules are provided, and it states something along the lines of what has been said above.
Thank you for clearing that up. I'm in full agreement with you on your point - if it doesn't have a designated slot in an FOC, it generally shouldn't be in a standard 40k game. Even in my gaming group where Forgeworld stuff is always allowed, nobody fields superheavies outside of Apocalypse. Some fliers do see use though, but as with the example you stated, they take up FOC slots.
+1 to this. And Kb305 your telling me that because someone who has a Forgeworld book or Forgeworld models should not be allowed to play with them because their opponent has neither? Where is the sense in that? I am not saying that you should take super heavies in a normal 40k game but as stated above, as long as there is a FOC chart with the list I see and or have no problem with fighitng against forgeworld stuff (such as the Raid on Kastofore Drop Troop IG list). Also even if they have a unique unit or two that can be sloted into an existing FOC I dont see any problem with that @ all either. How hard is it really to be like "what does that do" and then have the rules explained to you or even better ask to read the rules and figure it out for yourself. Jgehunter made a good point, if we applied your logic of "its stupid OP rule" that can be said with multiple things already in place in the regular game.
By that logic, because I do not own an Ork codex, My opponent should not be allowed to field them. The same goes for any other codex that I do not own, which, if enforced that way, would make the game extremely boring....
In my old gaming group, we had a tau player who bought one of the FW HQ units, and was trying to field it in one of our group games (2v2).. because it was the first time seeing the unit, we all agreed that no targeting of said Tau HQ unit would take place until after turn 2 started (it just so happened that his team got first turn, which allowed him 2 full turns of shooting and whatnot).. after that "grace period" was up, we toasted him right quick, and he ultimately didn't do very much damage at all (if memory serves, he didnt roll so hot, and only took out a couple models, including a rhino)
So, in my experience, FW stuff really doesn't present much to truly be afraid of... just a tad bit of forewarning would be nice... And, unless I personally know the person I'm playing against, the actual FW book is required if FW stuff is being taken, a print out, or photo copy is not allowed.
53272
Post by: zachjattack
The reason why people hate Forgeworld is because people like to call everything a copy, or gay just because its in the same business as another company. Forgeworld makes great quality models, whether its apocalypse titans, or steam-punky Crusade armored space marines. Most people that hate it, which I dont understand, probably feel like they are freeloading off GamesWorkshop's work,and selling models that you cant buy at a store, or on the games workshop website. I think that all the hate on Forgeworld is ridiculous and the haters are just complainers. I think that people need to understand that forge world makes the things that GamesWorkshop cant mass produce like the other models that they make.
53740
Post by: ZebioLizard2
ph34r wrote:ZebioLizard2 wrote:it's also not fair if your opponent isnt fielding any forgeworld stuff. if you and your friends wanna load up on forgeworld and go at it against eachother, that's fine. but dont try to spring all these new rules and crap onto unsuspecting people.
Ahh jealousy, least your honest about it rather than trying for the overpowered rules bit.
Nice, attacking someone as "jealous" instead of just concerned about fair play and balance, and then ignorance about the power of FW rules. An average day for a "my little pony" internet fanboy.
At least the rest of my post was constructive, rather than just intentionally trying to provoke one person, not to mention I followed it up after with a more declarative statement on the power of forgeworld, now have something more constructive to debate rather than something you can nitpick.
Here's my issue with the "Forgeworld is overpowered!" deal, we have to deal with underpriced things within all codex's, some of them make things tolerable (Vulkan) Some of them make an already already strong codex over saturated (Imperial guards Vendetta, Space wolves Gray hunters, Gray Knights Rifledreads and Purifiers to name a consistent few). Most of what forgeworld puts out is mostly overcosted, with a few exceptions out of nearly 95% of the entirety of forgeworld that can be proven to be inconstantly undercosted. There's only one or two units I've seen consistently stated to be overpowered, and most of the time every time someone brings up an example, it is always Plague Drones, maybe even the land raider that costs so much that it's only use is a consistent transport score vehicle, with the Lucius drop pod it's only brought up when referring to blood angels dreadnoughts, which it cannot even transport.
I want some good examples outside of the common "Big Bad Three" (Lucius Drop Pod, Blight Drone, Land Raider Achilles) , that is intended for use within the standard game of Warhammer 40K, not the Apocalypse variants. This way we can know and debate which ones can be considered overpowered, with the rest having a free ride outside of this intended overpowered bubble.
35785
Post by: Avatar 720
Forgeworld is a subsidiary company of Games Workshop.
Just though this needed clearing up, as thus far it hasn't been.
38926
Post by: Exergy
my forge world hate comes from my codex. Having 3 choices(1 of them potentially playable) while the other 2 being crazily awful. The one playable model is 85pounds and likely to break into 1000 pieces while I prime it.
So I am just bitter that other races get lots of cool options to flesh out their armies and prevent boredom while I have comparitively little.
When I first read about Grot Tanks I nearly started playing orks because of their awesomeness. I wish my army had something like that (not like grot tanks, something so awesome sounding that I wanted to play my army all over again.)
34242
Post by: -Loki-
Exergy wrote:my forge world hate comes from my codex. Having 3 choices(1 of them potentially playable) while the other 2 being crazily awful. The one playable model is 85pounds and likely to break into 1000 pieces while I prime it.
So I am just bitter that other races get lots of cool options to flesh out their armies and prevent boredom while I have comparitively little.
Looking at your gallery, I assume you mean Dark Eldar?
You can't blame FW. Dark Eldar were for a long time unsupported even by GW. Necrons were in the same boat. While some people played these armies, they were quite unpopular. FW didn't make anything interesting for these armies because it was very likely they wouldn't sell much. Not a good investment of design staff. The Necron Tomb Stalker was actually done by one designer in his spare time.
Now that Dark Eldar are hot again, I'd expect to see some awesome FW stuff for them. The Tantalus is just a tase of what's going to come. Automatically Appended Next Post: kb305 wrote:assaulting dreads out of drop pods with blood talons is alot worse than those sternguards. pretty obvious.
what are you talking about jealousy? its more about not being a Dbag. i like the forgeworld models but i would never expect or try to use the special rules against random people.
Blood Talon dreads will never be assaulting you from those Lucius pattern drop pods. You want to know why?
Because Blood Angels aren't allowed to take them. People need to read the rules for FW units before crying cheese.
33033
Post by: kenshin620
People dont like FW because they dont get a lot of toys for certain armies.  Come on, bring out the Necron stuff (and the fantasy stuff!)
Also IG tend to lose in every book unless its krieg
Other than that, wonky rules. I mean even more wonky than GW sometimes! (gasp, it is possible!)
Anyways, I love my Warp Hunters. Nothing like letting out a D Cannon Flamer shot
52878
Post by: jgehunter
kenshin620 wrote:People dont like FW because they dont get a lot of toys for certain armies. Come on, bring out the Necron stuff (and the fantasy stuff!)
Also IG tend to lose in every book unless its krieg
Other than that, wonky rules. I mean even more wonky than GW sometimes! (gasp, it is possible!)
Anyways, I love my Warp Hunters. Nothing like letting out a D Cannon Flamer shot
Please point out the wonky rules and I'll point out 2x the time of those and OP things in normal codex, moreso, maybe I could find them in 1 book
BTW beeing an eldar player too FW opens up a lot of possibilities that the old-ish codex just doesn't provide.
51866
Post by: Bobthehero
Ensis Ferrae wrote:the actual FW book is required if FW stuff is being taken, a print out, or photo copy is not allowed.
What about outdated books? IA 5 springs to mind, its largely irrelevant right now and the valid DKoK rules are only avaible on the FW site.
2304
Post by: Steelmage99
This is what I have posted in a previous thread concerning Forgeworld rules.
Steelmage99 wrote:
If one takes the obvious step of excluding the use of super heavies and flyers, then one simply need to ban the Big Five (Lucius Pattern Drop Pod, Deathstorm Drop Pod, Hades Breaching Drill, Land Raider Achilles and the Caestus Assault Ram).
If those steps are taken I dare say that the complaints would be so few that they were basically non-existent.
People who complain about the exclusion of the Big Five are IMO the people who just wish to exploit Imperial Armours lack of play testing.
*Response from other poster*
Steelmage99 wrote:
I have no problem with you disagreeing with me on the relative "brokenness" of the various units. That wasn't really my point either.
Relative power-level or not, the units mentioned are the ones I hear complaints about every time I bring up IA.
So my solution was simply to remove those "offending" units, in order to play with all the others. Sort of like a sacrifice for the greater good, ie the ability to freely play with IA (with the mentioned units banned).
The thing I failed to articulate properly in my previous post was the reactions I received when proposing this.
I have, in my experience, found that people who champions the use of IA usually argues that the units in IA, as a whole, are not unbalanced and then proceeds to bring up a number of units from IA that most certainly are not broken, all the while carefully avoiding the Big Five mentioned earlier.
When I talk to opponents of the use of IA, they usually argue that some units are unbalanced and then proceeds to bring up the Big Five, as if they represented the total sum of Forgeworld rules.
Here is the kicker;
When I bring the two parties together and suggest a modification that should leave all parties involved happy (exclude the Big Five, allow everything else save Super Heavies/Flyers), I get a lot of resistance.
Not from the previously opposed to IA-crowd (they are mostly fine with IA being allowed like that), but from the pro- IA-crowd.
The side that previously talked about all those units not being unbalanced (while avoiding the Big Five) don't like the Big Five being excluded!
You know what that tells me?
It tells me that the pro- IA crowd clearly knows which IA-units are the "better" ones, and they want to use those units.
It tells me that the not-broken units mentioned earlier are simply a smoke-screen used in an attempt to "sneak in" the Big Five.
This is, of course, just my experience in attempting to mediate between the two opposing sides in my gaming circle.
All attempts motivated by a desire to find a way to include IA that leaves everybody happy, I might add. 
38926
Post by: Exergy
-Loki- wrote:Exergy wrote:my forge world hate comes from my codex. Having 3 choices(1 of them potentially playable) while the other 2 being crazily awful. The one playable model is 85pounds and likely to break into 1000 pieces while I prime it.
So I am just bitter that other races get lots of cool options to flesh out their armies and prevent boredom while I have comparitively little.
Looking at your gallery, I assume you mean Dark Eldar?
You can't blame FW. Dark Eldar were for a long time unsupported even by GW. Necrons were in the same boat. While some people played these armies, they were quite unpopular. FW didn't make anything interesting for these armies because it was very likely they wouldn't sell much. Not a good investment of design staff. The Necron Tomb Stalker was actually done by one designer in his spare time.
Now that Dark Eldar are hot again, I'd expect to see some awesome FW stuff for them. The Tantalus is just a tase of what's going to come.
I know how long DE were unsupported. I started playing them when third edition first came out....
I have a firey rage against GW for that injustice as well.
39912
Post by: IcedAnimals
I will never understand the "Because forgeworld caters to a faction I don't play". What does that have to do with the BALANCE of the game? If imperial guard gets 100 new units and all of them range from balanced to underpowered. What is the difference between fighting it and fighting any other army?
Is your army suddenly weaker because that space marine player has a new toy? Are you at a sudden disadvantage because you aren't fielding forgeworld yourself? Of course not. There is no difference at all if my opponent uses Forgeworld and I don't.
The entire argument makes people bringing it up look childish. Like people who can't go to a dinner guilt tripping other people for going. Reminds me of an ex girlfriend I had who would get upset that I could do something on saturday night with friends while she had work. So she wanted me to sit at home saturday night and do nothing.
55712
Post by: imrandomghgh
gmaleron wrote:Hello eveyone, this is a question that has sparked some serious debate (and a little drama) @ my local gaming store recently and wanted to take it up with the community of Dakka. As the title of the thread says why do people have a beef with taking Forgeworld lists/models in games? I really see no point to it, especially since Forgeworld is part of GW. The most common complaint that I have seen is that "oh Forgeworld lists are totally OP and cheessy" however when actually playtested and using them we have found this to be hugely exaggerated. People can make the argument that the lists are "unbalanced" but with the playing field of 40k in particular already unbalanced I find it to be an empty argument. Seriously what is the point of GW tempting us to buy these amazing models to only be told we cant use them in games, there is nothing in the books that says they are illegal to run in tournaments or friendly games and I think is taking away alot of the diversity of the game. This all started when the local store owner gave no real or good reason as to why you cant run forgeworld lists (we basically have come to the opinion that its because he doesnt know how to power game against them) and it has now forced us to possibly play a tournament @ another game store so we actually can use the books and minitures. So I want to know guys, what are your reasons for and against running/using Forgeworld books and lists in tournaments and friendly games?
Well the reason it doesn't work in tournaments is fairly obvious, but there is literally NO reason not to play against someone in a friendly game, provided they are coming prepared with their IA to show you the rules if you ask.
I remember the first time I brought an XV9 to the table, my opponent went slack-jawed when I told him all the things it could do "2D3 melta shots? Times three models? T5? HAX" and they forget that these powerful units come at a premium...100+points for a kitted out XV9...
Really, things like Long Fangs, Purifiers and others are more broke'd than ANYTHING fw.
Oh, another logical restriction for use of FW is DON'T USE fething SUPERHEAVIES IN SMALL POINTS GAMES
38926
Post by: Exergy
IcedAnimals wrote:I will never understand the "Because forgeworld caters to a faction I don't play". What does that have to do with the BALANCE of the game? If imperial guard gets 100 new units and all of them range from balanced to underpowered. What is the difference between fighting it and fighting any other army?
Is your army suddenly weaker because that space marine player has a new toy? Are you at a sudden disadvantage because you aren't fielding forgeworld yourself? Of course not. There is no difference at all if my opponent uses Forgeworld and I don't.
The entire argument makes people bringing it up look childish. Like people who can't go to a dinner guilt tripping other people for going. Reminds me of an ex girlfriend I had who would get upset that I could do something on saturday night with friends while she had work. So she wanted me to sit at home saturday night and do nothing.
so you have to like everything your opponent brings or does. I let people play with forgeworld units, its fun. When their entire army is FW it gets kind of annoying. Just because its legal doesnt mean you have to like it. I also dont like it when my oppoenent squeezes 6 psirifleman dreads into his army. Perfectly legal but I dont like it.
54729
Post by: AegisGrimm
I've always been oneof the ones that thinks FW stuff is "cool but stupidly expensive". Mostly because they used to only have large vehicles like Superheavies, or niche Imperial Guard tanks. But now that they are really widening their scope, I am actually starting to look at Forgeworld for some smallish things. Now that I have started an Eldar army, the Hornet looks particularly interesting. I don't now any of the rules for it, but it's about $52US, which is firmly in the realm of even the plastic tanks from GW now.
Same with the Wraithseer. It looks pretty dang cool, and it's also only about 55 bucks, which is only ten dollars more than a freaking plastic wraithlord is now.
I can see how a superheavy tank like the Scorpions and baneblades can unbalance smaller games, but it seems there is plenty from FW now that would simply be fun to have on the table.
12313
Post by: Ouze
IcedAnimals wrote:I will never understand the "Because forgeworld caters to a faction I don't play". What does that have to do with the BALANCE of the game? If imperial guard gets 100 new units and all of them range from balanced to underpowered. What is the difference between fighting it and fighting any other army?
Is your army suddenly weaker because that space marine player has a new toy? Are you at a sudden disadvantage because you aren't fielding forgeworld yourself? Of course not. There is no difference at all if my opponent uses Forgeworld and I don't.
The entire argument makes people bringing it up look childish.
I'm not sure the personal invective towards the people you disagree with is necessary.
I also like Forgeworld and use FW, but I'm perfectly aware that if I were an IG player FW units would give me considerable advantages over a Necron player. Part of the game balance is the amount of options that each faction has access to; in an apocalypse game being a faction that does not have any superheavies does not put you on even ground as the other player despite what you eventually end up with.
39912
Post by: IcedAnimals
@Exergy, that isn't what im saying at all. You can dislike something your opponent does. But hating forgeworld because they don't cater to your army is a poor choice. You can dislike it because its forgeworld just like you can dislike the guy who brings the current "army of the month" build to every game. But disliking something simply on the notion that you can't have it is silly.
@ouze I am not attempting to insult anyone personally. Nor do I care if they disagree with me. Some people have very valid reasons why they feel forgeworld stuff should not be allowed. But once again "I can't have it so you can't either" is a very childish and selfish reason.
If I am a guard player and I can field an entire FW army of Deathkorp does that give me an advantage over my necron opponent. The answer is and will always be, no. Now if I am playing apoc against an opponent would it be fair? Probably not. But that is a fault of a game mode, not the company. And honestly if I was able to field a GW super heavy but my opponents army didn't have one it would be no different.
That brings up a very good point however. In that when talking about "is forgeworld ok" you have to differentiate between gargantuan creatures/Super heavies and Apocalypse formations as strictly being for the game mode APOC and that they are not what is being talked about. (At least I am not.)
25751
Post by: gmaleron
Ouze wrote:I also like Forgeworld and use FW, but I'm perfectly aware that if I were an IG player FW units would give me considerable advantages over a Necron player. Part of the game balance is the amount of options that each faction has access to; in an apocalypse game being a faction that does not have any superheavies does not put you on even ground as the other player despite what you eventually end up with.
We are not talking about apocalypse though, we are talking about normal friendly/tournament warhammer 40k games. Necrons may not have much right now but with the release of the new book it should generate more interest which = more money which means FW will probably be coming out with some cool stuff in the future. If people really want to try and take super heavies (vehicles that were designed for apocalypse) then I can see an issue, not when its a FOC or a model that is completely legit in terms of being run in regular games. Also just because a certain faction does not have as much access to FW does not mean the FW player is getting an advantage since, as mentioned the VAST majority of units/models in the game are overpriced or balanced enough to be fair.
46059
Post by: rockerbikie
It's most likely fear of the unknown.
36276
Post by: Zweischneid
rockerbikie wrote:It's most likely fear of the unknown.
Nah. Quite the opposite. Thorough familiarity with the inferiority of FW stuff. Also, their humour-deprived, overly pretentious neckbeard-fluff sure doesn't help.
494
Post by: H.B.M.C.
Grind that axe a little more...
12313
Post by: Ouze
IcedAnimals wrote:@ouze I am not attempting to insult anyone personally. Nor do I care if they disagree with me. Some people have very valid reasons why they feel forgeworld stuff should not be allowed. But once again "I can't have it so you can't either" is a very childish and selfish reason.
Do you understand you're simultaneously saying you're not trying to insult anyone personally, while calling the people who disagree with you childish? How exactly do you reconcile that in your head as you type it?
Anyway, let me try an analogy, although analogies are always suspect. Lets say you and your friend are having drawing contests with a coloring book and crayons, each from your local store (faction). Your store's box of crayons has 12 colors. Your friend's box has 64 colors. Who is more likely to produce better work? Obviously, the person who is the better artist is more likely to produce better work. However, assuming you're both on an even keel, can you honest say that the person who has significantly more options available to them has strategies and abilities and synergy available that you simply do not?
I don't really have much desire to spend any more time carrying the banner for a cause I don't particularly believe in, as I literally type this in between breaks painting a Kill Bursta. I'd like to see FW allowed all over the place and I don't see a problem with their rules. That being said, I'm willing to assume good faith in the people who don't agree with that stance, because I think their argument has at least some legitimacy, and I don't find it necessary to belittle them to not wish to play a game of chess in which they perceive they only get pawns.
52163
Post by: Shandara
The only hate I have for Forgeworld is the quality of editing/QC of their books.
Do they actually bother to proofread before printing?
That said:
Too much Imperial Guard/Marine stuff from Forgeworld is the only complaint I have. I understand why, but it creates a big imbalance!
Give me more Eldar goodies.
34906
Post by: Pacific
Ouze wrote:
Anyway, let me try an analogy, although analogies are always suspect. Lets say you and your friend are having drawing contests with a coloring book and crayons, each from your local store (faction). Your store's box of crayons has 12 colors. Your friend's box has 64 colors. Who is more likely to produce better work? Obviously, the person who is the better artist is more likely to produce better work. However, assuming you're both on an even keel, can you honest say that the person who has significantly more options available to them has strategies and abilities and synergy available that you simply do not?
Surely it depends though if those extra crayons are all sickly shades of brown, with perhaps some putrid-coloured green? There is a kind of nice blue in there, but it costs $300 so he probably won't use it.
44276
Post by: Lobokai
We have a long standing rule in our club (which plays exclusive blind matches, you find out who you play after every gets their lists out). You can have 1 Apocalypse or 1 IA unit in any list. Provided: you own the model, you have the rulebook with you. If its a Super Heavy, each structure point or shield takes a Heavy FoC spot. If you use a formation, each unit takes its normal spot in the FoC.
So far, we've found that if anything, the FW and Apoc stuff is not game changing. Initially everyone took Baneblades, Skullhammers, etc, but quickly found it was too many points in one place... and no one with a super heavy has won a match yet, and one unit of Shadow Specters or Commander Culn running around really didn't change anything.
I agree with the consensus in this thread, people freaking out about FW stuff just can't stand the shattering of the munkin list they're running. Just like SW, BA, GK, etc all being unbeatable and broken when they first came out... but weren't
36276
Post by: Zweischneid
Lobukia wrote:
I agree with the consensus in this thread, people freaking out about FW stuff just can't stand the shattering of the munkin list they're running. Just like SW, BA, GK, etc all being unbeatable and broken when they first came out... but weren't
How is that a consensus? It is the rather condescending consensus adopted in this thread exclusively by people who like/use FW about other people who do not like/use FW (which, as these things runs, conveniently paints the former group in a good, the latter in a bad light). No poster who actually spoke out against FW has agreed with this in even the vaguest form. Not a single person has stepped forth and agreed that this is the reason they personally do not opt for or use FW.
You will keep fighting windmills if you continue to delude yourself that FW is rejected because individual units or army lists are considered overpowered (pretty much everone in this thread has said that this was not the case) or that FW is simply not/badly understood (again, I cannot find evidence for this in any post of anybody actually posting reasons here that speak against FW).
The sheer amout of reality denial FW-proponents put into this, even if the evidence is there to read, right in front of their noses, is just staggering.
Honestly, stuff like the reads like a 19th century "White Man's Burden Argument": bigots, who would like to see themselves as enlightened benefactors that are taking on themselves the "burden" of dragging the savages to a better place for their own good, rather than even considering "other opinions" on open and equal terms.
54729
Post by: AegisGrimm
I'd like to put it out there that Forgeworld makes more than just super-heavies.
2304
Post by: Steelmage99
AegisGrimm wrote:I'd like to put it out there that Forgeworld makes more than just super-heavies.
I don't think anybody has yet to disagree with that.
54729
Post by: AegisGrimm
But yet that's what all the freaking out seems to be based on.
49909
Post by: Luide
Disclaimer: I don't use FW stuff and neither does anyone in my gaming circles.
But the argument that more options increases automatically power of an army is not actually 100% correct.
It depends on three things:
1) Are the new options overcosted, balanced or undercosted.
2) Does the codex have "better" units in the same FOC slot already.
3) Do the new options fill a weak spot in the codex.
For example, number 1 is pretty easy to point out:
Having grey hunters on other marine codexes at 16 ppm would be horrible. But being able to take them at 32 ppm wouldn't be an issue, because every marine codex has better options at that price range. => Overcosted options don't increase army power level.
Balanced units that already have equal/better units in their respective FOC in codex don't usually cause that many issues either.
I think the main issues come from units, that are either undercosted and/or fill role that is generally weak in codex.
General feeling seems to be that FW has some hugely undercosted and imbalanced units, large amount of slightly overcosted units and some balanced ones.
But players being players, I'd assume that people mostly want to use the units from the first category and the "fluffy" or "fun" choices coming from second and third category are rare.
36276
Post by: Zweischneid
AegisGrimm wrote:But yet that's what all the freaking out seems to be based on.
Not in my experience. Not by a long shot. Superheavies are, I believe, the least controversial stuff FW makes by far.
24911
Post by: snowman40k
Seriously? We are seriously debating this?
Oh... wait, it's the internet... 
How hard is it as an individual, to buy forgeworld models as you see fit, and then turn up to a game (any game) and inquire to your good man or woman across the table...
"why sir/madam, would you mind if i used this unit?"
If yes, play on.
If no, swap it out, or play someone else. Even (shock-horror), play 'counts as'.
IMHO It's irrelevant if it's overpowered/underpowered/cheap/nasty/expensive/whatever. It's YOUR choice to buy the models you like. It's your OPPONENTS choice to decide whether they play you or not because of it.
36276
Post by: Zweischneid
snowman40k wrote:Seriously? We are seriously debating this?
Oh... wait, it's the internet...
How hard is it as an individual, to buy forgeworld models as you see fit, and then turn up to a game (any game) and inquire to your good man or woman across the table...
"why sir/madam, would you mind if i used this unit?"
If yes, play on.
If no, swap it out, or play someone else. Even (shock-horror), play 'counts as'.
IMHO It's irrelevant if it's overpowered/underpowered/cheap/nasty/expensive/whatever. It's YOUR choice to buy the models you like. It's your OPPONENTS choice to decide whether they play you or not because of it.
/thread
44276
Post by: Lobokai
Zweischneid wrote:Lobukia wrote:
I agree with the consensus in this thread, people freaking out about FW stuff just can't stand the shattering of the munkin list they're running. Just like SW, BA, GK, etc all being unbeatable and broken when they first came out... but weren't
How is that a consensus? It is the rather condescending consensus adopted in this thread exclusively by people who like/use FW about other people who do not like/use FW (which, as these things runs, conveniently paints the former group in a good, the latter in a bad light). No poster who actually spoke out against FW has agreed with this in even the vaguest form. Not a single person has stepped forth and agreed that this is the reason they personally do not opt for or use FW.
You will keep fighting windmills if you continue to delude yourself that FW is rejected because individual units or army lists are considered overpowered (pretty much everone in this thread has said that this was not the case) or that FW is simply not/badly understood (again, I cannot find evidence for this in any post of anybody actually posting reasons here that speak against FW).
