And I still think GW needs to come out and just straight up say that FW needs to be treated the same way as codex armies. I think that if the pro-FW people could quote an official GW source on that, it would solve a lot of arguments.
Thing is that's only going to work "online". If GW wants FW to be mainstream the most simplistic way is to simply print the rules inside the relevant army codex and then to print data-slate releases for future FW models in the very same way that they do for regular model releases.
So long as FW models remain within a separate book (Imperial Armour) then there will always be the potential view of taking FW as an expansion to the core rules set of the game rather than a default inclusion that many here want/see it to be
Agreed.
But then you are going to get people saying that "goes against the idea of forgeworld" to have "exclusive" models' rules printed in the normal codex. To which my response is still the same "you can't have your cake at eat it too". Either FW is a part of the base game in which case the models shouldn't be any harder to get than normal GW models (they aren't really with the ease of online ordering), and the rules should be condensed into one spot (codex), OR forgeworld is an optional "expansion". You can't have both.
So, you're saying that models that are in codexes or are "core" parts of the game should be just as easy to get and find?
Tell that to the Sisters of Battle.
Tell that to Inquisition.
Tell that to Basilisks, most Wall of Martyrs kits, and Land Raider Terminus Ultras (not in stores, in most places - order only).
Tell that to the Land Raider Excelsior and Rhino Primaris, units in the SM Index (and maybe Codex too), but can only be bought at WHW.
ValentineGames wrote:I don´t like your tone. Consider yourself ignored.
You might not like his tone, and a lot of people don't, but he's not lying.
You can shut out people, but it doesn't make you right and them wrong.
In fact, this whole idea that you can "ignore" people because you disagree with them is exactly how the whole Forge World debate came about: people talking about FW from a position of relative ignorance and ignoring more recent and/or factual data.
Of course, you can always ignore people - no-one can force you to hear someone out, but refusing to? Depending on context, that doesn't give you the right to be immune from criticism.
Err....I never said that though. So I dunno why I've been quoted saying it...
Huh. That's odd.
Absolutely isn't you I was addressing, my most sincere apologies!
not to be mean, i can understand the feeling and animosity, but considering you were 15 which is old enough to decide yourself on most questions and decisions, i am sorry but that one is still on you.
Also you were in your FLGS, were there no other players/ shopkeeper in there? No one to oversee the matches and tables that could've told that guy to feck off?
Frankly if the later is the case, then i feel really sorry for you. Nobody should've to put up with such an asshat inthis hobby. It is enough that GW can't write non toxic rules as is.
I was also new to the hobby and the guy was much older than me in his 30s so I believed him. Yeah taking him at face value was probably pretty dumb, but hindsight is 20/20. You do also realize you're blaming a 15 year old for being fooled by an adult right?
You had a bad experience. I can speak from my own personal account that I've been duped like that in games before. I was 14, doubled game, my teammate was 13, playing two adults. 6th edition, and they had said my Whirlwind didn't fire Large Blasts, it fired small blast templates. Of course, I believed them, and in the next game, I put down a small blast, and the people playing said that it was, in fact, a Large Blast (Ordnance rule). So yeah, I'd been duped, of my own Codex unit.
You know what I did? I got over it, realised that the guy was TFG, and made sure that I always either knew the rules, or made sure they could show me. No rules, no game.
I'm sorry for your experience, but you've put your blame on the wrong thing, and unfortunately, it's unfair on the people who have done nothing wrong, save for playing FW (which is bad i your eyes). Can you understand why people say that your argument is an illogical one?
I have no problem playing FW as long as you bring the rules to show me. I know the "FWOP" complaint is mostly based on a few rare imbalanced choices and/or people misunderstanding rules (on purpose or not).
The problem for me is more to do with how FW makes tons more units for armies that already have all the necessary stuff to choose from, though I can see how it makes sense to invest in the popular armies.
I will play against someone with FW models (and do so all the time), but I do not use them myself (not counting bitz I guess). I enjoy seeing a fully realized FW army such as DkoK, but I find the higher points levels FW models a little over the top for pick up games and even tournaments. I am not talking about Warlords but those 500-600 models. This feeling against such FW models is diminished somewhat by mainstream GW use of Primarchs and Knights, but it is still there for me.
I find that most FW I encounter are dreadnoughts. There are so many mainstream GW dreadnoughts - why the need to use FW ones? The same for things like Earthshaker carriages - why not just use Basilisks?
I also find that most of those "FW" dreads I see are really just normal Dreads using FW rules, so it doesn't seem to be about cool the FW models look. I also do not enjoy seeing recasts/scratch-built models of FW, but I play against them to. Its a cost of doing business I suppose.
I would happily play in a no-FW tournament or one that had a single-model PL cap. Having said that I happily play in tournaments that do allow FW.
I do think that folks who bring FW (and mainstream GWLoW) to open gaming should have a pre-game conversation with their opponent, especially if they have never played each other before. Even if its just "I have a 500 point FW Daemon or supertank/Knight in my list that, are you OK facing that?" The same things goes for people bring Knights, a Primarch or a super-tooled up Tourney list that they are testing. If I am testing my tourney list at open gaming I will tell my opponent and have a Plan B army list in my case if they are new player trying out 2000 point open gaming for the first time.
Jidmah wrote: Oh, it's the thread about pro FW zealots piling on everyone who dares post anything but "all hail FW" again.
You realise by lumping all people on one side of the debate together like that comes across just as bad right?
Personally I see Forgeworld as legitimate in any 40k. People are free to play their games however they want, but to me the baseline is that Forgeworld should be allowed. The player must of course have the correct rules!
Yeah, I've tried to argue in multiple threads like this previously. Feel free to look up my argument there. As the poll proves, most people, including me, have no issue with FW whatsoever.
It's always the same people chanting their "FW IS GREAT! YOU SHALL NOT DENY FW!" mantra while going on a witch hunt for anyone who dare defy their one and only Emperor of Resinkind.
Might as well try to convince anti-vaxers of not endangering their children.
Jidmah wrote: Oh, it's the thread about pro FW zealots piling on everyone who dares post anything but "all hail FW" again.
As apposed to the thread about anti FW zealots who pile on everyone who dares post anything but "all curse FW...and the codex options" again...
Oh, please do provide a link. I don't think we have had one of those since 6th.
That you even think that there are such threads pretty much proves my point. Your pro FW rage is making you blind... to the very poll sitting on the top of this page.
Jidmah wrote: Oh, it's the thread about pro FW zealots piling on everyone who dares post anything but "all hail FW" again.
You realise by lumping all people on one side of the debate together like that comes across just as bad right?
Personally I see Forgeworld as legitimate in any 40k. People are free to play their games however they want, but to me the baseline is that Forgeworld should be allowed. The player must of course have the correct rules!
Yeah, I've tried to argue in multiple threads like this previously. Feel free to look up my argument there. As the poll proves, most people, including me, have no issue with FW whatsoever.
It's always the same people chanting their "FW IS GREAT! YOU SHALL NOT DENY FW!" mantra while going on a witch hunt for anyone who dare defy their one and only Emperor of Resinkind.
Might as well try to convince anti-vaxers of not endangering their children.
Jidmah wrote: Oh, it's the thread about pro FW zealots piling on everyone who dares post anything but "all hail FW" again.
As apposed to the thread about anti FW zealots who pile on everyone who dares post anything but "all curse FW...and the codex options" again...
Oh, please do provide a link. I don't think we have had one of those since 6th.
That you even think that there are such threads pretty much proves my point. Your pro FW rage is making you blind... to the very poll sitting on the top of this page.
Caederes wrote: Here's a simple question I pose to everyone reading this thread;
What is worse?
a) Being denied usage of your models for no other reason except they are from Forge World.
b) Getting smashed in a game because you don't know the rules for your opponent's army.
Situation B is worse than A. Not all but many FW users like to get the jump on unsuspecting players with their shiny resin toys.
So would you be ok if your opponent handed over the rules, so that you knew exactly what the unit's rules were, and knew exactly what you were up against?
I dont like playing against FW personally. If I have a question about a unit, I rather like reading the unit entry. not a "trust me this is how it works, it has X wounds" or a screen shot on their phone that I have to look through, zoom, half read blurry text. or their Tablet just happens to be dead. No books to read through.
This is just me. I havent played a game against FW units that I can sit and read the rules easily. I havent turned down a game for it, but I already know from the start that I am going to have a rough time. It sucked charging against a unit, only to find out after it was done, that it has many, many special rules that make it nigh unkillable in combat, and my unit just died for no reason when I could have tried avoiding it.
conker249 wrote: I dont like playing against FW personally. If I have a question about a unit, I rather like reading the unit entry. not a "trust me this is how it works, it has X wounds" or a screen shot on their phone that I have to look through, zoom, half read blurry text. or their Tablet just happens to be dead. No books to read through.
This is just me. I havent played a game against FW units that I can sit and read the rules easily. I havent turned down a game for it, but I already know from the start that I am going to have a rough time. It sucked charging against a unit, only to find out after it was done, that it has many, many special rules that make it nigh unkillable in combat, and my unit just died for no reason when I could have tried avoiding it.
Caederes wrote: Here's a simple question I pose to everyone reading this thread;
What is worse?
a) Being denied usage of your models for no other reason except they are from Forge World.
b) Getting smashed in a game because you don't know the rules for your opponent's army.
Situation B is worse than A. Not all but many FW users like to get the jump on unsuspecting players with their shiny resin toys.
having played this game for 5 editions in a dozen different towns, I have never seen or experienced this.
More to the point, ask them for the rules before the game...how is that any different than a new codex or new WD unit or the like? Ive seen people try and cheat with rules claiming they are Forgeworld, but ive never seen someonr show up and play "surprise!" with FW, and if that had been anyones plan, pretty much everyone asks to see the rules first anyway.
conker249 wrote: I dont like playing against FW personally. If I have a question about a unit, I rather like reading the unit entry. not a "trust me this is how it works, it has X wounds" or a screen shot on their phone that I have to look through, zoom, half read blurry text. or their Tablet just happens to be dead. No books to read through.
This is just me. I havent played a game against FW units that I can sit and read the rules easily. I havent turned down a game for it, but I already know from the start that I am going to have a rough time. It sucked charging against a unit, only to find out after it was done, that it has many, many special rules that make it nigh unkillable in combat, and my unit just died for no reason when I could have tried avoiding it.
This is actually the pretty standard universal FW turnoff story. Someone shows up with something, makes up their own rules or uses incorrect rules, and then it leaves a bad taste in everyones mouth about FW. Ultimately however, this isn't an issue with FW, it's an issue with people not having their appropriate gaming materials or outright cheating.
Dont play it if they dont have their rules. Goes for anything, not just FW.
Of all the cheating or general unscrupulous behavior I've seen or experienced in my years of gaming, I'm always impressed with the 40k community's ability to top them all.
Caederes wrote: Here's a simple question I pose to everyone reading this thread;
What is worse?
a) Being denied usage of your models for no other reason except they are from Forge World.
b) Getting smashed in a game because you don't know the rules for your opponent's army.
Situation B is worse than A. Not all but many FW users like to get the jump on unsuspecting players with their shiny resin toys.
So would you be ok if your opponent handed over the rules, so that you knew exactly what the unit's rules were, and knew exactly what you were up against?
Sure, why not. But if the model´s rules/point cost are ludicrous then I would still decline the game. And according to the FLGS player base, those rules/points are often obnoxious. My hobby time is limited nowadays and I don´t want to waste it with a shoddy battle. My approach to 40K games are like this:
Caederes wrote: Here's a simple question I pose to everyone reading this thread;
What is worse?
a) Being denied usage of your models for no other reason except they are from Forge World.
b) Getting smashed in a game because you don't know the rules for your opponent's army.
Situation B is worse than A. Not all but many FW users like to get the jump on unsuspecting players with their shiny resin toys.
So would you be ok if your opponent handed over the rules, so that you knew exactly what the unit's rules were, and knew exactly what you were up against?
Sure, why not. But if the model´s rules/point cost are ludicrous then I would still decline the game. And according to the FLGS player base, those rules/points are often obnoxious. My hobby time is limited nowadays and I don´t want to waste it with a shoddy battle. My approach to 40K games are like this:
Caederes wrote: Here's a simple question I pose to everyone reading this thread;
What is worse?
a) Being denied usage of your models for no other reason except they are from Forge World.
b) Getting smashed in a game because you don't know the rules for your opponent's army.
Situation B is worse than A. Not all but many FW users like to get the jump on unsuspecting players with their shiny resin toys.
having played this game for 5 editions in a dozen different towns, I have never seen or experienced this.
More to the point, ask them for the rules before the game...how is that any different than a new codex or new WD unit or the like? Ive seen people try and cheat with rules claiming they are Forgeworld, but ive never seen someonr show up and play "surprise!" with FW, and if that had been anyones plan, pretty much everyone asks to see the rules first anyway.
conker249 wrote: I dont like playing against FW personally. If I have a question about a unit, I rather like reading the unit entry. not a "trust me this is how it works, it has X wounds" or a screen shot on their phone that I have to look through, zoom, half read blurry text. or their Tablet just happens to be dead. No books to read through.
This is just me. I havent played a game against FW units that I can sit and read the rules easily. I havent turned down a game for it, but I already know from the start that I am going to have a rough time. It sucked charging against a unit, only to find out after it was done, that it has many, many special rules that make it nigh unkillable in combat, and my unit just died for no reason when I could have tried avoiding it.
This is actually the pretty standard universal FW turnoff story. Someone shows up with something, makes up their own rules or uses incorrect rules, and then it leaves a bad taste in everyones mouth about FW. Ultimately however, this isn't an issue with FW, it's an issue with people not having their appropriate gaming materials or outright cheating.
Dont play it if they dont have their rules. Goes for anything, not just FW.
Rules on a smartphone or tablet are a no-go for me. You will have to have your books present to have a game.
Seems to me If you’re playing with a FW model (not just FW doors on your Land Raider), that it might be in your interest to provide said rules to your opponent. Perhaps print the Data fax, and have it where you can hand it over with all relevant rules and give them a chance to study it and see what it does, and keep it as a reference in the game?
Rules on a smartphone or tablet are a no-go for me. You will have to have your books present to have a game.
Why? It's 2018 mate. Plenty of companies (GW included) have digital versions of their books and/or apps. This is the way the wind has been blowing for some time.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Reemule wrote: Seems to me If you’re playing with a FW model (not just FW doors on your Land Raider), that it might be in your interest to provide said rules to your opponent. Perhaps print the Data fax, and have it where you can hand it over with all relevant rules and give them a chance to study it and see what it does, and keep it as a reference in the game?
So, like literally every other unit in your army?
Why do people think players go around with no rules? If someone has no rules for their model you tell them to jog on, FW or not.
Caederes wrote: Here's a simple question I pose to everyone reading this thread;
What is worse?
a) Being denied usage of your models for no other reason except they are from Forge World.
b) Getting smashed in a game because you don't know the rules for your opponent's army.
Situation B is worse than A. Not all but many FW users like to get the jump on unsuspecting players with their shiny resin toys.
So would you be ok if your opponent handed over the rules, so that you knew exactly what the unit's rules were, and knew exactly what you were up against?
