Are these models legal to play with? Do they count as being made by Games-Workshop? I don't understand the relationship between Forge World and GW (if any).

I just ask because GW does not make an Ork Biker Warboss but over at http://www.forgeworld.co.uk/acatalog/QUATERMASTERS_STORE_ORKS_21.html I can buy a very impressive one (albeit at great cost for a single model).

So I guess my question is, if I were to buy this model, what situations would I not be able to use it?

Thanks in advance!

Nope, its totally legal to play with FW stuff. Im not 100% on how the 2 companies are together, but FW makes some things that you cant get from GW. So have fun with the resin lol

They are the same company. FW makes models for GW. Nothing they make requires opponent's permission (insofar as everything in the game requires concent, but move past that) so you can get FW units and use them to your heart's content.

Units in Forgeworld books like Imperial Armour, their various army lists, etc. aren't tournament legal, but using their models to represent units in the regular GW codecii is. Using that extremely expensive Warboss would be legal, as would doing something like using Death Korps of Krieg models for regular guardsmen.

Brother SRM wrote:Units in Forgeworld books like Imperial Armour, their various army lists, etc. aren't tournament legal

Incorrect.

It is the role of the tournament organiser to determine what can be used and what cannot be used - no rule in any IA book lists them as tournament illegal. A tournament organiser could outlaw Space Marines and they'd become not tournament legal for that tournament. Most Tournaments do not allow Imperial Armour units for a variety of reasons (the most common being that they think they provide an advantage where in most cases FW rules are really pathetic).

The Imperial Armour rules themselves are 100% legal in every single game you play and would only ever be illegal or "not allowed" if a tournament organiser has said so, your opponent is a pansy, or you haven't met any required inbuilt restrictions (ie. not a high enough points level to bring a Super Heavy, etc.).

U bai moar forgeworld now!!!!1!!!!ONE!!! As HBMC said, as long as it's not a super-heavy and has a codex entry in a current edition, you can buy it from Forge World and plonk it on the table without much problem.

BTW, an open letter to tourney organizers: quite being d-bags and let me use Imperial Armor rules, for cripe's sake. Honestly, somehow I'm going to break the game coz someone doesn't know that a Thunderer siege tank is just an over-priced Leman Russ Demolisher.

Forgeworld as a company is 100% owned by GW - it is a subsidiary. That means if a model is made by Forgeworld it is made by GW. So it is totally legit to field it at a GW store or other event requiring "GW only" models to be used.

As for any non-Codex rules (e.g. the rules that accompany some of the models that aren't in GW Codices but are published in Imperial Armour or other FW supplements), they are an "opponent's permission", or a "tournament organiser" call.

To use your example. The Ork Nob Biker is 100% fine to field anywhere - he's a GW model (as FW is 100% owned by GW) and his rules are in the Ork Codex so they are 100% "official" if that bothers you.

Osbad wrote:As for any non-Codex rules (e.g. the rules that accompany some of the models that aren't in GW Codices but are published in Imperial Armour or other FW supplements), they are an "opponent's permission", or a "tournament organiser" call.

Sorry, but this is a really big sticking point and personal pet peeve of mine:

You are 100% correct about the Tournament Organiser being the one who makes the call with IA stuff in tournaments, but they are not "Opponent's Permission" insofar as everything is opponent's permission in 40K, right down to the person you play against, but if we take that as a base assumption there are no special previsions, rules, caveats or any other such wording or language that singles out IA units as being somehow different or apart from Codex-based units.

To put it a different way, if I want to use my Bombard, or my Autocannon Turret Chimera, I don't need my opponent to say "Yes you may" any more than I need him to say "Yes you may" to me playing Imperial Guard.

from a purely looks perspective i use FW models all the time just to add a more varied look to armies. I have a drop sentinel sporting an autocannon as my "squadron leader" in its unit. I have venerable dreads just to make them look nicer and more important to the army fluff wise.
But HBMC is right. an opponent can see your army and if they play then they are accepting the list as is.
While Tourny organisers state what can be allowed. Like most GW tournys in my area just dont inclue any IA specific models at all for simplicity.

BoW- John

H.B.M.C. wrote:

Osbad wrote:As for any non-Codex rules (e.g. the rules that accompany some of the models that aren't in GW Codices but are published in Imperial Armour or other FW supplements), they are an "opponent's permission", or a "tournament organiser" call.

Sorry, but this is a really big sticking point and personal pet peeve of mine:

You are 100% correct about the Tournament Organiser being the one who makes the call with IA stuff in tournaments, but they are not "Opponent's Permission" insofar as everything is opponent's permission in 40K, right down to the person you play against, but if we take that as a base assumption there are no special previsions, rules, caveats or any other such wording or language that singles out IA units as being somehow different or apart from Codex-based units.

To put it a different way, if I want to use my Bombard, or my Autocannon Turret Chimera, I don't need my opponent to say "Yes you may" any more than I need him to say "Yes you may" to me playing Imperial Guard.

QFT

I see FW stuff being more and more acceptable these days. Once people actually see it on the table they quickly realise that it's not uber-leet, quite the opposite.

FW is fairly accepted on the UK tournament scene but regarded as points-inefficient by many players.

H.B.M.C. wrote:Sorry, but this is a really big sticking point and personal pet peeve of mine:

*snip*

they are not "Opponent's Permission" insofar as everything is opponent's permission in 40K, right down to the person you play against, but if we take that as a base assumption there are no special previsions, rules, caveats or any other such wording or language that singles out IA units as being somehow different or apart from Codex-based units.

To put it a different way, if I want to use my Bombard, or my Autocannon Turret Chimera, I don't need my opponent to say "Yes you may" any more than I need him to say "Yes you may" to me playing Imperial Guard.

Sorry! My bad! I've gone back and checked the text of the IA intros (I was convinced that it mentioned the rules possibly unbalancing play and needing opponent's permission - but it doesn't! I was clearly wrong. In fact the intro to the IA book published in 2000 (the earliest I have to hand) it specifically states that "all of the vehicles in this book can be used in games of Warhammer 40,000 as part of an Imperial Guard army, even if they are not included in Codex: Imperial Guard".

Conclusion: I have had a brain fart.

I apologise for any confusion caused and thanks for pointing it out HBMC.

Personally I have no problem with IA rules as generally speaking (with 1 or 2 exceptions) they are under- rather than over- powered, and I'm not that competitive anyhow. I always love to see something cool, such as a FW model, on the gaming table whatever the rules!

H.B.M.C. wrote:
The Imperial Armour rules themselves are 100% legal in every single game you play and would only ever be illegal or "not allowed" if a tournament organiser has said so, your opponent is a pansy, or you haven't met any required inbuilt restrictions (ie. not a high enough points level to bring a Super Heavy, etc.).

So I'm a pansy if I believe that forgeworld is unable to appropriately cost their items, and don't want to play against an IG army that's bringing 9 heavy mortars with infernus shells for their elite choices, for only 450 points? Or if I think that a deathwind drop pod that can fire d6 *4 rending shots at every unit I have within 24" of where it lands is ludicrous for 90 points?

Most forgeworld stuff costs more points than it is worth, especially the big stuff. I mean, you want a malcador for 275 instead of a russ for 150, be my guest. (and, this too is an example of how completely inept the forgeworld writers are at costing stuff). But, then there are the true gems where they screw up completely in the other direction, and if someone finds and exploits these units, the game becomes pretty unfair.

Like that drop-pod I mentioned. My brother has a footslogging eldar aspect list. Goes to play at a local store, and some guy drops the assault pod into the middle of his lines. He lost nearly his entire army to a single 90-point model. And he's the pansy if he says he doesn't want to play against that any more?

Scott-S6 wrote:
I see FW stuff being more and more acceptable these days. Once people actually see it on the table they quickly realise that it's not uber-leet, quite the opposite.

FW is fairly accepted on the UK tournament scene but regarded as points-inefficient by many players.

That just means they're not exploiting the oversights yet. Wait until someone shows up with the stupid and you'll see how fast the other players ask for FW rules to be banned, or demand errata for them. Sometimes the tournament organizers catch it before it happens, often they don't.

Redbeard wrote:

H.B.M.C. wrote:
The Imperial Armour rules themselves are 100% legal in every single game you play and would only ever be illegal or "not allowed" if a tournament organiser has said so, your opponent is a pansy, or you haven't met any required inbuilt restrictions (ie. not a high enough points level to bring a Super Heavy, etc.).

So I'm a pansy if I believe that forgeworld is unable to appropriately cost their items, and don't want to play against an IG army that's bringing 9 heavy mortars with infernus shells for their elite choices, for only 450 points? Or if I think that a deathwind drop pod that can fire d6 *4 rending shots at every unit I have within 24" of where it lands is ludicrous for 90 points?

Most forgeworld stuff costs more points than it is worth, especially the big stuff. I mean, you want a malcador for 275 instead of a russ for 150, be my guest. (and, this too is an example of how completely inept the forgeworld writers are at costing stuff). But, then there are the true gems where they screw up completely in the other direction, and if someone finds and exploits these units, the game becomes pretty unfair.

Just to be clear on this, you're fine with applying a grossly unfair collective punishment (i.e. stopping me from using my quad-launchers and Cyclops) just to get at a few rotten eggs?

I always found FW to have the coolness factor in spades, not the game winning stuff.

I think that it is relatively correct to sya that Forge World is a wholly owned subsidiary of Games Workshop LLC (or whatever the legal name is).

The whole "It's FW, so it's GW, so it's Legal" thing is kind of funny to me. The original statement of that comes from a book published by Forgeworld... So if not for the subsidiary thing, it'd be as if I started publishing $100 books for blocky expensive models and said they were legal for 40k.

The Subsidiary thing muddies stuff up a bit. It's all a bit fuzzy, in my opinion. The FW team seems to develop their stuff in something of a vacuum at best: No real effort or care about integrating with the 'core' GW Studio's plans. As has been said, balance can be erratic, although FW seems to lean towards overpricing stuff.

Also, if FW is 'canon' then does that mean anything the store staff say is canon, too?

Anyway, my personal opinion here is that I'd never complain about FW "replacement' models, I.E. those that are just more elaborate versions of GW kits or even models for stuff GW doesn't make a model for. The Dreadnought bodies, DKoK, etc.

The other stuff (Superheavies, Titans, flyers, etc.) I'd certainly be OK with using occasionally in a casual setting, although if a new unit has cumbersome rules that bog the game down I'd not want to use it often. Flyers, especially, have generally felt so tacked-on I'm not sure I'd want to deal with them.

For tournaments, it's probably best to just have a line in the rules like "No Forgeworld Rules in use" if the organizers don't want the headache. Again, I think discriminating against someone using the models for Codex stuff is pretty stupid. it would be a shame if a nicely-painted DKoK army (using Codex: Imperial Guard) was not allowed to compete because it was at a 'No Forgeworld' event.

Balance wrote:I think that it is relatively correct to sya that Forge World is a wholly owned subsidiary of Games Workshop LLC (or whatever the legal name is).

The whole "It's FW, so it's GW, so it's Legal" thing is kind of funny to me. The original statement of that comes from a book published by Forgeworld... So if not for the subsidiary thing, it'd be as if I started publishing $100 books for blocky expensive models and said they were legal for 40k.

Yeah, right up until GW sued you out of existence for plastering their logo all over your books without authorization.

There's no workable counter-argument to FW is GW.

Redbeard wrote:So I'm a pansy

Yup.

And it's no different to playing against someone bringing a 2 Lash/9 Oblit army, the 20 Biker Nob army or whatever this month's new power build is (probably some sort of Guard creation).

