AegisGrimm wrote:I'm just wondering why this is true:

If i want to play a game where i include a FW tank in my army, I then have to beg the other player if it's ok, and if they say "no, I don't like FW stuff, I don't know the rules and I think their stuff is OP", I have to shut up, back down and either put up with it and substitute other models in it's place, or walk away without being able to play. Because "it's understandable because that's their right".

But if an opponent shows up with an army with a Dark Eldar army, and I say "Sorry I don't play people with Dark Eldar armies, I don't know their rules and I think they are overpowered- you have to play an army that uses rules I like", I'm pretty sure I would get "the look" and be labelled as "that f'ing guy".

Pretty much my view tbh. But as ever we are cycling in circles because people are sticking to the very letter of the rules, which I find utterly lacking in the very ethos of the game, sportsmanship. The game is based on tactics, as such we must learn to adapt to new threats, if you can't adapt to something new, be it a new dex or a FW model, then you might want to assess yourself and not others for how things turn out.

Go to 40k night.

Everyone brought 40k armies.
I bring my Lizardmen.

Now,are you guys are telling me the chances of me playing a game ( or even be taken seriously )wont be lower than say... if i brought Eldar?,


Because you guys say " need permission for both " is heavily flawed.

ZebioLizard2 wrote:

I don't reject other variant games. It's just that they change up far more than just a simple addition to the FoC list.

Which is subjective. Switching or adding a few FoC slots is arguably a more minor change (books like SW or FoC-switching character do it even in basic 40K). Adding a "new" unit not stated in the seems a far more severe switch-up to me.

Either way, adding FW is most definitly considered a major, incisive change to the game by many, whether you agree or not. If you'd just accept it as that, take it to heart everytime you meet someone new for a game, and you'll do the FW-community a great service.

Which is subjective. Switching or adding a few FoC slots is arguably a more minor change (books like SW or FoC-switching character do it even in basic 40K). Adding a "new" unit not stated in the seems a far more severe switch-up to me.

Than find me some additions to the FoC that isn't handpicked out of a book that relies on a full internal structure (such as planetstrike)

And as for adding new units, I simply refute to the fact I've never faced IG, it is indeed a severe switch-up if I had to face one, but I'd simply lose, restructure my list to try and make it more all rounded, and continue on if needed. I wouldn't reject every single IG list because of that specific reason.

I don't understand how "Bringing a FW tank to a GW game equates to bringing a Space Wolf army and suddenly fielding 3 Heavy Warjacks, an Infinity character, seven Dwarf gyrocopters, and a Firestorm Armada battleship, ridden bareback by a Pikachu model in the style of the guy on the bomb from Dr. Strangelove."

Ok an example for you all...

I have a DE Wych army, which has never been defeated under the current book. so much so, people now refuse to play it. It contains no FW models.

My Pre-Heresy IW on the other hand has won more than it has lost, but contains Dreadnought drop pods and contemptors as well as the preheresy land raider FW options. People love playing it.


Flawed logic? Most certainly!!!

Do I care? Not a jot.

ZebioLizard2 wrote:

Which is subjective. Switching or adding a few FoC slots is arguably a more minor change (books like SW or FoC-switching character do it even in basic 40K). Adding a "new" unit not stated in the seems a far more severe switch-up to me.

Than find me some additions to the FoC that isn't handpicked out of a book that relies on a full internal structure (such as planetstrike)

And as for adding new units, I simply refute to the fact I've never faced IG, it is indeed a severe switch-up if I had to face one, but I'd simply lose, restructure my list to try and make it more all rounded, and continue on if needed. I wouldn't reject every single IG list because of that specific reason.

Fine for you. But as I tried to point out, it isn't about what you think is a big switch up. Or what I think is a big switch up (though the two clearly differ). It's about the social norms, standards and etiquette of the game. And in that regard, evidenced not least by the wording FW-authors themselves put in the books, experience with FW is considered to be a bit more out there. Experience fighting IG is considered to be part of the game.

Hypothetically, some people might just have spend their entire "40K hobbyist" life in their hobby-room playing Krieg against Eldar Corsair and never, ever encountered a single power-armour. Tough Luck for them I guess when they enter a hobby-store for a pick-up game. But it' isn't "the norm" of 40K.

AegisGrimm wrote:

I don't understand how "Bringing a FW tank to a GW game equates to bringing a Space Wolf army and suddenly fielding 3 Heavy Warjacks, an Infinity character, seven Dwarf gyrocopters, and a Firestorm Armada battleship, ridden bareback by a Pikachu model in the style of the guy on the bomb from Dr. Strangelove."

AegisGrimm, unless you have objections, this is getting sigged ^_^

AnUnearthlyChilde wrote:Pretty much my view tbh. But as ever we are cycling in circles because people are sticking to the very letter of the rules, which I find utterly lacking in the very ethos of the game, sportsmanship. The game is based on tactics, as such we must learn to adapt to new threats, if you can't adapt to something new, be it a new dex or a FW model, then you might want to assess yourself and not others for how things turn out.

I'll turn it around on you.

You and I agree to play a game - you've never played against a Dreadknight in any of your games, and hence have never bothered reading the rules. You were under the impression that in Dawn of War games, MCs couldn't be used - meaning the Dreadknight was out.

We build lists and trade them afterwards, and you note a Dreadknight on my list. "We agreed on Dawn of War though - you can't use MCs in that." "Sure you can - if your opponent agrees. I didn't mention it because it would be unsportsmanlike for you to refuse."

How do you react? I'm essentially forcing something on you - that you haven't read the rules on, and have absolutely no idea how the damn thing works - and if you refuse to play against it you're being rude/unsportsmanlike.

Do you not see how that's a catch-22? Either you play my way and not have fun because this is not what you expected when you originally agreed, or you refuse and get labeled "that guy" or "unsportsmanlike".

I adapt to new threats all the time - every game is different, every general is different. I adapt to new codexes - because I should. And if I get bored, I can look at a store copy of a codex - or my opponents if there's a rules question during a game. This is different from adapting to FW models/rules.

Most stores don't have store copies of IA books.

You're also not considering that if "FW should always be allowed" then you'd be fine fielding it against a new player who doesn't even know Forgeworld exists - but knows the BRB and his codex inside and out. If you both happen to play Tyranids, and you throw down some Malanthropes - how do you expect him to react?

AegisGrimm wrote:

I don't understand how "Bringing a FW tank to a GW game equates to bringing a Space Wolf army and suddenly fielding 3 Heavy Warjacks, an Infinity character, seven Dwarf gyrocopters, and a Firestorm Armada battleship, ridden bareback by a Pikachu model in the style of the guy on the bomb from Dr. Strangelove."

It is an hyperbolic argument, for sure. The point is not to take it literally, but to see how its exaggeration illustrates the hypocrisy inherent in arguments that go "everyone should accept FW, because the more the better" while simultaniously crying wolf at, for example, lovingly fan-made stuff for being "not official GW".

The hyperbolic "Warjack" argument thereby highlights how the "more the merrier" argument wasn't a serious argument, but a thin disguise to hide the subjective bias for using FW and the need to dress this bias up with seemingly neutral or rational arguments.

Or, in short, everyone likes to draw a line somewhere. If you wish other people to respect the line you have drawn between FW and Pikachu, you should also equally respect the line other people draw between GW and FW.

AnUnearthlyChilde wrote:

AegisGrimm wrote:

I don't understand how "Bringing a FW tank to a GW game equates to bringing a Space Wolf army and suddenly fielding 3 Heavy Warjacks, an Infinity character, seven Dwarf gyrocopters, and a Firestorm Armada battleship, ridden bareback by a Pikachu model in the style of the guy on the bomb from Dr. Strangelove."

AegisGrimm, unless you have objections, this is getting sigged ^_^

What..I saw it first!

It's kind of epic.

''Books not avaible in stores'' is not 100% valid IA 3 to 5 are all using 4th edition rules so if you want to have the Death Korps rules you go there: http://www.forgeworld.co.uk/Downloads/Product/PDF/k/kreig.pdf for example.

I would shrug it off and continue. Because that is how I play.

If I bring a FW unit to play I bring the rules for all to see. Just as anyone who brings anarmy must bring their assiciated codex with them too.

If he raised a question too it I'd show him its rules. as I said, i'm pretty easy with the rules.

I just don't care for people telling me I should play the game "their" way

My store plays 1500pts games.
I can bring Pikachu count as 1450pts Reaver titan.

Opponent cringes when I ask for game, followed by asking me " can I forfeit if I didnt get to go first?"
Can i really blame them?

AnUnearthlyChilde wrote:I just don't care for people telling me I should play the game "their" way

Right back atcha buddy.

Zweischneid wrote:

AegisGrimm wrote:

I don't understand how "Bringing a FW tank to a GW game equates to bringing a Space Wolf army and suddenly fielding 3 Heavy Warjacks, an Infinity character, seven Dwarf gyrocopters, and a Firestorm Armada battleship, ridden bareback by a Pikachu model in the style of the guy on the bomb from Dr. Strangelove."

It is an hyperbolic argument, for sure. The point is not to take it literally, but to see how its exaggeration illustrates the hypocrisy inherent in arguments that go "everyone should accept FW, because the more the better" while simultaniously crying wolf at, for example, lovingly fan-made stuff for being "not official GW".

The hyperbolic "Warjack" argument thereby highlights how the "more the merrier" argument wasn't a serious argument, but a thin disguise to hide the subjective bias for using FW and the need to dress this bias up with seemingly neutral or rational arguments.

Ok, first of all I don't say that everybody should play against FW, I've stated again and again that everybody has the right to deny to play me, but you seem to ignore that.

Secondly, I use Just Dave's fandex so I certainly don't "cry wolf" at fan made stuff as it is usually used in my gaming group.

rigeld2 wrote:

AnUnearthlyChilde wrote:I just don't care for people telling me I should play the game "their" way

Right back atcha buddy.

I'm telling no one how to play, I wish that people would just be more open minded, like my local gaming group.

jgehunter wrote:

Ok, first of all I don't say that everybody should play against FW, I've stated again and again that everybody has the right to deny to play me, but you seem to ignore that.

Secondly, I use Just Dave's fandex so I certainly don't "cry wolf" at fan made stuff as it is usually used in my gaming group.

I am not ignoring you. I applaud your opinion. I would fully agree with your position. If people like ZebioLizard2 or H.B.M.C or AnUnearthlyChilde would come to something closer to your position, there'd be no discussion.

AnUnearthlyChilde wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

AnUnearthlyChilde wrote:I just don't care for people telling me I should play the game "their" way

Right back atcha buddy.

I'm telling no one how to play, I wish that people would just be more open minded, like my local gaming group.

AnUnearthlyChilde wrote:But as ever we are cycling in circles because people are sticking to the very letter of the rules, which I find utterly lacking in the very ethos of the game, sportsmanship. The game is based on tactics, as such we must learn to adapt to new threats, if you can't adapt to something new, be it a new dex or a FW model, then you might want to assess yourself and not others for how things turn out.

Sorry, I thought you saying " I find utterly lacking in the very ethos of the game, sportsmanship" was telling people how to play. Because obviously to not "lack sportsmanship" I should allow FW models/rules at all times.

Zweischneid wrote:

jgehunter wrote:

Ok, first of all I don't say that everybody should play against FW, I've stated again and again that everybody has the right to deny to play me, but you seem to ignore that.

Secondly, I use Just Dave's fandex so I certainly don't "cry wolf" at fan made stuff as it is usually used in my gaming group.

I am not ignoring you. I applaud your opinion. I would fully agree with your position. If people like ZebioLizard2 or H.B.M.C or AnUnearthlyChilde would come to something closer to your position, there'd be no discussion.

Hold your horses there missy... before lumping me into a group, you might want to re-read a post of mine further up. There is always going to be opinion, much like every creature has a sphincter the point is everyone is entitled to their opinion. I've never said you were wrong, only that I disagree with your opinion. BIG DIFFERENCE.

I don't understand how "Bringing a FW tank to a GW game equates to bringing a Space Wolf army and suddenly fielding 3 Heavy Warjacks, an Infinity character, seven Dwarf gyrocopters, and a Firestorm Armada battleship, ridden bareback by a Pikachu model in the style of the guy on the bomb from Dr. Strangelove."

Well...."because it's obviously the same thing" is what I keep hearing.

Anyway, I would require any person playing a FW unit against me to have the rules for it open and available to me to peruse before the game, in case I don't know them so I'm not surprised. Because it's what I would do for them, because it's sportsman-like. But people should at least be open to considering letting a guy use what he brought*.

Anyways, don't any of you guys play 40K with friends? Or just complete strangers all the time? Because I have a good idea what my buddy would want to field against me, and why. It's not like he's suddenly springing 5 Land raider variants on me- he probably showed it to me and was proud of it before we ever even played a game with it.

*this obviously doesn't mean gigantor, powerful uber-things like Titans, and Superheavies. I'm talking something cool but within the realm of reason, like an Eldar Hornet, or an Imperial Guard Leman Russ variant, or something.

rigeld2 wrote:

AnUnearthlyChilde wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

AnUnearthlyChilde wrote:I just don't care for people telling me I should play the game "their" way

Right back atcha buddy.

I'm telling no one how to play, I wish that people would just be more open minded, like my local gaming group.

AnUnearthlyChilde wrote:But as ever we are cycling in circles because people are sticking to the very letter of the rules, which I find utterly lacking in the very ethos of the game, sportsmanship. The game is based on tactics, as such we must learn to adapt to new threats, if you can't adapt to something new, be it a new dex or a FW model, then you might want to assess yourself and not others for how things turn out.

Sorry, I thought you saying " I find utterly lacking in the very ethos of the game, sportsmanship" was telling people how to play. Because obviously to not "lack sportsmanship" I should allow FW models/rules at all times.

It's my opinion, doesn't make me right or wrong... it just makes it different to yours.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

AegisGrimm wrote:

I don't understand how "Bringing a FW tank to a GW game equates to bringing a Space Wolf army and suddenly fielding 3 Heavy Warjacks, an Infinity character, seven Dwarf gyrocopters, and a Firestorm Armada battleship, ridden bareback by a Pikachu model in the style of the guy on the bomb from Dr. Strangelove."

Well....because it's obviously the same thing.

I would require any person playing a FW unit against me to have the rules for it open and available to me to peruse before the game, in case I don;t know them. Because it's what I would do for them, because it's sportsman-like. But people should at least be open to considering letting a guy use what he brought.

Anyways, don't any of you guys play 40K with friends? Or just complete strangers all the time? Because I have a good idea what my buddy would want to field against me, and why. It's not like he's suddenly springing 5 Land raider variants on me- he probably showed it to me and was proud of it before we ever even played a game with it.

Again, this echo's my thoughts exactly.

Zweischneid wrote:

jgehunter wrote:

Ok, first of all I don't say that everybody should play against FW, I've stated again and again that everybody has the right to deny to play me, but you seem to ignore that.

Secondly, I use Just Dave's fandex so I certainly don't "cry wolf" at fan made stuff as it is usually used in my gaming group.

I am not ignoring you. I applaud your opinion. I would fully agree with your position. If people like ZebioLizard2 or H.B.M.C or AnUnearthlyChilde would come to something closer to your position, there'd be no discussion.

I never said you could deny to play me. It's not like I can hold a gun to you and force you to game anyways.

I just said excluding armies with forgeworld models is a bit silly, when I could do the same for IG, SW, or GK or every other single standard army for the same reasons.

