EVIL INC wrote: Which brings us back full circle to the attitude in which the subject is broached. As it is up to the individual TO and players how they run their games or if they will play, it doesn't matter how legal it is. They don't have to if they don't want to..
This is why I suggest introducing it to them in a polite and reasonable way. The use of demonstration games, discussions focused on merits rather than legalities, heck even play a few "team games and let them borrow a unit or two. There are a lot of ways to do it in a non-confrontational manner. Without GW support, it is an uphill battle overcoming years of ingrained attitudes.
Except by your own definition a while ago, this would be forcing it on the player.
nosferatu1001 wrote: What a realisaiton of FW legality DOES do is turn the onus around - instead of having to ask permission to use FW, the onus is on th eperson who doesnt like something to ask if they could play a game with out FW. Asubtle, but important, distinction.
Yes, a very important distinction. Replace "FW" with "flyers" and people will understand - they need to realize it's the same thing.
Exactly.
Evil - nope, missing the point. You are still "asking for permission" there. FW is exactly as legal as Tau, and considerable less offensive.
Oh, and for those thqat state the reason the 107 sells so well is it is overpowered -that would be why on GD I bought 2? Before the rules were out? What about the SIcaran pred? Same deal. Or what about one of their best selling tanks of all time - the Macharius vulcan? You know, that 400+ point 2SP BS3 tank firing 15 S6 Ap3 shots a turn (now 30, if it doesnt move!) - people CLEARLY bought that in *droves* due to the OP rules!
The Raptor is a beast in terms of guns - but its not great in actual play, as you pay a ton of points, cant fire the missiles without snapshotting everything else, and are exactly as survivable as a stormeagle....
Offtopic: If the R'varna rules do not change I will just on the principle buy 3 of them and 5 Riptides and run them all in one Farsight/Tau list. I don't care if I win or lose with them
That IS the point. TO can disallow riptides in a tourney if they so desire, they can disallow FW if they so desire, they can even disallow the wearing of baseball caps if they so desire. that is their right. by going to their events, you are not asking for permission to use FW models, you are asking for permission to take part in their event under their stipulations.
Likewise, when you ask for a game with another player, you are not asking for permission to use FW models. You are asking them if they will play you.
This is why I mention the attitude and manner in which you introduce people to FW. Ramming it down their throats using the "you have to play against it because its legal" approach against their will simply will not work. It means you will alienate players against FW and yourself. This is why introducing them to it in a polite manne where they will WANT to use it regardless of the legalities (it being legal being only an added bonus to using cool new stuff) will, I think, get you further faster.
xruslanx wrote: The tournaments are run by red shirts who actively promote converted models and creativity.
What does promoting converted models and creativity have to do with whether GW's events are run by their game designers or some random sales staff with no authority to write rules for anything but their own events?
Warhammer world even sells forgeworld, so why the hell would the sales department *not* want to encourage the more expensive forgeworld?
Because GW's events exist to sell models, and their primary target market is kids playing battleforce armies in their local GW store. It's completely understandable if GW's event staff don't want to have to deal with some 15 year old whining about FW rules because they've never seen them when playing against all the other 15 year olds. Meanwhile the target market for FW kits, older experienced hobbyists, probably don't have much interest in GW's events (if they're even on the same continent) and are going to buy the same stuff regardless of what GW's occasional tournaments do.
Just sounds like another emotionally driven argument from perry.
Just sounds like another pathetic personal attack from xruslanx. Too bad you don't put half as much thought into your arguments as you put into acting arrogant and insulting people.
If you'd like to know why they ban fw rules, i'm sure you could email them.
Or I could just ignore them, because I don't give a about some random tournament in a completely different country that I will never have anything to do with.
EVIL INC wrote: by going to their events, you are not asking for permission to use FW models, you are asking for permission to take part in their event under their stipulations.
Actually it is not you asking permission. They are offering an event, under a set of rules. You decide if you wish to attend. Youre not asking can you attend a tournament they may run, and what are the rules, but accepting an offer they have created.
EVIL INC wrote:Likewise, when you ask for a game with another player, you are not asking for permission to use FW models. You are asking them if they will play you.
Exactly the point - will you play 40k? Or do you want to play 40k, but no flyers? or would you like to play 40k, but please, no more Tau? The questions IS NOT would you like to play 40k WITH FW, because the *default* is that FW IS 40k.
EVIL INC wrote:This is why I mention the attitude and manner in which you introduce people to FW. Ramming it down their throats using the "you have to play against it because its legal" approach against their will simply will not work.
Again: noone has said you HAVE to play against it. STOP mis-characterising others arguments, as they have NOT said that. Strawman arguments are a great way to hit the ignore list for people.
However, IF you dont want to play against FW, it is up to *you* to alter the default, as FW is normal, standard, all inclusive 40k.
You dont seem to understand the difference in attitude, despite it being explained a few times. The default IS that FW is allowed. This isnt up for debate - the default game of 40k includes FW, same as it includes Tau, supplements, WD, digi-only codexes and FAQs.
Once you get over that mindset, and switch to it being assumed unless otherwise stated, you then treat FW no idfferently than anything else - which is, if you wish to know the rules as you havent faced it, of course you can look at them - here they are. Need me to explain anything? Etc. Exactly the same in fact as if you are playing someone who has been lucky enough to not play Tau, you explain everything that goes on.
FW is exactly the same as any other GW produced ruleset.
ClockworkZion wrote:IA2v1 says books are a source of rules that are meant for use in 40k with no stipulations on how those rules are made. Yes you can't use the IA books in WFB, but the fact remains that we have a lot more saying "this is real, official and legitimate to use in games" versus the claims that it never was.
A claim I have not defended here, did I? But you're just doing it again - throwing these references together even though they are talking about different things.
Back then, legality apparently meant something, else Jervis would not have worded his explanation in a way that binds FW legality to VDR use. Then you start throwing around quotes that do not mention VDR as a condition - without noticing that the text does not talk about legality at all, but simply about usage. Usage in the same context that we could use experimental or homebrewed rules. And then you're calling this proof.
ClockworkZion wrote:Fine. Don't subscribe, but don't go making accusations about it because you don't agree with it. Attack the idea not the person otherwise you just fail.
I think we are long past the ability to make this distinction here - you yourself have fallen victim to it in the way you react to critics of your arguments. And when you are calling out others, you are surprised at calling out yourself?
If you don't even notice how these debates have progressively become worse, then it really cannot be helped. This also means you'll have to live with the criticism leveled against your arguments in the very same way that you dish it out against others, though.
nosferato1001 wrote:What a realisaiton of FW legality DOES do is turn the onus around - instead of having to ask permission to use FW, the onus is on th eperson who doesnt like something to ask if they could play a game with out FW. Asubtle, but important, distinction.
As of 6th Edition, "legality" is a thing of the past. Anything is legal as long as all participants agree on it. The rulebook recommends using Codices, which is why I'm regarding this as a standard, but everyone has the option to expand or change your army list at will. Whether you are doing this by using Forge World or your own homebrewed rules is of no difference. It's still courteous to ask. Is "shifting the onus" really more important than preserving a friendly and mutually respectful atmosphere that has a much higher chance of resulting in a fun game?
Hell, when I was still playing I even asked if I could bring Sisters, and they are a Codex army. I must have been doing something wrong.
Peregrine wrote:Because GW's events exist to sell models, and their primary target market is kids playing battleforce armies in their local GW store. It's completely understandable if GW's event staff don't want to have to deal with some 15 year old whining about FW rules because they've never seen them when playing against all the other 15 year olds. Meanwhile the target market for FW kits, older experienced hobbyists, probably don't have much interest in GW's events (if they're even on the same continent) and are going to buy the same stuff regardless of what GW's occasional tournaments do.
So apparently, GW events exist to sell models, but GW's rulebooks, codices and FW army books don't.
Also, people who prefer "pure" Codex games are "whiny 15 year olds" whereas "older, experienced hobbyists" is the new blanket-term for FW enthusiasts.
This attitude is the reason for why these threads are not moving forward.
DarthOvious wrote:Alas it is the nature of debate. People can feel really strongly about the littliest of things. Myself included.
I guess so. All of us. Else we would not have discussions like these, or at least not in the way they are being conducted now.
At least you remain tact- and respectful, though, so thank you for that. A debate like this would probably be much more constructive and enjoyable if certain posters from both sides of the argument would be cut out of the talks.
EVIL INC wrote: by going to their events, you are not asking for permission to use FW models, you are asking for permission to take part in their event under their stipulations.
Actually it is not you asking permission. They are offering an event, under a set of rules. You decide if you wish to attend. Youre not asking can you attend a tournament they may run, and what are the rules, but accepting an offer they have created..
actually, it IS you asking permission to take part in an offered event under their rules. they have the right to disallow what they want to and to disallow players who do not wish to follow their rules..
EVIL INC wrote:Likewise, when you ask for a game with another player, you are not asking for permission to use FW models. You are asking them if they will play you.
Exactly the point - will you play 40k? Or do you want to play 40k, but no flyers? or would you like to play 40k, but please, no more Tau? The questions IS NOT would you like to play 40k WITH FW, because the *default* is that FW IS 40k.
Exactly the point is correct. Players have the right to turn down anything they want. If they don't want to play you because you have FW models is their right. If they don't want to play against a riptide spam army, they don't have to play you. THAT is the "default". now, as I suggested, you introduce them to it politely and in a way that they will WANT to play against all new stuff they have never seen before, you will get further than you would by hammering them with the "you HAVE to play me because it's legal" argument. You use that, you will get all the games you want to play, by yourself. Treating other players with dignity and respect goes a lot further.
EVIL INC wrote:This is why I mention the attitude and manner in which you introduce people to FW. Ramming it down their throats using the "you have to play against it because its legal" approach against their will simply will not work.
Again: noone has said you HAVE to play against it. STOP mis-characterising others arguments, as they have NOT said that. Strawman arguments are a great way to hit the ignore list for people.
Tyberos the Red Wake wrote: Forge World has been legal ever since they had the "40k Approved" stamps on various units. But they used to have an addendum that said you should ask for your opponent's permission.
Recently, they removed this, and Forge World is just plain legal, with or without permission, but now they suggest you show your opponent the rules before the game to make sure he knows them.
Keep checking on this thread, but all you'll get is a fanatic-to-jihad levels of anti-forgeworld people who will copy/paste the same old arguments about "not official" and whining about "need their WAAC abuse to win" as if by the pure power of regurgitation, people will agree with them..
Yes it is. Forge World is a brand name used by Games Workshop to publish certain products, just like Citadel model kits and paints or White Dwarf magazine. The "separation" between the two has been invented by certain players, not by GW.
...
You find them in the 40k rules because they are40k rules. The rule that everything for 40k must be in a codex or the core rulebook has been invented by certain players, not by GW.
Unit1126PLL wrote: Forgeworld is legal, and has been since at least IAv1 if I recall. My copy of IAv1:2E says it is official right at the beginning.
There's little more clarification required than GW dba Forgeworld saying it is legal.
Your right, not a SINGLE person has brought up legalities in the conversation regarding seeing FW use. (which one of the lil smileys is the eyeroll?) Those quotes are just from the very first page of the eleven we have gone on. You notice that those who are trying to get FW accepted, I am one of the few who even mention the manner in which it is approached. When addressing it to other players, I don't use the whole" its legal" thingor eve mention it. I focus on the coolness of the models and how it can expad the fun of the game. As I said, without GW support in this, it will be a hard uphill battle to overcome ingrained prejudices that have developed over the years.
nosferatu1001 wrote: However, IF you dont want to play against FW, it is up to *you* to alter the default, as FW is normal, standard, all inclusive 40k.
You dont seem to understand the difference in attitude, despite it being explained a few times. The default IS that FW is allowed. This isnt up for debate - the default game of 40k includes FW, same as it includes Tau, supplements, WD, digi-only codexes and FAQs.
Once you get over that mindset, and switch to it being assumed unless otherwise stated, you then treat FW no idfferently than anything else - which is, if you wish to know the rules as you havent faced it, of course you can look at them - here they are. Need me to explain anything? Etc. Exactly the same in fact as if you are playing someone who has been lucky enough to not play Tau, you explain everything that goes on.
FW is exactly the same as any other GW produced ruleset. .
Earlier in the very post I am addressing you claimed that to point out that people are hanging their hat on the lagalies was a "strawman". Then, later in the same post, you demonstrate that there is no strawman by doing the very thing I am addressing. As I said, there are many ways to get people to WANT to play against or allow it without having to resort to the "its legal" argument.
1. Approach it in a polite manner.
2. have a FW demonstration. maybe set up a few demo games where FW models are used and before/after the game, display the models and rules that go with it in an open question and answer forum type environment.
3. Loan some to be used (under supervision of course along with the understanding of "you break it you bought it") to let people get the feel of them.
4. Start a local group order
5. Run your own tournaments where it is allowed. Maybe have prizes be credit on the upcoming group order.
6. Honest and open discussions where the difference between the different "types' of FW models are clearly delineated (normal 40k vs apoc only)
7. Allow others to play against you with armies that don't have FW models.
I understand that Adepticon is one of the larger 40k and gaming conventions in North America. Here are their thoughts on Forgeworld.
"Forge World/Imperial Armor units are NOT allowed in the Warhammer 40K Championships; however players may still use their Forge
World models to represent a unit from their codex."
Feast of Blades - 2013, another very large hobby gathering.
"No Forgeworld (of any kind)"
The argument of whether or not it's "Official" is rather moot, when major tournaments veer away from it.
anchorbine wrote: I understand that Adepticon is one of the larger 40k and gaming conventions in North America. Here are their thoughts on Forgeworld.
"Forge World/Imperial Armor units are NOT allowed in the Warhammer 40K Championships; however players may still use their Forge
World models to represent a unit from their codex."
Feast of Blades - 2013, another very large hobby gathering.
"No Forgeworld (of any kind)"
The argument of whether or not it's "Official" is rather moot, when major tournaments veer away from it.
Yes, because tournaments are the only way to play 40k.
anchorbine wrote: I understand that Adepticon is one of the larger 40k and gaming conventions in North America. Here are their thoughts on Forgeworld.
"Forge World/Imperial Armor units are NOT allowed in the Warhammer 40K Championships; however players may still use their Forge
World models to represent a unit from their codex."
Feast of Blades - 2013, another very large hobby gathering.
"No Forgeworld (of any kind)"
The argument of whether or not it's "Official" is rather moot, when major tournaments veer away from it.
Adepticon allows FW rules for their Team events (and IIRC another event, don't remember everything that goes on there), while numerous other tournaments, such as the Broadside Bash, Kingdom Con, etc do allow Forgeworld in their events.
Each tournament out there uses its own rules, standards, and in many cases missions and deployment types. There is neither a unified tournament standard, nor does tournament play have any bearing on play outside of tournaments.
Evil - you are adept at failing to read others posts, even when they highlight the exact phrase they're talking about.
I stated no one said you HAVE TO PLAY THEM because they are legal. No one HAS stated that. I didn't even say the word "legal". You seem to have this odd obsession with people being somehow forced to play the game. It's entirely bizarre.
The straw man is that you are claiming people are saying you HAVE to play against FW, when no one has said that. We HAVE, CORESCTLY, stated that FW is 100% legal. This is indisputable.
When you offer an event, with a rules pack, and I accept, I have agreed to abide by the rules pack. Not a single person here has stated they would berate a tTO to use FW if the TO has stated no FW. no one.
re-read the thread, including your own pposts. You will see that I am spot on. I see page after page after page of people talking about w people have to play because it is legal. I quoted several saying exactly that from only the very first page. I didn't even bother quoting the next 10 ages that were more of the same.
There has been VERY little talk of finding ways to try to convince people to WANT to play with/against FW. You may disagree with me on this and you have the right to think as you want but I feel that introducing it to them in one or ll of the ways I mentioned would forward the FW interest more than ramming 'its legal" down their throats.
So far, you are the only one using strawman arguments but as I said, that is your right. .
EVIL INC wrote: re-read the thread, including your own pposts. You will see that I am spot on. I see page after page after page of people talking about w people have to play because it is legal. I quoted several saying exactly that from only the very first page. I didn't even bother quoting the next 10 ages that were more of the same.
No, not a single quote you posted has someone saying that you have to play against FW. They are discussing the legality aspect but even you should be able to understand the difference between that and "having to" play against it. You always have the option of not playing against it.
here ilittle excersize in math for you. As you are so much more intelligent than anyone else here I'm sure you will be able to do this.
Go through the thread and count the umber of posts where people mention that FW is legal. Write the number down
Now, go through the thread and count the number of posts where people give ideas that may help non-FW40k players WANT to se or play against FW models. write the number down.
I'm willing to bet that your first number will be higher than your second.
EVIL INC wrote: here ilittle excersize in math for you. As you are so much more intelligent than anyone else here I'm sure you will be able to do this.
Go through the thread and count the umber of posts where people mention that FW is legal. Write the number down
Now, go through the thread and count the number of posts where people give ideas that may help non-FW40k players WANT to se or play against FW models. write the number down.
I'm willing to bet that your first number will be higher than your second.
And exactly what relevance does that have to what you were trying to prove?
Oh - none. You're shifting to goalposts to avoid saying you were wrong. Again.
No, that is the point I have been making all along. You tried to change the issue and backpedal tossing out strawmen when you saw that you were wrong. no need for that, we all are on occasion. I admit it when I am, I'm sure you can be adult enough to if you try hard enough.
BTW what numbers did you come up with. I'm still willing to bet the former number was greater than the latter.
EVIL INC wrote: No, that is the point I have been making all along. You tried to change the issue and backpedal tossing out strawmen when you saw that you were wrong. no need for that, we all are on occasion. I admit it when I am, I'm sure you can be adult enough to if you try hard enough.
BTW what numbers did you come up with. I'm still willing to bet the former number was greater than the latter.
Exactly the point is correct. Players have the right to turn down anything they want. If they don't want to play you because you have FW models is their right. If they don't want to play against a riptide spam army, they don't have to play you. THAT is the "default". now, as I suggested, you introduce them to it politely and in a way that they will WANT to play against all new stuff they have never seen before, you will get further than you would by hammering them with the "you HAVE to play me because it's legal" argument. You use that, you will get all the games you want to play, by yourself. Treating other players with dignity and respect goes a lot further.
No Strawman - unless you think someone else typed the words above (especially the bolded ones).
You are pretending people are pushing others to play them because it's legal. No one is saying that.
People are saying that declining to play because it's not legal is incorrect. But no one is saying that you should force someone to play a game because the rules are legal.
What I meant by that is you should be able to go to a game and expect to be able to field your Forge World rules to the same degree that you could expect any legal mainstream codex rule.
I did not mean that if the opponent refused I would take them outback and shoot them because they're not part of some kind of Forge World mafia enforcement scheme. If they want to turn down the game, fine. Just as long as they don't leave thinking that FW is somehow less "legal" or "valid" than a mainstream codex.
I know that FW tanks and models are legal if the opponent agrees to it...but what about FW attachments,tank turrets or weapons? (i expect that it is the same as tanks and models)
But would custom non OP rules be ok as you dont know the proper rules? (not gonna ask for the hammerhead missile turret rules)
Krieg!!! wrote: I know that FW tanks and models are legal if the opponent agrees to it...but what about FW attachments,tank turrets or weapons?
Nope, they are illegal in most countries, even if both you and your opponent agree to use them in a casual game.
I heard of a friend of mine who found in the Internet someone willing to test the Tau "Remote Sensor Tower" from Imperial Armour III. They met in a basement for a 1000 points game. Unfortunately, the other guy was from the Interpol, Tau department. My friend managed to flee but was wounded. A manhunt was called and they finally shot him down in the airport while trying to flee to Venezuela. He was dumb, he refused to dump his models and a police dog detected the unmistakeble smell of Forgeworld resin.
I will miss him.
The worst part is that the other guy was using three Heldrakes. Can you believe it?
EVIL INC wrote: here ilittle excersize in math for you. As you are so much more intelligent than anyone else here I'm sure you will be able to do this.
Insult, reported
evil missing the point wrote:Go through the thread and count the umber of posts where people mention that FW is legal. Write the number down
Now, go through the thread and count the number of posts where people give ideas that may help non-FW40k players WANT to se or play against FW models. write the number down.
I'm willing to bet that your first number will be higher than your second.
Again, you are either trolling or just don't understand the difference between "legal" and "have to play against"
You made the claim that people had stated you HAVE TO play against FW, because it is legal. That is a lie, and is a straw man fallacy.
saying that you are intelligent is an insult? The mods will laugh at you. Now if I had called you stupid, THAT would be in insult. But report away at my compliments. lol You need to re-read. There IS indeed a difference between legal and have to play against. your one extreme or the other using your strawman arguments is what we are having an issue with.
Hammering someone with "its legal" to (read this part carefully) "convince others to play against you" will not help you convince them NEAR as much as exposing them to it in a more friendly, non-oppositional manner. the ideas is to make them WANT to play you because you have interested them in the models and the new horizons the FW stuff can give them rather than feel they should out of an obligation to because it is legal.
TheCustomLime wrote: Why are tournaments cited as a source on how Forgeworld is to be played? I believe this is called "Appeal to Authority".
LOL Right. Appeal to self-appointed authority.
The BAO allows FW so what does that say?
Anyone with the resource can start making tournaments with their own rules. That does not constitute an authority in any way.
Good point. this is why I mentioned running tourneys where it is allowed (but not required) as an idea for helping to introduce it. I have yet to see a shop that would not let you run a tourney, most would JUP at the chance to bring in the extra revenue without having to do the hassle work and the pain in the rear work of judging. I would even suggest starting a FW order and giving credit on that order as prizes.
Evil - and on ignore. I've tried to demonstrate your straw man, and now I assume you are simply trolling.
You stated people were making the claim that you HAVE TO play against FW, as it is legal.
No one made that claim. You constructed it out of thin air, and tried to then attack it. That is a straw man argument fallacy. When called on it, you pretended, more than once, that you hadn't made that argument, and tried to lie and say it was about legality. It wasn't. It still isn't.
Ahhh Good. That means I will not have to see your trolling and strawman arguments after I give reasonable replies. since you will not see this (lol, I know you will still read it despite your saying you wont), I will repeat my statement that you so disagree with...
Goalposts would be more of a blood bowl issue. You might see someone model a football field to be played on (I remember seeing years ago where someone built a marine army based on a football team, they might have done it but I have never played 40k on that sort of terrain.
I will stick with my original and only stance (my earlier posts held the same stance but I had given extreme "never happen' exmples to demonstrate how browbeating "it's legal" onto people with could make them feel and you were well aware of this only purposely taking it literally to "support" your strawman argument) but my actual stance is the same as it has always been...
Hammering someone with "its legal" to "convince others to play against you" out of a sense of responsibility or duty will not help you convince them NEAR as much as exposing them to it in a more friendly, non-oppositional manner. the ideas is to make them WANT to play you because you have interested them in the models and the new horizons the FW stuff can give them rather than feel they should out of an obligation to because it is legal.
He doesn't disagree with it.
But that's not what you originally said. You've shifted the goalposts and insulted people who pointed it out. Again.
It's like a habit - you can't admit you were in the wrong.
rigeld2 wrote: He doesn't disagree with it.
But that's not what you originally said. You've shifted the goalposts and insulted people who pointed it out. Again.
It's like a habit - you can't admit you were in the wrong.
I'm assuming another shifted goalposts response from evil...
FW is as legal as a digi dex, a supplement or a codex. Period. This shifts the viewpoint about - the default is FW Is allowed. Therefore if you have an issue with FW, you should say. Same as if you don't want to play Tau, or Eldar, or pink marines or blue orks.
