I'm just going to relate this in order to see how prevalent people think this attitude is and whether it's considered generally reasonable.
I was away recently and brought my army. Conferences are boring and I thought I'd look up a GW/Gaming group to break the evening hotel monotony.
Anyhoo, I found a store and someone who wanted a game. My army consists of 30 tacs, 2 Assault Squads, Drop pods, various characters, 10 Devs, 10 assault termies and a single Leviathan with Siege claw and Drill. Ravenguard tactics.
As soon as I took out the Leviathan, this particular guy said he refuses to play against FW. It wasn't even store policy.
I hardly felt a single Leviathan, comprising the total heavy armour of my army was game-breaking.
If they don't want to play FW, that's their prerogative. If they don't want to play against Tactical Squads, or models painted pink, that's also their choice.
Unfortunately FW models have a deserved reputation, they are either worse than useless or overpowered brie. There is no in-between.
FWphobia is a needless hangover from previous editions. You probably saved yourself a headache if this guy refused for that reason. He’d no doubt bring up other annoying foibles later on too. Hope you have more luck next time. Chalk this one up as a win!
BaconCatBug wrote: If they don't want to play FW, that's their prerogative. If they don't want to play against Tactical Squads, or models painted pink, that's also their choice.
Unfortunately FW models have a deserved reputation, they are either worse than useless or overpowered brie. There is no in-between.
So, in the context of my less than optimal bunch of power armoured bullet magnets, would you consider a Leviathan overpowered? I admit, Leviathans are very effective, especially when combined with other stuff that creates a target saturation effect but I hardly think a single centrepiece model is OP.
By the way, I completely agree that people can refuse to play against anything they like. There's a social contract at work here, always. The upshot was I dropped the big, tubby hunk of resin and we played a smaller game. It was a good game, too. My opponent seemed like a generally good guy. No cheese. No rules lawyering. Just a very black-and-white view of FW.
BaconCatBug wrote: If they don't want to play FW, that's their prerogative. If they don't want to play against Tactical Squads, or models painted pink, that's also their choice.
Unfortunately FW models have a deserved reputation, they are either worse than useless or overpowered brie. There is no in-between.
So, in the context of my less than optimal bunch of power armoured bullet magnets, would you consider a Leviathan overpowered? I admit, Leviathans are very effective, especially when combined with other stuff that creates a target saturation effect but I hardly think a single centrepiece model is OP.
By the way, I completely agree that people can refuse to play against anything they like. There's a social contract at work here, always. The upshot was I dropped the big, tubby hunk of resin and we played a smaller game. It was a good game, too. My opponent seemed like a generally good guy. No cheese. No rules lawyering. Just a very black-and-white view of FW.
Disappointing then. The rest of your army isn’t massively optimal, so one unit, even if OPZOMG, does not an army make. Shame he turned it down, glad you got a good game in anyway.
JohnnyHell wrote: FWphobia is a needless hangover from previous editions. You probably saved yourself a headache if this guy refused for that reason. He’d no doubt bring up other annoying foibles later on too. Hope you have more luck next time. Chalk this one up as a win!
Yeah that's long lasted fobia from like 3rd edition.
It sounds more like a principle based on erroneous assumptions. There's absolutely nothing wrong with ForgeWorld units. There are as many GW units as there are FW units with poorly written rules.
However, the Leviathan is a point-effective model; T8 with invuln saves is very good. I'd say it's the best unit in your army, especially with the -1 to hit when beyond 12."
I run one myself. It's a beast, as you well know, but no reason to refuse a game. People who refuse to play a game with you when you field legal and well balanced armies should understand that they're being a bit weird.
I think Leviathans are very competitive, but not unreasonable. But they are beautiful models, and they're one of my dream projects. Personally, I think it's quite disappointing to have an opponent give an ultimatum like that, I'd love to play against something I'd never seen even if there were a chance I'd get my back broken over it. Of course, I think you did the sporting thing.
Formosa wrote: Sadly that’s that person prerogative as silly as it is.
That being said Lolviathans are beasts and well worth the points with dakka ones for raven guard and dark angels being the best by far.
Not silly actually. Why should anybody be forced to do something he doesn't enjoy? Are we living in a free country or north korea?
While I agree with your sentiment about people being free to do as they please in the example, I don't think it makes things any less petty or silly.
These are legal models, with legal rules, provided by and supported by the company that make the game. They are no more or less optional than any other model that GW make - like it or not.
Refusing to play against anything from the FW department of GW is akin to refusing to play tennis with anyone who wants to use rules regarding the net, or who has a more expensive racket than you. You have a right to do it, but it's seriously questionable in any reasonable individuals mind to hold that attitude.
StrayIight wrote: These are legal models, with legal rules, provided by and supported by the company that make the game. They are no more or less optional than any other model that GW make - like it or not.
Refusing to play against anything from the FW department of GW is akin to refusing to play tennis with anyone who wants to use rules regarding the net, or who has a more expensive racket than you. You have a right to do it, but it's seriously questionable in any reasonable individuals mind to hold that attitude.
You should play game against anybody regardless of what army they have etc? Just because other player wants a game you are bound to play it no matter what?
No that's not the case. I won't play against say IG+custodes alliance super fast scoring max points(including finishing up games in time). That game would be just boring slaughterfest with foregone conclusion. Ditto for Mortarion+Magnus tag combo. Yes 100% legal army. But it would also be one that would not lead to interesting game so I would say "no".
If player A doesn't enjoy the game he is not forced to play it just because you decide you want to play a game.
And btw I wouldn't play game of tennis against Federer either. That would be just boring waste of time.
tneva82 wrote: If player A doesn't enjoy the game he is not forced to play it just because you decide you want to play a game.
However, "your rulebook says 'Forge World' on the cover" is not something that is going to ruin any sane person's enjoyment of a game. The OP's list was pretty low in power level overall, comparing it to a game between a weak list and a top-tier tournament list is not reasonable.
StrayIight wrote: These are legal models, with legal rules, provided by and supported by the company that make the game. They are no more or less optional than any other model that GW make - like it or not.
Refusing to play against anything from the FW department of GW is akin to refusing to play tennis with anyone who wants to use rules regarding the net, or who has a more expensive racket than you. You have a right to do it, but it's seriously questionable in any reasonable individuals mind to hold that attitude.
You should play game against anybody regardless of what army they have etc? Just because other player wants a game you are bound to play it no matter what?
No that's not the case. I won't play against say IG+custodes alliance super fast scoring max points(including finishing up games in time). That game would be just boring slaughterfest with foregone conclusion. Ditto for Mortarion+Magnus tag combo. Yes 100% legal army. But it would also be one that would not lead to interesting game so I would say "no".
If player A doesn't enjoy the game he is not forced to play it just because you decide you want to play a game.
And btw I wouldn't play game of tennis against Federer either. That would be just boring waste of time.
That's not what I said.
You can refuse to play whomever you wish - you have that right, but doing so on the basis that someone is using a model or rule (that's a legal part of the game) that you don't like, is (under general circumstances) open to being seen as unreasonable. If you're ignoring legitimate parts of a games rules or content, I feel that actually what you're now doing is playing your own version of a game, and not the 40K the rest of us are.
As for playing tennis against a professional player. Why? Because you'd likely lose? Does that then mean we should refuse to play against anyone who we suspect to better than us? I figure playing against a more talented individual is likely the best learning experience we'll ever have... Is the problem here actually one of humility?
JohnnyHell wrote: FWphobia is a needless hangover from previous editions. You probably saved yourself a headache if this guy refused for that reason. He’d no doubt bring up other annoying foibles later on too. Hope you have more luck next time. Chalk this one up as a win!
Agreed.
You dodged a bullet. I have played against “Constantly Complaining Guy” and it sucks ass. Better to not play.
Hopefully you can find some like minded player(s) on your next outing.
StrayIight wrote: You can refuse to play whomever you wish - you have that right, but doing so on the basis that someone is using a model or rule (that's a legal part of the game) that you don't like, is (under general circumstances) open to being seen as unreasonable. If you're ignoring legitimate parts of a games rules or content, I feel that actually what you're now doing is playing your own version of a game, and not the 40K the rest of us are.
As for playing tennis against a professional player. Why? Because you'd likely lose? Does that then mean we should refuse to play against anyone who we suspect to better than us? I figure playing against a more talented individual is likely the best learning experience we'll ever have... Is the problem here actually one of humility?
Or not having any fun with zero chance of winning or even avoiding massacre.
I know my lists aren't tournament type of lists. I don't need to play against super hard core armies to know my lists aren't that caliber. I also have yet to find tournament lists that arent' so far from the kind of armies I like to play(the kind you often read about in fluff) that I don't go either "yawn, boring" or literally puke. I cannot play those kind of lists. Period.
As my lists are more for relaxed beer&prezel games they will get 0-20 slaughtered in 1 turn against hardcore army lists. What function playing game serves? Difference in power level gap is so big that it won't teach me anything. Similarly playing tennis against Federer would be so slopsided it wouldn't teach me anything. He would just send ball where I am not nor would I be able to get there. There would be nothing to be learned from there either.
StrayIight wrote: You can refuse to play whomever you wish - you have that right, but doing so on the basis that someone is using a model or rule (that's a legal part of the game) that you don't like, is (under general circumstances) open to being seen as unreasonable. If you're ignoring legitimate parts of a games rules or content, I feel that actually what you're now doing is playing your own version of a game, and not the 40K the rest of us are.
As for playing tennis against a professional player. Why? Because you'd likely lose? Does that then mean we should refuse to play against anyone who we suspect to better than us? I figure playing against a more talented individual is likely the best learning experience we'll ever have... Is the problem here actually one of humility?
Or not having any fun with zero chance of winning or even avoiding massacre.
I know my lists aren't tournament type of lists. I don't need to play against super hard core armies to know my lists aren't that caliber. I also have yet to find tournament lists that arent' so far from the kind of armies I like to play(the kind you often read about in fluff) that I don't go either "yawn, boring" or literally puke. I cannot play those kind of lists. Period.
As my lists are more for relaxed beer&prezel games they will get 0-20 slaughtered in 1 turn against hardcore army lists. What function playing game serves? Difference in power level gap is so big that it won't teach me anything. Similarly playing tennis against Federer would be so slopsided it wouldn't teach me anything. He would just send ball where I am not nor would I be able to get there. There would be nothing to be learned from there either.
It's been pointed out to you once already, but I will do so again: No one but you is saying anything about playing against tournament lists. We're talking about the refusal to play against a legal model because of a ridiculous and self invented policy against FW that someone has created, and that frankly, I see as deeply unfair toward the OP who is playing well within the spirit of the rules, let alone their granular content.
If you want to talk about tournament lists vs casual lists, we can have that separate discussion. But frankly taking a casual list to a location where you suspect or know people will be running super competitive armies is still on you. What you are bringing isn't in their control, only yours. My advice (unasked for admittedly) is to play at places or with groups that have a culture of casual play, not power play, or to suck it up if you go elsewhere.
I completely, completely understand you wanting to have a fun game. But you have to understand that 'fun' means different things to different people, and 'enforcing' your version of 'fun' on others (for any reason) via refusal of play, isn't going to be received favourably by many. Often times, the sporting thing to do is to compromise, and not be hardline and uncompromising regarding our own view.
The slope must be really fething slippery. We’re talking about 1 fething model in a basic-bitch, middle of the road list. No offense to the OP, naturally.
In THAT context, do you think the other guy overreacted?
As soon as I took out the Leviathan, this particular guy said he refuses to play against FW. It wasn't even store policy.
I hardly felt a single Leviathan, comprising the total heavy armour of my army was game-breaking.
Thoughts?
The short answer is "You found the local manchild". There's a dwindling number of these guys still lurking around that believe everything a scummy FLGS owner told them about Forge World 10 years ago, when the answer basically boils down to "the stores can't sell it, so they do everything they can to keep it off their tables".
Yeah, people can refuse any game they want for any reason they want. They can also sit there, alone, holding a box of models while the rest of the shop is having fun.
But looking at your list, if he didn't have something to take down a Dreadnaught- the only 'vehicle' unit you had, he must not have been a very sharp player.
Anyone who tells me "No Forge World" can go suck a resin brick in the corner. Usually the only people I've seen whining about it are just upset that they can't afford it, and it's usually followed by them picking up the model and asking me if I got it from China.
kronk wrote: The slope must be really fething slippery. We’re talking about 1 fething model in a basic-bitch, middle of the road list. No offense to the OP, naturally.
In THAT context, do you think the other guy overreacted?
And while Leviathans are strong, they're nothing special with the weapons that OP had on it.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Backspacehacker wrote: Its because there are very few models in the FW line that are actually appropriately priced.
I think the guy over reacted, but its not a abnormal reaction.
If by that you mean that most are grossly overpriced then yes. Why would that make someone refuse to play against them?
kronk wrote: The slope must be really fething slippery. We’re talking about 1 fething model in a basic-bitch, middle of the road list. No offense to the OP, naturally.
In THAT context, do you think the other guy overreacted?
And while Leviathans are strong, they're nothing special with the weapons that OP had on it.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Backspacehacker wrote: Its because there are very few models in the FW line that are actually appropriately priced.
I think the guy over reacted, but its not a abnormal reaction.
If by that you mean that most are grossly overpriced then yes. Why would that make someone refuse to play against them?
Funny enough imo i think the liviathen is a pretty spot on priced model. One that comes to mind as a broken one is the fire raptor even with its point increase. That thing should be baneblade price and a LoW option.
JohnnyHell wrote: FWphobia is a needless hangover from previous editions. You probably saved yourself a headache if this guy refused for that reason. He’d no doubt bring up other annoying foibles later on too. Hope you have more luck next time. Chalk this one up as a win!
“FWphobia”. I remember when i first heard the phrase. That was a guy claiming aertos’rau’keres was underpowered compared to his pre-nerf price tag of 750 pts.
To answer OP, before i read what your opponent told you, i was thinking “it is always ok to turn down games due to FW models”. It is a principle to people like me, because FW upscales what can be fielded, essentially making it much more imbalanced in the way that the matchup of lists is more important than battlefield decisions. Titans, baneblades, thunderhawks, macroweapons does not fit the scale of the game, even though your list seems very reasonable. Then there’s the FW models that do fit, but are simply overpowered - like tesseract arks, whose only weakness is high S, low D weapons (so only plasma heavy lists can hope to get them down), armed with weapons fit to destroy anything and insane overwatch.. for the price of ~220, well under weaker models like land raiders (apparently the transport capacity is worth 100 pts, despite lower adaptability and weaker defense).
In other words, once people start the inherent arms race that follows bringing FW models, you force your opponents to list-tailoring and/or bringing their own FW models, thus buying into the very sales trick that FW uses: creating models that are only truly countered by other FW models.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Btw: the fact that aertos rau keres was points adjusted from 750 to 1500 shows how imbalanced and poorly adjusted FW models are!
Legal or otherwise, you are not obliged to play against anything in this game if you don't want to, regardless of what it is that you don't want to play against.
I have little interest in playing against 'names', super-heavies and flyers, for example, outside of specific scenarios. Simple reason being that these things do not necessarily lend themselves To the types of games I want my 40k games to be about. All those things, just like forgeworld, are perfectly legal, all perfectly fair game, and you are entitled to like them, and to want to take any of them to a game that you want.
But you might end up playing against someone else other than me. Neither of us is necessarily wrong.
You do realize that the Baneblade is a GW plastic kit with rules in the GWIG codex, right? And that, in a broader context, the LoW rules have been driven by GW, not FW? The original FW superheavy/titan rules, way back in 3rd/4th edition, were laughably weak. Since then all of the escalation in LoW power has come from "main GW" sources: first in Apocalypse, and then in the 7th/8th edition core rules. FW has merely followed the established trend and updated their rules to match what GW does.
In other words, once people start the inherent arms race that follows bringing FW models, you force your opponents to list-tailoring and/or bringing their own FW models, thus buying into the very sales trick that FW uses: creating models that are only truly countered by other FW models.
Do you honestly believe that the same thing doesn't happen with codex rules? That power level differences don't exist, list tailoring isn't an issue, and people don't get into arms races when someone brings an overpowered codex unit?
lolman1c wrote: Meh, kinda think it's just that guy. It's a friendly game at a local GW store, who the hell gives a squig if you win or lose?
I think majority of people do just enjoy rolling dice, but no one likes to put down all their models only to scoop half of them off the board turn one to a single round of shooting, I have seen gak like the fire raptor wpie almost entire armies off the board. Or same thing with bringing like 6 basalisks. Its just not even fun anymore.
Deadnight wrote: Legal or otherwise, you are not obliged to play against anything in this game if you don't want to, regardless of what it is that you don't want to play against.
I have little interest in playing against 'names', super-heavies and flyers, for example, outside of specific scenarios. Simple reason being that these things do not necessarily lend themselves To the types of games I want my 40k games to be about. All those things, just like forgeworld, are perfectly legal, all perfectly fair game, and you are entitled to like them, and to want to take any of them to a game that you want.
But you might end up playing against someone else other than me. Neither of us is necessarily wrong.
You do have that right. You're not 'wrong' to exercise it.
But you are essentially playing 'Deadnights basic infantry battles' a game based heavily on the popular miniatures game Warhammer: 40,000 that the rest of us play.
I truly mean no offense to you personally, but this attitude as a whole just smells of singling out people who won't play the game by your own preferences. It feels a lot like a form of elitism...
In other words, once people start the inherent arms race that follows bringing FW models, you force your opponents to list-tailoring and/or bringing their own FW models, thus buying into the very sales trick that FW uses: creating models that are only truly countered by other FW models.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Btw: the fact that aertos rau keres was points adjusted from 750 to 1500 shows how imbalanced and poorly adjusted FW models are!
It is enough coping with the GW stuff
I disagree. Like other posters have said FW points values are similarly hit or miss like GW points values. Personally I bought a FW Blight Drone because people were arguing GWs Bloat Drone is much too strong - the Blight drone is a bit weaker for 60 points more, so I balance my list by using a FW model.
FWs Greater Daemons are also not stronger than GWs Daemon Primarchs. Since Chapter approved most of them are very overcosted.
There are FW units that fall in line with Dark reapers, Brimstones, razorwing flocks and so on - but they all have been nerfed.
In other words, once people start the inherent arms race that follows bringing FW models, you force your opponents to list-tailoring and/or bringing their own FW models, thus buying into the very sales trick that FW uses: creating models that are only truly countered by other FW models.
They must not have Imperial Knights where you play. Because that's the only 'arms race' I've ever seen.
In other words, once people start the inherent arms race that follows bringing FW models, you force your opponents to list-tailoring and/or bringing their own FW models, thus buying into the very sales trick that FW uses: creating models that are only truly countered by other FW models.
They must not have Imperial Knights where you play. Because that's the only 'arms race' I've ever seen.
Backspacehacker wrote: Its because there are very few models in the FW line that are actually appropriately priced.
I think the guy over reacted, but its not a abnormal reaction.
I'd argue it goes even further than this. GW has not been able (or willing) to provide anything approaching a level game experience for several editions, with the highlight being the initial release of Age of Sigmar which relied completely on players self-policing to establish a good game. The problem is that this removes the neutral arbiter, the rules writers, that players can rely on to remove personal bias to make the game fair for everyone involved.
You'll never weed out every instance of what's described in the OP, but the absence of such a neutral authority is a fertile breeding ground for a multitude of personal biases. In an established group it's not necessarily terrible. For pick-up games it's hell, though.
It's easy to jump on this guy because anti-FW bias has a long history and is, to a degree, silly. We can't really judge where it stems from, though. Blind hatred for FW? Or ample experience being or feeling cheated with FW models involved? Or something else entirely? Could be anything. A complete overreaction or perfectly justified.
At my local store, ten, fifteen years ago, nobody thought of declining a game in such a way. Game balance lamentations were few and generally limited to two or three undeniable power lists, with people happily playing against any but those without complaints. Since 7th ed, and with 8th ed and Age of Sigmar now, there's no end to the complaints about balance and lack of fairness. And not just from the losers, but often the winners as well. Two Eldar players refused to play their army because of how stupidly powerful they were. One player was pretty down finding out that his new army was so powerful it wasn't fun for anyone involved, and he didn't really have an idea what to do about it other than just not play it anymore. I've seen games where after rolling for first turn one side completely tuned out because they knew the game was over.
In that context I can understand a strong desire to rectify what GW has royally bollocksed up, for the love of the game and all the money and time invested in one's miniatures. Whether a complete Forge World ban helps that end is, as far as I'm concerned, more than questionable, but I see in it desperation more than spite or pettiness. Simple desperation to salvage the game one loves.
As such I wouldn't judge too harshly. It's not always a neckbeard or manchild at work. Sometimes it's just good intentions and bad execution.
SonofSlamguinius wrote: I think Leviathans are very competitive, but not unreasonable. But they are beautiful models, and they're one of my dream projects. Personally, I think it's quite disappointing to have an opponent give an ultimatum like that, I'd love to play against something I'd never seen even if there were a chance I'd get my back broken over it. Of course, I think you did the sporting thing.
The fact remains that a Levi dread makes the entire space marine codex invalid. It might not be overpowered compared to the most powerful codex - but it is hands down better than EVERYTHING in the space marine codex.
I personally wouldn't refuse to play it. I can understand why someone would though.
1. The FW rules are inconsistent as all hell, basically the model is either broken (Malefic Lord spam, Phantomseerlords shenannigans, Sicarians,etc) or just inexistent, that is atleast how it is percived.
Since FW is relatively expensive, people tend to only play those really effective units, that are either borderline broken or are broken. Naturally stuff that isn't great or fair will then mostlikely in most cases not be used.
Take for exemple a R&H army, most units in the R&H aresnal are plain and simple worse then IG / CSM. A properly fluffed out one at that (not just Tank, Marauder, Psykerspam). Most of the contents of that list and many other FW lists are more in the department of Meh to just bad.
Enter Malefic lords, which were spammed as an additional detachment. So most people saw only one unit, which was broken btw. and basically got the impression that FW R&H is inherently OP / unbalanced.
Frankly you can't fault them to be wary (especially FW experimental rules are just insane sometimes), but for players that just want a fluffy more esoteric army, or were a fan of the "Lost and the Damned" and therefore did run a R&H list it is incredibly annoying.
2. FW and GW, even tho beeing basically the same company and releasing models for the same gamesystem really lack communication.
Again for exemple let us compare R&H with IG troops:
8th edition
IG Guardsmen 4 pts as a baseline, 3-s everywhere except armor save, that is a 5+ and hitpoints.
FW milita 4 pts aswell, however 5+ BS/WS and 6+ Armor.
basically worse in all stats that matter.
Even worse were and to a degree still are Cultists.
In R&H, before the CA, Cultists were 5 pts each, the equivalent unit in the CSM Codex is 4 Pts. Now with CA they got a point reduction, however did they fix the Squadsize?
No. R&H max size is 30, CSM is 40.
Basically they can't even Copy and Paste eachother properly.
Summa Sumarum:
FW get's percived as OP / Imbalanced, because a bunch of "That Guys" spam certain units or abuse certain rules.
Geifer wrote: As such I wouldn't judge too harshly. It's not always a neckbeard or manchild at work. Sometimes it's just good intentions and bad execution.
Yeah, but also I gotta say this- it is 2018. The rules for literally every Forge World model are available to you with a few keystrokes. There is absolutely no excuse for being 'unfamiliar' with the rules in this era, and additionally- the player using the model has the rules, you don't have to be 'familiar' with them to play them. Just ask to see what they do, it's not hard. Or, you know, pull out your phone and look it up yourself.
Now, had this guy said something like, "All I got is some basic bolter dudes and nothing that can deal with that" then it'd be fine, but he explicitly stated "No Forge World".
To the OP, I say this: Unless someone can give you a reason why you can't use a certain model, you should use them and love every minute of them. Don't let old fuddy-duddies at the FLGS make you feel like you shouldn't have the model you want to play. If a TO says "No Forge World", he's an incompetent TO.
I'm personally sick of the whining Oldhammer babies that won't let go of the dead version of 40k they played.
Not Online!!! wrote: 1. The FW rules are inconsistent as all hell, basically the model is either broken... Sicarians,etc)...
If you can't deal with a Sicaran, then you've got other problems, friend- and none of them are in Nottingham.
Unit1126PLL wrote: There is an SM tank from Forge World that is decent? I suppose the Sicaran is 'decent'.... that's about the only one I can think of.
That's the only one I've seen people wheezing and getting their panties in a bunch over.
I am playing in a 7th edition Horus Heresy campaign with only a thousand points. Everyone except me seems to have at least a Contemptor, and there are more than one Leviathan. Without one of your own, it is just not fun.
Having said that, in 8th Ed, and considering the rest of your list, I think it is a bit OTT to ask you to remove. When he downsized his list, did you get to decide what to remove from his army, or did he choose for himself what to take out of it?
Unit1126PLL wrote: There is an SM tank from Forge World that is decent? I suppose the Sicaran is 'decent'.... that's about the only one I can think of.
That's the only one I've seen people wheezing and getting their panties in a bunch over.
That surprises me, if only because the Sicaran can be best described as "adequate", as in, "taking one won't actively harm your chances of victory compared to an alternative." Hardly whine-worthy.
As someone who plays a superheavy list, I perhaps have a skewed look at how tanks work in 40k. But I don't think Sicarans are that exciting.
Actually the Sicarian was OP, at it's introduction. However my point still stands, that it is mostly a problem of perspecitve.
Granted they seem to be able to learn and reblance stuff, it just takes a while for them it seems.
Quite frankly a more hands on public display and more testing would do some wonders in that regard, not only for FW but also for GW.......
Another major factor is how including FW expands the scope and complexity of the game into something that, to me at least, is a total mess.
I have a pretty good grasp of what each (GW line) army in the game can do, what it's strengths and weaknesses are. Basicly each army has an identity that I am familar with.
Enter FW. Now everyone suddenly seems to get access to everything. And I do not like that.
For example the Chaos I know from GW runs the CSM lineup consisting of antiquated power armor and tanks, with some demon machines and demons accompanying them.
But with FW, they suddenly can field all kinds of modern flyers, tanks and cybots that I would associate with loyal marines.
Worse, they can now field basicly everything that is IG, including their tank lineup and super heavies.
Giving everyone access to everything in some form or another via the FW cataloge is not making the game better.
That's not about how each unit on their own is broken, or not. But throwing them all over the place and putting them in different armies destroys the internal balance and identity of those armies.
Well and then there are those insanly broken units FW puts out from time to time as well, those do not help either.
HMint wrote: Another major factor is how including FW expands the scope and complexity of the game into something that, to me at least, is a total mess.
I have a pretty good grasp of what each (GW line) army in the game can do, what it's strengths and weaknesses are. Basicly each army has an identity that I am familar with.
Enter FW. Now everyone suddenly everyone seems to get access to everything. And I do not like that.
Firstly: Baserules are the same, there is often literally no expansion whatsoever in mechanics, basically just additional armies with some new rules, often times just variations of existing ones (DK, Elysians, R&H are basically just IG variations, Corsairs are Eldar, etc.)
Secondly : No, not everybody get's access to everything, only certain armies did so in the past, however with the whole introduction of detachments that is and was even easier to circumvent. If anything blame GW for that one.
HMint wrote: Another major factor is how including FW expands the scope and complexity of the game into something that, to me at least, is a total mess.
I have a pretty good grasp of what each (GW line) army in the game can do, what it's strengths and weaknesses are. Basicly each army has an identity that I am familar with.
Enter FW. Now everyone suddenly everyone seems to get access to everything. And I do not like that.
For example the Chaos I know from GW runs the CSM lineup consisting of antiquated power armor and tanks, with some demon machines and demons accompanying them.
But with FW, they suddenly can field all kinds of modern flyers, tanks and cybots that I would associate with loyal marines.
Worse, they can now field basicly everything that is IG, including their tank lineup and super heavies.
Giving everyone access to everything in some form or another via the FW cataloge is not making the game better.
That's not about how each unit on their own is broken, or not. But throwing them all over the place and putting them in different armies destroys the internal balance and identity of those armies.
Well and then there are those insanly broken units FW puts out from time to time as well, those do not help either.
Edit:
Forum ate half my post...
"Giving everyone access to everything?" What does that even mean?
To me, the Chaos lineup has been "Loyalists, but with daemons."
FW is merely continuing the trend with their stuff. The Renegades and Heretics bit is actually unplayably bad right now because it doesn't get hardly anything from IG - no superheavies other than the mediocre Baneblade (i.e. not the Shadowsword), no Hades, no Malcador Annhilators or Infernuses, no Tauroxes... I could go on, but to say they have "everything that is IG" is disingenuous or misinformed in the extreme.
HMint wrote: Another major factor is how including FW expands the scope and complexity of the game into something that, to me at least, is a total mess.
I have a pretty good grasp of what each (GW line) army in the game can do, what it's strengths and weaknesses are. Basicly each army has an identity that I am familar with.
Enter FW. Now everyone suddenly everyone seems to get access to everything. And I do not like that.
For example the Chaos I know from GW runs the CSM lineup consisting of antiquated power armor and tanks, with some demon machines and demons accompanying them.
But with FW, they suddenly can field all kinds of modern flyers, tanks and cybots that I would associate with loyal marines.
Worse, they can now field basicly everything that is IG, including their tank lineup and super heavies.
Giving everyone access to everything in some form or another via the FW cataloge is not making the game better.
That's not about how each unit on their own is broken, or not. But throwing them all over the place and putting them in different armies destroys the internal balance and identity of those armies.
Well and then there are those insanly broken units FW puts out from time to time as well, those do not help either.
Edit:
Forum ate half my post...
"Giving everyone access to everything?" What does that even mean?
To me, the Chaos lineup has been "Loyalists, but with daemons."
FW is merely continuing the trend with their stuff. The Renegades and Heretics bit is actually unplayably bad right now because it doesn't get hardly anything from IG - no superheavies other than the mediocre Baneblade (i.e. not the Shadowsword), no Hades, no Malcador Annhilators or Infernuses, no Tauroxes... I could go on, but to say they have "everything that is IG" is disingenuous or misinformed in the extreme.
That is simply because those are the models that FW have.
So they will put out rules for a model they happen to have, with no regards how that affects the balance of the game. If they came out with chaos shadowsword conversion kit tomorrow that thing would suddenly pop up in some demon army the next day, totally legal.
That is an argument against FW, not for.
And 'giving everyone access to everything' means exactly that:
(GW) Chaos does not have access to artillery tanks (other than DeathGuard?), but now they do thanks to FW.
(GW) Chaos does not have access to bombers, but now they do.
(GW) Chaos does not have access to drop pods, now they do.
(GW) Chaos does not have access to flying transports, now they do.
Sure, not each exact unit is available, but do you see how every options seems to get covered by FW somehow?
I wouldn't go and say unplayable in the case of R&H, however you can and will bring fully maxed out lists and still get beaten by turn 3-5 because of morale and other unlucky stuff, even by certain fun lists.
("in it for the money" fail after one guy droped out a valkyrie the wrong way and the whole squad runs because Jack couldn't figure out how to open his parachute.Sometimes hillariously funny)
Also since the anti soup rule we lost access to Deamons or Deamon engines because we do not get the CSM Keyword.
HMint wrote: Another major factor is how including FW expands the scope and complexity of the game into something that, to me at least, is a total mess.
I have a pretty good grasp of what each (GW line) army in the game can do, what it's strengths and weaknesses are. Basicly each army has an identity that I am familar with.
Enter FW. Now everyone suddenly everyone seems to get access to everything. And I do not like that.
For example the Chaos I know from GW runs the CSM lineup consisting of antiquated power armor and tanks, with some demon machines and demons accompanying them.
But with FW, they suddenly can field all kinds of modern flyers, tanks and cybots that I would associate with loyal marines.
Worse, they can now field basicly everything that is IG, including their tank lineup and super heavies.
Giving everyone access to everything in some form or another via the FW cataloge is not making the game better.
That's not about how each unit on their own is broken, or not. But throwing them all over the place and putting them in different armies destroys the internal balance and identity of those armies.
Well and then there are those insanly broken units FW puts out from time to time as well, those do not help either.
Edit:
Forum ate half my post...
"Giving everyone access to everything?" What does that even mean?
To me, the Chaos lineup has been "Loyalists, but with daemons."
FW is merely continuing the trend with their stuff. The Renegades and Heretics bit is actually unplayably bad right now because it doesn't get hardly anything from IG - no superheavies other than the mediocre Baneblade (i.e. not the Shadowsword), no Hades, no Malcador Annhilators or Infernuses, no Tauroxes... I could go on, but to say they have "everything that is IG" is disingenuous or misinformed in the extreme.
That is simply because those are the models that FW have.
So they will put out rules for a model they happen to have, with no regards how that affects the balance of the game. If they came out with chaos shadowsword conversion kit tomorrow that thing would suddenly pop up in some demon army the next day, totally legal.
That is an argument against FW, not for.
Again: they do Balnce stuff, most stuff is so bad it isn't played.
I will cede the point that normal deamon armies should not get access to such tanks but CSM / R&H which are either turned IG or PDF's with stockpiles should not?
Also since when does a perfectly balanced tank destroy the whole balance of the game when it sits at the other side of the table?
Isn't it then unbalanced as a whole?
Also isn't the Shadowsword a Baneblade and therefore a GW tank?
Maybee it is GW that is failing at balancing moreso than FW which mostly provides fluffy stuff?
I'm just going to relate this in order to see how prevalent people think this attitude is and whether it's considered generally reasonable.
I was away recently and brought my army. Conferences are boring and I thought I'd look up a GW/Gaming group to break the evening hotel monotony.
Anyhoo, I found a store and someone who wanted a game. My army consists of 30 tacs, 2 Assault Squads, Drop pods, various characters, 10 Devs, 10 assault termies and a single Leviathan with Siege claw and Drill. Ravenguard tactics.
As soon as I took out the Leviathan, this particular guy said he refuses to play against FW. It wasn't even store policy.
I hardly felt a single Leviathan, comprising the total heavy armour of my army was game-breaking.
Thoughts?
Why didn´t you change the FW dreadnought for a regular one? You could have had a game that day, if you had done so. FW stuff just has a bad reputation among a lot of players.
Not everyone accepts FW, so, it's a good idea to ask if you're allowed to bring FW beforehand. Usually it's not a problem if you don't abuse it. But sometimes it is.
Why didn´t you change the FW dreadnought for a regular one? You could have had a game that day, if you had done so. FW stuff just has a bad reputation among a lot of players.
No, only the manchildren. What else- can I throw a tantrum over Robby G? Baneblades? Knights?
I bought models for me to enjoy. I shouldn't have to change them because some manbaby doesn't like it. There are always better players.
Why didn´t you change the FW dreadnought for a regular one? You could have had a game that day, if you had done so. FW stuff just has a bad reputation among a lot of players.
Why didn't the other player be more reasonable and allow the OP to use a completely legal supported model in a game?
Why should the OP have to compromise and effectively play 'house rules' to placate someone when he's doing nothing that isn't utterly a part of 40K?
I just don't feel, or see, why he can be viewed as the 'unreasonable' party here. FW models are a part of the game - you simply don't get to change the game to suit yourself (outside of your own group or store where agreed upon) and expect others to kowtow to you quite honestly.
I'm rather in the same boat here, for two reasons.
I used to play a guy who ran 2x Leviathans, Redemptor and 3x Predators, all backed up by Guilliman. Wasn't fun in the slightest. After a few games I asked if he could try something else, to which he agreed that yes, it was rather OP and he wanted to try something new anyway. No harm done, unlike the guy in the OP I didn't flat out refuse as soon as I saw a Leviathan, I tried to take it on a few times and failed.
Additionally I've just bought a Leviathan, planning to run it with my RG, pretty similar force as described in OP, and am a bit curious as to how people will react. Overall however I'm very much against the whole "you must have opponent's permission to use this", or "I'm not playing if you're using that because Forge World". As mentioned previously in this thread there are individuals who will just refuse permission out of jealousy.
Yes, there's a number of overpowered FW units, but there's an even greater number of ones which are just piss-poor. Malcadors are a prime example. I've been using a Valdor in my Guard, one of those things which are just fun instead of competitive and the only complaint I've had was when it blew up on 2+ and killed Asterion Moloc, besides that it's a rather mediocre unit. Same with the Titans; they're damn tough and will annihilate whatever they look at, but they can only target 2-3 things at a time. Warhounds shot up in price from 750 to between 1500-2000, for something that can only target 2 units. Not all FW stuff is overpowered crap, some of it is just...crap.
Why didn´t you change the FW dreadnought for a regular one? You could have had a game that day, if you had done so. FW stuff just has a bad reputation among a lot of players.
No, only the manchildren. What else- can I throw a tantrum over Robby G? Baneblades? Knights?
I bought models for me to enjoy. I shouldn't have to change them because some manbaby doesn't like it. There are always better players.
So why do you waste time with these guys? Play with your buddies and you´ll never have any issues whatsoever. But when you do pick-up games, you will get to know new people who won´t have the same opinion as you about the game.
So why do you waste time with these guys? Play with your buddies and you´ll never have any issues whatsoever. But when you do pick-up games, you will get to know new people who won´t have the same opinion as you about the game.