The sheer amout of reality denial FW-proponents put into this, even if the evidence is there to read, right in front of their noses, is just staggering.
Honestly, stuff like the reads like a 19th century "White Man's Burden Argument": bigots, who would like to see themselves as enlightened benefactors that are taking on themselves the "burden" of dragging the savages to a better place for their own good, rather than even considering "other opinions" on open and equal terms.
Wow... I hit a nerve. Page one: 7 comments on FW not being used because people were ignorant of how to counter it, unexposed to the unit, or worried FW would make them lose (not including the OPs referance to the same). Scared of the unknown some said. Another 2 or 3 posts along those lines in response to similar comments. Then another 8 posts along the same lines on page 2, with at least 2 posts from people who clearly overestimate the impact FW lists have on the game. Seemed to me, that several people in this thread felt that others in their local scene did not like FW because the didn't understand it. In my local scene, we made a nice rule that has shown FW to hardly be game breaking... seemed relevant to the discussion, thought I'd post it.
I made the comparison to how people freak out about new codices, because its the same thing ( IMO). Half of the unbeatable, OP units in each new codex, turn out to be easily manageable and not that bad. Its my rather well informed opinion that both reactions can and often do stem from ignorance of the "new" or FW unit and an overestimation of its effect on gameplay (I watch about 6 games of 40k a week, and frequent two FLGSs besides my own club). Almost without exception, if someone doesn't like FW stuff, its because they think its OP. I'm sorry if you don't like that reason or if its not your reason, but it is many others' reason. Just is. I'm all for people being able to buy and use a greater variety of models for their games, you clearly aren't. Could you maybe then enlighten us as to why you do not like GW owned products in your games so that we can see the other reasons people don't like FW. I am genuinely sorry if I oppressed your opinion, marginalized your point of view, or made you feel like I was attacking your worth as an individual.
Word of warning: opinions are often expressed on the old interweb these days. Opinions about toy soldier games and which toy soldiers make sense on the table, don't require a soap box rant that ends in people not agreeing with you being similar to 19th century bigots. Simply, Wow!
I'd gladly concede everything I said is wrong and move on not caring... maybe I did overstate others' opinions... not worth the worry. You, sir have a nice day and do something relaxing for yourself.
18698
Post by: kronk
I really need to subscribe to one of these threads so I don't have to search for my answer everytime this comes up.
Our group uses Forge World rules and models in normal games. We have chosen NOT to use the Lucious Pattern Drop Pod outside of Apoc games. Otherwise, any non-flier and non-super heavy is allowed in standard games.
We like it, we have fun with it, and we'll continue to play this way.
Like any suppliment, Planet Strike, Cities of Death, Apocalypse, and the Battle Missions book, you and your opponent should agree on the type of game you're going to play. If one side really doesn't want to play against FW rules, then play without them. If you don't want to play without them, then move on and find another player. Don't try to force your way of playing on others, or let them force something on you that you're not comfortable with.
Have fun and all of that.
36276
Post by: Zweischneid
Lobukia wrote:
Wow... I hit a nerve. Page one: 7 comments on FW not being used because people were ignorant of how to counter it, unexposed to the unit, or worried FW would make them lose (not including the OPs referance to the same). Scared of the unknown some said.
I cannot find them. Maybe I am just blind, but there isn't a single post on page one with someone saying something along the lines of "I do not know FW, I thus deny them to others out of fear of losing". Every single post that raises this argument, without exception, is written by a " FW-fan" who makes this sort of condescending "mind-reading" about people he encountered, presuming this to be the reason, just as you did. Which bears pointing out I believe.
Then another 8 posts along the same lines on page 2, with at least 2 posts from people who clearly overestimate the impact FW lists have on the game.
When it has been said, time and again, that "the impact of FW lists on the game" in an advantage/disadvantage for winning sense isn't a major reason for passing up on FW. Windmills.
Lobukia wrote:
In my local scene, we made a nice rule that has shown FW to hardly be game breaking... seemed relevant to the discussion, thought I'd post it.
That is commendable. But you sadly draw the wrong conclusions. Rather than finding that, as you did, other local scenes should be free to find their rules to best enjoy the game, you deduce from it that FW cannot be "reasonably" rejected because "your group's" experience has provided the proof of sorts. That's what I critizised; your assumption of having taken the "burden" of finding how the game is the most fun from other people, rather than letting others find their own "fun" in each their own way.
Lobukia wrote:
I made the comparison to how people freak out about new codices, because its the same thing (IMO). Half of the unbeatable, OP units in each new codex, turn out to be easily manageable and not that bad.
Again, windmills. It's not the same, because lack of familiarity or "unbeatable" isn't the issue in the first place (except for pro- FW-posters who keep claiming it is in evident denial of reality).
Lobukia wrote:
Its my rather well informed opinion that both reactions can and often do stem from ignorance of the "new" or FW unit and an overestimation of its effect on gameplay (I watch about 6 games of 40k a week, and frequent two FLGSs besides my own club). Almost without exception, if someone doesn't like FW stuff, its because they think its OP. I'm sorry if you don't like that reason or if its not your reason, but it is many others' reason.
You are right. I don't like your reasons. But it has nothing to do with the power of FW stuff, as said many, many times.
Lobukia wrote:
I'm all for people being able to buy and use a greater variety of models for their games, you clearly aren't.
I am all for people playing the game in ways that they have the most fun, you clearly aren't.
Besides, if "greater variety of models" is the sole goal, why stop at FW? Why not add some fantasy regiments and characters? Why not include Warmachine? Some infinity stuff? Random homemade stuff? Just throw it all in and lets throw some dice?
Do you truly see no "line" where the inclusion of "more, no matter what, just for the sake of "more", would have diminishing returns, even detrimental effects overall? None at all?
53851
Post by: Erik_Morkai
Steelmage99 wrote:
That is just odd. If a Forgeworld unit in a Forgeworld book is said to be "approved", surely that means that Forgeworld says so, not GW
If you look at the actual book and read the disclaimer you will see that the GW logo is on the book.
In the copyright notice/disclaimer at the beginning of the book you will realizing that Forgeworld is only the publisher. Images, names, rules and each and every word in there is property of GW.
Now knowing the zeal with which GW enforcers their IP. Do you honestly think they would let that slide? That they would not have issued a statement to the contrary? Force Forgeworld to apologize or issue some sort of statement that they were not allowed to do it? You bet they would have if they had cause which they did not.
kb305 wrote:
the game is unbalanced enough as it is without it. if you like the model that's fine, use your "contemptor" as a normal dread. doesnt forgeworld have a drop pod that you can assault out of? that right there is fricken stupid and enough for me not to want to play against any forgeworld rules.
it's also not fair if your opponent isnt fielding any forgeworld stuff. if you and your friends wanna load up on forgeworld and go at it against eachother, that's fine. but dont try to spring all these new rules and crap onto unsuspecting people.
How is that different than facing the GK for the first time? Or the Necrons? How DARE someone field Draigo on unsuspecting people?
How is that different from ANY new codex?
Assaulting dreadnoughts is not that bad. There is a chance of immobilizing. The drop pod takes up a seperate FoC slot. Costs almost twice as a regular drop pod. Not much different than a full squad of Sternguard with melta as was mentionned in a previous post.
Blood Angels are not allowed to use it so no Blood Talons assaulting out of the Lucious Assault Drop Pod.
All in all the hate and fear comes from earsay and not from actual experience. How many haters have actually faced LEGAL FW units? Not talking about some douche fielding a Baneblade in a non- apoc game but a real FAIR FW units. Ever fought against a Wraithseer? Hornets? Tantalus? XV9?
54729
Post by: AegisGrimm
I am all for people playing the game in ways that they have the most fun, you clearly aren't.
Besides, if "greater variety of models" is the sole goal, why stop at FW? Why not add some fantasy regiments and characters? Why not include Warmachine? Some infinity stuff? Random homemade stuff? Just throw it all in and lets throw some dice?
Do you truly see no "line" where the inclusion of "more, no matter what, just for the sake of "more", would have diminishing returns, even detrimental effects overall? None at all?
Of course, if I am to use a Hornet in my Eldar army instead of a Falcon, my opponent should be well within their rights to go "Rargh!" and throw up their arms and rage around the room because I just 'sploded their head with my cheesy (and beardy) heresy? Because that's tantamount to using a Warhammer Orc chariot and a Khador Heavy 'jack beside my Landraider!
Not.
All in all the hate and fear comes from earsay and not from actual experience. How many haters have actually faced LEGAL FW units? Not talking about some douche fielding a Baneblade in a non-apoc game but a real FAIR FW units. Ever fought against a Wraithseer? Hornets? Tantalus? XV9?
Probably not.
36276
Post by: Zweischneid
AegisGrimm wrote:
Of course, if I am to use a Hornet in my Eldar army instead of a Falcon, my opponent should be well within their rights to go "Rargh!" and throw up their arms and rage around the room because I just 'sploded their head with my cheesy (and beardy) heresy? Because that's tantamount to using a Warhammer Orc chariot and a Khador Heavy 'jack beside my Landraider!
Not.
I am not sure what your problem is. A Warhammer Orc Chariot is rather underpowered in a 40K game for it's points. Hardly game-breaking or cheesy. And the book it is published in even has the official GW stamp.
By all the criteria forwarded in this thread, there should be no reason not to field in my next 40K game.
54729
Post by: AegisGrimm
By all the criteria forwarded in this thread, there should be no reason not to field in my next 40K game.
I'm pretty sure this thread was supposed to be about how some people are having a hard time understanding why if they want to use some of the cool stuff from Forgeworld to spice up their games, they are being ostracized and labelled as cheesy players. Because evidently people think that all the product FW put out "breaks Wh40K" because it's so over-powered and under-costed.
If even half the stuff FW made was put out as "official" kits by GW, but using the exact costs and rules published by Forgeworld, I'll bet players would eat them up with a spoon.
48860
Post by: Joey
Forgeworld stuff is stupidly over-powered. I'd never play against a Forgeworld list unless I could proxy my own army as a forgeworld army as well.
And as I keep reminding people, you need your opponent's permission to field any army. Automatically Appended Next Post: Zweischneid wrote:rockerbikie wrote:It's most likely fear of the unknown.
Nah. Quite the opposite. Thorough familiarity with the inferiority of FW stuff. Also, their humour-deprived, overly pretentious neckbeard-fluff sure doesn't help.
So...why don't people refuse to play Grey Knights?
No, yeah.
36276
Post by: Zweischneid
AegisGrimm wrote:
If even half the stuff FW made was put out as "official" kits by GW, but using the exact costs and rules published by Forgeworld, I'll bet players would eat them up with a spoon.
True. But they are not. They are published by Forgeworld. There lies the hypocrisy. If someone sitting opposite the table insists on using that "line" between GW and Forgeworld to demark what he wants and does not want to play, you ridicule them as "ignorant"; "afraid as having their cookie-cutter-lists destroyed"; "afraid of loosing" and other rather unflattering prejudices that largely serve to elevate your own opinion of yourself as a " FW-player", who you clearly consider "superiour" hobbists to those that reject FW.
Yet at the same time, you're just as adamant about drawing your "lines" elsewhere, be it doing some WFB- 40K cross-gaming, importing some Warmachine goodies for the fun of it. Or perhaps the latest Superheavy Tripod from Zweischneid's Garage Miniature Studio (I swear its overcosted and underpowered for its point values).
By that, you have disproven your own argument of "more variety can only be better for the game".
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Joey wrote:
So...why don't people refuse to play Grey Knights?
No, yeah.
If FW had ever written anything that could reasonably be considered only 1% as good as the Grey Knight Codex, we wouldn't be having the conversation.
2304
Post by: Steelmage99
Erik_Morkai wrote:Steelmage99 wrote:
That is just odd. If a Forgeworld unit in a Forgeworld book is said to be "approved", surely that means that Forgeworld says so, not GW
If you look at the actual book and read the disclaimer you will see that the GW logo is on the book.
In the copyright notice/disclaimer at the beginning of the book you will realizing that Forgeworld is only the publisher. Images, names, rules and each and every word in there is property of GW.
I am not talking about the organisational structure of GW PLC.
I am talking about who writes what for whom.
The second I get ANY indication that the rules for IA are written by a Games Designer, are play-tested to any extent equal to the Design Studio (however little that may be), is balanced with the entire 40K universe in mind (fat chance with that name) or is approved by the Studio/Games Designers in ANY way, I might change my opinion.
Until that happens I will continually remind people that, when it comes to the rules, GW DOES NOT equal Forgeworld.
34906
Post by: Pacific
Zweischneid wrote:AegisGrimm wrote:But yet that's what all the freaking out seems to be based on.
Not in my experience. Not by a long shot. Superheavies are, I believe, the least controversial stuff FW makes by far.
You are probably right, although a lot of the angst by players regarding FW comes back to the first IA book, and the possibility that your opponent could pick a Baneblade out of his bag and plonk it down on the table.
TBH I would never not play against someone who wanted to use something from FW. I have the odd FW unit in my army, and generally I get nothing but positive comments regarding them. I guess it comes down to that social contract GW is so fond of mentioning regarding the game. I'm not going to use some unit that is totally unbalanced against my friends, and I know the group I play with wouldn't do it to me either. Similarly, I wouldn't expect my opponent to do it in a PuG - if they did (I'm guessing because they're some kind of odd-ball) then that would be the last time I played them.
I'm curious what type of opponent you play Zweischneid or what kind of bad experiences you have had to have such a strong and belligerent opinion of FW stuff.
15115
Post by: Brother SRM
Joey wrote:Forgeworld stuff is stupidly over-powered. I'd never play against a Forgeworld list unless I could proxy my own army as a forgeworld army as well.
You can't be serious. Have you ever even played against a Forgeworld unit or army? My money's on no. There are choice few overpowered units, and even then they're no worse than most of what you'll find in standard 40k games. You can't give a blanket judgment like that when most of their stuff is just flavorful versions of things that already exist, but they serve a slightly different purpose with more flavorful rules.
52878
Post by: jgehunter
Steelmage99 wrote:This is what I have posted in a previous thread concerning Forgeworld rules.
Steelmage99 wrote:
If one takes the obvious step of excluding the use of super heavies and flyers, then one simply need to ban the Big Five (Lucius Pattern Drop Pod, Deathstorm Drop Pod, Hades Breaching Drill, Land Raider Achilles and the Caestus Assault Ram).
If those steps are taken I dare say that the complaints would be so few that they were basically non-existent.
People who complain about the exclusion of the Big Five are IMO the people who just wish to exploit Imperial Armours lack of play testing.
*Response from other poster*
Steelmage99 wrote:
I have no problem with you disagreeing with me on the relative "brokenness" of the various units. That wasn't really my point either.
Relative power-level or not, the units mentioned are the ones I hear complaints about every time I bring up IA.
So my solution was simply to remove those "offending" units, in order to play with all the others. Sort of like a sacrifice for the greater good, ie the ability to freely play with IA (with the mentioned units banned).
The thing I failed to articulate properly in my previous post was the reactions I received when proposing this.
I have, in my experience, found that people who champions the use of IA usually argues that the units in IA, as a whole, are not unbalanced and then proceeds to bring up a number of units from IA that most certainly are not broken, all the while carefully avoiding the Big Five mentioned earlier.
When I talk to opponents of the use of IA, they usually argue that some units are unbalanced and then proceeds to bring up the Big Five, as if they represented the total sum of Forgeworld rules.
Here is the kicker;
When I bring the two parties together and suggest a modification that should leave all parties involved happy (exclude the Big Five, allow everything else save Super Heavies/Flyers), I get a lot of resistance.
Not from the previously opposed to IA-crowd (they are mostly fine with IA being allowed like that), but from the pro- IA-crowd.
The side that previously talked about all those units not being unbalanced (while avoiding the Big Five) don't like the Big Five being excluded!
You know what that tells me?
It tells me that the pro- IA crowd clearly knows which IA-units are the "better" ones, and they want to use those units.
It tells me that the not-broken units mentioned earlier are simply a smoke-screen used in an attempt to "sneak in" the Big Five.
This is, of course, just my experience in attempting to mediate between the two opposing sides in my gaming circle.
All attempts motivated by a desire to find a way to include IA that leaves everybody happy, I might add.
I play Eldars so I'm not affected in a good way by any of those units, however I do not feel that. "the big five" are as OP as you make them seem, they are insanely good and not that cheap.
In my experience many of the anti- FW are GK players that fear that some armies can put a better fight.
42494
Post by: nomotog
gmaleron wrote:
nomotog wrote:Maybe it has something to do with how you get the rules. You have to roll up with a book that looks unlike any warhammer rule book or have a print out from the internet. Just picture how it must look form the other end of the table.
I think the phrase "never judge a book by its cover" is relevant here, just because it doesnt look like a standard GW codex doesnt mean that it is not legal or cant be used
Ya, but just kind of picture how it would feel if you didn't know about forge world. I am basically pulling out a model you haven't seen before and the rules are on a piece of paper I printed off my computer. (I don't think people would lug the imperial armor book with them, or would they.) It also dosen't help that a lot of the stuff from forge world is a little strange rules wise. Just try and picture how you would react.
54729
Post by: AegisGrimm
There lies the hypocrisy. If someone sitting opposite the table insists on using that "line" between GW and Forgeworld to demark what he wants and does not want to play, you ridicule them as "ignorant"; "afraid as having their cookie-cutter-lists destroyed"; "afraid of loosing" and other rather unflattering prejudices that largely serve to elevate your own opinion of yourself as a "FW-player", who you clearly consider "superiour" hobbists to those that reject FW.
*looks back at posts*
Nope, sorry- I have never said anything of the sort. It's been implicated as such by some in this thread, but not by me.
Yet at the same time, you're just as adamant about drawing your "lines" elsewhere, be it doing some WFB-40K cross-gaming, importing some Warmachine goodies for the fun of it. Or perhaps the latest Superheavy Tripod from Zweischneid's Garage Miniature Studio (I swear its overcosted and underpowered for its point values).
By that, you have disproven your own argument of "more variety can only be better for the game".
No, I don't think I have. I'm pretty transparent in my opinions.
And if I have indeed drawn a "line", then yeah. The line is that you have to use stuff in 40K games that was designed for the 40K game and uses the 40K rules. It's not really a very complicated line. And hey, if you want to field a weird creation of your own, then sure. Just use the 3rd/4th edition Vehicle Design Rules for it. They'll even make it slightly over-costed for it's stats, too.
55381
Post by: Mesphilhiem
FW is fun to play against, it just seems no one took the time to study up on other forge world units or armies a regular army me and my group plays against is Corsairs true they are fast and loose and the warp hunter gets annoying however it is still fun to play its a new army to tangle with and structure your list to combat and adapt to. And super heavies are fine if one reads the battle missions book there is a mission that allows one to drop three bane blades down and say come and get me.
basically play it have fun with it
or if you still feel emasculated in the presence of forge world at the local club just have all night fighting for 4 turns or make something up to make the game more enjoyable
35785
Post by: Avatar 720
nomotog wrote:(I don't think people would lug the imperial armor book with them, or would they.)
I plan to when I get my Hornets and Warp Hunter built. If it means there's more of a chance that people will let me use them then i'm perfectly willing to take it with me; I expect people to have their army's codex and army list on them, why should they not expect the same of me? It's also a good way of reassuring people that you aren't hiding anything, and allowing people to have a flick through it before you start asking for games is also going to ease more of their worries; if I plan to drop a bombshell and slap an overpowered unit on the table, i'd do it when we're just about set up with a casual "Oh, by the way, is it okay if I use this?", not by letting people know what it was first.
2304
Post by: Steelmage99
jgehunter wrote:Steelmage99 wrote: *A lot of stuff*
I play Eldars so I'm not affected in a good way by any of those units, however I do not feel that. "the big five" are as OP as you make them seem, they are insanely good and not that cheap.
In my experience many of the anti- FW are GK players that fear that some armies can put a better fight.
The relative/real/perceived brokenness of the various units are not really relevant.
The fact that those are the ones that is constantly brought up as complaints is.
Simply be removing/not playing them a lot of the complaints would fall away, and IA units would be played more. This in turn could lead to "The Big Five" eventually having a chance to be played as IAs inclusion would be seen as more "normal".
And as "The Big Five" are often presented as not being broken/overpowered we can surely do without them, right? Right?
I mean, it is everything but "The Big Five" that are used as "poster boys" for the fairness of IA....so it is those units that people want to use, and not "The Big Five", right?
54729
Post by: AegisGrimm
Forgive me for being out of the loop on the stuff, but what the heck are the "Big Five"?
36276
Post by: Zweischneid
AegisGrimm wrote:Forgive me for being out of the loop on the stuff, but what the heck are the "Big Five"?
Lucius Pattern Drop Pod, Deathstorm Drop Pod, Hades Breaching Drill, Land Raider Achilles and the Caestus Assault Ram.
42494
Post by: nomotog
Avatar 720 wrote:nomotog wrote:(I don't think people would lug the imperial armor book with them, or would they.)
I plan to when I get my Hornets and Warp Hunter built. If it means there's more of a chance that people will let me use them then i'm perfectly willing to take it with me; I expect people to have their army's codex and army list on them, why should they not expect the same of me? It's also a good way of reassuring people that you aren't hiding anything, and allowing people to have a flick through it before you start asking for games is also going to ease more of their worries; if I plan to drop a bombshell and slap an overpowered unit on the table, i'd do it when we're just about set up with a casual "Oh, by the way, is it okay if I use this?", not by letting people know what it was first.
Ya that makes sense and when I think about it, your already lugging a car full of stuff so whats one more book.
52878
Post by: jgehunter
Steelmage99 wrote:jgehunter wrote:Steelmage99 wrote: *A lot of stuff*
I play Eldars so I'm not affected in a good way by any of those units, however I do not feel that. "the big five" are as OP as you make them seem, they are insanely good and not that cheap.
In my experience many of the anti- FW are GK players that fear that some armies can put a better fight.
The relative/real/perceived brokenness of the various units are not really relevant.
The fact that those are the ones that is constantly brought up as complaints is.
Simply be removing/not playing them a lot of the complaints would fall away, and IA units would be played more. This in turn could lead to "The Big Five" eventually having a chance to be played as IAs inclusion would be seen as more "normal".
And as "The Big Five" are often presented as not being broken/overpowered we can surely do without them, right? Right?
I mean, it is everything but "The Big Five" that are used as "poster boys" for the fairness of IA....so it is those units that people want to use, and not "The Big Five", right?
Fair enough, if it helps people feel better for FW I'm happy with it.
53740
Post by: ZebioLizard2
Zweischneid wrote:AegisGrimm wrote:Forgive me for being out of the loop on the stuff, but what the heck are the "Big Five"?
Lucius Pattern Drop Pod, Deathstorm Drop Pod, Hades Breaching Drill, Land Raider Achilles and the Caestus Assault Ram.
People actually hate the Deathstorm drop pod? You're kidding, really?
Doubt most people have ever actually fought these units before, most of them have quite a few issues..
494
Post by: H.B.M.C.
Joey wrote:Forgeworld stuff is stupidly over-powered.
Spoken like someone who's never read a FW book...
36276
Post by: Zweischneid
ZebioLizard2 wrote:
People actually hate the Deathstorm drop pod? You're kidding, really?
Doubt most people have ever actually fought these units before, most of them have quite a few issues..
Just requoting what people posted earlier in the thread. I only learned about the "Big Five" in this thread too.
I do however find the ideas floated here to "sneak" FW acceptance on the "unsuspecting nay-sayers" by temporarily removing the (by some accounts) "broken FW stuff" to proof that " FW stuff isn't broken" rather hilarious. Go get em boyz! 
53851
Post by: Erik_Morkai
Zweischneid wrote:AegisGrimm wrote:Forgive me for being out of the loop on the stuff, but what the heck are the "Big Five"?
Lucius Pattern Drop Pod, Deathstorm Drop Pod, Hades Breaching Drill, Land Raider Achilles and the Caestus Assault Ram.
Lucius Pattern Drop Pod, I understand the fear but how many more attacks do you expect on the charge? 2-3? And it as to be on the same target. Blood Talons are not allowed to take it.
Deathstorm Drop Pod: I think I actually missed this one. Is it in IA: Apoc 2nd ed?
Hades Breaching Drill is restricted to DKoK only if I recall and whatever tunnel it creates can be blocked simply parking an empty transport over it.
Land Raider Achilles: Yes it's quite a brick. An expensive brick which will have trouble making back it's points. It's over 300 pts if I recall. Sorry but give me 300 points worth of unit and I will slap that thing off the board. Many many ways to to put the hurt on it but you have the step out of the usual metagame and diversify your army. You don't even have to wreck it. A single roll of weapon destroyed will cut back it's effective range by roughly 58%-60%?
Caestus Assault Ram: Slightly sturdier version of the Stormraven without the ability to transport a Dreadnought. Has an invul save but only from the front and worse one than a SS. Honestly I don't see much of a problem. Can't be worse than someone running multiple stormravens.
I still think people should try first hand before passing judgement.
44276
Post by: Lobokai
Zweischneid wrote:Lobukia wrote:
Wow... I hit a nerve. Page one: 7 comments on FW not being used because people were ignorant of how to counter it, unexposed to the unit, or worried FW would make them lose (not including the OPs referance to the same). Scared of the unknown some said.
I cannot find them. Maybe I am just blind, but there isn't a single post on page one with someone saying something along the lines of "I do not know FW, I thus deny them to others out of fear of losing". Every single post that raises this argument, without exception, is written by a " FW-fan" who makes this sort of condescending "mind-reading" about people he encountered, presuming this to be the reason, just as you did. Which bears pointing out I believe.
I'm not mind reading. Every time, anyone has a problem with FW I ask them why? Almost all have said, because its OP. Of probably 40+ people I've asked that across the past 2 years, I can't recall one that didn't say its because they felt FW stuff was OP or because they were intimidated by it because they didn't know it (which is a valid reason, IMO). When I try to explain that it's not, some get very angry and say things that, to me, show little if any experience with more than one unit from the FW line. These have been face to face conversations (I'm not basing my views on the anti- FW crowd on one little internet thread). I might I add that I do not use FW stuff on a regular basis. Twice in every how many games are in my sig, I have included a single FW unit in an army list. I own no FW units (other than some doors and torsos for models and the like).