Now that that distraction is out of the way, I really liked Aaron Dembski-Bowdens comments on the topic from here. Summarised/paraphrased quote copied from here.
from the Comment Section of the article
aarondembskibowden October 31, 2013 at 5:41 AM It's been official since forever. People have always taken polite phrasing to justify their incorrect opinions on what's official. To GW, it's all official, and always has been, Like it or not, that's the literal truth. To see it being heralded now as something new to adapt to (or worse, that it's still not official) is the very definition of missing the point.
aarondembskibowden October 31, 2013 at 5:44 AM I just gave myself PTSD flashbacks to the time I foolishly tried to explain that simple policy to 3++. Oh, the rage. Oh, the resistance.
aarondembskibowden October 31, 2013 at 7:04 AM That's the thing. GW has released that statement, but the fanbase mistake it as "Forge World is a different company, so they don't count." GW have released the statement countless times. With the 40K Approved stamps. With Forge World stuff being on almost every page and in almost every army in White Dwarf for months. With every Imperial Armour book since #2 saying "Consider these official, but be nice if an opponent hasn't read the rules, so ask permission." Because of that misunderstanding becoming so entrenched, FW changed it in recent updates to "inform your opponent you're using these rules" with no "ask" at all. That's how GW chose to release the statement. It's the same as Black Library being canon. To GW, it's all the same, it's all canon, it's all official. But because people apply their misunderstandings to how the company functions, you get this meme about needing "GW" to release a statement. They did. They have. It's clear as day. People just don't realise what GW is, and take their misconceptions as truth.
In response to "please find some way to get GW to make some comment somewhere public to this effect"
aarondembskibowden October 31, 2013 at 8:26 AM They have, though. That's the point. The company's made it abundantly clear. "GW" has made the comment through every avenue it's chosen: it's plain across White Dwarf; it's mentioned on Forge World's Facebook page every time it's asked; it's at every single signing and seminar and open day from countless staff in every department; it's in every single Forge World rulebook... FW *are* GW. The Black Library is GW. The "separate company" thing is massively misunderstood. People set the boundary on this themselves, saying "I think the company works like X because I believe Internet Meme Y" so they start on incorrect foundations, and then move on to "The only way I'll be convinced is if GW issue a statement". GW *has*, countless times. People just choose not to believe the parts of the company that actually communicate with the public, and insist a statement must come from some mythical entity that doesn't actually exist. Clever stuff, really. To set the goal lines in a place the other side of the argument (and the truth) will never reach. It's no different from saying that you'll only believe in dinosaurs if God sits you down personally and tells you they were real. The fossils and other evidence isn't good enough, but that's all reality will provide, because that's how the Earth works.
aarondembskibowden October 31, 2013 at 7:08 AM I think the biggest misunderstanding is the triumvirate of "companies" that make up GW. They're just departments, in the same building. Their designers all go to the same range meetings. Their top brass all talk, all plan, all discuss stuff. There's a lot more communication than people seem to believe.
I still stand by original statement that I have maintained throughout, The carrot will get better results than the stick. If you expose them to it in a friendly positive manner where they will WANT to play you, they will likely be more apt to than by pressuring them with "its legal". this IS indeed "spot on" according to all "real life' situations I have come across so far.
The sad thing is, GW does not give it the public support that (I feel anyway) they should. This means it is an uphill battle.
Personally, I love seeing the models ad wish I d afford them. Till then, I am more than happy to check them out and see them in use when others use thiers..
wuestenfux wrote: Yesterday, at GW I in Hamburg, a red shirt said that the new WD would contain rules to play super heavies in regular 40k games? Is it so?
yes, there's an expansion coming out that will let you field super heavies in normal 40k.
wuestenfux wrote: Yesterday, at GW I in Hamburg, a red shirt said that the new WD would contain rules to play super heavies in regular 40k games? Is it so?
Yep. There have been rumours about it for a while now, actually.
Don't worry, they'll likely be toned down from what they are in Apoc. At least, I hope so.
its not as bad as some believe, if they implement the lord of war option into 40k then it will be a super heavy up to 25% of your force, so a 500pts one at 2k, 375ish i think for 1500, all the super heavies in those price brackets are not that hard to kill or take fire from
Formosa wrote: its not as bad as some believe, if they implement the lord of war option into 40k then it will be a super heavy up to 25% of your force, so a 500pts one at 2k, 375ish i think for 1500, all the super heavies in those price brackets are not that hard to kill or take fire from
Indeed. A lot of FW superheavies are around the 300 pts mark and it'll be good to see some more variety in games. Also, I hardly think a 300pts CRASSUS ARMOURED ASSAULT TRANSPORT is game breaking despite its formidable reputation.
Might even things up with all the riptide, dreadknight, wraithknight spam we have been seeing.
Of course, that's why its called an arms race. lol I look forward to it and it might give me a reason to finish painting my shadowsword (I have all options possible for it with magnets).
Question I have is does that mean they will start promoting FW or does it mean they are just looking to add in the plastic variants they currently have/make a few new ones?
Ill be glad to finally be able to field that pylon that I never finished, but first I have to finish it then I can finally get around to using it to gib other super heavies then kill 2 random marinesthe rest of the game
Formosa wrote: its not as bad as some believe, if they implement the lord of war option into 40k then it will be a super heavy up to 25% of your force, so a 500pts one at 2k, 375ish i think for 1500, all the super heavies in those price brackets are not that hard to kill or take fire from
So you could get a Baneblade (excuse me, BEHNBLADE) or one of the many variants therefore (Stormlord, Stormblade, Bladestormlordbladestorm, etc.) at 2,000 points, at the same time you get double FOC? Interesting.....
And I guess if you spend 75% of your force on other stuff, you have adequate support for the super-heavy. I'd think a lone superheavy without infantry or lighter vehicles to cover its flanks would be surprisingly fragile.
What'd be interesting sometime would be to run a single super-heavy against an equal points value of regular troops, a 40K version of the old Steve Jackson game Ogre. (Oh, wait, it's back in print).
I don't know if this was said in many of the long posts, about the original topic.
Question: When will GW say that FW is legit in games of 40K? If they were serious about it, they'd put it in a book.
Answer: Escalation, the new Super-Heavy book, states that it will have stats for Forge World models right in the book. No Imperial Armour needed.
chaosvoices wrote: I don't know if this was said in many of the long posts, about the original topic.
Question: When will GW say that FW is legit in games of 40K? If they were serious about it, they'd put it in a book.
Answer: Escalation, the new Super-Heavy book, states that it will have stats for Forge World models right in the book. No Imperial Armour needed.
It's not as if GW hadn't given us a rule about using FW already though (page 108), or taken things from FW and moved them to a codex (IG) or a number of other things. Sadly even when we have evidence proving that FW is meant to be in the game some people still want to argue and say it isn't.
Sadly I don't think this new book "solves" the issue with some of the more die-hard anti-FW crowd because it's an expansion book, which can be argued as not being "the core game" regardless of the implications it has anyways.
Frankly I'm tired of going in circles about how this issue. The game isn't meant to have such restrictions nor is it meant to be defined by tournament play, but unless people stop trying to shove 40k into some small, strictly defined role of what they want it to be and refuse to accept other people's ways of looking at the game we're going to keep having this issue.
True, some may see the book as an add-on, of course. I mean, look at Death from the Skies. It's an expansion meant to make flyers better, but my gaming group has yet to adopt any of it's rules since the basic book does a fine job by itself without more complications. I think I would agree that it's a choice. Not everyone HAS a super-heavy, FW or not.
ClockworkZion has it right. Warhammer 40K is a game to be had between two players (or more), and mutually agreed upon rules is the way to go. Are windows see-thru? Are we using special rules for terrain, are we using Night fighting (many of my friends like to play without this rule)? Do we use Death from the Skies? Do we use FW? As long as the players see eye-to-eye, it doesn't matter what a TO might say his/her games are going to be. It's meant to have fun. Personally I don't own FW yet, but I'm getting a Storm Eagle for Christmas. Did I check to see if my friends were okay with me using it ahead of time, absolutely. In fact, I mean to share the model with the other chaos players so we all get to see what a more robust flyer can do in a game. We also agreed that for now, we can use counts-as for certain FW models, until they can be purchased, especially AA weapons, to deal with my new flyer.
The point, as ClockworkZion points out, is moot. All that matters is an agreement before game. Don't be afraid to tell your opponent that you are using FW, show them the rules, and carry on, replacing it if they don't want to try it. But the same can be said for all models. In a friendly game, I HAVE asked that there be no 3 Riptides, or 3 LR in a 1500 point game. Again, mutually agreed upon. As for Tournaments, you agree to play by the pre-defined rules set forth, including having painted minis or not, or other such, like having the actual FW book that your unit comes from, rather than just a pirated print-out. (Not all are pirated, just a common occurrence I believe).
Have fun everyone, that's why we invest hundreds of dollars/pounds/rubles/whathaveyou and thousands of hours of building/painting/playing into this hobby.
Here's Jervis talking about how they've lifted player restrictions (namely the 0-1 choice) to make the game better, and how he's not saying player restrictions are wrong but talks about removing them. This can easily be applied completely to FW. From White Dwarf, October 2012:
And from February 2013 Jervis talking about the "restrictions" to things you can collect, and about how players should be doing what they want to do with the hobby, not just what they read everyone telling them to do or what other say is okay, ect:
Like I've said, and even wrote an article about, this hobby is too damned big with too many freedoms in it to claim FW isn't, or shouldn't, be legal.
Does that mean you will have to play with it? Or that you will be "forced" to play against it? No. Not as long as you communicate what kind of games you want it'll be no different than turning down a game from Tau.
Does this mean it'll change tournaments forever? Maybe, eventually in time, but right now it doesn't look to be that serious, nor does it look like tournaments everywhere are adopting it meaning that if you don't like FW you can still play at some of these events without it being played against you.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
chaosvoices wrote: True, some may see the book as an add-on, of course. I mean, look at Death from the Skies. It's an expansion meant to make flyers better, but my gaming group has yet to adopt any of it's rules since the basic book does a fine job by itself without more complications. I think I would agree that it's a choice. Not everyone HAS a super-heavy, FW or not.
ClockworkZion has it right. Warhammer 40K is a game to be had between two players (or more), and mutually agreed upon rules is the way to go. Are windows see-thru? Are we using special rules for terrain, are we using Night fighting (many of my friends like to play without this rule)? Do we use Death from the Skies? Do we use FW? As long as the players see eye-to-eye, it doesn't matter what a TO might say his/her games are going to be. It's meant to have fun. Personally I don't own FW yet, but I'm getting a Storm Eagle for Christmas. Did I check to see if my friends were okay with me using it ahead of time, absolutely. In fact, I mean to share the model with the other chaos players so we all get to see what a more robust flyer can do in a game. We also agreed that for now, we can use counts-as for certain FW models, until they can be purchased, especially AA weapons, to deal with my new flyer.
The point, as ClockworkZion points out, is moot. All that matters is an agreement before game. Don't be afraid to tell your opponent that you are using FW, show them the rules, and carry on, replacing it if they don't want to try it. But the same can be said for all models. In a friendly game, I HAVE asked that there be no 3 Riptides, or 3 LR in a 1500 point game. Again, mutually agreed upon. As for Tournaments, you agree to play by the pre-defined rules set forth, including having painted minis or not, or other such, like having the actual FW book that your unit comes from, rather than just a pirated print-out. (Not all are pirated, just a common occurrence I believe).
Have fun everyone, that's why we invest hundreds of dollars/pounds/rubles/whathaveyou and thousands of hours of building/painting/playing into this hobby.
Thank you. I'm usually getting argued against in these topics so I really do appreciate your kind words. It's nice to hear I'm not just saying a bunch of stuff and no one is listening.
Your both mirroring my own words. I should take that as a compliment. This is a GAME, the players (both of them) should be more worried about having FUN then fighting over "legalities".
EVIL INC wrote: Your both mirroring my own words. I should take that as a compliment. This is a GAME, the players (both of them) should be more worried about having FUN then fighting over "legalities".
I'm sorry, are you trying to take credit for a belief I've had long before I've ever seen you post? Get over yourself, you're not responsible for every thought people have.
As for your words, I still can't understand most of your posts because of their confusing nature, attacks against strawmen that don't exist and generally dragging things off-topic so I highly doubt you've changed anyone's minds. Maybe if you make your point cleanly and without hyperbole and strawmen then maybe we'd know what your posting enough to maybe consider your points.
I'm used to discrimination. my country has had issues with it since it's very beginning.
no, I'm not taking credit for your ways of thinking. I am only saying that we agree. The game is about having fun, the companionship of gamers being able to play a game either purely for fun or competatiely of for fun cpmpetition.
The topic is about whether FW is legal or not. this is the topic I have tried to keep us on (although I have seen a few stray from that). The point is does it matter if it is legal or not if both players want to use it? Does it matter if it is legal or not if all members in a club want to use it? I don't think so because if both players want to or a club wants to, they will regardless of it's "legality". that's why I stress forwarding the aspects of it that will make people WANT to use it first and the legalities of it second when addressing your club at home.
I had a discussion about forgeworld on an Aussie forum, and many of them said that this:
Wasn't proof that it was official because it said 'Official', ie in 's. Plus "best to make sure they're happy. Is it just me or is this... really stupid? Saying something in a polite manner doesn't completely negate the direct word of "official" does it?
Yeah, ' ' usually means two things in that context - emphasis and irony. Emphasis fits since that's the main thrust of the argument. Irony also fits because they thought it was obvious long ago.
Ive seen this mentioned in many places now and was wondering if anyone can point me to a place that confirms that Forgeworld models are legal in regular games now or not?
To answer the original question, I know my copy of IA Aeronautica has this written on page 4:
Warhammer 40,000 unit: This unit is intended to be used in 'standard' games if warhammer 40,000, within the usual limitations of Codex selection and force organisation charts. As with all our models these should be considered 'official,' but owing to the fact they may be unknown to your opponent, it's best to make sure they are happy to play a game using Forge World models before you start."
I believe this answers it, with no room for doubt. All FW models with the warhammer 40k stamp in their entry are legal for standard games.
Unit entries with the Apoc. stamp may of course, only be taken in apocalypse games.
Edit: I would take the ' ' to mean paraphrasing a large portion of the anti FW-playerbase, who need the rules to be 'official' when being used in a 'standard' game.
Your both mirroring my own words. I should take that as a compliment. This is a GAME, the players (both of them) should be more worried about having FUN then fighting over "legalities".
*Insert Trollolol-olol-ollol song here* In all seriousness EVIL INC, you've been called out in this thread. Time to move on and troll another.
necrondog99 wrote: I believe Jervis has it right... Actually just for fun my next 40K game I will tell my opponent that he is not bound by the FO chart, but I am...
- J
That's a better mentality than most have shown. Really in a game whose rulebook encourages player freedom, tells you to do more than just "follow the rules" and says homebrew is an acceptable place to get an army list, why is the argument "is FW legal?" and isn't "why are we limiting most of our games to the same things we play in tournaments all the time and not trying to move past that outside of that setting?"
Or did I miss the memo that every game has to be played by the same exact rules as whatever tournament you play at?
the game is about having fun. Encouraging "home brew" rules and special scenarios and wild conversions. heck, the hello kitty marines were very popular (among some crowds more than others of course lol).
I see nothing wrong with using FW or home made units.
My only view is to address it in a positive manner where the other person will WANT to play using them instead of throwing the word legal about to intimidate or make them feel obligated to try something that they might just not be prepared for.
I grew up where this was the mentality and jervis played a more active role and andy chambers was still around and all, new stuff was the name of the game (Anyone remember the rtb01 dalek kitbash conversions shown in white dwarf? Back then, it was about what would be fun or cool and 'legal" was waaaay back in the rear of the pack of reasons to play or try something while nowadays, its the first word spoken in these instances. I'm all for going back to the good old days when it was about having fun playing with cool "army men".
EVIL INC wrote: I'm all for going back to the good old days when it was about having fun playing with cool "army men".
It still is. That doesn't mean that everyone has to have fun the same way that you do.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
EVIL INC wrote: Back then, it was about what would be fun or cool and 'legal" was waaaay back in the rear of the pack of reasons to play or try something while nowadays, its the first word spoken in these instances
If by 'nowadays' you're including most of the last 20 year, I would agree.
Rogue Trader was a much looser game. Didn't it generally call for an 'umpire' to preside over the game? That's how a more casual game keeps things fair. Inquisitor did the same thing...
From 2nd edition onwards, though, as much as GW have always (up until 6th edition) encouraged conversions, home-brew rules have really never been as well received by the masses. 2nd edition changed the game to a much more commercial, and subsequently much more widespread game... so the focus changed to using the standardised rules provided in the books in order to maximise your chances of the person you wanted to play actually playing the same game as you.
The push for 'official' rules isn't a sign of people wanting to suck the fun out of the game. (If it wasn't fun, we wouldn't play it.) It's a natural consequence of a gaming environment that revolves so strongly around playing games with people you don't know well.
Evil inc and Lynata,the next time you have a thought on this site let it go.There is a saying[I thought you a fool then you spoke and proved my point].
eldar 1 wrote: Evil inc and Lynata,the next time you have a thought on this site let it go.There is a saying[I thought you a fool then you spoke and proved my point].
'si tacuisses philosophus mansisses' - loosely translated as 'If you'd kept your mouth shut we might have thought you were clever' As someone once said to me on dakka 'This post is highly ironic'.
I'm impressed this thread got as many pages as it did - imo, the FW debate boils down to 'don't be a dick. If you're being a dick, then stop.'
Most people don't mind playing against it. I bring FW regularly - so do my friends. If I play someone new, I'll show them my army list before we play (even weeks in advance) If they have a problem, I'll re-work my list. If we all approached it in that manner, then we'd all be allowed nice things
All I'm going to say is, Titans. You can't by them in store. Only from forge world. Are they in the apocolypse rule book, whic you can but in store? Yes. That to me says forgeworld ok.
I have a decimator deamon engine which no one has refused me to use, that, and I see contemptor dreadnuaghts all the time.
PredaKhaine, Eldar 1 is just trying to get his post count up and couldn't think of anything on topic to say and as the outsider I'm the easiest victim. lol
True, in RT, it did usually call for am "umpire" or whatever you want to call the person arbitrating the game. I can say that many game clubs still use them to this day at least on occasion to set up and run fun cinematic games where the participants just don't know what is in store for them. heck, they might even have ruins that when you enter them, you find they are full of hormagaunts (and neither player plays bugs). These can be some of the most entertaining games. It is not all official legal rules and tournaments. This is why most players have no issues with FW so long as the subject is broached in a positive manner where all players can see and appreciate the benefits.
Anti-FW: Let's ban an entire section of the game because I don't like it and deem it overpowered.
Pro-FW: Let's make everyone play FW even if they don't like it.
Me: If it's OP then you can bugger off mate. If it's not then welcome, friend, let's have a game. There's no problem here.
Forge World is part of GW and the player has the right to deny any game they want. If a player denies your game just because you have Forge World, please feel free to educate them, so they can tell others that Forge World isn't overpowered. Indeed, many Forge World units are underpowered, and people tend to use them for fluff purposes, and not because they are a powergamer, so please stop trying to tell people that everyone who uses Forge World is a powergamer, because we're not. I use a Stormblade in apocalypse, does that make me a powergamer? Should I not be able to use my Stormblade because you deem it overpowered? (even though, not gonna lie, I wish I'd got a Stormlord :c) Because if you think so then please explain to me why, because all you're saying is that people have the right to reject games -_- Of course they do. EDIT: Nobody's tying you down to a chair and going: "BUAHAHAHAHA, NOW YOU HAVE TO PLAY MY FORGEWORLD!"
BrotherOfBone wrote: Anti-FW: Let's ban an entire section of the game because I don't like it and deem it overpowered.
Pro-FW: Let's make everyone play FW even if they don't like it.
More like
Reasonable people: Let's be polite to each other and ask nicely before bringing Forge World.
Idiots: How dare you suggest I should exercise social skills... Forge World in your Face! Even if it kills your love for the Hobby foreva... GRHRAGAASDFDAFAgRRRR
I love how the Pro-FW side is always mentioned along words like "force" and "have".
Even if FW is treated the same as codexes no one has to play it. It's really about removing the stigma of FW being somehow "less" of a part of the game so people aren't afraid of buying it because they won't get games. Will it change anything about needing to ask? Not really, but then again that's something you should be doing unless you know what kind game you're going to be playing just based on who your opponent is.
It's not about "forcing" people to play with it or against it. At least not for me. It's been about removing the option for people to mass ban stuff because they don't like it and allow people to bring their toys if they want too. It's about stopping the No-FW crowd from trying to control how the game is played for everyone. It's been about respecting player choice and not inhibiting their choices just because some don't like them.
But no, it's never, for me at least, been about making any person play anything. It's been about getting FW to be treated like it should: a valid part of the game that is no less valid than any other (like codexes).
BrotherOfBone wrote: Anti-FW: Let's ban an entire section of the game because I don't like it and deem it overpowered.
Pro-FW: Let's make everyone play FW even if they don't like it.
More like
Reasonable people: Let's be polite to each other and ask nicely before bringing Forge World.
Idiots: How dare you suggest I should exercise social skills... Forge World in your Face! Even if it kills your love for the Hobby foreva... GRHRAGAASDFDAFAgRRRR
You forgot the part where people who say over and over again they have no issues with asking and only with the outright mass banning that some people do get lumped in with the strawman that somehow magically makes people play a game by force without threats, violence or generally breaking any laws.
It's not about "forcing" people to play with it or against it. At least not for me. It's been about removing the option for people to mass ban stuff because they don't like it and allow people to bring their toys if they want too. It's about stopping the No-FW crowd from trying to control how the game is played for everyone. It's been about respecting player choice and not inhibiting their choices just because some don't like them.
It's not about "forcing" people to play with it or against it. At least not for me. It's been about removing the option for people to force-include stuff because they think they have some god-given right to bring it and allow people to exclude the toys they don't enjoy playing with. It's about stopping the Pro-FW crowd from trying to control how the game is played for everyone. It's been about respecting player choice and not forcing everyone to play with certain choices just because some people like them.
It's not about "forcing" people to play with it or against it. At least not for me. It's been about removing the option for people to mass ban stuff because they don't like it and allow people to bring their toys if they want too. It's about stopping the No-FW crowd from trying to control how the game is played for everyone. It's been about respecting player choice and not inhibiting their choices just because some don't like them.
It's not about "forcing" people to play with it or against it. At least not for me. It's been about removing the option for people to force-include stuff because they think they have some god-given right to bring it and allow people to exclude the toys they don't enjoy playing with. It's about stopping the Pro-FW crowd from trying to control how the game is played for everyone. It's been about respecting player choice and not forcing everyone to play with certain choices just because some people like them.
Yet you don't seem to mind the Anti-FW crowd controlling how the game is played for everyone...
It's not about "forcing" people to play with it or against it. At least not for me. It's been about removing the option for people to mass ban stuff because they don't like it and allow people to bring their toys if they want too. It's about stopping the No-FW crowd from trying to control how the game is played for everyone. It's been about respecting player choice and not inhibiting their choices just because some don't like them.
It's not about "forcing" people to play with it or against it. At least not for me. It's been about removing the option for people to force-include stuff because they think they have some god-given right to bring it and allow people to exclude the toys they don't enjoy playing with. It's about stopping the Pro-FW crowd from trying to control how the game is played for everyone. It's been about respecting player choice and not forcing everyone to play with certain choices just because some people like them.