As I said, I don't need your permission to bring my FW stuff any more than I need your permission to play a game of 40K in the first place. Pointing out the few FW units that are broken doesn't in any way change the fact that:

1. There are Codex units that are equally as broken.
2. There are many more FW units that are complete junk.

Redbeard wrote:And he's the pansy if he says he doesn't want to play against that any more?

Yup, assuming both players played by the rules, that both players had a legal list, and nobody cheated, that is.

If one happens to be the perfect counter to the other, or has a unit that isn't balanced correctly... well... so what? That's 40K. It's not a balanced game. Stop being wilfully ignorant Redbeard and acting as if broken units are somehow unique to Forge World...

Balance wrote:The FW team seems to develop their stuff in something of a vacuum at best: No real effort or care about integrating with the 'core' GW Studio's plans.

In my experience it's quite the opposite. Usually a new FW book will give some hints as to what's coming up, and, especially with Guard and Marines in recent years, has given a good look at what is to come. FW had the (previous) Guard Codex style (upgrades, points values and all) out before the actual Guard Codex was around. They showed off the new style of Marine Tac Squads around the same time the Marine book appeared. Their rules are written side-by-side with GW, with FW taking all their ques from the direction GW is going.

Now, that said, FW are still pretty terrible at writing rules, but they dance to GW's tune.

Agamemnon2 wrote:
Just to be clear on this, you're fine with applying a grossly unfair collective punishment (i.e. stopping me from using my quad-launchers and Cyclops) just to get at a few rotten eggs?

How exactly is asking an opponent's permission before playing potentially abusive models a punishment? If your opponents are reasonable people, and the things you want to use really aren't over-the-top (like, say two quad launchers, and not nine), then permission is not exactly hard to obtain.

H.B.M.C. wrote:
And it's no different to playing against someone bringing a 2 Lash/9 Oblit army, the 20 Biker Nob army or whatever this month's new power build is (probably some sort of Guard creation).

Of course it is. Firstly, if you're going to play a pick-up game with someone, they have the opportunity to prepare for units that they would reasonably expect to appear in a game: those that are listed in codexes. I might not want to play against 9 obliterators, but at least I know what they do, and how to work around them. I have no idea what random FW tank X does.

Secondly is the perception that allowing FW into games ups the cost-to-entry. I'm well-off, I can reasonably afford anything I want. I know other gamers who plan their purchases months ahead of time because they don't have the same disposable income. If I buy a FW model because I like how it looks, no one thinks twice about it. If I buy a FW item that I like how it looks and use it as something in a codex, no one cares. If I buy a FW model, and insist on using FW rules, and end up winning games against my less-fortunate friends, regardless of whether the FW item is the cause of it, there will be some resentment - as if I was simply buying wins by fielding models that others cannot afford. One of the advantages to a point-based game, over say, M:tG, is that while it may be expensive to get started, for the most part, the amount of money someone spends doesn't improve their on-table ability, only their off-table flexibility. Adding FW into the mix changes that. And nothing is going to lead to resentment faster than a group of gamers who believe that someone is beating them because they spent more money.

As I said, I don't need your permission to bring my FW stuff any more than I need your permission to play a game of 40K in the first place.

Well, seeing as how you're half-the-world away, you're 100% correct, you don't need my permission for anything. You do however need your opponent's permission in order to play a game in the first place, don't you? So, doing a little logic:

A) You need your opponent's permission to play against you
B) Your opponent adamantly refuses to play against FW models
C) You either don't play that opponent, or you field a list without FW.

Looks like that's a fairly simple proof that whatever books say, or don't say, you do need your opponent's permission to use your FW models. Of course, that's true for anything really. If you're TFG and bring the lashes and oblits to friendly game night, you might end up leaving without a game.

Pointing out the few FW units that are broken doesn't in any way change the fact that:

1. There are Codex units that are equally as broken.
2. There are many more FW units that are complete junk.

Point one is debatable. I see nothing in any current codex that would allow a ninety point model to destroy an entire 1500 point army in one shooting phase.

Point two is irrelevant. If I added 200 points to the cost of every unit that Forgeworld produced, and then reduced the cost of a Reaver Titan to, say 300 points, would the fact that anything except a reaver would be grossly overpriced mean that the reaver was reasonable to use at that price? It is only the underpriced units that anyone competitive cares about. Anything that's priced appropriately or higher is irrelevant.


So, you claim you don't need an opponent's permission to field your FW toys? I assume you're referring to the preamble in IA:Apocalypse, where Warwick talks about what is official. And, technically, you're right, he does say that their past approach of asking players to get their opponent's consent is something they don't want to do anymore.

But, he also states, "As far as we are concerned Codexes and the rulebook are official, everything else is up to the players to use or ignore at will." So, if you're unwilling to reach some sort of agreement with your opponent as to what will be a fun game for each of you, you're officially allowed to put your forgeworld models on the table, and he's officially allowed to ignore that they're there.

That doesn't really seem like it would be a very fun game for either of you, but I suppose that a game that's fun for neither player is better than one which is fun for one at the expense of the other.

If one happens to be the perfect counter to the other, or has a unit that isn't balanced correctly... well... so what? That's 40K. It's not a balanced game. Stop being wilfully ignorant Redbeard and acting as if broken units are somehow unique to Forge World...

It's not a perfectly balanced game, you're right. But some broken units are more broken than others. Are you so willfully ignorant that you can't see how removing some of the more egregious violations from the game makes it more fun for all involved?

Redbeard wrote:How exactly is asking an opponent's permission before playing potentially abusive models a punishment? If your opponents are reasonable people, and the things you want to use really aren't over-the-top (like, say two quad launchers, and not nine), then permission is not exactly hard to obtain.

Just saying "Yes" to Aggy's question would have been quicker.

Redbeard wrote:Of course it is. Firstly, if you're going to play a pick-up game with someone, they have the opportunity to prepare for units that they would reasonably expect to appear in a game: those that are listed in codexes. I might not want to play against 9 obliterators, but at least I know what they do, and how to work around them. I have no idea what random FW tank X does.

A few things:

1. I'll agree that there is a fair assumption that you should have an idea of what certain armies can do. I can concede that.
2. There is already an assumption, based upon the (false) notion that FW units require permission, that they are somehow broken or unfair or will otherwise give an advantage.
3. For that very reason, people are less inclined to play against them for no other reason than they're afraid of losing.
4. What you can reasonably expect to face should be expanded to anything that might be in the game.

If someone shows up with random FW tank X, then I have no issue with explaining what it does and then we can play. If you decide not to play against it... well... you're a pansy. Pure and simple.

Redbeard wrote:Secondly is the perception that allowing FW into games ups the cost-to-entry.

Oh stop that right now. Monetary cost has nothing to do with whether or not FW items require your opponent's permission in order to use. And I completely reject that it creates a higher cost entry point. If you win a game primarily because of a FW item that's no different to the Chaos player losing a game against another Chaos player who brought 9 Oblits and 2 Lash... now that Chaos player think that in order to win he has to go and get 6 more Oblits and an extra Lash Prince.

To put it another way - "Escalation" is an argument. It's a red herring, and has no bearing on this discussion. Furthermore it's not unique to FW items.

Redbeard wrote:Well, seeing as how you're half-the-world away, you're 100% correct, you don't need my permission for anything. You do however need your opponent's permission in order to play a game in the first place, don't you?

Face. Fething. Palm.

Do you actually try to read the entire thread before you knee-jerked your way into posting? Don't answer, that's rhetorical. But before you go scrolling upwards to find out what I mean, I'll save you some time and repeat myself:

"You are 100% correct about the Tournament Organiser being the one who makes the call with IA stuff in tournaments, but they are not "Opponent's Permission" ---- insofar as everything is opponent's permission in 40K, --- right down to the person you play against, but if we take that as a base assumption [then] there are no special previsions, rules, caveats or any other such wording or language that singles out IA units as being somehow different or apart from Codex-based units."

Do I have to make that any clearer?

Redbeard wrote:So, doing a little logic:

If you want to call it that.

Redbeard wrote:A) You need your opponent's permission to play against you
B) Your opponent adamantly refuses to play against FW models
C) You either don't play that opponent, or you field a list without FW.

Blah blah blah. Meaningless crap. I won't be dealing with the "you need permission to play a game of 40K" line of thinking as it's an idiotic counter to a cut-and-dry issue. To put it another way:

Do Forge World units require any more permission than a standard Codex unit? The answer to that is no. They are as valid and legal as a Tactical Squad.

Does that mean that Forge World units are balanced? No. Adepticon has been a good litmus test for those things, finding all sorts of issues with Cyclops Demo Vehicles, Myotic Spores (or whatever they're called), Infernus Shells and their underpriced Reaver Titans. But to claim that they are somehow more broken or more unbalanced or even just 'different' from the broken things in 40K... no. Broken is broken. Doesn't matter whether it's made of resin or plastic.

Redbeard wrote:Point one is debatable.

He says, without debating it. Too funny...

Redbeard wrote:I see nothing in any current codex that would allow a ninety point model to destroy an entire 1500 point army in one shooting phase.

Give it a rest on the Heavy Mortars. Heavy Mortars are not broken. Infernus Shells are, and I believe their rules were amended from their original version (I think they have to cause casualties now - I could be wrong, it's been a while since I've looked at IA5), but it is up to the players to find a middle ground there. We can blame Warwick "Copypasta" Kincaid for it until the cows come home, but nothing will change there. If you know that Infernus Shells are broken, don't use them. Or, if you do, and bring them anyway, you're as much as pansy as the person who refuses to play against FW units for fear of losing.

But, whether you bring them or not, at no point does it change the fact that the opposing player never has to give consent for them to be used any more than he would have to give consent for someone to use a Land Raider or a unit of Gretchin!

Redbeard wrote:So, you claim you don't need an opponent's permission to field your FW toys? I assume you're referring to the preamble in IA:Apocalypse, where Warwick talks about what is official. And, technically, you're right, he does say that their past approach of asking players to get their opponent's consent is something they don't want to do anymore.

But, he also states, "As far as we are concerned Codexes and the rulebook are official, everything else is up to the players to use or ignore at will." So, if you're unwilling to reach some sort of agreement with your opponent as to what will be a fun game for each of you, you're officially allowed to put your forgeworld models on the table, and he's officially allowed to ignore that they're there.

Good. And whenever I'm playing Apocalypse and using IA:Apoc Datasheets, I'll be sure to remember that. For regular games of 40K though that don't use Apoc Datasheets, I'll refer to the preamble in IA2, where he plainly states that the units do not require opponent's permission (any more than standard units do, etc. etc. ad nauseum).

Redbeard wrote:That doesn't really seem like it would be a very fun game for either of you, but I suppose that a game that's fun for neither player is better than one which is fun for one at the expense of the other.

Spare me the moral high ground nonsense. I get enough of that irrelevant claptrap from JonnyDD.

Redbeard wrote:It's not a perfectly balanced game, you're right. But some broken units are more broken than others.

And aren't strictly the domain of FW either... but I'll let you continue:

Redbeard wrote:Are you so willfully ignorant that you can't see how removing some of the more egregious violations from the game makes it more fun for all involved?

Sure. And I would. We don't use the Infernus Shells rules as written because we know they're broken. But you know what:

This in no way changes the fact that a player does not require permission to field FW units any more than he does a standard Codex unit. Whether the unit in question is horribly underpowered or horribly broken has NO bearing on this fact. None.

At all.

I say we roll d6's to decide who is right in this conversation.

GO!

Don't worry I will roll for you...