AnUnearthlyChilde wrote:Ok an example for you all...

I have a DE Wych army, which has never been defeated under the current book. so much so, people now refuse to play it. It contains no FW models.

My Pre-Heresy IW on the other hand has won more than it has lost, but contains Dreadnought drop pods and contemptors as well as the preheresy land raider FW options. People love playing it.


Flawed logic? Most certainly!!!

Do I care? Not a jot.

I'll quote myself here to make a point, that I don't really care what someone brings as an army. So long as you have your Codex/IA book/IA entry with you in case there is something I don't get/understand.

I just don't get why it's so hard for everyone to just say "Hey, do you mind if i use forgeworld stuff" before they start the game. I'm sure that if you ask, most people will be fine with it. And if they just aren't feeling it, then hey, go play someone else, no reason to demonize them.

AnUnearthlyChilde wrote:It's my opinion, doesn't make me right or wrong... it just makes it different to yours.

So - I just want to make this clear for myself.

In your opinion, if I don't allow FW models/rules in a game, I'm being unsportsmanlike.


But it's totally cool for you to ask for a game with one set of implied rules, and change them up when you feel like it?
(asking for a game of 40k implies all the normal codexes and the BRB in most circles - IE not FW. You bringing in FW after that agreement isn't really kosher).

ZebioLizard2 wrote:

I never said you could deny to play me. It's not like I can hold a gun to you and force you to game anyways.

I just said excluding armies with forgeworld models is a bit silly, when I could do the same for IG, SW, or GK or every other single standard army for the same reasons.

And I just said that excluding fan-dexes and simliar things on principle while advocating FW for the benefit of more diversity in 40K is hypocrisy of the highest order because one willfully ignores the separation some people like to draw between GW and FW while forcefully enforcing the distinction between FW and other additional/optional/expansive material. It's a near-text-book definition of double standards.

rigeld2 wrote:

AnUnearthlyChilde wrote:It's my opinion, doesn't make me right or wrong... it just makes it different to yours.

So - I just want to make this clear for myself.

In your opinion, if I don't allow FW models/rules in a game, I'm being unsportsmanlike.


But it's totally cool for you to ask for a game with one set of implied rules, and change them up when you feel like it?
(asking for a game of 40k implies all the normal codexes and the BRB in most circles - IE not FW. You bringing in FW after that agreement isn't really kosher).

I never change an army list once it is set in stone. I don't power game, I make themed lists which stay the same until a new dex/update to IA forces me to change.

When I have a handful of FW models in my list, or if you want to get picky... my Pre heresy army which is entirely FW, It'd make me raise my eyebrow and question why you refused to play it. and, If upon hearing your answer I found it illogical, I would then most likely consider it unsportsman-like.

Zweischneid wrote:

ZebioLizard2 wrote:

I never said you could deny to play me. It's not like I can hold a gun to you and force you to game anyways.

I just said excluding armies with forgeworld models is a bit silly, when I could do the same for IG, SW, or GK or every other single standard army for the same reasons.

And I just said that excluding fan-dexes and simliar things on principle while advocating FW for the benefit of more diversity in 40K is hypocrisy of the highest order because one willfully ignores the separation some people like to draw between GW and FW while forcefully enforcing the distinction between FW and other additional/optional/expansive material. It's a near-text-book definition of double standards.

When those fan-dexs become produced by games workshop/forgeworld/black library/fantasy production games. I'll take that into account, till than those are something that has to be asked as they are supplements produced by outside sources and not given the greenlight by those Games Workshop affiliated companies.

If you can get your Fandex authorized by them, sure I'll gladly play you without questions. Because I have no separation at all between Forgeworld and games workshop. They are two halves of the same coin, to be played in the same games, or within the expanded game variants produced by GW or FW.

Zweischneid wrote:

Pacific wrote:

I can only assume that people objecting to it:
a) Have not read the rules and are just going off hearsay.
b) Have some inaccurate notion about the 'balance' of 40k, and think that the FW books are spoiling something that does not actually exist.
c) Have played so few games of 40k that they haven't got bored with the basic set-up yet.

Anyway, end of rant. In summary, anyone who says 'I won't play that army, you've got a FW turret on that razorback' needs their head examining.

I am not sure anyone is objecting to anything. I am just exercising my right to not play it. Noone is forced to play something they do not like. Me, for example, I do not play Warhmmer Fantasy Battle. I do not play Warmachine. I do not play BFG. And though I play 40K, I do not play Cities of Death or Spearhead or Apocalypse either. And I do not play Forgeworld.

To answer your questions, I have read the rules for all of the above, I have no assumption that the game I do choose to play (i.e. 40K) is more balanced than those I do not play (WFB, Warmachine, 40K Cities of Death, 40K cum FW). And I have played so many games of 40K over the last 20 years or so, that I got thoroughly bored with cluttered, oversized games that stretch it beyond the game's sweat spot.

In consequence. I play 40K. No expension. Never above 1500. No FW or other expansion and addenums (hell, the 40K mainline could arguably do with less, rather than more). It's where 40K is the most fun. If it ever stops being fun, I likely stop playing 40K. And I do not appreciate uppity, condescending snobs who try to eductate me that Warmachine, WFB, FW, whatever-have-you would be "More fun" and provide a better game. Sorry. Not for me. Been there, done that. FW may not be (more or less) broken than any other tabletop-game out there. But it doesn't ADD anything worthwhile either. And 99% of the miniatures it produces are (in my humble opinion) butt-ugly. So keep it away from me.

1. While it is an opinion, FW MODELS ARE SO AMAZING BEAUTIFUL ZOMG!!! is the general consensus.

2. FW is not an expansion game, any more than a codex is an expansion on 40k. Codex contain additional rules on top of the BRB, just like IA. They have models with stats, just like IA. Outside of a tournament, there really is no good reason not to play it. Unless you also refuse to play against every single army since their codex is an expansion on the BRB?

AnUnearthlyChilde wrote:I never change an army list once it is set in stone. I don't power game, I make themed lists which stay the same until a new dex/update to IA forces me to change.

I never accused you of doing otherwise... ?

When I have a handful of FW models in my list, or if you want to get picky... my Pre heresy army which is entirely FW, It'd make me raise my eyebrow and question why you refused to play it. and, If upon hearing your answer I found it illogical, I would then most likely consider it unsportsman-like.

Whoah - stop.

FW models using normal 40k rules? Fine. Even cool in many cases.

FW models using FW rules is where I draw the line at "If you didn't mention it when asking for the game, I'm probably going to politely bow out."

rigeld2 wrote:

AnUnearthlyChilde wrote:I never change an army list once it is set in stone. I don't power game, I make themed lists which stay the same until a new dex/update to IA forces me to change.

I never accused you of doing otherwise... ?

It seemed implied.

rigeld2 wrote:

AnUnearthlyChilde wrote:When I have a handful of FW models in my list, or if you want to get picky... my Pre heresy army which is entirely FW, It'd make me raise my eyebrow and question why you refused to play it. and, If upon hearing your answer I found it illogical, I would then most likely consider it unsportsman-like.

Whoah - stop.

FW models using normal 40k rules? Fine. Even cool in many cases.

FW models using FW rules is where I draw the line at "If you didn't mention it when asking for the game, I'm probably going to politely bow out."

That would still make me raise my eyebrow in honesty.

ZebioLizard2 wrote:

When those fan-dexs become produced by games workshop/forgeworld/black library/fantasy production games. I'll take that into account, till than those are something that has to be asked as they are supplements produced by outside sources and not given the greenlight by those Games Workshop affiliated companies.

If you can get your Fandex authorized by them, sure I'll gladly play you without questions. Because I have no separation at all between Forgeworld and games workshop. They are two halves of the same coin, to be played in the same games, or within the expanded game variants produced by GW or FW.

If you get your IA printed by GW, I'll follow suit with FW -stuff. As long as they keep GW and FW separated and only are affiliated (perhaps not commercially, but in the brands produce), I exercise my right to choice from the different brands on offer and stick with GW.

And as you make such a fuss about offical logos and endorsements, I would expect this to extend without question to the notably quite different labels indicating GW-main products from the products clearly labeled as coming from its affiliated FW spin-off.

Zweischneid wrote:

ZebioLizard2 wrote:

When those fan-dexs become produced by games workshop/forgeworld/black library/fantasy production games. I'll take that into account, till than those are something that has to be asked as they are supplements produced by outside sources and not given the greenlight by those Games Workshop affiliated companies.

If you can get your Fandex authorized by them, sure I'll gladly play you without questions. Because I have no separation at all between Forgeworld and games workshop. They are two halves of the same coin, to be played in the same games, or within the expanded game variants produced by GW or FW.

If you get your IA printed by GW, I'll follow suit with FW -stuff. As long as they keep GW and FW separated and only are affiliated (perhaps not commercially, but in the brands produce), I exercise my right to choice from the different brands on offer and stick with GW.

And as you make such a fuss about offical logos and endorsements, I would expect this to extend to the notably quite different labels indicating GW-main products from the products clearly labeled as coming from its affiliated FW spin-off.

Wow. Point missed. and with that I unsubscribe from this ever pointless thread. ttfn

imrandomghgh wrote:
2. FW is not an expansion game, any more than a codex is an expansion on 40k. Codex contain additional rules on top of the BRB, just like IA. They have models with stats, just like IA. Outside of a tournament, there really is no good reason not to play it. Unless you also refuse to play against every single army since their codex is an expansion on the BRB?

FW is an expansion of the miniature range. It is furthermore produced purposfully by a spin-off company, thus is even further removed from "basic" 40K than expansions or WD-rules. It sure is an optional, up-market brand introduced to those who enjoy it, but kept quite consciously very different from GW's main line of products and games. There is thus no good reason to treat as anything but that; an exotic supplement that is far outside the mainstream and in need of special consideration if brought into an "unfamiliar" 40K environment.

Trying to deny this separation between GW and FW in high-handed, sometimes arrogant ways by some FW-proponents is the very reason for the "hate" that gives this discussion it's title and name.

Trying to deny this separation between GW and FW in high-handed, sometimes arrogant ways by some FW-proponents is the very reason for the "hate" that gives this discussion it's title and name.

Or it could be because of people like you who don't realize just how they aren't seperated.

Forgeworld is a Subsidiary of Games Workshop, which means that games workshop is the parent company of Forgeworld. Which means Games workshop owns Forgeworld to the point that they own 50%+ shares of stock, and that as a result they don't need to buy it out completely, which means there of course will be a barrier between them in the sense that games workshop would gain additional ownership, but it would give them more issues than they may prefer.

Do you know nothing of economics and the buisness model?

As you keep touting arrogant ways of the FW people, not to mention continuing brash insults along with the snide comments means you must have something against forgeworld in general at this point. Along with it's players, so that it's very likely at this point that you have a grudge in some manner. Which can show a biased viewpoint.

AnUnearthlyChilde wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

AnUnearthlyChilde wrote:I never change an army list once it is set in stone. I don't power game, I make themed lists which stay the same until a new dex/update to IA forces me to change.

I never accused you of doing otherwise... ?

It seemed implied.

No. What I said was that you're changing the game invitation. You first ask for a game of 40k.
The implication there is normal 40k codexes plus the BRB.
Then you pull out FW rules - which was not agreed on. Then suddenly I'm the one that's being unsportsmanlike?

rigeld2 wrote:

AnUnearthlyChilde wrote:When I have a handful of FW models in my list, or if you want to get picky... my Pre heresy army which is entirely FW, It'd make me raise my eyebrow and question why you refused to play it. and, If upon hearing your answer I found it illogical, I would then most likely consider it unsportsman-like.

Whoah - stop.

FW models using normal 40k rules? Fine. Even cool in many cases.

FW models using FW rules is where I draw the line at "If you didn't mention it when asking for the game, I'm probably going to politely bow out."

That would still make me raise my eyebrow in honesty.

Because... ? I have absolutely zero reason to expect FW rules to be used when invited to a game of 40k (unless it's normal for the area - but that's rare). Your insistence that it's unsportsmanlike for me to disagree seems like you're trying to force me to play your way, or I'm the jerk.
Passive aggressive behavior at its finest.

Zweischneid wrote:

imrandomghgh wrote:
2. FW is not an expansion game, any more than a codex is an expansion on 40k. Codex contain additional rules on top of the BRB, just like IA. They have models with stats, just like IA. Outside of a tournament, there really is no good reason not to play it. Unless you also refuse to play against every single army since their codex is an expansion on the BRB?

FW is an expansion of the miniature range. It is furthermore produced purposfully by a spin-off company, thus is even further removed from "basic" 40K than expansions or WD-rules. It sure is an optional, up-market brand introduced to those who enjoy it, but kept quite consciously very different from GW's main line of products and games. There is thus no good reason to treat as anything but that; an exotic supplement that is far outside the mainstream and in need of special consideration if brought into an "unfamiliar" 40K environment.

Trying to deny this separation between GW and FW in high-handed, sometimes arrogant ways by some FW-proponents is the very reason for the "hate" that gives this discussion it's title and name.

Forgeworld models use the same rules, same FOC, same game system with literally no change to the core rules as the rest of all 40k models. Not so for planet strike, for cities of death etc.

Plus, they sell it in the store so you cannot argue that it is owned by a different company.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

No. What I said was that you're changing the game invitation. You first ask for a game of 40k.
The implication there is normal 40k codexes plus the BRB.
Then you pull out FW rules - which was not agreed on. Then suddenly I'm the one that's being unsportsmanlike?

Yes. Disagreeing to play forge world simply because it is forge world is unsportsmanlike. If you have a specific model that you have serious problems with, then it's okay to say no.

If they have not brought the rules, then it is okay to say no.

If they use apoc in normal sized games, then it is okay to say no.

If you cannot check any of those boxes, then you saying no is unsportsmanlike.

rigeld2 wrote:Because... ? I have absolutely zero reason to expect FW rules to be used when invited to a game of 40k (unless it's normal for the area - but that's rare). Your insistence that it's unsportsmanlike for me to disagree seems like you're trying to force me to play your way, or I'm the jerk.
Passive aggressive behavior at its finest.

Because it's the same thing as refusing to play someone because they are wearing a red T-shirt. You can refuse to play anyone you want for any reason.

Some reasons are more stupid than others, though.

imrandomghgh wrote:

No. What I said was that you're changing the game invitation. You first ask for a game of 40k.
The implication there is normal 40k codexes plus the BRB.
Then you pull out FW rules - which was not agreed on. Then suddenly I'm the one that's being unsportsmanlike?

Yes. Disagreeing to play forge world simply because it is forge world is unsportsmanlike.

Are you serious?
Lets play a game of 40k.
I then bring out a Monopoly board.

What? You didn't want to play Monopoly? I thought it was implied. That's how we always decide who goes first back home.
Well, disagreeing is just unsportsmanlike.

If you have a specific model that you have serious problems with, then it's okay to say no.

If they have not brought the rules, then it is okay to say no.

If they use apoc in normal sized games, then it is okay to say no.

If you cannot check any of those boxes, then you saying no is unsportsmanlike.

Saying no *after* the game of 40k was agreed on?
Yes - if we agree on a game of 40k with FW rules, then opting not to play after initially agreeing is a bad move.
Agreeing to play a game of 40k does not imply agreeing to FW rules - asserting otherwise a) goes against what's said in the FW IA books and b) screams of "my way or the highway"


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kaldor wrote:Because it's the same thing as refusing to play someone because they are wearing a red T-shirt.