Yet you don't seem to mind the Anti-FW crowd controlling how the game is played for everyone...
Pro-FW- FW has equal standing as any codex, supplement, data slate, WD Update, et al. Treat it the same, because in every way IT IS the same.
Anti-FW - I don't know it, so I am against it. Or I have heard it is OP, so I'm against it. Or I've heard it's only for rich folk (when for years a ful DKOK army was cheaper than a vostroyan, or Mordian guard army) so I'm against it.
Again, it is the subtle mindset change you don't seem to understand, which is that it goes from asking peromission to requesting denial. It is an important distinction.
It's not about "forcing" people to play with it or against it. At least not for me. It's been about removing the option for people to mass ban stuff because they don't like it and allow people to bring their toys if they want too. It's about stopping the No-FW crowd from trying to control how the game is played for everyone. It's been about respecting player choice and not inhibiting their choices just because some don't like them.
It's not about "forcing" people to play with it or against it. At least not for me. It's been about removing the option for people to force-include stuff because they think they have some god-given right to bring it and allow people to exclude the toys they don't enjoy playing with. It's about stopping the Pro-FW crowd from trying to control how the game is played for everyone. It's been about respecting player choice and not forcing everyone to play with certain choices just because some people like them.
Yet you don't seem to mind the Anti-FW crowd controlling how the game is played for everyone...
I don't mind people having the right to walk away from games they don't enjoy.
If I don't like green, I will not play against Orks
If I don't like Speehss Marinez, I will not play against Space Marines.
If I don't like Spearhead, I will not play Spearhead.
If I don't like Forge World, I will not play against Forge World.
The problem is, that (in my experience), declining the former tends to be well accepted. If I tell an Ork-Player, or Spearhead Player etc.. .. "sorry. not for me". I tend to get a shrug and a "whateva".
If I tell a Forge World player... "sorry, not for me". I get a 60 minute kindergarden-tantrum akin to this thread.
You really wanna be treated like everyone else? Than grow up and learn to take a "no" for an answer like everybody else. Only than will the "yes, awesome" answer you want to hear come eventually.
Again, it is the subtle mindset change you don't seem to understand, which is that it goes from asking peromission to requesting denial. It is an important distinction.
It's a subtle nature of human psychology you don't seem to understand. By trying to "legalize" Forge World into the game, you are working at cross-purposes with what you are trying to achieve. Being lectured to breeds resistance.
If .. in the long term .. you want Forge World to truly become "like everything else" (which it isn't in the mind of many people, just the way it is), you need to work with humility, not arrogance.
Zweischneid wrote: You really wanna be treated like everyone else? Than grow up and learn to take a "no" for an answer like everybody else. Only than will the "yes, awesome" answer you want to hear come eventually.
This.
In addition, I'd love to get more options with FW. Alas, they have decided to near completely ignore my chosen codex - even for fluff.
It's not about "forcing" people to play with it or against it. At least not for me. It's been about removing the option for people to mass ban stuff because they don't like it and allow people to bring their toys if they want too. It's about stopping the No-FW crowd from trying to control how the game is played for everyone. It's been about respecting player choice and not inhibiting their choices just because some don't like them.
It's not about "forcing" people to play with it or against it. At least not for me. It's been about removing the option for people to force-include stuff because they think they have some god-given right to bring it and allow people to exclude the toys they don't enjoy playing with. It's about stopping the Pro-FW crowd from trying to control how the game is played for everyone. It's been about respecting player choice and not forcing everyone to play with certain choices just because some people like them.
Yet you don't seem to mind the Anti-FW crowd controlling how the game is played for everyone...
I don't mind people having the right to walk away from games they don't enjoy.
If I don't like green, I will not play against Orks
If I don't like Speehss Marinez, I will not play against Space Marines.
If I don't like Spearhead, I will not play Spearhead.
If I don't like Forge World, I will not play against Forge World.
The problem is, that (in my experience), declining the former tends to be well accepted. If I tell an Ork-Player, or Spearhead Player etc.. .. "sorry. not for me". I tend to get a shrug and a "whateva".
If I tell a Forge World player... "sorry, not for me". I get a 60 minute kindergarden-tantrum akin to this thread.
You really wanna be treated like everyone else? Than grow up and learn to take a "no" for an answer like everybody else. Only than will the "yes, awesome" answer you want to hear come eventually.
I'd hazard to guess that the reason is probably because the former (not wanting to play Orks, not wanting to play Spearhead) is rather exceedingly rare, either because it just wouldn't occur to most people to refuse a game against Orks, while Spearhead isn't even known by most players to make the attempt to ask.
With FW, quite often there's an instinctual knee-jerk reaction by many players to instantly and flatly refuse, often not really based on anything but "it's forgeworld", or because they feel they're more entitled to do so than against other stuff (i.e, they believe it's a 3rd party thing, or subject to restrictions like the old SC rules, etc). I've run into that more than once.
Then the FW player has to go through and show "hey look, it's really not what you're thinking, i'm not trying to bring a 15 D cannon pieplate titan to the game, nor is this tank I'm running going to annihilate everything on the board'.
I don't mind people having the right to walk away from games they don't enjoy.
If I don't like green, I will not play against Orks
If I don't like Speehss Marinez, I will not play against Space Marines.
If I don't like Spearhead, I will not play Spearhead.
If I don't like Forge World, I will not play against Forge World.
The problem is, that (in my experience), declining the former tends to be well accepted. If I tell an Ork-Player, or Spearhead Player etc.. .. "sorry. not for me". I tend to get a shrug and a "whateva".
If I tell a Forge World player... "sorry, not for me". I get a 60 minute kindergarden-tantrum akin to this thread.
You really wanna be treated like everyone else? Than grow up and learn to take a "no" for an answer like everybody else. Only than will the "yes, awesome" answer you want to hear come eventually.
I'm sorry, but that's just not true. You turn around to someone who plays Tau (or GK a year ago, or whatever the FOTM) is and say "I'm not playing you" you normally get exactly the same mildly annoyed response you do about playing FW.
If you keep refusing games, whatever the reason, people are going to think your being "off". Forgeworld just seems to be a more acceptable thing to refuse. How long would people put up with someone refusing to play any other army?
I'm tempted to get some FW just to upset people who have a problem with it. I don't see why you should ask any more than you should ask your opponent if you can play Eldar or bring a squad or termies. The only difference is an imagined one. The escalation book shows GW intend FW to be used. It is just a different brand from the same company. Citadel and Forgeworld. Like Tesco every day and Tesco Finest.
I don't mind people having the right to walk away from games they don't enjoy.
If I don't like green, I will not play against Orks
If I don't like Speehss Marinez, I will not play against Space Marines.
If I don't like Spearhead, I will not play Spearhead.
If I don't like Forge World, I will not play against Forge World.
The problem is, that (in my experience), declining the former tends to be well accepted. If I tell an Ork-Player, or Spearhead Player etc.. .. "sorry. not for me". I tend to get a shrug and a "whateva".
If I tell a Forge World player... "sorry, not for me". I get a 60 minute kindergarden-tantrum akin to this thread.
You really wanna be treated like everyone else? Than grow up and learn to take a "no" for an answer like everybody else. Only than will the "yes, awesome" answer you want to hear come eventually.
I'm sorry, but that's just not true. You turn around to someone who plays Tau (or GK a year ago, or whatever the FOTM) is and say "I'm not playing you" you normally get exactly the same mildly annoyed response you do about playing FW.
There was a post on here a while ago about Tau Players complaining about not getting any games. There used to be GK complaining about not getting any, Necrons too..
So yes, people will complain if you deny their favorite thing alot.
There was a post on here a while ago about Tau Players complaining about not getting any games. There used to be GK complaining about not getting any, Necrons too..
So yes, people will complain if you deny their favorite thing alot.
I'm sorry, but that's just not true. You turn around to someone who plays Tau (or GK a year ago, or whatever the FOTM) is and say "I'm not playing you" you normally get exactly the same mildly annoyed response you do about playing FW.
Admittedly, I was oversimplifying. The odd idiot exists outside the FW-crowd too. Doesn't make the response any better though.
Short and simple:
If I don't think I'll be having fun for the next 3-4 hours on my Saturday afternoon after a hard week of work, I won't play. Might be your armies paint job (or lack thereof). Your body-odor. Your Forge World models or because I simply ain't feeling the vibe. Doesn't matter. The game builds on mutual consent. Both parties have the right to say "no". There is no "legal" precisely because you can't force people to play.
The very notion is akin to 1950s laws where married couples were obliged to have sex. Thankfully we got past that. There is no "legal" obligation to something both parties need to agree by mutual consent..
...it still sucks. I've spend thousands of dollars and probably days of man-hours assembling, converting, painting, and loving my army, which is an Armored Battlegroup. Just yesterday, I made a model of my Lord Commissar's Tank. In the fluff, she's a female, so I scrounged for a plastic Sister of Battle head from a friend (it comes in the immolator kit). The tank she drives is a Malcador, because she likes the imposing, ancient, almost legendary feel it has, regardless of it's actual in-game performance.
Also, escalation is coming out, and at 285 points, a Malcador may be just the superheavy for reasonable games.
To be told that people don't want to play my army simply because it is Forge World is offensive, it feels discriminatory. It feels like they're saying "I don't want to play your army because it isn't good enough for me."
Anything else I could fix. If they said they didn't like the paintjob, I'd resolve to work harder. If they said they couldn't deal with Armor 14 tanks in quantity, I'll say fair enough, and go on my merry way. If they smell too bad, I'll go shower.
But disliking it simply because Forge World? There's literally nothing I can do about that except tell them that they're wrong. There are much much better reasons out there to not play an army.
Well, if I was GW I wouldnt put "its ok to use forgeworld" in my GW books. I would put "its ok to use this in 40k" in my forgeworld books instead.
Reasoning: Anti-forgeworlders dont buy forgeworld products in the first place, that way GW is never the bearer of bad news (that forgeworld is allowed). The bearers of the bad news are of course forgeworld players. (because they read the 40k approved stamp in their forgeworld books). GW then dodges the heated argument, and let their pro and anti minions battle each other.
I mean seriously. GW has a reputation of protecting their trademarks pretty aggressively. The "40k approved" stamp would never exist without GWs permission. It doesnt matter if forgeworld is part of GW or not, the fact that they have the stamp, and has used it for so long indicates GW is ok with it. Nor would GW link to forgeworld on their homepage, if they weren't ok with it.
That said, I havent played with nor against forgeworld units/armies, ever.
The real question shouldnt be " is forgeworld legal" but "is forgeworld accepted".
As legal is whatever you and your buddies think it should be. (excluding real life criminal stuff)
I don't think anyone was saying you have to play against anyone. That doesn't change the legality or otherwise of FW. You can play someone who will let you field Nids as allies. You might enjoy that. Still dosn't change the legality of the force under the rules, which is what this is all about.
Naw wrote: First you want to legalize Forge World, next you will try to legalize cannabis. Where do you stop???
When we run out of things to "legalize" in a game that already says you can bring homebrew?
Seriously, in a game that says your job isn't to "just follow the rules" (Spirit of the Game, page 8) why do we need to argue "legality" about anything in this game?
Really it's my only sticking point in this game, that somethings are somehow less "legal' than others. You don't want to play? Fine, I'm cool with that. I'll spend time painting models instead or working on some homebrew. But if you want to tell me my stuff "isn't legal" and we're not playing in a tournament, then I take offense, even if it is just a little. To claim someone's army choice is less "legal" is a slap in the face to that player and really and insult the game can do better without.
Don't hide behind legality, and be up front on what you look for in a game, or is that so hard to do when the FW crowd is being told the same exact thing?
Steve steveson wrote: I don't think anyone was saying you have to play against anyone. .
Great. So why all the humdrum if people turn down your game? Accept it and move on.
I think the reason is because, at least from interpretations of online, people are much more prone to automatically raging at the notion of forgeworld and denying it simply because it is forgeworld. It's kind of like if somebody doesn't want to play with you because you mentioned I'm playing Chaos Space Marines (using this as a representation replace with whatever you wish) and the foe automatically just says no and the reasoning behind it is (all of it is op just look at those heldrakes and declaring that GW is not legal).
Steve steveson wrote: I don't think anyone was saying you have to play against anyone. .
Great. So why all the humdrum if people turn down your game? Accept it and move on.
I think the reason is because, at least from interpretations of online, people are much more prone to automatically raging at the notion of forgeworld and denying it simply because it is forgeworld. It's kind of like if somebody doesn't want to play with you because you mentioned I'm playing Chaos Space Marines (using this as a representation replace with whatever you wish) and the foe automatically just says no and the reasoning behind it is (all of it is op just look at those heldrakes and declaring that GW is not legal).
That's what gets me posting about this personally. If you don't want to play it that's fine. But if you don't want me to play it because you don't like it, even with other people (something that happens in places because players get FW banned in a location for one reason or another, and let's be honest here it does happen and it sucks for anyone else who wants to use FW but can't) then there is a real issue. And it's one I've seen mentioned in these kinds of threads before.
Banning FW completely, or saying people shouldn't play it because of whatever justification you feel like pulling out of your ear is, well frankly it's an insult to their fellow players. It's accusations of cheese, cheating and being a crummy individual everytime those "justifications" are used. It's a verbal slap in the face that doesn't need to happen.
Don't like it? Fine. Just don't kick me in the knees and then tell me it's my fault you kicked me.
Zweischneid wrote: Great. So why all the humdrum if people turn down your game? Accept it and move on.
Because people think that it's some how "more legitimate" to turn down a game against FW units than to turn down a game against other units. FW players are expected to beg for a game and demonstrate how they're "just trying something new" or "not doing it to win" or whatever, but if you use a codex army it's considered TFG behavior for someone to refuse to play against you. And in the rare event that someone refuses to play against a codex-only list they'll almost always admit that it's just a case of personal preference, but if someone refuses to play against your FW army you can pretty much guarantee that they'll give you a long list of (completely absurd) excuses for how it's "not official" and how you have no right to expect to play a game with it.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
rigeld2 wrote: Who judges legitimacy? You? Why are you able to tell me how I feel?
Nobody is disputing your right to turn down a game because you don't enjoy it. "I don't like playing against beast hunter shells, I lose every time" is a legitimate reason. Making up stupid excuses about how FW is a separate company and no different than your fan codex, on the other hand, is not legitimate because it's based on not understanding the rules of the game (or blatant lying, take your pick).
Automatically Appended Next Post:
rigeld2 wrote: And who cares why they turn it down - are you going to lecture them about it?
It matters because it doesn't happen in isolation. The context here is an environment in which refusing to play against a codex-only army is seen as TFG behavior and is a good way to ensure that nobody ever plays against you, but refusing to play against an army with FW rules is seen as a god-given right to defend the purity of "real 40k".
Steve steveson wrote: I don't think anyone was saying you have to play against anyone. .
Great. So why all the humdrum if people turn down your game? Accept it and move on.
Because they shouldn't turn it down for the wrong reasons. They should turn it down for legitimate reasons.
Who judges legitimacy? You? Why are you able to tell me how I feel?
And who cares why they turn it down - are you going to lecture them about it?
I have a list of what I consider illegitimate reasons - if you have a problem with the list, feel free to elaborate:
1) Other people ban it, so you will too.
2) You've heard it is overpowered, and you don't like playing overpowered gak, so you ban it.
3) You've never tried it, and it is new and confusing, so you ban it.
"Well, if I was GW I wouldnt put "its ok to use forgeworld" in my GW books. I would put "its ok to use this in 40k" in my forgeworld books instead. "
Um... they do....
Automatically Appended Next Post:
zoat wrote: I'm constantly baffled about this discussion simply because the only time FW being "legal" or not is relevant when trying persuade someone to take part in a game the don't want to play. And why would anyone wan't to do that?
I totally agree with Nobody_Holme:
When you play a game of 40k, YOU get to decide what is ok and not. If you don't want to face Tau, Chaos Space Marines or units Forge World made up, there is no rule forcing you to play. Just pick another opponent.
When you enter a tournament, the organizers get to choose what rules to use, possibly even overriding the printed rules. If you don't like that you don't get to play.
To put some more fuel on the fire:
=========================
I think the strongest argument for being careful when using Forge World rules is that I believe many casual 40k players will not even know Forge World exists and even fewer are aware that they print their own rules. If you get into the hobby by buying the rule book and a codex or two there are no references to Forge World. Heck, even if you go to www.games-workshop.com there are no references to Forge World!
Isn't that a bit strange if Forge World books are part of the core game?
It is not a matter of "literally" making or forcing someone do something they don't want to do. I went over that earlier on in the thread to give an extreme never happen example to demonstrate how a pushy person can appear.
It is more usually a matter of several people standing around a bloke who is hesitant about it (likely because they have no information on what is in front of him or even what it is beyond the guys around him telling his legal. This sort of peer pressure and making the bloke feel obligated to do something he doesn't really feel comfortable with or be "the bad guy".
This is why I point out that I feel it is always better to introduce the stuff to players just to show them what it is, see it used in games as examples, let them read the fluff and rules.Make them WANT to play with FW.
If the player WANTS to play with it, it wont matter if its legal or not because they will use it either way.
EVIL INC wrote: I went over that earlier on in the thread to give an extreme never happen example to demonstrate how a pushy person can appear.
No, you posted a paranoid fantasy about getting to "stand your ground" and self-defense someone to death. Your bizarre tinfoil hattery has nothing to do with this discussion, or any event that will ever happen in reality.
EVIL INC wrote: It is not a matter of "literally" making or forcing someone do something they don't want to do. I went over that earlier on in the thread to give an extreme never happen example to demonstrate how a pushy person can appear.
It is more usually a matter of several people standing around a bloke who is hesitant about it (likely because they have no information on what is in front of him or even what it is beyond the guys around him telling his legal. This sort of peer pressure and making the bloke feel obligated to do something he doesn't really feel comfortable with or be "the bad guy".
This is why I point out that I feel it is always better to introduce the stuff to players just to show them what it is, see it used in games as examples, let them read the fluff and rules.Make them WANT to play with FW.
If the player WANTS to play with it, it wont matter if its legal or not because they will use it either way.
No, my statement here is 100% accurate. Your tried to make a strawman out of it to support your own argument and it explode in your face.
The fact remains, if a person WANTS tp use FW they are more likely to be open to it then if someone ignores their wants or desires or is unwilling to actually educate the player.
EVIL INC wrote: No, my statement here is 100% accurate. Your tried to make a strawman out of it to support your own argument and it explode in your face.
Your "example" mentioned punching people for trying to "surprise" you with a Titan in a small points game if they were playing at your house. I still don't know what you were trying to "prove" in some of your posts.
Oh good, now we're back to the part of the "discussion" where EVIL INC quotes himself over and over again without actually responding to anything anyone else is saying.
Peregrine wrote: Oh good, now we're back to the part of the "discussion" where EVIL INC quotes himself over and over again without actually responding to anything anyone else is saying.
a) You're my hero b) Check your thread about superheavies ;3 c) EVIL INC, please stop repeating yourself. Your point is continually defeated and then you think of a new one, and then use the defeated point to back it up e_e
Just making the point that you wish to ignore and distract readers from with "antics".
This statement that you wish to not be true and are fighting so hard to deny is. You are more likely to get players to play FW if you find ways to get them to WANT to play whether it is legal or not. Just coming at them with "its legal" is not the best way to do that. Why not address THAT statement as that nis the one I am making? You don't have to agree with it, just explain why you think it is false or not worthy of consideration
EVIL INC wrote: Just making the point that you wish to ignore and distract readers from with "antics".
This statement that you wish to not be true and are fighting so hard to deny is. You are more likely to get players to play FW if you find ways to get them to WANT to play whether it is legal or not. Just coming at them with "its legal" is not the best way to do that. Why not address THAT statement as that nis the one I am making? You don't have to agree with it, just explain why you think it is false or not worthy of consideration
Because when individuals reject playing against a FW player, they feel they have more of a right to it than rejecting a game against CSM or Nids or whatever. They feel it is more legal to reject a FW player or even FW units. It's a sense of, I'm correct in reality or something of the sorts.
I'll be honest, I used to be one of "THOSE GUYS", who were anti FW. People tried to convince me by saying "hey cmon, its legal, you'll like it", "its fun" and so on and so forth. It was not until people actually played a demo game, let me check out their models, offered to let me use their models in a practice game or two.
The first ones made me feel pressured as though I was some kind of jerk for not being open minded. the second group, invited me into their group, made me feel welcome, the atmosphere was a lot more open and inviting where I couldn't wait to try something FW.
This is why I say my way of introducing it is better (yes, I'm sure others will disagree but disagree and leave it at that without insults or attacks). because I found out firsthand that it worked better for me.
EVIL INC wrote: I'll be honest, I used to be one of "THOSE GUYS", who were anti FW. People tried to convince me by saying "hey cmon, its legal, you'll like it", "its fun" and so on and so forth.
This is how I got hooked on J-Class yachting. Now I'm completely destitute.
EVIL INC wrote: I'll be honest, I used to be one of "THOSE GUYS", who were anti FW. People tried to convince me by saying "hey cmon, its legal, you'll like it", "its fun" and so on and so forth.
This is how I got hooked on J-Class yachting. Now I'm completely destitute.
Yachting: not even once.
That got me to laugh. Well played.
Then again any time EVIL INC talks about what he thinks the "topic" of these threads is I end up laughing so I don't know how good or bad that is anymore.
So, for the sake of this thread, what is the argument against Forgeworld's legality? I believe it's the fact that some people may want to ban it for whatever reason.
There are no arguments about the legality of it. That was settled on the first page.
The problem where we run into arguments is in your follow up question...
1. Many do want to ban it. This can be for a variety of reasons ranging from "I read the rules, didn't like them, don't like the models, think it is op", to "its a rich mans company where they buy their wins but buying stuff the rest of us cant afford" (years ago, I was one of these), to "my gaming group is just too novice and are not prepared for it yet". There are also other reasons but those are the main ones I think.
2. The argument are about how to address the people who do not want to use it for one reason or another. When it comes down to it, players will do as they want and the same goes for TO. As an example, as a DM, year ago, I banned psionics from my games for the simple reason I just didn't want to fool with them and we had a player who wanted to be/do/everything overpower the gaming sessions with his super psycher. Was I wrong to ban it? Maybe and I don't care. The other players told me afterwards they were glad I did it.
3. Most here have the general idea that since it is legal everyone should be open to it and expect that. I feel that is just too high an expectation with many players and groups who have had zero exposure to it with no actual GW support.
4. I and a few others feel that a better way to broach the subject to players and organizations that are reluctant (your just not gonna reach EVERYONE no matter HOW nice ya are. lol) in a more pro-active way immersing them in it, letting them see it in action in demo games, setting up club orders, even if you are brave lending models to people to try out. the whole you catch more flies with honey approach.
Then you have many pages of us arguing over #3 and #4.
TheCustomLime wrote: So, for the sake of this thread, what is the argument against Forgeworld's legality?
Quite simply, the fact that Forgeworld rules are produced by Forgeworld, rather than by the GW Studio, and that no Studio publication makes any mention of Forgeworld being a legal part of the game.
All of the statements about Forgeworld being legal are made by Forgeworld. Which only counts for anything if you accept that Forgeworld has the authority to actually make that claim. There is no evidence to prove that they do have that authority.
TheCustomLime wrote: So, for the sake of this thread, what is the argument against Forgeworld's legality?
Quite simply, the fact that Forgeworld rules are produced by Forgeworld, rather than by the GW Studio, and that no Studio publication makes any mention of Forgeworld being a legal part of the game.
