21664
Post by: poipo32
Since the release of the new PDFs with rules for Krieg and Renegades armies the debate has been up in those threads.
I always thought it was the case, what I do is that I tell my opponent that I'm playing a FW list and let him see the FW list in my IA book.
So far I never had any person refuse and never was asked to show my army list.
So Dakka, do FW rules require opponent consent?
29418
Post by: Veldrain
Yes, always.
They write their own rules, but none of them are official.
In casual games, its rarely a problem. Just don't try them in tournaments.
21664
Post by: poipo32
Most tournaments will make the point clear in their rules, every now and then some allow them. But the point is for casual gaming as this is what they were intended for at the very start.
I wish they were made official and stated in the main rulebook that they are official, but it's not the case.
29418
Post by: Veldrain
If you pulled some FW Imperial Guard on me in a casual game, odds are I wouldn't even realize it unless you informed me. But I would appreciate being informed.
In all likelyhood, they will never be considered legal rules. If that was the case, arguments like the FW vs GW manticore would be even worse.
21664
Post by: poipo32
At the moment you see Sabre Defense Platforms and Earthshaker emplacements you'll notice something isn't quite right.
11268
Post by: nosferatu1001
1) the ENTIRE GAME is opponents consent.
If you dont want to play someone, you cannot be forced to. For whatever reawson - hate eldar? gfine, dont play them/
2) technically the FW rules require as much permission as any other rules. They state this in all the FW books (remember, they are official Citadel products, same as codexes) so no.
However, as with all questions around "lgality" the following is true:
1) In tournaments the TO determines what you can and cannot use. see 1 above.
2) In pick up games, see above.
686
Post by: aka_mythos
Most of forge worlds rule books say in their front that the rules are official. So from GW's perspective and the perspective that anything GW puts out is "official," that is the case.
Tournaments simply disallow the rules because 99% of players will have never seen the FW rules. In Magic the Gathering tournaments certain cards are banned even when they might otherwise be acceptable, this is no different.
So from that perspective FW rules are the $2 bill of the gaming community, they exist and they're "official" but not everyone accepts them.
That doesn't answer "should the rules require your opponents consent." As nosferatu1001 points out all rules require opponents consent. So really the question in this thread should be refined to... "why shouldn't FW rules be allowed?"
The only thing that isn't "fair" about FW rules is that they aren't used enough and so people don't know what to expect. This really makes it an uphill fight for the rules acceptance.
For anyone who's read the FW rules it is a simple fact 95% of the units are over priced. This is to the advantage of the opponent. The other 5% are either fair or better. Of the 5% the advantage is minimal and less drastic than the moderate advantages common in codices.
The simple fact is they aren't unfair to the opponent they are just simply flavorful additions to armies that do little to alter the balance.
So there is no reason to disallow them in pick up game and every reason to enjoy them.
6846
Post by: solkan
There may be no reason to disallow them in pick up games, but there's also no recourse or reason to be upset if your opponent says, "No, thank you" and declines the game when you bring out your Forge World models. No reason at all is all the reason needed to decline a game.
1478
Post by: warboss
hey OP, start a poll (you can do that when you start the thread).
as nosferatu said, the entire game is a social contract with another player. you have the right to not allow your opponent to use figs painted with any green but that doesn't mean it's covered in the rules. when it comes to FW stuff, it is covered in the main rules. pg. 86-87 clearly states multiple times that you choose your army up to an agreed upon point total from a CODEX. the forgeworld books are not codicies (plural of codex) and therefore require consent. just like you can't simply choose to use rules from planetstrike (also an "official" gw product) or a white dwarf article (also GW) without permission, you can't spring FW stuff on people per the rules. forgeworld has been around for 3 editions of 40k now and GW have CHOSEN to not mention their wholey owned subsidiary's products in any fashion in the rules (let alone calling them official). that being said, i DO allow my opponents to use FW stuff... but it's my choice.
722
Post by: Kanluwen
Veldrain wrote:Yes, always.
They write their own rules, but none of them are official.
In casual games, its rarely a problem. Just don't try them in tournaments.
Wrong. Their rules are just as official as anything you'll see in any 40k Codex.
The exception is the Experimental rules, which are of course just that...experimental.
But once those rules are published in an actual Imperial Armour book, they're official. Same goes with the "official errata/updates" for the previously published IA lists.
The rule of thumb, in my take at least, is this:
People aren't going to care for pick-up games, provided you actually provide them some kind of way to read the rules for your stuff ahead of time, or some kind of quick reference sheet for them to work from. It's the whole "fear of the unknown" aspect that makes people not want to face the FW stuff, along with the possibility that you're going to be a complete and utter TFG and make up rules that benefit you as it goes along.
And for tournaments...the lists can be barred from play, same as any other Codex or rules set can be.
21664
Post by: poipo32
I added a poll.
30356
Post by: Jaon
I always have major problems with the slightest changes of the rules in my friendly gaming club. If I ever dared use a forge world model with different rules, They would probably refuse to play me. Most of them are very tight, Never allowed to play with the baneblade I bought because its apoc. They even refuse to play spearhead BECAUSE ur allowed baneblades. They cant see the advantage of it, if they killed it its instant loose for me
14291
Post by: kill dem stunties
Its easy to say people wont care .... but most forgeworld stuff is hideously overpowered ....
And no its not official just because they say they are, i could write a fandex and say its official and can be used in 40k, but until the main rulebook says forgeworld units are allowed same as codex in games theyre not.
Opponents permission.
99
Post by: insaniak
kill dem stunties wrote:And no its not official just because they say they are, i could write a fandex and say its official and can be used in 40k, but until the main rulebook says forgeworld units are allowed same as codex in games theyre not.
There is some small amount of difference between a fandex and a rulebook written by a division of Games Workshop.
11268
Post by: nosferatu1001
kill dem stunties wrote:Its easy to say people wont care .... but most forgeworld stuff is hideously overpowered ....
The 200 point hydra is overpowered? How about the 65 point chaos drop pod which cannot let cargo out until turn 3 at leastr, and in a 5 turn game may not get to drop its payload at all? What about the 400+ point macharius vulcan, whcih is lower in structure points armour AND guns over the 70ish points more baneblade?
Sorry, that statement is hideously incorrect. there are only *2* overpowered units that I can recall: lucius pattern drop pod, and the Hades breaching drill. The Hades is arguable as the DkoK list was only "ok", but I havent read the FAQ yet.
kill dem stunties wrote:And no its not official just because they say they are, i could write a fandex and say its official and can be used in 40k, but until the main rulebook says forgeworld units are allowed same as codex in games theyre not.
Opponents permission.
Wrong again. the Book, published and copywritren to CItadel miniatures, states it is official. Exactly the same reason codexes are official.
However your last statement is correct - however you are wrong in its application. EVERYTHING is opponents permission.
722
Post by: Kanluwen
To be fair:
The Chaos "Drop Pod" isn't. It's a Boarding Pod.
There's a difference.
27149
Post by: Viper217
Just read through the renegades pdf myself, didn't see anything that could be called OP, and it wouldn't stand a chance vs many of the newer GW codices like SW or BA. As others have stated, the entire game is dependent on your opponent's consent, if he doesn't want to play, you won't have a game. This rule stands whether you have some unit he doesn't like fighting, you happened to include FW models or are running one of their armies, or painted your entire army pink (which he hates). The point of the game is to have fun, so enjoy the variety available in 40k and enjoy it!
12821
Post by: RustyKnight
insaniak wrote:kill dem stunties wrote:And no its not official just because they say they are, i could write a fandex and say its official and can be used in 40k, but until the main rulebook says forgeworld units are allowed same as codex in games theyre not.
There is some small amount of difference between a fandex and a rulebook written by a division of Games Workshop.
The fandex will have fewer errors?
2304
Post by: Steelmage99
The second anybody convinces me that FW rules are playtested and balanced to the same extent (such as it is) that GWs "real" rules are, I'll happily allow any and all FW additions to the game. Even the hint that FW rules are somehow vetted or accepted by the GW games designers will do.
As it stands right now, I won't.
Saying; "FW rules says they are official, therefore they are" is beyond stupid.
3844
Post by: Dave47
Forge World rules are a mess. Even a quick skimming of the DKoK Codex revealed a lot of problems, from small things like typos and inconsistent formatting to major balance problems.
I see Forge World rules as analogous to Apocalypse rules: they can potentially make for some really interesting games, but it isn't appropriate for one player to spring them on an unsuspecting player. It's a good thing that they're not allowed in most tournaments.
99
Post by: insaniak
Steelmage99 wrote:The second anybody convinces me that FW rules are playtested and balanced to the same extent (such as it is) that GWs "real" rules are, I'll happily allow any and all FW additions to the game.
That's kind of a good point, though... It's pretty much accepted that the regular 40K rules aren't particularly balanced, and that the studio don't go to any great lengths to make them so... because the game was never really intended to be a 'competitive' ruleset.
I think that's where a lot of the conflict comes from here... If you try to pretend that the 40K rules are more or less balanced, then 'outside' rules would be an unknown quantity that potentially unbalances the game. If you accept that the rules are a mess to begin with, that the game is only supposed to be a bit of mindless fun, and Forgeworld's additions are simply there to add variety rather than tactical depth, it's all much less of an issue.
I see Forge World rules as analogous to Apocalypse rules: they can potentially make for some really interesting games, but it isn't appropriate for one player to spring them on an unsuspecting player.
This seems to be a recurring theme throughout threads like this. I'm having trouble figuring out how you spring any rules on an unsuspecting opponent. Don't you discuss what sort of game you're playing, and what rules you'll be using, before setting up?
11268
Post by: nosferatu1001
Steelmage99 wrote:The second anybody convinces me that FW rules are playtested and balanced to the same extent (such as it is) that GWs "real" rules are, I'll happily allow any and all FW additions to the game. Even the hint that FW rules are somehow vetted or accepted by the GW games designers will do.
HOw about FW being a Citadel company? That FW and "real GW" ( lols..) designers share the same workspaces and are alll friends with each other?
Steelmage99 wrote:Saying; "FW rules says they are official, therefore they are" is beyond stupid.
Good job noone is saying that. FW rules are official because CITADEL MINIATURES says they are. You know, those people that publish the BRB and codexes?
722
Post by: Kanluwen
Insaniak wrote:This seems to be a recurring theme throughout threads like this. I'm having trouble figuring out how you spring any rules on an unsuspecting opponent. Don't you discuss what sort of game you're playing, and what rules you'll be using, before setting up?
I think the problem, in my view at least, is that there's really two things that are considered "Forge World rules". You've got:
1) Experimental rules and superheavies which are just used as add-ons to the standard Codex force(although most of them are balanced for Apocalypse games, not standard 40k...it doesn't stop people from trying to sneak them in though).
2) The actual Forge World "official 40k Standard Game" lists, like Detachment 99, the Deff Dred Mob, etc.--with a few assorted Special Characters(Korvydae, Commander Culln off the top of my head) thrown in for good measure.