But while opinions differ, the rules don't. FW world models are part of 40K. No opinion should supersede the base rules of the game. At least not outside of a private environment you control - do what you like there.
Why didn´t you change the FW dreadnought for a regular one? You could have had a game that day, if you had done so. FW stuff just has a bad reputation among a lot of players.
No, only the manchildren. What else- can I throw a tantrum over Robby G? Baneblades? Knights?
I bought models for me to enjoy. I shouldn't have to change them because some manbaby doesn't like it. There are always better players.
You know you aren't exactly strengthening your side's argument with name calling stranger who can't defend their side of the story. I didn't care that much one way or the other before this thread. However, seeing the resulting responses pro to allowing FW models, I am less inclined to play a PUG with a list that has one or more. I am already uncomfortable with adding units that aren't listed in regular codices. I likely don't know my opponent from Adam so I don't know why if they are the sort try to pull a fast one. While there are rules and Forge World has a page on DW's site there is a very clear distinction between the two lines. Additionally, the inclusion of Forge World models can open up a whole pandora's box I might regret later. I think it is far to consider Forge World inclusion the exception not the rule and as such does require permission to field.
So congratulations I guess, you (along with similar posts) made another anti-Forge World player.
Why didn´t you change the FW dreadnought for a regular one? You could have had a game that day, if you had done so. FW stuff just has a bad reputation among a lot of players.
No, only the manchildren. What else- can I throw a tantrum over Robby G? Baneblades? Knights?
I bought models for me to enjoy. I shouldn't have to change them because some manbaby doesn't like it. There are always better players.
So why do you waste time with these guys? Play with your buddies and you´ll never have any issues whatsoever. But when you do pick-up games, you will get to know new people who won´t have the same opinion as you about the game.
Generally, it is my opinion that when playing a pick-up game, all normal rules for the game are used, and all you should discuss beforehand are rules that are not clear. Whether or not a Leviathan Dreadnought exists and should be used is not unclear, therefore, I generally assume it would be allowed to be used, since "following the basic rules" is generally okay for a pickup game.
Why didn´t you change the FW dreadnought for a regular one? You could have had a game that day, if you had done so. FW stuff just has a bad reputation among a lot of players.
No, only the manchildren. What else- can I throw a tantrum over Robby G? Baneblades? Knights?
I bought models for me to enjoy. I shouldn't have to change them because some manbaby doesn't like it. There are always better players.
You know you aren't exactly strengthening your side's argument with name calling stranger who can't defend their side of the story. I didn't care that much one way or the other before this thread. However, seeing the resulting responses pro to allowing FW models, I am less inclined to play a PUG with a list that has one or more. I am already uncomfortable with adding units that aren't listed in regular codices. I likely don't know my opponent from Adam so I don't know why if they are the sort try to pull a fast one. While there are rules and Forge World has a page on DW's site there is a very clear distinction between the two lines. Additionally, the inclusion of Forge World models can open up a whole pandora's box I might regret later. I think it is far to consider Forge World inclusion the exception not the rule and as such does require permission to field.
So congratulations I guess, you (along with similar posts) made another anti-Forge World player.
Great, whilest i agree that was not very civil way of conduct, your argument for this is atleast equally bad: "Because somebody said something not nice i now have to throw all the people that play with those armies in the same bin"
10 /10 logic.
And 'giving everyone access to everything' means exactly that:
(GW) Chaos does not have access to artillery tanks (other than DeathGuard?), but now they do thanks to FW.
(GW) Chaos does not have access to bombers, but now they do.
(GW) Chaos does not have access to drop pods, now they do.
(GW) Chaos does not have access to flying transports, now they do.
Sure, not each exact unit is available, but do you see how every options seems to get covered by FW somehow?
Can you explain to me how "Chaos gets its options expanded by Forge World" is the same as "everyone gets everything?"
Do Dark Eldar get artillery tanks from Forge World?
Do Harlequins get bombers from Forge World?
Do Tau have Drop Pods from Forge World?
Do Orks get Flying Transports from Forge World?
"Expanding the chaos range with further options" is not the same thing as "willy-nilly giving things to everyone." Because a common complaint about Chaos is "they should have loyalist things" considering that they used to be loyalists, routinely loot loyalist stuff, and include recent loyalists-turned-traitor in their ranks. Giving Chaos options to reflect things that GW has stupidly neglected is not the same thing as "giving everyone everything."
And if Chaos got the Shadowsword through R&H and suddenly the R&H shadowsword started popping up everywhere (while the R&H baneblade just kinda sits stupidly), perhaps the problem is GW's interpretation of the Shadowsword rather than FW's allowing other people to take it. The Baneblade's not been a problem.
You know you aren't exactly strengthening your side's argument with name calling stranger who can't defend their side of the story. I didn't care that much one way or the other before this thread. However, seeing the resulting responses pro to allowing FW models, I am less inclined to play a PUG with a list that has one or more. I am already uncomfortable with adding units that aren't listed in regular codices. I likely don't know my opponent from Adam so I don't know why if they are the sort try to pull a fast one. While there are rules and Forge World has a page on DW's site there is a very clear distinction between the two lines. Additionally, the inclusion of Forge World models can open up a whole pandora's box I might regret later. I think it is far to consider Forge World inclusion the exception not the rule and as such does require permission to field.
So congratulations I guess, you (along with similar posts) made another anti-Forge World player.
The FW rules are no more optional than say a Codex, over an Index. That is to say, they aren't optional at all. They are a significant part of the game like it or not.
How the other poster expressed his point might have upset you, but his point is still quite valid, however he phrased it. It seem a huge flaw in reasoning to cite that as a reason to ignore a massive percentage of the rules of the game you're playing. In what other activity is it acceptable to expect others to play by rules that you are creating?
And 'giving everyone access to everything' means exactly that:
(GW) Chaos does not have access to artillery tanks (other than DeathGuard?), but now they do thanks to FW.
(GW) Chaos does not have access to bombers, but now they do.
(GW) Chaos does not have access to drop pods, now they do.
(GW) Chaos does not have access to flying transports, now they do.
Sure, not each exact unit is available, but do you see how every options seems to get covered by FW somehow?
Can you explain to me how "Chaos gets its options expanded by Forge World" is the same as "everyone gets everything?"
...do you understand what and example is?
We allready know that xnos get shafted when it comes to soup and FW is basicly soup³.
And 'giving everyone access to everything' means exactly that: (GW) Chaos does not have access to artillery tanks (other than DeathGuard?), but now they do thanks to FW. (GW) Chaos does not have access to bombers, but now they do. (GW) Chaos does not have access to drop pods, now they do. (GW) Chaos does not have access to flying transports, now they do.
Sure, not each exact unit is available, but do you see how every options seems to get covered by FW somehow?
Can you explain to me how "Chaos gets its options expanded by Forge World" is the same as "everyone gets everything?"
...do you understand what and example is?
We allready know that xnos get shafted when it comes to soup and FW is basicly soup³.
Wait so FW doesn't give everyone everything, but instead merely represents an expansion to a few ranges?
WHAT?|
FORGEWORLD EXPANDS A FEW RANGES??!?!?!??! WHY DIDN'T I KNOW THIS BEFORE!!??!?!11oneoneeleven
Model ranges should be as God (GW) intended them to be, and FW is a heathen devil giving us things like "options" and "choice."
Alot of the problem is that GW doesent seem to take FW units into consideration with their Strategems.
The Leviathan dread is downright broken when you can Deepstrike one in a Deathwatch army, or double shoot in a CSM army. Or consider the Dark Eldar Tarantulus that turns into a Character killing Sniper rifle gun boat.
Ok now it get's ridicoulous.
Especially because FW and GW are literally one, ONE, company.
I mean that is to say that one should not be allowed to play Battlefield 1 with the russian DLC because it is made by another studio within EA/ Dice......
And 'giving everyone access to everything' means exactly that:
(GW) Chaos does not have access to artillery tanks (other than DeathGuard?), but now they do thanks to FW.
(GW) Chaos does not have access to bombers, but now they do.
(GW) Chaos does not have access to drop pods, now they do.
(GW) Chaos does not have access to flying transports, now they do.
Sure, not each exact unit is available, but do you see how every options seems to get covered by FW somehow?
Can you explain to me how "Chaos gets its options expanded by Forge World" is the same as "everyone gets everything?"
...do you understand what and example is?
We allready know that xnos get shafted when it comes to soup and FW is basicly soup³.
Wait so FW doesn't give everyone everything, but instead merely represents an expansion to a few ranges?
WHAT?|
FORGEWORLD EXPANDS A FEW RANGES??!?!?!??! WHY DIDN'T I KNOW THIS BEFORE!!??!?!11oneoneeleven
Model ranges should be as God (GW) intended them to be, and FW is a heathen devil giving us things like "options" and "choice."
Are you trying to troll me or something?
How about, if you want to reply to me, you read what I wrote? If you do not understand the difference between language (what we are using to partake in a discussion atm) and RAW (hint: not to applied to language) then please stop doing so.
HMint wrote: Are you trying to troll me or something? How about, if you want to reply to me, you read what I wrote? If you do not understand the difference between language (what we are using to partake in a discussion atm) and RAW (hint: not to applied to language) then please stop doing so.
What I am trying to do is get you to elaborate on your point, which seems to be "I don't like FW because it gives armies options that GW didn't give them itself."
I guess one could interprete it losely as sarcasm, literally, he made fun off you, because surprise you realized that they were official addons.
He just did it in a sarcastic way.
(maybee with a hint of a meme, can't place that, have seen it tho.)
Wait so FW doesn't give everyone everything, but instead merely represents an expansion to a few ranges?
HMint wrote: Are you trying to troll me or something?
How about, if you want to reply to me, you read what I wrote? If you do not understand the difference between language (what we are using to partake in a discussion atm) and RAW (hint: not to applied to language) then please stop doing so.
What I am trying to do is get you to elaborate on your point, which seems to be "I don't like FW because it gives armies options that GW didn't give them itself."
Yes, that is my point.
How about instead of elaborating it, you adress it?
Or maybe you feel like that is ok?
I know they are official. We are not discussing that point. We are discussing wether that is a good thing.
Saying 'it is legal' is like saying 'the death penalty is OK, because it is the law' therefore discarding the argument completely.
HMint wrote: Are you trying to troll me or something?
How about, if you want to reply to me, you read what I wrote? If you do not understand the difference between language (what we are using to partake in a discussion atm) and RAW (hint: not to applied to language) then please stop doing so.
What I am trying to do is get you to elaborate on your point, which seems to be "I don't like FW because it gives armies options that GW didn't give them itself."
Yes, that is my point.
How about instead of elaborating it, you adress it?
Or maybe you feel like that is ok?
Here is my reply:
"It is fine to give armies options that GW did not give them, as long as those options are balanced. In fact, more options is always better than fewer options."
HMint wrote: Are you trying to troll me or something?
How about, if you want to reply to me, you read what I wrote? If you do not understand the difference between language (what we are using to partake in a discussion atm) and RAW (hint: not to applied to language) then please stop doing so.
What I am trying to do is get you to elaborate on your point, which seems to be "I don't like FW because it gives armies options that GW didn't give them itself."
Yes, that is my point.
How about instead of elaborating it, you adress it?
Or maybe you feel like that is ok?
I know they are official. We are not discussing that point. We are discussing wether that is a good thing.
Saying 'it is legal' is like saying 'the death penalty is OK, because it is the law' therefore discarding the argument completely.
Except here we have a bad analogy that does not work.
Comparing the death Penalty, which btw is in most developped countries regarded as amoral and banned, to a offically sanctionized expansion in rules / laws from the same company/ country.
Infact it speaks against you.
Quite frankly it is only your own opinion that speaks against including FW codexes/ indexes.
Some people are weird about Forgeworld. It's a understandable thing considering Forgeworld do a pretty bad job of their rules sometimes. But so are the standard rules so it's silly to reject a game over it.
Edit: How in the name of sanity did people end up arguing about the death penalty...
Why didn´t you change the FW dreadnought for a regular one? You could have had a game that day, if you had done so. FW stuff just has a bad reputation among a lot of players.
No, only the manchildren. What else- can I throw a tantrum over Robby G? Baneblades? Knights?
I bought models for me to enjoy. I shouldn't have to change them because some manbaby doesn't like it. There are always better players.
So why do you waste time with these guys? Play with your buddies and you´ll never have any issues whatsoever. But when you do pick-up games, you will get to know new people who won´t have the same opinion as you about the game.
Generally, it is my opinion that when playing a pick-up game, all normal rules for the game are used, and all you should discuss beforehand are rules that are not clear. Whether or not a Leviathan Dreadnought exists and should be used is not unclear, therefore, I generally assume it would be allowed to be used, since "following the basic rules" is generally okay for a pickup game.
And that´s the problem right there. A lot of people have the understanding that basic rules mean BRB and codices. FW is for them just the icing on top. Luxury items for the well endowed hobbyist. Most of them are also not familiar with the FW units and may feel cheated by anybody using them.
Why didn´t you change the FW dreadnought for a regular one? You could have had a game that day, if you had done so. FW stuff just has a bad reputation among a lot of players.
No, only the manchildren. What else- can I throw a tantrum over Robby G? Baneblades? Knights?
I bought models for me to enjoy. I shouldn't have to change them because some manbaby doesn't like it. There are always better players.
So why do you waste time with these guys? Play with your buddies and you´ll never have any issues whatsoever. But when you do pick-up games, you will get to know new people who won´t have the same opinion as you about the game.
Generally, it is my opinion that when playing a pick-up game, all normal rules for the game are used, and all you should discuss beforehand are rules that are not clear. Whether or not a Leviathan Dreadnought exists and should be used is not unclear, therefore, I generally assume it would be allowed to be used, since "following the basic rules" is generally okay for a pickup game.
And that´s the problem right there. A lot of people have the understanding that basic rules mean BRB and codices. FW is for them just the icing on top. Luxury items for the well endowed hobbyist. Most of them are also not familiar with the FW units and may feel cheated by anybody using them.
Really though, it's on them as to whether or not they feel cheated. The FW user isn't cheating. It only take a sensible and civil conversation pre-game to learn what that unfamiliar unit does. If sensible and civil is an issue for someone, then they're unlikely to be happy or able to be helped regardless of the situation.
HMint wrote: Then it is a good thing I did not do that, huh?
You just did use that Analogy and failed miserably.
You fail at reading.
I am equating saying 'FW is OK because it is legal to use and therefore your arguments are all invalid' (which you did) to saying that a very controverisal law (death penalty) should not be a point of discussion because it is legal after all.
Just because things are legal, or 'official' does not mean we aren't allowed to complain about them.
HMint wrote: Then it is a good thing I did not do that, huh?
You just did use that Analogy and failed miserably.
^^
@HMint, It pretty much was in the same league as invoking Hitler, and really wasn't relevant or expansive to the larger discussion. I don't really blame someone for calling you on it.
40K is not a matter of life and death, nor does it have anything to do with a very provocative aspect of morality and social justice. It's a completely unequal parallel to use.
Why didn´t you change the FW dreadnought for a regular one? You could have had a game that day, if you had done so. FW stuff just has a bad reputation among a lot of players.
No, only the manchildren. What else- can I throw a tantrum over Robby G? Baneblades? Knights?
I bought models for me to enjoy. I shouldn't have to change them because some manbaby doesn't like it. There are always better players.
So why do you waste time with these guys? Play with your buddies and you´ll never have any issues whatsoever. But when you do pick-up games, you will get to know new people who won´t have the same opinion as you about the game.
Generally, it is my opinion that when playing a pick-up game, all normal rules for the game are used, and all you should discuss beforehand are rules that are not clear. Whether or not a Leviathan Dreadnought exists and should be used is not unclear, therefore, I generally assume it would be allowed to be used, since "following the basic rules" is generally okay for a pickup game.
And that´s the problem right there. A lot of people have the understanding that basic rules mean BRB and codices. FW is for them just the icing on top. Luxury items for the well endowed hobbyist. Most of them are also not familiar with the FW units and may feel cheated by anybody using them.
The people who think this are wrong for a few reasons: The Basic Rules for the game are the BRB, Chapter Approved 2017, the Spring FAQ, other source-specific FAQs, the Indexes, the FW Indexes, and the Codexes. Anyone who believes it's just BRB + Codexes is houseruling the gak out of the game, but at least Commissars & Conscripts are still good.
FW is not for "well-endowed" people. I bought FW models in college when I worked at a grocery store. The entire range of 40kFW rules right now costs 15 quid or about $20 per book, for a whopping total of 60 quid or about $80. That's literally two codexes.
As for whether or not people "feel" cheated - I mean, that's on them. It's like feeling cheated because someone surrounded your unit and it couldn't fall back, or feeling cheated because someone fired a heavy bolter at something 35" away. Them's the rules, feeling cheated or not.
Well, it is hard for people to get to that conclusion by themselves.
GW certainly isn't helping it, by not having the models, or literature on display and not mentioning FW anywhere in their own literature.
I am not sure what the reason is for this, but apparently GW wants to have that distinction in place.
Maybe it is time for some GW driven FW advertising?
HMint wrote: Then it is a good thing I did not do that, huh?
You just did use that Analogy and failed miserably.
You fail at reading.
I am equating saying 'FW is OK because it is legal to use and therefore your arguments are all invalid' (which you did) to saying that a very controverisal law (death penalty) should not be a point of discussion because it is legal after all.
Just because things are legal, or 'official' does not mean we aren't allowed to complain about them.
That my friend is just an entitled opinion, based on the simple fact that you are to lazy to look up the rules for these armies and or have the feeling that they are again OP, because you literally played against "That Guy" which just had to spam Leviatans, etc (not to mention that GW itself made units that are way more op when spammed and are objectively better then most FW stuff, but he).
You lump again all FW indexes behind that unit and complain about the fact that GW is actively pushing torwards bringing in more FW stuff. Meanwhile you are fine about everything GW does and certainly don't complain about the even more Overpowered stuff, that is seriously more unbalanced on a large scale from GW.
Here is a friendly reminder, this list could go on:
"Tide of Traitors" Stratagem.
The LOLZ you can't hit me Eldar faction buff for one Craftworld, in combination with certain psychic powers.
SOUP itself on the bigger faction keywords was again GW's doing.
Also assuming i don't read your posts properly whilest maintaining your stance even if proven to be hypocrisy at it's finest is quite amusing to be honest.
Forgeworld is becoming more mainstream, but you have to understand that it has been a long struggle for Forgeworld and many players till don't fully accept Forgeworld for legacy reasons that aren't as apparent anymore.
Here is the thing. Forgeworld has some really broken units. But on the whole, are those broken units *really* worse than the stuff GW has already shameless put in their Codex? Is that Leviathan Dread- while very good- really more broken than Alaitoc Dark Reapers?
At the end of the day it comes down to the lists the two players are playing. If they are roughly the same "competitive level" it'll be a fun game.
HMint wrote: Well, it is hard for people to get to that conclusion by themselves.
GW certainly isn't helping it, by not having the models, or literature on display and not mentioning FW anywhere in their own literature.
I am not sure what the reason is for this, but apparently GW wants to have that distinction in place.
Maybe it is time for some GW driven FW advertising?
The updates on FW models appear in GWs chapter approved and their FaQs. GW does advertize FW on their community side, on their FB pages and in the White dwarf, literally in all their PR channels.
HMint wrote: Then it is a good thing I did not do that, huh?
You just did use that Analogy and failed miserably.
You fail at reading.
I am equating saying 'FW is OK because it is legal to use and therefore your arguments are all invalid' (which you did) to saying that a very controverisal law (death penalty) should not be a point of discussion because it is legal after all.
Just because things are legal, or 'official' does not mean we aren't allowed to complain about them.
That my friend is just an entitled opinion, based on the simple fact that you are to lazy to look up the rules for these armies and or have the feeling that they are again OP, because you literally played against "That Guy" which just had to spam Leviatans, etc (not to mention that GW itself made units that are way more op when spammed and are objectively better then most FW stuff, but he).
You lump again all FW indexes behind that unit and complain about the fact that GW is actively pushing torwards bringing in more FW stuff. Meanwhile you are fine about everything GW does and certainly don't complain about the even more Overpowered stuff, that is seriously more unbalanced on a large scale from GW.
Here is a friendly reminder, this list could go on:
"Tide of Traitors" Stratagem.
The LOLZ you can't hit me Eldar faction buff for one Craftworld, in combination with certain psychic powers.
SOUP itself on the bigger faction keywords was again GW's doing.
Also assuming i don't read your posts properly whilest maintaining your stance even if proven to be hypocrisy at it's finest is quite amusing to be honest.
I am still waiting to be 'proven'. So far people seem to nitpick at semantics of my writing, or just have a different opinion.
You for example seem to have the opinion, that because GW has a lot of bad rules, it is fine to introduce even more bad rules? Did I understand that part I quoted correctly?
In that case I maintain, that keeping the game less complex, with less rules (bad or otherwise) seems to help balance things.
Now to expand a bit, I am not even completely against FW personally. In this thread I am arguing why people might not want to play it. Others brought up FWs past imbalances, but I feel like the added complexity and possibity for even more broken things coming in from FW is also a factor. Keep in mind that to many players the FW lineup is kind of mysterious, as they do not have access to all of those rules typically. An unknown lineup that introduces weird new rules into their games.
I personally am ok with FW where it expands the army, but upkeeps their identity.
I do not really like if FW gives an army something completely new, which changes the internal balance of that army too much.
What I absolutely do not like is when FW writes entire allies into the rules where they did not exist formerly.
People that get super butthurt over FW really fall into two camps generally.
First: the ignorant. People that just dont know about FW and have likely been taken advantage of. Everyone has that horror story of some dude proxying an FW model with made up or erroneous (usually old) rules and poisoning FW in that group forever and either never bother looking into what really should have happened and never get over it.
Second: the intransigent. They just dont like anything outside that isnt from the main GW studio line for whatever reason, and that simple fact in and of itself is all that they really have to hate against despite nothing in the rules supportinf such a stance, but theyll bend over backwards to find every possible excuse to exclude FW, but ultimately really never have a better root explanation than "it doesnt say Codex on the cover".
Meanwhile I'm sitting here waiting for my DKoK to get all these massively powerful goodies that FW supposedly offers and wondering where all thats at
HMint wrote: Well, it is hard for people to get to that conclusion by themselves.
GW certainly isn't helping it, by not having the models, or literature on display and not mentioning FW anywhere in their own literature.
I am not sure what the reason is for this, but apparently GW wants to have that distinction in place.
Maybe it is time for some GW driven FW advertising?
The updates on FW models appear in GWs chapter approved and their FaQs. GW does advertize FW on their community side, on their FB pages and in the White dwarf, literally in all their PR channels.
Typically for online multiplayer games, the percentage of players that take part in online forums such as this one and visit official websites and community pages are in the minority. Most players seem to just play the game as they aquired it.
So I am guessing this is even more so the case for 40k?
I mean... the only way I got to know the FW rules is by aquiring those books from.. shady sources. Obviously not everyone does evil things like that.
And they won't buy the rules unless there is a reason dor them to do so. Isn't that kind of a problem?
If you want to know if a certain GW army suits you, you can walk into any GW store, read through their open codizes (all stores I went to had a few of those), look at the models on display, talk to the store-guys...
That venue does not exist for FW, so I don't find it very surprising that a lot of players aren't familiar with their lineup.
HMint wrote: Then it is a good thing I did not do that, huh?
You just did use that Analogy and failed miserably.
You fail at reading.
I am equating saying 'FW is OK because it is legal to use and therefore your arguments are all invalid' (which you did) to saying that a very controverisal law (death penalty) should not be a point of discussion because it is legal after all.
Just because things are legal, or 'official' does not mean we aren't allowed to complain about them.
That my friend is just an entitled opinion, based on the simple fact that you are to lazy to look up the rules for these armies and or have the feeling that they are again OP, because you literally played against "That Guy" which just had to spam Leviatans, etc (not to mention that GW itself made units that are way more op when spammed and are objectively better then most FW stuff, but he).
You lump again all FW indexes behind that unit and complain about the fact that GW is actively pushing torwards bringing in more FW stuff. Meanwhile you are fine about everything GW does and certainly don't complain about the even more Overpowered stuff, that is seriously more unbalanced on a large scale from GW.
Here is a friendly reminder, this list could go on:
"Tide of Traitors" Stratagem.
The LOLZ you can't hit me Eldar faction buff for one Craftworld, in combination with certain psychic powers.
SOUP itself on the bigger faction keywords was again GW's doing.
Also assuming i don't read your posts properly whilest maintaining your stance even if proven to be hypocrisy at it's finest is quite amusing to be honest.
I am still waiting to be 'proven'. So far people seem to nitpick at semantics of my writing, or just have a different opinion.
You for example seem to have the opinion, that because GW has a lot of bad rules, it is fine to introduce even more bad rules? Did I understand that part I quoted correctly?
In that case I maintain, that keeping the game less complex, with less rules (bad or otherwise) seems to help balance things.
Now to expand a bit, I am not even completely against FW personally. In this thread I am arguing why people might not want to play it. Others brought up FWs past imbalances, but I feel like the added complexity and possibity for even more broken things coming in from FW is also a factor. Keep in mind that to many players the FW lineup is kind of mysterious, as they do not have access to all of those rules typically. An unknown lineup that introduces weird new rules into their games.
I personally am ok with FW where it expands the army, but upkeeps their identity.
I do not really like if FW gives an army something completely new, which changes the internal balance of that army too much.
What I absolutely do not like is when FW writes entire allies into the rules where they did not exist formerly.
And again you are trapped by the imagination that FW rules will overcomplicate the game that GW recently streamlined extremely. (By the way you should also be against new releases in armies of GW then when "something new that changes the balance of an army" shows up)
And again you fail to see that the new rules are basically just new variations of the same rules, played with the same dice and with the same profile/ statsystem.
And again you would rather play a game deep as a puddle in order to keep something simple for simplicities sake instead of buidling and allowing players to have choices and options. Actually no, you would rather have the excact same rules always and forever, because you literally can't seem to live with change.
And AGAIN no access to the rules is wrong because the player that brings FW units / armies has to bring the index and you certainly have a right to read the rules, because if else then certainly you have a player at your hand which is either going to cheat and or "that guy/ rule lawyer" and then i can only reccomend you not to play that match.
As for the bad rules argument: "because GW makes bad rules we should not allow a company which mostly does better internal rules then GW into the system because it could be even worse" Well how come that FW rules generally are more balanced and the problem is less with FW and more with the players that just inherently pick the most OP stuff ( also known as Powergamer). Secondly considering they are literally one company that releases the 40 k gamesystem toghether more or less, do you honestly think FW could screw the balance up even moreso then GW, which btw does this on a regular basis? Don't you think it might be time to bring some fresh wind into their rule/ gamedesign team via introducing somebody else into that system?
HMint wrote: Then it is a good thing I did not do that, huh?
You just did use that Analogy and failed miserably.
You fail at reading.
I am equating saying 'FW is OK because it is legal to use and therefore your arguments are all invalid' (which you did) to saying that a very controverisal law (death penalty) should not be a point of discussion because it is legal after all.
Just because things are legal, or 'official' does not mean we aren't allowed to complain about them.
That my friend is just an entitled opinion, based on the simple fact that you are to lazy to look up the rules for these armies and or have the feeling that they are again OP, because you literally played against "That Guy" which just had to spam Leviatans, etc (not to mention that GW itself made units that are way more op when spammed and are objectively better then most FW stuff, but he).
You lump again all FW indexes behind that unit and complain about the fact that GW is actively pushing torwards bringing in more FW stuff. Meanwhile you are fine about everything GW does and certainly don't complain about the even more Overpowered stuff, that is seriously more unbalanced on a large scale from GW.
Here is a friendly reminder, this list could go on:
"Tide of Traitors" Stratagem.
The LOLZ you can't hit me Eldar faction buff for one Craftworld, in combination with certain psychic powers.
SOUP itself on the bigger faction keywords was again GW's doing.
Also assuming i don't read your posts properly whilest maintaining your stance even if proven to be hypocrisy at it's finest is quite amusing to be honest.
I am still waiting to be 'proven'. So far people seem to nitpick at semantics of my writing, or just have a different opinion.
You for example seem to have the opinion, that because GW has a lot of bad rules, it is fine to introduce even more bad rules? Did I understand that part I quoted correctly?
In that case I maintain, that keeping the game less complex, with less rules (bad or otherwise) seems to help balance things.
Now to expand a bit, I am not even completely against FW personally. In this thread I am arguing why people might not want to play it. Others brought up FWs past imbalances, but I feel like the added complexity and possibity for even more broken things coming in from FW is also a factor. Keep in mind that to many players the FW lineup is kind of mysterious, as they do not have access to all of those rules typically. An unknown lineup that introduces weird new rules into their games.
I personally am ok with FW where it expands the army, but upkeeps their identity.
I do not really like if FW gives an army something completely new, which changes the internal balance of that army too much.
What I absolutely do not like is when FW writes entire allies into the rules where they did not exist formerly.
With respect, what you like or don't like is irrelevant. What I like or don't like is also irrelevant.
Factually, FW units are legal and if you're playing by the rules of 40K, they are part of those rules. We don't have to like it, we do have to accept it. Where we refuse to, we also have to accept we are no longer playing 40K, but instead our own homebrew version of that game.
Isn't it massively arrogant to expect others to play by your special version of the rules because you don't like the official ones?
I hate the term personally, but generally someone expecting that level of special treatment is referred to as a snowflake.
Now, if you can have a polite conversation and agree to play by x, y or z, that's fine! But you certainly shouldn't expect your opponent to automatically agree and childishly refuse to play when they don't.
We usually "invest" in a game with it's own maintained rule set so we can go to a FLGS and play pickup games with a stranger and hope some measure of similarity of army power is kept.
In agreeing to a mutual rule set, Forge World and regular Games Workshop models are treated on an equal footing as "legal".
Now it is every player's right to decide they do not want to play for whatever reason.
Refusing to play a Forge World model is like looking at your opponent's army, thinking you might lose and refusing to play... oh, wait, people do that as well.
Personally, my own decision would be:
- Ask if they have the rules for that unit with them, ask to see them.
- Thank them very much and play with the comment "I have not played against that before OR only a couple times and figure it will be fun to have a go.".
- At the very least you can try to get bragging rights for taking something different down.
- That is a pretty tall order for that beast, lascannons aplenty really needed, and a storm cannon array will cave face pretty good all with 2+ to hit.
There is the odd case that some unit is rock to your scissors and you will have to decide if you are up for a challenge... because ANY gaming is good right?
In memoriam of this thread, I ordered my Age of Darkness rulebook and 3 Minotaur Artillery Tanks, just so I can show these pleb scrubs how overpowered forgeworld really is.
Tremble in fear before the Minotaur Artillery Tank and it's brokenly OP Forge World rules.
I expect all tournaments to surrender their prize money to me before the day is out, lest my Minotaur Artillery Tanks start destroying all the major tournaments in the Western hemisphere.
Minotaurs are cool, but seriously since the removal of templates they kinda suck.
Actiually they even sucked in 7th, even with the added abilitiy of "the Purge" formation.
Come to think of it, you could still use it as a driving bunker, you payed extra for. Anyways, has anybody found the supposed 2 Heavybolters it has? I sure as hell haven't^^
Yeah, sorry kids. Forge World is legal. You don't have to play someone using FW models if you don't want. I promise, as someone with a bit of FW in his army- for every one person that wants to treat a game with FW models like we're about to have sex for the first time without a condom and talk our way through it, I can find a dozen people who are comfortable looking at my book and allowing it.
By the same logic that you can't allow FW models, you can disallow a hundred other things. It starts to seem less like being fair, and more like someone trying to dictate what someone else brings to the table.
Not Online!!! wrote: Minotaurs are cool, but seriously since the removal of templates they kinda suck.
(That's the joke.)
I know, however i will name it the thing with the 2 missing heavy bolters.
Having ordered 3, I will tell you where the heavy bolters are. After looking at the pictures, it's quite clear they're attached to the two unicorns who ride in the cabin.
Indeed, i will pay my respects torwards your enemies, which will tremble by the sheer amount of points you have wais... err i mean wisely spent oh greatest of warlords.
(3 basilisks in pts and output of 2 in on tank for those non r&h players)
Not Online!!! wrote: Indeed, i will pay my respects torwards your enemies, which will tremble by the sheer amount of points you have wais... err i mean wisely spent oh greatest of warlords.
(3 basilisks in pts and output of 2 in on tank for those non r&h players)
NOW NOW
Forge World is OP, remember? My Minotaur Artillery Tanks will prove unstoppable on the battlefield just from sheer Forge-Worldiness. It's like a special rule or something.
"Made By Forge World: Despite being overpriced, and lacking the firepower to justify their cost, Minotaur Artillery Tanks are WAACTFG tanks only taken by the most hardcore players in pursuit of skilless victory!"
Wow, guys. I didn't think things would get so heated. Look, I'll be honest, I'm a fluff player. I like to theme stuff and come up with a background for each individual force. I can see why a person might object to facing a wall of super heavies in a pick up game. Or three dakka Leviathan. Or three Stormravens. I wouldn't but I can see why someone might.
I just felt objecting to a single FW model in 2000pts of bog standard, non-optimised marines was a bit odd. But, like I said, I dropped the Leviathan. He dropped a Carnifex and a few other bits and bobs and we played out a very pleasant game.
Oh, yeah, in response to someone further back, can't remember who, the reason my army was limited in scope is that I was travelling and brought stuff that'd fit in carry on luggage. All the rest of the stuff was actually robust enough that I wasn't worried about it. It was the Leviathan that had my heart in my mouth but it was the Leviathan that added a bit of spark and colour to an otherwise pretty bland collection.
1126. Be sure to post about games using your minotaurs. Im curious to see how they are.
Im happy that the FW super heavy rules have been updated. Id like to use my Preator Launcher. But it is supposed to be an awesome MLRS that still needs LoS. And gets 2D6 number of shots.....Meh.
rhinoceraids wrote: 1126. Be sure to post about games using your minotaurs. Im curious to see how they are.
Im happy that the FW super heavy rules have been updated. Id like to use my Preator Launcher. But it is supposed to be an awesome MLRS that still needs LoS. And gets 2D6 number of shots.....Meh.
That vs the Banehammer. Ill take the banehammer.
Ironically, the Praetor, Minotaur, and Valdors all missed out on the update, so they can still overwatch infinite times but also cannot move and fire without the penalty (lol). But I will keep you updated!
Lol I hope the OP learned a lesson. While I may show up to events I never go to local gaming stores for pick up games and consequently I never go to them to purchase anything. Unless it's a scheduled event I plan on attending I never travel with my army. The gas, space in my vehicle and my time has been better served by bringing my golf clubs and checking out local golf courses. Warhammer game itself is terribly designed and only fun with friends.
Not Online!!! wrote: Indeed, i will pay my respects torwards your enemies, which will tremble by the sheer amount of points you have wais... err i mean wisely spent oh greatest of warlords.
(3 basilisks in pts and output of 2 in on tank for those non r&h players)
NOW NOW
Forge World is OP, remember? My Minotaur Artillery Tanks will prove unstoppable on the battlefield just from sheer Forge-Worldiness. It's like a special rule or something.
"Made By Forge World: Despite being overpriced, and lacking the firepower to justify their cost, Minotaur Artillery Tanks are WAACTFG tanks only taken by the most hardcore players in pursuit of skilless victory!"
Hopefully you will wrap them with the most sophisticated troop possible: The double prized worthless grot in human form, aka the Militia squad, or maybee grots themselves, alas we are supposed to be able to take everything.
HMint wrote: Well, it is hard for people to get to that conclusion by themselves.
GW certainly isn't helping it, by not having the models, or literature on display and not mentioning FW anywhere in their own literature.
I am not sure what the reason is for this, but apparently GW wants to have that distinction in place.
Maybe it is time for some GW driven FW advertising?
The updates on FW models appear in GWs chapter approved and their FaQs. GW does advertize FW on their community side, on their FB pages and in the White dwarf, literally in all their PR channels.
Typically for online multiplayer games, the percentage of players that take part in online forums such as this one and visit official websites and community pages are in the minority. Most players seem to just play the game as they aquired it.
So I am guessing this is even more so the case for 40k?
I mean... the only way I got to know the FW rules is by aquiring those books from.. shady sources. Obviously not everyone does evil things like that.
And they won't buy the rules unless there is a reason dor them to do so. Isn't that kind of a problem?
If you want to know if a certain GW army suits you, you can walk into any GW store, read through their open codizes (all stores I went to had a few of those), look at the models on display, talk to the store-guys...
That venue does not exist for FW, so I don't find it very surprising that a lot of players aren't familiar with their lineup.
Sorry but in times of battlescribe this sounds like a pretty poor excuse. I consider the FW index rules to be simpler than GW army rules, they don't have relics, artefacts, stratagems, warlord traits, they're most of the time just some slightly changed variant of an existing GW unit. Also the FW indizes are the same price as the GW indizes. I'll give you that you have to order them directly and FW's shipping is very 20th century. I never understood why they don't sell FW in their GWs, but probably it would rise FW sales to a volume they can't handle
I never understood why they don't sell FW in their GWs, but probably it would rise FW sales to a volume they can't handle
Yep, you have it exactly right.
