52309
Post by: Breng77
 Peregrine wrote:Well, you just missed the point completely. I have no problem with house rules. What I have a problem with is people presenting their house rules as if they were official rules provided by GW.
I missing where tournaments and TOs have said this?
What you apparently want is every tournament that does not want FW to label their event as a lesser non-official comped event, and to be able to deride the winners for playing a lesser game....like I said move on. If you want to attend events with FW go and do it....if you don't want to go to those without it don't. If there are none near you start one. If what you want is to deride events, or force everyone else to play the way you want....as I said move on no one cares. No events will publish packets that say come play our tournament with our house rules, they will say here are the rules for this event come and play.
494
Post by: H.B.M.C.
You are just a ceaseless font of comedy.
74704
Post by: Naw
 ClockworkZion wrote:Naw wrote:Well said. This is what I meant above. It should not take much effort from GW to come out and in plain text say that they endorse the use of FW. This also requires FW to get their sith together and publish proper catalog.
Perhaps GW doesn't feel the need to say "this brand of models and rules we make are completely valid in normal games". I don't see why we can't just accept things when we already have a rule that gives us all the permission we need. This kind of goal post moving, is getting ridiculious.
I don't have any problem with that, but I can understand the other point of view. GW _could_ come out and say it clearly, but they don't. Don't you wonder why?
We have a rule right now that says you can adapt your army list. The Imperial Armour books do just that by providing alternate units, FOC shifts, new rules, ect. So were is this need for more endorsement coming from? At this point I don't think I get it.
Wait, what? You would play me when I fielded my monstrous creature dreadnought with a cool twin-linked heavy 6 myowninvention and Riptide's resiliency, all for a bargain price? Of course it might need some balancing, but that is what our game would be for..
And why would FW need a catalog? I mean yeah, they send you one when you order stuff or if you request one, but they have a website, why would they need a catalog? 
It is good business when a customer wonders which books he might need to know what options are available for him. Been there, done that, can't be arsed anymore.
11860
Post by: Martel732
 H.B.M.C. wrote:Well this thread's going about as well as expected.
I said this to someone earlier and I've yet to be convinced that it's not true:
People who don't want to use FW and won't allow people to use in their games are just afraid of losing, but are too proud to admit it.
Nah, I'm BA. I'm beyond caring about that now. Sure, I've put in some stuff from the new book, but it hasn't really changed that much.
16387
Post by: Manchu
Naw wrote:It should not take much effort from GW to come out and in plain text say that they endorse the use of FW.
They already did. Automatically Appended Next Post:  insaniak wrote:It's simply the lack of such a note in the core rulebook that some players disapprove of.
So I have read. But this same note of disapproval does not apply to supplements, which shows the argument is a disingenuous rationalization.
74704
Post by: Naw
 Manchu wrote:Naw wrote:It should not take much effort from GW to come out and in plain text say that they endorse the use of FW.
They already did.
And then I say "where?" and we start from the beginning 
Automatically Appended Next Post:
insaniak wrote:It's simply the lack of such a note in the core rulebook that some players disapprove of.
So I have read. But this same note of disapproval does not apply to supplements, which shows the argument is a disingenuous rationalization.
And to this "but the supplements are from GW". Btw, you don't need to reply to this..
4183
Post by: Davor
When does a FW book become obsolete? I mean if a FW book is made for a 40K codex that was in 4th edition, then a new codex comes out in 6th edition, doesn't that mean the FW book should be obsolete as well sine the 4th edition book is invalid now?
So would this mean I can come in and play with IA 4 and use Gargantuan creatures then? Wouldn't that be totally unfair for someone who can't counter it or expect it?
*edit* don't know nothing about FW, trying to learn the other camps PoV. Just trying to learn.
45133
Post by: ClockworkZion
 Zweischneid wrote: Peregrine wrote: It's especially a good idea because the most likely reason for the separation has to do with marketing the different model kits, not the rules.
"Most likely"? Perhaps. But "most likely" isn't knowing. It may also be the other way around. It's a possibility at least. Or they may fully intent a separation of both (!) models and rules. Again, it's a possibility. It seems a bold claim to make, putting yourself up on that pedestal as the one prophet who truly knows what GW truly intents (and that's not even accounting for the fact that GW occasionally does make decisions that aren't ... um ... smart).
I've always assumed the FW branding was done intentionally so they could cater to the people who want more specific stuff from the setting (the Heresy, events like the Badab War, Vraks, ect) while the Studio focuses on the big picture setting instead. By branding it we know what to expect from each side and it works really well that way.....and bites FW in the butt because then people try and say it's not part of the game because of branding.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Naw wrote: ClockworkZion wrote:Naw wrote:Well said. This is what I meant above. It should not take much effort from GW to come out and in plain text say that they endorse the use of FW. This also requires FW to get their sith together and publish proper catalog.
Perhaps GW doesn't feel the need to say "this brand of models and rules we make are completely valid in normal games". I don't see why we can't just accept things when we already have a rule that gives us all the permission we need. This kind of goal post moving, is getting ridiculious.
I don't have any problem with that, but I can understand the other point of view. GW _could_ come out and say it clearly, but they don't. Don't you wonder why?
Because it's the same company who says the rules are just a framework and the point of the game is to have fun. They likely don't feel to the need to be that explicit.
Naw wrote:We have a rule right now that says you can adapt your army list. The Imperial Armour books do just that by providing alternate units, FOC shifts, new rules, ect. So were is this need for more endorsement coming from? At this point I don't think I get it.
Wait, what? You would play me when I fielded my monstrous creature dreadnought with a cool twin-linked heavy 6 myowninvention and Riptide's resiliency, all for a bargain price? Of course it might need some balancing, but that is what our game would be for..
Seeing as I play with Exorcists and have a couple of Avengers, yeah.  Sisters are a pretty decent anti- mc force. Seriously though, if you brought homebrew and I thought it was broken I'd likely talk to you about it before hand and try to reach and agreement about it.
You missing the point that I've been making though. It's not if someone will play you though, but the fact that it's a valid part of the game as per the rules. I don't like this pretending that FW is somehow less valid because it's insulting everyone who wants to play with it.
Naw wrote:And why would FW need a catalog? I mean yeah, they send you one when you order stuff or if you request one, but they have a website, why would they need a catalog?
It is good business when a customer wonders which books he might need to know what options are available for him. Been there, done that, can't be arsed anymore.
Ah, you're refencing more to an index then. Yeah that would help and FW has said their working on it but i'll take time.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Naw wrote: Manchu wrote:Naw wrote:It should not take much effort from GW to come out and in plain text say that they endorse the use of FW.
They already did.
And then I say "where?" and we start from the beginning
Page 108, Army Lists, the rule that allows players to adapt their army lists. That's the only permission required because it says that you can change your codex. What does FW do? It changes the codex by adding more options. It's the same rule that makes codex supplements feasible so if we damn FW on that we damn those too.
Seriously, it's like people don't even listen.
Naw wrote:Automatically Appended Next Post:
insaniak wrote:It's simply the lack of such a note in the core rulebook that some players disapprove of.
So I have read. But this same note of disapproval does not apply to supplements, which shows the argument is a disingenuous rationalization.
And to this "but the supplements are from GW". Btw, you don't need to reply to this..
It's all from GW, some people just can't seem to get past that though.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Davor wrote:When does a FW book become obsolete? I mean if a FW book is made for a 40K codex that was in 4th edition, then a new codex comes out in 6th edition, doesn't that mean the FW book should be obsolete as well sine the 4th edition book is invalid now?
No, much like a codex it becomes obsolete when it's replaced with a new version. The only odd twist is the books like IA: Space Marines can supercede the information about options they'd get from previous books for their stuff like IA: Areonautica as points costs may change on their flyers or anti-flyer options.
The campaign books like the Vraks, or the Badab War stay the same until replaced though.
Davor wrote:So would this mean I can come in and play with IA 4 and use Gargantuan creatures then? Wouldn't that be totally unfair for someone who can't counter it or expect it?
Don't be silly. Even before FW started using the 40k approved stamps the units meant for standard play said what FOC slot they used and the Apoc ones did not. Plus Gargantuan creatures don't have rules outside of Apoc so trying to use them in a regular game is a touch daft.
36276
Post by: Zweischneid
ClockworkZion wrote:
I've always assumed the FW branding was done intentionally so they could cater to the people who want more specific stuff from the setting (the Heresy, events like the Badab War, Vraks, ect) while the Studio focuses on the big picture setting instead. By branding it we know what to expect from each side and it works really well that way.....and bites FW in the butt because then people try and say it's not part of the game because of branding.
Got any source of for that?
GW has always been a models first, rules second, fluff third kind-of-company. To assume that they created sub-brands on the least of their priorities, the fluff and setting, seems exceptionally far-fetched.
Either way, you assume it to be this way. Other people might assume it differently, not least assuming that they created the Forge World brand to keep the rules separate and distinct from the main game (e.g. Forge World as "test-bed").
Not saying that this is how it must be. But as long as you can't exclude that option 100%, you shouldn't universally claim people are "wrong" that go into this with assumptions different than your own.
45133
Post by: ClockworkZion
Zweischneid wrote: ClockworkZion wrote:
I've always assumed the FW branding was done intentionally so they could cater to the people who want more specific stuff from the setting (the Heresy, events like the Badab War, Vraks, ect) while the Studio focuses on the big picture setting instead. By branding it we know what to expect from each side and it works really well that way.....and bites FW in the butt because then people try and say it's not part of the game because of branding.
Got any source of for that?
GW has always been a models first, rules second, fluff third kind-of-company. To assume that they created sub-brands on the least of their priorities, the fluff and setting, seems exceptionally far-fetched.
Either way, you assume it to be this way. Other people might assume it differently, not least assuming that they created the Forge World brand to keep the rules separate and distinct from the main game (e.g. Forge World as "test-bed").
Not saying that this is how it must be. But as long as you can't exclude that option 100%, you shouldn't universally claim people are "wrong" that go into this with assumptions different than your own.
The separation of rules rather falls apart with FW saying that their stuff is intended for either standard games or Apoc. If the intention was a seperation of rules, wouldn't they then have to stay separate? But IA 1-3 where all books that added options to a few armies, and were definitely not promoting this idea of "keeping it separate".
I came to the idea of branding because of this presentation and how GW approaches the models and fluff books. All the money goes to the same place but they create sub-departments for their different work, and the only reason that really fits is "branding" and likely was an idea that came into the company with Kirby.
36276
Post by: Zweischneid
ClockworkZion wrote:
The separation of rules rather falls apart with FW saying that their stuff is intended for either standard games or Apoc. If the intention was a seperation of rules, wouldn't they then have to stay separate? But IA 1-3 where all books that added options to a few armies, and were definitely not promoting this idea of "keeping it separate".
I came to the idea of branding because of this presentation and how GW approaches the models and fluff books. All the money goes to the same place but they create sub-departments for their different work, and the only reason that really fits is "branding" and likely was an idea that came into the company with Kirby.
So?
Yes, the separation is branding, because branding is separation. If there were to be no separation, there wouldn't be differences in branding.
And what does it matter from whom or where the idea came from? Would it be more legitimate if the original idea was from Jervis Johnson or Jes Goodwyn, than from Kirby?
