Lemondish wrote:

kombatwombat wrote:
There is a long list of things that used to be a well established convention.

Now we just realise we were being racist, sexist, homophobic or whatever.

Don’t be stuck in the past. Let us move past our FWism.

This, ladies and gentleorks, is a strawman.

No, it’s drawing a parallel between people using ‘disallowing FW was an established convention’ as a justification for not allowing people to bring FW and something like ‘men making the decisions was an established convention’ as a justification for not allowing women to vote. (Hopefully without belittling the challenges facing the marginalised.)

It was a little provocative and over the top, I’ll grant you, but the similarity is there nonetheless. DaPino gets it.

I'm late to this thread but I'm sure you wouldn't have enjoyed that game much anyway.

 Peregrine wrote:
I expect the same policy to be applied to all other rules. If you don't give me an up front request/notification that you would like to use codex rules instead of the index rules then you are probably TFG. After all, codex rules are a major escalation in power and WAAC potential, and really just an expansion to the core of the game. And some armies don't even get codex rules at all, how is that fair? Plus they cost so much money and it's not reasonable to expect me to be familiar with them.

I don't think this analogy is entirely correct. It explicitly states in the core rulebook that the latest codex must be used for datasheets for your army outside of very specific circumstances. I've yet to see GW make an official announcement that "FW is a GW supported, and sponsored part of the game, and FW models/rules are fully intended to be used in matched play". TBH I don't have a problem with people using forgeworld against me so long as they have the book on them and show me the datasheet before deployment. But, many members of my gaming group refuse to play against forgeworld. Their reasoning being that those models are an optional expansion to the base WH40k game made by a different (related sure, but different) company, similar to something like the planetstrike or cities of death rulesets. You wouldn't show up to a game and spring "oh btw we are playing a planetstrike scenario" on your opponent would you?

w1zard wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
I expect the same policy to be applied to all other rules. If you don't give me an up front request/notification that you would like to use codex rules instead of the index rules then you are probably TFG. After all, codex rules are a major escalation in power and WAAC potential, and really just an expansion to the core of the game. And some armies don't even get codex rules at all, how is that fair? Plus they cost so much money and it's not reasonable to expect me to be familiar with them.

I don't think this analogy is entirely correct. It explicitly states in the core rulebook that the latest codex must be used for datasheets for your army outside of very specific circumstances. I've yet to see GW make an official announcement that "FW is a GW supported, and sponsored part of the game, and FW models/rules are fully intended to be used in matched play". TBH I don't have a problem with people using forgeworld against me so long as they have the book on them and show me the datasheet before deployment. But, many members of my gaming group refuse to play against forgeworld. Their reasoning being that those models are an optional expansion to the base WH40k game made by a different (related sure, but different) company, similar to something like the planetstrike or cities of death rulesets. You wouldn't show up to a game and spring "oh btw we are playing a planetstrike scenario" on your opponent would you?

that would be correct, were it not for the simple fact that CA literally has a whole dedicated part for the balance in 40k in regards to FW units.

w1zard wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
I expect the same policy to be applied to all other rules. If you don't give me an up front request/notification that you would like to use codex rules instead of the index rules then you are probably TFG. After all, codex rules are a major escalation in power and WAAC potential, and really just an expansion to the core of the game. And some armies don't even get codex rules at all, how is that fair? Plus they cost so much money and it's not reasonable to expect me to be familiar with them.

I don't think this analogy is entirely correct. It explicitly states in the core rulebook that the latest codex must be used for datasheets for your army outside of very specific circumstances. I've yet to see GW make an official announcement that "FW is a GW supported, and sponsored part of the game, and FW models/rules are fully intended to be used in matched play". TBH I don't have a problem with people using forgeworld against me so long as they have the book on them and show me the datasheet before deployment. But, many members of my gaming group refuse to play against forgeworld. Their reasoning being that those models are an optional expansion to the base WH40k game made by a different (related sure, but different) company, similar to something like the planetstrike or cities of death rulesets. You wouldn't show up to a game and spring "oh btw we are playing a planetstrike scenario" on your opponent would you?

You guys missed a couple of years ago, during 5th, I think, when FW had to stamp their stuff with the 40k logo to show that it was official. The experimental stuff was left unstamped. Since then any officially published FW stuff is considered part of 40k, the experimental stuff is released as pdf and labelled 'experimental'.

Not Online!!! wrote:

w1zard wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
I expect the same policy to be applied to all other rules. If you don't give me an up front request/notification that you would like to use codex rules instead of the index rules then you are probably TFG. After all, codex rules are a major escalation in power and WAAC potential, and really just an expansion to the core of the game. And some armies don't even get codex rules at all, how is that fair? Plus they cost so much money and it's not reasonable to expect me to be familiar with them.

I don't think this analogy is entirely correct. It explicitly states in the core rulebook that the latest codex must be used for datasheets for your army outside of very specific circumstances. I've yet to see GW make an official announcement that "FW is a GW supported, and sponsored part of the game, and FW models/rules are fully intended to be used in matched play". TBH I don't have a problem with people using forgeworld against me so long as they have the book on them and show me the datasheet before deployment. But, many members of my gaming group refuse to play against forgeworld. Their reasoning being that those models are an optional expansion to the base WH40k game made by a different (related sure, but different) company, similar to something like the planetstrike or cities of death rulesets. You wouldn't show up to a game and spring "oh btw we are playing a planetstrike scenario" on your opponent would you?

that would be correct, were it not for the simple fact that CA literally has a whole dedicated part for the balance in 40k in regards to FW units.

I'm sure if they wanted to update planetstrike or cities of death rules, they would do so in CA as well. So your point is?

Not only that, but most of the FW changes in CA were to nerf them all to hell to the point of unusability, as if to say "we don't want that gak in matched play".

Again, not saying I believe this argument, but its what I've gotten from numerous people in my gaming group. I think many 40k players who don't want to play against FW think this way.

w1zard wrote:

Their reasoning being that those models are an optional expansion to the base WH40k game made by a different (related sure, but different) company, similar to something like the planetstrike or cities of death rulesets. You wouldn't show up to a game and spring "oh btw we are playing a planetstrike scenario" on your opponent would you?

Whereas this is entirely incorrect.

Find me the word ‘optional’ with regards to their use in any 8th Ed ForgeWorld publication. Or the word ‘expansion’ as a title or classification. They do use the word ‘expanding’ in the phrase ‘expanding the range of datasheets’ but that certainly isn’t calling it the ‘ForgeWorld Expansion’ or the ‘ForgeWorld add-on’ or anything else to suggest that it’s distinct from the other rules.

Planetstrike and Cities of Death are both explicitly listed as Expansions along with Stronghold Assault and Death from the Skies on page 238 of the 8th Edition Rulebook. There is no equivalent for anything to do with ForgeWorld.

w1zard wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
I expect the same policy to be applied to all other rules. If you don't give me an up front request/notification that you would like to use codex rules instead of the index rules then you are probably TFG. After all, codex rules are a major escalation in power and WAAC potential, and really just an expansion to the core of the game. And some armies don't even get codex rules at all, how is that fair? Plus they cost so much money and it's not reasonable to expect me to be familiar with them.

I don't think this analogy is entirely correct. It explicitly states in the core rulebook that the latest codex must be used for datasheets for your army outside of very specific circumstances. I've yet to see GW make an official announcement that "FW is a GW supported, and sponsored part of the game, and FW models/rules are fully intended to be used in matched play". TBH I don't have a problem with people using forgeworld against me so long as they have the book on them and show me the datasheet before deployment. But, many members of my gaming group refuse to play against forgeworld. Their reasoning being that those models are an optional expansion to the base WH40k game made by a different (related sure, but different) company, similar to something like the planetstrike or cities of death rulesets. You wouldn't show up to a game and spring "oh btw we are playing a planetstrike scenario" on your opponent would you?

CA and the FAQ both have points revisions for FW models- points are used for matched play, therefore they are supported by GW. The fact FW stuff is present in a lot of the WHW tournaments shows they are supported and acknowledged as legitimate units. There simply is no argument here, FW is part of the game and whther people believe it or not, the rules will be reviewed by GW before they're released.

Regardless of whatever lawyering people come up with or whatever personal rules they have with regards to "i dont want to play against cheese" there is a pretty simple solution.... ask your opponent if their list is competitive or not. If they say yes and you're sat there with your fluffy narrative list, then just tell them that you fancy a more casual game.

Either way, id be pretty pissed in the OP's situation- this hobby is about more than gaming and personally the Leviathan is my absolute favorite model, couldn't wait to build and paint one then get it on the board, if i did that and some guy who's afraid of loosing a game of toy soldiers told me he doesn't play against FW id be gutted.

And i see the argument "what about that guy who says his list is fluffy and its the strongest cheddar around?" well shame on him, but its only the same as casual gamer guy who wants to play tournament level rules lawyering, remeasuring your moves and charge distances.

w1zard wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
I expect the same policy to be applied to all other rules. If you don't give me an up front request/notification that you would like to use codex rules instead of the index rules then you are probably TFG. After all, codex rules are a major escalation in power and WAAC potential, and really just an expansion to the core of the game. And some armies don't even get codex rules at all, how is that fair? Plus they cost so much money and it's not reasonable to expect me to be familiar with them.

I don't think this analogy is entirely correct. It explicitly states in the core rulebook that the latest codex must be used for datasheets for your army outside of very specific circumstances. I've yet to see GW make an official announcement that "FW is a GW supported, and sponsored part of the game, and FW models/rules are fully intended to be used in matched play". TBH I don't have a problem with people using forgeworld against me so long as they have the book on them and show me the datasheet before deployment. But, many members of my gaming group refuse to play against forgeworld. Their reasoning being that those models are an optional expansion to the base WH40k game made by a different (related sure, but different) company, similar to something like the planetstrike or cities of death rulesets. You wouldn't show up to a game and spring "oh btw we are playing a planetstrike scenario" on your opponent would you?

You might want to show this to your buds:

w1zard wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
I expect the same policy to be applied to all other rules. If you don't give me an up front request/notification that you would like to use codex rules instead of the index rules then you are probably TFG. After all, codex rules are a major escalation in power and WAAC potential, and really just an expansion to the core of the game. And some armies don't even get codex rules at all, how is that fair? Plus they cost so much money and it's not reasonable to expect me to be familiar with them.

I don't think this analogy is entirely correct. It explicitly states in the core rulebook that the latest codex must be used for datasheets for your army outside of very specific circumstances.

So I can't play Sisters of Battle then, or Inquisition, or Harlequins, or Genestealer Cults then? I mean, they don't have Codexes, they have Indexes?

Forge World have official publications, are recognised in CA, and are owned by GW. They're the same thing. Saying "no FW because they don't have codexes" is the same as saying "no Sisters of Battle etc etc because they don't have codexes".

I've yet to see GW make an official announcement that "FW is a GW supported, and sponsored part of the game, and FW models/rules are fully intended to be used in matched play".

I've yet to see GW make an official announcement that "FW isn't a GW supported and sponsored part of the game and FW models/rules aren't fully intended to be used in matched play".
We know Forge World is supported by GW - why? Because they're the same company!

Why shouldn't Forge World be just like everything else? Seriously, what are the differences?
Can't buy it in store? Depends on your store, firstly - secondly, a lot of models aren't stocked in store now. Can I not use Cato Sicarius now, or Telion?
Different book to the Codex? What about all the Index units still in play?
Made of resin? What about metal models and Finecast?

There is no reason Forge World isn't just as valid as everything else. Your club can have that rule, but it doesn't change the fact it's a stupid baseless one.

I think we've beaten this horse so thoroughly over the last few days, that it likely died several times over. At the risk of just doing so again, the take home perhaps should be this:

Forge World don't produce models or content for 40K (or any other game) that are any more or less optional than any other model that Games Workshop produce. What FW do is produce small batch, specialist resin models (from a hobby perspective - resin is arguably a slightly more advanced material to work with in terms of hobby knowledge). That's it, that's literally their remit. There is no 'OP rules' conspiracy, they just occasionally do something a little different because they tend to fill a niche that Citadels range didn't cover, rather than churn out the same stuff.

Now, if you choose to make FW models an optional part of your hobby, please feel free to do so! You absolutely can. What you can't do is try and make them an optional part of mine, or anyone elses, OR pretend that yours is the mainstream view. It isn't, nor do GW or FW intend it to be.

The attitude of FW being an optional expansion in general terms, needs to be put to bed. It is simply, factually, incorrect.

w1zard wrote:
It explicitly states in the core rulebook that the latest codex must be used for datasheets for your army outside of very specific circumstances.

{citation needed}

GW has said this in their FAQs, but I can't find any statement about it in the rulebook. In fact, I found a statement that says the exact opposite:

To use a points limit, you will need to reference
the points values, which are found in a number of
Warhammer 40,000 publications, such as codexes.

Here GW explicitly presents the codex as merely one of multiple possible sources for point values, and only for point values. If you want to play a PL or open play game you don't even have that statement suggesting the use of a codex.

Also, nowhere does it say that FAQs/errata are a standard part of the game. If you would like to use the optional FAQ/errata expansion rules (such as the one requiring the use of a codex) then I expect you to notify me in advance and ask for permission, just like with FW units.

made by a different (related sure, but different) company

JFC this nonsense needs to die. FW is not a separate company. FW is a brand name used by GW to sell certain products, just like Finecast or White Dwarf. The people working on the FW product line are GW employees, GW owns all of the IP, and all purchases of FW products are paid to GW and shipped by GW.

You wouldn't show up to a game and spring "oh btw we are playing a planetstrike scenario" on your opponent would you?

No, but that's a nonsense comparison. Planetstrike/Apocalypse/etc change how the scenario works, including adding additional rules for both armies. You can't have an asymmetrical use of those rules, one player can't play a normal 40k game while the other plays Apocalypse. It's not a matter of courtesy, the rules simply do not function that way. FW rules, on the other hand, are asymmetrical. They change only the contents of one player's army, in a way that is fully compatible with whatever army the other player chooses to bring. There is no functional reason to require advance warning and agreement, only the expectation by certain players that they get to have veto power over their opponent's army.

w1zard wrote:
Their reasoning being that those models are an optional expansion to the base WH40k game made by a different (related sure, but different) company, similar to something like the planetstrike or cities of death rulesets.

Your friends are wrong.

It's not 'optional' any more than a Land Raider is optional. It is the same company, and 100% legal. If your friends want to place their own personal restrictions on their games, that's up to them. But don't expect anyone else to recognize this restriction.

 Peregrine wrote:
There is no functional reason to require advance warning and agreement, only the expectation by certain players that they get to have veto power over their opponent's army.

So much this. Beautifully and succinctly put.

I don't think it's everyone's intent, but it is this attitudes ultimate result. You should not expect to dictate to another player what they may include in their list if they're using units the game fully supports.

If you want to refuse play because you don't like a unit someone has included in an army - no one can stop you. But recognise that within normal circumstances, it's probably you who are the 'problem' player when you're behaving like that.

(For the reactionaries who won't read properly, or who will ignore the spirit of the argument, no. We're not talking about the common sense edge cases where someone dumps a Warhound titan on the table etc. The entire thread has been about FW models that you *should* expect to see legally fielded in normal play - and yes, that's the vast majority of FW's range.)

FFS this topic is older than some of the posters in this thread...

Banville wrote:

w1zard wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
I expect the same policy to be applied to all other rules. If you don't give me an up front request/notification that you would like to use codex rules instead of the index rules then you are probably TFG. After all, codex rules are a major escalation in power and WAAC potential, and really just an expansion to the core of the game. And some armies don't even get codex rules at all, how is that fair? Plus they cost so much money and it's not reasonable to expect me to be familiar with them.

I don't think this analogy is entirely correct. It explicitly states in the core rulebook that the latest codex must be used for datasheets for your army outside of very specific circumstances. I've yet to see GW make an official announcement that "FW is a GW supported, and sponsored part of the game, and FW models/rules are fully intended to be used in matched play". TBH I don't have a problem with people using forgeworld against me so long as they have the book on them and show me the datasheet before deployment. But, many members of my gaming group refuse to play against forgeworld. Their reasoning being that those models are an optional expansion to the base WH40k game made by a different (related sure, but different) company, similar to something like the planetstrike or cities of death rulesets. You wouldn't show up to a game and spring "oh btw we are playing a planetstrike scenario" on your opponent would you?

You might want to show this to your buds:

Please read the last 5 lines of the picture you posted.

 Mmmpi wrote:

Banville wrote:

w1zard wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
I expect the same policy to be applied to all other rules. If you don't give me an up front request/notification that you would like to use codex rules instead of the index rules then you are probably TFG. After all, codex rules are a major escalation in power and WAAC potential, and really just an expansion to the core of the game. And some armies don't even get codex rules at all, how is that fair? Plus they cost so much money and it's not reasonable to expect me to be familiar with them.

I don't think this analogy is entirely correct. It explicitly states in the core rulebook that the latest codex must be used for datasheets for your army outside of very specific circumstances. I've yet to see GW make an official announcement that "FW is a GW supported, and sponsored part of the game, and FW models/rules are fully intended to be used in matched play". TBH I don't have a problem with people using forgeworld against me so long as they have the book on them and show me the datasheet before deployment. But, many members of my gaming group refuse to play against forgeworld. Their reasoning being that those models are an optional expansion to the base WH40k game made by a different (related sure, but different) company, similar to something like the planetstrike or cities of death rulesets. You wouldn't show up to a game and spring "oh btw we are playing a planetstrike scenario" on your opponent would you?

You might want to show this to your buds:

Please read the last 5 lines of the picture you posted.

I don't see anything there that suggests my opponent can veto my army. "Make sure the opponent is happy with <insert choices here>" is a default case for social-contract games. Furthermore, if my opponent is unhappy with <choice>, then I reserve the right to judge them. I can't force them to play me, but depending on their reasoning I can absolutely think they're being silly.

Well, It specifically calls out the fact that people might not know about Forgeworld, and then continues to ask you to make sure they're ok with it.

You might think that a possible opponent is being silly, but it appears that GW and Forgeworld don't agree with you.

What it does is spell out that FW is legal, but like any other part of the game, you don't have to play against it.

Once more, everyone is entitled to turn down a game for whatever reason, but that doesn't mean your reason makes any sense to the majority of players.

 Mmmpi wrote:
Well, It specifically calls out the fact that people might not know about Forgeworld, and then continues to ask you to make sure they're ok with it.

You might think that a possible opponent is being silly, but it appears that GW and Forgeworld don't agree with you.

Didn't agree. The image in question is from a previous edition, no such statement exists in 8th edition.

Removing it doesn't automatically mean they went on to full inclusion. It could very well mean that they're back to the older way.

I'm checking the FW site now to see if they say anything there.

 Mmmpi wrote:
Well, It specifically calls out the fact that people might not know about Forgeworld, and then continues to ask you to make sure they're ok with it.

You might think that a possible opponent is being silly, but it appears that GW and Forgeworld don't agree with you.

It is worth mentioning that that statement is from the 6th Edition printing of Imperial Armour Volume 1: 2E over half a decade ago. They were outright legal then.

 Mmmpi wrote:
Removing it doesn't automatically mean they went on to full inclusion. It could very well mean that they're back to the older way.

I'm checking the FW site now to see if they say anything there.

You can speculate all you want, that's all you have. GW just publishes the FW books with 40k rules in them. At no point does GW say they are separate, or require any special treatment compared to any other 40k rules they publish.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Mmmpi wrote:
Well, It specifically calls out the fact that people might not know about Forgeworld, and then continues to ask you to make sure they're ok with it.