The resin casting process they use just isn't compatible with mass production. They quite literally make nearly everything to order, and it's far more labour intensive than GW's plastic kits. They'd need to expand their team exponentially to be able to keep any kind of reasonable stock levels in their retail locations (and likely, the molds would give out in short order!)
If people want to refuse a game for whatever reason is fine. It would have been nice for him to let you know before you showed up for the game at the store but it might be common in the area he's in and he assumed you wouldn't bring FW. It's no different IMO then saying "I don't play against unpainted miniatures, we don't allow proxies, we play first-floor ruins block LOS, ect" Most areas or tournaments have slightly different ways of playing so it's just best to adapt like you did and get a game in.
Asmodios wrote: If people want to refuse a game for whatever reason is fine. It would have been nice for him to let you know before you showed up for the game at the store but it might be common in the area he's in and he assumed you wouldn't bring FW. It's no different IMO then saying "I don't play against unpainted miniatures, we don't allow proxies, we play first-floor ruins block LOS, ect" Most areas or tournaments have slightly different ways of playing so it's just best to adapt like you did and get a game in.
Actually it is very different to that. Unpainted miniatures and proxies aren't explicitly allowed by the rules, so banning them is just convention.
FW models are explicitly allowed in the game. There is no reason to treat them as being in the same category as unpainted miniatures. Banning FW is less akin to banning unpainted miniatures and more akin to banning Codex: Chaos Space Marines, because you're taking a clear and obvious part of the game, explicitly allowed by the rules, and banning it.
You can see why banning Codex: Chaos Space Marines might come as a surprise and be seen as unreasonable.
If someone does not want to play vs my forgeworld stuff , I will first take a look at their army, and if its reasonable then I will use a list that excludes FW. But if they are running something hard then its a pass. Its lame to ban minis when you are running a competitive list. FW is perfectly legal, as legal as the SM codex.
It's pretty tough and it can have some awesome guns that OP didn't take.
If it has twin storm cannons its easily disabled. Charge it from 9" away, avoiding its heavy flamers. If you can surround it it cant fallback. It has only two attacks at S8 AP0 D1. Tie it up in CC until the game is over. If you cant surround it you have at least disabled its shooting for one turn. Unless its ultramarines, then it can still shoot after falling back, with -1.
Asmodios wrote: If people want to refuse a game for whatever reason is fine. It would have been nice for him to let you know before you showed up for the game at the store but it might be common in the area he's in and he assumed you wouldn't bring FW. It's no different IMO then saying "I don't play against unpainted miniatures, we don't allow proxies, we play first-floor ruins block LOS, ect" Most areas or tournaments have slightly different ways of playing so it's just best to adapt like you did and get a game in.
Yeah, it's not fine. Not really.
It simply isn't fair to expect anyone to play anything but by the rules of 40K in a public setting. Now, if you want to change up the rules in a private setting - have at it. Otherwise you simply don't get to fundamentally alter the game either by addition or omission because you don't like something and expect to be seen as behaving reasonably.
This is seeming more and more like nothing other than a case of people wanting to stack the game in their favour by clutching at a tired excuse they think will allow them to dictate what their opponent can field.
If you really have an issue with certain FW units, the correct place to try and change them is via GW or FW. Until that happens, play privately with others of a like mind, or accept things as they are in public and play.
The rules are the rules. There is no debate to be had.
It's pretty tough and it can have some awesome guns that OP didn't take.
If it has twin storm cannons its easily disabled. Charge it from 9" away, avoiding its heavy flamers. If you can surround it it cant fallback. It has only two attacks at S8 AP0 D1. Tie it up in CC until the game is over. If you cant surround it you have at least disabled its shooting for one turn. Unless its ultramarines, then it can still shoot after falling back, with -1.
Asmodios wrote: If people want to refuse a game for whatever reason is fine. It would have been nice for him to let you know before you showed up for the game at the store but it might be common in the area he's in and he assumed you wouldn't bring FW. It's no different IMO then saying "I don't play against unpainted miniatures, we don't allow proxies, we play first-floor ruins block LOS, ect" Most areas or tournaments have slightly different ways of playing so it's just best to adapt like you did and get a game in.
Yeah, it's not fine. Not really.
It simply isn't fair to expect anyone to play anything but by the rules of 40K in a public setting. Now, if you want to change up the rules in a private setting - have at it. Otherwise you simply don't get to fundamentally alter the game either by addition or omission because you don't like something and expect to be seen as behaving reasonably.
This is seeming more and more like nothing other than a case of people wanting to stack the game in their favour by clutching at a tired excuse they think will allow them to dictate what their opponent can field.
If you really have an issue with certain FW units, the correct place to try and change them is via GW or FW. Until that happens, play privately with others of a like mind, or accept things as they are in public and play.
The rules are the rules. There is no debate to be had.
Yup, you're right it's not fine to let people choose how they want to play..... If someone refuses to play me in the future or they try to play by any sort of non GW official ruling or house rule I will physically beat them
Its the logical thing to do
Asmodios wrote: If people want to refuse a game for whatever reason is fine. It would have been nice for him to let you know before you showed up for the game at the store but it might be common in the area he's in and he assumed you wouldn't bring FW. It's no different IMO then saying "I don't play against unpainted miniatures, we don't allow proxies, we play first-floor ruins block LOS, ect" Most areas or tournaments have slightly different ways of playing so it's just best to adapt like you did and get a game in.
Actually it is very different to that. Unpainted miniatures and proxies aren't explicitly allowed by the rules, so banning them is just convention.
FW models are explicitly allowed in the game. There is no reason to treat them as being in the same category as unpainted miniatures. Banning FW is less akin to banning unpainted miniatures and more akin to banning Codex: Chaos Space Marines, because you're taking a clear and obvious part of the game, explicitly allowed by the rules, and banning it.
You can see why banning Codex: Chaos Space Marines might come as a surprise and be seen as unreasonable.
No what I cant see is the idea that its ok to force someone to play a pickup game they don't want. If I played chaos and some guy said "sorry I don't play chaos" i wouldn't play him. If you feel strongly about FW products and someone won't let you use it..... then don't play them. People who feel entitled that every person has to play this game exactly like they do amazes me. Ive seen everything from people that wont play FW to those who won't play certain book missions or malstorm. Everyone can choose what they will or wont play/play against and you cant force them to play no matter how much you stomp your feet
No one is saying they should be "forced" to play the game or we'll break their kneecaps or something.
We're saying they're being unreasonable. I would also say someone who bans Codex: Chaos Space Marines is being unreasonable as well. They're allowed to, and I'm not going to advocate violence or coercion as the alternative. But that doesn't mean I can't make fun of the person for being hilariously misinformed or condemn them for being disingenuous or comment negatively that they're being unreasonable.
FW units should not be used. feth those CSM players using them Contemptors. Suck it up and be loyalist then you can get exactly the same unit in your nice official codex.
Unit1126PLL wrote: No one is saying they should be "forced" to play the game or we'll break their kneecaps or something.
We're saying they're being unreasonable. I would also say someone who bans Codex: Chaos Space Marines is being unreasonable as well. They're allowed to, and I'm not going to advocate violence or coercion as the alternative. But that doesn't mean I can't make fun of the person for being hilariously misinformed or condemn them for being disingenuous or comment negatively that they're being unreasonable.
>You play a toy soldier minatures game
>want to make fun of people for not playing the same way as you
i have a feeling people that refuse to play with you would be making the right choice reguardless of their resoning
Unit1126PLL wrote: No one is saying they should be "forced" to play the game or we'll break their kneecaps or something.
We're saying they're being unreasonable. I would also say someone who bans Codex: Chaos Space Marines is being unreasonable as well. They're allowed to, and I'm not going to advocate violence or coercion as the alternative. But that doesn't mean I can't make fun of the person for being hilariously misinformed or condemn them for being disingenuous or comment negatively that they're being unreasonable.
>You play a toy soldier minatures game
>want to make fun of people for not playing the same way as you
i have a feeling people that refuse to play with you would be making the right choice reguardless of their resoning
Today I learned:
Giving the reason you make fun of someone doesn't mean the person you are talking to will understand the reason.
I'm not making fun of them for not playing the same way as me. I'm making fun of them for - ah hell, let me just give you the original quote but cut down so it's short enough for you to understand this time:
Unit1126PLL wrote: that doesn't mean I can't make fun of the person for being hilariously misinformed
"Being hilariously misinformed" is a good reason to make fun of a lot of people, if they refuse to inform themselves. And has nothing to do with "playing the game the same way as me." I make fun of people who are hilariously misinformed about math, politics, philosophy... hell, I consider being hilariously misinformed as just making yourself a target. What's worse? I think it's fine if other people do it to me, too, because if I'm unwilling to learn something then that's a problem.
Asmodios wrote: If people want to refuse a game for whatever reason is fine. It would have been nice for him to let you know before you showed up for the game at the store but it might be common in the area he's in and he assumed you wouldn't bring FW. It's no different IMO then saying "I don't play against unpainted miniatures, we don't allow proxies, we play first-floor ruins block LOS, ect" Most areas or tournaments have slightly different ways of playing so it's just best to adapt like you did and get a game in.
Yeah, it's not fine. Not really.
It simply isn't fair to expect anyone to play anything but by the rules of 40K in a public setting. Now, if you want to change up the rules in a private setting - have at it. Otherwise you simply don't get to fundamentally alter the game either by addition or omission because you don't like something and expect to be seen as behaving reasonably.
This is seeming more and more like nothing other than a case of people wanting to stack the game in their favour by clutching at a tired excuse they think will allow them to dictate what their opponent can field. If you really have an issue with certain FW units, the correct place to try and change them is via GW or FW. Until that happens, play privately with others of a like mind, or accept things as they are in public and play.
The rules are the rules. There is no debate to be had.
Yup, you're right it's not fine to let people choose how they want to play..... If someone refuses to play me in the future or they try to play by any sort of non GW official ruling or house rule I will physically beat them Its the logical thing to do
Yeah, and you can choose to play a round of golf by picking up the golf ball, running down the green with it in hand and dropping it in the hole. Golf clubs are part of the rules, but we have the right to treat them as optional right?
Yes you do. But go ahead and see how that goes down at the golf club. You'll be ridiculed and then probably banned. And rightly so.
Why is it any more acceptable in our game, for people to choose to play by - or omit - whatever rules they feel like, and then expect the rest of us to automatically be ok with it? That they can make that choice (and I accept they can), doesn't make the choice any less foolhardy if you are playing outside of your own private location or without implicit agreement beforehand.
I'll ignore the comment about physically beating people - it just doesn't warrant a response.
Deadnight wrote: Legal or otherwise, you are not obliged to play against anything in this game if you don't want to, regardless of what it is that you don't want to play against.
I have little interest in playing against 'names', super-heavies and flyers, for example, outside of specific scenarios. Simple reason being that these things do not necessarily lend themselves To the types of games I want my 40k games to be about. All those things, just like forgeworld, are perfectly legal, all perfectly fair game, and you are entitled to like them, and to want to take any of them to a game that you want.
But you might end up playing against someone else other than me. Neither of us is necessarily wrong.
You do have that right. You're not 'wrong' to exercise it.
But you are essentially playing 'Deadnights basic infantry battles' a game based heavily on the popular miniatures game Warhammer: 40,000 that the rest of us play.
I truly mean no offense to you personally, but this attitude as a whole just smells of singling out people who won't play the game by your own preferences. It feels a lot like a form of elitism...
The thing is straylight, everyone plays (with, or against) a 'subset' of the popular miniatures game warhammer:40,000. Plenty folks are no different to me. Tournament players will only ever look at about 5% of the options of the game as 'worth it' for example. Plenty groups have an 'understanding' of 'no flyers',for example. Plenty people build armies with a specific theme in mind - they will only field armour, because they are tread heads for example. No one is necessarily 'wrong'.
In terms of 'singling out people', it's not actually about singling out people that don't play the game by my preferences, it's the opposite way round - it's about singling out those who do play on something of the same wavelength. For the sole purpose of playing games. And there really is no elitism there. At all. It's not about that. I am no better or worse than any one else.As I see it, if you want to get the most out of your hobby/gaming time, you need to 'play with likeminded folks'. There is no point playing games that you don't enjoy, playing types of games you don't enjoy, or,playing against people you,don't enjoy playing against. This doesn't mean you can't be friends, or friendly, and socialise with those that play 'other' games. And furthermore, I'm just married (yay!). I work full time, and travel quite a bit. I hit the gym often. I run. I have plenty other life commitments that I didn't have when I was a kid in college. I have to be far more selective with my time, because my gaming time is limited and precious. It's precious 'currency' - I cannot afford to spend it on games that I don't enjoy, hence being a bit more selective, rather than just settling for whatever is on offer, just because it's a game, and somehow I'm obliged to play it, despite my preferences.
I appreciate your point of view, and for what it's worth, I am as far from 'elitist' as you can go. I take no offence to what you say, as I fully believe that no offence waa meant on your part in saying it. On mine, I won't turn my nose up to anyone, I won't look down on anyone either. Play the game you want to play - if you're happy, more power to you.
What I will do is, as we chat, say what kind of games I prefer playing (and it's a step above 'deadnights basic Infantry battles' - I prefer small scale 'raids' where the biggest thing on the board is a dreadnought, sentinel or a blight drone, and where a single power weapon is a big bloody deal). I won't force my preferences on you, or claim that I am right or better than you for liking what I like, And even if we are not having a game, I'll still socialise. We can still chat, and whatever else. But if you like big battles, or tournament preps, or whatever, I'll politely refuse. If you don't want to play a raid, then do the same. Politely refuse. I promise you I will not be offended and my ego will not be bruised. No harm, no foul. And I'll wish you the best in your game.
I simply have a preference for a specific type of game (that I, and my group, I may add, tend to prefer). Maybe it's because I started playing in an era when the biggest baddest thing on the board was a wraithlord, or a land raider, but the 'scale creep' that has happened to 40k is simply something I a man not really interested in. Also to note is my other games - lotr, infinity and warmachine/horses tend to be on the 'skirmish' side of the spectrum, rather than 'mass battle'. I much prefer those kinds of games. I prefer more narrative games. I prefer 'not-optimal' lists as I find the principle of 'do the best you can with what you have to hand' far more interesting than 'here is a power list. Game ends on turn 2'. I think they are far more interesting. And I am lucky in that I have found a group that enjoys sci-fi skirmishes much more than 40k:apocalypse parking lot.
Asmodios wrote: If people want to refuse a game for whatever reason is fine. It would have been nice for him to let you know before you showed up for the game at the store but it might be common in the area he's in and he assumed you wouldn't bring FW. It's no different IMO then saying "I don't play against unpainted miniatures, we don't allow proxies, we play first-floor ruins block LOS, ect" Most areas or tournaments have slightly different ways of playing so it's just best to adapt like you did and get a game in.
Yeah, it's not fine. Not really.
It simply isn't fair to expect anyone to play anything but by the rules of 40K in a public setting. Now, if you want to change up the rules in a private setting - have at it. Otherwise you simply don't get to fundamentally alter the game either by addition or omission because you don't like something and expect to be seen as behaving reasonably.
This is seeming more and more like nothing other than a case of people wanting to stack the game in their favour by clutching at a tired excuse they think will allow them to dictate what their opponent can field.
If you really have an issue with certain FW units, the correct place to try and change them is via GW or FW. Until that happens, play privately with others of a like mind, or accept things as they are in public and play.
The rules are the rules. There is no debate to be had.
Yup, you're right it's not fine to let people choose how they want to play..... If someone refuses to play me in the future or they try to play by any sort of non GW official ruling or house rule I will physically beat them
Its the logical thing to do
Yeah, and you can choose to play a round of golf by picking up the golf ball, running down the green with it in hand and dropping it in the hole. Golf clubs are part of the rules, but we have the right to treat them as optional right?
Yes you do. But go ahead and see how that goes down at the golf club. You'll be ridiculed and then probably banned. And rightly so.
Why is it any more acceptable in our game, for people to choose to play by - or omit - whatever rules they feel like, and then expect the rest of us to automatically be ok with it? That they can make that choice (and I accept they can), doesn't make the choice any less foolhardy if you are playing outside of your own private location or without implicit agreement beforehand.
I'll ignore the comment about physically beating people - it just doesn't warrant a response.
Just for your example
There’s both
>golf
>frisbee golf
People have fun playing both. Same basic game two different ways of playing. I play ice hockey, some people play broom hockey, floor hockey, sled hockey.... there’s tons of different leagues that play 5 man, 3 man, half ice, no boards ect. It’s all hockey.... just pic the type you prefer
Great, whilest i agree that was not very civil way of conduct, your argument for this is atleast equally bad: "Because somebody said something not nice i now have to throw all the people that play with those armies in the same bin"
10 /10 logic.
No, what I am saying is I was on the fence about playing an random opponent showing up with FW stuff in as I am largely unaware of what it can do but full aware of the issues they can create. The vitrol about this hesitation pushed me into the, 'Nah, I good with not playing them.' It might be fine after a few games and I get to know that person better or I knew them beforehand, but just meeting a stranger for some random game with units I don't even know exist and just expecting me to say no problem is a little presumptuous. It isn't even about whether the unit is good or bad. It is something completely unexpected that a player could easily lie (which I know they likely won't) about how it works among other issues it creates.
In many other miniatures wargames I have played, there were many units that were considered restricted socially while they had absolutely no game mechanics stopping a player from taking them. They were just determined to be too disruptive for a good game and as such few players fielded them (vehicle flamethrowers or more locally inexperienced mortar teams in 1st ed Bolt Action are good examples). There is usual social contract about these things most places I have game. It I take something a little odd or unexpected, I check with my opponent if they are fine with it, especially if they don't know me, I have a contingency plan in place in case they decide they aren't conformable with the inclusion. What I don't do is call them or hypothetical players like them names and demean their objectives because I don't like them.
I am sure Forge World will be glad for your business. It literally doesn't affect me though unless I can somehow convince them to give me stuff for increasing their sales.
Unit1126PLL wrote: No one is saying they should be "forced" to play the game or we'll break their kneecaps or something.
We're saying they're being unreasonable. I would also say someone who bans Codex: Chaos Space Marines is being unreasonable as well. They're allowed to, and I'm not going to advocate violence or coercion as the alternative. But that doesn't mean I can't make fun of the person for being hilariously misinformed or condemn them for being disingenuous or comment negatively that they're being unreasonable.
I don't see it as being unreasonable perhaps not to my liking, but not unreasonable. It is very possible that some players like 40K, but thet find the more demonic elements for moral reasons beyond the pale for them to enjoy the game. I have met a few players that absolutely won't play evil (read: demonic) elements of many games. As a Chaos player I completely disagree with that, but I am not going to be bothered or negative towards someone that hold such an opinion. I am not likely to change their position and they aren't hurting anyone. Plus, If they aren't enjoying the game, I am not enjoying the game. Making fun of someone over it as that seems like very immature way to deal with not getting your way.
Deadnight wrote: Legal or otherwise, you are not obliged to play against anything in this game if you don't want to, regardless of what it is that you don't want to play against.
I have little interest in playing against 'names', super-heavies and flyers, for example, outside of specific scenarios. Simple reason being that these things do not necessarily lend themselves To the types of games I want my 40k games to be about. All those things, just like forgeworld, are perfectly legal, all perfectly fair game, and you are entitled to like them, and to want to take any of them to a game that you want.
But you might end up playing against someone else other than me. Neither of us is necessarily wrong.
You do have that right. You're not 'wrong' to exercise it.
But you are essentially playing 'Deadnights basic infantry battles' a game based heavily on the popular miniatures game Warhammer: 40,000 that the rest of us play.
I truly mean no offense to you personally, but this attitude as a whole just smells of singling out people who won't play the game by your own preferences. It feels a lot like a form of elitism...
The thing is straylight, everyone plays (with, or against) a 'subset' of the popular miniatures game warhammer:40,000. Plenty folks are no different to me. Tournament players will only ever look at about 5% of the options of the game as 'worth it' for example. Plenty groups have an 'understanding' of 'no flyers',for example. Plenty people build armies with a specific theme in mind - they will only field armour, because they are tread heads for example. No one is necessarily 'wrong'.
In terms of 'singling out people', it's not actually about singling out people that don't play the game by my preferences, it's the opposite way round - it's about singling out those who do play on something of the same wavelength. For the sole purpose of playing games. And there really is no elitism there. At all. It's not about that. I am no better or worse than any one else.As I see it, if you want to get the most out of your hobby/gaming time, you need to 'play with likeminded folks'. There is no point playing games that you don't enjoy, playing types of games you don't enjoy, or,playing against people you,don't enjoy playing against. This doesn't mean you can't be friends, or friendly, and socialise with those that play 'other' games. And furthermore, I'm just married (yay!). I work full time, and travel quite a bit. I hit the gym often. I run. I have plenty other life commitments that I didn't have when I was a kid in college. I have to be far more selective with my time, because my gaming time is limited and precious. It's precious 'currency' - I cannot afford to spend it on games that I don't enjoy, hence being a bit more selective, rather than just settling for whatever is on offer, just because it's a game, and somehow I'm obliged to play it, despite my preferences.
I appreciate your point of view, and for what it's worth, I am as far from 'elitist' as you can go. I take no offence to what you say, as I fully believe that no offence waa meant on your part in saying it. On mine, I won't turn my nose up to anyone, I won't look down on anyone either. Play the game you want to play - if you're happy, more power to you.
What I will do is, as we chat, say what kind of games I prefer playing (and it's a step above 'deadnights basic Infantry battles' - I prefer small scale 'raids' where the biggest thing on the board is a dreadnought, sentinel or a blight drone, and where a single power weapon is a big bloody deal). I won't force my preferences on you, or claim that I am right or better than you for liking what I like, And even if we are not having a game, I'll still socialise. We can still chat, and whatever else. But if you like big battles, or tournament preps, or whatever, I'll politely refuse. If you don't want to play a raid, then do the same. Politely refuse. I promise you I will not be offended and my ego will not be bruised. No harm, no foul. And I'll wish you the best in your game.
I simply have a preference for a specific type of game (that I, and my group, I may add, tend to prefer). Maybe it's because I started playing in an era when the biggest baddest thing on the board was a wraithlord, or a land raider, but the 'scale creep' that has happened to 40k is simply something I a man not really interested in. Also to note is my other games - lotr, infinity and warmachine/horses tend to be on the 'skirmish' side of the spectrum, rather than 'mass battle'. I much prefer those kinds of games. I prefer more narrative games. I prefer 'not-optimal' lists as I find the principle of 'do the best you can with what you have to hand' far more interesting than 'here is a power list. Game ends on turn 2'. I think they are far more interesting. And I am lucky in that I have found a group that enjoys sci-fi skirmishes much more than 40k:apocalypse parking lot.
In all honesty I agree with almost everything you're saying. Personally I play fluffy lists of units I enjoy - certainly nothing that would stand up at a tournament, and I'm not that fussed about winning or losing either.
My only argument is that if you're in a GW store or other public place playing with strangers, the only real basis for play between you is that you're using the same ruleset. I don't think - in that scenario - any of us can start dictating to another person 'you can't use that unit', or 'if you use x I won't play'. Not without starting to sound really unreasonable.
Unfortunately, I think that's exactly what many people in this thread are advocating.
If we want to play a specific way - and you're right, often we all do - the GW store or FLGS is probably not the place to do it. Unless you're going there for a game with someone you know.
Why is your opponent responsible for your ignorance about the game? It's not exactly difficult to find this information, you're no more reasonable than a person who bans C:SM because they play Tau and have never bothered to read the marine codex.
Just for your example
There’s both
>golf
>frisbee golf
People have fun playing both. Same basic game two different ways of playing. I play ice hockey, some people play broom hockey, floor hockey, sled hockey.... there’s tons of different leagues that play 5 man, 3 man, half ice, no boards ect. It’s all hockey.... just pic the type you prefer
Agreed! And that's fine.
What isn't fine is going to a golf course and expecting the people there to play golf, to switch to frisbee golf for you. That's my issue really. And I think that's what many are advocating.
You be you. I fully support people playing however they want - but you can't go to a public place like a FLGS and expect to tell another random player they can't play by the official 40K rules, or they can't use a legal unit because you don't like it. Not without being unreasonable really.
In all honesty I agree with almost everything you're saying. Personally I play fluffy lists of units I enjoy - certainly nothing that would stand up at a tournament, and I'm not that fussed about winning or losing either.
My only argument is that if you're in a GW store or other public place playing with strangers, the only real basis for play between you is that you're using the same ruleset. I don't think - in that scenario - any of us can start dictating to another person 'you can't use that unit', or 'if you use x I won't play'. Not without starting to sound really unreasonable.
Unfortunately, I think that's exactly what many people in this thread are advocating.
If we want to play a specific way - and you're right, often we all do - the GW store or FLGS is probably not the place to do it. Unless you're going there for a game with someone you know.
Why not?
Firstly, I'm still playing by the exact same rules as everybody else in the store. Whether it's warmachine mk3, infinity n3, 40k eighth ed, whatever. Saying 'no' is not unreasonable. Saying there's stuff you (or they) don't want to play against is not unreasonable, basic social contract stuff here.
Secondly, why would I play with strangers? Recipe for disaster if you ask me. If I don't know you, I don't play you. I've met far too many folks that I've not enjoyed playing against for me to just simply 'throw down' just because they're there with an army that you feel I am obliged to play. Geek social fallacies. You don't owe anyone a game.
Just for your example
There’s both
>golf
>frisbee golf
People have fun playing both. Same basic game two different ways of playing. I play ice hockey, some people play broom hockey, floor hockey, sled hockey.... there’s tons of different leagues that play 5 man, 3 man, half ice, no boards ect. It’s all hockey.... just pic the type you prefer
Agreed! And that's fine.
What isn't fine is going to a golf course and expecting the people there to play golf, to switch to frisbee golf for you. That's my issue really. And I think that's what many are advocating.
You be you. I fully support people playing however they want - but you can't go to a public place like a FLGS and expect to tell another random player they can't play by the official 40K rules, or they can't use a legal unit because you don't like it. Not without being unreasonable really.
He wasn’t telling the guy he couldn’t play FW.... just that he wouldn’t play him if he used FW. I’ve played at stores that didn’t allow x,y or z and people that didn’t want to play x, y or z. If I want to play them then I’ll follow whatever the rule is and if I don’t like it I’ll go play somewhere else.
If you think it's okay to deny Forge World, I hope you also think it's okay to deny playing against Space Marines, Custodes, T'au, Eldar, Dark Eldar, Tyranids, Sisters, Inquisition, Grey Knights, Deathwatch, Genestealer Cults, Chaos Marines, Chaos Daemons, Knights, Assassins, AdMech, Orks, etc etc etc - everyone except Imperial Guard.
After all, I don't know the rules and am not familiar with the other armies - I only know Imperial Guard, and I can't be bothered to research the other armies in the game.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: If you think it's okay to deny Forge World, I hope you also think it's okay to deny playing against Space Marines, Custodes, T'au, Eldar, Dark Eldar, Tyranids, Sisters, Inquisition, Grey Knights, Deathwatch, Genestealer Cults, Chaos Marines, Chaos Daemons, Knights, Assassins, AdMech, Orks, etc etc etc - everyone except Imperial Guard.
After all, I don't know the rules and am not familiar with the other armies - I only know Imperial Guard, and I can't be bothered to research the other armies in the game.
/sarcasm
That’s fine.... play against whoever you want. Why would I care if someone doesn’t want to play against certain codexes. Play the game how you like
In all honesty I agree with almost everything you're saying. Personally I play fluffy lists of units I enjoy - certainly nothing that would stand up at a tournament, and I'm not that fussed about winning or losing either.
My only argument is that if you're in a GW store or other public place playing with strangers, the only real basis for play between you is that you're using the same ruleset. I don't think - in that scenario - any of us can start dictating to another person 'you can't use that unit', or 'if you use x I won't play'. Not without starting to sound really unreasonable.
Unfortunately, I think that's exactly what many people in this thread are advocating.
If we want to play a specific way - and you're right, often we all do - the GW store or FLGS is probably not the place to do it. Unless you're going there for a game with someone you know.
Why not?
Firstly, I'm still playing by the exact same rules as everybody else in the store. Whether it's warmachine mk3, infinity n3, 40k eighth ed, whatever. Saying 'no' is not unreasonable. Saying there's stuff you (or they) don't want to play against is not unreasonable, basic social contract stuff here.
Secondly, why would I play with strangers? Recipe for disaster if you ask me. If I don't know you, I don't play you. I've met far too many folks that I've not enjoyed playing against for me to just simply 'throw down' just because they're there with an army that you feel I am obliged to play. Geek social fallacies. You don't owe anyone a game.
We'll have to agree to disagree here I think.
My opinion still is that effectively stating 'it's my way or the highway' over someones use of a perfectly legitimate unit is unreasonable. And I'm not sure in doing so you are playing by the exact same rules as everybody else. It still just feels like someone enforcing their view (which isn't inline with the game as intended by GW) on others, and if they don't agree, they're not allowed to play you.
You totally have the right to do it - and i support that. I just think it's a little sad to encounter such an uncompromising mindset in that environment.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: If you think it's okay to deny Forge World, I hope you also think it's okay to deny playing against Space Marines, Custodes, T'au, Eldar, Dark Eldar, Tyranids, Sisters, Inquisition, Grey Knights, Deathwatch, Genestealer Cults, Chaos Marines, Chaos Daemons, Knights, Assassins, AdMech, Orks, etc etc etc - everyone except Imperial Guard.
After all, I don't know the rules and am not familiar with the other armies - I only know Imperial Guard, and I can't be bothered to research the other armies in the game.
/sarcasm
That’s fine.... play against whoever you want. Why would I care if someone doesn’t want to play against certain codexes. Play the game how you like
So you'd honestly have no problems about turning up to a game, perhaps one of the only times you get to play, and finding out that they will only play against certain codexes? Ones you might not even have?
Especially on the reasoning that "I don't know X codex" - despite you probably having X codex on hand, so you can't cheat and can show them every rule?
My opinion still is that effectively stating 'it's my way or the highway' over someones use of a perfectly legitimate unit is unreasonable. And I'm not sure in doing so you are playing by the exact same rules as everybody else. It still just feels like someone enforcing their view (which isn't inline with the game as intended by GW) on others, and if they don't agree, they're not allowed to play you.
You totally have the right to do it - and i support that. I just think it's a little sad to encounter such an uncompromising mindset in that environment.
It's a bit more nuanced than 'it's my way or the highway'. There's plenty other folks to play with, I will not stop you, or tell you that you are in an you way, shape or form wrong. I will chat away to you. I just have a limited amount of time, and prefer a specific type of game. Far from unreasonable. You don't actually owe me anything. Don't want to play a 'raid'? Then don't. Totally fine. Take care. Have a good game. Chat to you soon.
And I am playing by the same rules as everyone else, using the current edition of the rulebook. Trying to say this is somehow not in line with how gw 'intended' it to be I said asinine - gw don't enforce a 'proper' way to play. There is no dogma. No absolute infallible god. The game gw intended it to be is essentially a sandbox - play the game you want to play, and they provide plenty of options as to what to use. Not everything has to be used, all of the time.
As to 'enforcing' my view - telling folks over the course of a conversation what kind of game I like to play, and playing that, and politely declining games I would not enjoy is not 'enforcing' anything. I don't put a gun to your head. Im not banning you from playing, or forcing you to play my way. In the same way,I don't appreciate you looking down on me and calling me unreasonable when you are trying to force me into a game I don't want to play because 'obligation'. I'm simply being responsible to myself and my potential opponents. Social contract and all. Play with like minded folks. End.
And the comment about being sad and uncompromising is a bit unfair if you ask me. I wouldn't force you into playing a game you're not interested in. Why should I, or anyone else be somehow obliged to play a game I'm/thry're not interested in? I think that is extremely unfair, on both parties. It's like calling someone unreasonable because they want to play infinity, when you have 40k.
Saturmorn Carvilli wrote: There is usual social contract about these things most places I have game. It I take something a little odd or unexpected, I check with my opponent if they are fine with it, especially if they don't know me, I have a contingency plan in place in case they decide they aren't conformable with the inclusion.
So basically you just ask permission to play with your own models.
Why don't you just say you want someone to write your list for you?
Sgt_Smudge wrote: If you think it's okay to deny Forge World, I hope you also think it's okay to deny playing against Space Marines, Custodes, T'au, Eldar, Dark Eldar, Tyranids, Sisters, Inquisition, Grey Knights, Deathwatch, Genestealer Cults, Chaos Marines, Chaos Daemons, Knights, Assassins, AdMech, Orks, etc etc etc - everyone except Imperial Guard.
After all, I don't know the rules and am not familiar with the other armies - I only know Imperial Guard, and I can't be bothered to research the other armies in the game.
/sarcasm
That’s fine.... play against whoever you want. Why would I care if someone doesn’t want to play against certain codexes. Play the game how you like
So you'd honestly have no problems about turning up to a game, perhaps one of the only times you get to play, and finding out that they will only play against certain codexes? Ones you might not even have?
Especially on the reasoning that "I don't know X codex" - despite you probably having X codex on hand, so you can't cheat and can show them every rule?
yeah, the only times I've played against "random" people I've set up games with I've been very clear to ask exactly what and how we are playing (points, rules packets, faq, ect). I'm not just gonna message some dude online and say "wanna play a game" and not check the particulars. If i dont like what they are playing or restricting im not gonna play them. No different then when a guy asked me if i wanted to play in their apocalypse game and said "no thanks I don't play apocalypse"
My opinion still is that effectively stating 'it's my way or the highway' over someones use of a perfectly legitimate unit is unreasonable. And I'm not sure in doing so you are playing by the exact same rules as everybody else. It still just feels like someone enforcing their view (which isn't inline with the game as intended by GW) on others, and if they don't agree, they're not allowed to play you.
You totally have the right to do it - and i support that. I just think it's a little sad to encounter such an uncompromising mindset in that environment.
It's a bit more nuanced than 'it's my way or the highway'. There's plenty other folks to play with, I will not stop you, or tell you that you are in an you way, shape or form wrong. I will chat away to you. I just have a limited amount of time, and prefer a specific type of game. Far from unreasonable. You don't actually owe me anything. Don't want to play a 'raid'? Then don't. Totally fine. Take care. Have a good game. Chat to you soon.
And I am playing by the same rules as everyone else, using the current edition of the rulebook. Trying to say this is somehow not in line with how gw 'intended' it to be I said asinine - gw don't enforce a 'proper' way to play. There is no dogma. No absolute infallible god. The game gw intended it to be is essentially a sandbox - play the game you want to play, and they provide plenty of options as to what to use. Not everything has to be used, all of the time.
As to 'enforcing' my view - telling folks over the course of a conversation what kind of game I like to play, and playing that, and politely declining games I would not enjoy is not 'enforcing' anything. I don't put a gun to your head. Im not banning you from playing, or forcing you to play my way. In the same way,I don't appreciate you looking down on me and calling me unreasonable when you are trying to force me into a game I don't want to play because 'obligation'. I'm simply being responsible to myself and my potential opponents. Social contract and all. Play with like minded folks. End.
And the comment about being sad and uncompromising is a bit unfair if you ask me. I wouldn't force you into playing a game you're not interested in. Why should I, or anyone else be somehow obliged to play a game I'm/thry're not interested in? I think that is extremely unfair, on both parties. It's like calling someone unreasonable because they want to play infinity, when you have 40k.
I don't feel it is more nuanced than that.
If you refuse to play anyone that won't give you the exact game you're after (and you're potentially expecting them to compromise for you in doing so here - they may have come with other ideas), it's exactly your way or no dice.
You're right, GW don't 'enforce' a proper way to play. They don't have a team of corporate Ninjas who hunt down those who change a rule (though that would be cool... O.o), nor am I looking down on you and trying to force you, or anyone else into a game. I'm saying if you turn up to a FLGS and say to someone who's from out of town and wants a game, that you won't play them unless they don't use that perfectly legal unit that you just don't happen to like, you are being an uncompromising jerk. The very definition of 'that guy'. It is you (to be clear, not you personally, a general 'you'), who is trying to force someone into a game on your terms in that scenario - and you're doing so by holding hostage your participation. Maybe there was no-one else in store that the OP could have played?
You're right about the 'sad' thing though - apologies. I second guessed myself there even as I submitted the post. 'Disheartening' is a better word. 'Sad' is inflammatory in a way that wasn't intended.
Look, at end of it all, this is something we do for fun. We should all expect to enjoy our hobby. But sometimes that may mean coming to an agreement about a game that suits both parties - and not being so hard line about how you feel you want to play that you'll exclude yourself or others from play. Especially when it's you (general 'you' again) who is asking for the exception to the accepted, normal state of play. Surely, that's the mature, grown up way to go about things?
I don't like to play against Forgeworld. I never had had a game where it was fun to play against. Between Special Rules, and opponents never having the rules on hand to let me read what the unit actually does(a "trust me, this is the rule"), I don't play against Forgeworld. From what I am reading on this thread, I am a problem player.
conker249 wrote: I don't like to play against Forgeworld. I never had had a game where it was fun to play against. Between Special Rules, and opponents never having the rules on hand to let me read what the unit actually does(a "trust me, this is the rule"), I don't play against Forgeworld. From what I am reading on this thread, I am a problem player.