Yes, Forge World tells you how to use their rules in games ( Apoc or not) when you use Forge World, but nothing there (that I know of) implies that the how-to-use-Forge World-instructions, whether for Apoc or regular games, say that they apply 100% of the time and with no difference at all to a non- FW-branded element of the game (e.g. a Codex), neither to regular or Apoc 40K.
Precisely because FW is branded differently, the latter seems highly improbable to me.
45133
Post by: ClockworkZion
So your argument is the rules only apply when using the rules? I'm not following that line of logic there.
It's like arguing that the rules for Necrons don't apply when you aren't playing with Necrons. Of course not.
I think you're intentionally overlooking that FW has been since their first book geared towards providing an expansion to the game,as well as covering events that are frankly too narrow in scope for the main studio to handle. There is nothing there to actually imply that the intention was to keep FW out of the game or separate it from the main game that way and the argument that it was seems to be reaching even more than anything I've said about the branding.
You're acting as if I'm saying one MUST play with FW, and I'm not. That has not once been my stance. My stance is to get people to actually show some respect to people who choose to play FW and stop treating it as somehow being less a part of the game. No one has to play with it 100% of the time, just like no one has to play with anything 100% of the time, but when it comes to claiming it's a less valid or official or legal or less of a part of the game just because of a brand name? Yeah, that's where I draw the line.
78632
Post by: Renegade_commander
This whole thread is pointless.
Forgeworld is official when you and your opponent agree on it beforw hand or did we all forget THE SPIRIT OF THE GAME?!?
As for tournaments, if the TO says forgeworld units are allowed (usually with pre aproval or within set guidlines, who am i, or any of us for that matter to dissagree? Dont like it then dont pay your entree fee and enjoy hours of playing what i consider my favorit game off all time and arguably the best edition of 40k iv ever played.
I feel like im taking crazy pills!
Spirit of the game people, spirit of the game.
36276
Post by: Zweischneid
ClockworkZion wrote:So your argument is the rules only apply when using the rules? I'm not following that line of logic there.
My argument here is that your version of things is based on a lot of rather convenient assumptions that all fit and support your take on things, but cannot themselves be verified. They are all tea-leaf reading of what " GW intended to do and did not intend to do" with their sub-brands (such as Forge World).
If you cannot prove your basic assumptiosn with 100% certainty, you should at least allow for the possibility that alternative assumptions / explanations for why GW choose to publish these rules under the Forge World brand, and not under the GW brand, could be true.
78632
Post by: Renegade_commander
Zweischneid wrote: ClockworkZion wrote:So your argument is the rules only apply when using the rules? I'm not following that line of logic there.
My argument here is that your version of things is based on a lot of rather convenient assumptions that all fit and support your take on things, but cannot themselves be verified. They are all tea-leaf reading of what " GW intended to do and did not intend to do" with their sub-brands (such as Forge World).
If you cannot prove your basic assumptiosn with 100% certainty, you should at least allow for the possibility that alternative assumptions / explanations for why GW choose to publish these rules under the Forge World brand, and not under the GW brand, could be true.
Again. Spirit of the game.
46128
Post by: Happyjew
Renegade_commander wrote:This whole thread is pointless.
Forgeworld is official when you and your opponent agree on it beforw hand or did we all forget THE SPIRIT OF THE GAME?!?
As for tournaments, if the TO says forgeworld units are allowed (usually with pre aproval or within set guidlines, who am i, or any of us for that matter to dissagree? Dont like it then dont pay your entree fee and enjoy hours of playing what i consider my favorit game off all time and arguably the best edition of 40k iv ever played.
I feel like im taking crazy pills!
Spirit of the game people, spirit of the game.
Please enlighten me. What is the "spirit of the game"?
4183
Post by: Davor
Not trying to be daft CWZ. Thanks for the replies greatly appreciated. I just don't know. I haven't played 6th edition, never encountered FW (except for my flyrant I have) so really don't know what you can take, why or why not.
That is why I asked.
78632
Post by: Renegade_commander
Probably one of the most important rules in my opinnion.
The spirit of the game is to remember to that this is an open system that allows us to be creative and add our own ideas, stories and creativity to the game, but most importantly, to have fun! This IS a game after all. I understand most people take this hobby very seriously (i being one of them. Heh) but this is silly.
45133
Post by: ClockworkZion
Zweischneid wrote: ClockworkZion wrote:So your argument is the rules only apply when using the rules? I'm not following that line of logic there.
My argument here is that your version of things is based on a lot of rather convenient assumptions that all fit and support your take on things, but cannot themselves be verified. They are all tea-leaf reading of what " GW intended to do and did not intend to do" with their sub-brands (such as Forge World).
If you cannot prove your basic assumptiosn with 100% certainty, you should at least allow for the possibility that alternative assumptions / explanations for why GW choose to publish these rules under the Forge World brand, and not under the GW brand, could be true.
Your assumptions work the same way you know. Mine are based on the pattern of what FW has done, your's are based on an idea that a company who makes games and models would turn down potential profits by saying "nope, don't use that".
78632
Post by: Renegade_commander
 Happyjew wrote:Renegade_commander wrote:This whole thread is pointless.
Forgeworld is official when you and your opponent agree on it beforw hand or did we all forget THE SPIRIT OF THE GAME?!?
As for tournaments, if the TO says forgeworld units are allowed (usually with pre aproval or within set guidlines, who am i, or any of us for that matter to dissagree? Dont like it then dont pay your entree fee and enjoy hours of playing what i consider my favorit game off all time and arguably the best edition of 40k iv ever played.
I feel like im taking crazy pills!
Spirit of the game people, spirit of the game.
Please enlighten me. What is the "spirit of the game"?
sorry, new user. I got excited and missed the quote button. My reply is above.
36276
Post by: Zweischneid
ClockworkZion wrote:
Your assumptions work the same way you know. Mine are based on the pattern of what FW has done, your's are based on an idea that a company who makes games and models would turn down potential profits by saying "nope, don't use that".
They do.
I did not put forward the alternatives I did because I believe them to be right.
I put forward the alternatives I did because I believe they could be possible.
You're right. I cannot make a convincing argument that they are "right", nor have I tried. I have simply tried to show you different ways of looking at this issue that may be possible and thereby provide a reasonable doubt concerning the absolute veracity you claim for your take on things.
45133
Post by: ClockworkZion
Happyjew wrote:Renegade_commander wrote:This whole thread is pointless.
Forgeworld is official when you and your opponent agree on it beforw hand or did we all forget THE SPIRIT OF THE GAME?!?
As for tournaments, if the TO says forgeworld units are allowed (usually with pre aproval or within set guidlines, who am i, or any of us for that matter to dissagree? Dont like it then dont pay your entree fee and enjoy hours of playing what i consider my favorit game off all time and arguably the best edition of 40k iv ever played.
I feel like im taking crazy pills!
Spirit of the game people, spirit of the game.
Please enlighten me. What is the "spirit of the game"?
Page 8 of the main rulebook (it's even in "THE RULES" copy, so yes, it looks like this is intended to be a kind of rule, or at least a note of intent by the Devs). Emphasis mine:
The Rules wrote:Warhammer 40,000 may be somewhat different to any other game you have played. Above all, it's important to remember that the rules are just the framework to support and enjoyable game. Whether the battle ends in victory or defeat, your goal should always to be to enjoy the journey. What's more, Warhammer 40,000 calls on a lot from you, the player. Your job isn't to just follow the rules, it's to add your own ideas, drama and creativity to the game. Much of the appeal of this game lies in the freedom and open-endedness that this allows; it is in this spirit that the rules have been written.
I want to note that nothing in there even suggests restricting players from choice.Everything in that rule is about allowing the player the ability to play the game as they see fit. Now how would a game, written in that spirit restrict players from having the option from FW? It's quite plainly written to allow freedom for creativity and the Army List rule section even supports this.
Again, as I keep having to say, I don't want to force people to play FW if they don't want to, I just want FW to be recognized as the valid part of the game it actually is.
78632
Post by: Renegade_commander
ClockworkZion wrote: Happyjew wrote:Renegade_commander wrote:This whole thread is pointless.
Forgeworld is official when you and your opponent agree on it beforw hand or did we all forget THE SPIRIT OF THE GAME?!?
As for tournaments, if the TO says forgeworld units are allowed (usually with pre aproval or within set guidlines, who am i, or any of us for that matter to dissagree? Dont like it then dont pay your entree fee and enjoy hours of playing what i consider my favorit game off all time and arguably the best edition of 40k iv ever played.
I feel like im taking crazy pills!
Spirit of the game people, spirit of the game.
Please enlighten me. What is the "spirit of the game"?
Page 8 of the main rulebook (it's even in "THE RULES" copy, so yes, it looks like this is intended to be a kind of rule, or at least a note of intent by the Devs). Emphasis mine:
The Rules wrote:Warhammer 40,000 may be somewhat different to any other game you have played. Above all, it's important to remember that the rules are just the framework to support and enjoyable game. Whether the battle ends in victory or defeat, your goal should always to be to enjoy the journey. What's more, Warhammer 40,000 calls on a lot from you, the player. Your job isn't to just follow the rules, it's to add your own ideas, drama and creativity to the game. Much of the appeal of this game lies in the freedom and open-endedness that this allows; it is in this spirit that the rules have been written.
I want to note that nothing in there even suggests restricting players from choice.Everything in that rule is about allowing the player the ability to play the game as they see fit. Now how would a game, written in that spirit restrict players from having the option from FW? It's quite plainly written to allow freedom for creativity and the Army List rule section even supports this.
Again, as I keep having to say, I don't want to force people to play FW if they don't want to, I just want FW to be recognized as the valid part of the game it actually is.
you sir are somone i would love to play a game of warhammer 40k with.
36276
Post by: Zweischneid
It is. Forge World is fully recognized as the Forge World part of the game.
Just don't try to ask people to recognize it as the non-Forge World part of the game, when it clearly says Forge World on the cover.
46128
Post by: Happyjew
I knew it was somewhere in the rulebook, just couldn't find it.
And I agree, the point of the game is to have fun (except at tournaments where the point is to crush your enemies, see them driven before you and hear the lamentations of their women  ). As such, my group has one simple rule regarding FW: You must have the model in question (conversions are OK).
78632
Post by: Renegade_commander
I wana note that i just noticed on the back of my chaos space marine codex that it says, and i quote "a supplement for warhammer 40,000"
So are all codexes becomming just supplements?
36276
Post by: Zweischneid
Renegade_commander wrote:I wana note that i just noticed on the back of my chaos space marine codex that it says, and i quote "a supplement for warhammer 40,000"
So are all codexes becomming just supplements?
A supplement is everything that is not a self-contained game. They are required to inform you that "you need the Warhammer 40.000 rulebook to play". Everything with that requirement is a supplement.
78632
Post by: Renegade_commander
M Happyjew wrote:I knew it was somewhere in the rulebook, just couldn't find it.
And I agree, the point of the game is to have fun (except at tournaments where the point is to crush your enemies, see them driven before you and hear the lamentations of their women ). As such, my group has one simple rule regarding FW: You must have the model in question (conversions are OK).[/oequote]
Conan! Automatically Appended Next Post: Zweischneid wrote:Renegade_commander wrote:I wana note that i just noticed on the back of my chaos space marine codex that it says, and i quote "a supplement for warhammer 40,000"
So are all codexes becomming just supplements?