Redbeard: =

H.M.B.C: =

Wow... okay then.

Wait... re-roll

Redbeard: =

H.M.B.C. = (perhaps a bit of dice-dropping, but hey, the pins are almost down anyway)

I think these dice may be broken as well...

I love the FW items. They look great, and spice up the army list with a little variety. My Land Speeder Tempest fits in great with my Ravenwing, and looks classy to boot. Plus a lot of the rules GW has been coming out with where originally FW rules, so having those items on hand gave you a one up on everyone else model wise. The auto cannon and plasma cannon LR turret, and the drop pod come to mind, always brought a crowed when I plopped one of those down before the plastic one came out.

On that note, FW has better sculpts, with a nuclear period on the end. I can't afford any at the moment, but there is absolutely no way I would deny such cool models access to a table.

H.B.M.C. wrote:
If someone shows up with random FW tank X, then I have no issue with explaining what it does and then we can play. If you decide not to play against it... well... you're a pansy. Pure and simple.

Again, anyone who views the game differently than you gets a derogatory label.

Redbeard wrote:Secondly is the perception that allowing FW into games ups the cost-to-entry.

Oh stop that right now. Monetary cost has nothing to do with whether or not FW items require your opponent's permission in order to use. And I completely reject that it creates a higher cost entry point. If you win a game primarily because of a FW item that's no different to the Chaos player losing a game against another Chaos player who brought 9 Oblits and 2 Lash... now that Chaos player think that in order to win he has to go and get 6 more Oblits and an extra Lash Prince.

To put it another way - "Escalation" is an argument. It's a red herring, and has no bearing on this discussion. Furthermore it's not unique to FW items.

You'll note I stated "perception". Whether or not it is true is irrelevant. There IS the perception that FW items, that cost more, are unfair, and that players who use them to win are doing so because they spent more. Maybe you only play with enlightened, or rich people. I've played against people who have voiced this opinion.
You may believe it's not the case, but that doesn't change their perception of the situation.

Redbeard wrote:Point one is debatable.

He says, without debating it. Too funny...

I haven't seen anything from you resembling a debate either. You slap your fist around and insult people, and you make a lot of noise ignoring points that you don't want to address, but you don't debate.

Redbeard wrote:I see nothing in any current codex that would allow a ninety point model to destroy an entire 1500 point army in one shooting phase.

Give it a rest on the Heavy Mortars. Heavy Mortars are not broken. Infernus Shells are, and I believe their rules were amended from their original version (I think they have to cause casualties now - I could be wrong, it's been a while since I've looked at IA5), but it is up to the players to find a middle ground there. We can blame Warwick "Copypasta" Kincaid for it until the cows come home, but nothing will change there. If you know that Infernus Shells are broken, don't use them. Or, if you do, and bring them anyway, you're as much as pansy as the person who refuses to play against FW units for fear of losing.

First of all, it's not heavy mortars that I'm referring to. It's the assault-cannon deathwind drop pod. The one that you can basically put in front of an opponent's army, and it gets up to 24 assault cannon shots at every enemy unit within some distance, I think 24".

Secondly, it has nothing to do with fear of losing, it has to do with wanting an enjoyable game, rather than one where you set up your models, and then take them off, without having actually done anything. But go ahead calling people names, it seems to make you feel better about yourself.

I'll refer to the preamble in IA2, where he plainly states that the units do not require opponent's permission (any more than standard units do, etc. etc. ad nauseum).

Is that IA2, or IA Vol2? IA2 is no longer current, referring to a preamble in it would be like referring to a rule in 3rd edition - an interesting historical note, but not really applicable anymore.

This in no way changes the fact that a player does not require permission to field FW units any more than he does a standard Codex unit. Whether the unit in question is horribly underpowered or horribly broken has NO bearing on this fact. None.

I never said it did. I took exception to your statement that anyone who didn't want to play against FW units was a pansy. You made a sweeping generalization, without any regard for some people's entirely valid choices about what they want to play against. Rather than stick to the facts, you, for some reason, felt it necessary to throw out insults to anyone who doesn't see the game your way.

I never said that you were wrong with the fact that they don't require opponent consent. But you're 100% wrong that anyone who doesn't want to play against them is a pansy - or any other sort of childish name that you want to resort to. It's an opponent's choice to refuse to play against someone else for whatever reason, including the inclusions of FW items that will make the game unenjoyable for them.

combatmedic wrote:The auto cannon and plasma cannon LR turret, and the drop pod come to mind, always brought a crowed when I plopped one of those down before the plastic one came out.

Actually, the Leman Russ Exterminator(autocannons) was in the 3rd ed IG Codex and was released as a Metal/plastic Hybrid kit before there was ever a FW Resin version of it.

Wow,
This is such a simple issue and has beem degraded to the sides of good and evil in an epic tug of war (metaphorical of course).

Fun to read thought

I would say that FW stuff can be used unless the tournie says they can't. I'm of the opinion that you can always play against sosmething once (and if the guy with the FW stuff is an ass about it then you don't play with them any more).

But that is the same as the other super powered combinations that can be placed down.

The drop pods things,
Those rules are totally crap, I would understand that people don't want them used (But I think the better way to go about it is to ask for them to be 4 shots per gun instead of D6 at everything) and move on would be the best way to go about it,

We all want to play a fun game,
hopefully not just decimate everyone until noone wants to play anymore.

or something like that.

You're sick and you're posting at Dakka. What would your wife say? Go back to bed.

Incidentally, the Deathstorm Drop Pod does 4D3 attacks on every unit within 12", not 4D6 at 24". But please, don't let a silly thing like actually checking the facts get in the way. Whether it's overpowered is still debatable, but that doesn't mean you're allowed to argue the case from false premises.

Redbeard wrote:You'll note I stated "perception". Whether or not it is true is irrelevant. There IS the perception that FW items, that cost more, are unfair, and that players who use them to win are doing so because they spent more. Maybe you only play with enlightened, or rich people. I've played against people who have voiced this opinion.
You may believe it's not the case, but that doesn't change their perception of the situation.

That it's a commonly held perception still doesn't mean it needs to be given any attention whatsoever. I much prefer to deal with the facts, not shadowboxing with the misconceptions of the witless multitude. I'm not responsible for educating them. If they can't cope, what do I care?

Redbeard wrote: Or if I think that a deathwind drop pod that can fire d6 *4 rending shots at every unit I have within 24" of where it lands is ludicrous for 90 points?

Actually, it's 95pts and it fires D3 assault cannon shots at units with 12" and line of sight on the turn it lands. On subsequent turns it fires a single shot at one unit.

I think that's okay. It does force your opponent to spread out his deployment a bit but an unlucky scatter can make it fairly useless. After the first turn it's a free kill point whenever your opponent feels like taking it. It also takes a heavy support slot.

How many games have you played with or against deathwinds? I'm guessing none.

Scott-S6 wrote:How many games have you played with or against deathwinds?

How many has he played against 9 Heavy Mortars w/Infernus Shells?

combatmedic wrote:I love the FW items. They look great, and spice up the army list with a little variety. My Land Speeder Tempest fits in great with my Ravenwing, and looks classy to boot. Plus a lot of the rules GW has been coming out with where originally FW rules, so having those items on hand gave you a one up on everyone else model wise. The auto cannon and plasma cannon LR turret, and the drop pod come to mind, always brought a crowed when I plopped one of those down before the plastic one came out.

Ah yes, whenever I field my D-99 Elysians the kiddies go wild at the sight of actual FW stuff facing their "own crappy plastics" as one put it. Most of the awe is replaced with"hurhurhur" when they see how they perform in the coming battle. Granted, with Apocalypse FW has gotten more common so the shock of playing against FW stuff has worn off by now.

H.B.M.C. wrote:

Scott-S6 wrote:How many games have you played with or against deathwinds?

How many has he played against 9 Heavy Mortars w/Infernus Shells?

Probably the same number.

Scott-S6 wrote:
Actually, it's 95pts and it fires D3 assault cannon shots at units with 12" and line of sight on the turn it lands. On subsequent turns it fires a single shot at one unit.

I think that's okay. It does force your opponent to spread out his deployment a bit but an unlucky scatter can make it fairly useless. After the first turn it's a free kill point whenever your opponent feels like taking it. It also takes a heavy support slot.

How many games have you played with or against deathwinds? I'm guessing none.

You're right, I've played no games against these. I'm relaying what my brother told me about his experience playing against them, in a pickup game at a local shop. But, this does reinforce my point about the rules for FW items not being easily accessible, so that when someone who owns them feels that they need to cheat with them, there isn't an easy way to check it.

But this isn't about me, or at least it wasn't until HBMC decided that it should be. I've never refused anyone a game for any reason, least of all their use of FW items. I simply don't think it's right to call someone a childish name because of their choice whether or not to play against something they believe to be unfair.

H.B.M.C. wrote:You're sick and you're posting at Dakka. What would your wife say? Go back to bed.

Oh look, more personal attacks. Big surprise. What are you, like 12?

Agamemnon2 wrote:Incidentally, the Deathstorm Drop Pod does 4D3 attacks on every unit within 12", not 4D6 at 24". But please, don't let a silly thing like actually checking the facts get in the way. Whether it's overpowered is still debatable, but that doesn't mean you're allowed to argue the case from false premises.

I don't own the $90 book that would be required to check the facts, as I stated above, I am conveying a story that happened to my brother, who also doesn't own the book. Again, part of the problem with FW stuff is that the rules aren't easy or cheap to get ahold of.

If you go to a game store, and, because no opponent's permission is required to use FW items, your opponent drops a drop pod in the center of your lines, and starts rolling a lot of dice, what do you do? You ask to see the rules on it, and they say they left them at home. Now what? It isn't like the game store has a copy on the shelf that you can reference, so you take your opponent at their word. And maybe later a stranger on the internet lets you know that your opponent was a cheating git, but until then, all you know is that one 95 point model destroyed your whole army, and maybe you don't want to play against FW stuff anymore.

That it's a commonly held perception still doesn't mean it needs to be given any attention whatsoever. I much prefer to deal with the facts, not shadowboxing with the misconceptions of the witless multitude. I'm not responsible for educating them. If they can't cope, what do I care?

Well, educating the multitude, in this case, is what would solve the problem. If people don't want to play against FW stuff because of a common misconception about it, and you have FW stuff that you want to play with, don't you think it is in your best interest to correct those misconceptions, so that you'll be able to find games?

H.B.M.C. wrote:

Scott-S6 wrote:How many games have you played with or against deathwinds?

How many has he played against 9 Heavy Mortars w/Infernus Shells?

And then HBMC has to make more personal attacks.

Redbeard wrote:
You're right, I've played no games against these. I'm relaying what my brother told me about his experience playing against them, in a pickup game at a local shop. But, this does reinforce my point about the rules for FW items not being easily accessible, so that when someone who owns them feels that they need to cheat with them, there isn't an easy way to check it.

I don't own the $90 book that would be required to check the facts, as I stated above, I am conveying a story that happened to my brother, who also doesn't own the book. Again, part of the problem with FW stuff is that the rules aren't easy or cheap to get ahold of.

Actually, all the marine and inquistion/grey knight rules (from IA2) are available to download for free since they changed it all to match the new codex.

Also, if someone wants to play any rules and doesn't have the appropriate codex/IA book/download/whatever and can't borrow one then he's out of luck. I've pulled models out of my list in the past when I've left my IA books at home (I carry photocopies of the useful pages stapled to my roster sheet these days)

I've seen the exact same thing at clubs with people who play unusual armies and "forget" their codex at which point they pull all of the rules and stats out their arses.

