Ive seen this mentioned in many places now and was wondering if anyone can point me to a place that confirms that Forgeworld models are legal in regular games now or not?
Forgeworld books have it. They tell you to ask your opponent because most don't know FW units and don't like being taken by surprise (and some FW units seem OP... )
Recent 40k books will give the "40k approved" stamp to units, these are allowed to be used. Of course, opponents may refuse to play against FW units and some TOs won't allow it. GW intends for them to be legal though.
This topic has come up a lot. Nothing changes. There is no consensus.
Keep checking on this thread, but all you'll get is a fanatic-to-jihad levels of pro-forgeworld people who will copy/paste the 40k seal as if by the pure power of regurgitation, people will agree with them.
And the people who disagree for lots of good, nuanced reasons won't bother typing, because they've already said their peace, and don't like getting barfed on.
Forge world is GW. The forge world units that say 40k approved are approved by GW. Case in point, a friend just recieved a forge world model he purchased. It says GW right on the resin.
Many people house rule that forge world can't be used. An opponent doesn't have to play against FW or even standard codex models if they choose not to, so its up to you to inform your opponent of the rules of said FW model so they can choose to play or not.
Forge World has always been legal, it's just always a good idea to let whoever you're playing know you have a Forge World unit or vehicle in your list, since they may be unfamiliar with it. Doubly so for their own army lists. A lot of TO's exclude Forge World for this reason, since it creates a level playing field.
Forge World has been legal ever since they had the "40k Approved" stamps on various units. But they used to have an addendum that said you should ask for your opponent's permission.
Recently, they removed this, and Forge World is just plain legal, with or without permission, but now they suggest you show your opponent the rules before the game to make sure he knows them.
However, there will be many opponents, stores, and tournaments that ban Forge World anyway.
We just need to take it upon ourselves (or someone with juice needs to do it....like the folks who run Adepticon or NOVA Open) and make a list of the Forgeworld Units that aren't broken or mis-costed to heck and back and then we can all move forward...
....with REAL arguments on why their list is incorrect.
But seriously, when one can spend 150pts on a one artillary battery of 3 guns that can dish out 12 S5 AP5 Barrage Blasts at up to 60" range, I can see why people who don't like facing forgeworld units have a point. Not everything is unfair...some things just need a points tweak, but trying to fix that is a rabbit hole with no bottom.
Voidwraith wrote: But seriously, when one can spend 150pts on a one artillary battery of 3 guns that can dish out 12 S5 AP5 Barrage Blasts at up to 60" range
Voidwraith wrote: But seriously, when one can spend 150pts on a one artillary battery of 3 guns that can dish out 12 S5 AP5 Barrage Blasts at up to 60" range, I can see why people who don't like facing forgeworld units have a point. Not everything is unfair...some things just need a points tweak, but trying to fix that is a rabbit hole with no bottom.
But seriously, when one can get an entire unit with a re-rollable 2+ invulnerable save, plenty of speed, and enough offense to kill most threats you throw them at, I can see why people who don't like facing codex units have a point. Not everything is unfair...some things just need a points teak, but trying to fix that is a rabbit hole with no bottom.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ailaros wrote: Keep checking on this thread, but all you'll get is a fanatic-to-jihad levels of pro-forgeworld people who will copy/paste the 40k seal as if by the pure power of regurgitation, people will agree with them.
And the people who disagree for lots of good, nuanced reasons won't bother typing, because they've already said their peace, and don't like getting barfed on.
Keep checking on this thread, but all you'll get is a fanatic-to-jihad levels of anti-forgeworld people who will copy/paste the same old arguments about "not official" and whining about "need their WAAC abuse to win" as if by the pure power of regurgitation, people will agree with them.
And the people who disagree for lots of good, nuanced reasons won't bother typing, because they've already said their peace, and don't like getting barfed on.
You can play your GI Joe tank with custom stats if you like. Its all up to who you play. Forgeworld is not Warhammer 40K, so including those pieces is entirely up to whoever has the final say in your game, be it your opponent or a TO.
Care to prove this statement? I don't have a personal agenda or anything, nor do I care that most people disallow FW, but that's straight up wrong.
Forgeworld is not GW. No more than Dewalt is Black and Decker. They are both owned by a similar parent company but produce their own products. Forgeworld's products are designed to be used by the 40k market, but you do not find them in the 40k codices or rules, hence they are not 40k.
I have yet to se anyone complain about a forgewold model so long as there is a normal model for it as well. For example, dreadnoughts different versions of terminaters and such. Now, stuff like titans, you might have a lil more trouble with.
Yes it is. Forge World is a brand name used by Games Workshop to publish certain products, just like Citadel model kits and paints or White Dwarf magazine. The "separation" between the two has been invented by certain players, not by GW.
Forgeworld's products are designed to be used by the 40k market, but you do not find them in the 40k codices or rules, hence they are not 40k.
You find them in the 40k rules because they are40k rules. The rule that everything for 40k must be in a codex or the core rulebook has been invented by certain players, not by GW.
Yes it is. Forge World is a brand name used by Games Workshop to publish certain products, just like Citadel model kits and paints or White Dwarf magazine. The "separation" between the two has been invented by certain players, not by GW.
Citation required. I can prove they are separate companies simply by their registry in the UK.
Forgeworld's products are designed to be used by the 40k market, but you do not find them in the 40k codices or rules, hence they are not 40k.
You find them in the 40k rules because they are40k rules. The rule that everything for 40k must be in a codex or the core rulebook has been invented by certain players, not by GW.
Strange, my Warhammer 40k, 6th edition, which gives the rules to 40k, does not include FW. Nor do any Codices.
Every army in Warhammer 40k has its own Codex...
Show me the FW codex.
FW is an expansion of the 40k universe, with alternate toys you can play with. FW has permission to use GW's IP rights and can claim their models are 40k approved all they want, but until GW says that FW models are "40k approved" then there is no offical backing for that claim.
And there's other little details like everything I've bought from FW being shipped to me by GW, FW's website being hosted on a GW server and linked to from the main GW website, etc.
Strange, my Warhammer 40k, 6th edition, which gives the rules to 40k, does not include FW. Nor do any Codices.
And you're inventing a rule that all sources of 40k rules must be mentioned in the core rulebook. GW disagrees with you and publishes 40k rules in online FAQs/errata, codex supplements, and FW books, none of which are mentioned in the core rulebook.
Every army in Warhammer 40k has its own Codex...
Show me the FW codex.
What's your point? Every army has a codex. FW adds units to that codex.
FW is an expansion of the 40k universe, with alternate toys you can play with.
An expansion that is part of standard 40k. Choosing to play with it is no different than choosing to play with or against Tau.
FW has permission to use GW's IP rights and can claim their models are 40k approved all they want, but until GW says that FW models are "40k approved" then there is no offical backing for that claim.
Wrong again. FW doesn't have permission to use GW's IP, they areGW. And GW has said that rules published under their FW brand are part of the game.
What's your point? Every army has a codex.FW adds units to that codex.
No, FW creates their own units, nothing is "added" to a codex. And since armies need a codex, per the rulebook, show me a FW model in a 40k codex.
An expansion that is part of standard 40k. Choosing to play with it is no different than choosing to play with or against Tau.
You can play whatever you opponent agrees to, whip out that GI Joe tank.
FW has permission to use GW's IP rights and can claim their models are 40k approved all they want, but until GW says that FW models are "40k approved" then there is no offical backing for that claim.
Wrong again. FW doesn't have permission to use GW's IP, they areGW.And GW has said that rules published under their FW brand are part of the game.
FW is a fully owned subsidiary company, get your facts straight. They are not legally GW. Perhaps you can cite the underlined part ?
The point you just missed is that the entire FW book is the property of GW. The book has been copyrighted in the exact same way as my IG codex, other than the dates. That's not working with licensed IP, that's GW having complete ownership of everything published under the FW brand name.
No, FW creates their own units, nothing is "added" to a codex.
Wrong again. It very clearly says "X is a {FOC slot} choice in Y codex".
And since armies need a codex, per the rulebook, show me a FW model in a 40k codex.
You're inventing the rule that every unit must be published in the original printing of a codex. GW disagrees with you, which is why my Tau codex has a Farsight supplement, various FW units added to it, and online FAQs/errata.
Also, please note the difference between "every army has a codex" and "every single unit for an army is found in its codex and nowhere else".
(And if you just want FWmodels, not units, look at the IG codex sometime.)
You can play whatever you opponent agrees to, whip out that GI Joe tank.
That doesn't change the fact that some things are considered to be part of the standard game as provided by GW. And FW rules are included in that standard game.
FW is a fully owned subsidiary company, get your facts straight. They are not legally GW.
FW employees are paid by GW, all of their sales go through GW, their books are copyrighted by GW, etc. Some accountant/lawyer may have decided to set it up as a subsidiary company for legal/tax reasons, but that doesn't change the fact that FW operates as a brand name within the "main" GW.
Perhaps you can cite the underlined part ?
Whilst these rules should be considered official, in the name of good sportsmanship you should inform your opponent when using these Chapter Tactics as they may not be familiar with them.
Its a game, intended to be played casually between friends or people who will in time become friends, or even if you really want some strangers as a social activity for people who like little plastic (or resin, or metal) men (or women).
There are no laws about it, and its an appaling system for tournaments, so with anyone outside a tournament, what's allowed in is whatever you can agree upon, and in a tournament, its whatever that tournament's organiser has done to try to fix the system rules.
If you can't co-operate with others to make an agreement on what can be played with (looking at YOU, allaros, peregrine) then you don't get to play, and other more reasonable people do. If you will only play with one specific setup (be that all FW is go, no FW at all, or whatever), you get to play less.
If you don't have fun because of arguments about these rules, you're doing it WRONG.
best way to treat it if youre not in a meta where people are commonly using it, its an expansion to the normal game. Most of them arent that bad, and in the case of orks it actually makes the army crazy good and well rounded (nothing stupid broken, especially since lifta droppa got nerfed to hell and back lol) but sometimes you will face one that is just drastically undercosted, or should be apoc only for what it does. And of course, people will flock to those models immediately.
I'm constantly baffled about this discussion simply because the only time FW being "legal" or not is relevant when trying persuade someone to take part in a game the don't want to play. And why would anyone wan't to do that?
I totally agree with Nobody_Holme:
When you play a game of 40k, YOU get to decide what is ok and not. If you don't want to face Tau, Chaos Space Marines or units Forge World made up, there is no rule forcing you to play. Just pick another opponent.
When you enter a tournament, the organizers get to choose what rules to use, possibly even overriding the printed rules. If you don't like that you don't get to play.
To put some more fuel on the fire:
=========================
I think the strongest argument for being careful when using Forge World rules is that I believe many casual 40k players will not even know Forge World exists and even fewer are aware that they print their own rules. If you get into the hobby by buying the rule book and a codex or two there are no references to Forge World. Heck, even if you go to www.games-workshop.com there are no references to Forge World!
Isn't that a bit strange if Forge World books are part of the core game?
You mean aside from the link to the Forgeworld website down the bottom of the page right next to the link to the Black Library website.
So my question to those saying that FW stuff isn't a real codex, before Adepta Sororitas did you just refuse to play against Sisters of battle because they didn't actually have a real, legally obtainable codex?
Actually what about the digital codices because those aren't technical available from Games Workshop and there is just as much mentioned on the website of Digital editions as there is about Forgeworld.
zoat wrote: I'm constantly baffled about this discussion simply because the only time FW being "legal" or not is relevant when trying persuade someone to take part in a game the don't want to play.
It's relevant because many people default to "if GW says it's legal I'll play against it" as their policy for what they include in a normal game. So it's important to kill the absurd idea that FW is somehow not part of the game and prevent people from forming that bad assumption and being reluctant to play against it.
I think the strongest argument for being careful when using Forge World rules is that I believe many casual 40k players will not even know Forge World exists and even fewer are aware that they print their own rules. If you get into the hobby by buying the rule book and a codex or two there are no references to Forge World. Heck, even if you go to www.games-workshop.com there are no references to Forge World!
Actually there are. The core rulebook mentions FW (at the end, in the "hobby" section), including their rules, and the main website has a link to FW at the bottom and often features FW models and new releases on their blog.
And of course the same is true of codex rules. Most "casual" players probably aren't aware of the most overpowered codex-only lists or any of the "obvious" tactics that the tiny minority of players who read forums consider too basic to even talk about. And they certainly won't have the budget to get an optimized list even if they're aware of things like "using the default flamer and grenade launcher your squad came with is suicide". If you have the average forum member play against one of those "so casual I don't even know FW exists" people it's going to be a one-sided massacre because the two of them aren't really playing the same game.
Isn't that a bit strange if Forge World books are part of the core game?
Not really, because it's all about sales. FW isn't promoted as obviously because GW's core market is kids buying battleforces, while FW is aimed at "advanced" hobbyists who can handle that kind of model. The last thing GW wants to deal with is an angry parent who bought their kid a $200 model kit that is way beyond their skill level, or relatives buying christmas gifts without knowing the difference between a plastic tactical squad and a FW tactical squad. So the obvious entry points to the hobby promote "core" products, while more advanced products are fairly easy to find once you get into it a bit more.
Barksdale wrote: You and your mates can always introduce a house-rule which allows you all to pick units from FW books which are not in their official codices.
You mean a house rule that consists of "play the game according to the standard rules"? Isn't that kind of redundant?
You mean aside from the link to the Forgeworld website down the bottom of the page right next to the link to the Black Library website.
I stand corrected. There are indeed a tiny link squeezed in between "legal" and "career". I still say it is not referenced though, since there is no way of knowing this is part of 40k unless you decide you are interested in something between "legal" and "career" and hit that link.
Actually there are. The core rulebook mentions FW (at the end, in the "hobby" section), including their rules
I'm sorry, I looked, but I still can't find the reference. Never mind though, I'm sure you are right!
... FW is aimed at "advanced" hobbyists...
I hope you don't feel misquoted, but this is how I feel exactly.
It's relevant because many people default to "if GW says it's legal I'll play against it" as their policy for what they include in a normal game. So it's important to kill the absurd idea that FW is somehow not part of the game and prevent people from forming that bad assumption and being reluctant to play against it.
Would you accept their argument if they said "I think your FW army is too good and playing against it is no fun, could you please bring one that only uses the standard IG codex?".
zoat wrote: I stand corrected. There are indeed a tiny link squeezed in between "legal" and "career". I still say it is not referenced though, since there is no way of knowing this is part of 40k unless you decide you are interested in something between "legal" and "career" and hit that link.
There are also frequent mentions of FW on their blog, if anyone ever bothers to read it.
FW is aimed at "advanced" hobbyists...
I hope you don't feel misquoted, but this is how I feel exactly.
Just note that I'm talking about the model kits, not the rules. The rules are part of the game for everyone, but many of the model kits aren't really appropriate for the average kid with their first battleforce.
Would you accept their argument if they said "I think your FW army is too good and playing against it is no fun, could you please bring one that only uses the standard IG codex?".
No, because that would be a stupid argument. I could make a codex-only list that would be much more powerful than the average FW-included list I use, and I could easily reduce the power level of my average list without making it a codex-only list. Their argument would make about as much sense as asking someone to play Tau instead of C:SM because yellow space marines are too powerful. If it's really about power level and that isn't just the current "I hate FW" excuse then they shouldn't need to say anything beyond "your list is way better than mine and this won't be a fun game, can you scale it down a bit?".
The thing I still don't get about this discussion is: Why is it so important to convince other players to enter a game they state they don't want to play?
@Peregrine
I've seen some of your models here at dakka and you are obviously into the hobby part of 40k. I have no idea what kind of armies you play and assume you use FW models and rules simply because you like them and think they bring more fun to the table. If there was an implication otherwise i apologize.
There are also frequent mentions of FW on their blog, if anyone ever bothers to read it.
Agreed, and also in White Dwarf. I don't think that changes the "status" of Forge World rules though. A "forge world" entry between "apocalypse" and "expansions" in the warhammer 40k section with links to the books would.
zoat wrote: The thing I still don't get about this discussion is: Why is it so important to convince other players to enter a game they state they don't want to play?
Because the opposite is currently, to an extent, happening. Those of us that want to play with ForgeWorld units aren't allowed, because it's either "no FW!" or "no game!".
Forgeworld's products are designed to be used by the 40k market, but you do not find them in the 40k codices or rules, hence they are not 40k.
You find them in the 40k rules because they are40k rules. The rule that everything for 40k must be in a codex or the core rulebook has been invented by certain players, not by GW.
Strange, my Warhammer 40k, 6th edition, which gives the rules to 40k, does not include FW. Nor do any Codices.
Every army in Warhammer 40k has its own Codex...
Show me the FW codex.
Supplements kinda shot that argument to pieces, set it on fire and threw it into a grinder. If supplements are OK, why is FW not?
Because the opposite is currently, to an extent, happening. Those of us that want to play with ForgeWorld units aren't allowed, because it's either "no FW!" or "no game!".
Yeah. I have the same problem with my homebrew tanks.
The problem with saying Forge World isn't legal is that it's about the same as saying a supplement codex isn't legal. Whether you like Forge World or not, it's clearly stated that Forge World is indeed official.
Now, that's not to say you shouldn't be able to make a house rule where you don't allow Forge World. If that's really what you want to do, that's fine. The important part is to understand that it's legal and accept that fact.
I'm not gonna "get into" the who GW/FW thing beyond saying that there might be loopholes that are arguable but to all OUR intents and purposes, They are different aspects of the same machine.
I see FW as the "rich mans" addition to the hobby.
1. Models that have GW counterparts such as infantry, dreadnoughts and so forth have never had to have permission so long as the GW rules/stats were used (for example the krieg models using the rules out of the guard codex).
2. Most TOs do it this way because some FW rules and models can seriously unbalance a tournament where they guy with the most money just buys a titan and autowins. It is general practice for TOs to make this call but if they so desire, they don't have to.
3. In normal games most players simply don't care or can turn down the game against someone who has the FW stuff if they don't want to face it just as they could turn down a game against that odd smelly guy with the booger hanging out of his nose. If the stuff is reasonable (im not facing a titan), I'll take the game anyway just to see the cool stuff.
tybg wrote: The problem with saying Forge World isn't legal is that it's about the same as saying a supplement codex isn't legal. Whether you like Forge World or not, it's clearly stated that Forge World is indeed official.
Now, that's not to say you shouldn't be able to make a house rule where you don't allow Forge World. If that's really what you want to do, that's fine. The important part is to understand that it's legal and accept that fact.
The problem is that "legal" is not an appropriate term for a consensual game. You cannot legislate yourself into a game, that requires both parties to agree to make it happen.
Now, non-Forge World armies generally have an easier time getting that "consent" than armies including Forge World. It's just the way it is. Accept it.
The important part is to understand that by insisting on "legal" as a lever to bully yourself into games an opponent would not truly enjoy (though he may concede if you press the issue) means you're not only behaving like an donkey-cave, you're also hurting the diffusion of Forge World more broadly. If, on the other hand, you drop the "legal"-speak and make a positive case for Forge World not based on "legal", but on enrichment of the game, you contributing far more towards bringing the community to that place of "FW as common as Rhinos" that you want to see in the future.
"where they guy with the most money just buys a titan and autowins"
If you can show me a titan with a "Approved for 40K stamp" you might have something there, but you can't because we are talking about those Forge World that are approved for 40K , not Apocalypse...
Perhaps, you did not actually read my post. That is what I AM talking about. Is apocalypse not a 40k based game? I coulda swore I saw land raiders, russes and terminaters and so forth used in the last apocalypse game I played. As a matter of fact, I was one of the guys using russes.
You make my point for me and I appreciate that. As you supported my statement, many of the FW models are designed for use in "normal" games and many are not. As I said, the ones designed for use in "normal" games have never needed permission to be used. most TO will keep it at that.
If a TO wants to open it up and allow models (such as titans) that are not designed to be used in "normal" 40k games to be used in tournaments, than that is their decision to make. Likewise, it is you as a player to decide whether or not you want to face/or use models that are not designed for "normal" 40k games in a normal 40k game.
A tactical issue? What do you mean? I know of at least a few (one for sure who could afford it) players at my local shop alone who would bring a titan to a tournament if they knew it would be allowed in order to get the easy win. Which is why I specifically differentiated models designed for normal games and those not.
For models designed for normal games, I see no tactical issues. the models are the same size, have the same stats having only cosmetic differences. that is why you have never had to have permission to use them in tournaments.
Edit: Never mind. I think I see what your getting at. you mean the thread is in the wrong forum section. My bad. lol
Peregrine wrote: Wrong again. It very clearly says "X is a {FOC slot} choice in Y codex".
Who says? FW says.. which means nothing. I can make a company and create a model and say this figure is fully 40k legal and is to be used at a HS choice in X codex. That does not mean that it is.
You're inventing the rule that every unit must be published in the original printing of a codex. GW disagrees with you, which is why my Tau codex has a Farsight supplement, various FW units added to it, and online FAQs/errata.
And look.. those supplement are produced by "Games Workshop". Still no mention from GW that FW is legal to use.
That doesn't change the fact that some things are considered to be part of the standard game as provided by GW. And FW rules are included in that standard game.
Show me the rules from GW that supports your claim. So far in this entire argument you have shown nothing other than your opinion.
FW employees are paid by GW, all of their sales go through GW, their books are copyrighted by GW, etc. Some accountant/lawyer may have decided to set it up as a subsidiary company for legal/tax reasons, but that doesn't change the fact that FW operates as a brand name within the "main" GW.
Incorrect, in almost all aspects. You are obviously not familiar with how businesses work.
Perhaps you can cite the underlined part ?
Whilst these rules should be considered official, in the name of good sportsmanship you should inform your opponent when using these Chapter Tactics as they may not be familiar with them.
So you have no citation? Nothing from Games Workshop? Anything? Concession accepted.
Barksdale wrote: You and your mates can always introduce a house-rule which allows you all to pick units from FW books which are not in their official codices.
You mean a house rule that consists of "play the game according to the standard rules"? Isn't that kind of redundant?
No I mean a house-rule which allows people use units which are not in the official codices, such as a FW unit.
My meta has FW strictly banned. I think for this to change, the prices would have to come down and the 40K core book would have to at least talk about them. Whether they really are "official" at the moment is irrelevant compared to these criteria.
Forgeworld is not GW. No more than Dewalt is Black and Decker. They are both owned by a similar parent company but produce their own products. Forgeworld's products are designed to be used by the 40k market, but you do not find them in the 40k codices or rules, hence they are not 40k.
zoat wrote: I'm constantly baffled about this discussion simply because the only time FW being "legal" or not is relevant when trying persuade someone to take part in a game the don't want to play. And why would anyone wan't to do that?
I totally agree with Nobody_Holme:
When you play a game of 40k, YOU get to decide what is ok and not. If you don't want to face Tau, Chaos Space Marines or units Forge World made up, there is no rule forcing you to play. Just pick another opponent.
When you enter a tournament, the organizers get to choose what rules to use, possibly even overriding the printed rules. If you don't like that you don't get to play.
To put some more fuel on the fire:
=========================
I think the strongest argument for being careful when using Forge World rules is that I believe many casual 40k players will not even know Forge World exists and even fewer are aware that they print their own rules. If you get into the hobby by buying the rule book and a codex or two there are no references to Forge World. Heck, even if you go to www.games-workshop.com there are no references to Forge World!
Isn't that a bit strange if Forge World books are part of the core game?
Actually, there''s a link to Forge World at the bottom of the GW website. Above and to the left of the Country Select thing. Between Black Library and Investor Relations. (Edit: Nevermind, someone beat me to it.)
That said, I agree that it's like anything else in 40k. If your opponent doesn't want to play against it, they don't have to. Just like they can refuse to play against your army because it's an army they don't like, or because it's painted pink with purple polkadots, or because they don't see the reason why their Blood Angels would fight your Flesh Tearers. They can refuse to play a game on any grounds they see fit, including what units are contained in your list. Whether that decision makes sense to you or me doesn't matter - it's their choice.
In a tournament, the organizer sets the rules, and anyone who disagrees strongly enough with those rules to cause a dispute doesn't have to participate in it.
FW employees are paid by GW, all of their sales go through GW, their books are copyrighted by GW, etc. Some accountant/lawyer may have decided to set it up as a subsidiary company for legal/tax reasons, but that doesn't change the fact that FW operates as a brand name within the "main" GW.
There is no subsidiary company. The company is Games Workshop PLC and reports its financials publicly.
The separation of "Games Workshop" and "Forge World" does not exist on the business-side of things.
The distinction between "Games Workshop" and "Forge World" exist only for the customer, because they want their customers to see them as separate things/brands/products/whatever. If they wanted customers to see Forge World and Games Workshop as one and the same, they wouldn't bother with a separate brand.
After all, FW and GW are one and the same thing, aren't they?
Just like Taco Bell, KFC and Pizza Hut are all the same thing (Yum! Brands).
Looking to play Warhammer 40K and having somebody deploy Forge World across the table is like ordering a peperroni pizza in a red-roofed pizza-joint and getting a bucket of Chicken with Guacamole.
Sure, it's the same company, and it's all "food stuff". Just not the flavour one was expecting.
As per page 108 of the 6th Edition rulebook of Warhammer 40,000, anything is legal as long as all participants agree upon it.
The default, recommended approach for army lists is official GW Codices, but the rulebook specifically mentions that players are free to expand or change their army lists with anything they'd like - this would include their own homebrewed units, GW supplemental rules, or FW Army Books. (see also the textbox on page 8: "The Spirit of the Game")
Tournaments and Events are likely to feature their own restrictions that all participants are required to respect, with a common approach being to follow the recommendations in the rulebook.
It is of note that this concerns only the rules - the models themselves should be safe to field anywhere, and are even allowed in those LGS and GW tournaments that explicitly ban FW army lists. One would simply have to field them using Codex rules. FW models are, to my knowledge, the only alternative to GW/Citadel models allowed in GW stores and events, whereas models from other companies would be banned (and thus restricted for play with your friends or local clubs).
BarBoBot: As I have explained in my previous post, that depends on the game you intend to play - specifically the players agreeing on the army lists they use. A unit being "intended to be used" in 40k arguably doesn't automatically make it an integral part of the core game.
There are GW events and tournaments that specifically say "FW rules = no go", so I think it's somewhat misleading to claim there is no difference at all as long as GW themselves contradicts you with such categorical bans. Don't you think you may be evoking false expectations here? What do you do when someone actually follows this advice, only to find out he cannot actually use these units everywhere?
It's fairly simple. Gamers ought to ask around in whatever region they play - their friends, their club, or the LGS. If they're okay with FW, awesome, go ahead. Just don't expect it - this is actually true regardless of what the books say, for even if GW would come out and say something like "FW is an integral part of our core game" (which they have yet to do) then it could still simply be ignored by these gamers. What are you going to do then? Sue them in front of the great GW Court? 40k is a give and take of mutual respect and acceptance. I'm sure a lot of players would be more openminded about FW if we wouldn't see so many attempts to force it down their throats, and instead see more people advocating the benefits of voluntarily accepting FW into their game, such as more varied gameplay and the sweet models.
Show 1 post where anyone says they try to force FW down anyone's throats...
Have you read anything I posted? Several times I mentioned that players can refuse a game against FW or any other thing for any other reason.
It's your personal preference to decide if you want to or not. That does not change the fact that FW is GW and their rules are as official as anything found in a codex.
The units marked 40k approved are approved for standard 40k games. If you choose that you don't want to play against 40k approved FW units, your house ruling. The default from the makers of the game is that 40k approved units are allowed.
Also, FYI, I own zero FW models,(for now) but I play against them regularly. It's not game breaking...
This by far isn't the first thread on dakka about FW, and such topics tend to feature a lot of posts akin to "I don't want to have to ask" etc. I've gotten a bit tired of this, yet I'm stupid enough to still participate in them, if only to point out what I perceive to be a flaw in some posters' argumentation, and advocating an approach less based on rules and more on voluntary agreement.
Yes, FW is official. No, that does not make it an automatic part of the game. Again I refer to the rulebook - 40kdoes not care about what is official and what isn't. The recommended approach is the Codices. You are, however, free to change or expand your army list with whatever you like, as long as both players agree on it.
BarBoBot wrote:The units marked 40k approved are approved for standard 40k games. If you choose that you don't want to play against 40k approved FW units, your house ruling.
Just like it is your house ruling if you do not want to play against anyone's homebrewed army.
As per the rulebook, FW Army Books are closer to homebrewed than to Codices, as the former two are both part of the "it's okay if you want" category, yet the recommended approach remains "use the Codex".
It's a set of rules that accompany a model that's produced by GW, not some fan dex made by Joe Shmoe.
Because it's their strawman of choice, they pick something they can "quote" even if it's so far wrong that it only makes their argument continue to look sillier and sillier.
This is their third attempt at a slogan, since they can no longer hide behind "Opponents permission" as the catchall "THIS IS NOT LEGAL BECAUSE I SAY IT IS NOT"
BarBoBot wrote:How is FW akin to home brew armies?
It's a set of rules that accompany a model that's produced by GW, not some fan dex made by Joe Shmoe.
For the third time: because that's what the rulebook suggests.
The recommended approach is the GW Codices. You are not forced to limit yourself to these, however, and are free to expand or change your army list with whatever you like - this includes both homebrewed rules as well as what is published by FW.
The only one important part is that everyone agrees on what they field.
ZebioLizard2 wrote:Because it's their strawman of choice, they pick something they can "quote" even if it's so far wrong that it only makes their argument continue to look sillier and sillier.
Sort of like the "approved for 40k" quote, you mean?
BarBoBot wrote:How is FW akin to home brew armies?
It's a set of rules that accompany a model that's produced by GW, not some fan dex made by Joe Shmoe.
For the third time: because that's what the rulebook suggests.
The recommended approach is the GW Codices. You are not forced to limit yourself to these, however, and are free to expand or change your army list with whatever you like - this includes both homebrewed rules as well as what is published by FW.
The only one important part is that everyone agrees on what they field.
Except now you are trying to equate Homebrewed with Forgeworld, a strawman argument in order to support your view.
Of course I guess if you ignore the FAQ, White Dwarf, Supplements, and all those other legal things just like Forgeworld you'd at least be consistent.