If they don't have the rules, then nobody is going to hate on you for refusing to play against it, but that has nothing to do with FW in particular, people should have their rules no matter what it is.
That said, given the core Studio rules and codexes, if you have a problem with special rules, Forgeworld shouldn't be anything special or out of the ordinary
So basically you just ask permission to play with your own models.
Why don't you just say you want someone to write your list for you?
Isn't that exactly what you are doing when you say you ask to play any miniatures game? I am not stopping you from playing with your miniatures. I am stopping myself from playing with you.
As for your second point, I am pretty sure I can manage to make a list all on my own without including a single Forge World model. I am pretty sure the Citadel model line is large enough to accomplish that. I would hazard to guess most army lists in fact don't have any Forge World units within them. So asking if I want someone to write my list for me is highly disingenuous.
Wow, I turn down games I don't think will be fun all the time. This person's a jerk, I'm going to pass. That person has a reputation as a cheater, no thank you. This guy looks like he's going to start throwing his models at the wall every time he starts loosing, I think I'll let him chill. My hyper competitive friend who doesn't loose and can't dial it down, sure I'll play because I'll know it'll be fun at least.
I've been around since Special Characters usable only with your opponent's permission, let alone FW. I don't see it as a problem letting my opponent know I want to use either and they ask me not to, presuming they play by the same restrictions. I can understand not wanting FW as, I may have a working knowledge of how the base armies work in 40k, keeping track of the 100 or so imperial tank variants from FW is another matter. I might be fine with it if the person seems nice enough and has the rules, but it doesn't seem like something terrible if another person doesn't want to play.
The OP seemed to be able to compromise and ended up having a fun game. Throwing a temper tantrum because someone didn't want to play the way he plays would have just been childish.
Skaorn wrote: Wow, I turn down games I don't think will be fun all the time. This person's a jerk, I'm going to pass. That person has a reputation as a cheater, no thank you. This guy looks like he's going to start throwing his models at the wall every time he starts loosing, I think I'll let him chill. My hyper competitive friend who doesn't loose and can't dial it down, sure I'll play because I'll know it'll be fun at least.
I've been around since Special Characters usable only with your opponent's permission, let alone FW. I don't see it as a problem letting my opponent know I want to use either and they ask me not to, presuming they play by the same restrictions. I can understand not wanting FW as, I may have a working knowledge of how the base armies work in 40k, keeping track of the 100 or so imperial tank variants from FW is another matter. I might be fine with it if the person seems nice enough and has the rules, but it doesn't seem like something terrible if another person doesn't want to play.
The OP seemed to be able to compromise and ended up having a fun game. Throwing a temper tantrum because someone didn't want to play the way he plays would have just been childish.
I guess the issue is WHY the other player wanted to not play. Their reasoning for that was flawed.
Steve is a cheater? Yeah, don't play with him. But if Steve's not ACTUALLY a cheater, well, you're being unnecessarily mean to him.
Likewise, Forgeworld is OP and only WAAC gamers use it? Sure, don't play with jerks who only want victory, but when FW isn't OP...
I feel like a fair question to ask someone who is opposed to playing against FW units is if they played against that unit in the past. If so, what happened? Was it unfun to play against? If so, why?
If they haven’t played against it, what makes them so hesitant to do so? Would they be willing to give it a shot and see what happens? At least then if they hated it they’d potentially have a reason to.
There are lots of OP things in the game, and not all of them are from FW. Refusing to play against any of them is fine, but if they refuse FW and play the rest, that’s just dumb. Sure, it’s their prerogative, but it’s silly. Like claiming to hate the taste of something, never having eaten it, because it’s reputed to taste bitter, but continuing to eat other bitter things. Eh, I dunno...
Dissecting someone's logic for not wanting to play is like trying to dissect a Big Mac. It's going to be ugly, there's no way it's good for you, and you're not going to discover anything that's worth your time.
People have all kinds of superstitions about FW. Better to just leave them entombed in the thick walls of ignorance and move on.
I don't personally care if someone objects to my models or not, the point is to enjoy the game. Swapping something out of my army is usually not a big deal, but I need to ask myself if I really want to go to the trouble for that person.
If he has good hygiene, uses proper grammar, appears to understand the rules, and his dice are free from grease and oily substances, then sure. If he's just some tightly-wound ninny who doesn't feel comfortable in his own skin, I just wish him good luck.
So basically you just ask permission to play with your own models.
Why don't you just say you want someone to write your list for you?
Isn't that exactly what you are doing when you say you ask to play any miniatures game? I am not stopping you from playing with your miniatures. I am stopping myself from playing with you.
As for your second point, I am pretty sure I can manage to make a list all on my own without including a single Forge World model. I am pretty sure the Citadel model line is large enough to accomplish that. I would hazard to guess most army lists in fact don't have any Forge World units within them. So asking if I want someone to write my list for me is highly disingenuous.
Most army lists don't have Valkyries or Genestealers or Trukks either, what's your point? The distinction you're making is one you're forcing between one sales channel and another of the same organization, not anything based in the rules, lore, source, or anything else.
StrayIight wrote: [
Why is it any more acceptable in our game, for people to choose to play by - or omit - whatever rules they feel like, and then expect the rest of us to automatically be ok with it? That they can make that choice (and I accept they can), doesn't make the choice any less foolhardy if you are playing outside of your own private location or without implicit agreement beforehand.
I'll ignore the comment about physically beating people - it just doesn't warrant a response.
Not playing against somebody isn't omitting rules. It's simply choosing whom you play with.
I go to store, ask for game. Somebody says he would like. However seeing what he has makes me realize it won't be fun game. I have in my rights to decline. I'm neither legally nor morally obliged to play. The GAMES ARE NOT MANDATORY! I have not signed contract anywhere I'm forced to play games I don't want.
I'm free to play games I want with whom I want. Same others. I have no right demanding somebody to play with me. Why you should have right to demand ME to play YOU? You are asking for you to have bigger rights than I have.
You be you. I fully support people playing however they want - but you can't go to a public place like a FLGS and expect to tell another random player they can't play by the official 40K rules, or they can't use a legal unit because you don't like it. Not without being unreasonable really.
I'm not asking them to play different ruleset. I just say then politely "sorry, not interested in the game". If that means I don't have opponent for that day fair enough. That's my problem and I'm fine with it. Stepping into game store does not make it required to play a game there no matter what. They have right to play with whom they want, I have right to play with whom they want.
FW does seem to have the problem of some few over the top units. Not OP, just over the top as in kinda unfun to play against.
As an Example:
There is a guy that goes to both of the FLGS that I go to, and he has the really big knight (poryphyrion IIRC). I've played against the model a couple times, won once and lost once. Its just not fun to play against. He's a chill guy too, but when I see that model on the field I feel like its just going to be a less enjoyable game.
I've also played against many arseholes that specifically abuse the OPFW units. I knew that the game was less enjoyable because of the guy across and not because of the units that they were using, but it could be really easy to make a false link of FW-> Unfun.
StrayIight wrote: You can refuse to play whomever you wish - you have that right, but doing so on the basis that someone is using a model or rule (that's a legal part of the game) that you don't like, is (under general circumstances) open to being seen as unreasonable. If you're ignoring legitimate parts of a games rules or content, I feel that actually what you're now doing is playing your own version of a game, and not the 40K the rest of us are.
As for playing tennis against a professional player. Why? Because you'd likely lose? Does that then mean we should refuse to play against anyone who we suspect to better than us? I figure playing against a more talented individual is likely the best learning experience we'll ever have... Is the problem here actually one of humility?
Or not having any fun with zero chance of winning or even avoiding massacre.
I know my lists aren't tournament type of lists. I don't need to play against super hard core armies to know my lists aren't that caliber. I also have yet to find tournament lists that arent' so far from the kind of armies I like to play(the kind you often read about in fluff) that I don't go either "yawn, boring" or literally puke. I cannot play those kind of lists. Period.
As my lists are more for relaxed beer&prezel games they will get 0-20 slaughtered in 1 turn against hardcore army lists. What function playing game serves? Difference in power level gap is so big that it won't teach me anything. Similarly playing tennis against Federer would be so slopsided it wouldn't teach me anything. He would just send ball where I am not nor would I be able to get there. There would be nothing to be learned from there either.
It's been pointed out to you once already, but I will do so again: No one but you is saying anything about playing against tournament lists. We're talking about the refusal to play against a legal model because of a ridiculous and self invented policy against FW that someone has created, and that frankly, I see as deeply unfair toward the OP who is playing well within the spirit of the rules, let alone their granular content.
If you want to talk about tournament lists vs casual lists, we can have that separate discussion. But frankly taking a casual list to a location where you suspect or know people will be running super competitive armies is still on you. What you are bringing isn't in their control, only yours. My advice (unasked for admittedly) is to play at places or with groups that have a culture of casual play, not power play, or to suck it up if you go elsewhere.
I completely, completely understand you wanting to have a fun game. But you have to understand that 'fun' means different things to different people, and 'enforcing' your version of 'fun' on others (for any reason) via refusal of play, isn't going to be received favourably by many. Often times, the sporting thing to do is to compromise, and not be hardline and uncompromising regarding our own view.
Switch it up, and look at the underlying principle. There are people who refuse to play with or against Special Characters, ever since Special Characters were a thing. Even bypassing the move from "opponent's permission" to "whenever you feel like it", tourneys outlaw them at times, and some clubs make it a fast house rule. How is anti-FW any different? Other than someone spending a TON on a model that now won't see action one night they tried to play it?
Sgt_Smudge wrote: If you think it's okay to deny Forge World, I hope you also think it's okay to deny playing against Space Marines, Custodes, T'au, Eldar, Dark Eldar, Tyranids, Sisters, Inquisition, Grey Knights, Deathwatch, Genestealer Cults, Chaos Marines, Chaos Daemons, Knights, Assassins, AdMech, Orks, etc etc etc - everyone except Imperial Guard.
After all, I don't know the rules and am not familiar with the other armies - I only know Imperial Guard, and I can't be bothered to research the other armies in the game.
/sarcasm
Yes you would be in your rights. Does mean you'll have lesser targets and nobody is required to get an IG army to play vs you. BUT YOU DO HAVE THAT OPTION! If I was in store looking an opponent with my orks and opponent says he doesn't want to play against orks I would shrug and look for another opponent. It's not a big deal so I have no reason to act like a baby and complain about opponent not wanting to play against orks.
Saturmorn Carvilli wrote: There is usual social contract about these things most places I have game. It I take something a little odd or unexpected, I check with my opponent if they are fine with it, especially if they don't know me, I have a contingency plan in place in case they decide they aren't conformable with the inclusion.
So basically you just ask permission to play with your own models.
Why don't you just say you want someone to write your list for you?
No. But I don't have right to demand random people to play with me. Seriously are we playing in free country or north korea? Some people have right to demand other to play regardless of what?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Vilehydra wrote: FW does seem to have the problem of some few over the top units. Not OP, just over the top as in kinda unfun to play against.
As an Example:
There is a guy that goes to both of the FLGS that I go to, and he has the really big knight (poryphyrion IIRC). I've played against the model a couple times, won once and lost once. Its just not fun to play against. He's a chill guy too, but when I see that model on the field I feel like its just going to be a less enjoyable game.
I've also played against many arseholes that specifically abuse the OPFW units. I knew that the game was less enjoyable because of the guy across and not because of the units that they were using, but it could be really easy to make a false link of FW-> Unfun.
Yes FW has strong units. So it has weak units. GW codexes have even stronger more OP units. Whopedoo.
So basically you just ask permission to play with your own models.
Why don't you just say you want someone to write your list for you?
Isn't that exactly what you are doing when you say you ask to play any miniatures game? I am not stopping you from playing with your miniatures. I am stopping myself from playing with you.
As for your second point, I am pretty sure I can manage to make a list all on my own without including a single Forge World model. I am pretty sure the Citadel model line is large enough to accomplish that. I would hazard to guess most army lists in fact don't have any Forge World units within them. So asking if I want someone to write my list for me is highly disingenuous.
Most army lists don't have Valkyries or Genestealers or Trukks either, what's your point? The distinction you're making is one you're forcing between one sales channel and another of the same organization, not anything based in the rules, lore, source, or anything else.
My point is there is a huge gap between having someone write my own list because I choose not to make use of Forge World models (or play strangers that do) and creating a list that most players take exception to. I would think that is obvious, unless you agree with insinuation that Adeptus Doritos is making that not allowing Forge World models is akin to having someone else create your army list. I am guessing of those factions you list, all have a far lesser degree of players making use of Forge World models in them than the ones you mentioned. If I am facing an Ork list, I think it is reasonable expect it to have a Trukk or two. I don't even know if the orks have a special Forge World unit. If they do, I expect it is expensive and something several order of magnitude rarer that a trukk. I am not interesting in considering a unit that less than 5% (probably less than 1%) of ork players have and field.
I don't care if Forge World is merely a different sales channel. In Bolt Action, I wouldn't accept any unit from some random campaign book unit in my opponent's force without restriction even if that unit is a Warlord Games model and doesn't break any of the rules of Bolt Action nor would I run any random campaign book unit in my army list for a PUG with an unknown (possibly unfamiliar) opponent. That sort of stuff is going to require me to have a rapport with said opponent where I have some level of trust out of what they want our game which reasonably matches what I want out it.
Honestly, I don't care that much about this issue. I did take exception to the posts that became aggressive toward the player that didn't want to face Forge World units. Some of those posts included name calling. I continued in the thread due to several posts seeming pretty hyperbolic in thier statements. I am actually more inline with techsoldaten on what I am looking for out of a game. However, as mentioned, several of the posts here made me reconsider having an open policy about just allowing Forge World units. Every player has the right to refuse a game if they don't want to play for whatever reason. I have refused games and had other players refuse to play me. I don't consider it a big deal and often consider it a courtesy to not want a few hours being miserable when I should be having fun. This is my hobby not my job and no gaming is better than bad gaming.
I don't see how facing super rare, often niche units is going to improve my enjoyment of the game, but I can see several ways it can diminish it. I am not 100% against the use of Forge World. I am very uncomfortable with the idea of my first game with a person I never played before just fielding Forge World stuff. It is going to take me a few games with that person to feel out what they want from miniatures gaming before I am going to trust them enhance our gaming experience with them. Going by many of the posts here, I have been further pushed from wanting to play games with opponents that make use of Forge World stuff. I doubt I will have to worry about any of this. Forge World stuff is pretty rare, and I don't play PUG much since I feel they are more of a hassle than fun most of the time (again no gaming is better than bad gaming). I am more concerned about the prevalence of players here being upset that someone might refuse to play a game with them and the black or white stances of some posts (par for the internet I guess).
StrayIight wrote: [
Why is it any more acceptable in our game, for people to choose to play by - or omit - whatever rules they feel like, and then expect the rest of us to automatically be ok with it? That they can make that choice (and I accept they can), doesn't make the choice any less foolhardy if you are playing outside of your own private location or without implicit agreement beforehand.
I'll ignore the comment about physically beating people - it just doesn't warrant a response.
Not playing against somebody isn't omitting rules. It's simply choosing whom you play with.
I go to store, ask for game. Somebody says he would like. However seeing what he has makes me realize it won't be fun game. I have in my rights to decline. I'm neither legally nor morally obliged to play. The GAMES ARE NOT MANDATORY! I have not signed contract anywhere I'm forced to play games I don't want.
I'm free to play games I want with whom I want. Same others. I have no right demanding somebody to play with me. Why you should have right to demand ME to play YOU? You are asking for you to have bigger rights than I have.
You be you. I fully support people playing however they want - but you can't go to a public place like a FLGS and expect to tell another random player they can't play by the official 40K rules, or they can't use a legal unit because you don't like it. Not without being unreasonable really.
I'm not asking them to play different ruleset. I just say then politely "sorry, not interested in the game". If that means I don't have opponent for that day fair enough. That's my problem and I'm fine with it. Stepping into game store does not make it required to play a game there no matter what. They have right to play with whom they want, I have right to play with whom they want.
So, to sum up. Your argument is that unless you are allowed to kick up a fuss about the contents of an opponents list and remove their right to play the units they wish, your rights are infringed upon? They have greater rights than you by merely playing the vanilla game, unless you get to play them by your specific, non-default, preferences? Unless you get your way?
"Look, his Rhino has resin chapter doors! HE MUST BE NORTH KOREAN!"
Ridiculous. The number of people who expect to be specifically catered to in a public play setting is mind boggling. You know what? Stay at home, and play with your friends - that's the scenario where you get to dictate changes to the content of the game. Outside of your private space, let people play the game as it's intended. And yes, GW intend for people to purchase and use FW units.
It seems a bit pathetic to cancel just like that, especially given that your list is hardly exploitative.
Every game is a multi-player experience requiring compromise and negotiation between each player to make the best of it. Rigid, doctrinal behaviour is counter-productive and should be discouraged. It shocks me that he didn't even try to have a discussion about it.
However, OP I suspect that you dodged a bullet here. You probably don't want to be playing against people like this anyway.
So basically you just ask permission to play with your own models.
Why don't you just say you want someone to write your list for you?
Isn't that exactly what you are doing when you say you ask to play any miniatures game? I am not stopping you from playing with your miniatures. I am stopping myself from playing with you.
As for your second point, I am pretty sure I can manage to make a list all on my own without including a single Forge World model. I am pretty sure the Citadel model line is large enough to accomplish that. I would hazard to guess most army lists in fact don't have any Forge World units within them. So asking if I want someone to write my list for me is highly disingenuous.
Most army lists don't have Valkyries or Genestealers or Trukks either, what's your point? The distinction you're making is one you're forcing between one sales channel and another of the same organization, not anything based in the rules, lore, source, or anything else.
My point is there is a huge gap between having someone write my own list because I choose not to make use of Forge World models (or play strangers that do) and creating a list that most players take exception to. I would think that is obvious, unless you agree with insinuation that Adeptus Doritos is making that not allowing Forge World models is akin to having someone else create your army list. I am guessing of those factions you list, all have a far lesser degree of players making use of Forge World models in them than the ones you mentioned. If I am facing an Ork list, I think it is reasonable expect it to have a Trukk or two. I don't even know if the orks have a special Forge World unit. If they do, I expect it is expensive and something several order of magnitude rarer that a trukk. I am not interesting in considering a unit that less than 5% (probably less than 1%) of ork players have and field.
I don't care if Forge World is merely a different sales channel. In Bolt Action, I wouldn't accept any unit from some random campaign book unit in my opponent's force without restriction even if that unit is a Warlord Games model and doesn't break any of the rules of Bolt Action nor would I run any random campaign book unit in my army list for a PUG with an unknown (possibly unfamiliar) opponent. That sort of stuff is going to require me to have a rapport with said opponent where I have some level of trust out of what they want our game which reasonably matches what I want out it.
Honestly, I don't care that much about this issue. I did take exception to the posts that became aggressive toward the player that didn't want to face Forge World units. Some of those posts included name calling. I continued in the thread due to several posts seeming pretty hyperbolic in thier statements. I am actually more inline with techsoldaten on what I am looking for out of a game. However, as mentioned, several of the posts here made me reconsider having an open policy about just allowing Forge World units. Every player has the right to refuse a game if they don't want to play for whatever reason. I have refused games and had other players refuse to play me. I don't consider it a big deal and often consider it a courtesy to not want a few hours being miserable when I should be having fun. This is my hobby not my job and no gaming is better than bad gaming.
I don't see how facing super rare, often niche units is going to improve my enjoyment of the game, but I can see several ways it can diminish it. I am not 100% against the use of Forge World. I am very uncomfortable with the idea of my first game with a person I never played before just fielding Forge World stuff. It is going to take me a few games with that person to feel out what they want from miniatures gaming before I am going to trust them enhance our gaming experience with them. Going by many of the posts here, I have been further pushed from wanting to play games with opponents that make use of Forge World stuff. I doubt I will have to worry about any of this. Forge World stuff is pretty rare, and I don't play PUG much since I feel they are more of a hassle than fun most of the time (again no gaming is better than bad gaming). I am more concerned about the prevalence of players here being upset that someone might refuse to play a game with them and the black or white stances of some posts (par for the internet I guess).
Now that is a bad analogy: because FW units are explicit 40 k content, offically sanctioned one at that, whilest Boltaction is a gamesystem published via Warlord, which also publishes other miniatures.
Yes you can deny in the later case, because it is not the same system, (considering sci-fi models are also published by Warlord it would make for some hillarious fun when they are introduced for fun into BA, but that is something else). You can't however argue that this would be the case for 40k units IN 40 for it from FW.
(If someone were to bring 30k units then this would be another debate but since we are talking about a 40k model with 40k rules ina match of 40k i will ignore that point)
That would be plain ridicoulous. As for your last point, seriously?
You are afraid because you can't handle "new" or "strage" stuff, because it might could diminish your experience?
I mean by that logic you would have had problems with the Dakkafiend release in 7th and anything new, because it is "new" and could diminish your experience. (CHANGE IS BAD THEREFORE WE SHOULD HAVE STAYED IN THE MEDIEVAL AGES WITH THE INQUISITION, sincerly a Catholic)
Btw. Girlyman is also new, and a GW model, that certainly diminished some experiences here, should we therefor be allowed to just ban such units?
Quite frankly you getting forced to play stands opposed in this case of you forcing somebody to play in a way you want, preferable aginst units you want to see, which may or may not be good enough to win against you.
So, to sum up. Your argument is that unless you are allowed to kick up a fuss about the contents of an opponents list and remove their right to play the units they wish, your rights are infringed upon? They have greater rights than you by merely playing the vanilla game, unless you get to play them by your specific, non-default, preferences? Unless you get your way?
My rights are violated if somebody tries to make me do something I don't when I'm not even violating rule.
Would you like if you are told you have to go and play soccer when you don't want?
Ridiculous. The number of people who expect to be specifically catered to in a public play setting is mind boggling. You know what? Stay at home, and play with your friends - that's the scenario where you get to dictate changes to the content of the game. Outside of your private space, let people play the game as it's intended. And yes, GW intend for people to purchase and use FW units.
You are the one expecting to have bigger rights than I. I don't expect others to provide game I want. But I don't have to play either. You demand right to tell me what I have to do. I don't do that.
From my POV You are free to do whatever you want to do and so am I. In your opinion *I* am not free to do what *I* want but instead I MUST do what YOU want.
You are being very entitled here expecting others to play as YOU want. but you know what? World doesn't work like that. You can play how you want, I can play how I want. I don't demand you to play how I want, you demand me to play how you want. Which one of us is the unreasonable one here? You are throwing kid's tantrum because I don't want to play game that isn't fun for both sides.
You are making assumption that the moment I step to the store creates legal contract that I HAVE to play against anybody who wants to play. It does not work like that. I can ask for a game. But if I don't find game I would like to play I can refuse. Means I won't get a game unless there's another player. And that's ok. I do NOT have right to demand opponent make army I want him to have. We can of course TALK about the kind of game. Shock horror social game that involves talking! THE HORROR THE HORROR! You might have to actually TALK TO YOUR OPPONENT! Oh the horror! Never understood how hard it can be people to TALK when the whole game is social game to begin with.
Frankly talking with opponent about the type of game they are looking is 100% essential in 40k for a good game. Otherwise good fun game is not all that easy since players are looking different things from game. Hyper competive player vs casual player who is looking for recreating armies he has read are going to have a miserable game for both. Yet by your logic they are LEGALLY REQUIRED to play the game just like that just by setting foot on same store...Sheesh. Idea of actually talking to opponent seems to be alien concept to you.
Without talking to your opponent about game you want to play how you are going to work out game at all? Open, narrative, matched? 1000 pts, 60PL, 2500 pts? Maelstrom? Eternal? Open war? You cannon START the game without talking yet somehow I'm supposed to be legally bound to play without even agreeing about the game...
Well if somebody tries that stunt for me demanding I play boring game because I set foot on store I agree on that but it stilll leaves details of match up to play. I insist on 8100 pts armies. No more, no less. Both are legally bound to play, you can't even claim you don't have models with you enough for that size because no rule REQUIRES you to fill points so it's 100% legal game that you bring your 2k points vs my 8.1k So either you agree on that or I disagree with your conditions and we run out of time. There's no universal scenario to be played so we cannot start the game before scenario, including points, are agreed on. If you want to be TFG I have tools against that.
So, to sum up. Your argument is that unless you are allowed to kick up a fuss about the contents of an opponents list and remove their right to play the units they wish, your rights are infringed upon? They have greater rights than you by merely playing the vanilla game, unless you get to play them by your specific, non-default, preferences? Unless you get your way?
My rights are violated if somebody tries to make me do something I don't when I'm not even violating rule.
Would you like if you are told you have to go and play soccer when you don't want?
Ridiculous. The number of people who expect to be specifically catered to in a public play setting is mind boggling. You know what? Stay at home, and play with your friends - that's the scenario where you get to dictate changes to the content of the game. Outside of your private space, let people play the game as it's intended. And yes, GW intend for people to purchase and use FW units.
You are the one expecting to have bigger rights than I. I don't expect others to provide game I want. But I don't have to play either. You demand right to tell me what I have to do. I don't do that.
From my POV You are free to do whatever you want to do and so am I. In your opinion *I* am not free to do what *I* want but instead I MUST do what YOU want.
You are being very entitled here expecting others to play as YOU want. but you know what? World doesn't work like that. You can play how you want, I can play how I want. I don't demand you to play how I want, you demand me to play how you want. Which one of us is the unreasonable one here? You are throwing kid's tantrum because I don't want to play game that isn't fun for both sides.
You are making assumption that the moment I step to the store creates legal contract that I HAVE to play against anybody who wants to play. It does not work like that. I can ask for a game. But if I don't find game I would like to play I can refuse. Means I won't get a game unless there's another player. And that's ok. I do NOT have right to demand opponent make army I want him to have. We can of course TALK about the kind of game. Shock horror social game that involves talking! THE HORROR THE HORROR! You might have to actually TALK TO YOUR OPPONENT! Oh the horror! Never understood how hard it can be people to TALK when the whole game is social game to begin with.
Frankly talking with opponent about the type of game they are looking is 100% essential in 40k for a good game. Otherwise good fun game is not all that easy since players are looking different things from game. Hyper competive player vs casual player who is looking for recreating armies he has read are going to have a miserable game for both. Yet by your logic they are LEGALLY REQUIRED to play the game just by setting foot on same store...Sheesh. Idea of actually talking to opponent seems to be alien concept to you.
Officialy GW stores do have technically that policy, technically,but the last point seems important to highlight.
Granted, in this case the it was more of a overreactionof the opponent OP faced. Quite frankly i belive you should have right to refuse, if someone goes ultra competitive when you have a Fluff/fun- list. However throwing a tantrum because your enemy pulls out a FW modell (which is even relatively badly equipped btw.) and refusing to instatnly play a match because of that, well i guess that rubs many of us the wrong way. I mean that is like you play agaist an ork player, but as soon as he puts down a Wyrdboy you refuse to play the game.
You are throwing kid's tantrum because I don't want to play game that isn't fun for both sides.
Uh huh. Yes we are throwing a kids tantrum. Not the individual who is literally saying 'If you use that unit, I won't play, so there!'
No one is forcing you to do anything. Not once has anyone said that. Our argument (which I believe you have missed while complaining about your rights), is this: When you tell someone they can't play with you if they don't only use the units you are happy with - especially in a public setting - you come across as pretty unreasonable.
If you expect someone to conform to your wishes - when they are not the established way of doing things (as is literally the case here) - you are asking for special treatment.
What's being pointed out to you, is that a whole bunch of us don't feel you should necessarily expect that special treatment. No one is infringing on your supposed 'rights' in doing so.
Isn't that exactly what you are doing when you say you ask to play any miniatures game? I am not stopping you from playing with your miniatures. I am stopping myself from playing with you.
No. I am asking if we can play together. Both of us are involved. If you elect to be a House Escher Male about it, you have every right to do so. And I have every right to label you as someone who is selective about what rules you follow.
If you refuse to play my Forge World tanks, I have every reason to suspect you'll cry about anything you aren't certain you can beat. I'll leave you to find another game, and I'll have no trouble finding a better player.
As for your second point, I am pretty sure I can manage to make a list all on my own without including a single Forge World model. I am pretty sure the Citadel model line is large enough to accomplish that. I would hazard to guess most army lists in fact don't have any Forge World units within them. So asking if I want someone to write my list for me is highly disingenuous.
So can I. But I chose to include certain models because I like them, they're 100% legal, and it has an added bonus of helping me find the toxic manchildren and add them to my "disregard man-shaped toddler" list.
No. But I don't have right to demand random people to play with me. Seriously are we playing in free country or north korea? Some people have right to demand other to play regardless of what?
No one is "demanding" anything. I don't have a 'right' to a game. I do, however, have an expectation like any other sane, rational, mature adult playing warhammer 40k ( all 10 of us) and that expectation is that if the rules allow it and you can't justify me excluding it (like, "I have no anti-air capability with me today")- then I would prefer the person be an adult about it and roll with the game.
It's my fun, too- and if you can't compromise then you can pack up and go home and play by or with yourself, it is comically easy to find another player. By virtue of not being a crybaby about Forge World, I am demonstrably more likely to find more games.
So basically you just ask permission to play with your own models.
Why don't you just say you want someone to write your list for you?
Isn't that exactly what you are doing when you say you ask to play any miniatures game? I am not stopping you from playing with your miniatures. I am stopping myself from playing with you.
As for your second point, I am pretty sure I can manage to make a list all on my own without including a single Forge World model. I am pretty sure the Citadel model line is large enough to accomplish that. I would hazard to guess most army lists in fact don't have any Forge World units within them. So asking if I want someone to write my list for me is highly disingenuous.
Most army lists don't have Valkyries or Genestealers or Trukks either, what's your point? The distinction you're making is one you're forcing between one sales channel and another of the same organization, not anything based in the rules, lore, source, or anything else.
My point is there is a huge gap between having someone write my own list because I choose not to make use of Forge World models (or play strangers that do) and creating a list that most players take exception to. I would think that is obvious, unless you agree with insinuation that Adeptus Doritos is making that not allowing Forge World models is akin to having someone else create your army list. I am guessing of those factions you list, all have a far lesser degree of players making use of Forge World models in them than the ones you mentioned.
Sure, though when we're talking troops and transports I'm not sure how high a bar that is. Regardless, no, I don't agree with the hyperbolic level Doritos' statement goes to, but if you're basically going to tell people "I won't play you if you run X plastic toy soldier models in your army, unless...", you are on some level fundamentally dictating what their list can contain, if they they want to play you. That said, it's absolutely your right to do that if you choose, but recognize that restriction is coming from a distinction of your own creation rather than anything intended by the designers of the game or found within its rules.
If I am facing an Ork list, I think it is reasonable expect it to have a Trukk or two. I don't even know if the orks have a special Forge World unit.
In an era when almost everyone has a device in their pocket capable of accessing the sum total of human knowledge from almost anywhere, one would think that would be an easy problem to solve.
Hell, the current FW index books are all cheaper than Codex books too to boot.
If they do, I expect it is expensive and something several order of magnitude rarer that a trukk.
Most of their stuff isn't all that rare or outrageously expensive. They've got everything from tiny little 30something point Grot tanks to up-armored Trukks and Trakks, a unique biker character and Warpcopta's, and Orky equivalents to some of the more recent Marine dreadnought classes and the like. Not everything is a Stompa.
I am not interesting in considering a unit that less than 5% (probably less than 1%) of ork players have and field.
That depends highly on the playgroup, I've played in areas where almost every other list had something FW in it, some that had almost none. That said, there's lots of FW stuff that dramatically outsell many core lines, it's really not as rare as you think in the broader world. More to the point, does this same logic apply when someone brings a codex unit that's almost never fielded and that almost nobody has from an army few people play?
I don't care if Forge World is merely a different sales channel. In Bolt Action, I wouldn't accept any unit from some random campaign book unit in my opponent's force without restriction even if that unit is a Warlord Games model and doesn't break any of the rules of Bolt Action nor would I run any random campaign book unit in my army list for a PUG with an unknown (possibly unfamiliar) opponent. That sort of stuff is going to require me to have a rapport with said opponent where I have some level of trust out of what they want our game which reasonably matches what I want out it.
If you want to enforce your own restrictions based on your own arbitrary restrictions, nobody is forcing you to do otherwise, but acknowledge what they are. 40k is a sandbox game for people to play with their plastic army toys with each other, not a relatively narratively-bound historical wargame, you're importing a distinction from another game set and imposing it where no rules or play guide state they exist. If a dude shows up with a Y robot instead of X robot that has gun A instead of gun B, and has the rules (written by games workshop employees working under the Forgeworld name) for them available, and you need some extra level of confidence and negotiation because the rules are in a book titled "Imperial Armour" instead of "Codex", I see no distinction as to why that would be different than new codex units or the like. If you go to an actual Games Workshop run event or tournament, they will not make any distinction or have any additional restrictions on FW.
Honestly, I don't care that much about this issue. I did take exception to the posts that became aggressive toward the player that didn't want to face Forge World units. Some of those posts included name calling. I continued in the thread due to several posts seeming pretty hyperbolic in thier statements. I am actually more inline with techsoldaten on what I am looking for out of a game.
That's all cool, and I don't disagree that there was some excessive hyperbole, I was just addressing what I saw as a flaw in your argument against the use of FW.
However, as mentioned, several of the posts here made me reconsider having an open policy about just allowing Forge World units
Then that's you intentionally being a contrarian reactionary for its own sake
Every player has the right to refuse a game if they don't want to play for whatever reason.
Absolutely they do, and nowhere did I didn't say they didn't, nobody is going to force you to have a game you don't want. That said, we're on a discussion board about warhammer 40k, and if people think a reason why someone would refuse a game of warhammer 40k is silly they'll discuss it.
I don't see how facing super rare, often niche units is going to improve my enjoyment of the game, but I can see several ways it can diminish it.
Cool new models and background concepts? New styles of opponents and new flairs to existing ones? That's basically what it's offering.
When an army gets a new codex, new units and new rules, do you approach it with this same "I don't see how they will improve my enjoyment but several ways they can diminish it" mindet? That would appear to be going out of your way to be self defeating in the first place selectively.
If they have the rules and you can give it a look over, how is that different than a new codex unit or an army you've never faced before? It's not like the core game doesn't fundamentally offer basically everything from entire armies of superheavy battle walkers to armored divisions and alien guerilla armies to hordes of flying monsters paired together in whatever combination of factions people wish. That ships sailed 3 editions ago .
Saturmorn Carvilli wrote: [I don't even know if the orks have a special Forge World unit. If they do, I expect it is expensive and something several order of magnitude rarer that a trukk. I am not interesting in considering a unit that less than 5% (probably less than 1%) of ork players have and field..
I don't see how facing super rare, often niche units is going to improve my enjoyment of the game, but I can see several ways it can diminish it. I am not 100% against the use of Forge World. I am very uncomfortable with the idea of my first game with a person I never played before just fielding Forge World stuff. It is going to take me a few games with that person to feel out what they want from miniatures gaming before I am going to trust them enhance our gaming experience with them. Going by many of the posts here, I have been further pushed from wanting to play games with opponents that make use of Forge World stuff. I doubt I will have to worry about any of this. Forge World stuff is pretty rare, and I don't play PUG much since I feel they are more of a hassle than fun most of the time (again no gaming is better than bad gaming). I am more concerned about the prevalence of players here being upset that someone might refuse to play a game with them and the black or white stances of some posts (par for the internet I guess).
You absolutely have the right to refuse a game, and all power to you for having the maturity to turn town a game that you know would make you not enjoy your hobby time.
However, just because you’re exercising a valid right, does not make your underlying reason above criticism.
I’m not deliberately trying to be antagonistic here, but as I see it your argument at its coldest, hardest truth comes down to ‘I am ignorant, and choose to remain ignorant.’ I say this because you appear to be saying that you’re hesitant to play against FW because you don’t know the rules of it. That might have been valid a decade or two ago, but today those rules are available at £60 total even if you go all out on the official versions, and there are plenty of less salubrious ways to have a quick read. Moreover, a quick glance at 1d4chan tactics page will give you a paragraph or two on just about every FW unit in existence - easy enough to read between seeing your opponent’s list and starting the game, and with enough information to give you a workable knowledge of how it’s going to play in the game. There is no excuse of availability - the rules are there, and your opponent should have the rules on hand just like they should have GW rules on hand.
Even if you wish to remain ignorant (which as someone with something of an intellectual bent I can’t really comprehend but people work differently), what really boggles my mind is how you’ve ringfenced what you’re willing to know. You’re setting a boundary and saying ‘I will try to understand everything within this boundary, and everything outside I won’t concern myself with.’ Ok, cutting something too big down to a manageable size I can kinda get behind, cool. But that throws up the really critical question:
Why is FW your decided-upon boundary?