No, it's not - it's not even close.
Please stop comparing not wanting to play with FW units to ... well ... *anything* like that.
Many people have real reasons they don't want to bring in FW units.
There's no rules forcing you to interact with FW units.
I guess the only valid comparison is to WYSIWYG - if you think insisting on WYSIWYG is unsportsmanlike, then I can understand the insistence that denying FW is unsportsmanlike.

rigeld2 wrote:There's no rules forcing you to interact with FW units.

There's no rules forcing you to play against someone using Blood Angels. There's no rules foring you to play against a Kan wall. There's no rules forcing you to play against someone maxing out Long Fangs. There's no rules forcing you to play against someone wearing a red shirt.

He was quite correct in saying that you can refuse to play someone for any number of reasons. Those reasons might make sense. Those reasons might not make sense.

So far, the reasons I've seen for not playing someone using FW models haven't made sense to me.

'The barrier for entry into FW models to know the rules is too high! There's too many books you need!' - you need a total of one book. Not even GW themselves offer you an all in one book with all of their codices in it.

'Forgeworld models are overpowered' - a grand total of three models are powerful, one is overpowered against armies lacking long ranged anti tank. None are on the level of some of the things in official codices.

'Forgeworld is now a Games Workshop product! - Yes, they are. Forgeworld is a subsidary of Games Workshop. They own Forgeworld, and what Forgeworld produces. They wouldn't let Forgeworld authors put a paragraph in their books saying they were official rules otherwise. There's a very simple way to see if Forgeworld products are by rights Games Workshop products. This is on the bottom of the Forgeworld website.

Copyright © Games Workshop Limited 2000-2012. All Rights Reserved. Games Workshop, the Games Workshop logo, the Forge World, Warhammer and the Warhammer 40,000 device are either ®, TM and/or © Games Workshop Ltd 2000-2012, variably registered in the UK and other countries around the world. All Rights Reserved. Games Workshop Ltd, Willow Road, Lenton, Nottingham, NG7 2WS. Registered in England and Wales - Company No. 01467092. VAT No. GB 580853421

FW wouldn't be doing that if GW didn't own the rights to everything produced.

'Forgeworld models are not tournament legal!' - it's up to the TO. Some tournaments allow them. For example, Adepticon is a rather large tournament which allows FW models and rules. Previous years only in the team category, but now in all categories.

If you don't want to play against Forgeworld stuff for personal reasons, that's completely fine. We had a friend who wouldn't play against my brother because he had 3 Leman Russes. You don't have to play anyone. But stop bringing ludicrous arguments into it, telling people that the models are not official, or the barrier for entry to know the rules is too high, and all the other nonsense, because that's what it is.

rigeld,

It is not the same as bringing a monopoly board.
It is not an expansion.

It uses the BRB rules, with literally zero variations, at all. No change on the rules, no expansion. It is simply a list of models, and their stats. Sound familiar? That's because that's exactly what a codex is. Other than needing to be ordered, the ONLY difference between them and GW models is that they come in books with units of all factions.

-Loki- wrote:But stop bringing ludicrous arguments into it, telling people that the models are not official, or the barrier for entry to know the rules is too high, and all the other nonsense, because that's what it is.

I haven't.

But the models and rules do require more permission than a normal game of 40k. There are rules surrounding their use.
Are there any similar rules surrounding the use of normal codexes?

I'm mainly objecting to the insistence that objecting to FW units in a game *after* agreeing to a game of 40k (without mentioning FW) is unsportsmanlike. That doesn't make sense. There's no reason to assume, from agreeing to a game of 40k, that FW units will be involved.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

imrandomghgh wrote:rigeld,

It is not the same as bringing a monopoly board.
It is not an expansion.

It uses the BRB rules, with literally zero variations, at all. No change on the rules, no expansion. It is simply a list of models, and their stats. Sound familiar? That's because that's exactly what a codex is. Other than needing to be ordered, the ONLY difference between them and GW models is that they come in books with units of all factions.

No variations? None at all?

So there isn't a statement about making sure the opponent is okay with using FW units in the front of the book? Like has been posted in the thread - nothing like that?

rigeld2 wrote:

-Loki- wrote:But stop bringing ludicrous arguments into it, telling people that the models are not official, or the barrier for entry to know the rules is too high, and all the other nonsense, because that's what it is.

I haven't.

But the models and rules do require more permission than a normal game of 40k. There are rules surrounding their use.
Are there any similar rules surrounding the use of normal codexes?

I'm mainly objecting to the insistence that objecting to FW units in a game *after* agreeing to a game of 40k (without mentioning FW) is unsportsmanlike. That doesn't make sense. There's no reason to assume, from agreeing to a game of 40k, that FW units will be involved.

Well I think we're looking at this different ways.

Yes, I would ask to play before asking to use FW.

No, I would not simply put them there and not bother mentioning it.

Me: Would you like to play a game?

Other Player: Sure, why not?

Me: I have several FW XV9s, would you mind if I use them?

Other Player: Sure, why not?

^For clarity's sake

imrandomghgh wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

-Loki- wrote:But stop bringing ludicrous arguments into it, telling people that the models are not official, or the barrier for entry to know the rules is too high, and all the other nonsense, because that's what it is.

I haven't.

But the models and rules do require more permission than a normal game of 40k. There are rules surrounding their use.
Are there any similar rules surrounding the use of normal codexes?

I'm mainly objecting to the insistence that objecting to FW units in a game *after* agreeing to a game of 40k (without mentioning FW) is unsportsmanlike. That doesn't make sense. There's no reason to assume, from agreeing to a game of 40k, that FW units will be involved.

Well I think we're looking at this different ways.

Yes, I would ask to play before asking to use FW.

No, I would not simply put them there and not bother mentioning it.

Me: Would you like to play a game?

Other Player: Sure, why not?

Me: I have several FW XV9s, would you mind if I use them?

Other Player: Sure, why not?

^For clarity's sake

And that's fine - and I might even agree to it.

That is *not* what I've been responding to in this thread. AUC said that disagreeing *at all* would be unsportsmanlike.
If your scenario went:

Me: I have several FW XV9s, would you mind if I use them?

Other Player: Well, I'd really rather not. Do you have another list, or would you like to find a different opponent?

How would that be unsportsmanlike?

Aww, cmon Rigeld2, he plays Tau. Throw him a bone.

I still don't understand why people can't just ask first. If you ask, things should be fine. And if the other player says he'd rather not, then drop it. I don't care if you violently curse him in your head, but don't act like he's less of a person because he'd just rather not right now. Don't try to argue and browbeat him into letting you, just let it go. If he goes off into a hate-filled rage on forge world being op, feel free to defend your position. But if he doesn't want to play fw right now, then that's that. No shame, and he's still the same person he was before.

rigeld2 wrote:

-Loki- wrote:But stop bringing ludicrous arguments into it, telling people that the models are not official, or the barrier for entry to know the rules is too high, and all the other nonsense, because that's what it is.

I haven't.

But the models and rules do require more permission than a normal game of 40k. There are rules surrounding their use.
Are there any similar rules surrounding the use of normal codexes?

Hoenstly, I don't think so. My opponent tells me whats in his list, and we agree to a game. If I don't want to play a certain type of list, I'll refuse. Forgeworld models should basically be the same. If you won't want to play against them, refuse. Absurd arguments as to why aren't needed. That's all I object to. Saying anything more than "No, I won't play that list with a Malanthrope in it because I don't want to' is all that's needed, because like any other game of 40k, you can decline the game at your leisure. Saying 'I won't play that list with a Malanthrope because Forgeworlds stuff is all overpowered' is stupid, especially if you read the rules for the Malanthrope. Or 'I won't play that list with a Malanthrope because they're not tournament legal' is stupid, because it depends on the tournament, and also has no bearing on the friendly game you're playing outside of a tournament.

rigeld2 wrote:I'm mainly objecting to the insistence that objecting to FW units in a game *after* agreeing to a game of 40k (without mentioning FW) is unsportsmanlike. That doesn't make sense. There's no reason to assume, from agreeing to a game of 40k, that FW units will be involved.

Well that's another thing entirely. Even in FW books they say, while official, you should inform your opponent beforehand that you are using them. But then, it can also be a misunderstanding with that person. Maybe his group uses FW stuff regularly, and doesn't bother with telling each other beforehand (since it would be tedious after the first few games). In that situation, the sporting thing to do is at least ask to see the rules for whatever they're using. If they refuse, then you know something is fishy.

I just don't know where all the worry about FW comes from.

I understand that some don't want FW things (that aren't already in the official codexes) included in their games, and that's their right, I guess. It does seem a little off-putting, and would sour me (a bit) as a gamer to be told I can't include a model I like in a game because my opponent "doesn't like playing against it", but I would have the same opinion of a person that refuses to play against say, "Eldar", or "Land raiders" any other certain army convention.

I'm just confused as to why, especially in the case of one or two models amongst an entire army, having a FW tank on the field skews the balance of the game so horribly bad that people would rather not play at all than play a game with one on the table.

I can understand it when people get disappointed when they buy an expensive model and it arrives with issues. FW has an excellent customer service though, so I've never had a problem with them.

AegisGrimm wrote:I'm just confused as to why, especially in the case of one or two models amongst an entire army, having a FW tank on the field skews the balance of the game so horribly bad that people would rather not play at all than play a game with one on the table.

Well, it doesn't. The problem is, people think it does. It's as if 40k is some paragon of game balance and Forgeworld make totally unbalanced units.

I actually had this discussion with someone on Warseer, who was completely anti-Forgeworld because someone beat him with a Baneblade before Apocalypse was release. In a 1500 point game. He didn't realize that there are barriers in place in FW books to stop super heavies being used in regular games (the biggest being the requirement of a second FOC, which is completely and utterly opponents permission, since you have to agree to use more than one FOC). Basically, the guy cheated, but even after that, he thought the guy didn't. Even after explaining the rules of superheavies to him, he didn't believe me and claimed all FW was just as bad as a superheavy in a regular game.

The reason I see so many arguments about Forgeworld being unbalanced is simply because people haven't read the rules. I can understand this, people might not want to buy the books, or (in the past) there were a lot to buy to have all of the rules. And so, they base their opinions on the balance of Forgeworld units on heresay from internet forums and random guys at their FLGS, which really isn't the best way to get accurate information.

I don't think FW aid inherently unbalanced. I do think that some FW units tend that direction, and are helped that way by plugging holes in codexes (Blight Drones for CSM).

That has little to do with my opposition towards them. I just dislike the entitled attitude I see often by players wanting to use FW. Similar to some in this thread, if you don't play against their list its because you're dumb, lazy, don't want a challenge, or are just unsportsmanlike. That's a subset of people I'd rather not be involved with.


That, and Tyranid FW units are pretty bad. :-)

I don't think FW aid inherently unbalanced. I do think that some FW units tend that direction, and are helped that way by plugging holes in codexes (Blight Drones for CSM).

It takes far more than one unit to plug a hole in that codex.

rigeld2 wrote:That has little to do with my opposition towards them. I just dislike the entitled attitude I see often by players wanting to use FW. Similar to some in this thread, if you don't play against their list its because you're dumb, lazy, don't want a challenge, or are just unsportsmanlike. That's a subset of people I'd rather not be involved with.

Well yeah, if someones being an entitled git about using Forgeworld stuff, it's just as bad as someone being a stubborn git about refusing.

The best thing I've found is this - prepare two army lists, one with the FW unit, one without. Let your opponent know beforehand you have FW stuff in your list. If they say no, simply smile and use the other list. Chances are you'll do better with the list without FW units anyway.

gmaleron wrote:Hello eveyone, this is a question that has sparked some serious debate (and a little drama) @ my local gaming store recently and wanted to take it up with the community of Dakka. As the title of the thread says why do people have a beef with taking Forgeworld lists/models in games? I really see no point to it, especially since Forgeworld is part of GW. The most common complaint that I have seen is that "oh Forgeworld lists are totally OP and cheessy" however when actually playtested and using them we have found this to be hugely exaggerated. People can make the argument that the lists are "unbalanced" but with the playing field of 40k in particular already unbalanced I find it to be an empty argument. Seriously what is the point of GW tempting us to buy these amazing models to only be told we cant use them in games, there is nothing in the books that says they are illegal to run in tournaments or friendly games and I think is taking away alot of the diversity of the game. This all started when the local store owner gave no real or good reason as to why you cant run forgeworld lists (we basically have come to the opinion that its because he doesnt know how to power game against them) and it has now forced us to possibly play a tournament @ another game store so we actually can use the books and minitures. So I want to know guys, what are your reasons for and against running/using Forgeworld books and lists in tournaments and friendly games?

Elysians, for example (which I play) have access to a huge amount of Valkyries (as they can be dedicated transports). This is not a huge problem, at least not when I've played friendly games, there is a problem however, and that is their heavy support options. They can take Lightnings and/or Thunderbolts as heavy support choices. These are 'flyers' and use 'flyer rules.' For anyone who uses a normal codex they will have little to no chance of taking them out unless they build specifically to fight them and even then some codeces are still screwed, see Tyranids versus flyers.

Jstncloud wrote:

gmaleron wrote:Hello eveyone, this is a question that has sparked some serious debate (and a little drama) @ my local gaming store recently and wanted to take it up with the community of Dakka. As the title of the thread says why do people have a beef with taking Forgeworld lists/models in games? I really see no point to it, especially since Forgeworld is part of GW. The most common complaint that I have seen is that "oh Forgeworld lists are totally OP and cheessy" however when actually playtested and using them we have found this to be hugely exaggerated. People can make the argument that the lists are "unbalanced" but with the playing field of 40k in particular already unbalanced I find it to be an empty argument. Seriously what is the point of GW tempting us to buy these amazing models to only be told we cant use them in games, there is nothing in the books that says they are illegal to run in tournaments or friendly games and I think is taking away alot of the diversity of the game. This all started when the local store owner gave no real or good reason as to why you cant run forgeworld lists (we basically have come to the opinion that its because he doesnt know how to power game against them) and it has now forced us to possibly play a tournament @ another game store so we actually can use the books and minitures. So I want to know guys, what are your reasons for and against running/using Forgeworld books and lists in tournaments and friendly games?

Elysians, for example (which I play) have access to a huge amount of Valkyries (as they can be dedicated transports). This is not a huge problem, at least not when I've played friendly games, there is a problem however, and that is their heavy support options. They can take Lightnings and/or Thunderbolts as heavy support choices. These are 'flyers' and use 'flyer rules.' For anyone who uses a normal codex they will have little to no chance of taking them out unless they build specifically to fight them and even then some codeces are still screwed, see Tyranids versus flyers.

They are apocalypse units, check the listing for the Fast Skimmers that are flyers in apoc, and unless its apocalypse, flyers cannot be used explicitly.

You'll only have one Heavy support slot, but hey the sky talon is pretty nice.

AnUnearthlyChilde wrote:

Playing something from FW that you don't know is EXACTLY THE SAME as playing a brand new codex you don't know... Now seriously, are you going to decline playing someone with a new Dex? No, I didn't think so. Sorry but that just smacks of WAAC.

Really? So When some plants a Thunderhawk or Warhound on the Board you go "yeah thats fine". Bollox. FW is uber units (in the main) for apocalypse and big games and it should be considered an official addon to 40k. "Lets play 40k" and you bring something like a T-Hawk or Warhound etc, "I would say we are not playing apocalypse".