Sort of like the "approved for 40k" quote, you mean?
Even though it is Approved for 40k, and allowed in actual games of Warhammer 40k.
Except now you are trying to equate Homebrewed with Forgeworld, a strawman argument in order to support your view.
Of course I guess if you ignore the FAQ, White Dwarf, Supplements, and all those other legal things just like Forgeworld you'd at least be consistent.
Sort of like the "approved for 40k" quote, you mean?
Even though it is Approved for 40k, and allowed in actual games of Warhammer 40k.
Not really.
If you include FW, but refuse homebrew, you are "drawing a line", in this case a line between "toys/rules-produced-by-people-that-share-the-same-accounting-department" vs. "toys/rules-produced-by-somebody-not-sharing-the-same-accounting-department"
Yet at the same time, you claim people are wrong if they draw a line elsewhere, notably the line between "toys/rules-produced-by-the-same-design-studio" vs. "toys/rules-produced-by-a-different-design-studio" (which may share the same accounting-department).
The "homebrew-argument", while admittedly a bit hyperbole, serves to illustrate the hypocrisy of people adamant about the former "line", but utterly intolerant of latter "line". Hence it's not a straw-argument and will continue to come up in these threads.
After all, FW and GW are one and the same thing, aren't they?
Just like Taco Bell, KFC and Pizza Hut are all the same thing (Yum! Brands).
Looking to play Warhammer 40K and having somebody deploy Forge World across the table is like ordering a peperroni pizza in a red-roofed pizza-joint and getting a bucket of Chicken with Guacamole.
Sure, it's the same company, and it's all "food stuff". Just not the flavour one was expecting.
No, that's a predetermined position that you created for yourself. The only reason someone would feel that forgeworld units being deployed in a 40k game would be unexpected is because they created a false version of reality for them self that the two things are separate. Reality just doesn't support this. It's like saying that playing a 40k game and seeing someone pull out a Tau army instead of a space marine army is somehow not 40k. Or that playing with Flyers is somehow "un40k". It's the same type of argument as saying FW is "un40k" or "unexpected" in a regular game of 40k. You are attempting to limit legal choices from legal armies based on your own made up opinion of the rules and their intent.
No, that's a predetermined position that you created for yourself. The only reason someone would feel that forgeworld units being deployed in a 40k game would be unexpected is because they created a false version of reality for them self that the two things are separate. Reality just doesn't support this. It's like saying that playing a 40k game and seeing someone pull out a Tau army instead of a space marine army is somehow not 40k.
It's not a "false" reality created by people. It's a "false" reality created purposefully by Games Workshop PLC when they created a separate brand - Forge World - for the exact purpose of creating this distinction. You can't blame people for reading separate brands as.. well.. separate brands. It might be a "false" reality, an "illusion" (as all brands are), but this illusion is the only reason the Forge World brand exists.
No, that's a predetermined position that you created for yourself. The only reason someone would feel that forgeworld units being deployed in a 40k game would be unexpected is because they created a false version of reality for them self that the two things are separate. Reality just doesn't support this. It's like saying that playing a 40k game and seeing someone pull out a Tau army instead of a space marine army is somehow not 40k.
It's not a "false" reality created by people. It's a "false" reality created purposefully by Games Workshop PLC when they created a separate brand - Forge World - for the exact purpose of creating this distinction. You can't blame people for reading separate brands as.. well.. separate brands. It might be a "false" reality, an "illusion" (as all brands are), but this illusion is the only reason the Forge World brand exists.
They are not separate brands, at all. They are different departments within a single brand.
It's the same as saying Digital Editions are not 40k.
In my opinion, this eternal debate is nonsensical.
Case 1: If you are in a tournament, ask the tournament organizer. That´s all. It is a real pain to organize such an event, so it is his decision, and his alone. Respect it. If you are unable to do that, organize your own tournament.
Case 2: If you are playing a casual game, ask the player you want to play with. This applies to Forgeworld, an army with three Riptides, an overpowered army, house rules, custom-made campaigns or even w40k as a whole. If your opponent does not want to play with you, respect it. You are not authorized to force people to play with you.
How is this possibly a debate? You want someone to organize an event exactly the way you want? You think you can force people to play with you?
ZebioLizard2 wrote:Except now you are trying to equate Homebrewed with Forgeworld, a strawman argument in order to support your view.
Of course I guess if you ignore the FAQ, White Dwarf, Supplements, and all those other legal things just like Forgeworld you'd at least be consistent.
da001 wrote:In my opinion, this eternal debate is nonsensical.
Case 1: If you are in a tournament, ask the tournament organizer. That´s all. It is a real pain to organize such an event, so it is his decision, and his alone. Respect it. If you are unable to do that, organize your own tournament.
Case 2: If you are playing a casual game, ask the player you want to play with. This applies to Forgeworld, an army with three Riptides, an overpowered army, house rules, custom-made campaigns or even w40k as a whole. If your opponent does not want to play with you, respect it. You are not authorized to force people to play with you.
How is this possibly a debate? You want someone to organize an event exactly the way you want? You think you can force people to play with you?
BarBoBot wrote:How is FW akin to home brew armies?
It's a set of rules that accompany a model that's produced by GW, not some fan dex made by Joe Shmoe.
For the third time: because that's what the rulebook suggests.
The recommended approach is the GW Codices. You are not forced to limit yourself to these, however, and are free to expand or change your army list with whatever you like - this includes both homebrewed rules as well as what is published by FW.
The only one important part is that everyone agrees on what they field.
Except now you are trying to equate Homebrewed with Forgeworld, a strawman argument in order to support your view.
Of course I guess if you ignore the FAQ, White Dwarf, Supplements, and all those other legal things just like Forgeworld you'd at least be consistent.
. . . I'm not sure you understand what a "strawman argument" is. A strawman argument is when you say your opponent is making an argument that they are not, and then provide a counter-argument to that fictitious argument.
It's an argument that often provokes the phrase, "Stop putting words in my mouth," or "I never said that," or similar things from your opponent.
FW(which IS GW) has rules written by people paid to write them specifically for 40k and/or apocalypse.
Saying that home brew rules are on par with FW is laughable. Roll on the floor laughable.
Heh, I remember the first homebrew army list I wrote. I basically took the fluff from Hammer's Slammers and made a fluff-matching 40k army out of it.
So basically, hover vehicles and pretty much everybody's weapons were AP 2, because, well, their primary weapons are a type of plasma beam weapon or something that basically wrecks everything.
I think I made the basic trooper about 6pts or so...
BarBoBot wrote:FW(which IS GW) has rules written by people paid to write them specifically for 40k and/or apocalypse.
Saying that home brew rules are on par with FW is laughable. Roll on the floor laughable.
Not really. It depends on what the book says, doesn't it?
Have you considered that perhaps GW - which seems to chiefly regard itself as a model-selling company - has merely created the Forge World studio to offer a professional approach to this officially supported homebrewed aspect of the game? And that perhaps this is why it's a separate studio with a separate website and a separate catalogue?
Anyways, as with the last threads, I predict this will be moving in cycles. I think we at least ought to agree on the points that da001 has raised, though, no?
. . . I'm not sure you understand what a "strawman argument" is. A strawman argument is when you say your opponent is making an argument that they are not, and then provide a counter-argument to that fictitious argument.
Actually I had the wrong word in head, I was meaning Logical Fallacy.
To put this to bed, you can turn down the game if you want or play it. It is a only a game. The TOs make as they see fit. me i don't play against Supplements cause in my eyes they are expansions. i use some forge world models, Wraithseer, Hornets, Warp Hunters, Firestorm and Contempter Dreads(Only for AA for my Dark Angels and the one to proxie for my Blood angels Dread). I try and my armies fluffy. But most improtany win or (most when i lose) i have fun and get a few laughs,
BarBoBot wrote:FW(which IS GW) has rules written by people paid to write them specifically for 40k and/or apocalypse.
Saying that home brew rules are on par with FW is laughable. Roll on the floor laughable.
Not really. It depends on what the book says, doesn't it?
Have you considered that perhaps GW - which seems to chiefly regard itself as a model-selling company - has merely created the Forge World studio to offer a professional approach to this officially supported homebrewed aspect of the game? And that perhaps this is why it's a separate studio with a separate website and a separate catalogue?
Anyways, as with the last threads, I predict this will be moving in cycles. I think we at least ought to agree on the points that da001 has raised, though, no?
Im sorry, but who raised that point? Below is my first post in this thread, the 6th post on the very first page....thanks for actually reading the thread
BarBoBot wrote: Forge world is GW. The forge world units that say 40k approved are approved by GW. Case in point, a friend just recieved a forge world model he purchased. It says GW right on the resin.
Many people house rule that forge world can't be used. An opponent doesn't have to play against FW or even standard codex models if they choose not to, so its up to you to inform your opponent of the rules of said FW model so they can choose to play or not.
. . . I'm not sure you understand what a "strawman argument" is. A strawman argument is when you say your opponent is making an argument that they are not, and then provide a counter-argument to that fictitious argument.
Actually I had the wrong word in head, I was meaning Logical Fallacy.
Ahh.
And a Strawman Argument is actually a type of Logical Fallacy. ^_^
BarBoBot wrote:Im sorry, but who raised that point? Below is my first post in this thread, the 6th post on the very first page....thanks for actually reading the thread
My argument was about your claim that GW itself wouldn't make a difference between its Codices and FW rules.
I'm glad to see that we still agree on what all of this means in practice, though, as per the applications mentioned by da001. This at least means we have a common ground after all, even if we seem to disagree as per the wording. For what it's worth, the latter seems to be a case of principles, but as long as it doesn't affect reality, no harm done.
Ailaros wrote: This topic has come up a lot. Nothing changes. There is no consensus.
Keep checking on this thread, but all you'll get is a fanatic-to-jihad levels of pro-forgeworld people who will copy/paste the 40k seal as if by the pure power of regurgitation, people will agree with them.
And the people who disagree for lots of good, nuanced reasons won't bother typing, because they've already said their peace, and don't like getting barfed on.
The arguement goes both ways when it comes to that behaviour, but I'm so glad we can white wash everyone on a single side of the argument as being like that.
Back on the topic of the thread at hand:
The thing is FW was made to feature cool models (mostly tanks) and give you rules to play those with. In IA1 (version 1) Jervis Johnson had even said that the studio was treating it as legal for normal games. We're well past the point of it really being fair to anyone to try and put that cat back in the bag.
For all the hemming and hawing about how the studio apparently doesn't see FW as legal I've never seen anyone present evidence to support it.
And before someone brings up tournaments, when you can show me that the rulebook has rules on timelimits, brackets, prize support and rounds we'll talk about the Warhammer World events and how they're apparently a yardstick for use to judge legality by.
Beyond that, FW in tournaments is the TO's choice, just like allies, special characters, points limits and double FOC. In casual games whatever you agree to play with your opponent is legal for that game. That's about as far as legality goes in this game. I mean this is the same edition that tells players that they can homebrew a legal army list.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Fragile wrote: Forgeworld's products are designed to be used by the 40k market, but you do not find them in the 40k codices or rules, hence they are not 40k.
Someone needs a look through the Apocalypse book then because that's a book by the GW main studio that has FW options in it.
@BarBoBot: your point was the same but your wording was different though. What about this wording?
Spoiler:
It doesn´t matter if we are talking about Forgeworld, Codex units, house rules or playing w40k instead of chess. There are two options:
Case 1: you go to a tournament. In this case you abide by the rules given by the organizer.
Case 2: you play casual. In this case, you must reach an agreement with the other player.
Most players will agree, but then you find stuff like this, taken from Bell of Lost Souls: http://www.belloflostsouls.net/2013/11/the-convoluted-mess-of-40ks-quick.html Quote: "There is a rumor that Forge World plans to setup a shop in the US and at that time it will no longer require consent. Forge World has recently released the rules for Space Marine chapters and characters from their Badab campaign which do not require consent."
Really? "Do not require consent"? So I can pick a player and actually force him/her to play? Wow, imagine the possibilities. If this rumor ends being true, I will fly to Russia to force Vladimir Putin to play with me! I will table him with my Bloodslaughterers and upload it on Youtube.
The important part is to understand that by insisting on "legal" as a lever to bully yourself into games an opponent would not truly enjoy (though he may concede if you press the issue) means you're not only behaving like an donkey-cave, you're also hurting the diffusion of Forge World more broadly. If, on the other hand, you drop the "legal"-speak and make a positive case for Forge World not based on "legal", but on enrichment of the game, you contributing far more towards bringing the community to that place of "FW as common as Rhinos" that you want to see in the future.
^This. It somehow freaks me out all this talk about "legality"...
Off topic: about House Rules.
I think the game is intended to be house ruled. Read pages 339-400 of the Rulebook. Players are supposed to create their own custom-made chapters, campaigns, missions, whatever. This is a game that encourages creativity, not blindly following some fixed set of "official rules accepted by all players" that, in fact, have never existed and will never exist. And that´s good. Making new stuff is an important part of the hobby for me, perhaps the most important.
And I am yet to find someone who would not "fix" this or that rule. Terrain and missions are the main targets, but background issues are often raised too.
Martel732 wrote: Not really. The actual 40K rules are on par with homebrew rules. Inferior, in fact.
Also, this. Seriously. The amount of hard work, creativity, play testing and respect for the established background you can find in some fan-made Codexes is way beyond many GW´s "professional" works.
On topic again: what really baffles me is when someone who uses Forgeworld because it enriches the game (and not because he is a powergamer) then refuses to play house-rules, all of them, claiming that they are not "official". Do you want to enrich the game or not?
Barksdale wrote: No I mean a house-rule which allows people use units which are not in the official codices, such as a FW unit.
What house rules? Page 108 in the core rulebook clearly says players can take an army list from a codex, an altered army list (which is what FW's additional unit options give us) or their own system (again, FW's army lists or homebrew).
Where's the rule that explicitly says FW isn't meant for actually playing in games though?
Rumbleguts wrote: Can we agree however that "experimental rule" FW should not be allowed on the table except in friendly games?
No.
You are assuming that a "not friendly game" exists. I think you mean "tournament games", correct me if I am wrong. In this case, it is up to the tournament organizer. My opinion in this matter, and yours, mean nothing. "Should not be allowed" sounds really harsh.
Personally, I will gladly play with an "experimental rule" if it is balanced and properly written, both in tournaments and in friendly games, yet refuse to play with a completely broken unit even if it is not branded "experimental". But that´s just my opinion.
Forge world is allowed at my meta, with the exception of totally op things like the r'varna and old lucius pods, the New lucius pod rules are fine so it's allowed again.
On the debate, the argument that "I don't have access to the rules" is an idiotic one these days, internet, smart phones, iPads, all of these give us ways to find rules if we choose to.
Barksdale wrote: No I mean a house-rule which allows people use units which are not in the official codices, such as a FW unit.
What house rules? Page 108 in the core rulebook clearly says players can take an army list from a codex, an altered army list (which is what FW's additional unit options give us) or their own system (again, FW's army lists or homebrew).
Where's the rule that explicitly says FW isn't meant for actually playing in games though?
The suggestion that players can use FW rules is right there together with a suggestion for using homebrew rules. That says it all right there. So if if people want to make a house-rule stating allowing the use of FW rules or homebrew rules, that's okay.
But isn't it arguable to note that the fact that they are distinctivly divided into homebrew and FW no matter how slight mean there is to some extent a distinct difference.
The main topic is the same as always. Are Forgeworld legal to play? Most certainly. GW agrees with it, the WD releases information about Forgeworld, the SHOPS sell forgeworld, etc. They are not unbalanced op broken monger bits. Yeah they have a few but it is arguable they have more models that are inferior than superior. That being said, whether something is legal or not means little to groups of people from the tournies to groups of players. In such hobbies, you are not entitled to a battle. Deploy 3 riptides? Watch as your foe leaves. Deploy 5 wave serpents you long ago owned and they just happened to get buffed? Watch as your foe leaves. Your models aren't painted? They leave. You have female SM that are well painted? They leave. We all have our opinions and nobody is required to play a game with anybody else. If a tournament maker decides that they don't want forgeworld, supplements, or 3 riptides than for better or worse you simply can't do that.
After all, FW and GW are one and the same thing, aren't they?
Just like Taco Bell, KFC and Pizza Hut are all the same thing (Yum! Brands).
Looking to play Warhammer 40K and having somebody deploy Forge World across the table is like ordering a peperroni pizza in a red-roofed pizza-joint and getting a bucket of Chicken with Guacamole.
Sure, it's the same company, and it's all "food stuff". Just not the flavour one was expecting.
Except for the fact that the models are all generally the same, the tastes are generally the same, and the differences are usually as dramatic a change from one loyalist codex to the next
Looking at GW's new Escalation expansion rumors, most of the super heavies are forge world models. But does that not mean ... wait no ... GW does not support forge world. *smacks head*
In all seriousness looka like the new GW money maker has arrived and forge world is in it.
I don't see the issue here, banning fw is the same as banning tau or space marines, were all free to play whatever we like of course but saying that Elysian player isn't allowed when the guard dex is more powerful in almost every way is simply being belligerent for no good reason
da001 wrote: On topic again: what really baffles me is when someone who uses Forgeworld because it enriches the game (and not because he is a powergamer) then refuses to play house-rules, all of them, claiming that they are not "official". Do you want to enrich the game or not?
That happens because many people play pickup games with random strangers and it's important to have a common "standard game" that you can play without having to have a long discussion with your opponent to negotiate all the house rules you want to use. The simple fact is that most player-made units/armies are awful and not worth playing against, so if you have a policy of accepting everything without question you're not going to have very much fun. So what including player-made stuff means is having to spend time studying the new rules, negotiating what is acceptable and what needs to be changed, etc. That's just too much effort for a random pickup game so it makes a lot more sense to default to playing with the standard rules as published by GW (with maybe the occasional very simple house rule like "let's set up terrain before rolling for table sides").
Fragile wrote: Who says? FW says.. which means nothing. I can make a company and create a model and say this figure is fully 40k legal and is to be used at a HS choice in X codex. That does not mean that it is.
Do you really not understand the difference between GW saying "this is legal" and you as a random player saying "this is legal"?
And look.. those supplement are produced by "Games Workshop". Still no mention from GW that FW is legal to use.
Every single FW book is produced by Games Workshop, as I've already demonstrated. You just keep inventing this absurd idea that FW is some kind of separate company when it clearly isn't.
Show me the rules from GW that supports your claim. So far in this entire argument you have shown nothing other than your opinion.
I just quoted rules from GW. The fact that you believe, despite indisputable evidence to the contrary, that FW is not "real GW" does not mean that they aren't rules from GW.
So you have no citation? Nothing from Games Workshop? Anything? Concession accepted.
Again, that was from Games Workshop. Your argument here is about as reasonable as insisting that unless you get a personal letter signed and hand-delivered from the CEO of GW himself it isn't "real GW".
It's a GW department (not a separate GW owned company) with GW employees that write books with a GW copyright and that say "Published by Games Workshop", with GW's logo on the books, located at GWHQ, making models with a GW copyright, that exist in GW's universe, with a clear statement in such books/rules saying they are for use with the standard GW40k rules.
Sounds pretty legit to me.
This isn't a 3rd party or homebrew thing. it's not like Fantasy Flight Games where the stuff is is noted as being published by Fantasy Flight Games and has no Games Workshop stamp on the product, where the nod to Games Workshop shows up in the copyright section spelling out what trademarks they own.
Some players will abuse any rules and models, it does not matter whether they are FW or GW branded. The problem with FW is that the majority have no idea what they offer. Case in point, where to look for as a BA player? Oh, I know, Codex Blood Angels of course... With FW I have no idea what they have, despite browsing their site.
Heck, I've seen people model Riptides in crouching positions. Should I order kneeling scouts and use their legs for my normal models? This is the second problem. A WAAC player does not care for fluff, he only cares on how to make his OP army more OP. Can't blame TO's for not allowing FW models..
Of course FW are legal in 40k world, but you can't force anyone play an army or opponent. The gain wider acceptance one of these two must happen:
1) GW to actually acknowledge in writing that they do endorse FW 2) Tournaments start allowing FW models by default
da001 wrote: On topic again: what really baffles me is when someone who uses Forgeworld because it enriches the game (and not because he is a powergamer) then refuses to play house-rules, all of them, claiming that they are not "official". Do you want to enrich the game or not?
That happens because many people play pickup games with random strangers and it's important to have a common "standard game" that you can play without having to have a long discussion with your opponent to negotiate all the house rules you want to use. The simple fact is that most player-made units/armies are awful and not worth playing against, so if you have a policy of accepting everything without question you're not going to have very much fun. So what including player-made stuff means is having to spend time studying the new rules, negotiating what is acceptable and what needs to be changed, etc. That's just too much effort for a random pickup game so it makes a lot more sense to default to playing with the standard rules as published by GW (with maybe the occasional very simple house rule like "let's set up terrain before rolling for table sides").
Which is exactly the same reason people give for not playing with Forgeworld, isn´t it? They are difficult to get and expensive. Most players know nothing of them but the fact that some of them are utterly broken. Sure, others are not, but if you accept it without question against a stranger you will usually find yourself being abused by a power gamer. It is the same problem.
If someone comes with 4 Riptides or 4 Heldrakes against my fluffy list I will not play with him, because I know what is coming and it is not fun. If someone comes with Forgeworld or a House Rule, I will study the rule, negotiate what is acceptable and what needs to be changed, etc... A little talk is needed. It is something new, and the player pushing on the new unit should explain what it does.
And my point still stands: if someone wants to use something out of the basic books (that are many and very expensive) this person should be open to other ideas. I will like to think of the Forgeworld player as someone who want to try something new, and is willing to do the effort and pay the cost for it. I welcome this 100%, I love trying new things, but I will expect a similar approach to the ideas of others.
Naw wrote: Heck, I've seen people model Riptides in crouching positions. Should I order kneeling scouts and use their legs for my normal models? This is the second problem. A WAAC player does not care for fluff, he only cares on how to make his OP army more OP. Can't blame TO's for not allowing FW models..
How does giving an example of MFA with codex units have anything to do with whether or not FW should be allowed?
1) GW to actually acknowledge in writing that they do endorse FW
They have.
2) Tournaments start allowing FW models by default
Which will only happen if FW gains wider acceptance, making it a circular argument. Plus, who cares what tournaments do?
Care to prove this statement? I don't have a personal agenda or anything, nor do I care that most people disallow FW, but that's straight up wrong.
Forgeworld is not GW. No more than Dewalt is Black and Decker. They are both owned by a similar parent company but produce their own products.
Someone has already mentioned that the trademark GW appears on the forgeworld resin. That alone disproves what you just said.
Forgeworld's products are designed to be used by the 40k market, but you do not find them in the 40k codices or rules, hence they are not 40k.
Lol, what rules do they use then? Do they use the Infinity rules? Do they use the Warmachine rules? Here is a clue, they use the 40k rules. When you look at a Hazard Team unit and you see they have Hit and Run where do you look to find out what that does? You look at the 40k rulebook, thats where you look.
da001 wrote: Which is exactly the same reason people give for not playing with Forgeworld, isn´t it?
It's not the same reason at all. My reason for not wanting to play against player-made units/armies in a random pickup game is because the "what rules will we use" negotiation gets too complicated once you consider things that aren't published by GW. To make pickup games work you have to have a common set of rules provided by a neutral third party, preferably the people who make the game. And according to those people FW rules are part of the game. Some random player's own unit/army rules aren't.
They are difficult to get and expensive.
Not really. Many codex units are at that price level, and they're no more difficult to get than any other GW product (since let's be honest, the only reason not to order from an online store is if you're giving charity donations to a FLGS you like).
Most players know nothing of them but the fact that some of them are utterly broken.
How is this different from codex units? Many players are pretty clueless about anything that isn't in their own codex, other than some third-hand stories about how overpowered X codex unit is.
Sure, others are not, but if you accept it without question against a stranger you will usually find yourself being abused by a power gamer. It is the same problem.
That's not the same problem at all.
Allowing FW only makes you vulnerable to the same "abuse" that happens with codex units. A "power gamer" with a FW list isn't going to be any worse than that same person playing with re-rollable 2++ death stars, 4-5 Riptide Tau, etc.
Allowing player-made units by default makes you vulnerable to "power gamers" since they can invent their own broken stuff instead of being stuck with what the neutral third party has created, AND you have to deal with the unbelievable incompetence of the average player in designing new rules. Seriously, the average player-made rules make GW look like a shining example of balance and clarity. I don't want to have to spend a bunch of time before a game explaining to someone why their cool new character completely breaks the game and needs to be toned down significantly before I'll play against it, and then even more time negotiating the exact changes.
And my point still stands: if someone wants to use something out of the basic books (that are many and very expensive) this person should be open to other ideas.
You're defining "basic books" in a way that GW doesn't. GW defines "basic books" as the codices, codex supplements, and FW books, with everything else being new game type expansions (Apocalypse, etc) or house rules.
I will like to think of the Forgeworld player as someone who want to try something new, and is willing to do the effort and pay the cost for it.
Why should trying something new have to be part of it? I'm not trying anything new with my IG army (which often includes FW units), I've played it for years and I know exactly what the FW models I'm buying do and why I want to use them. I don't see why this should be any different from someone doing the same thing with codex units.
EVIL INC wrote: I'm not gonna "get into" the who GW/FW thing beyond saying that there might be loopholes that are arguable but to all OUR intents and purposes, They are different aspects of the same machine.
I see FW as the "rich mans" addition to the hobby.
1. Models that have GW counterparts such as infantry, dreadnoughts and so forth have never had to have permission so long as the GW rules/stats were used (for example the krieg models using the rules out of the guard codex).
2. Most TOs do it this way because some FW rules and models can seriously unbalance a tournament where they guy with the most money just buys a titan and autowins. It is general practice for TOs to make this call but if they so desire, they don't have to.
3. In normal games most players simply don't care or can turn down the game against someone who has the FW stuff if they don't want to face it just as they could turn down a game against that odd smelly guy with the booger hanging out of his nose. If the stuff is reasonable (im not facing a titan), I'll take the game anyway just to see the cool stuff.
I play apocalypse every week and the guy who brings his Reaver Titan down actually does shockingly poor with it. For the last few weeks he hasn't even used it and its doesn't always take another Tian or anything to bring it. It can just be Bright Lances, Dark lances, Hammernators, Meltas, etc, etc. Farsight bomb with fusions took it out just fine.
BarBoBot wrote:FW is as legit as anything else GW makes.
As long as GW itself differentiates between its own rules and FW's, I would disagree with this assessment.
They don't. In order to find out what a FW unit does you need to look at the BRB to see. For instance take Tau Hazard Suits. Their entry specifically mentions they are a Fast Attack choice in the Tau Codex. They have Hit and Run, they have Jet Packs, they have a stat line, etc, etc. In order to find out what any of that means you need to consult the 40k rulebook. They can also take upgrades from the Tau codex. i.e. Stim Injectors, Early Warning Overide, etc, etc.
Add in the fact that GW is trademarked on all the Imperial Armour books and they are property of GW then I don't see how anyone can claim that they are differentiated by the rules.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Martel732 wrote: Not really. The actual 40K rules are on par with homebrew rules. Inferior, in fact.
Hes not talking about the quality of the rules Martel. i.e. Can you make better rules than GW. He is talking and impartiality. FW and GW are impartial entities and are different from some guy making his own rules for his own army.
. . . I'm not sure you understand what a "strawman argument" is. A strawman argument is when you say your opponent is making an argument that they are not, and then provide a counter-argument to that fictitious argument.
Actually I had the wrong word in head, I was meaning Logical Fallacy.
DeadWingman wrote: Looking at GW's new Escalation expansion rumors, most of the super heavies are forge world models. But does that not mean ... wait no ... GW does not support forge world. *smacks head*
In all seriousness looka like the new GW money maker has arrived and forge world is in it.
forgeworld, an existing optional add-on, being included in another optional add-on, doesn't really mean anything.
Anyway, i'm going to start working on forgeworld thread bingo.
da001 wrote: Which is exactly the same reason people give for not playing with Forgeworld, isn´t it? They are difficult to get and expensive. Most players know nothing of them but the fact that some of them are utterly broken. Sure, others are not, but if you accept it without question against a stranger you will usually find yourself being abused by a power gamer. It is the same problem.
If someone comes with 4 Riptides or 4 Heldrakes against my fluffy list I will not play with him, because I know what is coming and it is not fun. If someone comes with Forgeworld or a House Rule, I will study the rule, negotiate what is acceptable and what needs to be changed, etc... A little talk is needed. It is something new, and the player pushing on the new unit should explain what it does.
And my point still stands: if someone wants to use something out of the basic books (that are many and very expensive) this person should be open to other ideas. I will like to think of the Forgeworld player as someone who want to try something new, and is willing to do the effort and pay the cost for it. I welcome this 100%, I love trying new things, but I will expect a similar approach to the ideas of others.
The only reason you know that 4 Riptides are bad news is because you have either played against it or witnessed someone else play against it to start off with. You don't know what FW units are overpowered or not because people refuse to play against them to begin with. If they played against FW then they would know and find out what units are bad news and what units were not. You would then know that the R'Varna Riptide is bad news and not to play against it. On the other hand this means that players who take normal FW units that are not overpowered will be able to take them since players will be able identify that they are fine.
Naw wrote: Heck, I've seen people model Riptides in crouching positions. Should I order kneeling scouts and use their legs for my normal models? This is the second problem. A WAAC player does not care for fluff, he only cares on how to make his OP army more OP. Can't blame TO's for not allowing FW models..
How does giving an example of MFA with codex units have anything to do with whether or not FW should be allowed?
Did you actually read what I wrote?
1) GW to actually acknowledge in writing that they do endorse FW
They have.
No, they still have not. Otherwise we would not be having this argument again.
2) Tournaments start allowing FW models by default
Which will only happen if FW gains wider acceptance, making it a circular argument. Plus, who cares what tournaments do?
One argument has been that not even tournaments allow FW. There you have it then, nr 1 must happen.
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. We are not connected with the US company that used the same name many years back for production of resin Warhammer 40,000 vehicles under licence."
http://www.forgeworld.co.uk/Home/Frequently_Asked_Questions.html
I got to the FW website by following the link on GW's main page.
