I have an unhealthy love of Forgeworld. I don't have the money for forgeworld, but I love the models. So, as the title asks - what are models / rules that you would like to see migrate from forgeworld areas into becoming standard 40k rules? I would personally love to see some support for the Heresy line for play in 40k lists. I keep eyeing the Legion Breachers and Recon squad. Both look awesome and they are great concept. Nothing would make me happier than to see the two units rolled up into the new Codex Space marine coming out, but it is unfortunately just a daydream.

What are some toys you'd like to see become available (even if some rebalancing is needed) to run around your 40k games?

we use all Forgeworld units,( excepting Apoc only units) in our 40k games..no exceptions, just more new fun units as far as we are concerned.

All 40k approved units from FW are treated, as normal units with the people I play with.

I enjoy using the Necron stuff from IA12 the most.

The Avenger Strike Fighter, of course. Sisters could use a flyer.

CRASSUS ARMOURED ASSAULT TRANSPORT!


On a more serious note, Contemptor Dreadnoughts.

All Forge World units are normal units.

 Imposter101 wrote:
All Forge World units are normal units.

I think that the point of transferring them over is so that the awkward sorts can't refuse to play you just because it's from FW. And hey, it is convenient having it all in one codex.

 Sasori wrote:
All 40k approved units from FW are treated, as normal units with the people I play with.

I enjoy using the Necron stuff from IA12 the most.

I agree, I love the DKoK for IA12 and the Necrons. I actually prefer playing the Necrons from IA12

The FLGS I go to Lets me play my DKoK. I don't spam Thudd guns and emplacements so people don't Instantly cry OP and cheese.
The only rule I'v had trouble telling people about is Unstoppable Advance.

 Troike wrote:

 Imposter101 wrote:
All Forge World units are normal units.

I think that the point of transferring them over is so that the awkward sorts can't refuse to play you just because it's from FW. And hey, it is convenient having it all in one codex.

The Chaos Servants of Slaughter and Decay lists would be nice then.

Mortis Contemptor Dreads

 Troike wrote:

 Imposter101 wrote:
All Forge World units are normal units.

I think that the point of transferring them over is so that the awkward sorts can't refuse to play you just because it's from FW. And hey, it is convenient having it all in one codex.

This. Especially the last bit. The two I mentioned in my original post were actually from the heresy 30k series as well. I'm not sure I could show up with them and say "this is in my codex now" without some finagling. Though I'm definitely tempted to use the recon models as proxied scouts

 kazian wrote:

 Troike wrote:

 Imposter101 wrote:
All Forge World units are normal units.

I think that the point of transferring them over is so that the awkward sorts can't refuse to play you just because it's from FW. And hey, it is convenient having it all in one codex.

This. Especially the last bit. The two I mentioned in my original post were actually from the heresy 30k series as well. I'm not sure I could show up with them and say "this is in my codex now" without some finagling. Though I'm definitely tempted to use the recon models as proxied scouts

I think their is a slight difference between the Forge World releases for 40k and Fantasy, and the 30k list. The 30k list wasn't designed for normal 40k game play, and was designed for it's own closed off rule set. Still, those Recon Marines are really cool models.

I love the models (and some of the rules) that FW has released. Unfortunately for me, I don't have the money to actually buy anything and with FW my group has said no proxies, no actual book (including for things that have updates on the website), no use.

Centaurs as dedicated transports for command squads (That's the universal carriers were for after all)

And artillery pieces that don't cost twice much as a Basilisk at half the points cost

Lastly, Hydra needs to be a plastic kit

I especially like the Vulture gunship with the AC MRP combo.

 Imposter101 wrote:

 kazian wrote:

 Troike wrote:

 Imposter101 wrote:
All Forge World units are normal units.

I think that the point of transferring them over is so that the awkward sorts can't refuse to play you just because it's from FW. And hey, it is convenient having it all in one codex.

This. Especially the last bit. The two I mentioned in my original post were actually from the heresy 30k series as well. I'm not sure I could show up with them and say "this is in my codex now" without some finagling. Though I'm definitely tempted to use the recon models as proxied scouts

I think their is a slight difference between the Forge World releases for 40k and Fantasy, and the 30k list. The 30k list wasn't designed for normal 40k game play, and was designed for it's own closed off rule set. Still, those Recon Marines are really cool models.

Without trying to sidetrack the thread what are these 30k lists everyone is talking about?

As for FW I'd love to have the Ork Kommando kits given an official box from GW because personally they're so much better than the current ones, put a squiggoth in with the Orks as well, let me put Knarlocks and Remoras in my Tau permanently and make the death corps onto a plastic set for IG.

Plastic thunderbolts for SM would be really cool.

 Warboss Imbad Ironskull wrote:
Without trying to sidetrack the thread what are these 30k lists everyone is talking about?

Forgeworld released a 40K supplement (and models) which is basically Warhammer 30K. The only book released so far can be found here.

I would love for most models to become GW-models.
But that's mostly so they are easier to buy and because that will probably lead to plastic models instead of resin

Mortis Contemptor dreads for my Dark Angels.

Because feth your heldrake, eat 12 BS5 skyfire, interceptor S6 rending shots with two krak missiles to boot.

*Per dread*

Before they were hit with a massive nerfbat I would've said Malanthropes, now I just want Stone Crusher Carnifexes.

Those elysian (sp?) Drop sentinels.

 Imposter101 wrote:
All Forge World units are normal units.

This. It doesn't matter to me where a particular unit is published, it's all part of the same game.

 kinratha wrote:

 Sasori wrote:
All 40k approved units from FW are treated, as normal units with the people I play with.

I enjoy using the Necron stuff from IA12 the most.

I agree, I love the DKoK for IA12 and the Necrons. I actually prefer playing the Necrons from IA12

The FLGS I go to Lets me play my DKoK. I don't spam Thudd guns and emplacements so people don't Instantly cry OP and cheese.
The only rule I'v had trouble telling people about is Unstoppable Advance.

I play the Siege Regiment, so no Unstoppable Advance, but I get to spam Thudd Guns and Carriages

I just wish everything listed in GW codices were GW models. Medusa, Griffon, Colossus, Hydra, Vendetta. I mean, many of those are staples in IG armies yet to actually HAVE the model you need to kitbash or FW it.

Also, I don't like resin.

Salamander Scout Tank & Vulture Gunship.

The Imperial armour books, including aeronautica and apocalypse, are coming out with 40k stamps and apocalypse stamps, showing where these units are meant to be used.

The biggest problem is other players perception of forgeworld as being OP or unbalanced.

Thats what needs changing.

99% of all FW models, as they are exceptionally good-looking models. The remaining 1% are the terribly overpowered stuff, mostly, as usual, IG.

 Sigvatr wrote:
99% of all FW models, as they are exceptionally good-looking models. The remaining 1% are the terribly overpowered stuff, mostly, as usual, IG.

What about horribly Underpowered stuff like the breacher drill, any of the FW Chaos fliers, or lightning strike fighter?

 Kain wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:
99% of all FW models, as they are exceptionally good-looking models. The remaining 1% are the terribly overpowered stuff, mostly, as usual, IG.

What about horribly Underpowered stuff like the breacher drill, any of the FW Chaos fliers, or lightning strike fighter?

What about those? I thought I was pretty clear...

 Sigvatr wrote:

 Kain wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:
99% of all FW models, as they are exceptionally good-looking models. The remaining 1% are the terribly overpowered stuff, mostly, as usual, IG.

What about horribly Underpowered stuff like the breacher drill, any of the FW Chaos fliers, or lightning strike fighter?

What about those? I thought I was pretty clear...

Just wanted to be clear.

 Kain wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:

 Kain wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:
99% of all FW models, as they are exceptionally good-looking models. The remaining 1% are the terribly overpowered stuff, mostly, as usual, IG.

What about horribly Underpowered stuff like the breacher drill, any of the FW Chaos fliers, or lightning strike fighter?

What about those? I thought I was pretty clear...

Just wanted to be clear.

Good

A lof FW products actually are underpowered, in terms of balancing them vs. their codex counterparts, it's only those very few downright broken products that keep people on their ever-lasting anti-FW crusade.

Repressor, Taurus Jeeps and the good ole' Thudd Gun.

Imposter101 wrote:All Forge World units are normal units.

People need to stop pretending this.
I'm all for trying out FW rules, but saying that FW rules are standard by definition is a misconception at best, blatantly spreading a lie at worst. FW books don't have the "Chapter Approved" stamp. Try showing up at a GW tournament with FW rules, they won't let you play that army. Same for at least a fair number of LGS and fan-organised events. Don't lead other gamers into such an awkward situation.

Troike wrote:The Avenger Strike Fighter, of course. Sisters could use a flyer.

Bah, the Avenger is ugly.
The Lightning, on the other hand ...

 Lynata wrote:
Bah, the Avenger is ugly.

It doesn't have to be...

http://www.dakkadakka.com/core/gallery-search.jsp?dq=Avenger

Shandara made one that looks really nice using the Immolator sprue. Very Sistery. Presumably, a GW-made SoB Avenger would get similar iconography to look the part.

But yes, a Lighting Fighter is fine too.

Sonic Dreadnought.

Troike wrote:It doesn't have to be... http://www.dakkadakka.com/core/gallery-search.jsp?dq=Avenger
Shandara made one that looks really nice using the Immolator sprue. Very Sistery. Presumably, a GW-made SoB Avenger would get similar iconography to look the part.

I admit, that looks amazing. Great job.

Might still look better on a Lightning ... I don't know, I guess I just don't like the wing configuration. :/

 Lynata wrote:
Repressor, Taurus Jeeps and the good ole' Thudd Gun.

Imposter101 wrote:All Forge World units are normal units.