Sure, why not. But if the model´s rules/point cost are ludicrous then I would still decline the game. And according to the FLGS player base, those rules/points are often obnoxious. My hobby time is limited nowadays and I don´t want to waste it with a shoddy battle. My approach to 40K games are like this:
40K has so many units of differing strengths that blind pick-up games are pretty useless for a fun game imo.
So basically you list tailor every game?
That's not how most people play the game.
There is no list tailoring involved. Both players know of all participating units in the game in advance. As I already started, it always ensures a good game for me and my acquaintance.
conker249 wrote: I dont like playing against FW personally. If I have a question about a unit, I rather like reading the unit entry. not a "trust me this is how it works, it has X wounds" or a screen shot on their phone that I have to look through, zoom, half read blurry text. or their Tablet just happens to be dead. No books to read through.
This is just me. I havent played a game against FW units that I can sit and read the rules easily. I havent turned down a game for it, but I already know from the start that I am going to have a rough time. It sucked charging against a unit, only to find out after it was done, that it has many, many special rules that make it nigh unkillable in combat, and my unit just died for no reason when I could have tried avoiding it.
What unit was this?
It was a blood slaughterer of Khorne If I remember. I thought a full unit of powerswords, lightning claws. and heavy Thunderhammers would work well against it. The 10 Attacks, strength 10, -3AP, 3 damage said otherwise. and the regen. Call me stupid for thinking that I could take it on. I know it isnt my opponents job to warn me about units, but it really put a damper on the game when I am being told that the slaughterer sucks the whole game.
Rules on a smartphone or tablet are a no-go for me. You will have to have your books present to have a game.
While I dont have an issue with demanding people have their proper rules, GW (and FW) do sell their books in electronic formats.
Living in the 21st century, when much of GW's content is digital (and many competitor games have entirely digital rules), that seems a bit extreme.
Why don´t you prefer books?
Personally? I play like a dozen game systems, most of which require around a dozen models. I can bring 7-8 different games in my bag pretty trivially and be available to play whatever someone is up for, but a big part of that is because all my rules are collected in the same little tablet. Also, books aren't at all laid out in a way that's convenient for gameplay. Flipping across pages of rules for models that aren't part of my army, or worse yet, having to flip between statlines and weapon profiles is a disaster. Digital solutions steamline and speed up gameplay immensely.
Rules on a smartphone or tablet are a no-go for me. You will have to have your books present to have a game.
While I dont have an issue with demanding people have their proper rules, GW (and FW) do sell their books in electronic formats.
Living in the 21st century, when much of GW's content is digital (and many competitor games have entirely digital rules), that seems a bit extreme.
Why don´t you prefer books?
I dont care either way, though ebooks are cheaper and carrying around lots of books gets old (especially now that GW has gone all in on hardcovers).
But either way, again, GW and FW do sell their rules in ebook format, new units and errata and FAQ are released via PDF, you're going to have a smartphone or tablet most likely anyway, demanding people have physical books is a wee bit...odd.
that was how sisters of battle were in 7th, digital only. I was not allowed to play them at my store in the tournament. I was told the PDF's are "too easy to modify and change". This is a local small Tournament with local players, less than 10 people. I was irritated that I was no longer allowed to play my army. I don't play at that store anymore since a new LGS opened up and are nice.
conker249 wrote: I dont like playing against FW personally. If I have a question about a unit, I rather like reading the unit entry. not a "trust me this is how it works, it has X wounds" or a screen shot on their phone that I have to look through, zoom, half read blurry text. or their Tablet just happens to be dead. No books to read through.
This is just me. I havent played a game against FW units that I can sit and read the rules easily. I havent turned down a game for it, but I already know from the start that I am going to have a rough time. It sucked charging against a unit, only to find out after it was done, that it has many, many special rules that make it nigh unkillable in combat, and my unit just died for no reason when I could have tried avoiding it.
What unit was this?
It was a blood slaughterer of Khorne If I remember. I thought a full unit of powerswords, lightning claws. and heavy Thunderhammers would work well against it. The 10 Attacks, strength 10, -3AP, 3 damage said otherwise. and the regen. Call me stupid for thinking that I could take it on. I know it isnt my opponents job to warn me about units, but it really put a damper on the game when I am being told that the slaughterer sucks the whole game.
It has 9 attacks at most, unless it is World Eaters (then it's 10).
None of the rules you mentioned make it "nigh unkillable". They're offensive things, not defensive. Defensively it's literally a Rhino, with a 5++ and heals 1 wound per battle round. Hardly "unkillable".
Rules on a smartphone or tablet are a no-go for me. You will have to have your books present to have a game.
While I dont have an issue with demanding people have their proper rules, GW (and FW) do sell their books in electronic formats.
Living in the 21st century, when much of GW's content is digital (and many competitor games have entirely digital rules), that seems a bit extreme.
Why don´t you prefer books?
I dont care either way, though ebooks are cheaper and carrying around lots of books gets old (especially now that GW has gone all in on hardcovers).
But either way, again, GW and FW do sell their rules in ebook format, new units and errata and FAQ are released via PDF, you're going to have a smartphone or tablet most likely anyway, demanding people have physical books is a wee bit...odd.
Most people in my FLGS still use books. It is not such an outlandish idea as you might think. I don´t need energy and my view is not constrained to a small screen. It is also much easier to handle.
conker249 wrote: I dont like playing against FW personally. If I have a question about a unit, I rather like reading the unit entry. not a "trust me this is how it works, it has X wounds" or a screen shot on their phone that I have to look through, zoom, half read blurry text. or their Tablet just happens to be dead. No books to read through.
This is just me. I havent played a game against FW units that I can sit and read the rules easily. I havent turned down a game for it, but I already know from the start that I am going to have a rough time. It sucked charging against a unit, only to find out after it was done, that it has many, many special rules that make it nigh unkillable in combat, and my unit just died for no reason when I could have tried avoiding it.
What unit was this?
It was a blood slaughterer of Khorne If I remember. I thought a full unit of powerswords, lightning claws. and heavy Thunderhammers would work well against it. The 10 Attacks, strength 10, -3AP, 3 damage said otherwise. and the regen. Call me stupid for thinking that I could take it on. I know it isnt my opponents job to warn me about units, but it really put a damper on the game when I am being told that the slaughterer sucks the whole game.
It has 9 attacks at most, unless it is World Eaters (then it's 10).
None of the rules you mentioned make it "nigh unkillable". They're offensive things, not defensive. Defensively it's literally a Rhino, with a 5++ and heals 1 wound per battle round. Hardly "unkillable".
Dude. it was for me that match, In that match, the best defense was a great offense, a FW unit, without anything to read of or know about it, taking the word of someone saying that they get 10 attacks, strength 10, plenty of wounds, that heals. It was nigh unkillable FOR ME at the time. Learning these little "tidbits" in the fight itself, was frustrating. Again, i said personally. call me stupid for thinking I could take it on without knowing anything that the unit could do at all. This does not change anything about how I personally think of forgeworld.
I don't think I've played a game of 8th without using at least 1 FW unit. My lists are never cheesy or spammed units, I use the FW stuff because I like how it looks and don't really care if it's better than GW equivalent. the only problem I've ever had is when I used my rapier with laser destroyer against a super spammer. he didn't like the fact that it had additional damage depending on what # was rolled, yet he was running rowboat with Hellblaster spam.
I would never bring a FW super heavy or similarly OP unit to a pickup game.
conker249 wrote: I dont like playing against FW personally. If I have a question about a unit, I rather like reading the unit entry. not a "trust me this is how it works, it has X wounds" or a screen shot on their phone that I have to look through, zoom, half read blurry text. or their Tablet just happens to be dead. No books to read through.
This is just me. I havent played a game against FW units that I can sit and read the rules easily. I havent turned down a game for it, but I already know from the start that I am going to have a rough time. It sucked charging against a unit, only to find out after it was done, that it has many, many special rules that make it nigh unkillable in combat, and my unit just died for no reason when I could have tried avoiding it.
What unit was this?
It was a blood slaughterer of Khorne If I remember. I thought a full unit of powerswords, lightning claws. and heavy Thunderhammers would work well against it. The 10 Attacks, strength 10, -3AP, 3 damage said otherwise. and the regen. Call me stupid for thinking that I could take it on. I know it isnt my opponents job to warn me about units, but it really put a damper on the game when I am being told that the slaughterer sucks the whole game.
It has 9 attacks at most, unless it is World Eaters (then it's 10).
None of the rules you mentioned make it "nigh unkillable". They're offensive things, not defensive. Defensively it's literally a Rhino, with a 5++ and heals 1 wound per battle round. Hardly "unkillable".
Dude. it was for me that match, In that match, the best defense was a great offense, a FW unit, without anything to read of or know about it, taking the word of someone saying that they get 10 attacks, strength 10, plenty of wounds, that heals. It was nigh unkillable FOR ME at the time. Learning these little "tidbits" in the fight itself, was frustrating. Again, i said personally. call me stupid for thinking I could take it on without knowing anything that the unit could do at all. This does not change anything about how I personally think of forgeworld.
Alright, alright, sorry.
I just think "unkillable" is the wrong adjective; it's similar to saying how a defiler is "unkillable" because it gets 4 Str 16 attacks and 3 Str 12 attacks. Except that defiler is far more durable, isn't forced in to Khorne to do that (though it could be), and has real shooting attacks to boot.
I'm 100% for FW, but Peregrine, for your blogs I see you are a very experienced painter and modeller that has a very, very big knowledge about working with resin, but you lose credibility when you say that working with resin, or FW resin, is just the same as working with HIPS plastic.
To caesar what is caesar's, Resin has better detail, but in price, ease of use, etc... Plastic wins without a doubt.
Personally I find resin fairly easy to work with. The only thing I dread is detail loss due to bubbles (thankfully rare) or a super bad warp (and honestly if its seriously bad on either of those its worth replacing the part instead of repair).
It scrapes easy for removing mould lines; it glues very easily (almost as easy as plastic and easier than metal - though of course big connections benefit from pinning) and holds great, sharp detail.
I'd actually say its a hard neck and neck battle between resin and plastic for me when it comes to ease of working with.
At least when comparing GW plastics and FW or Spartan Games Resin.
I'd say the worst I've worked with is Privateer Press plastic; its just a touch too tough to be easy to scrape in my experience. I could also throw in Hawk Wargames plastic/resin hybrid material as being equally tough (though with them its more the supreme high detail that makes it a very very careful bit of work to clean up)
I love FW Resin; I've found it easier to work with than GW plastics.
For GW, if you want to repose, you have to cut and replace. Heat-gunning the plastic just makes it warp weirdly, like it was unstable in the first place or something.
Forge World resin, on the other hand, responds beautifully to heat-guns, allowing for gentle reposing (an ankle here, an elbow there, etc), while also cutting fairly cleanly, being easily sanded/drilled, and not being super brittle (generally. Weirdly, I've gotten some brittle casts for no reason).
Just don't breathe in the poison, and you're golden.
conker249 wrote: that was how sisters of battle were in 7th, digital only. I was not allowed to play them at my store in the tournament. I was told the PDF's are "too easy to modify and change". This is a local small Tournament with local players, less than 10 people. I was irritated that I was no longer allowed to play my army. I don't play at that store anymore since a new LGS opened up and are nice.
I do not properly comprehend how play groups get to this point. Play by the rules, allow your opponent to do the same, play your game and win or lose, have fun with it. It's not that hard.
conker249 wrote: that was how sisters of battle were in 7th, digital only. I was not allowed to play them at my store in the tournament. I was told the PDF's are "too easy to modify and change". This is a local small Tournament with local players, less than 10 people. I was irritated that I was no longer allowed to play my army. I don't play at that store anymore since a new LGS opened up and are nice.
I do not properly comprehend how play groups get to this point. Play by the rules, allow your opponent to do the same, play your game and win or lose, have fun with it. It's not that hard.
At that time I asked him why. He said because they are easy to change and modify on the spot. He heard of a story from a larger tournament where A player modified his PDF into more powerful units, and that the TO took the E-reader, and changed the bolters strength down to 1 inside the PDF, and the guy was banned from the tournament after it. I called him out, handing my E-reader to him to show me how easy it was. He didn't take me up on it, but it didnt change that I couldnt play Sisters of Battle once they got their Digital update to 7th. Prior to 7th edition when we only had the WD codex, one of the "founding members" of the gaming club, which you had to be chosen and voted into to be part of, YELLED across the room saying I couldnt play my sisters of battle unless I had the original White dwarfs that they were in. I laughed sarcastically, holding my books in the air. The player base there was just Toxic. From what I heard, their player base is dwindling. its been about 3 years since I played there.
Rules on a smartphone or tablet are a no-go for me. You will have to have your books present to have a game.
While I dont have an issue with demanding people have their proper rules, GW (and FW) do sell their books in electronic formats.
Living in the 21st century, when much of GW's content is digital (and many competitor games have entirely digital rules), that seems a bit extreme.
Why don´t you prefer books?
I dont care either way, though ebooks are cheaper and carrying around lots of books gets old (especially now that GW has gone all in on hardcovers).
But either way, again, GW and FW do sell their rules in ebook format, new units and errata and FAQ are released via PDF, you're going to have a smartphone or tablet most likely anyway, demanding people have physical books is a wee bit...odd.
Most people in my FLGS still use books. It is not such an outlandish idea as you might think. I don´t need energy and my view is not constrained to a small screen. It is also much easier to handle.
Nobody is taking issue with an individual's right to choose either digital or physical media, nor are they arguing that each choice doesn't have its merits, the issue is your apparent refusal to accept somebody else's choice because it doesn't somehow conform to an arbitrary criteria you're enforcing.
But then, anyone reading your comments about FW shouldn't be surprised you've got a problem with it, despite having been a completely official and legitimate way to obtain one's rules for several years at this point.
Oh, please do provide a link. I don't think we have had one of those since 6th.
That you even think that there are such threads pretty much proves my point. Your pro FW rage is making you blind... to the very poll sitting on the top of this page.
Marmatag wrote: I'm tired of FW. Quite a few armies are in the "forgeworld or lose" camp. Which is dumb.
Quite a few armies are in the "codex or lose" camp. Which is dumb. Therefore ban codex rules.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Strg Alt wrote: The bad impression results of past experiences according to the players which I have asked. I can´t judge, if this behaviour is warranted or not because I don´t own any FW rulebook.
IOW, you have an opinion based on nothing but ignorance, and you expect veto power over your opponent's army because of that opinion. Why do you think that this is acceptable?
Some armies are strictly in the "lose" camp. I rarely see codex marines beat anything but other codex marines. It's silly.
Caederes wrote: Here's a simple question I pose to everyone reading this thread;
What is worse?
a) Being denied usage of your models for no other reason except they are from Forge World.
b) Getting smashed in a game because you don't know the rules for your opponent's army.
Situation B is worse than A. Not all but many FW users like to get the jump on unsuspecting players with their shiny resin toys.
So would you be ok if your opponent handed over the rules, so that you knew exactly what the unit's rules were, and knew exactly what you were up against?
Sure, why not. But if the model´s rules/point cost are ludicrous then I would still decline the game. And according to the FLGS player base, those rules/points are often obnoxious. My hobby time is limited nowadays and I don´t want to waste it with a shoddy battle. My approach to 40K games are like this:
40K has so many units of differing strengths that blind pick-up games are pretty useless for a fun game imo.