A supplement is everything that is not a self-contained game. They are required to inform you that "you need the Warhammer 40.000 rulebook to play". Everything with that requirement is a supplement.
I ser what your saying. Its confusing because my 5th ed codexes dont say it, and with the release of all the "official" supplements... well you see where im going with this im sure lol
68342
Post by: tvih
Zweischneid wrote:Forge World is fully recognized as the Forge World part of the game.
Just don't try to ask people to recognize it as the non-Forge World part of the game, when it clearly says Forge World on the cover.
Pretty much this. The The GW 40k BRB may blather on about a framework etc, but that also allows for house rules and all kinds of other things. That doesn't make them "official." The GW 40k BRB doesn't say "treat FW units as if they were official codex units in terms of status" or anything even near that, and therefore players will keep having these arguments forever. As long as there's a brand distinction with the "main brand" not directly addressing the sister brand in the rules there's going to be a division between the two product lines.
And just for the record I wouldn't mind playing against FW, though I don't think anyone locally even has FW stuff. But as it is, there are so many broken "official" units that it really doesn't matter whether or not FW is broken, too.
78632
Post by: Renegade_commander
I cant think of a single non superheavy that is more broken than ten teleporting plasma/meltaguns with ignores cover/reroll to hit. Or hell even a unit of 2++ reroll invuls invalidate most forgeworld units. Times are a changing. Lol
45133
Post by: ClockworkZion
Zweischneid wrote:
It is. Forge World is fully recognized as the Forge World part of the game.
Just don't try to ask people to recognize it as the non-Forge World part of the game, when it clearly says Forge World on the cover.
Okay, so where is the rule that says that 40k is split into "parts" like you said?
77217
Post by: xruslanx
ClockworkZion wrote: Zweischneid wrote:
It is. Forge World is fully recognized as the Forge World part of the game.
Just don't try to ask people to recognize it as the non-Forge World part of the game, when it clearly says Forge World on the cover.
Okay, so where is the rule that says that 40k is split into "parts" like you said?
how is this a rules discussion? This is about how people perceive forgeworld and 40k, there is no right and wrong.
For some people, 40k means the codexes/suppliments, and anything outside of that is not 'legit'. I am one such person, i'd happily play any of my friends with forgeworld models/rules, because it's a cool way of expanding the game. But i still don't regard it as 'standard' 40k because it isn't.
45133
Post by: ClockworkZion
xruslanx wrote: ClockworkZion wrote: Zweischneid wrote:
It is. Forge World is fully recognized as the Forge World part of the game.
Just don't try to ask people to recognize it as the non-Forge World part of the game, when it clearly says Forge World on the cover.
Okay, so where is the rule that says that 40k is split into "parts" like you said?
how is this a rules discussion? This is about how people perceive forgeworld and 40k, there is no right and wrong.
For some people, 40k means the codexes/suppliments, and anything outside of that is not 'legit'. I am one such person, i'd happily play any of my friends with forgeworld models/rules, because it's a cool way of expanding the game. But i still don't regard it as 'standard' 40k because it isn't.
Read the thread, rules have been a strong part of the discussion since e start.
78632
Post by: Renegade_commander
This threads pretty much done.
44063
Post by: Massawyrm
The brand distinction between FW and GW in 40k exists not because of some decision to keep things separate, but due to a long, storied history involving how the game came to be. The incredibly short version of this story is that in the early days, GW had no intention of producing a number of units that were mentioned in the fluff or appeared in tiny form in Adeptus Titanicus. A number of US resin modelers (one of them that would form Armorcast) contacted GW and optioned the rights to make and sell models based on this material. Once GW saw how successful some of these were, they decided to form their own resin division, let the rights lapse and (as some people on both sides put it) steal the designs and ideas of the US modelers. This division would take the name that this ragtag group of modellers had dubbed themselves (borrowing a term from Heinlein): Forge World. Of course, most of this stuff was HUGE and had point values to match. Apoc didn't exist at the time (and didn't until 2007), so these units were intended to be used in regular games of 40k. But we're talking Baneblades and Reaver Titans and Thunderhawks here - not the type of thing a standard 1500 point army is armed to take on. So while the FW models were now no longer 3rd party, they stayed as permission only. As the company gained prominence, they started experimenting with creating other specialist units.
By the time IA 3 rolled around, they were creating all new units that were balanced to play in smaller games - but as was mentioned in my post earlier in the thread, FLGS owners wanted nothing to do with players playing with models they couldn't profit from for fear that players would spend their money on those rather then the models they could buy there in their store. GW didn't want to rock the boat. But that's not a problem anymore.
FW was never meant to be some off brand testing ground for rules. It evolved from the small but eager market of hardcore players who wanted bigger toys that didn't fit organically into the game or into GWs business model. What it became was ground zero for narrative play, built upon a business model that can't fail. Without having to produce items to sit on store shelves they can take risks on models or ideas that might be extraordinarily niche. So what they ended up with was some of the coolest, most original units and armies in the game. And now GW has decided they are no longer a sub-line; they are simply the resin, direct order only division of the company.
The idea that anyone can force anyone else to play against FW is ludicrous; just as ludicrous as saying you can force anyone else to play 6E rather than the edition they prefer. But pretending that FW is an entirely separate entity and not part of the game you're playing flies in the face of everything the company has repeatedly said as of late. The 6e rulebook art is littered with FW models and units; the 6e Apocolypse book (not FW) is where I have to go for the latest rules for a number of my FW models. This isn't wishful thinking on the part of FW fans; it really is happening.
77846
Post by: Poly Ranger
A passing comment which clockwork made really summed up this entire thread - "Seriously, it's like people don't even listen". This actually made me chuckle after 11 (12 I see now in the corner of my screen) pages.
It's blatently obvious that numerous people have decided to contribute without reading the thread and have just repeated lines you and others have already countered. The most laughable is the 100th person who tried to claim you were trying to force people to play against FW, despite you all mentioning again and again that this is not the case and in fact, what you are trying to do is make people realise that it is exactly the same as agreeing to play a serp spam for instance.
It reminds me of people joining a conversation halfway through story and the teller has to begin again so they understand the context and ends up repeating themselves, and then a new person arrives and joins the conversation halfway through the story and the teller has to begin again so they understand the context and ends up repeating themselves, and then a new person arrives...
Anyway, I admire your patience!
77217
Post by: xruslanx
ClockworkZion wrote:
Read the thread, rules have been a strong part of the discussion since e start.
Then they've been off topic. Rules have nothing to do with it. Automatically Appended Next Post: Poly Ranger wrote:The most laughable is the 100th person who tried to claim you were trying to force people to play against FW, despite you all mentioning again and again that this is not the case and in fact, what you are trying to do is make people realise that it is exactly the same as agreeing to play a serp spam for instance.
Notice how we don't have a thread from someone complaining that no one wants to play against his 1500 point IG list with 6 vendettas in it. It is the same, but for some reason the fact that it's Forge World makes it okay to whine about it.
74704
Post by: Naw
Renegade_commander wrote:This whole thread is pointless.
Forgeworld is official when you and your opponent agree on it beforw hand or did we all forget THE SPIRIT OF THE GAME?!?
I don't understand this argument. It is like saying the new Eldar codex is not valid unless I agree to it. In other words, you choose to or don't choose to play against an army. Opponent fielding FW should not matter at all.
Do I want to face wavespam with my BA in 6th? Must I play against it? Of course not, if I do not want to. But that does not invalidate the status of the codex. Why do you think it invalidates the rules from FW?
As for tournaments, if the TO says forgeworld units are allowed (usually with pre aproval or within set guidlines, who am i, or any of us for that matter to dissagree? Dont like it then dont pay your entree fee and enjoy hours of playing what i consider my favorit game off all time and arguably the best edition of 40k iv ever played.
Tournaments should allow FW by default. But it looks like we are of the same opinion.
Gawd I hate mobile devices for web surfing..
68342
Post by: tvih
Poly Ranger wrote:A passing comment which clockwork made really summed up this entire thread - "Seriously, it's like people don't even listen". This actually made me chuckle after 11 (12 I see now in the corner of my screen) pages.
It's blatently obvious that numerous people have decided to contribute without reading the thread and have just repeated lines you and others have already countered.
Well, seeing as many people have read probably a hundred pages or more about essentially this same topic, no wonder they - or even I - can be bothered to read all the pages of this particular thread Every single relevant argument for both sides has been made a billion times (including what I am writing on this reply). So one could ask why even post - but hey, that's Internet forums for you!
77217
Post by: xruslanx
Naw wrote:
I don't understand this argument. It is like saying the new Eldar codex is not valid unless I agree to it. In other words, you choose to or don't choose to play against an army. Opponent fielding FW should not matter at all.
Well you are correct. The new eldar codex isn't valid unless people agree to play against it.
Do I want to face wavespam with my BA in 6th? Must I play against it? Of course not, if I do not want to. But that does not invalidate the status of the codex. Why do you think it invalidates the rules from FW?
Well if you don't like wavespam you can refuse to play it if you like.
Tournaments should allow FW by default
Why? Tournaments reflect what their player base want.
77846
Post by: Poly Ranger
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Poly Ranger wrote:The most laughable is the 100th person who tried to claim you were trying to force people to play against FW, despite you all mentioning again and again that this is not the case and in fact, what you are trying to do is make people realise that it is exactly the same as agreeing to play a serp spam for instance.
Notice how we don't have a thread from someone complaining that no one wants to play against his 1500 point IG list with 6 vendettas in it. It is the same, but for some reason the fact that it's Forge World makes it okay to whine about it.
Yep same thing. Its falling on deaf ears though that refusing to play against fw units is the same as refusing to play against 6 vendettas.
At the end of the day, if i personally invest in fw units and people refuse to play against them after I show them the rules and allow them to view them at any point, I would consider that person rather cowardly and stubborn in the regard of expanding their gaming horizons. And due to this lowering of opinion, combined with me not being able to field a unit that could have instead financed a few good nights out, I would also consider them a total b*ll end! Automatically Appended Next Post: ^hmmmmm whys it not quoted your quote... thats odd!
74704
Post by: Naw
 tvih wrote: Zweischneid wrote:Forge World is fully recognized as the Forge World part of the game.
Just don't try to ask people to recognize it as the non-Forge World part of the game, when it clearly says Forge World on the cover.
Pretty much this. The The GW 40k BRB may blather on about a framework etc, but that also allows for house rules and all kinds of other things. That doesn't make them "official." The GW 40k BRB doesn't say "treat FW units as if they were official codex units in terms of status" or anything even near that, and therefore players will keep having these arguments forever. As long as there's a brand distinction with the "main brand" not directly addressing the sister brand in the rules there's going to be a division between the two product lines.
This is exactly what I have been trying to say. We play by the BRB rules rather than creating our own. As it is, this whole mess could be cleared up by GW. Want more sales? Then endorse FW!
And just for the record I wouldn't mind playing against FW, though I don't think anyone locally even has FW stuff. But as it is, there are so many broken "official" units that it really doesn't matter whether or not FW is broken, too.
This is my understanding also. Now people will jump up and say it isn't so. Sort of like people arguing Riptides are fine, even if there were 5 on board. That evidence itself should prove the point that they are too good for their point cost.