You might think that a possible opponent is being silly, but it appears that GW and Forgeworld don't agree with you.

Didn't agree. The image in question is from a previous edition, no such statement exists in 8th edition.

This is also true. They removed that stamp and paragraph and now just flag "experimental rules" before they release them officially.

 Mmmpi wrote:
Removing it doesn't automatically mean they went on to full inclusion. It could very well mean that they're back to the older way.

I'm checking the FW site now to see if they say anything there.

They don't. I own all four of the indexes. Here is the totality of the introduction for Imperial Armour - Index: Forces of the Astra Militarum:

"Welcome to Imperial Armour – Index: Forces of the Astra Militarum. This book is designed to update the rules for Forge World’s current and recent ranges of models for use with the latest incarnation of the Warhammer 40,000 game. It provides rules for Forge World’s Astra Militarum, Death Korps of Krieg, Elysian Drop Troops, Questor Imperialis and Titan Legions, as well as the malevolent traitors of the Renegades and Heretics army.

This book and its contents are fully compatible with Warhammer 40,000 – Index: Imperium 2, expanding the datasheets which are found there and contains all the information you need to field your Forge World models from the Astra Militarum, Death Korps of Krieg, Elysian Drop Troops, Questor Imperialis, Titan Legions and Renegade and Heretics factions in the new edition of the Warhammer 40,000 game. Also included are both Power Ratings and Appendices for their use in Battle-forged armies.

You will need a copy of the Warhammer 40,000 rulebook and Warhammer 40,000 – Index: Imperium 2 to make full use of this book and its contents."

 Mmmpi wrote:
Removing it doesn't automatically mean they went on to full inclusion. It could very well mean that they're back to the older way.

I'm checking the FW site now to see if they say anything there.

Again, if it were a seperate non mandatory expansion, would it be in CA?
Also the text in all fw books state that they are a part of Wh 40k.
Additionaly all links between Gw sites and Fw sites and Warhammer community site are connected......

 Mmmpi wrote:
Well, It specifically calls out the fact that people might not know about Forgeworld, and then continues to ask you to make sure they're ok with it.

"It is best to ask". Not "You must seek permission". In other words, I think that's a real GW way of saying "You might have a guy like the OP of this thread met who'll freak out over it, so just get that out of the way ahead of time before some neckbeard comes unhinged at the table".

 Mmmpi wrote:
You might think that a possible opponent is being silly, but it appears that GW and Forgeworld don't agree with you.

"Make sure your opponent is happy with it"- you do realize this is kind of a general rule with anything in 40k, not just Forge World, right? I've had people ask me not to use a flyer because the guy didn't have any real anti-air capability.

Again, however, I'll stand by it- you can refuse to play any army you like in 40k. I knew a weird Christian kid that didn't want anything associated with Daemons on the table with him, and that was his prerogative- but it limited his own gameplay experience, and only he (and the Lord, I suppose) could judge whether or not that was worth it to him.

PUG's and the like require at least two parties to generally agree on something, however the game quickly loses its appeal when we create a trend of opponents vetoing against what you can and cannot bring- and it becomes just one more game that doesn't happen. It is outright detrimental to the game as a whole.

However, the absolute worst that can happen when you go against an unfamiliar model or unit? You lose. Oh, big deal. If losing a game about little angry space people is such a problem for you, then you probably need to go out and find some better fulfillment in life. Or you could be a big boy and say, "Wow, that thing really smashed me. Now I need to figure out a way to deal with one of those next time, because at least now I know how they work."

Dude, and if someone isn't familiar with the Forge World models, and I own the book? Easy fix. "Here, dude- get your phone out and take a picture of the pages so you can read it over later". Hell, if your army can use one of mine I'll let you borrow it and try it out.

Also, let's see if I can make some heads spin:

"You have a right to refuse to play Forge World if you like, also you have just as much right to refuse to play against Female Space Marines"

 Mmmpi wrote:
Removing it doesn't automatically mean they went on to full inclusion. It could very well mean that they're back to the older way.

I'm checking the FW site now to see if they say anything there.

Yeah, it's also a suggestion, not a rule. They don't say you 'must' do anything.

If your best argument is a one sentence, polite, unintended to be enforced in any way, suggestion from an old edition... Well, the conclusion doesn't really need to be stated does it?

You're in great danger of trying to find or invent evidence to fit your argument, not looking at the evidence and reaching the answer it points to. In doing so, you're ignoring the vast swathes of obvious proof that Forge World models are utterly a part of 40K today, and intended to be used in games of all types, at all levels.

 Mmmpi wrote:
Removing it doesn't automatically mean they went on to full inclusion. It could very well mean that they're back to the older way.

No, the absence of any sort of rule means that rule is no longer in effect.

If politicians remove the law against smoking marijuana, that doesn't mean "oh well it might still be illegal".


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, I've already started to figure out how people see Forge World.

Lose to someone playing Forge World models? "They're overpowered and not part of the game, I refuse to play them!"

Win against someone playing Forge World models? "They are a waste of money and not worth it!"

Can't afford a Forge World model? Memorize the two responses above, you'll need them to feel better about your shortcomings.

*shrug* I would rather lose to a Forgeworld unit I have never played against because I didn't know what it does then to play yet another unimaginative soup list. I am much more likely to pass on a game if I see Imperial Guard and Death Company for example. Even more likely then that I would rather not play a mirror match. Variety is the spice of life.

"Welcome to Imperial Armour – Index: Forces of the Astra Militarum. This book is designed to update the rules for Forge World’s current and recent ranges of models for use with the latest incarnation of the Warhammer 40,000 game. It provides rules for Forge World’s Astra Militarum, Death Korps of Krieg, Elysian Drop Troops, Questor Imperialis and Titan Legions, as well as the malevolent traitors of the Renegades and Heretics army.

Says the rules are updated for the current range for 8th Ed.

This book and its contents are fully compatible with Warhammer 40,000 – Index: Imperium 2, expanding the datasheets which are found there and contains all the information you need to field your Forge World models from the Astra Militarum, Death Korps of Krieg, Elysian Drop Troops, Questor Imperialis, Titan Legions and Renegade and Heretics factions in the new edition of the Warhammer 40,000 game. Also included are both Power Ratings and Appendices for their use in Battle-forged armies.

Says that the rules are compatible with, in this case Index: Imperium 2 and presumbibly the associated codexes. (A straight reading, nothing more intended). Continues to talk about new factions, and that it uses Power Ratings and points. Also in the first part of this quote says it's an expansion.

You will need a copy of the Warhammer 40,000 rulebook and Warhammer 40,000 – Index: Imperium 2 to make full use of this book and its contents."

Says the books you need to use this specific index.


None of this says it's a full part. You can argue that it is, but it doesn't explicitly say that.

I will agree that you're probably more likely to be correct by a fair margin. However, the fact that ForgeWorld needed a disclaimer, the fact that their stuff does have a reputation, that there are strong feelings on both sides, and the fact that it is an expansion, which the IG (and again, presumably the other codexi) Codex doesn't say, gives weight to the idea that at least you should check with your opponent first.

 DominayTrix wrote:
*shrug* I would rather lose to a Forgeworld unit I have never played against because I didn't know what it does then to play yet another unimaginative soup list. I am much more likely to pass on a game if I see Imperial Guard and Death Company for example. Even more likely then that I would rather not play a mirror match. Variety is the spice of life.

I don't mind soup, aslong it is fluffy and not pure power.

 Mmmpi wrote:

None of this says it's a full part. You can argue that it is, but it doesn't explicitly say that.

I will agree that you're probably more likely to be correct by a fair margin. However, the fact that ForgeWorld needed a disclaimer, the fact that their stuff does have a reputation, that there are strong feelings on both sides, and the fact that it is an expansion, which the IG (and again, presumably the other codexi) Codex doesn't say, gives weight to the idea that at least you should check with your opponent first.

First of all, saying it is "expanding the datasheets available" or whatever is hardly the same thing as an expansion to the game in the DLC/videogame sense. That's like saying a patch that includes a new weapon is an "expansion".

Second of all... yes, you should always check with your opponent, no one is disputing that. What people are disputing is whether or not the opponent is reasonable for saying no. I can ask my opponent "mind if you don't bring that CSM Land Raider?" and he is fully within his rights to say "actually, that's a dumb thing to ask, and you're unreasonable for asking it."

To be fair that's a dick way to phrase it, but fundamentally, people saying "no" to Forge World units are not immune to judgement for their unreasonable stance.

 Mmmpi wrote:


None of this says it's a full part. You can argue that it is, but it doesn't explicitly say that.

Your very own posted example does however, and I quote: "This unit is intended to be used in 'standard' games of Warhammer 40,000... ...as with all our models these should be considered 'official'".

 Mmmpi wrote:


I will agree that you're probably more likely to be correct by a fair margin. However, the fact that ForgeWorld needed a disclaimer, the fact that their stuff does have a reputation, that there are strong feelings on both sides, and the fact that it is an expansion, which the IG (and again, presumably the other codexi) Codex doesn't say, gives weight to the idea that at least you should check with your opponent first.

It's not an expansion. Not at all. You're using the fact that the word 'expands' was used, (it does 'expand' upon a collection of data sheets - in the same way as any CODEX potential does), that word isn't intended to imply that the models constitute an optional, stand alone expansion to 40K. The context never implys that - as I think you well know. I feel you're being deliberately obtuse here.

Again, there was no disclaimer, there was a suggestion that may be useful to some people, in some cases. It's not a rule. It no longer even appears on the site!

This 'reputation' FW has is a mythology that frankly you're helping to perpetuate.

This 'reputation' FW has is a mythology that frankly you're helping to perpetuate.

Honestly you're doing more of that than I am.

Your very own posted example does however, and I quote: "This unit is intended to be used in 'standard' games of Warhammer 40,000... ...as with all our models these should be considered 'official'".

Yeah, I take official to mean ready for use, and that standard games to mean that if you do use them, then they're compatible with the game types presented in the core rules, as opposed to special scenarios like Cities of Death, or Planet Strike.

It's not an expansion. Not at all. You're using the fact that the word 'expands' was used, (it does 'expand' upon a collection of data sheets - in the same way as any CODEX potential does), that word isn't intended to imply that the models constitute an optional, stand alone expansion to 40K. The context never implies that - as I think you well know. I feel you're being deliberately obtuse here.

I did point out that my sample codex example doesn't say it expands on anything, at least that I could find. So yes, it is an expansion.

You say suggestion, I say disclaimer. They felt the need to 'request' that people check ahead.

So again, back to reputation. Forgeworld has several. Forgeworld advocates have another. That they're WAAC, power gamers, cheater, ect, which feeds into the FW reputation that their stuff is overpowered because the FW stuff that people see tends to be the powerful stuff.

I'm going to take a second here to point out that I'm not accusing any of you of being power gamers, WAAC players, or cheaters, only that there's a perception of it about the FW community at large.

If you really want to get people on board with accepting the FW expansions, then maybe actually convincing people to try it, rather then calling them silly might be a way to do. You're working against a lot of perception, much of which has been earned by people taking advantage of the laxer rules writing from FW. Also, while you might consider someone's reason silly, they certainly do not. Most people I've met don't go "No ForgeWorld" because they don't think it's fair that you were able to buy it. They say it because they've been burned by people using it before, and that they can say no to an expansion.

 Mmmpi wrote:
If you really want to get people on board with accepting the FW expansions, then maybe actually convincing people to try it, rather then calling them silly might be a way to do. You're working against a lot of perception, much of which has been earned by people taking advantage of the laxer rules writing from FW. Also, while you might consider someone's reason silly, they certainly do not. Most people I've met don't go "No ForgeWorld" because they don't think it's fair that you were able to buy it. They say it because they've been burned by people using it before, and that they can say no to an expansion.

The problem is that you can't get unreasonable people to try things. "No Forge World" is like a hashtag, mantra, or incantation that's trotted out every time you try. And when you ask "why" they go into a song and dance about 1) Overpowered 2) Community Perception 3) Expensive.

Number 1 is decidedly and provably false when compared to Games Workshop. It's objectively wrong.
Number 2 will never change. It's a circular argument. "I can say no because the community will never change, and the community will never change because I can say no." and they never try it.
Number 3 is not a reason to turn down a game - after all, boxes of Space Marines are more expensive than boxes of Guardsmen - should guard players start turning down games with Space Marines?

So they go into the song and dance, and assert objectively false, irrational, and unreasonable answers. Then, when you say "those are false, stupid, and arrogant respectively" they say "REEEEEEE SEE I TOLD YOU FORGE WORLD PLAYERS ARE ALL JERKS!!1!!11!!!1!1!" So the only option left for reasonable discourse is "you're silly."

 Mmmpi wrote:

This 'reputation' FW has is a mythology that frankly you're helping to perpetuate.

Honestly you're doing more of that than I am.

Your very own posted example does however, and I quote: "This unit is intended to be used in 'standard' games of Warhammer 40,000... ...as with all our models these should be considered 'official'".

Yeah, I take official to mean ready for use, and that standard games to mean that if you do use them, then they're compatible with the game types presented in the core rules, as opposed to special scenarios like Cities of Death, or Planet Strike.

It's not an expansion. Not at all. You're using the fact that the word 'expands' was used, (it does 'expand' upon a collection of data sheets - in the same way as any CODEX potential does), that word isn't intended to imply that the models constitute an optional, stand alone expansion to 40K. The context never implies that - as I think you well know. I feel you're being deliberately obtuse here.

I did point out that my sample codex example doesn't say it expands on anything, at least that I could find. So yes, it is an expansion.

You say suggestion, I say disclaimer. They felt the need to 'request' that people check ahead.

So again, back to reputation. Forgeworld has several. Forgeworld advocates have another. That they're WAAC, power gamers, cheater, ect, which feeds into the FW reputation that their stuff is overpowered because the FW stuff that people see tends to be the powerful stuff.

I'm going to take a second here to point out that I'm not accusing any of you of being power gamers, WAAC players, or cheaters, only that there's a perception of it about the FW community at large.

If you really want to get people on board with accepting the FW expansions, then maybe actually convincing people to try it, rather then calling them silly might be a way to do. You're working against a lot of perception, much of which has been earned by people taking advantage of the laxer rules writing from FW. Also, while you might consider someone's reason silly, they certainly do not. Most people I've met don't go "No ForgeWorld" because they don't think it's fair that you were able to buy it. They say it because they've been burned by people using it before, and that they can say no to an expansion.

It seems that you are willfully missinterpreting. It says that they are desgined and a part of 40k. literally, they are a 40 k army , it you like it or not is not up to debate.

You do realise that FW could have put that "disclaimer" up because FW isn't as mainstream as GW rules, however that does not mean that i have to ask you beforehand (i should, but i don't have to, I 'd also like to point out, that if i play certain armies or units which are way better then your Codex/ Index i should ask too, however i don't have to again, that is supposedly fine by you for whatever reason because it is not FW resin?).
Especially with the relatively recent adopted policy of GW, which even goes as far as putting changes of ALL FW units in CA, which is the offical "patch" so to speak of 40k therefore MANDATORY and OFFICIAL .

Also important on their webstore/ website, which all E-publications are (FAQ's) etc. which you would anyway visit, because it clarifies stuff, are all FAQ's from FW indexes and GW codexes / Indexes i wonder what that means that they SHARE ONE COMMON SITE WHICH YOU HAVE TO VISIT AND ARE ALL IN THE SAME CATEGORY.

As for the reputation; yes FW get's alot of flak, is it justified: No, not really, especially if you compare ruleset by ruleset, Codex by Codex and Index by Index. 100% of the time a FW Index is weaker then it's companion counterpart: Deathkorps vs regular IG. Corsairs vs regular Eldar, etc.


Oh and laxer rules you say?
I wonder then why GW had to adapt the rule of 3 for tournament formats?
Meanwhile FW sits there and says, well not only do you have to pay in points and or powerlevel, no, you have to additionally chose certain units to be allowed Relic/ Hellforged units inherently stopping spam short within their own Indexes.
Meanwhile spamming regular GW knights is fine and dandy.......
So i ask you again, and this time be honest about it, do you really think FW or GW is laxer?

w1zard wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
I expect the same policy to be applied to all other rules. If you don't give me an up front request/notification that you would like to use codex rules instead of the index rules then you are probably TFG. After all, codex rules are a major escalation in power and WAAC potential, and really just an expansion to the core of the game. And some armies don't even get codex rules at all, how is that fair? Plus they cost so much money and it's not reasonable to expect me to be familiar with them.

I don't think this analogy is entirely correct. It explicitly states in the core rulebook that the latest codex must be used for datasheets for your army outside of very specific circumstances. I've yet to see GW make an official announcement that "FW is a GW supported, and sponsored part of the game, and FW models/rules are fully intended to be used in matched play".

Given that FW is just another branch of GW, making products for the game with GW IP by GW employees at GW HQ and all the books have big "Warhammer 40,000" logo's on them with great big "Games Workshop" logo on the book spine and that all say inside "Copyright of Games Workshop", and that all GW-run events allow FW rules and make 0 effort to make some sort of distinction between FW stuff and non-FW stuff (and this has been true for many years and several editions now), one has to wonder...why GW would bother? They've made their stance rather clear that they don't see any distinction.

Their reasoning being that those models are an optional expansion to the base WH40k game made by a different (related sure, but different) company, similar to something like the planetstrike or cities of death rulesets. You wouldn't show up to a game and spring "oh btw we are playing a planetstrike scenario" on your opponent would you?

In this regard, Planetstrike is not the same as FW, it's called out specifically for what it is and requires different rules for setup and play, FW stuff largely plugs and plays right into pickup gaming without any issue. That's a mistaken perception on their part that they inferred incorrectly.

 Vaktathi wrote:

w1zard wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
I expect the same policy to be applied to all other rules. If you don't give me an up front request/notification that you would like to use codex rules instead of the index rules then you are probably TFG. After all, codex rules are a major escalation in power and WAAC potential, and really just an expansion to the core of the game. And some armies don't even get codex rules at all, how is that fair? Plus they cost so much money and it's not reasonable to expect me to be familiar with them.

I don't think this analogy is entirely correct. It explicitly states in the core rulebook that the latest codex must be used for datasheets for your army outside of very specific circumstances. I've yet to see GW make an official announcement that "FW is a GW supported, and sponsored part of the game, and FW models/rules are fully intended to be used in matched play".

Given that FW is just another branch of GW, making products for the game with GW IP by GW employees at GW HQ and all the books have big "Warhammer 40,000" logo's on them with great big "Games Workshop" logo on the book spine and that all say inside "Copyright of Games Workshop", and that all GW-run events allow FW rules and make 0 effort to make some sort of distinction between FW stuff and non-FW stuff (and this has been true for many years and several editions now), one has to wonder...why GW would bother? They've made their stance rather clear that they don't see any distinction.

Their reasoning being that those models are an optional expansion to the base WH40k game made by a different (related sure, but different) company, similar to something like the planetstrike or cities of death rulesets. You wouldn't show up to a game and spring "oh btw we are playing a planetstrike scenario" on your opponent would you?

In this regard, Planetstrike is not the same as FW, it's called out specifically for what it is and requires different rules for setup and play, FW stuff largely plugs and plays right into pickup gaming without any issue. That's a mistaken perception on their part that they inferred incorrectly.

You forgot willfully ignorant, atleast since CA....

 Mmmpi wrote:

Your very own posted example does however, and I quote: "This unit is intended to be used in 'standard' games of Warhammer 40,000... ...as with all our models these should be considered 'official'".