No it's not the same due to things like Structure points, Super Heavy Weapons and D Strength Weapons. A Vulcan-Mega Bolter against a ork horde will cause mass casualties, if you aren't playing a large or Super-heavy you are at a serious disadvantage. There is a semblance of balance (despite everyone's objections) within the Codex's, even fighting a new codex you have a reasonable chance of finding out from FOC what they do and you should ask what those units do.

Playing someone with a FW super Heavy while you have normal army is like being dry humped by a Rhino, deeply unfair, unpleasant and there is nothing you can do to stop it. People who do this kind of thing are complete "Richard Heads" and are definite WAAC tossers.

I went to a Tournament last year that allowed a single choice (upto 400points) from Planetstrike, Spearhead or FW. I took a Landraider "Terminus Ultra" I would never take this in an ordinary game, only in Apocalypse or Special Tournaments.

ZebioLizard2 wrote:

Trying to deny this separation between GW and FW in high-handed, sometimes arrogant ways by some FW-proponents is the very reason for the "hate" that gives this discussion it's title and name.

Or it could be because of people like you who don't realize just how they aren't seperated.

Forgeworld is a Subsidiary of Games Workshop, which means that games workshop is the parent company of Forgeworld. Which means Games workshop owns Forgeworld to the point that they own 50%+ shares of stock, and that as a result they don't need to buy it out completely, which means there of course will be a barrier between them in the sense that games workshop would gain additional ownership, but it would give them more issues than they may prefer.

Do you know nothing of economics and the buisness model?

As you keep touting arrogant ways of the FW people, not to mention continuing brash insults along with the snide comments means you must have something against forgeworld in general at this point. Along with it's players, so that it's very likely at this point that you have a grudge in some manner. Which can show a biased viewpoint.

I do know my share of economics and business models. And GW as a company produces different brands and games. WFB and 40K are not the same, just because they are produced by the same company. 40K basic and Planetstrike are not the same, even though they are produced by the same company. 40K basic and FW are not the same, even though they are produced by the same company. It seems rather ridiculous to assume that because it flows into the same shareholder value, it is all just one big product. Clearly, my advanced knowledge of business tells me that on occassion, the same company may actually sell different things, as well as "optional" expansion to existing product lines. Moreover, if the same company goes through the trouble of actually creating seperate brands, they do so for a reason.

Do you keep telling people that Tropicana tastes just like Pepsi because its by the same company? Do you keep telling people their Porsche is no different from a VW because its from the same company? Seems a rather skewed perception of "business" you have there, not me.

Really? So When some plants a Thunderhawk or Warhound on the Board you go "yeah thats fine". Bollox. FW is uber units (in the main) for apocalypse and big games and it should be considered an official addon to 40k. "Lets play 40k" and you bring something like a T-Hawk or Warhound etc, "I would say we are not playing apocalypse".

*Sigh* Forgeworld has little marking inside it, they say "Warhammer 40k" and "Apocalypse". If someone tries to pull the "No Apocalypse book" and says its for standard games, feel free to smack him with his model.

40K basic and FW are not the same, even though they are produced by the same company

As I will say to him, there are little marks in the book. "For Standard Games of Warhammer 40k" with indications for basic game use, and apocalypse use if there can be a difference between them. Not "This is only suitable for non-standard games of warhammer 40k". That's what the apocalypse sticker is for.

Do you keep telling people that Tropicana tastes just like Pepsi because its by the same company? Do you keep telling people their Porsche is no different from a VW because its from the same company? Seems a rather skewed perception of "business" you have there, not me.

It's less a different product line, and more or less this.

It's true meaning would be along the lines of you buy these parts from a different factory owned by someone else but produces parts for their company, it's the same parts, they may be different, they may have different specifications, but they are built for the same car. You are not going to tell someone who's bought some shiny new rims his Porsche is not a Porsche because he's using different parts for it will you?

I am honest to god sick of this argument. We are not discussing Warhammer fantasy being mixed with 40k, it does not mean Bloodbowl rules will be fighting 40k, there are specifications, that doesn't mean we'll be seeing a Chaos Cruiser staring down pirate ships floating in the water ridden by vampire orks!

ZebioLizard2 wrote:

*Sigh* Forgeworld has little marking inside it, they say "Warhammer 40k" and "Apocalypse". If someone tries to pull the "No Apocalypse book" and says its for standard games, feel free to smack him with his model.

Absolutely, I don't mind the troop stand-ins and proxy units (although I do point out to people using Contemptors as normal Dreads is a bit silly because in a game of LOS they are a good deal higher than normal dreads). It's a case or realising this is a game and we are all grown up's, if you buy something expensive and barely ever use it, well sorry that's your fault chum.

ZebioLizard2 wrote:
As I will say to him, there are little marks in the book. "For Standard Games of Warhammer 40k" with indications for basic game use, and apocalypse use if there can be a difference between them. Not "This is only suitable for non-standard games of warhammer 40k". That's what the apocalypse sticker is for.

It also says, very explicitly, the following "it is best to make sure they [your opponent] is happy to play a game using Forge World models before you start." They also always put 'standard' game and 'official' game in quotation marks or inversted commas in those references you make.

Now, looking quickly wiki, it says the following (emphasis mine):

Wikipedia wrote:
In English writing, quotation marks or inverted commas (informally referred to as quotes or speech marks)[1] are punctuation marks surrounding a quotation, direct speech, or a literal title or name. Quotation marks can also be used to indicate a different meaning of a word or phrase than the one typically associated with it and are often used to express irony.

Since we can assume it's not meant to indicate irony or a direct quote, the use of the word 'official' or 'standard' game is used as descriptive to separate it conceptually from Apocalypse, but not truly a standard game (without inverted commas) as this would denominate a game without FW models.

ZebioLizard2 wrote:
It's true meaning would be along the lines of you buy these parts from a different factory owned by someone else but produces parts for their company, it's the same parts, they may be different, they may have different specifications, but they are built for the same car. You are not going to tell someone who's bought some shiny new rims his Porsche is not a Porsche because he's using different parts for it will you?

actually yes. It would be a Porsche with modification. And if said person would try to sell his Porsche or get a guarantee service from Porsche, he would be obliged to notify people that they've used "non-standard" products by a different supplier.

It also says, very explicitly, the following "it is best to make sure they [your opponent] is happy to play a game using Forge World models before you start."

That's less a rule and more a guide line, such as the guideline "I can refuse to play you regardless of what you field if I don't feel like it" Which you can do of course, but to do it specifically because you believe there's a difference between Forgeworld and GW is silly.

The rule as you quoted, even stated they were "Official" and to be used within "Standard games" the only reasoning behind it is because they might be unknown! The rule itself says they are official models that is to be used within apocalypse or standard games. Which makes my "Don't challenge IG because they are unknown to me" on par with said rule.

actually yes. It would be a Porsche with modification. And if said person would try to sell his Porsche or get a guarantee service from Porsche, he would be obliged to notify people that they've used "non-standard" products by a different supplier.

Unless of course those parts are made by Porsche's owned subsidiary companies. In which case they can legally sell it as the same thing. The only time you would need to obligate "Non-Standard" Products is whenever you buy from an outside supplier that Porsche does not own. As outside companies they are considered outside the Porsche model frame, and thus they are considered "Non-standard" and not covered and must be declared before being sold, resold, or scrapped down for parts.

Which got a car salesmen here in trouble because he was selling Ford models that were using unregulated, outside unitsnot sold by Ford or its subsidiaries, and thus they weren't getting the money. However the lot also contained many ford models with various "specialist" parts owned by Ford and it's Subsidiaries, that were not taken back to the company and simply sold on the lot later.

As Forgeworld is an owned Subsidiary and they make parts directly for Warhammer 40k and it's variant game Apocalypse, there's no issue.

ZebioLizard2 wrote:

And here I thought only Elitist, Snobbish Forgeworld players played as rules-lawyers, but that's less a rule and more a guide line, such as the guideline "I can refuse to play you regardless of what you field if I don't feel like it" Which you can do of course, but to do it specifically because you believe there's a difference between Forgeworld and GW is silly. .

It's an unworthy argument, for sure. I've been saying for ages that one should use common sense> If one has a big fat Forgeworld Logo on the cover and the other has not, they are clearly different things. If they would have wanted them to be treated identically, they would have produced them identically. But you keep trying to sidestep this most obvious of points by astonishing feats of reality-denial.

Anyhow, if you try to "trick" your way around the rather evident difference by harping on about these lines in the IA Apocalypse, it is worthwhile looking at them correctly. And I didn't invent the definition of inverted commas in the English Language either. I just looked them up. If the FW-authors used them (and their editors vetted them), I can only assume those inverted commas are used for a reason.

And claiming one is but a "guideline" while the other is a "rule" seems rather arbitrary. If "ask your opponents" is a guideline, than those notes about using the stuff in 'official' games which appears in the exact same sentence must also be a mere guideline as well.



And no, if you use VW parts on your Porsche, it' still an unofficial modification, even though they are both from the same (parent) company.

It's an unworthy argument, for sure. I've been saying for ages that one should use common sense> If one has a big fat Forgeworld Logo on the cover and the other has not, they are clearly different things. If they would have wanted them to be treated identically, they would have produced them identically. But you keep trying to sidestep this most obvious of points by astonishing feats of reality-denial.

Zeb does not see the big fat Forgeworld logo on here, do you? My astonishing feats of reality-denial must be erasing it, point it out to me. In fact by my count I see words at the bottom proclaiming New rules for Warhammer 40,000 And Warhammer 40,000 Apocalypse

Anyhow, if you try to "trick" your way around the rather evident difference by harping on about these lines in the IA Apocalypse, it is worthwhile looking at them correctly. And I didn't invent the definition of inverted commas in the English Language either. I just looked them up. If the FW-authors used them (and their editors vetted them), I can only assume those inverted commas are used for a reason.

Assuming hm, but no credit to your words aside from the fact that there's no evidence beyond your speculation that there's any difference between Forgeworld and Warhammer 40k original, not counting the Apocalypse Variant models.

And no, if you use VW parts on your Porsche, it' still an unofficial modification, even though they are both from the same (parent) company.

There are specialist companies that produce Porsche parts they make as subsidiary companies, and no I am not saying they are putting VW parts on a Porsche, I am saying that they are putting Specialist Porsche Parts on there that aren't produced by the main company but by one of it's many Subsidiaries, which by your logic would not be an actual Porsche due to it not being produced by the main company.

ZebioLizard2 wrote:
Zeb does not see the big fat Forgeworld logo on here, do you? My astonishing feats of reality-denial must be erasing it, point it out to me. In fact by my count I see words at the bottom proclaiming New rules for Warhammer 40,000 And Warhammer 40,000 Apocalypse

Alright. IA logo, not FW logo. Same things. It's pointedly and consciously different than this>



If they look identical to you, you might need an eye-check.

Every fan-dex is "new rules for Warhammer 40,000". Doesn't mean they are on equal grounds with the official rules. If I put together a Zweischneid PDF for Zweischneid's awsome tank, it will also say "for use with Warhammer 40K" quite evidently.

ZebioLizard2 wrote:

Assuming hm, but no credit to your words aside from the fact that there's no evidence beyond your speculation that there's any difference between Forgeworld and Warhammer 40k original, not counting the Apocalypse Variant models.

There is plenty of evidence. The fact that they are from different companies. The rules/guidelines printed inside the book. The fact that IA (unlike Codexes) are not explicitly mentioned in the BRB as source of player armies. Just because you choose to willfully ignore the evidence does not make it speculation.

ZebioLizard2 wrote:


There are specialist companies that produce Porsche parts they make as subsidiary companies, and no I am not saying they are putting VW parts on a Porsche, I am saying that they are putting Specialist Porsche Parts on there that aren't produced by the main company but by one of it's many Subsidiaries, which by your logic would not be an actual Porsche due to it not being produced by the main company.

No there aren't. There might be different companies in the supply chain (like a third company that prints GW books or perhaps external consultants who do webdesign for them), but they are sold as "offical Porsche parts". If they are not sold as such, there's good reason they are not and you will be required to disclose their use as deviation from 'offical parts'.

Every fan-dex is "new rules for Warhammer 40,000". Doesn't mean they are on equal grounds with the official rules. If I put together a Zweischneid PDF for Zweischneid's awsome tank, it will also say "for use with Warhammer 40K" quite evidently.

Sure, go for it, but unlike Forgeworld I'd love to see how you'd handle a "Cease and Desist" notice because you're reproducing and trying to claim their copyright should they catch wind should it become popular

I now want a Zweischneid PDF for said awesome tank, can I have one?

There is plenty of evidence. The fact that they are from different companies. The rules/guidelines printed inside the book. The fact that IA (unlike Codexes) are not explicitly mentioned in the BRB as source of player armies. Just because you choose to willfully ignore the evidence does not make it speculation.

A company owned directly by the previous company that has has been split into two by said parent company just to specifically sell models and books for both games (Warhammer fantasy and Warhammer 40k) I kind of wish I could do as you do and separate parent companies from their subsidiaries, maybe I could ignore the fact that Bioware is owned by EA, hmm..


I'm having loads of fun, it's why I can't stop discussing and debating with you at this point though.

ZebioLizard2 wrote:
A company owned directly by the previous company that has has been split into two by said parent company just to specifically sell models and books for both games (Warhammer fantasy and Warhammer 40k) I kind of wish I could do as you do and separate parent companies from their subsidiaries, maybe I could ignore the fact that Bioware is owned by EA, hmm..


I'm having loads of fun, it's why I can't stop discussing and debating with you at this point though.

Noone is separating companies. But separating products produced by a company. Also, Bioware and EA started out as separate companies. FW and GW did not. FW was consciously and purposefully created by GW. And they purpusefully use different designs, different production teams, etc.. . Doesn't make much sense to go through all that trouble if "it's all just the same in the end anyways".

Alright, I have an honest question.

I would never look down on anyone (publicly) for refusing to play my Armored Company out of Imperial Armor vol. 1. . .

. . . but I would wonder to myself "Why? What have I done wrong?"

So riddle me this, Batman:
Why would you refuse to play against ForgeWorld rules?

rigeld2 wrote:Please stop comparing not wanting to play with FW units to ... well ... *anything* like that.
Many people have real reasons they don't want to bring in FW units.
There's no rules forcing you to interact with FW units.

Theres no rules forcing you to interact with ANY units. You can refuse to play anyone for any reason you want.

But as I said, some reasons are more stupid than others

Unit1126PLL wrote:Alright, I have an honest question.

I would never look down on anyone (publicly) for refusing to play my Armored Company out of Imperial Armor vol. 1. . .

. . . but I would wonder to myself "Why? What have I done wrong?"

So riddle me this, Batman:
Why would you refuse to play against ForgeWorld rules?

Why would you refuse to play against Zweischeid's Awsome custom tank?

As said, I doubt anyone would refuse if proper courtesy is given as outlined in the FW-books, to let other people know with enough time ahead so they know what is coming. The argument is just "deploying" a FW unit "as if it wasn't any different" than a regular Rhino or other regular 40K unit.

I don't consider it GW stuff, unlike Forgeworld, there's no officiial mention that its approved either, so your tank can stay in its box.

Zweischneid wrote:

Unit1126PLL wrote:Alright, I have an honest question.

I would never look down on anyone (publicly) for refusing to play my Armored Company out of Imperial Armor vol. 1. . .

. . . but I would wonder to myself "Why? What have I done wrong?"

So riddle me this, Batman:
Why would you refuse to play against ForgeWorld rules?

Why would you refuse to play against Zweischeid's Awsome custom tank?