78632
Post by: Renegade_commander
Naw wrote:Renegade_commander wrote:This whole thread is pointless.
Forgeworld is official when you and your opponent agree on it beforw hand or did we all forget THE SPIRIT OF THE GAME?!?
I don't understand this argument. It is like saying the new Eldar codex is not valid unless I agree to it. In other words, you choose to or don't choose to play against an army. Opponent fielding FW should not matter at all.
Do I want to face wavespam with my BA in 6th? Must I play against it? Of course not, if I do not want to. But that does not invalidate the status of the codex. Why do you think it invalidates the rules from FW?
As for tournaments, if the TO says forgeworld units are allowed (usually with pre aproval or within set guidlines, who am i, or any of us for that matter to dissagree? Dont like it then dont pay your entree fee and enjoy hours of playing what i consider my favorit game off all time and arguably the best edition of 40k iv ever played.
Tournaments should allow FW by default. But it looks like we are of the same opinion.
Gawd I hate mobile devices for web surfing..
I see your point and agree with the codexes being "official" as fw is more of a grey area. My argument with "the spirit of the game" is that as long as you and your opponent discuss the use of forgeworld before models are even placed on the table( with the exception of tournaments, which we both agree on) there should be no reason somone cant use a forgeworld model/unit/list. I think maybe its the fear of the unknown? But this can be mitigated by simply talking to your opponent beforehand.
Now if your opponent doesnt agree with you using your fw models/army lists then thats a whole nother threads worth of discussion. Lol
74704
Post by: Naw
ClockworkZion wrote:xruslanx wrote: ClockworkZion wrote: Zweischneid wrote:
It is. Forge World is fully recognized as the Forge World part of the game.
Just don't try to ask people to recognize it as the non-Forge World part of the game, when it clearly says Forge World on the cover.
Okay, so where is the rule that says that 40k is split into "parts" like you said?
how is this a rules discussion? This is about how people perceive forgeworld and 40k, there is no right and wrong.
For some people, 40k means the codexes/suppliments, and anything outside of that is not 'legit'. I am one such person, i'd happily play any of my friends with forgeworld models/rules, because it's a cool way of expanding the game. But i still don't regard it as 'standard' 40k because it isn't.
Read the thread, rules have been a strong part of the discussion since e start.
That is a weak argument! Following your logic _all_ homebrewn would be perfectly fine, following the framework. But it isn't so. Why must you try to argue that point at all?
45133
Post by: ClockworkZion
Naw wrote: ClockworkZion wrote:xruslanx wrote: ClockworkZion wrote: Zweischneid wrote:
It is. Forge World is fully recognized as the Forge World part of the game.
Just don't try to ask people to recognize it as the non-Forge World part of the game, when it clearly says Forge World on the cover.
Okay, so where is the rule that says that 40k is split into "parts" like you said?
how is this a rules discussion? This is about how people perceive forgeworld and 40k, there is no right and wrong.
For some people, 40k means the codexes/suppliments, and anything outside of that is not 'legit'. I am one such person, i'd happily play any of my friends with forgeworld models/rules, because it's a cool way of expanding the game. But i still don't regard it as 'standard' 40k because it isn't.
Read the thread, rules have been a strong part of the discussion since e start.
That is a weak argument! Following your logic _all_ homebrewn would be perfectly fine, following the framework. But it isn't so. Why must you try to argue that point at all?
Check my signatue, I have an article that says exactly that. Homebrew is legit too, but this isn't about that.
Also Codex Supplements use the same rule your arguing against
78632
Post by: Renegade_commander
Im starting to see that this is less of a division between forgeworld and games workshop, and more of a division of us gamers as to what we see as broken or overpowered. Otherwise why would anyone not want to play against a forgeworld unit? Not including superheavys of course. Can somone please tell me?
5046
Post by: Orock
I checked the rules for the official gw tourneys that still take place in Nottingham. They don't allow forge world. If they don't have the confidence in the balance of the units, why should I put up with more crap than the already imbalanced units we deal with now?
4183
Post by: Davor
GW has tourneys? That is new to me. I thought they gave up on them.
Wow, that is pretty bad for FW, if true. I mean how can you have a Tourney and you say your own product is not legal.
46128
Post by: Happyjew
Davor wrote:GW has tourneys? That is new to me. I thought they gave up on them.
Wow, that is pretty bad for FW, if true. I mean how can you have a Tourney and you say your own product is not legal.
You know what else is not legal at Tournaments? Codexes that have a newer edition (such as the 4th edition Eldar codex). If someone showed up at your store with that and said you wanna play my Eldar, are you going to say no?
45133
Post by: ClockworkZion
 Orock wrote:I checked the rules for the official gw tourneys that still take place in Nottingham. They don't allow forge world. If they don't have the confidence in the balance of the units, why should I put up with more crap than the already imbalanced units we deal with now?
They also limit allies to 500 points and don't allow double FOC. Tournaments have never been indicitive of e actual game.
74704
Post by: Naw
ClockworkZion wrote:Naw wrote: ClockworkZion wrote:xruslanx wrote: ClockworkZion wrote: Zweischneid wrote:
It is. Forge World is fully recognized as the Forge World part of the game.
Just don't try to ask people to recognize it as the non-Forge World part of the game, when it clearly says Forge World on the cover.
Okay, so where is the rule that says that 40k is split into "parts" like you said?
how is this a rules discussion? This is about how people perceive forgeworld and 40k, there is no right and wrong.
For some people, 40k means the codexes/suppliments, and anything outside of that is not 'legit'. I am one such person, i'd happily play any of my friends with forgeworld models/rules, because it's a cool way of expanding the game. But i still don't regard it as 'standard' 40k because it isn't.
Read the thread, rules have been a strong part of the discussion since e start.
That is a weak argument! Following your logic _all_ homebrewn would be perfectly fine, following the framework. But it isn't so. Why must you try to argue that point at all?
Check my signatue, I have an article that says exactly that. Homebrew is legit too, but this isn't about that.
Also Codex Supplements use the same rule your arguing against
I started with the Rogue Trader, I still have the book in perfect condition (as it hasn't been used, otherwise it would have fallen apart already
..) Are you seriously trying to tell me that I would perfectly fine fielding an army created following those rules?
We both know this issue isn't so black or white. I just feel that the gaming community expects GW to validate FW. So far they have not done that. It does not matter what it says on page 108, players would not follow arbitrary house rules anyway.
45133
Post by: ClockworkZion
Naw wrote: ClockworkZion wrote:Naw wrote: ClockworkZion wrote:xruslanx wrote: ClockworkZion wrote: Zweischneid wrote:
It is. Forge World is fully recognized as the Forge World part of the game.
Just don't try to ask people to recognize it as the non-Forge World part of the game, when it clearly says Forge World on the cover.
Okay, so where is the rule that says that 40k is split into "parts" like you said?
how is this a rules discussion? This is about how people perceive forgeworld and 40k, there is no right and wrong.
For some people, 40k means the codexes/suppliments, and anything outside of that is not 'legit'. I am one such person, i'd happily play any of my friends with forgeworld models/rules, because it's a cool way of expanding the game. But i still don't regard it as 'standard' 40k because it isn't.
Read the thread, rules have been a strong part of the discussion since e start.
That is a weak argument! Following your logic _all_ homebrewn would be perfectly fine, following the framework. But it isn't so. Why must you try to argue that point at all?
Check my signatue, I have an article that says exactly that. Homebrew is legit too, but this isn't about that.
Also Codex Supplements use the same rule your arguing against
I started with the Rogue Trader, I still have the book in perfect condition (as it hasn't been used, otherwise it would have fallen apart already
..) Are you seriously trying to tell me that I would perfectly fine fielding an army created following those rules?
We both know this issue isn't so black or white. I just feel that the gaming community expects GW to validate FW. So far they have not done that. It does not matter what it says on page 108, players would not follow arbitrary house rules anyway.
If you converted those rules to work in the current ruleset, sure. Otherwise I'd recommend 2nd.
108 is a legitimate part of the rules, not an arbitrary house rules. Arguing that it's NOT is more house rules than FW is.
46128
Post by: Happyjew
Naw wrote:I started with the Rogue Trader, I still have the book in perfect condition (as it hasn't been used, otherwise it would have fallen apart already
..) Are you seriously trying to tell me that I would perfectly fine fielding an army created following those rules?
We both know this issue isn't so black or white. I just feel that the gaming community expects GW to validate FW. So far they have not done that. It does not matter what it says on page 108, players would not follow arbitrary house rules anyway.
Yep. Of course it might take some time to figure out rules interaction.
77217
Post by: xruslanx
Renegade_commander wrote:Im starting to see that this is less of a division between forgeworld and games workshop, and more of a division of us gamers as to what we see as broken or overpowered. Otherwise why would anyone not want to play against a forgeworld unit? Not including superheavys of course. Can somone please tell me?
Queue a probable flamestorm directed at this, but many forgeworld units are very OP.
Check this pdf. The Sabre Defence platforms in it are *very* powerful for what you pay. 60 points for a twin-linked lascannon with AV 10 and 3 wounds. Oh and they get to shoot at aircraft with normal BS too.
Or check out this. 290 points for a Land Raider with 25 transport capacity (!!!) and four twin-linked lascannons (well actually 2 Heavy 2 lascannons). And for 20 points it can be made immune to melta. That is crazy op.
Obviously I should point out that the vast majority of Forgeworld is not OP, but to say that there are no OP units is disingenuous.
78632
Post by: Renegade_commander
Happyjew wrote:Naw wrote:I started with the Rogue Trader, I still have the book in perfect condition (as it hasn't been used, otherwise it would have fallen apart already
..) Are you seriously trying to tell me that I would perfectly fine fielding an army created following those rules?
We both know this issue isn't so black or white. I just feel that the gaming community expects GW to validate FW. So far they have not done that. It does not matter what it says on page 108, players would not follow arbitrary house rules anyway.
Yep. Of course it might take some time to figure out rules interaction.
I agree. Take the time to talk to me about it and yeah, il allow rogue trader. Lol spirit of the game?  Automatically Appended Next Post: xruslanx wrote:Renegade_commander wrote:Im starting to see that this is less of a division between forgeworld and games workshop, and more of a division of us gamers as to what we see as broken or overpowered. Otherwise why would anyone not want to play against a forgeworld unit? Not including superheavys of course. Can somone please tell me?
Queue a probable flamestorm directed at this, but many forgeworld units are very OP.
Check this pdf. The Sabre Defence platforms in it are *very* powerful for what you pay. 60 points for a twin-linked lascannon with AV 10 and 3 wounds. Oh and they get to shoot at aircraft with normal BS too.
Or check out this. 290 points for a Land Raider with 25 transport capacity (!!!) and four twin-linked lascannons (well actually 2 Heavy 2 lascannons). And for 20 points it can be made immune to melta. That is crazy op.
Obviously I should point out that the vast majority of Forgeworld is not OP, but to say that there are no OP units is disingenuous.
thank you for your reply. Do you feel that any of those units listed are more OP than my taudar farsight bomb? Or my screamerstar?