Yeah, I take official to mean ready for use, and that standard games to mean that if you do use them, then they're compatible with the game types presented in the core rules, as opposed to special scenarios like Cities of Death, or Planet Strike.

Uh huh. Good talk.

When you start interpreting very, very simple to understand terms to deliberately fit your own narrative, you're either being willfully ignorant, dishonest, or a troll.

None of these can be debated with constructively.

You still aren't even bothering to address the fact that what you posted to support your argument is an obsolete, ancient text box, which no longer appears any where. It has no merit.
I'm fairly certain you're just deliberately trying to pour fuel on the fire to get a reaction at this point. Have fun with that.

Let’s see, most popular FW stuff I see

Spartan: very very expensive and suffers from Land raider syndrome, also lord of war

Sicarion: relic vehicle, more expensive than tri las pred and but otherwise good.

Contemptor: the FW has more weapon options but is a relic and still just a contemptor.

Leviathan: excellent unit but also a relic so not spamable.

Find it hard to believe that FW stuff tends to be powerful, good sure, some of it, but most is ok at best, look at the omega tank destroyer for example, why would i take one over the tri las pred other than it looks so much cooler.

 Formosa wrote:


Find it hard to believe that FW stuff tends to be powerful, good sure, some of it, but most is ok at best, look at the omega tank destroyer for example, why would i take one over the tri las pred other than it looks so much cooler.

The thing is that people almost never field FW units that are "ok at best", its the few broken ones that always get spammed. I can see why people still might refuse to play against FW.

If you want to field stuff from FW why not proxy them as ordinary units from the codex?

 jhnbrg wrote:

 Formosa wrote:


Find it hard to believe that FW stuff tends to be powerful, good sure, some of it, but most is ok at best, look at the omega tank destroyer for example, why would i take one over the tri las pred other than it looks so much cooler.

The thing is that people almost never field FW units that are "ok at best", its the few broken ones that always get spammed. I can see why people still might refuse to play against FW.

If you want to field stuff from FW why not proxy them as ordinary units from the codex?

So here's a rule of thumb for discussing Forge World; if you replace Forge World with Games Workshop in your sentence and the meaning is still the same, then you're not actually talking about Forge World, your problem is somewhere else (could be Games Workshop, could be other players). Here, let me do it for you:

"The thing is that people almost never field GW units that are "ok at best", its the few broken ones that always get spammed."

I would argue this sentence has exactly the same meaning, and therefore this post is not a critique of Forge World or even a good reason to ban it, but merely an observation about the way competitive players play the game, whether they use GW or Forge World units.

I won't play against FW. It just sucks the fun out of the game for me. For my local Meta, I don't like playing against Khorne Brass Scorpions, Dread Claws, Impalers, Or Dark Eldar Tantulus and Reapers. Baneblades aren't fun either.
I just like regular Codex or regular Index. I lose a lot, which I am fine with, I just get utterly curbstomped or tabled quickly when those are on the field. At that point, I am really only continuing the match for my opponent to have fun, while looking at my watch hoping the match is over so I can drive 1.5 hours home and hope next weeks game goes better

Baneblades aren't FW.

 jhnbrg wrote:

 Formosa wrote:


Find it hard to believe that FW stuff tends to be powerful, good sure, some of it, but most is ok at best, look at the omega tank destroyer for example, why would i take one over the tri las pred other than it looks so much cooler.

The thing is that people almost never field FW units that are "ok at best", its the few broken ones that always get spammed. I can see why people still might refuse to play against FW.

If you want to field stuff from FW why not proxy them as ordinary units from the codex?

Those same people also aren't going to run the core codex units that are "ok at best".

The thing that is going to produce the most positive game experiences for both players is to have an understanding about the power level they want to play at, and how competitively they want to play it. Forge World vs Non-Forge World isn't a particularly useful metric for making those kinds of decisions. Someone who doesn't like to get blown by powerful units is going to have a very similar experience getting blown out by the best-of-the-best codex units as they will getting blown out by the best-of-the-best forge world units.


There is spectrum of power level in both sources of material. Simply accepting one or the other is going to do nothing to keep matches where one wants in that spectrum.

 jhnbrg wrote:

 Formosa wrote:


Find it hard to believe that FW stuff tends to be powerful, good sure, some of it, but most is ok at best, look at the omega tank destroyer for example, why would i take one over the tri las pred other than it looks so much cooler.

The thing is that people almost never field FW units that are "ok at best", its the few broken ones that always get spammed. I can see why people still might refuse to play against FW.

If you want to field stuff from FW why not proxy them as ordinary units from the codex?

They can be pretty expensive and if I put a lot of time, effort and money into something I want to use it and the isn't any decent reason to say no.

conker249 wrote:I won't play against FW. It just sucks the fun out of the game for me. For my local Meta, I don't like playing against Khorne Brass Scorpions, Dread Claws, Impalers, Or Dark Eldar Tantulus and Reapers. Baneblades aren't fun either.
I just like regular Codex or regular Index. I lose a lot, which I am fine with, I just get utterly curbstomped or tabled quickly when those are on the field. At that point, I am really only continuing the match for my opponent to have fun, while looking at my watch hoping the match is over so I can drive 1.5 hours home and hope next weeks game goes better

Martel732 wrote:Baneblades aren't FW.

Also, to reinforce the point, the Baneblade wasn't good as a Forge World model, and only became good after GW got ahold of it. Here's what happened to the Baneblade when GW got it:

99 point price decrease (634-535)
Main cannon went from "battle cannon but str 9" to "10" apocalyptic doom template. Also AP2 because reasons"
Went from "can be destroyed in 1 shot with chain reactions" to "needs at least 3 shots from any weapon to die, usually more"
Went from "wow this damage table actually hurts" to "meh, what is damage table"

Every time GW has ported something out of FW, it has gone up in capability. This doesn't hold true for units that were in the 2nd edition Codex: Imperial Guard that were dropped from the 3rd Edition one (like Vanquishers, which swapped from GW to FW and then came back to GW).

 conker249 wrote:
I won't play against FW. It just sucks the fun out of the game for me. For my local Meta, I don't like playing against Khorne Brass Scorpions, Dread Claws, Impalers, Or Dark Eldar Tantulus and Reapers. Baneblades aren't fun either.
I just like regular Codex or regular Index. I lose a lot, which I am fine with, I just get utterly curbstomped or tabled quickly when those are on the field. At that point, I am really only continuing the match for my opponent to have fun, while looking at my watch hoping the match is over so I can drive 1.5 hours home and hope next weeks game goes better

Sounds like you need to worry less about your opponent and more about your own army. What stopped you from getting a FW model?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Chongara wrote:


The thing is that people almost never field FW units that are "ok at best", its the few broken ones that always get spammed. I can see why people still might refuse to play against FW.

If you want to field stuff from FW why not proxy them as ordinary units from the codex?

What Forge World units are being 'spammed' and in what numbers?

 Chongara wrote:

 jhnbrg wrote:

 Formosa wrote:


Find it hard to believe that FW stuff tends to be powerful, good sure, some of it, but most is ok at best, look at the omega tank destroyer for example, why would i take one over the tri las pred other than it looks so much cooler.

The thing is that people almost never field FW units that are "ok at best", its the few broken ones that always get spammed. I can see why people still might refuse to play against FW.

If you want to field stuff from FW why not proxy them as ordinary units from the codex?

Those same people also aren't going to run the core codex units that are "ok at best".

The thing that is going to produce the most positive game experiences for both players is to have an understanding about the power level they want to play at, and how competitively they want to play it. Forge World vs Non-Forge World isn't a particularly useful metric for making those kinds of decisions. Someone who doesn't like to get blown by powerful units is going to have a very similar experience getting blown out by the best-of-the-best codex units as they will getting blown out by the best-of-the-best forge world units.


There is spectrum of power level in both sources of material. Simply accepting one or the other is going to do nothing to keep matches where one wants in that spectrum.

Broadly, I agree. People need to have similar expectations. However, you should read the first post in this thread. I am not a power gamer and never have been. In fact, I was looking for the same sort of fun match up that my opponent was looking for. What surprised me was the flat 'no FW' response without looking at the rest of the army or the load out of the model in question. I wasn't trying to nuke him Turn 1 or anything like it. And, in fact, once he'd eliminated the offending article from the table, he was quite a sound bloke. We had a good game.

Not everything is black & white. I think most people agree that in the context of my list, he was being a tad unreasonable. Within his rights but unreasonable all the same.

 jhnbrg wrote:

 Formosa wrote:


Find it hard to believe that FW stuff tends to be powerful, good sure, some of it, but most is ok at best, look at the omega tank destroyer for example, why would i take one over the tri las pred other than it looks so much cooler.

The thing is that people almost never field FW units that are "ok at best", its the few broken ones that always get spammed. I can see why people still might refuse to play against FW.

If you want to field stuff from FW why not proxy them as ordinary units from the codex?

I don't think that's true. I see a lot of Leviathans, a fair number of Xiphons, a few Spartans and the occasional Cerastus-Knight locally. None really push the envelope. The majority of FW in casual seems to be people who bought into 30K and want to be able to use their models more often than semi-annual conventions.

Banville wrote:

Broadly, I agree. People need to have similar expectations. However, you should read the first post in this thread. I am not a power gamer and never have been. In fact, I was looking for the same sort of fun match up that my opponent was looking for. What surprised me was the flat 'no FW' response without looking at the rest of the army or the load out of the model in question. I wasn't trying to nuke him Turn 1 or anything like it. And, in fact, once he'd eliminated the offending article from the table, he was quite a sound bloke. We had a good game.

Not everything is black & white. I think most people agree that in the context of my list, he was being a tad unreasonable. Within his rights but unreasonable all the same.

Well if he was looking to get fun, fair games he was acting in a way that does not do much to efficiently reach his goals. That's really my only point. I'm not looking to label things reasonable or unreasonable, at the end of the day that's pretty subjective. I'm also not looking to challenge the idea he's allowed to play how he wants, of course he's within his rights. He isn't stabbing anyone.

Really the only useful thing you can come out of a conversation this type of conversation is some idea of how you can have fun games for your and your opponent. Talking about the game you want and how you want it is just one of the most useful tools in that regard.

 Asmodai wrote:

 jhnbrg wrote:

 Formosa wrote:


Find it hard to believe that FW stuff tends to be powerful, good sure, some of it, but most is ok at best, look at the omega tank destroyer for example, why would i take one over the tri las pred other than it looks so much cooler.

The thing is that people almost never field FW units that are "ok at best", its the few broken ones that always get spammed. I can see why people still might refuse to play against FW.

If you want to field stuff from FW why not proxy them as ordinary units from the codex?

I don't think that's true. I see a lot of Leviathans, a fair number of Xiphons, a few Spartans and the occasional Cerastus-Knight locally. None really push the envelope. The majority of FW in casual seems to be people who bought into 30K and want to be able to use their models more often than semi-annual conventions.

Yep totally agree, that’s why I said “most of the units I see” and not “most people take”

From what I’ve seen people are taking heresy units and useing them in 40k and if they are good, that’s a bonus, but anyone claiming that FW units are OP hasnt really got a clue or is just buying into the old FW hate, the majority of FW units or ok, only in competitive or tourney games are the powerful ones used I.E the minority of games.

 jhnbrg wrote:

 Formosa wrote:


Find it hard to believe that FW stuff tends to be powerful, good sure, some of it, but most is ok at best, look at the omega tank destroyer for example, why would i take one over the tri las pred other than it looks so much cooler.

The thing is that people almost never field FW units that are "ok at best", its the few broken ones that always get spammed. I can see why people still might refuse to play against FW.

That would depend heavily on the playgroup, and in many instances that is no different from how people treat codex units too however.

If you want to field stuff from FW why not proxy them as ordinary units from the codex?

whats a Thudd Gun, Rapier Laser Destroyer, Chaos Fire Raptor, etc supposed to proxy themselves as?

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:

 conker249 wrote:
I won't play against FW. It just sucks the fun out of the game for me. For my local Meta, I don't like playing against Khorne Brass Scorpions, Dread Claws, Impalers, Or Dark Eldar Tantulus and Reapers. Baneblades aren't fun either.
I just like regular Codex or regular Index. I lose a lot, which I am fine with, I just get utterly curbstomped or tabled quickly when those are on the field. At that point, I am really only continuing the match for my opponent to have fun, while looking at my watch hoping the match is over so I can drive 1.5 hours home and hope next weeks game goes better

Sounds like you need to worry less about your opponent and more about your own army. What stopped you from getting a FW model?

I have a few FW models that I paint. Primarchs, Deredeo Dreadnought. I like just regular Codex vs Regular Codex, Or regular Index. One rulebook, one codex(or index). Everyone here has a rulebook and a codex or index.The players who play FW, seem to never have their rules on hand, so it is a "trust me, this does this" or it is a screenshot on their phone. Its frustrating that rules cannot be verified (or that I can read to understand) they change, or magically "remember" certain rules later in the game when they benefit them. Again, My views towards FW are Local Meta. If I have a question on a unit for a blood angels player, I can ask to see his codex. If I have a question towards a FW unit, I cannot. It gets old really quick when I charge or shoot a unit, to find out what it does after the act.

 conker249 wrote:

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:

 conker249 wrote:
I won't play against FW. It just sucks the fun out of the game for me. For my local Meta, I don't like playing against Khorne Brass Scorpions, Dread Claws, Impalers, Or Dark Eldar Tantulus and Reapers. Baneblades aren't fun either.
I just like regular Codex or regular Index. I lose a lot, which I am fine with, I just get utterly curbstomped or tabled quickly when those are on the field. At that point, I am really only continuing the match for my opponent to have fun, while looking at my watch hoping the match is over so I can drive 1.5 hours home and hope next weeks game goes better

Sounds like you need to worry less about your opponent and more about your own army. What stopped you from getting a FW model?

I have a few FW models that I paint. Primarchs, Deredeo Dreadnought. I like just regular Codex vs Regular Codex, Or regular Index. One rulebook, one codex(or index). Everyone here has a rulebook and a codex or index.The players who play FW, seem to never have their rules on hand, so it is a "trust me, this does this" or it is a screenshot on their phone. Its frustrating that rules cannot be verified (or that I can read to understand) they change, or magically "remember" certain rules later in the game when they benefit them. Again, My views towards FW are Local Meta. If I have a question on a unit for a blood angels player, I can ask to see his codex. If I have a question towards a FW unit, I cannot. It gets old really quick when I charge or shoot a unit, to find out what it does after the act.

Meh, I've had players pull this sort of stuff on me with codex units before, like thinking 8E units are still open-topped that are no longer. They come to the game similarly without their books and find those same phone screenshots or remember those same convenient rules later. It's a player issue, not a FW issue. I've also been guilty of variants of it, too - assuming my opponents knew that warp spiders could jump away last edition and then them getting upset as they messed up their plan...though I'd argue - for both FW and non- - that players are responsible for knowing both their and their opponent's army before the first round starts.

 conker249 wrote:

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:

 conker249 wrote:
I won't play against FW. It just sucks the fun out of the game for me. For my local Meta, I don't like playing against Khorne Brass Scorpions, Dread Claws, Impalers, Or Dark Eldar Tantulus and Reapers. Baneblades aren't fun either.
I just like regular Codex or regular Index. I lose a lot, which I am fine with, I just get utterly curbstomped or tabled quickly when those are on the field. At that point, I am really only continuing the match for my opponent to have fun, while looking at my watch hoping the match is over so I can drive 1.5 hours home and hope next weeks game goes better

Sounds like you need to worry less about your opponent and more about your own army. What stopped you from getting a FW model?

I have a few FW models that I paint. Primarchs, Deredeo Dreadnought. I like just regular Codex vs Regular Codex, Or regular Index. One rulebook, one codex(or index). Everyone here has a rulebook and a codex or index.The players who play FW, seem to never have their rules on hand, so it is a "trust me, this does this" or it is a screenshot on their phone. Its frustrating that rules cannot be verified (or that I can read to understand) they change, or magically "remember" certain rules later in the game when they benefit them. Again, My views towards FW are Local Meta. If I have a question on a unit for a blood angels player, I can ask to see his codex. If I have a question towards a FW unit, I cannot. It gets old really quick when I charge or shoot a unit, to find out what it does after the act.

Actually that seems less like a problem for FW in general and more like a problem with your local players.
Sure you can blame Fw but the fact remains that it is the players fault that don't carry around their rules.
Basically a rule of thumb, if someone plays a Fw unit he will carry around a book more then normal people.
If he plays a FW subfaction (deathkorps, Corsairs, R&H, etc.) chances are he will be carrying 2 more books / printouts with him.
If he does not, and has no tablet with him then quite frankly he is a TFG that cheats and you should call him out for that.
( on a side note, for my R&H list i carry around:
-Codex astra militarum
-Codex csm
-Index astra militarum
- Index for Chaos vehicles forgot the name atm.
- ca
Basically i carry more rules then i carry in units for my army)

 conker249 wrote:

I have a few FW models that I paint. Primarchs, Deredeo Dreadnought. I like just regular Codex vs Regular Codex, Or regular Index. One rulebook, one codex(or index). Everyone here has a rulebook and a codex or index.The players who play FW, seem to never have their rules on hand, so it is a "trust me, this does this" or it is a screenshot on their phone. Its frustrating that rules cannot be verified (or that I can read to understand) they change, or magically "remember" certain rules later in the game when they benefit them. Again, My views towards FW are Local Meta. If I have a question on a unit for a blood angels player, I can ask to see his codex. If I have a question towards a FW unit, I cannot. It gets old really quick when I charge or shoot a unit, to find out what it does after the act.

"No book, no game" isn't a problem here. Because the people who don't have the book don't get to play, at least with the dedicated players (now, if we know you as a friend and it's just the people who are close, that's a different thing). In the best way I can say this, it sounds like your local meta has a good chunk of trash.

Of course, I have seen this. And it isn't limited to FW books.

If you're going to assume the products are bad because there's scummy people playing them, then by that logic I'd have to hate 99% of the Tau players I've met. I can't tell you how many times one came to me with some printout, or those suits manifested new weapons, etc. Tau players were so bad, they earned a negative reputation in the local meta I played at- but that wasn't "Tau rules"... it was just a trend of scummy people picking up the same scummy habits.

Im usually fine with playing vs FW. I think they have some very cool models and some neat rules.

The one time I played against the Eldar Scorpion I got crushed. I asked my opponent next time simply not to bring it. He wasn't anyways.

I just didnt enjoy playing against it. I would have though.

Thats the only instance of me ever asking somebody to not bring something. Outside of maybe 100's of boys or troops.

 rhinoceraids wrote:

Thats the only instance of me ever asking somebody to not bring something. Outside of maybe 100's of boys or troops.

This. This is absolutely the worst thing a person can bring to a game. Ever. One person did this to me, and never again.

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:

 rhinoceraids wrote:

Thats the only instance of me ever asking somebody to not bring something. Outside of maybe 100's of boys or troops.

This. This is absolutely the worst thing a person can bring to a game. Ever. One person did this to me, and never again.

Green tide. That army went from zero to hero really quickly.
I don't like the fact that guardsmen or ork boyz are that good / cost efficient in 8th.
I don't mind hordes i just mind the fact that those troops literally beat anything in regards to point efectiveness.
Same goes for csm which don't even bother anymore with standard marines and just use cultists.