With #1, you've got something that isn't really meant for that specific gametype. Apocalypse is, and really always will be, where Superheavies fit the best without any real fiddling needed to 'make it work'. Experimental rules are something you should always inform someone of, and be ready with an alternative list if they don't want to be part of Forge World's external playtesting(read: guinea pigs who spam their email with mail about how suchandsuch is OP).
With #2...well, there's no real issue outside of general familiarity with the list, alongside of the availability of the actual rules. If you're playing against a Black Templars player who is lighting you up with a Psyker blitzstorm of death--you can get your hands on the rules even if you don't own the Codex or the player refuses to even let you look at their copy, you'll be able to peruse a copy of it from the store you're playing at.
With Forge World, you're reliant on the person who owns the book no ifs, ands, or buts. You need them to actually let you get a look at the rules if you think something's hinky.
2304
Post by: Steelmage99
nosferatu1001 wrote:Steelmage99 wrote:The second anybody convinces me that FW rules are playtested and balanced to the same extent (such as it is) that GWs "real" rules are, I'll happily allow any and all FW additions to the game. Even the hint that FW rules are somehow vetted or accepted by the GW games designers will do.
HOw about FW being a Citadel company? That FW and "real GW" ( lols..) designers share the same workspaces and are alll friends with each other?
This is all completely irrelevant. The rulebook tells us how to pick an army (ie. using any one codex) and that is what you should do.
Steelmage99 wrote:Saying; "FW rules says they are official, therefore they are" is beyond stupid.
Good job noone is saying that. FW rules are official because CITADEL MINIATURES says they are. You know, those people that publish the BRB and codexes?
Could you quote me that rule, preferably with a page number? I'm simply looking for a rule that grants me a specific exception to the general rule of "pick an army using any one codex".
99
Post by: insaniak
Steelmage99 wrote:The rulebook tells us how to pick an army (ie. using any one codex) and that is what you should do.
... if you and your opponent choose to play that way.
Ultimately, I think the idea that Forgeworld rules are akin to Apocalypse is probably the best way to look at it. If you just want to play by the core rules, then you have the rulebook and a codex. If you want to change up your gameplay, you have Apocalypse, and Planetstrike, and Forgeworld.
They're all 'legal'... but they're also all slightly different aspects of the game.
So the key is simply to discuss with your opponent beforehand, to make sure you're both wanting to play the same game.
14863
Post by: MasterSlowPoke
Steelmage99 wrote:Could you quote me that rule, preferably with a page number? I'm simply looking for a rule that grants me a specific exception to the general rule of "pick an army using any one codex".
Quote me the rule that says which codexes are valid.
686
Post by: aka_mythos
solkan wrote:There may be no reason to disallow them in pick up games, but there's also no recourse or reason to be upset if your opponent says, "No, thank you" and declines the game when you bring out your Forge World models. No reason at all is all the reason needed to decline a game.
Thats true of any pick up game. I've had people tell me they didn't feel like playing against my chaos army, because they just played against one. I had no recourse. You can't ever "force" someone to play with you.
insaniak wrote:Steelmage99 wrote:The rulebook tells us how to pick an army (ie. using any one codex) and that is what you should do.
... if you and your opponent choose to play that way.
Even still the Rule Book, is overridden by the codices and other books. So even if the main rulebook says explicitly "pick only codex book armies" by GW's own admission the fact is that any other book published to work with 40k is inherently a revision, addendum, and "more correct" than the rule book on its own.
GW designers "live" in a different gaming world than 90% of the gaming community, they don't percieve this problem. From their mindset these rules are valid and the notion of disallowing someone from playing is just uptight dickery on the part of the opponent. When they've been asked they say the rules are valid. The GW designers for the most part see their rules as on the same level as fan rules, its ownly the tournament scene and non-casual players, that need consistency, who insist on elevating the designers rules above FW or the homebrew.
30875
Post by: Popsicle
I don't mind FW Models at all. I don't use many, but I've heard of Tournaments, or even GW Stores, disallowing them. I'd check with any Tournament Organiser or Opponent before hand, but I'd never disallow you the opportunity to use Models that you've spent Money on, spent Time on, and put Effort into, no way. 
8049
Post by: ArbitorIan
It's opponent's consent, but then so is EVERYTHING. You never have to play a game against someone's army unless you want to, and you can refuse to play a game for any reason, from using FW models to not liking their colour scheme.
The ONLY situation this ever actually becomes a valid issue is in tournaments, and a tournament will set out what is allowed and what isn't before.
So FW models are just as 'valid' as anything from the codex.
On a related issue, I'd consider it polite to inform your opponent that you're using FW stuff in any situation.
20671
Post by: Bartali
Anyone care to quote the line (including page number) where it says forge world stuff is "official" for regular games of 40k ?
The problem with FW stuff is their rules aren't very balanced, or seem to be play tested. They want you to buy their expensive product, so they're going to make up rules to make you want to buy it.
Allowing Forge World in 40k makes it more of a game of who's got the biggest wallett than it even is at the moment
99
Post by: insaniak
aka_mythos wrote:GW designers "live" in a different gaming world than 90% of the gaming community, they don't percieve this problem.
90% of the [i]online[i] portion of the gaming community, possibly. But I think you would find that out in the real world, there are far more gamers willing to accept non-standard rules than you might think.
Once upon a time, designing your own rules, or coming up with ways to incororate new things into your games was a pretty standard part of wargaming and roleplaying. It's only comparitively recently that organised play and the gradual migration of gamers out of their own lounge rooms and into gaming stores and clubs has seen people start asking for more definition in the rules and start sneering at home-brew stuff.
And you'll find there are still quite a lot of gaming groups out there who don't give a rodent's dangly bits what rules the rest of the world is using...
2304
Post by: Steelmage99
insaniak wrote:Steelmage99 wrote:The rulebook tells us how to pick an army (ie. using any one codex) and that is what you should do.
... if you and your opponent choose to play that way.
Ultimately, I think the idea that Forgeworld rules are akin to Apocalypse is probably the best way to look at it. If you just want to play by the core rules, then you have the rulebook and a codex. If you want to change up your gameplay, you have Apocalypse, and Planetstrike, and Forgeworld.
They're all 'legal'... but they're also all slightly different aspects of the game.
So the key is simply to discuss with your opponent beforehand, to make sure you're both wanting to play the same game.
I couldn't agree more. Automatically Appended Next Post: MasterSlowPoke wrote:Steelmage99 wrote:Could you quote me that rule, preferably with a page number? I'm simply looking for a rule that grants me a specific exception to the general rule of "pick an army using any one codex".
Quote me the rule that says which codexes are valid.
Nice attempt at deflection and derailment of the thread. FAIL.
The rule book tells us how to select an army.
11268
Post by: nosferatu1001
Steelmage - fail again I see.
Read the opening paragraphs of the IA books. States there that they can be used in "normal" games of 40k. Thus overriding the rulebook - you do remember specific > general, yes?
Edit: also you may note your "this is completely irrelevant" quote was referencing my response to you asking for even the "slightest hint" that GW accept FW - I provided 3 reasons that you then dismiss. Well done!
As for the poster trying to claim that FW make rules to make you want to buy their stuff - no, they really dont. I gave examples of precisely *2* units I consider in ANYWAY overpowered, the lucius pattern drop pod and the Hades drill, for their points cost. I cannot think of a single other example - if anything they err on the side of caution, for example (to requote myself) the 200 point Hydra in IA vs the 75pt hydra in Codex : IG.
18861
Post by: Sanctjud
Well, for me.
I don't mind it only if the opponent mentions it.
It's not that it requires consent, it's that they have the courtesy to tell the opponent and not assume they own AI stuff, nor know about it.
And I agree with Bartali's quote:
Allowing Forge World in 40k makes it more of a game of who's got the biggest wallett than it even is at the moment
It's quite taboo, but Dread Pods, utter broken-ness for some builds...
2304
Post by: Steelmage99
nosferatu1001 wrote:Steelmage - fail again I see.
Read the opening paragraphs of the IA books. States there that they can be used in "normal" games of 40k. Thus overriding the rulebook - you do remember specific > general, yes?
Which of course means that the units presented in the books from CC Services (which contains the exact same paragraphs) are also official and ok to use in a normal game of 40k, right?
Edit: also you may note your "this is completely irrelevant" quote was referencing my response to you asking for even the "slightest hint" that GW accept FW - I provided 3 reasons that you then dismiss. Well done!
Actually you didn't present anything of any value whatsoever. Do you really consider; "they are friends and work in the same building" as a valid indication that the Studio read through any FW material before publication and "checks" the rules and values?
As for the poster trying to claim that FW make rules to make you want to buy their stuff - no, they really dont. I gave examples of precisely *2* units I consider in ANYWAY overpowered, the lucius pattern drop pod and the Hades drill, for their points cost. I cannot think of a single other example - if anything they err on the side of caution, for example (to requote myself) the 200 point Hydra in IA vs the 75pt hydra in Codex : IG.
Even though this isn't addressed to me, I must say I kinda agree with you. The vast majority of units from FW are not overpowered.
It is the complete brain-farts (you know, the ones most players really want to play with..) that I am worried about. Besides those you have already (re)mentioned I also consider the Deathstorm Drop Pod and any kind of Flyers to belong in that category.
1478
Post by: warboss
nosferatu1001 wrote:Read the opening paragraphs of the IA books. States there that they can be used in "normal" games of 40k. Thus overriding the rulebook - you do remember specific > general, yes?
sorry, but the line in the rulebook that is the basis for specific over general yet again refers to codicies, which IA/ FW stuff is not. there is NO mention of FW products in the main rules for 3 different editions of the game and this cannot be coincidental after that many editions and 12+ years of development. i thought you were a RAW purist from previous discussions? i don't however agree with some of the posts here that think FW stuff is overpowers; i'd say 80% of it is in fact overcosted with 10% right on the money and the final 10% overpowered. is it "official"? sure. it's made by a wholey owned subsidiary of GW so it is. so are white dwarf lists from 8 years ago and planetstrike/cityfight/etc. being official doesn't equate to being used without your opponent's permission. you have to ask your opponent if you want to use something other than the rulebook and a codex in the game.
11268
Post by: nosferatu1001
Steelmage - are they published by GW as well then?
They have exactly the same validity as codexes, as they are
1) published by the same company
2) endorsed by the same company
3) and most crucially tell you you can use them in "normal" games of 40k.
1) and 2) are sufficient proof that the rules are ACCEPTED by GW, as duly authorised agents of citadel miniatures. Sorry, fail again.
Warboss - you are slightly wrong here. You are thinking of smoke launchers and the summary table, both of which are secondary to the entire basis of the entire ruleset - which is specific vs general.