Why not ‘only Indexes’, ‘no Superheavies’, ‘no flyers’, or ‘no Guard’? Any of those would be equally arbitrary and equally valid boundaries to set. Why have you singled out FW as being a bridge too far? Is it because it’s not official? No, it’s quire clearly outlined as being valid and official. Is it because GW is the main bit and FW is an expansion not covered in their rules? Nope, GW made that emphatically clear by including FW points updates in Chapter Approved with the GW ones. Is it because FW is nothing but Titans and Gargantuan Squiggoths? Not when most of FW are things like marginally different versions of Leman Russes. Is it because FW is overpowered? Definitely not, they have less criminally overpowered units than GW Codexes in both an absolute and relative count. Is it because the FW things that are overpowered aren’t fixed in a reasonable timeframe? Not really, most of the things that were overpowered in FW (Malefic Lords, the Super Chicken, most of the Superheavies) have been thoroughly nuked from orbit by catastrophic points increases.
It it because ‘FW is icky’? That might be closer to the mark. You (speaking now to the general rather than specific ‘you’) have a preexisting prejudice against FW that isn’t supported by fact and hasn’t been for some time. To my eyes you’re no different to the people who say ‘I don’t like people of XYZ race / religion / gender / sexual orientation.’ You’re within your rights to not invite ‘those people’ into your home, just as you have the right to not play against ‘those models’. Your rights don’t make your decision valid or above scrutiny and ridicule.
While I started addressing you directly, I seem to have wandered off into addressing a more general ‘you’ as representing ‘people who don’t like to play against FW’, so not all of what I’ve said may apply directly to you. But critically, the bolded question above does.
I defy (the general) you to present a solid case for why ‘no FW’ as a rule is valid, regardless of your right to impose that rule.
Edit: I’ll add an example to clarify.
The Knight Armiger is a recent brand new unit. You can have had no prior experience of it, and access to previews or even whole data sheets is all online and easily found.
If the Armiger came out under the GW banner, you’d let someone play with it in a PUG, no questions. If it was released under the FW banner, you might have reservations. Why? It’s the same unit.
I have seen those arbitary boundaries in many things: Mostly in ideolocial radical politics (extremists on all ends of the spectrum, might i add) which work with a prefabricated picture of the world (and a prefabricated picture of good and bad in a strict system of morality) and religion. Especially the more fundemantalist strains of any religion suffer these boundaries.
If one would go to the bottom of it, i guess there are stereotypes regarding FW units or whole FW armies that say that FW is strange and does not fit the theme and or is only spammed by powergamers and or is as a whole overpowered.
Just one thing. Let's pretend FW is "overpowered".
Now, in this reality where that's true, realize that everything else about 40k as a game and as a gaming community is still the same.
I have watched people at the drop of 8th Edition rush to get a Bobby G and several Imperial Knights and have no gas money for 2 weeks.
I have seen guys ration ramen packets to budget for a Baneblade.
I've seen dudes throw absurd amounts of money at Imperial Guard and Tau and Eldar.
This is the most absurdly expensive game I know of, and the average player throws a grand into it over a year without batting an eye.
Still with me? Bottom line: if it can be bought and it is good, players will pay comically absurd prices to get it, no matter how absolutely insane it is and what they have to sacrifice.
Consider that for a moment, and realize that literally the only thing required to get a Forge World model of your choice is an internet connection, a mailing address, and a means to pay for the damned thing.
No, really- that's it. You don't have to go down on a GW manager, sacrifice your firstborn, best Olaf the giant in combat, join a club, or win some grand competition or lottery. Anyone can do it, with the money to buy it.
That being realized, you would think that if those hunks of overpriced resin were "overpowered"... You'd see them all over the damned place, and they'd be hot items.
Add the fact that resourceful and less scrupulous shoppers can find absurdly identical counterfeit versions at a fraction of the cost.
...where the hell are all of these massive Forge World armies? Did the 40k community suddenly stop being chock full of powergamers, WAAC players, and competitive tournament guys?
Nope.
So maaaaaybe the "overpowered" thing is about as real as Malal.
I expect this guy felt like you were trying to trick him, asking for a casual game then you start pulling Forgeworld stuff out of your bag!
I know technically Forgeworld is a legal part of the game, but let's be honest it is more of an expansion pack. Giving people a heads up that you have a Forgeworld dreadnought when you ask for a game doesn't cost anything.
Saying that, if you have invested the money and the time into modelling and painting a sweet looking dreadnought then refusing to let you play with it is pretty harsh!
Now, in this reality where that's true, realize that everything else about 40k as a game and as a gaming community is still the same.
I have watched people at the drop of 8th Edition rush to get a Bobby G and several Imperial Knights and have no gas money for 2 weeks.
I have seen guys ration ramen packets to budget for a Baneblade.
I've seen dudes throw absurd amounts of money at Imperial Guard and Tau and Eldar.
This is the most absurdly expensive game I know of, and the average player throws a grand into it over a year without batting an eye.
Still with me? Bottom line: if it can be bought and it is good, players will pay comically absurd prices to get it, no matter how absolutely insane it is and what they have to sacrifice.
Consider that for a moment, and realize that literally the only thing required to get a Forge World model of your choice is an internet connection, a mailing address, and a means to pay for the damned thing.
No, really- that's it. You don't have to go down on a GW manager, sacrifice your firstborn, best Olaf the giant in combat, join a club, or win some grand competition or lottery. Anyone can do it, with the money to buy it.
That being realized, you would think that if those hunks of overpriced resin were "overpowered"... You'd see them all over the damned place, and they'd be hot items.
Add the fact that resourceful and less scrupulous shoppers can find absurdly identical counterfeit versions at a fraction of the cost.
...where the hell are all of these massive Forge World armies? Did the 40k community suddenly stop being chock full of powergamers, WAAC players, and competitive tournament guys?
Nope.
So maaaaaybe the "overpowered" thing is about as real as Malal.
I suppose my R&H army of around 4-5 k makes me wierd? In such a scenario i must be the worst offender there is.
And since the Codexes are avilable anyway as E-books at a (for GWFW standards) cheap price you should not have problems at finding the rules, or someone with the rules which you can pump for them.
The problem again is, that WAAC units get picked out and singled out. Most players will therefore only face that one unit by that one WAAC guy. Frankly in my opinion GW and FW could make the rules avilable for free online (pts, PL, rules, units stats,etc) and make the books with more of a focus on fluff. That change would really improve quality of life of many players aswell as making the hobby way more newbie friendly.
(Btw last time somebody complained playing with me, was that my army got tabled at turn 3 because of a combination of bad luck and the "WAAC" rules my FW army used,.)
Quite frankly you don't even need to buy the FW units to run many FW armies. Take for exemple corsairs, you can easily convert most of the stuff from normal Eldars.
Deathkorps you can easily find WW1 aesthetic German ww1 soldiers with gasmasks on, not that difficult. (however size will be difficult)
R&H literally you can mix and match with some kitbash between Nid Cult, IG and CSM (mainly the cultists). Tanks are anyway normal IG versions there and the units that you get in a starterbox for IG are easily converted to look more chaotic.
(Especially since R&H is really different in what is all in the faction you can run basically everything in there and make it look fitting and work with the list. Is it alot of work, yes. Can you personalize your army to your hearts content? YES. Is it expensive? depends)
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kroem wrote: I expect this guy felt like you were trying to trick him, asking for a casual game then you start pulling Forgeworld stuff out of your bag!
I know technically Forgeworld is a legal part of the game, but let's be honest it is more of an expansion pack. Giving people a heads up that you have a Forgeworld dreadnought when you ask for a game doesn't cost anything.
Saying that, if you have invested the money and the time into modelling and painting a sweet looking dreadnought then refusing to let you play with it is pretty harsh!
That is again the same problem that you face when you are gaming online in a shooter. You can not expect somone to not use a weapon in that game that he got from a expansion/ DLC that he has bought.
Can the balancing be a issue? yes. Should you therefore instantly ban that / complain about that/ refuse to play the match? i don't think you should.
Do you have the right to be annoyed / refuse to play the match? absolutely.
Now that is a bad analogy: because FW units are explicit 40 k content, offically sanctioned one at that, whilest Boltaction is a gamesystem published via Warlord, which also publishes other miniatures.
Yes you can deny in the later case, because it is not the same system, (considering sci-fi models are also published by Warlord it would make for some hillarious fun when they are introduced for fun into BA, but that is something else). You can't however argue that this would be the case for 40k units IN 40 for it from FW.
(If someone were to bring 30k units then this would be another debate but since we are talking about a 40k model with 40k rules ina match of 40k i will ignore that point)
That would be plain ridicoulous. As for your last point, seriously?
You are afraid because you can't handle "new" or "strage" stuff, because it might could diminish your experience?
I mean by that logic you would have had problems with the Dakkafiend release in 7th and anything new, because it is "new" and could diminish your experience. (CHANGE IS BAD THEREFORE WE SHOULD HAVE STAYED IN THE MEDIEVAL AGES WITH THE INQUISITION, sincerly a Catholic)
Btw. Girlyman is also new, and a GW model, that certainly diminished some experiences here, should we therefor be allowed to just ban such units?
Quite frankly you getting forced to play stands opposed in this case of you forcing somebody to play in a way you want, preferable aginst units you want to see, which may or may not be good enough to win against you.
I am not referring to Gates of Antares or Konflict 47 units. I refering to things like Hobart's Funnies or national heroes like Vasily Zaytsev. Which have stats campaign books which are really meant for particular scenarios more than just adding to any given list. Most groups I have encountered have the social contract of requiring players make sure their opponent it okay with their inclusion because they can be quite disruptive.
I am also not talking about banning Forge World units. However, I do like if a player is adding something to their list to play random strangers maybe they should give consideration of certain units. And yes, Roboute Guilliman (and demon primarchs, super heavies and even flyers) might be very disruptive units in a game and should be discussed with an opponent beforehand.
Like I said, before this tread I was pretty neutral to the idea. However, this tread has had arguments for the inclusion of Forge World models things such as this:
Isn't that exactly what you are doing when you say you ask to play any miniatures game? I am not stopping you from playing with your miniatures. I am stopping myself from playing with you.
No. I am asking if we can play together. Both of us are involved. If you elect to be a House Escher Male about it, you have every right to do so. And I have every right to label you as someone who is selective about what rules you follow.
If you refuse to play my Forge World tanks, I have every reason to suspect you'll cry about anything you aren't certain you can beat. I'll leave you to find another game, and I'll have no trouble finding a better player.
As for your second point, I am pretty sure I can manage to make a list all on my own without including a single Forge World model. I am pretty sure the Citadel model line is large enough to accomplish that. I would hazard to guess most army lists in fact don't have any Forge World units within them. So asking if I want someone to write my list for me is highly disingenuous.
So can I. But I chose to include certain models because I like them, they're 100% legal, and it has an added bonus of helping me find the toxic manchildren and add them to my "disregard man-shaped toddler" list.
No. But I don't have right to demand random people to play with me. Seriously are we playing in free country or north korea? Some people have right to demand other to play regardless of what?
No one is "demanding" anything. I don't have a 'right' to a game. I do, however, have an expectation like any other sane, rational, mature adult playing warhammer 40k ( all 10 of us) and that expectation is that if the rules allow it and you can't justify me excluding it (like, "I have no anti-air capability with me today")- then I would prefer the person be an adult about it and roll with the game.
It's my fun, too- and if you can't compromise then you can pack up and go home and play by or with yourself, it is comically easy to find another player. By virtue of not being a crybaby about Forge World, I am demonstrably more likely to find more games.
That is really convincing me that allowing to play a stranger with Forge World models in is a wise idea. Please, continue name calling I sure it will bring people around to your way of thinking. Honestly it is this sort thing that has me making the consideration to be more selective about the inclusion of Forge World stuff in a stranger's army list. I don't care if it is overpowered or garbage on the table. I expect a sane, rational adult to not resort to name calling and harshly criticizing another oppoent's preferences. That seems far more like tantrum to me than saying I am not really comfortable with you including that Forge World model as I unfamiliar with it and I don't know you very well yet.
I am not saying I will NEVER play someone that has a Forge World unit in their list. I am just saying I am less inclined to and this tread has made me even less so due to some of the pro-Forge World camp which has ranged from outright demeaning someone for choosing to not play to sour grapes of 'Well, they are probably a terrible opponent anyways.'
@Vaktathi
I am well aware that this is an artificial distinction I am making based on my own bias and preferences. I do understand that I am dictating what can or can't be included in my opponent's army list (and I believe my opponent has the same right). I believe this to be part of the social contract of gaming. Maybe it was lost in translation, but none of this is hard fast rules of: "You have Forge World models, no game for you then." More of I am going to evaluate that person's intentions on what they want out of the game and why they included that unit. Which isn't easy if it the first time you met that person. This thread has made me consider taking a closer look at the what that prospective opponent wants out of the game. I am still far more opposed to playing an opponent that is practicing or play testing their list for a tourament than I am allowing a perfect stranger having a list with a Forge World model or two.
As for learning about what Forge World models can do. It is a bit of wilful ignorance on my part. As I have said this is my hobby not my job and I only need to pursue it as far as I want to. I am perfectly happy number of unit types with the regular Citadel line. I don't care about the Forge World expansion. So I don't want to waste my time learning more about that line. I am even less inclined to spend money on something I am completely disinterested in.
I don't see my hesitation of not wanting to play a game with Forge World models any different to another player not wanting to play Warhammer 40K with Power Levels (which I prefer). I don't get involved with organized play and especially not tournaments. I have never found them to be any fun. I think there is a distinction in that Forge World stuff is completely omitted from Codices both in rules and even photos. If GW wants me to treat these models as the same line they are they shouldn't have that wall of separation. Half a dozen photo splashes could be removed form of Codex to include Forge World units into them. Which would go a long ways removing my apprehension.
I think you have been one of the few rather measured pro-Forge World posters here which eases my concern. As I have said, I am not saying I won't play a player that has Forge World. I am just not particularly keen on the idea after some of the ideas expressed about players that don't want to. That may make me a bit of a contrarian. I see it has I need to be more diligent in who I accept to play games with.
Forge World does have some cool stuff however, I consider myself pretty casual and I simply don't want to spend excessive time concerning myself even more units in game that seems to have units uncounted already. I think the scope of the game isn't conducive to super heavy with how special considerations before hand. I also don't want 3-5 more variants to units to have to consider. That seems like a whole lot of rules bloating I don't want to deal with specially with a person I have never played before. We get a good rapport going, and I won't care if you have some crazy model (or toy) from some other maker and create custom rules for it. Same goes saying wanting to use a White Dwarf/d4Chan stated unit. If I know that player and what they want out of the game almost anything goes.
@combatwombat
No, it isn't above criticism. However, it is above being called names (such as manchild and toddler) because of it. As I mentioned above, I am not interested in Forge World and I am not going to spend additional money on something I am not interested in. People remain ignorant or all sort of things they probably shouldn't. However, remaining ignorant in a leisure activity that you are happy with the scope you stay within is probably decent concession to wilful ignorance.
I agree why not thos units you mentioned. In this instanance, we are specifically talking about Forge World not those units. However, I think many of those unit types can be disruptive to a game if not discussed before hand and players fielding them should consider that not all players want to deal with them in a random PUG.
I am perfectly happy with just using and playing against the non-Forge World units. That's it. I am sure you think that is some variation of I think Forge World is Icky, and I don't care if that is what you think. I think whole game systems are Icky then as I am fine not playing them either. I don't really want the additional bloat of additional rules that more models bring.
This biggest difference it GW keeps a barrier between the two. In one line they are included in their respective Faction's codex (eventually) in the other they are in whatever document Forge World models are in. I really only want to bother with two books: rules and codex. I don't need to have the latest and greatest publications (especially at the prices GW wants for them). I know, I know, that isn't legal or whatever. I have use bunch of other things to be current. I don't care that much about being current, but if I want to play a PUG I feel obligated to. I am sure that will have several Dakkanuats labeling me as CAAC. But is still name calling which is what I have largely been opposed to in this tread.
Now, in this reality where that's true, realize that everything else about 40k as a game and as a gaming community is still the same.
I have watched people at the drop of 8th Edition rush to get a Bobby G and several Imperial Knights and have no gas money for 2 weeks.
I have seen guys ration ramen packets to budget for a Baneblade.
I've seen dudes throw absurd amounts of money at Imperial Guard and Tau and Eldar.
This is the most absurdly expensive game I know of, and the average player throws a grand into it over a year without batting an eye.
Still with me? Bottom line: if it can be bought and it is good, players will pay comically absurd prices to get it, no matter how absolutely insane it is and what they have to sacrifice.
Consider that for a moment, and realize that literally the only thing required to get a Forge World model of your choice is an internet connection, a mailing address, and a means to pay for the damned thing.
No, really- that's it. You don't have to go down on a GW manager, sacrifice your firstborn, best Olaf the giant in combat, join a club, or win some grand competition or lottery. Anyone can do it, with the money to buy it.
That being realized, you would think that if those hunks of overpriced resin were "overpowered"... You'd see them all over the damned place, and they'd be hot items.
Add the fact that resourceful and less scrupulous shoppers can find absurdly identical counterfeit versions at a fraction of the cost.
...where the hell are all of these massive Forge World armies? Did the 40k community suddenly stop being chock full of powergamers, WAAC players, and competitive tournament guys?
Nope.
So maaaaaybe the "overpowered" thing is about as real as Malal.
I suppose my R&H army of around 4-5 k makes me wierd? In such a scenario i must be the worst offender there is.
And since the Codexes are avilable anyway as E-books at a (for GWFW standards) cheap price you should not have problems at finding the rules, or someone with the rules which you can pump for them.
The problem again is, that WAAC units get picked out and singled out. Most players will therefore only face that one unit by that one WAAC guy. Frankly in my opinion GW and FW could make the rules avilable for free online (pts, PL, rules, units stats,etc) and make the books with more of a focus on fluff. That change would really improve quality of life of many players aswell as making the hobby way more newbie friendly.
(Btw last time somebody complained playing with me, was that my army got tabled at turn 3 because of a combination of bad luck and the "WAAC" rules my FW army used,.)
Quite frankly you don't even need to buy the FW units to run many FW armies. Take for exemple corsairs, you can easily convert most of the stuff from normal Eldars.
Deathkorps you can easily find WW1 aesthetic German ww1 soldiers with gasmasks on, not that difficult. (however size will be difficult)
R&H literally you can mix and match with some kitbash between Nid Cult, IG and CSM (mainly the cultists). Tanks are anyway normal IG versions there and the units that you get in a starterbox for IG are easily converted to look more chaotic.
(Especially since R&H is really different in what is all in the faction you can run basically everything in there and make it look fitting and work with the list. Is it alot of work, yes. Can you personalize your army to your hearts content? YES. Is it expensive? depends)
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kroem wrote: I expect this guy felt like you were trying to trick him, asking for a casual game then you start pulling Forgeworld stuff out of your bag!
I know technically Forgeworld is a legal part of the game, but let's be honest it is more of an expansion pack. Giving people a heads up that you have a Forgeworld dreadnought when you ask for a game doesn't cost anything.
Saying that, if you have invested the money and the time into modelling and painting a sweet looking dreadnought then refusing to let you play with it is pretty harsh!
That is again the same problem that you face when you are gaming online in a shooter. You can not expect somone to not use a weapon in that game that he got from a expansion/ DLC that he has bought.
Can the balancing be a issue? yes. Should you therefore instantly ban that / complain about that/ refuse to play the match? i don't think you should.
Do you have the right to be annoyed / refuse to play the match? absolutely.
Your example about the online shooter is actually really bad. Most if not all modern games have an extensive in-game lobby if not private servers so you can play the exact way you want. Want to play only certain map packs?... that's fine just select those. Want to play without rocket launchers?.... that's fine select a server that does not include those. Even at the highest levels of MLG most games have a "banning" portion of the map where you ban certain maps/heroes.
What many people are arguing for in this thread is meeting a guy who plays a game online and only plays certain game mode such as (team deathmatch, no perks, no killstreaks). You ask him for a game and he says he plays the above rules and if you'd like to play with him that the only type of lobby he will join. What the argument of this thread seems to be is that the above player shouldn't be allowed to play on such a server and instead should be forced to play in a game mode with everything in the game unlocked. using your own stipulations the LVO shouldnt be allowed for having non GW official terrain rules.... You should go force them to play the correct way just like you would to the guy that doesnt want to play against FW.
Any events that I host (campaign events, I don't do tournament games until they fix the game and the balance) will always allow Forge World. They add a lot to the game visually.
Now that is a bad analogy: because FW units are explicit 40 k content, offically sanctioned one at that, whilest Boltaction is a gamesystem published via Warlord, which also publishes other miniatures.
Yes you can deny in the later case, because it is not the same system, (considering sci-fi models are also published by Warlord it would make for some hillarious fun when they are introduced for fun into BA, but that is something else). You can't however argue that this would be the case for 40k units IN 40 for it from FW.
(If someone were to bring 30k units then this would be another debate but since we are talking about a 40k model with 40k rules ina match of 40k i will ignore that point)
That would be plain ridicoulous. As for your last point, seriously?
You are afraid because you can't handle "new" or "strage" stuff, because it might could diminish your experience?
I mean by that logic you would have had problems with the Dakkafiend release in 7th and anything new, because it is "new" and could diminish your experience. (CHANGE IS BAD THEREFORE WE SHOULD HAVE STAYED IN THE MEDIEVAL AGES WITH THE INQUISITION, sincerly a Catholic)
Btw. Girlyman is also new, and a GW model, that certainly diminished some experiences here, should we therefor be allowed to just ban such units?
Quite frankly you getting forced to play stands opposed in this case of you forcing somebody to play in a way you want, preferable aginst units you want to see, which may or may not be good enough to win against you.
I am not referring to Gates of Antares or Konflict 47 units. I refering to things like Hobart's Funnies or national heroes like Vasily Zaytsev. Which have stats campaign books which are really meant for particular scenarios more than just adding to any given list. Most groups I have encountered have the social contract of requiring players make sure their opponent it okay with their inclusion because they can be quite disruptive.
I am also not talking about banning Forge World units. However, I do like if a player is adding something to their list to play random strangers maybe they should give consideration of certain units. And yes, Roboute Guilliman (and demon primarchs, super heavies and even flyers) might be very disruptive units in a game and should be discussed with an opponent beforehand.
Like I said, before this tread I was pretty neutral to the idea. However, this tread has had arguments for the inclusion of Forge World models things such as this:
Isn't that exactly what you are doing when you say you ask to play any miniatures game? I am not stopping you from playing with your miniatures. I am stopping myself from playing with you.
No. I am asking if we can play together. Both of us are involved. If you elect to be a House Escher Male about it, you have every right to do so. And I have every right to label you as someone who is selective about what rules you follow.
If you refuse to play my Forge World tanks, I have every reason to suspect you'll cry about anything you aren't certain you can beat. I'll leave you to find another game, and I'll have no trouble finding a better player.
As for your second point, I am pretty sure I can manage to make a list all on my own without including a single Forge World model. I am pretty sure the Citadel model line is large enough to accomplish that. I would hazard to guess most army lists in fact don't have any Forge World units within them. So asking if I want someone to write my list for me is highly disingenuous.
So can I. But I chose to include certain models because I like them, they're 100% legal, and it has an added bonus of helping me find the toxic manchildren and add them to my "disregard man-shaped toddler" list.
No. But I don't have right to demand random people to play with me. Seriously are we playing in free country or north korea? Some people have right to demand other to play regardless of what?
No one is "demanding" anything. I don't have a 'right' to a game. I do, however, have an expectation like any other sane, rational, mature adult playing warhammer 40k ( all 10 of us) and that expectation is that if the rules allow it and you can't justify me excluding it (like, "I have no anti-air capability with me today")- then I would prefer the person be an adult about it and roll with the game.
It's my fun, too- and if you can't compromise then you can pack up and go home and play by or with yourself, it is comically easy to find another player. By virtue of not being a crybaby about Forge World, I am demonstrably more likely to find more games.
That is really convincing me that allowing to play a stranger with Forge World models in is a wise idea. Please, continue name calling I sure it will bring people around to your way of thinking. Honestly it is this sort thing that has me making the consideration to be more selective about the inclusion of Forge World stuff in a stranger's army list. I don't care if it is overpowered or garbage on the table. I expect a sane, rational adult to not resort to name calling and harshly criticizing another oppoent's preferences. That seems far more like tantrum to me than saying I am not really comfortable with you including that Forge World model as I unfamiliar with it and I don't know you very well yet.
I am not saying I will NEVER play someone that has a Forge World unit in their list. I am just saying I am less inclined to and this tread has made me even less so due to some of the pro-Forge World camp which has ranged from outright demeaning someone for choosing to not play to sour grapes of 'Well, they are probably a terrible opponent anyways.'
@Vaktathi
I am well aware that this is an artificial distinction I am making based on my own bias and preferences. I do understand that I am dictating what can or can't be included in my opponent's army list (and I believe my opponent has the same right). I believe this to be part of the social contract of gaming. Maybe it was lost in translation, but none of this is hard fast rules of: "You have Forge World models, no game for you then." More of I am going to evaluate that person's intentions on what they want out of the game and why they included that unit. Which isn't easy if it the first time you met that person. This thread has made me consider taking a closer look at the what that prospective opponent wants out of the game. I am still far more opposed to playing an opponent that is practicing or play testing their list for a tourament than I am allowing a perfect stranger having a list with a Forge World model or two.
As for learning about what Forge World models can do. It is a bit of wilful ignorance on my part. As I have said this is my hobby not my job and I only need to pursue it as far as I want to. I am perfectly happy number of unit types with the regular Citadel line. I don't care about the Forge World expansion. So I don't want to waste my time learning more about that line. I am even less inclined to spend money on something I am completely disinterested in.
I don't see my hesitation of not wanting to play a game with Forge World models any different to another player not wanting to play Warhammer 40K with Power Levels (which I prefer). I don't get involved with organized play and especially not tournaments. I have never found them to be any fun. I think there is a distinction in that Forge World stuff is completely omitted from Codices both in rules and even photos. If GW wants me to treat these models as the same line they are they shouldn't have that wall of separation. Half a dozen photo splashes could be removed form of Codex to include Forge World units into them. Which would go a long ways removing my apprehension.
I think you have been one of the few rather measured pro-Forge World posters here which eases my concern. As I have said, I am not saying I won't play a player that has Forge World. I am just not particularly keen on the idea after some of the ideas expressed about players that don't want to. That may make me a bit of a contrarian. I see it has I need to be more diligent in who I accept to play games with.
Forge World does have some cool stuff however, I consider myself pretty casual and I simply don't want to spend excessive time concerning myself even more units in game that seems to have units uncounted already. I think the scope of the game isn't conducive to super heavy with how special considerations before hand. I also don't want 3-5 more variants to units to have to consider. That seems like a whole lot of rules bloating I don't want to deal with specially with a person I have never played before. We get a good rapport going, and I won't care if you have some crazy model (or toy) from some other maker and create custom rules for it. Same goes saying wanting to use a White Dwarf/d4Chan stated unit. If I know that player and what they want out of the game almost anything goes.
@combatwombat
No, it isn't above criticism. However, it is above being called names (such as manchild and toddler) because of it. As I mentioned above, I am not interested in Forge World and I am not going to spend additional money on something I am not interested in. People remain ignorant or all sort of things they probably shouldn't. However, remaining ignorant in a leisure activity that you are happy with the scope you stay within is probably decent concession to wilful ignorance.
I agree why not thos units you mentioned. In this instanance, we are specifically talking about Forge World not those units. However, I think many of those unit types can be disruptive to a game if not discussed before hand and players fielding them should consider that not all players want to deal with them in a random PUG.
I am perfectly happy with just using and playing against the non-Forge World units. That's it. I am sure you think that is some variation of I think Forge World is Icky, and I don't care if that is what you think. I think whole game systems are Icky then as I am fine not playing them either. I don't really want the additional bloat of additional rules that more models bring.
This biggest difference it GW keeps a barrier between the two. In one line they are included in their respective Faction's codex (eventually) in the other they are in whatever document Forge World models are in. I really only want to bother with two books: rules and codex. I don't need to have the latest and greatest publications (especially at the prices GW wants for them). I know, I know, that isn't legal or whatever. I have use bunch of other things to be current. I don't care that much about being current, but if I want to play a PUG I feel obligated to. I am sure that will have several Dakkanuats labeling me as CAAC. But is still name calling which is what I have largely been opposed to in this tread.
You do realize however, that i did call out that person on their non-civil conduct, so you do not need to tell me that.
You do however lump people like me in the same group, and that pisses me off because it is the same slowed argumentation that is used to seperate groups. (Worst exemple radical ideologies, same idea and same argumentation.) funnily enough you do basically the same by fingerpointng but instead of actually calling out said person you just complain about any random player in a store that has FW models and runs them.
Also again the really bad overcomplication argument: last time i checked you need more then 2 books, you forgot the CA or chapter approved and you forgot the FAQ's (BTW In chapter approved there are also FW units,basically connecting those systems)
As for you beeing willfully ignorant, quite frankly you do you, however stop grouping people in such groups , because that does bring you down to the same level as our fellow commenter that just had to "namecall"
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also Asmodius, that is often not anymore the case, (BF1 for exemple does not allow private run servers with special rules anymore) .
However that brings in another point, could a "Banlist" or a community guidline help improve the general balance of the game kinda like it is done with certain champions in lol?
Yes absolutely, but i am also certain that you will find more GW units on it then other units.
It's pretty tough and it can have some awesome guns that OP didn't take.
If it has twin storm cannons its easily disabled. Charge it from 9" away, avoiding its heavy flamers. If you can surround it it cant fallback. It has only two attacks at S8 AP0 D1. Tie it up in CC until the game is over. If you cant surround it you have at least disabled its shooting for one turn. Unless its ultramarines, then it can still shoot after falling back, with -1.
OP had a siege claw and a drill.
lol... even more of a reason for the WTF ?! the thing should never get into combat with anything important. I mean really ...
Asmodios wrote: Your example about the online shooter is actually really bad. Most if not all modern games have an extensive in-game lobby if not private servers so you can play the exact way you want. Want to play only certain map packs?... that's fine just select those. Want to play without rocket launchers?.... that's fine select a server that does not include those. Even at the highest levels of MLG most games have a "banning" portion of the map where you ban certain maps/heroes.
What many people are arguing for in this thread is meeting a guy who plays a game online and only plays certain game mode such as (team deathmatch, no perks, no killstreaks). You ask him for a game and he says he plays the above rules and if you'd like to play with him that the only type of lobby he will join. What the argument of this thread seems to be is that the above player shouldn't be allowed to play on such a server and instead should be forced to play in a game mode with everything in the game unlocked. using your own stipulations the LVO shouldnt be allowed for having non GW official terrain rules.... You should go force them to play the correct way just like you would to the guy that doesnt want to play against FW.
You shot yourself in the foot with that analogy.
If the person wants to play no rockets, they join a private server (i.e. play with friends).
If the person Quick-Plays a game (i.e. sets up a random PUG), then he shouldn't be surprised when the quickplay game doesn't have rocket launchers banned.
Asmodios wrote: Your example about the online shooter is actually really bad. Most if not all modern games have an extensive in-game lobby if not private servers so you can play the exact way you want. Want to play only certain map packs?... that's fine just select those. Want to play without rocket launchers?.... that's fine select a server that does not include those. Even at the highest levels of MLG most games have a "banning" portion of the map where you ban certain maps/heroes.
What many people are arguing for in this thread is meeting a guy who plays a game online and only plays certain game mode such as (team deathmatch, no perks, no killstreaks). You ask him for a game and he says he plays the above rules and if you'd like to play with him that the only type of lobby he will join. What the argument of this thread seems to be is that the above player shouldn't be allowed to play on such a server and instead should be forced to play in a game mode with everything in the game unlocked. using your own stipulations the LVO shouldnt be allowed for having non GW official terrain rules.... You should go force them to play the correct way just like you would to the guy that doesnt want to play against FW.
You shot yourself in the foot with that analogy.
If the person wants to play no rockets, they join a private server (i.e. play with friends).
If the person Quick-Plays a game (i.e. sets up a random PUG), then he shouldn't be surprised when the quickplay game doesn't have rocket launchers banned.
I guess i should have been more precise, i.e. i am talking about BF1 and no sadly you are not able anymore to rent privatservers that are customable to that way anymore.
My bad there.
Here is my take. If you are showing up to play pick up games, you cant have these personal quips and ticks about legal rules and units. FW is not optional, it is not a xpack. It is part and parcel of the Warhammer 40k game. They are just as legal as a GW codex.
Showing up to a place where people are expecting each other to use the same rules to play the game and then put down personal restrictions is kinda daft. Im sorry. If you want more control of your game time then find a gaming group or play with like minded folks.
In pick up games it is even more important to follow RAW than any other game type because it allows total strangers to be on a level playing field and expectations of how a game is played.
While no one is going to force you to play, and it is your choice to show up to pick up games with your personal checklist of rules you choose to not follow. But do not be suprised when people label you as a tosser.
Its like showing up to a game of street basketball (pick up game) and refusing to play if they use a certain brand of ball or are wearing socks in a color you dont like.
Saturmorn Carvilli wrote: No, it isn't above criticism. However, it is above being called names (such as manchild and toddler) because of it. As I mentioned above, I am not interested in Forge World and I am not going to spend additional money on something I am not interested in. People remain ignorant or all sort of things they probably shouldn't. However, remaining ignorant in a leisure activity that you are happy with the scope you stay within is probably decent concession to wilful ignorance.
I agree why not thos units you mentioned. In this instanance, we are specifically talking about Forge World not those units. However, I think many of those unit types can be disruptive to a game if not discussed before hand and players fielding them should consider that not all players want to deal with them in a random PUG.
I am perfectly happy with just using and playing against the non-Forge World units. That's it. I am sure you think that is some variation of I think Forge World is Icky, and I don't care if that is what you think. I think whole game systems are Icky then as I am fine not playing them either. I don't really want the additional bloat of additional rules that more models bring.
This biggest difference it GW keeps a barrier between the two. In one line they are included in their respective Faction's codex (eventually) in the other they are in whatever document Forge World models are in. I really only want to bother with two books: rules and codex. I don't need to have the latest and greatest publications (especially at the prices GW wants for them). I know, I know, that isn't legal or whatever. I have use bunch of other things to be current. I don't care that much about being current, but if I want to play a PUG I feel obligated to. I am sure that will have several Dakkanuats labeling me as CAAC. But is still name calling which is what I have largely been opposed to in this tread.
I... think we’ll have to agree to disagree on the wilful ignorance part. I think our world views are irreconcilable there.
If you want to draw a line in the sand and say ‘FW is beyond the scope of how I want to enjoy my hobby time’ then cool, you do you. To me you’ve made an arbitrary decision on where to draw your line. If you’re happy to accept that you’ve made an arbitrary decision then I have no issue with you; I make arbitrary decisions too. What I contend is that there is no valid reason why FW is a sound place to draw that boundary. There are places that are to my mind far less arbitrary to set that boundary - ‘no superheavies’ or ‘no Primarchs’ because they lock the game into a certain type, or a fuzzier ‘no super-competitive cheese lists’ which is a bit harder to pin down. To me ‘no FW’ is a purely arbitrary line drawn from nothing more than prejudice, and I’ve yet to see a valid argument as to why that isn’t so.
I think the Knight Armiger example really hits what I’m getting at. If they release it under the GW banner and you’re happy to play against it, but they release it under the FW banner and you’re hesitant to, I’m flabbergasted to how that could ever be considered rational distinction given that, as it’s a new unit you’re going to have to buy a new book to get the rules.
If you’re happy to make an arbitrary decision against allowing FW, then great. But if you’re contending that the distinction is rational and logical rather than arbitrary, I ask you to show me why it is so.
Like I said, before this tread I was pretty neutral to the idea. However, this tread has had arguments for the inclusion of Forge World models things such as this:
....
That is really convincing me that allowing to play a stranger with Forge World models in is a wise idea.
I'm going to be as nice as possible when I say this: What makes you think I was trying to convince you to change your mindset? I'm not. I'm ridiculing the absurdity of your position.
Saturmorn Carvilli wrote: Please, continue name calling I sure it will bring people around to your way of thinking.
Why would I want to change anyone's mind? As I have seen, the people who shriek about Forge World like I'm laying a dead baby on the table are the exact kind of people I don't want to game with under any circumstances whatsoever, and are extremely outnumbered by the people who take no issues with it or even encourage it.
Saturmorn Carvilli wrote: Honestly it is this sort thing that has me making the consideration to be more selective about the inclusion of Forge World stuff in a stranger's army list. I don't care if it is overpowered or garbage on the table. I expect a sane, rational adult to not resort to name calling and harshly criticizing another oppoent's preferences. That seems far more like tantrum to me than saying I am not really comfortable with you including that Forge World model as I unfamiliar with it and I don't know you very well yet.
Fella, I don't want you 'comfortable' with me. Your mindset? I don't want anywhere near me, until you can learn to accept something very simple:
1- Anyone can get Forge World models, and the information on said models just as easily as you can anything else. GOOGLE. Or go and order the book, if you're too sheepish to ask your opponent to look over his. Hey, why don't you do that? You might see a model you like.
2- Your own personal preference might have to take a hit every now and then in a game that requires at least two players. Otherwise, you may as well by action figures and sit at home alone.
Saturmorn Carvilli wrote: I am not saying I will NEVER play someone that has a Forge World unit in their list. I am just saying I am less inclined to and this tread has made me even less so due to some of the pro-Forge World camp which has ranged from outright demeaning someone for choosing to not play to sour grapes of 'Well, they are probably a terrible opponent anyways.'