Not Online!!! wrote:
Green tide. That army went from zero to hero really quickly.
I don't like the fact that guardsmen or ork boyz are that good / cost efficient in 8th.
I don't mind hordes i just mind the fact that those troops literally beat anything in regards to point efectiveness.
Same goes for csm which don't even bother anymore with standard marines and just use cultists.

I wouldn't mind if someone did this, as long as they let me know what they intended to do. This is way more than bringing a Forge World model or something weird, this is a big deal. It's not a 'new unit I don't know', it's an entire evening of waiting for someone to move all of his crap around.

Guess i am kinda also more hardened in that regard because i ain't leaving the house without atleast 1/10 in points in units, however you can be pretty effective at moving mass troops. That is if you don't intend to inch perfectly to avoid that nasty flamer overwatch before a charge....
The problem is that an inch more or less is way to important sometimes and or people are just beeing particulary excact again.

Not Online!!! wrote:
Guess i am kinda also more hardened in that regard because i ain't leaving the house without atleast 1/10 in points in units, however you can be pretty effective at moving mass troops. That is if you don't intend to inch perfectly to avoid that nasty flamer overwatch before a charge....
The problem is that an inch more or less is way to important sometimes and or people are just beeing particulary excact again.

They make little squad trays to move dudes around with. If someone has those, it's a lot easier. I just... shouldn't be able to walk across the street, wait in line, order a burrito, come back, eat it, and then have the farts by the time the shooting phase begins.

I avoid that by just ordering a general charge of my troops whilest firing.
Yes i play khorne
No, i do know what tactics are, i just personally adopted the mass charge doctrine.

 jhnbrg wrote:
The thing is that people almost never field FW units that are "ok at best", its the few broken ones that always get spammed. I can see why people still might refuse to play against FW.

The same is true of codex rules/models, therefore people should refuse to play against them.

If you want to field stuff from FW why not proxy them as ordinary units from the codex?

If you want to field your Tyranids why not proxy them as space marine units from the index? Why do you need to use those special snowflake codex rules?

 conker249 wrote:

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:

 conker249 wrote:
I won't play against FW. It just sucks the fun out of the game for me. For my local Meta, I don't like playing against Khorne Brass Scorpions, Dread Claws, Impalers, Or Dark Eldar Tantulus and Reapers. Baneblades aren't fun either.
I just like regular Codex or regular Index. I lose a lot, which I am fine with, I just get utterly curbstomped or tabled quickly when those are on the field. At that point, I am really only continuing the match for my opponent to have fun, while looking at my watch hoping the match is over so I can drive 1.5 hours home and hope next weeks game goes better

Sounds like you need to worry less about your opponent and more about your own army. What stopped you from getting a FW model?

I have a few FW models that I paint. Primarchs, Deredeo Dreadnought. I like just regular Codex vs Regular Codex, Or regular Index. One rulebook, one codex(or index). Everyone here has a rulebook and a codex or index.The players who play FW, seem to never have their rules on hand, so it is a "trust me, this does this" or it is a screenshot on their phone. Its frustrating that rules cannot be verified (or that I can read to understand) they change, or magically "remember" certain rules later in the game when they benefit them. Again, My views towards FW are Local Meta. If I have a question on a unit for a blood angels player, I can ask to see his codex. If I have a question towards a FW unit, I cannot. It gets old really quick when I charge or shoot a unit, to find out what it does after the act.

If people dont have their rules, thats on them, FW or no. Players should always have their rules. Thats not an FW issue, its a player issue.

That said, the internet is always available, lots of people use it to buy warhammer stuff and FW's rules can be bought, or otherwise acquired, just as easily as any other GW rulebooks.

 conker249 wrote:
I won't play against FW. It just sucks the fun out of the game for me. For my local Meta, I don't like playing against Khorne Brass Scorpions, Dread Claws, Impalers, Or Dark Eldar Tantulus and Reapers. Baneblades aren't fun either.
I just like regular Codex or regular Index. I lose a lot, which I am fine with, I just get utterly curbstomped or tabled quickly when those are on the field. At that point, I am really only continuing the match for my opponent to have fun, while looking at my watch hoping the match is over so I can drive 1.5 hours home and hope next weeks game goes better

The problem here is that, intentionally or no, you’re cherry picking. It’s just as easy to say ‘I don’t like playing against Magnus, Mortarion, Guilliman, Shadowswords or Knights. Dark Reapers and Flyrants aren’t fun either. I just like to play against Stygies pattern Vanquishers, Land Raider Achilles and Canoptek Tomb Stalkers.’

It’s cool that you know what you prefer to play with or against and stick with it, but it can’t be claimed to be a rational choice or any more reasonable than ‘I prefer blue models, so I don’t like to or refuse to play against green models.’

Its cherry picking to want to stick with a regular game of 40k with a regular codex without multiple books my opponents don't have?

 conker249 wrote:
Its cherry picking to want to stick with a regular game of 40k with a regular codex without multiple books my opponents don't have?

And why can't they "forget" their codex with a GW model?

And by exactly what valid measure are you using to define ‘regular’? What authority is there that aligns with your definition?

Many of my opponent’s only own Xenos armies. Using my Black Templars requires Codex Space Marines and Index Imperium 1. Since that’s

 conker249 wrote:
multiple books my opponents don't have

I can’t have a ‘regular’ game with them then?

As we’ve said time and again, it’s cool for you to decide what you’re happy to play against. You do you. But don’t try and pass of ‘no FW’ as a standard game of 8th Edition 40k or a reasonable, objective restriction.

 conker249 wrote:
Its cherry picking to want to stick with a regular game of 40k with a regular codex without multiple books my opponents don't have?

A regular game of 40k is one where FW rules are legal. What you actually want is your special house-ruled version of 40k that excludes particular units that you don't like.

PS: Baneblades are a unit from the IG codex, so I have no idea why you're using them as an excuse to ban FW rules.

 conker249 wrote:
Its cherry picking to want to stick with a regular game of 40k with a regular codex without multiple books my opponents don't have?

Everyone needs to have the rules for their models regardless of GW or FW. This is no different to the guy who insists that there is a FAQ ruling that's highly favorable for his army but doesn't have the FAQ with him or that guy who doesn't bring his codex because he can totally remember all of the rules.

 conker249 wrote:
Its cherry picking to want to stick with a regular game of 40k with a regular codex without multiple books my opponents don't have?

Instead of auto-turning-down all FW units, try auto-turning-down opponents who don't have their rules. It's easy to see from your comments that that is your real problem right there.

In this day and age their is no excuse for not having rules, heck I have 2 complete indexes on my phone, plus all the FAQ's and hard copies of my GW codex's.
Also bonus is FW do update the indexes with errata though you have to manually redownload them.

HMint wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

HMint wrote:
Another major factor is how including FW expands the scope and complexity of the game into something that, to me at least, is a total mess.

I have a pretty good grasp of what each (GW line) army in the game can do, what it's strengths and weaknesses are. Basicly each army has an identity that I am familar with.

Enter FW. Now everyone suddenly everyone seems to get access to everything. And I do not like that.

For example the Chaos I know from GW runs the CSM lineup consisting of antiquated power armor and tanks, with some demon machines and demons accompanying them.
But with FW, they suddenly can field all kinds of modern flyers, tanks and cybots that I would associate with loyal marines.
Worse, they can now field basicly everything that is IG, including their tank lineup and super heavies.


Giving everyone access to everything in some form or another via the FW cataloge is not making the game better.
That's not about how each unit on their own is broken, or not. But throwing them all over the place and putting them in different armies destroys the internal balance and identity of those armies.
Well and then there are those insanly broken units FW puts out from time to time as well, those do not help either.

Edit:
Forum ate half my post...

"Giving everyone access to everything?" What does that even mean?

To me, the Chaos lineup has been "Loyalists, but with daemons."
FW is merely continuing the trend with their stuff. The Renegades and Heretics bit is actually unplayably bad right now because it doesn't get hardly anything from IG - no superheavies other than the mediocre Baneblade (i.e. not the Shadowsword), no Hades, no Malcador Annhilators or Infernuses, no Tauroxes... I could go on, but to say they have "everything that is IG" is disingenuous or misinformed in the extreme.

That is simply because those are the models that FW have.
So they will put out rules for a model they happen to have, with no regards how that affects the balance of the game. If they came out with chaos shadowsword conversion kit tomorrow that thing would suddenly pop up in some demon army the next day, totally legal.
That is an argument against FW, not for.


And 'giving everyone access to everything' means exactly that:
(GW) Chaos does not have access to artillery tanks (other than DeathGuard?), but now they do thanks to FW.
(GW) Chaos does not have access to bombers, but now they do.
(GW) Chaos does not have access to drop pods, now they do.
(GW) Chaos does not have access to flying transports, now they do.

Sure, not each exact unit is available, but do you see how every options seems to get covered by FW somehow?

Ok you have that completely backwards.

Loyalists should not have access to most of the “heresy era” tech, no one makes it in the imperium where as traitors still make these machines and have no codex telling them what they can and cannot use, this is why loyalists get the “relic” rule and chaos doesn’t, then there is the idiocy that loyalists get catapractii and tartorus termies and chaos doesn’t.

It’s the loyalists “that get everything” not chaos.

Well, that's what you get when you have a third party making your expansion.

And before the "brigade" comes back, yes third party.

FW may be housed in the same building, and be owned by GW, but it's still a separate company, with it's own staff and management. GW could have made it in-house anytime they wanted, and haven't.

 Mmmpi wrote:
Well, that's what you get when you have a third party making your expansion.

And before the "brigade" comes back, yes third party.

FW may be housed in the same building, and be owned by GW, but it's still a separate company, with it's own staff and management. GW could have made it in-house anytime they wanted, and haven't.

To say that FW is a separate company from GW is like saying the different developers team of a publisher like EA or Blizzard are from a different company. They may work in different products but they are clearly under the same umbrella and regularly work together, do cross-game promotions (Blizzard do this regularly), etc...

If not, why theres FW point changes in CA?

Because GW felt like it. One of the complaints I've heard about the CA points changes for FW was that people felt that it was like GW never actually talked to the FW staff when they made those changes.

That wasn't my argument. FW and the normal GW's studio are just two separate teams, but from the beginning FW has always done his products for warhammer, ok, more targeted towards modelists, but that doesn't mean anything.

Heck, GW even sells Smaug, a FW model, from his webstore. FW are not a "third party" like Kromlech or others. Theres no point or reason behind that statement. Is just factually untrue. And I say this when the only FW model I have is a legit but second-hand buyed Achillus Dreadnought for my Custodes.

GW reports FW financials as part of the same figures as GW.com.

By the logic that FW are third party, so is anything sold through the GW site. Or, indeed, Black Library.

All FW is is a brand name identifying that they represent something separate from GW Main, just like Citadel, Black Library etc..

Incorrect. They share quite a bit, but are still separate entities. Probably have a reason for it, like taxes or something.

No. Not even slightly correct.

Forge World is reported as part of the "Mail Order" breakdown of GW's turnover. As per their last report..

In addition mail order segment revenue of £2,143,000 for the six months to 27 November 2016 previously reported as non-core mail order and £10,283,000 previously reported as Citadel and Forge World are now reported together as Mail order which reflects the management structure in place at 28 May 2017 and 26 November 2017.

You do not declare a "company" as part of your total earnings for tax reasons.

Neither does Forge World have either a company registration number nor a VAT number available on its web page. Which it should do, we're it a separate entity from GW. But it doesn't have either, because all it is is a registered mark of GW PLC.

Ah, so you agree that the others are incorrect.

See my edit after going to get quotes, sensing I'd need them.

Declaring another companies profits with yours happens when one company owns the other.

 Azreal13 wrote:
See my edit after going to get quotes, sensing I'd need them.

Dude he is clearly trolling you, let it go.

Oh, I'm aware, but I'm not going to let unsubstantiated nonsense like that go unchallenged.

Then crack on, we all know he is talking nonsense though.

 Formosa wrote:
Then crack on, we all know he is talking nonsense though.

Yeah, I'm just highlighting it for the silent, non-posting majority. Otherwise people might read it and assume because nobody disagreed that it was true, and then this bollocks just gets perpetuated ad nauseam.

Just because you disagree with that, doesn't invalidate anything else.

But facts are facts.

 Mmmpi wrote:
Declaring another companies profits with yours happens when one company owns the other.

FW has never been a separate company. It is a division of GW, not another company owned by them.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mmmpi wrote:
Just because you disagree with that, doesn't invalidate anything else.

But facts are facts.

The irony is heavy.

As heavy as the truth.

 Mmmpi wrote:
Declaring another companies profits with yours happens when one company owns the other.

Companies break down financial numbers for different product lines all the time.

And there is no "ownership" involved. Everyone working on the FW product line is a GW employee. Every piece of IP published under the FW brand name is owned by GW. All sales of FW products are billed to GW. All FW products are shipped by GW, from a GW address. At no point in the history of the (current) FW brand name have the people working on it been employees of a separate company, or had independent IP ownership of anything they created. Forge World is nothing more than a brand name used for certain products, just like Citadel Finecast or White Dwarf Magazine. If they are given more or less independence to work on a particular product it is only the same sort of independence where an author working on a White Dwarf might report to an immediate supervisor that is different from the one a sculptor working on a Citadel space marine kit would report to.

 Mmmpi wrote:
Well, that's what you get when you have a third party making your expansion.

And before the "brigade" comes back, yes third party.

FW may be housed in the same building, and be owned by GW, but it's still a separate company, with it's own staff and management. GW could have made it in-house anytime they wanted, and haven't.

It's not a separate company, it's just another division, like Accounting or IT, to do the stuff that can't be done profitably in plastic or that has a role in the lore but otherwise doesn't really fit the model for the main studio. It's Games Workshop D.B.A. ForgeWorld.

They all make Games Workshop products, they're all Games Workshop employees, they're all running through the same web domain, they don't file separate taxes, they're paychecks all say "Games Workshop", when you look at all the legal and copyright bits on FW's site and in their books it all talks about Games Workshop and not Forgeworld

At this point, if you're argument has to rest on how one sales channel is structured differently from another as it relates to "officialdom", and not on anything in the rules or how games workshop runs their own games and events, you're probably getting into the weeds.

Oh, the validity of the rules is a separate topic in many ways.

I've already said that their validity is most likely as you've said it to be.

On that topic my argument is that it's an expansion, and that people deciding not to use it is not as you have said, silly, or as some have implied, a sign of mental infirmity. Most people who reject FW have valid reasons for doing it. You just don't like those reasons.

FW is fine for Open Play and Narrative Play only. It has no place in Matched Play and especially not for pick-up games against a stranger.

I always stipulate “No FW” before the game; disagree and we don’t have to play. Some people are understanding and fine with it and others not so much. Odds are, the ones that get salty about it wouldn’t be enjoyable to play against anyway.

 oni wrote:
It has no place in Matched Play and especially not for pick-up games against a stranger.

Why?

 oni wrote:
Odds are, the ones that get salty about it wouldn’t be enjoyable to play against anyway.

Yeah, how dare people "get salty" about the fact that you insist on getting to veto anything about their army that you don't like, while not giving them similar veto power over your own choices. They must clearly be awful people who aren't enjoyable to play against. Or do you give your opponents similar veto power? Do you happily dump your existing army and buy a bunch of new SoB because your opponent says that space marines have no place in matched play, especially in pick-up games against a stranger?

 Mmmpi wrote:

On that topic my argument is that it's an expansion

That was true several editions ago when the books were marked Warhammer 40,000 Expansion but how are they any different now?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mmmpi wrote:
Most people who reject FW have valid reasons for doing it. You just don't like those reasons.

Those reasons are no more valid and in many cases rather less valid than rejecting GW units.

Many of those reasons are based on pure ignorance with no real foundation.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mmmpi wrote:
As heavy as the truth.

No, you are simply factually incorrect.

FW is no more a separate company than GW's marketing team which also has its own staff and management.

It's still true. The indexes flat out say they expand the rules.
Codexi don't say that.

No, their reasons are usually vaild. Again, you just don't like it.

I'd think that if you really believed ignorance was the issue, that you'd be trying to educate, rather then insult. But I guess I'm just the only rational one here.

 Mmmpi wrote:
It's still true. The indexes flat out say they expand the rules.
Codexi don't say that.

No, their reasons are usually vaild. Again, you just don't like it.

I'd think that if you really believed ignorance was the issue, that you'd be trying to educate, rather then insult. But I guess I'm just the only rational one here.

The arrogance is palpable. I mean, hell, you're not even the only one arguing that FW should be considered a separate entity/an expansion, and yet you STILL claim to be the only rational one?

Yes.

In a hypothetical that I'm wrong, it means I'm using erroneous information. Logic was still used to come to my conclusion.

Meanwhile, the "pro" argument so far has been "insult them, maybe they'll change their minds"

"did they change yet?"

"No?"

"Keep repeating the same insults, that'll learn them!"

 Mmmpi wrote:

No, their reasons are usually vaild. Again, you just don't like it.

Let's see:
People don't have the rules - hardly a problem with FW that people are cheating and not a problem that is confined to FW
I don't know the rules - why is your opponent only allowed to bring units you know the rules for?
It's a separate company - no, it isn't.
All FW stuff is OP - laughably incorrect
FW stuff is all for huge games - except for the vast majority that isn't
But what if someone brings a titan to a pickup game? - you'll have won by turn two, well done.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mmmpi wrote:
I'd think that if you really believed ignorance was the issue, that you'd be trying to educate, rather then insult. But I guess I'm just the only rational one here.

Please point out the insult. Or are you just playing the victim card now?

FW has been constantly a party to abuse, and it's use is frequently seen as a mark of poor quality of player.

People don't wake up and go "Oh I'm going to hate forgeworld today"

They learned not to trust it.

Is this a Forgeworld problem? No. But did the ban solve many of those problems for these groups? Yes. So it's a valid response. They had a problem, and their solution fixed that problem. Is there a better response? Sure, but it's working for them, and so they've had no reason to change it.

That's why I've said educate, don't insult.

 conker249 wrote:
I won't play against FW. It just sucks the fun out of the game for me. For my local Meta, I don't like playing against Khorne Brass Scorpions, Dread Claws, Impalers, Or Dark Eldar Tantulus and Reapers. Baneblades aren't fun either.
I just like regular Codex or regular Index. I lose a lot, which I am fine with, I just get utterly curbstomped or tabled quickly when those are on the field. At that point, I am really only continuing the match for my opponent to have fun, while looking at my watch hoping the match is over so I can drive 1.5 hours home and hope next weeks game goes better

None of those units are unbeatable. KBS's are rather flimsy and dread claws are overcosted drop pods with a melta attack. A baneblade is better than every unit you have mentioned, and guess what...bane blades are GW proper. So.........ban GW?

Instead of blaming your loss's on some esoteric idea that because it isn't in a games workshop box then it must be overpowered waac cheese. How about trying to upgrade your list/play to lose less? Perhaps you make battle reports to figure out just what has been leading to your loss's?

Or, you could just stop caring about winning and just play for the fun of it. Either method is going to yield far more positive results for you than blaming anything but yourself. But seriously, how are you getting tabled by dread claws? What do you do when you fight marines with drop pods? What about alpha legion lists? Plasma vets? Raven Guard? Eldar? Guard gun lines? Wonder Twins? I'm not trying to be rude, honestly. But people blaming an entire company for a loss of fun is well within your right, but its also in my right to ask you the questions I have ask.

Calling people silly is in insult. Not a major one, but when you keep saying it in the context used, it makes your feelings and lack of respect known.

 Mmmpi wrote:
FW has been constantly a party to abuse, and it's use is frequently seen as a mark of poor quality of player.