People need to stop pretending this.
I'm all for trying out FW rules, but saying that FW rules are standard by definition is a misconception at best, blatantly spreading a lie at worst. FW books don't have the "Chapter Approved" stamp. Try showing up at a GW tournament with FW rules, they won't let you play that army. Same for at least a fair number of LGS and fan-organised events. Don't lead other gamers into such an awkward situation.

Troike wrote:The Avenger Strike Fighter, of course. Sisters could use a flyer.

Bah, the Avenger is ugly.
The Lightning, on the other hand ...

Why would you want such a whimpy flier?

It's barely got any dakka and goes down in flames when someone sneezes on it.

Now the Thunderbolt is a nice, powerful flier.

 Lynata wrote:
People need to stop pretending this.
I'm all for trying out FW rules, but saying that FW rules are standard by definition is a misconception at best, blatantly spreading a lie at worst. FW books don't have the "Chapter Approved" stamp. Try showing up at a GW tournament with FW rules, they won't let you play that army. Same for at least a fair number of LGS and fan-organised events. Don't lead other gamers into such an awkward situation.

And how would you call that stamp?

 Kain wrote:
Why would you want such a whimpy flier?

It's barely got any dakka and goes down in flames when someone sneezes on it.

Now the Thunderbolt is a nice, powerful flier.

No reason it can't be buffed up for a codex entry.

Really, the only reason I'm adovcating it is that Sisters need a flyer and this one has some appropriate fluff behind it. I'd have no problem with some new flyer being invented for them, or just using the Lightning.

Buzzgob and his mega dred!

lynata wrote:

Imposter101 wrote:All Forge World units are normal units.

People need to stop pretending this.
I'm all for trying out FW rules, but saying that FW rules are standard by definition is a misconception at best, blatantly spreading a lie at worst. FW books don't have the "Chapter Approved" stamp. Try showing up at a GW tournament with FW rules, they won't let you play that army. Same for at least a fair number of LGS and fan-organised events. Don't lead other gamers into such an awkward situation.

People need to stop pushing this lie. There is no such thing as 'chapter approved' and 'GW tournaments'. Frankly, GW could care less how we mix and match their models...as long as you buy them.

There is also no OP units in the game, FW or otherwise. Are there units that are a pain, yes. But they all have counters, it is just that a few don't want to change their 'fine tuned all comers' list for things they doesn't understand. Most of the people that cry OP do so because the "OP" unit makes them change how they play their list and they can't handle change. Even the dreaded Lucius Droppod is not OP, is costs half as much as the unit it carriesand has all the limitations of a normal droppod, but because it breaks the sacred no assault out of deep strike rule people cry.

The 'FW sucks, is OP, is etc' idea comes from the mass of wannabe tourny players that build lists to fight the primary codexes and nothing else. These are the ones that cry when people add new units from any source because they now have to change their list for the new cheese on the table. "Tourny" players need to realize that the game does not revolve around them and to leave the fluff/casual players out of their delusions. Their wishes do not drive the rules of the game outside of tournaments, so stop pushing tournaments rules outside of tournaments.

In the category of Forgeworld models I'd just like to see again at all, Dreadclaw drop pods.

I believe they're meant to be redoing the kit, and I look forward to it but damn, I'd like to get my hands on a few.

XV9 Hazard Suits!!!!!!

 Troike wrote:

 Kain wrote:
Why would you want such a whimpy flier?

It's barely got any dakka and goes down in flames when someone sneezes on it.

Now the Thunderbolt is a nice, powerful flier.

No reason it can't be buffed up for a codex entry.

Really, the only reason I'm adovcating it is that Sisters need a flyer and this one has some appropriate fluff behind it. I'd have no problem with some new flyer being invented for them, or just using the Lightning.

You could have both the Avenger (ground attack) and Lightning (air to air) in one army. Although I'd suggest moving the Avenger to heavy support and the lightning to fast attack (and allow it to be squadronned) so that they don't compete.

 Lynata wrote:
People need to stop pretending this.
I'm all for trying out FW rules, but saying that FW rules are standard by definition is a misconception at best, blatantly spreading a lie at worst. FW books don't have the "Chapter Approved" stamp. Try showing up at a GW tournament with FW rules, they won't let you play that army. Same for at least a fair number of LGS and fan-organised events. Don't lead other gamers into such an awkward situation.

Kain wrote:Why would you want such a whimpy flier?

It looks cool. That really is all there is to it, and I'm not ashamed to admit that.

Kangodo wrote:And how would you call that stamp?

Forgeworld's way of saying that this product has been written for 40k games, obviously. Just like it says in the text.

That doesn't change anything about the legality of these rules. My houserules are written for 40k games, too.

hisdudeness wrote:People need to stop pushing this lie. There is no such thing as 'chapter approved' and 'GW tournaments'. Frankly, GW could care less how we mix and match their models...as long as you buy them.

As far as I know, there is no "people" - it's pretty much only me, because I feel somebody should stand up and point out the truth.

If you believe that there is "no such thing" as Chapter Approved, then I suggest you open an issue of White Dwarf and look for the stamp printed next to some of the rules. If you believe that there is "no such thing" as GW Tournaments, then I suggest you visit their website and have a look.

This has nothing to do with "OPness" either. I'm making a statement intended to prevent people from reading something on dakka, then buying a FW unit, and later coming back complaining they weren't allowed to field it even though "we" said they would be able to.
I appreciate your emotional investment with whatever FW units you like to field - they certainly all look cool - but that doesn't justify the kind of misrepresentation I see from the "FW crowd" desperately trying to push their little corner of the game further into the middle.

At the end of the day, only the Basic Codices are the "common ground", anything else - be it Apocalypse, Cityfight, FW armies or my own houserules, will differ depending on which event or store or club you play at. So please, let's not pretend otherwise and scam people into getting disappointed because they felt they wouldn't have to inquire about such details before going to wherever they want to play.

The Ork Flakka Trukk. Something a bit reliable against flyers than just shooting everything you got.

 Lynata wrote:
Forgeworld's way of saying that this product has been written for 40k games, obviously. Just like it says in the text.
That doesn't change anything about the legality of these rules. My houserules are written for 40k games, too.

The difference is that Forge World is owned by Games Workshop, your houserules aren't.
All those entries say "X is a Heavy Support choice for Codex: blabla" and that means you can use them.

What is your standard for "I'll allow this in game of warhammer"?
Does it need a 40k-approved stamp? Forgeworld has it.
Does it need to be sold on the main site? That would suck for all my OOP-models.
Where do you draw the line?

 Sigvatr wrote:

Kangodo wrote:
People need to stop pretending this.
I'm all for trying out FW rules, but saying that FW rules are standard by definition is a misconception at best, blatantly spreading a lie at worst. FW books don't have the "Chapter Approved" stamp. Try showing up at a GW tournament with FW rules, they won't let you play that army. Same for at least a fair number of LGS and fan-organised events. Don't lead other gamers into such an awkward situation.

FW-rules aren't part of the core rules, that is corect, but there are units that are "40k approved" and may thus be used "just as" they were part of the rules. Those models would be allowed at any tournament unless the TO disallows the use of Forgeworld units. There are several reasons for why FW is not allowed at most (?) tournaments, including poor balance, IG favorism, higher degree of complexity etc. but we already got a thread in Dakka Discussions on said matter and going in a in-depth discussion on said matter would go far beyond what's to be desired to be found in this thread here in particular.

Could you fix that quote? Because I did not say that.

MK III and IV armor kits.
Contemptor dreds.
Chaos dreds because I don't like "hellbrutes."

As others have posted, we play all FW models as normal 40k models as the intention was when the rules/books were printed.

We don't suffer from TFG syndrome where people don't want to play against them because it makes their calculations on how overpowered their build is suddenly requiring more work...

But to keep with the theme, if there was one thing I wish would cross over into the normal books it would be the aircraft/AA to help level that playing field.

games workshop don't allow forgeworld in their tournaments i think that's a pretty clear statement. Not that it will stop people trying to obliterate people using an army that is probably op and definitely unknown.

Wait this title doesn't make sense. It's basically saying "Which normal 40k unit would you like to see in normal 40k?"

To which I say: "What?"

GW also doesn't allow 4,000 point lists in their tournaments. Does that mean that anything above 1250 is illegal?

xruslanx wrote:
games workshop don't allow forgeworld in their tournaments i think that's a pretty clear statement. Not that it will stop people trying to obliterate people using an army that is probably op and definitely unknown.

They also don't allow supplements.

xruslanx wrote:
games workshop don't allow forgeworld in their tournaments i think that's a pretty clear statement. Not that it will stop people trying to obliterate people using an army that is probably op and definitely unknown.

The end of you're post made my brain hurt.

Seriously, because you don't understand something, or have knowledge of it, doesn't make it OP.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Wait this title doesn't make sense. It's basically saying "Which normal 40k unit would you like to see in normal 40k?"

To which I say: "What?"

GW also doesn't allow 4,000 point lists in their tournaments. Does that mean that anything above 1250 is illegal?

troll harder.

In the category of 'allowed armies', gw specifically exclude anything from forgeworld. You can choose to allow it if you want, or not. It's your choice. But don't pretend it's official when it's not.

Sidestepping the whole inevitable FW and "Normal" 40k debate, I do wish certain models were in codex books.

For IG: Thudd guns, Rapier Laser Destroyers, Heavy Mortars, Tauros & Venators, LR Annihilators, Autocannon Chimeras, Vultures, and Salamanders

For CSM's: Sonic Dreads, Dreadclaws, Decimators, Hell Talon, Hell Blade

For Eldar: Hornets, Warp Hunters, and Shadow Spectres, Phoenix, Nightwing, and Firestorms.

For Tau: Hazard Suits, Tetras, Barracudas and Remoras.

xruslanx wrote:


In the category of 'allowed armies', gw specifically exclude anything from forgeworld. You can choose to allow it if you want, or not. It's your choice. But don't pretend it's official when it's not.

And then this gets posted.