Dude, your excuses for not wanting to play Forge World models are as follows:
"I am not familiar with them"- well, dude- it's 2018 and you have a phone or at least a computer so that's not anyone's problem but your own. I'm not familiar with Genestealer Cults and that's my own problem, but if I told someone "No I'm not playing your army because I don't know anything about it" (Which is the same basis for your argument here) then he's got every right to think I'm off, at best. You know how you get familiar with them? YOU PLAY THEM. It's not hard, but then again maybe you're adverse to a new experience that could give you perspective. Then again, this is 40k- people whine for change, then they whine things change. I guess you kind of have to expect people to want stagnation.
"Some guy on the internet had a bad attitude about it" - well, then you better lock yourself in a padded room with no windows because there's always a worse jerk than me about literally anything on the planet.
Like it or not, you saying "I don't want to play Forge World" is your own choice and has no basis in reality. And I tend to get a bit hostile, because it's this sort of mindset that needs to be pushed into a corner of the FLGS and forgotten while everyone else has fun.
I don't know how you can say "Playing Forge World won't be fun to me", because you've got nothing to substantiate that- it comes off like your idea of 'fun' is knowing everything your opponent has and being able to beat them, and if you can't do that you start enforcing your own personal and arbitrary house rules based on ignorance. It sounds like your idea of 'enjoying the game' means 'must win'. That, my friend, is limiting YOUR games. Not mine.
Did you refuse to play against GSC when they came out? Deathwatch? Thousand Sons? Custodes? By your logic, you should have. Because you weren't familiar with them. Then again, if you like playing the same things over and over again, I have nothing to say- that's you. More power to you.
Now, in ANY case if there was a simple thing like "I can't deal with flyers" or "I don't have the means to deal with that much armor on the table"- that's a reasonable excuse and it's asking for a degree of balance in the game. I do this quite often with IG players, and the ones that get pissy about it can go find someone else to play with.
Also, if the dude didn't have a book to support his model? Then I get it, screw that- No book, no game.
But you're being silly and feigning umbrage to substantiate a position of blatant ignorance. You can call it 'preference' if you want, but that doesn't make it immune to scrutiny or ridicule on any part of Holy Terra.
As for you beeing willfully ignorant, quite frankly you do you, however stop grouping people in such groups , because that does bring you down to the same level as our fellow commenter that just had to "namecall"
Up to. Up to my level.
And I didn't specifically call him anything, I was very general about whiny manbabies. If he elected to put that shoe on and wear it, then by all means- I at least want him to lace it tight.
Asmodios wrote: Your example about the online shooter is actually really bad. Most if not all modern games have an extensive in-game lobby if not private servers so you can play the exact way you want. Want to play only certain map packs?... that's fine just select those. Want to play without rocket launchers?.... that's fine select a server that does not include those. Even at the highest levels of MLG most games have a "banning" portion of the map where you ban certain maps/heroes.
What many people are arguing for in this thread is meeting a guy who plays a game online and only plays certain game mode such as (team deathmatch, no perks, no killstreaks). You ask him for a game and he says he plays the above rules and if you'd like to play with him that the only type of lobby he will join. What the argument of this thread seems to be is that the above player shouldn't be allowed to play on such a server and instead should be forced to play in a game mode with everything in the game unlocked. using your own stipulations the LVO shouldnt be allowed for having non GW official terrain rules.... You should go force them to play the correct way just like you would to the guy that doesnt want to play against FW.
You shot yourself in the foot with that analogy.
If the person wants to play no rockets, they join a private server (i.e. play with friends).
If the person Quick-Plays a game (i.e. sets up a random PUG), then he shouldn't be surprised when the quickplay game doesn't have rocket launchers banned.
Not really
Person 1: Wanna play a game
Person 2: Sure I only play game type x if you wanna play with me
Person 1: Yeah Sure/ No Thanks
What you are advocating for in this thread
Person 1: Wanna play a game
Person 2: Sure i only play game type x if you wanna play with me
Person 1: WTF you cant play game type x and you have to play me in game mode y........ YOU HAVE TO PLAY ME REEEEEEEEE!!!!!!!!!
Not really
Person 1: Wanna play a game
Person 2: Sure I only play game type x if you wanna play with me
Person 1: Yeah Sure/ No Thanks
What you are advocating for in this thread
Person 1: Wanna play a game
Person 2: Sure i only play game type x if you wanna play with me
Person 1: WTF you cant play game type x and you have to play me in game mode y........ YOU HAVE TO PLAY ME REEEEEEEEE!!!!!!!!!
At the end of the day, it boils down to a simple courtesy.
If you and I agree to do something together, then it's pretty scummy for you to have me come all the way to meet you and then you start enforcing additional restrictions on me after I've gone through the trouble of driving and putting a list together. A simple, "Yeah I'll play but I don't play Forge World" will probably just get an "Okay" from me on the phone or whatever, and I may silently judge you- but that'll be the end of it and you won't be wasting either of our time.
Skaorn wrote: Seems like a lot of people need to become more educated about how adult interactions and consent work. No means no at any point.
It's a hunk of resin with some rules in a book, and I'm asking to put it on a table and roll dice. I'm not demanding you take your pants down, bite the terrain, and find a happy place until I finish.
Skaorn wrote: Seems like a lot of people need to become more educated about how adult interactions and consent work. No means no at any point.
No one is trying to rape anyone, here.
Sometimes being ignorant and scared of things in a tabletop game can be overcome with a simple conversation, and both people end up having fun. Don't know if you don't try. Can be totally civil about it, too.
I find it annoying that I have to go to FW to find a competent dreadnought, but that's the extent for me. I personally don't own any FW, and am not likely to do so.
tneva82 wrote: I go to store, ask for game. Somebody says he would like. However seeing what he has makes me realize it won't be fun game. I have in my rights to decline. I'm neither legally nor morally obliged to play. The GAMES ARE NOT MANDATORY! I have not signed contract anywhere I'm forced to play games I don't want.
You are correct.
However you will also be judged for that decision and if your reasons are ignorant, dumb or nonsensical then expect to be judged negatively.
Scott-S6 wrote: However you will also be judged for that decision and if your reasons are ignorant, dumb or nonsensical then expect to be judged negatively.
Yeah. That's the point no one is getting.
Look, there are tons of things I just don't want to play against. Straight-up Imperial Knights? No thanks, boring. Space Marine Bubble Horde marching across the table? Pass. That guy with the obscenely huge mob of Orks that takes an hour to move? Nope. The dude that smells like butthole, feet, and armpit? Absolutely not. The whiny guy? Forget it.
You can pass on anything you want. For any reason you want. But don't be fool enough to think that your reasons for doing so won't be judged, because I have the right and capacity to judge. And don't be surprised if your reputation for refusing games based on silly reasons like "I am not familiar with that model" or "some guy was a jerk on the internet about it" won't earn you a reputation and result in you being that guy sitting in the corner with his models all alone.
Jesus, man... do these people make friends at the FLGS? That fixes 99% of these weird hangups.
Also, EDIT:
What is the absolute worst that can happen playing against models you're not familiar with?
What, you lose?
Oh, no, sound the alarms. A game where 50% of the players in a game lose didn't land in my favor sometimes. Better torch my models and start collecting toenail clippings or something instead.
Not really
Person 1: Wanna play a game
Person 2: Sure I only play game type x if you wanna play with me
Person 1: Yeah Sure/ No Thanks
What you are advocating for in this thread
Person 1: Wanna play a game
Person 2: Sure i only play game type x if you wanna play with me
Person 1: WTF you cant play game type x and you have to play me in game mode y........ YOU HAVE TO PLAY ME REEEEEEEEE!!!!!!!!!
At the end of the day, it boils down to a simple courtesy.
If you and I agree to do something together, then it's pretty scummy for you to have me come all the way to meet you and then you start enforcing additional restrictions on me after I've gone through the trouble of driving and putting a list together. A simple, "Yeah I'll play but I don't play Forge World" will probably just get an "Okay" from me on the phone or whatever, and I may silently judge you- but that'll be the end of it and you won't be wasting either of our time.
Read my first post in this thread. I said that it should have been set up before ever meeting at the store (imo it's on both players for not communicating well enough). But its especially relevant when traveling out of town, certain things are generally accepted in some areas and not in others. I'm assuming that the guy in question was used to nobody bringing forgworld and probably wrongly assumed that the guy wanting to play played the same way he did. The old saying of assumptions makes a@@holes applies equally to both players imo.
But regardless of this people saying that someone HAS to play you is ridiculous. Nobody has to play anyone and they can have any reason for it. They can not want to play against FW, unpainted model, because you smell bad, because you look mean, ect, ect ,ect. Its up to them.
Asmodios wrote: Your example about the online shooter is actually really bad. Most if not all modern games have an extensive in-game lobby if not private servers so you can play the exact way you want. Want to play only certain map packs?... that's fine just select those. Want to play without rocket launchers?.... that's fine select a server that does not include those. Even at the highest levels of MLG most games have a "banning" portion of the map where you ban certain maps/heroes.
What many people are arguing for in this thread is meeting a guy who plays a game online and only plays certain game mode such as (team deathmatch, no perks, no killstreaks). You ask him for a game and he says he plays the above rules and if you'd like to play with him that the only type of lobby he will join. What the argument of this thread seems to be is that the above player shouldn't be allowed to play on such a server and instead should be forced to play in a game mode with everything in the game unlocked. using your own stipulations the LVO shouldnt be allowed for having non GW official terrain rules.... You should go force them to play the correct way just like you would to the guy that doesnt want to play against FW.
You shot yourself in the foot with that analogy.
If the person wants to play no rockets, they join a private server (i.e. play with friends).
If the person Quick-Plays a game (i.e. sets up a random PUG), then he shouldn't be surprised when the quickplay game doesn't have rocket launchers banned.
Not really Person 1: Wanna play a game Person 2: Sure I only play game type x if you wanna play with me Person 1: Yeah Sure/ No Thanks What you are advocating for in this thread Person 1: Wanna play a game Person 2: Sure i only play game type x if you wanna play with me Person 1: WTF you cant play game type x and you have to play me in game mode y........ YOU HAVE TO PLAY ME REEEEEEEEE!!!!!!!!!
No, actually. What I am advocating for is for people not to do this:
"Wanna play a game?" "Sure, 2k points?" "Sure."
~~Drives to store~~
"Ok here's my list." "Oh, that's Forge World. We're not playing."
That's not fine. If the person mentions ahead of time no Forge World, then it will have saved me the trouble of driving to the store to play them. And I will still judge them for being silly, because while they can say know, I can also judge them for their opinions.
Read my first post in this thread. I said that it should have been set up before ever meeting at the store (imo it's on both players for not communicating well enough). But its especially relevant when traveling out of town, certain things are generally accepted in some areas and not in others. I'm assuming that the guy in question was used to nobody bringing forgworld and probably wrongly assumed that the guy wanting to play played the same way he did. The old saying of assumptions makes a@@holes applies equally to both players imo.
But regardless of this people saying that someone HAS to play you is ridiculous. Nobody has to play anyone and they can have any reason for it. They can not want to play against FW, unpainted model, because you smell bad, because you look mean, ect, ect ,ect. Its up to them.
Well, dude- at the end of the day a 'Forge World' model is as much a part of 40k as a Rhino, Land Raider, or Leman Russ. So the big thing is, one person is coming with the intent of playing the full actual game. The other is expecting an edited, house-ruled version of the game.
If I invite you over for a potluck, and then freak out because you brought fried chicken and I only wanted vegan dishes- I'm the jerk for not letting you know.
Asmodios wrote: You wont play against me because i have FW? REEEEEEEEE play me now
Dude, no one is demanding anyone play them. At all. I have seen none of that. Hell, if anything- people who are Anti-FW not wanting to play against me sounds more like a bonus than a lost opportunity. I want to play all the crazy uncommon stuff out there. But what IS being said is "people have a right to question your reasoning behind it, challenge it, and if your position is stupid then it'll get ridiculed".
Person 1: WTF you cant play game type x and you have to play me in game mode y........ YOU HAVE TO PLAY ME REEEEEEEEE!!!!!!!!!
That is a far more extreme and hyperbolic argument than anyone has made in favor playing FW units.
That's what it boils down to though at its core
You wont play against me because i have FW? REEEEEEEEE play me now
I guess we all view things through a different lens, but I see most positions expressed as more reasonable than that. I see them based more on it being lame and judging someone for it than insisting on anything. ("It" being refusal to play against FW models as a blanket rule.)
Read my first post in this thread. I said that it should have been set up before ever meeting at the store (imo it's on both players for not communicating well enough). But its especially relevant when traveling out of town, certain things are generally accepted in some areas and not in others. I'm assuming that the guy in question was used to nobody bringing forgworld and probably wrongly assumed that the guy wanting to play played the same way he did. The old saying of assumptions makes a@@holes applies equally to both players imo.
But regardless of this people saying that someone HAS to play you is ridiculous. Nobody has to play anyone and they can have any reason for it. They can not want to play against FW, unpainted model, because you smell bad, because you look mean, ect, ect ,ect. Its up to them.
Well, dude- at the end of the day a 'Forge World' model is as much a part of 40k as a Rhino, Land Raider, or Leman Russ. So the big thing is, one person is coming with the intent of playing the full actual game. The other is expecting an edited, house-ruled version of the game.
If I invite you over for a potluck, and then freak out because you brought fried chicken and I only wanted vegan dishes- I'm the jerk for not letting you know.
Asmodios wrote: You wont play against me because i have FW? REEEEEEEEE play me now
Dude, no one is demanding anyone play them. At all. I have seen none of that. Hell, if anything- people who are Anti-FW not wanting to play against me sounds more like a bonus than a lost opportunity. I want to play all the crazy uncommon stuff out there. But what IS being said is "people have a right to question your reasoning behind it, challenge it, and if your position is stupid then it'll get ridiculed".
Plain and simple.
yeah there have been tons of people in here saying he has to play against FW. How you play this game is your choice. Do i play against FW? Yes. Do i expect everyone else to play against FW? No. Yeah i think its great seeing awesome FW models on the table across from me... but I don't expect everyone to feel the same way. Ill admit that he should have clarified how he played before the game but the funniest thing is it seems like it worked out just fine knocking down the points and playing a FW free game.
I guess we all view things through a different lens, but I see most positions expressed as more reasonable than that. I see them based more on it being lame and judging someone for it than insisting on anything.
Another issue this as is that this sort of gatekeeper mindset can start to infect local leagues, tournaments- and even the shops. Get enough people convinced that Forge World is 'unfair' and that gets in someone's ear... suddenly you're being turned away at a tournament because your Chaos Bikers are Horus Heresy Alpha Legion guys on Outrider bikes. Suddenly shop owners are telling people to take models off the table and driving away customers that otherwise buy everything else at the shop. Suddenly you have a meta that's telling new players (as I was told years ago) that Forge World is 'not official' or 'not tournament legal' and it harms the greater community as a whole.
IMHO, when you go out 'in the wild' to lay PUGs- you are going with the full expectation that you will be playing the full, complete version of the game. Someone can ask that you play their own variation of the game and exclude certain things- but then again, this should all be within reason. Again, at a certain point it seems far less like a reasonable request to balance the game and more like someone trying to force people to play the way their opponents want them to play.
It's just a hell of a lot easier for me to say, "Sorry, I want to enjoy some of these models I spent my money on, painted, and put together. I'll find someone else to play with. Good luck".
Asmodios wrote: Your example about the online shooter is actually really bad. Most if not all modern games have an extensive in-game lobby if not private servers so you can play the exact way you want. Want to play only certain map packs?... that's fine just select those. Want to play without rocket launchers?.... that's fine select a server that does not include those. Even at the highest levels of MLG most games have a "banning" portion of the map where you ban certain maps/heroes.
What many people are arguing for in this thread is meeting a guy who plays a game online and only plays certain game mode such as (team deathmatch, no perks, no killstreaks). You ask him for a game and he says he plays the above rules and if you'd like to play with him that the only type of lobby he will join. What the argument of this thread seems to be is that the above player shouldn't be allowed to play on such a server and instead should be forced to play in a game mode with everything in the game unlocked. using your own stipulations the LVO shouldnt be allowed for having non GW official terrain rules.... You should go force them to play the correct way just like you would to the guy that doesnt want to play against FW.
You shot yourself in the foot with that analogy.
If the person wants to play no rockets, they join a private server (i.e. play with friends).
If the person Quick-Plays a game (i.e. sets up a random PUG), then he shouldn't be surprised when the quickplay game doesn't have rocket launchers banned.
Not really
Person 1: Wanna play a game
Person 2: Sure I only play game type x if you wanna play with me
Person 1: Yeah Sure/ No Thanks
What you are advocating for in this thread
Person 1: Wanna play a game
Person 2: Sure i only play game type x if you wanna play with me
Person 1: WTF you cant play game type x and you have to play me in game mode y........ YOU HAVE TO PLAY ME REEEEEEEEE!!!!!!!!!
No, actually. What I am advocating for is for people not to do this:
"Wanna play a game?"
"Sure, 2k points?"
"Sure."
~~Drives to store~~
"Ok here's my list."
"Oh, that's Forge World. We're not playing."
That's not fine. If the person mentions ahead of time no Forge World, then it will have saved me the trouble of driving to the store to play them. And I will still judge them for being silly, because while they can say know, I can also judge them for their opinions.
Read my first post again. I said it should have all been clarified before ever setting up a game. Still, doesn't change the fact that the guy has every right to refuse a game at any point and for any reason.
Asmodios wrote: yeah there have been tons of people in here saying he has to play against FW. How you play this game is your choice. Do i play against FW? Yes. Do i expect everyone else to play against FW? No. Yeah i think its great seeing awesome FW models on the table across from me... but I don't expect everyone to feel the same way. Ill admit that he should have clarified how he played before the game but the funniest thing is it seems like it worked out just fine knocking down the points and playing a FW free game.
Who has said "you must play against X"?
No, what has been said is "Forge World is part of the game. It is perfectly legal, but if you don't want to play it, whatever".
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Asmodios wrote: Read my first post again. I said it should have all been clarified before ever setting up a game. Still, doesn't change the fact that the guy has every right to refuse a game at any point and for any reason.
Show me at what point anyone argued against this right.
Hell, I turned down a game against a guy because I hated his obnoxious color scheme.
Asmodios wrote: yeah there have been tons of people in here saying he has to play against FW. How you play this game is your choice. Do i play against FW? Yes. Do i expect everyone else to play against FW? No. Yeah i think its great seeing awesome FW models on the table across from me... but I don't expect everyone to feel the same way. Ill admit that he should have clarified how he played before the game but the funniest thing is it seems like it worked out just fine knocking down the points and playing a FW free game.
Who has said "you must play against X"?
No, what has been said is "Forge World is part of the game. It is perfectly legal, but if you don't want to play it, whatever".
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Asmodios wrote: Read my first post again. I said it should have all been clarified before ever setting up a game. Still, doesn't change the fact that the guy has every right to refuse a game at any point and for any reason.
Show me at what point anyone argued against this right.
Hell, I turned down a game against a guy because I hated his obnoxious color scheme.
Im not going to reread through 7 pages but every post I've replied to has gone something like
Me: the guy shouldn't have to play against anything he doesn't want
Poster: FW is fine hes a baby he should play
Me: The guy shouldnt have to play against anything he doesn't want
If you agree that he should be able to turn down the game because nobody should be forced to play they don't want to then I'm confused why you even began to argue my posts. If the basic premise of my post is (the person can choose to turn down any game he likes) and you make a post arguing against mine, I'm under the assumption you have an issue with my post and thus the original premise.
If you agree that he should be able to turn down the game because nobody should be forced to play they don't want to then I'm confused why you even began to argue my posts. If the basic premise of my post is (the person can choose to turn down any game he likes) and you make a post arguing against mine, I'm under the assumption you have an issue with my post and thus the original premise.
I don't have an issue with this part:
"No one should have to play anyone for any reason if they don't want to". Yes, this is correct.
I'm questioning who and where you have seen anyone saying, "You should have to". I'm calling this incorrect, or at the very least you misunderstanding the point.
Questioning someone's reasoning, even ridiculing it, does not equate 'demanding they play'.
Asmodios wrote: yeah there have been tons of people in here saying he has to play against FW. How you play this game is your choice. Do i play against FW? Yes. Do i expect everyone else to play against FW? No. Yeah i think its great seeing awesome FW models on the table across from me... but I don't expect everyone to feel the same way. Ill admit that he should have clarified how he played before the game but the funniest thing is it seems like it worked out just fine knocking down the points and playing a FW free game.
Who has said "you must play against X"?
No, what has been said is "Forge World is part of the game. It is perfectly legal, but if you don't want to play it, whatever".
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Asmodios wrote: Read my first post again. I said it should have all been clarified before ever setting up a game. Still, doesn't change the fact that the guy has every right to refuse a game at any point and for any reason.
Show me at what point anyone argued against this right.
Hell, I turned down a game against a guy because I hated his obnoxious color scheme.
Im not going to reread through 7 pages but every post I've replied to has gone something like
Me: the guy shouldn't have to play against anything he doesn't want
Poster: FW is fine hes a baby he should play
Me: The guy shouldnt have to play against anything he doesn't want
If you agree that he should be able to turn down the game because nobody should be forced to play they don't want to then I'm confused why you even began to argue my posts. If the basic premise of my post is (the person can choose to turn down any game he likes) and you make a post arguing against mine, I'm under the assumption you have an issue with my post and thus the original premise.
Well, I did go through every post (because I enjoy wasting my own time, apparently), and these are the posts that came closest to approximating what you're claiming:
But while opinions differ, the rules don't. FW world models are part of 40K. No opinion should supersede the base rules of the game. At least not outside of a private environment you control - do what you like there.
The FW rules are no more optional than say a Codex, over an Index. That is to say, they aren't optional at all. They are a significant part of the game like it or not.
Factually, FW units are legal and if you're playing by the rules of 40K, they are part of those rules. We don't have to like it, we do have to accept it. Where we refuse to, we also have to accept we are no longer playing 40K, but instead our own homebrew version of that game. … Now, if you can have a polite conversation and agree to play by x, y or z, that's fine! But you certainly shouldn't expect your opponent to automatically agree and childishly refuse to play when they don't.
In agreeing to a mutual rule set, Forge World and regular Games Workshop models are treated on an equal footing as "legal".
Yeah, sorry kids. Forge World is legal. You don't have to play someone using FW models if you don't want.
People who refuse to play against FW are babies.
Yeah, but if you don't play Forge World that's not the default, you're obligated to say that up front.
No one is "demanding" anything. I don't have a 'right' to a game. I do, however, have an expectation like any other sane, rational, mature adult playing warhammer 40k ( all 10 of us) and that expectation is that if the rules allow it and you can't justify me excluding it (like, "I have no anti-air capability with me today")- then I would prefer the person be an adult about it and roll with the game.
Well, dude- at the end of the day a 'Forge World' model is as much a part of 40k as a Rhino, Land Raider, or Leman Russ. So the big thing is, one person is coming with the intent of playing the full actual game. The other is expecting an edited, house-ruled version of the game.
IMHO, when you go out 'in the wild' to lay PUGs- you are going with the full expectation that you will be playing the full, complete version of the game.
And the one response that one could perhaps fairly say really is insisting on it:
It simply isn't fair to expect anyone to play anything but by the rules of 40K in a public setting. Now, if you want to change up the rules in a private setting - have at it. Otherwise you simply don't get to fundamentally alter the game either by addition or omission because you don't like something and expect to be seen as behaving reasonably.
This is seeming more and more like nothing other than a case of people wanting to stack the game in their favour by clutching at a tired excuse they think will allow them to dictate what their opponent can field.
If you really have an issue with certain FW units, the correct place to try and change them is via GW or FW. Until that happens, play privately with others of a like mind, or accept things as they are in public and play.
The rules are the rules. There is no debate to be had.
So it seems more like you're responding to a position that close to no one is actually taking.
And the one response that one could perhaps fairly say really is insisting on it:
It simply isn't fair to expect anyone to play anything but by the rules of 40K in a public setting. Now, if you want to change up the rules in a private setting - have at it. Otherwise you simply don't get to fundamentally alter the game either by addition or omission because you don't like something and expect to be seen as behaving reasonably.
This is seeming more and more like nothing other than a case of people wanting to stack the game in their favour by clutching at a tired excuse they think will allow them to dictate what their opponent can field. If you really have an issue with certain FW units, the correct place to try and change them is via GW or FW. Until that happens, play privately with others of a like mind, or accept things as they are in public and play.
The rules are the rules. There is no debate to be had.
So it seems more like you're responding to a position that close to no one is actually taking.
For clarity, that was my comment, and I certainly wasn't stating that someone cannot refuse to play someone. Of course they can.
Note this line: "Otherwise you simply don't get to fundamentally alter the game either by addition or omission because you don't like something and expect to be seen as behaving reasonably."
I.e. you have the right to do it, but I'm going to think less of you if you choose to do so.
Can anyone show me any real reason why Forge World models shouldn't be allowed?
And when you show me this specific reason, I'd like to see that Games Workshop's standard line of models and rules doesn't do exactly the same damned thing.
Also, "The store can't sell it so..." doesn't count, because the store can't sell a good chunk of the conversion bits or even the older and perfectly legal models myself and many others use.
It is an issue of power level - not forgeworld. I'm not going to play any unbalanced matchup that I can avoid. Unless I just crushed someone and I want to give them a punching bag list - there is just no way I am playing codex dread against forge world dreads...EVER. The game would be a forgone conclusion.
If you agree that he should be able to turn down the game because nobody should be forced to play they don't want to then I'm confused why you even began to argue my posts. If the basic premise of my post is (the person can choose to turn down any game he likes) and you make a post arguing against mine, I'm under the assumption you have an issue with my post and thus the original premise.
I don't have an issue with this part:
"No one should have to play anyone for any reason if they don't want to". Yes, this is correct.
I'm questioning who and where you have seen anyone saying, "You should have to". I'm calling this incorrect, or at the very least you misunderstanding the point.
Questioning someone's reasoning, even ridiculing it, does not equate 'demanding they play'.
"Yeah, it's not fine. Not really.
It simply isn't fair to expect anyone to play anything but by the rules of 40K in a public setting. Now, if you want to change up the rules in a private setting - have at it. Otherwise you simply don't get to fundamentally alter the game either by addition or omission because you don't like something and expect to be seen as behaving reasonably."
Here I went and looked one up. It was post like this saying that it's "Not Fine" to turn down games.
Asmodios wrote: yeah there have been tons of people in here saying he has to play against FW. How you play this game is your choice. Do i play against FW? Yes. Do i expect everyone else to play against FW? No. Yeah i think its great seeing awesome FW models on the table across from me... but I don't expect everyone to feel the same way. Ill admit that he should have clarified how he played before the game but the funniest thing is it seems like it worked out just fine knocking down the points and playing a FW free game.
Who has said "you must play against X"?
No, what has been said is "Forge World is part of the game. It is perfectly legal, but if you don't want to play it, whatever".
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Asmodios wrote: Read my first post again. I said it should have all been clarified before ever setting up a game. Still, doesn't change the fact that the guy has every right to refuse a game at any point and for any reason.
Show me at what point anyone argued against this right.
Hell, I turned down a game against a guy because I hated his obnoxious color scheme.
Im not going to reread through 7 pages but every post I've replied to has gone something like
Me: the guy shouldn't have to play against anything he doesn't want
Poster: FW is fine hes a baby he should play
Me: The guy shouldnt have to play against anything he doesn't want
If you agree that he should be able to turn down the game because nobody should be forced to play they don't want to then I'm confused why you even began to argue my posts. If the basic premise of my post is (the person can choose to turn down any game he likes) and you make a post arguing against mine, I'm under the assumption you have an issue with my post and thus the original premise.
Well, I did go through every post (because I enjoy wasting my own time, apparently), and these are the posts that came closest to approximating what you're claiming:
But while opinions differ, the rules don't. FW world models are part of 40K. No opinion should supersede the base rules of the game. At least not outside of a private environment you control - do what you like there.
The FW rules are no more optional than say a Codex, over an Index. That is to say, they aren't optional at all. They are a significant part of the game like it or not.
Factually, FW units are legal and if you're playing by the rules of 40K, they are part of those rules. We don't have to like it, we do have to accept it. Where we refuse to, we also have to accept we are no longer playing 40K, but instead our own homebrew version of that game. … Now, if you can have a polite conversation and agree to play by x, y or z, that's fine! But you certainly shouldn't expect your opponent to automatically agree and childishly refuse to play when they don't.
In agreeing to a mutual rule set, Forge World and regular Games Workshop models are treated on an equal footing as "legal".
Yeah, sorry kids. Forge World is legal. You don't have to play someone using FW models if you don't want.
People who refuse to play against FW are babies.
Yeah, but if you don't play Forge World that's not the default, you're obligated to say that up front.
No one is "demanding" anything. I don't have a 'right' to a game. I do, however, have an expectation like any other sane, rational, mature adult playing warhammer 40k ( all 10 of us) and that expectation is that if the rules allow it and you can't justify me excluding it (like, "I have no anti-air capability with me today")- then I would prefer the person be an adult about it and roll with the game.
Well, dude- at the end of the day a 'Forge World' model is as much a part of 40k as a Rhino, Land Raider, or Leman Russ. So the big thing is, one person is coming with the intent of playing the full actual game. The other is expecting an edited, house-ruled version of the game.
IMHO, when you go out 'in the wild' to lay PUGs- you are going with the full expectation that you will be playing the full, complete version of the game.
And the one response that one could perhaps fairly say really is insisting on it:
It simply isn't fair to expect anyone to play anything but by the rules of 40K in a public setting. Now, if you want to change up the rules in a private setting - have at it. Otherwise you simply don't get to fundamentally alter the game either by addition or omission because you don't like something and expect to be seen as behaving reasonably.
This is seeming more and more like nothing other than a case of people wanting to stack the game in their favour by clutching at a tired excuse they think will allow them to dictate what their opponent can field.
If you really have an issue with certain FW units, the correct place to try and change them is via GW or FW. Until that happens, play privately with others of a like mind, or accept things as they are in public and play.
The rules are the rules. There is no debate to be had.
So it seems more like you're responding to a position that close to no one is actually taking.
See post above
There you go looked up one of the replys from earlier in this thread where people were saying it was "not fine" to turn down games you didnt want to play
I don’t know anything about the leviathan, but I do turn down the occasional game based on models. It’s nothing personal, but I just don’t have much fun when fighting an army made entirely of imperial knights, super heavy tanks, or some spammy turn 1 ur dead kind of lists. Win or,lose it’s just not very fun or interesting. Doesn’t look like you OP had that kind of one dimensional list, but I don’t think a player turning down a game is that big of a deal and doesn’t have to feel like a personal attack on yourself.
Can anyone show me any real reason why Forge World models shouldn't be allowed?
And when you show me this specific reason, I'd like to see that Games Workshop's standard line of models and rules doesn't do exactly the same damned thing.
Also, "The store can't sell it so..." doesn't count, because the store can't sell a good chunk of the conversion bits or even the older and perfectly legal models myself and many others use.
Well, it's funny you mention that. I was thinking about what FW models I own that could trigger someone to not want to play.
For 40 points more than a well-equipped Helbrute, I can get a Decimator with Dual Soulburner Petards that cause mortal wounds on each hit (i.e. no wound rolls, no saves.) My Helbrute loadout is usually a Scourge and Twin lascannons, for comparison.
I use 2 of these fellows when I want to clear those weak Custodes lists off the board. They do up to 2D6 damage each and probably average 7 MW per turn. I'm often charging them up behind a Cultist screen, which just falls back when it's time to wreck face. So even if the Decimator doesn't kill what it hit, it's not going to be charged.
My Hellforged Scorpius' are similar, I park 3 of them in a corner next to Abaddon for 6D3 S6 -2 D2 shots each, rerolling to hit. Since they are capable of indirect fire, I'm often in a position where opponents can't shoot back at them.
There is no Codex equivalent for the Scorpius. They are only slightly more expensive than my laspreds for roughly 3 times the amount of damage per turn. When I play the Scorpius' and the Decimators together, I go into each game with the feeling I have a good chance to table an opponent. They are just that good.
There are other good units like this in the FW line, at least for Chaos. Any definition I've ever been given of 'OP' left me disappointed, I think it really just means more people complain about a certain unit on average than others. I don't see characterizations like this as a justification for banning a unit from the game.
But when opponents have asked me to tone down my lists, they are usually talking about these units. I recognize everyone needs to enjoy the game they play, and have no problem with tailoring my list to a level everyone is comfortable with.
It simply isn't fair to expect anyone to play anything but by the rules of 40K in a public setting. Now, if you want to change up the rules in a private setting - have at it. Otherwise you simply don't get to fundamentally alter the game either by addition or omission because you don't like something and expect to be seen as behaving reasonably."
Here I went and looked one up. It was post like this saying that it's "Not Fine" to turn down games.
He could have perhaps said "it's not fine to turn down a game for these reasons" (which, reading the third sentence, is obviously intended). And that's what people in the thread are telling you. No one can force you to play, but they can call your reasoning bad, or your reasoning "not fine", or silly, or ignorant, or whatever.
What I presume this person meant is "it's not fine to turn down a game for the reasons relevant to this thread."
Can anyone show me any real reason why Forge World models shouldn't be allowed?
/thread.
The funny thing is, I'm working on a leviathan right now that I picked up at Adepticon because it is a cool ass model. If anyone gets in a twist about it, I'd just shrug and switch to my B-list where it's a Redemptor. I just really have no feths to give to anyone choosing to be a ninny, and would rather get a game in then deal with them being butt hurt.
Asmodios wrote:Person 1: Wanna play a game
Person 2: Sure I only play game type x if you wanna play with me
Person 1: Yeah Sure/ No Thanks
What you are advocating for in this thread
Person 1: Wanna play a game
Person 2: Sure i only play game type x if you wanna play with me
Person 1: WTF you cant play game type x and you have to play me in game mode y........ YOU HAVE TO PLAY ME REEEEEEEEE!!!!!!!!!
No-one's suggesting anything like the bottom, certainly not at that level of outrage. That's hyperbolic and you know it.
The issue I think people are having is that it's somehow expected that FW isn't the norm. Yeah, sure, you can, and probably should, organise the game beforehand, but I'm sure most people have been caught in a pickup game and not had time to say "I'm playing XYZ". And frankly, why should Forge World be part of those things you announce? Should I also announce every unit you're taking as well then? Why is Forge World the thing I need to declare?
That's the real crux of the issue. Declining games? Fine, you do you. No-one can force you to play. However, the WHY you're declining the game is an issue, because that can frequently be misguided and ignorant.
Think of it as sitting on a bus, with only one seat spare. The seat is next to another person, who, for the sake of this argument, is an ethnic minority, or LGBT, or some external thing they could be targeted for. You don't have to sit next to them, you can always stand, but they WHY you don't sit with them is the real issue. You simply might not want to sit, or feel socially awkward, or any various innocent thing - but you could also be racist, homophobic, or another malicious -ist.
In essence, that's what this Forge World argument is about. You can always decline a game, but WHY are you declining it?
Forge World's OP? No more than normal GW stuff.
Don't know the rules? They're just as accessible as GW ones.
Forge World's elitist and expensive? What, just for one unit? Yeah, sure.
Frankly, there's hardly any rational and well-supported evidential argument that FW is any different to GW proper.
Sure, you can turn it down, like any person or game or unit. That doesn't mean that you're exempt from critique.
I think Forgeworld should be just as accept as any GW plastic product. They are entirely legit models with totally legit rules and are absolutely legal. Denying something just because it is FW is silly nonsense. However I totally support denying games you don't want to play. I think denying a game because of a FW model because its FW is silly, but denying the game because that FW model is stupidly OP is a perfectly fine reason. I have denied plenty of games when people sit down 3 models in a 2k game. I'm just not interested in that kind of game and should not be expected to play something I do not want to.
Decimators are now a unit that needs to be dropped to tone down lists? Really? Especially at 40pts over a Dread thats already arguably rather expensive for what it offers? Not exactly what I would consider power gaming there
Vaktathi wrote: Decimators are now a unit that needs to be dropped to tone down lists? Really? Especially at 40pts over a Dread thats already arguably rather expensive for what it offers? Not exactly what I would consider power gaming there
You simply can´t argue with people with a rigid opinion. "Perception is reality" to them and no amount of evidence or insightful reasoning will change that.
Can anyone show me any real reason why Forge World models shouldn't be allowed?
And when you show me this specific reason, I'd like to see that Games Workshop's standard line of models and rules doesn't do exactly the same damned thing.
Also, "The store can't sell it so..." doesn't count, because the store can't sell a good chunk of the conversion bits or even the older and perfectly legal models myself and many others use.
Well, it's funny you mention that. I was thinking about what FW models I own that could trigger someone to not want to play.
For 40 points more than a well-equipped Helbrute, I can get a Decimator with Dual Soulburner Petards that cause mortal wounds on each hit (i.e. no wound rolls, no saves.) My Helbrute loadout is usually a Scourge and Twin lascannons, for comparison.