The BRB lays out general rules that are then modified / superceded by the rulebook itself or by codexes. None of this is performed with ANY reference to specific vs general, as it is not needed. So you are incorrect on this point - the rulebook would have to speciically disallow FW for them to not be "legal" if a Citadel MIniatures production states that they are.
I am a RAW "purist" in terms of what the rules say,a nd the rules are VERY CLEAR: IA books ARE legal and certain units / lists CAN be used in games of normal 40k without requiring specific opponent consent.
You also miss out this vital concept: you have to ask your opponent for permission to play the game, full stop. For anyt reason whatsoever any opponent can refuse to play you. FW stuff does NOT alter this.
EDIT: actually MOST flyers are hideously overcosted (e.g. Hell talon / blade) as anything that flies seems to attract a 200% premium. As another example the AX1-0 is more than 500 points for a single S  shot. Necron pylon is much less than that and fires more shots, the skimmer Tzeentch Tower pumps out more shots as well as the S class stuff, and so on. Given most fighters are AV10 therefore can be glanced with a *bolter* i dont think there is a single one that is "over powered".
2304
Post by: Steelmage99
Nos, You place a lot of weight of certain facets of this issue. I place weight on others.
We are going to have to disagree on this.
746
Post by: don_mondo
Sure, IA rules are book (RAW) legal for any regular game of 40K.
However, in the real world, many opponents do not want to play against IA items without some advance notice. I wouldn't, too many items completely change the game dynamics. And if I refuse to play you because you are using IA items, well, that makes it a defacto "opponent's permission".
And yep, this entire game is indeed completely based on oppnent's permission. I could refuse to play because I'm tired of facing Marines or cause I don't like the way you're dressed or any one of hundreds of reasons.
11268
Post by: nosferatu1001
Steelmage99 wrote:Nos, You place a lot of weight of certain facets of this issue. I place weight on others.
We are going to have to disagree on this.
Yes, you place weight ona line in the BRB that states codexes [which defacto makes any 2nd ed codex "legal", along with chaos 3rd ed, craftworld eldar, etc - which was M's point earlier), and ignore the citadel miniatures published and endorsed (not just in IA but on the website and magazine) rules in FW, and the rules stating they can be used in normal games of 40k and thus supercedes (as it is more specific) the BRB rules.
One is based on rules, the other isnt.
Don - agreed that you can choose to not play FW, especially if you are not familiar - but I could do the same when someone wants to play army X. WHich is the point. Given the entire game, from beginning to end, is opponents permission then singling one item out ( FW) and stating the same concept is just needlessly redundant.
746
Post by: don_mondo
Yep, but you're more likely to run into someone that doesn't want to play against IA (for whatever reason) than the other reasons. What I'm saying is that it's a defacto restriction, not a dejure restriction. I freely admit that RAw says you can use it. But given GWs stance on the use of IA in tourneys, which is then mirrored by most other indy tourneys, well, see what I mean?
So RAW, yes, IA is not opponent's permission.
Real world, better check first before you just show up with that spiffy flyer or those Infernus shells or that Chaos Spiny beast, etc etc.
28383
Post by: Mahtamori
You chose to play by a set of rules, and if a different set says "we're fine to be used with that other set of rules" that doesn't mean you've agreed to that set as well.
With WH40K you get:
BRB - Core rules, no army lists
Codices - Army lists needed to make an army
Imperial Armour - Army list expansions
Apocalypse - Core rules expansion
etc
Bringing any new level of rules to the game alters the rule set under which you've agreed to play in. Imperial Armour only says "we're compatible" and "we're official Citadel" - but that doesn't mean they are on the same level as the BRB or the Codices.
If I expect a nice game of Talisman, I will be intrigued if my friends bring an addon to the game such as the dungeon expansion, but it's still a process of everyone agreeing on what rules we play by. Do we play with the dungeon expansion or stick to the good old standard rules that we all know?
By the way, regarding the codices, I believe that there's a section in the BRB where it lists all units you'll find in the standard (non-chapter) codices. Regardless, I'll say this:
Each additional book or text, codex or otherwise, is opponent's approval. You can have approval for section-by-section or set-by-set. You can't ever assume that you'll have approval of the entire Citadel WH40k range simply because it's WH40K you're playing.
What's next? You expect to play a multiplayer game of Starcraft where you use Brood War units and your opponent use vanilla? Yes, that's a good analogy, 'cause Imperial Armour is an expansion 
11268
Post by: nosferatu1001
Hell, be happy if they turn up with a spined beast, you can get daemon princes that are better for the same points cost and it takes up an Oblit^H^H^H^H^H Heavy slot
Actually RAW IA *is* opponents permission; just the same as anything else - which is the point I was making. It is no more or less so than anything else, including bringing craftworld eldar (whcih steelmage believes to be "legal") to make a sniper army would be, or the 4th ed BA PDF codex along to a friendly game.
I have found that, in a TRULY friendly game, most people are up fro a challenge and want to learn something new - so as long as you dont come along with an expectation to be able to use the DKoK, and are willing to explain (and explain, and explain as the game goes on ) what is what then most people will be up for it.
It just requires some form of social interaction, whcih does seem to be anathema to a lot of posters
2304
Post by: Steelmage99
nosferatu1001 wrote: It is no more or less so than anything else, including bringing craftworld eldar (whcih steelmage believes to be "legal") to make a sniper army would be, or the 4th ed BA PDF codex along to a friendly game.
I don't believe so.
That is a totally different discussion, one which I am happy to continue in another thread.
11268
Post by: nosferatu1001
Your only "proof" that FW wasnt legal was a reference to the rulebook stating you select armies from codexes; you were then asked to prove which books that applies to and you diverted that with a non answer.
If you are claiming that the "use codex" rule is the only applicable rule to determine amy legality then you *do* uphold that the BA PDF is still legal, as that is the logical conclusion of your argument.
Adding more weight to your argument being a flawed one, no?
Mahmatori - incorrect argument as the IA books state they can be used in games of regular 40k as a " normal" book- go into quite a lot of detail, really, stating they have *exactly* the same weight as a standard codex.
SO you are undermined by GW themselves stating you are wrong....
32098
Post by: Comintern
Perhaps the people more afraid of FW rules are the ones that fear that their twinky armies will be trumped by even more twinked out lists?
I have never had a problem with FW rules or models. I think they are cool and I do wish we saw more of them. Wtih Apoc rules and game setups, I truely hope we do.
As far as should they be allowed to play, I think that they are there for a reason and should be allowed. It is however, polite gaming etiquitte to inform your oppenent that you will be using them. Sort of like its polite to inform them what units are in which transports.
However, in tournements, most times fair play goes out the window.
The game is ultimately meant to be fun. In this regards, I obey a D&D rule over GW. If you dont like something, or feel something takes away from the Fun then ignore it or rework it. We have used this a time or two in our group of friends. And, as above, I think the FW rules ARE okay and I allow them whenever I am confronted by them.
Also, to those that wish they put some Playtesting into the FW Rules to make them more balanced. Im not entirely sure that GW does with the Codexs they release half the time. So if GW doesnt care about playtesting, why should FW? Just make the gak up as you go along.
22316
Post by: Sceleris
I dfon't think there really is a "right" answer to the question the OP asked.
As has already been mentioned the bulk of the stuff in the FW books aren't particularly overpowered and points costs are generally on the high side.
Flyers and superheavies could unbalance a game if you turned up with them against an allcomers "codex" list which wouldn't be fair. Let me know in advanace and I wouldn't have a problem
5873
Post by: kirsanth
I would have no problem playing people using IA rules.
Unless they did not mention it before the game.
Expansion rules are not normal--or they would be normal rules.
IA used in 40k? Ok, but that is hardly normal.
Assuming your opponent has to be ok with Forgeworld rules is as valid as assuming your opponent is ok with an outdated codex.
ymmv
686
Post by: aka_mythos
Sceleris wrote:I don't think there really is a "right" answer to the question the OP asked.
The answer is all games involving two or more players to consent to play a particular game a particular way. FW rules are just not the most common and thus are difficult to get people to consent.
insaniak wrote:aka_mythos wrote:GW designers "live" in a different gaming world than 90% of the gaming community, they don't percieve this problem.
90% of the [i]online[i] portion of the gaming community, possibly. But I think you would find that out in the real world, there are far more gamers willing to accept non-standard rules than you might think.
Once upon a time, designing your own rules, or coming up with ways to incororate new things into your games was a pretty standard part of wargaming and roleplaying. It's only comparitively recently that organised play and the gradual migration of gamers out of their own lounge rooms and into gaming stores and clubs has seen people start asking for more definition in the rules and start sneering at home-brew stuff.
And you'll find there are still quite a lot of gaming groups out there who don't give a rodent's dangly bits what rules the rest of the world is using...
I remember when it was very common for someone to write some house rules and try them out, not so much anymore. Whilel maybe my "90%" is a bit inflated for the sake of hyperbole, when the main play style here in the states is seemingly tournament rules, where FW is disallowed in that setting I can't whole heartedly agree with your evaluation. I know there are some people who are perfectly willing to accept non-standard rule sets, but I was addressing the fact that in GW's internal bubble a greater majority of games are "for fun" and aren't taken as seriously as even the most easy going tournament. That the GW designers see the FW rules and the codices fundamentally equal, while the vast majority of gamers do not. I've walked into a packed game store and only found one person willing to play me if I was using forgeworld.
Games Workshop plays internally like a gaming club or group. The vast majority of game stores I've been to do not have that type of organization and thus are not as single minded as GW about what can or cannot be used. The few clubs or groups that I've encountered don't play in public spaces they play in a basement or home somewhere climbing out of the wood work only for tournaments. So while my "90%" maybe stilted, it might be better said less exactingly that, when you walk into a store the vast majority of players will baselessly disallow an individuals use of a particular unit, purely on the grounds of its unofficial " FW" status.
I think that is the wrong approach and wrong mentality for play.
20493
Post by: Gorkamorka
aka_mythos wrote:Sceleris wrote:I don't think there really is a "right" answer to the question the OP asked.
The answer is all games involving two or more players to consent to play a particular game a particular way. FW rules are just not the most common and thus are difficult to get people to consent.
Yes, the game requires consent to begin with, as others have said. But I agree there are distinct levels of consent and rules involved here. If someone asked you to play a "game of 40k" and you said "sure"... and then the person started putting down superheavies or planetstrike turrets or rolling from the battle missions book or something, would you continue without question? Or would you have expected an additional level of initial consent to play by special rules outside the norm, such as those from FW? I know I would. The question, as has been said, really doesn't have an answer. It's entirely a case-by-case basis whether people will play you and your special models or if a particular TO at a particular tournament will allow them. I know that if anyone wants to play with FW units against me, I read through the descriptions carefully and make a pre-game determination at that time... I don't just say 'No, never!' or 'Sure, any rule you can throw at me is always fine.'. The poll really doesn't support that option, however.