As said, I doubt anyone would refuse if proper courtesy is given as outlined in the FW-books, to let other people know with enough time ahead so they know what is coming. The argument is just "deploying" a FW unit "as if it wasn't any different" than a regular Rhino or other regular 40K unit.

Honestly, I wouldn't refuse to play against your tank if you had a copy of the rules. Hell, it might even turn out to be suitably epic!

So why wouldn't you play against Forge World rules again? I never did get a straight answer I don't think . . . if I missed it I'm sorry.

Unit1126PLL wrote:
So why wouldn't you play against Forge World rules again? I never did get a straight answer I don't think . . . if I missed it I'm sorry.

I would not refuse to play against Forge World rules. I would refuse to play against a player who would try to "rule-lawyer" his Forgeworld units into the game with condescending arguments and would make arrogant prejudgements about people who would opt to not play FW such as these>

Fear is the main reason.

Fear of the unknown
Fear of losing
Fear of having their cookie-cutter meta upset.

It's a question of character on the opposite player on how he opts to approach the subject, not of the rules themselves. Unfortunately in my (admittedly limited and personal) experience, FW tends to attract the worst sort of persons in the hobby: people who often exhibit "elitist" or "snobbish" behaviour on the false assumption their FW-models somehow make them "better" or more "advanced" fans of toy soldiers: and that those who would prefer a game without FW are not their equal, but rather ignorant fools that would need to be educated. So I've grown perhaps a bit too weary, not of FW, but of the sort of players that tend to flock to it.

Zweischneid wrote:

Unit1126PLL wrote:
So why wouldn't you play against Forge World rules again? I never did get a straight answer I don't think . . . if I missed it I'm sorry.

I would not refuse to play against Forge World rules. I would refuse to play against a player who would try to "rule-lawyer" his Forgeworld units into the game with condescending arguments and would make arrogant prejudgements about people who would opt to not play FW such as these>

Oh, that's unfortunate, then. There's a misunderstanding here - the FWphiles think that the only way to get through to the other side is by rules-lawyering. I don't know why they think that.

Zweischneid wrote:

Fear is the main reason.

Fear of the unknown
Fear of losing
Fear of having their cookie-cutter meta upset.

It's a question of character on the opposite player on how he opts to approach the subject, not of the rules themselves. Unfortunately in my (admittedly limited and personal) experience, FW tends to attract the worst sort of persons in the hobby: people who often exhibit "elitist" or "snobbish" behaviour on the false assumption their FW-models somehow make them "better" or more "advanced" fans of toy soldiers: and that those who would prefer a game without FW are not their equal, but rather ignorant fools that would need to be educated. So I've grown perhaps a bit too weary, not of FW, but of the sort of players that tend to flock to it.

So the real reason you won't play against Forge World models is that the people who use them are generally snobs? That's unfortunate - I try to not be a snob, and I would hope that to assume everyone who plays them is a snob is a bit of an over-generalization.

And to clarify - those of us who play with Forge World models don't believe they're better or more advanced fans of toy soldiers. They're just disappointed when they can't use the very expensive, very beautiful, and very reasonable model they've assembled and painted. Especially when Forge World itself stamps such models with labels such as "Warhammer 40k Approved" and "Official."

Yes the caveat is there that you should clarify with your opponent, but at least what goes through my head is "What kind of person would refuse to play this model? It's a beauty and has entertaining rules!"

I hope that helps you see my views as well as you have opened yours to me.

Unit1126PLL wrote:Oh, that's unfortunate, then. There's a misunderstanding here - the FWphiles think that the only way to get through to the other side is by rules-lawyering. I don't know why they think that.

That's a pretty broad brush. I'm a 'FWphile'. But I'm a big supporter of 'bring two lists, one without FW, and ask first'. There's no reason to get into a huge argument about the man-dollies.Just prepare for the eventuality that someone might not want to have them in a game.

I just get annoyed when people against Forgeworld make things up to justify their stance on not liking Forgeworld stuff.

-Loki- wrote:

Unit1126PLL wrote:Oh, that's unfortunate, then. There's a misunderstanding here - the FWphiles think that the only way to get through to the other side is by rules-lawyering. I don't know why they think that.

That's a pretty broad brush. I'm a 'FWphile'. But I'm a big supporter of 'bring two lists, one without FW, and ask first'. There's no reason to get into a huge argument about the man-dollies.Just prepare for the eventuality that someone might not want to have them in a game.

I just get annoyed when people against Forgeworld make things up to justify their stance on not liking Forgeworld stuff.

You're right - I even inadvertently included myself - it's too early in the morning. I should've said:

that's what some FWphiles think.

Thought for the Day:
Insomnia begets Heresy, Heresy begets Angry Forumgoers.

They shouldn't be called New Rules for WH40k (as per the front of the IA book above). They aren't. They are supplementary, alternative or an optional addon they are not intended for integration into the 5th ed RB.

The 5th ed RB and official Rule FAQ's (Black Templars for example) are the official 40k rules.

Anything else is an optional extra, they designed to be complimentary, additional, supplementary rules to the official 40k rules. Usually to add further interest for more experienced players, or to change dynamics, FOC, to have larger scale battles or special battles. They are not New 40k Rules, no new 40k Rule Book is released with all this incorporated because simply it is required.

Cities of Death is a different modified set of rules to the normal 40k Rules.

As is Planetstrike, as is FW IA releases or anything else that is supplementary and optional.

The crux of this is the lack of understanding of modified rulesets that supplement the Core rules of 40k. Everyone has the 40k Rule Books, it is the single defining feature of all these addon's.

It is nice to see some reasonable FW players for a change.

Generally however, this very thread is a testament to the crude vilifaction of people who would opt to not play FW.


Just from the first page>

H.B.M.C. wrote:

gmaleron wrote:As the title of the thread says why do people have a beef with taking Forgeworld lists/models in games?

The human condition:

1. People are afraid of things they don't understand (eg. they haven't read the FW rules, therefore they don't know what it does, therefore they are scared of it).
2. People are afraid of losing.

Combine the two and you have the reason why people dislike FW.

Erik_Morkai wrote:Fear is the main reason.

Fear of the unknown
Fear of losing
Fear of having their cookie-cutter meta upset.

wolf13 wrote:some people look for any advantage, and denying FW units is a good way to throw an opposing player off balance before the game even starts

zachjattack wrote:The reason why people hate Forgeworld is because people like to call everything a copy, or gay just because.

That is the reality one faces each and every time one dares voice the opinion to rather not play FW this time. It generally is an odd mix of "people who refuse FW are Noobs who don't understand it" and "people who refuse FW are inconsiderate WAAC-players with no love for the hobby who would deny FW to gain cheap advantages or fear loosing their "cookie-cutter list". In each case, the implication is that people who do use FW are a) more seasoned hobbyist with a greater understanding of the rules and b) more "mature" hobbyists who may look down on (presumed) WAAC-players or c) both of them together, as little sense as it makes.

And as pointed out, being "vetted" to be used with 40K doesn't mean its vetted to be used with 40K all the time and without exception and no prior notice. Different things.

mwnciboo wrote:They shouldn't be called New Rules for WH40k (as per the front of the IA book above). They aren't. They are supplementary, alternative or an optional addon they are not intended for integration into the 5th ed RB

You don't get to make that call. If they are branded new rules, then they are new rules. End. Of. Story.

Kaldor wrote:You don't get to make that call. If they are branded new rules, then they are new rules. End. Of. Story.

Planetstrike is also branded new rules.

mwnciboo wrote:They shouldn't be called New Rules for WH40k (as per the front of the IA book above). They aren't. They are supplementary, alternative or an optional addon they are not intended for integration into the 5th ed RB.

The 5th ed RB and official Rule FAQ's (Black Templars for example) are the official 40k rules.

Anything else is an optional extra, they designed to be complimentary, additional, supplementary rules to the official 40k rules. They are not New 40k Rules, no new BRB is released with all this incorporated.

Cities of Death is a different set of rules to the normal 40k Rules.

As is Planetstrike, as is FW IA releases or anything else that is supplementary and optional.

The crux of this is the lack of understanding of modified rulesets that supplement the Core rules of 40k. Everyone has the 40k Rule Books, it is the single defining feature of all these addon's.

Wait, where does it say Forge World is complimentary, additional, or supplementary to the official rules?

You yourself says that it reads on the cover "New Rules for Warhammer 40,000." This implies, to me, that they are indeed new rules for Warhammer 40,000. I fail to see the part where they are in the same class as planetstrike.

With that said, it does say to ask in the book. But I want to put FW in a third category - not a supplement, not implicit in standard 40k, but simply FW.

Zweischneid wrote:It is nice to see some reasonable FW players for a change.

Generally however, this very thread is a testament to the crude vilifaction of people who would opt to not play FW.


Just from the first page>

H.B.M.C. wrote:

gmaleron wrote:As the title of the thread says why do people have a beef with taking Forgeworld lists/models in games?

The human condition:

1. People are afraid of things they don't understand (eg. they haven't read the FW rules, therefore they don't know what it does, therefore they are scared of it).
2. People are afraid of losing.

Combine the two and you have the reason why people dislike FW.

Erik_Morkai wrote:Fear is the main reason.

Fear of the unknown
Fear of losing
Fear of having their cookie-cutter meta upset.

wolf13 wrote:some people look for any advantage, and denying FW units is a good way to throw an opposing player off balance before the game even starts

zachjattack wrote:The reason why people hate Forgeworld is because people like to call everything a copy, or gay just because.

That is the reality one faces each and every time one dares voice the opinion to rather not play FW this time.

And as pointed out, being "vetted" to be used with 40K doesn't mean its vetted to be used with 40K all the time and without exception and no prior notice. Different things.

I understand your post - it is frustration on the FWphile side of things because we can't seem to see the rationality of not playing against Forge World.

As for the second part of your post, I'm afraid I only slightly understand, so I'm going to try to put it in my own words to see if I have it:
"Being made to fit well into the standard 40k system doesn't mean it DOES fit well into the 40k system all the time and without exception or prior notice."

40k 5th Edition is the Rule set.

You cannot buy another book and get the complete rules, because it is not a complete ruleset. You need the 5th 40k book to play. This is without question. It is definitive.

This is why I use the term supplementary, IA books/Apoc etc are not standalone they require the 40k rulebook in order to play but add additional items in (such as Structure points, and the extra damage tables etc).

If you went to a regular (non Apoc or CoD et al )40k Tournament and said "Oh no, what do you mean I cannot use my Ork Mega-dread it's in the Apocalypse book". You would be asked to leave or worse mocked.

At GT's and other tournaments it is laid out clearly what rules are to be used, what codices and also what additional rules and new FAQ's are to be used. It is often the case that new Codex's are not allowed despite them being released. This was the case last autumn when the New Necron stuff came out, now it is integrated, but at release it was too new and the Tournament rules had already been written.

I love FW stuff, look at my Ironhands on my Pics. However there is a time and a place, you want to play FW units, arrange with the player before hand, go to an APOC/ CoD game but don't bitch about the fact that you cannot use additional rules all the time on the core rule set.

Unit1126PLL wrote:

mwnciboo wrote:They shouldn't be called New Rules for WH40k (as per the front of the IA book above). They aren't. They are supplementary, alternative or an optional addon they are not intended for integration into the 5th ed RB.

The 5th ed RB and official Rule FAQ's (Black Templars for example) are the official 40k rules.

Anything else is an optional extra, they designed to be complimentary, additional, supplementary rules to the official 40k rules. They are not New 40k Rules, no new BRB is released with all this incorporated.

Cities of Death is a different set of rules to the normal 40k Rules."

Being a different set of rules does make it "new rules", or not? Where is the difference?

rigeld2 wrote:You ask for a game of 40k, not mentioning you want to use FW units. Your opponent agrees, though he dislikes FW. You plop down a Malanthrope. He objects. You call him unsportsmanlike, a scardeycat, a "simple minded berk" or whatever other insult has been used in this thread.

Don't put words in my mouth. I've not called anyone unsportsmanlike, or a simple minded berk. I am most annoyed by the attitude that it is considered by many that it is more obnoxious to have the audacity to even consider using FW minis than to be a arrogant prat who treats people who use FW minis like some elitest jerks. I also have a problem with people who refuse to play against them simply because they can and for no other reason than rumors and fear that they are overpowered and unstoppable they will refuse facing *ANY* FW models. If someone raises a stink about it I will move on to a different opponent and let them play in their own little corner of the game, just don't try and tell me their own abject refusal and rudensss is acceptable because the IA books say you should ask your opponent first. I generally avoid this completely by playing with people I know only anymore. I don't need to face people over the table top who get upset if your army is anything that they don't consider "right". Whether it is a codex book or an IA list, in my book it is "right" if it has 1 HQ, or 2, at least 2 troops, but no more than 6 and no more than 3 each of fast attack, elite and heavy units. I don't care where they come from as long as they aren't apocalypse units. Once someone starts telling me what I can and can't play in my *own* army is the time I move on and don't waste my time playing them. It is that simple for me. Whether my force is pure codex based (hey its cheesy to have raptors in the nurgle force, you can't use *that* model (my plague hulk) it's forge world! (even though it is pretty much the same as a defiler with shorter ranged weapons which limits me), your khorne marines are supposed to be berserkers, not regular CSMs or havocs, etc. etc). Once the composition of my force outside of the proper FoC table requirements becomes more important than the game itself I can't be bothered anymore, because obviously this person is too busy worrying about my army than wanting to play a game in the first place.

rigeld2 wrote:
The problem I have is with the attitude that if you buy a FW unit/book you're entitled to ignore the other person's opinions, lie to him, and then force him to play with you or you are free to insult him as much as you want. That I cannot abide. And it seems like that is what a lot of people in this thread are showing.

As I said above don't put words into *my* mouth. I have said none of these things. I don't encourage lying to opponents or other players about anything or ignoring their opinions. Not even forcing anyone to play me. I got hooked into this thread because there were folks clearly stating that it was OK to be total jerks to people with FW and they were supposed to just shut up and take it. Good manners and polite play goes both ways. I just want to play games and as long as everyone has rules and is ready to have fun I don't care. There are more offensive things in the entirety GK codex than the 2 things that are so horrible on the FW side of things you listed as examples and your chances of facing the GK spam is pretty high these days, whlie your chances of seeing an achilles is pretty darn low. I don't expect to know EVERY fiddly little rule of my opponent's army when I play and if we based letting people play their forces solely on those rules we knew well ourselves we'd be playing a lot fewer games now wouldn't we or only against similar armies to our own and where is the fun in that?

I don't really see us as directly opposed or at odds in this conversation, but we certainly don't fully agree on the subject.

Skriker

I allow forgeworld stuff but at the same time i hate them and am suspicious of them. Forgeworld and IA popularized drop pods and flyers to the point that they are now codex standard units and i hate them, completely and utterly. Fast skimmers should solely be the realm of eldar vehicles and deepstriking should be for very specific units that specialize in that style of deployment. I hate the way they homogenize army and unit roles by giving options for everything, regardless of how fairly they are overpriced. I hate flyer stands that make it look like a giant geyser of plastic is erupting from my game board with a big garish battlefleet gothic unit glued on top of it, and I wish they would all go away and never come back. But they aren't, so i deal.

I really like the purely aesthetic stuff like pre-heresy armor and alternate bolter patterns, those look beautiful and I hope to paint them eventually. Or stuff like kommando conversion kits because really gw, if I want to field a squad of 15 kommandos you expect me to buy 3 full box sets and wind up with 2 nobz I can't use and still needing to buy 2 special weapon boyz separately? I think kommandos are some of gw's best looking models but i'll take the conversions.