My understanding is that all "Approved for 40k" units and items are perfectly fine for use in standard 40k games. This is as long as the player has the rules for them, from official GW/FW sources.
Naw wrote: No, they still have not. Otherwise we would not be having this argument again.
Gather round everybody. This is what is called a Non-sequitur. Basically this argument boils down to saying "If you were actually correct then it would be common knowledge that you are correct and so therefore there would be no argument because everybody would agree".
Now the argument fails because it is quite evident that people can still disagree with each other even in the face of facts. So its a Non-sequitur.
One argument has been that not even tournaments allow FW. There you have it then, nr 1 must happen.
And what exactly is this supposed to prove? Is this another Non-sequitur drummed up by you to make some sort of point that doesn't make sense. Once again we have yet another Non-sequitur. This one basically boils down to saying "FW can't be made by GW becasue it isn't allowed in tournaments"
This is akin to saying that the song Jeremy isn't a Pearl Jam song because they didn't play it at one of their concerts.
EVIL INC wrote: I'm not gonna "get into" the who GW/FW thing beyond saying that there might be loopholes that are arguable but to all OUR intents and purposes, They are different aspects of the same machine.
I see FW as the "rich mans" addition to the hobby.
1. Models that have GW counterparts such as infantry, dreadnoughts and so forth have never had to have permission so long as the GW rules/stats were used (for example the krieg models using the rules out of the guard codex).
2. Most TOs do it this way because some FW rules and models can seriously unbalance a tournament where they guy with the most money just buys a titan and autowins. It is general practice for TOs to make this call but if they so desire, they don't have to.
3. In normal games most players simply don't care or can turn down the game against someone who has the FW stuff if they don't want to face it just as they could turn down a game against that odd smelly guy with the booger hanging out of his nose. If the stuff is reasonable (im not facing a titan), I'll take the game anyway just to see the cool stuff.
I play apocalypse every week and the guy who brings his Reaver Titan down actually does shockingly poor with it. For the last few weeks he hasn't even used it and its doesn't always take another Tian or anything to bring it. It can just be Bright Lances, Dark lances, Hammernators, Meltas, etc, etc. Farsight bomb with fusions took it out just fine.
When he plays with his titan, do you know ahead of time or does he take it to the local shop in random pick up games with strangers who are not allowed to tailer to suit? Does he play it in tournaments? I already know the answer to both questions is no.
This is why I specifically differentiated models that already have rules (such as dreadnoughts, rhino parts and so forth that are designed for "normal" games and models that are not designed for normal games.
Flat out, if I don't feel like playing against a couple of reaver titans with my infantry platoon based army (if I just happen to bring that list), I don't have to if I don't want to. the store owner is not gonna lock me into the store, pull out his shotgun and tell me that I must play or die. Has ANYONE here had that happen to them. I already know the answer to that question too. It is no.
You guys can argue "po-tay-to" and po-tah-to" till the cows come home on "legal" issues and who owns what company and blah blah blah but at the end of the day, the FINAL word it that 1. TO can decide what is legel in their tourneys or not, 2. shops can decide what is legal or not in side their walls and on their tables and 3. if you don't want to play against something you don't have to.
da001 wrote: Which is exactly the same reason people give for not playing with Forgeworld, isn´t it?
It's not the same reason at all. My reason for not wanting to play against player-made units/armies in a random pickup game is because the "what rules will we use" negotiation gets too complicated once you consider things that aren't published by GW. To make pickup games work you have to have a common set of rules provided by a neutral third party,(...)
I still see it as the same problem: it is the lack of communication and the feeling that the other player is trying to get the upper hand by using something only he knows about. And there is no difference in the amount of time needed, since Forgeworld has released full Codexes and some House Rules are one-line fixes to something.
The question is: if you want to play with a DKoK list and I want to use Legion Traits for my no-heldrake CSM list, why should I do the enormous effort of reading a full book about an army I know nothing of while you don´t care about reading less than 10 sentences for my house rule?
And according to those people FW rules are part of the game. Some random player's own unit/army rules aren't
Wrong.
GW has always encouraged house rules. House Rules are part of the game. Page 108 specifically says so, and pages 339 to 400 actually exist, even if most players skip them. Not only that, it is the way the game is supposed to be played, the game is supposed to encourage creativity and creating new stuff with your friends: campaigns, heroes, chapters, missions... You may skip this part of the game in you wishes so, just like some people ignores the background or pay other people to paint their models, but it is still part of the hobby as it is intended. Claiming that in your opinion House Rules are not part of the game is fine, but GW does not share your opinion. And neither do I. You could also say that Tau are not part of the game, or Forgeworld...
They are difficult to get and expensive.
Not really. Many codex units are at that price level, and they're no more difficult to get than any other GW product (since let's be honest, the only reason not to order from an online store is if you're giving charity donations to a FLGS you like).
This game has become so ridiculously expensive that I am tempted to concede this one... but I will not. If you play by the Codex and the Rulebook that´s all you need. If you start adding things then it gets even more expensive.
Most players know nothing of them but the fact that some of them are utterly broken.
How is this different from codex units? Many players are pretty clueless about anything that isn't in their own codex, other than some third-hand stories about how overpowered X codex unit is.
Oh come on. Many people have easy access to most codexes, either because they own them or because they know someone who plays the army. There is a lot of information about them, something that it is not the case of Forgeworld. And we are still talking about a single book about a full army, not countless books.
Sure, others are not, but if you accept it without question against a stranger you will usually find yourself being abused by a power gamer. It is the same problem.
That's not the same problem at all.
Allowing FW only makes you vulnerable to the same "abuse" that happens with codex units. A "power gamer" with a FW list isn't going to be any worse than that same person playing with re-rollable 2++ death stars, 4-5 Riptide Tau, etc.
But you know these units. You avoid the players that use them and that´s all. A Forgeworld power gamer will try to convince you that his units are not broken at all, and then in turn 2 use a brutal rule combo or point out a special rule and break the game
Allowing player-made units by default makes you vulnerable to "power gamers" since they can invent their own broken stuff instead of being stuck with what the neutral third party has created, AND you have to deal with the unbelievable incompetence of the average player in designing new rules. Seriously, the average player-made rules make GW look like a shining example of balance and clarity. I don't want to have to spend a bunch of time before a game explaining to someone why their cool new character completely breaks the game and needs to be toned down significantly before I'll play against it, and then even more time negotiating the exact changes.
If you use Forgeworld, and you use a unit nobody has ever heard of, you should explain it in length. The GOOD thing of Forgeworld and House Rules is that they force you to communicate with the other player, thus turning this into the social game it is intended to be. If you are the type of player that do not have time to talk with your opponent, you should limit yourself to the most basic units, because it is quite suspicious that you expect people to adapt to new stuff when you are unwilling to do the same.
And my point still stands: if someone wants to use something out of the basic books (that are many and very expensive) this person should be open to other ideas.
You're defining "basic books" in a way that GW doesn't. GW defines "basic books" as the codices, codex supplements, and FW books, with everything else being new game type expansions (Apocalypse, etc) or house rules.
And you are doing exactly the same: expansions and house rules are part of the game. My definition of "basic rules" (the rulebook and the only one Codex for your army) may differ from yours (the rulebook, the only one Codex for your army and scores of other books written by Forgeworld almost nobody knows about), but
both are opinions, nothing else.
I will like to think of the Forgeworld player as someone who want to try something new, and is willing to do the effort and pay the cost for it.
Why should trying something new have to be part of it? I'm not trying anything new with my IG army (which often includes FW units), I've played it for years and I know exactly what the FW models I'm buying do and why I want to use them. I don't see why this should be any different from someone doing the same thing with codex units.
Well, I thought that if you got a book with lots of units that allow you to play an army and you buy another book with additional units it was because you wanted something new. I stand corrected.
The only reason you know that 4 Riptides are bad news is because you have either played against it or witnessed someone else play against it to start off with. You don't know what FW units are overpowered or not because people refuse to play against them to begin with. If they played against FW then they would know and find out what units are bad news and what units were not. You would then know that the R'Varna Riptide is bad news and not to play against it. On the other hand this means that players who take normal FW units that are not overpowered will be able to take them since players will be able identify that they are fine.
Agreed.
You need to talk with the other player and explain what your units do. There is a "social contract" between the two. And the goal should be to enjoy the game, which will not happen if you take broken units the other player know nothing about. However, given that some players have used Forgeworld as a way to get unfair advantages through the use of broken units that the normal player didn´t even know they existed, the use of Forgeworld as a whole has taken a bad reputation.
Martel732 wrote: Not really. The actual 40K rules are on par with homebrew rules. Inferior, in fact.
Hes not talking about the quality of the rules Martel. i.e. Can you make better rules than GW. He is talking and impartiality. FW and GW are impartial entities and are different from some guy making his own rules for his own army.
No way.
Most GW creators do not consider balance as an objective, and they do what they think is best for their favorite armies. Look at the Adepta Sororitas Codex and compare it with the Space Marine Codex. Or compare SM with CSM. Or Daemons with GK during the last year of 5th edition.
And Forgeworld is the same in this regard: whoever wrote the rules for the R'Varna Riptide was not impartial in any way: he was 100% sure he was creating an absolutely broken unit. GW and FW do not care about impartiality. Never have. They have stated it many times. The players are supposed to fix that problem by themselves and find some common ground.
Zoat, that isn't strange at all. You don't buy a new Toyota with the owners manual explaining to you to go to TRD for your performance upgrades. But Toyota clearly makes it offical for you to place them on your vehicle, even maintaining a warranty.
Place those same concepts into this situation, and you can easily see...without cry-baby bias...that FW was intended for general use in 40k quite plainly.
Naw wrote: No, they still have not. Otherwise we would not be having this argument again.
Gather round everybody. This is what is called a Non-sequitur. Basically this argument boils down to saying "If you were actually correct then it would be common knowledge that you are correct and so therefore there would be no argument because everybody would agree".
Now the argument fails because it is quite evident that people can still disagree with each other even in the face of facts. So its a Non-sequitur.
One argument has been that not even tournaments allow FW. There you have it then, nr 1 must happen.
And what exactly is this supposed to prove? Is this another Non-sequitur drummed up by you to make some sort of point that doesn't make sense. Once again we have yet another Non-sequitur. This one basically boils down to saying "FW can't be made by GW becasue it isn't allowed in tournaments"
This is akin to saying that the song Jeremy isn't a Pearl Jam song because they didn't play it at one of their concerts.
I am sorry, but your patronizing attitude does not help your agenda. And if you also read my message you would have noticed I am pro-FW.
Barksdale wrote: No I mean a house-rule which allows people use units which are not in the official codices, such as a FW unit.
What house rules? Page 108 in the core rulebook clearly says players can take an army list from a codex, an altered army list (which is what FW's additional unit options give us) or their own system (again, FW's army lists or homebrew).
Where's the rule that explicitly says FW isn't meant for actually playing in games though?
The suggestion that players can use FW rules is right there together with a suggestion for using homebrew rules. That says it all right there. So if if people want to make a house-rule stating allowing the use of FW rules or homebrew rules, that's okay.
It's not really a house-rule to use them when the rulebook itself gives you the ability to do so. The same permission to play an altered army list also works on codex supplements but we don't have people running around saying you have to house rule those to play them.
Seriously, the game isn't that closed off. There is a lot more freedom than people are giving it credit for here.
EVIL INC wrote: When he plays with his titan, do you know ahead of time or does he take it to the local shop in random pick up games with strangers who are not allowed to tailer to suit? Does he play it in tournaments? I already know the answer to both questions is no.
He does own other things as well. He owns a Hierophant Biotitan which he sometimes uses. However I think the Reaver is his favourite. If you think he has done poorly because people have planned for it then I can see there is some merit to your argument. However our store also brought out the Warlord Titan one week for a game and we didn't know. Two teams were arranged with two games. The team with the warlord lost on both occassions. Same as usual. Dark Lance, Bright Lances, etc, etc. Although granted there was a Shadowsword on the other side.
This is why I specifically differentiated models that already have rules (such as dreadnoughts, rhino parts and so forth that are designed for "normal" games and models that are not designed for normal games.
I never said it was a normal game. I stated it was an apocalypse game and it is an apocalypse unit. However in a game of apcalypse you can take Vortex Grenades and Orbital strikes which are D weapons. Nobody here is arguing that people should be able to take Titans in normal games, just that you're not entiely useless if you are up against a Titan and you don't have any Forgeworld stuff.
Flat out, if I don't feel like playing against a couple of reaver titans with my infantry platoon based army (if I just happen to bring that list), I don't have to if I don't want to. the store owner is not gonna lock me into the store, pull out his shotgun and tell me that I must play or die. Has ANYONE here had that happen to them. I already know the answer to that question too. It is no.
I never said you had to play it. You don't have to play against anything if you don't want to.
You guys can argue "po-tay-to" and po-tah-to" till the cows come home on "legal" issues and who owns what company and blah blah blah but at the end of the day, the FINAL word it that 1. TO can decide what is legel in their tourneys or not, 2. shops can decide what is legal or not in side their walls and on their tables and 3. if you don't want to play against something you don't have to.
Yes, thats true, but that doesn't mean we can't talk about what Forge World is intended for. This is like saying we are not allowed to talk about what our favourite flavours of Pizza are because you personally don't eat Pizza. For instance:
"You guys can argue "po-tay-to" and po-tah-to" till the cows come home on "pizza" issues and who likes what flavour and blah blah blah but at the end of the day, the FINAL word it that 1. pizza stores can decide what flavours they sell or not in their shops, 2. shops can decide what pizza to sell or not in side their walls and on their tables and 3. if you don't want to eat something you don't have to".
That makes just as much sense as your argument. So by your almighty reasoning none of us can talk about what pizza is the best pizza and none of us should have an opinion about what flavours a pizza store should sell or not.
Forge World players have an opinion. Get used to it and we are not automatically just going to be forced to not being able to enjoy our FW units just because you personally don't want them to appear down at your local store. If you don't want to play against them yourself then fine but don't moan and whine about how we should just accept that they are blanket banned at some places.
I am sorry, but your patronizing attitude does not help your agenda. And if you also read my message you would have noticed I am pro-FW.
Nothing to see here, move on..
Sorry if I was patronizing and I admit that i was but I pointed out soundly that the arguments you were using do not work. They do not help the conversation in any way either but you don't hesitate to state them in the first place.
You need to talk with the other player and explain what your units do. There is a "social contract" between the two. And the goal should be to enjoy the game, which will not happen if you take broken units the other player know nothing about. However, given that some players have used Forgeworld as a way to get unfair advantages through the use of broken units that the normal player didn´t even know they existed, the use of Forgeworld as a whole has taken a bad reputation.
I agree that both players have an input before the game starts and informing your opponents what you have is a necessary part of the game but I believe that some players have used the normal codices in order to get an unfair advantage in the game as well. I don't see the divide between the codices and FW here.
No way.
Most GW creators do not consider balance as an objective, and they do what they think is best for their favorite armies. Look at the Adepta Sororitas Codex and compare it with the Space Marine Codex. Or compare SM with CSM. Or Daemons with GK during the last year of 5th edition.
I never said balance. I said impartiality and I meant that. They don't make broken codices so that Mr Joe Bloggs down at the local store can stomp over everybody he plays against. Sure what they produce is still unbalanced but they don't reinvent the game to make their broken codices and they still have some restrictions in place. If their codex is clearly broken beyond game damaging repair then their codex just doesn't get authorised. A player making a homebrewed codex has no restrictions placed upon him at all, so he can stupid stuff that makes it absolutely impossible for him to lose. Consider the following unit:
Deep striking assault squad. Does not scatter. Can assault after deep striking. Each guy gets 10 attacks each at S10, I10 and always strikes first and also at AP1. Can re-roll failed hits and can re-roll failed wounds. All for 15pts for each model.
Whats to stop Mr Joe Bloggs from writing that into his own codex? Absolutely nothing. However I can gurantee you that you'll not find anything like that coming out of GW. Thats the point being made here. GW and FW are impartial unlike Mr Joe Bloggs down the road. Mr Joe Bloggs doesn't lose his job when he writes an overpowered fan dex.
And Forgeworld is the same in this regard: whoever wrote the rules for the R'Varna Riptide was not impartial in any way: he was 100% sure he was creating an absolutely broken unit. GW and FW do not care about impartiality. Never have. They have stated it many times. The players are supposed to fix that problem by themselves and find some common ground.
The person who wrote the R'Varna rules is held to the same standard as those the write the codices. That is the point being made when I talk about impartiality.
As I was playing catch up this morning I was thinking about the claims that are often made and here's the thing: no matter how you want to define it personally there is no official definition for "standard"" or "normal" games.
All this talk of x + y being "standard" or "normal" is frankly just your personal opinion on what the game is. The main rulebook talks about the rules being an open ended framework for enjoyable experiences and says that players have a lot of room for where they get their army lists. So if the game itself is written like a tool kit to try and support an open ended and fun experience, why are we treating it like a list of instructions that prohibit things?
On another note: cheeseball players will always be cheeseballs regardless of what you're playing, banning FW doesn't suddenly make them not cheeseballs. If you really want to fix the issue of cheeseball players either make it painfully clear that you're not looking to play against the tournament army they read about last week and built since then (and if you're lucky they primed it too) and if they're still cheeseballs and you don't like playing that kind of person then don't play them. Christ it's not that hard. Additionally, making having a physical copy of the rules (if not books, at least a print off because let's be honest, not everyone will buy the rulebooks, some people will always insist on going the free route regardless of legality) cuts down on things by giving you something you can read over and understand before the game starts. You don't have to know every single rule about every single model in the game, just accept it already, learn to communicate better and move on.
I think we've reached the point where talking about if FW is part of GW is silly. So instead I'm going to point this out from IA1v1:
Now FW used VDR rules for their stuff for about 10 years (1999~2009) until about when C: IG came out for 8th and a number of their tanks, and the Valkyrie, where transfered from being FW only to being in the IG codex. And you know what? After 10 years of it being legal for "normal games" it's really too late to start saying it's not legal now. The genie was let out of the bottle back in 2000, it's too late in 2013 to be saying that it's time to put him back in. GW knew that there would be some reluctance to accept it in the beginning and that's why we got this statement written by the head of the dev team saying that they're legal. He even authored IA 1 and 2! And before anyone starts that "one man isn't GW" thing, like I said: head of the dev team. He's the senior most Dev and is about the only one who can truly speak for the entire dev team on stuff like this. Also, we don't need "all of GW" to approve this, just the devs, which we got in that introduction.
And I'm still waiting for any real evidence by the "no-FW" crowd that shows actual proof that the dev team no longer supports FW. And again, we aren't taking tournaments as proof because they're run by the sales department, not the developers so what they say does not reflect what the developers actually have to say about FW, In short, it's a bunch of red shirts and everyone likes to complain when red shirts say FW is legal, so the same rules apply on the reverse anti-FW crowd.
I'm serious, I've seen a lot of claims by people that "GW never meant for FW to be legal" and "the devs don't support it" but we have proof that both of those statements are false at best and an outright lie at worst. So the ball is in your court. Evidence for FW has been produced numerous times, but no one has provided anything from the dev team, or the rulebook, or even a codex that says you can't play with FW. Ball is in your court, and the burden of proof is on you for a change.
Oh and the old "ask permission" statement FW had? Same one that GW had on special characters pre-5th Edition. So why is okay to let GW drop the rule no questions asked but when FW drops the same kind of rule it's some kind of "crime"?
DarthOvious wrote: I never said balance. I said impartiality and I meant that. They don't make broken codices so that Mr Joe Bloggs down at the local store can stomp over everybody he plays against. Sure what they produce is still unbalanced but they don't reinvent the game to make their broken codices and they still have some restrictions in place.
I don´t think that is correct. The GK Codex, for instance, was written so that Mr Joe Bloggs down at the local store could stomp over almost everybody, especially Daemons. Restrictions? Don´t reinvent the game? Not broken? Have you ever played 6 Vendettas against an army without anti-air at the beginning of sixth edition? GK against Demons in 5th?
Actually, the writers have admitted doing it on purpose. They favor their own armies, and they favor the new models while nerfing the old ones to the point of being useless.
Consider the following unit:
Deep striking assault squad. Does not scatter. Can assault after deep striking. Each guy gets 10 attacks each at S10, I10 and always strikes first and also at AP1. Can re-roll failed hits and can re-roll failed wounds. All for 15pts for each model.
Whats to stop Mr Joe Bloggs from writing that into his own codex? Absolutely nothing. However I can gurantee you that you'll not find anything like that coming out of GW. Thats the point being made here. GW and FW are impartial unlike Mr Joe Bloggs down the road. Mr Joe Bloggs doesn't lose his job when he writes an overpowered fan dex.
Now you consider the following list: a list with 3 R´Varna Riptides. What´s to stop Mr Andrew Bloggs from using this list? After all, Forgeworld is legal, just like House Rules or expansions. However, if he is ever to try to actually play the game, most players will say this Mr Andrew Bloggs to stay apart from them, just like the guy with the 4 Riptides or your Mr Joe Bloggs, or the guy who want to play a Forgeworld army but has forgotten the book or the guy that reeks like if he hasn´t washed in 45 days. There are two person implied in the game.
Unless you are in a tournament, then you abide by the rules.
Also, I don´t see Cruddace, Kelly or Ward being fired after breaking the game with an overpowered fan dex. They are fans too, and they write like them. They do not write "balanced" or "impartial" rules. They are not even trying.
The person who wrote the R'Varna rules is held to the same incredibly low standard as those the write the codices. That is the point being made when I talk about impartiality.
Fixed that for you
Sorry but whoever wrote that... thing... did nothing to help the pro-FW cause. At least it is still "experimental rules", but I think the less we talk about it, the better.
If we take the R'Varna as being one of the most overpowered units that FW have produced then lets compare it to one of the most powerful codex units, a daemon prince of tzeentch with a re-rollable 2++ save. Even if we allow the R'Varna to nova charge and to also hit with all four blast shots then this is the result.
Is my math correct on this? This looks really poor.
So providing my calculations are correct (perhaps they are not) the R'Varna Riptide will have trouble wounding that thing. Needless to say the daemon prince of tzeentch will be lucky to have lost one wound before it wounds the Riptide apart in close combat.
Oh and the old "ask permission" statement FW had? Same one that GW had on special characters pre-5th Edition. So why is okay to let GW drop the rule no questions asked by when FW drops the same kind of rule it's some kind of crime?
The FW guys like to say "Warhammer 40k is a gentleman's game."
I went to Nottingham this year with the express purpose of playing with/against several of the guys from FW and the night before we played I was asked "Do you mind if I play some Forge World units?" At first I thought they were joking. Of COURSE I had flown all the way there to play against these guys so we could play WITH our FW toys. But I was informed they always ask because (as I mentioned before) it's a "gentleman's game".
So I think it is still considered polite to ask the person if they mind if you field the units (in a pick up game - not talking tournaments where the rules are explicit).
I can't believe I am actually responding to this thread which comes up every two weeks. What have I become?!
I was under the impression that Game Workshop had answered this question a while back? In talking to the GW rep at the last con out here in Denver he said that Forge World was a subsidiary of GW and legal in all sanctioned games. Furthermore he said GW had said this on several occasions over the last year.
Oh and the old "ask permission" statement FW had? Same one that GW had on special characters pre-5th Edition. So why is okay to let GW drop the rule no questions asked by when FW drops the same kind of rule it's some kind of crime?
The FW guys like to say "Warhammer 40k is a gentleman's game."
I went to Nottingham this year with the express purpose of playing with/against several of the guys from FW and the night before we played I was asked "Do you mind if I play some Forge World units?" At first I thought they were joking. Of COURSE I had flown all the way there to play against these guys so we could play WITH our FW toys. But I was informed they always ask because (as I mentioned before) it's a "gentleman's game".
So I think it is still considered polite to ask the person if they mind if you field the units (in a pick up game - not talking tournaments where the rules are explicit).
I can't believe I am actually responding to this thread which comes up every two weeks. What have I become?!
It's polite to ask regardless. No one likes being surprised by a Triptide army after all.
And the FW guys have the right idea, but my issue was never with them but with certain parts of the player base instead.
Stormdrake wrote: I was under the impression that Game Workshop had answered this question a while back? In talking to the GW rep at the last con out here in Denver he said that Forge World was a subsidiary of GW and legal in all sanctioned games. Furthermore he said GW had said this on several occasions over the last year.
Is this incorrect?
Because Tom Kirby hasn't ridden down from the heavens in a chariot pulled by angels, bearing the notice that "FORGEWORLD IS LEGAL" written in gold ink on lambskin while a choir of angels sings behind him and a light shines down from God himself some people still won't accept it.
DarthOvious wrote: If we take the R'Varna as being one of the most overpowered units that FW have produced then lets compare it to one of the most powerful codex units, a daemon prince of tzeentch with a re-rollable 2++ save. Even if we allow the R'Varna to nova charge and to also hit with all four blast shots then this is the result.
Is my math correct on this? This looks really poor.
So providing my calculations are correct (perhaps they are not) the R'Varna Riptide will have trouble wounding that thing. Needless to say the daemon prince of tzeentch will be lucky to have lost one wound before it wounds the Riptide apart in close combat.
Except that is not a unit to unit calculation.
1.) The DP of TZ is a minimum of 170 points with no upgrades. Typically it will run at 300+ points so more expensive than the R'Varna.
2.) The DP of TZ cannot carry the Grimior and use it on itself which means you need to spend at least 75 points on a herald with the Grimoir...but that only gets you to a 3++ re-rolls 1s save.
3.) the DP of TZ cannot cast Divination powers. The herald you just bought gets one roll on the chart to try to get the 4++ save power to get down to the 2++ re-roll. Want to improve that...well now we are adding more mastery levels and heralds , still trying for a random power. But if you want to plan on this you are looking at running at probably 300 more points (so we are at 600 points trying to make this work)
4) The grimoir still fails 1/3rd of the time unless of course we buy Fateweaver so that is 300 more points (900 points)
So not really fair here....the R'Varna will just shoot the Grimoir carrier and kill him.....
you might not have noticed but I am pro-forge world. I think the models are great and wish I was independently wealthy enough to own a few items. Unfortunately, I work for a living and don't have that kind of cash to toss about..
my point is that it is something that should be (in my opinion) differentiated between what is made for"narmal' games and what is not. The forgeworld guys design the stuff this way. They have items that are simply cosmetic replacements for things that already exist and they design things that are made to face not only "norml game" stuff but other forgeworld stuff as well. Think of it as a step above or what I prefer to think of a step to the side (as above appears to be better and elitist over guys who cant afford it).
If I am informed that I may be facing superheavies and titans before coming to the shop, iwill come prepared. I would not even need to now exactly what ones as I would want that to be a surprise. However, I would at least know no to bring my all infantry army with heavy bolters being the stroingest weapon.
i am not saying you cant argue over who owns what company or what is a subsidiary of what. i was only pointing out that it does not affect the bottom line. by al means discuss that all you like. i actally think that FW is a side company owned by GW designed to build extras for the more fluf driven hobby aspect driven players who have the extra cash topay for nicer looking models.and that FW models should be allowed to be used (within areasonable limit) in friendly games. as a matte of fact, I would LOVE to get bunch of tohse guard jeep looking things with the turret on top. For tournaments, I personally feel that only stuff in the normal game" codexes be used (welcome FW versions cause they often look cooler) and that the TO should draw the line somewhere and that that is as good a place as any. personally, I feel that in situation such as tournaments this line needs to be drawn because of the different opinions and possible arguments that could arise.
Player 1-'Well,this jeep isn't really powerfull and it looks cool so why cant I use it"
player 2- "Well, if he gets to use his jeep, why cant I use this warlord titan, its cool looking and I don't think its really powrful'
Player 3- How am I supposed to compete against that?"
Player 4-"What is that stff and whats this forgeworld you guys are talking about"
Tournament organizer- "*pulls out hair*
and so on and so on all day without a single game being played and multiple fistfights in the parking lot.
thats wh Im more than happy to play against it if i know its an option beforehand in order to be prepared but don't want to se it in tournaments (although i bow to the authority of the TO..
BTW, i vote pepperoni, mushroom and extra cheese with NO (as in ZERO) anchovies on your pizza issues..
EVIL INC wrote: you might not have noticed but I am pro-forge world. I think the models are great and wish I was independently wealthy enough to own a few items. Unfortunately, I work for a living and don't have that kind of cash to toss about..
my point is that it is something that should be (in my opinion) differentiated between what is made for"narmal' games and what is not. The forgeworld guys design the stuff this way. They have items that are simply cosmetic replacements for things that already exist and they design things that are made to face not only "norml game" stuff but other forgeworld stuff as well. Think of it as a step above or what I prefer to think of a step to the side (as above appears to be better and elitist over guys who cant afford it).
If I am informed that I may be facing superheavies and titans before coming to the shop, iwill come prepared. I would not even need to now exactly what ones as I would want that to be a surprise. However, I would at least know no to bring my all infantry army with heavy bolters being the stroingest weapon.
i am not saying you cant argue over who owns what company or what is a subsidiary of what. i was only pointing out that it does not affect the bottom line. by al means discuss that all you like. i actally think that FW is a side company owned by GW designed to build extras for the more fluf driven hobby aspect driven players who have the extra cash topay for nicer looking models.and that FW models should be allowed to be used (within areasonable limit) in friendly games. as a matte of fact, I would LOVE to get bunch of tohse guard jeep looking things with the turret on top. For tournaments, I personally feel that only stuff in the normal game" codexes be used (welcome FW versions cause they often look cooler) and that the TO should draw the line somewhere and that that is as good a place as any. personally, I feel that in situation such as tournaments this line needs to be drawn because of the different opinions and possible arguments that could arise.
Player 1-'Well,this jeep isn't really powerfull and it looks cool so why cant I use it"
player 2- "Well, if he gets to use his jeep, why cant I use this warlord titan, its cool looking and I don't think its really powrful'
Player 3- How am I supposed to compete against that?"
Player 4-"What is that stff and whats this forgeworld you guys are talking about"
Tournament organizer- "*pulls out hair*
and so on and so on all day without a single game being played and multiple fistfights in the parking lot.
thats wh Im more than happy to play against it if i know its an option beforehand in order to be prepared but don't want to se it in tournaments (although i bow to the authority of the TO..