That's fair enough for me, and that's also my issue; I maybe play once or twice a year at the minute, which is why I'd be peeved if a game got cancelled just because someone had an issue with a label, rather than the rules themselves, or me as an opponent.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: So, you're saying that models that are in codexes or are "core" parts of the game should be just as easy to get and find?
Tell that to the Sisters of Battle.
Tell that to Inquisition.
Tell that to Basilisks, most Wall of Martyrs kits, and Land Raider Terminus Ultras (not in stores, in most places - order only).
Tell that to the Land Raider Excelsior and Rhino Primaris, units in the SM Index (and maybe Codex too), but can only be bought at WHW.
Are they all "expansions" to the game?
Nope, you can order all of those off of GW's webstore, despite them being expensive. Just like you can buy FW models off of a site linked directly on GW's webstore. I was saying that unless everyone has equal access to the models it's not fair to use them in a game without your opponent's permission. To my knowledge FW ships everywhere, so the only think really preventing people from getting FW models is money so this isn't a really valid argument anymore. If, however, FW didn't ship to Australia or something, it would be in totally bad taste to take a trip to Australia and just automatically assume that forgeworld models are ok to play against your opponent.
My argument was simply that a lot of players see FW as "separate and optional" because the rules come from a different book, and the models come from a different site. If the FW datasheets were published in the codices of the relevant factions, this would go a long way toward making FW seem more "legitimate" in the eyes of a lot of a lot of players, and allow everyone easy access to check FW datasheets without having to buy a completely separate book. The models can still be sold on FW's webstore seperate from GW because they are made-to-order resin if I remember correctly.
@w1zard don't forget that FW essentially sells niche items that wouldn't sell in enough volume to make mainstream production cost effective. Therefore, the 95% of players who don't want those niche products also wouldn't want to have to pay the extra £££'s for the larger codex. Whilst I'd happily see FW ended, and the range rolled back under citadel, I don't see an extra book on the table as an issue, I always have my books open for anyone to read, double check etc.
conker249 wrote: I dont like playing against FW personally. If I have a question about a unit, I rather like reading the unit entry. not a "trust me this is how it works, it has X wounds" or a screen shot on their phone that I have to look through, zoom, half read blurry text. or their Tablet just happens to be dead. No books to read through.
This is just me. I havent played a game against FW units that I can sit and read the rules easily. I havent turned down a game for it, but I already know from the start that I am going to have a rough time. It sucked charging against a unit, only to find out after it was done, that it has many, many special rules that make it nigh unkillable in combat, and my unit just died for no reason when I could have tried avoiding it.
What unit was this?
It was a blood slaughterer of Khorne If I remember. I thought a full unit of powerswords, lightning claws. and heavy Thunderhammers would work well against it. The 10 Attacks, strength 10, -3AP, 3 damage said otherwise. and the regen. Call me stupid for thinking that I could take it on. I know it isnt my opponents job to warn me about units, but it really put a damper on the game when I am being told that the slaughterer sucks the whole game.
It has 9 attacks at most, unless it is World Eaters (then it's 10).
None of the rules you mentioned make it "nigh unkillable". They're offensive things, not defensive. Defensively it's literally a Rhino, with a 5++ and heals 1 wound per battle round. Hardly "unkillable".
Dude. it was for me that match, In that match, the best defense was a great offense, a FW unit, without anything to read of or know about it, taking the word of someone saying that they get 10 attacks, strength 10, plenty of wounds, that heals. It was nigh unkillable FOR ME at the time. Learning these little "tidbits" in the fight itself, was frustrating. Again, i said personally. call me stupid for thinking I could take it on without knowing anything that the unit could do at all. This does not change anything about how I personally think of forgeworld.
Dooods, Blood slaughterers are awesome. I use them in pairs and Warptime one of them into my opponents face.
conker249 wrote: that was how sisters of battle were in 7th, digital only. I was not allowed to play them at my store in the tournament. I was told the PDF's are "too easy to modify and change". This is a local small Tournament with local players, less than 10 people. I was irritated that I was no longer allowed to play my army. I don't play at that store anymore since a new LGS opened up and are nice.
I do not properly comprehend how play groups get to this point. Play by the rules, allow your opponent to do the same, play your game and win or lose, have fun with it. It's not that hard.
At that time I asked him why. He said because they are easy to change and modify on the spot. He heard of a story from a larger tournament where A player modified his PDF into more powerful units, and that the TO took the E-reader, and changed the bolters strength down to 1 inside the PDF, and the guy was banned from the tournament after it. I called him out, handing my E-reader to him to show me how easy it was. He didn't take me up on it, but it didnt change that I couldnt play Sisters of Battle once they got their Digital update to 7th. Prior to 7th edition when we only had the WD codex, one of the "founding members" of the gaming club, which you had to be chosen and voted into to be part of, YELLED across the room saying I couldnt play my sisters of battle unless I had the original White dwarfs that they were in. I laughed sarcastically, holding my books in the air. The player base there was just Toxic. From what I heard, their player base is dwindling. its been about 3 years since I played there.
Funny you say that actually, I've got a horror story of SoB myself that killed my respect for all others of their kind. Perhaps the army just attracts those gakky kinds of people?
In (8e) the SoB player had a FW transport with firing points, a free 'vanguard' movement before the game starts and also specifically said it could be targeted with his SoB acts of faith free movement. Resulting in him getting into flamer range turn 1, roasting most of my boyz while also ejecting his sisters and flaming with them before I had a turn.
I asked for proof and he showed me a photo of a pdf of the stats.
Checked for the model later on, and I couldn't find anything about it. Now, as a rule of thumb I now ask for the model name and check it for myself on the internet.
Well if a transport for Sisters could benefit from free movement (think one of their units does that) it isn't outside the realm of possibility they thought an act could apply the same way. I don't have the second Index handy though
Mmmpi wrote: Sisters vehicles can't benefit from acts of faith.
If the Repressor has dominions it can vanguard move if only dominions are in it. AKA add a cannoness in and it loses the bonus pre-game move.
Huh, that's a weird combo but good to know! Looks like the only thing that was pulled over my eyes was using Acts of Faith on the transport (iirc he had two of them + celestine to move them across the map turn 1).
Yeah, they actually used to, but an FAQ cleared that up a while back. So if your game was at the start of 8th, he might not actually have been cheating.
Also, sister units in transports can't use AoF even if they can still shoot.
Caederes wrote: Here's a simple question I pose to everyone reading this thread;
What is worse?
a) Being denied usage of your models for no other reason except they are from Forge World.
b) Getting smashed in a game because you don't know the rules for your opponent's army.
So you only play when you know all of your opponents rules? You'll refuse games against someone who plays an army that's just had a new codex come out because you haven't read it yet?
JamesY wrote: @w1zard don't forget that FW essentially sells niche items that wouldn't sell in enough volume to make mainstream production cost effective. Therefore, the 95% of players who don't want those niche products also wouldn't want to have to pay the extra £££'s for the larger codex. Whilst I'd happily see FW ended, and the range rolled back under citadel, I don't see an extra book on the table as an issue, I always have my books open for anyone to read, double check etc.
Why would including FW datasheets in the standard codices make them cost more money? You have an Imperial Armor index, and a standard codex already. Just combine them. The potential for increased revenue due to an increased market for FW should outweigh the minor losses incurred with giving FW rules away for free. And I definitely think the market for FW would increase if the datasheets were in the codex.
JamesY wrote: @w1zard don't forget that FW essentially sells niche items that wouldn't sell in enough volume to make mainstream production cost effective. Therefore, the 95% of players who don't want those niche products also wouldn't want to have to pay the extra £££'s for the larger codex. Whilst I'd happily see FW ended, and the range rolled back under citadel, I don't see an extra book on the table as an issue, I always have my books open for anyone to read, double check etc.
Why would including FW datasheets in the standard codices make them cost more money? You have an Imperial Armor index, and a standard codex already. Just combine them. The potential for increased revenue due to an increased market for FW should outweigh the minor losses incurred with essentially giving FW rules away for free.
Actually monetary reasons for GW.
They can sell us more additional books, which are reccurent revenue compared to models.
You need to buy each new edition so to speak, that is why they kicked out the Griffon from the regular IG codex after putting it in it in 7th i belive.
Same goes for CA.
Not Online!!! wrote: Actually monetary reasons for GW.
They can sell us more additional books, which are reccurent revenue compared to models.
You need to buy each new edition so to speak, that is why they kicked out the Griffon from the regular IG codex after putting it in it in 7th i belive.
Same goes for CA.
*Shrugs* That is on GW then. They have two very easy avenues to increase the "acceptability" of FW in many people's eyes.
A. Release a statement saying that FW indices are just as valid and non-optional as a faction codex. This costs them nothing.
B. Combine the FW indices with the relevant faction's codex. This costs them money in the short term, but will most likely boost FW sales in the long term because of the larger exposure and market.
GW have done neither and this is extremely puzzling to me.
Caederes wrote: Here's a simple question I pose to everyone reading this thread;
What is worse?
a) Being denied usage of your models for no other reason except they are from Forge World.
b) Getting smashed in a game because you don't know the rules for your opponent's army.
What kind of game are we playing?
If it's a competitive game, it's on you to understand what your opponent might be bringing. That includes Forgeworld, so you should know those rules too if you want to compete. Being denied the use of your Forgeworld units is the worse outcome, because they represent an investment you made to bring your army up to a more competitive level. I don't think it makes sense to get upset about being smashed in a competitive game.
If it's a normal game, then getting smashed (or smashing your opponent) for any reason is about the worst outcome I can think of. You've both wasted several hours of your valuable hobby time when you could have been having fun playing a game where the outcome was less certain. If leaving your Forgeworld units on the shelf makes for closer, more interesting games, you should do that. On the flipside, if fielding Forgeworld units in your army leads to closer games, your opponent will be happy for you to do that!
Not Online!!! wrote: Actually monetary reasons for GW.
They can sell us more additional books, which are reccurent revenue compared to models.
You need to buy each new edition so to speak, that is why they kicked out the Griffon from the regular IG codex after putting it in it in 7th i belive.
Same goes for CA.
*Shrugs* That is on GW then. They have two very easy avenues to increase the "acceptability" of FW in many people's eyes.
A. Release a statement saying that FW indices are just as valid and non-optional as a faction codex. This costs them nothing.
B. Combine the FW indices with the relevant faction's codex. This costs them money in the short term, but will most likely boost FW sales in the long term because of the larger exposure and market.
GW have done neither and this is extremely puzzling to me.
Ehhh, with CA they have done it. (As much as i hate it for beeing a ripoff)
Also their website, and the Erratas are at the same place.
Can't get anymore offical then that really now.
Granted i personally would still like to see them in their respective codices. Especially the more aresnal world stuff like Malcadors etc.that really could've been there and maybee a mention of FW, if it is a FW unit?
Also i would really like a re-release of the lost and the damned, properly fleshed out they could make a great army.
Heck they could just sell the FW rules in GW stores as to boost sales and make at the same time more sales through that for FW, free advertisement.
Caederes wrote: Here's a simple question I pose to everyone reading this thread;
What is worse?
a) Being denied usage of your models for no other reason except they are from Forge World.
b) Getting smashed in a game because you don't know the rules for your opponent's army.
What kind of game are we playing?
If it's a competitive game, it's on you to understand what your opponent might be bringing. That includes Forgeworld, so you should know those rules too if you want to compete. Being denied the use of your Forgeworld units is the worse outcome, because they represent an investment you made to bring your army up to a more competitive level. I don't think it makes sense to get upset about being smashed in a competitive game.
If it's a normal game, then getting smashed (or smashing your opponent) for any reason is about the worst outcome I can think of. You've both wasted several hours of your valuable hobby time when you could have been having fun playing a game where the outcome was less certain. If leaving your Forgeworld units on the shelf makes for closer, more interesting games, you should do that. On the flipside, if fielding Forgeworld units in your army leads to closer games, your opponent will be happy for you to do that!
Generally the last point comes down to etiquette no?
I mean Codex Armies are vastly superior to non codex armies, therefore i should not pick the most competitive IG soup list against a dude that walks in with a BW blitz now should i?
Again a pure FW army will perform significantly worse then GW armies. Granted most pure FW armies and conversions of IG using FW rules are taken because of the customability and personalization. Winning, atleast for me, is secondary... in fact i had recently a sm player complain about the fact that i got tabled by turn 3 playing my R&H. (DAMN YOU MARAUDERS "angrily shakes fist at models gravjumping")
Not Online!!! wrote: Heck they could just sell the FW rules in GW stores as to boost sales and make at the same time more sales through that for FW, free advertisement.
The problem is that this goes against GW's business model for their stores: every rule has a plastic kit, every plastic kit has a rule. If you look through the codex and see something you like the employee can immediately sell you a plastic kit for it. If you see a kit on the shelf that looks interesting the employee can immediately sell you rules for it. The last thing they want is to have to tell some kid no, you really shouldn't buy that FW kit because resin is hard and don't you really want this space marine squad instead anyway. Or, worse, to have to deal with angry parents who are upset that the GW employee sold their precious kid a model kit that can't be thrown together in under 10 minutes. Keeping the FW rules out of the codices allows them to maintain the purity of their kid-farming operation in their retail stores and have a soft limit that only more experienced adult customers will encounter those products.
Ehhh, with CA they have done it. (As much as i hate it for beeing a ripoff)
Also their website, and the Erratas are at the same place.
Can't get anymore offical then that really now.
I have debunked this argument already. Just because it is in CA does not mean it is a non-optional part of play. GW releases updates to the "city of death" rulesets in CA and it's not ok to just assume you are playing "cities of death" without asking your opponent first. I mean to say that GW should release a statement saying you don't have to ask your opponent's permission to use your FW units... in the same way you don't have to ask your opponent's permission to use the Space Marine Codex.
Not Online!!! wrote: Generally the last point comes down to etiquette no?
I mean Codex Armies are vastly superior to non codex armies, therefore i should not pick the most competitive IG soup list against a dude that walks in with a BW blitz now should i?
Again a pure FW army will perform significantly worse then GW armies. Granted most pure FW armies and conversions of IG using FW rules are taken because of the customability and personalization. Winning, atleast for me, is secondary... in fact i had recently a sm player complain about the fact that i got tabled by turn 3 playing my R&H. (DAMN YOU MARAUDERS "angrily shakes fist at models gravjumping")
Yes, definitely. I mean, I did literally say that you should bring Forgeworld units if it leads to a better game.
Ehhh, with CA they have done it. (As much as i hate it for beeing a ripoff)
Also their website, and the Erratas are at the same place.
Can't get anymore offical then that really now.
I have debunked this argument already. Just because it is in CA does not mean it is a non-optional part of play. GW releases updates to the "city of death" rulesets in CA and it's not ok to just assume you are playing "cities of death" without asking your opponent first. I mean to say that GW should release a statement saying you don't have to ask your opponent's permission to use your FW units... in the same way you don't have to ask your opponent's permission to use the Space Marine Codex.
You would be correct, if the FW units were not under the matched play rules like the GW units in there and had a separete entry, which they don't, they are still under matched play and therefore an official part of matched play.