People don't wake up and go "Oh I'm going to hate forgeworld today"

They learned not to trust it.

Is this a Forgeworld problem? No. But did the ban solve many of those problems for these groups? Yes. So it's a valid response. They had a problem, and their solution fixed that problem. Is there a better response? Sure, but it's working for them, and so they've had no reason to change it.

That's why I've said educate, don't insult.

I have yet to meet a forgeworld "hater". Thankfully you guys are a serious minority in my area. So because someone playing a R&H army is a poor quality player? (nevermind R&H are flatly inferior to guard, which are GW produced). How about those DKoK players? CLEARLY WAAC scum. Amrite? For every broken forgeworld model or rule I can show you two from GW proper.

Apparently my response never made it.

No, there's a perception born of experience. The majority of people who use or want to use forgeworld are probably fine people.

I think this may be unique to 40k (being in a 40k thread and such) but I have never had this kind of issue with AoS or LOTR. In old warhammer the only way to get some army units was FW.

 Mmmpi wrote:
FW has been constantly a party to abuse

And codex rules haven't? JFC, have we forgotten all the game-breaking lists that used only codex rules? Riptide spam, scatter laser jetbikes, etc? It's utterly insane to single out FW rules for complaint about "abuse" when everything else GW publishes is just as bad, if not worse.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Mmmpi wrote:
FW has been constantly a party to abuse

And codex rules haven't? JFC, have we forgotten all the game-breaking lists that used only codex rules? Riptide spam, scatter laser jetbikes, etc? It's utterly insane to single out FW rules for complaint about "abuse" when everything else GW publishes is just as bad, if not worse.

My god, Riptide lists were worse than anything FW has ever put out. Seriously. Its like GW stopped caring and was just seeing how much they could break the game before the reboot. They certainly raked in the cash selling scatter bikes however.

 oni wrote:
FW is fine for Open Play and Narrative Play only. It has no place in Matched Play and especially not for pick-up games against a stranger.

I always stipulate “No FW” before the game; disagree and we don’t have to play. Some people are understanding and fine with it and others not so much. Odds are, the ones that get salty about it wouldn’t be enjoyable to play against anyway.

What armies do you play? I see ultras on your tag, so if I were to say "no hellblasters, no special characters, no scouts, no chapter master stratagem, no relic banner, no razorbacks, no plasma, and no stormravens, because that stuff has no place in matched play or against a stranger! And if you get salty about it you're probably not enjoyable to play against anyway!" You would be totally fine with that?

So my 31k era battle company I use for casual games cant have a Leviathan and Contemptor Mortis despite having tacticals, assault marines, and other 'bad' units?

Boo.

 Mmmpi wrote:
Apparently my response never made it.

No, there's a perception born of experience. The majority of people who use or want to use forgeworld are probably fine people.

Man.... your troll power is a sight to see but move on, it’s abundantly clear what your doing now, anymore nonsense like this and the thread will likely be closed.

 Formosa wrote:


Man.... your troll power is a sight to see but move on, it’s abundantly clear what your doing now, anymore nonsense like this and the thread will likely be closed.

Yes, because disagreeing with you is trolling.

Of course! Why didn't I see it before!

Only the Forgeworld Brigade is allowed to disagree on Dakka! All hail the mighty Forgeworld Brigade! May they always smell of resin!

Seriously now. If you're going to accuse me of trolling, well that goes both ways. I could easily say the 13 pages you guys have been brigading as doing very much the same. So don't be childish.

Well, on the point of FW being a seperate company you've been proven wrong, it has little to do with agreeing or not, it's a fact.

As usual one should decide from case to case.
Should you inform your opponent that you are bringing a Titan to the game? Probably.
Should you inform your opponent you're bringing Guilliman, a Leviathan or Mortarion to the game? In a casual environment I'd say so.
Should you inform your opponent that you don't want to play against anything FW at all? Definitely, as that would raise several questions for me. Are my Terminators built with FW-conversion kits out? Is that overpriced Blight Drone out so that I'll take the much stronger GW Bloat Drone?

Banning FW completely just seems pretty arbitrary for me.

 Mmmpi wrote:

 Formosa wrote:


Man.... your troll power is a sight to see but move on, it’s abundantly clear what your doing now, anymore nonsense like this and the thread will likely be closed.

Yes, because disagreeing with you is trolling.

Of course! Why didn't I see it before!

Only the Forgeworld Brigade is allowed to disagree on Dakka! All hail the mighty Forgeworld Brigade! May they always smell of resin!

Seriously now. If you're going to accuse me of trolling, well that goes both ways. I could easily say the 13 pages you guys have been brigading as doing very much the same. So don't be childish.

The sheer amount of false statements you keep making and blatant disregard for others points indicates quite clearly you are either being wilfully ignorant or trolling, your fine to not agree with others, but you are not doing that, you seem to be going out of your way to aggravate others.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Sgt. Cortez wrote:
Well, on the point of FW being a seperate company you've been proven wrong, it has little to do with agreeing or not, it's a fact.

As usual one should decide from case to case.
Should you inform your opponent that you are bringing a Titan to the game? Probably.
Should you inform your opponent you're bringing Guilliman, a Leviathan or Mortarion to the game? In a casual environment I'd say so.
Should you inform your opponent that you don't want to play against anything FW at all? Definitely, as that would raise several questions for me. Are my Terminators built with FW-conversion kits out? Is that overpriced Blight Drone out so that I'll take the much stronger GW Bloat Drone?

Banning FW completely just seems pretty arbitrary for me.

Funnily enough I cover this slightly in my mega old outdated HH review

"LORDS OF WAR:
This part of the review is mainly on ettiquit than on the lords of war choices themselves, i will start by saying that lords of war is not an optional rule as some believe it is, it works exactly the same way as allies but "unlocks" at certain points sizes, this in essence mean you can take a lord of war choice but your opponent does not have to.
This is where the ettiquit comes in, taking say.. a Baneblade to a standard game is not what some would call fair, but letting your opponent know before hand that you will be using the lord of war choice will allow them to use there own, no one wants a super heavy or primarch dropped on them out of the blue.
this is the real world and "knowledge is power, guard it well" doesn't apply here.

OK, so with the basics of ettiquite and the allies matrix out of the way we can get to the nity grity of this article, the units, I will start with the HQ options, specifically the rites of war (RoW) and the master of the legion (MTL) rules "

 Mmmpi wrote:
FW has been constantly a party to abuse, and it's use is frequently seen as a mark of poor quality of player.

People don't wake up and go "Oh I'm going to hate forgeworld today"

They learned not to trust it.

Is this a Forgeworld problem? No. But did the ban solve many of those problems for these groups? Yes. So it's a valid response. They had a problem, and their solution fixed that problem. Is there a better response? Sure, but it's working for them, and so they've had no reason to change it.

That's why I've said educate, don't insult.

Abuse what though? If you are wanting to minmax to max you should stick to gw codexes as tha''s where most broken stuff are. Taking fw dilutes your power level.

So poor quality player means one who does not optimize to the max...,

Sgt. Cortez wrote:
Well, on the point of FW being a seperate company you've been proven wrong, it has little to do with agreeing or not, it's a fact.

As usual one should decide from case to case.
Should you inform your opponent that you are bringing a Titan to the game? Probably.
Should you inform your opponent you're bringing Guilliman, a Leviathan or Mortarion to the game? In a casual environment I'd say so.
Should you inform your opponent that you don't want to play against anything FW at all? Definitely, as that would raise several questions for me. Are my Terminators built with FW-conversion kits out? Is that overpriced Blight Drone out so that I'll take the much stronger GW Bloat Drone?

Banning FW completely just seems pretty arbitrary for me.

It is arbitrary but it is also easier to set a boundary than negotiate. I don't mind FW but I can see that position.

Gotta love most of the people still bothering to post in these threads are in full denial of all the issues FW glorious way of writing rules has caused over the years.

If FW hadn't broken the game as often and as hard as they did, no one would even consider to decline a game because of a Leviathan Dread.

 Jidmah wrote:
Gotta love most of the people still bothering to post in these threads are in full denial of all the issues FW glorious way of writing rules has caused over the years.

If FW hadn't broken the game as often and as hard as they did, no one would even consider to decline a game because of a Leviathan Dread.

I started in 7th, so my history with Forgeworld is that it's similar to the main studio. Yes, there are some OP things (Tau'Nar) but plenty of it is just fine. Same with GW.

And you know what? I can understand that, if in the past, FW was bonkers-nutso OP and GW was not, people might have bad history with it. I would politely ask that they, however, look at the CURRENT state, and understand that FW is, at the most, no more OP than GW, and probably quite a bit less, since Chapter Approved.

 Jidmah wrote:
Gotta love most of the people still bothering to post in these threads are in full denial of all the issues FW glorious way of writing rules has caused over the years.

If FW hadn't broken the game as often and as hard as they did, no one would even consider to decline a game because of a Leviathan Dread.

Oh look, another troll!

Alright, I'll play for the sake of the uninformed who may mistakenly take your hyperbole as useful commentary.

No one has at any point stated (as well you know), that there has never been any issue with any FW rule. I will state, categorically, that FW have cause less rules issues than the main studio ever have... so, presumably, we shouldn't allow/use citadel miniatures in a game either on that basis?

Are we not of the level of intelligence where we can recognise a problematic unit, is problematic regardless of which division of a company cast the model? I'm pretty sure I can do that. Are you having issues with the same? Is that why you simply issue the blanket statement 'Hurr durr, Forge World bad'?

C'mon. Have a little self respect.

 JNAProductions wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
Gotta love most of the people still bothering to post in these threads are in full denial of all the issues FW glorious way of writing rules has caused over the years.

If FW hadn't broken the game as often and as hard as they did, no one would even consider to decline a game because of a Leviathan Dread.

I started in 7th, so my history with Forgeworld is that it's similar to the main studio. Yes, there are some OP things (Tau'Nar) but plenty of it is just fine. Same with GW.

And you know what? I can understand that, if in the past, FW was bonkers-nutso OP and GW was not, people might have bad history with it. I would politely ask that they, however, look at the CURRENT state, and understand that FW is, at the most, no more OP than GW, and probably quite a bit less, since Chapter Approved.

Thing is, chapter approved isn't ancient history, it's barely six months old. They fudged up in 8th just as hard as they always have. They only difference to the last decade is that at least GW cleans up after them.

 Jidmah wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
Gotta love most of the people still bothering to post in these threads are in full denial of all the issues FW glorious way of writing rules has caused over the years.

If FW hadn't broken the game as often and as hard as they did, no one would even consider to decline a game because of a Leviathan Dread.

I started in 7th, so my history with Forgeworld is that it's similar to the main studio. Yes, there are some OP things (Tau'Nar) but plenty of it is just fine. Same with GW.

And you know what? I can understand that, if in the past, FW was bonkers-nutso OP and GW was not, people might have bad history with it. I would politely ask that they, however, look at the CURRENT state, and understand that FW is, at the most, no more OP than GW, and probably quite a bit less, since Chapter Approved.

Thing is, chapter approved isn't ancient history, it's barely six months old. They fudged up in 8th just as hard as they always have. They only difference to the last decade is that at least GW cleans up after them.

And GW itself didn't feth up majorly? No one is saying FW is perfect, but a lot of us ARE saying the GW is just as bad, if not worse.

So if you accept GW balance, why not accept GW balance with a FW label?

StrayIight wrote:
Oh look, another troll!

See, you're wrong and the only reason 99% of the forgeworld data slates find their way into armies because their are vastly more powerful than their codex equivalent.

 Jidmah wrote:

StrayIight wrote:
Oh look, another troll!

See, you're wrong and the only reason 99% of the forgeworld data slates find their way into armies because their are vastly more powerful than their codex equivalent.

In a tournament? Yes.

In your FLGS? No. They're there because they're a little bit better, or look super cool, or provide an option you wouldn't otherwise have. Yes, there are some WAAC jerk-holes who will use only the most powerful and mock you should you not play them, and some powergamers who are more competitive than you would like but are otherwise upstanding people, but there are also PLENTY of people who just think "Holy crap, that Land Raider variant looks BALLER! Let me get that!"

Edit: Also, do me a favor-point out which FW models are vastly superior than their Codex equivalents.

Bonus points: They have to actually be OP, not just better than a crap option.

 JNAProductions wrote:
And GW itself didn't feth up majorly? No one is saying FW is perfect, but a lot of us ARE saying the GW is just as bad, if not worse.

So if you accept GW balance, why not accept GW balance with a FW label?

I made literally no statement about my acceptance of FW.

I just made fun of the fact that there is another 14 pages on this forum of the same 10 people praising FW to be perfectly fine since chapter approved 6 month ago while completely ignoring the fact that FW had multiple massive feth-ups which has ruined their reputation up to a point that people walk away from perfectly harmless FW models like the OP's dread.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 JNAProductions wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:

StrayIight wrote:
Oh look, another troll!

See, you're wrong and the only reason 99% of the forgeworld data slates find their way into armies because their are vastly more powerful than their codex equivalent.

In a tournament? Yes.

In your FLGS? No. They're there because they're a little bit better, or look super cool, or provide an option you wouldn't otherwise have. Yes, there are some WAAC jerk-holes who will use only the most powerful and mock you should you not play them, and some powergamers who are more competitive than you would like but are otherwise upstanding people, but there are also PLENTY of people who just think "Holy crap, that Land Raider variant looks BALLER! Let me get that!"

Edit: Also, do me a favor-point out which FW models are vastly superior than their Codex equivalents.

Bonus points: They have to actually be OP, not just better than a crap option.

Sorry, I just was trolling you in response to you calling me a troll. Thanks for biting.

Are the people who lost to a Space Marine player still crying?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Jidmah wrote:
Gotta love most of the people still bothering to post in these threads are in full denial of all the issues FW glorious way of writing rules has caused over the years.

If FW hadn't broken the game as often and as hard as they did, no one would even consider to decline a game because of a Leviathan Dread.

Show me the broken Forge World models. Please.

 Jidmah wrote:




I made literally no statement about my acceptance of FW.

I just made fun of the fact that there is another 14 pages on this forum of the same 10 people praising FW to be perfectly fine since chapter approved 6 month ago while completely ignoring the fact that FW had multiple massive feth-ups which has ruined their reputation up to a point that people walk away from perfectly harmless FW models like the OP's dread.

This guy gets it.

Too bad the FW Brigade will only accept being the Putin to our Trump.

 Jidmah wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
And GW itself didn't feth up majorly? No one is saying FW is perfect, but a lot of us ARE saying the GW is just as bad, if not worse.

So if you accept GW balance, why not accept GW balance with a FW label?

I made literally no statement about my acceptance of FW.

I just made fun of the fact that there is another 14 pages on this forum of the same 10 people praising FW to be perfectly fine since chapter approved 6 month ago while completely ignoring the fact that FW had multiple massive feth-ups which has ruined their reputation up to a point that people walk away from perfectly harmless FW models like the OP's dread.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 JNAProductions wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:

StrayIight wrote:
Oh look, another troll!

See, you're wrong and the only reason 99% of the forgeworld data slates find their way into armies because their are vastly more powerful than their codex equivalent.

In a tournament? Yes.

In your FLGS? No. They're there because they're a little bit better, or look super cool, or provide an option you wouldn't otherwise have. Yes, there are some WAAC jerk-holes who will use only the most powerful and mock you should you not play them, and some powergamers who are more competitive than you would like but are otherwise upstanding people, but there are also PLENTY of people who just think "Holy crap, that Land Raider variant looks BALLER! Let me get that!"

Edit: Also, do me a favor-point out which FW models are vastly superior than their Codex equivalents.

Bonus points: They have to actually be OP, not just better than a crap option.

Sorry, I just was trolling you in response to you calling me a troll. Thanks for biting.

What are the massive feth ups?

I am aware of 3 maybe 4 units in ALL of forge worlds history that were mega OP, I can think of a lot more (nearly the entire eldar codex in 7th) GW units that were OP, so please list the broken FW units that gave it a bad reputation.


Here is the truth of it, at some point in the past a few people didnt like FW for whatever reason and expressed that opinion online, now we have people who have no clue whatsoever aping the same opinion having NEVER encountered any of the actual issues they profess to ban FW for, I put the vast majority of anti FW into that bracket, big caveat though, im talking specifically about the people I have met and talked to on the subject.

Don't feed them. Either of them.

They'll keep replying with idiocy as long as you keep responding to their 'points'. It's obvious, it's artless, but they're having a great time watching everyone else taking them seriously.

Ignore both of them and let them play with each other. Anything else just muddies the water of what anyone with an ounce of common sense knows is a pretty black and white discussion anyway.

StrayIight wrote:
Don't feed them. Either of them.

They'll keep replying with idiocy as long as you keep responding to their 'points'. It's obvious, it's artless, but they're having a great time watching everyone else taking them seriously.

Ignore both of them and let them play with each other. Anything else just muddies the water of what anyone with an ounce of common sense knows is a pretty black and white discussion anyway.

Right, except you're the one trying to force your views on everyone else.

Literally the arguments against you are: People have had their experiences with forgeworld that have led them to avoid it. At least for the last few pages.

Aside from a short side trip where apparently the FWB doesn't understand what a subsidiary is, or a rules expansion.

 Mmmpi wrote:

StrayIight wrote:
Don't feed them. Either of them.

They'll keep replying with idiocy as long as you keep responding to their 'points'. It's obvious, it's artless, but they're having a great time watching everyone else taking them seriously.

Ignore both of them and let them play with each other. Anything else just muddies the water of what anyone with an ounce of common sense knows is a pretty black and white discussion anyway.

Right, except you're the one trying to force your views on everyone else.

Literally the arguments against you are: People have had their experiences with forgeworld that have led them to avoid it. At least for the last few pages.

Aside from a short side trip where apparently the FWB doesn't understand what a subsidiary is, or a rules expansion.

Uh huh. Don't you have a bridge you need to be sitting under?

I can't. Your brigade is there.

Seriously projecting.

 Mmmpi wrote:
I can't. Your brigade is there.

Seriously projecting.

Oh I'm sorry, how rude of me. Allow me:

"Common sense, 40K Designers, Self respect, Intelligent debate - could you all move away from the bridge so the Trolls can sit down? Thanks."

Common sense: people have bad experiences with FW, which validates their banning it. Check

40K designers: we're talking about FW designers, or more accurately, people's perception of them.

Self-Respect: why don't you respect yourself?

Intelligent debate =/= summoning 1d4+2 of your brigade to try and drown out anyone who disagrees with you.

And you trolls are already trying to burn the seats.

Yeah, this thread is riddled with trolls. Already reported some of the more egregious breaches of common etiquette to the mods.

Opinions are one thing, but pretending blatant lies, hyperbole and baiting are facts is another entirely different beast.

LEGALLY, as per the game, Forge World is as valid as any Codex unit. If you wish to deny your opponent the use of said unit, you have every right to do so, just as you'd have the same right to ban any and all Codex units produced by GW too.

In both situations, regardless if you're banning FW or GW based units, your opponent holds every right to admonish you if your reasons for vetoing those units is based on blatant ignorance, wilful malice, or pure childishness.

In both situations, regardless if you're banning FW or GW based units, your opponent holds every right to admonish you if your reasons for vetoing those units is based on blatant ignorance, wilful malice, or pure childishness.

This is the part I'm arguing against. You seem to think that you're entitled to push your intolerant views onto other players for the sake of an optional expansion.