BTW, i vote pepperoni, mushroom and extra cheese with NO (as in ZERO) anchovies on your pizza issues..
"I think having three Riptides is cool and not very powerful".
Trying to use the 'balance' argument against Forge World is totally nonsensical
@Stormdrake: Well, it depends. What is a "sanctioned" game?
As far as I know, the matter is still like this: if it is a tournament, the tournament organizer is the one making the decision; if it is a friendly game, you need consent from the other player. It has been always that way, and FW recently insisted on it again. However, there are some players that say that you can force other players to play with them even in casual games, and some players that say that FW should be banned forever. Business as usual.
@DarthOvious: At this point I should admit that I know nothing of the R'Varna, I was using it as a counter-example given the general consensus that it is an overpowered unit. If you want, please ignore the example and exchange the name "Riptide R´Varna" for whichever you think is the most overpowered FW unit right now in any reasoning I did. Needless to say, I will gladly play against it if it is really balanced.
da001 wrote: I don´t think that is correct. The GK Codex, for instance, was written so that Mr Joe Bloggs down at the local store could stomp over almost everybody, especially Daemons. Restrictions? Don´t reinvent the game? Not broken? Have you ever played 6 Vendettas against an army without anti-air at the beginning of sixth edition? GK against Demons in 5th?
I doubt GW have ever met Mr Joe Bloggs with his Grey Knights army. And just exactly what tournaments is Mr Joe Bloggs winning these days with his Grey Knights cheese army? Can you prove the underlined please with a citation.
You're still not getting the picture. Mr Joe Bloggs when writing his own codex can always include something in his codex to beef up to ridiculous levels. Even beyond the levels of codex creep. The stuff you have mentioned may have been strong, it may have been cheese but it was never impossible to beat. The writers are still required to improve each codex within a framework that is going to make sense.
Actually, the writers have admitted doing it on purpose. They favor their own armies, and they favor the new models while nerfing the old ones to the point of being useless.
This means nothing in a Vacuum. Oh my goodness, the writers actually like wrting the codices for their favourite armies. What an unexpected surprise. Now what you need to do is supply me with a quote from one of those writers saying the following "I wanted to make army X unbeatable in every single game. I wanted to include complete cheese that meant that army X would wipe out an opponents army in one turn without given them a chance to win".
Now if you can supply that then perhaps you will have an argument.
Now you consider the following list: a list with 3 R´Varna Riptides. What´s to stop Mr Andrew Bloggs from using this list? After all, Forgeworld is legal, just like House Rules or expansions. However, if he is ever to try to actually play the game, most players will say this Mr Andrew Bloggs to stay apart from them, just like the guy with the 4 Riptides or your Mr Joe Bloggs, or the guy who want to play a Forgeworld army but has forgotten the book or the guy that reeks like if he hasn´t washed in 45 days. There are two person implied in the game.
The assault marines I mentioned would butcher those Riptides. Ergo the R'Varnas are not as powerful as the theorectical assault marines I listed.
Also see my post about how much damage a R'Varna will do to a daemon prince of tzeentch with a re-rollable 2++
.
Unless you are in a tournament, then you abide by the rules.
Of course
Also, I don´t see Cruddace, Kelly or Ward being fired after breaking the game with an overpowered fan dex. They are fans too, and they write like them. They do not write "balanced" or "impartial" rules. They are not even trying.
At this point you are just listing every writer at GW and saying they all write overpowered codices. So what exactly is the problem with FW again? Afterall all the codices are totally overpowered and one sided as it is so why is FW all of a sudden frowned upon? Just wait until the next codex comes out and that FW unit will obviously be crap again because of codex creep contineously pumping up the ridiculousness of cheese with each codex release.
Also note that Ward isn't writing codices anymore. I found this out when I spoke to him at Games Day. Perhaps it was decided it was best if he didn't for some reason we will keep to ourselves.
The person who wrote the R'Varna rules is held to the same incredibly low standard as those the write the codices. That is the point being made when I talk about impartiality.
Fixed that for you
What exactly is your point here? Nothing you are saying makes sense. You state that GW codices are overpowered cheese that continually get more and more powerful with each release to ridiculous levels, but then argue that FW is what will break the game.
Your argument is invalid.
Sorry but whoever wrote that... thing... did nothing to help the pro-FW cause. At least it is still "experimental rules", but I think the less we talk about it, the better.
You mean that thing that obviously can't compete with the cheese that Kelly, Cruddace or Vetock write.
Your argument is all over the place. It is not consistent and I have no clue how you judge all the codices to be on a ridiculous power creep curve with each new codex pumping out bigger cheese than the previous but then imply that this FW unit will always be the unit that breaks the game.
I'm sorry but I just don't understand what you are trying to say here.
I agree that its not, but then it is a common thing for a daemon list to take.
1.) The DP of TZ is a minimum of 170 points with no upgrades. Typically it will run at 300+ points so more expensive than the R'Varna.
2.) The DP of TZ cannot carry the Grimior and use it on itself which means you need to spend at least 75 points on a herald with the Grimoir...but that only gets you to a 3++ re-rolls 1s save.
3.) the DP of TZ cannot cast Divination powers. The herald you just bought gets one roll on the chart to try to get the 4++ save power to get down to the 2++ re-roll. Want to improve that...well now we are adding more mastery levels and heralds , still trying for a random power. But if you want to plan on this you are looking at running at probably 300 more points (so we are at 600 points trying to make this work)
4) The grimoir still fails 1/3rd of the time unless of course we buy Fateweaver so that is 300 more points (900 points)
And yet daemon players still take this for some weird reason. it can't be as bad as you're making it out to be.
So not really fair here....the R'Varna will just shoot the Grimoir carrier and kill him.....
Of course and the Space Wolf Rune Priest will just kill the R'Varna with JotWW. Of course we all know its not as simple as that. The R'Varna could just shoot the Herald as you state but then of course it then gets butchered by the daemon prince in close combat in the next turn anyway. Oh Ghee, my 300pt unit killed a herald. How lucky am I.
Would it be better if I used the Seer Council on Jetbikes as a comparison instead?
Player 1-'Well,this jeep isn't really powerfull and it looks cool so why cant I use it"
player 2- "Well, if he gets to use his jeep, why cant I use this warlord titan, its cool looking and I don't think its really powrful'
Player 3- How am I supposed to compete against that?"
Player 4-"What is that stff and whats this forgeworld you guys are talking about"
Tournament organizer- "*pulls out hair*
and so on and so on all day without a single game being played and multiple fistfights in the parking lot.
Except that no one is trying to bring a titan into a normal game of 40k. Those are apocalypse units, we are not discussing those. Your argument is invalid the units being discussed have a seal of "40k Approved" on them. You can choose not to play against it just like you can refuse to play any codex army. But that does not make forgeworld illegal.
EVIL INC wrote: you might not have noticed but I am pro-forge world. I think the models are great and wish I was independently wealthy enough to own a few items. Unfortunately, I work for a living and don't have that kind of cash to toss about..
my point is that it is something that should be (in my opinion) differentiated between what is made for"narmal' games and what is not. The forgeworld guys design the stuff this way. They have items that are simply cosmetic replacements for things that already exist and they design things that are made to face not only "norml game" stuff but other forgeworld stuff as well. Think of it as a step above or what I prefer to think of a step to the side (as above appears to be better and elitist over guys who cant afford it).
If I am informed that I may be facing superheavies and titans before coming to the shop, iwill come prepared. I would not even need to now exactly what ones as I would want that to be a surprise. However, I would at least know no to bring my all infantry army with heavy bolters being the stroingest weapon.
i am not saying you cant argue over who owns what company or what is a subsidiary of what. i was only pointing out that it does not affect the bottom line. by al means discuss that all you like. i actally think that FW is a side company owned by GW designed to build extras for the more fluf driven hobby aspect driven players who have the extra cash topay for nicer looking models.and that FW models should be allowed to be used (within areasonable limit) in friendly games. as a matte of fact, I would LOVE to get bunch of tohse guard jeep looking things with the turret on top. For tournaments, I personally feel that only stuff in the normal game" codexes be used (welcome FW versions cause they often look cooler) and that the TO should draw the line somewhere and that that is as good a place as any. personally, I feel that in situation such as tournaments this line needs to be drawn because of the different opinions and possible arguments that could arise.
Player 1-'Well,this jeep isn't really powerfull and it looks cool so why cant I use it"
player 2- "Well, if he gets to use his jeep, why cant I use this warlord titan, its cool looking and I don't think its really powrful'
Player 3- How am I supposed to compete against that?"
Player 4-"What is that stff and whats this forgeworld you guys are talking about"
Tournament organizer- "*pulls out hair*
and so on and so on all day without a single game being played and multiple fistfights in the parking lot.
thats wh Im more than happy to play against it if i know its an option beforehand in order to be prepared but don't want to se it in tournaments (although i bow to the authority of the TO..
BTW, i vote pepperoni, mushroom and extra cheese with NO (as in ZERO) anchovies on your pizza issues..
Ok fair enough. a good explanation for your thoughts. I will just add that the player argument that you're talking about still exists. It just exists as a FW/no FW argument. I believe it should be on the individual units though. Anybody who says the words "Well, if he gets to use his jeep, why cant I use this warlord titan, its cool looking and I don't think its really powerful' is obviously just being a douche. Also it can always be stated that the Titan is not 40k approved and is for apocalypse only. A division already exists for it. I would also add that experimental rules can be left out on this basis as well, so no R'Varna in a tournament game. I even own one, but I won't begrudge anybody who doesn't want to play it because I am a reasonable guy and I know its a very strong unit.
If you ever do get those jeeps then I won't begrudge you a game. I am 100% happy to play against them, as you've could have guessed.
Lol, I am going to go with texas Barbeque pizza (BQ sauce base, peppers & bacon). Yum.
The copyright notice should have nailed it, a number of pages back.
The books are OWNED BY GW. They are not "FW" books, as every single word and picture in there is owned by GW. So all the rules etc are, literally, GW saying they are part of the 40k game. All of them.
SO they are as legal as any and every codex, supplement and FAQ out there. Yes, you can refuse to play against them, and I can refuse to play against you for any reason I want - even in a tournament, I can refuse to play the game.
@DarthOvious: At this point I should admit that I know nothing of the R'Varna, I was using it as a counter-example given the general consensus that it is an overpowered unit. If you want, please ignore the example and exchange the name "Riptide R´Varna" for whichever you think is the most overpowered FW unit right now in any reasoning I did. Needless to say, I will gladly play against it if it is really balanced.
The R'Varna is a very strong unit so its not necessarily a bad example. However I would rather that players point out individual units they don't want to play against rather than just banning all FW. The point I was making is that the game itself is filled with these kind of units. Banning all FW would be equivalent to just banning 40k all together. i.e.
1) There are a few overpowered FW units, so lets ban FW
2) There are a few overpowered GW units, so lets ban GW
Thats the double standard. 1 is practiced but 2 isn't and obviously can't be without quiting the game altogether.
The R'Varna is really strong but it's weakness is its inability to hurt 2+ armour saves. Its guns are AP3. So its role is brilliant when shooting at most vehicles, most light infantry and even monsterous crectures. However anything with a 2+ armour save or a solid invulnerable save is going to be fine against it. Armour 14 is is in the middle and can be a hit or miss, with either the R'Varna glancing it to death or completely fluffing and not doing a jot of damage.
I kind of get a bit irritated when I see people categorically banning Forge World.
The only army I played for quite a long time was Armored Company, dropped by GW's Chapter Approved sometime in 2006ish. I quit the game, then, because the six or so Leman Russ tanks I owned were no longer usable as an Army.
Come 2008, and my friend who plays told me about Imperial Armor Vol. 1 with the Armored Battlegroup list in it, and YAY I can play 40k again.
Except apparently not, because Forge World is illegal according to some people.
I guess those people would have rather I quit the hobby than use a Forge World list.
At this point you are just listing every writer at GW and saying they all write overpowered codices. So what exactly is the problem with FW again? (...) Nothing you are saying makes sense. You state that GW codices are overpowered cheese that continually get more and more powerful with each release to ridiculous levels, but then argue that FW is what will break the game.
(...) Your argument is all over the place. It is not consistent and I have no clue how you judge all the codices to be on a ridiculous power creep curve with each new codex pumping out bigger cheese than the previous but then imply that this FW unit will always be the unit that breaks the game.
Wait, what? When did I say that? FW will break the game?
You have perhaps mistaken me with someone who is against FW. I am OK with Forgeworld, remember? I will gladly play against it and welcome it for a change. I own Forgeworld units and FW books. I am getting Massacre for Christmas. I consider FW of a higher quality than the regular w40k.
However, I will refuse to play in a casual game against someone with an overpowered / unfun list, regardless of the origin of the unit. And the choice of who I play with is mine. Which is exactly the position of FW on the matter, "ask the opponent in casual games, ask the tournament organizer in tournaments". I do not like it when someone says that FW "no longer requires consent".
Our conversation started when I pointed out that House Rules were also contemplated in the Rulebook, and found funny that some pro-forgeworld players will insist that people should do the effort to know the rules they want while claiming that all other rules (expansions, house rules) where somehow "unworthy" of their attention. I asked: "Why should I make the effort of reading your DKoK full codex when you will not do the effort of reading my 10 sentences house rule that gives my CSM a Legion Trait?". Keep in mind, however, that I will gladly read that book, or a 300 pages fan-made codex about the Barghesi, I really like this kind of stuff.
I'm sorry but I just don't understand what you are trying to say here.
Yeah I noticed.
I think you intermixed my conversation with other conversation with someone else. It happens.
Also note that Ward isn't writing codices anymore. I found this out when I spoke to him at Games Day. Perhaps it was decided it was best if he didn't for some reason we will keep to ourselves.
Didn´t know that.... He writes good rules, yet awful, awful fluff. I don´t know if this makes me happy or sad.
Except unless you are going to go through and ban units across the boad you still get a doubel standard.
1.) There are a Few OPFW units...lets ban those.
Pisses people off just as much as banning it all together (infact it pisses off more people. the Pro FW people are not happy because FW is being targeted, and the anti FW people are pissed because they don't want any FW.)
So unless you include
2.) Some GW units are OP lets ban those....
It is still a double standard. Now you can ban units across the board if you want, but most people don't because they want to be able to use their toys.
Really there are a few broken rules across the game and the rules should be fixed not the units banned if you want to balance the game.
Breng77 wrote: Except unless you are going to go through and ban units across the boad you still get a doubel standard.
1.) There are a Few OPFW units...lets ban those.
Pisses people off just as much as banning it all together (infact it pisses off more people. the Pro FW people are not happy because FW is being targeted, and the anti FW people are pissed because they don't want any FW.)
So unless you include
2.) Some GW units are OP lets ban those....
It is still a double standard. Now you can ban units across the board if you want, but most people don't because they want to be able to use their toys.
Really there are a few broken rules across the game and the rules should be fixed not the units banned if you want to balance the game.
I think this is what da001 was saying, though, he does include both statements.
A normal player, who does not ban any units published in an army's codex, should not ban similar units from Forge World. Seeing that Forge World is meant to be played in 40k, there are no units dissimilar enough to warrant banning on their own.
DarthOvious wrote: Also note that Ward isn't writing codices anymore. I found this out when I spoke to him at Games Day. Perhaps it was decided it was best if he didn't for some reason we will keep to ourselves.
Didn´t know that.... He writes good rules, yet awful, awful fluff. I don´t know if this makes me happy or sad.
He's still doing Army Books for WFB it seems, and he's doing supplements (he wrote the Iyanden one and the fluff there wasn't bad, not to mention his fluff work in the Sisters WD codex was pretty decent and overall he's been improving steadily.)
Forgeworld isn't available in the GW retail stores, nor are any of the rule books. Further, forgeworld doesn't make complete army additions for each of the 40k armies, which allows for certain armies a huge amount of additional army choices. Nice models, certainly made by a branch of GW, intended for the 40k game, but still not listed in the main rulebook or the main faq. A huge amount of standard codex mini's are listed in the main rulebook, this isn't the case for the forgeworld ones.
Solution is pathetically easy, mtg solved it almost immediately. Two basic game formats. 40k Standard and 40k extended. (extended allows forgeworld) Hey guys, I have an extended army, is that ok?
Problem solved. Nobody is the bad guy, the ongoing argument ceases to exist, and we can all just roll dice without the drama. How about it forgeworld guys, is this a fair enough compromise?
At this point you are just listing every writer at GW and saying they all write overpowered codices. So what exactly is the problem with FW again? (...) Nothing you are saying makes sense. You state that GW codices are overpowered cheese that continually get more and more powerful with each release to ridiculous levels, but then argue that FW is what will break the game.
(...) Your argument is all over the place. It is not consistent and I have no clue how you judge all the codices to be on a ridiculous power creep curve with each new codex pumping out bigger cheese than the previous but then imply that this FW unit will always be the unit that breaks the game.
Wait, what? When did I say that? FW will break the game?
You have perhaps mistaken me with someone who is against FW. I am OK with Forgeworld, remember? I will gladly play against it and welcome it for a change. I own Forgeworld units and FW books. I am getting Massacre for Christmas. I consider FW of a higher quality than the regular w40k.
Perhaps.
However, I will refuse to play in a casual game against someone with an overpowered / unfun list, regardless of the origin of the unit. And the choice of who I play with is mine. Which is exactly the position of FW on the matter, "ask the opponent in casual games, ask the tournament organizer in tournaments". I do not like it when someone says that FW "no longer requires consent".
Hmm, this is where we disagree to an extent. Yes, I believe that a player can choose to not play a game against another player but I view FW as being just as legal as the codices. Heck I view the FW units as being part of the codex since their entries say they are.
Our conversation started when I pointed out that House Rules were also contemplated in the Rulebook, and found funny that some pro-forgeworld players will insist that people should do the effort to know the rules they want while claiming that all other rules (expansions, house rules) where somehow "unworthy" of their attention. I asked: "Why should I make the effort of reading your DKoK full codex when you will not do the effort of reading my 10 sentences house rule that gives my CSM a Legion Trait?". Keep in mind, however, that I will gladly read that book, or a 300 pages fan-made codex about the Barghesi, I really like this kind of stuff.
Yes and I was arguing a difference between fan dexes and FW/GW stuff.
I'm sorry but I just don't understand what you are trying to say here.
Yeah I noticed.
I think you also misunderstand my reply I suppose. This convo is perhaps just one big mess.
I think you intermixed my conversation with other conversation with someone else. It happens.
I think we are misunderstanding each other.
Also note that Ward isn't writing codices anymore. I found this out when I spoke to him at Games Day. Perhaps it was decided it was best if he didn't for some reason we will keep to ourselves.
Didn´t know that.... He writes good rules, yet awful, awful fluff. I don´t know if this makes me happy or sad.
anchorbine wrote: Forgeworld isn't available in the GW retail stores, nor are any of the rule books.
Neither are Sisters of Battle. Nor is such a requirement listed anywhere in the game rules.
Further, forgeworld doesn't make complete army additions for each of the 40k armies, which allows for certain armies a huge amount of additional army choices.
And GW doesn't make supplement codex books (or equal number of supplement books) for all armies. Nor does each codex have the same number of units and options. And if you want to look at allies...well, lets compare the armies that can ally with the Imperial Guard to those that can ally with Dark Eldar, or worse, Tyranids.
Nice models, certainly made by a branch of GW, intended for the 40k game, but still not listed in the main rulebook or the main faq.
Neither are Riptides or Centurions.
A huge amount of standard codex mini's are listed in the main rulebook, this isn't the case for the forgeworld ones.
That's an out of date reference section, nothing more.
Solution is pathetically easy, mtg solved it almost immediately. Two basic game formats. 40k Standard and 40k extended. (extended allows forgeworld) Hey guys, I have an extended army, is that ok?
Problem solved. Nobody is the bad guy, the ongoing argument ceases to exist, and we can all just roll dice without the drama. How about it forgeworld guys, is this a fair enough compromise?
the issue is that this is used to prevent people from using their GW models produced by the FW department at many events and casual games, in many instances in scenarios where they were explicitely designed to be used, and such a standard isn't applied to other things you can't get in stores or aren't listed in reference sections.
Breng77 wrote: Except unless you are going to go through and ban units across the boad you still get a doubel standard.
1.) There are a Few OPFW units...lets ban those.
Pisses people off just as much as banning it all together (infact it pisses off more people. the Pro FW people are not happy because FW is being targeted, and the anti FW people are pissed because they don't want any FW.)
So unless you include
2.) Some GW units are OP lets ban those....
It is still a double standard. Now you can ban units across the board if you want, but most people don't because they want to be able to use their toys.
Really there are a few broken rules across the game and the rules should be fixed not the units banned if you want to balance the game.
I think this is what da001 was saying, though, he does include both statements.
A normal player, who does not ban any units published in an army's codex, should not ban similar units from Forge World. Seeing that Forge World is meant to be played in 40k, there are no units dissimilar enough to warrant banning on their own.
"I think this is what da001 was saying": wow I am a failure as a writer
I don´t think any unit should be "banned". The players should talk about what kind of game they want, and with what units. Some would say "no" to a Forgeworld unit, others would say "no" to a 3-Riptide army, others would say "no" to a house rule.... An agreement must be reached between the players and no one else. And house rules are always there to fix the broken unit, no need to keep the toys. I know of a CSM player that uses Heldrakes because he likes the model, and uses them with this house rule: "a template weapon can only be fired by a flyer if the flyer is Hovering". Easy, makes sense and fixes a broken unit, thus allowing for fun games.
However, I will refuse to play in a casual game against someone with an overpowered / unfun list, regardless of the origin of the unit. And the choice of who I play with is mine. Which is exactly the position of FW on the matter, "ask the opponent in casual games, ask the tournament organizer in tournaments". I do not like it when someone says that FW "no longer requires consent".
Hmm, this is where we disagree to an extent. Yes, I believe that a player can choose to not play a game against another player but I view FW as being just as legal as the codices. Heck I view the FW units as being part of the codex since their entries say they are.
I apply the same rule to the Codex units, the Forgeworld units and the House Rules. Thus the "regardless of the origin of the unit". So I guess I disagree that we have a disagreement here (except in the House Rules part).
I'm sorry but I just don't understand what you are trying to say here.
Yeah I noticed.
I think you also misunderstand my reply I suppose. This convo is perhaps just one big mess.
Probably my fault, I should be working right now. I am writing in a hurry.
Breng77 wrote: Except unless you are going to go through and ban units across the boad you still get a doubel standard.
1.) There are a Few OPFW units...lets ban those.
Pisses people off just as much as banning it all together (infact it pisses off more people. the Pro FW people are not happy because FW is being targeted, and the anti FW people are pissed because they don't want any FW.)
So unless you include
2.) Some GW units are OP lets ban those....
It is still a double standard. Now you can ban units across the board if you want, but most people don't because they want to be able to use their toys.
Really there are a few broken rules across the game and the rules should be fixed not the units banned if you want to balance the game.
I think this is what da001 was saying, though, he does include both statements.
A normal player, who does not ban any units published in an army's codex, should not ban similar units from Forge World. Seeing that Forge World is meant to be played in 40k, there are no units dissimilar enough to warrant banning on their own.
"I think this is what da001 was saying": wow I am a failure as a writer
I don´t think any unit should be "banned". The players should talk about what kind of game they want, and with what units. Some would say "no" to a Forgeworld unit, others would say "no" to a 3-Riptide army, others would say "no" to a house rule.... An agreement must be reached between the players and no one else. And house rules are always there to fix the broken unit, no need to keep the toys. I know of a CSM player that uses Heldrakes because he likes the model, and uses them with this house rule: "a template weapon can only be fired by a flyer if the flyer is Hovering". Easy, makes sense and fixes a broken unit, thus allowing for fun games.
Sorry about that, it's possible I misinterpreted you.
anchorbine wrote: Forgeworld isn't available in the GW retail stores, nor are any of the rule books. Further, forgeworld doesn't make complete army additions for each of the 40k armies, which allows for certain armies a huge amount of additional army choices. Nice models, certainly made by a branch of GW, intended for the 40k game, but still not listed in the main rulebook or the main faq. A huge amount of standard codex mini's are listed in the main rulebook, this isn't the case for the forgeworld ones.
Codex Supplements are digital only then go direct only after 3+ months, 2 codexes out now have no hard copy you can purchase meaning they aren't sold in shops and there are at least 100+ models that aren't available in your local store unless they direct order them (which means slimmer profit margins for them as they pay about 70% on those items). Are those somehow less official because of it?
If you're going to apply this arguement to FW you need to do it to the entire GW line and then you find that it falls very, very, short of being valid.
And Warhammer World sells FW. You know, just a little tidbit for you.
anchorbine wrote: Solution is pathetically easy, mtg solved it almost immediately. Two basic game formats. 40k Standard and 40k extended. (extended allows forgeworld) Hey guys, I have an extended army, is that ok?
GW went a different route: "EVERYTHING IS LEGAL GUYS!" is what the rulebook says and yet people still try and box 40k in to specifics. Stop being so narrow minded about the game already.
anchorbine wrote: Problem solved. Nobody is the bad guy, the ongoing argument ceases to exist, and we can all just roll dice without the drama. How about it forgeworld guys, is this a fair enough compromise?
Problem not solved because then you have arguements about what is "standard" and what is "extended" and you don't really fix anything.
I just want to see 40k to stop being shoved into this tiny little box on what it "should" be. What it "should" be is a game that anyone can play with anything they want without being forced into one game type.
Sometimes I swear the whole 40k tournament scene that GW dropped on the community in 3rd has actually set this hobby back in terms of "freedom" and "creativity" and has turned large parts of the community into watchdogs who can't stand to see the game shifted too much too fast lest they lose their competitive advantage.
Not everything is about tournaments or winning. Sometimes you just need to tell a cool story or try something neat for once. Step back from the "I always need to play at my most competetive!" mindset for a while and try playing a game where you try new and crazy things. Who cares if it's the most optimized list you can make? Even if you lose you'll learn more trying stuff out like a Marine Tide army, or running an all Scout list than you will playing the same exact list over and over until the internet comes along and tells you to play something else.
the issue is that this is used to prevent people from using their GW models produced by the FW department at many events and casual games, in many instances in scenarios where they were explicitely designed to be used, and such a standard isn't applied to other things you can't get in stores or aren't listed in reference sections.
That exact same answer could be used to justify the use of the power 9 in a game of mtg, yet that hasn't created any issues for the MTG community. They understand and comprehend that there are different levels of play and adapted their game to it. It's accepted, nobody complains, and there are still means to utilize all of your magic cards regardless of expansion. They don't have 10 years of ongoing message board wars regarding their formats, they just choose a format and play.
I fail to see why people who enjoy forgeworld can't offer the same option without the drama or trying to create division. It's beyond simple. "I have an extended army, would you like to give it a go?" "Sure, let's roll some dice", or "I'm more comfortable with a game of 40k Standard."
No drama, no argument, nobody feeling like the other player is forcing them into anything.
I can't find a single thing I disagree with Clockwork on.
I've said it before and I'll say it again; I care infinitely more about the person behind the list than what the list is. I think more players should take that attitude instead of outright refusing a game based on the inclusion of a single FW unit.
Blacksails wrote: I can't find a single thing I disagree with Clockwork on.
That might be a first!
Blacksails wrote: I've said it before and I'll say it again; I care infinitely more about the person behind the list than what the list is. I think more players should take that attitude instead of outright refusing a game based on the inclusion of a single FW unit.
Agreed. Player attitude is just as important as anything else. We've got a player locally that I won't play anymore because he's not a good sport.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
anchorbine wrote: That exact same answer could be used to justify the use of the power 9 in a game of mtg, yet that hasn't created any issues for the MTG community. They understand and comprehend that there are different levels of play and adapted their game to it. It's accepted, nobody complains, and there are still means to utilize all of your magic cards regardless of expansion. They don't have 10 years of ongoing message board wars regarding their formats, they just choose a format and play.
40k isn't MtG though. MtG tries to restore balance with banned and restricted lists, and by participating in tournament events. GW tries to give us a narrative experience where everything is legal and then we have people trying to force that into a competitive setting and getting upset when it doesn't fit. You're basically comparing a Goldfish to a Squirrel. Neither have anything to do with the other and that's perfectly fine. Frankly I'm tired of people trying to shove GW into a box and say that we should say "X" or "Y" is the only thing legal when GW is pretty clear that EVERYTHING is legal (or else a "legal" place to get an army list wouldn't be "your own system" and the "Spirit of the Game" wouldn't say things like players should treat the rules as a framework for an enjoyable experience, not the end all, be all of it).
anchorbine wrote: I fail to see why people who enjoy forgeworld can't offer the same option without the drama or trying to create division. It's beyond simple. "I have an extended army, would you like to give it a go?" "Sure, let's roll some dice", or "I'm more comfortable with a game of 40k Standard."
Why is it the people who are "pro-FW" are the ones creating the drama? Why is "I'd like to be able to play my stuff that I spent time and money on so I could build and paint it in the hopes of playing it without it being outright banned just for being 'FW'" considered "drama"? Great job to try and make your point by painting pro-FW players as the "bad guys" here. There should be NO division. That's the way the rulebook is written and if you don't want to play something, fine, but stop trying to create a division to support your preffered way of play.
anchorbine wrote: No drama, no argument, nobody feeling like the other player is forcing them into anything.
Says the person who claims FW players are the ones causing the drama.
Have we disagreed on something before? I can't recall. If we did, it certainly didn't blow up or anything. Either way, I certainly hold no ill will towards you and respect a lot of what you write as being well reasoned.
Either way, I've just never understood the issues people have with FW. Its as legal as anything in this game, as legal isn't a term defined by, well, anything. 40k is such a poorly written, poorly balanced mess of a game anyways, that drawing some arbitrary line in the sand for FW just doesn't add up to me. Then again, I'd play against the hardest list you could throw at me, and even from a loss I'd still finish smiling having learned something.
I'm just not cut out for these debates anymore. I guess I'll deal with it if I ever run into a group near me who has issues with FW, but so far, everywhere I've been has been 100% down with using FW anytime.
Blacksails wrote: I can't find a single thing I disagree with Clockwork on.