Not Online!!! wrote: Heck they could just sell the FW rules in GW stores as to boost sales and make at the same time more sales through that for FW, free advertisement.
The problem is that this goes against GW's business model for their stores: every rule has a plastic kit, every plastic kit has a rule. If you look through the codex and see something you like the employee can immediately sell you a plastic kit for it. If you see a kit on the shelf that looks interesting the employee can immediately sell you rules for it. The last thing they want is to have to tell some kid no, you really shouldn't buy that FW kit because resin is hard and don't you really want this space marine squad instead anyway. Or, worse, to have to deal with angry parents who are upset that the GW employee sold their precious kid a model kit that can't be thrown together in under 10 minutes. Keeping the FW rules out of the codices allows them to maintain the purity of their kid-farming operation in their retail stores and have a soft limit that only more experienced adult customers will encounter those products.
Well, now there is the question to ask, what is their main target audience, recently it is becoming a lot less clear now is it?
What with all the new releases of certain books and their dabbling in the Horror category.
I'd wager however, that their main buyers, atleast of modells are somewhere inbetween 15-50. Not excactly kids.
Ehhh, with CA they have done it. (As much as i hate it for beeing a ripoff)
Also their website, and the Erratas are at the same place.
Can't get anymore offical then that really now.
I have debunked this argument already. Just because it is in CA does not mean it is a non-optional part of play. GW releases updates to the "city of death" rulesets in CA and it's not ok to just assume you are playing "cities of death" without asking your opponent first. I mean to say that GW should release a statement saying you don't have to ask your opponent's permission to use your FW units... in the same way you don't have to ask your opponent's permission to use the Space Marine Codex.
Cities of Death affects how both armies are played.
Forge World only affects what possible options one player might take.
Saying "you can't assuming FW is always active" makes no sense unless you also have rules like "you can't assume taking Primaris Marines are okay" or "you can't assume batallions are fine".
Not Online!!! wrote: Generally the last point comes down to etiquette no?
I mean Codex Armies are vastly superior to non codex armies, therefore i should not pick the most competitive IG soup list against a dude that walks in with a BW blitz now should i?
Again a pure FW army will perform significantly worse then GW armies. Granted most pure FW armies and conversions of IG using FW rules are taken because of the customability and personalization. Winning, atleast for me, is secondary... in fact i had recently a sm player complain about the fact that i got tabled by turn 3 playing my R&H. (DAMN YOU MARAUDERS "angrily shakes fist at models gravjumping")
Yes, definitely. I mean, I did literally say that you should bring Forgeworld units if it leads to a better game.
How dare you make fun of my bad rolls (1,1,1 with a cp reroll).
Not Online!!! wrote: I'd wager however, that their main buyers, atleast of modells are somewhere inbetween 15-50. Not excactly kids.
Main buyers =/= main buyers in GW stores. At least in the US, where independent stores are common, there is little reason to ever go into a GW store unless you're a kid who doesn't know any better. Independent stores have more gaming space, a wider range of products, lower prices, etc. GW's goal with the retail stores is to sell starter boxes to kids (or, more accurately, their parents), they acknowledge that their retail stores aren't going to hold the attention of adults and/or veteran players and barely even try. Meanwhile the adults who may make up the majority of revenue are typically buying and playing at an independent store or a private club/home game and the "plastic kits only" rule doesn't apply to them.
Also, I'd dispute that a 15 year old is not a kid. They are.
Not Online!!! wrote: You would be correct, if the FW units were not under the matched play rules like the GW units in there and had a separete entry, which they don't, they are still under matched play and therefore an official part of matched play.
Can you explain what you are talking about? There is no "matched play" section. The only sections are sections referring to the different publications. There is one for Imperial Armor but I don't see anything regarding "matched play" at all.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: Cities of Death affects how both armies are played.
Forge World only affects what possible options one player might take.
Saying "you can't assuming FW is always active" makes no sense unless you also have rules like "you can't assume taking Primaris Marines are okay" or "you can't assume batallions are fine".
You taking FW in your army affects me too, because I have to play against it.
Again, supplementary book + supplementary models = suplementary and totally optional. This is not how I think but it is how a lot of people who don't like forgeworld think.
Not Online!!! wrote: You would be correct, if the FW units were not under the matched play rules like the GW units in there and had a separete entry, which they don't, they are still under matched play and therefore an official part of matched play.
Can you explain what you are talking about? There is no "matched play" section. The only sections are sections referring to the different publications. There is one for Imperial Armor but I don't see anything regarding "matched play" at all.
The updated point value part, not matched play, my bad.
w1zard wrote: You taking FW in your army affects me too, because I have to play against it.
Only in the same way that taking a tactical squad instead of a scout squad does. You don't ask me for special permission before taking the tactical squad, I don't have to ask you for special permission before taking the FW unit.
Not Online!!! wrote: You would be correct, if the FW units were not under the matched play rules like the GW units in there and had a separete entry, which they don't, they are still under matched play and therefore an official part of matched play.
Can you explain what you are talking about? There is no "matched play" section. The only sections are sections referring to the different publications. There is one for Imperial Armor but I don't see anything regarding "matched play" at all.
The updated point value part, not matched play, my bad.
The updated point values are mandatory sure.
Just like the rules changes to the "cities of death" ruleset are mandatory.
That still doesn't mean that we are required to use the cities of death ruleset every game, it's just that if we want to we are required to use the updated rules.
w1zard wrote: You taking FW in your army affects me too, because I have to play against it.
Only in the same way that taking a tactical squad instead of a scout squad does. You don't ask me for special permission before taking the tactical squad, I don't have to ask you for special permission before taking the FW unit.
Because the scout squad is actually in the space marine codex, FW units aren't. The same way I don't have to ask for permission to play by rules in the core rulebook. However, if I wanted to play by rules in the "cities of death" book I do have to ask for permission because it is a supplementary rulebook. The same way if I want to use forgeworld units I have to ask permission because the datasheets are in a supplementary book.
And before you make the argument that codices are technically "supplementary" books to the indices... the core rules state that you have to use the codex versions of the datasheets except under very specific circumstances. Therefore codices = core rules.
This is the way that the anti-FW people generally think. It's what I used to think before I had my opinion swayed.
Not Online!!! wrote: You would be correct, if the FW units were not under the matched play rules like the GW units in there and had a separete entry, which they don't, they are still under matched play and therefore an official part of matched play.
Can you explain what you are talking about? There is no "matched play" section. The only sections are sections referring to the different publications. There is one for Imperial Armor but I don't see anything regarding "matched play" at all.
The updated point value part, not matched play, my bad.
The updated point values are mandatory sure.
Just like the rules changes to the "cities of death" ruleset are mandatory.
That still doesn't mean that we are required to use the cities of death ruleset every game, it's just that if we are required to use the updated rules.
Same goes for forgeworld units.
Nope, Cities of Death is a diffrent type or subtype of the game, that needs extra rules as described in the BRB and they get classified as EXPANSIONS, just like PLANETARY INVASION and SIEGE WARFARE and DEATH FROM THE SKY. (in my German one that is on p 238.)
Unlike matched play, which just requires an equal pts. limit and is restricted rules and scenario wise. p.212-235.
See. pts limit. IT does not matter what 40k army i bring, only that there is a pts limit of equal size for both players.
Ergo matched play--> specific scenarios with pts.
w1zard wrote: Because the scout squad is actually in the space marine codex, FW units aren't.
So what? This is not a difference that matters in GW's rules. You're inventing a house rule and then insisting that people care about it.
The same way I don't have to ask for permission to play by rules in the core rulebook.
Codex rules are not the core rulebook.
However, if I wanted to play by rules in the "cities of death" book I do have to ask for permission because it is a supplementary rulebook.
No, you have to ask permission because it functionally requires it. You can't have a game where one player plays CoD and the other doesn't. Therefore both players must agree on whether or not CoD will be used in a game. You can have a game where one player uses FW rules and the other doesn't, just like taking a scout squad vs. a tactical squad. There is no functional reason to require permission, only a sense of entitlement to veto power.
The same way if I want to use forgeworld units I have to ask permission because the datasheets are in a supplementary book.
FW books and index books are the core rules. Codices are a supplementary book. So you actually have this backwards: you need special permission to use the supplementary codex book, but FW rules do not require any special permission.
the core rules state that you have to use the codex versions of the datasheets except under very specific circumstances.
They state no such thing. Please do not confuse the optional supplementary FAQ/errata document with the core rules. If you do not choose to play with the optional supplement then nothing it contains, including the note about using codex rules, applies.
This is the way that the anti-FW people generally think. It's what I used to think before I had my opinion swayed.
It's what they think, and it's completely irrational and unreasonable.
Nope, Cities of Death is a diffrent type or subtype of the game, that needs extra rules as described in the BRB and they get classified as EXPANSIONS, just like PLANETARY INVASION and SIEGE WARFARE and DEATH FROM THE SKY. (in my German one that is on p 238.)
Unlike matched play, which just requires an equal pts. limit and is restricted rules and scenario wise. p.212-235.
See. pts limit. IT does not matter what 40k army i bring, only that there is a pts limit of equal size for both players.
Ergo matched play--> specific scenarios with pts.
You are correct. But a lot of people see forgeworld units as an "expansion" because they come in a separate book.
Peregrine wrote: They state no such thing. Please do not confuse the optional supplementary FAQ/errata document with the core rules. If you do not choose to play with the optional supplement then nothing it contains, including the note about using codex rules, applies.
This is not optional if you are playing matched play. Please read the paragraph at the top. If you try to bring index Imperium conscripts vs me in a matched play battle I'm going to laugh and call you a cheater.
Peregrine wrote: They state no such thing. Please do not confuse the optional supplementary FAQ/errata document with the core rules. If you do not choose to play with the optional supplement then nothing it contains, including the note about using codex rules, applies.
This is not optional if you are playing matched play. Please read the paragraph at the top. If you try to bring index Imperium conscripts vs me in a matched play battle I'm going to laugh and call you a cheater.
FW unit.
Codex --> no
Use index-- > index astra Militarum
so much non official it hurts that they can't be even used in official matched play....
Oh wait, it works
Peregrine wrote: They state no such thing. Please do not confuse the optional supplementary FAQ/errata document with the core rules. If you do not choose to play with the optional supplement then nothing it contains, including the note about using codex rules, applies.
This is not optional if you are playing matched play. Please read the paragraph at the top. If you try to bring index Imperium conscripts vs me in a matched play battle I'm going to laugh and call you a cheater.
FW unit.
Codex --> no
Use index-- > index astra Militarum
so much non official it hurts that they can't be even used in official matched play....
Oh wait, it works
That link was not in regard to forgeworld units.
Please read the post... it was in regard to Peregrine stating that it was optional and not a part of the core rules.
The argument against FW was that a lot of people consider FW indices an "expansion" much like the "cities of death" ruleset is. Regardless of how accurate that belief is.
Peregrine wrote: They state no such thing. Please do not confuse the optional supplementary FAQ/errata document with the core rules. If you do not choose to play with the optional supplement then nothing it contains, including the note about using codex rules, applies.
This is not optional if you are playing matched play. Please read the paragraph at the top. If you try to bring index Imperium conscripts vs me in a matched play battle I'm going to laugh and call you a cheater.
FW unit.
Codex --> no
Use index-- > index astra Militarum
so much non official it hurts that they can't be even used in official matched play....
Oh wait, it works
That link was not in regard to forgeworld units.
Please read the post... it was in regard to Peregrine stating that it was optional and not a part of the core rules.
I know, i made a jab at the people that say it is not possible to use FW units in matched play with their indexes.
Also above the armies in the indexes stands the following:
"This section conatains all of the datasheets that you will need in order to fight a battle with your (insert FW army) models. Each datasheet includes the charachteristics profiles of the unit it describes, as well as any wargear and abilites it may have. Some rules are common to several (insert FW army) units - these are described below and referenced on the datasheets."
w1zard wrote: This is not optional if you are playing matched play. Please read the paragraph at the top. If you try to bring index Imperium conscripts vs me in a matched play battle I'm going to laugh and call you a cheater.
It is not optional if you are playing matched play with the optional FAQ/errata supplement, just like you might be required to use certain rule changes if you choose to use the newest version of the optional CoD supplement instead of an older version. If you are not playing with the optional FAQ/errata supplement (or CoD) you ignore those rules. You have no grounds for accusing someone of cheating just because they don't share your beliefs about which rules are "core" and which are "optional supplements".
Not Online!!! wrote: Also above the armies in the indexes stands the following:
"This section conatains all of the datasheets that you will need in order to fight a battle with your (insert FW army) models. Each datasheet includes the charachteristics profiles of the unit it describes, as well as any wargear and abilites it may have. Some rules are common to several (insert FW army) units - these are described below and referenced on the datasheets."
That says nothing about whether or not the index in question is a supplementary expansion or a part of the core rules.
I know I'm being a but I'm just articulating the anti-FW argument.
w1zard wrote: I know I'm being a but I'm just articulating the anti-FW argument.
Why do you insist on doing this? It is irrational nonsense, and you have already admitted that you don't believe it. Why are you so stubborn in defending a position you know to be wrong?
That says nothing about whether or not the index in question is a supplementary expansion or a part of the core rules.
Exactly, because the line between "supplementary expansion" and "core rules" does not exist the way you are attempting to draw it. GW does not separate army rules into core and supplement, they're all just army rules and equally part of the standard game. So why would GW make a statement addressing a question about some random player's house rules in official material?
It is not optional if you are playing matched play with the optional FAQ/errata supplement, just like you might be required to use certain rule changes if you choose to use the newest version of the optional CoD supplement instead of an older version. If you are not playing with the optional FAQ/errata supplement (or CoD) you ignore those rules. You have no grounds for accusing someone of cheating just because they don't share your beliefs about which rules are "core" and which are "optional supplements".
Matched play IS the latest FAQ/erratas.
I don't get to ignore FAQs/erratas I don't like. Sure you can play without them, but then you are just playing narrative or house rules.
w1zard wrote: I know I'm being a but I'm just articulating the anti-FW argument.
Why do you insist on doing this? It is irrational nonsense, and you have already admitted that you don't believe it. Why are you so stubborn in defending a position you know to be wrong?
Because you haven't articulated a response against my argument that is going to convince the the anti-FW people that they are wrong.
Not Online!!! wrote: Also above the armies in the indexes stands the following:
"This section conatains all of the datasheets that you will need in order to fight a battle with your (insert FW army) models. Each datasheet includes the charachteristics profiles of the unit it describes, as well as any wargear and abilites it may have. Some rules are common to several (insert FW army) units - these are described below and referenced on the datasheets."
That says nothing about whether or not the index in question is a supplementary expansion or a part of the core rules.
I know I'm being a but I'm just articulating the anti-FW argument.
If you follow that logic, just bear with me, then you would have to kick out all codexes aswell right?
That part is necessary and is found in each codex, in differing lines written thematically.
w1zard wrote: Matched play IS the latest FAQ/erratas.
Only if you choose to use the optional errata/FAQ supplement. The core rules do not include any statement that matched play requires you to do so.
I don't get to ignore FAQs/erratas I don't like. Sure you can play without them, but then you are just playing narrative or house rules.