However, anytime FW touches rules I just groan. Not because they're too strong, I just don't want to deal with them. I feel much the same way about the new dark eldar codex, i was fine with that army fading into the night never to return. I have no interest in ever playing as them and I wouldn't mind never playing against them. I would have much preferred to see a different army updated and given new models. But I'm not about to refuse to play all dark eldar players, so now I've read their new dex and memorized their rules and account for their effective army lists when building my own lists. It is simply a necessary chore i had to do. And anytime someone puts down a forgeworld model and I need to ask to read their rules it is also just a chore for me.

So yes, I'll allow my opponent to field forgeworld models. But to answer the thread title, i still hate them.

rigeld2 wrote:If you say "Want to play a game against this list?" that's fine... but "Want to play a game?" "Sure!" "Here's my list." "Erm, Forgeworld unit? No thanks." "insert snarky insult here" is what I find unacceptable.

Comments in red are douchey. Thus comments in blue are justified.

Not wanting to play a game because FW units are involved is just as stupid as not wanting to play because any other type of unit is involved, or any other equally arbitrary reason. Like if you don't want to play Asians or something.

You can piss and moan about how unfair it is, and how elitist it is, but at the end of the day it's a damn stupid reason to refuse a game.

Kaldor wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:If you say "Want to play a game against this list?" that's fine... but "Want to play a game?" "Sure!" "Here's my list." "Erm, Forgeworld unit? No thanks." "insert snarky insult here" is what I find unacceptable.

Comments in red are douchey. Thus comments in blue are justified.

Not wanting to play a game because FW units are involved is just as stupid as not wanting to play because any other type of unit is involved, or any other equally arbitrary reason. Like if you don't want to play Asians or something.

You can piss and moan about how unfair it is, and how elitist it is, but at the end of the day it's a damn stupid reason to refuse a game.

No, really - it's never justified. The comments in red would not have to be said if you were up front about the fact that you're not playing normal 40k. Because you started off the lie, you feel justified in insulting someone if they decide not to play you.

Remember - you agreed to a game of 40k. That has certain implications. Backing out of a game of 40k because your opponent plays Blood Angels or includes a Dreadknight is silly, yes. That's not what is happening.

You agreed to a game of 40k. Then you introduced something that's not-40k. And now you feel justified for insulting the person who decides not to play a game with you. That's what is insane to me - and the attitude that just drives me batty.

It'd be great for the hobby overall if people would lose the attitude. More people would likely play FW units if the people trying to field them weren't as elitist/forceful as they are in this thread.

Am I really the only one seeing that?

From FW website, on the Siege Regiment pdf wrote:This army list is primarily designed for use with the Standard Missions from the Warhammer 40,000 rulebook

Sounds a lot like we'll be playing a standard game in my eyes.

Skriker wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:You ask for a game of 40k, not mentioning you want to use FW units. Your opponent agrees, though he dislikes FW. You plop down a Malanthrope. He objects. You call him unsportsmanlike, a scardeycat, a "simple minded berk" or whatever other insult has been used in this thread.

Don't put words in my mouth. I've not called anyone unsportsmanlike, or a simple minded berk.

You're right, you didn't - I didn't mean to make it seem like you were advocating that directly, but it seemed like you were on the side of "stfu and play or you're dumb". I went back and filtered the thread on just your posts and I think I agree with one of your posts:

Skriker wrote:Good manners would be saying something to the effect of "I am not familiar with those FW models. Is it OK if we just use official codex forces instead? If not I don't mind you looking for a different player than me." In that instance they are voicing their disinterest in the forge world models, but still being a reasonable and mature human being as you say too.

Unfortunately, many in this thread would take such a show of disinterest and feel free to insult the person who doesn't want to play against FW models. That's my point.

I am most annoyed by the attitude that it is considered by many that it is more obnoxious to have the audacity to even consider using FW minis than to be a arrogant prat who treats people who use FW minis like some elitest jerks.

Based on this thread, I don't have to treat many of them like that - I can observe that many already are.

I also have a problem with people who refuse to play against them simply because they can and for no other reason than rumors and fear that they are overpowered and unstoppable they will refuse facing *ANY* FW models. If someone raises a stink about it I will move on to a different opponent and let them play in their own little corner of the game, just don't try and tell me their own abject refusal and rudensss is acceptable because the IA books say you should ask your opponent first.

Rudeness is not acceptable on either side. I've never said that it is. I've declined to face FW models before because all I want to do is play a friendly chill-out game, and adding in FW rarely lets that happen in my experience. I've always tried to be polite when turning down the game - and if it's similar to the situations I've outlined here (ask for a game of 40k, see FW units on list) I do my best to be polite when turning the game down, but I get frustrated at the same time.

As I said above don't put words into *my* mouth. I have said none of these things. I don't encourage lying to opponents or other players about anything or ignoring their opinions. Not even forcing anyone to play me.

Again - even if I quoted you, I wasn't replying to specifically you. There's been a few people in this thread I've been talking with. Sorry if it seemed like I was attacking you.

I got hooked into this thread because there were folks clearly stating that it was OK to be total jerks to people with FW and they were supposed to just shut up and take it.

I agree - I don't advocate either side being a jerk about the situation.

There are more offensive things in the entirety GK codex than the 2 things that are so horrible on the FW side of things you listed as examples and your chances of facing the GK spam is pretty high these days, whlie your chances of seeing an achilles is pretty darn low.

You're probably right, but that's not the point. I listed the two things that popped into my head first, definitely not the two most powerful things in an IA book that people would likely field. The point isn't that FW is more or less powerful than standard 40k - it's that it requires more permission and many people in this thread ignore that and berate opponents that don't want to face FW units.

I don't really see us as directly opposed or at odds in this conversation, but we certainly don't fully agree on the subject.

You're probably right.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Bobthehero wrote:

From FW website, on the Siege Regiment pdf wrote:This army list is primarily designed for use with the Standard Missions from the Warhammer 40,000 rulebook

Sounds a lot like we'll be playing a standard game in my eyes.

That's the closest one to standard I can see. The only problem with it is things like the Hades Breaching Drill - which book is that detailed in?

You agreed to a game of 40k. Then you introduced something that's not-40k.


Remember - you agreed to a game of 40k. That has certain implications. Backing out of a game of 40k because your opponent plays Blood Angels or includes a Dreadknight is silly, yes. That's not what is happening. .

Because it is 40k, and I have introduced nothing that isn't 40k. I haven't inserted another standard game line into the mix, except for 40k models in a standard game. If I somehow insert fantasy models, sure it wouldn't be 40k, that would be fantasy.

So thus, yes it is exactly what's happening.

Forgeworld produces 40k models for standard games, thus they are to be used in the standard situations. That is all.

Forgeworld produces models and rules that can be combined with standard rules, and Forgeworld states that units stamped with a 40k approved symbol require additional permission.

Hence, it's not 40k - it's 40k with FW units.
40k is the BRB and codexes. None of the IA books is a codex.
Introducing an IA book is outside the standard 40k.

That is all.

rigeld2 wrote:Forgeworld produces models and rules that can be combined with standard rules, and Forgeworld states that units stamped with a 40k approved symbol require additional permission.

Hence, it's not 40k - it's 40k with FW units.
40k is the BRB and codexes. None of the IA books is a codex.
Introducing an IA book is outside the standard 40k.

That is all.

Let's end this here, we will never agree on this, and it is pointless trying to one up each other at this rate because we have no further conclusive evidence to offer besides one vague rule which states they are both official and can be used in standard games and yet to try to please the other player.

I believe that if.

An Eldar player takes a unit of Fire Dragons: It is 40k

An Imperial Guard player takes a baneblade: It is Apocalypse

A Blood angel player takes 6 units of terminators: It is Planetstrike

A board is filled with ruins and city buildings with destructible ruin rules: It is City Fight

An Eldar player takes a unit of Shadow Specters: It is 40k


Until Games Workshop, in the BRB states that Forgeworld models are not official models and that they are a variant game if used within a game of 40k, or within the books of Imperial Armor themselves in a clear manner. I will continue to believe that standard Forgeworld models can be used just as easily as Necrons can take a unit of warriors.

I don't know how you can read that blurb and not figure out that you need to do more than just ask for a game of 40k. It's spelled out that you need to ask to make sure he's okay with FW rules.

And, as my entire stance, if you don't do that and your opponent backs out - its not "justified" to insult him. In fact, it's a Rick move.

That got autocorrected, but I'll leave it. Silly phone.

rigeld2 wrote:I don't know how you can read that blurb and not figure out that you need to do more than just ask for a game of 40k. It's spelled out that you need to ask to make sure he's okay with FW rules.

And, as my entire stance, if you don't do that and your opponent backs out - its not "justified" to insult him. In fact, it's a Rick move.

That got autocorrected, but I'll leave it. Silly phone.

I ask whenever we share army lists, I'd probably ask why, and if he says overpowered I'd probably make the snarky remark. The only one I've used is the Mortis dread, and I doubt anyone would call the standard dreadnought with twin liked AC overpowered.

I'm just defending the people's rights to use Forgeworld in standard games.

Forgeworld models, sure. (Mortis is just dual ac dread, right?)
Forgeworld units/rules, requires extra permission... And if you're polite, you'll hold back the snarky remark. Because as long as he's polite in declining, it's not justified.

Personnally if I get declined, I'll leave and find someone else, that good enough?

Bobthehero wrote:Personnally if I get declined, I'll leave and find someone else, that good enough?

Sure. Personally, that's what I'd expect. Just don't be a jerk about it - contrary to what some in this thread have said.

rigeld2 wrote:Forgeworld models, sure. (Mortis is just dual ac dread, right?)
Forgeworld units/rules, requires extra permission... And if you're polite, you'll hold back the snarky remark. Because as long as he's polite in declining, it's not justified.

Mortis is the dual ML/AC/Lascannon, purely ranged dreadnought for DA

Yes as long as he is polite, though if he see's its stats and still says overpowered, I'd be asking him if he's completely terrified of GK and standard space marine armies.

Forgeworld Rules, I'm not now going to start quoting them, it was a statement.

Now GO!, get your Praetors, Macharusususususus's, LR Achilles, Eldar Scorpions whatever you please.

Tell your little Store Owners who have objections, You make 'em, I bought 'em, The Rules are here for them in Black and White, and I'm sure as Hell Gonna use 'em to my Full Advantage... If your Army of Equal Points Value has a Problem with that, then it's quite simple, I WIN!!!

It's essentially me turning up with 200 Ork Boyz and the Marine Player deploying a Land Raider - The chances of the Land Raider spontaneously combusting are slim, so I concentrate on the stuff I can take out. The Land Raider can't shoot @ me when I'm locked in CC so whats the problem?

SamsStuff wrote:Forgeworld Rules, I'm not now going to start quoting them, it was a statement.

Now GO!, get your Praetors, Macharusususususus's, LR Achilles, Eldar Scorpions whatever you please.

Tell your little Store Owners who have objections, You make 'em, I bought 'em, The Rules are here for them in Black and White, and I'm sure as Hell Gonna use 'em to my Full Advantage... If your Army of Equal Points Value has a Problem with that, then it's quite simple, I WIN!!!

Let's stick to discussing only those units that are officially sanctioned for use in 40K, not all IA units. This topic has also just come up on The Dark City, and I will repeat here some of what I said there:

Here is FW's/GW's definition of a 40K unit as indicated by the appropriate "Warhammer 40,000" stamp in their more recent books such as Imperial Armour - Apocalypse, 2ed:

Forge World wrote:3. Warhammer 40,000 Unit: This unit is intended to be used in 'standard' games of Warhammer 40,000 within the usual limitations of Codex selection and force organisation charts. As with all our models these should be considered 'official', but owing to the fact they may be unknown to your opponent, it's best to make sure they are happy to play a game using Forge World models before you start.

Thus, these are official 40K units and it is suggested that as a courtesy you check with your opponent to see if they are comfortable playing against them. Now as admirable as that may be, no one ever asks if you agree to play a SM Thunderfire cannon for the first time, do they? Personally, I think this suggestion is something of a hangover from days of yore when FW units were more unbalanced than today's.

FW gear is often excluded because players are simply unfamiliar with it. Most of us tend to accept our opponent's word on any unfamiliar unit, and no one is ever 100% familiar with all potential opposing units. But in any decent tournament (or even regular game), as a courtesy to both the TO and your opponents, you should be bringing spare copies of your own army list, the appropriate codex and FAQ, and any special entries (such as FW's) that might also apply. So just like any other unfamiliar unit in your army, if an opponent has a question about it you have all the material readily at hand to show them.

As for FW stuff being over-costed or over-powered, looking at the latest IA Apocalypse 2nd Edition, and other recent IA publications, I find that most of it seems fairly reasonable. Certainly no more unbalanced that certain other current, 40K codexes put out by GW. Perhaps those should be refused as well? If people want to pay the points and use them, knock yourself out.

To continue to single out FW gear is just wrong. At some point, especially since they are churning out more and more product each year - due to our demand, I might add - we will have to just accept it, and the sooner the better. I, for one, actually enjoy seeing different and 'exotic' units being used. It adds variety and interest, and a new challenge, to the game.

And fun.

I just hosted a tournie that allowed IA gear, and there were no problems. Admittedly not much was utilised, but the same thing happened last year too, without any fuss. I think it is something that we should all get used to. We have just seen a new SM flyer at FW Open Day and 6ed is rumoured to be flyer-friendly, so no doubt we will all encounter more and more FW product in the future. Time to move on.

It really feels like people are trying to find a moral reason to decline games with FW models.

You always have the option of refusing a game in the first place, regardless of rules or model use. Don't like his face? Decline. Don't like his list? Decline! Don't like his paint scheme? Decline. Think using 3 psyfleman dreads is cheesy? Decline!

From the FW site:

Q1. IS FORGE WORLD PART OF GAMES WORKSHOP.
A1. Yes, but we operate as a small (but perfectly formed) separate division from the company that makes and sells the main Games Workshop range of products. We are not connected with the US company that used the same name many years back for production of resin Warhammer 40,000 vehicles under licence.

Can't get more clear than that. Produced by a sub-division of GW. With full permission. With obvious approval of their rules for standard games (where applicable) and for Apocalypse/Planetstrike/Cities of Death.

The (newer) books regard the rules as 'official' and clearly state for each model what kind of game the rules are intended for. They suggest that as a courtesy you should ask your opponent whether they are okay with it. Suggest.

Trying to find justification in the main rules or IA books or in the company structure is just wrong.

Just man up and say:
* I don't know the rules and I don't play against what I don't know
* I personally think Unit X is overpowered so I won't play
* My list isn't set up to deal with Unit Y so I won't play
* etc..

It's only took me 31 posts figure this but I now realise I need to ellaborate more, and start quoting things out of books.

Tell your little Store Owners who have objections, You make 'em, I bought 'em ;

Well essentailly, they didn't make them personally however, a subdivision of GW did, the rules have been approved by GW for me to use my models within regular games of warhammer 40,000, it also states in the Warhammer 40,000 rulebook if an agreement can't be reached roll a dice.

The Rules are here for them in Black and White;

Meaning you have your Book with defining rules for that unit on hand, so when my opponent says, well what does it do? I have the answer and your interpretation of that rule.