I've said it before and I'll say it again; I care infinitely more about the person behind the list than what the list is. I think more players should take that attitude instead of outright refusing a game based on the inclusion of a single FW unit.
i don't think anyone would disagree with that, the issue is in some people assuming that their own absolute - that people should be forced to play against forgeworld - overrides this.
By contrast i would prefer a case by case basis. I'm happy to play against fluffy or cool forgeworld, but if some dick wants to spam laser platforms or artillery then he can jog on.
Blacksails wrote: I can't find a single thing I disagree with Clockwork on.
I've said it before and I'll say it again; I care infinitely more about the person behind the list than what the list is. I think more players should take that attitude instead of outright refusing a game based on the inclusion of a single FW unit.
i don't think anyone would disagree with that, the issue is in some people assuming that their own absolute - that people should be forced to play against forgeworld - overrides this.
By contrast i would prefer a case by case basis. I'm happy to play against fluffy or cool forgeworld, but if some dick wants to spam laser platforms or artillery then he can jog on.
How's that different than some guy showing up with 3 Heldrakes, a wave serpent spam list, or weird IG/Sm allies shennanigans?
Blacksails wrote: I can't find a single thing I disagree with Clockwork on.
I've said it before and I'll say it again; I care infinitely more about the person behind the list than what the list is. I think more players should take that attitude instead of outright refusing a game based on the inclusion of a single FW unit.
i don't think anyone would disagree with that, the issue is in some people assuming that their own absolute - that people should be forced to play against forgeworld - overrides this.
By contrast i would prefer a case by case basis. I'm happy to play against fluffy or cool forgeworld, but if some dick wants to spam laser platforms or artillery then he can jog on.
How's that different than some guy showing up with 3 Heldrakes, a wave serpent spam list, or weird IG/Sm allies shennanigans?
it's a lot easier to ban forgeworld than it is to ban cheese. It's the same reason shops have signs up saying 'make sure to shower before entering this store' rather than a sign saying 'greg, have a wash you smelly bastard'.
Forgeworld, by virtue of it being forgeworld, makes it easier to ban than normal cheese.
Blacksails wrote: I can't find a single thing I disagree with Clockwork on.
I've said it before and I'll say it again; I care infinitely more about the person behind the list than what the list is. I think more players should take that attitude instead of outright refusing a game based on the inclusion of a single FW unit.
i don't think anyone would disagree with that, the issue is in some people assuming that their own absolute - that people should be forced to play against forgeworld - overrides this.
By contrast i would prefer a case by case basis. I'm happy to play against fluffy or cool forgeworld, but if some dick wants to spam laser platforms or artillery then he can jog on.
Agreed.
This is how I handle forgeworld - I create a reasonable list and amazingly people react reasonably. On a casual game night I'm far more likely to play against a thoughtful forgeworld list rather than a completely legal heldrake/riptide/(insert other FotM unit) army.
It's not about avoiding a challenge, but rather choosing something fun and interesting. I've had great reactions to my forgeworld units as most people can't be bothered to order them or can't afford to purchase them - gaming with them gives others a means of seeing them in action.
Blacksails wrote: I can't find a single thing I disagree with Clockwork on.
I've said it before and I'll say it again; I care infinitely more about the person behind the list than what the list is. I think more players should take that attitude instead of outright refusing a game based on the inclusion of a single FW unit.
i don't think anyone would disagree with that, the issue is in some people assuming that their own absolute - that people should be forced to play against forgeworld - overrides this.
By contrast i would prefer a case by case basis. I'm happy to play against fluffy or cool forgeworld, but if some dick wants to spam laser platforms or artillery then he can jog on.
How's that different than some guy showing up with 3 Heldrakes, a wave serpent spam list, or weird IG/Sm allies shennanigans?
I'd probably prefer the FW list, at least it's something new then Riptide Spam, Heldrake spam, Wave Serpant spam..
Blacksails wrote: I can't find a single thing I disagree with Clockwork on.
I've said it before and I'll say it again; I care infinitely more about the person behind the list than what the list is. I think more players should take that attitude instead of outright refusing a game based on the inclusion of a single FW unit.
i don't think anyone would disagree with that, the issue is in some people assuming that their own absolute - that people should be forced to play against forgeworld - overrides this.
By contrast i would prefer a case by case basis. I'm happy to play against fluffy or cool forgeworld, but if some dick wants to spam laser platforms or artillery then he can jog on.
How's that different than some guy showing up with 3 Heldrakes, a wave serpent spam list, or weird IG/Sm allies shennanigans?
it's a lot easier to ban forgeworld than it is to ban cheese.
I guess the question is, isn't it cheese either way? If so, shouldn't the distinction be cheese rather than just FW?
Blacksails wrote: I can't find a single thing I disagree with Clockwork on.
I've said it before and I'll say it again; I care infinitely more about the person behind the list than what the list is. I think more players should take that attitude instead of outright refusing a game based on the inclusion of a single FW unit.
i don't think anyone would disagree with that, the issue is in some people assuming that their own absolute - that people should be forced to play against forgeworld - overrides this.
By contrast i would prefer a case by case basis. I'm happy to play against fluffy or cool forgeworld, but if some dick wants to spam laser platforms or artillery then he can jog on.
How's that different than some guy showing up with 3 Heldrakes, a wave serpent spam list, or weird IG/Sm allies shennanigans?
it's a lot easier to ban forgeworld than it is to ban cheese.
I guess the question is, isn't it cheese either way? If so, shouldn't the distinction be cheese rather than just FW?
no, because it's harder to ban 'cheese', wheras it's easy to ban forgeworld. Being unable to ban all cheese doesn't mean you shouldn t bother banning some of it.
Well, while I have xruslanx still on ignore, I can easily follow the conversation with Vaktathi.
First of all, you can't really 'ban' anything, unless you're referring to some all encompassing house-rule your gaming group agrees on. If you're referring to a personal feeling, then you're simply refusing to play it, not ban it.
Now, assuming we're discussing the latter (the former we can't really discuss, as each gaming group is different and no amount of internet discussion will change that), you can very easily just refuse to play against anything you deem 'cheese' or 'overpowered'. Its as easy as looking at your potential opponent's list, and telling him that you won't play him because he has too many riptides, or wave serpents.
If you're going to refuse to play something for being overpowered, at least have the courtesy to be consistent about it. Don't blanket in an entire product line because of a handful of powerful units.
well if i wanted to attend a tournament, they couldn't exactly put 'no cheese' on the list of rules, but they could but 'no forgeworld'.
There is nothing inconsistant about this, since banning codex cheese is simply too difficult. You'd have to ban multiples of units, many allies combinations, certain ics, etc.
xruslanx wrote: well if i wanted to attend a tournament, they couldn't exactly put 'no cheese' on the list of rules, but they could but 'no forgeworld'.
There is nothing inconsistant about this, since banning codex cheese is simply too difficult. You'd have to ban multiples of units, many allies combinations, certain ics, etc.
We're not discussing tournaments; they are absolutely irrelevant. A tournament could ban anything they choose. Its not an argument for anything. I could create a tournament banning Tau and Eldar.
xruslanx wrote: well if i wanted to attend a tournament, they couldn't exactly put 'no cheese' on the list of rules, but they could but 'no forgeworld'.
There is nothing inconsistant about this, since banning codex cheese is simply too difficult. You'd have to ban multiples of units, many allies combinations, certain ics, etc.
We're not discussing tournaments; they are absolutely irrelevant. A tournament could ban anything they choose. Its not an argument for anything. I could create a tournament banning Tau and Eldar.
So what point are you making?
see my above post - it is simply easier to ban forgeworld cheese than it is to ban normal cheese.
The problem with banning the FW in this situation is that you AREN'T BANNING CHEESE. You are banning more versatility for all armies in the hopes that having less options means the cheese will be easier to see coming. That is the ONLY minor gain that could be said.
The basic idea of the Pro and Anti FW camps comes down to this for me, which I take from business school:
When you go to a store and buy something, but later need to return it. How hard is it to return said item? This depends on the philosophy of the store(Gamer being Pro/Anti).
If the store takes the stand that the customer is trying to gain an unfair advantage over the store moreso than actually needing to return the item...they make returning the item more difficult and a general hassle(Anti FW).
If the store assumes the policy of 'the customer is always right', they make returning items easier to return the item and get usable credit back to make more purchaes(Pro FW).
It comes down to attitude. If you want to blanket ban FW based on some fictional idea that it is overpowered you aren't bothering to look at the nuts and bolts of the unit in question and are general being ignorant for the sake a minor amount of simplification in your own army building.
If you are don't ban it, and treat it like you would any other list building and approach it as you would a Triptide, Flying BK Breakfast Sandwiches or super Ally shenanigans...you are treating the other player with more respect instead of thinking yourself instantly more important.
xruslanx wrote: well if i wanted to attend a tournament, they couldn't exactly put 'no cheese' on the list of rules, but they could but 'no forgeworld'.
There is nothing inconsistant about this, since banning codex cheese is simply too difficult. You'd have to ban multiples of units, many allies combinations, certain ics, etc.
We're not discussing tournaments; they are absolutely irrelevant. A tournament could ban anything they choose. Its not an argument for anything. I could create a tournament banning Tau and Eldar.
So what point are you making?
see my above post - it is simply easier to ban forgeworld cheese than it is to ban normal cheese.
But see my earlier post.
Banning from what? I already pointed this out earlier, but if you're referring to just yourself as an individual, you're not banning anything, you're just refusing to play it. If that's the case, its as easy to refuse to play FW as it is to refuse riptides or wave serpents. If its a rule your gaming group has, then no amount of discussion here will change that and its still irrelevant.
However, my point still stands that banning FW because of its alleged OP nature on some units is silly at best. Many codex units are incredibly overpowered, so why not blanket ban Tau and Eldar? Its easy to ban those codex cheese.
Do you see how that logic train just derails itself?
No amount of discussing this on the internet is going to change people's minds about FW I imagine, but don't pretend banning FW because of a few OP units makes any more sense than banning the entire Eldar or Tau codex because of a few OP units.
Looks like I go to class, come back and I miss all the fun stuff.
Blacksails wrote:Have we disagreed on something before? I can't recall. If we did, it certainly didn't blow up or anything. Either way, I certainly hold no ill will towards you and respect a lot of what you write as being well reasoned.
I could have sworn that we were on different sides of the fence from each other, but no, it was never a big deal. I try to keep my disagreements civil when possibe. And I thank you for the kind words. I try my best.
Blacksails wrote:Either way, I've just never understood the issues people have with FW. Its as legal as anything in this game, as legal isn't a term defined by, well, anything. 40k is such a poorly written, poorly balanced mess of a game anyways, that drawing some arbitrary line in the sand for FW just doesn't add up to me. Then again, I'd play against the hardest list you could throw at me, and even from a loss I'd still finish smiling having learned something.
I find that a lot of it comes from the competitive side of the game who often seems adamant about protecting what they define 40k "should" be instead of accepting it as is. The game is far more fun when you accept it as a narrative tool set for games instead of some hard and fast ruleset meant for competitive play.
xruslanx wrote:i don't think anyone would disagree with that, the issue is in some people assuming that their own absolute - that people should be forced to play against forgeworld - overrides this.
That's a strawman arguement. In fact I have yet to see anyone who is "pro-FW" argue anything about forcing people to play anything. We just want people to stop pigeonholing the game and treat turning down a game against a FW army the same as turning one down against Tau. The problem is that in some circles FW isn't even allowed as a topic of discussion and claims about "being forced to play against it" are often lobbied, yet no one claims they can force anyone to play anything.
xruslanx wrote:it's a lot easier to ban forgeworld than it is to ban cheese. It's the same reason shops have signs up saying 'make sure to shower before entering this store' rather than a sign saying 'greg, have a wash you smelly bastard'.
Forgeworld, by virtue of it being forgeworld, makes it easier to ban than normal cheese.
"Easy" does not mean "right" however. It's easy to do a lot of things (and I could bring up a number, but if I use any of the big or well known kinds of things I'll just stir up people complaining that I'm either devaluing the real world event or trying to equate the level of the issue to the level of the real world event, so let's just leave it at "human beings have done a number of things that are not nice to each other and I have a decent sized list of things that were "easy" to do, but were not "right" and avoid that debate, shall we?). "The road to hell is paved with good intentions" comes to mind when people start talking about the "easy" way to handle cheese.
If you want to restrict things in a group setting (as in outside of tournaments) then the right way is to handle each issue individually, not blanket ban anything. Really though, if you're playing 40k as it's stated to be meant to be played (as an enjoyable experience for both players) then this shouldn't even be an issue. The problem is the cheeseball player wants the game to be fun for just them, and doesn't take anyone else into consideration.
xruslanx wrote:well if i wanted to attend a tournament, they couldn't exactly put 'no cheese' on the list of rules, but they could but 'no forgeworld'.
They could also say, "No Allies", "Allies limited to 500 points", "No Special Characters", "No Flyers", "No Double-FOC" but it doesn't mean anything for us in this topic here. Tournaments do what they like, we're discussing "casual" play.
xruslanx wrote:could you direct me to a post where someone suggested banning forgeworld because it's op? Go ahead, i'll wait.
Did you say "OP"? No. But that's the connotations cheese often has (as well as being a dickish player who brings Triptide against a new player's starter box army). You seem to be forgetting that they're synonyms in most cases.
"I think having three Riptides is cool and not very powerful".
Trying to use the 'balance' argument against Forge World is totally nonsensical
I did not realize that riptides were forgeworld only models designed specifically for "non-normal' games. I coulda SWORE that I saw them on the GW site in the tay section. Maybe I was wrong and had the forgeworld page pulled up on accident.
Trying to use balance is not the question. The question is do TO have the right to disallow stuff like titans from tournaments? the answer is yes. The question is also do you have the right to refuse a game based on if the opponent is pulling a titan out of their rear without warning you beforehand (or for any other reason)? the answer to that is also yes.
that is THE bottom line. Anything else is opinions and meaningless discussion.
Again, does that mean I wont play gainst it? Sure I will so long as I am informed beforehand so I can prepare for it. so that it can be a little more even Now come to my house and demand I play you and your 3 warlord titans along with 4 superheavies and 3 primarch models using only 500 points of guard where I am not permitted to use melta bombs or any weapon with a strength of more than 4 and no psychers and I will laugh at you, keep insisting and you may need some assistance in getting back to your car.
No one anywhere is claiming titans are used in normal games of 40k. The basic rules of the game don't cover them; things like destroyer weapons and super heavy vehicles damage and so on don't exist in the core rulebook.
You should just state that anyone can refuse any game for any reason. Titans have nothing to do with it and are completely irrelevant to a discussion about FW usage in a standard 40k game.
"I think having three Riptides is cool and not very powerful".
Trying to use the 'balance' argument against Forge World is totally nonsensical
I did not realize that riptides were forgeworld only models designed specifically for "non-normal' games. I coulda SWORE that I saw them on the GW site in the tay section. Maybe I was wrong and had the forgeworld page pulled up on accident.
I believe the point being made is that trying to argue that you're banning FW for "balance" reasons is a load of bull when you leave the ability to take Triptides in the game.
EVIL INC wrote: Trying to use balance is not the question. The question is do TO have the right to disallow stuff like titans from tournaments? the answer is yes. The question is also do you have the right to refuse a game based on if the opponent is pulling a titan out of their rear without warning you beforehand (or for any other reason)? the answer to that is also yes. that is THE bottom line. Anything else is opinions and meaningless discussion.
Tournaments have already been discussed to death and that's not really the point here because everyone, as far as I know at least, agrees that they run whatever they want.'
As for normal play, you're missing the mark. The way you say it is the way it should be 100%, but the problem is that some people create a "shield" (albeit a poorly constructed one) of claims that FW isn't legal, official or even that it isn't supported by the devs. This is the real issue as it's telling people to be less creative and less open about this hobby and that we have individuals who want to restrict what others play based on the brand on the box/bag/blister.
EVIL INC wrote: Again, does that mean I wont play gainst it? Sure I will so long as I am informed beforehand so I can prepare for it. so that it can be a little more even Now come to my house and demand I play you and your 3 warlord titans along with 4 superheavies and 3 primarch models using only 500 points of guard where I am not permitted to use melta bombs or any weapon with a strength of more than 4 and no psychers and I will laugh at you, keep insisting and you may need some assistance in getting back to your car.
No one here is claiming any nonsense like that. I could easily argue something just as insane claiming "4 Heldrakes and 3 Riptides and you can only take 500 points of Scouts and no psykers or special characters" and it'd still miss the mark of what this discussion is about.
herpguy wrote: Please people stop dragging the Heldrake into this! Please show me one tournament list in the top 10 with more than 1 Heldrake.
Just because Tau bumped it (and the Necron Flying Circus) out of the top tournament meta (in national open tournaments that is) does not mean it's incredibly unfair and impolite to drop three on the table unannounced against someone who wanted to run a Black Tide army.
"I think having three Riptides is cool and not very powerful".
Trying to use the 'balance' argument against Forge World is totally nonsensical
I did not realize that riptides were forgeworld only models designed specifically for "non-normal' games. I coulda SWORE that I saw them on the GW site in the tay section. Maybe I was wrong and had the forgeworld page pulled up on accident.
Trying to use balance is not the question. The question is do TO have the right to disallow stuff like titans from tournaments? the answer is yes. The question is also do you have the right to refuse a game based on if the opponent is pulling a titan out of their rear without warning you beforehand (or for any other reason)? the answer to that is also yes.
that is THE bottom line. Anything else is opinions and meaningless discussion.
This shows a fundamental misunderstanding of how FW stuff works. Even in a fully FW allowed event, you couldn't just pull out a titan. To start with, they aren't cleared for "normal" 40k play. Second, exactly which FoC slot would they fit into? Mechanically there's no way to take a Titan in a normal game.
the point (and the only one that really matters in this whole long drawn out conversation is comprised of two parts.
1. Does a TO have the RIGHT to decide what is allowed in their tournament? The answer is yes. They have the RIGHT to disallow people from bringing titans to 1500 point tournaments if they so desire. They have the RIGHT to eject someone who is disturbing the tournament or who shows up drunk or sets the tables on fire. They have the RIGHT to ban nyone who is wearing socks that have holes in the heels (this woulda put me out on at least one occasion).
2. Do players have the RIGHT to not play a game is someone if bringing a warlord titan to to a 500 point squd match? Yes Do players have the RIGHT to turn down a game because they feel ill? yes Does a player have the RIGHT to turn down a game against a player who shows up with 3 riptides? yes. Does a player have the RIGHT to turn down a game against a person who uses vulgar language,mishandles models and stinks to high heaven while digging down the front of their pants and then insisting they reach their grubby mitts into your potato chip bag (I know I would turn this game down) yes.
What seems to be being overlooked is that regardless ofwho is argueing what side, thee basic gaming rights are being totally ignored in the vain attempt to "one up" the other side and get the last jab in.
Vaktathi, that is EXACTLY what is being proposed and it is being proposed that TO and players forfeit their rights to make the single person at the shop who owns the titan happy and why they are posting here supporting that. I am well versed in how FW stuff "works".
This thread is not about titans, it is about FW. Stop using an absurd argument that is actually harming the point you're trying to make. I would also like to ask you to remain on topic and stop trolling. EVIL INC probably won't get the joke.
Titans aren't allowed in normal 40k. Your entire argument is moot.
EVIL INC wrote: the point (and the only one that really matters in this whole long drawn out conversation is comprised of two parts.
1. Does a TO have the RIGHT to decide what is allowed in their tournament? The answer is yes. They have the RIGHT to disallow people from bringing titans to 1500 point tournaments if they so desire. They have the RIGHT to eject someone who is disturbing the tournament or who shows up drunk or sets the tables on fire. They have the RIGHT to ban nyone who is wearing socks that have holes in the heels (this woulda put me out on at least one occasion).
This part here you're dragging in for no reason, no one is arguing against this.
EVIL INC wrote: 2. Do players have the RIGHT to not play a game is someone if bringing a warlord titan to to a 500 point squd match? Yes Do players have the RIGHT to turn down a game because they feel ill? yes Does a player have the RIGHT to turn down a game against a player who shows up with 3 riptides? yes. Does a player have the RIGHT to turn down a game against a person who uses vulgar language,mishandles models and stinks to high heaven while digging down the front of their pants and then insisting they reach their grubby mitts into your potato chip bag (I know I would turn this game down) yes.
You mean "brings an illegal army to a 500 point game"? Yes, yes you should be turning down. Also Titans have no FOC slot and could be taken anyways so please stop using them in your examples, it's making them bad.
Players have the right to turn down any game they want. The thing is that we shouldn't be mass banning things like we are because people should have the right to play anything they want (within reason and as long as it's for the fun of both players not just one. I really don't approve of cheeseball players regardless of what they play) because it's denying their rights to play things they think are cool or interesting in the name of "protecting the game" which really doesn't need anyone protecting it, it needs to stop being crammed in a little box and given room to breathe and grow.
EVIL INC wrote: What seems to be being overlooked is that regardless ofwho is argueing what side, thee basic gaming rights are being totally ignored in the vain attempt to "one up" the other side and get the last jab in.
You missed a RIGHT there: the right to bring cool and neat stuff because you like it to a game and not be shunned because it's not straight out of a codex. That's a right the anti-FW crowd seems happy to kick to the curb to "protect the game" but fails to recognize that the game doesn't need their protection and that it's not as narrowly defined as they seem to want it to be.
EVIL INC wrote: Vaktathi, that is EXACTLY what is being proposed and it is being proposed that TO and players forfeit their rights to make the single person at the shop who owns the titan happy and why they are posting here supporting that. I am well versed in how FW stuff "works".
Um, how "no it's not"? I've been arguing that FW should be treated no differently than any codex is in terms of what you can play (and there are rules regarding what can and can't be taken in every FW book as somethings, like the Titans you're fond of mentioning, are meant only for Apoc games, not "normal" games) and that the basis on which a person turns down a game should not be on where the things come from, but the player in question and the intent of the list they're trying to play (example: a hard core competitive player bring Triptide versus my all foot horde Sisters army in a fun game would be the kind of thing I'd like to avoid dealing with when possible because it's not fun for me. This has nothing to do with where the rules come from, just the quality of the game for the player and what they desire in their games).
EVIL INC wrote: the point (and the only one that really matters in this whole long drawn out conversation is comprised of two parts.
1. Does a TO have the RIGHT to decide what is allowed in their tournament? The answer is yes. They have the RIGHT to disallow people from bringing titans to 1500 point tournaments if they so desire. They have the RIGHT to eject someone who is disturbing the tournament or who shows up drunk or sets the tables on fire. They have the RIGHT to ban nyone who is wearing socks that have holes in the heels (this woulda put me out on at least one occasion).
2. Do players have the RIGHT to not play a game is someone if bringing a warlord titan to to a 500 point squd match? Yes Do players have the RIGHT to turn down a game because they feel ill? yes Does a player have the RIGHT to turn down a game against a player who shows up with 3 riptides? yes. Does a player have the RIGHT to turn down a game against a person who uses vulgar language,mishandles models and stinks to high heaven while digging down the front of their pants and then insisting they reach their grubby mitts into your potato chip bag (I know I would turn this game down) yes.
What seems to be being overlooked is that regardless ofwho is argueing what side, thee basic gaming rights are being totally ignored in the vain attempt to "one up" the other side and get the last jab in.
Vaktathi, that is EXACTLY what is being proposed and it is being proposed that TO and players forfeit their rights to make the single person at the shop who owns the titan happy and why they are posting here supporting that. I am well versed in how FW stuff "works".
Point 1 is not in dispute. TO have had the ability to change and allow/disallow items as much as they want. Titans are not a part of 40k they are apocalypse only units. The units in question have the 40k stamp of approval and while some are considered overpowered they are no more so than bringing multiple riptides.
Point 2 has also always been the case and is not in dispute. Any player my choose not to play any other player for any reason that they so rationally or irrationally decide upon.
Please stop using the titans in tournaments argument as this has never been an issue and is not relevant to the discussion at hand.
EVIL INC wrote: you might not have noticed but I am pro-forge world. I think the models are great and wish I was independently wealthy enough to own a few items. Unfortunately, I work for a living and don't have that kind of cash to toss about..
EVIL INC wrote: you might not have noticed but I am pro-forge world. I think the models are great and wish I was independently wealthy enough to own a few items. Unfortunately, I work for a living and don't have that kind of cash to toss about..
I work for a living as well.
I'm currently in college and play Sisters so not only is my spending budget already taxed but I get incredibly little from arguing for Forgeworld. That said, I still think people need to stop putting 40k into some kind of little box on whatever limited scope they think 40k "should" be.
Did you even read the posts?? I ask in all seriousness because you seem to lack the comprehesion of what was said. No one is saying that a TO cannot ban what ever they please. They can do this, they are doing this and they will do this. You are using a flawed argument to try and drum up support of banning forgeworld units. TITANS ARE NOT PART OF 40K. They are apocolypse units only.
As to your rights you can choose to play/not play/ ban/ approve/ eat/ whatever you want in your games. No one that I have played with would question if a fellow player asked not to bring that one model regardless of if it was GW or forgeworld. However the double standard that OP forgeworld is bad but OPGW is good is crazy.
EVIL INC wrote: I am shocked by how many people posting here arefor denying a TO his basic rights. I'm pretty sure that if you went to any shop I have ever been to and told the TO he has no rights and to sit bak and shut up because your doing anything you want, you will at the very least be laughed at. Most likely denied entry to the tourney and if you were as mouthy and insulting to them as you are under the protection of the anonamous internet, banned from the store.
No one has claimed that, in fact, we said it was never an issue or up for debate here. Please read the topic before posting next time as you're missing key information here.
EVIL INC wrote: I am also pretty sure that were you to come to my home and tell me I have no rights as a gamer as to who I will and will not play in te sanctity of my own home, you will be leaving in a lotmore pain than you arrived. Feel free to test that out if you like.
So you're saying that you're not the kind of play I'd want to play with then? Good to know.
You're ignoring a lot of people here and seem to be just trying to stir the pot to get a loud, negative reaction so you can feel vindicated about your position. I don't roll that way so let's look at this a bit more logically:
The argument as it stands regards if players should be able to assume they can bring FW to casual games unless told otherwise by the person they intend to play with instead of not being allowed to do it without permission. This would free players of the burden of being not able to invest in the cool things they like and reduce the frustration for those who play FW, move and are suddenly denied playing their army "because it's FW". The issue that is going on right now is that a vocal part of the community is forcing people to not play things and that's somehow being treated as more fair than people wanting to play things they want to play.
Seriously, the issue is banning things is actually worse for the community because it's the will of a few forced on everyone. Allowing FW doesn't change people's ability to deny games, nor a TO to set up a tournament anyway they wish, but it does open a lot of doors that are unfairly closed and locked by players who see themselves as "protecting the game" as they think it should be, instead of letting it grow and evolve naturally like it should.
I would actually be pretty sad if somebody told me that my preheresy army was heresy. It's not game breaking, just different. I don't even get special weapons in my tactical squads.
Another part of the issue is this:
My store bans forgeworld in their weekly leagues and tournaments because they can't sell the models or the books, so, since GW punishes them, they punish the players.
deviantduck wrote: Another part of the issue is this:
My store bans forgeworld in their weekly leagues and tournaments because they can't sell the models or the books, so, since GW punishes them, they punish the players.
Which is silly because they can still make money on all the hobby stuff that goes with it (not to mention all the plastic kits that already exist that GW main sells like the transports and other vehicles). Talk about cutting your nose off to spite your face.
You keep talking about titans; this is completely irrelevant to the topic! The TO can ban whatever he likes, which is also irrelevant to our discussion of if FW is legal.
Also, classic internet tough guy syndrome;
...I have no rights as a gamer as to who I will and will not play in te sanctity of my own home, you will be leaving in a lotmore pain than you arrived. Feel free to test that out if you like.
*Edit* Oh, and EVIL, try to stay on topic and please stop trolling.
Titans are made by FW (although armorcast used to make them as well) and as FW models are what is being discussed, I use a titan as an extreme example because you know as well as I do that if a "line" is not drawn, the arms race will eventually go to titans.
Tough guy sundrome? The "internet tough guy syndrome" is the internet bully. The one who insists that no one has rights but themselves constantly harasses and bullies them as you are doing. Someone come to my private residence and threatens me and my family, YES, I will defend myself. I'm sorry if you think I don't have the right to do so.
Yes, we all know you are trolling and straying from the topic. I forgive you for it. I refuse to troll myself sticking instead to truths and facts but whatever floats your boat, your welcome to do.
Players have the right to turn down any game they want. The thing is that we shouldn't be mass banning things like we are because people should have the right to play anything they want (within reason and as long as it's for the fun of both players not just one. I really don't approve of cheeseball players regardless of what they play) because it's denying their rights to play things they think are cool or interesting in the name of "protecting the game" which really doesn't need anyone protecting it, it needs to stop being crammed in a little box and given room to breathe and grow.
You missed a RIGHT there: the right to bring cool and neat stuff because you like it to a game and not be shunned because it's not straight out of a codex. That's a right the anti-FW crowd seems happy to kick to the curb to "protect the game" but fails to recognize that the game doesn't need their protection and that it's not as narrowly defined as they seem to want it to be.
Um, how "no it's not"? I've been arguing that FW should be treated no differently than any codex is in terms of what you can play (and there are rules regarding what can and can't be taken in every FW book as somethings, like the Titans you're fond of mentioning, are meant only for Apoc games, not "normal" games) and that the basis on which a person turns down a game should not be on where the things come from, but the player in question and the intent of the list they're trying to play (example: a hard core competitive player bring Triptide versus my all foot horde Sisters army in a fun game would be the kind of thing I'd like to avoid dealing with when possible because it's not fun for me. This has nothing to do with where the rules come from, just the quality of the game for the player and what they desire in their games).
Players have the right to turn down any game they want. You are proposing that players be forced to play you because you brought FW models whether they want to or not. Not a single person is proposing mass bannings. That is only in your imagination. the game is for the pleasure of BOTH players, not just one. if a person does not get enjoyment of being the dunce who is forced to play games they cannot win just so someone with FW models can enjoy a game, than both players are not enjoying themselves. Why are you so against the FW guy bringing items that rae halfway balanced and not overpowered in a normal game? What do you find so wrong with him asking if an opponent minds if he uses it or not? Remember, the enjoyment of playing is for BOTH players.