Then you also don't get to ignore FW rules you don't like, as they are part of the standard game just like the FAQs/errata. If you refuse to allow FW rules then you are playing by house rules, not standard 40k.
Not Online!!! wrote: Also above the armies in the indexes stands the following:
"This section conatains all of the datasheets that you will need in order to fight a battle with your (insert FW army) models. Each datasheet includes the charachteristics profiles of the unit it describes, as well as any wargear and abilites it may have. Some rules are common to several (insert FW army) units - these are described below and referenced on the datasheets."
That says nothing about whether or not the index in question is a supplementary expansion or a part of the core rules.
I know I'm being a but I'm just articulating the anti-FW argument.
If you follow that logic, just bear with me, then you would have to kick out all codexes aswell right?
That part is necessary and is found in each codex, in differing lines written thematically.
No, because... https://i.redd.it/n3g7779rddyz.jpg says you must use the codices. The legitimacy of the codices comes from the core rules, not the codices themselves.
w1zard wrote: Because you haven't articulated a response against my argument that is going to convince the the anti-FW people that they are wrong.
A signed and notarized statement from GW that FW rules are part of the standard game will not convince the anti-FW crowd that they are wrong, because their belief is based in irrational nonsense that has nothing to do with reality. Any time GW does something they demand as a sign of "officialness" they just move the goalposts and demand something else. The fact that someone else is determined to defend an absurd position to the death does not obligate you to continue doing so despite knowing that the position is wrong.
Not Online!!! wrote: Also above the armies in the indexes stands the following:
"This section conatains all of the datasheets that you will need in order to fight a battle with your (insert FW army) models. Each datasheet includes the charachteristics profiles of the unit it describes, as well as any wargear and abilites it may have. Some rules are common to several (insert FW army) units - these are described below and referenced on the datasheets."
That says nothing about whether or not the index in question is a supplementary expansion or a part of the core rules.
I know I'm being a but I'm just articulating the anti-FW argument.
If you follow that logic, just bear with me, then you would have to kick out all codexes aswell right?
That part is necessary and is found in each codex, in differing lines written thematically.
No, because... https://i.redd.it/n3g7779rddyz.jpg says you must use the codices. The legitimacy of the codices comes from the core rules, not the codices themselves.
Look again at that picture now would you.
Step one: Do you have a codex? no.
Step two: Use the datasheet in the Index. I.e. Index astra militarum, index for xenos if you play Ork, etc.
Again, that image is not from the core rules. It is from an optional expansion. Codices are only included in the game if you choose to use them, whether by including them directly or by choosing to use the optional FAQ/errata supplement that says to use them. If you only play by the core rules then neither the codices nor that page exist.
w1zard wrote: Matched play IS the latest FAQ/erratas.
Only if you choose to use the optional errata/FAQ supplement. The core rules do not include any statement that matched play requires you to do so.
So according to you, I can ignore the entirety of CA 2017 and every FAQ and errata that GW have come out with and still be playing "matched" play and every opponent who doesn't like that is an unreasonable feth-head?
That is not a valid argument and you know it. GWFAQs and erratas are modifications to the core rules.
Peregrine wrote: A signed and notarized statement from GW that FW rules are part of the standard game will not convince the anti-FW crowd that they are wrong, because their belief is based in irrational nonsense that has nothing to do with reality. Any time GW does something they demand as a sign of "officialness" they just move the goalposts and demand something else.
I think you have an irrational hatred against people who don't like FW if you seriously think this is true.
Not Online!!! wrote: Look again at that picture now would you.
Step one: Do you have a codex? no.
Step two: Use the datasheet in the Index. I.e. Index astra militarum, index for xenos if you play Ork, etc.
That page only applies to the FW indices if they aren't an expansion. Otherwise we would all be playing cities of death every game.
The mentality of the anti-FW people is that "I don't have to play against FW if I don't want to, its a supplementary expansion, and my opponent needs my permission to use it".
Also, if you choose to use the FAQ/errata document that the image comes from then guess what, FW rules are legal. I have a Macharius model. It does not have a datasheet in a codex, so I follow the other step in the flowchart which says to use the index version of the datasheet. And that datasheet is found in the FW index book.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
w1zard wrote: So according to you, I can ignore the entirety of CA 2017 and every FAQ and errata that GW have come out with and still be playing "matched" play and every opponent who doesn't like that is an unreasonable feth-head?
That is not a valid argument and you know it. GWFAQs and erratas are modifications to the core rules.
Alternatively, you can accept that FW rules have the same status as the FAQs/errata in GW's eyes and, if the FAQs/errata are part of the standard matched play game then so are the FW rules. If you reject the FW rules then the exact same argument allows you to reject the FAQs/errata.
w1zard wrote: Matched play IS the latest FAQ/erratas.
Only if you choose to use the optional errata/FAQ supplement. The core rules do not include any statement that matched play requires you to do so.
So according to you, I can ignore the entirety of CA 2017 and every FAQ and errata that GW have come out with and still be playing "matched" play and every opponent who doesn't like that is an unreasonable feth-head?
That is not a valid argument and you know it. GWFAQs and erratas are modifications to the core rules.
You might not like it but this also is in the Indexes of FW:
"This book contains profiles for a variety of diffrent units for use in standard games of Warhammer 40'000 and games played using the rules found in Warhammer 40'000 apocalypse"
I honestly don't believe any level of online discourse will ever convince anti-FW people.
I think the best solution is to offer to go to a LGS that has regular tournaments or play-nights that do allow FW models, and ask to play a game with them there. If they play against you, and others that might be there, and they still are anti-FW? I'd personally write the person off as being irrational at that point, and not bother trying to convince them after that. But you're free to react any way you see fit.
FW used to have reputation of being an extremely gamey option for a casual match at my FLGS years back. This was way back before Apocalypse, where rules for things like Baneblades or the dreaded Manta could only come from FW. It's more acceptable now with Lords of War choices abounding all over the place, but I imagine our regular 'beer and pretzels' would be apprehensive if anyone tried to field a FW model without clearing it with their opponent first. I had IG Vendettas when they were part of the regular IG codex, and I don't think it would be fair to refuse my ability to use them because they are now only found in the FW sheets. That said, I would still ask my opponent out of politeness.
I agree with the comparison to Planetstrike or Cities of Death. FW can be a novel and intriguing addition to a game, but for it to be any fun it requires the agreement of both players. To have a matched play game exclude FW models is no less reasonable than agreeing that a matched play game exclude Lords of War. I would not call that 'house rules' as Peregrine claims.
Humble Guardsman wrote: FW used to have reputation of being an extremely gamey option for a casual match at my FLGS years back. This was way back before Apocalypse, where rules for things like Baneblades or the dreaded Manta could only come from FW. It's more acceptable now with Lords of War choices abounding all over the place, but I imagine our regular 'beer and pretzels' would be apprehensive if anyone tried to field a FW model without clearing it with their opponent first. I had IG Vendettas when they were part of the regular IG codex, and I don't think it would be fair to refuse my ability to use them because they are now only found in the FW sheets. That said, I would still ask my opponent out of politeness.
I agree with the comparison to Planetstrike or Cities of Death. FW can be a novel and intriguing addition to a game, but for it to be any fun it requires the agreement of both players. To have a matched play game exclude FW models is no less reasonable than agreeing that a matched play game exclude Lords of War. I would not call that 'house rules' as Peregrine claims.
They are tough, else you would have to kick out all codexes.
It clearly states above where i quoted from the beginning of a IA index that they are complete for standard 40'000.
I mean sure you can deny it on said basis but then you have set a house rule.
I am surprised to see the Anti-FW hate has endured this long.
We have hugely popular tournaments, the playerbase is expanding, and FW is accepted by 89% of them (79% don't even seem to care if it's mentioned ahead of the battle).
How can you literally watch tournaments happen, that are won and lost on custodes bike captains, plaguebearers with -2 to-hit, and Imperial Knights, and then turn around and say
"Yeah, that malcador you use? No way I'm playing against that. It's all resin-y and stuff."
Humble Guardsman wrote: FW used to have reputation of being an extremely gamey option for a casual match at my FLGS years back. This was way back before Apocalypse, where rules for things like Baneblades or the dreaded Manta could only come from FW. It's more acceptable now with Lords of War choices abounding all over the place, but I imagine our regular 'beer and pretzels' would be apprehensive if anyone tried to field a FW model without clearing it with their opponent first. I had IG Vendettas when they were part of the regular IG codex, and I don't think it would be fair to refuse my ability to use them because they are now only found in the FW sheets. That said, I would still ask my opponent out of politeness.
I agree with the comparison to Planetstrike or Cities of Death. FW can be a novel and intriguing addition to a game, but for it to be any fun it requires the agreement of both players. To have a matched play game exclude FW models is no less reasonable than agreeing that a matched play game exclude Lords of War. I would not call that 'house rules' as Peregrine claims.
They are tough, else you would have to kick out all codexes. It clearly states above where i quoted from the beginning of a IA index that they are complete for standard 40'000. I mean sure you can deny it on said basis but then you have set a house rule.
The people/groups he is talking about would probably also ban knights, baneblades and primarchs.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Unit1126PLL wrote: I am surprised to see the Anti-FW hate has endured this long.
It has not been that long since malefic lords were a thing, confirming any FW-hater in their hate.
Not Online!!! wrote: Also above the armies in the indexes stands the following:
"This section conatains all of the datasheets that you will need in order to fight a battle with your (insert FW army) models. Each datasheet includes the charachteristics profiles of the unit it describes, as well as any wargear and abilites it may have. Some rules are common to several (insert FW army) units - these are described below and referenced on the datasheets."
That says nothing about whether or not the index in question is a supplementary expansion or a part of the core rules.
I know I'm being a but I'm just articulating the anti-FW argument.
If you follow that logic, just bear with me, then you would have to kick out all codexes aswell right?
That part is necessary and is found in each codex, in differing lines written thematically.
No, because... https://i.redd.it/n3g7779rddyz.jpg says you must use the codices. The legitimacy of the codices comes from the core rules, not the codices themselves.
Look again at that picture now would you.
Step one: Do you have a codex? no.
Step two: Use the datasheet in the Index. I.e. Index astra militarum, index for xenos if you play Ork, etc.
For step 1 It says does your model have a codex datasheet. Not do you have a codex.
Humble Guardsman wrote: FW used to have reputation of being an extremely gamey option for a casual match at my FLGS years back. This was way back before Apocalypse, where rules for things like Baneblades or the dreaded Manta could only come from FW. It's more acceptable now with Lords of War choices abounding all over the place, but I imagine our regular 'beer and pretzels' would be apprehensive if anyone tried to field a FW model without clearing it with their opponent first. I had IG Vendettas when they were part of the regular IG codex, and I don't think it would be fair to refuse my ability to use them because they are now only found in the FW sheets. That said, I would still ask my opponent out of politeness.
I agree with the comparison to Planetstrike or Cities of Death. FW can be a novel and intriguing addition to a game, but for it to be any fun it requires the agreement of both players. To have a matched play game exclude FW models is no less reasonable than agreeing that a matched play game exclude Lords of War. I would not call that 'house rules' as Peregrine claims.
They are tough, else you would have to kick out all codexes.
It clearly states above where i quoted from the beginning of a IA index that they are complete for standard 40'000.
I mean sure you can deny it on said basis but then you have set a house rule.
The people/groups he is talking about would probably also ban knights, baneblades and primarchs.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Unit1126PLL wrote: I am surprised to see the Anti-FW hate has endured this long.
It has not been that long since malefic lords were a thing, confirming any FW-hater in their hate.
Because the normal malefic lord was a problem right?
Smite has not anything to do with it right?
AM still can spam psykers of equal calibre so they are fine too, and the competitive smite spam DP lists are even better balanced right?
/s
Summa sumarum, remove smite, or nerf it.
It clearly states above where i quoted from the beginning of a IA index that they are complete for standard 40'000.
At least one of the old Imperial Armour books (IA vol 1. 2nd edition, it's the one I have to hand) had an intro section that explained that all 40kFW units are considered 'official' and are intended for 'standard' 40k, so this has been the case for quite a while. The same paragraph did also say that "owing to the fact [FW units] may be unknown to your opponent, it's best to make sure they are happy to play a game using Forge World models before you start", which is possibly why so many long term players feel that they have to consult with the other player on whether FW stuff can be used. Tournaments/competitive games are a different beast altogether, but I don't think it's too bad an idea in general to talk to someone before a casual game to make sure you're both on the same page about army composition or what units are being used -- I'd play against that 80 nurglings list at a tourney but probably not at the FLGS!
It clearly states above where i quoted from the beginning of a IA index that they are complete for standard 40'000.
At least one of the old Imperial Armour books (IA vol 1. 2nd edition, it's the one I have to hand) had an intro section that explained that all 40kFW units are considered 'official' and are intended for 'standard' 40k, so this has been the case for quite a while. The same paragraph did also say that "owing to the fact [FW units] may be unknown to your opponent, it's best to make sure they are happy to play a game using Forge World models before you start", which is possibly why so many long term players feel that they have to consult with the other player on whether FW stuff can be used. Tournaments/competitive games are a different beast altogether, but I don't think it's too bad an idea in general to talk to someone before a casual game to make sure you're both on the same page about army composition or what units are being used -- I'd play against that 80 nurglings list at a tourney but probably not at the FLGS!
In friendly casual games, it's good to do that anyway regardless of Forgeworld. Like if I'm playing against someone I don't know terribly well I'll give them a heads up if I want to bring my Leman Russ heavy Guard list. Because I know it's sometimes not fun to play against that much cheap T8.
I don't see Forgeworld as any different really. If I think my opponent might struggle or be negatively surprised then I'll give them a heads up sure. But I consider it as legitimate as anything else GW sells.
Unit1126PLL wrote: I am surprised to see the Anti-FW hate has endured this long.
It has not been that long since malefic lords were a thing, confirming any FW-hater in their hate.
I'm not sure why they hate FW over the Malefic Lord. Now? Thousand Sons Daemon Princes + Ahriman supreme command is in every list, much like how Malefic Lord supreme command was in every list.
Custodes Bike Captains are as common as Malefic Lords, but no one is saying "ban codex: adeptus custodes."
When FW makes an OP model that is spammed at the top levels of tournaments, everyone wants to ban Malcadors.
When GW makes an OP model that is spammed at the top levels of tournaments, everyone wants to ban Malcadors.
Having an OP model at the top of a tournament is not the only thing determining whether or not FW is allowed; if it truly was people's complaint, then they'd ban Codex: Adeptus Custodes and Codex: Thousand Sons and Codex: Astra Militarum. After all, I bet there are more Company Commanders in tournaments than there were Malefic Lords.
Humble Guardsman wrote: FW used to have reputation of being an extremely gamey option for a casual match at my FLGS years back. This was way back before Apocalypse, where rules for things like Baneblades or the dreaded Manta could only come from FW. It's more acceptable now with Lords of War choices abounding all over the place, but I imagine our regular 'beer and pretzels' would be apprehensive if anyone tried to field a FW model without clearing it with their opponent first. I had IG Vendettas when they were part of the regular IG codex, and I don't think it would be fair to refuse my ability to use them because they are now only found in the FW sheets. That said, I would still ask my opponent out of politeness.