46128
Post by: Happyjew
xruslanx wrote:Check this pdf. The Sabre Defence platforms in it are *very* powerful for what you pay. 60 points for a twin-linked lascannon with AV 10 and 3 wounds. Oh and they get to shoot at aircraft with normal BS too.
Let's compare to the Hydra shall we: Sabre - cheaper, less HP, worse front armour, fewer options, immobile, and has Interceptor.
Or check out this. 290 points for a Land Raider with 25 transport capacity (!!!) and four twin-linked lascannons (well actually 2 Heavy 2 lascannons). And for 20 points it can be made immune to melta. That is crazy op.
295 points. And 25 model capacity? Whoop- de-doo. The only two ways you will get close to filling that capacity is with either a full 10-man terminator squad, or a crap-ton of Death Company. Hmmm...this gives me an idea for starting up a BA army...
52123
Post by: Xanrn
xruslanx wrote:Renegade_commander wrote:Im starting to see that this is less of a division between forgeworld and games workshop, and more of a division of us gamers as to what we see as broken or overpowered. Otherwise why would anyone not want to play against a forgeworld unit? Not including superheavys of course. Can somone please tell me?
Queue a probable flamestorm directed at this, but many forgeworld units are very OP.
Check this pdf. The Sabre Defence platforms in it are *very* powerful for what you pay. 60 points for a twin-linked lascannon with AV 10 and 3 wounds. Oh and they get to shoot at aircraft with normal BS too.
Or check out this. 290 points for a Land Raider with 25 transport capacity (!!!) and four twin-linked lascannons (well actually 2 Heavy 2 lascannons). And for 20 points it can be made immune to melta. That is crazy op.
Obviously I should point out that the vast majority of Forgeworld is not OP, but to say that there are no OP units is disingenuous.
Well the rules for the Sabre Defence Platforms are the wrong edition for a start.
The Spartan rules are "Experimental Rules, Imperial Sanction not yet granted"
So is that the best you can do?
46128
Post by: Happyjew
Xanrn wrote:The Spartan rules are "Experimental Rules, Imperial Sanction not yet granted"
Actually they are sanctioned. The rules are in Imperial Armour Apocalypse, The rules for it are exactly the same. Automatically Appended Next Post: Also I would like to point out that "immune to melta" only hurts a couple of armies out there.
Tyranids have no melta.
Eldar and their Dark Kin can still use Lance weaponry.
The Imperium has access to Lascannons as well as other S9+ weapons.
Sisters might be in trouble though.
65784
Post by: Mr.Omega
Happyjew wrote:xruslanx wrote:Check this pdf. The Sabre Defence platforms in it are *very* powerful for what you pay. 60 points for a twin-linked lascannon with AV 10 and 3 wounds. Oh and they get to shoot at aircraft with normal BS too.
Let's compare to the Hydra shall we: Sabre - cheaper, less HP, worse front armour, fewer options, immobile, and has Interceptor.
Or check out this. 290 points for a Land Raider with 25 transport capacity (!!!) and four twin-linked lascannons (well actually 2 Heavy 2 lascannons). And for 20 points it can be made immune to melta. That is crazy op.
295 points. And 25 model capacity? Whoop- de-doo. The only two ways you will get close to filling that capacity is with either a full 10-man terminator squad, or a crap-ton of Death Company. Hmmm...this gives me an idea for starting up a BA army...
You're comparing a crappy unit that takes up IG's limited HS slots to a unit that can be taken in large numbers for a start with the Sabre-Hydra comparison.
Why is the Sabre better?
-Vehicles suck. They're too easy to kill and when they're as fragile as the Hydra you're practically handing your opponent first blood.
-Did I mention Vehicles suck? They can't take use cover saves in area terrain and can be instantly killed pretty easily. Sabres aren't vehicles, they have a toughness value, that FAQ is out of date.
-Doesn't suck against ground targets
-Doubles as effective defense against those ground targets that come in from reserve.
295 points for an effective tank hunter/ MC tackler that is very hard to kill and can transport the hardest of Deathstars that you can imagine is a very good deal.
4183
Post by: Davor
Happyjew wrote:Davor wrote:GW has tourneys? That is new to me. I thought they gave up on them.
Wow, that is pretty bad for FW, if true. I mean how can you have a Tourney and you say your own product is not legal.
You know what else is not legal at Tournaments? Codexes that have a newer edition (such as the 4th edition Eldar codex). If someone showed up at your store with that and said you wanna play my Eldar, are you going to say no?
If that is what is fun for the person, sure why not. I let a lot of things slide. I am a causal player. I am all for let's have fun.
I was just asking a question. I thought GW didn't hold tournies. So not sure what this has to do with 4th Eldar or what not. I lived under a rock lately, I don't know what is going on so it's why I asked.
46128
Post by: Happyjew
 Mr.Omega wrote:You're comparing a crappy unit to a unit that can be taken in large numbers for a start with the Sabre-Hydra comparison.
I'm comparing the Sabre Defense Platform as found in Imperial Armour Aeronautica to the Hydra, since it basically is an immobile Hydra.
Why is the Sabre better:
-Vehicles suck. They're too easy to kill and when they're as fragile as the Hydra you're practically handing your opponent first blood.
And the Sabre is an immobile vehicle with 2 HPs. If a Hydra is an easy First Blood, this is even easier.
-Did I mention Vehicles suck? They can't take use cover saves in area terrain and can be instantly killed pretty easily. Sabres aren't vehicles, they have a toughness value, that FAQ is out of date.
They are vehicles. As per IA Aeronautica (which came out after that FAQ). More specifically they are "Vehicle (Immobile)".
-Doesn't suck against ground targets
-Doubles as effective defense against those ground targets that come in from reserve.
This is about the only good thing the Sabre has going for it - Interceptor.
Unit composition for both: 1-3
Unit type for both: Vehicle
Side and Rear armour for both: 10
BS for both: 3
The only good thing about the Sabre is that it is a few points less and has Interceptor. And that is if you take the Hydra Autocannon. Automatically Appended Next Post: Davor wrote: Happyjew wrote:Davor wrote:GW has tourneys? That is new to me. I thought they gave up on them.
Wow, that is pretty bad for FW, if true. I mean how can you have a Tourney and you say your own product is not legal.
You know what else is not legal at Tournaments? Codexes that have a newer edition (such as the 4th edition Eldar codex). If someone showed up at your store with that and said you wanna play my Eldar, are you going to say no?
If that is what is fun for the person, sure why not. I let a lot of things slide. I am a causal player. I am all for let's have fun.
I was just asking a question. I thought GW didn't hold tournies. So not sure what this has to do with 4th Eldar or what not. I lived under a rock lately, I don't know what is going on so it's why I asked.
I wasn't calling you out. I was pointing out that just because something is not allowed at a GW Tournament (which I didn't even know still existed) doesn't mean that the rules are the same in standard play. Otherwise, in a 2000 pt game you might not be able to take a second FOC (which is clearly allowed).
77217
Post by: xruslanx
Renegade_commander wrote:
thank you for your reply. Do you feel that any of those units listed are more OP than my taudar farsight bomb? Or my screamerstar?
No, I was replying to a question asking if any Forgeworld units were OP.
53210
Post by: hellpato
Ok, I only read the last two pages of this topic and I want to know all of this is about what at first? For now, is like an anti FW topic.
77217
Post by: xruslanx
Happyjew wrote: Mr.Omega wrote:You're comparing a crappy unit to a unit that can be taken in large numbers for a start with the Sabre-Hydra comparison.
I'm comparing the Sabre Defense Platform as found in Imperial Armour Aeronautica to the Hydra, since it basically is an immobile Hydra.
Why is the Sabre better:
-Vehicles suck. They're too easy to kill and when they're as fragile as the Hydra you're practically handing your opponent first blood.
And the Sabre is an immobile vehicle with 2 HPs. If a Hydra is an easy First Blood, this is even easier.
-Did I mention Vehicles suck? They can't take use cover saves in area terrain and can be instantly killed pretty easily. Sabres aren't vehicles, they have a toughness value, that FAQ is out of date.
They are vehicles. As per IA Aeronautica (which came out after that FAQ). More specifically they are "Vehicle (Immobile)".
-Doesn't suck against ground targets
-Doubles as effective defense against those ground targets that come in from reserve.
This is about the only good thing the Sabre has going for it - Interceptor.
Unit composition for both: 1-3
Unit type for both: Vehicle
Side and Rear armour for both: 10
BS for both: 3
The only good thing about the Sabre is that it is a few points less and has Interceptor. And that is if you take the Hydra Autocannon.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Davor wrote: Happyjew wrote:Davor wrote:GW has tourneys? That is new to me. I thought they gave up on them.
Wow, that is pretty bad for FW, if true. I mean how can you have a Tourney and you say your own product is not legal.
You know what else is not legal at Tournaments? Codexes that have a newer edition (such as the 4th edition Eldar codex). If someone showed up at your store with that and said you wanna play my Eldar, are you going to say no?
If that is what is fun for the person, sure why not. I let a lot of things slide. I am a causal player. I am all for let's have fun.
I was just asking a question. I thought GW didn't hold tournies. So not sure what this has to do with 4th Eldar or what not. I lived under a rock lately, I don't know what is going on so it's why I asked.
I wasn't calling you out. I was pointing out that just because something is not allowed at a GW Tournament (which I didn't even know still existed) doesn't mean that the rules are the same in standard play. Otherwise, in a 2000 pt game you might not be able to take a second FOC (which is clearly allowed).
...Hydras have to snapshoot at anything that's not a flyer, which is why they're useless in 6th. Sabre Defence Platforms do not have this limitation, and S9 is a lot more helpful than a hydra's S7.
They also don't take up a heavy support slot, which is a massive advantage.
46128
Post by: Happyjew
It is on the legality of using Forgeworld rules in a regular friendly game of Warhammer 40K.
I think. I came in part way to people calling other people trolls.
77217
Post by: xruslanx
 hellpato wrote:Ok, I only read the last two pages of this topic and I want to know all of this is about what at first? For now, is like an anti FW topic.
It's not, it's people complaining that other people don't want to play against Forgeworld. Automatically Appended Next Post: Happyjew wrote:It is on the legality of using Forgeworld rules in a regular friendly game of Warhammer 40K.
Has anyone questioned the legality of Forgeworld rules? I don't recall anyone saying that.
46128
Post by: Happyjew
xruslanx wrote:...Hydras have to snapshoot at anything that's not a flyer, which is why they're useless in 6th.
Or Skimmers. Or Jetbikes. Or Flying Monstrous Creatures. Of course they do have a Heavy Bolter they can fire at non-Flyers no problem.
Sabre Defence Platforms do not have this limitation, and S9 is a lot more helpful than a hydra's S7.
Where are you getting S9 from? The Sky Eagle Missiles which are one shot and cost 50 points for 4?
They also don't take up a heavy support slot, which is a massive advantage.
Yes they do take up a Heavy Support slot.
There are two types of Sabre Defense Platforms. The cheaper is literally just the Hydra Autocannon. Automatically Appended Next Post: xruslanx wrote: Happyjew wrote:It is on the legality of using Forgeworld rules in a regular friendly game of Warhammer 40K.
Has anyone questioned the legality of Forgeworld rules? I don't recall anyone saying that.
That is why I said "I think." I started reading about page 5 when people were just going on about how Pergrine is a troll who loves him some Forgeworld cheese. Or something like that. I don't remember the exact wording.