The FW models as substitutes for standard GW metal and plastic kits has been adequately addressed. The models aren't the problem anyway. It's the rules.

The FW rules aren't a part of standard 40k. When you ask an opponent if he wants to play a game of 40k then he expects to play just 40k, not apocalypse, cities of death or planetstrike. Essentially when you plan on using FW rules you are asking an opponent if he wants to play 40k +FW which is different from regular 40k. It's in your interest to make that clear when establishing the parameters of the game. Plopping down FW stuff and telling your opponent you don't need his permission to use it when he is expecting standard 40k is not a recipe for success. Calling him names when he declines the game at that point doesn't help much either.

*smiles broadly*

Redbeard wrote:You're right, I've played no games against these. I'm relaying what my brother told me about his experience playing against them, in a pickup game at a local shop. But, this does reinforce my point about the rules for FW items not being easily accessible, so that when someone who owns them feels that they need to cheat with them, there isn't an easy way to check it.

Whoa... ok, so now someone using the FW rules as written (balanced or not) is cheating. My my Readbeard, you've gone off that deep end.

Redbeard wrote:But this isn't about me, or at least it wasn't until HBMC decided that it should be.

Persecution complex much? I made a broad statement, you came right for the jugular with "So I'm a pansy if...". I didn't start this my friend. You did.

But nevertheless, this isn't about either of us really. What it is about - despite all the straw-filled red herrings you've thrown - is the legality of FW items and the "permission required-ness" of said rules. And here the rules of Imperial Armour are quite clear. I'm not going to repeat myself for the FIFTH time. I'm sure you can read one of my previous posts.

Redbeard wrote:I've never refused anyone a game for any reason, least of all their use of FW items. I simply don't think it's right to call someone a childish name because of their choice whether or not to play against something they believe to be unfair.

Ah! The truth comes out at last. That's why you decided to pick a fight with me. Do you feel better now? I do. I love the smell of pointless internet debates in the morning.

Redbeard wrote:Oh look, more personal attacks. Big surprise. What are you, like 12?

Makaleth is a friend of mine. He's part of my gaming group. And really, he is actually sick at home. But you weren't to know that... still, your reaction was priceless.

Redbeard wrote:I don't own the $90 book that would be required to check the facts, as I stated above, I am conveying a story that happened to my brother, who also doesn't own the book. Again, part of the problem with FW stuff is that the rules aren't easy or cheap to get ahold of.

That's true. What else is true is that it has no bearing whatsoever on the legality and "permission required-ness" of IA rules. This getting through yet?

Redbeard wrote:If you go to a game store, and, because no opponent's permission is required to use FW items, your opponent drops a drop pod in the center of your lines, and starts rolling a lot of dice, what do you do? You ask to see the rules on it, and they say they left them at home. Now what? It isn't like the game store has a copy on the shelf that you can reference, so you take your opponent at their word. And maybe later a stranger on the internet lets you know that your opponent was a cheating git, but until then, all you know is that one 95 point model destroyed your whole army, and maybe you don't want to play against FW stuff anymore.

Oh no! All aboard the meaningless argument train - first stop, absurdity!

What your describing, Redbeard, is a situation that I'm sure can, has and will happen in the future. You know what else is true about your hypothetical situation?

It's got nothing to do - at all - the legality and "permission required-ness" of IA rules.

Redbeard wrote:Well, educating the multitude, in this case, is what would solve the problem. If people don't want to play against FW stuff because of a common misconception about it, and you have FW stuff that you want to play with, don't you think it is in your best interest to correct those misconceptions, so that you'll be able to find games?

A fair point. And best way to do that is to play a game with them so they can see how much (usually) they suck and maybe discover imbalances (both for and against the unit) together. But of course none of this matters because the original point of contention was whether or not IA rules required the permission of your opponent (any more than any other unit in the game, etc. etc.) and the answer is still a resounding NO.

Redbeard wrote:And then HBMC has to make more personal attacks.

You have an interesting defintion of personal attack.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Arschbombe wrote:Essentially when you plan on using FW rules you are asking an opponent if he wants to play 40k +FW which is different from regular 40k.

Not according to IA2, which quite clearly states that all the FW units are completely legal and require no opponent's permission (any more than any other unit in the game, etc. etc. and I'm sick of typing that line out now).

Arschbombe wrote:Plopping down FW stuff and telling your opponent you don't need his permission to use it when he is expecting standard 40k is not a recipe for success.

See now we're talking about sportsmanship, which is a separate issue and yes, I'd agree, just going "I'm using this and there's nothing you can do about it" would be a bad way to conduct one's self in a game. Still though, doesn't change the fact that FW units are completely legal and require no opponent's permission (any more than any other unit in the game, etc. etc. and my fingers'll fall off if I have to type that again).

For the sake of the lazy or ignorant, this the IA2 document referred.

Not quite. I refer to the foreword at the start of the actual IA2 book.

Should I provide a page scan then of the relevant part?

Wow..welcome to useless internet argument #1,00,339,999.

GG

Quoting it would do.

But let me save you the trouble:

"... The very idea that some vehicles are 'legal' and some not seems odd to me. All the vehicles within this book exist in the 41st Millennium, they are deployed to do battle against the Emperor's foes. It is not a case of legality, it is an actuality. Generally, players should not pick and choose what equipment their opponent can or can't use. The idea that an Ork Warboss or Eldar Farseer can somehow object to the Land Raider Helios or Tarantula sentry guns is strange.

In the past we have advised players to seek their opponent's permission, but this seems an unsatisfactory solution. Of course you need your opponent's permission to play any game, unless you intend to force people to play you (There we go, that kills that argument dead - Ed)! Eldar players don't feel they need permission to field their Avatar, although each Craftworld has just one, only awoken in direst need. Using this 'opponent's permission' system I believe that too often players object, felling that their opponent is getting an unfair advantage, which is actually nonsense. By all means ask permission, but how this is different to organising any game? Your opponent is, by agreeing to play you, giving you permission to use your miniatures collection.

In my opinion, the root cause of all 'legality' issues comes from the predominant culture of points based wargaming. Address this and many 'legality' issues vanish. Many players do not realise that points based gaming is only one style of gaming... (Yadda, yadda, yadda - Ed)

... All this goes out the window when it comes to tournaments. Tournaments have their own rules, so whether you can use Imperial Armour vehicles and rules is really up to the tournmanet organisers.

..."

And then he goes on to talk about backrounds. The bit in the middle I omitted was talk about designing custom scenarios. The implications of what Copypasta is saying are quire clear - "[P]layers should not pick and choose what equipment their opponent can and can't use."

And from IA one:

"... Firstly is, when can I use my Forge World models, are they 'legal'? The real answer to this is that it is soley up to the players involved in the game (Note: 'Players', collective, not 'opponent', singular - Ed) - if the players agree then anything goes, after all it is there game, their hobby and their free time. Of course, I understand that not all players can agree over such matters..., and need an official ruling from high. The answer then is yes, feel free, use these vehicles, none of them will 'ruin' the game by giving an unfair advantage, in fact I think they can only enhance it."

Copypasta then goes onto explain that there are some limitations, specifically the limitations or restrictions on Super-Heavy vehicles, which is, amazingly, exactly what I said in my second post in this thread, if y'all had cared to pay attention:

"The Imperial Armour rules themselves are 100% ... [blah blah blah] ... and would only ever be illegal ... [if you] haven't met any required inbuilt restrictions (ie. not a high enough points level to bring a Super Heavy, etc.)."

Happy everyone?

H.B.M.C. wrote:

Redbeard wrote:You're right, I've played no games against these. I'm relaying what my brother told me about his experience playing against them, in a pickup game at a local shop. But, this does reinforce my point about the rules for FW items not being easily accessible, so that when someone who owns them feels that they need to cheat with them, there isn't an easy way to check it.

Whoa... ok, so now someone using the FW rules as written (balanced or not) is cheating. My my Readbeard, you've gone off that deep end.

My brother played a guy who used a forgeworld deathwind droppod.
His opponent did not have the rules with him. His opponent claimed that his droppod got d6 assault cannon shots at all of my brother's units within 24" of where it landed. My brother took him at his word.
Two people in this thread have since claimed that the actual rules for this droppod are that it gets d3 assault cannon shots at all units within 12".
Therefore, my brother's opponent cheated, as he did not use the rules as written.
My brother no longer wishes to play against people who use FW items, as a result of this experience.

Everyone else was able to figure this out, but you're dead set on proving how superior you are, you completely ignored what I wrote in favor of an interpretation that was never even hinted at.

But nevertheless, this isn't about either of us really. What it is about - despite all the straw-filled red herrings you've thrown - is the legality of FW items and the "permission required-ness" of said rules. And here the rules of Imperial Armour are quite clear. I'm not going to repeat myself for the FIFTH time. I'm sure you can read one of my previous posts.

You keep harping on this, and I've never questioned it. What I have questioned is your need to insult people who don't want to play against FW items, for any number of reasons, including prior situations that they've been in against cheating opponents.

See now we're talking about sportsmanship, which is a separate issue and yes, I'd agree, just going "I'm using this and there's nothing you can do about it" would be a bad way to conduct one's self in a game. Still though, doesn't change the fact that FW units are completely legal and require no opponent's permission (any more than any other unit in the game, etc. etc. and my fingers'll fall off if I have to type that again).

Wait, it's poor conduct to say "i'm using this and there's nothing you can do about", but not poor conduct to call someone a pansy if they question you using it? These seem like equally poor behaviours to me.

Ok this is how I personally would handle a situation like this. If someone dropped down some cool FW anything, Id admire it, oogle at its splendor, and continue the game. Now if they started dropping a gak ton of dice, saying it does all this and that, Id demand to see the rules for it. If they conveniently let the rules at home, Id stop them right there. I dont CARE if someone uses FW stuff. It looks nice, and is pretty. But if they dont have any type of rules to prove that it does indeed drop a million hits on my army, then I wouldnt allow that to happen. At all. Period. If they have a problem with it, then I guess its about to get heated, because I dont allow people to cheat me, specially not in a game.
Thats how everyone should handle things like that, not a flame war, where we sit and insult each other in a pissing match over the internet. Just deal with it like an adult, and stop complaining and throwing words at one another.

Redbeard wrote:My brother played a guy who used a forgeworld deathwind droppod.
His opponent did not have the rules with him. His opponent claimed that his droppod got d6 assault cannon shots at all of my brother's units within 24" of where it landed. My brother took him at his word.
Two people in this thread have since claimed that the actual rules for this droppod are that it gets d3 assault cannon shots at all units within 12".
Therefore, my brother's opponent cheated, as he did not use the rules as written.
My brother no longer wishes to play against people who use FW items, as a result of this experience.

Two things... no... three:

1. Do you know that the person involved actually cheated, or is there a chance that they honestly forgot?
2. No impact on the legality of the rules and so on and so forth blah blah blah as I've said a dozen times now.
3. If that truly is the case, then your brother is narrow-minded. But let me ask this - If someone shows up with a FW unit and the rulebook and shows him beforehand, will he play then. Or is it just a case of "FW... nope. Not playing that."

As for the rest of your post... read my quotes above and let's put this issue to bed.

KingCracker wrote:Just deal with it like an adult, and stop complaining and throwing words at one another.

But it's an internet forum KingCracker. Words are all we have man! What else could I do? Sit here and glare angrily at my monitor? Well... I 'spose I could do that, but it probably wouldn't solve anything.

Hm, glaring at the monitor is like entering a staring contest you can never win.