I agree with the comparison to Planetstrike or Cities of Death. FW can be a novel and intriguing addition to a game, but for it to be any fun it requires the agreement of both players. To have a matched play game exclude FW models is no less reasonable than agreeing that a matched play game exclude Lords of War. I would not call that 'house rules' as Peregrine claims.
They are tough, else you would have to kick out all codexes.
It clearly states above where i quoted from the beginning of a IA index that they are complete for standard 40'000.
I mean sure you can deny it on said basis but then you have set a house rule.
The people/groups he is talking about would probably also ban knights, baneblades and primarchs.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Unit1126PLL wrote: I am surprised to see the Anti-FW hate has endured this long.
It has not been that long since malefic lords were a thing, confirming any FW-hater in their hate.
Malefic Lords were hardly the worst thing to face at the beginning of 8th.
Jidmah wrote: You might want to have a look at CA and the big FAQ my angry friend.
You cannot deny that malefic lords were a problem.
Again, they are with the regular R&H powers a non issue.
A worse arcana power of -d3 ld.
A smite only good against vehicles
A buff that killed your dudes and if you were not cautious killed your HQ's.....
Add in smite and the fact that they were relatively cheap and everyone and their mother spammed smite.
The profile and the base powers did however not back up the 40 pts they were and certainly not the 80 pts they are now.
Also what about brimstone horrors? pre-nerf, should we have banned codex daemons ?
Also a unit that spams smite btw....
It should also be noted that Malefic Lords, on top of really being only an issue because of Smite, were only an issue for a few months, hardly any sort of hallmark of FW being a major balance issue, especially at the start of a semireboot where everything was still working itself out. Yeah, people can point to Malefic Lords as an FW balance issue, but only as a cherrypicked example in a very narrow context.
You know, it's fine to say "Malefic Lords were OP" and, back when they were dirt cheap, refuse a game against someone bringing 12 Malefic Lords and nothing else from Renegades and Heretics. They're bringing a very competitive list, and if you aren't, you're gonna get buttsmashed, and that's not fun.
But that's not a Forge World specific issue. If that same person showed up with 400 Brimstone Horrors, back when they were 4++ and even cheaper than they are now, they're STILL bringing a super hard list, and if you aren't, you won't have fun.
I don't see anything wrong with my opponent saying "This model is OP-I'd rather not play against it," regardless of where the model comes from. The issue is people have a misconception that EVERYTHING from Forge World is OP, which is pretty massively wrong.
Humble Guardsman wrote: To have a matched play game exclude FW models is no less reasonable than agreeing that a matched play game exclude Lords of War. I would not call that 'house rules' as Peregrine claims.
Excluding lords of war absolutely is a house rule - they're part of the standard game.
Forge World is super common at my FLGS, Leviathans, Fellblades/Falchions, Telemon Dreds, occasionally a Fire Raptor, mostly big Imperial stuff, occasionally a Tyranid FW item.
Jidmah wrote: You might want to have a look at CA and the big FAQ my angry friend.
You cannot deny that malefic lords were a problem.
Again, they are with the regular R&H powers a non issue. A worse arcana power of -d3 ld. A smite only good against vehicles A buff that killed your dudes and if you were not cautious killed your HQ's.....
Add in smite and the fact that they were relatively cheap and everyone and their mother spammed smite. The profile and the base powers did however not back up the 40 pts they were and certainly not the 80 pts they are now.
Also what about brimstone horrors? pre-nerf, should we have banned codex daemons ? Also a unit that spams smite btw....
If you want any sort of answer from me, go back to what I actually wrote and ask about that.
Malefic lords were a game-breaking unit. Malefic lords were a datasheet made by FW. FW made a game-breaking unit only slightly more than one year ago. This an undeniable fact. Nothing else is relevant. Nothing else was implied.
Jidmah wrote: You might want to have a look at CA and the big FAQ my angry friend.
You cannot deny that malefic lords were a problem.
Again, they are with the regular R&H powers a non issue.
A worse arcana power of -d3 ld.
A smite only good against vehicles
A buff that killed your dudes and if you were not cautious killed your HQ's.....
Add in smite and the fact that they were relatively cheap and everyone and their mother spammed smite.
The profile and the base powers did however not back up the 40 pts they were and certainly not the 80 pts they are now.
Also what about brimstone horrors? pre-nerf, should we have banned codex daemons ?
Also a unit that spams smite btw....
If you want any sort of answer from me, go back to what I actually wrote and ask about that.
Malefic lords were a game-breaking unit.
Malefic lords were a datasheet made by FW.
FW made a game-breaking unit only slightly more than one year ago.
This an undeniable fact.
Nothing else is relevant.
Nothing else was implied.
Nothing else was implied except that the justification was viable that because of one unit all FW units should be banned.
Because someone stole at the market an apple we should now hack off the hands off his whole family. Same argumentation really and certainly not justifiable.
How about you ask why they were all of those, and then we put the blame down on which side fault it was ; either GW or FW
Because of Spam. Who allowed spam in the first days of 8th? Supreme Detachments, etc? GW True, but the stats neither back up 40 pts nor the 80 pts now, now do they? --> the only spell consistently cast by malefics was smite. Heck the most chosen and casted spell in the whole game is smite. Now i ask you, who designed smite? GW.
FW made a datasheet for a medicore psyker at low costs. Acess to smite was given by GW to all psykers. I don't know but considering how much smite spamming is en vogue atm i'd wager a bet and put the blame there on GW. Granted the pts cost of Malefics was off with smite, should've been around 50.
Nobody is denieng the fact that Malefics were gamebreaking, but their circumstances were enabled by GW not FW.
Also a little side note, the lists that spammed malefics, were btw the same lists that spammed brimstone horrors, you know, the even more gamebreaking unit? Tell me who at the start of 8th thought it was a good idea to allow soup?
Who has designed Brimstones that way?
Nothing else was implied except that the justification was viable thatbecause of one unit all FW units should be banned. Because someone stole at the market an apple we should now hack off the hands off his whole family. Same argumentation really and certainly not justifiable. How about you ask why they were all of those, and then we put the blame down on which side fault itither GW or FW
I took the liberty of marking everything that is utter BS you made up in your mind and is no where found in any of my posts in yellow. Start fething reading the posts of people your are replying to.
Because of Spam. Who allowed spam in the first days of 8th? Supreme Detachments, etc? GW True, but the stats neither back up 40 pts nor the 80 pts now, now do they? --> the only spell consistently cast by malefics was smite. Heck the most chosen and casted spell in the whole game is smite. Now i ask you, who designed smite? GW. FW made a datasheet for a medicore psyker at low costs. Acess to smite was given by GW to all psykers. I don't know but considering how much smite spamming is en vogue atm i'd wager a bet and put the blame there on GW. Granted the pts cost of Malefics was off with smite, should've been around 50.
To summarize: => GW is to blame for everything but the point costs => FW made the point costs => Malefic lords would not have been broken at a higher point costs
Nobody is denieng the fact that Malefics were gamebreaking, but their circumstances were enabled by GW not FW.
Nobody, huh?
Spoiler:
Not Online!!! wrote: Because the normal malefic lord was a problem right? Smite has not anything to do with it right? AM still can spam psykers of equal calibre so they are fine too, and the competitive smite spam DP lists are even better balanced right?
Unit1126PLL wrote: I'm not sure why they hate FW over the Malefic Lord. Now? Thousand Sons Daemon Princes + Ahriman supreme command is in every list, much like how Malefic Lord supreme command was in every list. Custodes Bike Captains are as common as Malefic Lords, but no one is saying "ban codex: adeptus custodes."
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Malefic Lords were hardly the worst thing to face at the beginning of 8th.
Also a little side note, the lists that spammed malefics, were btw the same lists that spammed brimstone horrors, you know, the even more gamebreaking unit? Tell me who at the start of 8th thought it was a good idea to allow soup? Who has designed Brimstones that way?
FW designed malefic lords. They had full access to all of WH40k's rules at that time. They are to blame for malefic lords. Stop trying to distract from this with strawmen.
FW is to blame for every single number and every single word written in their indexes. Just because GW sucks at balancing, FW is not excused from properly testing and balancing their units.
Nothing else was implied except that the justification was viable thatbecause of one unit all FW units should be banned.
Because someone stole at the market an apple we should now hack off the hands off his whole family. Same argumentation really and certainly not justifiable.
How about you ask why they were all of those, and then we put the blame down on which side fault itither GW or FW
I took the liberty of marking everything that is utter BS you made up in your mind and is no where found in any of my posts in yellow. Start fething reading the posts of people your are replying to.
Because of Spam. Who allowed spam in the first days of 8th? Supreme Detachments, etc? GW True, but the stats neither back up 40 pts nor the 80 pts now, now do they? --> the only spell consistently cast by malefics was smite. Heck the most chosen and casted spell in the whole game is smite. Now i ask you, who designed smite? GW.
FW made a datasheet for a medicore psyker at low costs. Acess to smite was given by GW to all psykers. I don't know but considering how much smite spamming is en vogue atm i'd wager a bet and put the blame there on GW. Granted the pts cost of Malefics was off with smite, should've been around 50.
To summarize:
=> GW is to blame for everything but the point costs
=> FW made the point costs
=> Malefic lords would not have been broken at a higher point costs
Nobody is denieng the fact that Malefics were gamebreaking, but their circumstances were enabled by GW not FW.
Nobody, huh?
Spoiler:
Not Online!!! wrote: Because the normal malefic lord was a problem right?
Smite has not anything to do with it right?
AM still can spam psykers of equal calibre so they are fine too, and the competitive smite spam DP lists are even better balanced right?
Unit1126PLL wrote: I'm not sure why they hate FW over the Malefic Lord. Now? Thousand Sons Daemon Princes + Ahriman supreme command is in every list, much like how Malefic Lord supreme command was in every list.
Custodes Bike Captains are as common as Malefic Lords, but no one is saying "ban codex: adeptus custodes."
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Malefic Lords were hardly the worst thing to face at the beginning of 8th.
Also a little side note, the lists that spammed malefics, were btw the same lists that spammed brimstone horrors, you know, the even more gamebreaking unit? Tell me who at the start of 8th thought it was a good idea to allow soup?
Who has designed Brimstones that way?
FW designed malefic lords. They had full access to all of WH40k's rules at that time. They are to blame for malefic lords.
Stop trying to distract from this with strawmen.
FW is to blame for every single number and every single word written in their indexes. Just because GW sucks at balancing, FW is not excused from properly testing and balancing their units.
If one reads your posts one can safely assume that you take said bs stance, but who am i to second guess your intentions, i can just go off the impression you gave me with your posts.
Pts cost is a problem which i conceded, but you not going in on a valid argument that smite itself is broken beyond reason is not my concern, infact calling me therefore a hypocrite or completly missintepreting posts like the one under the spoilers which mention equally broken miniatures or state that there were WORSE OFFENDERS of breaking the game, is as valid as it gets that is not a strawmen, that is not FW zealotry.
Also calling this argument of Brimstone Horrors a strawmen is about as hypocritical as it gets.
Even now the decisions with detachments can cause unbalanced situations, even now soup is favoring Imperium and Chaos factions, even now cheap smite spam is a problem.
The problem is not that that FW model was broken, the problem is that people argue because of one unit we should ban all and considering that you regard all pro FW sentiment as piling in of zealotry you will support that sentiment.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Jidmah wrote: Oh, it's the thread about pro FW zealots piling on everyone who dares post anything but "all hail FW" again.
Because i can't seriously get another impression of that post.
No one is saying Malefic Lords were a well-balanced unit. We're just saying that banning all Forge World because of a small number of broken units (that have been fixed) is silly. By that same logic, ban Games Workshop units-they have even more broken stuff.
Jidmah's just using some deliberately misleading communication to trap people into statements that he can deliberately intemperate in a negative manner to support his claims. It's best to just not argue and ignore.
Jidmah wrote: Oh, it's the thread about pro FW zealots piling on everyone who dares post anything but "all hail FW" again.
Because i can't seriously get another impression of that post.
Ok, I'll make it simple for you:
I'm fully against denying anyone a game for fielding a model/unit just because its rules are drawn from the FW index instead of any other source.
I have stated this multiple times on multiple threads on this topic and it has never prevented any of the zealots acting like I want to murder baby seals when pointing out that half their pro-FW points are actually BS.
To me walking away from a FW model is just the same as walking away from a knight, from a daemon primarch, from spam lists or from grey knights. I also stated this multiple times.
Yet, the FW zealots are not satisfied unless you declare everyone who denies a FW player a game to be worse than Hitler. If you don't, suddenly you are worse than Hitler.
Any rational discussion in these threads is impossible, even if you put down a list of actual major feth-ups from FW, the people I call "zealots" will hand-wave those problems, put out strawmen(this time it's brimstones) and outright lie and post incorrect information just so their Emperor of Resinkind remains pure.
The entire problem with this topic is forgeworld's reputation. The zealots' solution to that problem is ignoring all problems that have lead to that reputation and fling poo at everyone who brings up those reasons.
I hate those zealots for how they act, not for their opinion.
Jidmah wrote: Oh, it's the thread about pro FW zealots piling on everyone who dares post anything but "all hail FW" again.
Because i can't seriously get another impression of that post.
Ok, I'll make it simple for you:
I'm fully against denying anyone a game for fielding a model/unit just because its rules are drawn from the FW index instead of any other source.
I have stated this multiple times on multiple threads on this topic and it has never prevented any of the zealots acting like I want to murder baby seals when pointing out that half their pro-FW points are actually BS.
To me walking away from a FW model is just the same as walking away from a knight, from a daemon primarch, from spam lists or from grey knights. I also stated this multiple times.
Yet, the FW zealots are not satisfied unless you declare everyone who denies a FW player a game to be worse than Hitler. If you don't, suddenly you are worse than Hitler.
Any rational discussion in these threads is impossible, even if you put down a list of actual major feth-ups from FW, the people I call "zealots" will hand-wave those problems, put out strawmen(this time it's brimstones) and outright lie and post incorrect information just so their Emperor of Resinkind remains pure.
The entire problem with this topic is forgeworld's reputation. The zealots' solution to that problem is ignoring all problems that have lead to that reputation and fling poo at everyone who brings up those reasons.
I hate those zealots for how they act, not for their opinion.
That is understandable.
However my mainpoint still stands, that smite and the supreme detachment option are and were the main problem.
Simply put, the cheaper the psyker or better faction powers, the more it get's spammed, to be able to get spammed in the first place you will need acess to, atleast in the case of most psykers, HQ slots. There is a reason why CSM still uses a Supreme command detachment filled with Arihman and DP's with wings.
There is a reason why cheap psykers still get their pts in, which is not necessarily a bad thing, the main problem still lies however with smite itself and that the detachments at the beginning of 8th with no rule of 3 apllied allowed for Spammbuilds far beyond a healthy meta. That and faction Keyword soup certainly did not help at all. Simply put you can say it was a broken unit because it was undercosted and therefore say that FW have a reputation, but you can't deny that the same applies to virtually all of GW's Codex units that were/are must haves. That is also why a comparison or analogy with brimstones prenerf is valid point. They were equally in their problems they generated as in: Undercosted, smiting, too durable for the pts invested in them.