14291
Post by: kill dem stunties
People conveniently seem to be ignoring the earlier comment about it turning even more to who has deeper pockets.
Granted id be all for that heh, but i know many others cant afford to purchase as much product as i do, and would feel slighted.
If GW came and said all IA is legal id just buy all the fw stuff that i wanted right away, I pretty much have gotten everything i want as far as using for counts as or things without kits, e.g Medusas etc.
5873
Post by: kirsanth
kill dem stunties wrote:People conveniently seem to be ignoring the earlier comment about it turning even more to who has deeper pockets.
Not ignoring. It has been pointed out the, generally, FW rules are NOT overpowered. In fact it tends to be that the rules are lacking for the cost in points. That said, there are very obvious exceptions. Regardless, we are discussing playing a pick-up game--the only time this matters as in a tourney it is up to the TO. If someone wants to buy a win in a pick-up game, odds are the problem with accepting that game is already apparent.
8044
Post by: Arctik_Firangi
insaniak wrote:
Once upon a time, designing your own rules, or coming up with ways to incororate new things into your games was a pretty standard part of wargaming and roleplaying.
QFT. It was absolutely endorsed. VDR in 3rd ed... loved it. kill dem stunties wrote:People conveniently seem to be ignoring the earlier comment about it turning even more to who has deeper pockets.
Probably because it's not a very good point. IA vehicles aren't particularly overpowered and the only real advantage is that your opponent may not understand how the unit works. Then it's your responsibility to provide them with the datasheet. One common rule I have seen at relaxed tournaments is 'You may include ONE unit from Imperial Armour'. I don't mind if and when they are completely restricted, and another good reason people don't just build massive FW armies is that, besides the cost, you can't use them in tournaments. 'Competitive' players have nothing to widdle their pants about and casual/friendly gamers can still play their game however they damn well please.
11268
Post by: nosferatu1001
KDS - there is a limit to how many lucius drop pods you can buy and use. Name some other "over powered2 units and you may have a point.
21196
Post by: agnosto
I thought IA rules were ok until I met the blight drone....yeah, a fast skimmer with an instant death template weapon....joy
I guess none of you that are arguing that nothing is OP would mind me fielding an Assault Ram....because 5" template, melta weapons are so common in the usual game, right?
28311
Post by: Shrike325
The general thing is this:
They are legal to the point that anything in 40K is legal... in that everything is opponents permission as they can just pack up and leave anytime they want.
The way I see it is that anyone I play should have a reasonable amount of familiarity with the game (ie: what a monstrous creature is, how far things move, the wound table) and preferably at least a smattering of knowledge on each codex although that one is less critical. I like to think I have a rather good grasp on the rules, I know how to handle just about any situation and in any random game may have to look up one or two things in the BRB just to make sure.
However, I have no fething idea how a superheavy works, or a flier, or SD weapons. Nor do I have access to a really big blast template. Nor do I expect my opponent to know any of these things. I would refuse to play against someone playing THOSE FW models only because I don't know the rules for them. You want to take some fancy infantry model? That's fine. I know how infantry work. You want to take a superheavy? Sorry pal, no dice. That or give me 2 hours or so to poor over the rules.
14291
Post by: kill dem stunties
Exactly, people saying the stuff is overcosted and not good seem to not have ever read any imperial armour ...
I'm not saying every single thing is ridiculously OP, but every single army has a few things that are, and those will start to turn up in every army, or at least of those who can afford them.
11268
Post by: nosferatu1001
Name "a few things" KDS, you have been asked a few times now.
Blight drones may have a large blast but they are still dead easy to kill and have low BS...
18698
Post by: kronk
Forgeworld is optional.
(A) My World
My gaming group allows all forgeworld, so long as the forgeworld has something along the lines of "___ army can bring this unit as a (Troop/Elite/Heavy/HQ) choice." We all know each other very well. Most of us have been friends for 10+ years.
Anything goes in our Apoc games.
(B) Going to the game store for a pick up game.
If I don't know you, I would ask your permission before bringing a FW item to a pick-up game against you. I expect the same treatment and curtesy. I honestly can't see me telling you "no, you can't use forgeworld." Again, it's still optional so you need my permission the same as I need yours.
(C) Tournaments
A TO can tell you to keep your FW stuff at home, so you had better ask ahead of time before you get your hopes up.
99
Post by: insaniak
Gorkamorka wrote:If someone asked you to play a "game of 40k" and you said "sure"... and then the person started putting down superheavies or planetstrike turrets or rolling from the battle missions book or something, would you continue without question? Or would you have expected an additional level of initial consent to play by special rules outside the norm, such as those from FW?
I know I would.
I wonder if some part of the problem is simply people balking at the implication of it requiring 'permission'... which isn't entirely accurate.
Ultimately, asking:
- Hey, want to play a game? I have a Cadian army...
- Hey, want to play a game? I have an Ork army with a Forgeworld Mega Dread...
- Hey, want to play a game? I have an Elysian army from Imperial Armour...
- Hey, want to play a game? I have a home-brew Squat list...
...all amount to the same thing. It's not so much seeking your opponent's permission as simply coming to an agreement to play by the rules you (or they) want to use. The set-up process isn't (or shouldn't be) as simple as finding someone who looks like they play 40K, saying 'Hey, let's play' and starting to plonk models down on the board under the assumption that you're both expecting the same game.
3844
Post by: Dave47
Comintern wrote:Also, to those that wish they put some Playtesting into the FW Rules to make them more balanced. Im not entirely sure that GW does with the Codexs they release half the time. So if GW doesnt care about playtesting, why should FW? Just make the gak up as you go along.
A lot of people say stuff like this, but it's not true.
The difference between the DKoK list and any 5th Ed Codex is huge. The DKoK list is clearly based off the 5th Ed. IG Codex. Yet it takes only a cursory reading to see that the DKoK list is a mess, with many units nerfed horribly compared to their IG equivalent, while some other units are massivley buffed.*
The DKoK list reads like the sort of lists GW was putting out 10-15 years ago. That doesn't mean you can't have fun with it, but you really can't claim that it's the same quality as any other (modern) GW Codex.
*: By the way: A Codex mixing equal parts great units and terrible units isn't a balanced codex. GW learned this a long time ago. Forge World still hasn't learned this.
686
Post by: aka_mythos
Gorkamorka wrote:
Yes, the game requires consent to begin with, as others have said. But I agree there are distinct levels of consent and rules involved here.
The distinct levels of consent are pure fiction. There is no difference in the official standing between the rule sets, just the perception. I do not assert levels of consent. It is an absolute, you consent or you don't; what varies is the rational. Many of the rationals hinge on the "validity" or the "overpowered" nature of FW rules, FW is valid so the first one just an excuse and not a valid explanation. Overpowered is subjective, first most have restrictions on their use or are significantly over priced, while others were written for 3rd edition and power creep simply makes them even weaker.
Gorkamorka wrote:
If someone asked you to play a "game of 40k" and you said "sure"... and then the person started putting down superheavies or planetstrike turrets or rolling from the battle missions book or something, would you continue without question? Or would you have expected an additional level of initial consent to play by special rules outside the norm, such as those from FW?
I know I would.
You show your unfamiliarity with much of the FW rules. Your example fails because the superheavies have had their rules moved to the Imperial Armor Apocalypse books which supercede their previous version, which FW now says is where they will support super heavies. So super heavies require you to play Apocalypse now. So you should object on those grounds not on the FW origin. Second, the turrets that you'd restrict to planet strike which aren't restricted by FW are relatively over priced, they cost as much as the vehicles that carry them normally but are immobile. So there is no advantage, if anything the player has imposed a disadvantage on themselves. This is often the case with FW items. The number of FW units and rule sets that are actually open for standard 40k use is relatively restricted from what you're imagining. Alot of things are ruled out by virtue of FW own rules.
Gorkamorka wrote:
The question, as has been said, really doesn't have an answer. It's entirely a case-by-case basis whether people will play you and your special models or if a particular TO at a particular tournament will allow them.
I know that if anyone wants to play with FW units against me, I read through the descriptions carefully and make a pre-game determination at that time... I don't just say 'No, never!' or 'Sure, any rule you can throw at me is always fine.'.
The poll really doesn't support that option, however.
The model is special, the unit is sometimes special. The rules are rarely special and most of the time are just copied and pasted at increased cost. FW is mainly for fluffy purposes and people who think otherwise have never read them.
The only valid arguement against them is a general unfamiliarity with their rules, and that should only be applicable in a tournament setting.
21196
Post by: agnosto
insaniak wrote:
I wonder if some part of the problem is simply people balking at the implication of it requiring 'permission'... which isn't entirely accurate.
Ultimately, asking:
- Hey, want to play a game? I have a Cadian army...
- Hey, want to play a game? I have an Ork army with a Forgeworld Mega Dread...
- Hey, want to play a game? I have an Elysian army from Imperial Armour...
- Hey, want to play a game? I have a home-brew Squat list...
...all amount to the same thing. It's not so much seeking your opponent's permission as simply coming to an agreement to play by the rules you (or they) want to use. The set-up process isn't (or shouldn't be) as simple as finding someone who looks like they play 40K, saying 'Hey, let's play' and starting to plonk models down on the board under the assumption that you're both expecting the same game.
'Hey let's play, I have a warhound titan'. I said sure, the next thing I know, I'm taking Strength D template hits on all my units and the game was over in 2 turns. Gee, that was fun. Not.
I know where my hesitancy comes from. There is no way that a person that doesn't play FW units can just look on their website and see the rules. Sure, the opponent can whip out their book (that costs $80 US) and show you the rules but that's completely different than saying, "Hey, I have a land raider." If you don't play Apoc or own any FW stuff, there's no way you know how void shields and structure points work.
Ok, that's an extreme example. You just have to think of it like this, there are two (2) people playing a game; ideally, they'll both have fun. Game minus fun = pointless.
My army being destroyed on turn 2 by fast moving blight drones = absence of fun (for me anyway). 1st turn, flat out = 3+ cover; its AV 12 or 13 if I recall so anything less than Strength 6 or 7 isn't going to do anything to it anyway. It's like a super landspeeder with a large blast weapon; a flying vindicator. No, not OP at all. It's a sweet-looking model but there's no place for it outside of Apoc or if I have my own FW stuff; like I said, I'll kitbash an Assault Ram and drop 5" melta templates after a 36" turbo-boost and we'll see who cries.
28383
Post by: Mahtamori
nosferatu1001 wrote:Your only "proof" that FW wasnt legal was a reference to the rulebook stating you select armies from codexes; you were then asked to prove which books that applies to and you diverted that with a non answer.
If you are claiming that the "use codex" rule is the only applicable rule to determine amy legality then you *do* uphold that the BA PDF is still legal, as that is the logical conclusion of your argument.
Adding more weight to your argument being a flawed one, no?
Mahmatori - incorrect argument as the IA books state they can be used in games of regular 40k as a " normal" book- go into quite a lot of detail, really, stating they have *exactly* the same weight as a standard codex.