Lobukia wrote:
In my local scene, we made a nice rule that has shown FW to hardly be game breaking... seemed relevant to the discussion, thought I'd post it.
That is commendable. But you sadly draw the wrong conclusions. Rather than finding that, as you did, other local scenes should be free to find their rules to best enjoy the game, you deduce from it that FW cannot be "reasonably" rejected because "your group's" experience has provided the proof of sorts. That's what I critizised; your assumption of having taken the "burden" of finding how the game is the most fun from other people, rather than letting others find their own "fun" in each their own way.
So, YOU think I was saying all people should use our local rules? Or that people MUST include FW units to have fun? Really? This isn't windmills, its straw men, and you seem to enjoy propping them up to knock them down.
Lobukia wrote:
I made the comparison to how people freak out about new codices, because its the same thing (IMO). Half of the unbeatable, OP units in each new codex, turn out to be easily manageable and not that bad.
Again, windmills. It's not the same, because lack of familiarity or "unbeatable" isn't the issue in the first place (except for pro- FW-posters who keep claiming it is in evident denial of reality).
I have never ever in the real world gaming scene met the person who disliked FW and then played any other card other than the OP or unfamiliar one. I've been around since RT was in its third printing, and this is all I've ever heard since FW came into existance. Several people in this thread have had similar experiences. I have no vested interest. I don't run a Krieg list or the like (though that would be very cool if I could). Why would I emulate your bigots and try to force FW on someone? Why would I fabricate what others have said about FW models? Me, and others, are just trying to inform others that IF they want to included FW units in their local scene, that they need to keep other informed as to what those units do, and I thought my personal experience that they were not OP was relevant to the discussion (because it is).
Lobukia wrote:
I'm all for people being able to buy and use a greater variety of models for their games, you clearly aren't.
I am all for people playing the game in ways that they have the most fun, you clearly aren't.
Besides, if "greater variety of models" is the sole goal, why stop at FW? Why not add some fantasy regiments and characters? Why not include Warmachine? Some infinity stuff? Random homemade stuff? Just throw it all in and lets throw some dice?
Do you truly see no "line" where the inclusion of "more, no matter what, just for the sake of "more", would have diminishing returns, even detrimental effects overall? None at all?
The straw men are marching. Including GW owned models, made for the specific GW game they were made for, is hardly a Katie-bar-the-door, throw the rules to wind line to draw. For you to equate that to allowing anything goes, just completes the logical fallacy that is your entire argument.
If you want to hate on FW, go for it. If its not fun to play against them, that's your call. The OP wanted to know why people hate FW, and the majority of us have found that the majority of people we have encountered find it OP.
I guess that's not you, congrats, you are a unique and special flower. But your denial of our experiences doesn't make them any less true, and your hypocritical attack on perceived logical fallacies in our posts while you spawn them in your own is just odd and reaks of trolling.
51344
Post by: BlapBlapBlap
It's probably due to some of the bad balancing of the rules.
36276
Post by: Zweischneid
Lobukia wrote:
The straw men are marching. Including GW owned models, made for the specific GW game they were made for, is hardly a Katie-bar-the-door, throw the rules to wind line to draw. For you to equate that to allowing anything goes, just completes the logical fallacy that is your entire argument.
If you want to hate on FW, go for it. If its not fun to play against them, that's your call. The OP wanted to know why people hate FW, and the majority of us have found that the majority of people we have encountered find it OP.
I guess that's not you, congrats, you are a unique and special flower. But your denial of our experiences doesn't make them any less true, and your hypocritical attack on perceived logical fallacies in our posts while you spawn them in your own is just odd and reaks of trolling.
Hey. You were the one arguing that "I am all for people using a greater variety of models". I just took your word for it!
But, as you may have noticed, my response to that was already framed in hyperbole. Like everyone, you do infact "draw a line". Your line happens to include FW and, I presume, excludes units from Zweischneid's Happy Garage Studio. Other people's line inclues GW-main stuff, but excludes FW's stuff. Again others just include really 40K-basic, but exclude Spearhead, Cities of Death, etc.. even though its actually by (non- FW) GW. Different people, different things that make them happy.
If you can just get past those condescending double standards of "my line is legitmate" and "other people's line is not" (irrepsective of the reasons you or others may have), we'd be getting somewhere.
53255
Post by: iflywhirlybirds
Of course lest we forget that forgeworld started as an IG only company. I have a DKOK and I will admit we have a unit that is a bit OP, the hades breaching drill, hands down, no competition the best weapon in non apoc 40k. Without question. It will not stop me from using it in tourneys that allow FW because ive had it done to me before, but in a friendly game I would never use it. Im not an a$$hat. I have had someone take the plasma syphon against me while playing tau, needless to say I never play with that guy anymore so I know how it feels in a non tourney game.
I love FW and I really dont mind fighting there unuts, even the braching drill
44276
Post by: Lobokai
Zweischneid wrote:
...Hey. You were the one arguing that "I am all for people using a greater variety of models". I just took your word for it!...
If you can just get past those condescending double standards of "my line is legitmate" and "other people's line is not" (irrepsective of the reasons you or others may have), we'd be getting somewhere.
What!? So if I had said, "I'm all for people using a greater variety of GW approved models" (which we all know is what I meant), you would have had no problems? This isn't my line. The line you are referring to is IN THE RULES made by GW for FW models. If anything I added a line against FW stuff when I made the rule for my club restricting FW models. So your soapbox is over syntax! And you equated me to arrogant, outdated bigots, over what I said instead of what we know I meant to say, while talking about plastic toys!!!
...Nothing to see here folks, Go away silly little troll.
36276
Post by: Zweischneid
Lobukia wrote:Zweischneid wrote:
...Hey. You were the one arguing that "I am all for people using a greater variety of models". I just took your word for it!...
If you can just get past those condescending double standards of "my line is legitmate" and "other people's line is not" (irrepsective of the reasons you or others may have), we'd be getting somewhere.
What!? So if I had said, "I'm all for people using a greater variety of GW approved models" (which we all know is what I meant), you would have had no problems? This isn't my line. The line you are referring to is IN THE RULES made by GW for FW models. If anything I added a line against FW stuff when I made the rule for my club restricting FW models. So your soapbox is over syntax! And you equated me to arrogant, outdated bigots, over what I said instead of what we know I meant to say, while talking about plastic toys!!!
...Nothing to see here folks, Go away silly little troll.
Ahh. Attempts to brand other people as trolls. The refuge of the desperate who lack sound arguments.
Again, yes, the line you use is in (drum rolls) THE RULES. The other lines is (drum rolls) IN THE COMPANY NAMES, which after all do happen to distinguish between FW and GW, just in case you haven't noticed. Again, you expect to accept the former as "reasonable" but slander others who point out the latter as "afraid of loosing", "childish", "inconsiderate of the hobby", "naive" and what-else. Worse, you expect to "educate" them to come around to "your enlightend side of things" if shown the "truth" of the matter that FW isn't OP or whatever (I tend to forget). So yes, that reminded my of certain misguided, historical dispositions and I used them as analogy to point out to you the intrinsic arrogance of your argument, which you might not have been aware of.
In the end, it is not about "plastic toys", certainly not about "syntax". It is about a lack of respect for the choices other people have made on how they would like to enjoy the hobby for which they have poured money, time and dedication into their "plastic toys".
53740
Post by: ZebioLizard2
Seriously, at this point and time stop abusing the quotation marks by using them to air quote things, it's just pretty bad.
55846
Post by: Groundh0g
I don't know if it's standard for GW to stock IA or what, but I bought my copy of IA 9 from my local GW store, not the FW website. With that in mind, I'd have an issue with an opponent refusing to challenge my Astral Claws army.
34242
Post by: -Loki-
Erik_Morkai wrote:Lucius Pattern Drop Pod, I understand the fear but how many more attacks do you expect on the charge? 2-3? And it as to be on the same target. Blood Talons are not allowed to take it.
The big fear people have is being on the receiving end of a turn 1 Blood Talon charge. As you said, you said, they can't. Blood Angels can't take them. A turn 1 charge from a normal dreadnought can be annoying, but it's not crippling.
Erik_Morkai wrote:Land Raider Achilles: Yes it's quite a brick. An expensive brick which will have trouble making back it's points. It's over 300 pts if I recall. Sorry but give me 300 points worth of unit and I will slap that thing off the board. Many many ways to to put the hurt on it but you have the step out of the usual metagame and diversify your army. You don't even have to wreck it. A single roll of weapon destroyed will cut back it's effective range by roughly 58%-60%?
The problem is it's easy to ignore for some armies and not only impossible to ignore, but nearly impossible to kill for others. The worst hit are Tyranids - they can't ignore that Thunderfire, and short of a pod of Zoanthropes or an MC getting lucky and getting int assault with it (and short of Carnifexes, that's still a close call) they won't be killing it. Other armies have a tough time dealing with it as well, like Dark Eldar (since it's immune to lance and melta - Zoanthropes are less affected since their lance is still S10, AP1). The Achilles issue is its durability in regular games of 40k. it should be an Apocalypse unit.
Erik_Morkai wrote:Caestus Assault Ram: Slightly sturdier version of the Stormraven without the ability to transport a Dreadnought. Has an invul save but only from the front and worse one than a SS. Honestly I don't see much of a problem. Can't be worse than someone running multiple stormravens.
The problem is its weaponry on top of its durability (For a skimmer). It's downright lethal. As you said, can't be worse than someone running multiple Stormravens. That's for a single assault ram.
Those 3 are the 3 I'd put at the top of the FW power curve. One is absurd (the Achilles), one is powerful (the Caestus) and one has been slightly neutered (the Lucius). Those 3 give FW a bad name, though only 2 of them deservedly.
494
Post by: H.B.M.C.
I wouldn't call it deservedly at all.
Due to one or two sets of rules that may be powerful all of FW is condemned? Apply that same logic to any GW Codex. There are usually one or two things in most Codices that range far and above everything else in terms of power, yet no one makes such a fuss about those.
56492
Post by: Chaoticredneck
no hate hear on FW i would play against a model(s) as long as i had the rules in front of me or my opponent showed me the rules before we started playing
54729
Post by: AegisGrimm
Forgive me for being out of the loop on the stuff, but what the heck are the "Big Five"?
--Lucius Pattern Drop Pod, Deathstorm Drop Pod, Hades Breaching Drill, Land Raider Achilles and the Caestus Assault Ram.
Well. I know now, lol. Now of course, my experience is probably telling, as for all but two of those I had to go to the FW site to even know what they even were. So supposedly just these "5" models are breaking the game so bad that all the rest of Forgeworlds stuff needs to be shunned from friendly games? 5 models and their OP rules spoil the pot for several hundred others?
How many of us gamers even see these 5 things hit the table? Is there some gang of gamers traveling across the country, fielding multiple Land raider Achilles' and Assault rams that obliterate everyone that tries to game against them?
If there's just a few models that are deemed by everyone to be so overpowered, just agree not to use those few in your gaming club. It's not like any one gamer out there is going to see very many Forgeworld models at all, anyway, and I can't see how the few of those that actually hit the table are going to "ruin the game'.
I'm betting most of us are a lot like me, where you might go up against an army with a random Forgeworld tank that the player thinks is cool, or something like that. Ohhh, a marine army with a Contemptor...I'm shaking in my boots.
Hell the most FW stuff I have is a single Wave Serpent with a twin-Starcannon turret, from way before they even came out in plastic. Aside from my buddy, who has some SM stuff, I'll bet I'm the only gamer in about a 30 mile radius that has anything FW.
Due to one or two sets of rules that may be powerful all of FW is condemned? Apply that same logic to any GW Codex. There are usually one or two things in most Codices that range far and above everything else in terms of power, yet no one makes such a fuss about those.
My thoughts exactly.
34242
Post by: -Loki-
H.B.M.C. wrote:I wouldn't call it deservedly at all.
Due to one or two sets of rules that may be powerful all of FW is condemned? Apply that same logic to any GW Codex. There are usually one or two things in most Codices that range far and above everything else in terms of power, yet no one makes such a fuss about those.
Eh, I worded that poorly. I didn't mean FW should be condemned for them, just that those two units do deserve their reputation.
53851
Post by: Erik_Morkai
-Loki- wrote:Erik_Morkai wrote:Lucius Pattern Drop Pod, I understand the fear but how many more attacks do you expect on the charge? 2-3? And it as to be on the same target. Blood Talons are not allowed to take it.
The big fear people have is being on the receiving end of a turn 1 Blood Talon charge. As you said, you said, they can't. Blood Angels can't take them. A turn 1 charge from a normal dreadnought can be annoying, but it's not crippling.
Erik_Morkai wrote:Land Raider Achilles: Yes it's quite a brick. An expensive brick which will have trouble making back it's points. It's over 300 pts if I recall. Sorry but give me 300 points worth of unit and I will slap that thing off the board. Many many ways to to put the hurt on it but you have the step out of the usual metagame and diversify your army. You don't even have to wreck it. A single roll of weapon destroyed will cut back it's effective range by roughly 58%-60%?
The problem is it's easy to ignore for some armies and not only impossible to ignore, but nearly impossible to kill for others. The worst hit are Tyranids - they can't ignore that Thunderfire, and short of a pod of Zoanthropes or an MC getting lucky and getting int assault with it (and short of Carnifexes, that's still a close call) they won't be killing it. Other armies have a tough time dealing with it as well, like Dark Eldar (since it's immune to lance and melta - Zoanthropes are less affected since their lance is still S10, AP1). The Achilles issue is its durability in regular games of 40k. it should be an Apocalypse unit.
Erik_Morkai wrote:Caestus Assault Ram: Slightly sturdier version of the Stormraven without the ability to transport a Dreadnought. Has an invul save but only from the front and worse one than a SS. Honestly I don't see much of a problem. Can't be worse than someone running multiple stormravens.
The problem is its weaponry on top of its durability (For a skimmer). It's downright lethal. As you said, can't be worse than someone running multiple Stormravens. That's for a single assault ram.
Those 3 are the 3 I'd put at the top of the FW power curve. One is absurd (the Achilles), one is powerful (the Caestus) and one has been slightly neutered (the Lucius). Those 3 give FW a bad name, though only 2 of them deservedly.
Dark Eldar have haywire grenades and haywire weapons which will bypass the lance and melta immunity.
I agree that the Achilles could be classified as Apocalypse but I will abide by the rules if someone fields one against me.
A Stormraven with the Shrouding is freakin' annoying to kill. Probably waaay more than a Caestus. Not saying it's not powerful but the for the price of a Caestus assault ram I can field two squads of Long Fangs that will make mincemeat out of it in 1 turn. Plenty of other things that can take it down. I do agree with you...It IS powerful...but it will take more than that to scare me out of a game.
As for the Lucius assault drop pod, I think it is simply misunderstood. Nothing crippling there a transport busted and maybe two or three guys dead. Annoying sure, crippling? Meh not any worse than some bad rolls. (Lost a Rhino once...lost 7 SW inside it by failing armor saves.)
Despite the fact that those units are powerful you can't say they are a bargain at that price. How many psyflemen dread can you take for the price of an Achilles? How many full squads of Long Fangs? How many terminators with TH or chainfists?
There are plenty of OP units in regular codexes here and there and no one is forbidding the whole codex on the account of 1 or 2 unit.
Anyways I have said pretty much all I had to say, still open for debate or questions if done in a civil manner.
53740
Post by: ZebioLizard2
Dark Eldar have haywire grenades and haywire weapons which will bypass the lance and melta immunity.
And the Talos (And the chronos if you want to risk it) , MC's still gain their 2D6 against it. So nids are fine, they can send Flyrants, Carnifex, Trygon, Mawloc, even the Tyrannofex!
55314
Post by: Ghawhaar
The issue with wyches taking out armor is that they will most likely need 4's, 6's if the opponent sees what you are trying to do, and they are sitting ducks afterwards. Nearly any shooting should wipe them. It would be worth it for an achilles, but by no means easy.
11
Post by: ph34r
And even if that was dependable (it isn't), you are asking for every player of the army to swap out their dependable and good AT weapons for worse AT weapons, which are often mounted on worse units to boot.
Hardly fair. Automatically Appended Next Post: ZebioLizard2 wrote:And the Talos (And the chronos if you want to risk it) , MC's still gain their 2D6 against it. So nids are fine, they can send Flyrants, Carnifex, Trygon, Mawloc, even the Tyrannofex!
Have you ever played Warhammer 40k in real life? Do you really think that your proposed solutions are good?
39912
Post by: IcedAnimals
Ouze wrote:IcedAnimals wrote:@ouze I am not attempting to insult anyone personally. Nor do I care if they disagree with me. Some people have very valid reasons why they feel forgeworld stuff should not be allowed. But once again "I can't have it so you can't either" is a very childish and selfish reason.
Do you understand you're simultaneously saying you're not trying to insult anyone personally, while calling the people who disagree with you childish? How exactly do you reconcile that in your head as you type it?
Anyway, let me try an analogy, although analogies are always suspect. Lets say you and your friend are having drawing contests with a coloring book and crayons, each from your local store (faction). Your store's box of crayons has 12 colors. Your friend's box has 64 colors. Who is more likely to produce better work? Obviously, the person who is the better artist is more likely to produce better work. However, assuming you're both on an even keel, can you honest say that the person who has significantly more options available to them has strategies and abilities and synergy available that you simply do not?
I don't really have much desire to spend any more time carrying the banner for a cause I don't particularly believe in, as I literally type this in between breaks painting a Kill Bursta. I'd like to see FW allowed all over the place and I don't see a problem with their rules. That being said, I'm willing to assume good faith in the people who don't agree with that stance, because I think their argument has at least some legitimacy, and I don't find it necessary to belittle them to not wish to play a game of chess in which they perceive they only get pawns.
Since you still don't seem to understand. I am not saying any PERSON is childish. I am saying that an ARGUMENT is. People using it could be super awesome amazing folk who are upstanding citizens of society. That doesn't stop that particular reason for disliking forgeworld from coming across as selfish. There are other completely valid reasons for not liking forgeworld. The one I mentioned just isn't one of them.
Since you used an analogy let me throw one out too. During war soldiers are sometimes accused of war crimes. A very common excuse is "I was just following orders" This is a pathetic "REASON" for doing what they did. It does not make the people themselves pathetic. Had they used a reason instead such as "If I didn't do it they would kill me and my family." At least that is a better more understandable reason for doing whatever they did.
Or here, lets use your own analogy but tweaked slightly. Me and a friend both have to paint something. I have 12 colors vs his 64. Am I at any actual disadvantage because he has a jar that has light grey and dark grey or pink? Of course not, because I can still get all those colors simply by mixing the paints I have. Its the same for warhammer. Am I at a disadvantage because he can field some anti tank unit that forgeworld made? Not in the least bit because I can simply field something to fill that same purpose using the units I have available to me.
Now if someone has specific reasons for disliking FW that is fine. My own gaming group allows FW with the exception of the drop pod that allows dreadnaughts to assault as we all feel it too powerful. Having something that comes in turn 1, is near immune to deepstrike mishaps, and can then assault before you have a chance to stop it and is quite powerful in melee is more power than people in my gaming group want to see on the table. Especially since its only weakness is "If it tries to assault it has a 16% chance of immobilizing itself." We have quite a few people who enjoy playing the softer shooty based armies and everyone including our marine players felt that such a unit would change our stores metagame too drastically and possibly push some players away. But even with that rule we have a blood angel player who really really loves dreadnaughts and so he will ask if he can use those drop pods. I have only seen one person turn him down and not play a casual game. The rest of us usually accept it so that we can find out weaknesses, get in more experience against it and possibly at a later date lift the ban on said unit once there is a majority agreement that we feel it isn't as game changing as once thought.
53740
Post by: ZebioLizard2
Automatically Appended Next Post:
ZebioLizard2 wrote:And the Talos (And the chronos if you want to risk it) , MC's still gain their 2D6 against it. So nids are fine, they can send Flyrants, Carnifex, Trygon, Mawloc, even the Tyrannofex!
Have you ever played Warhammer 40k in real life? Do you really think that your proposed solutions are good?
Plenty. As for if they are good, they are suboptimal, but if you have them you can get lucky at least. On the plus side, two mawlocs with adrenal glands is just 45 points more if your the sort to take them in a list.
As for the rest, they'd have to reach it of course, but with 325 points taken out just for two multimeltas and a Thundercannon that takes up a heavy choice, it'd need some real good defenses outside of it to actually make up for the lost power.
10345
Post by: LunaHound
AegisGrimm wrote:
Due to one or two sets of rules that may be powerful all of FW is condemned? Apply that same logic to any GW Codex. There are usually one or two things in most Codices that range far and above everything else in terms of power, yet no one makes such a fuss about those.
My thoughts exactly.
Isnt that because back then FW units are created for Apocalypse sized battles and Apocalypse super units , while the normal 40k codex is balanced between other same sized battles?
8491
Post by: TwilightWalker
IcedAnimals wrote:
Now if someone has specific reasons for disliking FW that is fine. My own gaming group allows FW with the exception of the drop pod that allows dreadnaughts to assault as we all feel it too powerful. Having something that comes in turn 1, is near immune to deepstrike mishaps, and can then assault before you have a chance to stop it and is quite powerful in melee is more power than people in my gaming group want to see on the table. Especially since its only weakness is "If it tries to assault it has a 16% chance of immobilizing itself." We have quite a few people who enjoy playing the softer shooty based armies and everyone including our marine players felt that such a unit would change our stores metagame too drastically and possibly push some players away. But even with that rule we have a blood angel player who really really loves dreadnaughts and so he will ask if he can use those drop pods. I have only seen one person turn him down and not play a casual game. The rest of us usually accept it so that we can find out weaknesses, get in more experience against it and possibly at a later date lift the ban on said unit once there is a majority agreement that we feel it isn't as game changing as once thought.
Uhh. You do know BA can't take that drop-pod, right? I mean, if you all agree to ignore that par tof it's rules, fine. But if he is taking it as Blood Angels, it's not allowed.
41336
Post by: salix_fatuus
Actually many tournaments here in sweden allow a great number of IA models in their tournaments and I think it I can go so far as to say that 90-100% of all the major tournaments are fully ok with this list of IA models.
55712
Post by: imrandomghgh
salix_fatuus wrote:Actually many tournaments here in sweden allow a great number of IA models in their tournaments and I think it I can go so far as to say that 90-100% of all the major tournaments are fully ok with this list of IA models.
Tournaments at my club have very specific forgeworld units they will allow. For example, heavy gun drones or caestus rams, but XV9s and contemptors are fine.
53740
Post by: ZebioLizard2
imrandomghgh wrote:salix_fatuus wrote:Actually many tournaments here in sweden allow a great number of IA models in their tournaments and I think it I can go so far as to say that 90-100% of all the major tournaments are fully ok with this list of IA models.
Tournaments at my club have very specific forgeworld units they will allow. For example, heavy gun drones or caestus rams, but XV9s and contemptors are fine.
Heavy gun drones are on par with rams.
...
Really?
50138
Post by: Savageconvoy
People actually consider using Heavy Gun Drones?
I just checked. It's 2012 and this is happening?
35785
Post by: Avatar 720
Savageconvoy wrote:People actually consider using Heavy Gun Drones?
I just checked. It's 2012 and this is happening?
On December the 21st 2012, the world as we know it shall come to an end. And all because someone will say that Heavy Gun Drones are OP... and they'll mean it.
54729
Post by: AegisGrimm
Never you mind the game-breaking qualities of a Eldar warwalker with jump-jets...........
52878
Post by: jgehunter
AegisGrimm wrote:Never you mind the game-breaking qualities of a Eldar warwalker with jump-jets...........
whaaaaaaat why the heck would I pay extra for jump-jets when the guns I'm going to be using have wonderful range (Scatterlassers) and I loose the ability to outflank
39912
Post by: IcedAnimals
TwilightWalker wrote:IcedAnimals wrote:
Now if someone has specific reasons for disliking FW that is fine. My own gaming group allows FW with the exception of the drop pod that allows dreadnaughts to assault as we all feel it too powerful. Having something that comes in turn 1, is near immune to deepstrike mishaps, and can then assault before you have a chance to stop it and is quite powerful in melee is more power than people in my gaming group want to see on the table. Especially since its only weakness is "If it tries to assault it has a 16% chance of immobilizing itself." We have quite a few people who enjoy playing the softer shooty based armies and everyone including our marine players felt that such a unit would change our stores metagame too drastically and possibly push some players away. But even with that rule we have a blood angel player who really really loves dreadnaughts and so he will ask if he can use those drop pods. I have only seen one person turn him down and not play a casual game. The rest of us usually accept it so that we can find out weaknesses, get in more experience against it and possibly at a later date lift the ban on said unit once there is a majority agreement that we feel it isn't as game changing as once thought.
Uhh. You do know BA can't take that drop-pod, right? I mean, if you all agree to ignore that par tof it's rules, fine. But if he is taking it as Blood Angels, it's not allowed.
A Dreadnought Drop Pod is a dedicated transport choice for any type of Space Marine Dreadnought in Space Marine, Dark Angel, Black
Templar, Space Wolf and Blood Angels Armies, please refer to the appropriate codex.
Quoted word for word from the imperium armour 2. They have been able to take it for a very long time. The guy literally bought them for the very purpose of running a drop pod assault army based around them and his blood angels. So while it is true that in the new IA Apoc 2 it says blood angels can not field them no one has any particular beef with letting him use em if he asks. We all know how much it sucks to spend a few hundred dollars on something in this hobby to have some new iteration come out and suddenly say its not legal anymore.
53821
Post by: AnUnearthlyChilde
Considering FW are now doing rules for units specifically for 40k now, I find it hard to understand how people could refuse to play against them. Due largely that GW owns FW, and if the rules are for 40k and not Apoc, then they are game legal and usable. The only exception I know of with this is Tourneys, which have house rules that can mean you can't use FW ruled units.