GW tournaments have no bearing on what is "legal" or "official". Tournaments are their own thing, distinct and separate from normal play. What few events GW does run also does not allow allies, supplements, and double-force orgs. Most 40k events and tournaments are not run by GW. GW tournaments are run by their marketing department, the Design Studio does not write rules for these events and came right out and said they don't intend for 40k to be a tournament game. If you're using tournaments to judge what is "legal" outside of whatever specific tournament you're attending, then you're doing it wrong.

We use FW at my local shop and nobody has really had any problems.

I would have liked a plastic kit for xv-9 suits in the tau codex, though.

Ok, lets be honest about the OP topic-there are OP stuff. both in FW and in "regular" codeci (annihilation barge for example, worth WAY more then 90 points)
But then again, "Lead disadvantage"-you know something is OP? assume it will show up, and bring a proper counter. even OP units can be countered by non-OP units if you know what you are doing, its just harder and costly.


Back to forgeworld legality topic, don't know about you-but around here its normally allowed without issues, so its a bit of a strech to say "nobdy accept it", only handful don't accept it.
And GW own tournaments turning them down is borderline slowed, so while true, not point to dwell on it.


And if only tetras were plastic GW, I would buy tons. unfortunately FW is not easy to acquire here, so there are handful of it wandering around, and not entire armies we wished we could.

I just wish Forgeworld would design some kind of flyer for the Space Marines that isn't based on that awful Storm Raven kit. The Storm Eagle is okay looking and has it's nice features and good angles, but that upcoming Fire Raptor is awful. Probably because it's still based on a kit that is considered one of the worst vehicle models GW has ever released.

They release all of these beautiful models that are their own unique sculpts, and yet half-ass the Space Marine flyers. I mean the Thunderbolts and Lightning (very very frightening) are amazing. Especially the new Voss one.

As far as which ones should be brought into regular 40K? They should just release "official" rules for all of them. The game will never be hurt by variety. What it gets hurt by are the constant rule shifts designed to sell more models, lol.

Ooooooooo Barracuda.~
or plastic remoras

Veteran Sergeant wrote: They should just release "official" rules for all of them. The game will never be hurt by variety.

They do! In the Imperial Armor books!

xruslanx wrote:
In the category of 'allowed armies', gw specifically exclude anything from forgeworld. You can choose to allow it if you want, or not. It's your choice. But don't pretend it's official when it's not.

But the FW-book says that it is 'official'.
Just like the supplements say they are 'official', those aren't allowed by that GW-tournament someone liked in this thread.

 tetrisphreak wrote:
We use FW at my local shop and nobody has really had any problems.

I just sneak some FW-things in my games.
And people are going all "Wow, that thing is strong.", but when they hear it's 150 points they all agreed it was overcosted for what it did.

Kangodo wrote:The difference is that Forge World is owned by Games Workshop, your houserules aren't.

... so?
That arguably doesn't prevent them from ban those units from their events, and it does not prevent a fair number of gaming stores to do the same.

Black Library is owned by GW as well, and the Codex writers give a rat's ass about what sort of fluff the freelancers come up with. In fact, according to an interview with Dan Abnett that's the whole reason for why the Black Library was founded - to give authors a chance to have a go at the setting without creating an inseparable connection to the core game. Now, why do you think Forge World exists as a separate subdivision with its own website?

Kangodo wrote:What is your standard for "I'll allow this in game of warhammer"?
Does it need a 40k-approved stamp? Forgeworld has it.
Does it need to be sold on the main site? That would suck for all my OOP-models.
Where do you draw the line?

- Personally? Basic army codices are the common ground. I'll also accept FW and will play against every unit at least once; I can always decide to not play such games after having checked if they are fun. The same goes for various other supplements such as Cityfight or Apoc. I'm not entirely closed to houserules, too, but there you'd need quite a bit of convincing. To reiterate: I have no problem with FW itself. I have a problem with how it is advertised here.
- In GW's opinion, there's arguably a difference between GW's "Chapter Approved" stamp and FW's "intended for 40k". The constant misquoting of "intended" as "approved for" is part of what makes you guys so hard to argue with, too. And kind of reveals an apparent need to work with flimsy arguments...
- As far as I'm aware, even in events/locations where FW rules are banned you can still bring the minis. This includes GW tournaments. For private games? I don't care where your minis are from, as long as they look the part and fit in.
- See answer to question #1.

Vaktathi wrote:GW tournaments have no bearing on what is "legal" or "official". Tournaments are their own thing, distinct and separate from normal play. What few events GW does run also does not allow allies, supplements, and double-force orgs. Most 40k events and tournaments are not run by GW. GW tournaments are run by their marketing department, the Design Studio does not write rules for these events and came right out and said they don't intend for 40k to be a tournament game. If you're using tournaments to judge what is "legal" outside of whatever specific tournament you're attending, then you're doing it wrong.

This is kind of putting the cart before the horse, though.

People in this thread claim that there is no difference between FW units and standard 40k Codex units. This implies that you could take a FW unit and show up at any tournament, event, local gaming store or a friend's house and simply expect it will be accepted. This is not the case. The codices only are the common ground here. Nothing else. Want to field an Apoc formation, a Cityfight list, or a FW army? Just ask before you go. It really is that simple and should not warrant this kind of debate and constant lawyering from the FW fans.

Now, there could, in theory, also be some LGS or events that ban a specific Codex army or unit, but I'd suppose that this is a much, much less common phenomena.

Kangodo wrote:But the FW-book says that it is 'official'.
Just like the supplements say they are 'official', those aren't allowed by that GW-tournament someone liked in this thread.

Black Library is an 'official' source of fluff, too.

But that aside, I think you actually make a very good analogy. You wouldn't just put a Spearhead formation on the table without first asking your opponent whether he's okay playing this ruleset, would you? So why do this with FW armies? That's the kind of attitude I don't get.
"I don't care how many points in models you own. Today I'm bringing my Apoc list!"

Kangodo wrote:

Could you fix that quote? Because I did not say that.

Argh, sorry, fixed it!

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Veteran Sergeant wrote: They should just release "official" rules for all of them. The game will never be hurt by variety.

They do! In the Imperial Armor books!

Well, how about "official rules" that are official enough that they aren't "Well, if your opponent says it's okay"?

 Lynata wrote:
... so?
That arguably doesn't prevent them from ban those units from their events, and it does not prevent a fair number of gaming stores to do the same.

Nor does it prevent them from being legal anyway.

- Personally? Basic army codices are the common ground. I'll also accept FW and will play against every unit at least once; I can always decide to not play such games after having checked if they are fun. The same goes for various other supplements such as Cityfight or Apoc. I'm not entirely closed to houserules, too, but there you'd need quite a bit of convincing. To reiterate: I have no problem with FW itself. I have a problem with how it is advertised here.
- In GW's opinion, there's arguably a difference between GW's "Chapter Approved" stamp and FW's "intended for 40k". The constant misquoting of "intended" as "approved for" is part of what makes you guys so hard to argue with, too. And kind of reveals an apparent need to work with flimsy arguments...
- As far as I'm aware, even in events/locations where FW rules are banned you can still bring the minis. This includes GW tournaments. For private games? I don't care where your minis are from, as long as they look the part and fit in.
- See answer to question #1.

My problem is with the hate and bias against FW.
People have it in their minds that "everything from FW is overpowered" when in fact most units aren't even played because they are so bad or overcosted.
I can easily proof how everything from the Necron-FW section is 'meeh' at best.
But that doesn't stop people from wanting to ban it.
In my opinion the "FW is illegal" is just a childish excuse to ban all variety and comes from a refusal to play against new stuff.

And how do you treat Supplements like Farsight? They aren't codices.

 Veteran Sergeant wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Veteran Sergeant wrote: They should just release "official" rules for all of them. The game will never be hurt by variety.

They do! In the Imperial Armor books!

Well, how about "official rules" that are official enough that they aren't "Well, if your opponent says it's okay"?

The rules ARE official enough that you are not required to ask your opponent. It certainly recommends that you do so, in the spirit of sportsmanship and politeness. But it does not say that you must.

Are you just trying to be difficult and contrarian?

If so, you're succeeding. You're also succeeding at some other things too.

However, until the rules become legal at every tournament, they're not really official.

 Veteran Sergeant wrote:
Are you just trying to be difficult and contrarian?

If so, you're succeeding. You're also succeeding at some other things too.

However, until the rules become legal at every tournament, they're not really official.

I've seen tournaments posted that disallow flyers. Are flyers not legal now?

Kangodo wrote:Nor does it prevent them from being legal anyway.

It also doesn't magically make them as legal as the standard codices.
Just like only because something was printed in a Black Library novel doesn't mean it has to find its way into Codex fluff.

You've kind of dodged that question regarding an unsolicited use of other supplements like Cityfight, btw.

Kangodo wrote:My problem is with the hate and bias against FW. People have it in their minds that "everything from FW is overpowered" when in fact most units aren't even played because they are so bad or overcosted. I can easily proof how everything from the Necron-FW section is 'meeh' at best.
But that doesn't stop people from wanting to ban it. In my opinion the "FW is illegal" is just a childish excuse to ban all variety and comes from a refusal to play against new stuff.

Ironically, I feel at risk to start disliking FW. Not because of how it actually plays, but because of how some of its most ardent fans try to advocate its acceptance.
I don't want this as I actually really like some of FW's stuff, but it's hard not to be affected by their community's (or at least its most vocal members) output. Years ago, some very vocal Space Marine fans managed to make me dislike that army for several years (and that after I've started with them!), and I'm happy I've overcome that bias again. I'm trying hard not to fall into the next trap here.