All of the statements about Forgeworld being legal are made by Forgeworld. Which only counts for anything if you accept that Forgeworld has the authority to actually make that claim. There is no evidence to prove that they do have that authority.
"Appeal to Authority" basically is the issue. We're appealing to the authority that players are giving to the team that writes the codexes but refusing to acknowledge that employees in the same company who are paid to write rules under a different brand name are equally qualified to determine legality.
All the units include a full set of rules, updated for the current edition of Warhammer 40,000, enabling you to use them in your battles.
Yup. Totally not meant for play in regular games that is. I don't understand how anyone could see it any other way.
Of course this will get written off by the appeal to authority fallacy because once again, it's not "the main studio".
Why not crack open the rulebook and see what "the main studio" said about the game? Page 8 and Spirit of the Game perhaps, and how the ruleset is only a framework for an enjoyable experiance and we're supposed to add to it? Or page 108 and where it says a legal army list comes from the army list in the codexes, can be an altered army list, or your own creation (so codex, codex + stuff not in the codex (FW, Codex Supplements, Dataslates, Formations) and homebrew.
Yup. The developers clearly don't want us to ever deviate from the strict guidelines of the codex and try playing something new, or different.
You can refuse to play an opponent who is wanting to use Forgeworld stuff in the same vein that you can refuse to play against an Ork player because you don't like Stormboyz being fielded against you. Because no one can force you to play a GAME.
I believe that Forgeworld is "official" in the definition that "official" is whatever you and your friends deem fun to put on the table against each other. Forgeworld stuff? Kroot Merc armies? Counts-as?
Player 1: "Hey I wanna try fielding Post Heresy Terminators in my Chaos army, like I used to be able to in 2nd edition. You mind if I use this single squad in my army - I think it fit's the fluff in this whole Red Corsairs/Renegades- type army I'm building."
Player 2: *Shrugs* "That's cool. Sounds like a cool idea for an army to me."
Fielding a Forgeworld tank in your Eldar army falls under the exact same situation. Being extreme either way- either refusing just "because", or trying to force the other player to accept your FW stuff, is completely unacceptable when viewing how 40K should be played.
Aegis, I'm with you with one caveat: forcing people to not be allowed to play FW stuff because you don't like FW, against other people who aren't you is just as unacceptable.
It's also the only thing I'm arguing against. We have players who seem to think it's okay to ban FW in places, and then cry "I'm being forced against my will" when the people who want FW to be allowed are looking to play it in general, and not exactly against the person who doesn't like it.
Of course this is outside of tournaments because those don't follow the standard rules of the game anyways, so you're agreeing to whatever homebrew rules the TO decides which is different than agreeing to play the game outside of that event.
Aegis, I'm with you with one caveat: forcing people to not be allowed to play FW stuff because you don't like FW, against other people who aren't you is just as unacceptable.
Absolutely. Of course this is the internet, so first a guy will think that Ork Warbosses are OP, and then crisscross a forum demanding that everyone should be banned from using Ork Warbosses, whether he will ever meet any of them or not.
The game is about whatever kind of fun two opponents decide they want to have- together. Either both people playing are happy with what's being put on the table, or neither has to play. The extremists on either side of the FW argument don't seem to think that is important. Somehow they think that both people should be getting their way exclusive of each other, which is....odd.
There are, however, unacceptable reasons for not liking Forge World, which I listed above and have not yet seen a response to. Utilization of any of those reasons for not wanting to play against Forge World units insults me and my lovingly crafted army. At best it's impolite, and at worst it's offensive.
ClockworkZion wrote: "Appeal to Authority" basically is the issue. We're appealing to the authority that players are giving to the team that writes the codexes but refusing to acknowledge that employees in the same company who are paid to write rules under a different brand name are equally qualified to determine legality.
Well, yes, because they're writing those rules under a different brand name, with nothing ever having been said about just what that means.
So it is left up to the players to guess as to just what the relationship is between the two. GW could end that debate in a heartbeat by simply adding a statement about Forgeworld to the rulebook.
\Yup. Totally not meant for play in regular games that is. I don't understand how anyone could see it any other way.
The issue isn't whether or not they are meant for regular games. It's whether or not they are an 'official' part of the game, or something added on by a third party.
The fact that Forgeworld publishes their rules under a different name to the guys who write the actual game is what leads people to see them as a third party.
Of course this will get written off by the appeal to authority fallacy because once again, it's not "the main studio".
Indeed. And again, that's something that GW could easily address. For whatever reason, they choose to not do so.
Yup. The developers clearly don't want us to ever deviate from the strict guidelines of the codex and try playing something new, or different.
Nobody said that. All they are saying is that the developers didn't bother to make it clear just what standing Forgeworld is considered to have compared to the normal codexes.
AegisGrimm wrote: Fielding a Forgeworld tank in your Eldar army falls under the exact same situation.
But the point is that it shouldn't fall under that situation because that Eldar tank is part of the standard rules of the game. Nobody says "hey, I'd like to use a squad of dire avengers in my Eldar army, is that ok with you?", they just say "want to play a game of 40k?" and assume that their army is ok. The same should be true of FW rules: they're included by default when you say "let's play a game of 40k", and you shouldn't expect veto power over your opponent's army if they bring them.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
insaniak wrote: Well, yes, because they're writing those rules under a different brand name, with nothing ever having been said about just what that means.
Yes, but who exactly is making the assumption that it means anything at all? The players. GW, meanwhile, publishes new rules under whatever brand they feel like as if it's all just more GW stuff. There's no big debate over whether the latest allied formations are legal or not, or if they're released in the appropriate method, they're just published with a "here, have fun guys".
The fact that Forgeworld publishes their rules under a different name to the guys who write the actual game is what leads people to see them as a third party.
Do you also think that Citadel model kits are a third-party product? Do you think that the new formation rules are third-party products because they're published under the Games Workshop Digital Editions brand?
Different Brand name, same company and same company logo on the spines of the books, Insaniak. Not to mentioned marketed by "GW" the company "for use in 40k". And yet we keep turning to this idea that the devs have to bless off on it for it to count.
Oh, and Jervis wrote the original IA1 and IA2, and in IA2 it says the rules are for use in games of 40k (IA1 had a requirement for VDR, but that was dropped in the intro of IA2).
Oh and Jervis did write this as well back in the first issue of the rebooted WD:
Yes, one of the devs doesn't get the kind of limitations people put on the game for other people. Did he say FW? No, but can everything he said in that article be applied to how people treat FW? Absolutely.
Or am I going to be told now that it doesn't count because it doesn't say FWspecifically despite it all being the same company, the same logo on the spine, just a different "product line" (not unlike how the paints and models are "Citadel" and the the rules just say "Warhammer 40,000". Face it, GW likes dividing things into brands and product lines)?
Aegis: Fielding a Forgeworld tank in your Eldar army falls under the exact same situation.
But the point is that it shouldn't fall under that situation because that Eldar tank is part of the standard rules of the game. Nobody says "hey, I'd like to use a squad of dire avengers in my Eldar army, is that ok with you?", they just say "want to play a game of 40k?" and assume that their army is ok. The same should be true of FW rules: they're included by default when you say "let's play a game of 40k", and you shouldn't expect veto power over your opponent's army if they bring them.
I agree that Forgeworld stuff is a legal part of 40K, and should be played as such. I am in the Pro-FW "camp" just not one of the extremists. But I also agree that a game of 40K is a social contract made for enjoyment's sake.
I think what would really solve that issue is if Forgeworld had a greater presence in the FLGS and GW stores. At least sell their books or something. So far they are just an enigmatic presence that players have been told let people take "OP" combos that utterly break the game. At least that's the gist of it.
I think what would really solve that issue is if Forgeworld had a greater presence in the FLGS and GW stores. At least sell their books or something. So far they are just an enigmatic presence that players have been told let people take "OP" combos that utterly break the game. At least that's the gist of it.
If the rumor mill is correct that will be solved by summer 2014.
TheCustomLime wrote: I think what would really solve that issue is if Forgeworld had a greater presence in the FLGS and GW stores. At least sell their books or something. So far they are just an enigmatic presence that players have been told let people take "OP" combos that utterly break the game. At least that's the gist of it.
This has been proposed, and it all comes down to production volume. FW's methods don't scale up very well to the level of production required to put their stuff in every store, and most of what they produce is "collector's" items with low sales volume that would just collect dust on the shelves of the average store. The only way to make FW work as a business is to have everything produced and sold from one central location and only through the internet.
(And we see the same effect with direct-only items even from the "main" GW product lines.)
ClockworkZion wrote: If the rumor mill is correct that will be solved by summer 2014.
7th Edition will drop early, and suddenly people will be able to make a single army comprised of a Space Marine Librarian, Eldar Guardians, Brettonian Knights, a Battlewagon, 3 Warhound Titans, a Bastion, a Mysterious Forest, a Strike Cruiser, Optimus Prime, and a discarded boot?
insaniak wrote: 7th Edition will drop early, and suddenly people will be able to make a single army comprised of a Space Marine Librarian, Eldar Guardians, Brettonian Knights, a Battlewagon, 3 Warhound Titans, a Bastion, a Mysterious Forest, a Strike Cruiser, Optimus Prime, and a discarded boot?
You forgot all the associated supplements and e-books for those things, but that's still a pretty easy exalt.
insaniak wrote: 7th Edition will drop early, and suddenly people will be able to make a single army comprised of a Space Marine Librarian, Eldar Guardians, Brettonian Knights, a Battlewagon, 3 Warhound Titans, a Bastion, a Mysterious Forest, a Strike Cruiser, Optimus Prime, and a discarded boot?
Nonsense. GW will never allow you to play with a discarded boot. It will have to be a Citadel™ Finecast™ Boot™ to be allowed in the Games™ Workshop™ Hobby™.
TheCustomLime wrote: I think what would really solve that issue is if Forgeworld had a greater presence in the FLGS and GW stores. At least sell their books or something. So far they are just an enigmatic presence that players have been told let people take "OP" combos that utterly break the game. At least that's the gist of it.
This has been proposed, and it all comes down to production volume. FW's methods don't scale up very well to the level of production required to put their stuff in every store, and most of what they produce is "collector's" items with low sales volume that would just collect dust on the shelves of the average store. The only way to make FW work as a business is to have everything produced and sold from one central location and only through the internet.
(And we see the same effect with direct-only items even from the "main" GW product lines.)
For the minis I agree.
There's no reason to treat the books that way though. Not the 40k books - the leather 30k gold leaf etc books sure, but I don't see a reason to make the IA* books order from England only.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Unit1126PLL wrote: 1) Other people ban it, so you will too.
2) You've heard it is overpowered, and you don't like playing overpowered gak, so you ban it.
3) You've never tried it, and it is new and confusing, so you ban it.
Those reasons make you feel slighted and like they're insulting your army personally?
But if I say "I refuse to play Armored Company because it turns every objective game into a race to see who tables who." You're okay with that?
Dude, first of all I'm not sure why you think you get to judge the legitimacy of my feelings but even ignoring that, those reasons are...
Would you take your time to inform the person declining the game for those reasons about why they're "illegitimate" and hurt your feelings?
rigeld2 wrote: There's no reason to treat the books that way though. Not the 40k books - the leather 30k gold leaf etc books sure, but I don't see a reason to make the IA* books order from England only.
Depends on the sales volume. Remember, GW tried having the basic IA books in stores and abandoned the experiment (though the closest store here still has their copies collecting dust). Presumably the sales volume from local stores didn't justify printing and keeping an inventory everywhere.
But if I say "I refuse to play Armored Company because it turns every objective game into a race to see who tables who." You're okay with that?
I would be, if you've actually played the game and found that it isn't enjoyable instead of just speculating about it, and if you are consistent and refuse to play against codex-only lists with a similar strategy of all guns and minimum troops (for example, Tau Riptide spam, or a codex IG list with lots of tanks and a couple token veteran squads).
ClockworkZion wrote: If the rumor mill is correct that will be solved by summer 2014.
7th Edition will drop early, and suddenly people will be able to make a single army comprised of a Space Marine Librarian, Eldar Guardians, Brettonian Knights, a Battlewagon, 3 Warhound Titans, a Bastion, a Mysterious Forest, a Strike Cruiser, Optimus Prime, and a discarded boot?
Actually I meant the rumors of FW taking over the metal and finecast models that aren't transfered to plastic or dropped by then and it's entire line being moved to the main site. But good guess.
TheCustomLime wrote: I think what would really solve that issue is if Forgeworld had a greater presence in the FLGS and GW stores. At least sell their books or something. So far they are just an enigmatic presence that players have been told let people take "OP" combos that utterly break the game. At least that's the gist of it.
This has been proposed, and it all comes down to production volume. FW's methods don't scale up very well to the level of production required to put their stuff in every store, and most of what they produce is "collector's" items with low sales volume that would just collect dust on the shelves of the average store. The only way to make FW work as a business is to have everything produced and sold from one central location and only through the internet.
(And we see the same effect with direct-only items even from the "main" GW product lines.)
For the minis I agree.
There's no reason to treat the books that way though. Not the 40k books - the leather 30k gold leaf etc books sure, but I don't see a reason to make the IA* books order from England only.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Unit1126PLL wrote: 1) Other people ban it, so you will too.
2) You've heard it is overpowered, and you don't like playing overpowered gak, so you ban it.
3) You've never tried it, and it is new and confusing, so you ban it.
Those reasons make you feel slighted and like they're insulting your army personally?
But if I say "I refuse to play Armored Company because it turns every objective game into a race to see who tables who." You're okay with that?
Dude, first of all I'm not sure why you think you get to judge the legitimacy of my feelings but even ignoring that, those reasons are...
Would you take your time to inform the person declining the game for those reasons about why they're "illegitimate" and hurt your feelings?
Actually you'd be surprised on the books. There was the entire siege of vraks at gw for over a year and a half. Only 3, never replaced. I bought a single one.... about a year later there are only the two I didn't purchase.
Also the reason he is fine with rejecting your Armored Company because it seems like you are basing it upon the list itself (tons and tons of tanks) rather than it being FW. At that point, it feels like you are rejecting the list for the same reason you would reject a riptide spam list, or a screamerstar list.
insaniak wrote: Quite simply, the fact that Forgeworld rules are produced by Forgeworld, rather than by the GW Studio, and that no Studio publication makes any mention of Forgeworld being a legal part of the game.
All of the statements about Forgeworld being legal are made by Forgeworld. Which only counts for anything if you accept that Forgeworld has the authority to actually make that claim. There is no evidence to prove that they do have that authority.
You're acting as if Forgeworld was Batlefront, claiming that their new 28mm Panzergrenadiers were 40k legal. If GW wasn't okay with what Forgeworld was saying, they'd sue the crap out of them for it. (and yes I know, they're the same company, that's the point)
This is going nowhere.The only people who could answer this questions of legitimacy is GW themselves.Ask them for an offical response.I'am sure they could put an end to this issue once and for all.
eldar 1 wrote: This is going nowhere.The only people who could answer this questions of legitimacy is GW themselves.Ask them for an offical response.I'am sure they could put an end to this issue once and for all.
GW have given an official response, many times. This argument just keeps happening because certain people refuse to accept that response.
I learned about this in psychology class. When listening to a message people will either pay attention to the message itself or how it's presented. When it comes to the FW argument there are those who won't accept the message because they find fault with the messenger. It's a strange fault, I admit, but it's there.
The short of it is you can't get someone who to accept a message until you can get them to get over the fault they had with the presentation.
Unit1126PLL wrote: 1) Other people ban it, so you will too.
2) You've heard it is overpowered, and you don't like playing overpowered gak, so you ban it.
3) You've never tried it, and it is new and confusing, so you ban it.
Those reasons make you feel slighted and like they're insulting your army personally?
But if I say "I refuse to play Armored Company because it turns every objective game into a race to see who tables who." You're okay with that?
Dude, first of all I'm not sure why you think you get to judge the legitimacy of my feelings but even ignoring that, those reasons are...
Would you take your time to inform the person declining the game for those reasons about why they're "illegitimate" and hurt your feelings?
I wouldn't have a problem with that. Because rather than saying "your army isn't worth my time based on some irrational refusal to play Forgeworld" you're saying "After some consideration, I've decided that I would not enjoy a game against your army because of the army composition you use." Which is just fine with me - it's the same thing as turning down games against CronAir or Riptide spam.
TheCustomLime wrote: I learned about this in psychology class. When listening to a message people will either pay attention to the message itself or how it's presented. When it comes to the FW argument there are those who won't accept the message because they find fault with the messenger. It's a strange fault, I admit, but it's there.
The short of it is you can't get someone who to accept a message until you can get them to get over the fault they had with the presentation.
And that goes back to the "Appeal to Authority" fallacy. They give authority for GW to think and choose things for themselves despite GW showing that they're likely not even paying attention to the question that keeps getting raised. They may not even know it's there because as far as they're concerned the game doesn't work that way.
From the rulebook the intentions of the game seem to be rather clear regarding what limits the game has and how it's up to the players, but from the internet's perspective, apparently, the entire game should be left to being dictated to a select few who have already mentioned they don't understand the limits we put on the game, much less each other (Jervis) and have put in the rulebook that we're not to be bound to the rules, but use them as a framework for an enjoyable experience.
Basically we have a group who wants GW to definitely say that there is or isn't a barrier of "legality" and/or "officialness" that GW doesn't see because as far as GW is concerned this barrier of "legality" and "officialness" doesn't exist.
In other words we're building our own walls and then trying to get GW to put a gate in.
Naw wrote: First you want to legalize Forge World, next you will try to legalize cannabis. Where do you stop???
When we run out of things to "legalize" in a game that already says you can bring homebrew?
Seriously, in a game that says your job isn't to "just follow the rules" (Spirit of the Game, page 8) why do we need to argue "legality" about anything in this game?
Really it's my only sticking point in this game, that somethings are somehow less "legal' than others. You don't want to play? Fine, I'm cool with that. I'll spend time painting models instead or working on some homebrew. But if you want to tell me my stuff "isn't legal" and we're not playing in a tournament, then I take offense, even if it is just a little. To claim someone's army choice is less "legal" is a slap in the face to that player and really and insult the game can do better without.
Don't hide behind legality, and be up front on what you look for in a game, or is that so hard to do when the FW crowd is being told the same exact thing?
Sarcasm does not work well in the forums, does it?
Naw wrote: First you want to legalize Forge World, next you will try to legalize cannabis. Where do you stop???
When we run out of things to "legalize" in a game that already says you can bring homebrew?
Seriously, in a game that says your job isn't to "just follow the rules" (Spirit of the Game, page 8) why do we need to argue "legality" about anything in this game?
Really it's my only sticking point in this game, that somethings are somehow less "legal' than others. You don't want to play? Fine, I'm cool with that. I'll spend time painting models instead or working on some homebrew. But if you want to tell me my stuff "isn't legal" and we're not playing in a tournament, then I take offense, even if it is just a little. To claim someone's army choice is less "legal" is a slap in the face to that player and really and insult the game can do better without.
Don't hide behind legality, and be up front on what you look for in a game, or is that so hard to do when the FW crowd is being told the same exact thing?
Sarcasm does not work well in the forums, does it?
Oh I know you were joking. Guess I should have put a wink emoticon after that first sentence because I was joking back. The stuff after "Seriously" was me getting more on topic again.
dracpanzer wrote: You're acting as if Forgeworld was Batlefront, claiming that their new 28mm Panzergrenadiers were 40k legal. If GW wasn't okay with what Forgeworld was saying, they'd sue the crap out of them for it. (and yes I know, they're the same company, that's the point)
I'm not acting as if anything. Again, I don't have a problem with people using Forgeworld stuff.
They have multiple units in books that carry over. The grey knights book has rules for inquisitors, and so does the new dex. So there should be no problem reprinting imperial armor units into new codexes as official units for your army, especially if there 40k approved. Why has this not been the case. Most recently, why has the contemptor dreadnaught not been included in the space marine book, since its a good example of what I would call meant to be included, but not for some reason.
Why not just add these units to the core codexes they belong to. They are deliberately not adding them. And I doubt its because they think forgeworld wouldn't be able to meet this new sudden demand for its models. And you cant say its because everything in the codex has to have a readily available model from GW to be included in that either, because the tyranid spore pod (up till soon anyway) hasent had a model, and I know there are other examples Im too tired to recall at the moment.
Orock wrote: Why not just add these units to the core codexes they belong to. They are deliberately not adding them. And I doubt its because they think forgeworld wouldn't be able to meet this new sudden demand for its models. And you cant say its because everything in the codex has to have a readily available model from GW to be included in that either, because the tyranid spore pod (up till soon anyway) hasent had a model, and I know there are other examples Im too tired to recall at the moment.
They don't want Forgeworld to be mainstream, is why. They're supposed to be boutique models for those who want something a little special, and are happy to pay for it.
Although here in Oz, where buying from Forgeworld has become in many cases cheaper than buying equivalent models from GW, that may change...
Orock wrote: They have multiple units in books that carry over. The grey knights book has rules for inquisitors, and so does the new dex. So there should be no problem reprinting imperial armor units into new codexes as official units for your army, especially if there 40k approved. Why has this not been the case. Most recently, why has the contemptor dreadnaught not been included in the space marine book, since its a good example of what I would call meant to be included, but not for some reason.
Why not just add these units to the core codexes they belong to. They are deliberately not adding them. And I doubt its because they think forgeworld wouldn't be able to meet this new sudden demand for its models. And you cant say its because everything in the codex has to have a readily available model from GW to be included in that either, because the tyranid spore pod (up till soon anyway) hasent had a model, and I know there are other examples Im too tired to recall at the moment.
Actually they have done this before. Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that Vendettas, several Nid variants, etc were originally FW or still only are. That being said, that would require a lot of work and it would cut out a lot of interesting parts of it. Have fun shoving the unique armies for DKoK, Elysians, ABG, and all the extra possible units that forgeworld produces into the IG codex! Oh and have fun adding the Tau forgeworld units into Tau (etc etc). Well.... where do we put this group that is obviously a chaos force but is based upon IG units with certain exceptions? Ummmmm quick scott dance on that table! Simply put, the books would start to become pretty darn big and would require the incorporation of more fluff. Also the demand would probably not really rise that much. They are fenise, elegance, usually built for the fans that like the game to the point they are willing to toss extra money (except when in Ozzie where the opposite is true) to get some fluffy niche bits to add to their reportau. Oh, and it's arguably because GW automatically assumed that it would be accepted. Heck, the fact that from IA 1 to IA 2 they went from make sure your opponent is okay with it to It's a legal part of the game just bring the book to show them seems to imply something dramatic.
Oh, and by this argument why not just add the supplements to the codices to begin with? They are deliberately not adding them (yeah to make you pay for more stuff). Also not everything in the codex has an available model. Hi I'm chaos daemons where is my Greater Daemon named character model? Oh and where is my inquisitor Valieria (whom will probably be whiped out for good because too lazy to make a model).
@Orock: About half the current IG tanks are originally from the Imperial Armor books (plus the Valkyrie/Vendetta). They all got buffed when they went into the codex by the way.
@StarTrotter: I'd argue the supplements are also a way to extend the life of the edition and to make it possible to inject new things into the codexes at later dates without needing to write a new one. I wouldn't be very surprised if we didn't eventually start seeing new options added in via supplements (or perhaps Dataslates like Be'Lakor).
If the game is going the way of datasheets like the very competitively priced belakor, or the ridiculous free tank hunters and preferred enemy space marines in my tau army I was going to take anway, the game is in serious trouble.