I use 2 of these fellows when I want to clear those weak Custodes lists off the board. They do up to 2D6 damage each and probably average 7 MW per turn. I'm often charging them up behind a Cultist screen, which just falls back when it's time to wreck face. So even if the Decimator doesn't kill what it hit, it's not going to be charged.
My Hellforged Scorpius' are similar, I park 3 of them in a corner next to Abaddon for 6D3 S6 -2 D2 shots each, rerolling to hit. Since they are capable of indirect fire, I'm often in a position where opponents can't shoot back at them.
There is no Codex equivalent for the Scorpius. They are only slightly more expensive than my laspreds for roughly 3 times the amount of damage per turn. When I play the Scorpius' and the Decimators together, I go into each game with the feeling I have a good chance to table an opponent. They are just that good.
There are other good units like this in the FW line, at least for Chaos. Any definition I've ever been given of 'OP' left me disappointed, I think it really just means more people complain about a certain unit on average than others. I don't see characterizations like this as a justification for banning a unit from the game.
But when opponents have asked me to tone down my lists, they are usually talking about these units. I recognize everyone needs to enjoy the game they play, and have no problem with tailoring my list to a level everyone is comfortable with.
ok let's see
Decimator suicide bomber build eh?
The soulburner Petard is assult 2d3 each hit does a mortal wound, however, each hit roll of a 1 deals a mortalwound to it's wielder, that can happen only once per weaponshooting (multiple 1 in one roll do still only 1 mortal round to the decimator firing it) on average 8 shots per firing phase, 2/3 hit and he loses statistically a hitpoint per firing phase. So you will deal around 6 mortal wounds at the cost of one of your own wounds (7) for 150pts if i did my math correct.
Secondly, the petard is only 24 " maximum firing range. A Decimator allways hits on 3+, it does not matter if it is damaged. The rest of the Decimator body is more along the line of a bigger dread, so meh.
Here I went and looked one up. It was post like this saying that it's "Not Fine" to turn down games.
That isn't what is being said at all.
Go back a few posts and read the explanation I posted. People are reacting to comments without reading them thoroughly.
“If people want to refuse a game for whatever reason is fine. It would have been nice for him to let you know before you showed up for the game at the store but it might be common in the area he's in and he assumed you wouldn't bring FW. It's no different IMO then saying "I don't play against unpainted miniatures, we don't allow proxies, we play first-floor ruins block LOS, ect" Most areas or tournaments have slightly different ways of playing so it's just best to adapt like you did and get a game in.”
That was the post I posted that was responded to with “that’s not fine”. Not sure how I’m supposed to read that other the it’s “not fine” to “refuse a game for whatever reason”. No big deal if there was a misunderstanding but hopefully you can see how it came off as people thinking that people were saying it’s not ok to refuse a game and thus you have to play games even if you don’t want to
Here I went and looked one up. It was post like this saying that it's "Not Fine" to turn down games.
That isn't what is being said at all.
Go back a few posts and read the explanation I posted. People are reacting to comments without reading them thoroughly.
“If people want to refuse a game for whatever reason is fine. It would have been nice for him to let you know before you showed up for the game at the store but it might be common in the area he's in and he assumed you wouldn't bring FW. It's no different IMO then saying "I don't play against unpainted miniatures, we don't allow proxies, we play first-floor ruins block LOS, ect" Most areas or tournaments have slightly different ways of playing so it's just best to adapt like you did and get a game in.”
That was the post I posted that was responded to with “that’s not fine”. Not sure how I’m supposed to read that other the it’s “not fine” to “refuse a game for whatever reason”. No big deal if there was a misunderstanding but hopefully you can see how it came off as people thinking that people were saying it’s not ok to refuse a game and thus you have to play games even if you don’t want to
I mean, it's not fine to refuse a game for whatever reason, that's the point.
It's not fine to refuse a game because your opponent is a gay man and you're a homophobe.
It's not fine to refuse a game because your opponent is black and you're racist.
There are some reasons when it's "not fine" to refuse a game, and for some people, it's not fine to refuse a game for idiotic and arbitrary reasons. No one is saying you can't, but you can't expect to just wave it off as 'fine' when it's clearly not fine.
Here I went and looked one up. It was post like this saying that it's "Not Fine" to turn down games.
That isn't what is being said at all.
Go back a few posts and read the explanation I posted. People are reacting to comments without reading them thoroughly.
“If people want to refuse a game for whatever reason is fine. It would have been nice for him to let you know before you showed up for the game at the store but it might be common in the area he's in and he assumed you wouldn't bring FW. It's no different IMO then saying "I don't play against unpainted miniatures, we don't allow proxies, we play first-floor ruins block LOS, ect" Most areas or tournaments have slightly different ways of playing so it's just best to adapt like you did and get a game in.”
That was the post I posted that was responded to with “that’s not fine”. Not sure how I’m supposed to read that other the it’s “not fine” to “refuse a game for whatever reason”. No big deal if there was a misunderstanding but hopefully you can see how it came off as people thinking that people were saying it’s not ok to refuse a game and thus you have to play games even if you don’t want to
I mean, it's not fine to refuse a game for whatever reason, that's the point.
It's not fine to refuse a game because your opponent is a gay man and you're a homophobe.
It's not fine to refuse a game because your opponent is black and you're racist.
There are some reasons when it's "not fine" to refuse a game, and for some people, it's not fine to refuse a game for idiotic and arbitrary reasons. No one is saying you can't, but you can't expect to just wave it off as 'fine' when it's clearly not fine.
I'll agree with this, though I'd say comparing FW bias to homophobia or racism is a little much. FW bias makes a certain hobby less fun. Homophobia and racism can make you lose jobs, get attacked, get killed...
They're similar in theme, it's a matter of scale that's different.
JNAProductions wrote: I'll agree with this, though I'd say comparing FW bias to homophobia or racism is a little much. FW bias makes a certain hobby less fun. Homophobia and racism can make you lose jobs, get attacked, get killed...
They're similar in theme, it's a matter of scale that's different.
Yes, right, of course they're not even in the same league. I was picking something very obviously not fine so that the opposing debater couldn't reasonably worm out of it with "but of course that is just fine" without addressing the actual point.
The point being, of course: "While you certainly can turn down any game you wish for any reason you wish, that does not protect your reasons from scrutiny, nor does it mean everyone automatically has to be fine with possibly flawed, ignorant, irrational, selfish, unreasonable, or outright bigoted reasons."
Here I went and looked one up. It was post like this saying that it's "Not Fine" to turn down games.
That isn't what is being said at all.
Go back a few posts and read the explanation I posted. People are reacting to comments without reading them thoroughly.
“If people want to refuse a game for whatever reason is fine. It would have been nice for him to let you know before you showed up for the game at the store but it might be common in the area he's in and he assumed you wouldn't bring FW. It's no different IMO then saying "I don't play against unpainted miniatures, we don't allow proxies, we play first-floor ruins block LOS, ect" Most areas or tournaments have slightly different ways of playing so it's just best to adapt like you did and get a game in.”
That was the post I posted that was responded to with “that’s not fine”. Not sure how I’m supposed to read that other the it’s “not fine” to “refuse a game for whatever reason”. No big deal if there was a misunderstanding but hopefully you can see how it came off as people thinking that people were saying it’s not ok to refuse a game and thus you have to play games even if you don’t want to
Yeah, fair enough Asmodios - I can see how what I was trying to communicate could be misread. I have to hold my hand up and say it was worded badly. If you look through my other posts, I've been very clear to state that yes of course you do have the right to refuse a game. But I don't believe it's always fair or reasonable to exercise that right.
In this case, I should have been clearer. I wasn't saying 'it's not fine to refuse a game', but that 'it's not fine (fine here meaning polite, socially acceptable within the situation, etc) to refuse a game for just any random reason'. You of course can, no one can stop you, but if your reasons are petty or in any way mean spirited or can be seen as unreasonable, people generally aren't going to be 'fine' with it? They may say nothing, they may wish you well, but you'll have left them with a negative impression that will stick.
So i guess to conclude the consensus is that :
1. Yes you can deny a match because of FW units.
2. It is however a very impolite thing to do if you PUG and then basically pull a 180 degree turn and equal to the idea that you would deny any Match f.e. against IG.
Here I went and looked one up. It was post like this saying that it's "Not Fine" to turn down games.
That isn't what is being said at all.
Go back a few posts and read the explanation I posted. People are reacting to comments without reading them thoroughly.
“If people want to refuse a game for whatever reason is fine. It would have been nice for him to let you know before you showed up for the game at the store but it might be common in the area he's in and he assumed you wouldn't bring FW. It's no different IMO then saying "I don't play against unpainted miniatures, we don't allow proxies, we play first-floor ruins block LOS, ect" Most areas or tournaments have slightly different ways of playing so it's just best to adapt like you did and get a game in.”
That was the post I posted that was responded to with “that’s not fine”. Not sure how I’m supposed to read that other the it’s “not fine” to “refuse a game for whatever reason”. No big deal if there was a misunderstanding but hopefully you can see how it came off as people thinking that people were saying it’s not ok to refuse a game and thus you have to play games even if you don’t want to
I mean, it's not fine to refuse a game for whatever reason, that's the point.
It's not fine to refuse a game because your opponent is a gay man and you're a homophobe.
It's not fine to refuse a game because your opponent is black and you're racist.
There are some reasons when it's "not fine" to refuse a game, and for some people, it's not fine to refuse a game for idiotic and arbitrary reasons. No one is saying you can't, but you can't expect to just wave it off as 'fine' when it's clearly not fine.
Hahahahahahahahaha
Hahahahahahahahahahaha
Wow if this isn’t the most over the top post I have ever seen... we are talking on a wargaming forum about a war game and about reasons to turn down a game that are hobby related and now people are jumping the shark and talking about racial discrimination.... I’m done that’s enough Dakka for the day
JNAProductions wrote: I'll agree with this, though I'd say comparing FW bias to homophobia or racism is a little much. FW bias makes a certain hobby less fun. Homophobia and racism can make you lose jobs, get attacked, get killed...
They're similar in theme, it's a matter of scale that's different.
Yes, right, of course they're not even in the same league. I was picking something very obviously not fine so that the opposing debater couldn't reasonably worm out of it with "but of course that is just fine" without addressing the actual point.
The point being, of course:
"While you certainly can turn down any game you wish for any reason you wish, that does not protect your reasons from scrutiny, nor does it mean everyone automatically has to be fine with possibly flawed, ignorant, irrational, selfish, unreasonable, or outright bigoted reasons."
Exactly as I said above.
You can turn down whatever you want to. It doesn't mean that your decision to do isn't horrifically misguided, and as such, above scrutiny and complaint.
Here I went and looked one up. It was post like this saying that it's "Not Fine" to turn down games.
That isn't what is being said at all.
Go back a few posts and read the explanation I posted. People are reacting to comments without reading them thoroughly.
“If people want to refuse a game for whatever reason is fine. It would have been nice for him to let you know before you showed up for the game at the store but it might be common in the area he's in and he assumed you wouldn't bring FW. It's no different IMO then saying "I don't play against unpainted miniatures, we don't allow proxies, we play first-floor ruins block LOS, ect" Most areas or tournaments have slightly different ways of playing so it's just best to adapt like you did and get a game in.”
That was the post I posted that was responded to with “that’s not fine”. Not sure how I’m supposed to read that other the it’s “not fine” to “refuse a game for whatever reason”. No big deal if there was a misunderstanding but hopefully you can see how it came off as people thinking that people were saying it’s not ok to refuse a game and thus you have to play games even if you don’t want to
I mean, it's not fine to refuse a game for whatever reason, that's the point.
It's not fine to refuse a game because your opponent is a gay man and you're a homophobe.
It's not fine to refuse a game because your opponent is black and you're racist.
There are some reasons when it's "not fine" to refuse a game, and for some people, it's not fine to refuse a game for idiotic and arbitrary reasons. No one is saying you can't, but you can't expect to just wave it off as 'fine' when it's clearly not fine.
Hahahahahahahahaha
Hahahahahahahahahahaha
Wow if this isn’t the most over the top post I have ever seen... we are talking on a wargaming forum about a war game and about reasons to turn down a game that are hobby related and now people are jumping the shark and talking about racial discrimination.... I’m done that’s enough Dakka for the day
Please, go back and read through the parts of the thread you clearly skipped so you can react in context while we all groan inwardly. :/
Here I went and looked one up. It was post like this saying that it's "Not Fine" to turn down games.
That isn't what is being said at all.
Go back a few posts and read the explanation I posted. People are reacting to comments without reading them thoroughly.
“If people want to refuse a game for whatever reason is fine. It would have been nice for him to let you know before you showed up for the game at the store but it might be common in the area he's in and he assumed you wouldn't bring FW. It's no different IMO then saying "I don't play against unpainted miniatures, we don't allow proxies, we play first-floor ruins block LOS, ect" Most areas or tournaments have slightly different ways of playing so it's just best to adapt like you did and get a game in.”
That was the post I posted that was responded to with “that’s not fine”. Not sure how I’m supposed to read that other the it’s “not fine” to “refuse a game for whatever reason”. No big deal if there was a misunderstanding but hopefully you can see how it came off as people thinking that people were saying it’s not ok to refuse a game and thus you have to play games even if you don’t want to
I mean, it's not fine to refuse a game for whatever reason, that's the point.
It's not fine to refuse a game because your opponent is a gay man and you're a homophobe.
It's not fine to refuse a game because your opponent is black and you're racist.
There are some reasons when it's "not fine" to refuse a game, and for some people, it's not fine to refuse a game for idiotic and arbitrary reasons. No one is saying you can't, but you can't expect to just wave it off as 'fine' when it's clearly not fine.
Hahahahahahahahaha
Hahahahahahahahahahaha
Wow if this isn’t the most over the top post I have ever seen... we are talking on a wargaming forum about a war game and about reasons to turn down a game that are hobby related and now people are jumping the shark and talking about racial discrimination.... I’m done that’s enough Dakka for the day
Please, go back and read through the parts of the thread you clearly skipped so you can react in context while we all groan inwardly. :/
I read all the parts I see where you're pulling it from, doesn't mean it's not the most over the top post I've ever seen on Dakka (and that's saying something) have fun in the thread I'm out, this was just too much.
Vaktathi wrote: Decimators are now a unit that needs to be dropped to tone down lists? Really? Especially at 40pts over a Dread thats already arguably rather expensive for what it offers? Not exactly what I would consider power gaming there
You simply can´t argue with people with a rigid opinion. "Perception is reality" to them and no amount of evidence or insightful reasoning will change that.
Yep. The point is not that Decimators are overpowered.
A unit that doesn't need to roll to wound is a big deal to some people. Someone else can look at it entirely differently.
OP is a meaningless term, it really only refers to someone's emotions. It's a feeling that drives someone to decide not to want to play with you, getting all moral about how someone feels is silly.
Not Online!!! wrote: So i guess to conclude the consensus is that :
1. Yes you can deny a match because of FW units.
2. It is however a very impolite thing to do if you PUG and then basically pull a 180 degree turn and equal to the idea that you would deny any Match f.e. against IG.
I can't believe this has gone on for 8 pages, but I think the above quote sums it up. That was sort of what I was thinking, myself. I mean this was a store in a large, cosmopolitan European city, not a shack in the Outback. I presume FW was available and familiar to most hobbyists.
I agree that you are perfectly within your rights to turn down a game. However your reasons need to be, well, reasonable. Otherwise you can expect flak. I'm glad that the community, well dakka anyway, don't consider FW as anything other than legit and official.
I also don't see any problem with having a chat with someone before a game and talking through lists. I don't even see a problem with altering them or, as one poster seems to favour, playing small 'raid' scenarios.
I think the aim of the game is to win, but the point of it is to have fun.
Actually i just play for fun, i go in a match with the hopes that heroic stuff happens, my dudes pull their weight and my marauders run off at t3 because Heinrich forgot how his parachute works and the whole squad fails at the "in it for the Money" throw, therefore running off with only one loss.
Dakka is a place where you can be accused of hating women because you don't like the idea of Female Space Marines or get accused of being a baby-killing monster because you own a gun... but make an analogy to forms of opinion and ignorance in regards to Forge World models and suddenly that's too much.
Adeptus Doritos wrote: Dakka is a place where you can be accused of hating women because you don't like the idea of Female Space Marines or get accused of being a baby-killing monster because you own a gun... but make an analogy to forms of opinion and ignorance in regards to Forge World models and suddenly that's too much.
Seriously, that happens? For owning a gun? I mean that would literally make every swiss person on here a potential babykiller.
Adeptus Doritos wrote: Dakka is a place where you can be accused of hating women because you don't like the idea of Female Space Marines or get accused of being a baby-killing monster because you own a gun... but make an analogy to forms of opinion and ignorance in regards to Forge World models and suddenly that's too much.
Seriously, that happens? For owning a gun? I mean that would literally make every swiss person on here a potential babykiller.
Welcome to the internet, which is the place where dakkadakka lives. Luckily, it's still better than the YouTube comments section...though often it's the other way around (with pro-conservative points being idiotically parroted). For example, if memory serves, the vast number of responses to the female Space Marine sections were, "We don't mind women, but we also like to respect the lore with respect to all of the factions. Bring on some badass women in their own right, though!"
Well i guess it goes both ways, mostly because it is completely polarized in many cases of that discussion.
Problem is because of that we are unable to form compromise or rational decisions and therefore the problem goes on unsolved.
As for YouTube, it really depends on the channel i guess and the clientele it has, kinda like all social media which sorts and recommends via allgorithm.
Adeptus Doritos wrote: Dakka is a place where you can be accused of hating women because you don't like the idea of Female Space Marines or get accused of being a baby-killing monster because you own a gun... but make an analogy to forms of opinion and ignorance in regards to Forge World models and suddenly that's too much.
Seriously, that happens? For owning a gun? I mean that would literally make every swiss person on here a potential babykiller.
Welcome to the internet, which is the place where dakkadakka lives. Luckily, it's still better than the YouTube comments section...though often it's the other way around (with pro-conservative points being idiotically parroted). For example, if memory serves, the vast number of responses to the female Space Marine sections were, "We don't mind women, but we also like to respect the lore with respect to all of the factions. Bring on some badass women in their own right, though!"
Sob? I mean there is also this whole badass insane chaos Legion that is made up of trans dudes (Slaneesh has a wierd sense of humor)
I actually would love to see a female Kit for guard. And in regards to fluff i belive the empire does not care, aslong as it can fight it gets recruited.
So basically the demmand for female space marines is kinda pointless.
Not Online!!! wrote: Seriously, that happens? For owning a gun? I mean that would literally make every Swiss person on here a potential babykiller.
I tolerate you Swiss because you have decent chocolate and I've had one of your little pocketknives since I was a kid (not the same one, but I always have one around because Gerber Multi-tools are a bit too big and hefty for my pocket).
Otherwise?
You're too quiet.
I got my eye on you.
Anyway, to the OP's situation- I have to say one thing I learned many years ago.
In my experience the guy in the FLGS that's always really, really eager for a game with a new person is usually the store idiot, or at least the guy who has some serious social hang-ups and quirks.
Ironically, the guys calling anti-FW players “manchilds” are truly the manchilds themselves. FW FEEDS the manchilds, by giving them the choice to field the biggest, baddest unkillable unit, then completely disregard victory points, instead aiming solely at annihilation. Their opponent, fielding a balanced list, quickly realizes that about 40% of their list that is dedicated anti-infantry and/or melee effectively can only be used to capture objectives when facing this warhound titan scout (or similar). So, if there’s enough terrain on the board for him to avoid combat for 6 turns, he wins. Was it fun? No, it was BORING as hell. Was it fun for the FW manchild? YES! Killing models is much more fun than scoring victory points, if forced to only pick one, as in this instance basically.
FW makes this possible. I’ve played games like these, and even though im winning, i completely tune out due to boredom. Better to boycut FW than argue about what amount of FW is ok/fun/balanced.
And to the manchilds: the existance of underpowered FW models means NOTHING in this regard, and only your wife cares about how much money you wasted. The ideal game is balanced and determined on the battlefield - FW gives room for too much upscaling. And i agree there’s a bad trend of GW slowly upscaling as well.
PS: i still play against FW models, but i recognize that the game would be more fun without them. No one i play against field anything but the OP stuff.
Not Online!!! wrote: Seriously, that happens? For owning a gun? I mean that would literally make every Swiss person on here a potential babykiller.
I tolerate you Swiss because you have decent chocolate and I've had one of your little pocketknives since I was a kid (not the same one, but I always have one around because Gerber Multi-tools are a bit too big and hefty for my pocket).
Otherwise?
You're too quiet.
I got my eye on you.
Actually we are only quiet because internally you have 23 Mini states /nations of diffrent ethnicity constantly rambling debating and shouting at each other.
Don't forget Confederatio helvetia not federation.
Jokes aside we as a state and people generally have other things to do.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Northern85Star wrote: Ironically, the guys calling anti-FW players “manchilds” are truly the manchilds themselves. FW FEEDS the manchilds, by giving them the choice to field the biggest, baddest unkillable unit, then completely disregard victory points, instead aiming solely at annihilation. Their opponent, fielding a balanced list, quickly realizes that about 40% of their list that is dedicated anti-infantry and/or melee effectively can only be used to capture objectives when facing this warhound titan scout (or similar). So, if there’s enough terrain on the board for him to avoid combat for 6 turns, he wins. Was it fun? No, it was BORING as hell. Was it fun for the FW manchild? YES! Killing models is much more fun than scoring victory points, if forced to only pick one, as in this instance basically.
FW makes this possible. I’ve played games like these, and even though im winning, i completely tune out due to boredom. Better to boycut FW than argue about what amount of FW is ok/fun/balanced.
And to the manchilds: the existance of underpowered FW models means NOTHING in this regard, and only your wife cares about how much money you wasted. The ideal game is balanced and determined on the battlefield - FW gives room for too much upscaling. And i agree there’s a bad trend of GW slowly upscaling as well.
PS: i still play against FW models, but i recognize that the game would be more fun without them. No one i play against field anything but the OP stuff.
So because you played against that guy, which anyways will field Op and unfun units you decide again to throw all fw armies and players under the Bus?
I answered all of your points politely somewhere on page 2-3 so go read up, maybee you will rethink that statement.
If not idc.
Northern85Star wrote: Ironically, the guys calling anti-FW players “manchilds” are truly the manchilds themselves.
"I'm not a loser, YOU'RE a loser!"
Northern85Star wrote: FW makes this possible. I’ve played games like these, and even though im winning, i completely tune out due to boredom. Better to boycut FW than argue about what amount of FW is ok/fun/balanced.
Yeah, man, when I'm winning all my games and all the hot chicks are hanging out on me and I'm flexing my big biceps, I don't even, like, care what's on the table. Killed a Warhound with two Primaris Marines and an Armorium Cherub, breh.
"Boycott" it all you want. You not buying it isn't going to make it stop being a part of the game, dude. You're just limiting your own experiences, and as I said before- the sort of people who flip out about these models for whatever silly reason... well, generally them wanting to avoid my game is a blessing to me. Not a lost opportunity at all. The trash taking itself out, so to speak.
Northern85Star wrote: And to the manchilds: the existance of underpowered FW models means NOTHING in this regard, and only your wife cares about how much money you wasted. The ideal game is balanced and determined on the battlefield - FW gives room for too much upscaling. And i agree there’s a bad trend of GW slowly upscaling as well.
>It's overpowered
>But so is GW stuff
>OK not all FW is OP but whatever
>LOL you wasted your money
Northern85Star wrote: PS: i still play against FW models, but i recognize that the game would be more fun without them. No one i play against field anything but the OP stuff.
Northern85Star wrote: Ironically, the guys calling anti-FW players “manchilds” are truly the manchilds themselves.
"I'm not a loser, YOU'RE a loser!"
Northern85Star wrote: FW makes this possible. I’ve played games like these, and even though im winning, i completely tune out due to boredom. Better to boycut FW than argue about what amount of FW is ok/fun/balanced.
Yeah, man, when I'm winning all my games and all the hot chicks are hanging out on me and I'm flexing my big biceps, I don't even, like, care what's on the table. Killed a Warhound with two Primaris Marines and an Armorium Cherub, breh.
Northern85Star wrote: And to the manchilds: the existance of underpowered FW models means NOTHING in this regard, and only your wife cares about how much money you wasted. The ideal game is balanced and determined on the battlefield - FW gives room for too much upscaling. And i agree there’s a bad trend of GW slowly upscaling as well.
>It's overpowered
>But so is GW stuff
>OK not all FW is OP but whatever
>LOL you wasted your money
Northern85Star wrote: PS: i still play against FW models, but i recognize that the game would be more fun without them. No one i play against field anything but the OP stuff.
*Bane Voice*
"For You"
Actually you could've sent him to Page 2 to my Initial post regarding perception but i guess you can also answer all this again.
Northern85Star wrote:Ironically, the guys calling anti-FW players “manchilds” are truly the manchilds themselves. FW FEEDS the manchilds, by giving them the choice to field the biggest, baddest unkillable unit, then completely disregard victory points, instead aiming solely at annihilation. Their opponent, fielding a balanced list, quickly realizes that about 40% of their list that is dedicated anti-infantry and/or melee effectively can only be used to capture objectives when facing this warhound titan scout (or similar). So, if there’s enough terrain on the board for him to avoid combat for 6 turns, he wins. Was it fun? No, it was BORING as hell. Was it fun for the FW manchild? YES! Killing models is much more fun than scoring victory points, if forced to only pick one, as in this instance basically.
FW makes this possible. I’ve played games like these, and even though im winning, i completely tune out due to boredom. Better to boycut FW than argue about what amount of FW is ok/fun/balanced.
And to the manchilds: the existance of underpowered FW models means NOTHING in this regard, and only your wife cares about how much money you wasted. The ideal game is balanced and determined on the battlefield - FW gives room for too much upscaling. And i agree there’s a bad trend of GW slowly upscaling as well.
PS: i still play against FW models, but i recognize that the game would be more fun without them. No one i play against field anything but the OP stuff.
And, if GW were to hypothetically have more OP units than Forge World, would you boycott them too?
Logical conclusion is logical.
I mean the whole let's go bigger and bader in normal games is only Gw's problem. They were the ones to introduce LoW, Primarchs and other huge stuff into baseline 40k.
Yet that guy is blameing Fw as if Fw would've forced the hands of GW at gun point.
Actually the more i think that text through the more i belive that he was trolling.
If so GG wp no re.
Lords of War, sry typo.
Not Online!!! wrote: I mean the whole let's go bigger and bader in normal games is only Gw's problem. They were the ones to introduce LoS, Primarchs and other huge stuff into baseline 40k.
Yeah, whinging about a few 'pretty decent' vehicles and the like is pretty sad when people actually bring Bobby G and 2 Knights to a 'friendly game'.. yeah, that's credible.
I mean it was the same case when malfics were op. Every powergamer just had to spam them, just like every powergamer spams knights and or Rowboat and or knights. At this point we should just ban powergamers and hard lists, infact we should ban everything except tac marines and CSM. /S
Not Online!!! wrote: I mean it was the same case when malfics were op. Every powergamer just had to spam them, just like every powergamer spams knights and or Rowboat and or knights. At this point we should just ban powergamers and hard lists, infact we should ban everything except tac marines and CSM. /S
Yeah, the tools WAAC players and Powergamers use will change every edition. Forge World, GW, whatever it may be- they will always find a tool to exploit something. The best policy is to get to know people a bit in your gaming area (if possible) and just avoid the scummy players.
Not Online!!! wrote: I mean it was the same case when malfics were op. Every powergamer just had to spam them, just like every powergamer spams knights and or Rowboat and or knights. At this point we should just ban powergamers and hard lists, infact we should ban everything except tac marines and CSM. /S
Yeah, the tools WAAC players and Powergamers use will change every edition. Forge World, GW, whatever it may be- they will always find a tool to exploit something. The best policy is to get to know people a bit in your gaming area (if possible) and just avoid the scummy players.
If that guy is bringing a triptide taudar or gladius army, he probably isn't one to complain about a few FW models. In fact, I doubt he'd complain about much anything you'd bring - he knows exactly where it lies on the power level. IMHO it's by far and wide the least-informed people who complain the most. I had a buddy who infamously complained that Necrons didn't "get enough rerolls" in 7E. There will always be people who irrationally kvetch and moan about stupid things and try to ruin the experience for you. Don't let them.
HuskyWarhammer wrote: There will always be people who irrationally kvetch and moan about stupid things and try to ruin the experience for you. Don't let them.
You sir, are 100% on point.
40k is absurdly packed full of people who do exactly that. Yes, there are some legitimate gripes and complaints about 40k. Yes, some people are entitled to dislike certain things. I'm all for that. But it can get discouraging to players to see that every place online where 40k players gather, there's more wailing and moaning and bitterness than you'd find in a refugee camp.
My best friend is a 40k player as well. He absolutely refuses to interact with the greater community online and is hesitant about approaching a lot of people in the local FLGS where he lives. Why? Because based on what you see on the internet... 40k is 10% playing the game, 20% assembling and painting models, 10% reading fluff and rules, 30% complaining about your army, 30% complaining about everyone else's army.
I can't say I blame him. But then again, he is far less tolerant of whining than I am.
Wow. OK, so there's a lot of strawmanning and ignorance happening in this thread, so I thought I would add fuel to the fire.
Firstly, I am anti-FW units in most games. It's pretty easy to see why actually. It can benefit certain armies much more than others, and widen the "choice gap", that is, the number of available, good units and army has from a gap to a chasm. It wouldn't make much sense to agree to a rule that gives your opponent a significant advantage over you in each game.
Secondly, we know that GW and FW don't communicate well between each other. Just look at some of the 8th ed launch rules from FW. They aren't really able ti include FW units in strategems and rules because GW designs their game around only GW units. FW units to me are the same as adding superheavies, and should be saved for larger games.
niv-mizzet wrote: Most anti-FW guys are just jealous of your toys and want to make you feel like your purchase was wasted.
We had a local that was this way. Someone would show up with a cool new fun toy, and this dude would sit and look at- and you could actually hear him breathing heavily through his nose like a displeased, jealous dog- and he would immediately start in about how it was 'not worth the points' or 'I wouldn't have bought that'. And then he'd want to play you, tailor a list to specifically target you new toy/toys, take the model/models out of the game, and then pretend he was getting a phone call to go home to his significant other- and spend the next day bragging about how he blew up/wiped out your new stuff.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Darsath wrote: Firstly, I am anti-FW units in most games. It's pretty easy to see why actually. It can benefit certain armies much more than others, and widen the "choice gap", that is, the number of available, good units and army has from a gap to a chasm. It wouldn't make much sense to agree to a rule that gives your opponent a significant advantage over you in each game.
Show me what Forge World unit gives someone a 'significant advantage' and show me how Games Workshop has no models or rules that do the exact same thing elsewhere.
Are you going to sit here and insinuate that- GASP- 40k has armies that are vastly different and perform differently on the tabletop, and some have been given more than others? YOU DON'T SAY.
Go on, show me which Forge World models are 'game-breaking' and how GW has absolutely none of them.
JFC, you guys act like acquiring Forge World models requires you to be in the damned Illuminati or be a certain skin color.
Darsath wrote: Wow. OK, so there's a lot of strawmanning and ignorance happening in this thread, so I thought I would add fuel to the fire.
So you see a house fire and your reaction is to go pouring petrol on it?
I like the way you think.
Firstly, I am anti-FW units in most games. It's pretty easy to see why actually. It can benefit certain armies much more than others, and widen the "choice gap", that is, the number of available, good units and army has from a gap to a chasm. It wouldn't make much sense to agree to a rule that gives your opponent a significant advantage over you in each game.
GW Codexes benefit certain armies much more than others as well. This is not a FW-exclusive issue that would be improved by removing FW.
There’s no denying that the Space Marine and Grey Knight Codexes are two of the weakest Codexes (outside of Guilliman, and even he’s not the bee’s knees competitively anymore). 1/4 of the FW books is giving these underpowered armies access to a couple of mediocre-to-decent Dreadnoughts, a couple of mediocre-to-decent vehicles, a couple of same-same-but-different Special Characters, and some esoteric variations on tanks like the Land Raider, which competes with the Monolith for the most overpriced, undereffective vehicle in a Codex. It also gives them access to Lords of War, which would be nice since it’d catch them up to the GW Codexes that contain Lords of War if it weren’t for their terrifying post-CA price tags.
Another quarter of the books gives Chaos access to the same things, but as Chaos is natively so much stronger than SM and GK, it doesn’t make them better so much as more varied.
A third quarter gives Guard a big pile of esoteric options... none of which are as good as what’s in their Codex. If anything, FW weakens the strongest Codex in the game. It also gives Imperial Knights (a weak army) some more options, which aren’t particularly great but at least give them a bit of a helping hand.
The final quarter is Xenos. The Aeldari are similar to the Guard in that they have very strong Codexes, and their FW options don’t really add anything but variety. T’au and Necrons are medium books that get some medium options - it doesn’t make them stronger, only more varied (outside of the Y’vahra, which is just broken). Orks are just given the opportunity to try and run something that isn’t a horde of Boyz. Tyranids... seem to be a bit of a mixed bag.
So no, I don’t see any merit to the ‘rich get richer’ argument of widening the chasm. If anything, the rich get the option to swap their black Mercedes for a silver Mercedes, the poor get the option to buy an old, worn-out Mercedes or to trade their old bomb for a working car, and those in the middle get the option to trade their Ford for a Chevy.
Secondly, we know that GW and FW don't communicate well between each other. Just look at some of the 8th ed launch rules from FW. They aren't really able ti include FW units in strategems and rules because GW designs their game around only GW units.
I mean you could certainly argue this to be true, but how exactly does your opponent not being allowed to use a Stratagem on his FW unit negatively impact your game? How does a lack of communication between the two arms of GW negatively affect your day-to-day gaming in a way that would be solved by removing one of those arms?
FW units to me are the same as adding superheavies, and should be saved for larger games.
I don’t see the equivalence here at all. A superheavy locks down the game by creating a heavy skew in one list towards armour, invalidating or at least undermining a significant portion of their opponent’s list and stopping them interacting with it. How does using a Stygies pattern Vanquisher over a (?)Mars pattern Vanquisher, or a Land Raider with Multi-Maltas instead of Lascannons or a Relic Contemptor instead of a normal Contemptor do that in any way?
Some people see ‘ForgeWorld’ and think ‘Titans’. In a catalog of hundreds of models, FW has...7 Titans? 10 counting identical Chaos versions of the 3 Imperial ones? If you don’t want to play Titans, say ‘no Titans’, not ‘no FW’.
Yeah, whinging about a few 'pretty decent' vehicles and the like is pretty sad when people actually bring Bobby G and 2 Knights to a 'friendly game'.. yeah, that's credible.
You know, you could... refuse to play games with those people
Most people can handle rejection and won't freak out on you lmfao
Skaorn wrote: You know, you could... refuse to play games with those people
Most people can handle rejection and won't freak out on you lmfao
I generally am honest. "Hey, dude, I didn't bring an army to bring that down. It'd just be too boring." Unless it's a tournament, where I don't have that option.
Show me what Forge World unit gives someone a 'significant advantage' and show me how Games Workshop has no models or rules that do the exact same thing elsewhere.
Are you going to sit here and insinuate that- GASP- 40k has armies that are vastly different and perform differently on the tabletop, and some have been given more than others? YOU DON'T SAY.
Go on, show me which Forge World models are 'game-breaking' and how GW has absolutely none of them.
JFC, you guys act like acquiring Forge World models requires you to be in the damned Illuminati or be a certain skin color.
Lets say you play eldar, and you built your army to stack negative to hit modifiers. You do your thing and say my grav tanks and my flyers are now -3 to hit. I come along with my relic sicaran battle tanks which ignores all modifiers to hit when attacking FLY units. I can even advance and shoot with its assault autocannon, which would be -4 to hit you. The sicaran gun ignores all of it. No GW model has an ability like that.
Or my relic contemptor dreadnought comes along, with its twin fists and twin assault plasma blastguns. And because i have twin fists i can re-roll hit rolls of 1. That means i can safely overcharge my plasma blastguns. No GW dread has an ability/gun combination like that.
Or how about my 5 assault drills pop out from the ground, dealing 5 MW to all enemy units within 12" ? Not only that, next turn my assault and/or devastator centurions pop out 3" away from it, move 4", and charge ? No GW transport can do that.
Or how about my 5 lucius pattern drop pods dropping dreads close to you ? No GW drop pod can do that.
Im pretty sure 3 dual storm cannon leviathans are devastating. There is no GW dread which comes even close to one of them.
Show me what Forge World unit gives someone a 'significant advantage' and show me how Games Workshop has no models or rules that do the exact same thing elsewhere.
Are you going to sit here and insinuate that- GASP- 40k has armies that are vastly different and perform differently on the tabletop, and some have been given more than others? YOU DON'T SAY.
Go on, show me which Forge World models are 'game-breaking' and how GW has absolutely none of them.
JFC, you guys act like acquiring Forge World models requires you to be in the damned Illuminati or be a certain skin color.
Lets say you play eldar, and you built your army to stack negative to hit modifiers. You do your thing and say my grav tanks and my flyers are now -3 to hit. I come along with my relic sicaran battle tanks which ignores all modifiers to hit when attacking FLY units. I can even advance and shoot with its assault autocannon, which would be -4 to hit you. The sicaran gun ignores all of it. No GW model has an ability like that.