And you're still falling back on someone yelling about FW being OP. That's not my beef at all. As I just pointed out, my reaction is more akin to a reflexive backlash against people who go "I have FW and I demand you let me play it wherever I want!" Because that's how all of this - the defensive attitude, the misquoting - comes across. The apparent inability to just being polite and asking instead of this feeling of entitlement.

tl;dr: This kind of argueing kind of works against a greater acceptance of FW, simply because people are more likely to say "no" out of principle when you try to shove your opinion down their throat. Psychology works that way sometimes.

Kangodo wrote:And how do you treat Supplements like Farsight? They aren't codices.

They're presented as official Codex add-ons, like the "Chapter Approved" WD articles, and written by the same team, so personally I'd treat them the same way.

[edit] To clarify, for me that means I'd ask first, just out of politeness, but here I would indeed expect acceptance. Similarly, I'd not refuse to play them even if the opponent didn't ask, but if might colour my perception of the other player.

I would also play an opponent who didn't ask whether it's okay to bring FW, but I'd perceive that as arrogant and it may influence my willingness to play him or her again later. Similarly, if I had an FW unit like the Repressor I mentioned earlier, I would not expect to meet as much acceptance as is the case with CA addons and would simply shrug and go "okay" and pick another unit to make up for it.

Forgeworld "40k approved" rules are fully official rules - they are made by a company owned by GW and GW officially authorizes you to use them.

At the same time, though, they aren't core rules, they are an add-on to the existing rules. They can be used in "standard" 40k games, as the rules say, but since they're an add-on, you should talk with your opponent beforehand.

No one ins our store seems to have a problem with forgeworld and we all see it as offical rules.

 Lynata wrote:
It also doesn't magically make them as legal as the standard codices.
Just like only because something was printed in a Black Library novel doesn't mean it has to find its way into Codex fluff.

You've kind of dodged that question regarding an unsolicited use of other supplements like Cityfight, btw.

The part where the FW-book says they are just as legal as standard codices is the part that makes them legal.
It only adds a line that says you can make a houserule to not use them, but that speaks for itself: You can also houserule that flyers cannot be taken, or that Tau cannot be played.
That doesn't make Tau or Flyers any less legal.

Yeah, sorry about that.. I was coming to that and then I had to eat.
Planet Strike and Cities of Death are expansions, the books tell you that it is a different game.
But Forge World doesn't provide an additional game-mode, it offers models for the original game.

"I have FW and I demand you let me play it wherever I want!" Because that's how all of this - the defensive attitude, the misquoting - comes across. The apparent inability to just being polite and asking instead of this feeling of entitlement.

Do you think it's weird that people 'demand' that others let them play it?
They are an official and legal choice in WH40k and you shouldn't have to ask permission for that.
To us/them it's the same as asking "Are you fine with me playing Blood Angels?"

In my opinion that's the opposite of what should happen.
The community shouldn't act as if "FW is banned" is the standard and you should ask your friends to allow it.
The community should accept them as a legal choice for WH40k and playgroups have the option to house-ban them.
That's why people are discussing it so heavily: They want "Forge World is legal" to be the standard in this community.
And it's hard to do that because the community is filled with players who copied a net-list that doesn't consider FW-units and people who are under the false impression that FW is "pay to win".

By asking people with FW-models to argue for the acceptance of their models you are putting a burden on them that they shouldn't have.
Why should I make arguments to allow FW in wh40k? They are legal according to Games Workshop.
If someone wants to ban them, he should be the one to convince everyone! Not the other way around.
Can you see why some people are annoyed?
People are expecting them to convince others that (perfectly legal) models should be allowed.

[edit] To clarify, for me that means I'd ask first, just out of politeness, but here I would indeed expect acceptance. Similarly, I'd not refuse to play them even if the opponent didn't ask, but if might colour my perception of the other player.

Do you ask for permission when you want to play Necrons?
In my opinion people should expect FW-models in the same way as they can expect other models.
I wouldn't want to have a group where you bring FW to the game and suddenly hear they are not allowed.
I want a community where anti-FW people have to argue against FW instead of the other way around.

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

 Veteran Sergeant wrote:
Are you just trying to be difficult and contrarian?

If so, you're succeeding. You're also succeeding at some other things too.

However, until the rules become legal at every tournament, they're not really official.

I've seen tournaments posted that disallow flyers. Are flyers not legal now?

You too huh?

Well every population has its 10%.

 Veteran Sergeant wrote:
Are you just trying to be difficult and contrarian?

If so, you're succeeding. You're also succeeding at some other things too.

However, until the rules become legal at every tournament, they're not really official.

This is where you are mistaken, what a tournament allows or dis-allow means crap as to if something is 'official' or not. Tournaments do not dictate any beyond the doors of that venue. If that is the case, I guess the INAT FAQ was "official" before taking a break. Tournament fanboys need to keep tournament rules at the event (besides playtesting lists at LGS).

Kangodo wrote:The part where the FW-book says they are just as legal as standard codices is the part that makes them legal.

See, and here we are with the false claims again. Because I'm fairly sure you will fail to produce a quote that says "just as legal as standard codices".

Kangodo wrote:But Forge World doesn't provide an additional game-mode, it offers models for the original game.

Arguably not, else GW would treat them that way (assuming you're still referring to the additional rules, not the models).
In fact, in that case there wouldn't even be a division called Forge World and you'd have everything on games-workshop.co.uk, with rules presented in GW core publications.

Q1. IS FORGE WORLD PART OF GAMES WORKSHOP.
A1. Yes, but we operate as a small (but perfectly formed) separate division from the company that makes and sells the main Games Workshop range of products.
- FW website

I really don't see how there can be a debate about this. FW army books are another source of rules. There are also the main Codices, then there are Codex Supplements, Chapter Approved WD articles, other WD articles, and other house rules. It's a whole list of "module" categories. GW events, your local gaming store, and your club can use any and all combinations of these sources for their games. That doesn't change the fact that they remain different sources, and a player should be aware of this. Only the main Codices are the common ground, anything else is an optional addition. How hard can it be to just check how the people you regularly game with are handling this? And this really should be the only thing that matters.

Kangodo wrote:Do you think it's weird that people 'demand' that others let them play it? They are an official and legal choice in WH40k and you shouldn't have to ask permission for that. [...] The community should accept them as a legal choice for WH40k and playgroups have the option to house-ban them.

Exactly the sense of entitlement I was referring to. Thanks for providing this example, I guess.

And yes, I do think it is weird that people demand others to let them play it. Or perhaps not weird, just rude. A good game should have both players enter the match with confidence and excitement, and being comfortable with whatever additions to the standard armies are used is part of that.
Since you're still avoiding the comparison to Cityfight and Apoc, I can only assume that you would exert the same kind of entitlement to the usage of those additions.

Kangodo wrote:I wouldn't want to have a group where you bring FW to the game and suddenly hear they are not allowed.

And this is why I speak up when reading posts spreading misinformation about FW. Because new players shouldn't have this kind of rude awakening.

You can argue until you're blue in the face - it doesn't matter whether this is due to company policy, local tradition or simple dislike amongst individual gamers. At the end of the day, FW units are not treated the same as Codex units. Not at GW events, not at a number of stores, and not at a number of clubs. All you'd need to do is to inquire or ask before. But arguably you're too proud for that.

There's really nothing left for me to discuss. I've said my piece - but if you think that this is how you can convince the community to be more acceptive of Forge World, by lying into their face and demanding what you seem to perceive as a constitutional right, by placing your personal preferences over the enjoyment of your opponents and having the gall to openly declare you'd wish you could force them to play by your rules, then ... well, in my case, it's not working.

Fortunately, one option will always be open to any gamer regardless of perceived legality. The option to say "no" to a match. And this you'll never change, regardless of how strongly you argue for your position, and regardless of how much you try to twist what the books actually say. So if I were you, I'd start thinking about a more diplomatic approach if you want people to be more open-minded.

Even Forgeworld puts "standard" and "official" in quotes in their books, and you'll get people claiming otherwise.


I mean, here's the thing, I could care less about whether or not people use the things, but I'd have to try really really hard. But when Forgeworld puts a disclaimer in their own book, well, it's not official, no matter how much huffing and puffing you do about it.

Stop clawing at semantics. It's not very dignified.

 Lynata wrote:

Kangodo wrote:The part where the FW-book says they are just as legal as standard codices is the part that makes them legal.

See, and here we are with the false claims again. Because I'm fairly sure you will fail to produce a quote that says "just as legal as standard codices".

Well, I don't know if this counts or not, but per IA12, page 6

Warhammer 40,000 Unit: This unit is intended to be used
in "standard" Warhammer 40,000 games, within the usual
limitations of Codex selection and Force Organisation
charts. As with all of our models these should be
considered 'official', but as they may be unknown to your
opponent, it's best to make sure they are happy to play a
game using Forge World models before you start.

At my FLGS there's a league on Thursday night and Sunday after noon. They are ran by 2 different guys. Sunday is whatever you want, and Thursday is zero forgeworld. It is really, really annoying. I have a bunch of repressors that on Thursday nights are rhinos.

When I confronted the TO, he goes:

"Oh, I only banned forgeworld because a lot of the flyer rules are confusing and not everyone has the books and models."
So i asked him, "Oh, ok. I was only asking because of all of my repressors."
To which he replied, "I didn't even consider those, there's nothing wrong with them."
Happily, I said, "Good, so I can play them as repressors and not rhinos then."
"No. I banned forgeworld."

There you go. That's the logic of people who oppose forgeworld.

 deviantduck wrote:
At my FLGS there's a league on Thursday night and Sunday after noon. They are ran by 2 different guys. Sunday is whatever you want, and Thursday is zero forgeworld. It is really, really annoying. I have a bunch of repressors that on Thursday nights are rhinos.

When I confronted the TO, he goes:

"Oh, I only banned forgeworld because a lot of the flyer rules are confusing and not everyone has the books and models."
So i asked him, "Oh, ok. I was only asking because of all of my repressors."
To which he replied, "I didn't even consider those, there's nothing wrong with them."
Happily, I said, "Good, so I can play them as repressors and not rhinos then."
"No. I banned forgeworld."