52123
Post by: Xanrn
Mr.Omega wrote: Happyjew wrote:xruslanx wrote:Check this pdf. The Sabre Defence platforms in it are *very* powerful for what you pay. 60 points for a twin-linked lascannon with AV 10 and 3 wounds. Oh and they get to shoot at aircraft with normal BS too.
Let's compare to the Hydra shall we: Sabre - cheaper, less HP, worse front armour, fewer options, immobile, and has Interceptor.
Or check out this. 290 points for a Land Raider with 25 transport capacity (!!!) and four twin-linked lascannons (well actually 2 Heavy 2 lascannons). And for 20 points it can be made immune to melta. That is crazy op.
295 points. And 25 model capacity? Whoop- de-doo. The only two ways you will get close to filling that capacity is with either a full 10-man terminator squad, or a crap-ton of Death Company. Hmmm...this gives me an idea for starting up a BA army...
You're comparing a crappy unit that takes up IG's limited HS slots to a unit that can be taken in large numbers for a start with the Sabre-Hydra comparison.
Why is the Sabre better?
-Vehicles suck. They're too easy to kill and when they're as fragile as the Hydra you're practically handing your opponent first blood.
-Did I mention Vehicles suck? They can't take use cover saves in area terrain and can be instantly killed pretty easily. Sabres aren't vehicles, they have a toughness value, that FAQ is out of date.
-Doesn't suck against ground targets
-Doubles as effective defense against those ground targets that come in from reserve.
295 points for an effective tank hunter/ MC tackler that is very hard to kill and can transport the hardest of Deathstars that you can imagine is a very good deal.
Sabres can't do anything Tau can't do better.
Sabres are manned by Guardsmen, one good burst of ignores cover shooting and your Sabres are removed full health because the crew is all dead.
Sabres aren't blast and don't ignore cover unlike interceptor Riptides...
So 300+ transport for an easily 300+ deathstar, yeah lets ignore the superior "official" deathstars that don't need the 300+ transport and still get across the table faster.
17285
Post by: Matt1785
If you read more then the last two pages you waste your time. The gist is always just...
"Forgeworld is for normal games and banning is house rule not official GW."
"FW books say they are "standard" game legal. So that means GW approves of FW because they are owned by GW"
Counter is...
"FW isn't legit because a GW publication doesn't say that."
"FW is not legit just because it says it is. Does not matter they are owned by GW."
Just kind of a round up of sorts. Then intermixed with legitimate debate are personal assaults and bickering.
I am on the "legal" side but still think it would be nice for a GW published book (NOT a FW one as silly as that may sound) to mention FW legality by name. Not that it would stop the fighting.
46128
Post by: Happyjew
OK, I'm sorry.
I was looking at the wrong thing. Minor confusion on my part. I was looking at the Imperial Support Weapons Platform, not the Sabre Weapons Battery.
I apologize. Please ignore my last few posts discussing them.
77217
Post by: xruslanx
Happyjew wrote:xruslanx wrote:...Hydras have to snapshoot at anything that's not a flyer, which is why they're useless in 6th.
Or Skimmers. Or Jetbikes. Or Flying Monstrous Creatures. Of course they do have a Heavy Bolter they can fire at non-Flyers no problem.
Sabre Defence Platforms do not have this limitation, and S9 is a lot more helpful than a hydra's S7.
Where are you getting S9 from? The Sky Eagle Missiles which are one shot and cost 50 points for 4?
They also don't take up a heavy support slot, which is a massive advantage.
Yes they do take up a Heavy Support slot.
There are two types of Sabre Defense Platforms. The cheaper is literally just the Hydra Autocannon.
Block-quote bickering can go on all night. Point is, many *do* consider Sabre Defence Platforms to be op.
46128
Post by: Happyjew
No, because eventually I'll have to go to bed. Of course, someone might pick up the slack.
Point is, many *do* consider Sabre Defence Platforms to be op.
As I pointed out, I just realized I was arguing in the defense of a completely different unit. And for that I apologize for wasting everybody's time and effort.
53210
Post by: hellpato
 Matt1785 wrote:If you read more then the last two pages you waste your time. The gist is always just...
"Forgeworld is for normal games and banning is house rule not official GW."
" FW books say they are "standard" game legal. So that means GW approves of FW because they are owned by GW"
Counter is...
" FW isn't legit because a GW publication doesn't say that."
" FW is not legit just because it says it is. Does not matter they are owned by GW."
Just kind of a round up of sorts. Then intermixed with legitimate debate are personal assaults and bickering.
I am on the "legal" side but still think it would be nice for a GW published book (NOT a FW one as silly as that may sound) to mention FW legality by name. Not that it would stop the fighting.
Look like narrow mind people talking.
I play FW stuff in all my armies. In all the new FW books we can read if they are for 40k or apo games. I don't see any problems for tournament or friendly games. Just open the book and read the rules. Nothing is really over power. We just need to learn to use or deal with it.
63000
Post by: Peregrine
xruslanx wrote:Block-quote bickering can go on all night. Point is, many *do* consider Sabre Defence Platforms to be op.
So that's one unit, which is only overpowered because of GW's utterly stupid changes to the 6th edition rules (making artillery T7 and making interceptor the only way to fire at ground targets in addition to giving free shots at arriving reserves). Before 6th edition Sabres, earthshaker carriages, etc, were all mediocre at best. Blaming FW for how overpowered they are is missing the point pretty badly.
And compare that to all of GW's blatant balance mistakes: 5-Riptide Tau, re-rollable 2++ death stars, 130 point Vendettas, etc. Complaining about overpowered FW units when the codex-only game is full of enough "cheese" to satisfy the worst WAAC TFGs already is just insane.
46128
Post by: Happyjew
Peregrine wrote:xruslanx wrote:Block-quote bickering can go on all night. Point is, many *do* consider Sabre Defence Platforms to be op.
So that's one unit, which is only overpowered because of GW's utterly stupid changes to the 6th edition rules (making artillery T7 and making interceptor the only way to fire at ground targets in addition to giving free shots at arriving reserves). Before 6th edition Sabres, earthshaker carriages, etc, were all mediocre at best. Blaming FW for how overpowered they are is missing the point pretty badly.
And compare that to all of GW's blatant balance mistakes: 5-Riptide Tau, re-rollable 2++ death stars, 130 point Vendettas, etc. Complaining about overpowered FW units when the codex-only game is full of enough "cheese" to satisfy the worst WAAC TFGs already is just insane.
You forgot the 90 point Doom with Iron Arm.
77217
Post by: xruslanx
Peregrine wrote:xruslanx wrote:Block-quote bickering can go on all night. Point is, many *do* consider Sabre Defence Platforms to be op.
So that's one unit, which is only overpowered because of GW's utterly stupid changes to the 6th edition rules (making artillery T7 and making interceptor the only way to fire at ground targets in addition to giving free shots at arriving reserves). Before 6th edition Sabres, earthshaker carriages, etc, were all mediocre at best. Blaming FW for how overpowered they are is missing the point pretty badly.
They were op in 5th too...do you not remember Artillery? 50 points cheaper than the vehicle kind but insanely tough against enemy shooting.
Oh and I forgot about these guys. For fifty points less than a vehicle artillery you get an immobile artillery piece with 5 T7 wounds and a 3+ save. That is insane.
And compare that to all of GW's blatant balance mistakes: 5-Riptide Tau, re-rollable 2++ death stars, 130 point Vendettas, etc. Complaining about overpowered FW units when the codex-only game is full of enough "cheese" to satisfy the worst WAAC TFGs already is just insane.
Take a cheesy IG list without forgeworld. Then add Sabre Defence Platforms to it, and it just became even more OP. I don't know if DKOK can
Spartan is a bit different, since it's only available to fairly mediocre marine codexes so it doesn't seem as OP since it's part of the codexes it plays with.
63000
Post by: Peregrine
xruslanx wrote:They were op in 5th too...do you not remember Artillery? 50 points cheaper than the vehicle kind but insanely tough against enemy shooting.
Err, lol? Did you even play with artillery in 5th (don't bother answering, we know the answer is "no")? You're talking about a unit where all hits have a 33% chance of going on the gun, which is an AV 10/11 model that is automatically destroyed by a single glancing or penetrating hit. Or you can just take the 66% chance of hitting the crew and kill the T3/no-save models with a round of bolter fire. Oh, and it's an immobile vehicle so it can't turn to fire at new targets and you're stuck with whatever is in the narrow arc in front of it when you deploy them. Finally, just to add insult to injury, dawn of war deployment completely screws you because now you have to put them in reserve and deep strike them since they can't walk on with the rest of your army.
Speaking as someone who actually used those units in 5th they were hilariously easy to kill and cheaper than a Basilisk for very good reason. The only reason to ever take them over proper artillery tanks was if you had a fluffy army where static siege guns were appropriate.
Take a cheesy IG list without forgeworld. Then add Sabre Defence Platforms to it, and it just became even more OP.
And the point is that codex-only balance is already completely broken. If you're concerned about "cheese" then the solution is to talk to your opponent about bringing weaker lists and refuse to play anyone who brings "cheese" you don't enjoy, not to impose blanket bans against whole categories of units because you're afraid someone (who you already don't want to play against) will bring too much "cheese".
I don't know if DKOK can
So you admit that you don't even know the rules you're complaining about?
78632
Post by: Renegade_commander
Psh. The weapons platform is hardly gamebreaking. The argument im trying to make is that in todays meta, thete are NO forgeworld units that are any more broken than whats in todays codexes. Therefor, any arguement otherwise made towards why antone wouldnt allow a forgeworld unit/army, in a friendly game or otherwise, is completely invalid.
Fear. Fear of losing. Fear of the unknown.
494
Post by: H.B.M.C.
This. A thousand times this.
Take a second to think about who you're arguing with, and then ask that question again.
The answer should be blindingly obvious.
45133
Post by: ClockworkZion
Happyjew wrote:It is on the legality of using Forgeworld rules in a regular friendly game of Warhammer 40K.
I think. I came in part way to people calling other people trolls.
Despite what certain people may try and claim, this has been the argument forever. Some of us say it is a legitimate and legal part of the game, others say we're wrong.
The arguement since I've first seen it was if FW was legal in standard play or not. Automatically Appended Next Post: Matt1785 wrote:If you read more then the last two pages you waste your time. The gist is always just...
"Forgeworld is for normal games and banning is house rule not official GW."
" FW books say they are "standard" game legal. So that means GW approves of FW because they are owned by GW"
Counter is...
" FW isn't legit because a GW publication doesn't say that."
" FW is not legit just because it says it is. Does not matter they are owned by GW."
Just kind of a round up of sorts. Then intermixed with legitimate debate are personal assaults and bickering.
I am on the "legal" side but still think it would be nice for a GW published book (NOT a FW one as silly as that may sound) to mention FW legality by name. Not that it would stop the fighting.
I doubt that would stop the fighting as some of the arguments made by the anti- FW crowd are based on opinions regarding OP versus facts or rules. Automatically Appended Next Post: H.B.M.C. wrote:
This. A thousand times this.
Take a second to think about who you're arguing with, and then ask that question again.
The answer should be blindingly obvious.