 Mmmpi wrote:
Common sense: people have bad experiences with FW, which validates their banning it. Check

40K designers: we're talking about FW designers, or more accurately, people's perception of them.

Self-Respect: why don't you respect yourself?

Intelligent debate =/= summoning 1d4+2 of your brigade to try and drown out anyone who disagrees with you.

And you trolls are already trying to burn the seats.

Sigh. Alright. Fine.

Lets have some intelligent debate. First, realise that no-one has stated - at all - that there has never been an issue with any rule FW has put out. Of course there has. Second, no-one has said, at all, that people can't possibly have had bad experiences with FW in games, or that they can't refuse to play against them.

Are we understanding so far, or are we just going to ignore all the above because it doesn't fit our argument or world view?

What is being said:

FW doesn't equate 'OP' models or rules. That you could find one? Yes. You probably could. But you will almost certainly find more to complain about from the rules put out under the non-forge world banner.

You've been asked - more than once, to provide reasonable examples as to why a FW model should be seen as more of an issue than a Citadel one. As yet, you've not even attempted to address this issue, let alone provide examples or data for people to look at and discuss. Why? I think because you've no interest in doing so - rather, you'd prefer to provoke a reaction that isn't helpful or constructive to anyone. But here is your chance to prove me wrong, or instead to make hyperbolic statements and prove you're just here to troll.

My argument has been, and is, this:
They're all legal models. They are all part of 40K. Fact. That is the reality everyone must live with, because it is reality. Like it or not.
Now, WHY, not just be grown up, and complain about a problem unit or rule, rather than attempt to completely nullify or bad mouth an entire miniature production division - whether it is FW, OR Citadel. Is not dealing with issues on a case by case basis the far more sensible thing to do? Or are we ignoring sense because it's not as comfortable as holding on to an ancient and worthless belief that something is 'problematic'?

 Mmmpi wrote:

In both situations, regardless if you're banning FW or GW based units, your opponent holds every right to admonish you if your reasons for vetoing those units is based on blatant ignorance, wilful malice, or pure childishness.

This is the part I'm arguing against. You seem to think that you're entitled to push your intolerant views onto other players for the sake of an optional expansion.

It's no more of an optional expansion than any of the Codexes.

If anything, the Codexes are "expansions" of the Indexes. They're just as "optional" as the FW stuff.

Also, intolerant? Sorry what? Please, highlight where I'm being intolerant.
Yeah, I'm entitled to push my views on people. Same as you're entitled to decline a game if there's something about it you don't like.

That's called Freedom of Speech. You can speak out against, veto or deny whatever you want. I'm allowed to criticise you for doing that as much as I want in return.
If you can't handle that, perhaps you shouldn't criticise people using Forge World, regardless if you don't recognise it's validity.

StrayIight wrote:

Sigh. Alright. Fine.

Lets have some intelligent debate. First, realise that no-one has stated - at all - that there has never been an issue with any rule FW has put out. Of course there has. Second, no-one has said, at all, that people can't possibly have had bad experiences with FW in games, or that they can't refuse to play against them.

Check

Are we understanding so far, or are we just going to ignore all the above because it doesn't fit our argument or world view?

insulting, and putting words in my mouth.

What is being said:

FW doesn't equate 'OP' models or rules. That you could find one? Yes. You probably could. But you will almost certainly find more to complain about from the rules put out under the non-forge world banner.

You've been asked - more than once, to provide reasonable examples as to why a FW model should be seen as more of an issue than a Citadel one. As yet, you've not even attempted to address this issue, let alone provide examples or data for people to look at and discuss. Why? I think because you've no interest in doing so - rather, you'd prefer to provoke a reaction that isn't helpful or constructive to anyone. But here is your chance to prove me wrong, or instead to make hyperbolic statements and prove you're just here to troll.

I've never actually said that they were broken or overpowered. I said that there was a perception of it, due to a number of factors including: past broken or incorrectly priced stuff, players taking advantage of that, and groups realizing that if they ban FW, it stops both of those problems. Is it fair for the FW players who don't use the stuff that was broken, or incorrectly priced, no. But in my experience, most (not all) "no forgeworld" places will say sure after they realize you're not going to be a jerk. I'm saying this as one of the few people who got my group to start accepting FW.

My argument has been, and is, this:
They're all legal models. They are all part of 40K. Fact. That is the reality everyone must live with, because it is reality. Like it or not.
Now, WHY, not just be grown up, and complain about a problem unit or rule, rather than attempt to completely nullify or bad mouth an entire miniature production division - whether it is FW, OR Citadel. Is not dealing with issues on a case by case basis the far more sensible thing to do? Or are we ignoring sense because it's not as comfortable as holding on to an ancient and worthless belief that something is 'problematic'?

My argument is that while they're legal, they're part of an expansion. Says so right in the front of three of my indexes that they expand the rules. Which my six codexi don't say.
2 insulting the people who feel they have a valid reason for telling you to GTFO for bringing FW is counter productive...for you. They're just going to see another jerk trying to break the game with broken FW stuff, and what will you have accomplished? Nothing. You'll just reinforce their belief that they're 100% right. No minds will be changed, and you won't get a game in.

You say they're not being grown up, well, I say they had a problem, and found a working solution. Is there a better one? Sure, but they're not going to listen to you if you, again, insult them. What you see as non-sense, or ignoring sense is a very valid reaction to a perceived problem.

But I guess me pointing that out makes me a troll.

So you're ignoring the fact that most FW stuff is actually fine and not OP, but you willingly perpetuate and encourage people to have their prejudices instead of showing them the truth?

I didn't think it was possible to worse than a troll, but here we are.

And again, still factually incorrect about FW stuff being optional. It's no more optional than any of GW's stuff. It's an expansion in that it adds units, like how GW codexes add/expand units over the Indexes, but in neither case is that an OPTIONAL expansion.

 Mmmpi wrote:

StrayIight wrote:

Sigh. Alright. Fine.

Lets have some intelligent debate. First, realise that no-one has stated - at all - that there has never been an issue with any rule FW has put out. Of course there has. Second, no-one has said, at all, that people can't possibly have had bad experiences with FW in games, or that they can't refuse to play against them.

Check

Are we understanding so far, or are we just going to ignore all the above because it doesn't fit our argument or world view?

insulting, and putting words in my mouth.

What is being said:

FW doesn't equate 'OP' models or rules. That you could find one? Yes. You probably could. But you will almost certainly find more to complain about from the rules put out under the non-forge world banner.

You've been asked - more than once, to provide reasonable examples as to why a FW model should be seen as more of an issue than a Citadel one. As yet, you've not even attempted to address this issue, let alone provide examples or data for people to look at and discuss. Why? I think because you've no interest in doing so - rather, you'd prefer to provoke a reaction that isn't helpful or constructive to anyone. But here is your chance to prove me wrong, or instead to make hyperbolic statements and prove you're just here to troll.

I've never actually said that they were broken or overpowered. I said that there was a perception of it, due to a number of factors including: past broken or incorrectly priced stuff, players taking advantage of that, and groups realizing that if they ban FW, it stops both of those problems. Is it fair for the FW players who don't use the stuff that was broken, or incorrectly priced, no. But in my experience, most (not all) "no forgeworld" places will say sure after they realize you're not going to be a jerk. I'm saying this as one of the few people who got my group to start accepting FW.

My argument has been, and is, this:
They're all legal models. They are all part of 40K. Fact. That is the reality everyone must live with, because it is reality. Like it or not.
Now, WHY, not just be grown up, and complain about a problem unit or rule, rather than attempt to completely nullify or bad mouth an entire miniature production division - whether it is FW, OR Citadel. Is not dealing with issues on a case by case basis the far more sensible thing to do? Or are we ignoring sense because it's not as comfortable as holding on to an ancient and worthless belief that something is 'problematic'?

My argument is that while they're legal, they're part of an expansion. Says so right in the front of three of my indexes that they expand the rules. Which my six codexi don't say.
2 insulting the people who feel they have a valid reason for telling you to GTFO for bringing FW is counter productive...for you. They're just going to see another jerk trying to break the game with broken FW stuff, and what will you have accomplished? Nothing. You'll just reinforce their belief that they're 100% right. No minds will be changed, and you won't get a game in.

You say they're not being grown up, well, I say they had a problem, and found a working solution. Is there a better one? Sure, but they're not going to listen to you if you, again, insult them. What you see as non-sense, or ignoring sense is a very valid reaction to a perceived problem.

But I guess me pointing that out makes me a troll.

Solving one problem by creating several more is NOT a solution, as I said before the anti FW crowd tends to consist of people who have NEVER actually encountered any real issues with FW and have just read about it on the interwebs.

Also making 1 reasonable post in several clearly unreasonable ones does not preclude the fact that you looked like you were trolling.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:


If anything, the Codexes are "expansions" of the Indexes. They're just as "optional" as the FW stuff.

Indexes say expanded rules. Codexi don't.

Also, intolerant? Sorry what? Please, highlight where I'm being intolerant.

I've counted at least 6 instances of people being called silly or childish, and a few insinuations that they were mentally unbalanced for not bliindly accepting your arguments for FW. If you didn't say it personally, I apologize for including you in with the rest who did. I'm not going to search 14 pages tonight for quotes.

Yeah, I'm entitled to push my views on people. Same as you're entitled to decline a game if there's something about it you don't like.

That's called Freedom of Speech. You can speak out against, veto or deny whatever you want. I'm allowed to criticise you for doing that as much as I want in return.
If you can't handle that, perhaps you shouldn't criticise people using Forge World, regardless if you don't recognise it's validity.

You do NOT have the right to push your views on others. You have the right to say what you want, but nothing says they have to accept it, listen to it, or give you the time of day. Most stores I've played in would ban players for pushing views on other customers.

You obviously haven't actually read a word I've been saying. I've literately never said there was anything wrong with FW itself, only that people's reactions to it is based on valid experiences, and that insulting them isn't the way to get what you want.

Oh wait, there I go...trolling again.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Formosa wrote:



Solving one problem by creating several more is NOT a solution, as I said before the anti FW crowd tends to consist of people who have NEVER actually encountered any real issues with FW and have just read about it on the interwebs.

Also making 1 reasonable post in several clearly unreasonable ones does not preclude the fact that you looked like you were trolling.

You think they have no experience with it. How do you know?

as for your 2nd point: I disagree. But I've had 1d4+2 of you raging at me for everything but spelling now for what? 5 pages? So it's to be expected that this would come up again.

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:
Are the people who lost to a Space Marine player still crying?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Jidmah wrote:
Gotta love most of the people still bothering to post in these threads are in full denial of all the issues FW glorious way of writing rules has caused over the years.

If FW hadn't broken the game as often and as hard as they did, no one would even consider to decline a game because of a Leviathan Dread.

Show me the broken Forge World models. Please.

Mekboss Buzzgobs' Stompa in 6th. You're welcome.

 Mmmpi wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:


If anything, the Codexes are "expansions" of the Indexes. They're just as "optional" as the FW stuff.

Indexes say expanded rules. Codexi don't.

No, they do not.

They say (and note that they were written by a different writer, using different vocabulary) that these 'expand (become or make larger or more extensive) upon the datasheets...'

Any. Written. Rulebook. after the index, will EXPAND upon the Index datasheets.

Tell me. Does a Codex not then expand a range of datasheets? Of COURSE they do! I'm so sorry, but you are not understanding the term expands. You are literally only interested in it being defined as a contraction of 'Expansion' (the action of becoming larger or more extensive), here by your definition meaning an optional add on to 'x'. That is not how the term is being used by the rules writer! They merely mean 'adds to'.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Jidmah wrote:

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:
Are the people who lost to a Space Marine player still crying?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Jidmah wrote:
Gotta love most of the people still bothering to post in these threads are in full denial of all the issues FW glorious way of writing rules has caused over the years.

If FW hadn't broken the game as often and as hard as they did, no one would even consider to decline a game because of a Leviathan Dread.

Show me the broken Forge World models. Please.

Mekboss Buzzgobs' Stompa in 6th. You're welcome.

Thanks. Now check out Stompa's in 8th - especially given 6th isn't relevant and hasn't been for around half a decade - and get back to us with why they're OP...

No, sorry. You already have made clear that you do not want to understand my argument.
I have no interest in discussing an entirely different thing with you.

StrayIight wrote:

 Mmmpi wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:


If anything, the Codexes are "expansions" of the Indexes. They're just as "optional" as the FW stuff.

Indexes say expanded rules. Codexi don't.

No, they do not.

They say (and note that they were written by a different writer, using different vocabulary) that these 'expand (become or make larger or more extensive) upon the datasheets...'

Any. Written. Rulebook. after the index, will EXPAND upon the Index datasheets.

Tell me. Does a Codex not then expand a range of datasheets? Of COURSE they do! I'm so sorry, but you are not understanding the term expands. You are literally only interested in it being defined as a contraction of 'Expansion' (the action of becoming larger or more extensive), here by your definition meaning an optional add on to 'x'. That is not how the term is being used by the rules writer! They merely mean 'adds to'.

Wow, it's almost like an expansion adds to the game. Whoo'da thunk! And no, the codexi aren't an expansion. They're a redo of the data-sheets in your oh so important indexes, they hold the base rules for each army.

But I guess that's a complicated thought for THE BRIGADE!!!

Mmmpi wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:


If anything, the Codexes are "expansions" of the Indexes. They're just as "optional" as the FW stuff.

Indexes say expanded rules. Codexi don't.

Codexes add units. By English definition, that's expansion.

Codexes = expansion confirmed.

The FW indexes are not labelled as "Expansions" (proper noun) like Planetstrike, Apocalypse and Cities of Death are. They add additional units, expanding (verb) the combat roster, but they're not Expansions (Proper Noun) any more than the Codexes are.

Prove me wrong.

Also, intolerant? Sorry what? Please, highlight where I'm being intolerant.

I've counted at least 6 instances of people being called silly or childish, and a few insinuations that they were mentally unbalanced for not bliindly accepting your arguments for FW. If you didn't say it personally, I apologize for including you in with the rest who did. I'm not going to search 14 pages tonight for quotes.

I'm after quotes of ME here - not other people. I want these "6 instances" of me being intolerant, or frankly, your opinion remains just that - an opinion.

Yeah, I'm entitled to push my views on people. Same as you're entitled to decline a game if there's something about it you don't like.

That's called Freedom of Speech. You can speak out against, veto or deny whatever you want. I'm allowed to criticise you for doing that as much as I want in return.
If you can't handle that, perhaps you shouldn't criticise people using Forge World, regardless if you don't recognise it's validity.

You do NOT have the right to push your views on others. You have the right to say what you want, but nothing says they have to accept it, listen to it, or give you the time of day. Most stores I've played in would ban players for pushing views on other customers.

So what's the difference between Person A saying "I don't like playing against Forge World so don't do it" and Person B saying "I don't like the fact you won't let me play Forge World."

Surely by your own admission they must BOTH be violating Free Speech? Which means it's a violation of Free Speech to deny Forge World units!

I mean, to quote you "You do NOT have the right to push your views on others". Therefore, no-one has the right to push their Anti-FW views on me, so I can always play with my FW units.

You are very wrong on your definitions. Free Speech is the ability to voice your opinions free from censorship (exactly what these stores you're describing are doing), but it doesn't render you immune from critique. You can tell me to stop using my units (GW or FW), and as part of the contract of the game, I can't force you into playing it when you don't want to. However, I reserve every right to call you out on being intolerant, ignorant, or malicious if I believe that is why you've done so.

That, friend, is Freedom of Speech.

You obviously haven't actually read a word I've been saying. I've literately never said there was anything wrong with FW itself, only that people's reactions to it is based on valid experiences, and that insulting them isn't the way to get what you want.

And your solution is to let people have their (incorrect and unsupported) views despite them being supported by nothing (and these valid experiences you claim are since outdated - they're no more valid than me denying Riptides in 8th because what they were like in 6th/7th), and you expect them to accept Forge World... when? If you let them fester in their ignorance, then they will keep refusing to play against Forge World because you're not challenging their viewpoints.

If, as you claim, they will accept Forge World if they play against it and then notice it's okay, that's useless because without challenging them on it, they won't let you play Forge World against them to trial it in the first place!

Or, as I demonstrate in a chart form:
A = Non-Forge World player
B = Play against Forge World
X = Realising that Forge World isn't OP

A will only B if X occurs
X can only occur if A does B.
But A will only do B if X occurs.
X can only occur if A does B.

And so on, so forth.
This is the solution you propose - and it's doomed to failure.

Oh wait, there I go...trolling again.

Thank you for admitting it.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Jidmah wrote:

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:
Are the people who lost to a Space Marine player still crying?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Jidmah wrote:
Gotta love most of the people still bothering to post in these threads are in full denial of all the issues FW glorious way of writing rules has caused over the years.

If FW hadn't broken the game as often and as hard as they did, no one would even consider to decline a game because of a Leviathan Dread.

Show me the broken Forge World models. Please.

Mekboss Buzzgobs' Stompa in 6th. You're welcome.

Riptides in 6th and 7th.
Eldar Scatter Laser Jetbikes in 7th
Pre-CA Guilliman
Pre-CA Conscripts
3rd Ed Iron Warriors (or was it 4th?)

"GW IS BROKEN NO GW ALLOWED GUYS"
You're welcome.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mmmpi wrote:
Wow, it's almost like an expansion adds to the game. Whoo'da thunk! And no, the codexi aren't an expansion. They're a redo of the data-sheets in your oh so important indexes, they hold the base rules for each army.

But I guess that's a complicated thought for THE BRIGADE!!!

Reivers aren't in the Imperium 1 Index. Nor are Lieutenants, Aggressors, or Primaris Librarians.

But don't let me stop your "trolling".*





*I'm quoting you by the way, just so you don't accuse me of calling you that. I'm just using the term you gave yourself.

1.The codexi don't add rules to the game, they form the base rules of each army.

Also, the FW Indexes say the expand the rules.

2. I don't care, I already apologized for if I lumped you in with the rest of your brigade.

3. You just rewrote what I said. But made it insulting. Good job.

4. A player saying their won't play against forgeworld stuff is someone acting on their own agency. They're saying what 'they' won't do. That doesn't infringe anything on your part, but is them limiting themselves. But hey, Free speech, amiright?

edit:

5. Apparently ironically using an insult against me is now accepting it. But I guess that's just another troll projecting.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
Mekboss Buzzgobs' Stompa in 6th. You're welcome.

Riptides in 6th and 7th.
Eldar Scatter Laser Jetbikes in 7th
Pre-CA Guilliman
Pre-CA Conscripts
3rd Ed Iron Warriors (or was it 4th?)

"GW IS BROKEN NO GW ALLOWED GUYS"
You're welcome.

You might want to do some research on what you quoted there. No single one of the things you named even comes close.
The only reason it never made a big splash is because not a single TO ever allowed it to be fielded.
If you really do want to know what was wrong with Buzzgob's Stompa, PM me, I'll tell you the whole story.

I'm not saying that they're OP, but I do recall a large number of people complaining about Fire Raptors.

 Mmmpi wrote:
1.The codexi don't add rules to the game, they form the base rules of each army.

The Forge World book form the base rules of each army too. Who says it can't come from two sources?
And the Codexes EXPAND on the rules of the Indexes, thereby making them "Expansions" by your definition.

Also, the FW Indexes say the expand the rules.

As a verb, yes - like how the Codexes "expand" on the Indexes. Neither one is a proper noun "Expansion" like Planetstrike.

Simple English language, folks.