Or my relic contemptor dreadnought comes along, with its twin fists and twin assault plasma blastguns. And because i have twin fists i can re-roll hit rolls of 1. That means i can safely overcharge my plasma blastguns. No GW dread has an ability/gun combination like that.
Or how about my 5 assault drills pop out from the ground, dealing 5 MW to all enemy units within 12" ? Not only that, next turn my assault and/or devastator centurions pop out 3" away from it, move 4", and charge ? No GW transport can do that.
Or how about my 5 lucius pattern drop pods dropping dreads close to you ? No GW drop pod can do that.
Im pretty sure 3 dual storm cannon leviathans are devastating. There is no GW dread which comes even close to one of them.
Ok , let's see:
Your first exemple vs the Sicarian is basically: The really needed AA option vs the, what i atleast have dubbed, LOLZ you can't hit me army.
So this is a tank that is good against flyers and only really flyers. Suprprise surprise he can hit you. HOWEVER that tank costs barebones 160pts + an additional 75 for it's cannon. (btw that cannon has only 8 shots, if you army is in danger of beeing wiped out by 8 shots that ignore your spam of - bs then by god i can only say you fethed up in list building.)
Secondly so there is a option, which more or less shuts down an army, that is neither fair nor fun to play against, because literally 1/2 of the combat is not happening against anything that is not a space moron in a armour. So you would rather see such an army from GW, that literally makes the enemy skip a whole phase and then deny him the other pahse also because Eldarjetbikes. However i am certain that 8 shots alone are not enough to do that, and the Sicarian is not a freaking leman russ now isn't it? so even that point is moot because it can't shut down this army.
.
Oh and now comes the argument: their dreads are OP compared to normal dreads.
Tough luck, because GW dreads always were bad, well atleast in 5th and in 7th and now in 8th so long my memory serves right. However FW would not have been forced to release such dreads that way, which btw is highly arguable because the supposedly "way better" option comes with a pricetag that really, REALLY, hurts sometimes. So even that is arguable.
Heck even a Decimator is basically not jusifyable to take except when you spam soulburners, and that thing is in this case a glass cannon and needs constant babysitting frim a warpsmith to survive up to t3.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also GW has only Hydras as a AA option in the game, so basically every other faction that is not Chaos (needs to get through with a psytest and that certainly is no easy feat against an Eldar.) or Imperium can go feth themselves right when that Eldar army shows up?
Right sure, that makes for a fun match surely everybody in the shop will congratulate you for playing that Eldar Army.
Automatically Appended Next Post: As for the assult drill, experimental rules from FW / GW were always broken, i bet they will get FAQ'ed fast and hard, so just don't be "THAT GUY" and spam them when they are that broken atm.
Northern85Star wrote: Ironically, the guys calling anti-FW players “manchilds” are truly the manchilds themselves. FW FEEDS the manchilds, by giving them the choice to field the biggest, baddest unkillable unit, then completely disregard victory points, instead aiming solely at annihilation. Their opponent, fielding a balanced list, quickly realizes that about 40% of their list that is dedicated anti-infantry and/or melee effectively can only be used to capture objectives when facing this warhound titan scout (or similar). So, if there’s enough terrain on the board for him to avoid combat for 6 turns, he wins. Was it fun? No, it was BORING as hell. Was it fun for the FW manchild? YES! Killing models is much more fun than scoring victory points, if forced to only pick one, as in this instance basically.
FW makes this possible. I’ve played games like these, and even though im winning, i completely tune out due to boredom. Better to boycut FW than argue about what amount of FW is ok/fun/balanced.
And to the manchilds: the existance of underpowered FW models means NOTHING in this regard, and only your wife cares about how much money you wasted. The ideal game is balanced and determined on the battlefield - FW gives room for too much upscaling. And i agree there’s a bad trend of GW slowly upscaling as well.
PS: i still play against FW models, but i recognize that the game would be more fun without them. No one i play against field anything but the OP stuff.
Does this guy take fun balanced lists when he doesn't take FW or does he still take annoying skew lists?
I'm sorry your group has a bunch of donkey caves. Show me on your army list where the FW model touched you.
Guess he got beaten by the opponent after playing that eldar army.
Quite frankly i can't blame his opponent for doing that, if of course it ever happened.
Show me what Forge World unit gives someone a 'significant advantage' and show me how Games Workshop has no models or rules that do the exact same thing elsewhere.
Are you going to sit here and insinuate that- GASP- 40k has armies that are vastly different and perform differently on the tabletop, and some have been given more than others? YOU DON'T SAY.
Go on, show me which Forge World models are 'game-breaking' and how GW has absolutely none of them.
JFC, you guys act like acquiring Forge World models requires you to be in the damned Illuminati or be a certain skin color.
Lets say you play eldar, and you built your army to stack negative to hit modifiers. You do your thing and say my grav tanks and my flyers are now -3 to hit. I come along with my relic sicaran battle tanks which ignores all modifiers to hit when attacking FLY units. I can even advance and shoot with its assault autocannon, which would be -4 to hit you. The sicaran gun ignores all of it. No GW model has an ability like that.
Or my relic contemptor dreadnought comes along, with its twin fists and twin assault plasma blastguns. And because i have twin fists i can re-roll hit rolls of 1. That means i can safely overcharge my plasma blastguns. No GW dread has an ability/gun combination like that.
Or how about my 5 assault drills pop out from the ground, dealing 5 MW to all enemy units within 12" ? Not only that, next turn my assault and/or devastator centurions pop out 3" away from it, move 4", and charge ? No GW transport can do that.
Or how about my 5 lucius pattern drop pods dropping dreads close to you ? No GW drop pod can do that.
Im pretty sure 3 dual storm cannon leviathans are devastating. There is no GW dread which comes even close to one of them.
3 Leviathan like that cost 1000 ish points. That's half your army. They should be devastating. Also, the Relic rule means you'll have to bring another 3 Heavy Support Choices just to balance them out.
Ok , let's see:
Your first exemple vs the Sicarian is basically: The really needed AA option vs the, what i atleast have dubbed, LOLZ you can't hit me army.
So this is a tank that is good against flyers and only really flyers. Suprprise surprise he can hit you. HOWEVER that tank costs barebones 160pts + an additional 75 for it's cannon. (btw that cannon has only 8 shots, if you army is in danger of beeing wiped out by 8 shots that ignore your spam of - bs then by god i can only say you fethed up in list building.)
Secondly so there is a option, which more or less shuts down an army, that is neither fair nor fun to play against, because literally 1/2 of the combat is not happening against anything that is not a space moron in a armour. So you would rather see such an army from GW, that literally makes the enemy skip a whole phase and then deny him the other pahse also because Eldarjetbikes. However i am certain that 8 shots alone are not enough to do that, and the Sicarian is not a freaking leman russ now isn't it? so even that point is moot because it can't shut down this army.
.
The sicaran is only 165 pts. Its points were already changed in chapter approved. Read the rules Its ignore modifiers works against anything with the FLY keyword, not only flyers. And it can also shoot non-FLY units normally (no minus to hit, like the stalker for example), modifiers apply as usual.
As for the assult drill, experimental rules from FW / GW were always broken, i bet they will get FAQ'ed fast and hard, so just don't be "THAT GUY" and spam them when they are that broken atm.
Of course, FW is known for fixing broken rules fast
3 Leviathan like that cost 1000 ish points. That's half your army. They should be devastating. Also, the Relic rule means you'll have to bring another 3 Heavy Support Choices just to balance them out.
3 leviathans with twin storm cannons are 927 pts. 3 dev squads with a HB are 225 pts. Balancing done.
Show me what Forge World unit gives someone a 'significant advantage' and show me how Games Workshop has no models or rules that do the exact same thing elsewhere.
Are you going to sit here and insinuate that- GASP- 40k has armies that are vastly different and perform differently on the tabletop, and some have been given more than others? YOU DON'T SAY.
Go on, show me which Forge World models are 'game-breaking' and how GW has absolutely none of them.
JFC, you guys act like acquiring Forge World models requires you to be in the damned Illuminati or be a certain skin color.
Lets say you play eldar, and you built your army to stack negative to hit modifiers. You do your thing and say my grav tanks and my flyers are now -3 to hit. I come along with my relic sicaran battle tanks which ignores all modifiers to hit when attacking FLY units. I can even advance and shoot with its assault autocannon, which would be -4 to hit you. The sicaran gun ignores all of it. No GW model has an ability like that.
Or my relic contemptor dreadnought comes along, with its twin fists and twin assault plasma blastguns. And because i have twin fists i can re-roll hit rolls of 1. That means i can safely overcharge my plasma blastguns. No GW dread has an ability/gun combination like that.
Or how about my 5 assault drills pop out from the ground, dealing 5 MW to all enemy units within 12" ? Not only that, next turn my assault and/or devastator centurions pop out 3" away from it, move 4", and charge ? No GW transport can do that.
Or how about my 5 lucius pattern drop pods dropping dreads close to you ? No GW drop pod can do that.
Im pretty sure 3 dual storm cannon leviathans are devastating. There is no GW dread which comes even close to one of them.
You are not helping alot of the anti-forgeworld diatribe here. GW releases just as much, if not more overpowered rules as forgeworld. The -3 to hit eldar list would be a PRIME example.
Nothing in any forgeworld index list comes close to being that cheese.
I remember just recently in 7th edition, CSM couldnt even hope to compete without forgeworld units. It literally made the army work. because in 20 years GW has not seen fit to produce a rule for CSM drop pods.Forgeworld had to do it. Nevermind you have to pay 300 points to even get one.
Malific spam sucked at the opening of 8th, but that has been fixed by not only a point increase but smite spam getting gutted in the rules. And the only demon lord who was underpriced was the magic chicken. Now they are priced so high that no one will ever put one on the table. The very fact that the units are in chapter approved tells you something about the legality of forgeworld.
Edit, also here is a fun fact. If forgeworld was not available then CSM would be one of the few armies with no flyers. The helldrake is a quasi-flyer with no hard to hit or supersonic rules.
Lets say you play eldar, and you built your army to stack negative to hit modifiers. You do your thing and say my grav tanks and my flyers are now -3 to hit. I come along with my relic sicaran battle tanks which ignores all modifiers to hit when attacking FLY units. I can even advance and shoot with its assault autocannon, which would be -4 to hit you. The sicaran gun ignores all of it. No GW model has an ability like that.
ah yes FW has tools to counter at least a bit of GW's even more OP stuff and htat's bad.
Ok , let's see:
Your first exemple vs the Sicarian is basically: The really needed AA option vs the, what i atleast have dubbed, LOLZ you can't hit me army.
So this is a tank that is good against flyers and only really flyers. Suprprise surprise he can hit you. HOWEVER that tank costs barebones 160pts + an additional 75 for it's cannon. (btw that cannon has only 8 shots, if you army is in danger of beeing wiped out by 8 shots that ignore your spam of - bs then by god i can only say you fethed up in list building.)
Secondly so there is a option, which more or less shuts down an army, that is neither fair nor fun to play against, because literally 1/2 of the combat is not happening against anything that is not a space moron in a armour. So you would rather see such an army from GW, that literally makes the enemy skip a whole phase and then deny him the other pahse also because Eldarjetbikes. However i am certain that 8 shots alone are not enough to do that, and the Sicarian is not a freaking leman russ now isn't it? so even that point is moot because it can't shut down this army.
.
The sicaran is only 165 pts. Its points were already changed in chapter approved. Read the rules Its ignore modifiers works against anything with the FLY keyword, not only flyers. And it can also shoot non-FLY units normally (no minus to hit, like the stalker for example), modifiers apply as usual.
As for the assult drill, experimental rules from FW / GW were always broken, i bet they will get FAQ'ed fast and hard, so just don't be "THAT GUY" and spam them when they are that broken atm.
Of course, FW is known for fixing broken rules fast
3 Leviathan like that cost 1000 ish points. That's half your army. They should be devastating. Also, the Relic rule means you'll have to bring another 3 Heavy Support Choices just to balance them out.
3 leviathans with twin storm cannons are 927 pts. 3 dev squads with a HB are 225 pts. Balancing done.
Yep. Balancing done. 1152 points on your heavy support alone. In a 2000pt game? Also, dual stormcannons will murder anything out to 24" but are surprisingly easy to shut down. The dread loses an attack per shoot arm. So it goes down to 2 Ap0 attacks against anything in melee.
I'm not saying the model isn't effective. Nor am I saying that bringing 3 of them to anything except a tourney might raise eyebrows. But a single Leviathan, even a dual stormcannon one, in an otherwise soft list isn't game breaking.
Ok , let's see:
Your first exemple vs the Sicarian is basically: The really needed AA option vs the, what i atleast have dubbed, LOLZ you can't hit me army.
So this is a tank that is good against flyers and only really flyers. Suprprise surprise he can hit you. HOWEVER that tank costs barebones 160pts + an additional 75 for it's cannon. (btw that cannon has only 8 shots, if you army is in danger of beeing wiped out by 8 shots that ignore your spam of - bs then by god i can only say you fethed up in list building.)
Secondly so there is a option, which more or less shuts down an army, that is neither fair nor fun to play against, because literally 1/2 of the combat is not happening against anything that is not a space moron in a armour. So you would rather see such an army from GW, that literally makes the enemy skip a whole phase and then deny him the other pahse also because Eldarjetbikes. However i am certain that 8 shots alone are not enough to do that, and the Sicarian is not a freaking leman russ now isn't it? so even that point is moot because it can't shut down this army.
.
The sicaran is only 165 pts. Its points were already changed in chapter approved. Read the rules Its ignore modifiers works against anything with the FLY keyword, not only flyers. And it can also shoot non-FLY units normally (no minus to hit, like the stalker for example), modifiers apply as usual.
As for the assult drill, experimental rules from FW / GW were always broken, i bet they will get FAQ'ed fast and hard, so just don't be "THAT GUY" and spam them when they are that broken atm.
Of course, FW is known for fixing broken rules fast
3 Leviathan like that cost 1000 ish points. That's half your army. They should be devastating. Also, the Relic rule means you'll have to bring another 3 Heavy Support Choices just to balance them out.
3 leviathans with twin storm cannons are 927 pts. 3 dev squads with a HB are 225 pts. Balancing done.
So CA ( an offical FAQ/ balance update for the whole 40k game) changed the Sicarian and other FW units. Some were buffed (Sicarian) and some got nerfed, (Rip daemons). Considering that it was a balancing update what shows that?
It shows that such fly eldar armies are prevalent and they did choose an indirect way of nerving supersonic -bs spam.
Quite frankly that total reduction seems off, but there is certainly no blame to be put torwards FW, because CA got made by GW.
Now i also wonder are you going to ignore the rest of my argument or are you just further complaining, that it is somehow FW's fault that Sicarians are now to cheap even though it was GW that changed the point values?
Same goes for Malefic lords, except in the other direction, they are now beyond useless, so one is literally forced to play a RPC (Rogue Psyker Coven)
But sure blame FW for actually forcing you to play some different slots via the Relic / Hellforged system and therfore forcing you to lower the spam. When was the last time GW did something like that?
PS: A sicarian is still a Relic/ Hellforged option, so you will need additional points for additional choices, which may or may not be good enough, in this case your Eldar Cheedar still will survive an encounter, but myabee now you would have to take
some minis of the table like every other player has to.
PPS: So you also will likely complain about Hydras too, because they also get 1+ against everything with the fly keyword? Also agian a GW tank btw?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
http://www.3plusplus.net/2017/11/chapter-approved-points-leak/ So what does that mean, i wonder?
They did cut the cost for the accelerator cannon but making the Sicarians a bit more expensive. Still that is either a 155- 175 model and still only really usefull against "FLY" against everything else it bevaves like a predator with more dakka attached to it.
Lets say you play eldar, and you built your army to stack negative to hit modifiers. You do your thing and say my grav tanks and my flyers are now -3 to hit. I come along with my relic sicaran battle tanks which ignores all modifiers to hit when attacking FLY units. I can even advance and shoot with its assault autocannon, which would be -4 to hit you. The sicaran gun ignores all of it. No GW model has an ability like that.
Or my relic contemptor dreadnought comes along, with its twin fists and twin assault plasma blastguns. And because i have twin fists i can re-roll hit rolls of 1. That means i can safely overcharge my plasma blastguns. No GW dread has an ability/gun combination like that.
Or how about my 5 assault drills pop out from the ground, dealing 5 MW to all enemy units within 12" ? Not only that, next turn my assault and/or devastator centurions pop out 3" away from it, move 4", and charge ? No GW transport can do that.
Or how about my 5 lucius pattern drop pods dropping dreads close to you ? No GW drop pod can do that.
Im pretty sure 3 dual storm cannon leviathans are devastating. There is no GW dread which comes even close to one of them.
Ooooooh but I like this game! Let’s keep going!
Let’s say I stack an army-wide -1 to hit with a -1 to-hit unit and a -1 to hit psychic power and a -1 to hit Stratagem. I now have -4 to hit - leaving me invulnerable to everything but Custodes! There is no GW combination that comes even close to that.
Or say I take a unit that gives every model within a 6” bubble reroll all dice to both hit and wound, regardless of how powerful the units you can daisy chain into that bubble are. Then let’s put that power on a Character with 9 wounds so he can’t be targeted, and let’s give him T6/2+/3++. Oh! And let’s make him an absolute beat stick so he isn’t countered by combat. And if he dies, let’s give him a 3+ roll to come back to life! There is no GW that comes even close to that.
Next, why don’t I take a 90pt model with a 14” move with Fly, a 12-shot gun hitting on 2s with easy reroll access, T6/W4/2+/4++ with access to a -1 to hit, and 4 Attacks at Str6/AP-3/DmgD3 rerolling all wounds, and give them a Stratagem to Charge in the opponent’s turn and attack before chargers! There is no GW unit at anything like 90pts a model with that much mobility, durability and punch.
Oh! Here’s one! Let’s say I take a 400ish point superheavy tank with a 3D3 Str16/AP-5/Dmg2D6 gun hitting intended targets on 3s, rerolling 1s to Wound, and access to traits that either let it reroll the number of shots or reroll 1s to hit if it doesn’t move to shoot it’s 120” range gun. There is no GW unit with that kind of firepower south of four times that points value!
...wait, did I mix up GW and FW?
(Seriously though mate, using Eldar to-hit shenanigans to show that FW is overpowered and abusive compared to GW was a poor idea. Akin to drenching yourself in fish guts and wading into a shark pen.)
Complaining about a tank that negates nigh-unkillable units is more of a stab at GW, considering that they created the offending unit in the first place.
Forge World should be praised for creating a counter to Eldar unhittable units.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: Complaining about a tank that negates nigh-unkillable units is more of a stab at GW, considering that they created the offending unit in the first place.
Forge World should be praised for creating a counter to Eldar unhittable units.
All praise be FW, for even when they feth up, GW does worse.
Praise be upon the mighty Sicaran, our saviour that got created by FW and made even more Op thanks to GWCA.
If you have the rules & let your opponent have a look before you play I don't see the problem. FW is a subsidiary company to GW so as far as I'm concerned all FW stuff are legal.
I've seen two widely different discussions go down in this thread. Well, more actually but two I really want to zoom in on because they were the ones that interacted with each other the most.
- Can you refuse a game against anyone you want for whatever reason you want?
- Are leviathans overpowered to the point that refusing a game because of them seems a valid choice.
To the first discussion, I say "why of course". It's your good right to do so. At the same time, other people have the right to judge you for the choices you make in choosing an opponent. I've denied a game here and there in 7th when someone unpacked 3 riptides and a stormsurge in what was agreed upon to be a friendly casual game. Now I understood that this person just enjoyed riptides regardless of whether they were strong or not, but the game wasn't going any fun.
On the other hand I've come across people who only accept a challenge when they're all but guaranteed to win. I'd say that's a dick move.
So on to the second discussion. Honestly, having played a Leviathan myself in multiple games in 8th edition I'd scratch my head if someone turned down a game because "OMG you brought OPFWbs". Leviathans are good but not overly so. There're probably dozens of units out there I'd gladly change acces to a Leviathan with.
But as I've said, people have the right to turn down any game they like. If he dislikes playing against a leviathan so thouroughly that he'd turn a game down for it, that's up to him. Do I think it's justified? Definitely not, but to each their own.
Just wanted to pull these two apart because I see people from discussion 1 react to discussion 2 and I think these are distinctly different. A person can argue that deny'ing the game because of a single FW model is a dick move while still respecting their right to choose to deny games over anything.
I've seen two widely different discussions go down in this thread. Well, more actually but two I really want to zoom in on because they were the ones that interacted with each other the most.
- Can you refuse a game against anyone you want for whatever reason you want?
- Are leviathans overpowered to the point that refusing a game because of them seems a valid choice.
The crux of this thread to me was highlighted by Sgt Smudge a couple pages back.
It effectively boils down to "Do I have to inform people I'm using Forgeworld because they are beyond to scope of GW rules, or do you have to inform me that you only like playing with X rules and not Y rules because Forgeworld and GW are all the same company"
Honestly I'm 70% sure it used to be an explicit rule that both players must agree to use Forgeworld, so I would definitely not egg a players house, desecrate their mothers grave, or whatever else has been proposed in this thread for treating this as a well established convention
This particular convention encourages communication and expectations management between players! That's a good thing in my book.
The bad feeling will be magnified if a game is refused after people have travelled to the shop and unpacked all their models. Chucking out a quick 'hey you're cool if I bring Forgeworld' at the game arranging stage, in the same way you would if you played Imperial Knights or Tau Riptide Wing, doesn't seem too onerous to me.
I expect the same policy to be applied to all other rules. If you don't give me an up front request/notification that you would like to use codex rules instead of the index rules then you are probably TFG. After all, codex rules are a major escalation in power and WAAC potential, and really just an expansion to the core of the game. And some armies don't even get codex rules at all, how is that fair? Plus they cost so much money and it's not reasonable to expect me to be familiar with them.
Peregrine wrote: I expect the same policy to be applied to all other rules. If you don't give me an up front request/notification that you would like to use codex rules instead of the index rules then you are probably TFG. After all, codex rules are a major escalation in power and WAAC potential, and really just an expansion to the core of the game. And some armies don't even get codex rules at all, how is that fair? Plus they cost so much money and it's not reasonable to expect me to be familiar with them.
Yea I'm with you on this, with all the different sources atm it is always worth checking before the game where your opponent is taking their list from, are we both looking at the same FAQs etc.
I used to play a Salamanders list from White Dwarf back in 3rd Edition (it was also published in Codex:Armageddon if I recall correctly) and always made sure to make my opponent aware and talk them through the differences when arranging games so that they didn't feel like I tricked them into a game.
Actually i have an idea :
How about we make a collection of all Fw specific special rules army for army / model for model.
We mention each time what army has the rule (random leadership for R&H for exemple) and then go down.
Basically a really basic guide for FW rules and weaponry so that everyone can have access.
Not only would it stop cheating, no it would also make the bases of these armies and their playstyle open for all to get a grasp on the specific playstyle of them.
I've seen two widely different discussions go down in this thread. Well, more actually but two I really want to zoom in on because they were the ones that interacted with each other the most.
- Can you refuse a game against anyone you want for whatever reason you want?
- Are leviathans overpowered to the point that refusing a game because of them seems a valid choice.
The crux of this thread to me was highlighted by Sgt Smudge a couple pages back.
It effectively boils down to "Do I have to inform people I'm using Forgeworld because they are beyond to scope of GW rules, or do you have to inform me that you only like playing with X rules and not Y rules because Forgeworld and GW are all the same company"
Honestly I'm 70% sure it used to be an explicit rule that both players must agree to use Forgeworld, so I would definitely not egg a players house, desecrate their mothers grave, or whatever else has been proposed in this thread for treating this as a well established convention
I am not certain but didn't that get thrown over board when gw pushed LoW's?
Honestly I'm 70% sure it used to be an explicit rule that both players must agree to use Forgeworld, so I would definitely not egg a players house, desecrate their mothers grave, or whatever else has been proposed in this thread for treating this as a well established convention
No such rule exists in 8th edition, theres a lot of assumptions that players would know old edition rules or etticate, its not fair to ask newer players to be aware of old edition conventions or rules or social contracts that existed at a time when the game was incredibly different, we also do not know if the OP or the other player was new or old without hearing from them directly to 8th.
ive been watching the thread, as always many opposing views on Dakka, but in short yes you can refuse any game, but forgeworld is entirely legal and in no way seperate from 8th edition of Warhammer 40,000.
The model itself is incredibly expensive for what it does and realistically for its price there are many ways to deal with it quickly and efficiently, as a Chaos player myself i honestly feel both in this edition and in 7th edition without Forgeworld substitutes i would of likely given up playing the main antagonist/protaganist (dependant on your point of view), mainly because i was tired of not having decent Artillery support or anti tank weapons. We do have options in chaos but in 8th a lot of the overall "very good" 7th units took even more of a beatstick so things like the Drake and Fiend are really not as good as they were nor do i desire to use them against Necrons, Drukhari, Aeldari and the list goes on and on.
In addition thematically forgeworld allows players who buy models for 30k to use "some" of them in 40K meaning GW/FW offer players better value for money on their products with rules for both systems. I also get to play my iron warriors as a fun thematic gun army, focused on siege, i cant really do that with just defilers from the core codex so forgeworld offers me a chance to play fluffy thematic army in line with the books and in game universe. why is this relavent to this scenario you may ask, If the OP had the Levi as a thematic choice and it is legal it does seem unfair to pack that model for a long trip... to turn up to a pickup game to then be told i do not do forgeworld without a discussion when he pulled it out about why that is the case? i think he deserved to know why his game would be refused? that still leaves the other player with the option of refusing after a chat about why.
if we are to evolve as a society and have this so called social contract players must evolve and adapt to the current rulesets of 8th edition, if you do have an issue with the models then take that up with the manufacturer not the player. GW has been more responsive than ever to balance. If again forgeworld really was the issue then bloodofkittens would be showcasing all the super FW compliant lists that have won tournament games. This is not the case and has not been the case for a long time now. The only unit i have seen recently from forgeworld that has been adjusted due to its overall projected power was the fire raptor.
To summarise, 1) you have the right to refuse absolutely 2) you also have the ability to be open minded and the rights to ask each other the question "why" 3) it is more than fair to personally decide for you what is reasonable and unreasonable and whether you feel someone is being fair/unfair/sarcastic/humourous we are all different just like our armies. 4) ITS....A.....GAME....win or lose i would of advised both players if at my club to play 2 games if time permitted 1 with 1 without, then both players get to see how things pan out... seems fair to me.
Lets say you play eldar, and you built your army to stack negative to hit modifiers....
Your complaint is that I can, at best, put down three tanks that can hit your modifier-spamming flyers. Oh no, someone found a way around your cheese. And odds are, they still can't do much. All I've got laying around that can do anything about that is an Assassin and maybe I could put down Greyfax to deal with that Psyker.
Sorry, find a new tactic. In no way does that Sicaran give me an 'unfair advantage'. It just eliminates your cheap auto-win.
Lets say you play eldar, and you built your army to stack negative to hit modifiers....
Your complaint is that I can, at best, put down three tanks that can hit your modifier-spamming flyers.
Sorry, find a new tactic.
The main problem is not the tactic, the main problem is that Gw has overdone it with the abilities the eldar get.
However his complaint about a unit which has restrictions and is relatively expensive and does work as intended is Hollow in this case.
Not Online!!! wrote: The main problem is not the tactic, the main problem is that Gw has overdone it with the abilities the eldar get.
However his complaint about a unit which has restrictions and is relatively expensive and does work as intended is Hollow in this case.
Yeah, I made an edit.
He's whinging about a counter to a cheese tactic, which is comical. And for every Sicaran I still need an Elite choice that isn't a Relic.
If he brought that army to a PUG in my area- as soon as it happened people would chuckle, nod, and say "good game" in a deadpan tone while putting away their models. Then loudly ask "Anyone else want a game?" Doesn't sound like much, but that's a not-so-subtle way of saying, "This guy's a cheeseball and a waste of time". If he complained about someone's Sicarans, we would laugh him into the street.
Kroem wrote: This particular convention encourages communication and expectations management between players! That's a good thing in my book.
The bad feeling will be magnified if a game is refused after people have travelled to the shop and unpacked all their models. Chucking out a quick 'hey you're cool if I bring Forgeworld' at the game arranging stage, in the same way you would if you played Imperial Knights or Tau Riptide Wing, doesn't seem too onerous to me.
I agree with the sentiment, but I think the onus should be on the player who has an issue with FW or another rule to state that up front. If something is legal within the rules of the game, you should be able to reasonably expect it to be acceptable to use it under normal circumstances.
TLR. If you want a change to the game, it should be your responsibility to provide the heads up, and have that agreed as soon as humanly possible.
StrayIight wrote: I agree with the sentiment, but I think the onus should be on the player who has an issue with FW or another rule to state that up front. If something is legal within the rules of the game, you should be able to reasonably expect it to be acceptable to use it under normal circumstances.
TL;DR. If you want a change to the game, it should be your responsibility to provide the heads up, and have that agreed as soon as humanly possible.
I agree. It's very simple. If you are going to invite someone to a game, you need to be up front about any exclusions. It's no different than asking someone if they can do a 'no flyers' or 'No LoW' game.
Any Forge World 40k model is as much a part of Warhammer 40k as a Land Raider or Leman Russ. Provided the player has the book on hand (digital or hard copy), then it's a legal model.
There are absolutely no reasons that anyone can justify to bar FW products from a game. Let's run down the excuses:
"They are OP!" - As opposed to what, GW's perfectly-balanced stuff? Come on, anyone who's played more than a handful of games out in the wild knows there's plenty of stuff that is arguably OP in the basic Codex of several armies.
"They offer some armies more options than others!" - Yeah, all the armies out there on the shelf have the same amount of things to choose from, do they? Yeah, there's just as much stuff for Harlequins as there is for Space Marines, for sure.
"Many players aren't familiar with them!" - sounds like a personal problem, or laziness in an era where you can Google the rules easily. And 'not playing against something' isn't really going to get you familiar with it, either.
"The store can't sell it!" - they don't have my Sisters of Battle, Kaskrins, Inquisitorial Stormtroopers, or any of the bits I've purchased from Kromlech, Spellcrow, Puppetswar, Chapter House, Anvil, or Statuesque. And never once, even in a GW store, has anyone told me that those models aren't legal because they can't sell them or the bits on them.
"The rules aren't as accessible as the Codex!" - are you lacking an internet connection and the means to purchase this book online? If so, please just let me know. I'll take cash in hand and make the order for you when I order my next Forge World model. I might even be nice and not ask you to throw down for shipping, but we're going to have a long talk about being a grown-up.
Darsath wrote: Wow. OK, so there's a lot of strawmanning and ignorance happening in this thread, so I thought I would add fuel to the fire.
Firstly, I am anti-FW units in most games. It's pretty easy to see why actually. It can benefit certain armies much more than others, and widen the "choice gap", that is, the number of available, good units and army has from a gap to a chasm. It wouldn't make much sense to agree to a rule that gives your opponent a significant advantage over you in each game.
When the game allows you to build armies composed of basically any combination of units from any combination of factions, even in matched play, this line of thinking has long since passed being moot.
Secondly, we know that GW and FW don't communicate well between each other.
GW's main studio doesn't communicate well with itself half the time
Just look at some of the 8th ed launch rules from FW. They aren't really able ti include FW units in strategems and rules because GW designs their game around only GW units.
They don't have stratagems specific to FW units, but most FW units can make use of army stratagems just fine, they just don't get any special ones just like most units don't.
FW units to me are the same as adding superheavies, and should be saved for larger games.
So my Death Korps of Krieg grenadier army, Decimator walkers, Rapier batteries, Autocannon equipped Chimeras, formerly Codex Vendettas, etc only have a place in *huge* games?
Vaktathi wrote: So my Death Korps of Krieg grenadier army, Decimator walkers, Rapier batteries, Autocannon equipped Chimeras, formerly Codex Vendettas, etc only have a place in *huge* games?
Didn't you know that if you bring one 40 point Cyclops Demolition Vehicle you'd better be playing Apocalypse?
Have you seen what those things can do at 2000 points? Ridiculous. It's a whole 2% of your army. Forgeworld is obviously for bigger games.
Darsath wrote: Wow. OK, so there's a lot of strawmanning and ignorance happening in this thread, so I thought I would add fuel to the fire.
Firstly, I am anti-FW units in most games. It's pretty easy to see why actually. It can benefit certain armies much more than others, and widen the "choice gap", that is, the number of available, good units and army has from a gap to a chasm. It wouldn't make much sense to agree to a rule that gives your opponent a significant advantage over you in each game.
When the game allows you to build armies composed of basically any combination of units from any combination of factions, even in matched play, this line of thinking has long since passed being moot.
Secondly, we know that GW and FW don't communicate well between each other.
GW's main studio doesn't communicate well with itself half the time
Just look at some of the 8th ed launch rules from FW. They aren't really able ti include FW units in strategems and rules because GW designs their game around only GW units.
They don't have stratagems specific to FW units, but most FW units can make use of army stratagems just fine, they just don't get any special ones just like most units don't.
FW units to me are the same as adding superheavies, and should be saved for larger games.
So my Death Korps of Krieg grenadier army, Decimator walkers, Rapier batteries, Autocannon equipped Chimeras, formerly Codex Vendettas, etc only have a place in *huge* games?
Come on in,my renegade leman russ obviously is also just usefull for bigger matches, my Decimator certainly qualifies me for apocalypse no?
Well, yes, Not Online!!!. Your renegade leman russ is Apoc-only, but if you ran it as an Imperial Guard Leman Russ you could do so at 500 points and be alright.
So I can only bring Corsairs to huge games? So instead of being able to take ~600 pts in a 2k game, I need to face 4/5/6k points with that same ~600pts?
I've seen two widely different discussions go down in this thread. Well, more actually but two I really want to zoom in on because they were the ones that interacted with each other the most.
- Can you refuse a game against anyone you want for whatever reason you want?
- Are leviathans overpowered to the point that refusing a game because of them seems a valid choice.
The crux of this thread to me was highlighted by Sgt Smudge a couple pages back.
It effectively boils down to "Do I have to inform people I'm using Forgeworld because they are beyond to scope of GW rules, or do you have to inform me that you only like playing with X rules and not Y rules because Forgeworld and GW are all the same company"
Honestly I'm 70% sure it used to be an explicit rule that both players must agree to use Forgeworld, so I would definitely not egg a players house, desecrate their mothers grave, or whatever else has been proposed in this thread for treating this as a well established convention
It used to be a thing in 4th and 5th, over a decade ago. Since 6th GW/FW has considered them a part of the game that requires no special permission.
The only times I have had people ever complain about FW is when they are a particularly sore loser looking for excuses as to why they lost.
Asmodios wrote: have fun in the thread I'm out, this was just too much.
Awfully convenient way of not acknowledging the hyperbolic nature of most of your own posts in this thread, not having really supported your exaggerations at all.
Asmodios wrote:Hahahahahahahahahahaha Wow if this isn’t the most over the top post I have ever seen... we are talking on a wargaming forum about a war game and about reasons to turn down a game that are hobby related and now people are jumping the shark and talking about racial discrimination.... I’m done that’s enough Dakka for the day
Unit1126PLL wrote:
JNAProductions wrote: I'll agree with this, though I'd say comparing FW bias to homophobia or racism is a little much. FW bias makes a certain hobby less fun. Homophobia and racism can make you lose jobs, get attacked, get killed...
They're similar in theme, it's a matter of scale that's different.
Yes, right, of course they're not even in the same league. I was picking something very obviously not fine so that the opposing debater couldn't reasonably worm out of it with "but of course that is just fine" without addressing the actual point.
The point being, of course: "While you certainly can turn down any game you wish for any reason you wish, that does not protect your reasons from scrutiny, nor does it mean everyone automatically has to be fine with possibly flawed, ignorant, irrational, selfish, unreasonable, or outright bigoted reasons."
Peregrine wrote: I expect the same policy to be applied to all other rules. If you don't give me an up front request/notification that you would like to use codex rules instead of the index rules then you are probably TFG. After all, codex rules are a major escalation in power and WAAC potential, and really just an expansion to the core of the game. And some armies don't even get codex rules at all, how is that fair? Plus they cost so much money and it's not reasonable to expect me to be familiar with them.
I don't often exalt posts, but when I do *Is there a 40k Dos Equis image around somewhere? *
Bharring wrote: So I can only bring Corsairs to huge games? So instead of being able to take ~600 pts in a 2k game, I need to face 4/5/6k points with that same ~600pts?
Ideally you are supposed to be outnumbered in points by around 25% CHAOS FW and by about 50% for xenos.
Didn't you know that?
kombatwombat wrote: There is a long list of things that used to be a well established convention.
Now we just realise we were being racist, sexist, homophobic or whatever.
Don’t be stuck in the past. Let us move past our FWism.
This, ladies and gentleorks, is a strawman.
Well... not really!
Yes, it's a hyperbole but the point still stands. What people used to think/do in previous editions has no real bearing on what people think/do now. Opinions and consensuses change.
You can't just say "this is how we should do it becaude it's how we've always done it!" and expect people to follow suit.