There you go. That's the logic of people who oppose forgeworld.

That's not about logic. It's about slippery slope. If he allows one exception, he then has to consider all the exceptions everybody wants and then suddenly he's got a giant list of what can and can't be used and spends a ton of time trying to figure out what can and can't be used.

Or, he can just say "No Forgeworld" and it's simple. He runs the tournament. It's his call how much effort he wants to put into it.

Banning FW repressors? Aren't those in the actual codex? The models come from FW, but the rules are GW codex.

Happyjew wrote:Well, I don't know if this counts or not, but per IA12, page 6 [...]

No, because "this unit intended to be used in..." is not the same as "this unit is as legal as a standard Codex unit". I specifically pointed this out earlier, and I'll repeat: my houserules are intended to be used in standard games of 40k, too, and that doesn't make them as legal as a Codex unit either.

As for the models, I don't think anybody is disputing that they are an official product. That's kind of a redundant information. Black Library novels are official, too.

deviantduck wrote:When I confronted the TO, he goes:
"Oh, I only banned forgeworld because a lot of the flyer rules are confusing and not everyone has the books and models."
So i asked him, "Oh, ok. I was only asking because of all of my repressors."
To which he replied, "I didn't even consider those, there's nothing wrong with them."
Happily, I said, "Good, so I can play them as repressors and not rhinos then."
"No. I banned forgeworld."
There you go. That's the logic of people who oppose forgeworld.

Isn't it more fair and consistent this way? Personally, I'd say that banning units based on source origin is a more sensible approach than banning indidivual units. Obviously, the TO's intentions were focused on individual units, but other gamers may have concerns about other FW units, or are perhaps just uncomfortable about the idea in general.

Have you actually inquired in your group how many people prefer this compromise with the two days, or are you just talking about your own preferences and don't care what your opponents think because "this is the logic of people who promote forgeworld"? (see, such classification goes both ways)

MWHistorian wrote:Banning FW repressors? Aren't those in the actual codex? The models come from FW, but the rules are GW codex.

Nope. The Chapter Approved 5E Codex has a short advertisement about the Repressor at the end, but it's not part of the army list, and the issue does not contain any rules.

Sadly.

 Lynata wrote:
See, and here we are with the false claims again. Because I'm fairly sure you will fail to produce a quote that says "just as legal as standard codices".

Happyjew gave the text and I posted an image.
As with all of our models these should be considered 'official'
What more do you expect?
They are books from the same company with a big text saying: "THESE MODELS ARE OFFICIAL!"

Exactly the sense of entitlement I was referring to. Thanks for providing this example, I guess.

Yes. I am just as entitled to using FW as you are entitled to using Codex: Blood Angels-models.
There is NO difference between a C:BA and FW-model now that FW has the big "THIS IS OFFICIAL!"-stamp in it.

And yes, I do think it is weird that people demand others to let them play it. Or perhaps not weird, just rude.

So you also think it's weird that I "demand" to use my Blood Angels and Necrons?

and being comfortable with whatever additions to the standard armies are used is part of that.

FW isn't an addition to the standard army. The FW book tells us they are a part of the standard army.

Since you're still avoiding the comparison to Cityfight and Apoc, I can only assume that you would exert the same kind of entitlement to the usage of those additions.

I've explained that. Those are expansions.
Warhammer: Cities of Death and Warhammer: Planetstrike are not the same as Warhammer: 40k
The books say that, they say they are a different game!

And this is why I speak up when reading posts spreading misinformation about FW. Because new players shouldn't have this kind of rude awakening.

And new players shouldn't be lied to and be told that FW is a separate thing that shouldn't be expected in a game.

At the end of the day, FW units are not treated the same as Codex units.

Seems like the arguing is working.
Because compared to a year ago most people see FW as a standard option and every day less and less people are complaining about it.
So they are treated the same as Codex units.

Fortunately, one option will always be open to any gamer regardless of perceived legality. The option to say "no" to a match. And this you'll never change, regardless of how strongly you argue for your position, and regardless of how much you try to twist what the books actually say. So if I were you, I'd start thinking about a more diplomatic approach if you want people to be more open-minded.

Well, yes, that is being changed.
A year ago players needed to beg their group to allow Forge World, forum posts have shown that this is happening less.
Most people with Forge World-units don't need to argue anything, it is being accepted.

by lying into their face

What the feth?

by placing your personal preferences over the enjoyment of your opponents

No, I simply follow the official rules unless people house-rule stuff.
House-rules need a unanimous vote to pass.
And Forge World-units are official, so getting rid of them needs a unanimous vote.

you'd wish you could force them to play by your rules

No, force them to play by the official rules, unless they have house-rules.

So in short: You shouldn't have to beg your group to use Forge World-units since they are official.

What about the part where the book says "make sure they [your opponent] are happy"? I mean, that part's in the book too.

Seems like the words "can" and "make sure" would rule out anything that involves the word "force".



I mean, I understand that people get hot and bothered over this issue. But the reality of it is that as long as Forgeworld is kept a distinct entity from Games Workshop, then the models still face that "Will they/Won't they" type situation, no matter what you actually want to be the case.

Yeah, the original book has that too.
It's called "the most important rule" and tons of hints that it might be more fun to make things cinematic.

It's just annoying that some people expect FW-players to write an essay to why they should be allowed.
Why is it my job to convince a group of people that if you look at the math, FW units are not overpowered?

It's a "Forge World-awareness"-discussion and I like what it has done so far!
Only a few weeks ago someone said: "I think Forge World shouldn't be allowed."
And instead of the usual "Agree" people were actually answering with: "Why not?"
That is what people want to accomplish, that players don't mindlessly follow something and instead ask questions.
I really don't mind if people want to ban Forge World, but I want them to have a reason for it that goes beyond "Because it's FW."

Kangodo wrote:Happyjew gave the text and I posted an image.
As with all of our models these should be considered 'official'
What more do you expect?
They are books from the same company with a big text saying: "THESE MODELS ARE OFFICIAL!"

As I've just pointed out, this is a redundant point to make. Everyone can see that these units are official products; they're being sold on Forge World's website, after all. What you fail to see is that official is not "same as standard Codex".
You're trying to make the same argument as if someone were to come and say "this Black Library novel is official, that means its contents override what it says in the Codex fluff". That is not how it works.

And this is even before we delve into petty semantics and point out that "model =/= rules". GW is quite happy with you using Forgeworld models as stand-ins even where FW rules have been banned.

"What I expect" is a quote for the claim that has been made. That there is a Forge World book that says its contents are "just as legal as a Codex". So far, all I see is desperate and wild interpretation and attempts at twisting words.
No, actually, I don't expect anything to that nature. I've seen these arguments made before. All of them.

Kangodo wrote:There is NO difference between a C:BA and FW-model now that FW has the big "THIS IS OFFICIAL!"-stamp in it.

Arguably, Games Workshop does not agree with you. Whilst it is entirely correct that tournaments and other official events from GW must not be taken as a sign of legality (although I would deem it questionable that events clearly intended to feature the basic gameplay of 40k are not supposed to reflect this), they at the very least reveal one simple truth: GW categorises Forgeworld material differently than Codices. So, whilst your Codex Blood Angels will always be part of the Codex list, your FW unit will always be categorised as a FW unit, regardless of whether it is allowed or not. To see and acknowledge this difference is an important step for understanding what you are argueing against.

Kangodo wrote:FW isn't an addition to the standard army. The FW book tells us they are a part of the standard army.

Again with the word-twisting.

Kangodo wrote:And new players shouldn't be lied to and be told that FW is a separate thing that shouldn't be expected in a game.

"What you can expect in a game" is listed in the Codices. Forge World is a separate division, with a separate team of designers, a separate franchise, and its books are a separate product sold over a separate channel.

 Lynata wrote:

Kangodo wrote:And new players shouldn't be lied to and be told that FW is a separate thing that shouldn't be expected in a game.

"What you can expect in a game" is listed in the Codices. Forge World is a separate division, with a separate team of designers, a separate franchise, and its books are a separate product sold over a separate channel, while maintaining official balanced rules and models to be viewed equally, and used equally, in addition to its counterpart, GW, for the same game of Warhammer 40, without prejudice, fear, or exclusion.

I went ahead and added the implied part of your sentence.

Putting words in someone's mouth will neither yield to a productive outcome nor will it show any respect for the opposing side - especially if you know that this is not what he wants to say.

Oh well, this discussion ceased to be productive on page 2.

I'll just pack my stuff and leave for other threads. As far as I'm concerned, I achieved the two things I came here to do with the first post - I just have difficulties letting go of a debate, even when it has clearly turned into a repetitive cycle. Mea culpa.

They already are in 40k.

If you meant "accepted for casual play", all of them. I mainly just want to be able to run an Armored Company, but nothing I've seen from FW is any more broken than what's already in the regular codexes.

I can see not wanting to play against Horus Heresy maybe, but that's about it. I'd be willing to give it a try as long as I get a heads up about what units do before the game.

 Senden wrote:
Centaurs as dedicated transports for command squads (That's the universal carriers were for after all)

And artillery pieces that don't cost twice much as a Basilisk at half the points cost

Lastly, Hydra needs to be a plastic kit

Even though FW rules are part of 40K as far as I'm concerned, and I essentially use whether or not a potential opponent agrees with that sentiment as a barometer to gauge whether they'll be fun to play against or a pedant, I would actually kill for the opportunity to take Centaurs as Dedicated Transports for Heavy Weapon Squads. Giving them a modicum of maneuverability would help compensate for their horrible fragility in 6th, and nobody can complain about a wee dinky stubber-armed Centaur like they could if you have HWS their own Chimeras.