ClockworkZion wrote: @Orock: About half the current IG tanks are originally from the Imperial Armor books (plus the Valkyrie/Vendetta). They all got buffed when they went into the codex by the way.
@StarTrotter: I'd argue the supplements are also a way to extend the life of the edition and to make it possible to inject new things into the codexes at later dates without needing to write a new one. I wouldn't be very surprised if we didn't eventually start seeing new options added in via supplements (or perhaps Dataslates like Be'Lakor).
Oh I have no actual problem with the supplements. I'm waiting for my traitor guardsman and Tzeentch supplement though! (finally a way to not feel like a dunce for deploying csm that are tzeentch) (oh and if they do.... please also the steel legion, sob, and maybe even some unique inquisitors) Now do I admit I feel a bit cautious to the supplements, dataslates, and the sorts. To some extent, yes. I hardly noticed the second SM supplement (Iron Warrios clan raakan or something), Black legion is vastly inferior to both the eldar and tau supplement, and be'lakor is arguably a most take as well as inquisitor being arguably a possible game breaking cheese system. It also feels like they might opt for taking bits out of the codex to sell at a later date as well as most of it being overpriced (and the declared overpriced forgeworld books arguably give you more bang for your buck with 2-3 armies, massive sections of fluff, and unique play stiles). For all these things though, I like the option of some subtle tweaks to make a unique faction that truly specializes in wraiths (I've always wanted to make a list that is really just psykers, wraith, and shadow spectres), a tau supplement for somebody that had almost tau (and the one part of tau I enjoy battlesuits led by a guy that says eh clsoe combat has its times), the fluff for the Black Legion seemed pretty decent, and rumour has it the changes will become bigger as time progresses (cross my fingers on CSM tzeentch). Along with that, options like Be'lakor seem awesome as although maybe not the most balanced and easy to understand, it can bring back some cool units and possibly even release some really amazing new things (and maybe just maybe some new fluff). Then you have Inquisitor, whilst I must say it arguably breaks the game, I also must admit I have always wanted to build an Inquisitorial force but only held back because I'd have to take GK or Coteaz. Now I can build a inquisitorial fluff, and ally it with some friends for some of our campaigns and then our standard pick up games in a much easier manner (and I'm a sucker for fluff making and that nonsense)
What I meant from it was more of the why not have the FW stuff in the codex? My counterpoint is why not just shove the other things into the codex and keep them there rather than releasing supplements and new single purchase rules.
Orock wrote: So there should be no problem reprinting imperial armor units into new codexes as official units for your army, especially if there 40k approved. Why has this not been the case. Most recently, why has the contemptor dreadnaught not been included in the space marine book, since its a good example of what I would call meant to be included, but not for some reason
They didn't reprint them because there's no need to. The rules are already printed, so why include them in a separate book? The question only even exists if you assume a hierarchy of "officialness" with codex units at the top and every new unit working its way up until it is printed in a codex.
Why not just add these units to the core codexes they belong to. They are deliberately not adding them. And I doubt its because they think forgeworld wouldn't be able to meet this new sudden demand for its models.
For two reasons:
1) Cannibalizing FW products just means you move those FW sales to a different brand within the company. Inventing entirely new rules/models means you get to keep the existing FW sales and then add on sales of the new stuff as well. Why put the Barracuda in the Tau codex when you can keep selling Barracudas and their FW rules and just invent a whole new flyer for the codex? And remember, making a new plastic kit from a FW model takes almost as much work as making a new kit from scratch (and possibly more work), and writing new rules for a GW book takes a few minutes at most.
2) FW model kits are meant for "veteran" hobbyists and not appropriate for GW's core market of kids buying space marine battleforces. Keeping FW rules within FW books and selling everything through the FW store keeps some poor kid from getting a Thunderhawk for christmas because their parents don't understand what that means, and keeps the brand image of FW kits being a "prestige" thing.
And you cant say its because everything in the codex has to have a readily available model from GW to be included in that either, because the tyranid spore pod (up till soon anyway) hasent had a model, and I know there are other examples Im too tired to recall at the moment.
That's because Tyranids were released before the "no rules without a Citadel kit" policy went into effect (in response to GW's legal problems and third-party companies making those models). This doesn't happen anymore.
Orock wrote: So there should be no problem reprinting imperial armor units into new codexes as official units for your army, especially if there 40k approved. Why has this not been the case. Most recently, why has the contemptor dreadnaught not been included in the space marine book, since its a good example of what I would call meant to be included, but not for some reason
They didn't reprint them because there's no need to. The rules are already printed, so why include them in a separate book? The question only even exists if you assume a hierarchy of "officialness" with codex units at the top and every new unit working its way up until it is printed in a codex.
Why not just add these units to the core codexes they belong to. They are deliberately not adding them. And I doubt its because they think forgeworld wouldn't be able to meet this new sudden demand for its models.
For two reasons:
1) Cannibalizing FW products just means you move those FW sales to a different brand within the company. Inventing entirely new rules/models means you get to keep the existing FW sales and then add on sales of the new stuff as well. Why put the Barracuda in the Tau codex when you can keep selling Barracudas and their FW rules and just invent a whole new flyer for the codex? And remember, making a new plastic kit from a FW model takes almost as much work as making a new kit from scratch (and possibly more work), and writing new rules for a GW book takes a few minutes at most.
2) FW model kits are meant for "veteran" hobbyists and not appropriate for GW's core market of kids buying space marine battleforces. Keeping FW rules within FW books and selling everything through the FW store keeps some poor kid from getting a Thunderhawk for christmas because their parents don't understand what that means, and keeps the brand image of FW kits being a "prestige" thing.
And you cant say its because everything in the codex has to have a readily available model from GW to be included in that either, because the tyranid spore pod (up till soon anyway) hasent had a model, and I know there are other examples Im too tired to recall at the moment.
That's because Tyranids were released before the "no rules without a Citadel kit" policy went into effect (in response to GW's legal problems and third-party companies making those models). This doesn't happen anymore.
Didn't they even remove FW units that don't have models to represent them? (Forgive me if I have forgotten this part)
*Peers head though the bush* Psst looky 'ere! 'Ere we 'ave a tribe of grots known as da "key-bord worriaz", a sure fire way to separate them from da other forum users is da rage. Ya see, the they get da more dey type 'n' quote uva posts.
Dis is Mork grylz 'n; you been watching da diskovery channel
Sorry but that is all I could think of reading half this dribble. The answer has been said over and over and over and over and...you get the point. Yes they are legal, however some TO will disallow them, which is TO's decision and is final. But you should explain the unit's rules to your opponent (both friendly and allowed tournaments) as it will help the game speed along and, at least for me, for the sake of good sportsmanship.
Anyway someone please stop this thread!!!!!!!! Will no-one think of the children?!
Lets not stop this thread. We'll only have a new one up and running within a week - and it'll be the same circle of arguments from the same people
If you like FW use it. If you don't, then don't. Don't be a dick to the other side, either by forcing people to play against it (something I've never seen irl) or by blanket banning everything you don't like (something else I've never seen irl)
I don't believe anyone is going to come up with the ultimate argument to solve this till GW gives everybody who plays a free fw unit of their choice...
PredaKhaine wrote: Don't be a dick to the other side, either by forcing people to play against it (something I've never seen irl) or by blanket banning everything you don't like (something else I've never seen irl)
I've personally experienced the bolded statement. He asked to play and mentioned his FW list (don't remember what it was). I wasn't feeling well and had come to play against a friend so I declined. He took that as "FW IS OVERPOWERED!" and went on a 15 minute rant (where I essentially ignored him) until my friend showed up. We started to deploy and my friend put his Contemptor out (proxied for a normal dread, his choice not mine) which is where $otherdude started yelling at me.
I'm not saying that anyone in this thread would be "that guy". I'm saying "that guy" exists and is really, REALLY damaging the way people look at FW.
PredaKhaine wrote: Don't be a dick to the other side, either by forcing people to play against it (something I've never seen irl) or by blanket banning everything you don't like (something else I've never seen irl)
I've personally experienced the bolded statement. He asked to play and mentioned his FW list (don't remember what it was). I wasn't feeling well and had come to play against a friend so I declined. He took that as "FW IS OVERPOWERED!" and went on a 15 minute rant (where I essentially ignored him) until my friend showed up. We started to deploy and my friend put his Contemptor out (proxied for a normal dread, his choice not mine) which is where $otherdude started yelling at me.
I'm not saying that anyone in this thread would be "that guy". I'm saying "that guy" exists and is really, REALLY damaging the way people look at FW.
Can't you just shut the doors, turn the lights off and pretend no-one's there when you see him coming?
Regardless, my point was that he's not the only one (although he was a rather extreme case). Anyone who lectures/attempts to "educate" someone who declines a game is hurting more than helping - no matter why they declined.
Regardless, my point was that he's not the only one (although he was a rather extreme case). Anyone who lectures/attempts to "educate" someone who declines a game is hurting more than helping - no matter why they declined.
Damn windows
Yeah - I think thats the crux. People browbeating their point of view at you doesn't tend to work. It's like a bath of custard. dip your toe in slowly and eventually you'll fully immerse yourself in custard. Tap it a few times, raise the surface tension and your can walk on it without having any effect whatsoever...
A greater presence of it in stores would indeed be a boon for it.
An official announcement made by GW would go even further. I would say I don't understand why they wont do that but I have a sneaky suspicion that if there were to do that sales from the main company models would go down where FW would surge and not only do they not want to lose regular sales but FW might not be equipped to handle the surge. From reading forums across the internet it seems that the sometimes have trouble keeping up with their current sales. Again, that's my view and does not mean I actually know reasons.
But again, it comes down to what the players WANT. What players want they will buy and use. Since GW is slacking on "advertising" FW, it is left up to the actual players to do the advertising and convincing players to WANT to play with FW models and rules. And on this issue I still think beating the over the head with "its legal" is not the best way to address it. Exposing players to it in a fun and friendly environment where they get to see/try it firsthand under guidance and tutelage of those who already use it would in my opinion be more effective because then they wont care if its legal or not.
That article makes some great points about the whole Forgeworld debate. I highly suggest you read it.
I'm in the "against" camp. I am, at this point, against the use of Forgeworld units in my games of 40k. It has nothing to do with whether or not the units are "40k approved". I agree with most of the proFW camp about that, the units certainly were made with the intention of them being used in 40k.
No, what irks me the most is twofold:
1) The relative cost and availability of Forgeworld models. I can't get these units, or even the rules for these units, in any stores near me. I have to order them from across the ocean. And the shipping they charge is absolutely ludicrous! Some of their stuff is on par with the same type of thing you can buy from GW, but hey let's tack on 15% for shipping. Say what?!
2) Having a level playing field. With the current state of the game, I'm at least aware of what my opponent has available to him. But once Forgeworld gets tossed in, it adds a whole new dimension that feels unbalanced (whether it actually is or not). It's a very similar feeling to the "pay to win" model that so many people are against. I think the vast majority of Forgeworld units are probably overcosted/underpowered, but there are a few units that are just wacky powerful, and it really feels like my opponent has an upper hand because he could afford to buy the "better" units. This may or may not be true in any given game, but that's certainly what it feels like.
EVIL INC wrote: A greater presence of it in stores would indeed be a boon for it.
Except it wasn't selling when they did that so the problem is bigger than "just put it in stores".
EVIL INC wrote: An official announcement made by GW would go even further. I would say I don't understand why they wont do that but I have a sneaky suspicion that if there were to do that sales from the main company models would go down where FW would surge and not only do they not want to lose regular sales but FW might not be equipped to handle the surge. From reading forums across the internet it seems that the sometimes have trouble keeping up with their current sales. Again, that's my view and does not mean I actually know reasons.
My money is that they don't see the issue, and if they do they don't understand why it is one. With the rulebook preaching freedom and choice and even Jervis preaching freedom and choice (again, that WD article) in the current edition they probably don't see why it's an issue and because of it don't respond to it.
EVIL INC wrote: But again, it comes down to what the players WANT. What players want they will buy and use. Since GW is slacking on "advertising" FW, it is left up to the actual players to do the advertising and convincing players to WANT to play with FW models and rules. And on this issue I still think beating the over the head with "its legal" is not the best way to address it. Exposing players to it in a fun and friendly environment where they get to see/try it firsthand under guidance and tutelage of those who already use it would in my opinion be more effective because then they wont care if its legal or not.
GW doesn't slack on advertising FW, it gets a slot in the WD Daily, it has a newsletter that announces new releases and gets featured in the White Dwarf, which is the same way GW markets all of their stuff.
That article makes some great points about the whole Forgeworld debate. I highly suggest you read it.
They had me until "it's not standard 40k" came up. Where does the rulebook define "standard" 40k? Becuase I've never seen it.
If you want to say that only what the rulebook says is allowed is "standard" then I recommend opening it to page 108 and looking at a little paragraph under the header "Army Lists". There we find that the rulebook says legal army lists come from codexes, can be altered lists (which is what FW does, what dataslates do, and what supplements do, so negating FW because it's not mentioned specifically here is a big hypocrisy if you don't also negate all these other options that are also not mentioned in the rulebook and work exactly the same way) or your own system (homebrew! Yes, homebrew is "legal" according to the codex). That is your "standard" 40k. Basically there is no limit to what you bring because every option you want is covered by that short paragraph.
So yeah, you can argue a lot of things, but really, and honestly, unless someone is intentionally deluding themselves the rulebook gives us plenty of room to say FW is "standard" 40k because everything is "standard" 40k.
Why does cost and availability affect you so much? Do you feel the same about digital releases that take months for a hard copy to be released? I personally don't own a tablet type device, so I can view them using a browser at home, but not so much during a game. As for the shipping point, why does waiting a week or two make it unobtainable or difficult to obtain? I've personally never understood the whole hatred behind having to order FW. The shipping is a little painful, but its pretty easy to pool in with people to get an order large enough to get free shipping.
I think the cost of the models is a poor point, as there is a significant price gap between basic codex armies. Sisters are hugely more expensive than a horde Guard player, which in turn is significantly more expensive than an elite, small model count army. Not saying FW isn't more expensive in general, but the difference isn't any more significant than the difference between codex armies.
As for your second point, are you okay with all the new supplements and dataslates coming out? Mostly curiousity, because I assume if you want a level playing field and not 'pay to win', then you should naturally be against supplements and dataslates. If you are, then at least I can applaud your consistency.
ClockworkZion wrote: They had me until "it's not standard 40k" came up. Where does the rulebook define "standard" 40k? Becuase I've never seen it.
If you want to say that only what the rulebook says is allowed is "standard" then I recommend opening it to page 108 and looking at a little paragraph under the header "Army Lists". There we find that the rulebook says legal army lists come from codexes, can be altered lists (which is what FW does, what dataslates do, and what supplements do, so negating FW because it's not mentioned specifically here is a big hypocrisy if you don't also negate all these other options that are also not mentioned in the rulebook and work exactly the same way) or your own system (homebrew! Yes, homebrew is "legal" according to the codex). That is your "standard" 40k. Basically there is no limit to what you bring because every option you want is covered by that short paragraph.
So yeah, you can argue a lot of things, but really, and honestly, unless someone is intentionally deluding themselves the rulebook gives us plenty of room to say FW is "standard" 40k because everything is "standard" 40k.
I agree. The rulebook would not delineate between Forgeworld and Non-Forgeworld units for use in games. However, the problem with your argument is that there is a common understanding of what the game, Warhammer 40k, is.
I would posit that "standard" 40k is simply the part of 40k that is used by most people. It's a societal definition and, mathematically speaking, it's an average. You can ask most people if they want to play a "standard" game of 40k, and they will have a general grasp of what you are talking about a priori. When they start pulling out models to play the game, you probably won't find any forgeworld models hitting the table.
So when the article talks about forgeworld "not being standard 40k", what they mean is that if you show up to an average gaming place, the people there either won't know what Forgeworld is or don't play with it (which could be for any of a number of reasons that have already been discussed). Clearly, there is no "hard evidence" to back up this claim, as that would require us to survey a large number of 40k gamers, and that obviously isn't going to happen. I could probably go into some arguments from logic as to how Forgeworld does not meet the criteria to qualify as the average 40k gaming experience, but its really not worth the trouble. You can either accept that definition or not, its entirely up to you.
Now, if you're still with me, its easy to see what this thread's argument is really about. There is a portion of the 40k player-base that wants to challenge this definition of what a "standard", which is to say the average, game of 40k is.
And that makes sense. People who have bought and/or use forgeworld models want to be able to use them more often and in more places. I get that, it make sense. All I'm saying is that we should recognize what is actually being debated: changing the definition of what a "standard" game of 40k is.
The article had me until they mentioned how the Lucius drop pod is overpowered because it let Dreadnoughts charge upon deepstrike. Hah.
To address it's actual points I agree that their rules writing is a little off and it can be hard to obtain the rules in the first place but... to say that it isn't standard 40k is to say that there is a standard 40k in the first place. Yes, there is HH and Apoc but those are their own sub games. The rulebook itself doesn't have this attitude of there being a 40k where only things you can fields are those you can find and buy on http://games-workshop.com/. It even encourages you to take things outside of the codices meaning that everything is on the level of the codices since the game doesn't restrict you to them. If people really wanted to be that obtuse about what's okay in "standard 40k" then we should ban supplements and dataslates like the new Daemon prince since those aren't mentioned in the rulebook. I don't think the FAQ is either so that should be banned too. Yay, I get lumbering behemoth back!
In fact, some of the arguments presented here about IA can be made about supplements. They can be overpowered, useless, full of dumb rules and most or all could've been in a codex. You know, it's almost as if they were made by the same incompetent company!
All of that said, no one should be forced to be played a FW list just like no one should be forced to play Taudar or Iyanden Eldar.
@Madman MSU
The distinction, good sir, is that Standard 40k is something that exists in the rules rather than in the community. What you are talking about is people wanting to play what they are familiar with which is just fine. I agree with you on that.
That article makes some great points about the whole Forgeworld debate. I highly suggest you read it.
I'm in the "against" camp. I am, at this point, against the use of Forgeworld units in my games of 40k. It has nothing to do with whether or not the units are "40k approved". I agree with most of the proFW camp about that, the units certainly were made with the intention of them being used in 40k.
No, what irks me the most is twofold:
1) The relative cost and availability of Forgeworld models. I can't get these units, or even the rules for these units, in any stores near me. I have to order them from across the ocean. And the shipping they charge is absolutely ludicrous! Some of their stuff is on par with the same type of thing you can buy from GW, but hey let's tack on 15% for shipping. Say what?!
2) Having a level playing field. With the current state of the game, I'm at least aware of what my opponent has available to him. But once Forgeworld gets tossed in, it adds a whole new dimension that feels unbalanced (whether it actually is or not). It's a very similar feeling to the "pay to win" model that so many people are against. I think the vast majority of Forgeworld units are probably overcosted/underpowered, but there are a few units that are just wacky powerful, and it really feels like my opponent has an upper hand because he could afford to buy the "better" units. This may or may not be true in any given game, but that's certainly what it feels like.
Well, at the end of the article is said "If Gamesworkshop were to say Imperial Armour units and rules are now equivalent to standard Codexes, and opponent’s permission is no longer needed, this would all change." Which is about to happend (if I let the already mentioned problem with definition of Standard).
Ad 1) Sorry, but nope. WH40K is costly hobby. Raising 1000pts army is now about 500 euro for me - now. Its basic for small games and its not a few bucks. WHen I look at FW models, its not so overpriced, I see Im paying for quality models. Shipping of course hurts, but it hurts at GW too. You are saing that FW is unacceptable, because you can pay for GW models but not a slightly more? Its not such huge difference in whole sum you give on WH.
Ad 2) Thats interesting. I agree and dont agree. Lets put aside pay-to-win argument. You can say whole WH is pay to win, because when you wont pay for your 2000pts army, you got crushed in 2000pts game... You are saing its not fair if you cant buy better units? Well, you have problem when you cant buy enough units. Its game based on selling models! Unbalance is really risk. I fear there will be bunch of new combos...but who knows, we did not see Escalation rules, did we? For the size of "playing field" I dont think problem is in FW. Its not so big number of models. Rather fear formations which makes combination much much wider.
MadmanMSU wrote:I agree. The rulebook would not delineate between Forgeworld and Non-Forgeworld units for use in games. However, the problem with your argument is that there is a common understanding of what the game, Warhammer 40k, is.
I would posit that "standard" 40k is simply the part of 40k that is used by most people. It's a societal definition and, mathematically speaking, it's an average. You can ask most people if they want to play a "standard" game of 40k, and they will have a general grasp of what you are talking about a priori. When they start pulling out models to play the game, you probably won't find any forgeworld models hitting the table.
So when the article talks about forgeworld "not being standard 40k", what they mean is that if you show up to an average gaming place, the people there either won't know what Forgeworld is or don't play with it (which could be for any of a number of reasons that have already been discussed). Clearly, there is no "hard evidence" to back up this claim, as that would require us to survey a large number of 40k gamers, and that obviously isn't going to happen. I could probably go into some arguments from logic as to how Forgeworld does not meet the criteria to qualify as the average 40k gaming experience, but its really not worth the trouble. You can either accept that definition or not, its entirely up to you.
Now, if you're still with me, its easy to see what this thread's argument is really about. There is a portion of the 40k player-base that wants to challenge this definition of what a "standard", which is to say the average, game of 40k is.
And that makes sense. People who have bought and/or use forgeworld models want to be able to use them more often and in more places. I get that, it make sense. All I'm saying is that we should recognize what is actually being debated: changing the definition of what a "standard" game of 40k is.
While I agree with you whole heartidly (I, after all, argue against this "standard"), I don't think the community should be trying to put 40k in a little box marked "standard". It's quite clear if you actually read the things that come out of GW (the rulebook, Jervis' article how players shouldn't be limiting each other's choice and there is no one "right" way to play) that doing that is about the only wrong thing you can do with 40k.
The definition of "standard" games is bad and it needs to be chucked out the pram so we can stop artificially limiting ourselves for no real reason.
Am I saying that choosing to not play FW, or homebrew is wrong? No. I'm saying that claiming they don't fit into an artificially created boundary of what is and is not standard is. GW didn't build a wall around the rules and say you couldn't bring new ideas or toys inside, the players did and honestly the wall needs to go instead of people begging GW to put a gate in.
TheCustomLime wrote:The article had me until they mentioned how the Lucius drop pod is overpowered because it let Dreadnoughts charge upon deepstrike. Hah.
Yeah. People forget that it used to immobilize on a 1:6 chance and in 6th you were still subject to overwatch and a random charge distance. Oh and how it changed completely a long while ago.
TheCustomLime wrote:To address it's actual points I agree that their rules writing is a little off and it can be hard to obtain the rules in the first place but... to say that it isn't standard 40k is to say that there is a standard 40k in the first place. Yes, there is HH and Apoc but those are their own sub games. The rulebook itself doesn't have this attitude of there being a 40k where only things you can fields are those you can find and buy on http://games-workshop.com/. It even encourages you to take things outside of the codices meaning that everything is on the level of the codices since the game doesn't restrict you to them. If people really wanted to be that obtuse about what's okay in "standard 40k" then we should ban supplements and dataslates like the new Daemon prince since those aren't mentioned in the rulebook. I don't think the FAQ is either so that should be banned too. Yay, I get lumbering behemoth back!
"Difficult" to get rules (seriously, you can order them on the internet and you can email them to confirm where the most recent rules for things are if you aren't sure, it's not "difficult" it just requires more effort than being a lazy sod is all) shouldn't be what determines what is or is not standard anyways, or else Sisters couldn't be "standard 40k" when they had the WD, or now as some people refuse to buy digital releases.