SO you are undermined by GW themselves stating you are wrong....
It really doesn't really matter how much effort or detail they go into stating this or that. It's still a separate product, a separate rule set. If I don't want to play with those rules, am I going to have to go through an argument with you (in a casual game) that they are rules I am unprepared for, dislike, or may not even have prior knowledge about?
And keep in mind, I'm not arguing that the official RAW states that this or that is compatible or not, but rather how one should approach game rules in general. They are all subject to mutual agreement. Essentially accepting rules based on their "proximity" to the core rule book ( BRB). It's a sort of tolerance level.
Quickly perusing the Forgeworld site, one thing stands out to me. Many of the IA books contain the logo "Warhammer 40,000 Expansion". This in itself actually does give fuel to the argument "sure, it might be official, but I don't feel like playing an expansion".
20493
Post by: Gorkamorka
insaniak wrote:
I wonder if some part of the problem is simply people balking at the implication of it requiring 'permission'... which isn't entirely accurate.
Ultimately, asking:
- Hey, want to play a game? I have a Cadian army...
- Hey, want to play a game? I have an Ork army with a Forgeworld Mega Dread...
...all amount to the same thing.
They don't, which is the entire distinction I was talking about, and my entire point. You yourself made the distinction in your list... requiring additional permissions or agreements for the special cases, like FW units. Someone agreeing to face an opponent saying "I have an ork army" and then facing something like a megadread is the core issue of the thread, once you progress beyond "Every game ever is an agreement" which is a nonstarter. Saying 'It should all be taken care of before the game starts so these problems shouldn't exist in game' really is a given already, so I'm not sure why everyone keeps belaboring it when talking about other involved issues or issues within that pre-game discussion, which is where the problems actually lie. aka_mythos wrote:
You show your unfamiliarity with much of the FW rules. Your example fails because...
I was making a point based on them all being separate and special cases... which you proceed to point out by listing them more specifically. And then brought balance arguments into play for some reason, despite me never even alluding to them. I think you showed your unfamiliarity with my post, more than anything. The fact that 76% of poll-ees claim that the FW rules require additional opponents consent (above the normal level of codex agreement) and that many will simply refuse to play with them rather supports the idea that they're an additional case.
99
Post by: insaniak
agnosto wrote:'Hey let's play, I have a warhound titan'. I said sure, the next thing I know, I'm taking Strength D template hits on all my units and the game was over in 2 turns. Gee, that was fun. Not.
So you know for next time.
As an aside, we ran a series of games a few years back with 1000-point armies up against Angrath (the 888-point FW Bloodthirster)... he slaughtered them all, but the games were a heck of a lot of fun.
I know where my hesitancy comes from. There is no way that a person that doesn't play FW units can just look on their website and see the rules.
And that's different to the rest of the 40K rules how, exactly? 
Sure, the opponent can whip out their book (that costs $80 US) and show you the rules but that's completely different than saying, "Hey, I have a land raider." If you don't play Apoc or own any FW stuff, there's no way you know how void shields and structure points work.
And if you don't play Blood Angels, you don't necessarily know their rules either. So long as the other player has the rules, and you can look at them if you need to, I'm honestly not seeing the difference. Automatically Appended Next Post: Gorkamorka wrote:You yourself made the distinction in your list... requiring additional permissions or agreements for the special cases, like FW units.
The distinction I was making was that you're not so much seeking 'permission' as coming to an agreement to play a game.
It's the permission thing that people are getting hooked up on, and what I was trying to point out was that 'seeking permission' doesn't actually happen in the real world.
20493
Post by: Gorkamorka
insaniak wrote:
The distinction I was making was that you're not so much seeking 'permission' as coming to an agreement to play a game.
It's the permission thing that people are getting hooked up on, and what I was trying to point out was that 'seeking permission' doesn't actually happen in the real world.
Asking your opponent if he would like to play a game with you in which you used FW miniatures and asking your opponent if you can use FW miniatures in a game with him are functionally identical actions, from the perspective of playing a FW-inclusive game with him. I really don't see a difference.
21196
Post by: agnosto
insaniak wrote:So you know for next time.
As an aside, we ran a series of games a few years back with 1000-point armies up against Angrath (the 888-point FW Bloodthirster)... he slaughtered them all, but the games were a heck of a lot of fun.
And that's different to the rest of the 40K rules how, exactly?
And if you don't play Blood Angels, you don't necessarily know their rules either. So long as the other player has the rules, and you can look at them if you need to, I'm honestly not seeing the difference.
quote]
I have one answer for all of these. I, like most people that play in my FLGS, own the rulebook and at least one codex. What the rulebook does is it gives you a taste of all the armies. I can look towards the back of the book and see what weapons and equipment all the other armies have available to them. By injecting FW units, you are going outside of what is general knowledge and entering an esoteric realm where you have to have copious amounts of money to know what everything does. FW does not make the statlines for their models available to a casual person that has no interest in buying the model. What is in fact happening is that you are playing upon my ignorance of these special rules.
I'll take your example, Blood Angels (BA). BA are a marine chapter. Anyone that owns a rulebook has a general idea of what to expect when they play BA, barring the recent addition of a couple of units. FW models break this comfortable understanding of the game because FW makes it their mission to take away every weakness that an army has; this is done so that people want to buy their models and so they can continue to charge a premium for them.
I could just as easily make up my own units and ask my opponents to play against them; kitbash something together and field it. The point here is that if it's not a part of the core game, it should not just be arbitrarily thrown against someone; that's not kosher IMHO. If GW wanted these things to be a part of the game and be used regularly, they should release codex and rules supplements for general consumption.
11268
Post by: nosferatu1001
Agnosto - your last claim is complete and UTTER bull.
FW take away every weakness of an army? REALLY? That's your argument?
Brilliant. I will take the awesome servants of slaughter list...no, wait, thats a terrible army list. Or DKoK. Etc.
25983
Post by: Jackal
FW take away every weakness of an army? REALLY? That's your argument?
LOL, sorry, i had to.
So, DKoK have no weakness? they are like basic guard, but with no melta vets, flyers, or anything with a high volume of hitting power (well, for a decent points cost anyway)
TBH, im happy to play against FW units aslong as they have the rules so i can see them.
If they dont have the rules, i wont play since i know nothing about said units.
With them though, im up for a laugh, makes it more interesting to see new stuff too.
I do draw the line at apoc style things though (unless we are playing apoc)
I dont mind the odd baneblade, but a reaver is a bit of a piss take in smaller games. (i may still play though, could be amusing)
All in all though, i see no reason why FW units / armies would really need the permission from another player.
They are legal citadel rules, as are the codex's.
Also, about the blight drone complaint - So its basically a DE ravenger then? (but with a better looking model)
14291
Post by: kill dem stunties
Insaniak, trying to compare a codex to IA book, as far as needing to buy it to see the rules isnt really a good comparison at all.
If every gw store stocked every imperial armour on the same level as codices that would be true.
You can always go pick up a codex and leaf through it, when gw shops and flgs start stocking imperial armour that point would be valid.
Not to mention 80$ a book and you need 8 of them, + exchange rate and heavy shipping.
722
Post by: Kanluwen
Except Imperial Armour books are exactly the same legality for gameplay as any Codex.
Round and round and round we go.
3844
Post by: Dave47
۞ Jack ۞ wrote:So, DKoK have no weakness? they are like basic guard, but with no melta vets, flyers, or anything with a high volume of hitting power (well, for a decent points cost anyway)
For what it's worth, I'm pretty sure a DKoK list can absolutely dominate any tournament that posts the missions in advance, provided the missions all allow you the option to start on the board. For that reason, I think DKoK would have completely dominated the 'Ard Boyz prelim round, even if Mission 3 only counted vehicles as 1 KP.
If you know you won't be playing Dawn of War, the Heavy Mortar Battery is the best unit in Warhammer 40,000.* It's printed directly below the Grenadier Squad which is a serious candidate for the worst unit in Warhammer 40,000.**
*: Unless another FW unit is even more absurdly broken.
**: Once again, excluding the other terrible FW units.
5873
Post by: kirsanth
The expansion books say they can be used in 40k.
Sure. Ok.
My 4e Tyranid codex says IT can be used in 40k also.
That would take permission to use in a 5e game, regardless--as it is not normal any longer.
I know people that use both IA and old codexes, fortunately they are polite and used to playing 40k so they ask about using them, explicitely.
ymmv
25983
Post by: Jackal
For what it's worth, I'm pretty sure a DKoK list can absolutely dominate any tournament that posts the missions in advance, provided the missions all allow you the option to start on the board. For that reason, I think DKoK would have completely dominated the 'Ard Boyz prelim round, even if Mission 3 only counted vehicles as 1 KP.
So you are basing en entire tournament winning idea, all on a single unit?
I think maybe you should go through the DKoK list and take a look at all of the units and options.
Granted, they have a few decent units (funnily enough, as do all armies)
But alot of thier units are variants or variations of the guard dex, and some are weaker than the basic guard.
9708
Post by: Orkeosaurus
I would consider it to be "opponent's consent" in a manner different from that of codices, not because Games Workshop sees it that way, but because the players do, and they're the ones who ultimately determine what is or isn't acceptable (barring tournaments). You could think of it as being sort of a "common law" concept.
I would, however, be willing to play a game against units from Forgeworld most of the time. Assuming I had a chance to read through their rules first, of course. Automatically Appended Next Post: kirsanth wrote:The expansion books say they can be used in 40k.
Sure. Ok.
My 4e Tyranid codex says IT can be used in 40k also.
That would take permission to use in a 5e game, regardless--as it is not normal any longer.
I know people that use both IA and old codexes, fortunately they are polite and used to playing 40k so they ask about using them, explicitely.
You know, I really should consider just bringing out my Chaos army with their 3rd Ed codex.
3844
Post by: Dave47
۞ Jack ۞ wrote:So you are basing en entire tournament winning idea, all on a single unit?
It's just an example. But it's a good example.
Another good example is the Heavy Ordinance Battery. You know how many IG players have been fielding Medusas? Paying 135 points for a 36" range direct fire gun? Well, the DKoK Medusa costs 100 points. It can fire directly or indirectly with a range of 120". And it can get a Trojan for free, which can help screen the vehicle.
DKoK artilery is super cheap, and can spread across both Elites and Heavy Support slots, with discount 3x Lascannon squads (or Hades breaching drills) as troops. It's the return of the SAFH.
99
Post by: insaniak
kill dem stunties wrote:Insaniak, trying to compare a codex to IA book, as far as needing to buy it to see the rules isnt really a good comparison at all.
You don't need to buy it to see the rules. Your opponent should have a copy if he is using rules from it.
686
Post by: aka_mythos
Gorkamorka wrote:aka_mythos wrote:
You show your unfamiliarity with much of the FW rules. Your example fails because...