Not a single person has denied the right of players to bring cool models to show off? heck, you can BET that as soon as I was done painting and basing my armorcast reaver titan that I dragged it straight to the shop to show off and see if anyone was up for an apocalypse type game (shoulda never sold it). you can also bet that I am proud of and show off my cool conversions that feature non-GW models. As a matter of fact, I have YET to see an "anti-FW posters in this entire thread. So far, everyone is impressed with the models and are more than happy to face them so long as they have ample warning to prepare.
Once more, I mention titans because it is an extreme example that you know as well as I do will end up at. You follow my logic when you say it was not designed for normal games. Those types of models that are not designed for normal games are exactly what we are discussing. Not a single person is saying you cant use a FW dreadnought to represent a GW dreadnought even in a tourney. The only things that are being discussed are the FW models that are specifically designed to be used in apoc games or to face other FW models. I mention titans because they are the most iconic example of this.
Point 1 is not in dispute. TO have had the ability to change and allow/disallow items as much as they want. Titans are not a part of 40k they are apocalypse only units. The units in question have the 40k stamp of approval and while some are considered overpowered they are no more so than bringing multiple riptides.
Point 2 has also always been the case and is not in dispute. Any player my choose not to play any other player for any reason that they so rationally or irrationally decide upon.
Please stop using the titans in tournaments argument as this has never been an issue and is not relevant to the discussion at hand.
point one is indeed one of the two things being disputed. You guys are saying that you have the right to force TO to follow your personal wishes instead of their own or the communities they cater to.the units in question range from FW dreadnoughts to titans. Titans are indeed one of the units your attempting to force TO to use against their wills Models like dreads and all that have the "official" 40k stamp are not in question at all.
point two is also in dispute as you are proposing strongarming people to play games they don't want to. As I said, give me fair warning of the scale of what I might be expecting and I'll be happy to prepare for it. Ram it down my throat at the last second and I likely wont play you just because of the disrespect your showing me.
Good. than you can follow my meaning when I say not every player has a private titan colletion where they can bring 4 of each one to a game supported by thousands of DKoK models to carpet the table around their feel while they stand on a full apoc sized zone mortalis board (yes, I know that is extreme but I went extreme to prove the point) Someday i'll be able to buy a couple infantry models to mix into my armies and not a single person will care (even at tournies) beyond checking out how cool they are and how well I painted them.
quote=ClockworkZion 564825 6285891 3d7990724ab94b5b62bf7bccb5c56dc7.png][No one has claimed that, in fact, we said it was never an issue or up for debate here. Please read the topic before posting next time as you're missing key information here.
So you're saying that you're not the kind of play I'd want to play with then? Good to know.
The argument as it stands regards if players should be able to assume they can bring FW to casual games unless told otherwise by the person they intend to play with instead of not being allowed to do it without permission. This would free players of the burden of being not able to invest in the cool things they like and reduce the frustration for those who play FW, move and are suddenly denied playing their army "because it's FW". The issue that is going on right now is that a vocal part of the community is forcing people to not play things and that's somehow being treated as more fair than people wanting to play things they want to play.
Seriously, the issue is banning things is actually worse for the community because it's the will of a few forced on everyone. Allowing FW doesn't change people's ability to deny games, nor a TO to set up a tournament anyway they wish, but it does open a lot of doors that are unfairly closed and locked by players who see themselves as "protecting the game" as they think it should be, instead of letting it grow and evolve naturally like it should.
this is exactly what is being debated here. Read through the thread and you will see this.
So your saying that you are the one who pulls te stunts of pulling out titans and such without warning and try to force me to play against my will? Then YOU are not the kind of person I want to play regardless of how cool your forgeworld models are. I much prefer treating other players with respect and dignity.
the argument as it stands is whether or not ALL FW items be forced into use in tourneys even if the TO does not wish it to be. it is also whether to force layers to play against the same in friendly games against their wishes.
I like FW models and from what I have seen of the rules they have for them, I think they are more balanced than many of the GW models and rules released. However, I think ramming it down people's throats is not the way to go with it. Allow TO and players to maintain their rights for one. Another is bring units and models that already have GW rules but just look cooler (DKoK infantry, dreadnoughts and such. Then bring in cool stuff that are not over the top or specifically designed for apoc games. For example, maybe the guard jeeps, tarantulas, rapiers and stuff like that. Allow other players to check them out and acclimatize themselves to them. personally, I think the "gentlemans game" idea someone mentioned that the FW staff do of simply asking if an opponent minds before the game and being prepared for if they say no. Allow the players to see the rules so they know what they are facing. Politeness, respect and dignity go a long way in this. those of us who are "protecting the game" are all FOR FW models. We are also all for them being added in correctly with the proper attitude and respect.
Titans are made by FW (although armorcast used to make them as well) and as FW models are what is being discussed, I use a titan as an extreme example because you know as well as I do that if a "line" is not drawn, the arms race will eventually go to titans.
Tough guy sundrome? The "internet tough guy syndrome" is the internet bully. The one who insists that no one has rights but themselves constantly harasses and bullies them as you are doing. Someone come to my private residence and threatens me and my family, YES, I will defend myself. I'm sorry if you think I don't have the right to do so.
You didn't happen to notice that this thread was discussing FW units for standard 40k games? No helping you there, but its not like we told you over and over again that this thread has nothing to do with titans, only standard 40k approved FW units, of which titans are not a part of.
I'm bullying? After you explained to everyone that you would cause bodily harm to someone for disagreeing with you on a rule? Seriously? There's no sensible way to have a discussion with you when you claim someone would threaten over the use of a 40k model. You can also cut the hyperbole and putting words in peoples' mouths; nowhere has anyone said you didn't have the right to defend yourself. This discussion didn't even hint at that, you've just gone right off the rails on some nonsensical tangent.
I'm going to leave this gem out for now as discussing it won't help this discussion;
Yes, we all know you are trolling and straying from the topic. I forgive you for it. I refuse to troll myself sticking instead to truths and facts but whatever floats your boat, your welcome to do.
EVIL INC wrote: Titans are made by FW (although armorcast used to make them as well) and as FW models are what is being discussed, I use a titan as an extreme example because you know as well as I do that if a "line" is not drawn, the arms race will eventually go to titans.
And that's the end of your credibility on this subject. You obviously have no clue what you're talking about since anyone who's even briefly glanced at FW rules knows that titans are explicitly Apocalypse-only. Arguing that allowing unrestricted FW means titans in a 500 point game makes about as much sense as arguing that unrestricted codex units means you have to let Tyranids take Riptides and LRBTs.
Someone come to my private residence and threatens me and my family, YES, I will defend myself. I'm sorry if you think I don't have the right to do so.
Can we stop with the paranoid fantasies before this thread gets locked?
Regarding the whole Titans thing, it'd never (rarely?) occur where someone wants to bring a Titan to a non-Apoc game. It'd be like bringing a Baneblade. Both Titans and Baneblades (and Stompas and other such superheavies) are intended purely for Apocalypse games (with the exception of Baneblades and Spearhead.)
Admittedly, I read a scenario once about pitting a 1500 point normal army against 3 Baneblades, but that was a special narrative scenario with special victory conditions (and the objective for the Baneblades wasn't to slaughter the opposing army anyways, it was to reach the other end of the board with as much gun left as possible).
I remember earlier I was talking about strawman arguments somewhere. Might've been on the WoW forums, I'm not really sure. The Titan thing? THAT is a strawman argument. (also, examples of extremely rare situations are usually not so great as far as a discussion of the norm is concerned)
Evil? Why are we talking about a hypothetical scenario where someone tries to come to your house and hurt you and the people you love? Is this a regular occurrence when someone offers a game with their army including Forge World units?
And I'm gonna have to go back through the thread and see what you're talking about, because when I first read the thread a couple of days ago, it had to do with using the FW units with the "40k Approved" stamp that indicated they were intended for use in regular games of 40k, not just Apocalpyse.
Point 1 is not in dispute. TO have had the ability to change and allow/disallow items as much as they want. Titans are not a part of 40k they are apocalypse only units. The units in question have the 40k stamp of approval and while some are considered overpowered they are no more so than bringing multiple riptides.
Point 2 has also always been the case and is not in dispute. Any player my choose not to play any other player for any reason that they so rationally or irrationally decide upon.
Please stop using the titans in tournaments argument as this has never been an issue and is not relevant to the discussion at hand.
point one is indeed one of the two things being disputed. You guys are saying that you have the right to force TO to follow your personal wishes instead of their own or the communities they cater to.the units in question range from FW dreadnoughts to titans. Titans are indeed one of the units your attempting to force TO to use against their wills Models like dreads and all that have the "official" 40k stamp are not in question at all.
point two is also in dispute as you are proposing strongarming people to play games they don't want to. As I said, give me fair warning of the scale of what I might be expecting and I'll be happy to prepare for it. Ram it down my throat at the last second and I likely wont play you just because of the disrespect your showing me.
Just as we have been forced to follow others personal wishes and not use legal forgeworld units?? Okay for example there is a big difference between bringing a contemptor dreadnought and a titan. One is approved for use in 40k the other is apocalypse only. No one ever has said "lets bring a titan to a tournament" you were the first to mention that and no one is arguing for it. I personally would simply like to bring a contemptor or see some DKoK units for variety, flavor and greater strategic depth to my games.
As for strongarming you. As I said and you so nicely quoted you can choose not to play orif you would be willing to bring your disagreement to a logical discussion I would be happy to change my list to make you feel less intimidated. I have chosen not to play against local players who bring triple riptides or necron flying bakery because I am in the mood for a fun game and not a hard fought competitive game at that moment
If you would please stop putting words into others mouths and present a logical argument for why you are against forgeworld units I would appreciate it and gladly discuss how we can come to a peaceful and mutually fun compromise.
Blacksails wrote: I'm bullying? After you explained to everyone that you would cause bodily harm to someone for disagreeing with you on a rule? Seriously? There's no sensible way to have a discussion with you when you claim someone would threaten over the use of a 40k model. You can also cut the hyperbole and putting words in peoples' mouths; nowhere has anyone said you didn't have the right to defend yourself. This discussion didn't even hint at that, you've just gone right off the rails on some nonsensical tangent.
Um... I once choked a friend of mine IRL because we disagreed over a made-up rule in minigolf that would've resulted in a total difference in score of one stroke...
And by choked, I mean grabbed his throat tightly for a couple of seconds in a massive burst of rage, before letting go in shock at what I was doing.
EVIL INC wrote: Titans are made by FW (although armorcast used to make them as well) and as FW models are what is being discussed, I use a titan as an extreme example because you know as well as I do that if a "line" is not drawn, the arms race will eventually go to titans.
No it won't. There is a reason FOC exist you know. Titans don't have a FOC slot.
EVIL INC wrote: Players have the right to turn down any game they want. You are proposing that players be forced to play you because you brought FW models whether they want to or not. Not a single person is proposing mass bannings. That is only in your imagination. the game is for the pleasure of BOTH players, not just one. if a person does not get enjoyment of being the dunce who is forced to play games they cannot win just so someone with FW models can enjoy a game, than both players are not enjoying themselves. Why are you so against the FW guy bringing items that rae halfway balanced and not overpowered in a normal game? What do you find so wrong with him asking if an opponent minds if he uses it or not? Remember, the enjoyment of playing is for BOTH players.
You didn't read my post then because I said that allowing FW doesn't change that. Actually all it does it keep it from being an automatic rejection of the FW's players options before he even gets to the store or club, which would be different than it is now in some places.
EVIL INC wrote: Not a single person has denied the right of players to bring cool models to show off? heck, you can BET that as soon as I was done painting and basing my armorcast reaver titan that I dragged it straight to the shop to show off and see if anyone was up for an apocalypse type game (shoulda never sold it). you can also bet that I am proud of and show off my cool conversions that feature non-GW models. As a matter of fact, I have YET to see an "anti-FW posters in this entire thread. So far, everyone is impressed with the models and are more than happy to face them so long as they have ample warning to prepare.
Showing off, and being able to field and play aren't exactly the same things. Sure my Avengers will look good when they're all painted and in a case, but I'd prefer to be able to field them from time to time.
EVIL INC wrote: Once more, I mention titans because it is an extreme example that you know as well as I do will end up at. You follow my logic when you say it was not designed for normal games. Those types of models that are not designed for normal games are exactly what we are discussing. Not a single person is saying you cant use a FW dreadnought to represent a GW dreadnought even in a tourney. The only things that are being discussed are the FW models that are specifically designed to be used in apoc games or to face other FW models. I mention titans because they are the most iconic example of this.
Again, titans don't use FOC, so claiming that the arms race will go there only applies if your group insists on on playing Apoc every week as a result.
Taking a FW Dread to represent a Dread is fine, but taking a Contemptor and playing it as a dread doesn't work. It's bigger and doesn't have all the same options. Not being able to field it as a Contemptor is actually a problem for the person who wants one. And what about CSM? I'm sure they'd love to be able to use the Dreadclaw instead of not getting a Drop Pod option.
EVIL INC wrote: this is exactly what is being debated here. Read through the thread and you will see this.
No it wasn't. Not one person was talking about tournament play and when it came up we said the TOs can do what they want, and that wasn't up for debate here, we're talking about casual play.
EVIL INC wrote: So your saying that you are the one who pulls te stunts of pulling out titans and such without warning and try to force me to play against my will? Then YOU are not the kind of person I want to play regardless of how cool your forgeworld models are. I much prefer treating other players with respect and dignity.
You really aren't reading my posts and I'm not sure why. No one is trying to "force" anything. The ability to know I can purchase and take FW to the local shop without it being banned before I even purchased it is the thing I've been saying. The fact you keep trying to change it into a strawman about "forcing" people to play things is just reeking of desperation because your argument has no foundation. If I have FW and you don't want to play me there is no way I can make you play (without breaking several laws that is). Me owning FW doesn't change that. Me having the ability to bring FW in and play it if anyone is up for a game doesn't change that. Even your claims, as laughable as they've been, don't change that reality.
EVIL INC wrote: the argument as it stands is whether or not ALL FW items be forced into use in tourneys even if the TO does not wish it to be. it is also whether to force layers to play against the same in friendly games against their wishes.
No one is trying to force things. Please give up the claim because it's a strawman argument at best and an insult at worst. As I've said multiple times, the crux of the issue is people forcing "NO FORGEWORLD EVER" on everyone else. It's not fair to have that shoved in players faces, especially when one is crying wolf about it working the other way.
EVIL INC wrote: I like FW models and from what I have seen of the rules they have for them, I think they are more balanced than many of the GW models and rules released. However, I think ramming it down people's throats is not the way to go with it. Allow TO and players to maintain their rights for one. Another is bring units and models that already have GW rules but just look cooler (DKoK infantry, dreadnoughts and such. Then bring in cool stuff that are not over the top or specifically designed for apoc games. For example, maybe the guard jeeps, tarantulas, rapiers and stuff like that. Allow other players to check them out and acclimatize themselves to them. personally, I think the "gentlemans game" idea someone mentioned that the FW staff do of simply asking if an opponent minds before the game and being prepared for if they say no. Allow the players to see the rules so they know what they are facing. Politeness, respect and dignity go a long way in this. those of us who are "protecting the game" are all FOR FW models. We are also all for them being added in correctly with the proper attitude and respect.
You must be new here because the claims being made by some of the anti-FW crowd ring different than you're claims here.
Also please read the entire post next time. I'm not going to keep entertaining someone who can't even take the time to read and understand the full scope of the message being conveyed, much less keeps trying to twist it to fit a strawman argument that has been shot down more than once already.
ClockworkZion wrote:You must be new here because the claims being made by some of the anti-FW crowd ring different than you're claims here.
Just like your claims are different from some of the "pro-FW crowd" - if you really want I can find you quotes from posters who are indeed expecting to be able to field their FW units without consent - or at least wish this to become true. I think it was in either the previous thread or the one before that one.
As much as I agree with you on the subject of "it's all legal", I find it appalling how one-sided you are argueing - apparently not only blind to the arguments of some posters of the group you are defending here, but even joining in by falsifying official statements yourself. Such as on page 3, where you insinuated that Jervis Jonson supposedly issued a blanket statement for all FW, when in fact it was a conditional statement limiting FW legality to GW's own Vehicle Design Rules, which at the time were available for any normal player. In other words, these rules were considered legal only because any player could have come up with them. Jervis' even specifically said "as long as", meaning this endorsement would be null and void once this requirement is no longer met.
It does your cause no favour if you keep having to resort to such trickery in order to drive your point. The same goes for Peregrine, who apparently sees nothing wrong with misquoting a "we designed this for" statement as "this is an integral part of".
We are of one mind when it comes to the practical application of Forge World and any house rules - but I really can't agree with the style you are campaigning here.
the thread is about using FW models. This with no differentiation between those designed for normal 40k games and those that are not. There are 3 sides so far. those who say no FW of any kind because it is evil, the side saying force ALL FW models on everyone regardless of their rights and those of us that I agree with.
if you wish to disagree with me, that is your right. My stance covers a few items...
1. TO have the right to disallow anything they want.
2. players do not have to play against something they don't want to.
(Both 1 and 2 are what you are having the most trouble dealing with)
3. FW models are great, look cool and have fairly balanced rules from what I have seen.
4. Models that already have 40k equivelants are not even in dispute as they are just different looking representations of things that are already there.
5. models that are designed for "normal" 40k games but not already in the codexes I only remind you og #1 and #2 and sugest that instead of arrogantly forcing them on people with the threat of violence (as I earlier mentioned I would defend against as I am not going to letsomeone just beat on or kill me because they want to use their models. it is a GAME and not worth you getting that bent out of shape), I would suggest introducing the possible opponent to the unit, it's abilities and so forth and give them the option of not facing it or seeing it used in a demo game or some other polite way to ease the player into allowing it into their comfort zone to where they would want to play against it (possibly eventually buy one of their own or some other FW model(s) of their own.
6.Remember, it is a game. With you threatening violence, telling TO what they can and cant do, plaers who they can and cant play and so forth, you are removing the enjoyment of these people from the game and possibly even turning them against 40k as a whole because of the sort of people they see as playing it. I find that you get a lot better results from treating people with dignity and respect along with being on the level with them.
And that's the end of your credibility on this subject. You obviously have no clue what you're talking about since anyone who's even briefly glanced at FW rules knows that titans are explicitly Apocalypse-only. Arguing that allowing unrestricted FW means titans in a 500 point game makes about as much sense as arguing that unrestricted codex units means you have to let Tyranids take Riptides and LRBTs.
[
This is what I am talking about. You are suggesting that models such as this that are explicitly apocalypse only be used in all games, including tournaments against the TO wishes and in normal games against your opponant's wishes. I threw out random numbers but the point remains the same.
I have no reasons to not use forgeworld units. If you will notice, I am FOR their use. I would be tickled to death to face a contemptor dread just for the variety and were I rich enough to afford FW models, I would have some myself. my only issue is the idea of forcing the use of non-codex/particularly models like titans (an example) that are specifically designed to be apoc only models into tournamentsand games against the wishes of the To and players. Heck, like I said, face me with FW models designed for 'normal" games anytime you like (I would only ask to see the rules to make sure you weren't just telling me that that contempter dreadnought had 6 void shields and armor 17 all around. I would wannasee that on official letterhead.) This assuming you approached me in a polite fashion...
You- "hey, wanna game"
Me- "sure, how many points"
You- "two thousand ok, Hey, I got a few FW model I like to use, do you care if I use them?"
Me- " Cool, no problem. They aren't apoc only stuff like titans and all are they?"
You- 'nah, just a contempter dreadnought and some DkoK allies that have heavy morters" (not sure if that's a legal combo or not, just tossing out some "normal" stuff)
Me- "Cool, let me get my stuff outta the truck"
Now if it went along these lines, I might be a little upset....
You- "Get your stuff, your playing me"
Me- "uh, hello, who are you?"
you- "don't matter, get yer sh&% and lets get started"
me- "Well, that's a little rude but I havnt had a game in a month and no one else is around so ok. What are you using"
you- "Anything I da&$ well want. Got a bunch of FW stuff I'm gonna pwn ya with".
Me- " Like what so I have some sorta idea what I can l.ook forward to"
you- " I said anything I want, get yer stuff......"
You get the gist of where I'm coming from on this.
EVIL INC wrote: This with no differentiation between those designed for normal 40k games and those that are not.
No, you're the only one saying this. The rest of us understand that "FW is allowed" does not mean "titans are allowed", just like "codex rules are allowed" doesn't mean "Tyranids can take Riptides". Even if FW is legal you still have to follow the FW rules for which armies can take which units (just like codex armies have to follow codex rules), and no army is ever given permission to take a titan outside of Apocalypse.
5. models that are designed for "normal" 40k games but not already in the codexes I only remind you og #1 and #2 and sugest that instead of arrogantly forcing them on people with the threat of violence
Are you insane? Do you sit at home polishing your guns and fantasizing about getting to "stand your ground" and self-defense someone to death? Because all this talk about forcing stuff on people with a threat of violence is making you seem pretty delusional and in desperate need of professional help.
This is what I am talking about. You are suggesting that models such as this that are explicitly apocalypse only be used in all games, including tournaments against the TO wishes and in normal games against your opponant's wishes. I threw out random numbers but the point remains the same.
WTF. Do you know what a straw man is? Because that's a textbook example of one.
Nobody here is suggesting that Apocalypse-only items be included in normal games. You're just making up this idiotic straw man so you can pretend you're winning the forum argument. Meanwhile the real debate is over units that are approved for normal 40k within the limits of the FOC, standard missions, etc.
You get the gist of where I'm coming from on this.
Unfortunately I do. Your mind is not a pretty place.
EVIL INC wrote: the thread is about using FW models. This with no differentiation between those designed for normal 40k games and those that are not. There are 3 sides so far. those who say no FW of any kind because it is evil, the side saying force ALL FW models on everyone regardless of their rights and those of us that I agree with.
if you wish to disagree with me, that is your right. My stance covers a few items...
1. TO have the right to disallow anything they want.
2. players do not have to play against something they don't want to.
(Both 1 and 2 are what you are having the most trouble dealing with)
3. FW models are great, look cool and have fairly balanced rules from what I have seen.
4. Models that already have 40k equivelants are not even in dispute as they are just different looking representations of things that are already there.
5. models that are designed for "normal" 40k games but not already in the codexes I only remind you og #1 and #2 and sugest that instead of arrogantly forcing them on people with the threat of violence (as I earlier mentioned I would defend against as I am not going to letsomeone just beat on or kill me because they want to use their models. it is a GAME and not worth you getting that bent out of shape), I would suggest introducing the possible opponent to the unit, it's abilities and so forth and give them the option of not facing it or seeing it used in a demo game or some other polite way to ease the player into allowing it into their comfort zone to where they would want to play against it (possibly eventually buy one of their own or some other FW model(s) of their own.
6.Remember, it is a game. With you threatening violence, telling TO what they can and cant do, plaers who they can and cant play and so forth, you are removing the enjoyment of these people from the game and possibly even turning them against 40k as a whole because of the sort of people they see as playing it. I find that you get a lot better results from treating people with dignity and respect along with being on the level with them.
1. Again this is not in dispute TO have had the power and will continue to have the power to ban or allow anything they so choose.
2. Same as #1 any player can choose to not play against any other player for any reason they so discern.
3. AS balanced as anything in 40k is
4. Its not the representation that we would like its the ability to play the models with the forgeworld rules as oppsosed to a codex standard unit
5. This is the real issue that players have trouble with. The unfamiliarity with the units puts some ill at ease. However see points one and two any player or TO can ban or allow any unit or army that they feel like. Remember that the pro-forgeworld crowd has been forced not to play with those models for years because some players did not like them. Those who have forgeworld are simply asking to be regarded at the same level as codex units. No one has said that they want to force others to allow the use of these units.
6. As I recall you were the first in this thread to mention violence. Also you were the first to mention titans. Before you entered the conversation neither of these things were under consideration.
Gosh this thread may be even more foolish then the... wow, is it two or three previous ones in the past two weeks? Now we have FW players demanding to bring Titans in standard 40K, that's solid, I'll have to buy a Warhound now... or maybe I'll get that Reaver...
Anyway, FW is as legal as you think it is I suppose, no one is ever swayed by these threads, and I can assure you that you will garner no FINAL answer from a forum.
EVIL INC wrote: the thread is about using FW models. This with no differentiation between those designed for normal 40k games and those that are not. There are 3 sides so far. those who say no FW of any kind because it is evil, the side saying force ALL FW models on everyone regardless of their rights and those of us that I agree with.
if you wish to disagree with me, that is your right. My stance covers a few items...
1. TO have the right to disallow anything they want.
2. players do not have to play against something they don't want to.
(Both 1 and 2 are what you are having the most trouble dealing with)
3. FW models are great, look cool and have fairly balanced rules from what I have seen.
4. Models that already have 40k equivelants are not even in dispute as they are just different looking representations of things that are already there.
5. models that are designed for "normal" 40k games but not already in the codexes I only remind you og #1 and #2 and sugest that instead of arrogantly forcing them on people with the threat of violence (as I earlier mentioned I would defend against as I am not going to letsomeone just beat on or kill me because they want to use their models. it is a GAME and not worth you getting that bent out of shape), I would suggest introducing the possible opponent to the unit, it's abilities and so forth and give them the option of not facing it or seeing it used in a demo game or some other polite way to ease the player into allowing it into their comfort zone to where they would want to play against it (possibly eventually buy one of their own or some other FW model(s) of their own.
6.Remember, it is a game. With you threatening violence, telling TO what they can and cant do, plaers who they can and cant play and so forth, you are removing the enjoyment of these people from the game and possibly even turning them against 40k as a whole because of the sort of people they see as playing it. I find that you get a lot better results from treating people with dignity and respect along with being on the level with them.
And that's the end of your credibility on this subject. You obviously have no clue what you're talking about since anyone who's even briefly glanced at FW rules knows that titans are explicitly Apocalypse-only. Arguing that allowing unrestricted FW means titans in a 500 point game makes about as much sense as arguing that unrestricted codex units means you have to let Tyranids take Riptides and LRBTs.
[
This is what I am talking about. You are suggesting that models such as this that are explicitly apocalypse only be used in all games, including tournaments against the TO wishes and in normal games against your opponant's wishes. I threw out random numbers but the point remains the same.
I have no reasons to not use forgeworld units. If you will notice, I am FOR their use. I would be tickled to death to face a contemptor dread just for the variety and were I rich enough to afford FW models, I would have some myself. my only issue is the idea of forcing the use of non-codex/particularly models like titans (an example) that are specifically designed to be apoc only models into tournamentsand games against the wishes of the To and players. Heck, like I said, face me with FW models designed for 'normal" games anytime you like (I would only ask to see the rules to make sure you weren't just telling me that that contempter dreadnought had 6 void shields and armor 17 all around. I would wannasee that on official letterhead.) This assuming you approached me in a polite fashion...
You- "hey, wanna game"
Me- "sure, how many points"
You- "two thousand ok, Hey, I got a few FW model I like to use, do you care if I use them?"
Me- " Cool, no problem. They aren't apoc only stuff like titans and all are they?"
You- 'nah, just a contempter dreadnought and some DkoK allies that have heavy morters" (not sure if that's a legal combo or not, just tossing out some "normal" stuff)
Me- "Cool, let me get my stuff outta the truck"
Now if it went along these lines, I might be a little upset....
You- "Get your stuff, your playing me"
Me- "uh, hello, who are you?"
you- "don't matter, get yer sh&% and lets get started"
me- "Well, that's a little rude but I havnt had a game in a month and no one else is around so ok. What are you using"
you- "Anything I da&$ well want. Got a bunch of FW stuff I'm gonna pwn ya with".
Me- " Like what so I have some sorta idea what I can l.ook forward to"
you- " I said anything I want, get yer stuff......"
You get the gist of where I'm coming from on this.
. . . How often do conversations like the second one happen where you live?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Matt1785 wrote: Gosh this thread may be even more foolish then the... wow, is it two or three previous ones in the past two weeks? Now we have FW players demanding to bring Titans in standard 40K, that's solid, I'll have to buy a Warhound now... or maybe I'll get that Reaver...
Anyway, FW is as legal as you think it is I suppose, no one is ever swayed by these threads, and I can assure you that you will garner no FINAL answer from a forum.
Actually, the people who'd like to use FW models and rules in normal 40k games are the ones going, "What? That's not at all what we're talking about, and no one ever suggested it until you did," in regards to Titans in "standard" 40k games.
Matt1785 wrote: Now we have FW players demanding to bring Titans in standard 40K, that's solid, I'll have to buy a Warhound now... or maybe I'll get that Reaver...
No, we have one person posting paranoid delusions about FW players coming to his house and murdering his family if he won't play against their titan in a 500 point game. Nobody is arguing for titans in standard 40k.
FirePainter
1- That IS what is in dispute.
2. See #1
3. true that. I have not seen a lot of FW rules, but they actually don't seem so bad. you will notice that a lot of the weaknesses the models have are geared towards other FW models so even ones designed for "normal" 40k games are geared towards facing other FW models.
4. again, I have no problems so long as it is addressed in a polite manner while respecting #s 1 and 2
5. Now, your starting to sound like me. Again, so long as #s 1 and 2 are respected
6. Forcing someone to do something they do not wish to is inherently violent. Consider a woman who does not wish to have "relations", if you force her to, you are committing a violent act. If you force me to play a game I do not wish to and have made my mind up against, you will either have to have a credible threat of violence or death or physically manhandle me into it. So yes, forcing me to play you when I just don't wanna is a threat of violence.
pouncy, I gave the 2nd conversation as an extreme example of being disrespectful and rude (it would almost have to be that disrespectfull and rude before I would turn down the chance to play against, check out/check out the rules for FW models designed for normal games. Especially if they were well painted) just as I exaggerated the first example to be ultra polite.
EVIL INC wrote: 6. Forcing someone to do something they do not wish to is inherently violent. Consider a woman who does not wish to have "relations", if you force her to, you are committing a violent act. If you force me to play a game I do not wish to and have made my mind up against, you will either have to have a credible threat of violence or death or physically manhandle me into it. So yes, forcing me to play you when I just don't wanna is a threat of violence.