H.B.M.C. wrote:
Not according to IA2, which quite clearly states that all the FW units are completely legal and require no opponent's permission (any more than any other unit in the game, etc. etc. and I'm sick of typing that line out now).

It doesn't matter what IA2 says. It doesn't matter how many times you type it or say it to someone. The fact is that IA2 is not part of normal 40k and random opponents in pick up games have no expectation that it will be used regardless of its official status according to GW. What they expect is something from the codices that are actually regularly available in stores. The problem with IA rules is that they're not sold in independent retailers and even most GW stores. GW doesn't sell it on their website. It is outside the mainstream of 40k. That's the crux of the issue: FW rules are obscure and exotic.

My recommendation is not to harp on what IA2 says and try to bulldoze your opponent. That won't get you many games. If you include FW units, you should have a backup list that doesn't include them, have a scan of their rules available for your opponent and then dicuss them with him before the game. Make your opponent comfortable with the unit(s) and convince him you're using it because the model is cool not because you think it will give you an advantage.

Actually ass bomb..

Imperial Armour books are standard kit for GW stores and their on-line store.

They may standard kit on the online store, and I'm not even sure about that, as while the link you posted works, clicking the books doesn't appear to, and you cannot add them to your cart. They're certainly not standard in any of the GW stores I've been in.

KingCracker wrote:Now if they started dropping a gak ton of dice, saying it does all this and that, Id demand to see the rules for it. If they conveniently let the rules at home, Id stop them right there.

Surely the exact same is true if someone's using an army with a codex you don't know?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

H.B.M.C. wrote:*smiles broadly*

Redbeard wrote:You're right, I've played no games against these. I'm relaying what my brother told me about his experience playing against them, in a pickup game at a local shop. But, this does reinforce my point about the rules for FW items not being easily accessible, so that when someone who owns them feels that they need to cheat with them, there isn't an easy way to check it.

Whoa... ok, so now someone using the FW rules as written (balanced or not) is cheating. My my Readbeard, you've gone off that deep end.

Not what redbeard was saying at all.

I can add them to my cart just fine from where I'm sitting.

Arschbombe wrote: If you include FW units, you should have a backup list that doesn't include them, have a scan of their rules available for your opponent and then dicuss them with him before the game.

All players should have rules for their army available regardless of whether they're FW or not.

Make your opponent comfortable with the unit(s) and convince him you're using it because the model is cool not because you think it will give you an advantage.

If I'm spending points on a FW item rather than a codex item then of course I'm doing it for advantage. While they may not be especially points efficient, the extra variety of FW units can be used to good effect when combined with the rest of your army. (MM razorbacks are a much-needed anti-tank boost if, like me, you have a strong dislike of attack bikes)

BrookM wrote:Actually ass bomb..

Imperial Armour books are standard kit for GW stores and their on-line store.

Interesting. I can follow your link and see the books. I cannot arrive at that page from anywhere else on the site. I have no link for IA books. They're not under expansions. They're not under rulebooks. They're not under codexes. When I do click on them using your link I get an error because the item has no price.
It was the same whether on the UK site, German site or US site.

Odd that, the US site lacks them but the UK and NE site has them up for sale.

Found the link on both the UK and Dutch sites. It looks to me like most of the sites just feed off the UK site and those that don't (US, Canada, Spain, Germany, Italy, Autralia etc) don't have links for the IA books. I think it reinforces my point that IA stuff is optional material that is not part of the core 40k game.

Right, I'll avoid Kansas next time I come over to play then.

BrookM wrote:Right, I'll avoid Kansas next time I come over to play then.

Awesome. We don't need any Forgeworld-toting kaaskoppen.

Arschbombe wrote:Found the link on both the UK and Dutch sites. It looks to me like most of the sites just feed off the UK site and those that don't (US, Canada, Spain, Germany, Italy, Autralia etc) don't have links for the IA books. I think it reinforces my point that IA stuff is optional material that is not part of the core 40k game.

So because it's not in the craphole of an online store that is the US site...it's not part of the core game? So, by your logic Apocalypse and Planetstrike and Cities of Death, are standard rules and I should be able to have stratagems whenever I want. Hooray!

IA1+2 are fine, or will be once IA1 gets brought up to speed with the new IG codex. I'm actually thinking Forge World might be redoing IA1 for that purpose alone, given how dramatically the Guard codex changed since the first printing.

It's when you get into the realm of the Taros campaign, Anphelion, and the Vraksian Siege that things can get muddled. The Elysian list makes for some dang interesting gaming from Taros though, as does D-99. And frankly, Anphelion's corridor fighting rules and the Imperial defenses present in the codex should have been put into the Guard codex. Sabre batteries are far, far too cool to pass up.
Can't really comment on Vraks, as I only read it in passing at my FLGS before they went under.

Kanluwen wrote: So, by your logic Apocalypse and Planetstrike and Cities of Death, are standard rules and I should be able to have stratagems whenever I want. Hooray!

Uh, no. They are expansions. They are additions to the core game. To play 40k you need the rules and at least one codex. You don't need CoD, Planetstrike or Apoc to play 40k just like you don't need any IA book. Those are all optional additions. That's what the FW crowd doesn't seem to get. IA stuff is optional, you can't make anyone opt in and you really have no grounds for complaint when someone declines your attempt to tilt the field in your favor by using obscure units and rules with which they are unfamiliar.

Arschbombe wrote:

Kanluwen wrote: So, by your logic Apocalypse and Planetstrike and Cities of Death, are standard rules and I should be able to have stratagems whenever I want. Hooray!

Uh, no. They are expansions. They are additions to the core game. To play 40k you need the rules and at least one codex. You don't need CoD, Planetstrike or Apoc to play 40k just like you don't need any IA book. Those are all optional additions. That's what the FW crowd doesn't seem to get. IA stuff is optional, you can't make anyone opt in and you really have no grounds for complaint when someone declines your attempt to tilt the field in your favor by using obscure units and rules with which they are unfamiliar.

Sorry, but no. The IA stuff, if you want to field it, is about as optional as an army book.

As long as you BRING the rules with you, and the rules fit with the current game being played(ex: Superheavy Detachments only allowable in games alongside a force of at least 2k points) it shouldn't be an issue. People making it an issue is absurd. You'd call someone out if they tried to plop an army down on the table without the rules for that army present, in some form or another.

Arschbombe wrote:

Kanluwen wrote: So, by your logic Apocalypse and Planetstrike and Cities of Death, are standard rules and I should be able to have stratagems whenever I want. Hooray!

Uh, no. They are expansions. They are additions to the core game. To play 40k you need the rules and at least one codex. You don't need CoD, Planetstrike or Apoc to play 40k just like you don't need any IA book. Those are all optional additions. That's what the FW crowd doesn't seem to get. IA stuff is optional, you can't make anyone opt in and you really have no grounds for complaint when someone declines your attempt to tilt the field in your favor by using obscure units and rules with which they are unfamiliar.

Somehow I doubt that one is familiar with all the regular armies and whatnots. Using the "oh gak I don't know that one" a.k.a. refusal of the unknown comment is rather weak.

Arschbombe wrote:It doesn't matter what IA2 says.

I'll break this down into a dialogue for you:

Arschbombe: They're optional!
HBMC: No they're not *posts quotes directly from the rulebooks in question showing where it plainly says that it's not optional*
Arschbombe: The rules don't matter. I'm right because... uhh... well just because! I don't need to listen to your 'rules' and your 'proof', or your 'quotes' from the guy who 'wrote the rules'. My own made up opinion on what counts and what doesn't trumps an official Games Workshop publication.

Am I close? That is what you're saying, right?

My hero!

Kanluwen wrote:
Sorry, but no. The IA stuff, if you want to field it, is about as optional as an army book.

Really? Then why are they so rare? Why don't the major tourneys allow them except in no-holds-barred events like the Adepticon Gladiator event? Not even the 'Ard Boyz lets you use them.

You don't need the IA books to play standard 40k, Apoc or Planetstrike. That, by definition, makes them optional.

Scott-S6 wrote:If I'm spending points on a FW item rather than a codex item then of course I'm doing it for advantage.

That is such a crazily false statement that I thought it worth pointing out (not to mention that this statement seemingly claims the intent of everyone using FW items).

Before they became Codex units, I took a Leman Russ Executioner to lead my 'Odd-Ball' Leman Russ Company because I had a cool idea for the commander - a nutcase who loves the risks involved with using a massive plasma tank. The Executioner (was) a complete load of gak. Overpriced and woefully undergunned, bringing it was a liability, but I brought it anyway as I loved the idea of this crazy Tallarn commander waving his pistol around whilst his tank advanced forward.

For my Mordians I wanted a variety of units in my Artillery Company, so I got three Manticores and a Bombard (a unit that's not all that good) to go with the 3 Basilisks and 2 Griffons. I also picked up an enclosed Basilisk because it looked cool, and made a great Command Tank for my Arty Company, not because it provided any advantage (no one with a brain ever took Armoured Crew Compartment on a Bassie). The Bombard I mentioned I bought because it was my fav piece of Arty from Epic, and I had fond memories of using it to blow up buildings in Final Liberation.

So:

A). Not all people who take FW units are looking for an advantage. That's an idiotic and blatantly false statement that presumes to know what everyone is thinking.
B). It is difficult to get an advantage using FW units because most of them are so hideously over priced or underpowered or sometimes both.
C). Some people just buy models because they look cool.

H.B.M.C. wrote:

Arschbombe wrote:It doesn't matter what IA2 says.

I'll break this down into a dialogue for you:

Arschbombe: They're optional!
HBMC: No they're not *posts quotes directly from the rulebooks in question showing where it plainly says that it's not optional*
[b]Arschbombe: The rules don't matter. I'm right because... uhh... well just because! I don't need to listen to your 'rules' and your 'proof'. or your 'quotes' from the guy who 'wrote the rules'. My own made up opinion on what counts and what doesn't trumps an official Games Workshop publication.

Am I close? That is what you're saying, right?

Brilliant. Absolutely brilliant. I am truly stunned by the greatness of your intellect. Please try to wrap your epic intellect around the notion that something can be both legal and optional for use in 40k. IA: legal, optional. Planetstrike: legal, optional. Apoc: legal, optional. There's a pattern here. Maybe you can decipher it.

Arschbombe wrote:Really? Then why are they so rare?

Because they're expensive. Duh.

Arschbombe wrote:Why don't the major tourneys allow them except in no-holds-barred events like the Adepticon Gladiator event?

For two reasons:

1. The persistant misconception that FW units are somehow overpowered.
2. To avoid some of the situations we've been talking about, where someone has a heavily FW'ed army and 'forgets' the rules, leaving their clueless opponent at the whims of any TFG clever enough to try.

Arschbombe wrote:Not even the 'Ard Boyz lets you use them.

Which means all of nothing.

Arschbombe wrote:You don't need the IA books to play standard 40k, Apoc or Planetstrike. That, by definition, makes them optional.

You don't need all of the Codices to play 40K either. In fact, you could just pick one, and play that endlessly against an army from the same Codex. That would make the others optional wouldn't it, by your extremely messed up and utterly illogical attempt at logic, no?

But, once again for the record:

Forgeworld Rulebook, official publication of Games Workshop < your standards of rules.

Just so we're clear? You trump the written word of Games Workshop just because... well just because you do. Right?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Arschbombe wrote:Brilliant. Absolutely brilliant. I am truly stunned by the greatness of your intellect. Please try to wrap your epic intellect around the notion that something can be both legal and optional for use in 40k. IA: legal, optional. Planetstrike: legal, optional. Apoc: legal, optional. There's a pattern here. Maybe you can decipher it.