TheCustomLime wrote:
@Madman MSU
The distinction, good sir, is that Standard 40k is something that exists in the rules rather than in the community. What you are talking about is people wanting to play what they are familiar with which is just fine. I agree with you on that.
And where is it in the rules? Where do the rules say "this is standard 40k and anything outside of this is not standard 40k"? And how can we really keep claiming that said standard keeps you from doing "X" when the rulebook clearly allows altered army lists and homebrew into the game and it says the rules are just a framework to support anything you want to add to the game?
"Standard" 40k doesn't exist as rules. It exists as an imaginary wall people keep putting around the hobby to "protect it".....from itself apparently.
Availability of rules is stupid and downright obtuse, as previously said, if anyone wants to get the rules for any unit published by gw or fw, the internet exists and so do smart phones and tablets, I don't care who knows that I scan my fw books and put them on my phone or ipad, if my opponent wants it I simply Bluetooth or email it to them.
There are less scrupulous ways of course but that's between you and your god, lack of ability to get rules is simply false and not an excuse to disallow someone to use something they have paid alot for. Stinks of jealousy to me "I can't afford it so you can't use it" is all I seem to be seeing.
MadmanMSU wrote:I agree. The rulebook would not delineate between Forgeworld and Non-Forgeworld units for use in games. However, the problem with your argument is that there is a common understanding of what the game, Warhammer 40k, is.
I would posit that "standard" 40k is simply the part of 40k that is used by most people. It's a societal definition and, mathematically speaking, it's an average. You can ask most people if they want to play a "standard" game of 40k, and they will have a general grasp of what you are talking about a priori. When they start pulling out models to play the game, you probably won't find any forgeworld models hitting the table.
So when the article talks about forgeworld "not being standard 40k", what they mean is that if you show up to an average gaming place, the people there either won't know what Forgeworld is or don't play with it (which could be for any of a number of reasons that have already been discussed). Clearly, there is no "hard evidence" to back up this claim, as that would require us to survey a large number of 40k gamers, and that obviously isn't going to happen. I could probably go into some arguments from logic as to how Forgeworld does not meet the criteria to qualify as the average 40k gaming experience, but its really not worth the trouble. You can either accept that definition or not, its entirely up to you.
Now, if you're still with me, its easy to see what this thread's argument is really about. There is a portion of the 40k player-base that wants to challenge this definition of what a "standard", which is to say the average, game of 40k is.
And that makes sense. People who have bought and/or use forgeworld models want to be able to use them more often and in more places. I get that, it make sense. All I'm saying is that we should recognize what is actually being debated: changing the definition of what a "standard" game of 40k is.
While I agree with you whole heartidly (I, after all, argue against this "standard"), I don't think the community should be trying to put 40k in a little box marked "standard". It's quite clear if you actually read the things that come out of GW (the rulebook, Jervis' article how players shouldn't be limiting each other's choice and there is no one "right" way to play) that doing that is about the only wrong thing you can do with 40k.
The definition of "standard" games is bad and it needs to be chucked out the pram so we can stop artificially limiting ourselves for no real reason.
Am I saying that choosing to not play FW, or homebrew is wrong? No. I'm saying that claiming they don't fit into an artificially created boundary of what is and is not standard is. GW didn't build a wall around the rules and say you couldn't bring new ideas or toys inside, the players did and honestly the wall needs to go instead of people begging GW to put a gate in.
TheCustomLime wrote:The article had me until they mentioned how the Lucius drop pod is overpowered because it let Dreadnoughts charge upon deepstrike. Hah.
Yeah. People forget that it used to immobilize on a 1:6 chance and in 6th you were still subject to overwatch and a random charge distance. Oh and how it changed completely a long while ago.
TheCustomLime wrote:To address it's actual points I agree that their rules writing is a little off and it can be hard to obtain the rules in the first place but... to say that it isn't standard 40k is to say that there is a standard 40k in the first place. Yes, there is HH and Apoc but those are their own sub games. The rulebook itself doesn't have this attitude of there being a 40k where only things you can fields are those you can find and buy on http://games-workshop.com/. It even encourages you to take things outside of the codices meaning that everything is on the level of the codices since the game doesn't restrict you to them. If people really wanted to be that obtuse about what's okay in "standard 40k" then we should ban supplements and dataslates like the new Daemon prince since those aren't mentioned in the rulebook. I don't think the FAQ is either so that should be banned too. Yay, I get lumbering behemoth back!
"Difficult" to get rules (seriously, you can order them on the internet and you can email them to confirm where the most recent rules for things are if you aren't sure, it's not "difficult" it just requires more effort than being a lazy sod is all) shouldn't be what determines what is or is not standard anyways, or else Sisters couldn't be "standard 40k" when they had the WD, or now as some people refuse to buy digital releases.
TheCustomLime wrote:
@Madman MSU
The distinction, good sir, is that Standard 40k is something that exists in the rules rather than in the community. What you are talking about is people wanting to play what they are familiar with which is just fine. I agree with you on that.
And where is it in the rules? Where do the rules say "this is standard 40k and anything outside of this is not standard 40k"? And how can we really keep claiming that said standard keeps you from doing "X" when the rulebook clearly allows altered army lists and homebrew into the game and it says the rules are just a framework to support anything you want to add to the game?
"Standard" 40k doesn't exist as rules. It exists as an imaginary wall people keep putting around the hobby to "protect it".....from itself apparently.
D'oh, I messed it up. What I meant was that the distinction in the argument is that some people consider "Standard 40k" a part of the rules rather than an community made concept. I agree it has no basis in the rulebook nor in anything Games Workshop has published.
And Forgeworld is relatively difficult to obtain compared to Codices. I can drive 10 minutes to my FLGS and get C:IG for $30 and bam, it's mine. I have to put slightly more work to get an IA book and spend a ton more money. O'course these are subjective complaints and have no real bearing on the argument.
I believe the only arguments against FW are subjective at this point... so... yeah. I think we're done here.
Why does cost and availability affect you so much? Do you feel the same about digital releases that take months for a hard copy to be released? I personally don't own a tablet type device, so I can view them using a browser at home, but not so much during a game. As for the shipping point, why does waiting a week or two make it unobtainable or difficult to obtain? I've personally never understood the whole hatred behind having to order FW. The shipping is a little painful, but its pretty easy to pool in with people to get an order large enough to get free shipping.
I think the cost of the models is a poor point, as there is a significant price gap between basic codex armies. Sisters are hugely more expensive than a horde Guard player, which in turn is significantly more expensive than an elite, small model count army. Not saying FW isn't more expensive in general, but the difference isn't any more significant than the difference between codex armies.
Cost isn't the biggest factor, for me personally. I'm fortunate that my wife and I have a large income, so I could easily afford to buy FW if I wanted. It's mostly a personal objection to the prices. Even the recent price increases in regular GW models have got me hitting the pause button. If I had an eldar army, I wouldn't buy a wraithknight model out of sheer principle.
Blacksails wrote: As for your second point, are you okay with all the new supplements and dataslates coming out? Mostly curiousity, because I assume if you want a level playing field and not 'pay to win', then you should naturally be against supplements and dataslates. If you are, then at least I can applaud your consistency.
This is actually being debated amongst my local gaming group right now. Yes, I'm against them. To wit, I would actually like to use the Tau dataslate, but it does feel like I would be "paying to win", something that I don't think my other gaming friends would appreciate.
That's probably a simplistic answer, but based on the facebook discussion of my gaming group right now, Dataslates/Super Heavies will probably never see the table unless we're playing Apocalypse. Which, for me, is never. Not that I have anything against Apoc, I just have a full time job, a wife, and am working on my PHD, which means less time for huuuuuuuge games.
Let us sip tea while we philosophically think of the answer to the ultimate question... What is a true game of Warhammer 40k?
It's rolling dice with toy soldiers, and if people want to roll dice with underpowered, better-looking toy soldiers than me then I'm fine with that.
That article makes some great points about the whole Forgeworld debate. I highly suggest you read it.
I'm in the "against" camp. I am, at this point, against the use of Forgeworld units in my games of 40k. It has nothing to do with whether or not the units are "40k approved". I agree with most of the proFW camp about that, the units certainly were made with the intention of them being used in 40k.
No, what irks me the most is twofold:
1) The relative cost and availability of Forgeworld models. I can't get these units, or even the rules for these units, in any stores near me. I have to order them from across the ocean. And the shipping they charge is absolutely ludicrous! Some of their stuff is on par with the same type of thing you can buy from GW, but hey let's tack on 15% for shipping. Say what?!
2) Having a level playing field. With the current state of the game, I'm at least aware of what my opponent has available to him. But once Forgeworld gets tossed in, it adds a whole new dimension that feels unbalanced (whether it actually is or not). It's a very similar feeling to the "pay to win" model that so many people are against. I think the vast majority of Forgeworld units are probably overcosted/underpowered, but there are a few units that are just wacky powerful, and it really feels like my opponent has an upper hand because he could afford to buy the "better" units. This may or may not be true in any given game, but that's certainly what it feels like.
On point 1, I think Forgeworld has realized this is a problem on a certine level with their stuff. Their Imperical armour Apoc and Aeronautica books sort of adress this, by being lower cost books that cover almost every FW unit ever listed for every army. You can get this one/two book(s) and get new units for your army and see the units other people's armies can now take in one book. This helps with the fact alot of forgeworld units can be spread out across mutiple expensive books. Still suffers from the fact you can only get the book from them, but I does seem like they are not totally oblivious to this issue.
What realy needs to happen, is imperail armour Apoc and Aeronautica need to be avilable in digital copies like other GW supplements. (Perferably with out dueing away with the hard books for thows of us who like them.)
That article makes some great points about the whole Forgeworld debate. I highly suggest you read it.
the problem is that it's salient point is incorrect, we have GW published books which say it is "standard" for 40k.
No, what irks me the most is twofold:
1) The relative cost and availability of Forgeworld models. I can't get these units, or even the rules for these units, in any stores near me. I have to order them from across the ocean. And the shipping they charge is absolutely ludicrous! Some of their stuff is on par with the same type of thing you can buy from GW, but hey let's tack on 15% for shipping. Say what?!
With regards to availability, large numbers of people already order stuff online, and nobody says you can't play Sisters of Battle despite them being direct order/online only.
With regards to cost, have you seen the cost of GW units lately? It's cheaper for me to fill out my troops for my Death Korps Assault Brigade than rebuilding my Dire Avengers squads for my Eldar army.
New GW tanks are on par with FW tank costs. Character model costs between the FW and GW are identical in most cases. Some FW stuff is still rather expensive, usually things like flyer kits or alternative infantry armor marks, but over the last 6 years, GW have closed the gap on much of it. If GW codex costs
Shipping is silly, nobody will argue that, but then depending on what/how much you buy, you can also avoid it altogether.
2) Having a level playing field. With the current state of the game, I'm at least aware of what my opponent has available to him. But once Forgeworld gets tossed in, it adds a whole new dimension that feels unbalanced (whether it actually is or not). It's a very similar feeling to the "pay to win" model that so many people are against. I think the vast majority of Forgeworld units are probably overcosted/underpowered, but there are a few units that are just wacky powerful, and it really feels like my opponent has an upper hand because he could afford to buy the "better" units. This may or may not be true in any given game, but that's certainly what it feels like.
There's lots of Codex units that are wacky and powerful and have expensive models, nobody seems to level the same complaints at them (e.g. Riptides) in such debates.
BrotherOfBone wrote: Let us sip tea while we philosophically think of the answer to the ultimate question... What is a true game of Warhammer 40k?
It's rolling dice with toy soldiers, and if people want to roll dice with underpowered, better-looking toy soldiers than me then I'm fine with that.
Exactly. The only thing one can really say the rules do say is that the game is meant for rolling dice and pushing your toy soldiers around the table. Any restrictions on which toy soldiers you do that with aren't in the rules, they're in the players.
Yeah, the prices overall bother me, but I just feel its weird to single out FW when discussing them as a reason to keep FW in a separate box for gameplay reasons. I'll be slowly collecting a HH Salamanders army despite the prices because the models are fantastic and well worth the ~25% price increase over the standard Tac marines.
I'm just saying, as far as a point for FW being kept distinct in 'standard' games, I think the pricing argument is fairly weak. There's just too much of a price gap between existing armies already.
As for your second point, I largely agree that the new supplements/dataslates feel like some sort of micro-transaction/pay to win option, but, if I'm going to support FW as a normal option for play, I'd also have to support these new options. I don't like them, but if someone wants to use them, I'd be 100% okay with it.
ClockworkZion wrote: While I agree with you whole heartidly (I, after all, argue against this "standard"), I don't think the community should be trying to put 40k in a little box marked "standard". It's quite clear if you actually read the things that come out of GW (the rulebook, Jervis' article how players shouldn't be limiting each other's choice and there is no one "right" way to play) that doing that is about the only wrong thing you can do with 40k.
The definition of "standard" games is bad and it needs to be chucked out the pram so we can stop artificially limiting ourselves for no real reason.
Am I saying that choosing to not play FW, or homebrew is wrong? No. I'm saying that claiming they don't fit into an artificially created boundary of what is and is not standard is. GW didn't build a wall around the rules and say you couldn't bring new ideas or toys inside, the players did and honestly the wall needs to go instead of people begging GW to put a gate in.
Now, I would argue that having a "box" that exists to limit what a "standard" game of 40k should be is a good thing. It allows people to have a common definition when sitting down to play a game, and it gives people a shared starting point. To use a silly metaphor, chess has a standard ruleset that allows you to really develop interesting tactics and strategies. When I sit down to play a game of chess, I don't have to worry that my opponent has a "new rook" that can teleport once per game up to 6 squares. That's not fun.
Again, that's a silly example, but it does illustrate my point.
ClockworkZion wrote: While I agree with you whole heartidly (I, after all, argue against this "standard"), I don't think the community should be trying to put 40k in a little box marked "standard". It's quite clear if you actually read the things that come out of GW (the rulebook, Jervis' article how players shouldn't be limiting each other's choice and there is no one "right" way to play) that doing that is about the only wrong thing you can do with 40k.
The definition of "standard" games is bad and it needs to be chucked out the pram so we can stop artificially limiting ourselves for no real reason.
Am I saying that choosing to not play FW, or homebrew is wrong? No. I'm saying that claiming they don't fit into an artificially created boundary of what is and is not standard is. GW didn't build a wall around the rules and say you couldn't bring new ideas or toys inside, the players did and honestly the wall needs to go instead of people begging GW to put a gate in.
Now, I would argue that having a "box" that exists to limit what a "standard" game of 40k should be is a good thing. It allows people to have a common definition when sitting down to play a game, and it gives people a shared starting point. To use a silly metaphor, chess has a standard ruleset that allows you to really develop interesting tactics and strategies. When I sit down to play a game of chess, I don't have to worry that my opponent has a "new rook" that can teleport once per game up to 6 squares. That's not fun.
Again, that's a silly example, but it does illustrate my point.
Another issue we're facing is that "standard" 40k, as most people have imagined it, is about to go out the window here, with GW releasing apocalypse style Formations as out-of-FoC detachments, and Escalation bringing Superheavies into "standard" 40k.
UlrikDecado wrote: Well, at the end of the article is said "If Gamesworkshop were to say Imperial Armour units and rules are now equivalent to standard Codexes, and opponent’s permission is no longer needed, this would all change." Which is about to happend (if I let the already mentioned problem with definition of Standard).
Games Workshop can say an opponent's permission is no longer needed all they want, but its still needed.
The most recent Imperial Armour book has the "Warhammer 40000" official logo printed right on the front. On the inside it says the rules are official. FW = 40k = GW = Official. It's all the same game, whether you like the rules or not.
UlrikDecado wrote: Well, at the end of the article is said "If Gamesworkshop were to say Imperial Armour units and rules are now equivalent to standard Codexes, and opponent’s permission is no longer needed, this would all change." Which is about to happend (if I let the already mentioned problem with definition of Standard).
Games Workshop can say an opponent's permission is no longer needed all they want, but its still needed.
Before everyone jumps on you I see what you tried to say.
UlrikDecado wrote: Well, at the end of the article is said "If Gamesworkshop were to say Imperial Armour units and rules are now equivalent to standard Codexes, and opponent’s permission is no longer needed, this would all change." Which is about to happend (if I let the already mentioned problem with definition of Standard).
Games Workshop can say an opponent's permission is no longer needed all they want, but its still needed.
Before everyone jumps on you I see what you tried to say.
You need permission to play every and any game
Exactly, sorry if I didn't come across as such...I wasnt tryng to riddle.
For example, if you go to my local hobby store with a pure-codex Eldar army, there's a near 100% chance you will not get a game. It's just the way it is, and even moreso for forgeworld. So noone around buys the forgeworld stuff for much else than the arts-and-crafts side of the hobby.
UlrikDecado wrote: Well, at the end of the article is said "If Gamesworkshop were to say Imperial Armour units and rules are now equivalent to standard Codexes, and opponent’s permission is no longer needed, this would all change." Which is about to happend (if I let the already mentioned problem with definition of Standard).
Games Workshop can say an opponent's permission is no longer needed all they want, but its still needed.
Of course, its some basic human decency To make agreement I was just pointing to the article which is IMO strongly contradicting.
BrotherOfBone wrote: Let us sip tea while we philosophically think of the answer to the ultimate question... What is a true game of Warhammer 40k?
It's rolling dice with toy soldiers, and if people want to roll dice with underpowered, better-looking toy soldiers than me then I'm fine with that.
Exactly. The only thing one can really say the rules do say is that the game is meant for rolling dice and pushing your toy soldiers around the table. Any restrictions on which toy soldiers you do that with aren't in the rules, they're in the players.
Exactly my point. If you don't want to play against FW then nobody can force you, but I personally think it's ridiculous to do it purely on the grounds of 'Oh it's FW so it must be overpowered because of what I've read on the internet'. You never read 'Today at Adepticon some guy rocked up with a really underpowered FW list which consisted of a load of well-painted, fluffy units and he lost'. You hear 'Today at Adepticon some guy rocked up with a Saberspam/Thudd Gun list and completely obliterated all of his opponents with a shoddy, 3 colour army which he'd bashed together the night before'.
BrotherOfBone wrote: You never read 'Today at Adepticon some guy rocked up with a really underpowered FW list which consisted of a load of well-painted, fluffy units and he lost'. You hear 'Today at Adepticon some guy rocked up with a Saberspam/Thudd Gun list and completely obliterated all of his opponents with a shoddy, 3 colour army which he'd bashed together the night before'.
Ha! I don't think I've ever had this situation: "Hey, you mind if I play with this FW unit? It totally sucks, but I really like the way his fluff fits in to my army".
On the other hand, this has happened multiple times: "Hey TO, can I bring X unit from FW? I want to spam them in my list because they're low points and do a lot of damage".
I'm sure there's someone out there who falls into the first category. Probably. Maybe? I've never met them.
BrotherOfBone wrote: You never read 'Today at Adepticon some guy rocked up with a really underpowered FW list which consisted of a load of well-painted, fluffy units and he lost'. You hear 'Today at Adepticon some guy rocked up with a Saberspam/Thudd Gun list and completely obliterated all of his opponents with a shoddy, 3 colour army which he'd bashed together the night before'.
Ha! I don't think I've ever had this situation: "Hey, you mind if I play with this FW unit? It totally sucks, but I really like the way his fluff fits in to my army".
On the other hand, this has happened multiple times: "Hey TO, can I bring X unit from FW? I want to spam them in my list because they're low points and do a lot of damage".
I'm sure there's someone out there who falls into the first category. Probably. Maybe? I've never met them.
The second kind of player exists in everything, not just FW options though. Blaming FW for those people's behavior is is like blaming a car for the way it's driven.
BrotherOfBone wrote: You never read 'Today at Adepticon some guy rocked up with a really underpowered FW list which consisted of a load of well-painted, fluffy units and he lost'. You hear 'Today at Adepticon some guy rocked up with a Saberspam/Thudd Gun list and completely obliterated all of his opponents with a shoddy, 3 colour army which he'd bashed together the night before'.
Ha! I don't think I've ever had this situation: "Hey, you mind if I play with this FW unit? It totally sucks, but I really like the way his fluff fits in to my army".
On the other hand, this has happened multiple times: "Hey TO, can I bring X unit from FW? I want to spam them in my list because they're low points and do a lot of damage".
I'm sure there's someone out there who falls into the first category. Probably. Maybe? I've never met them.
The second kind of player exists in everything, not just FW options though. Blaming FW for those people's behavior is is like blaming a car for the way it's driven.
I actually tend to have several army setups that are all based on fluff and "reality".
BrotherOfBone wrote: You never read 'Today at Adepticon some guy rocked up with a really underpowered FW list which consisted of a load of well-painted, fluffy units and he lost'. You hear 'Today at Adepticon some guy rocked up with a Saberspam/Thudd Gun list and completely obliterated all of his opponents with a shoddy, 3 colour army which he'd bashed together the night before'.
Ha! I don't think I've ever had this situation: "Hey, you mind if I play with this FW unit? It totally sucks, but I really like the way his fluff fits in to my army".
On the other hand, this has happened multiple times: "Hey TO, can I bring X unit from FW? I want to spam them in my list because they're low points and do a lot of damage".
I'm sure there's someone out there who falls into the first category. Probably. Maybe? I've never met them.
The second kind of player exists in everything, not just FW options though. Blaming FW for those people's behavior is is like blaming a car for the way it's driven.
This ^^ I'm currently putting together a really fluffy Khorne army :3 Led by Kharn and Zuffor (Or whatever his name is xD), loads of Khorne Berserkers footslogging >=D Khorne Dreadnoughts with 2 CCWs (From FW, might I add ;3) supported by a load of Renegades and Heretics (;-; underpowered)
That is what you would call confirmation bias. People who are against FW will look only for examples of their rules being abuses since it serves their purpose better. So, without any hard statistics Id just chalk those examples as anecdotes with little relevance to the argument.
MadmanMSU wrote: Ha! I don't think I've ever had this situation: "Hey, you mind if I play with this FW unit? It totally sucks, but I really like the way his fluff fits in to my army".
On the other hand, this has happened multiple times: "Hey TO, can I bring X unit from FW? I want to spam them in my list because they're low points and do a lot of damage".
I'm sure there's someone out there who falls into the first category. Probably. Maybe? I've never met them.
Yeah and how often do you get people coming to a tournement saying, "Hey I want to play my fluffy army and left all my powerful hard-hitting units at home this time out"? I would expect pretty close to zero. So why would someone with a fluffy forgeworld inclusion show up to play in your tourney?
It is pretty pathetic that the problem really isn't WAAC lists spamming undercosted models, but solely that someone is doing it with forgeworld models. All the necron flyer spammers are A-OK to play in a tourney, even though they are doing the same thing as the forgeworld player you are describing above. They just don't have to ask permission before being a jackhole to their opponents. Same goes for all the other netlists and spam out there that make regular appearances in tournements. Yeah that forgeworld list with undercosted units is so much more offensive than people relying on screamstars and the like. Oh yeah. You really dug out the true tournment offenders there. Why should the forgeworld player be held to a standard that no other players have to meet? If that forgeworld player showed up instead with a necron flyer spam army you wouldn't care in the least.
Stop acting like forgeworld is the problem when it is people in the tournies that are the problem. They are all playing with the same attitude of WAAC, but only the forgeworld player is called to task for it.
MadmanMSU wrote: Ha! I don't think I've ever had this situation: "Hey, you mind if I play with this FW unit? It totally sucks, but I really like the way his fluff fits in to my army".