I was making a point based on them all being separate and special cases... which you proceed to point out by listing them more specifically. And then brought balance arguments into play for some reason, despite me never even alluding to them. I think you showed your unfamiliarity with my post, more than anything.
Its semantics . You're taking what you said and trying to make the use of FW something more substantial than just playing Apocalype or even planet strike. But anyone familiar with the FW rules, knows that they aren't even as dramatic as those expansions, unless you use models now intended for those expansions.
You said:
Gorkamorka wrote:
If someone asked you to play a "game of 40k" and you said "sure"... and then the person started putting down superheavies or planetstrike turrets or rolling from the battle missions book or something, would you continue without question? Or would you have expected an additional level of initial consent to play by special rules outside the norm, such as those from FW?
You're adding a superflous qualifier to the determination on playing 40k that isn't apparent. As dramatic as you're making it out to be it is in fact less drastic than playing Planetstrike and Apocalypse.
There is only one level of consent. You consent to play 40k or you consent to play Planetstrike or Apocalypse. There is no "levels" because they are each distinct entities. The fact is FW rules are made to be a part of all three, so it is not a matter of consent as much a matter of rejection. Because FW is in fact a part of 40k, it is a harsher action then the simple walking away due to non-agreement in not consenting, it is rejection. It is an active action on the part of the person who refuses to allow you to use FW models.
Its really no different than someone saying special characters are not allowed; that they don't play against special characters. FW models are just less significant.
Gorkamorka wrote:
The fact that 76% of poll-ees claim...
What is right is not always popular. Many bad idea have been popular.... popular sentiment doesn't mean something is correct.
I don't like "flexible statistics" and their interpretation. I think they should stand as they're written above: "64% believe... 22% believe... etc" You pull 76% as those who "consent"... I'd say 86% believe FW should be allowed. Neither of which really represent the sentiments as purely as the uninterpreted stats.
The prejudice against FW rules and models come from a lack of familiarity with the rules. They give no advantage, mostly disadvantage. They have defined use for defined game expansions. They are part of 40k. It defies the intent of the games designer to reject their use. As far as I can tell its some sort of Fundamentalism that rejects it based on authorship. So what is the point of contention that drives rejection?
10345
Post by: LunaHound
I didnt want to continue the debate , but by now its very very clear , that the 2 sides are actually debating on completely different things.
Having opponent's consent to using FW items are NO WAY the same as the usual examples given of "well you need consent to play anything in the first place"
Its like comparing apple to oranges.
The game 40k we play , the codice we use vs FW IA , there is no doubt many units in IA are not designed for normal 40k games. aka the Titan example mentioned by Agnosto.
hence the debate exists.
Its like asking if we are allowed to use codex from many editions ago , given the reasoning from some of you , you would say sure anything goes , but thats like monkey flinging poo can go too.
The point is , amusement aside , how would you like someone to play against you every time using out dated codice? I bet after the first few times , your opponents sense of amusement will be gone.
The point of example is , the "expired" codice's design is no longer able to fit in the loop of the current version of the game. Hence amusement aside , i dare anyone to start playing with
old edition codice and never use current edition codice again , and we'll see how serious people takes you.
Now IA , they are designed to play against other IA units , so i want to see people actually saying " Using Titan in normal 40k games are fine and perfectly balanced "
and bring their titan every game and kill every opponent every first of their turn. And we'll begin to see , "wow perhaps IA is really made for battling other IA units instead of in normal games"
Hence , the debate the 2 sides are going at , are actually completely different.
( disclaimer , as badly written as ^ is , i hope its enough to convey what im trying so say )
28383
Post by: Mahtamori
It'll all come down to the question "how much information about your army are you expected to present in your summary in a pick-up or friendly game?" Yes, that's a mouthful, but your summary shouldn't be.
Examine "Let's play Warhammer 40k, I've got an Ork army."
This let's your opponent know, while not exact, that you'll play the latest edition Warhammer available to you and that you've got a Codex: Orks (latest ed.) army. This is basic communication, spoken language is imprecise, so you as a speaker must anticipate what the recipient will interpret. If you plonk down an IA unit after saying that, someone who's unfamiliar with IA will say "Hey! You never said anything about having units with structure points!". Someone who's familiar with IA might react negatively as well on different grounds, who knows?
That's more or less all this is about. In a tournament you get the rule sources you can expect presented to you, so no use whining. Inform your opponent in friendly or pick up games ahead of time so they can prepare. Doesn't matter what the ink in the expensive book says.
21196
Post by: agnosto
nosferatu1001 wrote:Agnosto - your last claim is complete and UTTER bull.
FW take away every weakness of an army? REALLY? That's your argument?
Brilliant. I will take the awesome servants of slaughter list...no, wait, thats a terrible army list. Or DKoK. Etc.
Chill dude; it's a conversation, not me calling your mother names. We're all expressing our opinions here, my opinion is just as valid as yours.
I have 0 experience vs. complete FW lists; I was referring to the creation of units (keyword, not list, not army) that mitigates known weaknesses in existing 40k armies. Examples: A flying vindicator (Blight Drone) that's able to drop large blast templates on the 1st turn. Close support battlesuits for Tau with increased toughness, higher volume of fire and the ability to escape close combat. More recently, the assault ram which is immune to the most common way tanks are destroyed in this version, melta, and can drop 5" melta blast templates and can carry 10 termies and can turbo 36 inches and has a cool 1-shot weapon and has a teleport homer and (ad infinatum)... all for less points than a land raider...
I know it's the internet, I know people like extremes on this board; I was explaining my thoughts and the reasons why I don't like FW units in game (thus the IMHO placed in my summation; sorry if you didn't notice that). We all know the amount of playtesting that GW does (nearly nil), I don't imagine FW does any more. I guess I'm going to have to steal from kirsanth and put " ymmv" at the end of my posts so people don't choke on their tongues and die trying to call BS on my every OPINION. /rant
686
Post by: aka_mythos
LunaHound wrote:
The game 40k we play , the codice we use vs FW IA , there is no doubt many units in IA are not designed for normal 40k games. aka the Titan example mentioned by Agnosto.
hence the debate exists.
...
Now IA , they are designed to play against other IA units , so i want to see people actually saying " Using Titan in normal 40k games are fine and perfectly balanced "
and bring their titan every game and kill every opponent every first of their turn. And we'll begin to see , "wow perhaps IA is really made for battling other IA units instead of in normal games"
One of things I've been getting at though is that the FW rules have moved on. While there might be some ambiguity from someone pulling out an older IA book, the newer ones have made clear the fact that certain units are meant for Apocalypse, in the case of titans. So the arguement that inappropriate use is possible is defunct.
No one asserts that in a basic 40k game FW super heavies are an option, even in the older rules they're not. While in the newer rules superheavies are restricted almost exclusively to the realm of Apocalypse games.
This only really leaves the alternate lists and few add-on (non-superheavy) units for each army, that FW has invented. In almost every instance these rules exist in the game and are merely copy and pasted to a new unit, or rearranged for a list. Often these result in added point costs that aren't balanced to the codex and thus end up over priced. The perception that it can be used to gain a significant advantage is thus also mistaken.
To the people who object to FW models and rules, I would like to know (aside from titans and superheavies) what specific units do you actually object to?
LunaHound wrote:
...Its like asking if we are allowed to use codex from many editions ago...
Only to a degree, unlike old codices units are not superceded in IA unless they specifically appear in revised form. Where your analogy is right is that using FW units puts you at a disadvantage on par with playing an old codex that hasn't seen the benefits of power creep. FW=overpriced units.
11268
Post by: nosferatu1001
Agnosto - then being more precise would have been better.
You are also slightly wrong on your comparison; the blight drone is a flying LR - the large blast is battle cannon scale, NOT vindicator. You also conveniently ignore that given Daemons deepstrike that "turn 1" they can already do this with existing units, and if you remember BA now have fast vindicators that can do it even better...
I also explained why you argument was, frankly, gak - because it is. There are numerically an insignificant amount of the total units that are worth taking vs stuff that just looks cool. Humans being what they are, the most common units you see are unfortunately those that have some utility, as opposed to the utter gak (i have the exception in that i looooove macharius vulcans...) that is the vast majority.
Mahtamori - the minute you find a place in the FOC for a stompa, you should expect to see it. Oh wait, it doesnt HAVE a place in the FOC, therefore saying "can we have a game of 40k" already excludes all titans and super heavies....so your argument is moot.
27193
Post by: hamsterwheel
I've never played in a match with anyone using FW models. I probably wouldn't have too much issue with players using the models as long as they have no issues displaying the rules for me.
Although I do have to agree with Agnosto that the Caestus Assault Ram is a rediculous unit for it's cost.
http://www.forgeworld.co.uk/Downloads/Product/PDF/c/caestus.pdf
5873
Post by: kirsanth
aka_mythos wrote: Only to a degree, unlike old codices units are not superceded in IA unless they specifically appear in revised form.
I recall FW rules saying that new FW rules invalidate old FW rules, but I do not see anything like that in the main rules. Page number for old units being invalidated?
Assuming of course that you use the codex they came from--since the book allows itself to be used.
686
Post by: aka_mythos
I just meant that some of the IA books rewrote the rules for a number of units that had appeared in previously IA books. That FW has stated in such instances the newer rules are the official ones. Automatically Appended Next Post: hamsterwheel wrote:I've never played in a match with anyone using FW models. I probably wouldn't have too much issue with players using the models as long as they have no issues displaying the rules for me.
Although I do have to agree with Agnosto that the Caestus Assault Ram is a rediculous unit for it's cost.
http://www.forgeworld.co.uk/Downloads/Product/PDF/c/caestus.pdf
I agree, the Caestus at its 245pts it is underpriced. Fortunately those are just expermental rules, most times FW will revise them before they make it to an IA book and become official. Experimental rules aren't formally official, they're meant to generate feedback.
21196
Post by: agnosto
nosferatu1001 wrote:Agnosto - then being more precise would have been better.
You are also slightly wrong on your comparison; the blight drone is a flying LR - the large blast is battle cannon scale, NOT vindicator. You also conveniently ignore that given Daemons deepstrike that "turn 1" they can already do this with existing units, and if you remember BA now have fast vindicators that can do it even better...
I also explained why you argument was, frankly, gak - because it is. There are numerically an insignificant amount of the total units that are worth taking vs stuff that just looks cool. Humans being what they are, the most common units you see are unfortunately those that have some utility, as opposed to the utter gak (i have the exception in that i looooove macharius vulcans...) that is the vast majority.
So adding more shooting to an army that deepstrikes behind your lines isn't reducing negatives? It deepstrikes, kills a unit and then gets shot up, maybe. I'm not saying it's uber powerful or anything it just adds something that the army is missing, a vindicator [opinion] (and a flying one at that). Yeah, fast vindicators and deep striking land raiders were a bad idea (opinion).