The whole notion that you can justify the mindset by pointing to one or two FW units and say it is a justifyable position, whilest you can't do the same for literally all GW mainline Codexes/Indexes is highly irrational and stupid. Because if we would follow the same standards equally applied to regular GW Codexes you would have to equally go around and banhammer whole factions of GW.
It is called a slippery-slope argument btw.
A slope you have constructed yourself, as I'd like to point out. You do know that it is a logical fallacy, right?
There are still people who avoid going to Wendy's because some guy was caught on camera spitting on the burgers in the kitchen almost twenty years ago.
No matter how often the news will report about rats at McDonalds, those people will still not go to Wendy's.
Forgeworld is a brand with a reputation for low quality rules. If anything, they should be taking special care to no longer cause any huge rule or balance issues. As long as they keep making low quality rules, they will retain that reputation, no matter what GW does in the meantime.
Jidmah wrote: A slope you have constructed yourself, as I'd like to point out. You do know that it is a logical fallacy, right?
There are still people who avoid going to Wendy's because some guy was caught on camera spitting on the burgers in the kitchen almost twenty years ago.
No matter how often the news will report about rats at McDonalds, those people will still not go to Wendy's.
Forgeworld is a brand with a reputation for low quality rules.
GW as a whole is is a brand with a reputation for low quality rules, nobody plays 40k because it's a great tactical wargame ruleset, and GW are fairly open about this.
If anything, they should be taking special care to no longer cause any huge rule or balance issues.
Broadly speaking, they do. The only issues people can point to were quickly addressed and are no longer issues. When people point to FW balance issues, they really have to cherrypick a whole lot harder than with main studio stuff.
Looking at tournament lists and results, FW clearly is not a problem, and is relatively rare in top end competitive lists.
Hell, FW has actually done experimental test rules for some units to get and act on feeedback before publishing new units in books over the last several editions, GW has not.
As long as they keep making low quality rules, they will retain that reputation, no matter what GW does in the meantime.
What "low quality" rules specifically are we talking about here...?
Jidmah wrote: A slope you have constructed yourself, as I'd like to point out. You do know that it is a logical fallacy, right?
There are still people who avoid going to Wendy's because some guy was caught on camera spitting on the burgers in the kitchen almost twenty years ago.
No matter how often the news will report about rats at McDonalds, those people will still not go to Wendy's.
Forgeworld is a brand with a reputation for low quality rules.
GW as a whole is is a brand with a reputation for low quality rules, nobody plays 40k because it's a great tactical wargame ruleset, and GW are fairly open about this.
If anything, they should be taking special care to no longer cause any huge rule or balance issues.
Broadly speaking, they do. The only issues people can point to were quickly addressed and are no longer issues. When people point to FW balance issues, they really have to cherrypick a whole lot harder than with main studio stuff.
Looking at tournament lists and results, FW clearly is not a problem, and is relatively rare in top end competitive lists.
Hell, FW has actually done experimental test rules for some units to get and act on feeedback before publishing new units in books over the last several editions, GW has not.
As long as they keep making low quality rules, they will retain that reputation, no matter what GW does in the meantime.
What "low quality" rules specifically are we talking about here...?
You did not understand the analogy about Wendy's and McDonalds, did you?
Jidmah wrote: A slope you have constructed yourself, as I'd like to point out. You do know that it is a logical fallacy, right?
There are still people who avoid going to Wendy's because some guy was caught on camera spitting on the burgers in the kitchen almost twenty years ago.
No matter how often the news will report about rats at McDonalds, those people will still not go to Wendy's.
Forgeworld is a brand with a reputation for low quality rules.
GW as a whole is is a brand with a reputation for low quality rules, nobody plays 40k because it's a great tactical wargame ruleset, and GW are fairly open about this.
If anything, they should be taking special care to no longer cause any huge rule or balance issues.
Broadly speaking, they do. The only issues people can point to were quickly addressed and are no longer issues. When people point to FW balance issues, they really have to cherrypick a whole lot harder than with main studio stuff.
Looking at tournament lists and results, FW clearly is not a problem, and is relatively rare in top end competitive lists.
Hell, FW has actually done experimental test rules for some units to get and act on feeedback before publishing new units in books over the last several editions, GW has not.
As long as they keep making low quality rules, they will retain that reputation, no matter what GW does in the meantime.
What "low quality" rules specifically are we talking about here...?
You did not understand the analogy about Wendy's and McDonalds, did you?
I absolutely did, but I think it only applies to people intentionally fixating on it, the main GW studio certainly doesn't have a better reputation (man, remember that Wendys Forgeworld spit burger from 20 years ago? Lets instead go to Main Studio Chipotle where dozens of people have gotten E. Coli in recent years!).
FW absolutely has a better balance record looking at tournament results and standings, and *does* make more efforts to avoid balance issues. They aren't perfect, but unless you're just looking to hit FW for being FW, there's no reason why they should have a worse balance reputation in this day and age.
Jidmah wrote: You did not understand the analogy about Wendy's and McDonalds, did you?
We understand the analogy, it's just a terrible analogy. You've proved that there are really irrational and stupid people in the world (and yes, it is stupid and irrational to boycott an entire chain for 20+ years over a single incident involving people entirely unrelated to your local franchise), but that's a meaningless statement to make. The existence of those people doesn't argue in favor of any particular set of rules for playing 40k, or for pretending that their actions are anything but stupid and irrational.
If this thread was "Are you OK with going to Wendy's despite that one time that somebody spat in a burger 20 years ago?" instead of "Are you OK playing with Forgeworld?" I'm pretty sure the reaction to anyone still maintaining a boycott after two decades would receive equal, if not substantially more, skepticism than people ITT taking issue with FW and then trying to make a logical justification for an emotional decision where none really exists any more.
If this thread was "Are you OK with going to Wendy's despite that one time that somebody spat in a burger 20 years ago?" instead of "Are you OK playing with Forgeworld?" I'm pretty sure the reaction to anyone still maintaining a boycott after two decades would receive equal, if not substantially more, skepticism than people ITT taking issue with FW and then trying to make a logical justification for an emotional decision where none really exists any more.
I got food poisoning once from a long john silver's when I was a kid.... had to be something like 20 years ago now and I've still never gone back. Not saying people should or shouldn't play FW (imo just ask before pick up games and nothing of value is lost if someone says no) just pointing out that bad incidents with food can scar you for life lol
Sgt_Smudge wrote: Cities of Death affects how both armies are played.
Forge World only affects what possible options one player might take.
Saying "you can't assuming FW is always active" makes no sense unless you also have rules like "you can't assume taking Primaris Marines are okay" or "you can't assume batallions are fine".
You taking FW in your army affects me too, because I have to play against it.
You taking anything in your codex affects me. Do I get to dictate to you what you can and can't take, and be the "reasonable" one in that situation? Because I think that if I did that, I'd deserve all the scorn and condescension people threw at me.
Again, supplementary book + supplementary models = suplementary and totally optional. This is not how I think but it is how a lot of people who don't like forgeworld think.
Absolutely wrong. Nothing about FW is supplementary. Not the models (I mean, seriously, how can FW MODELS be supplementary any more so than GW ones?), not the rules (published in GW books and outright stated to be part of "normal" 40k games) = absolutely not a supplement, and only optional to the discretion of the player building their army.
It's good you don't think that, but instead of validating that mindset by defending it, perhaps you should work towards systematically disproving it to all the FW haters, and maybe we could get something constructive done.
Asmodios wrote:I got food poisoning once from a long john silver's when I was a kid.... had to be something like 20 years ago now and I've still never gone back. Not saying people should or shouldn't play FW (imo just ask before pick up games and nothing of value is lost if someone says no) just pointing out that bad incidents with food can scar you for life lol
Are you suggesting that playing a game against some resin models could scar someone for life?
I'm aware that some memories run deep, some scars never fade, etc etc. However, it doesn't mean that they're always rational and based in current facts.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: Cities of Death affects how both armies are played.
Forge World only affects what possible options one player might take.
Saying "you can't assuming FW is always active" makes no sense unless you also have rules like "you can't assume taking Primaris Marines are okay" or "you can't assume batallions are fine".
You taking FW in your army affects me too, because I have to play against it.
You taking anything in your codex affects me. Do I get to dictate to you what you can and can't take, and be the "reasonable" one in that situation? Because I think that if I did that, I'd deserve all the scorn and condescension people threw at me.
Again, supplementary book + supplementary models = suplementary and totally optional. This is not how I think but it is how a lot of people who don't like forgeworld think.
Absolutely wrong. Nothing about FW is supplementary. Not the models (I mean, seriously, how can FW MODELS be supplementary any more so than GW ones?), not the rules (published in GW books and outright stated to be part of "normal" 40k games) = absolutely not a supplement, and only optional to the discretion of the player building their army.
It's good you don't think that, but instead of validating that mindset by defending it, perhaps you should work towards systematically disproving it to all the FW haters, and maybe we could get something constructive done.
Asmodios wrote:I got food poisoning once from a long john silver's when I was a kid.... had to be something like 20 years ago now and I've still never gone back. Not saying people should or shouldn't play FW (imo just ask before pick up games and nothing of value is lost if someone says no) just pointing out that bad incidents with food can scar you for life lol
Are you suggesting that playing a game against some resin models could scar someone for life?
I'm aware that some memories run deep, some scars never fade, etc etc. However, it doesn't mean that they're always rational and based in current facts.
I was simply stating that something being wrong with your food is certainly grounds to hold something against it. I got food poisoning once and never went back and if someone spit in my burger at a particular place I wouldn't go back no matter how many decades later it was. Actually, most people I know have some food they won't eat because of a similar issue when they were younger (for my fiance its rice-a-roni). That's all my comment was aimed at. If you're asking my particular view on the whole matter I placed it a long time ago in this thread. I personally have no issue with FW and i also have no issue for people who won't play against it. IMO its no different then people that don't want to play 1000 point game or don't want to play against grey models. Some people clearly have had issues in the past with FW so whats the big deal if they won't play against it? some people seem to think people are obligated to play against anyone, but the truth is that most people have a very limited time to play so are looking for someone to play against that has a similar mindset. I just wouldnt care that much if someone didnt want to play against me because i brought FWid rather have them let me know so i dont waist my time against someone that wont have fun playing me and chances are i wont have fun because of those feelings.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: You taking anything in your codex affects me. Do I get to dictate to you what you can and can't take, and be the "reasonable" one in that situation? Because I think that if I did that, I'd deserve all the scorn and condescension people threw at me.
Again, in these people's minds taking a scout squad != taking a rapier laser battery. It doesn't help that in the earlier forgeworld books it said explicitly in the opening sections that you needed to get your opponent's permission before you can use anything in the book. That way of thinking has carried over to later editions where it isn't as applicable.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: (I mean, seriously, how can FW MODELS be supplementary any more so than GW ones?)
Because they are made of a different material and sold on a different website. How hard is that to understand?
w1zard wrote:Again, supplementary book + supplementary models = suplementary and totally optional. This is not how I think but it is how a lot of people who don't like forgeworld think.
Absolutely wrong. Nothing about FW is supplementary. Not the models (I mean, seriously, how can FW MODELS be supplementary any more so than GW ones?), not the rules (published in GW books and outright stated to be part of "normal" 40k games) = absolutely not a supplement, and only optional to the discretion of the player building their army.
It's good you don't think that, but instead of validating that mindset by defending it, perhaps you should work towards systematically disproving it to all the FW haters, and maybe we could get something constructive done.
There is absolutely nothing you or I can say to change these people's minds because as others have pointed out, their opinion comes from an emotional place rather than a logical one. Only GW has the power to change this by releasing an official statement on the matter, or by consolidating the FW datasheets into the codices.
Asmodios wrote:I was simply stating that something being wrong with your food is certainly grounds to hold something against it. I got food poisoning once and never went back and if someone spit in my burger at a particular place I wouldn't go back no matter how many decades later it was. Actually, most people I know have some food they won't eat because of a similar issue when they were younger (for my fiance its rice-a-roni). That's all my comment was aimed at.
Yes. I agree, that's what some people do.
It doesn't mean that it's rational, especially when we're not talking about food poisoning that could very well kill you, but rather playing a game with models.
If you're asking my particular view on the whole matter I placed it a long time ago in this thread. I personally have no issue with FW and i also have no issue for people who won't play against it. IMO its no different then people that don't want to play 1000 point game or don't want to play against grey models. Some people clearly have had issues in the past with FW so whats the big deal if they won't play against it? some people seem to think people are obligated to play against anyone, but the truth is that most people have a very limited time to play so are looking for someone to play against that has a similar mindset. I just wouldnt care that much if someone didnt want to play against me because i brought FWid rather have them let me know so i dont waist my time against someone that wont have fun playing me and chances are i wont have fun because of those feelings.
I'm not saying people shouldn't be allowed to refuse a FW game, or refuse to play against grey models, or to only play 1457 point games exactly. You can't force people to do what you want.
What you CAN do, and I advocate, is calling people out on things in which their "facts" are simply incorrect, their opinions guided by irrational hatred, and can often be unreasonable to the often completely innocent person they were going to play against. In that situation, there is very clearly a part who has wronged the other. Can you force the anti-FW player to play? Absolutely not. Can you point out that they are absolutely the ones in the wrong, and howso? Yes.
Letting people get away with that is how we end up with situations like this - viewpoints that have been allowed to rest unchallenged and can now comfortably ignore the actual reality of the situation.
w1zard wrote:There is absolutely nothing you or I can say to change these people's minds. Only GW has the power to do that by releasing an official statement on the matter, or by consolidating the FW datasheets into the codices.
Even if GW released an official statement, they'd still ignore it.
The FW books say that they can be used in normal games of 40k (which means no permission needed, or to be more precise, the same amount of permission a "normal" Codex unit needs).
Chapter Approved has FW units in it. Is that not good enough?
Frankly, the fact that people aren't challenging and confronting the anti-FW crowd is how we get to this position - a position where even if GW were to categorically say "all Forge World units, rules and models are a non-supplementary and non-optional part of normal Warhammer 40k games" people would STILL ignore it.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: You taking anything in your codex affects me. Do I get to dictate to you what you can and can't take, and be the "reasonable" one in that situation? Because I think that if I did that, I'd deserve all the scorn and condescension people threw at me.
Again, in these people's minds taking a scout squad != taking a rapier laser battery. It doesn't help that in the earlier forgeworld books it said explicitly in the opening sections that you needed to get your opponent's permission before you can use anything in the book. That way of thinking has carried over to later editions where it isn't as applicable.
>EARLIER
That's the problem. You're stuck on things that have been in books before the current ones. Let go of that. It's not a thing any more.
It's not a case of "isn't AS applicable". It's "ISN'T applicable", full stop.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: (I mean, seriously, how can FW MODELS be supplementary any more so than GW ones?)
Because they are made of a different material and sold on a different website. How hard is that to understand?
Finecast is different to plastic. Metal is different to plastic. Does this make Sisters supplementary?
Furthermore, Sisters can only be bought on website, not in store. Forge World's website is clearly linked to GW's, which makes the argument of "it's on a different site" about as convincing as me saying that T'au are supplementary, because they're not on the same page as Space Marines.