2. I don't care, I already apologized for if I lumped you in with the rest of your brigade.

Referring to the people who disagree with you as some kind of unified "Brigade" is frankly poor etiquette.

I'm not part of some organised disagreement squad. I just disagree with your views personally.

3. You just rewrote what I said. But made it insulting. Good job.

If that's what you said, it's what you said.
Doesn't change that fact that's what you said.

4. A player saying their won't play against forgeworld stuff is someone acting on their own agency. They're saying what 'they' won't do. That doesn't infringe anything on your part, but is them limiting themselves. But hey, Free speech, amiright?

Except by "acting on their own agency", they're actively denying and infringing on what the other person can take to the game.

If your player had said "I won't field any Forge World stuff", then that would be correct - they are acting on their own agency, and this doesn't affect anyone else's agency. But saying "I won't play against Forge World", especially after the other person has put down their list, is definitely affecting other people - because the FW person must either acquiesce, and remove the FW in their list, or leave the game - both outcomes done against their own agency.

5. Apparently ironically using an insult against me is now accepting it. But I guess that's just another troll projecting.

You said it, not me.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Jidmah wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
Mekboss Buzzgobs' Stompa in 6th. You're welcome.

Riptides in 6th and 7th.
Eldar Scatter Laser Jetbikes in 7th
Pre-CA Guilliman
Pre-CA Conscripts
3rd Ed Iron Warriors (or was it 4th?)

"GW IS BROKEN NO GW ALLOWED GUYS"
You're welcome.

You might want to do some research on what you quoted there. No single one of the things you named even comes close.
The only reason it never made a big splash is because not a single TO ever allowed it to be fielded.
If you really do want to know what was wrong with Buzzgob's Stompa, PM me, I'll tell you the whole story.

I knew Buzzgob's Stompa, I've played against it. And I can tell you, and others will support me, that one unit didn't come anywhere near to the game-breaking mess that Riptides, TauDar, Scatterbikes, Battle Companies, 3rd Ed Iron Warriors, and even Guilliman/Conscripts on 8th have done.

But hey, they're just my opinions. Like your opinion on that Stompa is yours.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mmmpi wrote:
I'm not saying that they're OP, but I do recall a large number of people complaining about Fire Raptors.

They were powerful, this is true. Less so now, considering GW nerfed the hell out of them.

You know what got more people complaining (and some people still are)?
Conscripts
Commissars
Guilliman
Magnus
Mortarion
Most of the Astra Militarum army

All GW units.

 Mmmpi wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:


If anything, the Codexes are "expansions" of the Indexes. They're just as "optional" as the FW stuff.

Indexes say expanded rules. Codexi don't.

Also, intolerant? Sorry what? Please, highlight where I'm being intolerant.

I've counted at least 6 instances of people being called silly or childish, and a few insinuations that they were mentally unbalanced for not bliindly accepting your arguments for FW. If you didn't say it personally, I apologize for including you in with the rest who did. I'm not going to search 14 pages tonight for quotes.

Yeah, I'm entitled to push my views on people. Same as you're entitled to decline a game if there's something about it you don't like.

That's called Freedom of Speech. You can speak out against, veto or deny whatever you want. I'm allowed to criticise you for doing that as much as I want in return.
If you can't handle that, perhaps you shouldn't criticise people using Forge World, regardless if you don't recognise it's validity.

You do NOT have the right to push your views on others. You have the right to say what you want, but nothing says they have to accept it, listen to it, or give you the time of day. Most stores I've played in would ban players for pushing views on other customers.

You obviously haven't actually read a word I've been saying. I've literately never said there was anything wrong with FW itself, only that people's reactions to it is based on valid experiences, and that insulting them isn't the way to get what you want.

Oh wait, there I go...trolling again.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Formosa wrote:



Solving one problem by creating several more is NOT a solution, as I said before the anti FW crowd tends to consist of people who have NEVER actually encountered any real issues with FW and have just read about it on the interwebs.

Also making 1 reasonable post in several clearly unreasonable ones does not preclude the fact that you looked like you were trolling.

You think they have no experience with it. How do you know?

as for your 2nd point: I disagree. But I've had 1d4+2 of you raging at me for everything but spelling now for what? 5 pages? So it's to be expected that this would come up again.

How do I know, quite simple really, when asked they just spout the false information that is perpetuated on the internet, almost verbatim at times, then when challenged they come up blank, no actual information to back up thier claims (kinda like what some on here are doing), so it really is quite easy to tell if people are just being anti FW without any real experience on the matter.

The biggest signifier of course is when you play them with a FW unit and they go “oh, is that it” or similar.

Of course there is also a tiny minority of anti FW who dislike it through simple jealousy and the perception of “pay to win” in spite of evidence showing that is not the case, it’s a “i can’t have it so neither can you” attitude, thankfully that is rather rare.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

 Mmmpi wrote:
1.The codexi don't add rules to the game, they form the base rules of each army.

The Forge World book form the base rules of each army too. Who says it can't come from two sources?
And the Codexes EXPAND on the rules of the Indexes, thereby making them "Expansions" by your definition.

Oh FW are base rules. For DKoK, or R&H, and such. Everything else is just an add on. Codexi however, are again, the basic rules for each army. Not that complicated.

Also, the FW Indexes say the expand the rules.

As a verb, yes - like how the Codexes "expand" on the Indexes. Neither one is a proper noun "Expansion" like Planetstrike.

Simple English language, folks.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
I knew Buzzgob's Stompa, I've played against it. And I can tell you, and others will support me, that one unit didn't come anywhere near to the game-breaking mess that Riptides, TauDar, Scatterbikes, Battle Companies, 3rd Ed Iron Warriors, and even Guilliman/Conscripts on 8th have done.

So, what was the issue with that stompa?

Since you know, you can surely elaborate.

 Mmmpi wrote:


Which is why I apologized. You said you understood simple English. The same 6ish people ram the same copypasta through every thread that has a whiff of not liking FW, and out the Brigade comes. So much for etiquette.

Have you stopped to consider, that this 'Brigade' that you're getting all torn up over, might actually be less of a brigade, and more, I don't know, every player who knows that FW are a completely valid, legal, intended and fully supported part of the default 40K experience, or, as we might also refer to them - the vast majority of the 40K community?

We. Don't. Have. An. Issue. With you - or anyone - having the right to turn down a game. Of course you have that right. We have the right to find it pathetic if the objection is objectively pathetic - which is exactly what occurred in the OP's scenario.

I personally also take issue at anyone who can't be humble enough to admit they're wrong, and who is still arguing about a provably incorrect point of language - despite having multiple native English speakers point out their mistake. And especially when that part of your argument is beside the point anyway.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Jidmah wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
I knew Buzzgob's Stompa, I've played against it. And I can tell you, and others will support me, that one unit didn't come anywhere near to the game-breaking mess that Riptides, TauDar, Scatterbikes, Battle Companies, 3rd Ed Iron Warriors, and even Guilliman/Conscripts on 8th have done.

So, what was the issue with that stompa?

Since you know, you can surely elaborate.

Who cares? It certainly isn't an issue now.

I love archaeology as much as the next guy, but how is digging up a point from 6th edition strengthening your case against FW in 8th?

StrayIight wrote:
Who cares? It certainly isn't an issue now.

I love archaeology as much as the next guy, but how is digging up a point from 6th edition strengthening your case against FW in 8th?

You can find that answer by reading my previous posts

Seriously, if you don't even care to understand my argument, why bother to respond to my posts?

 Jidmah wrote:

StrayIight wrote:
Who cares? It certainly isn't an issue now.

I love archaeology as much as the next guy, but how is digging up a point from 6th edition strengthening your case against FW in 8th?

You can find that answer by reading my previous posts

And you can find that argument utterly torn apart, by the multiple posts that have illustrated that though problem units have existed, they're far more likely to come from the main studio, and simply do not continue to be a problem in this edition.

If you have a hang up regarding FW because of something that happened several editions ago, you're ignorant of the way things stand to date. That being the case - the issue is you. Not anyone who is using a FW model.

StrayIight wrote:

 Mmmpi wrote:


Which is why I apologized. You said you understood simple English. The same 6ish people ram the same copypasta through every thread that has a whiff of not liking FW, and out the Brigade comes. So much for etiquette.

Have you stopped to consider, that this 'Brigade' that you're getting all torn up over, might actually be less of a brigade, and more, I don't know, every player who knows that FW are a completely valid, legal, intended and fully supported part of the default 40K experience, or, as we might also refer to them - the vast majority of the 40K community?

We. Don't. Have. An. Issue. With you - or anyone - having the right to turn down a game. Of course you have that right. We have the right to find it pathetic if the objection is objectively pathetic - which is exactly what occurred in the OP's scenario.

I personally also take issue at anyone who can't be humble enough to admit they're wrong, and who is still arguing about a provably incorrect point of language - despite having multiple native English speakers point out their mistake. And especially when that part of your argument is beside the point anyway.

You have an issue, since your response to people saying no forgeworld is to insult them. That's what's really pathetic. If you were the bigger man you'd leave it at that. Like PL vs Points. But I guess that's a hard concept. And if the number of people who agree with you is The Brigade, I'm guessing that the six of you are trying really hard. Also, not that torn up. It's just easier to type 'the brigade' then it is anything longer. It's also rather apt as there's a few familiar faces from other threads like this.

I guess you take issue with most people you meet. So far I haven't been proven incorrect, especially on the language use. By the way, I am a native English speaker. It's not beside the point. Just like as much as I've never said that FW was currently OP, or illegal in games, doesn't stop any of you from trying to get me to admit that it isn't.

 Mmmpi wrote:


Yes, now start using the moderately, it's starting to maybe be the slightest bit not 5th grader English and actually see my point.

 Mmmpi wrote:



By the way, I am a native English speaker.

Uh huh.

Yup

 Jidmah wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
Gotta love most of the people still bothering to post in these threads are in full denial of all the issues FW glorious way of writing rules has caused over the years.

If FW hadn't broken the game as often and as hard as they did, no one would even consider to decline a game because of a Leviathan Dread.

I started in 7th, so my history with Forgeworld is that it's similar to the main studio. Yes, there are some OP things (Tau'Nar) but plenty of it is just fine. Same with GW.

And you know what? I can understand that, if in the past, FW was bonkers-nutso OP and GW was not, people might have bad history with it. I would politely ask that they, however, look at the CURRENT state, and understand that FW is, at the most, no more OP than GW, and probably quite a bit less, since Chapter Approved.

Thing is, chapter approved isn't ancient history, it's barely six months old. They fudged up in 8th just as hard as they always have. They only difference to the last decade is that at least GW cleans up after them.

Normally one would consider the ammount of pages that were changed the ammount of problems that were solved, therefore the more pages found unter the GW category the more Gw fethed up, the more FW the more FW fethed up.
Now call me dense but i see 4 pages for GW and 3* for FW.
*(There is also the fact that both sides massively changed their AM branches (DK Elysians and R&H in FW) General AM in the main line of GW. Now excuse me but since FW publishes more specific AM /Am- related lists, those all did change in equal ammounts to the AM general line now?
so basically what we are left is around 4 pages GW and 2 pages FW aswell as one page FW (related changes to bring them in line with the AM of GW) .

Quite frankly we have to consider in that case that GW did more of the fething up.

@Mmmpi, so you advocate, because people met WAAC players, that anyway will pick only the most broken stuff regardless of the source, people should be allowed to ban at an arbitary line?
That is basically the same as "Sippenhaft", or the underlying legal agrumentation, which was a medieaval law, that saw the family punished for the crimes of a person, because they are supposedly now also criminal anyways. (It was also formally introduced by the Nazis, but frankly they were anyways very backwards).
I know it is a drastic argumentation, but just judging via perception of yourself/ one person, is quite frankly not a very convincing standpoint.

Mmmpi wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

 Mmmpi wrote:
1.The codexi don't add rules to the game, they form the base rules of each army.

The Forge World book form the base rules of each army too. Who says it can't come from two sources?
And the Codexes EXPAND on the rules of the Indexes, thereby making them "Expansions" by your definition.

Oh FW are base rules. For DKoK, or R&H, and such. Everything else is just an add on. Codexi however, are again, the basic rules for each army. Not that complicated.

So, by your admission, can I tale R&H and DKoK to a game, and not be attacked by the anti-FW people? Because they're not expansions, and therefore aren't "optional" somehow?

Add-ons aren't optional. Nothing says that. Just because something be an add-on does not mean it's any less a part of that army. It just wasn't in the Codex, which itself is an add-on and update combined over the Index (see Lieutenant, Reivers, and Agressors).

Also, the FW Indexes say the expand the rules.

As a verb, yes - like how the Codexes "expand" on the Indexes. Neither one is a proper noun "Expansion" like Planetstrike.

Simple English language, folks.

Yes, now start using the moderately, it's starting to maybe be the slightest bit not 5th grader English and actually see my point.

You're the one putting in additional connotations that do not exist.
You seem to think that something being an add-on is optional. Show me where this is the case in something that is not given the proper noun "Expansion".

You're the one who can't pull evidence in here, not me.
If you want me to see your point, prove it with evidence.

2. I don't care, I already apologized for if I lumped you in with the rest of your brigade.

You haven't apologised whatsoever.
Referring to the people who disagree with you as some kind of unified "Brigade" is frankly poor etiquette.

I'm not part of some organised disagreement squad. I just disagree with your views personally.

Which is why I apologized. You said you understood simple English. The same 6ish people ram the same copypasta through every thread that has a whiff of not liking FW, and out the Brigade comes. So much for etiquette.

Address that to them, not me.

And maybe that copypasta is being copypasted because it's more correct that the notion you're providing here.

3. You just rewrote what I said. But made it insulting. Good job.

If that's what you said, it's what you said.
Doesn't change that fact that's what you said.

Nope, you just had to make it insulting. Again, so much for etiquette.

I notice that you're not actually addressing the point that denying Forge World use is a violation of Freedom of Speech.

Again, highlight where I'm being offensive.

4. A player saying their won't play against forgeworld stuff is someone acting on their own agency. They're saying what 'they' won't do. That doesn't infringe anything on your part, but is them limiting themselves. But hey, Free speech, amiright?

Except by "acting on their own agency", they're actively denying and infringing on what the other person can take to the game.

If your player had said "I won't field any Forge World stuff", then that would be correct - they are acting on their own agency, and this doesn't affect anyone else's agency. But saying "I won't play against Forge World", especially after the other person has put down their list, is definitely affecting other people - because the FW person must either acquiesce, and remove the FW in their list, or leave the game - both outcomes done against their own agency.

It is incorrect. It's not the FW player leaving the game, it's the other player.

Yes, but their action of leaving the game (provided that they don't force the FW player to change their list) is still having an effect on the FW player, regardless of their agency.

The FW player won't get a game if the other person leaves, and is therefore losing their agency because they won't be getting a game (which needs two people to play).
What about this don't you understand?

5. Apparently ironically using an insult against me is now accepting it. But I guess that's just another troll projecting.

You said it, not me.

Sure dude. This really don't give you much credibility.

And by much, I mean none. Who was it that had etiquette again?

Me. I'm not the one lumping everyone I disagree with into a "Brigade".
You lost credibility the moment you pretended that everyone was out to get you.

Jidmah wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
I knew Buzzgob's Stompa, I've played against it. And I can tell you, and others will support me, that one unit didn't come anywhere near to the game-breaking mess that Riptides, TauDar, Scatterbikes, Battle Companies, 3rd Ed Iron Warriors, and even Guilliman/Conscripts on 8th have done.

So, what was the issue with that stompa?

Since you know, you can surely elaborate.

The issue with the stompa was that it could be customised to essentially have no downfalls, and the lack of points scaling that came with that.

However, since that all happened in 6th, it holds just about as much validity here as all the terrible GW stuff from that time too.

So, let's ignore what happened in previous editions, because it has no bearing on the current one, yeah?

Mmmpi wrote:You have an issue, since your response to people saying no forgeworld is to insult them. That's what's really pathetic. If you were the bigger man you'd leave it at that. Like PL vs Points. But I guess that's a hard concept.

And how about the inverse - all those people who play FW and the people who deny them insulting them? I mean, after all "that's what's really pathetic. If they were the bigger men, they'd leave it at that", sucking it up and playing against units that aren't even as bad as GW ones. But apparently it's too much for them to handle, and they can't stand the filthy FW units.

I mean, is the inverse wrong?
Not really.

And if the number of people who agree with you is The Brigade, I'm guessing that the six of you are trying really hard. Also, not that torn up. It's just easier to type 'the brigade' then it is anything longer. It's also rather apt as there's a few familiar faces from other threads like this.

Perhaps you could stop using that. It's clearly a mocking gesture at best, and an insult at worst. I'm going to ask you to stop using it, if it isn't too hard to have a civil discussion without it.

I guess you take issue with most people you meet. So far I haven't been proven incorrect, especially on the language use. By the way, I am a native English speaker. It's not beside the point. Just like as much as I've never said that FW was currently OP, or illegal in games, doesn't stop any of you from trying to get me to admit that it isn't.

You have been proven incorrect on language. You seem to think that the verb "expand" is the same as the proper noun "Expansion", that something merely being an add-on is by default optional, and the definition of free speech (you're allowed to disagree with free speech, but not censor it - you're not exempt from people criticising you).

Again, the problem with your approach is that you KNOW FW isn't OP and illegal, but you still promote the abhorrent division between players. That's why I have an issue with your method. It flat out doesn't work, and you haven't addressed my comment about it.

FW units will never be accepted in your approach because you allow ignorance to breed. If you let people continue to believe their misconceptions about FW, without challenging those beliefs, then FW will never be accepted because those unfounded beliefs will not be swayed.

So, I'll just retackle these beliefs, and then the truth about them:
"FW units are overpowered" - Some are, but that's the same with GW units. The majority of FW units are not OP.
"FW units are optional additions" - They're additions, but no more optional than any unit in a GW codex.
"FW are not the same company as GW" - Incorrect completely
"FW is pay to win" - No more than GW - again, most of their units are not OP.
"FW is only Titans and Apocalypse units" - Incorrect, and GW does lots of "Apocalypse" units now anyway.
"FW rules are hard to find" - No more so than any GW rules. If your opponent doesn't have those rules on hand, that's not the fault of FW.

Without reinforcing these challenges on the anti-FW beliefs, FW will never be fully accepted.

@Mmmpi, so you advocate, because people met WAAC players, that anyway will pick only the most broken stuff regardless of the source, people should be allowed to ban at an arbitary line?
That is basically the same as "Sippenhaft", or the underlying legal agrumentation, which was a medieaval law, that saw the family punished for the crimes of a person, because they are supposedly now also criminal anyways. (It was also formally introduced by the Nazis, but frankly they were anyways very backwards).
I know it is a drastic argumentation, but just judging via perception of yourself/ one person, is quite frankly not a very convincing standpoint.

No, but at the same time, for these people, it's not arbitrary. It just seems like it to us, because you're coming in as an outsider to their group, or experiencing the what via Dakka, rather than being in place to know why they did it.

clarification: the "us" above refers to a nebulous outsider, not the automatically the people in this thread.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

And if the number of people who agree with you is The Brigade, I'm guessing that the six of you are trying really hard. Also, not that torn up. It's just easier to type 'the brigade' then it is anything longer. It's also rather apt as there's a few familiar faces from other threads like this.

Perhaps you could stop using that. It's clearly a mocking gesture at best, and an insult at worst. I'm going to ask you to stop using it, if it isn't too hard to have a civil discussion without it.

I'll agree to stop with it, as long as both sides keep it civil.

I'm going to bed, but I'll respond to the rest later.