And where exactly is this happening outside of your paranoid fantasies?
ClockworkZion wrote:You must be new here because the claims being made by some of the anti-FW crowd ring different than you're claims here.
Just like your claims are different from some of the "pro-FW crowd" - if you really want I can find you quotes from posters who are indeed expecting to be able to field their FW units without consent - or at least wish this to become true. I think it was in either the previous thread or the one before that one.
Many, if not all, of same posters also said they weren't trying to force people to play against their FW stuff, but instead were trying to see it unbanned or at least not needing to beg people to let them play it. Actually I don't recall one post that said that anyone was trying to make anyone play with or against anything, but maybe I'm not reading into it enough?
Lynata wrote: As much as I agree with you on the subject of "it's all legal", I find it appalling how one-sided you are argueing - apparently not only blind to the arguments of some posters of the group you are defending here, but even joining in by falsifying official statements yourself. Such as on page 3, where you insinuated that Jervis Jonson supposedly issued a blanket statement for all FW, when in fact it was a conditional statement limiting FW legality to GW's own Vehicle Design Rules, which at the time were available for any normal player. In other words, these rules were considered legal only because any player could have come up with them. Jervis' even specifically said "as long as", meaning this endorsement would be null and void once this requirement is no longer met.
10+ years (1999~2009 when C:IG came out) is too long to let FW keep putting stuff out and then say "oh it's not legal NOW because they stopped using VDR". I've even addressed that in this thread, or did you skip that?
Yes, VDR was a pre-req but the thing is that when FW dropped it they were already 10 years old and counting and I'd argue too engrained into the game itself to suddenly deny en-masse. Just for fun, let's take a look at the intro from IA2 (note the red underline):
Does that work better for you? Written by Jervis Johnson, doesn't mention that it's meant as anything but a source of rules for you to use the models in 40k. It doesn't even mention VDR. Can we stop getting so hung up on the idea of VDR being the only thing that made FW valid to begin with now?
Lynata wrote: It does your cause no favour if you keep having to resort to such trickery in order to drive your point. The same goes for Peregrine, who apparently sees nothing wrong with misquoting a "we designed this for" statement as "this is an integral part of".
You claim "trickery" but I've never made an attempt to mislead anyone, just argue the facts as I understand them. I argued that the studio supported FW from the outset (and if you read the whole introduction which is over a couple pages long they created the studio specifically to make cool stuff from people in the main studio so it's not like this just sprang up somewhere and was integrated in, FW is made from GW and FW is GW).
I've also argued the facts from the rulebook supporting an open and more sandbox approach to the game than the anti-FW crowd says but you never comment on any of that, just your differing opinion on what Jervis mean in that intro. Go team.
Lynata wrote: We are of one mind when it comes to the practical application of Forge World and any house rules - but I really can't agree with the style you are campaigning here.
And I can't agree with you acting like a different interpretation is the same thing as the intentional misleading of people. As established, I gain very little from this, I'm arguing this for reasons that go beyond anything I could stand to gain personally (I gain nothing actually, my FLGS supports FW and even does group orders) but rather for people who are being forced to ignore FW because their FLGS or their club has some kind of ban against it.
Automatically Appended Next Post: EvilINC is now on my mental list of people I don't pay attention to lest I become rude, or invoke the Yellow Triangle of Friendship. It's clear he is a) not reading the actual thread, b) will continue to argue things regardless of what the facts are and c) seems to live someplace magical where people can demand things of others, no questions asked and force them to physically unpack their stuff, build list, deploy the army, roll dice, move bits and bobs around the board and more, against their will.
6. Forcing someone to do something they do not wish to is inherently violent. Consider a woman who does not wish to have "relations", if you force her to, you are committing a violent act. If you force me to play a game I do not wish to and have made my mind up against, you will either have to have a credible threat of violence or death or physically manhandle me into it. So yes, forcing me to play you when I just don't wanna is a threat of violence.
I have to say, after reading all of these posts, that I'm glad Evil Inc is not at my store. I can just see the conversation he would take:
Me: Hey, how about a nice game? 2000 points. Oh, I have a Storm Eagle as my flyer. Is that cool with you?
EVIL INC: OH my gawd, how can you force me to do this!? Now I have to play a game with you because you asked! I hate this. I should defend myself. What next, are you going to hit on my wife, and smack my daughter!?
Me: Hey, it's cool, I'll play someone else...
EVIL INC: No, you have made me play a game I don't want! Fist Fight! Food Fight! Everyone see how he's doing violence to me!
Sorry if that is a bit too satirical. But if someone kept using arguments like his over and over even though everyone else says it's not a problem, I would just wait for the next player in line and ask THEM for a game. I wouldn't even bother with the "Oh, okay I can use something else."
EVIL INC wrote: FirePainter
1- That IS what is in dispute.
2. See #1
3. true that. I have not seen a lot of FW rules, but they actually don't seem so bad. you will notice that a lot of the weaknesses the models have are geared towards other FW models so even ones designed for "normal" 40k games are geared towards facing other FW models.
4. again, I have no problems so long as it is addressed in a polite manner while respecting #s 1 and 2
5. Now, your starting to sound like me. Again, so long as #s 1 and 2 are respected
6. Forcing someone to do something they do not wish to is inherently violent. Consider a woman who does not wish to have "relations", if you force her to, you are committing a violent act. If you force me to play a game I do not wish to and have made my mind up against, you will either have to have a credible threat of violence or death or physically manhandle me into it. So yes, forcing me to play you when I just don't wanna is a threat of violence.
pouncy, I gave the 2nd conversation as an extreme example of being disrespectful and rude (it would almost have to be that disrespectfull and rude before I would turn down the chance to play against, check out/check out the rules for FW models designed for normal games. Especially if they were well painted) just as I exaggerated the first example to be ultra polite.
Setting aside the whole weird analogies you've been making equating a tabletop game with bodily harm and rape...
Everyone in the, quote, "pro-Forge World," unquote group has been saying repeatedly that if anyone doesn't want to play a game against Forge World stuff, they don't have to. They've been saying that tournament organizers are free to make any rules they want for their tournament.
The argument they're making, isn't so much about Forge World being forced on people, but trying to change the default assumption of 40k gamers from, "No Forgeworld Allowed" to "Appropriate Forgeworld Allowed," while keeping the caveat of, "Everyone can choose who and what they want to play or not play against."
They're talking about hoping to have it so that instead of having to get special permission to use 40k-approved Forgeworld models in casual games, they'd be allowed to use them unless their opponent specifically declines it.
6. Forcing someone to do something they do not wish to is inherently violent. Consider a woman who does not wish to have "relations", if you force her to, you are committing a violent act. If you force me to play a game I do not wish to and have made my mind up against, you will either have to have a credible threat of violence or death or physically manhandle me into it. So yes, forcing me to play you when I just don't wanna is a threat of violence.
I have now seen on this forum a user liken playing another system to having sex with a dog and this asking to play forgeworld is like raping a women?!?!!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!??!
What will they think of next?
Really where is this coming from?? No thread discussed on dakka including this one has implied that TO will not have the ability to ban whatever they choose.
I will reiterate forgeworld use or non-use is at the discretion of the TO's and players as a whole. This truth is not in dispute. I have had the experience of asking my local TO if I could use a forgeworld unit. He looked at the rules and decided against it, I proceeded to write my list for the tourny without that unit. No argument, no strongarming, no questions, and certainly no hard feeling. It was his tournament and his rules I just played by them.
Matt1785
Anyway, FW is as legal as you think it is I suppose, no one is ever swayed by these threads, and I can assure you that you will garner no FINAL answer from a forum.
This is the truth of the matter. Talk to your opponents and TOs before the games and you will have few problems.
You not wanting me to play at your store because I will not let you bully me does not bother me. I am actually glad that you do not play in my area because I do not like to see some bully boy ruin the game for the locals.
I still maintain that TO have the right to decide what gets used and players have the right o decide to play or not. if you were to try to politely introduce FW models instead of ramming down people's throats against their will, you will have better luck.
Calm discussions before games and tourneys to find out whats what locally and what players are open minded enough to try it ot can help you get FW introduced to an area where it is not already present.
EVIL INC wrote: You not wanting me to play at your store because I will not let you bully me does not bother me. I am actually glad that you do not play in my area because I do not like to see some bully boy ruin the game for the locals.
I still maintain that TO have the right to decide what gets used and players have the right o decide to play or not. if you were to try to politely introduce FW models instead of ramming down people's throats against their will, you will have better luck.
Calm discussions before games and tourneys to find out whats what locally and what players are open minded enough to try it ot can help you get FW introduced to an area where it is not already present.
No one's saying that anyone should be forced to play against Forge World if they don't want to.
No one's saying that tournament organizers shouldn't be able to ban it if they want to.
I think that you're operating on a very literal interpretation of the opening post of this thread.
What people are saying is they they'd like to reverse the onus from needing to seek explicit permission before each and every casual pickup game they want to use appropriate Forge World models in, to needing to be told, "Sorry, I'd rather not play against Forge World stuff," to know the opponent isn't into it, in much the same way they'd need to be told, "Sorry, I'd rather not play against a tournament list."
Essentially, the conversation would go from:
"Hey, wanna play some 40k?"
"Sure. Points?"
"Two thousand sound good?"
"Sure. Can I use some Forge World stuff? I've got the book with the rules if you wanna read em first."
"Is it alright if we skip the Forge World stuff?" / <reads rules> "Sure, looks good. Oughta be fun." / <reads rules> "Umm, sorry, I don't think so. Can you make a list without that stuff?" / "Sure, I don't mind Forge World at all."
(game is either played or not depending on whether a consensus is reached or not)
to
"Hey, wanna play some 40k?"
"Sure. Points?"
"Two thousand sound good?"
"Sure. But, um, does your list contain Forge World stuff? I see you've got Imperial Armour there."
"Yeah, it does. Is that a problem?"
"Yeah, actually it is. Can we skip the Forge World stuff?" / "Kinda depends, which Forge World stuff were you gonna use?"
(game is either played or not played depending on whether a consensus is reached or not?)
I have now seen on this forum a user liken playing another system to having sex with a dog and this asking to play forgeworld is like raping a women?!?!!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!??!
What will they think of next?
Really where is this coming from?? No thread discussed on dakka including this one has implied that TO will not have the ability to ban whatever they choose.
I will reiterate forgeworld use or non-use is at the discretion of the TO's and players as a whole. This truth is not in dispute. I have had the experience of asking my local TO if I could use a forgeworld unit. He looked at the rules and decided against it, I proceeded to write my list for the tourny without that unit. No argument, no strongarming, no questions, and certainly no hard feeling. It was his tournament and his rules I just played by them.
Don't forget the OTHER one of THESE discussions where someone compared telling people they couldn't use Forgeworld to telling people they had to ride at the back of the bus... Yeah. Of course that almost got that thread shut down.
Anyway, probably should have shot out the note of sarcasm in the first part of my post, I would never think Titans are allowed in standard 40k... although the new supplement coming out may allow such things.. but that's GW doing that. Again, I'm an advocate of Forgeworld, since I have a lot, and like their models, but I'm not going to force people to play against it, I'll ask, and as of yet, I have NEVER had someone tell me no.. so I don't know where all this FW hate comes from.
ClockworkZion wrote:So nice of you to jump in after claiming you were done with these topics last time Lynata. Welcome back!
Did I not jump ship only on the last thread?
I fully realise that all of this is a futile effort, but I think it is important to at least once set straight certain claims in each of these threads, if only for the benefit of any readers and so to better allow them to decide for themselves after having heard everyone's arguments.
ClockworkZion wrote:Many, if not all, of same posters also said they weren't trying to force people to play against their FW stuff, but instead were trying to see it unbanned or at least not needing to beg people to let them play it. Actually I don't recall one post that said that anyone was trying to make anyone play with or against anything, but maybe I'm not reading into it enough?
If you want to see it "unbanned", then argue about the positive things that FW can bring to the table. Why don't we see more threads like that?
What I'm getting from these threads instead is the same old "I shouldn't have to ask" attitude, with what feels like a new attempt every week by now. Does anyone honestly believe that this is going to change people's attitude? I just don't get it.
ClockworkZion wrote:10+ years (1999~2009 when C:IG came out) is too long to let FW keep putting stuff out and then say "oh it's not legal NOW because they stopped using VDR". I've even addressed that in this thread, or did you skip that?
Nope, didn't see it - either because I already left, or because the thread was moving so fast. Either way, if the statement has lost its value (due to VDR no longer being in place), why do you continue using it - and then even leaving out that it had this condition attached?
Don't you think this may come across as a bit ... misleading? This is not a matter of interpretation - when the text says "as long as", then the attached condition is a requirement for the rest to apply.
ClockworkZion wrote:Does that work better for you? Written by Jervis Johnson, doesn't mention that it's meant as anything but a source of rules for you to use the models in 40k. It doesn't even mention VDR. Can we stop getting so hung up on the idea of VDR being the only thing that made FW valid to begin with now?
Hey, it's you who dug up that VDR quote - where do you think I have that scan from?
And no, this new picture does not work better for me. What is this supposed to express? Where would you use FW rules except in games of 40k?
I'm sorry, but all I'm seeing here is yet another attempt at semantic acrobatics. Honestly, why don't you just return to the argument in page 108 of the 6th edition Rulebook? That is GW's current stance on the subject, and that is what allowed you to change my mind on the subject of FW's legality back then. But apparently this is no longer sufficient?
In reality, you should fight for bothFW and homebrewed to find more acceptance with the players. The problem is that this means you'd likely have to suddenly turn against a lot of FW-supporters who dislike house rules, and even use the latter to "taint" refusal of FW rules in an attempt to convince others, as homebrewed in this franchise apparently still has a certain negative stigma attached. Ironic, given that it seems GW has specifically intended to support house rules with FW by offering a professional outlet as an example for what players could strive to do themselves...
ClockworkZion wrote:I've also argued the facts from the rulebook supporting an open and more sandbox approach to the game than the anti-FW crowd says but you never comment on any of that, just your differing opinion on what Jervis mean in that intro. Go team.
Actually, I did. Here too. You even replied to me and asked for clarification. But this time it seems it is you who has forgotten. Are we even now?
I've even adopted that stance in other threads since, including this one. I am stubborn - but I am not incapable of changing my stance when presented with accurate and convincing arguments (as also proven by my current stance on the subject of "canon"), and I am consistent in my approach to such subjects.
Lynata wrote: What I'm getting from these threads instead is the same old "I shouldn't have to ask" attitude, with what feels like a new attempt every week by now.
The main barrier to use is the perception that it's not official, that's why it gets the most discussion. It comes up frequently because it's ridiculous that people still argue that it's not official - as has still happened in this thread. People shouldn't have to ask to use FW any more than they have to ask to use IG, Tau etc.
Does anyone honestly believe that this is going to change people's attitude? I just don't get it.
...
Honestly, why don't you just return to the argument in page 108 of the 6th edition Rulebook? That is GW's current stance on the subject, and that is what allowed you to change my mind on the subject of FW's legality back then. But apparently this is no longer sufficient?
That argument worked for you, it doesn't work for everybody. Most people object to FW on the "It's not official", "It's overpowered", or "the rules are too hard/rare/expensive to get" arguments. Each argument we successfully nullify brings this ridiculous argument closer to an end. This thread is focusing on the "It's not official" argument, what's the problem with that? It still ended up covering the other arguments, as always.
ClockworkZion wrote:So nice of you to jump in after claiming you were done with these topics last time Lynata. Welcome back!
Did I not jump ship only on the last thread?
I fully realise that all of this is a futile effort, but I think it is important to at least once set straight certain claims in each of these threads, if only for the benefit of any readers and so to better allow them to decide for themselves after having heard everyone's arguments.
I apologize, from the way you left it seemed more like you were abandoning these sorts of topics more permanently.
ClockworkZion wrote:Many, if not all, of same posters also said they weren't trying to force people to play against their FW stuff, but instead were trying to see it unbanned or at least not needing to beg people to let them play it. Actually I don't recall one post that said that anyone was trying to make anyone play with or against anything, but maybe I'm not reading into it enough?
If you want to see it "unbanned", then argue about the positive things that FW can bring to the table. Why don't we see more threads like that?
What I'm getting from these threads instead is the same old "I shouldn't have to ask" attitude, with what feels like a new attempt every week by now. Does anyone honestly believe that this is going to change people's attitude? I just don't get it.
Personally, at least with what I post I feel you're misreading it. I think people shouldn't need to be, bargin or plead to be able to play their cool toys. I feel that the current attitude of "no Forgeworld for anyone ever" is poisonious and shuts down creative thinking, freedom and the chance to really see what this game is. It shuts down cool fluffy armies, awesome campaign settings and in some cases the ability to bring some balance back in the game. All done some can enjoy the game while others are left unable to play the cool things they spent on (making it a waste of money for anyone who purchased them to actually, you know play the things), or out right banning them from people who want do cool things like convert up a Heretics and Renegades army. If you're reading into it as "I shouldn't have to ask" then you're missing what I'm trying to say and I'm sorry apparently I wasn't clear enough so let me try again.
I don't think this game should be pigeon-holed into some tight little box that makes it enjoyable only for some and tells everyone else to go screw themselves. I don't think the question of bringing FW should be any harder than the question to play any codex. I don't think that a player should be in a position where they can't choose to play what they wish to please a select few who are currently forcing their will down everyone else's throats in the defense as the hobby as they want it rather than what it should be.
What I do think is that players should communicate exactly what they want before the game starts: FW, codex, points levels, allies, double FOC, narrative, casual, campaign, homebrew, special scenario, Altar of War, ect. None of that should be treated any differently than any other part of it. That is what I think and what I've been trying to get across since post one several threads ago.
ClockworkZion wrote:10+ years (1999~2009 when C:IG came out) is too long to let FW keep putting stuff out and then say "oh it's not legal NOW because they stopped using VDR". I've even addressed that in this thread, or did you skip that?
Nope, didn't see it - either because I already left, or because the thread was moving so fast. Either way, if the statement has lost its value (due to VDR no longer being in place), why do you continue using it - and then even leaving out that it had this condition attached?
Don't you think this may come across as a bit ... misleading? This is not a matter of interpretation - when the text says "as long as", then the attached condition is a requirement for the rest to apply.
It's not about the state of the game now, I've addressed the fact that we're dealing with a genie that's been out of the bottle for 10 years now, it's where it comes from. It's the "proof" that's so often demanded that GW has supported FW from book one. That is all it ever was supposed to be, and that's all I've ever tried to present it as, proof that the arguments about FW "never having support" and "the studio never being involved with them" and "GW has never said FW could be allowed" in games was false at best and a lie at worst. IA2 actually does it better because it says that Imperial of Armour is a series of books to give you rules for using that stuff in 40k, proving even more, from a historical standpoint that these claims of GW somehow creating a department in itself to make these models and the rules for them while apparently never giving them any authority to do so were wrong.
Basically, it's a history lesson for those who have never done any research. I'm still waiting for their "proof" that says the opposite.
ClockworkZion wrote:Does that work better for you? Written by Jervis Johnson, doesn't mention that it's meant as anything but a source of rules for you to use the models in 40k. It doesn't even mention VDR. Can we stop getting so hung up on the idea of VDR being the only thing that made FW valid to begin with now?
Hey, it's you who dug up that VDR quote - where do you think I have that scan from?
And no, this new picture does not work better for me. What is this supposed to express? Where would you use FW rules except in games of 40k?
It expresses a point in history where the main dev studio showed support for FW and said the books were intended for use with 40k, that is all. It's "proof" for the ones who claim that we need to show it, something that comes up a lot. IA2 is probably even better because it has no VDR requirement, it just says the rules are intended for play in 40k, something that people claim the studio has never said.
Lynata wrote: I'm sorry, but all I'm seeing here is yet another attempt at semantic acrobatics. Honestly, why don't you just return to the argument in page 108 of the 6th edition Rulebook? That is GW's current stance on the subject, and that is what allowed you to change my mind on the subject of FW's legality back then. But apparently this is no longer sufficient?
No, it's not semantic acrobats, it's a history lesson to stop the claims that FW was never "official" and that the studio never supported them. If you look at this entire thread I've mentioned page 108. I actually mention it a lot in general when these sorts of topics come up as proof that the current rulebook supports in the game. I just dug up these old bits to stop the claims that FW was some how not "legal" or "official" before 6th edition.
Lynata wrote: In reality, you should fight for bothFW and homebrewed to find more acceptance with the players.
And who says I wasn't? Everytime I bring up page 108 I talk about homebrew, FW, and usually codex supplements (think I skipped the last one at least once in this thread).
Lynata wrote: The problem is that this means you'd likely have to suddenly turn against a lot of FW-supporters who dislike house rules, and even use the latter to "taint" refusal of FW rules in an attempt to convince others, as homebrewed in this franchise apparently still has a certain negative stigma attached. Ironic, given that it seems GW has specifically intended to support house rules with FW by offering a professional outlet as an example for what players could strive to do themselves...
I'll continue supporting homebrew regardless what people are claiming, but let me deal with one battle at a time, eh? This thread is about FW, and that's a tall enough peak as is, give people some time to climb this summit before we start pushing them to climb another one.
And if you read my posts you may have noticed my disdain for people putting 40k into some kind of imaginary box on what they thing 40k "should" be. I'll gladly argue that anyone who is defining 40k beyond "a framework for an enjoyable experience between you and your friends" is doing it wrong. I naturally want 40k to be freed from the shackles people keep putting it in so we can get back to having a good time with it instead of trying to force it into only one tightly defined role.
ClockworkZion wrote:I've also argued the facts from the rulebook supporting an open and more sandbox approach to the game than the anti-FW crowd says but you never comment on any of that, just your differing opinion on what Jervis mean in that intro. Go team.
Actually, I did. Here too. You even replied to me and asked for clarification. But this time it seems it is you who has forgotten. Are we even now?
I was talking about this thread where you railed against my use of old information, without asking for what I'm really trying to say if you weren't sure (thanks for the assumptions about my character by the way, it's a real pick me up), something you've done before, and skipped right past every other point I've made, as evident by you not knowing I've mentioned page 108 before in this thread.
Lynata wrote: I've even adopted that stance in other threads since, including this one. I am stubborn - but I am not incapable of changing my stance when presented with accurate and convincing arguments (as also proven by my current stance on the subject of "canon"), and I am consistent in my approach to such subjects.
I am consistent as well, the thing is that sometimes people assume things about what you're trying to convey about a message and don't ask for clarification then accuse you of things you're not trying to do. I never intended any references to the past to be proof that the current rulebook supported FW, but rather that it started as legal and with full studio support and that 13+ years later it's a little preposterous to start claiming that it wasn't (actually I think it might be as recent as 2010 so that might be 11+ years when I started hearing these claims and the accusations of "NOT LEGAL" being tossed around). Page 108 and the Spirit of the Game are the ammunition for "now", the IA stuff is ammunition for "then",
Are we clear now, or do I need to worry about any more accusations on my character caused by you reading into things that aren't there? You know, sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.
Lynata wrote: If you want to see it "unbanned", then argue about the positive things that FW can bring to the table. Why don't we see more threads like that?
What I'm getting from these threads instead is the same old "I shouldn't have to ask" attitude, with what feels like a new attempt every week by now. Does anyone honestly believe that this is going to change people's attitude? I just don't get it.
Why don't we expect the same kind of "talk about all the positives" from people who use codex armies? I'm sick of this assumption that people who use certain official rules to build their army need to constantly justify their decision and convince everyone that their choices improve the game, while people who build their army with other official rules just have to show up and say "hey, let's play a game of 40k".
Ironic, given that it seems GW has specifically intended to support house rules with FW by offering a professional outlet as an example for what players could strive to do themselves...
This is a pretty big assumption you're making, especially when GW has said nothing about rules published under their FW brand being examples of well-made "house rules", and has even said explicitly that rules published under their FW brand name are intended for the standard game of 40k. You might as well declare that supplements are just examples of house rules to inspire players, and FAQs/errata are just nice suggestions for house rules that some people might want to use.
Breng77 wrote: Except unless you are going to go through and ban units across the boad you still get a doubel standard.
1.) There are a Few OPFW units...lets ban those.
Pisses people off just as much as banning it all together (infact it pisses off more people. the Pro FW people are not happy because FW is being targeted, and the anti FW people are pissed because they don't want any FW.)
So unless you include
2.) Some GW units are OP lets ban those....
It is still a double standard. Now you can ban units across the board if you want, but most people don't because they want to be able to use their toys.
Really there are a few broken rules across the game and the rules should be fixed not the units banned if you want to balance the game.
Well my position is that the units themselves are the one that should be judged and not the whole entire category. If you don't want to play against seer council on jet bikes because its a stupidly strong unit then I would be OK with that. Whats the point in saying that FW is banned because some particular units are way overpowered but then you still play against overpowered units in codex lists?
DarthOvious wrote: Also note that Ward isn't writing codices anymore. I found this out when I spoke to him at Games Day. Perhaps it was decided it was best if he didn't for some reason we will keep to ourselves.
Didn´t know that.... He writes good rules, yet awful, awful fluff. I don´t know if this makes me happy or sad.
He's still doing Army Books for WFB it seems, and he's doing supplements (he wrote the Iyanden one and the fluff there wasn't bad, not to mention his fluff work in the Sisters WD codex was pretty decent and overall he's been improving steadily.)
It's the rules he is not contributing to anymore. Sorry if I didn't make that clear.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
anchorbine wrote: Forgeworld isn't available in the GW retail stores, nor are any of the rule books. Further, forgeworld doesn't make complete army additions for each of the 40k armies, which allows for certain armies a huge amount of additional army choices. Nice models, certainly made by a branch of GW, intended for the 40k game, but still not listed in the main rulebook or the main faq. A huge amount of standard codex mini's are listed in the main rulebook, this isn't the case for the forgeworld ones.
Solution is pathetically easy, mtg solved it almost immediately. Two basic game formats. 40k Standard and 40k extended. (extended allows forgeworld) Hey guys, I have an extended army, is that ok?
Problem solved. Nobody is the bad guy, the ongoing argument ceases to exist, and we can all just roll dice without the drama. How about it forgeworld guys, is this a fair enough compromise?
Just one point, there is one GW store that sells FW and thats the store at Warhammer World in Nottingham. The rest of the time its direct order only, which applies to some GW stuff anyway.
If GW created what you suggest then I wouldn't be bothered by it but I think the argument here is that they haven't and they mean for Forge World 40k approved stuff to be usuable in 40k in a normal manner
I apply the same rule to the Codex units, the Forgeworld units and the House Rules. Thus the "regardless of the origin of the unit". So I guess I disagree that we have a disagreement here (except in the House Rules part).
Perhaps we agree on this then.
Probably my fault, I should be working right now. I am writing in a hurry.
I'm actually now seeing that we probably agree on more than I first thought
That exact same answer could be used to justify the use of the power 9 in a game of mtg, yet that hasn't created any issues for the MTG community. They understand and comprehend that there are different levels of play and adapted their game to it. It's accepted, nobody complains, and there are still means to utilize all of your magic cards regardless of expansion. They don't have 10 years of ongoing message board wars regarding their formats, they just choose a format and play.
I fail to see why people who enjoy forgeworld can't offer the same option without the drama or trying to create division. It's beyond simple. "I have an extended army, would you like to give it a go?" "Sure, let's roll some dice", or "I'm more comfortable with a game of 40k Standard."
No drama, no argument, nobody feeling like the other player is forcing them into anything.
This is because MTG created an official separation for all their games stating what can be used in what. GW on the other hand have said "take what you want the game is yours" and this is where the arguments come from because players still want to put things in a box. To be honest though I much prefer for 40k to keep its creative freedom for the players.
No drama, no argument, nobody feeling like the other player is forcing them into anything.
Is it not ironic that you are advocating for a system that forces players to play a certain way? i.e. Lets have standard and extended, etc, etc. Unit X isn't allowed in standard and so on.
Well personally my reasoning for not allowing FW at my events has little to nothing to do with it being overpowered. Which is a bad argument as has been pointed out.
As to some other points:
The MTG thing while it has merit has issues due to frequency and length of most 40k tournaments. Local stores could do it but larger events unless they break up into multiple tournaments are not going to use it much.
As to why FW players should be keen to "prove" that it is no big deal. Many people are not familiar with FW, standing around shouting at the wind that its legal won't change that fact, won't convince everyone etc....so why should you because baby steps are easier to deal with.
That said I still fall into the feeling that all events have a place right now, and until FW becomes something everyone is comfortable with that is just how things will be.
So to recap the issue at hand, this is what seems to be going on:
1) Stores not selling FW material, thus not gaining anything from their use and generally seem to ban their use??
2) Information on available models for each army are not readily available, which leads to players staying ignorant
3) Tournament organizers do not want additional hassle that comes with the models/rules not being known
4) Thinking that all FW equals being OP 5) GW not endorsing FW in full
Nr 1 can't be helped. 2 and 4 needs to be addressed to solve 3. Nr 5 should be easy, have GW list in their web site stats and models for FW also.
It should be easy to figure out what models each army could use, but it isn't. I believe this is the biggest issue which leads to ignorance and unwillingness to give them a try.
herpguy wrote: Please people stop dragging the Heldrake into this! Please show me one tournament list in the top 10 with more than 1 Heldrake.
Not anymore, but it was up there when the Chaos codex came out. At the moment Riptides, Wave Serpent Spam and Jetseer Councils are where its at.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
EVIL INC wrote: the point (and the only one that really matters in this whole long drawn out conversation is comprised of two parts.
1. Does a TO have the RIGHT to decide what is allowed in their tournament? The answer is yes. They have the RIGHT to disallow people from bringing titans to 1500 point tournaments if they so desire. They have the RIGHT to eject someone who is disturbing the tournament or who shows up drunk or sets the tables on fire. They have the RIGHT to ban nyone who is wearing socks that have holes in the heels (this woulda put me out on at least one occasion).
Me too, don't worry about it we'll start our own tournie for people who have holes in their socks.