52878
Post by: jgehunter
IcedAnimals wrote:TwilightWalker wrote:IcedAnimals wrote:
Now if someone has specific reasons for disliking FW that is fine. My own gaming group allows FW with the exception of the drop pod that allows dreadnaughts to assault as we all feel it too powerful. Having something that comes in turn 1, is near immune to deepstrike mishaps, and can then assault before you have a chance to stop it and is quite powerful in melee is more power than people in my gaming group want to see on the table. Especially since its only weakness is "If it tries to assault it has a 16% chance of immobilizing itself." We have quite a few people who enjoy playing the softer shooty based armies and everyone including our marine players felt that such a unit would change our stores metagame too drastically and possibly push some players away. But even with that rule we have a blood angel player who really really loves dreadnaughts and so he will ask if he can use those drop pods. I have only seen one person turn him down and not play a casual game. The rest of us usually accept it so that we can find out weaknesses, get in more experience against it and possibly at a later date lift the ban on said unit once there is a majority agreement that we feel it isn't as game changing as once thought.
Uhh. You do know BA can't take that drop-pod, right? I mean, if you all agree to ignore that par tof it's rules, fine. But if he is taking it as Blood Angels, it's not allowed.
A Dreadnought Drop Pod is a dedicated transport choice for any type of Space Marine Dreadnought in Space Marine, Dark Angel, Black
Templar, Space Wolf and Blood Angels Armies, please refer to the appropriate codex.
Quoted word for word from the imperium armour 2. They have been able to take it for a very long time. The guy literally bought them for the very purpose of running a drop pod assault army based around them and his blood angels. So while it is true that in the new IA Apoc 2 it says blood angels can not field them no one has any particular beef with letting him use em if he asks. We all know how much it sucks to spend a few hundred dollars on something in this hobby to have some new iteration come out and suddenly say its not legal anymore.
If he bought it for the looks it can still be used as a normal drop, if he bought it for the rules, I simply can't feel sorry for him, the don't let BA take them for reason I guess.
53740
Post by: ZebioLizard2
IcedAnimals wrote:TwilightWalker wrote:IcedAnimals wrote:
Now if someone has specific reasons for disliking FW that is fine. My own gaming group allows FW with the exception of the drop pod that allows dreadnaughts to assault as we all feel it too powerful. Having something that comes in turn 1, is near immune to deepstrike mishaps, and can then assault before you have a chance to stop it and is quite powerful in melee is more power than people in my gaming group want to see on the table. Especially since its only weakness is "If it tries to assault it has a 16% chance of immobilizing itself." We have quite a few people who enjoy playing the softer shooty based armies and everyone including our marine players felt that such a unit would change our stores metagame too drastically and possibly push some players away. But even with that rule we have a blood angel player who really really loves dreadnaughts and so he will ask if he can use those drop pods. I have only seen one person turn him down and not play a casual game. The rest of us usually accept it so that we can find out weaknesses, get in more experience against it and possibly at a later date lift the ban on said unit once there is a majority agreement that we feel it isn't as game changing as once thought.
Uhh. You do know BA can't take that drop-pod, right? I mean, if you all agree to ignore that par tof it's rules, fine. But if he is taking it as Blood Angels, it's not allowed.
A Dreadnought Drop Pod is a dedicated transport choice for any type of Space Marine Dreadnought in Space Marine, Dark Angel, Black
Templar, Space Wolf and Blood Angels Armies, please refer to the appropriate codex.
Quoted word for word from the imperium armour 2. They have been able to take it for a very long time. The guy literally bought them for the very purpose of running a drop pod assault army based around them and his blood angels. So while it is true that in the new IA Apoc 2 it says blood angels can not field them no one has any particular beef with letting him use em if he asks. We all know how much it sucks to spend a few hundred dollars on something in this hobby to have some new iteration come out and suddenly say its not legal anymore.
Well guess what, that works the same was as it does with original codex's too. Think some people don't have to change models because the rules suddenly 180'ed and made half their 400$ + armies useless because of a sudden change in style for their army?
55712
Post by: imrandomghgh
ZebioLizard2 wrote:imrandomghgh wrote:salix_fatuus wrote:Actually many tournaments here in sweden allow a great number of IA models in their tournaments and I think it I can go so far as to say that 90-100% of all the major tournaments are fully ok with this list of IA models.
Tournaments at my club have very specific forgeworld units they will allow. For example, heavy gun drones or caestus rams, but XV9s and contemptors are fine.
Heavy gun drones are on par with rams.
...
Really?
Never said they were, there's just a list at my FLGS and Heavy Gun Drones are on it
10097
Post by: Ensis Ferrae
Avatar 720 wrote:Savageconvoy wrote:People actually consider using Heavy Gun Drones?
I just checked. It's 2012 and this is happening?
On December the 21st 2012, the world as we know it shall come to an end.
And all because someone will say that Heavy Gun Drones are OP... and they'll mean it.
no.. the world will not end because of a Tau imbalance... Everyone should know by now that the orange person who's on tv too much is apparently bringing forth spawn on the 21st of December.
50138
Post by: Savageconvoy
Ensis Ferrae wrote:
no.. the world will not end because of a Tau imbalance... Everyone should know by now that the orange person who's on tv too much is apparently bringing forth spawn on the 21st of December.
Snookie gives birth to Heavy Gun drone squad. Someone says they are overpowered. World ends.
51866
Post by: Bobthehero
Savageconvoy wrote:
Snookie gives birth to Heavy Gun drone squad. Someone says they are overpowered. World ends.
That goes straight to my sig, thankyouverymuch
494
Post by: H.B.M.C.
IcedAnimals wrote:Quoted word for word from the imperium armour 2.
Should I do the same with my Necron Pariahs when I next use my Necrons?
Like it or not, rules get overridden. Yes, once upon a time Blood Angels could get a Dreadnought Drop Pod. Now they can’t, so quoting an old outdated book doesn’t help the argument that they can.
36809
Post by: loota boy
I just see it as a sort of manners issue. I've never played against forgeworld units, but i'd be more then a bit annoyed if i got ready to go and play a game with some guy and he started plopping down all sorts of models and units i'd never seen or heard of and telling me all these weird rules for them. If they ask "Hey, do you mind if i use some forgeworld stuff?" then i'll have a look at the book (They'd deffinately have to have a real, tangible book, not a print-out) and see if it was alright to play against. Unless, of course, i just wanted to play a normal old game of 40k. Then i'd just tell him i'd rather not, and if he started getting angry or pushy, and just kept arguing with me about why i should let him, i'd make note to not play with this person as often, or at all. It's just a manners thing i guess.
34906
Post by: Pacific
loota boy wrote:I just see it as a sort of manners issue. I've never played against forgeworld units, but i'd be more then a bit annoyed if i got ready to go and play a game with some guy and he started plopping down all sorts of models and units i'd never seen or heard of and telling me all these weird rules for them. If they ask "Hey, do you mind if i use some forgeworld stuff?" then i'll have a look at the book (They'd deffinately have to have a real, tangible book, not a print-out) and see if it was alright to play against. Unless, of course, i just wanted to play a normal old game of 40k. Then i'd just tell him i'd rather not, and if he started getting angry or pushy, and just kept arguing with me about why i should let him, i'd make note to not play with this person as often, or at all. It's just a manners thing i guess.
I agree with this completely! I use a various amount of non- GW bits, 'counts as' units and Forge World in my 40k armies, yet I have never had a single player refuse to play me or complain for that matter. I think the reason for this is that I try to be as conscientious and polite as possible. I will ask the guy I'm playing usually a week before if he is OK with playing it. Although I think it does help I have a reputation for always using painted and extensively converted armies (or it could be something to do with my poor win record?!), at a club dominated by marine forces part-painted as half a dozen marine different chapters and unpainted GK armies I usually have my games booked 2 or 3 weeks in advance.
Again though I probably wouldn't use stuff like the Lucius drop pod. IIRC the rules for that came out just after the plastic GW drop pod, I'm guessing FW were sitting on a load of kits that they had to sell..
494
Post by: H.B.M.C.
loota boy wrote:I just see it as a sort of manners issue. I've never played against forgeworld units, but i'd be more then a bit annoyed if i got ready to go and play a game with some guy and he started plopping down all sorts of models and units i'd never seen or heard of and telling me all these weird rules for them. If they ask "Hey, do you mind if i use some forgeworld stuff?" then i'll have a look at the book (They'd deffinately have to have a real, tangible book, not a print-out) and see if it was alright to play against. Unless, of course, i just wanted to play a normal old game of 40k. Then i'd just tell him i'd rather not, and if he started getting angry or pushy, and just kept arguing with me about why i should let him, i'd make note to not play with this person as often, or at all. It's just a manners thing i guess.
I've never played or even seen a Dark Eldar army in real life, but I'd be more than happy if I got ready to go and play a game with some guy and he started plopping down all sorts of models and units I'd never seen or played against, and seeing all these weird rules for them.
54729
Post by: AegisGrimm
If I am ever going to use an Imperial Armor unit in a game with my buddies, I will simply have the book on hand to point at the unit entry and show them what I'm going to be using. If anything, most of the new army codex rules are more complicated than anything a Forgeworld tank might bring to the table.
For instance I really like the FW Hornet for my new Eldar army. I can't imagine it has all that many rules that would change my opponent's mindset of "Shoot it to hell, without getting shot by it".
44749
Post by: Skriker
gmaleron wrote:Hello eveyone, this is a question that has sparked some serious debate (and a little drama) @ my local gaming store recently and wanted to take it up with the community of Dakka. As the title of the thread says why do people have a beef with taking Forgeworld lists/models in games? I really see no point to it, especially since Forgeworld is part of GW. The most common complaint that I have seen is that "oh Forgeworld lists are totally OP and cheessy" however when actually playtested and using them we have found this to be hugely exaggerated. People can make the argument that the lists are "unbalanced" but with the playing field of 40k in particular already unbalanced I find it to be an empty argument. Seriously what is the point of GW tempting us to buy these amazing models to only be told we cant use them in games, there is nothing in the books that says they are illegal to run in tournaments or friendly games and I think is taking away alot of the diversity of the game. This all started when the local store owner gave no real or good reason as to why you cant run forgeworld lists (we basically have come to the opinion that its because he doesnt know how to power game against them) and it has now forced us to possibly play a tournament @ another game store so we actually can use the books and minitures. So I want to know guys, what are your reasons for and against running/using Forgeworld books and lists in tournaments and friendly games?
I don't find any forge world lists I've wanted to use to be even remotely overpowered, especially when compared the the escalating power scale in 40k codex books these days. The only time I find forge world stuff to be unbalancing is when you start bringing super heavies into normal sized games of 40k without warning. Otherwise I find that FW has some gorgeous models, but they aren't instant game winners by any means at all. I have no personal issues running the lists in tourney or friendly games.
Of course the store owner is perfectly allowed to set whatever rules he wants for this in store leagues and tournements. All you can really do is say that you are going to go some place that allows you to use the lists and spend your money there instead. If he doesn't care then go off and play elsewhere with a happy conscience. Just because the models are cool and the lists are interesting doesn't mean people have to like them or want to use them. In friendly games anything goes as long as you opponent doesn't mind, but in tournies everyone being on the same page is important and limited forge world usage means that those folks who can't afford to invest in them are not left in the cold. Of course that works is based on the fallacy that having access to forge world models in some way is a major advantage, which I don't think it is, but YMMV.
Skriker
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kevlar wrote:While the units themselves may not be ridiculously overpowered, they allow you to cover holes in your codex that are there for a reason. Chaos has crappy fast attack choices. But forgeworld has blight drones. Chaos doesn't have a lot of spammable str 8 firepower. Forgeworld has dual butcher cannon decimators.
Sorry but I disagree. Decimaters are not cheap in a list, and in an already small army like Chaos the loss of numbers will have a severe impact. They, like any other large units out there, become lascannon and rail gun bait and also don't last long. Blight drones are cool and fun and a neat concept, but are still just as fragile as any other fast attack choices and can be brought down by just about any unit on the table, including troops firing basic rapid fire weapons.
These items do not equate to an automatic win in any battle. In point of fact I have two blight drones in my nurgle chaos collection and have yet to play a single game where they survive past the 2nd turn of the game or have any appreciable affect on the game in anyway. I used plenty of different FW models in my armies: Blight drones, Plague Hulk, blood slaughterers, ogryn berserkers and plague ogryn to name the ones I use most. None of them have unbalanced anything that I have seen. They all cost more than they would if they were in a GW codex, given what they do, and they all have their own limits. Blight drones have light armor and break easily, plague hulk is lacking in decent long range capability, ogryn berserkers almost always end up killing themselves and have zero ranged capability and plague ogryns have zero ranged capability. The models are all really cool and I love seeing them on the table, but they have never won a game for me just because I have them.
Skriker
Automatically Appended Next Post:
jgehunter wrote:If he bought it for the looks it can still be used as a normal drop, if he bought it for the rules, I simply can't feel sorry for him, the don't let BA take them for reason I guess.
I do believe the point is he bought them based on the original rules in IA2, but now IAA 2nd edition makes them illegal for BA players. So he purchased them before they made the change to them so I can feel sorry for him. Though if nothing else this game is always including stuff like that that changes your army and makes it no longer work exactly the same way. As long as people locally don't mind playing friendly games with him using them anyway it isn't much of a big deal either way.
Skriker
Automatically Appended Next Post:
H.B.M.C. wrote:Like it or not, rules get overridden. Yes, once upon a time Blood Angels could get a Dreadnought Drop Pod. Now they can’t, so quoting an old outdated book doesn’t help the argument that they can.
No one is doing that. They are saying that when he bought his minis they were legal. Now they aren't, so people in the local store don't mind playing him when he asks nicely if they would mind if he did. What is so difficult to grasp here. No one is claiming it is still fine because it once was legal. They are claiming it is fine because *they don't mind" donig it. BIG DIFFERENCE.
Skriker
50138
Post by: Savageconvoy
So I just challenged a friend of mine who plays Psyfleman heavy GK army to play against my Tau at 2000 points.
I mostly want to try out the new Forgeworld Tetras that I got.
He actually said he didn't want to play against them cause they seem a bit cheesy.
1
36809
Post by: loota boy
H.B.M.C. wrote:loota boy wrote:I just see it as a sort of manners issue. I've never played against forgeworld units, but i'd be more then a bit annoyed if i got ready to go and play a game with some guy and he started plopping down all sorts of models and units i'd never seen or heard of and telling me all these weird rules for them. If they ask "Hey, do you mind if i use some forgeworld stuff?" then i'll have a look at the book (They'd deffinately have to have a real, tangible book, not a print-out) and see if it was alright to play against. Unless, of course, i just wanted to play a normal old game of 40k. Then i'd just tell him i'd rather not, and if he started getting angry or pushy, and just kept arguing with me about why i should let him, i'd make note to not play with this person as often, or at all. It's just a manners thing i guess.
I've never played or even seen a Dark Eldar army in real life, but I'd be more than happy if I got ready to go and play a game with some guy and he started plopping down all sorts of models and units I'd never seen or played against, and seeing all these weird rules for them.
Neither have I, and i'm not even really familier with their rules. But i do know that if somone brought them to play, he would have to have his codex with him for me to play, unless he was a super-close gaming buddy that i really trusted. Of course, i'd still retain the right to decide i'd rather not play against him if i thought the units were cheesy or something (from my understanding, they aren't), and even if they weren't, I should still be able to say i'd just rather not right now. The only difference is i guess i wouldn't expect him to ask me if he minded before hand, like i'd like if they were using forgeworld. I guess it's a sort of double standard, but they aren't codex units, so i'd like to have a warning at first. Like I said, it's just a manners thing. If you want to use forgeworld, then it's just polite to ask first. Just my $0.02.
53821
Post by: AnUnearthlyChilde
Savageconvoy wrote:So I just challenged a friend of mine who plays Psyfleman heavy GK army to play against my Tau at 2000 points.
I mostly want to try out the new Forgeworld Tetras that I got.
He actually said he didn't want to play against them cause they seem a bit cheesy.
I think Irony must be lost on the person you were going to play... Psyrifle GK armies are one of the cheesiest armies going ¬_¬
52878
Post by: jgehunter
Savageconvoy wrote:So I just challenged a friend of mine who plays Psyfleman heavy GK army to play against my Tau at 2000 points.
I mostly want to try out the new Forgeworld Tetras that I got.
He actually said he didn't want to play against them cause they seem a bit cheesy.
I don't have any range issues but if somebody did that to me......you would find out in the news that somebody had been killed because of a war-game
39912
Post by: IcedAnimals
H.B.M.C. wrote:IcedAnimals wrote:Quoted word for word from the imperium armour 2.
Should I do the same with my Necron Pariahs when I next use my Necrons?
Like it or not, rules get overridden. Yes, once upon a time Blood Angels could get a Dreadnought Drop Pod. Now they can’t, so quoting an old outdated book doesn’t help the argument that they can.
You seem to be misunderstanding me completely. I never said they can. I said they could. And that a player spent a lot of money on them when he could. And that our gaming group while we have an over all ban on the unit without opponents permission will often allow him to field said unit when he asks.
So if you want to ask your opponent if you can field Pariahs and they say yes then showing them the rule entry is probably a good idea.
I understand rules change and armies have to evolve. I play sisters and necrons. I just in the last few months had quite possibly the biggest revamp of armies GW has done since second into third edition. First losing half my codex with my sisters and then having my necron codex triple in size, options, and dramatically change in play style.
52878
Post by: jgehunter
IcedAnimals wrote:H.B.M.C. wrote:IcedAnimals wrote:Quoted word for word from the imperium armour 2.
Should I do the same with my Necron Pariahs when I next use my Necrons?
Like it or not, rules get overridden. Yes, once upon a time Blood Angels could get a Dreadnought Drop Pod. Now they can’t, so quoting an old outdated book doesn’t help the argument that they can.
You seem to be misunderstanding me completely. I never said they can. I said they could. And that a player spent a lot of money on them when he could. And that our gaming group while we have an over all ban on the unit without opponents permission will often allow him to field said unit when he asks.
So if you want to ask your opponent if you can field Pariahs and they say yes then showing them the rule entry is probably a good idea.
In my gaming group we'd probably ask him to run it as a normal drop pod...
39912
Post by: IcedAnimals
jgehunter wrote:IcedAnimals wrote:H.B.M.C. wrote:IcedAnimals wrote:Quoted word for word from the imperium armour 2.
Should I do the same with my Necron Pariahs when I next use my Necrons?
Like it or not, rules get overridden. Yes, once upon a time Blood Angels could get a Dreadnought Drop Pod. Now they can’t, so quoting an old outdated book doesn’t help the argument that they can.
You seem to be misunderstanding me completely. I never said they can. I said they could. And that a player spent a lot of money on them when he could. And that our gaming group while we have an over all ban on the unit without opponents permission will often allow him to field said unit when he asks.
So if you want to ask your opponent if you can field Pariahs and they say yes then showing them the rule entry is probably a good idea.
In my gaming group we'd probably ask him to run it as a normal drop pod...
That is what he normally does so he doesn't have to ask anyone. He plays his blood angels because of his love of dreadnaughts, not for some love of a special drop pod.
53292
Post by: Kevlar
If games workshop wants forgeworld models in their games, why not put them in the codex?
Some of these IA units are older than the codex for their army. So why aren't they included? I am not buying extra books to field some overpriced models with silly rules that usually break some aspect of the game. And I am not playing against them either.
52878
Post by: jgehunter
Kevlar wrote:If games workshop wants forgeworld models in their games, why not put them in the codex?
Some of these IA units are older than the codex for their army. So why aren't they included? I am not buying extra books to field some overpriced models with silly rules that usually break some aspect of the game. And I am not playing against them either.
I don't usually use FW but I think I can say that with that mentality I wouldn't enjoy playing against you. Do you by any chance play GK and are afraid of other armies beating you? Cause it really looks like that
41203
Post by: Insurgency Walker
Kevlar wrote:If games workshop wants forgeworld models in their games, why not put them in the codex?
Some of these IA units are older than the codex for their army. So why aren't they included? I am not buying extra books to field some overpriced models with silly rules that usually break some aspect of the game. And I am not playing against them either.
Well, they have put some in the codex. (along with filling codex gaps) I'm not going to make a total list, but look at the Valkyrie FW. Tau piranha FW, hydra flack tank FW. Manticore FW wait for it......Wave serpent, in the codex for years, options scratch build or FW (Untill a few years ago). Plus most of the leman Russ variants that make it back into 5th Ed. Forgeworld.
25750
Post by: worldwarme
Kevlar wrote:If games workshop wants forgeworld models in their games, why not put them in the codex?
Some of these IA units are older than the codex for their army. So why aren't they included? I am not buying extra books to field some overpriced models with silly rules that usually break some aspect of the game. And I am not playing against them either.
Short answer:
Because there is a lot of money to be made in having to order Imperial Arour books as they come out to give the rules for the new FW models everyone wants to buy.
55712
Post by: imrandomghgh
Kevlar wrote:If games workshop wants forgeworld models in their games, why not put them in the codex?
Some of these IA units are older than the codex for their army. So why aren't they included? I am not buying extra books to field some overpriced models with silly rules that usually break some aspect of the game. And I am not playing against them either.
In what way do they have silly, broken rules? LR Achilles is strong, but for it's monstrous cost I can field 4 broadsides with Targeting Arrays, which WILL wreck it.
XV9s can make 6 melta shots a turn...on a roll of a dice, for the price of 2-3 crisis suits.
The Contemptor has amazing weaponry and stats? It also costs about as much as Lysander when kitted out.
The Caestus assault ram is really good at ramming stuff? Really, that's the only thing it's good at, and is specifically what it's designed for.
Psyfleman dreads, Purifiers, Paladins, Blood talons, all these things are just so much more broken, and very, very cheesy
34906
Post by: Pacific
I really, really can't understand the attitude of some of the people posting in this thread. It's as though the FW break some perfectly balanced version of the game, as though 40k is like the sky city in Star Wars which, instead of being able to float in the sky, is instead balanced on a big stick with people having to walk exactly opposite sides of the disk otherwise it will tip over and be destroyed.
Well, here is a wake up call: 40k is not a fairly balanced game most of the time. It's very much paper, scissors, stones, and I have lost track of the number of games of which I have known the outcome without a single dice being rolled. That doesn't bother me that much - I take it for what it is, and have fun in the look of a well set up game and having banter with my opponent as the games go on. But, chess (or any approximation of it), with 2 minds locked in ferocious struggle across a balanced playing field, it most certainly ain't.
As well as that, after playing for many, many years, and seeing perhaps 426,000 tactical marines disembark from a Rhino, it's actually massively refreshing to come up against something new for once. As HBMC says I would love to play against D.E. The chap at my club who plays orks, a beautifully painted and converted force, is often booked what seems to be a month in advance. I have some FW bits, but a mass of non-GW bits in my armies (and perhaps most importantly, not all SM armies) and I am often in a similar situation. I would like to see a Cestus Assault Ram disembark some marines for once, and why not a few of the fancy old-style armour mark marines while they are at it?
I can only assume that people objecting to it:
a) Have not read the rules and are just going off hearsay.
b) Have some inaccurate notion about the 'balance' of 40k, and think that the FW books are spoiling something that does not actually exist.
c) Have played so few games of 40k that they haven't got bored with the basic set-up yet.
Anyway, end of rant. In summary, anyone who says 'I won't play that army, you've got a FW turret on that razorback' needs their head examining.
25750
Post by: worldwarme
Pacific wrote:I really, really can't understand the attitude of some of the people posting in this thread. It's as though the FW break some perfectly balanced version of the game, as though 40k is like the sky city in Star Wars which, instead of being able to float in the sky, is instead balanced on a big stick with people having to walk exactly opposite sides of the disk otherwise it will tip over and be destroyed.
Well, here is a wake up call: 40k is not a fairly balanced game most of the time. It's very much paper, scissors, stones, and I have lost track of the number of games of which I have known the outcome without a single dice being rolled. That doesn't bother me that much - I take it for what it is, and have fun in the look of a well set up game and having banter with my opponent as the games go on. But, chess (or any approximation of it), with 2 minds locked in ferocious struggle across a balanced playing field, it most certainly ain't.
As well as that, after playing for many, many years, and seeing perhaps 426,000 tactical marines disembark from a Rhino, it's actually massively refreshing to come up against something new for once. As HBMC says I would love to play against D.E. The chap at my club who plays orks, a beautifully painted and converted force, is often booked what seems to be a month in advance. I have some FW bits, but a mass of non-GW bits in my armies (and perhaps most importantly, not all SM armies) and I am often in a similar situation. I would like to see a Cestus Assault Ram disembark some marines for once, and why not a few of the fancy old-style armour mark marines while they are at it?
I can only assume that people objecting to it:
a) Have not read the rules and are just going off hearsay.
b) Have some inaccurate notion about the 'balance' of 40k, and think that the FW books are spoiling something that does not actually exist.
c) Have played so few games of 40k that they haven't got bored with the basic set-up yet.
Anyway, end of rant. In summary, anyone who says 'I won't play that army, you've got a FW turret on that razorback' needs their head examining.
Could'nt agree more,
54729
Post by: AegisGrimm
I also agree exactly with that statement.
I would rather go up against an Ultramarines army with a single Land Raider Achilles, or some other Forgeworld tank, than someone with an army of Grey Knights.
53821
Post by: AnUnearthlyChilde
AegisGrimm wrote:I also agree exactly with that statement.
I would rather go up against an Ultramarines army with a single Land Raider Achilles, or some other Forgeworld tank, than someone with an army of Grey Knights.
THIS.
42382
Post by: Unit1126PLL
I run an Armored Battlegroup list out of IA1, using the August 2008 FAQ to bring it in line with the latest Codex: Imperial Guard.
It has ten Leman Russes and a techpriest with a chimera and some servitors.
It has lost many more games than it has won, and takes some real tactical acumen to field without getting stomped into the ground by close combat attacks.
Who here would play me? If not, why not?