Like I said to Redbeard on the previous page - it would have been quicker to just say "Yes". And the thing is you're now making up definitions. Something is legal yet optional. Can something be illegal yet not optional?

The rules in IA state they do not require permission, and I've quoted the relevant parts of the rules where it states this. That's all you need to know and that's all that matters. You may not like it, but that's hardly anyone else's problem and making up your own conditions and standards for what counts and what doesn't is absurd (and goes against the RAW, as it happens) I certainly can see your POV - I don't like the Chaos Codex and according to a thread in discussions there are a lot of other people that agree with me - but guess what? It's still the rules. I could make up some nonsense about it being optional but legal because... well just because (!)... but I'd be making that up and not following the rules.

Do you want to not follow the rules Arschbombe? Because the rules - y'know, the things that govern this game - state:

"...players should not pick and choose what equipment their opponent can or can't use..." and "... not all players can agree ... and need an official ruling ... The answer then is yes, feel free, use these vehicles..."

There's really no counter argument to the rules.

H.B.M.C. wrote:

Arschbombe wrote:Not even the 'Ard Boyz lets you use them.

Which means all of nothing.

Oh, I think it does. The one tournament GW runs that is supposed to separate the men from the boys and determine who's the hardest of the hard does not allow your preciousss FW stuff. Haven't you told them that their own rules are official and that you can use them?

But, once again for the record:

Forgeworld Rulebook, official publication of Games Workshop < your standards of rules.

Just so we're clear? You trump the written word of Games Workshop just because... well just because you do. Right?

Not saying that at all. I invite you to take a look at any of the GW sites. Look in 40k under 40 essentials. Do you see any mention of IA there? Nope. Take a look at any of the sites under Books and look at the section called Rulebooks. Are there any IA books there either? Nope. I wonder why that is. Could it be that they just aren't a part of the core 40k rule set like the rulebook and codices?

Anyway, best of luck to you with your "GW says I can so there" mantra with the FW rules. I'm sure it will work very well for you and get you many, many games.

Well going by your argument of its not on the GW site (and the IA books are there on the GW uk site), does that mean that you will refuse to play a space wolf player, or a blood angle player becourse there books are no longer on the gw site, so are no longer part of the "core rules"????

I'm not sure that your recursive proof is actually all that valid.

Party 1) I don't think that book is valid
Party 2) The book is valid because the book says it is valid.
Party 1) If the book is not valid, then the part of the book saying that it is doesn't matter.


The main 40k rulebook defines what you need to play. On page vi, it says a rulebook is necessary. On page vii, it says that a codex is included in what you need to play the game. No where is an IA book included as part of what you need to play. The 40k rules are permissive, not restrictive, they define what you can do, not what you cannot. There is no rule in the main 40k book that says you can include IA rules in a normal game of 40k. Therefore, you cannot. If the IA book is not included in what is needed to play a game of 40k, then why does anything printed in it matter at all?

If you choose to play with an expansion game, such as Cities of Death, then that is something both players agree to, and this expansion then defines additional elements that are included, such as the Cities of Death rulebook. If you choose to play a game including IA elements, then you have made that choice.

Can you show where it says that an IA book is part of the game of 40k, in the 40k rulebook? If not, I really don't think anything printed it matters at all. By default, an opponent who chooses to play 40k should be able to do so without expecting to encounter something that isn't included as part of the game by the main rulebook.

While I always thought that FW stuff was opponent's permission only, it's remarkable clear from HBMC's clear and concise quoting of the rules from IA2 that this is not, in fact the case.

Arschbombe, redbeard, where is your quote from a GW or FW publication that states that FW stuff is optional?

Oh and can I have GBP900 for a Manta?

chaplaingrabthar wrote:
Arschbombe, redbeard, where is your quote from a GW or FW publication that states that FW stuff is optional?

I reckon you just missed it. The 40k rules are permissive, unless they say you can do something, you cannot. No where in the rules does it say that you can use the IA books. Whatever the IA books say is irrelevant, as they're not part of the defined set of what constitutes a 40k game.

Redbeard wrote:I reckon you just missed it.

Hard to miss something that doesn't exist.

Redbeard wrote:The 40k rules are permissive, unless they say you can do something, you cannot.

Now you're just getting desperate. But if you want to go down this road, by all means, let's skip down it together.

Redbeard wrote:No where in the rules does it say that you can use the IA books.

I want specific quotes saying where and when I'm allowed to use each Codex.
I want specific quotes telling me I can used Apocalypse.
I want specific quotes that tell me I can use CoD.
I want specific quotes that tell me I can use Planetstrike.

You opened this door, so the burden of proof is on you now Redbeard. If this is the line of argument you're taking - ill-advised as it may be - then prove it. Until then, it's nothing but your wish or desire for these rules to be optional vs actual quotes from the books themselves saying they're not.

Redbeard wrote:Whatever the IA books say is irrelevant

Translation: The written rules in an official GW publication are irrelevant.

Redbeard wrote:...as they're not part of the defined set of what constitutes a 40k game.

Based on... what? What benchmark other than your own opinion are you basing that on.

Now come on Redbeard. It's your hand to deal, balls in your court, [insert other cliché here]. I've done my job. I've backed up my assertions with hard evidence and quotes that quite clearly explain my point of view and the facts of the matter. Until you can do the same you've got little more than "Uhh... 'cause I said so!" on your side.

I'm genuinely interested to see what you come up with.

Oops! Missed this one:

Redbeard wrote: I don't think that book is valid

Because... why exactly? How? Based on what? Do you have an answer to that? You seem to think that just because you "think" it isn't valid, it therefore isn't valid. I'm sorry bucko, but what you 'think' isn't good enough. You need to prove it. I don't care what your opionion is - your opinions or what you 'think' is just as irrelevant as my own in this context - I want you to proove what you're saying. I can think that the sky is green and that Imperial Armour requires the permission of Jervis and only Jervis before I can use it, but it doesn't make me right unless I can prove it. I've proven what I came here to say, with direct quotes from an official Games Workshop product. You say that those quotes are wrong... now prove why.

Help me to help you=[insert other cliché here]

That's one of my favorite ones, personally.

fynn wrote:Well going by your argument of its not on the GW site (and the IA books are there on the GW uk site), does that mean that you will refuse to play a space wolf player, or a blood angle player becourse there books are no longer on the gw site, so are no longer part of the "core rules"????

Um, the SW codex was withdrawn because they're getting a new one soon. This hardly invalidates the army. They are in the rule book and on the site too. Blood Angels are likewise in the rulebook, have a readily accessible codex on the GW site and are still listed under the 40k armies on the site. BTW, I play Blood Angels.

chaplaingrabthar wrote:While I always thought that FW stuff was opponent's permission only, it's remarkable clear from HBMC's clear and concise quoting of the rules from IA2 that this is not, in fact the case.

Arschbombe, redbeard, where is your quote from a GW or FW publication that states that FW stuff is optional?

Show me where it is required. If it isn't required then it must be optional.

H.B.M.C. wrote:

Redbeard wrote:The 40k rules are permissive, unless they say you can do something, you cannot.

Now you're just getting desperate. But if you want to go down this road, by all means, let's skip down it together.

So you agree that this is true, that the rules are permissive. Good.

Redbeard wrote:No where in the rules does it say that you can use the IA books.

I want specific quotes saying where and when I'm allowed to use each Codex.

Page viii of the main rulebook states that you use a codex to choose your army, and that it contains the army specific rules. Throughout the rulebook, references to using your codex exist, I am not going to list them all for you.

I want specific quotes telling me I can used Apocalypse.
I want specific quotes that tell me I can use CoD.
I want specific quotes that tell me I can use Planetstrike.

These are expansions. When you meet a friend to play 40k, you play standard 40k. When you meet a friend to play planetstrike, by definition, you're not playing standard 40k anymore. The main rulebook references all the expansions that were in print at the time of its printing on pages 274-281

You opened this door, so the burden of proof is on you now Redbeard. If this is the line of argument you're taking - ill-advised as it may be - then prove it.

You're blowing hot air now because you know I'm right. This is a solid logical basis for how to solve this question.

If you are playing standard 40k, you start with the 40k rulebook, and you see what it tells you is involved in a game of standard 40k. If you want to play a non-standard game of 40k, including games from other companies, that's on you and your opponent. But if you're playing standard 40k, how can you claim that you should be using a rulebook that nothing in the standard 40k rulebook tells you to use?

Translation: The written rules in an official GW publication are irrelevant.

I have rules for my fantasy models. They don't go in standard games of 40k. Why not? That's an official GW publication too. I have rules for my Dark Heresy characters. That's an officially licensed 40k supplement. Why don't they go in standard games of 40k?

You have to start somewhere. In the case of playing 40k, you start with the rulebook, and it tells you what to add from there. IA books are not mentioned anywhere in this. If you and your opponent agree to play a variant of 40k where you use IA, then by all means refer to IA books. But if you're playing 40k, you have to base what is allowed, or not, on what is in the rulebook.

You say you've backed up your position, but you haven't even attempted to explain why we should believe that IA books are part of a game of standard 40k. Until you can do that, nothing you cite from within an IA book has any value whatsoever in what's allowed in a standard game of 40k.

So that invalidates the Elysian Detachment 99 list, the Krieg siege lists, or the Renegade PDF lists?

Gotcha.


Your stance on disallowing Imperial Armor because it's "not readily available" is moronic. I could disallow people from playing Dark Eldar, Space Wolves, or Blood Angels in the fact that I don't have the codexes readily available to me. Or the Witchhunters, Daemonhunters, new SM, new Eldar, new Orks codexes either.

So you better bring your Guard, Tyranids, CSM, or an Imperial Armour list because otherwise I WON'T PLAY WITH YOU!

(Protip: That was my impersonation of the whiners there.)


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Quick addendum:

You shouldn't have any issues, whatsoever, if the person BRINGS THE BOOK WITH THEM.
End of story.
Fin.
Game over man, game over.

Redbeard wrote:

chaplaingrabthar wrote:
Arschbombe, redbeard, where is your quote from a GW or FW publication that states that FW stuff is optional?

I reckon you just missed it.

Then please, enlighten me with the quotes.

Arguing that Imperial Armour somehow isn't part of the game because it's not specifically mentioned in the rulebook is about as flying rodent gak insane as you can get.

By your logic then IA can never be used, ever, under any circumstances because the rulebook never specifically states that it can. Ditto for Apoc, CoD and Planetstrike for that matter. Apply Occam's Razor to that for a moment - see that whatever applies to CoD/Apoc/etc. applies to IA (otherwise you're creating clauses and making the rules less succinct) see how absurd it is, and see that the only other option is that IA is part of 40K, and, therefore, does not require permission as per its own rules.

I'm not blowing hot air either because you're not right. Imperial Armour states clearly that the rules are not optional. Pulling the old "Rulebook doesn't mention IA" falls apart the moment you mention Apoc, CoD and so on. You might go on to say (and have actually) that Apoc/CoD/etc. are different... different how? Again, you're creating new distinctions - out of thin air really - in order to prove an already thinning point. That's why Occam's point is called a RAZOR. It cuts through thin arguments.

But you know what. Razor bedamned - I will actually give this whole argument to you. By the rulebook, IA is completely 100% illegal.

So is CoD.

So is Apoc.

So is Planetstrike.

Afterall, I need the rulebooks permission to use them, and they don't give it.

Kanluwen wrote:So that invalidates the Elysian Detachment 99 list, the Krieg siege lists, or the Renegade PDF lists?

It doesn't invalidate them. If you and your opponent decide to play a game of 40k with IA supplements, then they're perfectly acceptable.