Also, 40K rules for all the cool unique variant stuff from the Heresy-era. They can be 0-1 choices, or expensive, or whatever, but they should be available, and I don't just mean the Space Marine stuff, the Mechanicum and eventual Imperial Army stuff deserves the same treatment(40K Geno-chilliad Guard? Yurs puleez).

 Lynata wrote:
See, and here we are with the false claims again. Because I'm fairly sure you will fail to produce a quote that says "just as legal as standard codices".

Of course you can't find that quote, because the standard you're demanding is not the one that GW uses. GW has made it perfectly clear what their position is, the fact that certain players demand a different statement doesn't mean that GW is obligated to provide one.

No, because "this unit intended to be used in..." is not the same as "this unit is as legal as a standard Codex unit". I specifically pointed this out earlier, and I'll repeat: my houserules are intended to be used in standard games of 40k, too, and that doesn't make them as legal as a Codex unit either.

Sigh. Your house rules are not published by GW. When GW says "this is intended to be part of the game" their intent is the final word on the subject.

 Lynata wrote:
You've kind of dodged that question regarding an unsolicited use of other supplements like Cityfight, btw.

There's no dodging at all, it's a stupid question.

Cityfight/spearhead formations/etc change the rules for both players. They require new missions, different FOCs, stratagems, etc. You can't just bring a cityfight army to a normal game and play, you and your opponent have to agree to play the special game type and make all the necessary arrangements.

FW units (and supplements/WD/etc) do not change the core rules of the game. They're just another choice of unit, like picking a tactical squad vs. a scout squad. If your opponent brings a FW unit/army you play the exact same game you would normally play, just with different things to kill.

These are two entirely different situations. FW "needs" permission because certain people feel they are entitled to have veto power over their opponent's choices, expansions need permission because it isn't possible to have a game without that permission.

Well, everything Forgeworld makes for standard games of 40k is usable with my group, so that makes that question a little hard to answer

If you abstract it a little and think "what models from Forgeworld do you wish were made by GW prime" I'd have to say the Thunderbolt. I want that fighter so bad it hurts, but the cost is pretty damn high and I can't imagine the weight of a resin brick of a fighter plane on a flying stand.

 Brother SRM wrote:
I can't imagine the weight of a resin brick of a fighter plane on a flying stand.

I have one, and it's not bad. You just mount it on an acrylic rod instead of the awful GW stand (link) and use a 200mm round base instead of the oval for a bit better stability. Even on a 12" rod mine has been as solid and stable as any other flyer.

Honestly any group that says "You cannot use those things you spent the time and money on in games with us because" should be ignored. Lets say you went out of your way to have a DKOK army wonderfully painted with units/wargear etc that literally dont exist in the standard IG dex, and are run in configurations totally different. You move to a new area and they say "we dont allow FW rules/models (the latter is just idiotic), you have to use the regular IG dex which you have only passingly looked thorugh, because you started with DKOK and never wanted to be vanilla."
If ANYONE can say that they'd be totally fine with this, I'd say they are lying. I still find it odd that in a game where things like riptides, annihilation barges, bladestorm, and the slew of other completely OTT things that have come out in the past 3 codicies, that people are still whining and complaining about a handful of very defeatable units from a select few FW army lists. Seriously, even in a "friendly" setting, this is still a competitive game. If something beast you, after the game ask to look at the rules for it, so you know better what it does, and figure a way on how to beat it. Use strategy in the tabletop strategy game you're playing.

Don't forget that this is a forum: Why use strategy when you can try and ban the opponent from playing it?

 Peregrine wrote:
Of course you can't find that quote, because the standard you're demanding is not the one that GW uses. GW has made it perfectly clear what their position is, the fact that certain players demand a different statement doesn't mean that GW is obligated to provide one.

Don't even try Apparently "intended to be used" and "official" is not proof enough.

Cityfight/spearhead formations/etc change the rules for both players. They require new missions, different FOCs, stratagems, etc. You can't just bring a cityfight army to a normal game and play, you and your opponent have to agree to play the special game type and make all the necessary arrangements.

Don't forget that Planet Strike and such actually state that it's a different game that only 'uses' the 40k rules.

 StarHunter25 wrote:
You move to a new area and they say "we dont allow FW rules/models (the latter is just idiotic), you have to use the regular IG dex which you have only passingly looked thorugh, because you started with DKOK and never wanted to be vanilla.

I don't see your point here. I get your side on this: you have the models and want to play with them. What you do not seem to see, however, is that there is an established group and you are the one who wants to join said group - and you claim them to be the bad guys who want to bully you. You are the one who chose to play with them and if you do not like the way they play, you simply do not play with said group and either try to look for another or found an own one that allows FW.

 Sigvatr wrote:

 StarHunter25 wrote:
You move to a new area and they say "we dont allow FW rules/models (the latter is just idiotic), you have to use the regular IG dex which you have only passingly looked thorugh, because you started with DKOK and never wanted to be vanilla.

I don't see your point here. I get your side on this: you have the models and want to play with them. What you do not seem to see, however, is that there is an established group and you are the one who wants to join said group - and you claim them to be the bad guys who want to bully you. You are the one who chose to play with them and if you do not like the way they play, you simply do not play with said group and either try to look for another or found an own one that allows FW.

The point being made is that he shouldn't have to deal with being ostracised, because this hypothetical group he is hypothetically attempting to play with are being irrational d-bags, just as much as they would be if they randomly decided to say "No Blood Angels" because one guy got beat one time by DC-spam last edition and everyone else in the group has just accepted their claim that the codex is irretrievably imbalanced at face-value.

That a person has the option to not participate in no way precludes them from being annoyed that they have to do so, nor does it make it right they should have to - the rationale(although obviously not the seriousness, even remotely, so if anyone is disingenuous to try and cast this post as equating the two in anything but the broadest terms, know that you'll just look daft) is the same as that behind discrimination law; sure, you could just refuse to work/play at the sexist/racist/ableist shop/bar/club, but you shouldn't have to.

One of the big arguments against FW in regular games seems to be that not everyone has the books or is familiar with the models/units and their rules.

This always makes me laugh because I don't know many people who can afford to own every 40k codex, I wouldn't refuse to play nids because I don't own the book or am unfamiliar with the models.

The best way to learn is through experience, you might overlook an unfamiliar unit in your opponents book (this can be true for FW and regular 40k) and it bites you in the arse. However you won't make the same mistake again, the only way realistically to become familiar with these units is to play them when you have the opportunity.

 Sigvatr wrote:
I don't see your point here. I get your side on this: you have the models and want to play with them. What you do not seem to see, however, is that there is an established group and you are the one who wants to join said group - and you claim them to be the bad guys who want to bully you. You are the one who chose to play with them and if you do not like the way they play, you simply do not play with said group and either try to look for another or found an own one that allows FW.

Sorry, but they are the bad guys, just like they'd be the bad guys if they decided to arbitrarily ban orks. The assumption in a game like 40k is that you're allowed to build your army out of all of the available options, telling people they aren't welcome unless they build their army the way you want them to is TFG behavior.

Contemptor Dreadnought. Failing that... No, instead
The DKOK. I went to my LGS once, and played against this really nice person who had an entire army of them. He was perfectly fine with me absolutely PORING over their rules like a librarian, searching out every fine little detail. It was incredibly enjoyable. He beat my Salamanders flat out, but it was a fair victory.

The LGS had a simple little rule for situations like that. Screw people who didn't want FW armies. It doesn't matter that people say 'They're not official GW released models!' or some other BS like 'They're only for Apoc!' And when they said that it was a GW rule (no such thing) the staff replied in unison
'It's a house rule. And a GW rule.'

 Yodhrin wrote:

That a person has the option to not participate in no way precludes them from being annoyed that they have to do so, nor does it make it right they should have to - the rationale(although obviously not the seriousness, even remotely, so if anyone is disingenuous to try and cast this post as equating the two in anything but the broadest terms, know that you'll just look daft) is the same as that behind discrimination law; sure, you could just refuse to work/play at the sexist/racist/ableist shop/bar/club, but you shouldn't have to.

I don't think that we should start any correlation between plastic miniatures and actual discrimination - it's a long shot that's leading nowhere. It's a game and as such, it also is a social contract between all participants. Nobody forces you to play with a certain group, you are free to choose where you play. You could just speak to them and have a talk on why they do not want to play with FW rules / models. In the end, if they stand their ground and keep the FW ban, or any other rule change such as banning certain units or even armies, you either have to deal with it and arrange yourself with the new situation or look for another group to play with that has less or no restrictions of any sort.

 Peregrine wrote:


Sorry, but they are the bad guys, just like they'd be the bad guys if they decided to arbitrarily ban orks. The assumption in a game like 40k is that you're allowed to build your army out of all of the available options, telling people they aren't welcome unless they build their army the way you want them to is TFG behavior.

They are the bad guys from *your* perspective, Peregrine, because you are a IG WAAC player and therefore a natural pro-FW player. That's your perspective. They got another. Objectively, both sides have their points and both can back theirs up with good, rational arguments. The, from your perspective, opposing side might also claim that only wanting to allow FW to throw ridiculously overpowered stuff in their armies would be TFG - and it is.

Furthermore, the comparison between banning FW and an entire army isn't good either. FW is an add-on to the game, whereas each army with a regular codex is part of the core game.

 Sigvatr wrote:
They are the bad guys from *your* perspective, Peregrine, because you are a IG WAAC player and therefore a natural pro-FW player.

Lol, no.

Objectively, both sides have their points and both can back theirs up with good, rational arguments.

You mean one side can back theirs up with good, rational arguments while the other makes up nonsense about FW being "third party rules" or whatever.

The, from your perspective, opposing side might also claim that only wanting to allow FW to throw ridiculously overpowered stuff in their armies would be TFG - and it is.

Good thing nobody here (AFAIK) only wants to allow FW to get overpowered stuff.