Apparently the answer is "no" followed by a sense that someone hasn't read any of the thread and has only come in to try and force his personal views of what the issue really is on everyone else and claim things that aren't true (like that rules were never an actual part of the debate).
25751
Post by: gmaleron
All I see lately is alot of people saying "Forgeworld is Cheese and I dont want to have to deal with it", again I will say the VAST majortiy of Forgeworld does not fit this description in the slightest. In fact it probably has less OP stuff when compared to the standard codex's in regards to so called "cheese" and overpowered units. As someone mentioned above its the fear of the unknown which drives people to scream OP and refuse to play it, despite the fact that most (in my personal experience and what it seems on here) have never even played against it. And guess what, even if you have played it and found it tough opposition, maybe trying to adapt? Whenever a meta shift takes place in the game good players will find ways to counter and deal with it, wether its OP or not, instead of sitting there acting like a kid and throwing a "tempertantrum" that its cheese.
37231
Post by: d-usa
I think that at times the experimental rules are somewhat OP and cheesy, and since those are the free rules that everybody can see (and are therefore the rules that people tend to be most familiar with) they could assume that FW is OP.
I personally find that every book version of a model had improved (and more balanced) rules than the experimental rules though.
78632
Post by: Renegade_commander
I was reminded today that there are in fact a few grand tournaments that allow forgeworld units.
77217
Post by: xruslanx
ClockworkZion wrote:
Apparently the answer is "no" followed by a sense that someone hasn't read any of the thread and has only come in to try and force his personal views of what the issue really is on everyone else and claim things that aren't true (like that rules were never an actual part of the debate).
Threads are open to anyone to comment on, it is not a prerequisite of contribution to first read through ten pages. Anyway, all Forgeworld threads are the same.
25208
Post by: AlmightyWalrus
xruslanx wrote: ClockworkZion wrote:
Apparently the answer is "no" followed by a sense that someone hasn't read any of the thread and has only come in to try and force his personal views of what the issue really is on everyone else and claim things that aren't true (like that rules were never an actual part of the debate).
Threads are open to anyone to comment on, it is not a prerequisite of contribution to first read through ten pages. Anyway, all Forgeworld threads are the same.
Actually, I'd argue that it's a prerequisite to read the thread, because otherwise you've not got a clue what you're talking about. What are you adding to the discussion by stating something that's been discussed already?
45133
Post by: ClockworkZion
xruslanx wrote: ClockworkZion wrote:
Apparently the answer is "no" followed by a sense that someone hasn't read any of the thread and has only come in to try and force his personal views of what the issue really is on everyone else and claim things that aren't true (like that rules were never an actual part of the debate).
Threads are open to anyone to comment on, it is not a prerequisite of contribution to first read through ten pages. Anyway, all Forgeworld threads are the same.
You may be free to comment, but you're not in a position to control the discussion nor are you in a position to argue what the actual topic of discussion is though. The argument, despite your claims otherwise, has always included the rules. Namely people demanding their be a rule saying FW is legal. Now that we have a rule that fills that role some people want an even more specific rule that says FW is legal.
Next time you feel like butting in, please take the time to read the thread because then you might actually be on the same page idea wise as everyone else.
77217
Post by: xruslanx
Well I haven't broken any rules so you'll just have to put up with me eh.
Though, could you point me to any posts that dispute the legality of Forgeworld? Since that's the topic of this thread - and apparently the only topic that's allowed - it seems strange that it doesn't seem to have cropped up in the past few pages.
35947
Post by: Lolcanoe
Whilst these rules should be considered official.......
Should..not will....not shall....should.
That being said,I don't mind playing against forgeworld stuff.
73304
Post by: anchorbine
In tournaments, the issue is easily solved. One allowing forgeworld and one that doesn't. The community involved in that area will easily determine which format is more popular and in turn will be able to much easier determine which format to move forward with in the future. This eliminates any argument.
In casual games, it simply doesn't matter. People choose who and what they want to play against, and forgeworld will find acceptance or non-acceptance based on the play group.
Finally, I'll mention this again, since it bears mentioning. GW could easily settle the debate by mentioning Forgeworld in the 6th edition rulebook, or in the 6th edition faq, but they don't. I imagine they've been emailed that question hundreds of times, but obviously aren't answering the question.
45133
Post by: ClockworkZion
xruslanx wrote:Well I haven't broken any rules so you'll just have to put up with me eh.
Though, could you point me to any posts that dispute the legality of Forgeworld? Since that's the topic of this thread - and apparently the only topic that's allowed - it seems strange that it doesn't seem to have cropped up in the past few pages.
How about reading the first post which talks about a rule. 
77217
Post by: xruslanx
ClockworkZion wrote:xruslanx wrote:Well I haven't broken any rules so you'll just have to put up with me eh.
Though, could you point me to any posts that dispute the legality of Forgeworld? Since that's the topic of this thread - and apparently the only topic that's allowed - it seems strange that it doesn't seem to have cropped up in the past few pages.
How about reading the first post which talks about a rule.
Oh you were referring to peregrine's bizarre insistence that not using Forgeworld is a houserule. I'd have thought it was obvious that such decisions are part of the social aspect and transcend rules, which is why I find it such a strange discussion.
I had a Dark Angel vs Tyranid battle the other day...obviously we house ruled since there were no Tau, and Tau are a legit part of the game. We also house-ruled by not having Eldar, who are a legitimate part of the game. Damn so many house rules and I never even realised
45133
Post by: ClockworkZion
xruslanx wrote: ClockworkZion wrote:xruslanx wrote:Well I haven't broken any rules so you'll just have to put up with me eh.
Though, could you point me to any posts that dispute the legality of Forgeworld? Since that's the topic of this thread - and apparently the only topic that's allowed - it seems strange that it doesn't seem to have cropped up in the past few pages.
How about reading the first post which talks about a rule.
Oh you were referring to peregrine's bizarre insistence that not using Forgeworld is a houserule. I'd have thought it was obvious that such decisions are part of the social aspect and transcend rules, which is why I find it such a strange discussion.
Regardless on how you want to quantify his argument, the very first post of this thread was quoting a rule from the FW Space Marine Chapter Tactics update. Really, reading comprehension is your friend so please use it for once.
And in the end, you can claim things "transcend rules" but regardless of the fact you can't force anyone to play anything (seriously, if that point was a horse I'd have beaten it to death, and are still beating it because people keep missing it), the argument has been about if FW was a legal part of the game or not. The fact that you don't know that and are forcing me to repeat myself once again shows the importance of reading the thread instead of being a ponce about it. You're not breaking any board rules, but you are breaking a few social ones. Congrats.
xruslanx wrote:I had a Dark Angel vs Tyranid battle the other day...obviously we house ruled since there were no Tau, and Tau are a legit part of the game. We also house-ruled by not having Eldar, who are a legitimate part of the game. Damn so many house rules and I never even realised
Please kindly remove your dunce cap before posting. Banning FW is a house rule, refusing to play against it is not. Refusing to play anything is a choice any player can make about anything and was never really in question regardless of the accusations of people wanting to "force" others to do anyhting. Playing with FW isn't a house rule, it's a legitimate form of play supported by the rulebook, and even endorsed in the FW books. That's the stance most of us who are arguing pro- FW are saying. What you're saying hasn't been claimed.
Seriously, please stop because I can't help but to start thinking you're just trolling in attempt to get your jollies and drag the thread off track.
77217
Post by: xruslanx
ClockworkZion wrote:
Regardless on how you want to quantify his argument, the very first post of this thread was quoting a rule from the FW Space Marine Chapter Tactics update. Really, reading comprehension is your friend so please use it for once.
There must be a version of Godwin's law for "reading comprehension". In the real world we say "I think you might have missed". Regardless, as I stated earlier, this is a false premise created because, once you accept that it's a rules question, you're already on the side of the forgeworld few.
And in the end, you can claim things "transcend rules" but regardless of the fact you can't force anyone to play anything (seriously, if that point was a horse I'd have beaten it to death, and are still beating it because people keep missing it), the argument has been about if FW was a legal part of the game or not.
So as I said, find me a post by someone claiming that Forgeworld is not legal in 40k. "reading comprehension" etc.
Banning FW is a house rule, refusing to play against it is not.
Self-parody, nice. I would drag it out further by demanding that you define the difference between banning something and refusing to play against something...but I'm not that cruel
Refusing to play anything is a choice any player can make about anything and was never really in question regardless of the accusations of people wanting to "force" others to do anyhting. Playing with FW isn't a house rule, it's a legitimate form of play supported by the rulebook, and even endorsed in the FW books. That's the stance most of us who are arguing pro-FW are saying. What you're saying hasn't been claimed.
I don't see anyone who says that playing with Forgeworld is illegal. As I say, I've seen arguments over the past few pages, but no one saying that FW was illegal. I get the feeling you have no interest in debate whatsoever and prefer simply pontificating about "the thread".
Seriously, please stop because I can't help but to start thinking you're just trolling in attempt to get your jollies and drag the thread off track.
Hmm? If a thread has what I deem to be an incorrect premise then I am not "trolling" by questioning that premise.
edit - since you're so fond of discussing what this thread is about rather than anything meaningful, I went through the first page. Nothing there, just comments about popcorn and this gem from Perigrine - Because now there is absolutely no room for disagreement or pretending that "no FW" is anything but a house rule.
Presumably this cavelcade of intelectual back and forth of the legality of FW in 40k takes place some time after this?
Actually, could you simplify it for me? Simply give me a list of posts that I am permitted to respond to, that'd be great. Cheers.
11860
Post by: Martel732
I think discussions like this is why my play group won't allow FW. And, of course, it can't be relied upon to be allowed in tournaments.
5046
Post by: Orock
ClockworkZion wrote:xruslanx wrote: ClockworkZion wrote:xruslanx wrote:Well I haven't broken any rules so you'll just have to put up with me eh.
Though, could you point me to any posts that dispute the legality of Forgeworld? Since that's the topic of this thread - and apparently the only topic that's allowed - it seems strange that it doesn't seem to have cropped up in the past few pages.
How about reading the first post which talks about a rule.
Oh you were referring to peregrine's bizarre insistence that not using Forgeworld is a houserule. I'd have thought it was obvious that such decisions are part of the social aspect and transcend rules, which is why I find it such a strange discussion.
Regardless on how you want to quantify his argument, the very first post of this thread was quoting a rule from the FW Space Marine Chapter Tactics update. Really, reading comprehension is your friend so please use it for once.
And in the end, you can claim things "transcend rules" but regardless of the fact you can't force anyone to play anything (seriously, if that point was a horse I'd have beaten it to death, and are still beating it because people keep missing it), the argument has been about if FW was a legal part of the game or not. The fact that you don't know that and are forcing me to repeat myself once again shows the importance of reading the thread instead of being a ponce about it. You're not breaking any board rules, but you are breaking a few social ones. Congrats.
xruslanx wrote:I had a Dark Angel vs Tyranid battle the other day...obviously we house ruled since there were no Tau, and Tau are a legit part of the game. We also house-ruled by not having Eldar, who are a legitimate part of the game. Damn so many house rules and I never even realised
Please kindly remove your dunce cap before posting. Banning FW is a house rule, refusing to play against it is not. Refusing to play anything is a choice any player can make about anything and was never really in question regardless of the accusations of people wanting to "force" others to do anyhting. Playing with FW isn't a house rule, it's a legitimate form of play supported by the rulebook, and even endorsed in the FW books. That's the stance most of us who are arguing pro- FW are saying. What you're saying hasn't been claimed.