I'm sure as Hell Gonna use 'em to my Full Advantage;

I will use them as the Rules state, just as you will use your specialist units as your rules state, assuming that Baal Predator isn't for lighting Cigars with? It is not a unit that is Indestructable, it has it's strengths but it also has it's weaknesses, so do most units.

If your Army of Equal Points Value has a Problem with that;

This is Simply stating, unless I missed something somewhere, we play games of equal points value. Everything is pointed somewhat accordingly to what it does. If you've somehow managed play a list that cannot combat one of my squads then you should concentrate on taking the squads out you can, at the end of the day this unit(s) cannot wipe out your entire list in a 6 turn game.

then I WIN...

everything to back this up is listed above I believe.

Aparently my Ork example wasn't quote worthy but a prime example of not taking a Balanced List.

never mind.

Reading the last few pages of this thread, it seems obvious to me that a lot of the arguments going back and forth are being made at cross purposes.

I think so much of it depends on the setting of the game, be it tournament or friendly, and the way in which you view 40k as an experience (and perhaps how seriously you take such experience).

As I said before, so much of it comes down to the 'social contract' that GW is so fond of mentioning. This works in both directions, but the general rule is that if your opponent did not enjoy the game at least a little, then it could be regarded as a failure on your part.
So, plonking 6 terminator squads down on the table in a PuG, when you don't know your opponent, could be regarded as a failure of that rule. As could perhaps using a super-heavy or lucius drop pods in the same manner. The game should be a fun experience for both, and unbalancing the game to this level is bound to ruin the game for your opponent. Of course, there are ways for setting up such games - I would be happy to play an opponent with 6 terminator squads, if the person spoke to me about it first.

I think it is all to do with communicating with your opponent - there is too much of the 'online FPS' mentality amongst some younger gamers today, as though there is no-one stood the other side of the table and the sole object is to win (or 'pwn' them I guess?) Those people need to move their competitive nature into another field, and realise that the experience of 40k suffers badly, and that you won't get many opponents either, if you try to apply it to a game that is inherently social in nature and also still open to abuse by people who do not realise that making a ridiculous army list might ruin the enjoyment of your opponent.

Shandara wrote:

Just man up and say:
* I don't know the rules and I don't play against what I don't know
* I personally think Unit X is overpowered so I won't play
* My list isn't set up to deal with Unit Y so I won't play
* etc..

Couldn't (Didn't) have put it better myself

So, plonking 6 terminator squads down on the table in a PuG, when you don't know your opponent, could be regarded as a failure of that rule, would be happy to play an opponent with 6 terminator squads, if the person spoke to me about it first.

Why do you hate DA terminators so? It's the best thing they have! And sure GK having troop terminators is meh with super elite terminators, but I'm not sure why they'd need your permission first

As could perhaps using a super-heavy

As a game variant, that needs to be setup beforehand with the enemy much like Planetstrike.

Please stop using Super-heavies, fliers, formations, and the like that apply only to Apocalypse in your examples, as they are not for use in standard games. If someone really tried to plonk down an apoc model and tried to call it fair it'd be rather abuseful, much like the Six Elite terminators thing (Which comes from planetstrike).

ZebioLizard2 wrote:


As a game variant, that needs to be setup beforehand with the enemy much like Planetstrike.

Please stop using Super-heavies, fliers, formations, and the like that apply only to Apocalypse in your examples, as they are not for use in standard games.

Applies to all FW. Some FW stuff can be played outside of Apocalypse, hence their differentiation to use them akin to 'standard' games (again, note the inverted comma). Any FW rule however is still a variant game that requires a beforehand good-to-go with the opponent.

Pacific wrote:

I think it is all to do with communicating with your opponent - there is too much of the 'online FPS' mentality amongst some younger gamers today, as though there is no-one stood the other side of the table and the sole object is to win (or 'pwn' them I guess?) Those people need to move their competitive nature into another field, and realise that the experience of 40k suffers badly, and that you won't get many opponents either, if you try to apply it to a game that is inherently social in nature and also still open to abuse by people who do not realise that making a ridiculous army list might ruin the enjoyment of your opponent.

Reading this I was on the understanding lists are discussed prior to gaming, this as always been my Policy. If I turn up at store for a Game I'll take a fairly large selection of slots and field them to give myself a challange. I always ask to see lists before hand, not so I can win in one turn, as my fellow gamers know, it's so I don't pull out a Tournament list to deal with 1500 points of Black Reach newcomers army to the game and wipe the board with them. This eventually puts them off of gaming, if not just against me the entire hobby and we need more newcomers =)

Winning, although rewarding, is only rewarding when you've earnt it.

Zweischneid wrote:

ZebioLizard2 wrote:


As a game variant, that needs to be setup beforehand with the enemy much like Planetstrike.

Please stop using Super-heavies, fliers, formations, and the like that apply only to Apocalypse in your examples, as they are not for use in standard games.

Applies to all FW. Some FW stuff can be played outside of Apocalypse, hence their differentiation to use them akin to 'standard' games (again, note the inverted comma). Any FW rule however is still a variant game that requires a beforehand good-to-go with the opponent.

Until Games Workshop, in the BRB or FAQ's states that Forgeworld models are not official models and that they are a variant game if used within a game of 40k, or within the books of Imperial Armor themselves in a clear manner. I will continue to believe that standard Forgeworld models can be used just as easily as Necrons can take a unit of warriors in their army.

Until Games Workshop, in the BRB or FAQ's states that Forgeworld rules or the Imperial Armor books are to be used within a game of 40k in a clear manner, it seems rather stupid to do so. By your definition above EVERYTHING that hasn't explicitly been ruled by GW as being "not official" would, by extension, by official by default. I hope you see how this would cause some problems.

Zweischneid wrote:Until Games Workshop, in the BRB or FAQ's states that Forgeworld rules or the Imperial Armor books are to be used within a game of 40k in a clear manner, it seems rather stupid to do so. By your definition above EVERYTHING that hasn't explicitly been ruled by GW as being "not official" would, by extension, by official by default. I hope you see how this would cause some problems.

*shrug* To end this little circle-round debate, I am going to present my army list to people, if they see the Mortis dreadnought from forgeworld in there and decide not to play, that's it than. I'll find someone else to play with.

ZebioLizard2 wrote:

*shrug* To end this little circle-round debate, I am going to present my army list to people, if they see the Mortis dreadnought from forgeworld in there and decide not to play, that's it than. I'll find someone else to play with.

And precisely this attitude would be the answer to the OP's original question as outlined in this thread title. Nothing more. Nothing less.

Zweischneid wrote:Until Games Workshop, in the BRB or FAQ's states that Forgeworld rules or the Imperial Armor books are to be used within a game of 40k in a clear manner, it seems rather stupid to do so. By your definition above EVERYTHING that hasn't explicitly been ruled by GW as being "not official" would, by extension, by official by default. I hope you see how this would cause some problems.

Actually, his argument is:

It says on page 3 of IAAv2 that it is official for use in standard games. So, until GW says otherwise, it is official for use in standard games.

Though it is courteous to ask your opponent first in case they are unfamiliar with the rules.

Unit1126PLL wrote:

Actually, his argument is:

It says on page 3 of IAAv2 that it is official for use in standard games. So, until GW says otherwise, it is official for use in standard games.

Though it is courteous to ask your opponent first in case they are unfamiliar with the rules.

It also says on page 1 of Zweischneid's Awsome Tank custom rules that it is designed for use in 40K standard games (with it being courteous to ask your opponent first). Also, as pointed out frequently, Forgeworld explicitly uses inverted commas to highlight that by 'standard' game they differentiate from Apocalypse, yet do not necessarily mean every single game played to the rules as written in the BRB (where it says, armies are chosen from the army lists in Codex books.. not IA, not Zweischneid's Awsome Tank custom rules or anything else btw).

Again, I see no reason to assume that game-design targeted at the inclusion in non-Apocalypse, 'standard' games equates to an all-time, universal blank pass to use them in EVERY game of 40K as a default, non-variant option. It just says that variant games using those units follow the standard rules outlined in the BRB, not the variants outlined in Apocalypse, which is the distinction that is made throughout the IAAv2.

SamsStuff wrote:

Shandara wrote:

Just man up and say:
* I don't know the rules and I don't play against what I don't know
* I personally think Unit X is overpowered so I won't play
* My list isn't set up to deal with Unit Y so I won't play
* etc..

Couldn't (Didn't) have put it better myself

Just man up and say you want to play with your FW toys and damn anyone else that might not enjoy FW for whatever reason. Their fun doesn't matter! FW über alles!

Edit: there's no reason to belittle or insult someone for choosing not to play against FW units.

Zweischneid wrote:

Unit1126PLL wrote:

Actually, his argument is:

It says on page 3 of IAAv2 that it is official for use in standard games. So, until GW says otherwise, it is official for use in standard games.

Though it is courteous to ask your opponent first in case they are unfamiliar with the rules.

It also says on page 1 of Zweischneid's Awsome Tank custom rules that it is designed for use in 40K standard games (with it being courteous to ask your opponent first). Also, as pointed out frequently,

Q1. IS FORGE WORLD PART OF GAMES WORKSHOP.
A1. Yes, but we operate as a small (but perfectly formed) separate division from the company that makes and sells the main Games Workshop range of products. We are not connected with the US company that used the same name many years back for production of resin Warhammer 40,000 vehicles under licence.

When you become apart of games workshop, I'll take your awesome tank seriously.

Edit: I'm still waiting on it's stats! Come on man, I wanna see it, don't tease us by mentioning it so much and not delivering any goods!

ZebioLizard2 wrote:

Q1. IS FORGE WORLD PART OF GAMES WORKSHOP.
A1. Yes, but we operate as a small (but perfectly formed) separate division from the company that makes and sells the main Games Workshop range of products. We are not connected with the US company that used the same name many years back for production of resin Warhammer 40,000 vehicles under licence.

When you become apart of games workshop, I'll take your awesome tank seriously.

Edit: I'm still waiting on it's stats! Come on man, I wanna see it, don't tease us by mentioning it so much and not delivering any goods!

I don't need to become a part of GW. Like Forgeworld, I (small, but perfectly formed) operate fully separate from the company that maks and sells the main GW range of products. Therefore, I already enjoy the same status vis-a-vis the "the company that makes and sells the main GW range of products" as FW does.

And it doesn't change the answer to the initial question. I've tried to show you the inherent bias of your arguments on your terms. You reject them, so we agree to disagree. It more than confirms my hypothesis, already proven many times over in encounters with FW-proponents, that the reason FW is "hated" is largely due to the fact that FW seemingly attracts a disproportianal amount of players who apparently lack the most basic social skills and utterly fail to comprehend the "hobby"-side of the enterprise, trying to "legislate" their way into anything and everything at the expense of the inherent social aspect that defines the hobby.

I don't need to become a part of GW. Like Forgeworld, I (small, but perfectly formed) operate fully separate from the company that maks and sells the main GW range of products. Therefore, I already enjoy the same status vis-a-vis the "the company that makes and sells the main GW range of products" as FW does.

Are you for real?

No seriously, what. That's not how anything works.

It more than confirms my hypothesis, already proven many times over in encounters with FW-proponents, that the reason FW is "hated" is largely due to the fact that FW seemingly attracts a disproportianal amount of players who apparently lack the most basic social skills and utterly fail to comprehend the "hobby"-side of the enterprise, trying to "legislate" their way into anything and everything at the expense of the inherent social aspect that defines the hobby.

You confirm it as well, showing that the main reason Forgeworld is hated because of an irrational hatred of Forgeworld and it's players in general, as it seems that the main portion of Forgeworld haters seemingly attracts a disproportional amount of players who generally will raise high water just to prevent them from using the models at all costs because they lack the basic social skills to simply say "No, I just don't like Forgeworld" and instead have to make a varied amount of excuses to prevent it's inclusion. Failing to understand the "hobby" side of the enterprise, and trying to "legislate" Forgeworld models out of any sort of standard game at the expense of the inherit social aspect that defines the hobby.

ZebioLizard2 wrote:



You confirm it as well, showing that the main reason Forgeworld is hated because of an irrational hatred of Forgeworld and it's players in general, as it seems that the main portion of Forgeworld haters seemingly attracts a disproportional amount of players who generally will raise high water just to prevent them from using the models at all costs because they lack the basic social skills to simply say "No, I just don't like Forgeworld" and instead have to make a varied amount of excuses to prevent it's inclusion. Failing to understand the "hobby" side of the enterprise, and trying to "legislate" Forgeworld models out of any sort of standard game at the expense of the inherit social aspect that defines the hobby.

Well, i guess for people who would consider "asking politely" an insurmountably high watermark, I guess this must be the case.

Zweischneid wrote:

ZebioLizard2 wrote:



You confirm it as well, showing that the main reason Forgeworld is hated because of an irrational hatred of Forgeworld and it's players in general, as it seems that the main portion of Forgeworld haters seemingly attracts a disproportional amount of players who generally will raise high water just to prevent them from using the models at all costs because they lack the basic social skills to simply say "No, I just don't like Forgeworld" and instead have to make a varied amount of excuses to prevent it's inclusion. Failing to understand the "hobby" side of the enterprise, and trying to "legislate" Forgeworld models out of any sort of standard game at the expense of the inherit social aspect that defines the hobby.

Well, i guess for people who would consider "asking politely" an insurmountably high watermark, I guess this must be the case.

As they can see in my list (Forgeworld Model) next to the names of the Forgeworld included models within my list, they can choose to politely bow out, rather than make a fuss that Forgeworld players are "Elitist snobs" and that Forgeworld models "Are Overpowered"

Letting them see the rules and various things for it helps as well, I would never blindside them and tell them the rules directly, I would allow them to look it over as they desired from the book itself, that way they can see for themselves. .

Was at a tourney recently where a guy ran 3 achilles in his 1850 list, looked a blast to play against until people penned it then read its rules but there wre no complaints about the use of FW models as it was all outlined at the onset, his first two opponents just wished they'd known the rules beforehand

My issue here lays with a store owner saying you can't run FW lists.

at the end of the day it's night and it's going to come down to Player Preference and if they decline for any reason you can simply ask if they'd be happy to research your units and possibly play in future games, give them a copy of your list if needs be so they can study it in detail and figure out it aint all that tough after all.

I think when you mention FW and people automatically presume Super Heavies as that is the majority of there site (exluding all the Custom Plates, etched Brass, awesome looking Predator for just a few quid more than GWs), and what's more memorable, Titan? Elysian Drop Troops? Drop Pod?

Not everyone can afford IA books so they do just literally associate FW with Apocalypse.

SamsStuff wrote:Winning, although rewarding, is only rewarding when you've earnt it.

In gaming winning is cool, but if the game is a good game it ultimately doesn't matter in the end. Why I've been loving the group I play Flames of War with. They are all such great fun to play against that winning just doesn't worry me in the least. I win my fair share of games, but the path to the win or loss is a great trip either way.

Skriker

Shandara wrote:It really feels like people are trying to find a moral reason to decline games with FW models.

You always have the option of refusing a game in the first place, regardless of rules or model use. Don't like his face? Decline. Don't like his list? Decline! Don't like his paint scheme? Decline. Think using 3 psyfleman dreads is cheesy? Decline!

From the FW site:

Q1. IS FORGE WORLD PART OF GAMES WORKSHOP.
A1. Yes, but we operate as a small (but perfectly formed) separate division from the company that makes and sells the main Games Workshop range of products. We are not connected with the US company that used the same name many years back for production of resin Warhammer 40,000 vehicles under licence.