55712
Post by: imrandomghgh
I have a similar situation, Unit, where I run an armoured interdiction cadre, with literally every unit in my armour with an AV other than the commander, using a generous amount of FW armoured piranhas, and it is about 50/50 wins to losses.
25750
Post by: worldwarme
Yeah, I catch flak from a friend in our club for the rare occasions I field my Namarian Arm'd Company (Gaunts Ghost Arm' d w/ Gen Grizmund). He runs an extremely effective BA Mech list, and has often beaten me, yet he has often taken issue with me fielding a Forge world/ IA tank list. Strange, considering his list is pretty much a leaf blower against most other standard armies in our club.
53888
Post by: Emerett
Kevlar wrote:If games workshop wants forgeworld models in their games, why not put them in the codex?
Some of these IA units are older than the codex for their army. So why aren't they included? I am not buying extra books to field some overpriced models with silly rules that usually break some aspect of the game. And I am not playing against them either.
I kind of have to agree, why GW doesn't just release Chapter Approved's for FW model is kind of odd.
42382
Post by: Unit1126PLL
I put more love into my armored company than every other army I own.
It's lovingly painted, with every tank named and organized into squadrons. Hell, I have an entire regiment based on the Armored Battlegroup list.
I have 23 Leman Russes, two Shadowswords, a Baneblade, and a Stormblade. Many of them have Forgeworld upgrades / parts.
I sincerely wonder why anyone would avoid playing against it - with the amount of love I put into it, I am sometimes put off by people who refuse to play it because it has "ten LRBTS!!!!"
They know that the Imperial Guard codex can field 9, right? With better options for the remaining points to boot.
35785
Post by: Avatar 720
Unit1126PLL wrote:I run an Armored Battlegroup list out of IA1, using the August 2008 FAQ to bring it in line with the latest Codex: Imperial Guard.
It has ten Leman Russes and a techpriest with a chimera and some servitors.
It has lost many more games than it has won, and takes some real tactical acumen to field without getting stomped into the ground by close combat attacks.
Who here would play me? If not, why not?
I would love to, if only to see how many tanks I can fit under my Warp Hunter's D-Cannon marker =P Nothing else bar two Prisms, two Hornets, and 1 squad of Fire Dragons can touch you unless they hit rear armour or the Chimera anyway EDIT: Of course, that's at about 1500pts, if higher then I get more Fire Dragon goodness.
10097
Post by: Ensis Ferrae
Unit1126PLL wrote:I put more love into my armored company than every other army I own.
It's lovingly painted, with every tank named and organized into squadrons. Hell, I have an entire regiment based on the Armored Battlegroup list.
I have 23 Leman Russes, two Shadowswords, a Baneblade, and a Stormblade. Many of them have Forgeworld upgrades / parts.
I sincerely wonder why anyone would avoid playing against it - with the amount of love I put into it, I am sometimes put off by people who refuse to play it because it has "ten LRBTS!!!!"
They know that the Imperial Guard codex can field 9, right? With better options for the remaining points to boot.
I think in this case, people are reticent to play against this because they haven't tailored their list to the amount of armor presented them....
Personally, I would love to play against this list, as I don't really tailor anything anyways, i'd just have to hope that what AT i did bring was enough.
42382
Post by: Unit1126PLL
Ensis Ferrae wrote:
I think in this case, people are reticent to play against this because they haven't tailored their list to the amount of armor presented them....
Personally, I would love to play against this list, as I don't really tailor anything anyways, i'd just have to hope that what AT i did bring was enough.
Avatar 720 wrote:
I would love to, if only to see how many tanks I can fit under my Warp Hunter's D-Cannon marker =P Nothing else bar two Prisms, two Hornets, and 1 squad of Fire Dragons can touch you unless they hit rear armour or the Chimera anyway
EDIT: Of course, that's at about 1500pts, if higher then I get more Fire Dragon goodness.
SECRET WEAPON:
Anyone with a Str. 4 or higher CQB attack can significantly damage a Leman Russ.
Y'know, Striking Scorpions, any warlocks with the Spear of Str9 against vehicles, etc.
35785
Post by: Avatar 720
Assuming CQB is something to do with CC (further augmented by the fact you mention CC units - also bear in mind that witchblades are S9 in CC against vehicles too, the spear can just be thrown for a S9 ranged attack first), then it's pointless for me.
I run a complete mech list, Farseer holed up with avengers, of which there are 3 lots of 5 in scatter serpents with spirit stones. At 1500, there's one squad of FDs in a shuriserpent with SS, at 1750 there are two. At 1750 the Farseer is Eldrad and I also have an Autarch with a fusion gun and no S4+ CC. I also have a Warp Hunter, two Prisms, and two Hornets with Scatter Lasers or Pulse Lasers (the latter if I can shave 80pts somewhere).
There's nothing there that can damage you in CC unless it's the Farseer (unlikely to reach combat) or Fire Dragons (unlikely to be able to charge with Melta Bombs). Next best thing is attempting S10 rams with vehicles.
46926
Post by: Kaldor
Kevlar wrote:If games workshop wants forgeworld models in their games, why not put them in the codex?
Some of these IA units are older than the codex for their army. So why aren't they included? I am not buying extra books to field some overpriced models with silly rules that usually break some aspect of the game. And I am not playing against them either.
You're obviously free to choose whoever you want to play with, but refusing to play someone because they have a Forgeworld unit is just as stupid as refusing to play someone because they are wearing a red T-shirt.
53821
Post by: AnUnearthlyChilde
The cynics view on FW models is as follows:
To make elitist models that people will pay a fortune for because not everyone will have them.
but another way to view it is that FW produce miniatures that are supposed to be few and far between. they are not meant to be in every army going. it's to add a bit of variety out there in peoples armies.
If you want to refuse to play someone with FW stuff, then your either not a good player, or a very sore loser. either way. you need to take a look in the mirror, as there is no reason to refuse playing anything FW.
I have a mass amount of FW, and I've yet to meet someone who won't play me. even if they know they are going to lose.
One thing to remember, ITS A GAME, don not take it so seriously.
49408
Post by: McNinja
I rather like most of the units, as do my Tau-playing friends. I'm seriously considering investing in a Tomb Stalker, as the model is awesome and so are the rules. It also takes up a HS slot, which I am completely OK with.
I think that if you show your opponent the datasheet prior to the game starting, it should be fine. Experimental rules are just that, experimental, and so need to be experimented with in games.
--Interesting note: apparently, no one told the writes of the Apoc 2nd ed that "we'll be back" is no longer an actual thing.
53740
Post by: ZebioLizard2
McNinja wrote:I rather like most of the units, as do my Tau-playing friends. I'm seriously considering investing in a Tomb Stalker, as the model is awesome and so are the rules. It also takes up a HS slot, which I am completely OK with.
I think that if you show your opponent the datasheet prior to the game starting, it should be fine. Experimental rules are just that, experimental, and so need to be experimented with in games.
--Interesting note: apparently, no one told the writes of the Apoc 2nd ed that "we'll be back" is no longer an actual thing.
That was made before Necrons were remade.
106
Post by: wolf13
really, when you think about it, most of the FW 40K units only cost about the cost of an extra unit. Pricey, but by no means excessive once someone is already hitting the 2000-2500+ points range. You've already invested substantial money in the army and your over the common points so double price for one unit probably isn't going to break the bank. I really don't see FW as nearly as elitist as it used to be, just more inconvenient to order from as you can't just walk in and buy them.
55712
Post by: imrandomghgh
wolf13 wrote:really, when you think about it, most of the FW 40K units only cost about the cost of an extra unit. Pricey, but by no means excessive once someone is already hitting the 2000-2500+ points range. You've already invested substantial money in the army and your over the common points so double price for one unit probably isn't going to break the bank. I really don't see FW as nearly as elitist as it used to be, just more inconvenient to order from as you can't just walk in and buy them.
Except for the monstrous shipping costs.
34242
Post by: -Loki-
Emerett wrote:Kevlar wrote:If games workshop wants forgeworld models in their games, why not put them in the codex?
Some of these IA units are older than the codex for their army. So why aren't they included? I am not buying extra books to field some overpriced models with silly rules that usually break some aspect of the game. And I am not playing against them either.
I kind of have to agree, why GW doesn't just release Chapter Approved's for FW model is kind of odd.
Because they don't have to, and likely don't want to. Why release the rules for free via White Dwarf when you have a division selling books for you which the target audience (that is, this particular niche within their niche hobby) is quite happy buying? Chapter Approved articles are going to have the same legality issues (since they're still not in the codex), and knowing GW's apathy for the simple uploading of PDFs, have availability issues beyond needing to special order a book at a GW. Not to mention GW's apathy for updating anything not in a codex. You know those units in the Apocalypse books? Forgeworld can't do new rules for them anymore. That's why there were no 5th edition rules for Warhound titans, Reaver titans, Heirophants, Barbed Heirodules, Barracudas, Revenant titans, Gargantuan Squiggoths, Thunderbolts, standard Marauders (they squeezed Marauder Destroyers in) in Imperial Armour Apocalypse Second Edition. We need GW to make a new Apocalypse book and not forget to include some of those units (they won't) or release PDF updates for them (they won't) f we want new rules for those. What irritates me is people complain about the lack of accessibility in FW rules, and use it as a means to say how they shouldn't be allowed in any games. FW recently released IAA Secon Edition, which aside from the above Apocalypse only units, has all of their standard units, plus other Apocalypse only units, bar some outliers like Shadow Spectres. It's like buying an 'all 5th edition army lists in 1' book sans fluff. And this still isn't good enough. You literally have to make a single purchase and you'll know 99% of the units that can be fielded in a regular 40k game. And this isn't good enough.
494
Post by: H.B.M.C.
Pacific wrote:I can only assume that people objecting to it:
a) Have not read the rules and are just going off hearsay.
b) Have some inaccurate notion about the 'balance' of 40k, and think that the FW books are spoiling something that does not actually exist.
c) Have played so few games of 40k that they haven't got bored with the basic set-up yet.
I choose d), all of the above.
44749
Post by: Skriker
imrandomghgh wrote:wolf13 wrote:really, when you think about it, most of the FW 40K units only cost about the cost of an extra unit. Pricey, but by no means excessive once someone is already hitting the 2000-2500+ points range. You've already invested substantial money in the army and your over the common points so double price for one unit probably isn't going to break the bank. I really don't see FW as nearly as elitist as it used to be, just more inconvenient to order from as you can't just walk in and buy them.
Except for the monstrous shipping costs.
I just save up my wants until I have enough of an order to get free shipping. I've also found that when I order that much the order is shipped a heck of a lot faster too. Smaller orders seem to take weeks before they are shipped, yet every big order I have placed is on its way within a couple days.
Skriker
36276
Post by: Zweischneid
Pacific wrote:
I can only assume that people objecting to it:
a) Have not read the rules and are just going off hearsay.
b) Have some inaccurate notion about the 'balance' of 40k, and think that the FW books are spoiling something that does not actually exist.
c) Have played so few games of 40k that they haven't got bored with the basic set-up yet.
Anyway, end of rant. In summary, anyone who says 'I won't play that army, you've got a FW turret on that razorback' needs their head examining.
I am not sure anyone is objecting to anything. I am just exercising my right to not play it. Noone is forced to play something they do not like. Me, for example, I do not play Warhmmer Fantasy Battle. I do not play Warmachine. I do not play BFG. And though I play 40K, I do not play Cities of Death or Spearhead or Apocalypse either. And I do not play Forgeworld.
To answer your questions, I have read the rules for all of the above, I have no assumption that the game I do choose to play (i.e. 40K) is more balanced than those I do not play (WFB, Warmachine, 40K Cities of Death, 40K cum FW). And I have played so many games of 40K over the last 20 years or so, that I got thoroughly bored with cluttered, oversized games that stretch it beyond the game's sweat spot.
In consequence. I play 40K. No expension. Never above 1500. No FW or other expansion and addenums (hell, the 40K mainline could arguably do with less, rather than more). It's where 40K is the most fun. If it ever stops being fun, I likely stop playing 40K. And I do not appreciate uppity, condescending snobs who try to eductate me that Warmachine, WFB, FW, whatever-have-you would be "More fun" and provide a better game. Sorry. Not for me. Been there, done that. FW may not be (more or less) broken than any other tabletop-game out there. But it doesn't ADD anything worthwhile either. And 99% of the miniatures it produces are (in my humble opinion) butt-ugly. So keep it away from me.
46636
Post by: English Assassin
Nothing obliges you to buy Forge World's models or rules if you don't like them. A reasonable and mature human being, however, doesn't arrogate to themselves the right to allow their preferences to dictate how other people play the game. Wargames require a measure of co-operation and mutual respect between the players, something you're simply refusing to extend to your opponents.
36276
Post by: Zweischneid
English Assassin wrote:Nothing obliges you to buy Forge World's models or rules if you don't like them. A reasonable and mature human being, however, doesn't arrogate to themselves the right to allow their preferences to dictate how other people play the game. Wargames require a measure of co-operation and mutual respect between the players, something you're simply refusing to extend to your opponents.
I would argue the same about other people trying to force an acceptance of Forgeworld products on my by presenting me with "play-it or be called a fool" choice. By and large, the attitude of FW players/proponents in this very thread has been to equate some people's reluctance to play against FW with a) ignorance, b) fear of loosing, c) small-mindedness and much worse.
I am not quite sure how this sort of arrogant prejudgement demonstrated so vividly right here in this discussion could in any way comply with anything approaching "mutual respect".
18698
Post by: kronk
Different posting, same division and arguments.
If you want to play FW, great. If you don't want to ply FW, don't.
This argument is more boring than reading Matt Ward hate threads.
36276
Post by: Zweischneid
kronk wrote:Different posting, same division and arguments.
If you want to play FW, great. If you don't want to ply FW, don't.
.
If it were that way.. all would be fine and everyone could go to play their game.
The problem is the hypocritical attitude of people who first state .. "if you want to play FW great. If you don't want to play FW, you haven't read the rule/want to stick to your cookie-cutter-lists/are unable to grasp more diversity/are afraid to loose against the unkown/" with the most arrogant swagger, only to turn around the next second someone chooses to not play FW to whine about the arrogance/unfairness/mistreatment they suffer at the hands of those that opt for a no- FW game. It creates a loopsided environment where those on the "no- FW" side are either ridiculed as inferiour/less-noble/less-mature players or reviled as spiteful discriminators or, as little as it makes sense, even both.
18698
Post by: kronk
Zweischneid wrote:The problem is the hypocritical attitude of people who first state .. "if you want to play FW great. If you don't want to play FW, you haven't read the rule/want to stick to your cookie-cutter-lists/are unable to grasp more diversity/are afraid to loose against the unkown/" with the most arrogant swagger,
I understand your frustration. I also have heard some pretty arrogant snearing from the other side of the fence.
Fortunately, my gaming group is in agreement with what we play. Also, few tournaments allow FW rules, so those that don't want to play it don't have to worry about it.
I'm honestly not sure why there is so much hate around this subject. Can't people let other people play the way they want?
36276
Post by: Zweischneid
kronk wrote:Zweischneid wrote:The problem is the hypocritical attitude of people who first state .. "if you want to play FW great. If you don't want to play FW, you haven't read the rule/want to stick to your cookie-cutter-lists/are unable to grasp more diversity/are afraid to loose against the unkown/" with the most arrogant swagger,
I understand your frustration. I also have heard some pretty arrogant snearing from the other side of the fence.
Fortunately, my gaming group is in agreement with what we play. Also, few tournaments allow FW rules, so those that don't want to play it don't have to worry about it.
I'm honestly not sure why there is so much hate around this subject. Can't people let other people play the way they want?
Personally, I think it starts with the attempts to "legalize" your way into a game. This "lawyer's attitude" isn't very welcome usually. Not with "rules lawyers" and neither with " FW-is-legal lawyers". They may be correct on a "that's how it's written black-on-white" manner, but it misses the defining voluntarity the hobby rests upon and inevitably spoils the "fun".
I think the very approach to "convince" other players to play against your FW units by trying to make a legalistic case that they are legal / also GW / not-as-broken-perhaps-as-some-of-the-more-broken- GW-stuff / etc.. is the wrong angle from the start. There is no "enforcable" right to play anything ( FW, Grey Knights, Heavy Support choices, whatever). Thus the presumption that there is for FW is wrong from the get-go.
If you want to convince other player to play against your FW units, try starting by looking up "convince" in the dictionary and proceed by presenting arguments for the inclusion of FW (including why 40K actually needs MORE stuff, Marines and IG in particular, when there's a new thread on Dakka at least every week that the game as such should arguably have LESS codexes and stuff in general and less Marine/Imperial bias in particular), and not arguments against the exclusion of FW.
46636
Post by: English Assassin
Zweischneid wrote:English Assassin wrote:Nothing obliges you to buy Forge World's models or rules if you don't like them. A reasonable and mature human being, however, doesn't arrogate to themselves the right to allow their preferences to dictate how other people play the game. Wargames require a measure of co-operation and mutual respect between the players, something you're simply refusing to extend to your opponents.
I would argue the same about other people trying to force an acceptance of Forgeworld products on my by presenting me with "play-it or be called a fool" choice. By and large, the attitude of FW players/proponents in this very thread has been to equate some people's reluctance to play against FW with a) ignorance, b) fear of loosing, c) small-mindedness and much worse.
You are taking onto yourself a responsibility which is not yours, by declaring that you feel entitled to dictate what models and units your opponents can and cannot use. Expect to be considered both foolish and arrogant for so doing, particularly since you can't provide any clearer or more logical justification for your stance beyond a blanket dislike of Forge World's rules and aesthetics.
49408
Post by: McNinja
Zweischneid wrote:kronk wrote:Zweischneid wrote:The problem is the hypocritical attitude of people who first state .. "if you want to play FW great. If you don't want to play FW, you haven't read the rule/want to stick to your cookie-cutter-lists/are unable to grasp more diversity/are afraid to loose against the unkown/" with the most arrogant swagger,
I understand your frustration. I also have heard some pretty arrogant snearing from the other side of the fence.
Fortunately, my gaming group is in agreement with what we play. Also, few tournaments allow FW rules, so those that don't want to play it don't have to worry about it.
I'm honestly not sure why there is so much hate around this subject. Can't people let other people play the way they want?
Personally, I think it starts with the attempts to "legalize" your way into a game. This "lawyer's attitude" isn't very welcome usually. Not with "rules lawyers" and neither with " FW-is-legal lawyers". They may be correct on a "that's how it's written black-on-white" manner, but it misses the defining voluntarity the hobby rests upon and inevitably spoils the "fun".
I think the very approach to "convince" other players to play against your FW units by trying to make a legalistic case that they are legal / also GW / not-as-broken-perhaps-as-some-of-the-more-broken- GW-stuff / etc.. is the wrong angle from the start. There is no "enforcable" right to play anything ( FW, Grey Knights, Heavy Support choices, whatever). Thus the presumption that there is for FW is wrong from the get-go.
If you want to convince other player to play against your FW units, try starting by looking up "convince" in the dictionary and proceed by presenting arguments for the inclusion of FW (including why 40K actually needs MORE stuff when there's a new thread on Dakka at least every weak that the game as such should arguably have LESS codexes and stuff), and not arguments against the exclusion of FW.
There's not really any need to convince anyone of anything. I like the Tomb Stalker, I think it looks cool, and I would like to play it. If you and I are in a tournament where FW models are allowed, then you can expect to be playing against both my Tomb Stalker and other poeple's stuff. If I roll into my FLGS with a Tomb Stalker, I'll probably ask you if you're ok playing against my Tomb Stalker. If you say no, I'll probably readjust something in my list (assuming I have one ready).
If you don't want to use them in your army, that's fine. But I don't see the problem in letting other people use them, especially the ones listed in Apoc with the 40k seal of approval and FOC slot listing.
36276
Post by: Zweischneid
English Assassin wrote:
You are taking onto yourself a responsibility which is not yours, by declaring that you feel entitled to dictate what models and units your opponents can and cannot use. Expect to be considered both foolish and arrogant for so doing, particularly since you can't provide any clearer or more logical justification for your stance beyond a blanket dislike of Forge World's rules and aesthetics.
See. There goes the "mutual respect" you wanted to claim for yourself just one post before.
Q.E.D.
22413
Post by: mwnciboo
The fact they are considered separate companies is really a joke. They are in the same factory, they operate on the same floor, they use the same IP, they use the other companies game system! I cannot think of many things like this. One company has a retail arm, and the other cannot be bothered so rips everyone off using P&P as an excuse. GW Staff get their FW orders shipped to their store for free. So the question is why can they not do that for customers?
I can do it at hundreds of outlets in the UK, Order/reserve, pay and then pick up. Saving on Postage.
Maybe the Automobile industry where different cars and badges are made at same site. Like Halewood in Merseyside, where a Ford Mondeo is the same as Jaguar they have the same Chassis or Volkswagen engines in various cars.
GW has upped it's sizes and amounts of kits over the years. I would argue that with Gargants, baneblades and Stormravens GW is well on the way with Superheavies so we will have to see what FW will be making when they have finished their 30k line. They are the same at worst and symbiotic at best.
They work hand in glove.
36276
Post by: Zweischneid
McNinja wrote:There's not really any need to convince anyone of anything. I like the Tomb Stalker, I think it looks cool, and I would like to play it. If you and I are in a tournament where FW models are allowed, then you can expect to be playing against both my Tomb Stalker and other poeple's stuff. If I roll into my FLGS with a Tomb Stalker, I'll probably ask you if you're ok playing against my Tomb Stalker. If you say no, I'll probably readjust something in my list (assuming I have one ready).
If you don't want to use them in your army, that's fine. But I don't see the problem in letting other people use them, especially the ones listed in Apoc with the 40k seal of approval and FOC slot listing.
Obvious. I think it's been stated innumerous times that in tournaments.. tournament rules apply. If the tournament requires people to wear pink rabbit costumes, that'll be what people who want to play the tournament will have to do. If the tournament excludes all special characters. It'll be it. If the tournament changes missions and deployment rules or victory conditions. That is what they'll do.
But, mainly, the consideration has been what happens in a "normal" 40K pick-up game. If you "drop" an Adepticon or 'Ard Boyz style scenario on an unsuspecting player in a "pick-up-game" that fundamentally alters things like deployment or victory condition, it will be considered inappropriate, likely "strange" and mostly be responded with "it would have been nice if you'd had let us know beforehand". If you try to make a "legal case" that this Ard Boyz scenario is "legal" because it came from GW and "isn't more broken than a normal pitched battle", you'll likely get some blank looks because you evidently missed the point. Exactly the same for FW. Automatically Appended Next Post: mwnciboo wrote:The fact they are considered separate companies is really a joke.
What's that got to do with it?
If I bring an army with 6 Elite choices to a "pick-up" game, people will likely respond with irritation. Just because it is "officially" made by GW in their Planetfall expansion to work with the ruleset of 40K doesn't mean I can just use it whenever and wherever I like to.
49408
Post by: McNinja
Zweischneid wrote:McNinja wrote:There's not really any need to convince anyone of anything. I like the Tomb Stalker, I think it looks cool, and I would like to play it. If you and I are in a tournament where FW models are allowed, then you can expect to be playing against both my Tomb Stalker and other poeple's stuff. If I roll into my FLGS with a Tomb Stalker, I'll probably ask you if you're ok playing against my Tomb Stalker. If you say no, I'll probably readjust something in my list (assuming I have one ready).
If you don't want to use them in your army, that's fine. But I don't see the problem in letting other people use them, especially the ones listed in Apoc with the 40k seal of approval and FOC slot listing.
Obvious. I think it's been stated innumerous times that in tournaments.. tournament rules apply. If the tournament requires people to wear pink rabbit costumes, that'll be what people who want to play the tournament will have to do. If the tournament excludes all special characters. It'll be it. If the tournament changes missions and deployment rules or victory conditions. That is what they'll do.
But, mainly, the consideration has been what happens in a "normal" 40K pick-up game. If you "drop" an Adepticon or 'Ard Boyz style scenario on an unsuspecting player in a "pick-up-game" that fundamentally alters things like deployment or victory condition, it will be considered inappropriate, likely "strange" and mostly be responded with "it would have been nice if you'd had let us know beforehand". If you try to make a "legal case" that this Ard Boyz scenario is "legal" because it came from GW and "isn't more broken than a normal pitched battle", you'll likely get some blank looks because you evidently missed the point. Exactly the same for FW.
There's a difference between showing up and declaring you want to play a brand new scenario with brand new deployment rules and showing up and asking if you can use a FW model.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
mwnciboo wrote:The fact they are considered separate companies is really a joke.
What's that got to do with it?
If I bring an army with 6 Elite choices to a "pick-up" game, people will likely respond with irritation. Just because it is "officially" made by GW in their Planetfall expansion to work with the ruleset of 40K doesn't mean I can just use it whenever and wherever I like to. And that has even less to do with me bringing a single FW model that takes up one of 3 HS slots on the FOC. If we are playing a planetfall game, then maybe, but we most likely aren't, so that point is moot.
36276
Post by: Zweischneid
McNinja wrote:There's a difference between showing up and declaring you want to play a brand new scenario with brand new deployment rules and showing up and asking if you can use a FW model.
How so? Ard Boyz senarios are clearly made by GW, have the "offical" stamp and are intended to by used in conjunction with the 40K rules. By your own argument, they should be just as "legal" as a given FW unit. You're foppish response of "bwwwahahaha but they are not the same" just futher illustrates your inherent bias that is not grounded in any sound reasoning.
McNinja wrote:And that has even less to do with me bringing a single FW model that takes up one of 3 HS slots on the FOC. If we are playing a planetfall game, then maybe, but we most likely aren't, so that point is moot.
Neither are we playing a FW-game most likely.
46636
Post by: English Assassin
Zweischneid wrote:English Assassin wrote:
You are taking onto yourself a responsibility which is not yours, by declaring that you feel entitled to dictate what models and units your opponents can and cannot use. Expect to be considered both foolish and arrogant for so doing, particularly since you can't provide any clearer or more logical justification for your stance beyond a blanket dislike of Forge World's rules and aesthetics.