Furthermore, the comparison between banning FW and an entire army isn't good either. FW is an add-on to the game, whereas each army with a regular codex is part of the core game.

Not according to GW.

 Peregrine wrote:


You mean one side can back theirs up with good, rational arguments while the other makes up nonsense about FW being "third party rules" or whatever.

I know that you're not willing to allow any opinion but your own on this matter

Good thing nobody here (AFAIK) only wants to allow FW to get overpowered stuff.

Not according to GW.

GW officially states that FW isn't part of the core rules, it literally says that "40k approved" means that it's supposed to be used in "standard" 40k games which doesn't make it a part of the core game, but makes it an add-on that can be used in any 40k game.

 Sigvatr wrote:

Good thing nobody here (AFAIK) only wants to allow FW to get overpowered stuff.

I guess it's easier to just make up straw man arguments and spam s when someone calls you on it?

GW officially states that FW isn't part of the core rules, it literally says that "40k approved" means that it's supposed to be used in "standard" 40k games which doesn't make it a part of the core game, but makes it an add-on that can be used in any 40k game.

Standard 40k = core rules. By any sensible definition a "standard" game is what you play when you say "I want to play a game of 40k" without specifying any additional rules/expansions/etc. And that means FW, supplements, and WD rules are all included.

 Peregrine wrote:


I guess it's easier to just make up straw man arguments and spam s when someone calls you on it?

In reference to all your posts on the FW matter, especially the official FW rules thread, you made your point very clear and also showed a very hostile and rude behavior towards people disagreeing with you. Why would I want to argue with you if you're already dead-set on your opinion? Both sides have good and valid points, as proven in the FW thread, whether you want to acknowledge that or not.

Standard 40k = core rules. By any sensible definition a "standard" game is what you play when you say "I want to play a game of 40k" without specifying any additional rules/expansions/etc. And that means FW, supplements, and WD rules are all included.

If you want to disagree with what GW specifically states...feel free to do so, I'm most likely not going to play with you and do not have to bother then

Alas, this isn't the FW thread to begin with and FW legality isn't in question either, especially not here. I assume your answer to this thread would be "I'd like to see all FW units to be allowed to be used in normal 40k!" then? Glad we sorted this out.

The humble Tetra, such an awesome little skimmer. And the Barracuda since it dumps all over the Tau Codex flyers.

 Sigvatr wrote:
In reference to all your posts on the FW matter, especially the official FW rules thread, you made your point very clear and also showed a very hostile and rude behavior towards people disagreeing with you. Why would I want to argue with you if you're already dead-set on your opinion? Both sides have good and valid points, as proven in the FW thread, whether you want to acknowledge that or not.

So if you don't like someone's attitude it's ok to make up ridiculous straw man arguments about how they're WAAC players who only want FW because they want to use the overpowered units and make their WAAC armies even more powerful?

If you want to disagree with what GW specifically states...

Would you like to provide an exact quote of where GW says that FW isn't part of the "core" game? Because AFAIK they never even define "core game", and the only statement on FW legality says that they're official and part of the standard game.

 Sigvatr wrote:

 Yodhrin wrote:

That a person has the option to not participate in no way precludes them from being annoyed that they have to do so, nor does it make it right they should have to - the rationale(although obviously not the seriousness, even remotely, so if anyone is disingenuous to try and cast this post as equating the two in anything but the broadest terms, know that you'll just look daft) is the same as that behind discrimination law; sure, you could just refuse to work/play at the sexist/racist/ableist shop/bar/club, but you shouldn't have to.

I don't think that we should start any correlation between plastic miniatures and actual discrimination - it's a long shot that's leading nowhere. It's a game and as such, it also is a social contract between all participants. Nobody forces you to play with a certain group, you are free to choose where you play. You could just speak to them and have a talk on why they do not want to play with FW rules / models. In the end, if they stand their ground and keep the FW ban, or any other rule change such as banning certain units or even armies, you either have to deal with it and arrange yourself with the new situation or look for another group to play with that has less or no restrictions of any sort.

So, you decided to go with looking daft then? It is an entirely acceptable rhetorical device to compare two things which share attributes even in circumstances where the relationship is not equal in terms of the relative severity of the things, providing you make clear that you acknowledge that differential, which I did. Everything is a "social contract", that is the very foundation of human society, the point is we acknowledge that the terms of some social contracts are not equitable and decide to eliminate those terms, despite the objections of those who favour them, because we consider the harm done to those disadvantaged by the terms of the contract to be of greater import than any harm done to those who disagree.

I contend that arbitrarily preventing one player from using their expensive and carefully constructed army is, on balance, worse behaviour than a small amount of people having to play against armies they consider imbalanced(something everyone has to do at one time or another regardless even if you only ever play with the bare minimum of rules), and as such people should not pretend that they are equivalent in all respects. One person, at the absolute worst, would have to occasionally play against an army they think is OP, the other is potentially the owner of several hundred pounds worth of paper weights since there is no guarantee there is another club in an area, or that there are enough players locally to support a second.

 Peregrine wrote:


Sorry, but they are the bad guys, just like they'd be the bad guys if they decided to arbitrarily ban orks. The assumption in a game like 40k is that you're allowed to build your army out of all of the available options, telling people they aren't welcome unless they build their army the way you want them to is TFG behavior.

They are the bad guys from *your* perspective, Peregrine, because you are a IG WAAC player and therefore a natural pro-FW player. That's your perspective. They got another. Objectively, both sides have their points and both can back theirs up with good, rational arguments. The, from your perspective, opposing side might also claim that only wanting to allow FW to throw ridiculously overpowered stuff in their armies would be TFG - and it is.

Furthermore, the comparison between banning FW and an entire army isn't good either. FW is an add-on to the game, whereas each army with a regular codex is part of the core game.

Ludicrous. Absolutely, utterly ludicrous, and further extremely disingenuous - the insinuation being that people only want FW to be accepted as-standard so that they can be a WAAC-facestomping beardy cheesemonger, and as such their arguments are selfish and suspect. What about the much, much larger group of pro-FW players who willingly handicap themselves by taking FW units which are objectively worse than the choices from their parent codex because they fit their theme, or they like the models? What argument does this hypothetical opposing side have against them other than arbitrary spitefulness?

@Peregrine: If you want to discuss the legality of FW, I'll forward you to this thread:

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/530411.page

Be my guest.

 Sigvatr wrote:
@Peregrine: If you want to discuss the legality of FW, I'll forward you to this thread:

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/530411.page

Be my guest.

Nice attempt at deflection, but we're not talking about tournaments here, we're talking about regular gameplay in stores and clubs. Tournaments can make up whatever house rules they like, they frequently do so with what you would call "core" rules, but they have the decency not to try and pretend they're doing anything other than making up house rules.

 Yodhrin wrote:

So, you decided to go with looking daft then?

Watch your tone.

One person, at the absolute worst, would have to occasionally play against an army they think is OP, the other is potentially the owner of several hundred pounds worth of paper weights since there is no guarantee there is another club in an area, or that there are enough players locally to support a second.

I get your point. What I do not get is how you claim that the one who spent "hundreds of dollars" on his miniatures he knows they usually pose problems when using in regular 40k games and actively looks for a group to play with, suddenly is portrayed as a victim in this case. Let's just assume that this was a real situation. A has lots of FW models he wants to use, but due to being forced to move, he now has to look for a new group to play with. He finds one, but they openly state that they do not allow FW. How is A to react now?

Ludicrous. Absolutely, utterly ludicrous, and further extremely disingenuous - the insinuation being that people only want FW to be accepted as-standard so that they can be a WAAC-facestomping beardy cheesemonger, and as such their arguments are selfish and suspect. What about the much, much larger group of pro-FW players who willingly handicap themselves by taking FW units which are objectively worse than the choices from their parent codex because they fit their theme, or they like the models? What argument does this hypothetical opposing side have against them other than arbitrary spitefulness?

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/530411.page

 Yodhrin wrote:


Nice attempt at deflection, but we're not talking about tournaments here, we're talking about regular gameplay in stores and clubs. Tournaments can make up whatever house rules they like, they frequently do so with what you would call "core" rules, but they have the decency not to try and pretend they're doing anything other than making up house rules.

Your reaction tells me that you did not look at the thread yet. The thread does not discuss FW on tournaments, it mainly tackles FW legality as a whole. It's a lengthy thread where all sides presented and defended all arguments they could come up with. If you are really interested in a discussion of FW legality or how to treat FW as a whole, you will read through the thread and then continue to discuss your very own point based on the new information you got.

 Sigvatr wrote:
Your reaction tells me that you did not look at the thread yet. The thread does not discuss FW on tournaments, it mainly tackles FW legality as a whole. It's a lengthy thread where all sides presented and defended all arguments they could come up with. If you are really interested in a discussion of FW legality or how to treat FW as a whole, you will read through the thread and then continue to discuss your very own point based on the new information you got.

Not really.
The thread is named "Do we still need forge world in tournament play?" and the last few pages are about how hard it is for TO's to check lists.

We are discussing FW in normal games.
And now that we are talking about WAAC, how much more 'WAAC' can you get than banning armies because you don't want to play against them?
Sounds like a great idea: "I don't want to learn the units, so I will ban them!"

Kangodo wrote:
Not really. The thread is named "Do we still need forge world in tournament play?" and the last few pages are about how hard it is for TO's to check lists. We are discussing FW in normal games.

Has been covered in the thread I provided. I've followed the entire thing, so you either have to take my word for it or look into it on your own.

I was a bit hesitant at starting a Krieg army at our local gaming store, but then I learned their policy was everything FW is allowed, from individual units and Imperial Armour lists.

We now have 2 Krieg players (1 being myself), 2 Elysian players, 1 Corsair, FW Tau flyers, sensor towers and HQ's, Lucius drop pods and way more.