You're thinking that I'm arguing where I'm just presenting my opinion so it doesn't matter if the argument is "gak" because I'm not arguing, I just don't like FW units in regular games. Codex power creep is bad enough (in my opinion) but then you get the FW units that can further break the game (in my opinion). I think that many people will agree (again, opinion) when I say that the game isn't all that well balanced to begin with but then units get added that were never part of the original "plan" which causes further imbalance (opinion).
FW makes some very nice looking models but the units themselves have no place in a regular game (opinion).
25983
Post by: Jackal
To be honest, i think the whole "using a titan in a normal game" thing isnt much if an argument here anyway.
Its an apoc or special even unit, not something you take in regular 2,000 games.
DKoK and ele's are the main supporting to the argument, since they are a full list, rather than a single super unit.
Out of curiosity, does it say in IA? (whatever number) that "A reaver titan uses a heavy support space" or does it list it as a heavy support choice?
If so, ill leave this argument here.
However, i dont own any IA books, but im sure it doesent.
DKoK have an army structure, simply to make them a legal list to use, rather than a super unit (i use said term in general for something without a unit selection type, as in general they tend to be massive, and too fething strong for your average game)
But yea, thats my whole point 
If it has a list structure or says it takes up a single (or multiple) "X" selection, then i see no problem.
Its only un structured units that i cant really see in basic games.
Also, new ork stuff states that it can be used in a 40k ork army, taking up a "X" slot, for "X" amount of points.
21499
Post by: Mr. Burning
Consent is key, the same consent that you need for every TTMG game you wish to play with any other individual.
Even if my opponent had a codex legal army modelled exclusively with GW product, carried in a GW carrying case within a GW store etc I would not have to play a game with them.
FW is part of GW. FW create miniatures and rules to work within established GW game systems BUT not everyone has as easy access to the rulesets from IA book as, say, codex release.
29916
Post by: Leez
When I come to a game, be it with a stranger or long time friend I always assume it's a normal game unless otherwise said. Normal for me does not include FW rules. They've always seemed like something outside the BRB + codex + faq framework (which is also what I view as "the core" of the game). They may be owned by GW, but they are not GW.
A side from the above add the fact that as a consumer the idea that I have to purchase additional book(s) beyond the core rules and codex does not sit right. Especially when these books cost more and give less (units), they have a an incredibly low value/cost ratio by comparison. It's only IA:7 that has units for a Chaos Daemon army, but that's the third book in the fluff of The Siege of Vraks. So to get the full story I have to buy three +30£ books . . .
Also, looking at the covers of IA: 5, 6, 7, and 8 on the FW website I see the the stamp: Warhammer 40,000 Expansion. So, it seems like FW themselves consider their IA product as an Expansion to Warhammer 40,000 and not a part of the core game. Or am I misinterpreting their own cover design?
11268
Post by: nosferatu1001
Agnosto - and again, it is not a vindicator because it is not a S10 AP2 shot. Your opinion is, strictly, invalid.
Titans do not, in any way shape or form, use up a "normal" FOC slot. Therefore saying "I want to play 40k" does not allow them.
Leez - read the interior first. And, again, why do YOU need to buy the books? If your opponent is using the lists I assume they would have the rujles, in the same way you would expect them to have their codex....
1478
Post by: warboss
Leez wrote:Also, looking at the covers of IA: 5, 6, 7, and 8 on the FW website I see the the stamp: Warhammer 40,000 Expansion. So, it seems like FW themselves consider their IA product as an Expansion to Warhammer 40,000 and not a part of the core game. Or am I misinterpreting their own cover design?
no, you're not misinterpreting it. you're just witnessing a vocal minority that refuses to acknowledge the rules because it's inconvient to them. a "normal" 40k game involves the main rulebook and 1-2 codex books (depending if the armies are identical or not)... period! anything outside of that is extra and requires permission of the opponent. FW stuff is just as official as planetstrike, city fight, spearhead, white dwarf army lists and units, etc... all of which still require permission PER THE MAIN RULEBOOK. gw has had 3 editions of the main rulebook to acknowledge that FW can be used without permission and they chose NOT to. instead, the rulebook specifically states that in normal 40k you only use the books i listed above. that's really all there is to it.
21196
Post by: agnosto
nosferatu1001 wrote:Agnosto - and again, it is not a vindicator because it is not a S10 AP2 shot. Your opinion is, strictly, invalid....
Strictly speaking, an opinion can not be invalid. The basis for the opinion may or may not be invalid; however, the opinion itself can not, by definition be invalid as it is a view held by someone. You may hold an oppposing opinion but that does not make my opinion any less valid. I could really care less what you call the unit in question and that has no bearing on my opinion. I obviously know that it is in fact not a vindicator just as the blood raven is not a land raider; however, common usage calls it a flying land raider. I call the toys what I want and you call them what you want, it's easier than calling it "a flying ovoid model that fires a template attack similar but not exactly the same as a vindicator".
29916
Post by: Leez
nosferatu1001 wrote:
Leez - read the interior first. And, again, why do YOU need to buy the books? If your opponent is using the lists I assume they would have the rujles, in the same way you would expect them to have their codex....
A side from reading what comes second first sounding strange, I don't own them. I went to their website and all I am shown is " IA: 8 Name, Warhammer 40,000 Expansion." So, and I would think naturally, I would say IA is an expansion and thus not core. I take it the the label "expansion" they place upon themselves is altered or revealed to be a lie once one started reading it? In a few days I'll be meeting a friend I know has IA: 4-8 or maybe just 4-7, could you tell me where they explain themselves in one of those?
And, what I meant by buying them is not that I think I need to buy them to play against them but rather I have to buy the releavent one(s) to use them myself and they are, as a book in the real world, incredibly expensive for what they offer (I'm not referring to the unit point costs). Pretty cheeky idea, create a relatively expensive supplement, make one or two really great and cost effective units in each book (the rest can be crap on the table even if great story-wise), then declare the book "core".
11268
Post by: nosferatu1001
Page 4. The page reference has been given repeatedly...
Agnosto - it fires a shot NOTHING LIKE a vindicator, apart from the size. It fires a battle cannon shot, which is 2 points of strength and, crucially, 1 point of AP higher than a vindicator shot.
So again: it is a fying leman russ. Which i said about 2 pages back but you ignored.
Warboss - good of you to continue to ignore the rules given in the IA books, and claim others are doing the same. Fail.
21196
Post by: agnosto
nosferatu1001 wrote:Page 4. The page reference has been given repeatedly...
Agnosto - it fires a shot NOTHING LIKE a vindicator, apart from the size. It fires a battle cannon shot, which is 2 points of strength and, crucially, 1 point of AP higher than a vindicator shot.
So again: it is a fying leman russ. Which i said about 2 pages back but you ignored.
Actually, you called it a land raider and you later said it was AP2. I don't see how you can expect me to be exactly correct if you can't.
nosferatu1001 wrote:You are also slightly wrong on your comparison; the blight drone is a flying LR.
I suppose if I cared enough to be strictly accurate, I could call it a flying defiler....
11268
Post by: nosferatu1001
Actually I didnt - I called it "LR" meaning Leman russ. Dakka then decided it was Land raider insteasd.
I also didnt say it was AP2, I said it WASNT AP2.
It also isnt a flying defiler as it is only BS2...
25983
Post by: Jackal
Nos: Isnt a vindi shot S10?
In which case im not sure how the BC can be 2 Str higher 0_o
Titans do not, in any way shape or form, use up a "normal" FOC slot. Therefore saying "I want to play 40k" does not allow them.
Then it helps to prove my point about everyone throwing titans into the situation, simply because its made by FW.
People dont object to FW scenery do they? (might aswell check while im at it)
So thats titans out.
Now, onto basic armies.
You may not have the DKoK rules when playing against someone, they however will do.
The whole argument "but i dont know thier rules because i dont have the book" tends to fall flat because of that.
Not only that, but how many people know the exact rules from every book in 40k?
I would bet none apart from the main stream tournie players.
Like playing against anyone else, the rules should be there for you to see aswell.
If they refuse to show you the rules, by all means refuse to play them.
But 99% of players will happily let you look if your not used to such rules.
11268
Post by: nosferatu1001
Gah, that comes from querying whether AP3 is considered "higher" than AP2 or not....
S8 vs S10, AP3 vs AP2. the only similarity is the size of the blast marker.
Flying leman russ is more accurate as it has no close combat skill, attacks, power weapon or S10 like a defiler, so in terms of similarity is more similar to a flying leman russ than a defiler.
25983
Post by: Jackal
You mean in the same way an ace is either a 1 or 11, yet is considered higher than any card?
But yea, back OT i would say AP3 is lower than AP 2 (going in terms of which is better)
But its still not 2 Str higher
And all in all, the drone is the same as a drone, its just that.
Cant really compare it to anything.
Allthough, i dont see why thats a problem, since we didnt need to compare it.
11268
Post by: nosferatu1001
I was originally going for 2 poinst of strength and 1 point of ap "lower", but then decided to go with strictly numerically AP3 would be higher...
5873
Post by: kirsanth
۞ Jack ۞ wrote:Now, onto basic armies.
With that bit, you went awry.
Basic ≠ Expansion.
11268
Post by: nosferatu1001
Except it isnt important, as the IA books state you may use them in "normal" games of 40k, and provides FOC slots for those units that can be used.
25983
Post by: Jackal
With that bit, you went awry.
Basic ≠ Expansion.
Why arent DKoK a basic army?
They have a full list with points cost and FoC slots, just like any other army.
In fact, they are the same as any other army, except no fluff in the download.
Rules are all written and produced by citadel, so dont see what makes them different except they cost a ton more, and are resin.
29916
Post by: Leez
nosferatu1001 wrote:Page 4. The page reference has been given repeatedly...
Okay, it's a slow day at work so I called my friend up. On page four of IA: VII its refers to itself as not being a "stand-alone supplement" and "the phrase "to use this book in games of Warhammer 40,000" in the smaller type paragraph at the bottom which is also found in IA: V and IA: 6 almost identically. Is that what you mean by saying IA's is part of normal 40K, because no where else on page 4 does it say anything along the lines of " IA can be used in normal 40K games." in IA: VII I am told.
11268
Post by: nosferatu1001
So the part that states "to use this book in games..." isnt permission to use the book in games of 40k?
5873
Post by: kirsanth
nosferatu1001 wrote:Except it isnt important, as the IA books state you may use them in "normal" games of 40k, and provides FOC slots for those units that can be used.
So does the 3e Tyranid codex.
So really, when you go to a 40k tourney, do you expect (or even demand) that IA is allowed?
Because the vehemence you are using to show that the expansion is normal is along that vein.
Why is it that GW sponsored events feel the need to state whether IA rules are used?
GW does not apparently think that IA is part of the basic rules.
11268
Post by: nosferatu1001
No, because I go to a tournament knowing exactly what army books are allowed, and even the ISBN for them if you go to a GT or some local tournaments.