See. There goes the "mutual respect" you wanted to claim for yourself just one post before.
Q.E.D.
You'll find that "mutual respect" entails putting forward sound arguments and supporting them. It also includes reading and responding to the arguments of others, rather than taking refuge in smug "no, you!" replies. Don't expect to have your position taken seriously if you can do no more to substantiate it than make specious straw man comparisons with 'Ard Boyz, and whinge about about how Forge World favour Imperial players.
36809
Post by: loota boy
I don't understand why people are making such a big deal about this. If I come into a store, looking to play a pick-up game of 40k, and someone plants down a forgeworld unit i've never heard of without even asking, he's going to get an annoyed look, and perhaps a sharp comment on how he should have asked. And if he starts preaching to me how perfectly legal it is for him to use his forgeworld stuff, I don't care if he is right, I'm probably not going to play him, and will probably avoid him in the future. He missed the point.
If it's not a unit described in a codex, I want to know about it before hand if he's going to use it. I don't care how legal it is, he should ask me first. I have every right to play against what I want to play against, and if you're going to try and crucify me for not letting you use your forgeworld Krieg-drill-cestious-achilles-drone-thing, then I'm not going to play with you, and i'll probably warn my friends about you, too.
If you had said, "Hey man, i just got this really cool reaver-XV9-decimator-assault-ram from forgeworld, do you mind if I try it out?" I'd ask for the rules, and if they seemed alright I'd say sure. But i'd still retain every right to say "Maybe anouther time, man. I'd like to just play plain old 40k right now." And if he gets really mad and starts saying i'm "afraid of losing/fear the unknown/balantly uninformed" then he can take a hike, and i'll warn my friends about him. It's that simple.
36276
Post by: Zweischneid
English Assassin wrote:
You'll find that "mutual respect" entails putting forward sound arguments and supporting them. It also includes reading and responding to the arguments of others, rather than taking refuge in smug "no, you!" replies. Don't expect to have your position taken seriously if you can do no more to substantiate it than make specious straw man comparisons with 'Ard Boyz, and whinge about about how Forge World favour Imperial players.
Well, I love sound arguments as much as anyone. Why is the 'Ard Boyz argument a straw man comparison? As noted, it complies with all the "criteria" provided. They are made "officially" by GW. They are made for the 40K game system. They ain't "more broken" than alot of other GW stuff.
If you see a difference between them and FW, please elaborate. Otherwise, I would probably need to redirect you to things like this:
---
can only assume that people objecting to it:
a) Have not read the rules and are just going off hearsay.
b) Have some inaccurate notion about the 'balance' of 40k, and think that the 'Ard Boyz scenarios are spoiling something that does not actually exist.
c) Have played so few games of 40k that they haven't got bored with the basic set-up yet.
Or perhaps more something like this:
---
The human condition:
1. People are afraid of things they don't understand (eg. they haven't read the 'Ard Boyz rules, therefore they don't know what it does, therefore they are scared of it).
2. People are afraid of losing.
Combine the two and you have the reason why people dislike 'Ard Boyz scenarios
29878
Post by: Chowderhead
loota boy wrote:I don't understand why people are making such a big deal about this. If I come into a store, looking to play a pick-up game of 40k, and someone plants down a forgeworld unit i've never heard of without even asking, he's going to get an annoyed look, and perhaps a sharp comment on how he should have asked. And if he starts preaching to me how perfectly legal it is for him to use his forgeworld stuff, I don't care if he is right, I'm probably not going to play him, and will probably avoid him in the future. He missed the point.
If it's not a unit described in a codex, I want to know about it before hand if he's going to use it. I don't care how legal it is, he should ask me first. I have every right to play against what I want to play against, and if you're going to try and crucify me for not letting you use your forgeworld Krieg-drill-cestious-achilles-drone-thing, then I'm not going to play with you, and i'll probably warn my friends about you, too.
If you had said, "Hey man, i just got this really cool reaver-XV9-decimator-assault-ram from forgeworld, do you mind if I try it out?" I'd ask for the rules, and if they seemed alright I'd say sure. But i'd still retain every right to say "Maybe anouther time, man. I'd like to just play plain old 40k right now." And if he gets really mad and starts saying i'm "afraid of losing/fear the unknown/balantly uninformed" then he can take a hike, and i'll warn my friends about him. It's that simple.
This is the correct way to approach FW. It's for fun games and campaigns. It can be used for tournies, but the people need to be informed. Bring your IA book to the game if you want to use it. Allow the opponent the ability to deny/confirm your ability to use it. If he/she says yes, go play it. Have fun! But if they say no, be Ok with it. Bring enough to play a full game in addition to your FW, to be able to not be stuck with a lot of unplayable FW and not enough Citadel Minis to play an actual game.
It's a courtesy. Respect for respect. If your opponent has a question on how a IA thing works, tell them. Don't leave them in the dark.
53821
Post by: AnUnearthlyChilde
loota boy wrote:I don't understand why people are making such a big deal about this. If I come into a store, looking to play a pick-up game of 40k, and someone plants down a forgeworld unit i've never heard of without even asking, he's going to get an annoyed look, and perhaps a sharp comment on how he should have asked. And if he starts preaching to me how perfectly legal it is for him to use his forgeworld stuff, I don't care if he is right, I'm probably not going to play him, and will probably avoid him in the future. He missed the point.
If it's not a unit described in a codex, I want to know about it before hand if he's going to use it. I don't care how legal it is, he should ask me first. I have every right to play against what I want to play against, and if you're going to try and crucify me for not letting you use your forgeworld Krieg-drill-cestious-achilles-drone-thing, then I'm not going to play with you, and i'll probably warn my friends about you, too.
If you had said, "Hey man, i just got this really cool reaver-XV9-decimator-assault-ram from forgeworld, do you mind if I try it out?" I'd ask for the rules, and if they seemed alright I'd say sure. But i'd still retain every right to say "Maybe anouther time, man. I'd like to just play plain old 40k right now." And if he gets really mad and starts saying i'm "afraid of losing/fear the unknown/balantly uninformed" then he can take a hike, and i'll warn my friends about him. It's that simple.
There is no rule that states you must ask your opponent whether or not you can use a FW model. If you refuse to play a person for the simple fact he's using something FW, your missing the fundamental point of the game, TO HAVE FUN.
It is plain old 40k, and if you paint it any different thats your loss.
Playing something from FW that you don't know is EXACTLY THE SAME as playing a brand new codex you don't know... Now seriously, are you going to decline playing someone with a new Dex? No, I didn't think so. Sorry but that just smacks of WAAC.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Chowderhead wrote:
This is the correct way to approach FW. It's for fun games and campaigns. It can be used for tournies, but the people need to be informed. Bring your IA book to the game if you want to use it. Allow the opponent the ability to deny/confirm your ability to use it. If he/she says yes, go play it. Have fun! But if they say no, be Ok with it. Bring enough to play a full game in addition to your FW, to be able to not be stuck with a lot of unplayable FW and not enough Citadel Minis to play an actual game.
It's a courtesy. Respect for respect. If your opponent has a question on how a IA thing works, tell them. Don't leave them in the dark.
Sorry, but thats being too much or a Rules lawyer. So every player has to vet his list with his opponent before he starts? If I ever had to play you in a tourney I'd take much delight in ripping your list apart.
29878
Post by: Chowderhead
AnUnearthlyChilde wrote:loota boy wrote:I don't understand why people are making such a big deal about this. If I come into a store, looking to play a pick-up game of 40k, and someone plants down a forgeworld unit i've never heard of without even asking, he's going to get an annoyed look, and perhaps a sharp comment on how he should have asked. And if he starts preaching to me how perfectly legal it is for him to use his forgeworld stuff, I don't care if he is right, I'm probably not going to play him, and will probably avoid him in the future. He missed the point.
If it's not a unit described in a codex, I want to know about it before hand if he's going to use it. I don't care how legal it is, he should ask me first. I have every right to play against what I want to play against, and if you're going to try and crucify me for not letting you use your forgeworld Krieg-drill-cestious-achilles-drone-thing, then I'm not going to play with you, and i'll probably warn my friends about you, too.
If you had said, "Hey man, i just got this really cool reaver-XV9-decimator-assault-ram from forgeworld, do you mind if I try it out?" I'd ask for the rules, and if they seemed alright I'd say sure. But i'd still retain every right to say "Maybe anouther time, man. I'd like to just play plain old 40k right now." And if he gets really mad and starts saying i'm "afraid of losing/fear the unknown/balantly uninformed" then he can take a hike, and i'll warn my friends about him. It's that simple.
There is no rule that states you must ask your opponent whether or not you can use a FW model. If you refuse to play a person for the simple fact he's using something FW, your missing the fundamental point of the game, TO HAVE FUN. It is plain old 40k, and if you paint it any different thats your loss. Playing something from FW that you don't know is EXACTLY THE SAME as playing a brand new codex you don't know... Now seriously, are you going to decline playing someone with a new Dex? No, I didn't think so. Sorry but that just smacks of WAAC.
To me, it reads of respect. And you misused WAAC. In the Americas, most FLGS's don't have access to IA books on hand. To the vast majority, it's very different that normal GW. So people ask if they can use it. Automatically Appended Next Post: AnUnearthlyChilde wrote:Chowderhead wrote:
This is the correct way to approach FW. It's for fun games and campaigns. It can be used for tournies, but the people need to be informed. Bring your IA book to the game if you want to use it. Allow the opponent the ability to deny/confirm your ability to use it. If he/she says yes, go play it. Have fun! But if they say no, be Ok with it. Bring enough to play a full game in addition to your FW, to be able to not be stuck with a lot of unplayable FW and not enough Citadel Minis to play an actual game.
It's a courtesy. Respect for respect. If your opponent has a question on how a IA thing works, tell them. Don't leave them in the dark.
Sorry, but thats being too much or a Rules lawyer. So every player has to vet his list with his opponent before he starts? If I ever had to play you in a tourney I'd take much delight in ripping your list apart.
It's called bringing more than one list. If the opponent declines the FW rules, then just pull out your normal list. No list tailoring involved. And you ALWAYS have to show your opponent your list. Also, you misused rules lawyer.
18698
Post by: kronk
AnUnearthlyChilde wrote:There is no rule that states you must ask your opponent whether or not you can use a FW model. If you refuse to play a person for the simple fact he's using something FW, your missing the fundamental point of the game, TO HAVE FUN.
It is plain old 40k, and if you paint it any different thats your loss.
Playing something from FW that you don't know is EXACTLY THE SAME as playing a brand new codex you don't know... Now seriously, are you going to decline playing someone with a new Dex? No, I didn't think so. Sorry but that just smacks of WAAC.
THIS is the attitude that grates on people, Childe. You putting things in all caps doesn't make them right, either.
Also, as Chowder said, that is not the proper use of WAAC.
46636
Post by: English Assassin
Zweischneid wrote:English Assassin wrote:
You'll find that "mutual respect" entails putting forward sound arguments and supporting them. It also includes reading and responding to the arguments of others, rather than taking refuge in smug "no, you!" replies. Don't expect to have your position taken seriously if you can do no more to substantiate it than make specious straw man comparisons with 'Ard Boyz, and whinge about about how Forge World favour Imperial players.
Well, I love sound arguments as much as anyone. Why is the 'Ard Boyz argument a straw man comparison? As noted, it complies with all the "criteria" provided. They are made "officially" by GW. They are made for the 40K game system. They ain't "more broken" than alot of other GW stuff.
One is set of scenarios drawn up for a specific tournament, the other rules and models into which your fellow players have invested time and money. Comparison between the two is specious to the point of being nonsensical.
53821
Post by: AnUnearthlyChilde
In a Theatre of war, you do not go up to your opponent and ask what he has in his army do you? No.
we are deemed generals in this game, and as such it is down to you to learn of your opponent. Not by asking him for his army list, which no person has to show.
I have yet to meet a person who refuses to play FW, and I've yet to meet a person to ask for my army list either. because that is how the game should be played, blind.
In a roleplay game you don't ask the GM what he has in store for you, because that spoils the point of it all.
Give me a very good reason why anyone should bring multiple lists just so an opponent can pick and chose?
And Kronk, you didn't exactly put forth a counter argument.
EDIT: Using caps is for emphasis. Never said it made me right, it just that is the point I am making.
18698
Post by: kronk
AnUnearthlyChilde wrote:
And Kronk, you didn't exactly put forth a counter argument.
Because I've already done so a few times in this thread and feel no need to go through it again.
AnUnearthlyChilde wrote:
Give me a very good reason why anyone should bring multiple lists just so an opponent can pick and chose?
No one has made that claim in this thread. You're reading far too much into people's responses.
53821
Post by: AnUnearthlyChilde
kronk wrote:
AnUnearthlyChilde wrote:
Give me a very good reason why anyone should bring multiple lists just so an opponent can pick and chose?
No one has made that claim in this thread. You're reading far too much into people's responses.
Scroll up a bit.
36276
Post by: Zweischneid
English Assassin wrote:
One is set of scenarios drawn up for a specific tournament, the other rules and models into which your fellow players have invested time and money. Comparison between the two is specious to the point of being nonsensical.
So it is the models then? Fine. I made a custom-build, custom-rules Zweischneid Monster-Madness-Tank (c) for my army. I invested loads of time and money in it. It's a bit broken I admit, but arguably not worse than some Space Wolves cheese and having invested time and money in it, there can be no reason to deny me its use? Right. Oh, and I also add my lovingly painted 60 Th/ SS Terminators as per Planetfall rules. It's official GW stuff after all.
53821
Post by: AnUnearthlyChilde
Chowderhead wrote:
It's called bringing more than one list. If the opponent declines the FW rules, then just pull out your normal list. No list tailoring involved. And you ALWAYS have to show your opponent your list.
Show me where it says that in the rule book.
18698
Post by: kronk
AnUnearthlyChilde wrote:kronk wrote:
AnUnearthlyChilde wrote:
Give me a very good reason why anyone should bring multiple lists just so an opponent can pick and chose?
No one has made that claim in this thread. You're reading far too much into people's responses.
Scroll up a bit.
Not seeing where anyone is picking and choosing between lists.
I only see where it is suggested that you bring a second list in case the people you run into don't like Forge World.
That's two completely different things.
29878
Post by: Chowderhead
The responses to me and Kronk's posts make me lose faith in gamers.
53821
Post by: AnUnearthlyChilde
again, I ask why should anyone HAVE to do that?
18698
Post by: kronk
AnUnearthlyChilde wrote:again, I ask why should anyone HAVE to do that?
You don't HAVE to do it.
If you only want to play games with Forge World, that's your choice, man. I support you.
If someone only wants to play non-Forge World games, that's their choice. I support them.
No one is making you play any game you don't want to. Not really sure why you're confused and/or upset over this.
53821
Post by: AnUnearthlyChilde
It is because a lot of people come across as if they are telling others this is what they should do.
This game is meant to be fun, take the blows your dealt and roll with them, thats how it should be played.
18698
Post by: kronk
AnUnearthlyChilde wrote:This game is meant to be fun, take the blows your dealt and roll with them, thats how it should be played.
What is fun for you is not fun for 100% of the players out there. Your definition of how the game should be played does not match 100% of the players out there.
Do you not understand that concept?
49408
Post by: McNinja
Zweischneid wrote:McNinja wrote:There's a difference between showing up and declaring you want to play a brand new scenario with brand new deployment rules and showing up and asking if you can use a FW model.
How so? Ard Boyz senarios are clearly made by GW, have the "offical" stamp and are intended to by used in conjunction with the 40K rules. By your own argument, they should be just as "legal" as a given FW unit. You're foppish response of "bwwwahahaha but they are not the same" just futher illustrates your inherent bias that is not grounded in any sound reasoning.
They aren't the same thing. They really aren't. It is completely different. Are they both legal? yeah, but the reaction would be completely different. It's a model, not a whole game.
McNinja wrote:And that has even less to do with me bringing a single FW model that takes up one of 3 HS slots on the FOC. If we are playing a planetfall game, then maybe, but we most likely aren't, so that point is moot.
Neither are we playing a FW-game most likely.
WTF is a FW-game? It's a normal fething game with a singel FW model. If anything, it would be an apocalypse game, as the unit is listed in the 2nd ed. Apoc book.
36276
Post by: Zweischneid
AnUnearthlyChilde wrote:It is because a lot of people come across as if they are telling others this is what they should do.
This game is meant to be fun, take the blows your dealt and roll with them, thats how it should be played.
I'd love to do that.
But when I unload my 6 Elite-slot 60 Terminators as per Planetfall rules, an official GW 'Ard Boyz scenario to replace the same-old-same-old pitched battles and my custom Zweischneid-Tank, all FW-proponents suddenly get all prissy and say it ain't the same.
The rampant hypocrisy of it is what gets me.
53821
Post by: AnUnearthlyChilde
Condescension is not becoming.
Of course I understand it, but equally I don't see why I should have to play the game by their "interpretation" of the rules.
savvy?
36276
Post by: Zweischneid
McNinja wrote:]WTF is a FW-game? It's a normal fething game with a singel FW model. If anything, it would be an apocalypse game, as the unit is listed in the 2nd ed. Apoc book.
Just as well. Call it what you like. But it is not a normal 40K game because you are using more than the normal GW rules and Codexes. If you define a Planetfall-game as using the Planetfall book, than using "some" Forgeworld Book would be a FW-game. If it's the Apoc book, than it may well be an Apoc-game. If its an IA, than I guess it's an IA-game. Or call it by the respective title a Badab-game, or a Kastrel-Novem game or whatever if that is more precise for you.
And the reaction, as with the Ard Boyz mission, would be comparable, because they all violate expectations of a normal, regular 40K game if dropped on an unsuspecting player unannounced.
53821
Post by: AnUnearthlyChilde
Zweischneid wrote:AnUnearthlyChilde wrote:It is because a lot of people come across as if they are telling others this is what they should do.
This game is meant to be fun, take the blows your dealt and roll with them, thats how it should be played.
I'd love to do that.
But when I unload my 6 Elite-slot 60 Terminators as per Planetfall rules, an official GW 'Ard Boyz scenario to replace the same-old-same-old pitched battles and my custom Zweischneid-Tank, all FW-proponents suddenly get all prissy and say it ain't the same.
The rampant hypocrisy of it is what gets me.
If I know I'm turning up to a planetfall game, then I'll take whats dealt to me tbh. tbh, 60 terminators sounds nommy to much on 
29878
Post by: Chowderhead
It's fething Planetstrike! PLANETSTRIKE!!
36276
Post by: Zweischneid
AnUnearthlyChilde wrote:
If I know I'm turning up to a planetfall game, then I'll take whats dealt to me tbh. tbh, 60 terminators sounds nommy to much on
If I know I am turning up to a Forgeword game, than I'll be more than happy to play with and/or against some Forgeworld units.
53821
Post by: AnUnearthlyChilde
Zweischneid wrote:AnUnearthlyChilde wrote:
If I know I'm turning up to a planetfall game, then I'll take whats dealt to me tbh. tbh, 60 terminators sounds nommy to much on
If I know I am turning up to a Forgeword game, than I'll be more than happy to play with and/or against some Forgeworld units.
But forgeworld have units to supplement 40k armies, I don't see it as the same thing as playing planetstrike...
36276
Post by: Zweischneid
AnUnearthlyChilde wrote:
But forgeworld have units to supplement 40k armies, I don't see it as the same thing as playing planetstrike...
Where is the difference? You supplement your army with a few choice FW tanks, I supplement mine with a double-number of Elite slots!
53821
Post by: AnUnearthlyChilde
But Planetstrike is a senario supplement.
FW is a model Supplement.
Two completely different things. Also, You can't use a planet strike FOC in a tourney, but you can use FW models.
18698
Post by: kronk
AnUnearthlyChilde wrote:Zweischneid wrote:AnUnearthlyChilde wrote:
If I know I'm turning up to a planetfall game, then I'll take whats dealt to me tbh. tbh, 60 terminators sounds nommy to much on
If I know I am turning up to a Forgeword game, than I'll be more than happy to play with and/or against some Forgeworld units.
But forgeworld have units to supplement 40k armies, I don't see it as the same thing as playing planetstrike...
Planetstrike suppliments 40k armies in exactly the same way. Your opinion of the game differs from mine.
AnUnearthlyChilde wrote:But Planetstrike is a senario supplement.
FW is a model Supplement.
No. These are both suppliments. Period.
AnUnearthlyChilde wrote: Also, You can't use a planet strike FOC in a tourney, but you can use FW models.
Completely irrelevant.
52878
Post by: jgehunter
It's called bringing more than one list. If the opponent declines the FW rules, then just pull out your normal list. No list tailoring involved. And you ALWAYS have to show your opponent your list.
Also, you misused rules lawyer.
Of course anybody has the right of denying to play against me if I play FW, but if they are not willing to compromise a bit and play my FW, I am definitely not going to be playing them at all.
53821
Post by: AnUnearthlyChilde
kronk wrote:AnUnearthlyChilde wrote:Zweischneid wrote:AnUnearthlyChilde wrote:
If I know I'm turning up to a planetfall game, then I'll take whats dealt to me tbh. tbh, 60 terminators sounds nommy to much on
If I know I am turning up to a Forgeword game, than I'll be more than happy to play with and/or against some Forgeworld units.
But forgeworld have units to supplement 40k armies, I don't see it as the same thing as playing planetstrike...
Planetstrike suppliments 40k armies in exactly the same way. Your opinion of the game differs from mine.
Obviously.
kronk wrote:AnUnearthlyChilde wrote:But Planetstrike is a senario supplement.
FW is a model Supplement.
No. These are both suppliments. Period.
Well spotted, but they have two separate defined purposes. If it was workshops intention to make FW defined and separate from GW, then they would have included a rule which states you must ask opponents permission to use, like they used to do with Special characters.
kronk wrote:AnUnearthlyChilde wrote: Also, You can't use a planet strike FOC in a tourney, but you can use FW models.
Completely irrelevant.
Why is it? Planetstrike is not meant to be an "every game" supplement, FW on the other hand is meant to be there to give your army something different from the norm and still be an "every game" kinda thing.
46636
Post by: English Assassin
Zweischneid wrote:English Assassin wrote:One is set of scenarios drawn up for a specific tournament, the other rules and models into which your fellow players have invested time and money. Comparison between the two is specious to the point of being nonsensical.
So it is the models then? Fine. I made a custom-build, custom-rules Zweischneid Monster-Madness-Tank (c) for my army. I invested loads of time and money in it. It's a bit broken I admit, but arguably not worse than some Space Wolves cheese and having invested time and money in it, there can be no reason to deny me its use? Right. Oh, and I also add my lovingly painted 60 Th/ SS Terminators as per Planetfall rules. It's official GW stuff after all.
Oh I see, all you have are straw man arguments.
I thought as much.
53821
Post by: AnUnearthlyChilde
jgehunter wrote:It's called bringing more than one list. If the opponent declines the FW rules, then just pull out your normal list. No list tailoring involved. And you ALWAYS have to show your opponent your list.
Also, you misused rules lawyer.
Of course anybody has the right of denying to play against me if I play FW, but if they are not willing to compromise a bit and play my FW, I am definitely not going to be playing them at all.
My sentiments exactly, It smacks of "if I don't know that I can kill it, then I won't play it". Seriously what are people afraid of?
18698
Post by: kronk
AnUnearthlyChilde wrote:
Well spotted, but they have two separate defined purposes. If it was workshops intention to make FW defined and separate from GW, then they would have included a rule which states you must ask opponents permission to use, like they used to do with Special characters.
They do. It's at the beginning of every Forge World book.
53821
Post by: AnUnearthlyChilde
English Assassin wrote:Zweischneid wrote:English Assassin wrote:One is set of scenarios drawn up for a specific tournament, the other rules and models into which your fellow players have invested time and money. Comparison between the two is specious to the point of being nonsensical.
So it is the models then? Fine. I made a custom-build, custom-rules Zweischneid Monster-Madness-Tank (c) for my army. I invested loads of time and money in it. It's a bit broken I admit, but arguably not worse than some Space Wolves cheese and having invested time and money in it, there can be no reason to deny me its use? Right. Oh, and I also add my lovingly painted 60 Th/ SS Terminators as per Planetfall rules. It's official GW stuff after all.
Oh I see, all you have are straw man arguments.
I thought as much.
LOL
53740
Post by: ZebioLizard2
But when I unload my 6 Elite-slot 60 Terminators as per Planetfall rules, an official GW 'Ard Boyz scenario to replace the same-old-same-old pitched battles and my custom Zweischneid-Tank, all FW-proponents suddenly get all prissy and say it ain't the same.
PlanetSTRIKE is an entire scenario supplement, where you change both the gameplay rules in general for both the enemy and yourself. If you're going to take 60 terminators, your enemy gets to D6 Firestorm your field for free, along with making it night and your field dangerous terrain. Afterall you suddenly decided you wanted to play planetstrike, he gets his D6 S9 AP2 flame templates all over your field along with his strategem rules! Gonna be some good terminator burning. 
A Forgeworld model requires no special scenario in place, and can be taken as an X FoC choice in a standard army.
53821
Post by: AnUnearthlyChilde
kronk wrote:AnUnearthlyChilde wrote:
Well spotted, but they have two separate defined purposes. If it was workshops intention to make FW defined and separate from GW, then they would have included a rule which states you must ask opponents permission to use, like they used to do with Special characters.
They do. It's at the beginning of every Forge World book.
Not true. I use Malanthropes from the IA Apoc 2nd Ed book, which allows me to take them in a standard 40k. and there is nothing at the beginning of that book which tells me to ask my opponents permission.
36276
Post by: Zweischneid
English Assassin wrote:Zweischneid wrote:English Assassin wrote:One is set of scenarios drawn up for a specific tournament, the other rules and models into which your fellow players have invested time and money. Comparison between the two is specious to the point of being nonsensical.