Can't get more clear than that. Produced by a sub-division of GW. With full permission. With obvious approval of their rules for standard games (where applicable) and for Apocalypse/Planetstrike/Cities of Death.

The (newer) books regard the rules as 'official' and clearly state for each model what kind of game the rules are intended for. They suggest that as a courtesy you should ask your opponent whether they are okay with it. Suggest.

Trying to find justification in the main rules or IA books or in the company structure is just wrong.

Just man up and say:
* I don't know the rules and I don't play against what I don't know
* I personally think Unit X is overpowered so I won't play
* My list isn't set up to deal with Unit Y so I won't play
* etc..

Shandara, this isn't about "manning up" and saying that you're scared of playing forgeworld. While I have never played forgeworld, i'll take the word of people on this thread that it is not ridiculously op, with the exception of a few units. To me, it's about common courtesy. If you want to play with forgeworld, sure! It'll probably be a new and exciting experiance. Just tell me first. That's all I ask, that you inform me you will be using forgeworld units, and not belittle me if i decide i'd rather not play, for whatever reason. It's like if I was running a 4th ed. Dungeons and dragons campaign, and one of my players showed up with his character using themes and builds and powers and feats all from Dragon magazine. While that's not really a big deal, and those themes, builds, powers and feats aren't generally unbalanced (with the exception of a few, which aren't all that worse then some of the core book examples) I would have liked him to ask first. Maybe one of those feats he took nulifies the effects of some powerful plague that was in the campaign, which would totally de-rail my whole story. I can't very well tell him that now, because then he'll know about this super plague and know what effects it has and what counters it. Now, I either have to hope he doesn't metagame, or re-do my plague all together. If he had asked first, this all could have been avoided.

Of courser, that is not a perfect analogy by any means. I just think, if its not in the core books (in this case, codexes and BRB) then you should go ahead and ask, even if it's meant to be a standard add-on to the core rules. It's polite, and and it will keep you away from these long, 16-page arguments about weather you can use it or not.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't GW buy Forgeworld?

It seems that GW is slowly intergrating Forgeworld products into their pastic lines (most notably Imperial Guard with their Tanks) and probably with the Tau and Eldar, so, inevitably, Forgeworld will be ingested into the GW Juggernaut it is.

I don't really understand the sheer hatred of Forge World rules, but understand that people want to be told ahead of time.

I'm leaving a copy of my Harkoni Warhawk Army List (Quasi Elysians) and the page of the Forgeworld Models I use excplicitly for that list (and any other unmentioned things; like Iron Discipline and Auxiliary Greanade Launchers) with my local GW store for other players to look over at their leasiure.

And there's been no complaints.

But Imperial Armor does state that certain units are not aloud in a standard game of 40K; (at least in Imperial Armor 8) Flyers, Any vehicle with structure points, any monstrous creature with structure points, and certain campaign special characters as well...

There are other ways to allow IA gear into games and limit its potential for abuse. Our tournie, for example, includes the following limitation - outside of troops and dedicated transports, you are limited to 2 of any unit within an FOC slot. So, you can have 3 heavy support choices, but only 2 can be the same type. That's just one variation.

FW are producing more and more products, and they are becoming more and more "affordable" for many players, especially those in the colonies where they can be cheaper than some GW products. In some cases, you can also convert your own quite easily. My reasoning is that we should expect to encounter more and more of them, and we should be more willing in the future to find ways to integrate them into games.

Gobsmakked wrote:and we should be more willing in the future to find ways to integrate them into games.

I'm not objecting to that at all.

I object to the sense of entitlement some people seem to have, and the insulting comments made when people decline a game.

rigeld2 wrote:I'm not objecting to that at all.

I object to the sense of entitlement some people seem to have, and the insulting comments made when people decline a game.

Understood, and I completely agree with that.

I agree with this sentiment too.

The real issue with this, as I have said before is "What is core 40k" and what is "40k + Extra rules".

If you agree to play core 40k, and then dump a Warhound down on the table, don't be surprised if people say "What the hell".

If I agreed to Play FLAMES OF WAR, and said to a friend "Happy to play Mid-War 1750 points" "Yes" "Okay here it is" and I produce a special vehicle from MID-WAR Monsters (a legitimate addon book for FOW featuring Prototype or experimental overpowered Tanks and vehicles) I would expect an "I'm not happy playing that, because it is Overpowered".

I would ,

1. Be unreasonable if i didn't recognise that it is special overpowered vehicle.
2. That it does contain a section covering non-standard rules to cover these unusual and specialist vehicles supplementing and adding to the FOW Core Rules.
3. Be unreasonable if I tried to portray that the other player is the one being unreasonable, when I have clearly been unreasonable and am pushing the boundaries of sportsmanship.

I certainly wouldn't bitch about the fact that the other player said "I don't want to play because this is clearly unfair" and then come up with excuses to try to make him look like he has a problem such as.

4. But it's Official BF.
5. Look it has balanced rules, it's not that over powered.
6. Start to accuse the other player of Moral Cowardice, or being afraid or too shy or unwilling to play because heis afraid of the unknown.
7. Start to look for ridiculous equivalents to reinforce my silly position (Like below).

Stupid equivalents.

"Fancy a 100m Race"
"Yeah okay"
"Let me put on my exoskeleton running suit"
"What? I thought it was a running race"
"It is, but I will be running on these. It's still fair we are both running"

I don't hate FW, I hate people who like to WAAC and stack everything in their favour through being complete A-holes and missing the point of this social hobby.

See, that implies that FW is overpowered. I don't think that all of it is.

The sentiment still stands, however.

Not all, but most things are slightly Overpowered, else you wouldn't buy them. Super expensive and crap stats, no thank you, they wouldn't sell.

Look at Contemptors, the Kheres Pattern Assualt Cannon (6 heavy AP4 Str 5 Rending) and a Cyclone Missile Launcher, a 5+ Inv from shooting and 6+ inv in hand to hand. + 1" to explosions and Armour 13 front, which means unless you immobilise it you've got a job killing it. It's also Fleet.


(Ordered a New Assault Cannon because the original was a miscast, this one is a stand in)





As you can see I love my FW Stuff, my FW 30k army is building all the time, but will not use it unless it's APOC/ CoD /30k or agreed as a FW Game before hand.

Compare that to standard SM Dreads, Furiso is close, but no INV save. The Contemptor is outrageously good , with two DCCW and Fleet it's a monster.

FW stuff is awesome, but too awesome for standard 40k it unbalances things.

KplKeegan wrote:But Imperial Armor does state that certain units are not aloud in a standard game of 40K; (at least in Imperial Armor 8) Flyers, Any vehicle with structure points, any monstrous creature with structure points, and certain campaign special characters as well...

The earlier books didn't always do that, though a lot of the "new" models from forge world ended up in the IA Apocalypse books which list unit FoC options for those items that can be played in a regular 40k game. This doesn't include any of the super heavies with structure points, or the apoc organizations, and so on. At least 1 flyer specifically says in its listing that it is treated as a fast skimmer when used in a regular 40k game and not as a flyer. Of course worry about fliers goes away when you just let your opponent target them with whatever and not just AA weapons for the sake of game enjoyment when they appear and someone wasn't expecting them.

Skriker

Compare that to standard SM Dreads, Furiso is close, but no INV save. The Contemptor is outrageously good , with two DCCW and Fleet it's a monster.

It comes with one dccw, TL heavy bolter, and a smoke launcher, and it costs 175 points, with fleet and 5++ range save (6++ melee)

The standard dreadnought comes for 105...

Also, thank you for being another "It's overpowered!" part of the crowd.

Look at Contemptors, the Kheres Pattern Assualt Cannon (6 heavy AP4 Str 5 Rending) and a Cyclone Missile Launcher, a 5+ Inv from shooting and 6+ inv in hand to hand. + 1" to explosions and Armour 13 front, which means unless you immobilise it you've got a job killing it. It's also Fleet.

225 points, it's near the cost of a land raider, and a shooty dread that explodes better isn't exactly a bonus.

A standard Gray Knight Psyfilemen is 130 points,

mwnciboo wrote:Not all, but most things are slightly Overpowered, else you wouldn't buy them. Super expensive and crap stats, no thank you, they wouldn't sell.

Hardly even most. I bought a bunch of Forge World stuff because I thought the models were great and after 25+ years of collecting GW minis and having pretty much "finished" armies I wanted to add some flavor to them with something new. I didn't even consider the rules when I bought them. The stuff I use most often isn't even remotely overpowered. The plague hulk is a short ranged defiler. The plague ogryn have FNP, but no ranged attacks at all. The ogryn berserkers are cool minis, with FNP, but if you roll well on your number of attacks kill themselves in a couple turns of melee and again no ranged attacks. The blood slaughterer is a cool mini with no ranged firing, except a harpoon that can bring a melee opponent closer that also has to move towards the nearest enemy directly. People call the blight drones unbalancing because CSMs in general don't have any decent Fast Attack options, but it doesn't that the fact that they are lightly armed and armored and go pop really easily. I also have a bunch of chaos dreadnoughts that have no special rules at all and are purely for appearances. Also building a chaos renegades army using the FW conversion parts. They are just IG and can't even field the tank or veteran spam available in the new IG codex. I've got others too and none of them are overpowered in the least, so I think the proper phrase is that "some" things are overpowered, and people buy them anyway. Heck a large percentage of their models are "replacements" for existing models or add ons for existing models that have absolutely "zero" rules changes about them and are bought strictly because they look cool and look different. That stuff is also expensive and still sells just fine. I know multiple people who bought built an entire codex DKoK army using nothing but Forge World figures. Has no special abilities or rules that no other IG army has, but they paid $1500 for all the parts to do the job. All for no power gain whatsoever.

Skriker

ZebioLizard2 wrote:

Compare that to standard SM Dreads, Furiso is close, but no INV save. The Contemptor is outrageously good , with two DCCW and Fleet it's a monster.

It comes with one dccw, TL heavy bolter, and a smoke launcher, and it costs 175 points, with fleet and 5++ range save (6++ melee)

The standard dreadnought comes for 105...

Also, thank you for being another "It's overpowered!" part of the crowd.

Look at Contemptors, the Kheres Pattern Assualt Cannon (6 heavy AP4 Str 5 Rending) and a Cyclone Missile Launcher, a 5+ Inv from shooting and 6+ inv in hand to hand. + 1" to explosions and Armour 13 front, which means unless you immobilise it you've got a job killing it. It's also Fleet.

225 points, it's near the cost of a land raider, and a shooty dread that explodes better isn't exactly a bonus.

A standard Gray Knight Psyfilemen is 130 points,

Really.......So a Landraider is good in Hand to Hand Combat is it? A Landraider comes with Fleet does it? Land raider has an Invulnerable save does it? Does a Landraider insta kill Characters?

You are comparing an Armour Transport (which has formidable armament) with a Walker. Good call.

<rude text redacted; be frustrated if you wish, walk away from the conversation if you must, but don't be rude --Janthkin>

mwnciboo wrote:

ZebioLizard2 wrote:

Compare that to standard SM Dreads, Furiso is close, but no INV save. The Contemptor is outrageously good , with two DCCW and Fleet it's a monster.

It comes with one dccw, TL heavy bolter, and a smoke launcher, and it costs 175 points, with fleet and 5++ range save (6++ melee)

The standard dreadnought comes for 105...

Also, thank you for being another "It's overpowered!" part of the crowd.

Look at Contemptors, the Kheres Pattern Assualt Cannon (6 heavy AP4 Str 5 Rending) and a Cyclone Missile Launcher, a 5+ Inv from shooting and 6+ inv in hand to hand. + 1" to explosions and Armour 13 front, which means unless you immobilise it you've got a job killing it. It's also Fleet.

225 points, it's near the cost of a land raider, and a shooty dread that explodes better isn't exactly a bonus.

A standard Gray Knight Psyfilemen is 130 points,

Really.......So a Landraider is good in Hand to Hand Combat is it? A Landraider comes with Fleet does it? Land raider has an Invulnerable save does it? Does a Landraider insta kill Characters?

You are comparing an Armour Transport (which has formidable armament) with a Walker. Good call.

<rude text redacted; be frustrated if you wish, walk away from the conversation if you must, but don't be rude --Janthkin>

I also compared it to something else that's got excellent ranged shooting. The Gray knights Rifledread (Psyfledread) what I was saying it was near as EXPENSIVE as a land raider.

At base175 it costs more than a standard issue dread, and as you just called it overpowered, I will contently point it's comparableness towards a very commonly seen dreadnought variant within the game.

The Psyfledread.

It contains 4 Twin Linked S8 Autocannon Shots at AP4 for only 135, it is near immune to stunned/shaken, it gives a -4 psyker penalty for targetting units within 12" of the dreadnought (or the dreadnought itself), and only takes up a heavy slot in an army that doesn't need

The 225 point contemptor you pointed out has a 24" assault cannon at S6, AP4 H6 with rending, and two S8 at far range shots. None of these being twin linked, and keeps its DCCW.

It has +1 WS, +1S, +1 frontal AV, +1 rear armor on the psyfledread. With two attacks base, and fleet and costs an elite slot in armies with already preferable elites: (Space marines, Dark Angels, and Black Templars) with it's only protection being the 5++

It's comparable to two psyfledreads (270 points) in cost, and rather effective in range (24") but as stated, it's rather expensive for what you get.

Does a Landraider insta kill Characters?

Why yes, with S8/S9 shots (multimelta, lascannon) it can.

A Landraider comes with Fleet does it?

Hmm, power of the machine spirit is pretty close, lets it drive to the maximum and still fire afterall.

Ok, off topic a little, I know, but are you allowed to use Malanthropes in standard games?

Anyway, I have no problems with people using Forge World against me, providing they're not using a super heavy unit in a normal game.

Zweischneid wrote:

Unit1126PLL wrote:

Actually, his argument is:

It says on page 3 of IAAv2 that it is official for use in standard games. So, until GW says otherwise, it is official for use in standard games.

Though it is courteous to ask your opponent first in case they are unfamiliar with the rules.

It also says on page 1 of Zweischneid's Awsome Tank custom rules that it is designed for use in 40K standard games (with it being courteous to ask your opponent first). Also, as pointed out frequently, Forgeworld explicitly uses inverted commas to highlight that by 'standard' game they differentiate from Apocalypse, yet do not necessarily mean every single game played to the rules as written in the BRB (where it says, armies are chosen from the army lists in Codex books.. not IA, not Zweischneid's Awsome Tank custom rules or anything else btw).

Again, I see no reason to assume that game-design targeted at the inclusion in non-Apocalypse, 'standard' games equates to an all-time, universal blank pass to use them in EVERY game of 40K as a default, non-variant option. It just says that variant games using those units follow the standard rules outlined in the BRB, not the variants outlined in Apocalypse, which is the distinction that is made throughout the IAAv2.

Do you have access to the 40K licence? The GW logo and stamp on it? No didn't think so.

GW logo is on the FW books. GW is mentionned in the copyright. Hell FW does not even own the words they print. They are a publisher for IA books. EVERYTHING in there, pictures, rules, words, names are ALL property of GW. Something you cannot say about your tank.

Squigsquasher wrote:Ok, off topic a little, I know, but are you allowed to use Malanthropes in standard games?

Anyway, I have no problems with people using Forge World against me, providing they're not using a super heavy unit in a normal game.

They have a 40k stamp iirc.
I don't think they're that great as a unit, but that's not for this thread.