I am showing that they are "normal" (proven) and that therefore are subject to the exact same "opponents consent" as any other army, model, rule etc.
Which I have said since the start....whatever you do in a tournament is the TOs decision, what you do in a pick up game is between you and your opponent.
FW is no different in this regard than anything 40k.
29916
Post by: Leez
nosferatu1001 wrote:So the part that states "to use this book in games..." isnt permission to use the book in games of 40k?
I didn't say that, I just wanted to be sure that is what you were referring to. So that's the part that makes IA books not an expansion of core- 40K but instead a part of core- 40K despite the stamp on the cover then. I ask because the complete sentence reads "To use the material in this book in games of Warhammer 40,000, you will need Warhammer 40,000 rulebook and the following Codexes: IG, SM, CSM, CD and the Cities of Death supplement." (abbreviated by me). I suppose the rebuttal that I could then require my opponent to have all these books would be facetious at best. But it isn't facetious to claim at Cities of Death is core- 40K, after all IA refers to both itself and CoD as a supplement, and how could we argue an expansion is needed to play a normal game. Would you agree with that then?
Honestly though, it says to play Warhammer 40,000 and I don't see how that overrides the Expansion stamp on the cover. Cities of Death, Spearhead, and Planetary Strike are also Warhammer 40,000. And all four also carry the Warhammer 40,000 Expansion bold as day on their covers.
1478
Post by: warboss
nosferatu1001 wrote:Warboss - good of you to continue to ignore the rules given in the IA books, and claim others are doing the same. Fail.
lol, referring to a rule in a book that i (and the vast majority of the people here... and the main rulebook) consider opponent permission only is fail. you're missing the whole point. the vast majority of people here are following the rules for a standard 40k game in the rulebook and consider the WHOLE IA BOOK permission only, not just certain units or entries. picking a line out of it to prove it's not doesn't change the fact that warhammer 40,000 rulebook says it's not among the legal books in a regular game. if GW wanted to allow them, they would have specifically done it in 3rd edition... or maybe fourth a few years later... or even fifth edition by simply stating it. they did not. three times. in a row. no amount of spin changes any of the facts in this post.
29163
Post by: Sanguinary Dan
insaniak wrote:Steelmage99 wrote:The second anybody convinces me that FW rules are playtested and balanced to the same extent (such as it is) that GWs "real" rules are, I'll happily allow any and all FW additions to the game.
That's kind of a good point, though... It's pretty much accepted that the regular 40K rules aren't particularly balanced, and that the studio don't go to any great lengths to make them so... because the game was never really intended to be a 'competitive' ruleset.
I think that's where a lot of the conflict comes from here... If you try to pretend that the 40K rules are more or less balanced, then 'outside' rules would be an unknown quantity that potentially unbalances the game. If you accept that the rules are a mess to begin with, that the game is only supposed to be a bit of mindless fun, and Forgeworld's additions are simply there to add variety rather than tactical depth, it's all much less of an issue.
I see Forge World rules as analogous to Apocalypse rules: they can potentially make for some really interesting games, but it isn't appropriate for one player to spring them on an unsuspecting player.
This seems to be a recurring theme throughout threads like this. I'm having trouble figuring out how you spring any rules on an unsuspecting opponent. Don't you discuss what sort of game you're playing, and what rules you'll be using, before setting up?
I'm with Insaniak on this 100%. The FW rules are no more or less balanced than most of the GW products. Pretending that they'll massively unbalance and "ruin" the game is as foolish as assuming GW never produced a P.O.S. codex. Other than the two Drop Pods (dreadnought and shooty) I can't think of anything in the IA books that wouldn't be perfectly acceptable.
686
Post by: aka_mythos
kirsanth wrote:
So really, when you go to a 40k tourney, do you expect (or even demand) that IA is allowed?
...
Why is it that GW sponsored events feel the need to state whether IA rules are used?
GW does not apparently think that IA is part of the basic rules.
I would assert a 40k Tournament is not a "normal" game, since there are often prizes at stake there needs to be a heighten sense of fairness, which cannot exist when people would assert an unfamiliarity as being unfair.
Why do events feel the need to state it- because of they didn't they'd be bombarded by emails asking one way or the other. GW leaves it to event coordinators to decide based on the competence of the people participating.
A tournament being inherently atypical the fact that they feel the need to answer questions regarding the use of FW rules, only give credence that the rules are considered a viable "normal" way to play.
warboss wrote:
lol, referring to a rule in a book that i (and the vast majority of the people here... and the main rulebook) consider opponent permission only is fail.
Ignoring rules and ignoring the intent of the game designers, in favor of succumbing to irrational and paranoid insecurities of someone else using a set of rules that are factually in favor of the person who doesn't use them is stupid.
It is exclusionary in the worst possible way for a game built around cooperative play, by reject the fun of the other player without justification.
warboss wrote:
you're missing the whole point. the vast majority of people here are following the rules for a standard 40k game in the rulebook and consider the WHOLE IA BOOK permission only, not just certain units or entries.
What is popular is not always right. Waving around a banner of "the majority" doesn't confront the more critical aspects of general acceptance.
There is also an argument for power... no one likes to be forced to do anything so as long as their is an option for choosing people will always take that over an imposition, whether the imposition is justified or not.
warboss wrote:
picking a line out of it to prove it's not doesn't change the fact that warhammer 40,000 rulebook says it's not among the legal books in a regular game. if GW wanted to allow them, they would have specifically done it in 3rd edition... or maybe fourth a few years later... or even fifth edition by simply stating it. they did not. three times. in a row. no amount of spin changes any of the facts in this post.
Does the Warhammer 40,000 rulebook explicitly name every codex and expansion?-No. Did it list any of the different compendium books GW had put out?-No Did the rule books ever list the different campaign books from over the years?-No.
Nor would they because to do so would restrict their ability to produce viable books. "Imperial Armour" is just like any of those, its part compendium and part campaign book.
You want explicit permission of such a heighten degree, but you miss the fact that GW perceives IA as being such a part of 40k it needs not be so explicit.
Now the most valid argument for or against FW, is the "most important rule... the rules are not important." It is the most important rule yet singularly overlooked. Its there to remind people not to be uptight or asinine. Saying I can't use something made by GW in a blanketly baseless way is clearly contrary to the first rule.
1478
Post by: warboss
aka_mythos wrote: Does the Warhammer 40,000 rulebook explicitly name every codex and expansion?-No. Did it list any of the different compendium books GW had put out?-No Did the rule books ever list the different campaign books from over the years?-No.
Nor would they because to do so would restrict their ability to produce viable books. "Imperial Armour" is just like any of those, its part compendium and part campaign book.
You want explicit permission of such a heighten degree, but you miss the fact that GW perceives IA as being such a part of 40k it needs not be so explicit.
the rulebook doesn't need to mention them because it ONLY describes standard/core game setup. that's it. Standard games allow you to use a codex and the rulebook.. that's it. having non-core books in the product line doesn't make them any less official, balanced, or hamper GW's production of them like you're suggesting. It simply makes them expansions and therefore need permission of the opponent to use. GW assumes that its players are mature enough to simply ask their opponent if they can use an expansion product of limited availability that alot of people are unfamiliar with instead of just stomping into a store/home and crying "but i wanna!!!".
686
Post by: aka_mythos
warboss wrote:the rulebook doesn't need to mention them because it ONLY describes standard/core game setup. that's it. Standard games allow you to use a codex and the rulebook.. that's it. having non-core books in the product line doesn't make them any less official, balanced, or hamper GW's production of them like you're suggesting. It simply makes them expansions and therefore need permission of the opponent to use.
You demand explicitness for one and not the other. If the rulebook makes no distinction, why should the players?
Standard games also allow you to use FW units with no modification to the core rules.
I didn't say having what you call "less official" books hampered GW's production. I said that the level of explicit permission you expect of the core rule book would hamper production; if it was the reality, which it isn't.
They aren't all "expansions" in the way GW defines an expansion. They don't modify the core rules like an expansion does. They are more analogous to the Codex Armageddon and Codex Eye of Terror a compendium of themed armies.
warboss wrote:
GW assumes that its players are mature enough to simply ask their opponent if they can use an expansion product of limited availability that alot of people are unfamiliar with instead of just stomping into a store/home and crying "but i wanna!!!".
Assuming they weren't trying to cheat, it would be cold hearted to turn away a crying person.
Its not limited in its availability its limited in its market distribution; anyone who wants IA can order IA.
Unfamiliarity is only an excuse in tournaments where there are necessary heighten demands of fairness, in the day to day the threshold is much lower. That threshold purely on the merits of the text are equal to any codex. If unfamiliarity was truly justification for disallowing an army there would never be new armies.
There exists every reason to allow them and little reason to reject them. I've asked before and still haven't received an answer, but what makes IA different from any other GW rule book?
1478
Post by: warboss
aka_mythos wrote: You demand explicitness for one and not the other. If the rulebook makes no distinction, why should the players?
There exists every reason to allow them and little reason to reject them. I've asked before and still haven't received an answer, but what makes IA different from any other GW rule book?
i do allow them and i've said so in this thread several times. the rulebook does make a distinction in that it only allows you to use itself and a codex for a standard game; players who are following the rulebook and playing standard games do this.
as for your question, no one is answering because we all (both sides) agree with you. IA is NO different from other GW expansions; both sides seem to agree on this. the only difference is that the expansions are separate from the rulebook and codicies, which are core books necessary for a standard game. i don't demand explicitness for one and not the other; i treat them all the same in that i consider them (as do the rules) non-standard and therefore permission only. the core rules support this.
12265
Post by: Gwar!
To put forth my own views of the matter:
The entire game is Opponents permission only. If I don't want to play against a Necron Army with Monoliths, are you going to force me? No.
The Same applies to any FW stuff.
13790
Post by: Sliggoth
One point that no one seems to be mentioning is that FW rules are NOT considered part of normal 40k by most players, largely because they are simply not available to most players.
Our flgs has all of the GW 40k rules and armies available. There is zip, zero...nothing from FW available there. A few (around here very very few) stores will have some of FW books available, but FW really just isnt readily available to people here. And that makes it different from the rest of 40k in the players minds.
Another point with FW is that since very few people have any idea what it is, very few people have any idea on what is current from FW. So there would be few people who would have any idea if some rules being presented as a current FW list are even correct or current. People tend to know what the current 40k rules look like at least, with FW thats entirely lacking.
So one large strike against FW is the difference in the availability of the product, and information on the product.
Sliggoth
1478
Post by: warboss
gwar, where ya been? nosferatu has been straying from the path of RAW without you.
99
Post by: insaniak
Sliggoth wrote:One point that no one seems to be mentioning is that FW rules are NOT considered part of normal 40k by most players, largely because they are simply not available to most players.
No, that's been mentioned, several times.
The thread's largely just going around in circles at this point. I think it's time to give it a rest.
|
|