So it is the models then? Fine. I made a custom-build, custom-rules Zweischneid Monster-Madness-Tank (c) for my army. I invested loads of time and money in it. It's a bit broken I admit, but arguably not worse than some Space Wolves cheese and having invested time and money in it, there can be no reason to deny me its use? Right. Oh, and I also add my lovingly painted 60 Th/ SS Terminators as per Planetfall rules. It's official GW stuff after all.
Oh I see, all you have are straw man arguments.
I thought as much.
They are only straw-arguments for you, because clearly any application of the rules you laid out to anything other than FW is evidently invalid to you (for unexplained reasons).
If anything, it shows that all those seemingly "neutral" reasoning of " FW is GW", " FW isn't quite so overpowered" " FW is offical stuff" are a rather thin veneer (or straw arguments) that just hide a rather ugly bias of "I want to play my FW just because", even if all rational basis for this has been shown to be non-existant.
All I did was apply the rules you made to justify your use of FW-stuff. If the results seem ludicrious to you, it just shows how ludicrious your own arguments are.
53821
Post by: AnUnearthlyChilde
ZebioLizard2 wrote:
But when I unload my 6 Elite-slot 60 Terminators as per Planetfall rules, an official GW 'Ard Boyz scenario to replace the same-old-same-old pitched battles and my custom Zweischneid-Tank, all FW-proponents suddenly get all prissy and say it ain't the same.
PlanetSTRIKE is an entire scenario supplement, where you change both the gameplay rules in general for both the enemy and yourself. If you're going to take 60 terminators, your enemy gets to D6 Firestorm your field for free, along with making it night and your field dangerous terrain. Afterall you suddenly decided you wanted to play planetstrike, he gets his D6 S9 AP2 flame templates all over your field along with his strategem rules!
A Forgeworld model requires no special scenario in place, and can be taken as an X FoC choice in a standard army.
53740
Post by: ZebioLizard2
All I did was apply the rules you made to justify your use of FW-stuff. If the results seem ludicrious to you, it just shows how ludicrious your own arguments are.
Contemptor: Can be used as a FoC slot in normal warhammer games
Planetstrike: An entire supplement based around changing around entire rules for both the attacker and defender along with scenario rules, standard gameplay, and various other changes..
Here's the simple, you only have strawman arguments.
36276
Post by: Zweischneid
ZebioLizard2 wrote:
But when I unload my 6 Elite-slot 60 Terminators as per Planetfall rules, an official GW 'Ard Boyz scenario to replace the same-old-same-old pitched battles and my custom Zweischneid-Tank, all FW-proponents suddenly get all prissy and say it ain't the same.
PlanetSTRIKE is an entire scenario supplement, where you change both the gameplay rules in general for both the enemy and yourself. If you're going to take 60 terminators, your enemy gets to D6 Firestorm your field for free, along with making it night and your field dangerous terrain. Afterall you suddenly decided you wanted to play planetstrike, he gets his D6 S9 AP2 flame templates all over your field along with his strategem rules! Gonna be some good terminator burning.
A Forgeworld model requires no special scenario in place, and can be taken as an X FoC choice in a standard army.
That is true. And yet, in the original outline of FW should be allowed because a) its offical GW, b) it isn't overpowered, c) I have the models for it, that restriction of scenarios wasn't stated.
Introducing it now just proves the point that you keep on making arbitary rules and restrictions so long that the end results sticks with "I get to play FW, screw all other opinions" in a rather arbitrary fashion.
18698
Post by: kronk
AnUnearthlyChilde wrote:kronk wrote:AnUnearthlyChilde wrote:
Well spotted, but they have two separate defined purposes. If it was workshops intention to make FW defined and separate from GW, then they would have included a rule which states you must ask opponents permission to use, like they used to do with Special characters.
They do. It's at the beginning of every Forge World book.
Not true. I use Malanthropes from the IA Apoc 2nd Ed book, which allows me to take them in a standard 40k. and there is nothing at the beginning of that book which tells me to ask my opponents permission.
53821
Post by: AnUnearthlyChilde
It's not in my copy of the book
Also, I shall reiterate my earlier point... Tourney's allow them without question. So why can't you?
36276
Post by: Zweischneid
ZebioLizard2 wrote:
All I did was apply the rules you made to justify your use of FW-stuff. If the results seem ludicrious to you, it just shows how ludicrious your own arguments are.
Contemptor: Can be used as a FoC slot in normal warhammer games
Planetstrike: An entire supplement based around changing around entire rules for both the attacker and defender along with scenario rules, standard gameplay, and various other changes..
Here's the simple, you only have strawman arguments.
I don't see your point? Planetstrike does different things than a FW model? A given. But how does that make one "ok" and the other "not" for unprepared play.
18698
Post by: kronk
AnUnearthlyChilde wrote:It's not in my copy of the book
Explain?
47462
Post by: rigeld2
As the image says, there's a difference between "happy to play a game" (normal GW 40k rules) and "happy to play a game using Forge World models" (not normal GW 40k rules)
53821
Post by: AnUnearthlyChilde
kronk wrote:AnUnearthlyChilde wrote:It's not in my copy of the book
Explain?
I cannot find that snapshot you posted within any page of the copy of IA Apoc 2nd ed that I own.
18698
Post by: kronk
AnUnearthlyChilde wrote:kronk wrote:AnUnearthlyChilde wrote:It's not in my copy of the book
Explain?
I cannot find that snapshot you posted within any page of the copy of IA Apoc 2nd ed that I own.
Are you honestly saying that you don't see the following sentence at the beginning of your IA Apoc Second Edition book?
"As with all our models these should be considered 'official', but owing to the fact they may be unknown to your opponent, it's best to make sure they are happy to play a game using Forge World models before you start. "
53740
Post by: ZebioLizard2
Zweischneid wrote:ZebioLizard2 wrote:
All I did was apply the rules you made to justify your use of FW-stuff. If the results seem ludicrious to you, it just shows how ludicrious your own arguments are.
Contemptor: Can be used as a FoC slot in normal warhammer games
Planetstrike: An entire supplement based around changing around entire rules for both the attacker and defender along with scenario rules, standard gameplay, and various other changes..
Here's the simple, you only have strawman arguments.
I don't see your point? Planetstrike does different things than a FW model? A given. But how does that make one "ok" and the other "not" for unprepared play.
Because planetstrike is an entirely different supplement that requires an entire setup change to both the standard gameplay, FoC changes, both to the enemy and yourself.
Because it changes your ENEMY instead of just adding on something to yourself. Forgeworld is one model (or multiple) that is apart of the standard FoC list. Planetstrike changes not just for yourself, but EVERYTHING for your enemy in various ways.
44749
Post by: Skriker
English Assassin wrote:Nothing obliges you to buy Forge World's models or rules if you don't like them. A reasonable and mature human being, however, doesn't arrogate to themselves the right to allow their preferences to dictate how other people play the game. Wargames require a measure of co-operation and mutual respect between the players, something you're simply refusing to extend to your opponents.
I love how one person went as far as calling "good manners" that they reject their opponents FW models/lists unless they have the actual book and if they just don't feel like playing against them for whatever reason, and that the opponent is just supposed to shut up and accept *their* decision as if they have no say in the game at all. Good manners would be saying something to the effect of "I am not familiar with those FW models. Is it OK if we just use official codex forces instead? If not I don't mind you looking for a different player than me." In that instance they are voicing their disinterest in the forge world models, but still being a reasonable and mature human being as you say too. Unfortunately many people in general are not reasonable and mature human beings, and those people can equally be found in the gaming community too. I just love how it is apparently obnoxious for people to even think of bringing FW models to the table for some people, but it is OK for them to treat that other player like crap for doing so. Yeah who really is the obnoxious one??
Skriker
53821
Post by: AnUnearthlyChilde
kronk wrote:AnUnearthlyChilde wrote:kronk wrote:AnUnearthlyChilde wrote:It's not in my copy of the book
Explain?
I cannot find that snapshot you posted within any page of the copy of IA Apoc 2nd ed that I own.
Are you honestly saying that you don't see the following sentence at the beginning of your IA Apoc Second Edition book?
"As with all our models these should be considered 'official', but owing to the fact they may be unknown to your opponent, it's best to make sure they are happy to play a game using Forge World models before you start. "
Yes I am honestly saying that. I have been through my copy of the book several times whilst replying to this thread. That does not exist within my copy. tbh this wouldn't be the first time GW/ FW have printed differing versions.
29878
Post by: Chowderhead
AnUnearthlyChilde wrote:kronk wrote:AnUnearthlyChilde wrote:It's not in my copy of the book
Explain?
I cannot find that snapshot you posted within any page of the copy of IA Apoc 2nd ed that I own.
Then you do not own IAA2. It's as simple as that.
36276
Post by: Zweischneid
ZebioLizard2 wrote:
Because planetstrike is an entirely different supplement that requires an entire setup change to both the standard gameplay, FoC changes, both to the enemy and yourself.
Because it changes your ENEMY instead of just adding on something to yourself. Forgeworld is one model (or multiple) that is apart of the standard FoC list. Planetstrike changes not just for yourself, but EVERYTHING for your enemy in various ways.
Just because introducing FW at a different stage, when you write the list, rather than during the actual game, does not mean it has no repercussions on the gameplay, the "enemy" and how he needs to play his game, etc.. .
And still, the criteria seems a slippery slope. Introducing stuff that only changes things "a little" can be done without prior consent. Stuff that changes "a lot" cannot be done without prior consent? Seems vague. What is still "a little"? A contemptor? Perhaps. A Caestus? Unlikely. Three Achilles. Surely that defines a game through and through? Or not?
53821
Post by: AnUnearthlyChilde
Chowderhead wrote:AnUnearthlyChilde wrote:kronk wrote:AnUnearthlyChilde wrote:It's not in my copy of the book
Explain?
I cannot find that snapshot you posted within any page of the copy of IA Apoc 2nd ed that I own.
Then you do not own IAA2. It's as simple as that.
Imperial Armour Apocalypes, 2nd Edition is sat in my hands. How do you quantify such an absurd statement? Automatically Appended Next Post: Zweischneid wrote:ZebioLizard2 wrote:
Because planetstrike is an entirely different supplement that requires an entire setup change to both the standard gameplay, FoC changes, both to the enemy and yourself.
Because it changes your ENEMY instead of just adding on something to yourself. Forgeworld is one model (or multiple) that is apart of the standard FoC list. Planetstrike changes not just for yourself, but EVERYTHING for your enemy in various ways.
Just because introducing FW at a different stage, when you write the list, rather than during the actual game, does not mean it has no repercussions on the gameplay, the "enemy" and how he needs to play his game, etc.. .
And still, the criteria seems a slippery slope. Introducing stuff that only changes things "a little" can be done without prior consent. Stuff that changes "a lot" cannot be done without prior consent? Seems vague. What is still "a little"? A contemptor? Perhaps. A Caestus? Unlikely. Three Achilles. Surely that defines a game through and through? Or not?
I see playing a friend who uses FW no different than playing someone at a tourney who you have never faced before. Its a challenge, and the spirit of the game. again, Lord Wellington didn't turn up to Waterloo, ask Napoleon what was in his army, and then when he didn't like the answer refuse to play him...
18698
Post by: kronk
AUC, please check your page numbers starting from the cover page and moving forwards. It sounds like you have a misprint and should contact Forge World about your missing pages.
53740
Post by: ZebioLizard2
Zweischneid wrote:ZebioLizard2 wrote:
Because planetstrike is an entirely different supplement that requires an entire setup change to both the standard gameplay, FoC changes, both to the enemy and yourself.
Because it changes your ENEMY instead of just adding on something to yourself. Forgeworld is one model (or multiple) that is apart of the standard FoC list. Planetstrike changes not just for yourself, but EVERYTHING for your enemy in various ways.
Just because introducing FW at a different stage, when you write the list, rather than during the actual game, does not mean it has no repercussions on the gameplay, the "enemy" and how he needs to play his game, etc.. .
And still, the criteria seems a slippery slope. Introducing stuff that only changes things "a little" can be done without prior consent. Stuff that changes "a lot" cannot be done without prior consent? Seems vague. What is still "a little"? A contemptor? Perhaps. A Caestus? Unlikely. Three Achilles. Surely that defines a game through and through? Or not?
I've never faced a manticore before, or an IG list in general, shall I deny it because It has a repercussion on the gameplay and how I need to play the game because I've never faced it before?
Three Achilles is so  expensive that you'd better make those models count, 975 points dedicated to a moderately killy land raider? And I thought NidZilla lists were small.
53821
Post by: AnUnearthlyChilde
kronk wrote:AUC, please check your page numbers starting from the cover page and moving forwards. It sounds like you have a misprint and should contact Forge World about your missing pages.
I'll be taking it with me to Nottingham next week
18698
Post by: kronk
AnUnearthlyChilde wrote:kronk wrote:AUC, please check your page numbers starting from the cover page and moving forwards. It sounds like you have a misprint and should contact Forge World about your missing pages.
I'll be taking it with me to Nottingham next week
36276
Post by: Zweischneid
AnUnearthlyChilde wrote:
I see playing a friend who uses FW no different than playing someone at a tourney who you have never faced before. Its a challenge, and the spirit of the game. again, Lord Wellington didn't turn up to Waterloo, ask Napoleon what was in his army, and then when he didn't like the answer refuse to play him...
Same would apply to a "short-notice" Planetstrike game. Or me fielding Zweischneid's Custom Tank. Or playing last year's Ard Boyz scenario instead of the basic missions. By that logic, I fail to see the difference as previously stated many, many times!
29878
Post by: Chowderhead
AnUnearthlyChilde wrote:Chowderhead wrote:AnUnearthlyChilde wrote:kronk wrote:AnUnearthlyChilde wrote:It's not in my copy of the book
Explain?
I cannot find that snapshot you posted within any page of the copy of IA Apoc 2nd ed that I own.
Then you do not own IAA2. It's as simple as that.
Imperial Armour Apocalypes, 2nd Edition is sat in my hands. How do you quantify such an absurd statement?
Because I hold the same book. Bottom of Page 3. The rule is right there.
Maybe you should get your eyes checked. They seem to deceive you...
53821
Post by: AnUnearthlyChilde
ZebioLizard2 wrote:Zweischneid wrote:ZebioLizard2 wrote:
Because planetstrike is an entirely different supplement that requires an entire setup change to both the standard gameplay, FoC changes, both to the enemy and yourself.
Because it changes your ENEMY instead of just adding on something to yourself. Forgeworld is one model (or multiple) that is apart of the standard FoC list. Planetstrike changes not just for yourself, but EVERYTHING for your enemy in various ways.
Just because introducing FW at a different stage, when you write the list, rather than during the actual game, does not mean it has no repercussions on the gameplay, the "enemy" and how he needs to play his game, etc.. .
And still, the criteria seems a slippery slope. Introducing stuff that only changes things "a little" can be done without prior consent. Stuff that changes "a lot" cannot be done without prior consent? Seems vague. What is still "a little"? A contemptor? Perhaps. A Caestus? Unlikely. Three Achilles. Surely that defines a game through and through? Or not?
I've never faced a manticore before, or an IG list in general, shall I deny it because It has a repercussion on the gameplay and how I need to play the game because I've never faced it before?
Three Achilles is so expensive that you'd better make those models count, 975 points dedicated to a moderately killy land raider? And I thought NidZilla lists were small.
you sir, are a man after my own heart!
18698
Post by: kronk
Chowderhead wrote:Because I hold the same book. Bottom of Page 3. The rule is right there.
It sounds like he's missing pages.
My IA8 was missing pages so I took it back.
53821
Post by: AnUnearthlyChilde
Chowderhead wrote:AnUnearthlyChilde wrote:Chowderhead wrote:AnUnearthlyChilde wrote:kronk wrote:AnUnearthlyChilde wrote:It's not in my copy of the book
Explain?
I cannot find that snapshot you posted within any page of the copy of IA Apoc 2nd ed that I own.
Then you do not own IAA2. It's as simple as that.
Imperial Armour Apocalypes, 2nd Edition is sat in my hands. How do you quantify such an absurd statement?
Because I hold the same book. Bottom of Page 3. The rule is right there.
Maybe you should get your eyes checked. They seem to deceive you...
Or maybe the copy I own is one of a batch including a missing page. Ever thought about that? Jeeeeez just because you think you know everything doesn't make it true. BOOK IS IN MY LAP. fact. my copy does not contain that part. fact.
49408
Post by: McNinja
AnUnearthlyChilde wrote:Chowderhead wrote:AnUnearthlyChilde wrote:kronk wrote:AnUnearthlyChilde wrote:It's not in my copy of the book
Explain?
I cannot find that snapshot you posted within any page of the copy of IA Apoc 2nd ed that I own.
Then you do not own IAA2. It's as simple as that.
Imperial Armour Apocalypes, 2nd Edition is sat in my hands. How do you quantify such an absurd statement?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Zweischneid wrote:ZebioLizard2 wrote:
Because planetstrike is an entirely different supplement that requires an entire setup change to both the standard gameplay, FoC changes, both to the enemy and yourself.
Because it changes your ENEMY instead of just adding on something to yourself. Forgeworld is one model (or multiple) that is apart of the standard FoC list. Planetstrike changes not just for yourself, but EVERYTHING for your enemy in various ways.
Just because introducing FW at a different stage, when you write the list, rather than during the actual game, does not mean it has no repercussions on the gameplay, the "enemy" and how he needs to play his game, etc.. .
And still, the criteria seems a slippery slope. Introducing stuff that only changes things "a little" can be done without prior consent. Stuff that changes "a lot" cannot be done without prior consent? Seems vague. What is still "a little"? A contemptor? Perhaps. A Caestus? Unlikely. Three Achilles. Surely that defines a game through and through? Or not?
I see playing a friend who uses FW no different than playing someone at a tourney who you have never faced before. Its a challenge, and the spirit of the game. again, Lord Wellington didn't turn up to Waterloo, ask Napoleon what was in his army, and then when he didn't like the answer refuse to play him...
besides that, it's all about adapting. It'd be the same thing if you'd never played against a Land Raider or a Monolith or even Kaldor Draigo.
Oh, and not Apoc 2nd ed. Apoc 2. There's apoc, apoc reload, apoc 2, and apoc 2nd ed.
36276
Post by: Zweischneid
ZebioLizard2 wrote:
I've never faced a manticore before, or an IG list in general, shall I deny it because It has a repercussion on the gameplay and how I need to play the game because I've never faced it before?
Three Achilles is so expensive that you'd better make those models count, 975 points dedicated to a moderately killy land raider? And I thought NidZilla lists were small.
Than I fail to see how you could object to my (quite pricy) 60 TH/ SS Terminators. Or my Zweischneid's Custom Tank. Or a short-notice 'Ard Boyz scenario from GW's last year's tournament. Unafraid as you are of the unknown, I am puzzled why you keep making objections!
53821
Post by: AnUnearthlyChilde
kronk wrote:Chowderhead wrote:Because I hold the same book. Bottom of Page 3. The rule is right there.
It sounds like he's missing pages.
My IA8 was missing pages so I took it back.
As I said, it isnt the first time it's happened.
Automatically Appended Next Post: McNinja wrote:Oh, and not Apoc 2nd ed. Apoc 2. There's apoc, apoc reload, apoc 2, and apoc 2nd ed.
Yeah, the one i am referring to is Imperial Armour Apocalypse: 2nd Edition.
53740
Post by: ZebioLizard2
Zweischneid wrote:ZebioLizard2 wrote:
I've never faced a manticore before, or an IG list in general, shall I deny it because It has a repercussion on the gameplay and how I need to play the game because I've never faced it before?
Three Achilles is so expensive that you'd better make those models count, 975 points dedicated to a moderately killy land raider? And I thought NidZilla lists were small.
Than I fail to see how you could object to my (quite pricy) 60 TH/ SS Terminators. Or my Zweischneid's Custom Tank. Or a short-notice 'Ard Boyz scenario from GW's last year's tournament. Unafraid as you are of the unknown, I am puzzled why you keep making objections!
Because each of those scenario's (with the exception of one) are scenario's, if you want to play me with those, go for it! But if you say you are using planetstrike rules, you'd better be bringing that book because I'd want some of those stratagems out of it, maybe even bring in some bastions and some walls.
Also, play dark angels, than you can bring as many terminators as you want. Or even gray knights
53821
Post by: AnUnearthlyChilde
Zweischneid wrote:AnUnearthlyChilde wrote:
I see playing a friend who uses FW no different than playing someone at a tourney who you have never faced before. Its a challenge, and the spirit of the game. again, Lord Wellington didn't turn up to Waterloo, ask Napoleon what was in his army, and then when he didn't like the answer refuse to play him...
Same would apply to a "short-notice" Planetstrike game. Or me fielding Zweischneid's Custom Tank. Or playing last year's Ard Boyz scenario instead of the basic missions. By that logic, I fail to see the difference as previously stated many, many times!
Within the terms of GW/ FW sanctioned rules, I have no problem playing any list. If I was to play a planetstrike game that would be pre arranged as I'd need to write a new list due to it using a different FOC. If someone turns up with FW Models I have no problem with that either, because I make sure I know my enemy and read up on the rules of most things going. and should it arise I'm playing something I don't know. I don't care... I'll still play it. It's a game, its meant to be fun, I like to be challenged. And as it is meant to be a strategy game which pushes you to adapt to new and different strategies, I honestly have no problem.
36276
Post by: Zweischneid
ZebioLizard2 wrote:But if you say you are using planetstrike rules, you'd better be bringing that book because I'd want some of those stratagems out of it, maybe even bring in some bastions and some walls.
Than, inversely, I assume that if you play FW rules, you are offering me with the full selection of FW models so I can likewise choose a FW-complement to the ones you included in your list?
Now that will be expensive, not to mention logicially challenging for pick-up games I'd imagine.
By that effort however, I would certainly also agree to a FW game. Automatically Appended Next Post: AnUnearthlyChilde wrote:
Within the terms of GW/FW sanctioned rules, I have no problem playing any list.
Within the terms of GW (but not FW) sanctioned rules, I have no problems playing any list.
53821
Post by: AnUnearthlyChilde
Zweischneid wrote:ZebioLizard2 wrote:But if you say you are using planetstrike rules, you'd better be bringing that book because I'd want some of those stratagems out of it, maybe even bring in some bastions and some walls.
Than, inversely, I assume that if you play FW rules, you are offering me with the full selection of FW models so I can likewise choose a FW-complement to the ones you included in your list?
Now that will be expensive, not to mention logicially challenging for pick-up games I'd imagine.
By that effort however, I would certainly also agree to a FW game.
Thats being exceptionally picky with the rules.
Planetstrike is a scenario based expansion that is meant for two players to agree upon, or as part of a campaign.
Forge World, is a model supplement where anyone one who owns the book and models can use them.
BIG DIFFERENCE.
52878
Post by: jgehunter
Zweischneid wrote:ZebioLizard2 wrote:But if you say you are using planetstrike rules, you'd better be bringing that book because I'd want some of those stratagems out of it, maybe even bring in some bastions and some walls.
Than, inversely, I assume that if you play FW rules, you are offering me with the full selection of FW models so I can likewise choose a FW-complement to the ones you included in your list?
Now that will be expensive, not to mention logicially challenging for pick-up games I'd imagine.
By that effort however, I would certainly also agree to a FW game.
Than, inversely, I assume that if you play GK against me, you are offering me with the full selection of GK models so I can likewise choose a GK-complement to the ones you included in your list?
Now that will be expensive, not to mention logicially challenging for pick-up games I'd imagine.
By that effort however, I would certainly also agree to a game against GK's
36276
Post by: Zweischneid
AnUnearthlyChilde wrote:
Thats being exceptionally picky with the rules.
Planetstrike is a scenario based expansion that is meant for two players to agree upon, or as part of a campaign.
Forge World, is a model supplement where anyone one who owns the book and models can use them.
BIG DIFFERENCE.
Wrong. Forge World is a model supplement that is meant for two players to agree upon, or as part of a campaign.
The second half-sentence is identical with Planetstrike
18698
Post by: kronk
AnUnearthlyChilde wrote:
Thats being exceptionally picky with the rules.
Planetstrike is a scenario based expansion that is meant for two players to agree upon, or as part of a campaign.
Forge World, is a model supplement where anyone one who owns the book and models can use them.
BIG DIFFERENCE.
As has already been brought up, no it isn't. It's only different to you.
Every Forge World book as the following phrase or something similar in the front of it for a reason.
"As with all our models these should be considered 'official', but owing to the fact they may be unknown to your opponent, it's best to make sure they are happy to play a game using Forge World models before you start. "
I'll now bow out AGAIN. You folks can keep arguing with each other.
53821
Post by: AnUnearthlyChilde
AnUnearthlyChilde wrote:
Within the terms of GW/FW sanctioned rules, I have no problem playing any list.
Within the terms of GW (but not FW) sanctioned rules, I have no problems playing any list.
As FW is owned by GW I have absoloutely no problem with the rules for any of it.
also, out of curiosity, in a tourney what would you do if your opponent brought a load of FW stuff? Not play him? If so, that would lose you sportsmanship points
18698
Post by: kronk
AnUnearthlyChilde wrote:
also, out of curiosity, in a tourney what would you do if your opponent brought a load of FW stuff? Not play him? If so, that would lose you sportsmanship points
Silly argument, AUC. That's up to the TO to post the rules before the tournament.
Obviously, if a tournament is going to allow FW, everyone will know about it ahead of time. Then, people can chose to play or not to play.
53821
Post by: AnUnearthlyChilde
Kronk, from experience, your views are in a minority of players I have faced and talked to. I don't see why FW is an issue over whether you play someone or not.
There is the view "It's only different to you" from my point of view as well, that is not to say I am saying your wrong either.
36276
Post by: Zweischneid
AnUnearthlyChilde wrote:
As FW is owned by GW I have absoloutely no problem with the rules for any of it.
also, out of curiosity, in a tourney what would you do if your opponent brought a load of FW stuff? Not play him? If so, that would lose you sportsmanship points
FW is owned by GW PLC, not by the GW miniature company. And it couldn't be "owned" by a different company, if it weren't a different company to begin with. If I order a Pepsi, I would object to be served some Tropicana, though they are both managed by the same company.