On the other hand, this has happened multiple times: "Hey TO, can I bring X unit from FW? I want to spam them in my list because they're low points and do a lot of damage".
I'm sure there's someone out there who falls into the first category. Probably. Maybe? I've never met them.
Yeah and how often do you get people coming to a tournement saying, "Hey I want to play my fluffy army and left all my powerful hard-hitting units at home this time out"? I would expect pretty close to zero. So why would someone with a fluffy forgeworld inclusion show up to play in your tourney?
It is pretty pathetic that the problem really isn't WAAC lists spamming undercosted models, but solely that someone is doing it with forgeworld models. All the necron flyer spammers are A-OK to play in a tourney, even though they are doing the same thing as the forgeworld player you are describing above. They just don't have to ask permission before being a jackhole to their opponents. Same goes for all the other netlists and spam out there that make regular appearances in tournements. Yeah that forgeworld list with undercosted units is so much more offensive than people relying on screamstars and the like. Oh yeah. You really dug out the true tournment offenders there. Why should the forgeworld player be held to a standard that no other players have to meet? If that forgeworld player showed up instead with a necron flyer spam army you wouldn't care in the least.
Stop acting like forgeworld is the problem when it is people in the tournies that are the problem. They are all playing with the same attitude of WAAC, but only the forgeworld player is called to task for it.
Skriker
So the argument is let's pile on to the already huge problem with more problems. I fully acknowledge 40k is a bit of a clusterfeth as it is, no question, but the idea that adding more variables to said clusterfeth thus making an even bigger clusterfeth is a good idea is terrible idea.
Crablezworth wrote: So the argument is let's pile on to the already huge problem with more problems. I fully acknowledge 40k is a bit of a clusterfeth as it is, no question, but the idea that adding more variables to said clusterfeth thus making an even bigger clusterfeth is a good idea is terrible idea.
Actually I believe the argument is pointing out a serious hypocrisy in crying foul over FW when so much worse already exists in the game.
As for "make the game worse" it won't really change anything. Gak players will always be gak players regardless what limitations you try placing on them. What it does change is freedom the non-gak players have.
Or are you really trying to shove the game into a little box of what you think it "should" be instead of letting it have the options it was clearly written to allow?
If you refuse to play against my Dark Angels army because it includes a Forge World Whirlwind Hyperios - which you consider to be so overpowered that you have no reasonable chance of winning - then I think that says more about you than me.
Crablezworth wrote: So the argument is let's pile on to the already huge problem with more problems. I fully acknowledge 40k is a bit of a clusterfeth as it is, no question, but the idea that adding more variables to said clusterfeth thus making an even bigger clusterfeth is a good idea is terrible idea.
Yeah thanks for missing the point. The point is the double standard. You can make the most obnoxiously WAAC army as you want from regular codex lists and minis and it is all OK, but as soon as it is done by someone with something from forgeworld suddenly that approach to the game is of the devil and must be stopped and kept from happening. Either spamming undercosted units is bad or it isn't. Forgeworld has nothing to do with it, but the forgeworld player is singled out and ridiculed for asking to include his models that are undercosted in the tourney, when he is really the only one who HAS to ask. Everyone else can spam their undercosted cheese as much as they like.
Your logic isn't unusual from people used against forgeworld, yet GW adds new units and rules to every new codex regularly and people don't complain about that being a terrible idea. I'd rather have some honesty from folks about forgeworld instead of the constant double standard from them. If I complain about an overpowered FW unit I will equally complain about a similar type of undercosted unit from a codex as well. It is just really amusing watching people unload their necron flyer spam army for a game while griping about their opponent's desire to use a single chaos hellblade fighter in their force as so cheesy because it is forgeworld. It is laughable.
Crablezworth wrote: So the argument is let's pile on to the already huge problem with more problems. I fully acknowledge 40k is a bit of a clusterfeth as it is, no question, but the idea that adding more variables to said clusterfeth thus making an even bigger clusterfeth is a good idea is terrible idea.
Or are you really trying to shove the game into a little box of what you think it "should" be instead of letting it have the options it was clearly written to allow?
I'm trying to imagine the insurmountable task on the shoulders of rules judges and TO's as it is and doubling their stress and halving their ability to do their job. We can barely get FAQ's and errata's for what is out now, already a massive issue for the big events.
Crablezworth wrote: So the argument is let's pile on to the already huge problem with more problems. I fully acknowledge 40k is a bit of a clusterfeth as it is, no question, but the idea that adding more variables to said clusterfeth thus making an even bigger clusterfeth is a good idea is terrible idea.
Yeah thanks for missing the point. The point is the double standard. You can make the most obnoxiously WAAC army as you want from regular codex lists and minis and it is all OK, but as soon as it is done by someone with something from forgeworld suddenly that approach to the game is of the devil and must be stopped and kept from happening. Either spamming undercosted units is bad or it isn't. Forgeworld has nothing to do with it, but the forgeworld player is singled out and ridiculed for asking to include his models that are undercosted in the tourney, when he is really the only one who HAS to ask. Everyone else can spam their undercosted cheese as much as they like.
Your logic isn't unusual from people used against forgeworld, yet GW adds new units and rules to every new codex regularly and people don't complain about that being a terrible idea. I'd rather have some honesty from folks about forgeworld instead of the constant double standard from them. If I complain about an overpowered FW unit I will equally complain about a similar type of undercosted unit from a codex as well. It is just really amusing watching people unload their necron flyer spam army for a game while griping about their opponent's desire to use a single chaos hellblade fighter in their force as so cheesy because it is forgeworld. It is laughable.
Skriker
Buddy I own a gakload of forge world, I'm all for forge world, that doesn't change the reality that more and more content = more and more rules issues and in all honesty people can be as entitled as they want about their little toy men, it won't endear you to people with apprehensions and it also won't change the logistical realities that allowing forge world into organized play encompasses.
And you know how I get people to play against forge world? I don’t act like an entitled brat about it.
Crablezworth wrote: So the argument is let's pile on to the already huge problem with more problems. I fully acknowledge 40k is a bit of a clusterfeth as it is, no question, but the idea that adding more variables to said clusterfeth thus making an even bigger clusterfeth is a good idea is terrible idea.
Or are you really trying to shove the game into a little box of what you think it "should" be instead of letting it have the options it was clearly written to allow?
I'm trying to imagine the insurmountable task on the shoulders of rules judges and TO's as it is and doubling their stress and halving their ability to do their job. We can barely get FAQ's and errata's for what is out now, already a massive issue for the big events.
Tournaments don't have to give a single gak about any of this. They solve their problem about the "complexity" of this by banning or restricting anything they want. They've been doing it for years, heck, even GW did it. It's called "Comp".
Tournaments exist outside of the core rules and are use a number of house rules and don't have a single thing to do with games outside of tournaments. Trying to drag tournaments into it is silly because they're their own planet in terms of the game. Let's stop trying to dilute the issue of players not showing each other the same respect based on the name on the package of their toy soldiers came in.
Yes, it's that silly of an issue but one that never seems to die.
Skriker wrote: Yeah and how often do you get people coming to a tournement saying, "Hey I want to play my fluffy army and left all my powerful hard-hitting units at home this time out"?
Quite a bit, actually. We have a few fairly high ranked players around these parts who deliberately use underpowered lists and/or codexes in order to see if they can do well with them.
Skriker wrote: Yeah and how often do you get people coming to a tournement saying, "Hey I want to play my fluffy army and left all my powerful hard-hitting units at home this time out"?
Quite a bit, actually. We have a few fairly high ranked players around these parts who deliberately use underpowered lists and/or codexes in order to see if they can do well with them.
Speaking from experience there is a lot of reward in winning with an army that doesn't measure up to what people call "competitive".
Skriker wrote: Yeah and how often do you get people coming to a tournement saying, "Hey I want to play my fluffy army and left all my powerful hard-hitting units at home this time out"?
Quite a bit, actually. We have a few fairly high ranked players around these parts who deliberately use underpowered lists and/or codexes in order to see if they can do well with them.
Speaking from experience there is a lot of reward in winning with an army that doesn't measure up to what people call "competitive".
I agree :3 It's nice to know your list is more about you, and your tactics, than skill-less power. (I'm looking at you triptides..)
Skriker wrote: Yeah and how often do you get people coming to a tournement saying, "Hey I want to play my fluffy army and left all my powerful hard-hitting units at home this time out"?
Quite a bit, actually. We have a few fairly high ranked players around these parts who deliberately use underpowered lists and/or codexes in order to see if they can do well with them.
Speaking from experience there is a lot of reward in winning with an army that doesn't measure up to what people call "competitive".
I agree :3 It's nice to know your list is more about you, and your tactics, than skill-less power. (I'm looking at you triptides..)
To put it a nerdier way: Batman doesn't beat Bane by being stronger than him, he does it by being better than him.
Skriker wrote: Yeah and how often do you get people coming to a tournement saying, "Hey I want to play my fluffy army and left all my powerful hard-hitting units at home this time out"?
Quite a bit, actually. We have a few fairly high ranked players around these parts who deliberately use underpowered lists and/or codexes in order to see if they can do well with them.
Speaking from experience there is a lot of reward in winning with an army that doesn't measure up to what people call "competitive".
I agree :3 It's nice to know your list is more about you, and your tactics, than skill-less power. (I'm looking at you triptides..)
To put it a nerdier way: Batman doesn't beat Bane by being stronger than him, he does it by being better than him.
Exactly ^_^ Also because of the GADGETS but yeah, because he knows Bane's weakness and exploits it to beat him :3 Every army has a weakness, and if you're smart enough to use that weakness then you can beat them
Crablezworth wrote: So the argument is let's pile on to the already huge problem with more problems. I fully acknowledge 40k is a bit of a clusterfeth as it is, no question, but the idea that adding more variables to said clusterfeth thus making an even bigger clusterfeth is a good idea is terrible idea.
Or are you really trying to shove the game into a little box of what you think it "should" be instead of letting it have the options it was clearly written to allow?
I'm trying to imagine the insurmountable task on the shoulders of rules judges and TO's as it is and doubling their stress and halving their ability to do their job. We can barely get FAQ's and errata's for what is out now, already a massive issue for the big events.
Tournaments don't have to give a single gak about any of this. They solve their problem about the "complexity" of this by banning or restricting anything they want. They've been doing it for years, heck, even GW did it. It's called "Comp".
Tournaments exist outside of the core rules and are use a number of house rules and don't have a single thing to do with games outside of tournaments. Trying to drag tournaments into it is silly because they're their own planet in terms of the game. Let's stop trying to dilute the issue of players not showing each other the same respect based on the name on the package of their toy soldiers came in.
Yes, it's that silly of an issue but one that never seems to die.
Im confused. Sholdnt this discussion be ONLY about the legality or not of using forgeworld in tournaments, since everything else can just be agreed or disagreed on by the players if its just casual games. I thought the whole point was trying to get forgeworld accepted into every main tournament type. Or is it just trying to get a few people on the fence to see it as a legitimate part of the game. To be clear, I find that for casual games, most forgeworld is perfectly fine, as the regular game has cheese too. But throw all those unacounted for units in a tournament setting, and it becomes to complicated and unpredictable. Your not gonna settle a ruling with a dice off when cash and prizes are on the line.
Orock wrote: Im confused. Sholdnt this discussion be ONLY about the legality or not of using forgeworld in tournaments, since everything else can just be agreed or disagreed on by the players if its just casual games.
If that was the case this would need to be in the "Tournament Discussions" sub-forum not "General 40k". Also they have (had?) a thread about it and the even the pro-FW folks said tournaments do what they need to for their events.
Orock wrote: I thought the whole point was trying to get forgeworld accepted into every main tournament type. Or is it just trying to get a few people on the fence to see it as a legitimate part of the game.
It's about getting people to stop accusing people of really gakky reasons for wanting FW, to make it clear the game supports FW for normal games just fine and that people who keep trying to create this imaginary box that 40k sits in that needs the Word of God (or Tom Kirby) to change are doing a lot more harm than good, as well as pushing something that shouldn't even exist.
At least that's my stance.
Orock wrote: To be clear, I find that for casual games, most forgeworld is perfectly fine, as the regular game has cheese too. But throw all those unacounted for units in a tournament setting, and it becomes to complicated and unpredictable. Your not gonna settle a ruling with a dice off when cash and prizes are on the line.
Personally I give half an imaginary gak about tournaments anymore. I've seen people get too carried away about what is supposed a fun game to care about them anymore. Plus a lot of this "No FW on my watch!" stuff comes from tournament players who don't want their meta, even the meta outside of tournaments, screwed with. It's notevery anti-FW person, but it' has been a thing I've noticed.
Crablez - allowing FW into our tournaments, and those I go to regularly, hasnt noticeably increased the headache and stress on a TOs head. Hell, almost none of the stress of running a tournament is making rules calls - the vast majority are sorted between players. Most of the stress is before the day, and before / during game one. After that mostly plain sailing
Yes, it is a litlte more prework, making sure you have an idea where the most recent rules are - however that is just part and parcel of being a TO.
I personally find having FW included in tournaments vastly increases my enjoyment in attending and running them, as frankly you see far more pretty models that way.
Oh. and as for the peopel saying they dont see people asking to use underpowered FW stuff? I run a twin CCW decimator, MoK, because it looks awesome. No other reason.
Armies taken from fw books are legal in gw tournements but apocalypse formation therein are not. if people are going to be ah's about it simply use the models as proxies (supposing your doing it for the models that is).
nosferatu1001 wrote: Crablez - allowing FW into our tournaments, and those I go to regularly, hasnt noticeably increased the headache and stress on a TOs head. Hell, almost none of the stress of running a tournament is making rules calls - the vast majority are sorted between players. Most of the stress is before the day, and before / during game one. After that mostly plain sailing
Yes, it is a litlte more prework, making sure you have an idea where the most recent rules are - however that is just part and parcel of being a TO.
I personally find having FW included in tournaments vastly increases my enjoyment in attending and running them, as frankly you see far more pretty models that way.
Oh. and as for the peopel saying they dont see people asking to use underpowered FW stuff? I run a twin CCW decimator, MoK, because it looks awesome. No other reason.
How many players? Where was it held?
We had toyed with the idea of allowing forgeworld (small tournament, 10 players) in the past and ran into another problem, it was being held in a FLGS that was concerned about people not having the actual books, which was a massive problem because everyone just pirates the FW books, and for obvious reasons only have print out sheets of the rules. I'm not condoning piracy, but that was the reality of the situation and in a lot of ways I can't fault somone who already owns the original taros campaign for not wanting to drop another 100$ to run a couple units. Basically requiring people have the current FW book required to run their unit or units was enough to remove FW from t he menu right from the get go. I like forgewolrd but it's not just a political problem its a logistical quagmire. I can understand an FLGS not wanting to risk losing their ability to sell GW stuff, it also is a pissoff for them because they sell codex and they can obviously see a slippery slope for their own bottom line and I don't blame them.
BarBoBot wrote: Reecius runs some of the biggest tournements in the US, and he allows 40k approved FW units.
The bay area open also doesn't allow scratch built stuff so he is a business man first, nothing wrong with that I guess. I believe you're required to have the appropriate fw book or books no?
I think we can debate legality forever, how about we debate practicality?
nosferatu1001 wrote: Crablez - allowing FW into our tournaments, and those I go to regularly, hasnt noticeably increased the headache and stress on a TOs head. Hell, almost none of the stress of running a tournament is making rules calls - the vast majority are sorted between players. Most of the stress is before the day, and before / during game one. After that mostly plain sailing
Yes, it is a litlte more prework, making sure you have an idea where the most recent rules are - however that is just part and parcel of being a TO.
I personally find having FW included in tournaments vastly increases my enjoyment in attending and running them, as frankly you see far more pretty models that way.
Oh. and as for the peopel saying they dont see people asking to use underpowered FW stuff? I run a twin CCW decimator, MoK, because it looks awesome. No other reason.
How many players? Where was it held?
We had toyed with the idea of allowing forgeworld (small tournament, 10 players) in the past and ran into another problem, it was being held in a FLGS that was concerned about people not having the actual books, which was a massive problem because everyone just pirates the FW books, and for obvious reasons only have print out sheets of the rules. I'm not condoning piracy, but that was the reality of the situation and in a lot of ways I can't fault somone who already owns the original taros campaign for not wanting to drop another 100$ to run a couple units. Basically requiring people have the current FW book required to run their unit or units was enough to remove FW from t he menu right from the get go. I like forgewolrd but it's not just a political problem its a logistical quagmire. I can understand an FLGS not wanting to risk losing their ability to sell GW stuff, it also is a pissoff for them because they sell codex and they can obviously see a slippery slope for their own bottom line and I don't blame them.
Your post is really confusing me.
How is allowing FW in a tournment risks a FLGS's losing their ability to sell GW stuff?
I also wish to point out even people who own the FW books, will make copies of their own book's army lists instead of bringing the whole book to a tournament. Most people don't want their fancy/expensive FW books getting beat up in the hustle and bustle of tournament play.
In all honesty I can tell you why most FLGS's probly don't allow FW. FLGS's usely don't let FW in their tournaments not because it's a "logistics nightmare", like you said. Most store owners don't want to allow it because they can't sell it to you... Tournaments help promote sales at the FLGS that hosts them. But if the tournament allows FW and starts to encourage people to but a product that the store owner isn't even able to sell you? Well that just defeated the purpose of WHY he hosted the tournament in the 1st place.
Potentially this is lost revenue from the gaming space not pulling it's weight and making enough money to pay for it's square footage and bringing in employees to support the events.
If you could walk into thows stores and buy FW off the self like any other GW product this wouldn't be a issue.
Lockark has the truth of it, FLGS's don't risk anything having customers pirate FW books, GW's not going to take it out on them. They ban FW because they don't sell FW, and FLGS Touranments are events designed to help drive in-store sales.
Vaktathi wrote: Lockark has the truth of it, FLGS's don't risk anything having customers pirate FW books, GW's not going to take it out on them. They ban FW because they don't sell FW, and FLGS Touranments are events designed to help drive in-store sales.
Exactly.
It's kinda a crap shoot allowing FW in your store events... =/ If the event just starts getting people to go out and start buying FW stuff, then the event failed...
Unless you got a bunch of ork players.... Because no ork player buys the FW stuff. They just convert the units.
XD
Eh, depends, I go to my store specifically because it allows FW, they sometimes order and sell FW stuff as well, and I buy stuff there because they let me use my FW stuff that I'd normally buy elsewhere.
nosferatu1001 wrote: Crablez - allowing FW into our tournaments, and those I go to regularly, hasnt noticeably increased the headache and stress on a TOs head. Hell, almost none of the stress of running a tournament is making rules calls - the vast majority are sorted between players. Most of the stress is before the day, and before / during game one. After that mostly plain sailing
Yes, it is a litlte more prework, making sure you have an idea where the most recent rules are - however that is just part and parcel of being a TO.
I personally find having FW included in tournaments vastly increases my enjoyment in attending and running them, as frankly you see far more pretty models that way.
Oh. and as for the peopel saying they dont see people asking to use underpowered FW stuff? I run a twin CCW decimator, MoK, because it looks awesome. No other reason.
How many players? Where was it held?
We had toyed with the idea of allowing forgeworld (small tournament, 10 players) in the past and ran into another problem, it was being held in a FLGS that was concerned about people not having the actual books, which was a massive problem because everyone just pirates the FW books, and for obvious reasons only have print out sheets of the rules. I'm not condoning piracy, but that was the reality of the situation and in a lot of ways I can't fault somone who already owns the original taros campaign for not wanting to drop another 100$ to run a couple units. Basically requiring people have the current FW book required to run their unit or units was enough to remove FW from t he menu right from the get go. I like forgewolrd but it's not just a political problem its a logistical quagmire. I can understand an FLGS not wanting to risk losing their ability to sell GW stuff, it also is a pissoff for them because they sell codex and they can obviously see a slippery slope for their own bottom line and I don't blame them.
Your post is really confusing me.
How is allowing FW in a tournment risks a FLGS's losing their ability to sell GW stuff?
I also wish to point out even people who own the FW books, will make copies of their own book's army lists instead of bringing the whole book to a tournament. Most people don't want their fancy/expensive FW books getting beat up in the hustle and bustle of tournament play.
In all honesty I can tell you why most FLGS's probly don't allow FW. FLGS's usely don't let FW in their tournaments not because it's a "logistics nightmare", like you said. Most store owners don't want to allow it because they can't sell it to you... Tournaments help promote sales at the FLGS that hosts them. But if the tournament allows FW and starts to encourage people to but a product that the store owner isn't even able to sell you? Well that just defeated the purpose of WHY he hosted the tournament in the 1st place.
Potentially this is lost revenue from the gaming space not pulling it's weight and making enough money to pay for it's square footage and bringing in employees to support the events.
If you could walk into thows stores and buy FW off the self like any other GW product this wouldn't be a issue.
Buddy I have no idea what the store is actually risking by allowing people to bring print outs instead of requiring the ownership of the actual books, however they're hosting the tournament in their store. I could be a petulant child and end up having to rent expensive hotel space or I could play ball and acquiesce to their demands. You still have to bring the codex for your army, those money grubbing bastard flgs owners, it’s a conspiracy to make us pay for things in their store… Look whether their fear of GW cancelling their trade accounts is just a cover for their own apparently “malevolent” agenda I don't know, but it seems like a valid concern on their part because word spreads fast and anyone can write an e-mail.
It doesn't seem worth the headache or financial loss to try and rent a hall for a very small tournament, so there it is.
The point is, just requiring players to own the actual rulebook for their fw model was enough to kill the idea, which says something about how much pirating goes on in relation to running FW models and is a valid concern when it comes to the practicality of allowing FW in organized gaming.
Think of it like this, with all the ebook and ipad stuff, its a bit harder to verify whether one's codex and or supplement legit or not, some bring tablets, others prints, and hell even if its on a tablet or phone or laptop or whatever, no guarantee it isn't pirated. Right now, FW stuff is not digital, maybe it will be less of an issue if they go digital, but right now, physical books.
Vaktathi wrote: Eh, depends, I go to my store specifically because it allows FW, they sometimes order and sell FW stuff as well, and I buy stuff there because they let me use my FW stuff that I'd normally buy elsewhere.
Before I moved form one side of the country to the other I use to play at a FLGS that was awesome and allowed us to us FW in the games. Heck he didn't even sell FW but decided to allow it since people wanted it. I loved playing their and the community they had.
The point I was trying to make, is that I think it's very reasonable for a FLGS to make the choice to not allow you to use stuff that they can't even sell you.
nosferatu1001 wrote: Crablez - allowing FW into our tournaments, and those I go to regularly, hasnt noticeably increased the headache and stress on a TOs head. Hell, almost none of the stress of running a tournament is making rules calls - the vast majority are sorted between players. Most of the stress is before the day, and before / during game one. After that mostly plain sailing
Yes, it is a litlte more prework, making sure you have an idea where the most recent rules are - however that is just part and parcel of being a TO.
I personally find having FW included in tournaments vastly increases my enjoyment in attending and running them, as frankly you see far more pretty models that way.
Oh. and as for the peopel saying they dont see people asking to use underpowered FW stuff? I run a twin CCW decimator, MoK, because it looks awesome. No other reason.
How many players? Where was it held?