Seriously, please stop because I can't help but to start thinking you're just trolling in attempt to get your jollies and drag the thread off track.
You keep going on about magical page 108 that says in your mind banning forgeworld is only by player choice, and that god almighty says you're wrong. But page 108 also says you can adjust your army with homebrew rules, which generally turn out something like this "ok so my space marines are a little different. They pay less points per marine because their homeworld is so populated, so its easier to replace them because they grow 3 progenitor glands! Also my leader is in experimental dreadnaught armor with a built in 3+ invun force field, and ironclad armor except on the back which is also av 12. Its ok though because his points cost is huge, hes like 180 base)
Page 108 can be summed up as "do whatever you think is fun" not "hey we know we make ridiculous additions to the game thru forgeworld for the explicit purpose of selling high dollar value items to people that are not playtested/balanced beforehand, but they paid an arm and a leg to buy it so you have to accept its fair game". The concept of banning something specifically made for a game is not new. Golf has banned clubs that gave unfair mechanical advantage to players from tournaments for a long time. It dosent stop joe schmoe from buying one to beat his friends down at the club in a friendly game. But when it comes to official, these things do not pass, and for good reason.
45133
Post by: ClockworkZion
xruslanx wrote:So as I said, find me a post by someone claiming that Forgeworld is not legal in 40k. "reading comprehension" etc.
Why? You won't read the thread and I'm not your nursemaid.
xruslanx wrote:
Banning FW is a house rule, refusing to play against it is not.
Self-parody, nice. I would drag it out further by demanding that you define the difference between banning something and refusing to play against something...but I'm not that cruel
"I don't want to play against your FW army" is not the same as "no one can play FW here ever." There is a difference in magnitude there that you're missing. One is a refusal to play something at that time, the other is a refusal for anyone to every play it because you've made it forbidden. It seems despite living in the UK you don't understand the finer points of English.
xruslanx wrote:Refusing to play anything is a choice any player can make about anything and was never really in question regardless of the accusations of people wanting to "force" others to do anyhting. Playing with FW isn't a house rule, it's a legitimate form of play supported by the rulebook, and even endorsed in the FW books. That's the stance most of us who are arguing pro-FW are saying. What you're saying hasn't been claimed.
I don't see anyone who says that playing with Forgeworld is illegal. As I say, I've seen arguments over the past few pages, but no one saying that FW was illegal. I get the feeling you have no interest in debate whatsoever and prefer simply pontificating about "the thread".
I have a feeling you have no desire to read the thread yourself and lack the understanding that this debate isn't new and the point of regarding FW a regular part of the game has arisen before and in the past people have shot down FW as a legitimate part of the game because according to them there is no rule that says it is.
xruslanx wrote:Seriously, please stop because I can't help but to start thinking you're just trolling in attempt to get your jollies and drag the thread off track.
Hmm? If a thread has what I deem to be an incorrect premise then I am not "trolling" by questioning that premise.
"I decided the thread should be about something else, damn everyone else who was here first." Gotcha.
xruslanx wrote:edit - since you're so fond of discussing what this thread is about rather than anything meaningful, I went through the first page. Nothing there, just comments about popcorn and this gem from Perigrine - Because now there is absolutely no room for disagreement or pretending that "no FW" is anything but a house rule.
Presumably this cavelcade of intelectual back and forth of the legality of FW in 40k takes place some time after this?
I love how you misspelled "intellectual". Good show old chap!
Page 1: Peregrine posts a RULE, someone later responds and says the RULE only applies to Chapter Tactics, there is debate about the RULE applying to other things from FW. If you read page 1 you would have seen that this topic STARTED with a rule, and that rule was debated one PAGE ONE.
I'm not summarizing the entire thread for you because you're too lazy to read it. No one here is your nanny, so kindly find somewhere else to play if you don't want to take the time to actually read and comprehend things.
xruslanx wrote:Actually, could you simplify it for me? Simply give me a list of posts that I am permitted to respond to, that'd be great. Cheers.
Pft. Maybe if you understood the debate, perhaps. But you prefer wearing your dunce cap, so no.
Also, this is the last post of yours I'm responding to in this thread. You're just not worth my time to keep replying too.
5046
Post by: Orock
Also forgeworld lost any goodwill or credibility they had when they pumped out the xv-107 rvanna specifically to get powergamer tau players to finally add that 4th 5th and 6th riptide to their armies. And experimental rules don't fly. If they started their points value for this thing at 260, there is no way in hell no matter how many points revisions they make that it will ever be bumped up to the 500 points it should cost for what kind of havoc it could wreak.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also I expect a lock soon because now its just devolving into personal attacks.
77217
Post by: xruslanx
Orock wrote:Also forgeworld lost any goodwill or credibility they had when they pumped out the xv-107 rvanna specifically to get powergamer tau players to finally add that 4th 5th and 6th riptide to their armies. .
Forgeworld had OP before that. for 60 points more than a Land Raider, you get a normal land raider with +15 transport capacity, +2 twin-linked lascannons, and immune to melta.
I'm sure that someone, somewhere uses these models in a fluffy, non-cheese army...and fair play to them. But don't let's pretend that the average pick-up gamer is going to do that.
45133
Post by: ClockworkZion
Orock wrote:You keep going on about magical page 108 that says in your mind banning forgeworld is only by player choice, and that god almighty says you're wrong. But page 108 also says you can adjust your army with homebrew rules, which generally turn out something like this "ok so my space marines are a little different. They pay less points per marine because their homeworld is so populated, so its easier to replace them because they grow 3 progenitor glands! Also my leader is in experimental dreadnaught armor with a built in 3+ invun force field, and ironclad armor except on the back which is also av 12. Its ok though because his points cost is huge, hes like 180 base)
I never said it was magical.
I know what page 108 says. I've got an article in my signature about homebrew being a legal part of the game too. It's even been mentioned a couple pages ago. The thing is that the rule is very wide in scope because it also allows Codex Supplements to work without the rulebook needing an errata to explain how they can work when the rulebook could have restricted us to only using the codexes and nothing else.
Seriously, the reason I keep "going on" about it is because the rule gives players a lot of freedom to do stuff, which includes the stuff that FW itself does to the army list (as I've said).
Orock wrote:Page 108 can be summed up as "do whatever you think is fun" not "hey we know we make ridiculous additions to the game thru forgeworld for the explicit purpose of selling high dollar value items to people that are not playtested/balanced beforehand, but they paid an arm and a leg to buy it so you have to accept its fair game". The concept of banning something specifically made for a game is not new. Golf has banned clubs that gave unfair mechanical advantage to players from tournaments for a long time. It dosent stop joe schmoe from buying one to beat his friends down at the club in a friendly game. But when it comes to official, these things do not pass, and for good reason.
You know what else says "do what you think is fun"? Page 8: Spirit of the Game. The thing is these permissions are wide and open for a reason: they don't want to tell you that you can't, but instead want to allow you to do anything you and your opponent will agree on.
In a ruleset where they devs go out of their way to tell you that you "can" why are we still having people argue that people "can't" use FW because GW doesn't support it? They support every other permutation of the game you can dream up, so why not support their own studio in there as well? The argument is frankly ridiculious. Automatically Appended Next Post: Orock wrote:Also forgeworld lost any goodwill or credibility they had when they pumped out the xv-107 rvanna specifically to get powergamer tau players to finally add that 4th 5th and 6th riptide to their armies. And experimental rules don't fly. If they started their points value for this thing at 260, there is no way in hell no matter how many points revisions they make that it will ever be bumped up to the 500 points it should cost for what kind of havoc it could wreak.
You mean the experimental rules that will most certainly change once they get into an actual book? You know why FW does experimental rules? To publicly play-test things that they think might be too overpowered (even if it falls into the fluff correctly). People who play with or against them can, and often do write in about them and those criticisms are often addressed in a later release. This is a really common thing for them to do actually.
11860
Post by: Martel732
FW, admittedly, is handcuffed by GW in play testing. One can not both simultaneously balance against the Vendetta and Dark Angel fliers. Or Wave Serpents and razorbacks.
45133
Post by: ClockworkZion
Martel732 wrote:FW, admittedly, is handcuffed by GW in play testing. One can not both simultaneously balance against the Vendetta and Dark Angel fliers. Or Wave Serpents and razorbacks.
That's a good point too. FW is essentially bound to end up striking a balance in there somewhere but it's hard when GW is all over the map in their design approach.
31450
Post by: DeathReaper
Peregrine wrote:Davor wrote:Anyone can refuse anyone anything, if they don't want to play against it. There is no rule saying YOU HAVE TO PLAY AGAINST your potential opponent.
And nobody is disputing that. What we want people to stop doing is pretending that their personal "I don't want to play against FW" policy is just following the rules as provided by GW.
Page 108 disallows it though...
"With the points limit agreed, players need to pick their forces. The best way to do this is to make use of the army list in the relevant codex, although, of course, players are free to either adapt the army lists or use their own system as they wish." (108, Emphasis mine)
What Codex does FW produce?
11860
Post by: Martel732
ClockworkZion wrote:Martel732 wrote:FW, admittedly, is handcuffed by GW in play testing. One can not both simultaneously balance against the Vendetta and Dark Angel fliers. Or Wave Serpents and razorbacks.
That's a good point too. FW is essentially bound to end up striking a balance in there somewhere but it's hard when GW is all over the map in their design approach.
It's not just hard; it's impossible. FW would have to recost the entire game. Which I wouldn't be opposed to. If you compare the cost of Imperial weapons upgrade to Eldar, it's just a joke.
45133
Post by: ClockworkZion
 DeathReaper wrote: Peregrine wrote:Davor wrote:Anyone can refuse anyone anything, if they don't want to play against it. There is no rule saying YOU HAVE TO PLAY AGAINST your potential opponent.
And nobody is disputing that. What we want people to stop doing is pretending that their personal "I don't want to play against FW" policy is just following the rules as provided by GW.
Page 108 disallows it though...
"With the points limit agreed, players need to pick their forces. The best way to do this is to make use of the army list in the relevant codex, although, of course, players are free to either adapt the army lists or use their own system as they wish." (108, Emphasis mine)
What Codex does FW produce?
I added emphasis to a part you ignored. FW adapts the army list as found in the codex. This has been a point I've said a few times. Automatically Appended Next Post: Martel732 wrote: ClockworkZion wrote:Martel732 wrote:FW, admittedly, is handcuffed by GW in play testing. One can not both simultaneously balance against the Vendetta and Dark Angel fliers. Or Wave Serpents and razorbacks.
That's a good point too. FW is essentially bound to end up striking a balance in there somewhere but it's hard when GW is all over the map in their design approach.
It's not just hard; it's impossible. FW would have to recost the entire game. Which I wouldn't be opposed to. If you compare the cost of Imperial weapons upgrade to Eldar, it's just a joke.
I too would not be opposed to the game being re-costed so that it's all standardized in a way that is predictable and makes sense.
99
Post by: insaniak
So, this seems to have devolved into going around in circles... I think we're about done here.
|
|