It's not about disallowing anything, it's about having open communication with your opponent, and being a good sportsman. The core rules for Warhammer 40k clearly define what is needed to play Warhammer 40k. Anything in addition to this is a supplement, and not part of Warhammer 40k. As you are using an additional supplement, it is simply a matter of communication with your opponent to ensure that they actually want to play Warhammer 40k + Supplement, instead of straight Warhammer 40k.

Then please, enlighten me with the quotes.

I have provided page numbers from the main rulebook that clearly define what is needed for a game of Warhammer 40k. There is no reason for me to type it all out as a quote, as we should all have access to the core rulebook.

How do you know you use the 40k rulebook to play 40k?

I'm reading those page numbers, and at no point does my copy of the rulebook state that IA/FW are opponent's permission, and since Codex > Rulebook, we go the supporting rules in IA2, which you have yet to refute with anything other than you think it's an invalid book.

H.B.M.C. wrote:By your logic then IA can never be used because the rulebook never specifically states that it can. Ditto for Apoc, CoD and Planetstrike for that matter.

Not at all. It's a supplement. If you want to use a supplement, there's nothing wrong with that at all. But you should ensure that your opponent is okay with playing Warhammer 40k + Supplement, instead of Warhammer 40k.

You wouldn't start playing 40k and start having buildings on the table take shots at your opponent without them being aware that you were playing Warhammer 40k + Planetstrike, would you? You wouldn't suddenly spring a Cities of Death strategem on them unless you had both agreed to play Warhammer 40k + Cities of Death would you?

So why would you bring in units from an IA supplement without making sure that your opponent was okay with playing Warhammer 40k + Imperial Armour?

Afterall, I need the rulebooks permission to use them, and they don't give it.

No, you need your opponent's permission.

Redbeard wrote:They're certainly not standard in any of the GW stores I've been in.

You've obviously never been in a GW Bunker, then, as not only do they sell them, they're actually out right next to the other 40K rule books/codecii. Seems pretty standard to me if they have dedicated spots like that. Also, the first 3 IA books before they went hard cover were actually sent out to FLGS's as wel as GW stores.

But then, you'll just come back saying something like "Bunkers aren't representative of the average GW store or your FLGS, so them carrying the IA books is irrelevant."

chaplaingrabthar wrote:I'm reading those page numbers, and at no point does my copy of the rulebook state that IA/FW are opponent's permission, and since Codex > Rulebook, we go the supporting rules in IA2, which you have yet to refute with anything other than you think it's an invalid book.

No, it doesn't say that they're opponent's permission. It defines what is needed in order to play Warhammer 40k. Codexes are included in that list. IA supplements are not. IA Supplements are exactly that, supplements to the main game. They're not part of the main game. And they're not codexes, so they don't trump the main rules.

Redbeard wrote:It's a supplement.

Ah, so you're arguing semantics then?

Understood.

In light of that I happily and humbly accept your concession.

Thanks for playing.

Redbeard wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:So that invalidates the Elysian Detachment 99 list, the Krieg siege lists, or the Renegade PDF lists?

It doesn't invalidate them. If you and your opponent decide to play a game of 40k with IA supplements, then they're perfectly acceptable.

It's not about disallowing anything, it's about having open communication with your opponent, and being a good sportsman. The core rules for Warhammer 40k clearly define what is needed to play Warhammer 40k. Anything in addition to this is a supplement, and not part of Warhammer 40k. As you are using an additional supplement, it is simply a matter of communication with your opponent to ensure that they actually want to play Warhammer 40k + Supplement, instead of straight Warhammer 40k.

Your brother's bad experience has apparently made you a cynic too.

If the person has the rules on hand, you'd also know that in IA Volume One, which details Vulture Gunships, Tarantulas, Valkyries, etc--it states that when you want to use a list with flyers to "be a good sportsman, and allow them to take Anti-Aircraft Mounts at a reduced points cost for vehicles that can take them".
So, not only are you taking overcosted(points wise) and fairly expensive models with a fairly expensive book for an army that is PURELY effective as a THEME, nowhere near being effective as an actual in-game unit--you even give your opponent the means to counter those expensive vehicles at a reduced points cost.

I guess that's being a terrible sportsman.

All rules discussions come down to semantics. I accept your concession as well.


At the end of the day, this issue is about being a good sport. It's about being open and communicative with your opponent. Whether it is required or not, you can be the kind of person who doesn't give a damn if their opponent has an enjoyable game, and who does whatever they believe they can get away with, or you can be the kind of person who talks to their opponent and makes sure that they understand what sort of game to expect.

I know which sort of person I am. I will ask my opponent's permission to use anything that's not part of the main game out of respect for them, their enjoyment of the game, and the time that they're going to spend playing a game of toy soldiers with me. Whether the rules technically demand this of me, I will do this, because it's the sportsmanlike thing to do.

I am advocating being a good sport. Not worrying about whether my opponent might refuse to let me use my toys, but rather, worrying about their experience in the game. Others here seem to advocate doing whatever they want without any regard for their opponent's feelings on the matter.

Platuan4th wrote:You've obviously never been in a GW Bunker, then, as not only do they sell them, they're actually out right next to the other 40K rule books/codecii. Seems pretty standard to me if they have dedicated spots like that. Also, the first 3 IA books before they went hard cover were actually sent out to FLGS's as wel as GW stores.

But then, you'll just come back saying something like "Bunkers aren't representative of the average GW store or your FLGS, so them carrying the IA books is irrelevant."

Well done! You've made your argument and then refuted it all by yourself in your own post. You could have done a little better by noting that there are only 4 bunkers in the US out of all the GW stores. Still, good job.

Arschbombe wrote:

Platuan4th wrote:You've obviously never been in a GW Bunker, then, as not only do they sell them, they're actually out right next to the other 40K rule books/codecii. Seems pretty standard to me if they have dedicated spots like that. Also, the first 3 IA books before they went hard cover were actually sent out to FLGS's as wel as GW stores.

But then, you'll just come back saying something like "Bunkers aren't representative of the average GW store or your FLGS, so them carrying the IA books is irrelevant."

Well done! You've made your argument and then refuted it all by yourself in your own post. You could have done a little better by noting that there are only 4 bunkers in the US out of all the GW stores. Still, good job.

Congratulations, you entirely missed the point.

Yes, there are only 4 bunkers, but they carry several things that other GW stores and several FLGS's don't carry. Are you honestly going to tell me that since I can't go into the "average" GW store and buy BFG/Epic/Battle of 5 Armies/etc.(which I can do in a Bunker but several GW stores don't carry in stock) that they're somehow less official?

Platuan4th wrote:
Yes, there are only 4 bunkers, but they carry several things that other GW stores and several FLGS's don't carry. Are you honestly going to tell me that since I can't go into the "average" GW store and buy BFG/Epic/Battle of 5 Armies/etc.(which I can do in a Bunker but several GW stores don't carry in stock) that they're somehow less official?

No, but I will point out that everything you mentioned has nothing to do with standard Warhammer 40k. The Bunkers carry a lot of products that are related to Warhammer 40k in the fluff, but that aren't part of the core game. Imperial Armour would be another example of these.

But Platuan4th, it works the same way for everything.

IA is a Supplement. Apoc and so on are Expansions. This makes them different and it means that IA cannot be used at all ever because it's not in the rulebook.

By the same token, GW Bunkers are not the same as GW stores, so they don't count. And because Bunkers sell IA, and Bunkers don't count, neither does GW.

Wow! Inventing reasons for things is fun. I should try this more often.

H.B.M.C. - He doesn't fear Occam's Razor, the Razor fears him!!!


Or we could just go with the far simpler explanation that it's a GW rulebook, written by GW, for use with GW games, explicitly says it does not require opponent's permission (or any more permission than any any other unit in the game blah blah blah etc.), and therefore you can use it, as intended, as written, without the need to invent reasons why it doesn't count or argue fething semantics over the difference between a supplement or an expansion.

Redbeard wrote:core game

He's invented another clause! My razor must be blunt today...

H.B.M.C. wrote:
Or we could just go with the far simpler explanation that it's a GW rulebook, written by GW

Only it's not. It's a ForgeWorld book, which is a different company. Different staff, different payroll, different designers, different business model.

And I didn't draw any distinction between supplements and expansions. They're interchangable words which both mean an addition to the basic game (now you'll say I invented the word basic). They share the same principle too - make sure you're playing the same game as your opponent. If you're playing planetstrike and he's playing apocalypse, there will be misunderstandings. If he's playing Warhammer 40k, and you're playing with the IA supplement, there will be issues.

Is it that hard to talk to your opponent?

Redbeard wrote:No, you need your opponent's permission.

Uh, you need your opponent's permission to play 40k. Period. And that is regardless of supplement status, or whatever other artificial distinction you're making.

Actually, HBMC, a direct quote here from Imperial Armour Volume Four--The Anphelion Project:

"This book is not a stand-alone supplement, reference is made to other Warhammer 40,000 publications and you may find it helpful to have read these before reading this book. To use this book in games of Warhammer 40,000 you will need the Warhammer 40,000 rulebook and the following Codexes: Imperial Guard, Tyranids, and Space Marines. Some of the vehicles mentioned in this book and used in scenarios have rules that appear in Imperial Armour Volume 1: Imperial Guard and Imperial Navy and Imperial Armour Volume 2: Space Marines and Forces of the Inquisition. Having these books will assist in playing the scenarios and enriching the background of the campaign.

Page 6, Warwick Kinrade, Feb 06.

So. Not a stand-alone supplement, requires the standard rulebook and codexes...

Sounds like regular 40k to me!

I'm throwing in my vote for "regular 40k legal". The expansions clearly say that they are expansions, the Imperial Armor books say that they are not expansions, so they must be "regular" 40k.

H.B.M.C is so glaringly intolerant if silly/poorly based arguments, sometimes it can be hard to cut through to the actual point. I have felt his abrasive tongue lashings on more than 1 occasion.

Usually, it was because I said something basically stupid.

He is 100% accurate in his dealings with the posts I have read, regarding this point...

It really does seem to me that most of the arguments against the use of FW Models is that they are "unfairly cheezy" and "Not in the BBB or a Codex".

If I actually faced any goombah who said my army was 'illegal' to field without his/her permission, because I bought it from FW or AC, I would ask them if they used Citadel glue. If not, they have an illegally formed army = no game. What a shame *sigh*.

As for a different Business model-----are you serious dude? Selling Mini's?

I think there's a valid distinction between using models from Forgeworld and using rules from Forgeworld.

No one's trying to argue models themselves require your opponent's permission.

*sigh*- Ok, I meant the rules as well. sorry I wasn't clear.

H.B.M.C is so glaringly intolerant if silly/poorly based arguments, sometimes it can be hard to cut through to the actual point. I have felt his abrasive tongue lashings on more than 1 occasion.

Usually, it was because I said something basically stupid.

He is 100% accurate in his dealings with the posts I have read, regarding this point...

It really does seem to me that most of the arguments against the use of FW Models (and used the rules where applicable) is that they are "unfairly cheezy" and "Not in the BBB or a Codex".

If I actually faced any goombah who said my army was 'illegal' to field (and used the rules where applicable) without his/her permission, because I bought it from FW or AC,(and used the rules where applicable) I would ask them if they used Citadel glue. If not, they have an illegally formed army = no game. What a shame *sigh*.

As for a different Business model-----are you serious dude? Selling Mini's?

Fixed.

In that case, I don't see where the glue enters in.

Glue has nothing to do with the ruleset.

Redbeard wrote: It's a ForgeWorld book, which is a different company.