Asmodios wrote:I was simply stating that something being wrong with your food is certainly grounds to hold something against it. I got food poisoning once and never went back and if someone spit in my burger at a particular place I wouldn't go back no matter how many decades later it was. Actually, most people I know have some food they won't eat because of a similar issue when they were younger (for my fiance its rice-a-roni). That's all my comment was aimed at.
Yes. I agree, that's what some people do.
It doesn't mean that it's rational, especially when we're not talking about food poisoning that could very well kill you, but rather playing a game with models.
If you're asking my particular view on the whole matter I placed it a long time ago in this thread. I personally have no issue with FW and i also have no issue for people who won't play against it. IMO its no different then people that don't want to play 1000 point game or don't want to play against grey models. Some people clearly have had issues in the past with FW so whats the big deal if they won't play against it? some people seem to think people are obligated to play against anyone, but the truth is that most people have a very limited time to play so are looking for someone to play against that has a similar mindset. I just wouldnt care that much if someone didnt want to play against me because i brought FWid rather have them let me know so i dont waist my time against someone that wont have fun playing me and chances are i wont have fun because of those feelings.
I'm not saying people shouldn't be allowed to refuse a FW game, or refuse to play against grey models, or to only play 1457 point games exactly. You can't force people to do what you want.
What you CAN do, and I advocate, is calling people out on things in which their "facts" are simply incorrect, their opinions guided by irrational hatred, and can often be unreasonable to the often completely innocent person they were going to play against. In that situation, there is very clearly a part who has wronged the other. Can you force the anti-FW player to play? Absolutely not. Can you point out that they are absolutely the ones in the wrong, and howso? Yes.
Letting people get away with that is how we end up with situations like this - viewpoints that have been allowed to rest unchallenged and can now comfortably ignore the actual reality of the situation.
w1zard wrote:There is absolutely nothing you or I can say to change these people's minds. Only GW has the power to do that by releasing an official statement on the matter, or by consolidating the FW datasheets into the codices.
Even if GW released an official statement, they'd still ignore it.
The FW books say that they can be used in normal games of 40k (which means no permission needed, or to be more precise, the same amount of permission a "normal" Codex unit needs).
Chapter Approved has FW units in it. Is that not good enough?
Frankly, the fact that people aren't challenging and confronting the anti-FW crowd is how we get to this position - a position where even if GW were to categorically say "all Forge World units, rules and models are a non-supplementary and non-optional part of normal Warhammer 40k games" people would STILL ignore it.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: You taking anything in your codex affects me. Do I get to dictate to you what you can and can't take, and be the "reasonable" one in that situation? Because I think that if I did that, I'd deserve all the scorn and condescension people threw at me.
Again, in these people's minds taking a scout squad != taking a rapier laser battery. It doesn't help that in the earlier forgeworld books it said explicitly in the opening sections that you needed to get your opponent's permission before you can use anything in the book. That way of thinking has carried over to later editions where it isn't as applicable.
>EARLIER
That's the problem. You're stuck on things that have been in books before the current ones. Let go of that. It's not a thing any more.
It's not a case of "isn't AS applicable". It's "ISN'T applicable", full stop.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: (I mean, seriously, how can FW MODELS be supplementary any more so than GW ones?)
Because they are made of a different material and sold on a different website. How hard is that to understand?
Finecast is different to plastic. Metal is different to plastic. Does this make Sisters supplementary?
Furthermore, Sisters can only be bought on website, not in store. Forge World's website is clearly linked to GW's, which makes the argument of "it's on a different site" about as convincing as me saying that T'au are supplementary, because they're not on the same page as Space Marines.
Just so you know I wasn’t the one that brought up the food analogy,someone was equating not liking FW to getting your food spit in. That’s why I brought up food poisoning and it’s perception on long John silvers for me. I agree that plastic models aren’t as serious and I guess that got lost in my original post.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: Finecast is different to plastic. Metal is different to plastic. Does this make Sisters supplementary?
Furthermore, Sisters can only be bought on website, not in store. Forge World's website is clearly linked to GW's, which makes the argument of "it's on a different site" about as convincing as me saying that T'au are supplementary, because they're not on the same page as Space Marines.
No, it's not the same thing. Sisters are made out of metal, and there are a lot of models that are still finecast, but you can buy them all off of GW's website directly. Even if the FW site is linked on GW's website, it is NOT the same site, and is a degree of seperation that a lot of people notice and "assume" things about... whether or not those assumptions are accurate. I know this is true because I used to be one of these people. It is not the same as having two different sections on the same website.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: Frankly, the fact that people aren't challenging and confronting the anti-FW crowd is how we get to this position - a position where even if GW were to categorically say "all Forge World units, rules and models are a non-supplementary and non-optional part of normal Warhammer 40k games" people would STILL ignore it.
If you seriously believe this you are just as deluded as the anti-FW people.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: Frankly, the fact that people aren't challenging and confronting the anti-FW crowd is how we get to this position - a position where even if GW were to categorically say "all Forge World units, rules and models are a non-supplementary and non-optional part of normal Warhammer 40k games" people would STILL ignore it.
If you seriously believe this you are just as deluded as the anti-FW people.
Not really - I believe someone earlier quoted the text from IA1 v2 introduction, which made it clear that you no longer needed opponent's permission to use these rules. It did say it was nice if you asked, but it wasn't mandatory.
Clear verbiage that the rules were part of the game - the anti-FW people still ignored it.
I'm not going to argue against reiterating the point that the units are part of the game, and for people to stop being a PITA about it, but I am pretty sure such a pronouncement would have minimal effect.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: Frankly, the fact that people aren't challenging and confronting the anti-FW crowd is how we get to this position - a position where even if GW were to categorically say "all Forge World units, rules and models are a non-supplementary and non-optional part of normal Warhammer 40k games" people would STILL ignore it.
If you seriously believe this you are just as deluded as the anti-FW people.
Not really - I believe someone earlier quoted the text from IA1 v2 introduction, which made it clear that you no longer needed opponent's permission to use these rules. It did say it was nice if you asked, but it wasn't mandatory.
EDIT: "For use in normal games of 40k" != "has the same non-optional status as codices" especially since the earlier versions of IA stated that they were for use in normal games of 40k but still said you needed your opponents permission first.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: Frankly, the fact that people aren't challenging and confronting the anti-FW crowd is how we get to this position - a position where even if GW were to categorically say "all Forge World units, rules and models are a non-supplementary and non-optional part of normal Warhammer 40k games" people would STILL ignore it.
If you seriously believe this you are just as deluded as the anti-FW people.
Not really - I believe someone earlier quoted the text from IA1 v2 introduction, which made it clear that you no longer needed opponent's permission to use these rules. It did say it was nice if you asked, but it wasn't mandatory.
Can you give me an actual quote on that? Because "for use in normal games of 40k" != "has the same non-optional status as codices".
I can't, as I don't own that specific version of IA1 - I've got the original one. As I said, I think it was quoted in this thread, a page or two back.
Dysartes wrote: I can't, as I don't own that specific version of IA1 - I've got the original one. As I said, I think it was quoted in this thread, a page or two back.
All I found was...
"This book contains profiles for a variety of diffrent units for use in standard games of Warhammer 40'000 and games played using the rules found in Warhammer 40'000 apocalypse"
Which again != "you don't need your opponent's permission". Especially since earlier versions of IA explicitly stated that you needed your opponent's permission first and still stated that they were for use in normal games of 40k.
Jidmah wrote: You did not understand the analogy about Wendy's and McDonalds, did you?
We understand the analogy, it's just a terrible analogy. You've proved that there are really irrational and stupid people in the world (and yes, it is stupid and irrational to boycott an entire chain for 20+ years over a single incident involving people entirely unrelated to your local franchise), but that's a meaningless statement to make. The existence of those people doesn't argue in favor of any particular set of rules for playing 40k, or for pretending that their actions are anything but stupid and irrational.
According to the poll on top of this thread 89% of the players on dakka are fine with playing against forgeworld, and only 7% are never fine with it.
The only way to get a poll with a more one-sided result would be asking if people like to get models for free.
This thread is pretty much dedicated to stupid and irrational people and nothing else.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
ValentineGames wrote: Good to see after 15 pages nothing has gotten anywhere...like the millions of times the FW vs Legality rubbish comes up.
Gee, who would have thought that snarky comments, insults and logical fallacies do not convince people of your noble goals?
There is absolutely nothing you or I can say to change these people's minds because as others have pointed out, their opinion comes from an emotional place rather than a logical one. Only GW has the power to change this by releasing an official statement on the matter, or by consolidating the FW datasheets into the codices.
While I can see the argument for putting the FW datasheets in the codices, I don't think that's something that GW would want to do. Weirdly (from the perspective of this thread) because it would make the FW units more 'mainstream'.
The purpose of FW as I see it is to make niche, low-volume kits aimed at modellers and collectors - the sort of people who don't mind if they're a bit harder to get hold of, more expensive or more fiddly to put together. GW allows these units to have totally valid 40k rules as a bonus to those people that have spent a lot of money on FW. People who aren't interested in FW kits don't even see what rules they have and so don't even think about buying them.
But if the rules were in the Codex, every person who plays that army will be studying the FW rules and deciding that they want, say, a Deredeo, a Squiggoth or a Brass Scorpion in their army, only to find that they can't buy them in their local GW or FLGS, they have to order them online at an even higher price - and if they're not in the UK it's an international order to boot. Some of their younger customers probably don't have bank cards for ordering online anyway. Then they manage to get their hands on them expecting something like Citadel plastic - and instead find that it's FW resin full of casting defects and warped pieces. I'd think that an increased demand for FW wouldn't really make GW as a whole much more money, because for a lot of those customers they'd be spending money on FW that they would have spent on Citadel plastic anyway. The increased demand may well also outpace FW's production techniques as well meaning they will start having stock problems or need to start changing their methods. This could be a sort of bonus if it shows GW that there would be enough demand for certain FW units to be remade as Citadel kits, but in the meantime it would be an irritating mess of stock problems.
I suspect that this is also the reason the FW rules are generally quite weak. Strong rules (even not in the Codex) would drive demand among competitive players, weak rules which you have to go out of your way to get mean that the only players fielding FW units will be the aforementioned collectors and modellers who think that they're cool.
Table wrote: So wait? People are calling 1ksons OP now? I didn't know Ahri and crew were winning GT's now.....
Ari is used in some dp smite batteries. Or was used that way.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Jidmah wrote: A slope you have constructed yourself, as I'd like to point out. You do know that it is a logical fallacy, right?
There are still people who avoid going to Wendy's because some guy was caught on camera spitting on the burgers in the kitchen almost twenty years ago.
No matter how often the news will report about rats at McDonalds, those people will still not go to Wendy's.
Forgeworld is a brand with a reputation for low quality rules. If anything, they should be taking special care to no longer cause any huge rule or balance issues. As long as they keep making low quality rules, they will retain that reputation, no matter what GW does in the meantime.
No. It is not a logical fallacy. What i did is a reductio ad absurdum.
Or basically i applied the same standards that those people have equally. I showed the results with the exemple of prenerf Brimstone horrors. If you were to argue ban FW for bad rule writting/ balance issues, you would have to apply this standart overall, ergo in the case of Brimstones,etc.
This would lead in the end if properly applied, that you would have to bann literally all Codexes. Which makes the argument that is used aggainst FW a slippery-slope argument. Because when you need to bann unbalanced Units/models you would automatically lower the overall powerlevel possible for each Codex.
Jidmah wrote: According to the poll on top of this thread 89% of the players on dakka are fine with playing against forgeworld, and only 7% are never fine with it.
The only way to get a poll with a more one-sided result would be asking if people like to get models for free.
This thread is pretty much dedicated to stupid and irrational people and nothing else.
So you admit that the anti-FW side is an irrational minority, on the same level as the small percentage of people who would vote "no, I don't want free models"? I mean, I'll admit that this is true, but I'm not sure this comparison is really making your side look good...
Gee, who would have thought that snarky comments, insults and logical fallacies do not convince people of your noble goals?
Apparently it does, because the anti-FW crowd is becoming much less of a crowd, and more of an irrelevant minority.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
w1zard wrote: Which again != "you don't need your opponent's permission".
Nope. "Standard game" means that FW rules/models are included by default, you don't have to ask for a special "FW allowed" game to use them. It's just like how a tactical squad is part of the standard game, and assumed to be permitted by default unless one player is a whiny TFG and insists on trying to ban tactical squads. You would never ask for permission to bring a tactical squad, so why would you ask for permission to use any other part of the standard rules?
Bellerophon wrote: While I can see the argument for putting the FW datasheets in the codices, I don't think that's something that GW would want to do. Weirdly (from the perspective of this thread) because it would make the FW units more 'mainstream'.
Yes, and thus more acceptable to the community as a whole. The entire reason why there is a loud minority who have a problem with FW is BECAUSE the models and rules are so niche. It feels like an "expansion" pack, or "add-on" to the game rather than an integral part like the codices are. If the pro-FW people want 100% acceptance of FW they might have to get used to FW models becoming more mainstream. Having their models be "niche", "rare", and "exclusive" and having said models be accepted by everyone without argument are mutually exclusive states unless GW puts their foot down.
Peregrine wrote: Nope. "Standard game" means that FW rules/models are included by default, you don't have to ask for a special "FW allowed" game to use them. It's just like how a tactical squad is part of the standard game, and assumed to be permitted by default unless one player is a whiny TFG and insists on trying to ban tactical squads. You would never ask for permission to bring a tactical squad, so why would you ask for permission to use any other part of the standard rules?
Because previous versions of Imperial Armour had the same "intended for use in standard 40k games" while still maintaining that "you need your opponent's permission to field any of these units". Therefore, "intended for use in standard 40k games" != "you don't need your opponent's permission".
Not sure how the reaction to this will be, feels like I'm wading into something thick and dangerous...
I completly agree that there is no real basis behind needing your opponent's permission. I've encountered it before when it was a genuine thing in the book, and I've come across people who refused permission not because of rules, or OP-ness, but simply because they didn't have it.
I had the old LR Executioner turret, back in the older editions where it was a single Plasma Cannon shot, not the devastating 3-shot thing they brought out in 5th. A couple of notable players refused to let me use it, simply because they didn't have one. They were simply doing it out of spite, something I had saved up for and spent many hours working on, and they wouldn't play against it.
Now I'm fully aware that this is not reflective of the entire anti-FW crowd, but when you simply refuse just because it's resin, or it's made by a company which is still owned by GW but not named GW, I'm always dubious as to their motive. There are a small number of FW units that, yes I admit, are a bit OP, such as Leviathans, but on the other hand there are many, many times that number that are average at best, crap at worse. Malcadors, pretty much any Ork vehicle they produce, Sagittarus Guard. FW even seem to be nerfing some of their most powerful units into oblivion; Titans are all but gone, the Fire Raptor isn't nowhere near as competitive as it used to be (sad as I had ordered one a week before the points went up), yet some individuals' seem to be fixed on the notion of "resin=bad" despite this.
On a side note, we used to have to ask permission to use *any* special character, and the opponent could have easily refused then. If we don't follow that rule anymore, how come this one is still up in the air, despite some characters being far more OP than the majority of FW units?
but I'm just articulating the anti-
Nothing else was implied except that the justification was viable that because of one unit all 