And as said, the TO would adverstise the rules beforehand and I would agree to them by agreeing/inscribing in the tournament. Now, if a TO did not make an explicit note saying FW was allowed, but than people would play FW stuff without a sanction by the TO, I would likely cry foul and the TO, I imagine, would not have a good reputation for long. For a tournament, like any pick-up game, use of FW (or Planetstrike, or home-made stuff, or whatever that falls outside the normal GW game) requires an early heads-up!
53821
Post by: AnUnearthlyChilde
Zweischneid wrote:
FW is owned by GW PLC, not by the GW miniature company. And it couldn't be "owned" by a different company, if it weren't a different company to begin with. If I order a Pepsi, I would object to be served some Tropicana, though they are both managed by the same company.
There is no difference between the two. but that is splitting hairs. Either way. I see no difference between the two. I don't care what is brought to the table so long as we are both playing off of the same FOC. and to the same mission.
47462
Post by: rigeld2
AnUnearthlyChilde wrote:I don't see why FW is an issue over whether you play someone or not.
I don't often have a problem playing someone that uses a FW model.
I refuse if:
a) they don't have the book
b) they have the book, but are proxying the model (and have been for a significant time) or it's a poor scratchbuild
c) I don't feel like bringing in FW rules.
Yes, C is very subjective. Since there is a difference between a game of 40k and a game of 40k that includes FW rules/models I'm completely in my "rights" to refuse to play the latter.
18698
Post by: kronk
AnUnearthlyChilde wrote: I don't see why FW is an issue over whether you play someone or not.
That's where your problem starts. Some people do have an issue with it, regardless of whether or not you understand them. FW is optional. It says so at the beginning of every FW book. Period.
As I have said at the beginning of this thread and every other thread that has popped up, I am 100% for Forge World in normal games, and play this way in my gaming group. We love the models, the rules, and the books!
But it would be silly of me to expect everyone to want to play the way my group does. To each their own, and so on and so forth.
36276
Post by: Zweischneid
AnUnearthlyChilde wrote:Zweischneid wrote:
FW is owned by GW PLC, not by the GW miniature company. And it couldn't be "owned" by a different company, if it weren't a different company to begin with. If I order a Pepsi, I would object to be served some Tropicana, though they are both managed by the same company.
There is no difference between the two. but that is splitting hairs. Either way. I see no difference between the two. I don't care what is brought to the table so long as we are both playing off of the same FOC. and to the same mission.
Well, I don't care what is brought to the table, what FoC or mission/scenario is used, as long as the opponent's army comes completely from the same Codex.
53821
Post by: AnUnearthlyChilde
kronk wrote:AnUnearthlyChilde wrote: I don't see why FW is an issue over whether you play someone or not.
That's where your problem starts. Some people do have an issue with it, regardless of whether or not you understand them. FW is optional. It says so at the beginning of every FW book. Period.
As I have said at the beginning of this thread and every other thread that has popped up, I am 100% for Forge World in normal games, and play this way in my gaming group. We love the models, the rules, and the books!
But it would be silly of me to expect everyone to want to play the way my group does. To each their own, and so on and so forth.
I guess I'll agree with you on that, but as I don't mind what people bring to the table, i'd hope (not force, but hope) that people wouldn't want to stifle my gaming experiences as well.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Zweischneid wrote:AnUnearthlyChilde wrote:Zweischneid wrote:
FW is owned by GW PLC, not by the GW miniature company. And it couldn't be "owned" by a different company, if it weren't a different company to begin with. If I order a Pepsi, I would object to be served some Tropicana, though they are both managed by the same company.
There is no difference between the two. but that is splitting hairs. Either way. I see no difference between the two. I don't care what is brought to the table so long as we are both playing off of the same FOC. and to the same mission.
Well, I don't care what is brought to the table, what FoC or mission/scenario is used, as long as the opponent's army comes completely from the same Codex.
sorry but thats like saying I love any ice cream so long as its Vanilla :/
18698
Post by: kronk
AnUnearthlyChilde wrote:
I guess I'll agree with you on that, but as I don't mind what people bring to the table, i'd hope (not force, but hope) that people wouldn't want to stifle my gaming experiences as well.
Just remember that not everyone wants the same thing from a game of 40k.
Some people want all painted and based armies. Some people love FW. Some people hate FW. Some people hate Grey Knights. Some people love Horde Ork armies.
I hope (for you) that the people you run into at your gaming store also enjoy FW and that you always get to use your stuff, man.
36276
Post by: Zweischneid
AnUnearthlyChilde wrote:
sorry but thats like saying I love any ice cream so long as its Vanilla :/
What is wrong with Vanilla?
Besides, I am sure some creative scenarios (just official GW Planetstrike, 'Ard Boyz, etc.. if you insist on the "official" tag) multiplied by the available options within the regular GW armies creates more diversity than FW could produce in a billion years. If you have truly played all possible combinations of scenariors with all possible army builds in all possible army-match-ups at all conceivable point values, we can perhaps reconsider if there is a need to broaden the game beyond "Vanilla".
52878
Post by: jgehunter
I really don't see the point in keeping arguing in this thread, I think we can all agree to that anybody is free to HATE/LOVE FW and anybody can refuse to play any FW, just as anybody could refuse to play a particular codex.
53821
Post by: AnUnearthlyChilde
kronk wrote:AnUnearthlyChilde wrote:
I guess I'll agree with you on that, but as I don't mind what people bring to the table, i'd hope (not force, but hope) that people wouldn't want to stifle my gaming experiences as well.
Just remember that not everyone wants the same thing from a game of 40k.
Some people want all painted and based armies. Some people love FW. Some people hate FW. Some people hate Grey Knights. Some people love Horde Ork armies.
I hope (for you) that the people you run into at your gaming store also enjoy FW and that you always get to use your stuff, man.
No one has ever had a problem with my games/lists, and have always ended with a smile and a handshake. As I say I've yet to meet someone who's objected face to face.
We're a very open gaming group tbh. Automatically Appended Next Post: Zweischneid wrote:AnUnearthlyChilde wrote:
sorry but thats like saying I love any ice cream so long as its Vanilla :/
What is wrong with Vanilla?
Besides, I am sure some creative scenarios (just official GW Planetstrike, 'Ard Boyz, etc.. if you insist on the "official" tag) multiplied by the available options within the regular GW armies creates more diversity than FW could produce in a billion years. If you have truly played all possible combinations of scenariors with all possible army builds in all possible army-match-ups at all conceivable point values, we can perhaps reconsider if there is a need to broaden the game beyond "Vanilla".
Nothing is wrong with Vanilla, my point is when there are other options to be tried, why stick to just one flavour?
52878
Post by: jgehunter
Zweischneid wrote:AnUnearthlyChilde wrote:
sorry but thats like saying I love any ice cream so long as its Vanilla :/
What is wrong with Vanilla?
Besides, I am sure some creative scenarios (just official GW Planetstrike, 'Ard Boyz, etc.. if you insist on the "official" tag) multiplied by the available options within the regular GW armies creates more diversity than FW could produce in a billion years. If you have truly played all possible combinations of scenariors with all possible army builds in all possible army-match-ups at all conceivable point values, we can perhaps reconsider if there is a need to broaden the game beyond "Vanilla".
Nothing is wrong with it, but you know... The more the merrier!!
In my experience people don't go to forge world because they desperately want to win but because they want to add a bit of flavor to their armies.
36276
Post by: Zweischneid
AnUnearthlyChilde wrote:
Nothing is wrong with Vanilla, my point is when there are other options to be tried, why stick to just one flavour?
Well, but you applied rather stringent requirements of sticking with the "core" FoC and the "core" publisher that is GW/ FW and the "core" missions. Did you not?
The point, as might be apparent, is that this strikes me as a rather hypocritical and ultimatly biased approach to "diversity" if you open up only one aspect of the Game, unit selections, and only to one "non- GW" producer, namely FW.
If diversity is your aim, why this frugality? If frugality is your aim, why open up to FW (and only FW) in (only) unit selection? It doesn't make sense no matter how you put it.
jgehunter wrote:
Nothing is wrong with it, but you know... The more the merrier!!
.
Everyone keeps saying that. And then I bring forth my Zweischneid's custom tanks deployed in Spearhead-formations to play last year's 'Ard Boyz scenario and, suddenly, surprise, people say "those things aren't part of 'regular' 40K".
Odd, isn't it?
And that is besides the fact that there are literally hundreds of threads in this very forum that demand less Space Marine books, less Special Characters, less Imperial bias in the GW-product line, etc.. . So "the more the merrier" doesn't appear to be something universally shared.
53821
Post by: AnUnearthlyChilde
The name of the thread is "Forgeworld... Why the hate?"
Forgeworld allows codex armies supplemental units to take one of the FOC slots available within those lists. Forgeworld is the metaphorical seasoning to GW's stew. Add to taste. My armies have a splash of seasoning to make them different to the same old bland lists I see on a regular basis.
47462
Post by: rigeld2
jgehunter wrote:just as anybody could refuse to play a particular codex.
And that's the attitude that I disagree with.
Using FW models/rules requires more permission than normal GW models/rules. There is a difference.
I am always willing to play a game of 40k.
I am not always willing to play a game of 40k using FW models/rules.
53821
Post by: AnUnearthlyChilde
jgehunter wrote:
Nothing is wrong with it, but you know... The more the merrier!!
.
Everyone keeps saying that. And then I bring forth my Zweischneid's custom tanks deployed in Spearhead-formations to play last year's 'Ard Boyz scenario and, suddenly, surprise, people say "those things aren't part of 'regular' 40K".
Odd, isn't it?
And that is besides the fact that there are literally hundreds of threads in this very forum that demand less Space Marine books, less Special Characters, less Imperial bias in the GW-product line, etc.. . So "the more the merrier" doesn't appear to be something universally shared.
There is a difference between fan-made rules and official sanctioned rules.
36276
Post by: Zweischneid
AnUnearthlyChilde wrote:The name of the thread is "Forgeworld... Why the hate?"
Forgeworld allows codex armies supplemental units to take one of the FOC slots available within those lists. Forgeworld is the metaphorical seasoning to GW's stew. Add to taste. My armies have a splash of seasoning to make them different to the same old bland lists I see on a regular basis.
Yes. But to answer the question posed in the thread, you have to understand where the "hate" comes from.
1. FW offers optional (!) often experimental units/rules that demand explicit player's consent.
2. FW proponents frequently try to "rule lawyer" their FW-selection into the game by rather petty-minded "it's legal" / "it's really also " GW" / "it's not overpowered I sweeeeaaar!!" arguments.
3. FW proponents frequently deride those that opt against the inclusion of FW as "lesser players", often describing them (as demonstrated in this very thread) as small-minded / ignorant / childishly fearful of loosing / and worse.
Thus, as a consequence of the commony exhibited behaviour of FW-proponents, FW has a bad reputation.
To reverse this image and reduce the "hate", FW-proponents would need to take pointers from stuff like Planetstrike and forward their FW-toys without alot (alot, alot, alot) more humility.
But since they largely refuse to do so, the "hate" can only grow.
36809
Post by: loota boy
Childe, what you have been doing throughout this whole thread is the best way to make me not play with FW. If I chose to not play with forgeworld, that's my choice, and people berating me and telling me why i'm a horrible person for not letting them use their forgeworld models is not going to make me want to play forgeworld with them. To me, that sounds like your just brow-beating me into letting you use them, and i refuse to be bullied into that.
I said it before, and i'll say it again. If the person asked me before hand, and asked nicely, and i'm up for it, and they have the rules with them, and they aren't OTT ridiculous, then sure. I'll play. It'll probably be fun. The models and rules will be cool, and i'll have a good time. But if i don't feel like playing forgeworld, it doesn't make me any worse of a person to say no. It is entirely in my right to say no. It's the same as if someone had a kited out mechdar army, focused on evasion and annoyance, but i really didn't feel like playing against that, because it just wasn't my cup of tea right then. Same thing with forgeworld.
Sometimes, it just might not be my cup of tea at the time. And anyone who starts on me for saying no can stuff it and play someone else, because i'm going to play forgeworld if i want to play forgeworld, and you yelling at me isn't going to make me want to. In fact, it will probably make me develop a bias against forgeworld, and i'll want to play against it a whole lot less.
36276
Post by: Zweischneid
AnUnearthlyChilde wrote:
There is a difference between fan-made rules and official sanctioned rules.
There is also a difference between GW rules and FW rules.
52878
Post by: jgehunter
Zweischneid wrote:
jgehunter wrote:
Nothing is wrong with it, but you know... The more the merrier!!
.
1 Everyone keeps saying that. And then I bring forth my Zweischneid's custom tanks deployed in Spearhead-formations to play last year's 'Ard Boyz scenario and, suddenly, surprise, people say "those things aren't part of 'regular' 40K".
Odd, isn't it?
2 And that is besides the fact that there are literally hundreds of threads in this very forum that demand less Space Marine books, less Special Characters, less Imperial bias in the GW-product line, etc.. . So "the more the merrier" doesn't appear to be something universally shared.
I'll answer those 2 statements (kind of):
1) 'Ard Boyz is a veeeery different scenario, I don't think that here we are discussing wether you should use FW in a tournment, that is up to the TO, but in a tournament there are things like money involved that make it a very peculiar situation, and very often make people disregard the Most Important Rule as set by the BRB (that is what I don't play tournaments, other than narratives)
2) Strawman, I'm not going to bother answering. But just to state it I'm all for the things you mentioned, I think it would be far more boring to have all the Space Marine players playing out of 1 book, with DA BA SW BT, at least there is some variety.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
rigeld2 wrote:jgehunter wrote:just as anybody could refuse to play a particular codex.
And that's the attitude that I disagree with.
Using FW models/rules requires more permission than normal GW models/rules. There is a difference.
I am always willing to play a game of 40k.
I am not always willing to play a game of 40k using FW models/rules.
How does it require more permission?
You can decide not to play any of them in the same way, and you can decide not to play them partially in the same way, and if I decided to do it you could do nothing in either case. Well I guess you could make me play on gunpoint, but it wouldn't be much fun.
53740
Post by: ZebioLizard2
Zweischneid wrote:AnUnearthlyChilde wrote:The name of the thread is "Forgeworld... Why the hate?"
Forgeworld allows codex armies supplemental units to take one of the FOC slots available within those lists. Forgeworld is the metaphorical seasoning to GW's stew. Add to taste. My armies have a splash of seasoning to make them different to the same old bland lists I see on a regular basis.
Yes. But to answer the question posed in the thread, you have to understand where the "hate" comes from.
1. FW offers optional (!) often experimental units/rules that demand explicit player's consent.
2. FW proponents frequently try to "rule lawyer" their FW-selection into the game by rather petty-minded "it's legal" / "it's really also " GW" / "it's not overpowered I sweeeeaaar!!" arguments.
3. FW proponents frequently deride those that opt against the inclusion of FW as "lesser players", often describing them (as demonstrated in this very thread) as small-minded / ignorant / childishly fearful of loosing / and worse.
Thus, as a consequence of the commony exhibited behaviour of FW-proponents, FW has a bad reputation.
To reverse this image and reduce the "hate", FW-proponents would need to take pointers from stuff like Planetstrike and forward their FW-toys without alot (alot, alot, alot) more humility.
But since they largely refuse to do so, the "hate" can only grow.
Because you will never back down. We override many of your points, you bring in new one's to try and deride forgeworld. We try and do it peacefully, you get angry in return and than make forgeworld look like the bad guys.
Maybe one will show a bit of modesty when you're not trying to burn all the strawmen under their faces. Afterall you are the one deriding them as snobbish elitists, as rule-lawyers when you're doing the EXACT same thing by using it to prevent them from bringing forgeworld in
47462
Post by: rigeld2
jgehunter wrote:rigeld2 wrote:jgehunter wrote:just as anybody could refuse to play a particular codex.
And that's the attitude that I disagree with.
Using FW models/rules requires more permission than normal GW models/rules. There is a difference.
I am always willing to play a game of 40k.
I am not always willing to play a game of 40k using FW models/rules.
How does it require more permission?
Do you ask people to play a game of 40k?
or
Do you ask people to play a game of 40k with FW rules/models?
The latter is what you should be doing, based on what was posted from IA2:2E, and that's requiring more permission than the former.
10345
Post by: LunaHound
rigeld2 wrote:jgehunter wrote:just as anybody could refuse to play a particular codex.
And that's the attitude that I disagree with.
Using FW models/rules requires more permission than normal GW models/rules. There is a difference.
I am always willing to play a game of 40k.
I am not always willing to play a game of 40k using FW models/rules.
I agree with you rigied2.
Even though the 40k could potentially be even more OPd than FW,
atleast its from the same supplement.
53821
Post by: AnUnearthlyChilde
Zweischneid wrote:AnUnearthlyChilde wrote:The name of the thread is "Forgeworld... Why the hate?"
Forgeworld allows codex armies supplemental units to take one of the FOC slots available within those lists. Forgeworld is the metaphorical seasoning to GW's stew. Add to taste. My armies have a splash of seasoning to make them different to the same old bland lists I see on a regular basis.
Yes. But to answer the question posed in the thread, you have to understand where the "hate" comes from.
1. FW offers optional (!) often experimental units/rules that demand explicit player's consent.
2. FW proponents frequently try to "rule lawyer" their FW-selection into the game by rather petty-minded "it's legal" / "it's really also " GW" / "it's not overpowered I sweeeeaaar!!" arguments.
3. FW proponents frequently deride those that opt against the inclusion of FW as "lesser players", often describing them (as demonstrated in this very thread) as small-minded / ignorant / childishly fearful of loosing / and worse.
Thus, as a consequence of the commony exhibited behaviour of FW-proponents, FW has a bad reputation.
To reverse this image and reduce the "hate", FW-proponents would need to take pointers from stuff like Planetstrike and forward their FW-toys without alot (alot, alot, alot) more humility.
But since they largely refuse to do so, the "hate" can only grow.
Sorry, as I said before, from experience I have met no FW haters. the only haters I see are people who play a FW list then come onto places like Dakka and complain that the only reason they lost was that someone was using FW and by association that means it's overpowered. which is all a big pile of steaming horse caca... I find it deeply unfair that people scream blue murder when it is all about the dice roll whether someone wins or not.
52878
Post by: jgehunter
LunaHound wrote:rigeld2 wrote:jgehunter wrote:just as anybody could refuse to play a particular codex.
And that's the attitude that I disagree with.
Using FW models/rules requires more permission than normal GW models/rules. There is a difference.
I am always willing to play a game of 40k.
I am not always willing to play a game of 40k using FW models/rules.
I agree with you rigied2.
Even though the 40k could potentially be even more OPd than FW,
atleast its from the same supplement.
I don't get but not everybody has to agree.
I see that you need permission in both cases, not more or less permission.
36276
Post by: Zweischneid
ZebioLizard2 wrote:
Maybe one will show a bit of modesty when you're not trying to burn all the strawmen under their faces. Afterall you are the one deriding them as snobbish elitists, as rule-lawyers when you're doing the EXACT same thing by using it to prevent them from bringing forgeworld in
You keep saying they are straw-man, but don't burn them. Given, they are analogies and as such imperfect. But you have yet failed to refute the hypocrisies I was trying to point out.
1. You claim that "rejecting" FW is foolish, because " FW is just GW". But you yourself reject other "variant" games offered by GW. If it's expansions, alternative formations, "official" tournament scenarios re-used for friendly games doesn't really matter. Clearly, "everything ever produced by GW is good to go" is not an option, yet you keep raising the inverse argument to claim rejecting FW is a fallacy.
2. You claim "the more the merrier" that more diversity is improving the game. Subjectivity of that claim aside, diversity through home-made stuff seems not to be on your agenda (nor diversity through expansion), yet diversity through FW is. Seems biased to me.
3. Not you perhaps, but many people in this very discussion have claimed that people who reject FW are afraid, childish, misinformed or ignorant, etc.. That is infact a snobbish, elitist position. I just point it out.
And I am not preventing anyone from brining FW in. I am just saying you shouldn't so in an aggressive, rules-lawyering way. If you give people enough time to decide and, should they decide to accept a FW challenge, enough time to properly prepare, noone is taking your "right to play" FW away from you.
54729
Post by: AegisGrimm
I'm just wondering why this is true:
If i want to play a game where i include a FW tank in my army, I then have to beg the other player if it's ok, and if they say "no, I don't like FW stuff, I don't know the rules and I think their stuff is OP", I have to shut up, back down and either put up with it and substitute other models in it's place, or walk away without being able to play. Because "it's understandable because that's their right".
But if an opponent shows up with an army with a Dark Eldar army, and I say "Sorry I don't play people with Dark Eldar armies, I don't know their rules and I think they are overpowered- you have to play an army that uses rules I like", I'm pretty sure I would get "the look" and be labelled as "that f'ing guy".
47462
Post by: rigeld2
jgehunter wrote:I don't get but not everybody has to agree.
I see that you need permission in both cases, not more or less permission.
Are you married?
"Honey, do you mind if I go to the bar tonight?"
Restricts actions to just a bar. Go to a strip club instead of a bar and there will likely be a reaction (even more likely a negative one)
"Honey, do you mind if I go to a strip club tonight?"
More open this time - permission should mean that there's no objections to mostly naked women dancing inches from your face
52878
Post by: jgehunter
Zweischneid wrote:ZebioLizard2 wrote:
Maybe one will show a bit of modesty when you're not trying to burn all the strawmen under their faces. Afterall you are the one deriding them as snobbish elitists, as rule-lawyers when you're doing the EXACT same thing by using it to prevent them from bringing forgeworld in
You keep saying they are straw-man, but don't burn them. Given, they are analogies and as such imperfect. But you have yet failed to refute the hypocrisies I was trying to point out.
1. You claim that "rejecting" FW is foolish, because " FW is just GW". But you yourself reject other "variant" games offered by GW. If it's expansions, alternative formations, "official" tournament scenarios re-used for friendly games doesn't really matter. Clearly, "everything ever produced by GW is good to go" is not an option, yet you keep raising the inverse argument to claim rejecting FW is a fallacy.
2. You claim "the more the merrier" that more diversity is improving the game. Subjectivity of that claim aside, diversity through home-made stuff seems not to be on your agenda (nor diversity through expansion), yet diversity through FW is. Seems biased to me.
3. Not you perhaps, but many people in this very discussion have claimed that people who reject FW are afraid, childish, misinformed or ignorant, etc.. That is infact a snobbish, elitist position. I just point it out.
And I am not preventing anyone from brining FW in. I am just saying you shouldn't so in an aggressive, rules-lawyering way. If you give people enough time to decide and, should they decide to accept a FW challenge, enough time to properly prepare, noone is taking your "right to play" FW away from you.
1. I NEVER have claimed that as I have clearly stated that anybody is free to not play whatever they want and they are neither better nor worse for it.
2. I play my Eldar with a Fandex. I regularly play Planetstrike.
3. See point 1
47462
Post by: rigeld2
AegisGrimm wrote:I'm just wondering why this is true:
If i want to play a game where i include a FW tank in my army, I then have to beg the other player if it's ok, and if they say "no, I don't like FW stuff, I don't know the rules and I think their stuff is OP", I have to shut up, back down and either put up with it and substitute other models in it's place, or walk away without being able to play. Because "it's understandable because that's their right".
But if an opponent shows up with an army with a Dark Eldar army, and I say "Sorry I don't play people with Dark Eldar armies, I don't know their rules and I think they are overpowered- you have to play an army that uses rules I like", I'm pretty sure I would get "the look" and be labelled as "that f'ing guy".
One is a normal expectation on entering the game of 40k. The other is not.
10345
Post by: LunaHound
rigeld2 wrote:jgehunter wrote:I don't get but not everybody has to agree.
I see that you need permission in both cases, not more or less permission.
Are you married?
"Honey, do you mind if I go to the bar tonight?"
Restricts actions to just a bar. Go to a strip club instead of a bar and there will likely be a reaction (even more likely a negative one)
"Honey, do you mind if I go to a strip club tonight?"
More open this time - permission should mean that there's no objections to mostly naked women dancing inches from your face
I don't understand why so many people cant see the difference in that....
Which is the main issue of this thread.
52878
Post by: jgehunter
rigeld2 wrote:jgehunter wrote:I don't get but not everybody has to agree.
I see that you need permission in both cases, not more or less permission.
Are you married?
"Honey, do you mind if I go to the bar tonight?"
Restricts actions to just a bar. Go to a strip club instead of a bar and there will likely be a reaction (even more likely a negative one)
"Honey, do you mind if I go to a strip club tonight?"
More open this time - permission should mean that there's no objections to mostly naked women dancing inches from your face
HAHA
Ok, you win the argument, +1 for you
What I am trying to state is that you have exactly the same right to refuse to do one as you have to refuse to do the other one, and you shouldn't get looked down for either of them.
53740
Post by: ZebioLizard2
1. You claim that "rejecting" FW is foolish, because "FW is just GW". But you yourself reject other "variant" games offered by GW. If it's expansions, alternative formations, "official" tournament scenarios re-used for friendly games doesn't really matter. Clearly, "everything ever produced by GW is good to go" is not an option, yet you keep raising the inverse argument to claim rejecting FW is a fallacy.
I don't reject other variant games. It's just that they change up far more than just a simple addition to the FoC list.
Forgeworld: Add X unit to the appropriate FoC slot, so long as isn't an apocalypse model, you can stuff it in, be good to go.
I will play you in planetstrike, but we'd need to choose attacker/defender, as the attacker gets 6 elite FoC slots, and the defender 6 Heavy support. Not to mention the defender gets to deploy the entire board and gets to choose bastions, strategems and various other nifty things that change up the game far more heavily than adding one to three models.
I'd be glad to play you if you pulled out a battle missions book, as while those are different scenario's, that is generally what most of them are, scenarios and you can roll off on those, since most of them don't change up things so heavily enough to be a bother. Hell I'd love to play some of them, they are kinda neat, especially the orky ones.
|
|