Only it not, it's a separate division of the company. If you can't tell the difference, ask a corporate lawyer.

Platuan4th wrote:
Congratulations, you entirely missed the point.

Yes, there are only 4 bunkers, but they carry several things that other GW stores and several FLGS's don't carry. Are you honestly going to tell me that since I can't go into the "average" GW store and buy BFG/Epic/Battle of 5 Armies/etc.(which I can do in a Bunker but several GW stores don't carry in stock) that they're somehow less official?

LOL. Who said anything about Forgeworld stuff not being official? Their products are official supplements, just not part of the core game and you shouldn't be surprised when someone who is used to playing regular 40k pauses when you put your Malcador on the table without having discussed it beforehand.

I will concede that newer FW books may be mroe 'in on the plan' than previous efforts.

I see my point about "Why is FW more valid than a decision made by store staff" was quietly ignored.

My ultimate point (as the 'store staff' argument is intentionally absurd) is determining the rules to be used is, ultimately, something of a consensus decision. I think a lot of people prefer to stick to 'Current rule book, most recent Codices' as a baseline because it's a relatively clear line that a large majority can agree to and meet with minimal effort. There's probably a few, but it seems like most FW buyers can field an army without FW rules if they want to, as opposed to the beginners that have scraped 1500 points of SpaM together from their allowance.

The flipside is that the nutcases who do spend thousands on FW should get to use their big toys occasionally... Jsut not without asking.

Much like my opinion of WYSIWYG, it's a form of politeness.

Kanluwen wrote:Actually, HBMC, a direct quote here from Imperial Armour Volume Four--The Anphelion Project:

"This book is not a stand-alone supplement, reference is made to other Warhammer 40,000 publications and you may find it helpful to have read these before reading this book. To use this book in games of Warhammer 40,000 you will need the Warhammer 40,000 rulebook and the following Codexes: Imperial Guard, Tyranids, and Space Marines. Some of the vehicles mentioned in this book and used in scenarios have rules that appear in Imperial Armour Volume 1: Imperial Guard and Imperial Navy and Imperial Armour Volume 2: Space Marines and Forces of the Inquisition. Having these books will assist in playing the scenarios and enriching the background of the campaign.

Page 6, Warwick Kinrade, Feb 06.

So. Not a stand-alone supplement, requires the standard rulebook and codexes...

Sounds like regular 40k to me!

Well said Kanluwen.

But Kanluwen, you don't get it. IA is a supplement, Cod/Apoc/PS are expansions. That makes them different... some... how...?

Redbeard wrote:

Agamemnon2 wrote:Incidentally, the Deathstorm Drop Pod does 4D3 attacks on every unit within 12", not 4D6 at 24". But please, don't let a silly thing like actually checking the facts get in the way. Whether it's overpowered is still debatable, but that doesn't mean you're allowed to argue the case from false premises.

I don't own the $90 book that would be required to check the facts, as I stated above, I am conveying a story that happened to my brother, who also doesn't own the book. Again, part of the problem with FW stuff is that the rules aren't easy or cheap to get ahold of.

Apparently you are so clueless as not to know that FW obligingly released the rules for Deathstorm Drop Pods in a free PDF update on their website. It could not be cheaper, or easier to come by those. Again, you're arguing the matter with incomplete facts.

H.B.M.C. wrote:But Kanluwen, you don't get it. IA is a supplement, Cod/Apoc/PS are expansions. That makes them different... some... how...?

I think the argument going is that they should be considered the same; in the same way that you wouldn't assume a regular game of 40k will make use of the rules from those expansions, you shouldn't assume that a regular game of 40k will make use of the rules from Forge World.

Some of the specialized rules, sure.

But the vast majority of the rules are no more far out than the standard codex creep BS.

Arschbombe wrote:

H.B.M.C. wrote:

Arschbombe wrote:Not even the 'Ard Boyz lets you use them.

Which means all of nothing.

Oh, I think it does. The one tournament GW runs that is supposed to separate the men from the boys and determine who's the hardest of the hard does not allow your preciousss FW stuff. Haven't you told them that their own rules are official and that you can use them?

Are you really arguing that tournament playing is some kind of higher form of the game from the silly little games people play outside them? Is that smug condescension a happy accident on your part, or did you actually intend to come across as a gigantic prick?

I've said this before, and I'll say it again. Feth tournaments, they're as much fun as having a root canal, and last up to five times longer. The 40k rules are barely suitable for casual gaming, being full of holes and inconsistencies, nevermind any kind of competitive setting. I'm sorry if I sound insensitive, but I am, so that's pretty much how it comes across.

H.B.M.C. wrote:

Scott-S6 wrote:If I'm spending points on a FW item rather than a codex item then of course I'm doing it for advantage.

That is such a crazily false statement that I thought it worth pointing out (not to mention that this statement seemingly claims the intent of everyone using FW items).

I said "I" - i.e. me. Not talking about anyone else. All the FW stuff that I use fills a hole in one of my lists or finds synergy with something else. I'm not taking them just for fun although they are occassionally substitute for units that I have an irrational dislike of (like bikes & attack bikes).

Redbeard wrote:

H.B.M.C. wrote:
Or we could just go with the far simpler explanation that it's a GW rulebook, written by GW

Only it's not. It's a ForgeWorld book, which is a different company.

Wrong. Get your facts straight, and then post.

Quick poll, if you planned a pick up game and someone brought a FW item, would you.

a) Not play unless he was using it under non FW rules
b) Play with it (assuming he had the rules witth him so that you could read what they do before you play
c) Play regardless
d) Other

I'm in 2 camps,
I would play regardless (otherwise I'd not get a game), or just ask to see the rules (so I would know how to play).

If he then went and picked up 100 D6 the first time he used it, I would double check his rules.

That would be it.

Option B. Unless the opponent was only doing so to give himself an insurmountable advantage; superheavies etc.

Option B and same would apply to non-FW stuff (got to have the rules).

Option B, but that goes for everything. No documentation or play sheet means no game. I've seen asses so big and what was pulled from those, oh lordy!

Option B.

A second poll:

If you planned a pickup game with someone, and you brought some FW stuff (including the rules for it), would you:

A) Not even mention it and just play with it.
B) Tell your opponent you were going to use it whether they liked it or not.
C) Ask your opponent if he minded that you use it.

I'm Option C here.

Option B, if the opponent had no reasonable grounds to object (ie, impossible to counter)

Option B, for both Polls.

Again, B.

Option B again - I don't ask if he minds me using landraiders or THSS termies, why do I need to ask if he minds me using a razorback with multi-melta?

They're valid army list selections and I have the rules if he wants to see them.

Redbeard wrote:Option B.

A second poll:

If you planned a pickup game with someone, and you brought some FW stuff (including the rules for it), would you:

A) Not even mention it and just play with it.
B) Tell your opponent you were going to use it whether they liked it or not.
C) Ask your opponent if he minded that you use it.

I'm Option C here.

I would also go with Option C.

If it's not in the Codex, I think it's politeness to ask.

B, obviously. I'm not going to be a dick about it, and I would always ensure that I brought whatever rules my army was using (and I'd expect the same in return).

But here's the thing:

I'd do that for anything. Doesn't matter if its an IA unit, a unit in a Codex I wasn't familiar with (I've never fought a Sisters or DE army, so I'd like to read through what they're doing first) or even a fething homebrew unit - I'd still look at it first.

I wouldn't stop them obviously, even if I did have concerns, because my opponent doesn't need my permission to field his unit ('cept maybe the homebrew one, but that's a slightly different issue so we'll ignore that), all he needs are the rules. And if he has the rules... well... they're the rules. I don't have to like it, but thems the breaks. We move on, we don't act like pansies (), and we play the game.

Agamemnon2 wrote:
Are you really arguing that tournament playing is some kind of higher form of the game from the silly little games people play outside them? Is that smug condescension a happy accident on your part, or did you actually intend to come across as a gigantic prick?

The argument presented has been that FW rules are official GW products and you absolutely MUST use them. They are not any more optional than any Codex. If that were actually true then GW would certainly allow their own MANDATORY rules to be used in the special tournament they run that is supposed to bring out the hardest, cheesiest lists with no regard to painting, sportsmanship or composition. But they don't. Those mandatory rules must not be as mandatory as some people think. This has nothing to do with tournaments being a higher form of play. It has to do with how GW chooses to use and enforce their own rules on their own turf.

Smug condescension is integral to the internet. Welcome aboard.

This:

If that were actually true then GW would certainly allow their own MANDATORY rules to be used in the special tournament they run

is bollocks. The selective application of the published rules by GW does not change those rules.

The Dreadnote wrote:bollocks. The selective application of the published rules by GW does not change those rules.

So we have no choice, but they do?

Everyone has choice. You're free to refuse to play an opponent because they want to use rules from IA; though what this says about you as a person is a different matter. In the same way, GW can choose to allow or disallow whatever they want in their tournaments. If they ran one where deepstriking was disallowed for whatever reason, that wouldn't make the deepstrike rules go away.

Just because a GW tournament does not allow IA rules, the clear and explicit information in IA2 allowing the use of IA rules in normal games without special permission does not suddenly disappear.

B for both polls, although the second one suffers from being extraordinarily poorly worded. I tell my opponent what's in my army, but I'm not going to change my list just because he doesn't like a unit. If he feels that strongly about Valkyries, Exterminators, Executioners, or Griffens... oh wait, those are all back in the codex now. Hmm, well, if he is opposed that strongly to Repressors, tough. I don't like Nob bikers, but I'm not going to pass on a game because of them.

Second poll is poorly worded and biased.

How would you word it?

Either you give your opponent a head's up and respect their right to say they don't want to play against something that's part of a supplement, or you do what you believe you have a right to do, regardless of how your opponent feels about it.

Major and important points to consider:

FW is GW and GW is FW as said adnauseum

IA is produced periodically and updated (towards GW Codex releases) on a spasmodic timeframe

GW Codex are scrambled as often as some change their underwear... we can't keep up, so there is no way that IA will be reprinted as often as a Codex is... so, often there is a discrepancy between rule sets as they rush to catch up. This is a financial ploy for GW... it would be too expensive to update everything at the same time

GW themselves tell gamers to talk among each other to settle any differences or misunderstandings prior to the game

They also say that the essence of the game is much more than the actual content... and above all, have fun

I have noticed that there are subtle differences in pro gamers attitudes to a game and it's rules... GW state that certain things are set in stone (as a guide) such as a Baneblade with a big gun is a "Baneblade" and with a small gun is a "Hellhammer" OR a Rhino with an Autocannon turret is a "Predator Destructor" while a twin Lascannon turret is a "Predator Annihilator"

But, an Ork Battlewaggon can select from a long list of weapons and armaments and is still called a "Battlewaggon"... because Ork diversity is the essence of the race

There can literally be not two Orks looking the same in an army (in every sense), whereas S Marines are all the same (except for posing)

Rules and legality is often discussed in the same way... some things are a fact and some things are in essence... get a grip mate, it's just a game of fun

Take a game of poker... not a chance in Hades of even starting to play until every player knows exactly what style / version / rules are involved…

IF you want it that way then speak up at the start, don’t worry about other players on the forums or relatives who play the game at home… stick with YOUR opponent and what YOU would do

Mik

I'm not sure how "B" works for the second poll.

What are you going to do, threaten them?

Orkeosaurus wrote:How do you know you use the 40k rulebook to play 40k?

Since no one else has, I just wanted to take this time to mention that this post a couple pages back made me literally laugh out loud.

Thanks Orkeosaurus. It was the most entertaining part of this thread so far.

I try.