They have not detracted from the fun of the game at all. Nothing has been over powered, maybe the first time something has been faced they have seen how it can be powerful, but counter tactics are created and the unit loses its punch.

My recommendation to all the anti FW people out there is to give them a shot, either using or facing them, stretch your mind and live a little

DOOMONYOU wrote:

My recommendation to all the anti FW people out there is to give them a shot, either using or facing them, stretch your mind and live a little

Excellent point. A lot of FW-hate usually stems from the very few strongly overpowered units that are, surprise, mostly IG exclusive. 99% of FW models are either fairly balanced or even underpowered / overcosted. The best solution would be to widely allow FW but ban the very few overpowered units at tournaments. FW offers great-looking models (at a ridiculously price) and they really improve the variety 40k has to offer.

 Sigvatr wrote:

Kangodo wrote:
Not really. The thread is named "Do we still need forge world in tournament play?" and the last few pages are about how hard it is for TO's to check lists. We are discussing FW in normal games.

Has been covered in the thread I provided. I've followed the entire thing, so you either have to take my word for it or look into it on your own.

Except you've been arguing it in this thread before as well. You are technically deflecting at this point.

Better be safe than sorry!

I wished the Sicarian Battle Tank was what the Predator is now.

A lot of people seem to be forgetting a couple key rules in 40K:

1. Have Fun
2. It's OK if your opponent says it's OK

I think this thread's gone so far off the rails that it has noped out of the very concept of rails.

I suppose it's time to reveal that the FW material I do use are the Servants of Slaughter list, and soon the SM Siege assault vanguard. So yeah, Khorne CSM with no helldrakes, and SM with no bikes/jump units/rhinos/skimmers/MUST take a heavy/capture that objective or you lose.
Now so far in this thread those opposed to the idea that FW is a thing all of the time have stated that "all FW lists are overpowered;" What lists in particular are you speaking of? Have you actually ever faced that particular list, or are you going by hearsay on the internets?
Was there a particular unit in the army that you felt you had little to no defense against, and that there is literally nothing your codex/army could do against it?
Next: saying it isnt an official codex; well... there are codex supplements which are not codicies, they are in fact optional additions to a codex which alter it's rules/composition/equipment slightly. Is this not what forgeworld lists do for the most part? And what about that whole "40k approved" stamp you have seen in every single IA book since I think #7 or 8? Is that completely irrelevant even though it's parent stamp in the beginning of the book is normally directly above the GW logo?



But more on topic again; I wish my Nids could still used scythed heirodules in regular games as heavies. Having a gargantuan greature in a 1850 game was hilarious the few times it happened. This as well as agreeing with Tamwulf on the Sicarian Battle Tank thing. I'm probably going to get a few of those and (depending on their rules) shoehorn them into my minotaurs army, because they get all the fun toys that everyone else forgot about for some reason

I see both sides of the argument, I personally welcome people who play forgworld but honestly if your opponent does not want to take the time to read your rules or learn new things that is ultimately their choice.

Flying Toaster wrote:
I see both sides of the argument, I personally welcome people who play forgworld but honestly if your opponent does not want to take the time to read your rules or learn new things that is ultimately their choice.

That's true. However, that individual (who does not wish to read or learn) should not go about telling others that forge-world is illegal in a normal game of 40k. Because then they are lying.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Flying Toaster wrote:
I see both sides of the argument, I personally welcome people who play forgworld but honestly if your opponent does not want to take the time to read your rules or learn new things that is ultimately their choice.

That's true. However, that individual (who does not wish to read or learn) should not go about telling others that forge-world is illegal in a normal game of 40k. Because then they are lying.

I completely agree. I have stayed out of the argument so far because of how irrational this thread has become.

 Kain wrote:
Mortis Contemptor dreads for my Dark Angels.

Because feth your heldrake, eat 12 BS5 skyfire, interceptor S6 rending shots with two krak missiles to boot.

*Per dread*

>12 BS5 skyfire, interceptor S6 rending shots with 2 krak missiles per dread...

And people wonder why some don't like including FW rules in their regular 40k games.

 augustus5 wrote:

 Kain wrote:
Mortis Contemptor dreads for my Dark Angels.

Because feth your heldrake, eat 12 BS5 skyfire, interceptor S6 rending shots with two krak missiles to boot.

*Per dread*

>12 BS5 skyfire, interceptor S6 rending shots with 2 krak missiles per dread...

And people wonder why some don't like including FW rules in their regular 40k games.

24" range on those S6 shots, only gets Interceptor if it doesn't move, and costs about as much as a Chaos Land Raider. I've yet to see one make any particularly spectacular return on its investment. Super easy to deal with.

 augustus5 wrote:

 Kain wrote:
Mortis Contemptor dreads for my Dark Angels.

Because feth your heldrake, eat 12 BS5 skyfire, interceptor S6 rending shots with two krak missiles to boot.

*Per dread*

>12 BS5 skyfire, interceptor S6 rending shots with 2 krak missiles per dread...

And people wonder why some don't like including FW rules in their regular 40k games.

Only if you stand still, and it's definitely not cheap (near land raider prices)

And only with a range of 24'.

Still the best way to completely shut down heldrakes so my Ravenwing can harvest Traitor tears.

With the amount of shots each dread is putting out, I'm going to get a pen, and my chances of destroying the Heldrake before it does anything in one go are very good.

Of course a good Chaos player will have lascannon havocs or oblits to kill my contemptors first.

The first legion rules.

 augustus5 wrote:

 Kain wrote:
Mortis Contemptor dreads for my Dark Angels.

Because feth your heldrake, eat 12 BS5 skyfire, interceptor S6 rending shots with two krak missiles to boot.

*Per dread*

>12 BS5 skyfire, interceptor S6 rending shots with 2 krak missiles per dread...

And people wonder why some don't like including FW rules in their regular 40k games.

They don't like anyone being able to counter the ludicrously OP stuff that already comes in the main codex?

As has been pointed out to you, those Kheres shots require you to be within 24", I find a lot of the time that I'm only Skyfiring the missile pods. The Mortis Contemptor isn't overpowered, it's just flexible, capable of effectively engaging infantry, armour, and air, providing you can engineer the engagement in the right circumstances, and are willing to pay the points cost for it.

This kind of willful misunderstanding is why so many people are anti-FW without ever even having picked up one of the IA books.

From what I've seen if you mention FW people first think to things like an AV13 flying assault transport that can ram targets and carry a lot of assault terminators. Or maybe some of the more infamous LR varients.

When I tried to bring a tetra into a game, a GK player got freaked out and was wondering if he should play or not cause he wasn't sure about FW. So I showed him the rules and explained that it's just a AV10 fast skimmer that has support equipment. He actually realized it wasn't anything crazy.

I think that if things like the Assault Ram were more commonly used that people would understand they aren't as dangerous as people assume. Personally I'm really curious about it because I've never really seen one used and only briefly know what it does. Doesn't really spell doom for everything with a FW logo on it. Really if a Tau player wanted to use the FW items against me, I know it'd actually be hindering his army for the most part since 80% of the options are junk.

I shot down an assault ram with a Manticore Sky Eagle launcher in one shot last time I played it. Not scary.

Things I wanna see in Normal 40k?

-Dredclaw drop pods (im sorry but ive always wanted a CSM DP army ever since 2008 when I saw the plastic DP model)

-Mega Dredds and Meka dredds (just please give them an oversized two handed chainsaw as an option... please?)

-Contemptor dreads and Decimator engines, models are awesome would love to see them in plastic

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I shot down an assault ram with a Manticore Sky Eagle launcher in one shot last time I played it. Not scary.

But that's FW stuff killing other FW stuff, they're both op and therefore cancel eachother out.

 Bobthehero wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I shot down an assault ram with a Manticore Sky Eagle launcher in one shot last time I played it. Not scary.

But that's FW stuff killing other FW stuff, they're both op and therefore cancel eachother out.

Meaning that if you allow FW then the OP stuff will be mellowed in the meta because it's counter exists, and therefore will not actually change much. It'd be like if they released a super OP unit that was awesome, and another that one-shoots the first one.

No one would take the first one because even a single hard counter list at the tournament would kill it, and no one would take the second because you see the first so little. The Meta wouldn't change much.

Heirophant...wish there was a slightly smaller unit like it for non apocalypse games, supposedly we are getting one in November.

Thunderhawks too...and primarchs....does the current line of primarchs models have rules?

BrotherVord wrote:
Heirophant...wish there was a slightly smaller unit like it for non apocalypse games, supposedly we are getting one in November.

Thunderhawks too...and primarchs....does the current line of primarchs models have rules?

Doesn't that mean that the Hierophant needs to get bigger and beefier to retain it's awe inspiring status?

Dkok. Oh lord, I would buy them up like hotcakes. I don't care how useless it would be, a full Dkok infantry army charging across the field would be beautiful.

fluffstalker wrote:
Dkok. Oh lord, I would buy them up like hotcakes. I don't care how useless it would be, a full Dkok infantry army charging across the field would be beautiful.

Well your wish may come true. Lots of rumors suggest IG will be seeing plastic Steel Legion, which is the closest you will get to DKoK without running into the GW vs. FW barrier. I myself feel FW should be completely legal & accepted in 40k games. The majority of my local gaming community disagrees however, so until that day comes I am stuck with GW products.

BrotherVord wrote:

Thunderhawks too...and primarchs....does the current line of primarchs models have rules?

Yes, but they are written as "intended for 30k, not 40k"
The entire heresy book series is a sub-game on its own right, not intended to be used with or against other books.

 BoomWolf wrote:

BrotherVord wrote:

Thunderhawks too...and primarchs....does the current line of primarchs models have rules?

Yes, but they are written as "intended for 30k, not 40k"
The entire heresy book series is a sub-game on its own right, not intended to be used with or against other books.

They do work fine against other books though.

Just don't expect many to be sympathetic when Heldrakes turn your army into toast.