We had toyed with the idea of allowing forgeworld (small tournament, 10 players) in the past and ran into another problem, it was being held in a FLGS that was concerned about people not having the actual books, which was a massive problem because everyone just pirates the FW books, and for obvious reasons only have print out sheets of the rules. I'm not condoning piracy, but that was the reality of the situation and in a lot of ways I can't fault somone who already owns the original taros campaign for not wanting to drop another 100$ to run a couple units. Basically requiring people have the current FW book required to run their unit or units was enough to remove FW from t he menu right from the get go. I like forgewolrd but it's not just a political problem its a logistical quagmire. I can understand an FLGS not wanting to risk losing their ability to sell GW stuff, it also is a pissoff for them because they sell codex and they can obviously see a slippery slope for their own bottom line and I don't blame them.
Your post is really confusing me.
How is allowing FW in a tournment risks a FLGS's losing their ability to sell GW stuff?
I also wish to point out even people who own the FW books, will make copies of their own book's army lists instead of bringing the whole book to a tournament. Most people don't want their fancy/expensive FW books getting beat up in the hustle and bustle of tournament play.
In all honesty I can tell you why most FLGS's probly don't allow FW. FLGS's usely don't let FW in their tournaments not because it's a "logistics nightmare", like you said. Most store owners don't want to allow it because they can't sell it to you... Tournaments help promote sales at the FLGS that hosts them. But if the tournament allows FW and starts to encourage people to but a product that the store owner isn't even able to sell you? Well that just defeated the purpose of WHY he hosted the tournament in the 1st place.
Potentially this is lost revenue from the gaming space not pulling it's weight and making enough money to pay for it's square footage and bringing in employees to support the events.
If you could walk into thows stores and buy FW off the self like any other GW product this wouldn't be a issue.
Buddy I have no idea what the store is actually risking by allowing people to bring print outs instead of requiring the ownership of the actual books, however they're hosting the tournament in their store. I could be a petulant child and end up having to rent expensive hotel space or I could play ball and acquiesce to their demands. You still have to bring the codex for your army, those money grubbing bastard flgs owners, it’s a conspiracy to make us pay for things in their store… Look whether their fear of GW cancelling their trade accounts is just a cover for their own apparently “malevolent” agenda I don't know, but it seems like a valid concern on their part because word spreads fast and anyone can write an e-mail.
It doesn't seem worth the headache or financial loss to try and rent a hall for a very small tournament, so there it is.
The point is, just requiring players to own the actual rulebook for their fw model was enough to kill the idea, which says something about how much pirating goes on in relation to running FW models and is a valid concern when it comes to the practicality of allowing FW in organized gaming.
Think of it like this, with all the ebook and ipad stuff, its a bit harder to verify whether one's codex and or supplement legit or not, some bring tablets, others prints, and hell even if its on a tablet or phone or laptop or whatever, no guarantee it isn't pirated. Right now, FW stuff is not digital, maybe it will be less of an issue if they go digital, but right now, physical books.
I'm not sure if I follow.
You thought I was bashing FLGS's that don't allow FW? Because I was trying to be neutral, and point out the finical reasons why a store would not wish to allow it.
Also I don't disagree with that you should own the book you want to play, but I don't see how that effects the TO. The TO doesn't need to own the book as long as the player has a valid copy of his own book. Alot of TO's i've knowen only owned the core book and a hand full of the more popular codexs. These never even owned all of the Codexs and Army Books.
Crable - over 100 players, Bristol, and 60 or so at their last campaign weekend. You were required to bring the actual book, no PDFs. Simple. Our tournaments were 40 or so. These were all gaming clubs, but Bristol have a strong affiliation to a gaming store
More enlightened shop owners realisencouraging people who have the money to buy FW are likely to have a reasonable amount of disposable income in general, and pretty models make tournaments prettier,
Formosa wrote: Fw models in a gw book... Surely not!! Cos fw isn't gw, escalation don't not exist, it's all imagination.
FW models in a GW book that says the options inside are to be treated no differently than allies or fortification rules.
Shhhh someone may hear you talking about 2 totally separate companies like there not, they may create an elaborate facade over the space of a decade to try to stop others spending there money and having fun in an "illegal" and "overpowered" way, keep Mum
Crablezworth wrote: Buddy I own a gakload of forge world, I'm all for forge world, that doesn't change the reality that more and more content = more and more rules issues and in all honesty people can be as entitled as they want about their little toy men, it won't endear you to people with apprehensions and it also won't change the logistical realities that allowing forge world into organized play encompasses.
And you know how I get people to play against forge world? I don’t act like an entitled brat about it.
Please show me anywhere that I said forge world should be allowed into organized play, because I DIDN'T. All I discussed was the double standard people have towards those who have forge world models, plain and simple and how for some using forge world instantly equates to TFG status, while those same people ignore those who are clearly TFGs, but don't label them such because they don't use forge world. You are the one who keeps harping on the tournement inclusion angle, Buddy. If anyone is coming across as a brat it would be you in your pendantic response talking of acting entitled when you don't know me in the least. The funniest thing is that this double standard has ZERO impact on my life or my use of my forge world models because I play 100% of my games with a group of mature adults who love seeing new models and don't start whining about them when they see them and instead ask for the rules to digest and learn about them. Works wonders and I don't have to act like a brat either to get that response. Imagine that... Despite the fact I don't worry about the double standard myself doesn't mean I can't recognize it and talk about it, though.
So having talked to the local GW store, and the GW company rep that visited last week the new books and super heavy models are legal for play and do not require prior permission for their use. Is there something in the books that make this stance unclear? I am asking because I am truly interested. The amount of debate I am seeing seems to indicate that something is unclear or is it that just alot of people don't like the rules?
Ok, so who is making the decision that it is not allowable in competative play? The leagues at my store are saying that they are legal according to GW and that is that. The last con I attended said they would be treating them as allowable as soon as the books were out. So what is competative play?
Same as they always have done: the TO for each event decides what is and isnt allowed at their event.
The fact that a few years ago there was near universal no-FW, with that slowly changing, doesnt alter that the only people saying you cant use X in a tournament are TOs, as they are the people deciding to run the tournament.
GW says its legal (it is)and balanced for 40k(its not
)
players know better, so in competitive play, they are are out.
Seriously? This argument? Of all the arguments you will pull this nonsense out? Okay then.... So FW is unbalanced. Yeah, arguably it is weaker than the normal codex. Oh but GW books are totally balanced! Just like scraemerstar 2++ invulns rerollable..... oh and don't forget the tau buffmander triptide funzies! Oh, and didn't you just love the beginning of the edition when you couldn't expect to not see every army spamming vendettas, heldrakes, or the flying crousseant of necron flyer spam? Oh but fliers are so last year let's get up on our Seerstar, our Taudar, and did I forget to mention FMC spam and wraithserpent spam. Oh how could I?
I'm very sorry if it sounded rude, but seriously this is literally the worst argument out there. Many FW upgrades and models aren't worth it. Many are overpriced, many are balanced or overpowered. But, just like the codices, one or two broken things will always be there and always capable of being exploited. Is it good that such things exist? No, but GW (FW is GW even if they at least do beta tests) doesn't really care about balance all that much anyways.
There are plenty of over powered forgeworld units' but it's not really important. As you say, there are plenty of over powered units in regular 40k and bickering over which is the most op isn't really important.
Regardless, i look forward to the very same people who screamed until they were blue in the face that forgeworld was 100% legal, accept the same with escalation and allow their army to be smashed to peices by a titan. Every single time.
xruslanx wrote: There are plenty of over powered forgeworld units' but it's not really important. As you say, there are plenty of over powered units in regular 40k and bickering over which is the most op isn't really important.
Regardless, i look forward to the very same people who screamed until they were blue in the face that forgeworld was 100% legal, accept the same with escalation and allow their army to be smashed to peices by a titan. Every single time.
The intelligent ones will accept that it's legal and, if they decide not to, won't play a game against a super heavy.
xruslanx wrote: so they'd house-rule that no titans are allowed?
That isnt a house rule. It is exercising your part of the social contract that is the game, and stating you do not wish to play a game against a titan for X reason.
The reason just isnt the same as the falsehood that is "FW isnt legal", the reason given to deny many people games with FW models.
Will meet your jellybean and offer a jelly baby. Seriously though that is the response I have always thought was the best one. I have used it more than once at my local store with the uber competative tourny players that spend all their time arguing rules and sucking the fun out of the game t the point where I just decide I am not going to play them anymore.
xruslanx wrote: so they'd house-rule that no titans are allowed?
No. They'd just opt not to play that game if they didn't want to.
Just like you're free to do against a list with FW units.
this is the correct answer. Have a jellybean.
So ... what was your point? The people that "scream FW is 100% legal" are the ones advocating for that exact approach. Were you just trying to get a negative reaction out of someone?
xruslanx wrote: There are plenty of over powered forgeworld units' but it's not really important. As you say, there are plenty of over powered units in regular 40k and bickering over which is the most op isn't really important.
Regardless, i look forward to the very same people who screamed until they were blue in the face that forgeworld was 100% legal, accept the same with escalation and allow their army to be smashed to peices by a titan. Every single time.
Or since the vast majority of FW is less powerful than normal options we will probably defeat titans in almost every game, especially against people who just buy one out of the blue and have no clue what they are doing. There is not a single FW model more powerful point for point that a wave serpent, Grimore or Tau tool kit commander.
How long is a Baneblade or a Revenant or an anything going to last to 20 Sterngard poding down, or a Guard firing line that takes 3-4 Russes for every Baneblade (not to mention however many ungodly 'bring it down' weapon teams)? The overpoweredness was already in the basic codex book., A standard Tau list or serpent spam will run roughshod over your typical FW carrying player.
One thing that will happen is that the bigger the model the quicker the game, and probably a larger uptick towards higher point games, that is a separate but important consideration.
rigeld2 wrote: So ... what was your point? The people that "scream FW is 100% legal" are the ones advocating for that exact approach. Were you just trying to get a negative reaction out of someone?
Funny, but the Forge world crowd have never tried to push super heavies into the game at all, despite them being forge world, because that is a completely different line to cross. The escalation supplement is just stupid IMNSHO. If people want to include a super heavy in a game there is nothing stopping them from doing that when playing games with their regular crew and relying on the super heavy rules in the various apocalypse books from GW and FW. Everyone one agrees, then no harm no foul. Escalation pretty much forces everyone who plays in store type environments to do it which I don't like. My group doesn't have any problems with forge world, though the few overpowered 40k units are generally discouraged. We will also probably just ignore escalation except for the occaisional battle where people want to break out the super heavies because not everyone has a super heavy in their collection, nor can they afford one given the few options some armies have available. A lot of the imbalances people whined about from people using forge world were not really there, especially among the 40k units, with just a handful of actual offenders, most FW units would not just out right win games for you. Now GW comes along and pushes super heavies into ANY game of 40k regardless. Yay...thanks for that GW. Now the people who want/can spend the ludicrous amount of money for them really CAN dominate games in a local meta unless everyone does it. Escalation is far more significant an abuse to the power level of the game than forge world ever was.
Played a game this Sunday with Escalation and Stronghold rules. Necron and Space Marines vs Chaos with the scenario of Bunker from Stronghold. Super heavies were used by Chaos and fortifications were used by Necron/Space Marines and I have to say the game went fine, nothing came across as broken or outragous. The store owner played Chaos and we all agreed that it is something we want to do again.
Stormdrake wrote: Played a game this Sunday with Escalation and Stronghold rules. Necron and Space Marines vs Chaos with the scenario of Bunker from Stronghold. Super heavies were used by Chaos and fortifications were used by Necron/Space Marines and I have to say the game went fine, nothing came across as broken or outragous. The store owner played Chaos and we all agreed that it is something we want to do again.
Funny, but the Forge world crowd have never tried to push super heavies into the game at all, despite them being forge world, because that is a completely different line to cross. The escalation supplement is just stupid..... Now GW comes along and pushes super heavies into ANY game of 40k regardless
I do think that is really the most hilarious part. Almost none of the pro-FW people (myself included) have seriously wanted to bring FW superheavies in. Mostly we are talking about the normal vehicle-sized stuff like Hornets, Imperial Guard tanks, etc. And all the anti-FW people cry about how the war machine scale stuff is too overpowered, and cry "if GW wanted such OP Forgeworld stuff to be a part of the official game, they would!".
But then GW goes and makes the warmachine-scale stuff a legal part of the game.
Now people can trounce armies with Revenant Titans. But thanks the gods above noone has to play against a Repressor tank inmy SoB army. Oh, the horror!
Indeed, that's what continually amazes me. Everything people freaked out about when it came to Forgeworld (Titans, Superheavy tanks, Flyers, Gargantuan Creatures, etc) were never usable in "normal" games by FW rules (barring the flyers, which are now Codex units), and then GW goes and makes them so, and people still treat FW like it's some weird homebrew ruleset.
The cognitive dissonance in a group of the 40k playerbase that just irrationally avoids anything Forgeworld is really silly. They'll play against a Stompa or a rerollable 2+invul save deathstar, but won't let me play a DKoK list...
xruslanx wrote: There are plenty of over powered forgeworld units' but it's not really important. As you say, there are plenty of over powered units in regular 40k and bickering over which is the most op isn't really important.
Regardless, i look forward to the very same people who screamed until they were blue in the face that forgeworld was 100% legal, accept the same with escalation and allow their army to be smashed to peices by a titan. Every single time.
Or since the vast majority of FW is less powerful than normal options we will probably defeat titans in almost every game, especially against people who just buy one out of the blue and have no clue what they are doing. There is not a single FW model more powerful point for point that a wave serpent, Grimore or Tau tool kit commander.
Not 100% accurate.
The reason the Tau toolkit is so good is only because of the riptide honestly, they just mesh in unintended (yet legal) way
As for the WS...Sabers out-OP it.
But out of the titanic number of FW models, that it.
And most others are considered outright subpar to their codex counterparts. many of them downright unplayable (did you SEE heavy gun drones? its like an inferior version of the already subpar stealth suit, but in HS instead of elite)
Rapiers are amazing too, but the 40k variant is guard only I think, the str9 Ord and tl makes it a great tank hunter for relatively cheap points, I don't think other armies have an artillery piece that compares well to be fair.
I'm not gonna go through 18 pages of a thread to state the obvious.
Yes its f*cking legal. Look at what FW released to support Escalation. Look at what GW released in escalation. Eldar Rev Titans are FW models.
This debate is officially ended for anyone thinking other wise. If you don't agree I hope you sell your army and refuse to play anymore. Let it go you're a jerk-off.
lobbywatson wrote: If you don't agree I hope you sell your army and refuse to play anymore.
Or play at Warhammer World
Spoiler:
If the event you are attending is using the
Warhammer 40,000 system, the following
publications (either digital or printed) are available
for you to choose your armies from:
• Codex: Adepta Sororitas
• Codex: Blood Angels
• Codex: Chaos Daemons
• Codex: Chaos Space Marines
• Codex: Dark Angels
• Codex: Dark Eldar
• Codex: Eldar
• Codex: Grey Knights
• Codex: Imperial Guard
• Codex: Inquisition
• Codex: Necrons
• Codex: Orks
• Codex: Space Marines
• Codex: Space Wolves
• Codex: Tau Empire
• Codex: Tyranids
• All Warhammer 40,000 Dataslate publications
from Games Workshop: Digital Editions
• Any Codex Expansion, for example Iyandan,
the Farsight Enclaves, Black Legion etc.
• Rules and unit entries from pages 34 - 81 of
Escalation.
• Rules and unit entries from pages 12 - 36 of
Stronghold Assault.
• Death from the Skies – please note this
compendium from pages 53 to 72 will be in use
at all our Warhammer 40,000 events. Entries
will be replaced as time goes by, as Codexes are
released which include the units presented within
Death from the Skies. We expect everyone to use
the most recently released version of each unit
entry. If you have any questions regarding this,
please just contact us.
lobbywatson wrote: If you don't agree I hope you sell your army and refuse to play anymore.
Or play at Warhammer World
Only their Throne of Skulls events disallow FW stuff, other events run there use FW stuff, and there's no restriction against using FW for pickup play there.
lobbywatson wrote: If you don't agree I hope you sell your army and refuse to play anymore.
Or play at Warhammer World
Only their Throne of Skulls events disallow FW stuff, other events run there use FW stuff, and there's no restriction against using FW for pickup play there.
Never said there were. But a "division" used for Throne of Skulls is still a viable "division" to draw for pick-up games too.
Nobody's denying anyone the right to play Forge World if both players want to do that. Just pointing out that leaving Forge World "out" is still an equally viable and commonly practiced form of game. Being rather rude to people who enjoy their 40K "Throne-of-Skulls-style", as lobbywatson was, or to argue that their 40K was somehow "wrong" seems to be misguided.
That said, it isn't just Throne of Skulls. It applies to their Campaign Weekends and whatnot as well.
I thought their weekend campaigns allowed it, I could have sworn I saw someone posting about using a Servants of Decay list in one of their events, though it's entirely possible I could be wrong or the policy has since changed.
Vaktathi wrote: I thought their weekend campaigns allowed it, I could have sworn I saw someone posting about using a Servants of Decay list in one of their events, though it's entirely possible I could be wrong or the policy has since changed.
Long story short: There probably is no "one policy". There are games/events with Forge World. There are games/events without Forge World. Pick-up games should be able to do it too, and nobody should get harassed or insulted for preferring a Forge World-free pick-up game if they so choose.
lobbywatson wrote: If you don't agree I hope you sell your army and refuse to play anymore.
Or play at Warhammer World
Spoiler:
If the event you are attending is using the
Warhammer 40,000 system, the following
publications (either digital or printed) are available
for you to choose your armies from:
• Codex: Adepta Sororitas
• Codex: Blood Angels
• Codex: Chaos Daemons
• Codex: Chaos Space Marines
• Codex: Dark Angels
• Codex: Dark Eldar
• Codex: Eldar
• Codex: Grey Knights
• Codex: Imperial Guard
• Codex: Inquisition
• Codex: Necrons
• Codex: Orks
• Codex: Space Marines
• Codex: Space Wolves
• Codex: Tau Empire
• Codex: Tyranids
• All Warhammer 40,000 Dataslate publications
from Games Workshop: Digital Editions
• Any Codex Expansion, for example Iyandan,
the Farsight Enclaves, Black Legion etc.
• Rules and unit entries from pages 34 - 81 of
Escalation.
• Rules and unit entries from pages 12 - 36 of
Stronghold Assault.
• Death from the Skies – please note this
compendium from pages 53 to 72 will be in use
at all our Warhammer 40,000 events. Entries
will be replaced as time goes by, as Codexes are
released which include the units presented within
Death from the Skies. We expect everyone to use
the most recently released version of each unit
entry. If you have any questions regarding this,
please just contact us.
Well I live in the states. Problem solved. Me and my Eldar Hornets will stay here and mock people afraid of them.
Well if you do that you're probably a masochist anyway, so dealing with idiotic "no FW" house rules isn't really any different than dealing with their idiotic rules about conversions/non-GW models/etc. In fact, allowing Revenant titans while banning LR Conquerors only enhances the misery of playing in an official GW "tournament".
CthuluIsSpy wrote: Wouldn't that be a contradiction? Revs are from Forge World.
Correct, but their rules are not.
Same rules in the GW books (Apoc and Escalation) as FW last I knew. Other than Hull Points replacing stricture points I don't recall any other changes to it in a while,
Ailaros wrote: This topic has come up a lot. Nothing changes. There is no consensus.
Keep checking on this thread, but all you'll get is a fanatic-to-jihad levels of pro-forgeworld people who will copy/paste the 40k seal as if by the pure power of regurgitation, people will agree with them.
And the people who disagree for lots of good, nuanced reasons won't bother typing, because they've already said their peace, and don't like getting barfed on.
I see you've added "racist" to your style (or should that be "religionist" ?)
Exactly, Rev titan rules are from standard 40k and the official model is made by Forge World. If that doesnt show that FW and GW are one and the same, then you arguing for the sake of arguing.
There There aren't any. The only reason people let Revs in games is because games workshop put out out a book that said these these models can be used in normal 40k. Even IA11 had the "these models are good for normal 40k, but tell people people first" thing. It's not new. The people who don't like like forgeworld are the ones who read the experimental rules and see that it's underpriced, and so they base everything off of that. Of course, some models in the official productions are stupid powerful, but instead of losing out on games
Imperator_Class wrote: Exactly, Rev titan rules are from standard 40k and the official model is made by Forge World. If that doesnt show that FW and GW are one and the same, then you arguing for the sake of arguing.
Define standard 40k. Where do you draw the line? Obviously Apoc is a boundary yet it was the "standard" 40k that broke this wall? So where do you put the line? In 6th edition codices? Only the primary codex? Supplements? Extension books? IA? Where is the line drawn? Why there? What makes it acceptable for a foe to deploy a Rev titan yet not a decemator? You could argue the Decemator is hard to get, expensive, etc... yet is not the rev titan drastically more expensive? Apologies, just don't get the divide. Also fw models have GW written all over them
I really dont udnerstand this debate. Multiple people pretty much offered proof that its legal, so the obvious outcome would come down to:
"Its legal, but you dont have to play it if you dont want to."
And Tournaments have their own set of rules anyway, so whats the point in screaming bloody murder? Just dont attend if you disagree with the ruleset.
I would not play against Forgeworld because I dont want to dig into the rules for the models. Its allready hard enough wrapping your head around the factions (and their sub-factions, bloody Space Marine Chapters.), so I seriously dont want even MORE stuff on the table that i have to research first (This may change in the future, when I ahve a decent grasp on the whole thing). But I dont mind other people playing it, the models look really cool for the most part and i've seen some amazing paintjobs.
And, truth be told, I have a hard time believing that the "Extremist"-variants of "Forgeworld-Pro" and "Forgeworld-Anti" even exist. I have yet to see or read about people forcing other people to play with Forgeworld by being hold at gunpoint. And I have yet to see a _single_ person trying (And succeeding!) to get Forgeworld banned for everyone at a local store or Club.
And one last remark about the whole "I dont want to have to ask first.": I dont meant to sound rude, but as long as there is no law that forces people to play with you, you will have to communicate with your partner before a game, Forgeworld or not. I've seen people packing up after realising the other person is getting out Faction X or Unit X because "I dont like to play against X". The same with unpainted models, proxies or whatever. Its your own fault if you think that everyone will just accept whatever you dump on the table and then run with it.
nosferatu1001 wrote: Stuebi - would you play against a new codex, one you hadnt seen before?
Genuine question
Currently, no I wouldnt. Im pretty much trying to get my head around the rules and getting a feel for the faction specific rules. But just like with Forgeworld, once I have a steady grip on the basics, we can talk about supplements, a new Codex or indeed Forgeworld. Its not just because I want to decrease the load of Rules and stats I have to study, its also probably really annoying for people to play against me. Imagine your opponent literally having to ask each round "Wait, what were these again?" "What does that thing do?", its awkward and breaks the flow.
Fair enogh - however I would say that is still one of the best ways to learn the game, or at least it was for most people I know
I often find "would you like a game - I'm new, still learning the rules" or "I've not seen that dex before, so please bear with me" work brilliantly - even at tournaments if you see unusual unit choices or combinations it happens.
It can break the flow of a game if you let it - if the game is mainly a conversation punctuated by rolling dice and moving models, not so much
This and the alternative/proxy thread both show what it really is about: Winning before fun. I've seen signatures showing army listings with W/L/D. Why? What is the point?
Once players realize that everyone is playing to have fun they can accept FW models and rules, or don't get mad when someone wants to use a proxy etc.
about some random tournament in a completely different country that I will never have anything to do with.
Why should the forgeworld player be held to a standard that no other players have to meet? If that forgeworld player showed up instead with a necron flyer spam army you wouldn't care in the least.