 Mmmpi wrote:

And if the number of people who agree with you is The Brigade, I'm guessing that the six of you are trying really hard. Also, not that torn up. It's just easier to type 'the brigade' then it is anything longer. It's also rather apt as there's a few familiar faces from other threads like this.

Perhaps you could stop using that. It's clearly a mocking gesture at best, and an insult at worst. I'm going to ask you to stop using it, if it isn't too hard to have a civil discussion without it.

I'll agree to stop with it, as long as both sides keep it civil.

I'm going to bed, but I'll respond to the rest later.

Thank you.

 Mmmpi wrote:

@Mmmpi, so you advocate, because people met WAAC players, that anyway will pick only the most broken stuff regardless of the source, people should be allowed to ban at an arbitary line?
That is basically the same as "Sippenhaft", or the underlying legal agrumentation, which was a medieaval law, that saw the family punished for the crimes of a person, because they are supposedly now also criminal anyways. (It was also formally introduced by the Nazis, but frankly they were anyways very backwards).
I know it is a drastic argumentation, but just judging via perception of yourself/ one person, is quite frankly not a very convincing standpoint.

No, but at the same time, for these people, it's not arbitrary. It just seems like it to us, because you're coming in as an outsider to their group, or experiencing the what via Dakka, rather than being in place to know why they did it.

clarification: the "us" above refers to a nebulous outsider, not the automatically the people in this thread.

However it is regardless an arbitrary line, when percived from the outside aswell as from the inside and stems from:
A: Willfull ignorance, something one can not particulary blame an indiviual on if said individual has had bad memories of such an event
B: They are willfully ignorant anyways because somebody told them. (In Switzerland we have a saying for that: "Vom ghöre säge, lehrt mer Lüge". which translates to: From the hearing of said things, one learns to lie.)

And no it does not just seem like one, because it is one. It stems from bad selfreflection and aswell the simple fact that people tend to stay actievly uninformed.
Another exemple: Because the Japanese did extremely bad things during WW2, should we now judge every Japanese? Should we also judge every Japanese that lives today?
No, because it is morally wrong to do so. In one of my first posts in this thread i have explained it, it is because of perception and the hearing of people that had bad incidents.
That however does not allow me to be willingly ignorant and judge now, dosen't it, because as an individual i have to do some homework aswell alone.

I don't judge them, i judge however those, that insists this line of thinking is valid or ok, because it isn't.
It speaks literally against everything that is principle in a state that abides the law, and aswell as a person that has some baseline knowledge of selfreflection and morals.

No one is forced to play against someone.

If someone doesn't want to play with you, that is their decision.

If the reason is FW, you can talk to them, not play them, or drop the unit.

blaktoof wrote:
If the reason is FW, you can talk to them, not play them, or drop the unit.

Correct. However, we are under no obligation to pretend that the refusal is anything other than irrational TFG behavior.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mmmpi wrote:
Codexi however, are again, the basic rules for each army. Not that complicated.

No, the index is the basic rules for each army. The index is also the first-published rules for each army. The codex expands on the index rules. Therefore only the index should be assumed by default, and you should have to ask for special permission to use the optional codex expansion.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Jidmah wrote:
If you really do want to know what was wrong with Buzzgob's Stompa, PM me, I'll tell you the whole story.

Here's the whole story: FW made a typo in an update pdf, missing the fact that the names of the units referenced in the rules had been swapped. This allowed you to take a Stompa for some ridiculously low point cost. It was, however, obviously a typo and nobody ever played it that way or believed that it was reasonable to do so. It's a "problem" on the level of the old RAW nonsense that models with helmets can not shoot because LOS is drawn from "eyes".

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Jidmah wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
I knew Buzzgob's Stompa, I've played against it. And I can tell you, and others will support me, that one unit didn't come anywhere near to the game-breaking mess that Riptides, TauDar, Scatterbikes, Battle Companies, 3rd Ed Iron Warriors, and even Guilliman/Conscripts on 8th have done.

So, what was the issue with that stompa?

Since you know, you can surely elaborate.

The issue with the stompa was that it could be customised to essentially have no downfalls, and the lack of points scaling that came with that.

However, since that all happened in 6th, it holds just about as much validity here as all the terrible GW stuff from that time too.

Nope, that is wrong. You are thinking of the big mek stompa in escalation which indeed was child's play compared to the things on your list. I wouldn't even call it OP at all.

No, Mekboss Buzzgob had a special rule that allowed him to ride into battle in his personal stompa for 300 points, which was using the kustom stompa rules. This meant that you could bring a stompa to any game - remember that in 6th, stompas were not allowed in regular games because super-heavy could not be used outside of apocalypse or escalation. It could have apocalypse-only weapons like the lifta-droppa that tossed vehicles around or the krusha ball that could remove terrain from the table. And the best part, depending on load-out, you got a 500-1000 point discount on the stompa. The most useful loadout for this stompa was 1265 and could, with a bit of luck, kill an entire 2000 point army in a single round of shooting(I had such a stompa kill 4000 points of blood angels in an apoc game). You didn't need to though, whatever was left after turn 1 wouldn't be able to take down a stompa with repair crew, KFF and void shield anyways.
Even if you could handle being matched against a unit that was out of your league and a 1000 point handicap, if you actually manged to destroy the stompa it would then die in an apocalyptic explosion, most likely taking half of your army down with it.

Thing is, this wasn't even an issue of FW failing to balance, it was simply their shoddy rules that allowed things like this to happen. Luckily, any TO worth two cents simply didn't allow this, but I know there were battle reports here on dakka of people pulling exactly this stunt.

So, let's ignore what happened in previous editions, because it has no bearing on the current one, yeah?

Well, that's exactly my point. People are not declining games against FW units because FW is in a bad state now.
FW has a decade long history of stuff just like the Buzzgob rule happening, and people have been on the receiving end of these rules being exploited. Some guy would walk up to you and ask if FW was ok to you (FW books back then explicitly told you to ask for permission) and if you said yes you could either have someone with a bunch of cool models as your opponent or be facing a fugly buzzgob conversion and friggin 1200 point super-heavy in a 750 point game.
People have been on the receiving end of these things, and others have read or heard about them. The FW studio has rightfully earned this reputation of creating terrible and unfair rules and people are unwilling to be confronted with such rules. And they are also unwilling to regularly check every FW publication if there are any issues - the next major feth-up might just be a release away. The dude that declined OP's game probably doesn't even know the rules for a Leviathan dread.
In time, this reputation will go away and bringing FW models will become less of an issue. Six months are definitely not enough time for that though.

Remember the times where people would simply refuse to play and pack up if the opponent brought any Grey Knights? That also went away.

So this entire thread (just like all before them) and all the arguments are completely missing the point. There is no rational reason for the guy to decline the game against the leviathan dread if he had all the information you guys have. He simply doesn't know what to expect from any given FW model, but from their reputation he knows it has a decent chance that it will make his game terrible.

For the record: I am happy to play against an FW data slate there is right now and I don't think there is a rational reason to decline a game against a FW model. So to all that attacked me for that specific reason: You should improve your reading comprehension instead of blindly raging into your keyboard.

Also lol @ the battalion thing. If you create multiple threads on any topic, you will usually find the same users there. Create any thread with "ork" in it's title and you can bet your hat that half the regular posters of the ork tactic thread will be there.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:

Here's the whole story: FW made a typo in an update pdf, missing the fact that the names of the units referenced in the rules had been swapped. This allowed you to take a Stompa for some ridiculously low point cost. It was, however, obviously a typo and nobody ever played it that way or believed that it was reasonable to do so. It's a "problem" on the level of the old RAW nonsense that models with helmets can not shoot because LOS is drawn from "eyes".

Oh, since you claim it was a "typo" what exactly to you think was mistyped?

For a thread asking if any other people see this kind of behaviour, it seems as if this has gotten into was way too overthetop argument about justification.
Stop there? I think you've exhausted the point now.

Jidmah wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Jidmah wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
I knew Buzzgob's Stompa, I've played against it. And I can tell you, and others will support me, that one unit didn't come anywhere near to the game-breaking mess that Riptides, TauDar, Scatterbikes, Battle Companies, 3rd Ed Iron Warriors, and even Guilliman/Conscripts on 8th have done.

So, what was the issue with that stompa?

Since you know, you can surely elaborate.

The issue with the stompa was that it could be customised to essentially have no downfalls, and the lack of points scaling that came with that.

However, since that all happened in 6th, it holds just about as much validity here as all the terrible GW stuff from that time too.

Nope, that is wrong. You are thinking of the big mek stompa in escalation which indeed was child's play compared to the things on your list. I wouldn't even call it OP at all.

No, Mekboss Buzzgob had a special rule that allowed him to ride into battle in his personal stompa for 300 points, which was using the kustom stompa rules. This meant that you could bring a stompa to any game - remember that in 6th, stompas were not allowed in regular games because super-heavy could not be used outside of apocalypse or escalation. It could have apocalypse-only weapons like the lifta-droppa that tossed vehicles around or the krusha ball that could remove terrain from the table. And the best part, depending on load-out, you got a 500-1000 point discount on the stompa. The most useful loadout for this stompa was 1265 and could, with a bit of luck, kill an entire 2000 point army in a single round of shooting(I had such a stompa kill 4000 points of blood angels in an apoc game). You didn't need to though, whatever was left after turn 1 wouldn't be able to take down a stompa with repair crew, KFF and void shield anyways.
Even if you could handle being matched against a unit that was out of your league and a 1000 point handicap, if you actually manged to destroy the stompa it would then die in an apocalyptic explosion, most likely taking half of your army down with it.

Thing is, this wasn't even an issue of FW failing to balance, it was simply their shoddy rules that allowed things like this to happen. Luckily, any TO worth two cents simply didn't allow this, but I know there were battle reports here on dakka of people pulling exactly this stunt.

So the issue was PRIMARILY with the kustom stompa itself then - which is as I said.

And yeah, you could take a stompa to any game. But really, this is 6th ed we're talking about. Ie, the edition that all the big stuff was becoming near commonplace on the tabletop. Riptides, Wraithknights, I believe, Grav Centurions, and you could still take a Stompa or Baneblade anyway. And as we all saw, and as I can personally attest to, the basic Stompa wasn't even that powerful back then.

So yeah, the issue was with the custom stompa, and the fact that it was pointed incorrectly in regards to it's upgrades. Not because it was suddenly available and anyone could use it. That alone wouldn't have been an issue - it was the poor costing.

So, let's ignore what happened in previous editions, because it has no bearing on the current one, yeah?

Well, that's exactly my point. People are not declining games against FW units because FW is in a bad state now.

Guilliman, Conscripts, most of the AM line, Eldar Dark Reapers, Mortarion and Eldar unhittable units have been worse blights on this edition than anything FW have done.

If you're going to ban FW for OP units, ban GW ones first.

FW has a decade long history of stuff just like the Buzzgob rule happening, and people have been on the receiving end of these rules being exploited. Some guy would walk up to you and ask if FW was ok to you (FW books back then explicitly told you to ask for permission) and if you said yes you could either have someone with a bunch of cool models as your opponent or be facing a fugly buzzgob conversion and friggin 1200 point super-heavy in a 750 point game.
People have been on the receiving end of these things, and others have read or heard about them. The FW studio has rightfully earned this reputation of creating terrible and unfair rules and people are unwilling to be confronted with such rules. And they are also unwilling to regularly check every FW publication if there are any issues - the next major feth-up might just be a release away. The dude that declined OP's game probably doesn't even know the rules for a Leviathan dread.
In time, this reputation will go away and bringing FW models will become less of an issue. Six months are definitely not enough time for that though.

By that logic, why haven't people been boycotting GW units because of things like Knights in 7th, Riptides in 6th/7th, Eldar for 6th/7th/8th, Guilliman/Conscript spam in 8th, and the various Decurions and suchlike? Or why aren't people mass-refusing games against Astra Militarum for being arguably OP?

GW have fethed up more than FW have. Why the double standard?

GW's publications are just as prone to fethups. And it's hardly like the Forge World ones are a struggle to find. You (general you) have no excuse not to know the rules for FW units any more so than GW ones.

How will that reputation go away if no-one's playing against FW units? It's exactly the problem I outlined earlier.
In order for A to do B, X must happen. However, X can only happen if A does B, and so the cycle continues.

So this entire thread (just like all before them) and all the arguments are completely missing the point. There is no rational reason for the guy to decline the game against the leviathan dread if he had all the information you guys have. He simply doesn't know what to expect from any given FW model, but from their reputation he knows it has a decent chance that it will make his game terrible.

But it's up to the FW crowd in these threads, on Dakka, in those situations to outline that those views are outdated, based on nothing, and if people actually treated FW stuff like it was GW's own (which it effectively is), then there would be no problem at all.

You're complaining that people are trying to educate people, so that they HAVE no rational reason not to accept the game. That should be EXACTLY what you want.

Also lol @ the battalion thing. If you create multiple threads on any topic, you will usually find the same users there. Create any thread with "ork" in it's title and you can bet your hat that half the regular posters of the ork tactic thread will be there.

I've not been vocal on pro-FW threads. I do not want to be lumped in with some kind of derogatory petty name. I'm sure that's not much to ask.

I'm still seeing weak arguments with no substance.

"But it used to be..."

"But it's..."

You know, I didn't really want to leap to it- but now I'm almost convinced the anti-FW crowd is just a bunch of folks that are buttmad over someone having a shinier and more expensive toy on the tabletop- and very little experience with them.

 Jidmah wrote:
Mekboss Buzzgobs' Stompa in 6th. You're welcome.

Warhammer 40k is currently in 8th edition. You have some catching up to do.

And you're welcome.

 Jidmah wrote:
No, sorry. You already have made clear that you do not want to understand my argument.

It's an easy argument to understand.

Something upset you a decade ago, and it has no relevance in the current edition in 2018. I'd normally say you don't have an argument, but you do- it's just not relevant to the game as it is now.

 Mmmpi wrote:
4. A player saying their won't play against forgeworld stuff is someone acting on their own agency. They're saying what 'they' won't do. That doesn't infringe anything on your part, but is them limiting themselves. But hey, Free speech, amiright?

Someone please let me know when freedom to do anything at all means you're automatically immune to your actions being questioned, challenged, ridiculed, or judged for doing it. I'd like to know this the next time some shrieking loser asks me about my rifles.

 Peregrine wrote:
Correct. However, we are under no obligation to pretend that the refusal is anything other than irrational TFG behavior.

That awkward and beautiful moment when someone I disagree with on nearly everything else is making the absolute most valid points.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
So the issue was PRIMARILY with the kustom stompa itself then - which is as I said.

Actually, the model with the rule in question was Mekboss Buzzgob. It gave you a stompa for 300 points no matter what the stompa itself would cost.
So it's not as you said and it was just an example out of many.

So, let's ignore what happened in previous editions, because it has no bearing on the current one, yeah?

Well, that's exactly my point. People are not declining games against FW units because FW is in a bad state now.

Guilliman, Conscripts, most of the AM line, Eldar Dark Reapers, Mortarion and Eldar unhittable units have been worse blights on this edition than anything FW have done.

 Jidmah wrote:
FW has been a blight on 5 editions. Guess which one people remember more, three months of dark reapers or ten years of terrible rules.

Lolwut. FW has been a blight? Have you forgotten about all the codex units that have been a blight on the game over that time period? Riptides, scatter laser jetbikes, GK razorback parking lots, etc. TBH most of the time when there has been a problem list it's been something from a codex being exploited. FW balance issues, while obviously present, haven't been the game-breaking thing nearly as often.

FW has always been famous for just slapping together rules that sound cool and feel right and then put some point costs on whatever they created. That's exactly how malefic lords came to be and I'm not convinced things like that will happen again unless they stay clear of such mistakes for a year or two.

You do realize that you're describing the entire GW design process, right? That they have publicly admitted to throwing together rules that seem cool based on what the sculptor (and/or marketing department) thought was a cool model? Why are you holding FW rules to a much higher standard than other rules GW publishes?

 Jidmah wrote:

Sorry, but you didn't understand anything at all. Especially not the part about reading comprehension.

Even more important, that I wasn't talking about myself at all. I know it's hard to understand, even if it's spelled out in the post itself.
But good job at just throwing insults my way. Makes your point seem very valid.

You're literally the one sitting here crying about how models were 10 years ago or more.

It's 2018.

If someone is too stupid, lazy, or just outright childish to understand that the game evolves- they can sit in the corner with their models and stink and not get a game. I'm sure there's plenty of room for the forgotten neckbeards of 'dead 40k' mentality.

To be fair that stompa wasn't the only OP thing FW ever produced. Remember the renegades and heretics list from 7th edition, which could easily compete with GWs OP Necrons, Tau, Space marines and Eldar.

In 8th edition I'd say the only FW outlier was Aetaos'rau'keres but that has been fixed.

Oh, and malefic lords.
But they are very similar to brimstones, conscripts and razorwing flocks and have been solved just as fast.

Sgt. Cortez wrote:
To be fair that stompa wasn't the only OP thing FW ever produced. Remember the renegades and heretics list from 7th edition, which could easily compete with GWs OP Necrons, Tau, Space marines and Eldar.

In 8th edition I'd say the only FW outlier was Aetaos'rau'keres but that has been fixed.

Oh, and malefic lords.
But they are very similar to brimstones, conscripts and razorwing flocks and have been solved just as fast.

Which one? There were 2 really broken ones, one was "the purge" formation with an artillery tyrant (which btw is not R&H as a whole but Siege of Vraks Renegades) and the other was the "Master of the Horde" + Infernal Relic Baneblade + unending Host which also were siege of Vraks renegades. However Vraks was also accompanied by DK and those guys technically could also pull similar stuff in the twilight days of 7th.

(one list spammed dangerous terrain with artillery because of gas shells and used huge ammounts of plague Zombies to tie you, whilest the other had 3+ cover for everything hidden behind any unit of Vraks renegades even the baneblade could get the save from lowely inf grunts, whilest also allowing those inf units to re- enter on 2 or 3 + roll. Meanwhile the Baneblade produced a bubble which made all Vraks militas surrounding it in 12" i belive fearless)
However those lists are really like the Eldar list someone used to complain about the OP sicarian, basically the same dickish move.....

Also both lists had easily abusable flaws, and the core piece for the later list was a Baneblade (which is a GW unit) , whilest the other one was also mainly broken because the whole formations which GW introduced were, put mildly, broken.
I mean when a SM player could get additional 400-500 pts in transports whithout paying which wasn't even the worst possible move to pull if i remember correctly then we have a problem in the main gamemode. There was also the problem with summoning Daemons via the GW rules and that everyone and their mother would use that to summon greater Daemons, had the funny side effect that the Tzeentch daemons always were sold out.....

Quite frankly neither modern day GW nor FW come close to old GW, or do i need to point to the infamous "fish of fury" tactic the Tau pulled early?
We should be happy that now atleast they do try to balance faster and on a much more complete and general scale, even if i disagree with the fact that i had to buy CA.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Sgt. Cortez wrote:
To be fair that stompa wasn't the only OP thing FW ever produced. Remember the renegades and heretics list from 7th edition, which could easily compete with GWs OP Necrons, Tau, Space marines and Eldar.

In 8th edition I'd say the only FW outlier was Aetaos'rau'keres but that has been fixed.

Oh, and malefic lords.
But they are very similar to brimstones, conscripts and razorwing flocks and have been solved just as fast.

Also isn't the Stompa a GW unit? Or was that a speccific Stompa that was this broken?