2. Do players have the RIGHT to not play a game is someone if bringing a warlord titan to to a 500 point squd match? Yes Do players have the RIGHT to turn down a game because they feel ill? yes Does a player have the RIGHT to turn down a game against a player who shows up with 3 riptides? yes. Does a player have the RIGHT to turn down a game against a person who uses vulgar language,mishandles models and stinks to high heaven while digging down the front of their pants and then insisting they reach their grubby mitts into your potato chip bag (I know I would turn this game down) yes.
Yuck, what kind of players do you have down at your store?
What seems to be being overlooked is that regardless ofwho is argueing what side, thee basic gaming rights are being totally ignored in the vain attempt to "one up" the other side and get the last jab in.
Nothing is being ignored, we are having a discussion about Forge World and what it is meant for. In another thread I stated that this runs both ways. If a player refuses to play a player just because that player is using Forge World, not because he considers the unit to be overpowered then it is fair for the returning player to just say he won't play against him either at all in any game. What is good for the goose is good for the gander. Everybody should remember that.
Vaktathi, that is EXACTLY what is being proposed and it is being proposed that TO and players forfeit their rights to make the single person at the shop who owns the titan happy and why they are posting here supporting that. I am well versed in how FW stuff "works".
Well I didn't propose it and I didn't see anyone else propose it either.
EVIL INC wrote: Titans are made by FW (although armorcast used to make them as well) and as FW models are what is being discussed, I use a titan as an extreme example because you know as well as I do that if a "line" is not drawn, the arms race will eventually go to titans.
GW also make Super Heavies that are not allowed in normal games. i.e. Shadowsword/Baneblade kit.
Your argument here is a slippery slope argument. A logical fallacy.
Tough guy sundrome? The "internet tough guy syndrome" is the internet bully. The one who insists that no one has rights but themselves constantly harasses and bullies them as you are doing. Someone come to my private residence and threatens me and my family, YES, I will defend myself. I'm sorry if you think I don't have the right to do so.
Strawman fallacy. No-one has argued this.
Yes, we all know you are trolling and straying from the topic. I forgive you for it. I refuse to troll myself sticking instead to truths and facts but whatever floats your boat, your welcome to do.
Except for the fact that you are making grandiose claims about peoples character in this thread. Nobody is threatning you or trying to force you into playing games you don't want to play. Its the people who use FW models who are being shunned because whole communities are blanket banning FW.
Players have the right to turn down any game they want. You are proposing that players be forced to play you because you brought FW models whether they want to or not. Not a single person is proposing mass bannings. That is only in your imagination. the game is for the pleasure of BOTH players, not just one. if a person does not get enjoyment of being the dunce who is forced to play games they cannot win just so someone with FW models can enjoy a game, than both players are not enjoying themselves. Why are you so against the FW guy bringing items that rae halfway balanced and not overpowered in a normal game? What do you find so wrong with him asking if an opponent minds if he uses it or not? Remember, the enjoyment of playing is for BOTH players.
Not a single person has denied the right of players to bring cool models to show off? heck, you can BET that as soon as I was done painting and basing my armorcast reaver titan that I dragged it straight to the shop to show off and see if anyone was up for an apocalypse type game (shoulda never sold it). you can also bet that I am proud of and show off my cool conversions that feature non-GW models. As a matter of fact, I have YET to see an "anti-FW posters in this entire thread. So far, everyone is impressed with the models and are more than happy to face them so long as they have ample warning to prepare.
Nobody is saying you don't have any right to refuse to play against players. This is just a poorly constructed strawman.
Once more, I mention titans because it is an extreme example that you know as well as I do will end up at. You follow my logic when you say it was not designed for normal games. Those types of models that are not designed for normal games are exactly what we are discussing. Not a single person is saying you cant use a FW dreadnought to represent a GW dreadnought even in a tourney. The only things that are being discussed are the FW models that are specifically designed to be used in apoc games or to face other FW models. I mention titans because they are the most iconic example of this.
Titans cannot be used in normal games. Period. Even if your opponent was happy to play against one it is not legal anyway. It doesn't have a FOC slot, so therefore cannot be taken in a game which uses a FOC.
I don't know how many times people need to say this.
point one is indeed one of the two things being disputed. You guys are saying that you have the right to force TO to follow your personal wishes instead of their own or the communities they cater to.the units in question range from FW dreadnoughts to titans. Titans are indeed one of the units your attempting to force TO to use against their wills Models like dreads and all that have the "official" 40k stamp are not in question at all.
No it is not. For crying out loud. Let me explain it to you. Forge World itmes are split into different categories. They are Forge World models with rules that are 40k approved and have a 40k stamp on it. Look at the following rules:
Do you see the stamp on the sheet that says warhammer 40k? That means that Forge World have given the green light for this item to be used in 40k games. Titans have never been given the green light for 40k games and have an apocalypse stamp instead. Meaning that Titans can only be taken in apocalypse games.
point two is also in dispute as you are proposing strongarming people to play games they don't want to. As I said, give me fair warning of the scale of what I might be expecting and I'll be happy to prepare for it. Ram it down my throat at the last second and I likely wont play you just because of the disrespect your showing me.
Nobody is arguing this. Poorly constructed strawman is poorly constructed.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
EVIL INC wrote: the thread is about using FW models. This with no differentiation between those designed for normal 40k games and those that are not. There are 3 sides so far. those who say no FW of any kind because it is evil, the side saying force ALL FW models on everyone regardless of their rights and those of us that I agree with.
if you wish to disagree with me, that is your right. My stance covers a few items...
1. TO have the right to disallow anything they want.
2. players do not have to play against something they don't want to.
(Both 1 and 2 are what you are having the most trouble dealing with)
3. FW models are great, look cool and have fairly balanced rules from what I have seen.
4. Models that already have 40k equivelants are not even in dispute as they are just different looking representations of things that are already there.
5. models that are designed for "normal" 40k games but not already in the codexes I only remind you og #1 and #2 and sugest that instead of arrogantly forcing them on people with the threat of violence (as I earlier mentioned I would defend against as I am not going to letsomeone just beat on or kill me because they want to use their models. it is a GAME and not worth you getting that bent out of shape), I would suggest introducing the possible opponent to the unit, it's abilities and so forth and give them the option of not facing it or seeing it used in a demo game or some other polite way to ease the player into allowing it into their comfort zone to where they would want to play against it (possibly eventually buy one of their own or some other FW model(s) of their own.
6.Remember, it is a game. With you threatening violence, telling TO what they can and cant do, plaers who they can and cant play and so forth, you are removing the enjoyment of these people from the game and possibly even turning them against 40k as a whole because of the sort of people they see as playing it. I find that you get a lot better results from treating people with dignity and respect along with being on the level with them.
This isn't even funny anymore. Please quote one person in this thread who said that they threaten someone if they didn't let them use forge world models.
Matt1785 wrote: Now we have FW players demanding to bring Titans in standard 40K, that's solid, I'll have to buy a Warhound now... or maybe I'll get that Reaver...
No, we have one person posting paranoid delusions about FW players coming to his house and murdering his family if he won't play against their titan in a 500 point game. Nobody is arguing for titans in standard 40k.
I will confirm this as I have read this whole thread. The guy is getting desparate because he knows he is losing the discussion on this. SO he has resorted to just making stuff up about the posters in this thread. I repeat:
1) No-one has threatned anyone else in this thread about not being able to use FW.
2) Nobody has argued that players should be forced to play any game whatsoever.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
ClockworkZion wrote: EvilINC is now on my mental list of people I don't pay attention to lest I become rude, or invoke the Yellow Triangle of Friendship. It's clear he is a) not reading the actual thread, b) will continue to argue things regardless of what the facts are and c) seems to live someplace magical where people can demand things of others, no questions asked and force them to physically unpack their stuff, build list, deploy the army, roll dice, move bits and bobs around the board and more, against their will.
You would think he considers Puppet Master to be a real psychic power which anybody can use on him to force him to play the game.
Speaking of hard-to-obtain rules like Forge World stuff, can someone link me to the Sisters of Battle Errata/FAQ? I can't seem to locate it in my sleep-deprived state (I stayed up all night foruming and playing video games and neglecting the painting of my nice conversion of an anthro fox Marine).
ClockworkZion wrote: EvilINC is now on my mental list of people I don't pay attention to lest I become rude, or invoke the Yellow Triangle of Friendship. It's clear he is a) not reading the actual thread, b) will continue to argue things regardless of what the facts are and c) seems to live someplace magical where people can demand things of others, no questions asked and force them to physically unpack their stuff, build list, deploy the army, roll dice, move bits and bobs around the board and more, against their will.
You would think he considers Puppet Master to be a real psychic power which anybody can use on him to force him to play the game.
If so, can you get someone to use it on me to force me to enjoy painting models and scenery?
Pouncey wrote: Speaking of hard-to-obtain rules like Forge World stuff, can someone link me to the Sisters of Battle Errata/FAQ? I can't seem to locate it in my sleep-deprived state (I stayed up all night foruming and playing video games and neglecting the painting of my nice conversion of an anthro fox Marine).
There isn't one at the moment. All changes, FAQ stuff and erratas are being posted directly into the codex itself through updates.
In reality, you should fight for bothFW and homebrewed to find more acceptance with the players. The problem is that this means you'd likely have to suddenly turn against a lot of FW-supporters who dislike house rules, and even use the latter to "taint" refusal of FW rules in an attempt to convince others, as homebrewed in this franchise apparently still has a certain negative stigma attached. Ironic, given that it seems GW has specifically intended to support house rules with FW by offering a professional outlet as an example for what players could strive to do themselves...
Just thought I would put my opinion here. Personally I have nothing against homebrewed rules, my earlier post was just making a statement ealier on in regards to the difference between homebrewed and Forge World. i.e. FW I would consider to be from an impartial source whereas homebrewed rules are from a biased source.
This doesn't mean I wouldn't play against somebody who used homebrewed rules, it just means I am very much more likely to want to read their rules before playing them and making a judgement based on balance issues. If their homebrewed codex looks OK and isn't anything better than say a Tau or Eldar army then I would be OK with playing against it.
If the scenario I posted ealier on happens though where some cheeseball makes his Assault Marines charge after deep strike at S10, I10, AP2 with 10 attacks each, 15pts per model then I will tell that guy to jog on. In the case of Forge World I am happy to know beforehand that I will not come up against something like that. Some FW units may be powerful but they are not unkillable.
Pouncey wrote: Speaking of hard-to-obtain rules like Forge World stuff, can someone link me to the Sisters of Battle Errata/FAQ? I can't seem to locate it in my sleep-deprived state (I stayed up all night foruming and playing video games and neglecting the painting of my nice conversion of an anthro fox Marine).
There isn't one at the moment. All changes, FAQ stuff and erratas are being posted directly into the codex itself through updates.
Well, looks like I'll be getting my own tablet at some point then.
Though I'm gonna take a wild stab and guess that new codices are released as Digital Editions about 2-3 months after the release of the physical books.
Pouncey wrote: Speaking of hard-to-obtain rules like Forge World stuff, can someone link me to the Sisters of Battle Errata/FAQ? I can't seem to locate it in my sleep-deprived state (I stayed up all night foruming and playing video games and neglecting the painting of my nice conversion of an anthro fox Marine).
There isn't one at the moment. All changes, FAQ stuff and erratas are being posted directly into the codex itself through updates.
Well, looks like I'll be getting my own tablet at some point then.
Though I'm gonna take a wild stab and guess that new codices are released as Digital Editions about 2-3 months after the release of the physical books.
You can open the ePub ones on your PC, plus they're cheaper, and you can print them if you really want.
And GWDE said some books won't be seeing a physical release (C:=][= is likely on this list as releasing it would make it harder to update when C:GK gets it's update). C:AS is in a funny gray area where it's unclear what will happen at the moment.
as its another case of 'here we go around the mulberry bush'
here is my take:
In my humble experience folks tend to 'accept' FW when you plonk the rules down in front of them and say 'there read them for yourself..' I'm not pushy, with my IG Tank army I can run it using the normal codex if someone was that picky.
However some of the FW rules seem tame when you look at certain combs out there. Tau are good but tend to fall over when folks realise that you kill the marker-light source first. The worst thing currently is the screamerstar- personally its the most broke thing currently 2+ saves are not to be sniffed at but when it gets a re-roll its a 'tad OP' .
that that is unquestionably legal...
thought for the most part it is folks sheer ignorance or 'can't be arsed' attitude that causes the issues, at tourneys its up to the TOs as usual.
but I can't see the problem if people have the books and give their opponent the chance to read the rules- its their loss
Pouncey wrote: Speaking of hard-to-obtain rules like Forge World stuff, can someone link me to the Sisters of Battle Errata/FAQ? I can't seem to locate it in my sleep-deprived state (I stayed up all night foruming and playing video games and neglecting the painting of my nice conversion of an anthro fox Marine).
There isn't one at the moment. All changes, FAQ stuff and erratas are being posted directly into the codex itself through updates.
Well, looks like I'll be getting my own tablet at some point then.
Though I'm gonna take a wild stab and guess that new codices are released as Digital Editions about 2-3 months after the release of the physical books.
You can open the ePub ones on your PC, plus they're cheaper, and you can print them if you really want.
And GWDE said some books won't be seeing a physical release (C:=][= is likely on this list as releasing it would make it harder to update when C:GK gets it's update). C:AS is in a funny gray area where it's unclear what will happen at the moment.
Awesome. I prefer having the rules with me at the gaming table, as my memory is, well, bad for details like specific wording especially. I always mess up quotes. I can usually remember that there is a relevant rule too look up though.
Art_of_war wrote: Tau are good but tend to fall over when folks realise that you kill the marker-light source first
As you brought this up, dependancy on markerlights is so yesterday. Forget about that already.
The worst thing currently is the screamerstar- personally its the most broke thing currently 2+ saves are not to be sniffed at but when it gets a re-roll its a 'tad OP' .
It is also very expensive and usually backfires sooner or later. Besides of that, there should not be units with rerollable 2+.
ClockworkZion wrote: C:AS is in a funny gray area where it's unclear what will happen at the moment.
Cruddace did say that it'd likely get a physical release if it sold well (and it apparently did!), so I think that we're likely to get one. Physical releases of digital stuff tends to take a while to surface anyway.
1.The till remains that TO have the right to disallow anything they want in their tourneys.
2. Players have the right to play or not.
f your local TO does not allow FW models talk to them privately to discuss the reason. Having a screaming match with them at the shop 5 mnutes before the tourney starts is not exactly the way to go. Maybe invite them over for a match where you use your FW stuff or let them use some of yours. Possibly have a game at the shop this way during "off hours" and discuss the faults and merits of the models as the game goes on. This would be a way to demonstrate that 'it aint so bad".
I think that a lot of the reason it is not allowed because of the lack of information. most people (including myself) see the models as for "rich people'. face it, look at the prices and you hafta make special orders and so on. it is also not readily available for most players as most shops just don't carry it. this adds to the former image of them being for rich people. then there is the lack of knowledge, The rles are kept separate where you need to buy big books that are twice the cost of the GW codexes. All this combines to make FW some sort of mystical thing where if you have money, you are buying advantages. it does not matter that this is not true because it is so ingrained. Many players will just refuse to play in a tourney for FW because they don't have anything to compete with in their eyes.
Until FW becomes moremainstream and I think GW should be the one to champion this alongside players and the models are more readily available, I think tis will be the case. When I say GW should champion this, I mean give FW more credit than an occasional "heres a new thing they made". I mean give them more official rules, build their stuff into the codexes work closer together in general, offer their stufto be carried in normal stores and so on.
Emphasize th difference between apoc only and '40k approved". Most players (including myself) simply don't know which is which (aside from titans). Define the line better and which models are on which side of the line. heck, release a codex supplements "codex: DKoK".
I think that until then with ONLY FW players championing it, they will "appear" to be elitist snobs trying to make thiertoys official so they can have an advantage over the peons. I understand your view and agree. heck, I wish I could afford some of the cool stuff and am jealous I don't have any but you know as well as I do, that this is not the case with the vast majority of players and would be a headache for TO that most simply don't wanna have.:
ClockworkZion wrote: C:AS is in a funny gray area where it's unclear what will happen at the moment.
Cruddace did say that it'd likely get a physical release if it sold well (and it apparently did!), so I think that we're likely to get one. Physical releases of digital stuff tends to take a while to surface anyway.
I know what Cruddace said, but I remain open to possibility that it doesn't until it gets a model update and that this version never sees print just in case that's what ends up happening.
ClockworkZion wrote: I know what Cruddace said, but I remain open to possibility that it doesn't until it gets a model update and that this version never sees print just in case that's what ends up happening.
Interesting point, could be their plan. Though 2014 seems quite solidly booked for the moment, so they could get a physical release of the digi-dex out in ample time if they wanted to. We'll see.
Edit: though of course, we just know about 2014's lineup from rumours, and those can change.
Evil INC, I'm not going to even respond to that typo ridden mess you call a post. You've been consistently ignoring actual facts to spew whatever you want about the people posting and generally behaving in a manner that I would consider trolling if I thought it was being done intentionally. I just don't think it's worth my time to keep trying to explain things to you when you read maybe a sentence or two and then quote the whole post in response to that small bit you actually read forcing us to figure out the context of you reply.
No, instead I'm going to not respond to your "points" because they're full of fallacies, factual errors and out right accuse people of things they've said time and again they would never do.
You haven't had a leg to stand on in this thread since you started posting and unless you can find a real arguement to use I've got nothing to say to you any longer and I really doubt many others do either.
ClockworkZion wrote: I know what Cruddace said, but I remain open to possibility that it doesn't until it gets a model update and that this version never sees print just in case that's what ends up happening.
Interesting point, could be their plan. Though 2014 seems quite solidly booked for the moment, so they could get a physical release of the digi-dex out in ample time if they wanted to. We'll see.
I was write in my original assesment last year that late 2013 was a good time for a Sisters update, I was wrong about the scope though so you really never know.
2015 is looking good unless the rumor schedule is wrong.
ClockworkZion wrote: I know what Cruddace said, but I remain open to possibility that it doesn't until it gets a model update and that this version never sees print just in case that's what ends up happening.
Interesting point, could be their plan. Though 2014 seems quite solidly booked for the moment, so they could get a physical release of the digi-dex out in ample time if they wanted to. We'll see.
If they release the digi-dex as physical, it might be the first ever codex released with the biggest most obvious glaring YMDC questions fixed before print. Wouldn't that be something?
ClockworkZion wrote: I know what Cruddace said, but I remain open to possibility that it doesn't until it gets a model update and that this version never sees print just in case that's what ends up happening.
Interesting point, could be their plan. Though 2014 seems quite solidly booked for the moment, so they could get a physical release of the digi-dex out in ample time if they wanted to. We'll see.
If they release the digi-dex as physical, it might be the first ever codex released with the biggest most obvious glaring YMDC questions fixed before print. Wouldn't that be something?
Brotherhood of Psykers vs Psychic Barrage and how neither rule is more specific than the other in how they handle Perils leading to a constant circular increase and decrease of the number of models suffering from Perils?
ClockworkZion wrote: I know what Cruddace said, but I remain open to possibility that it doesn't until it gets a model update and that this version never sees print just in case that's what ends up happening.
Interesting point, could be their plan. Though 2014 seems quite solidly booked for the moment, so they could get a physical release of the digi-dex out in ample time if they wanted to. We'll see.
If they release the digi-dex as physical, it might be the first ever codex released with the biggest most obvious glaring YMDC questions fixed before print. Wouldn't that be something?
Brotherhood of Psykers vs Psychic Barrage and how neither rule is more specific than the other in how they handle Perils leading to a constant circular increase and decrease of the number of models suffering from Perils?
Or is there another one?
Celestine specifically ONLY awarded slay the warlord on her second death in the first release of the digidex. You can fail to resurrect her or simply opt not to. Now it takes failure into account but still says nothing about opting not to use the AoF.
Repentia can only use their FNP right before hitting, meaning it can only be used in CC (that's intentional, but I bring it up to show the limit of what it can do) and never against any unit that is initiative 2 or higher. A lot of initiative 1 weapons will have 6 or more strength too, making FNP not work. Seems a little too limiting for a one use, doesn't it?
ClockworkZion wrote: I know what Cruddace said, but I remain open to possibility that it doesn't until it gets a model update and that this version never sees print just in case that's what ends up happening.
Interesting point, could be their plan. Though 2014 seems quite solidly booked for the moment, so they could get a physical release of the digi-dex out in ample time if they wanted to. We'll see.
If they release the digi-dex as physical, it might be the first ever codex released with the biggest most obvious glaring YMDC questions fixed before print. Wouldn't that be something?
Brotherhood of Psykers vs Psychic Barrage and how neither rule is more specific than the other in how they handle Perils leading to a constant circular increase and decrease of the number of models suffering from Perils?
Or is there another one?
Celestine specifically ONLY awarded slay the warlord on her second death in the first release of the digidex. You can fail to resurrect her or simply opt not to. Now it takes failure into account but still says nothing about opting not to use the AoF.
I think we can all suss out the RAI on that one versus what RAW is giving us, but fair enough.
Purifier wrote: Repentia can only use their FNP right before hitting, meaning it can only be used in CC (that's intentional, but I bring it up to show the limit of what it can do) and never against any unit that is initiative 2 or higher. A lot of initiative 1 weapons will have 6 or more strength too, making FNP not work. Seems a little too limiting for a one use, doesn't it?
Repentia are already hurting by losing FnP in general but I really can't say anyone intended to make Repentia THAT bad (and if they did shame on them!).
So really we have three big issues then. Well I raised the Psyker one with GWDE and if someone else messages the other two to them that might get that resolved too.
ClockworkZion wrote: I know what Cruddace said, but I remain open to possibility that it doesn't until it gets a model update and that this version never sees print just in case that's what ends up happening.
Interesting point, could be their plan. Though 2014 seems quite solidly booked for the moment, so they could get a physical release of the digi-dex out in ample time if they wanted to. We'll see.
If they release the digi-dex as physical, it might be the first ever codex released with the biggest most obvious glaring YMDC questions fixed before print. Wouldn't that be something?
Brotherhood of Psykers vs Psychic Barrage and how neither rule is more specific than the other in how they handle Perils leading to a constant circular increase and decrease of the number of models suffering from Perils?
Or is there another one?
Celestine specifically ONLY awarded slay the warlord on her second death in the first release of the digidex. You can fail to resurrect her or simply opt not to. Now it takes failure into account but still says nothing about opting not to use the AoF.
I think we can all suss out the RAI on that one versus what RAW is giving us, but fair enough.
Purifier wrote: Repentia can only use their FNP right before hitting, meaning it can only be used in CC (that's intentional, but I bring it up to show the limit of what it can do) and never against any unit that is initiative 2 or higher. A lot of initiative 1 weapons will have 6 or more strength too, making FNP not work. Seems a little too limiting for a one use, doesn't it?
Repentia are already hurting by losing FnP in general but I really can't say anyone intended to make Repentia THAT bad (and if they did shame on them!).
So really we have three big issues then. Well I raised the Psyker one with GWDE and if someone else messages the other two to them that might get that resolved too.
I realised we are really going off topic when I read the topic on this thread, but I also remembered that I'm lying about the repentia thing. If they still have the mistress they can activate it at her initiative step, which helps but... still... come on.
Well back on topic, here's where I stand right now: I've found and provided evidence that historically FW was supported by the studio, and that there are rules that allow you to play FW in the game even now. I've yet to see any actual evidence to the contrary from the opposite camp (not that it'll get them to change their minds however, I expect another goal post shift anytime now) so I think we can establish that any arguements about FW being illegal or unofficial are wrong.
As for playing it, I stand by my statement that the option to use FW should be the same as the option to use C: IG, and that homebrew should get the same treatment. Players should be able to turn it down on a case-by-case basis as suits what they want in a game, but it should never be mass banned, especially under any pretense about things being "broken", "cheese" or "op". If you're so concerned about such things then you need to address them for every army and every codex and every combination because right now it's akin to using a flamethrower to get rid of a spider: it's only making things worse.
How then do you deal with tournaments then. FW is always legal at all times? Because players will not be able to turn it down as they want in a game in that case.
The way I see it is tournaments "banning" it is essentially just that they are deciding that they would rather not deal with them, for all players that wish to attend.
Breng77 wrote: How then do you deal with tournaments then. FW is always legal at all times? Because players will not be able to turn it down as they want in a game in that case.
The way I see it is tournaments "banning" it is essentially just that they are deciding that they would rather not deal with them, for all players that wish to attend.
Tournaments can do as they please. If they players don't want to play against FW, they won't attend tournaments that allow FW, such as Wargamescon.
Breng77 wrote: How then do you deal with tournaments then. FW is always legal at all times? Because players will not be able to turn it down as they want in a game in that case.
The way I see it is tournaments "banning" it is essentially just that they are deciding that they would rather not deal with them, for all players that wish to attend.
TOs do what they want. That's how tournaments must work to function. That the was never something I was debating. I debate FW in non-tournament settings.
If forgeworld was 100 precent legal in GW's eyes, they would allow them at their own company ran tournaments they still bother running in the UK. The fact they do not speaks volumes about the confidence of the balance of the game should they be used unchecked.
They COULD go thru and ban all blatently overpowered things from forgeworld, but op to one person is fine or even underpowered to another. Then they would have more headaches from people protesting for the inclusion or exclusion of units as legal. So like GW does, they take the cheap. lazy road, avoid playtesting all together and just blanket ban them all.
Until GW comes out and says exactly this "the use of forgeworld models, where they have the stamp of 40k approved, are allowed in any and all standard games" it will not change. You can shout till your blue in the face about why it SHOULD be legal, or try and make others feel small and tell them they are playing by "house rules" by not allowing them. But the fact is most people don't have forgeworld units. and have no stake in letting them play.
Orock wrote: If forgeworld was 100 precent legal in GW's eyes, they would allow them at their own company ran tournaments they still bother running in the UK. The fact they do not speaks volumes about the confidence of the balance of the game should they be used unchecked.
They COULD go thru and ban all blatently overpowered things from forgeworld, but op to one person is fine or even underpowered to another. Then they would have more headaches from people protesting for the inclusion or exclusion of units as legal. So like GW does, they take the cheap. lazy road, avoid playtesting all together and just blanket ban them all.
Until GW comes out and says exactly this "the use of forgeworld models, where they have the stamp of 40k approved, are allowed in any and all standard games" it will not change. You can shout till your blue in the face about why it SHOULD be legal, or try and make others feel small and tell them they are playing by "house rules" by not allowing them. But the fact is most people don't have forgeworld units. and have no stake in letting them play.
Orock wrote: If forgeworld was 100 precent legal in GW's eyes, they would allow them at their own company ran tournaments they still bother running in the UK. The fact they do not speaks volumes about the confidence of the balance of the game should they be used unchecked.
They COULD go thru and ban all blatently overpowered things from forgeworld, but op to one person is fine or even underpowered to another. Then they would have more headaches from people protesting for the inclusion or exclusion of units as legal. So like GW does, they take the cheap. lazy road, avoid playtesting all together and just blanket ban them all.
Until GW comes out and says exactly this "the use of forgeworld models, where they have the stamp of 40k approved, are allowed in any and all standard games" it will not change. You can shout till your blue in the face about why it SHOULD be legal, or try and make others feel small and tell them they are playing by "house rules" by not allowing them. But the fact is most people don't have forgeworld units. and have no stake in letting them play.
Right, but your two arguments boil down to:
1) Tournaments can do whatever they want. There are how many GW ran tournaments still left? And didn't those tournaments also have restrictions on allies and double force org? Correct me if I'm wrong, please, but that was my understanding.
If those tournaments did restrict the use of allies and/or double force org, than the whole FW aspect of your arguments falls right out.
2) Balance reasons. If balance is the reason to blanket ban OP units, then why not ban Tau and/or Eldar? Balance is an very poor argument for disallowing FW when you take a good, hard look at the balance issues with the current codices.
Your last line could be simply inversed to say the same thing from the FW camp. Look, "You can shout till your blue in the face about why it SHOULDN'T be legal, or try and make others feel small and tell them they are playing by 'house rules' by allowing them." Its the exact same argument either way. There are plenty of gamers who exist in a state of FW acceptance and look incredulously at people who don't, the same way you look at those who naturally accept FW.
The fact is that most players don't have SoB units either. Is that a good enough reason to blanket ban them?
Orock wrote: If forgeworld was 100 precent legal in GW's eyes, they would allow them at their own company ran tournaments they still bother running in the UK. The fact they do not speaks volumes about the confidence of the balance of the game should they be used unchecked.
No, it speaks to GWs sales philosophy and who their target market is. Forgeworld is "40k advanced" currently - harder to assemble resin models and extra rules that are overwhelming when presented to newer players. GW just wants to wow hem with cheaper, easy to assemble plastic kits they can sell easily. Older, more experienced players will gravitate to FW naturally so don't need GW marketing to help push the product.
They COULD go thru and ban all blatently overpowered things from forgeworld, but op to one person is fine or even underpowered to another.
Why do you make a distinction between blatantly OPFW units and blatantly OP codex units? 6th has shown us far less balanced codex stuff than what is available from FW.
Until GW comes out and says exactly this "the use of forgeworld models, where they have the stamp of 40k approved, are allowed in any and all standard games" it will not change.
GW *have* said that - FW *is* GW, so the 40k approved stamp in FW books is from GW. To pretend that it's not is disingenuous.
Orock wrote: If forgeworld was 100 precent legal in GW's eyes, they would allow them at their own company ran tournaments they still bother running in the UK. The fact they do not speaks volumes about the confidence of the balance of the game should they be used unchecked.
I'm sorry, are you arguing that we should base the non-tournament game on what GW does at tournaments?
First off, tournaments are not indicative of the game. They require a list of rules that are most easily defined as "homebrew" to include: rounds, brackets, prizes, and anything and everything you can think of.
GW's tournaments have both included and banned FW on different occasions. They've also have painting requirements, have banned allies, restricted allies, banned special characters and let's not forget the School League they run. You know, just like every other tournament does. Tournaments don't dictate what the game does ou
Oh, and they're run by the sales/Warhammer World teams and the actual devs have no real fingers in that pie.
Also, you're arguing it's done because of "balance"? If that was the case we'd see a lot more bans on stuff in the codexes as well, or are we pretending the codexes don't have a slew of potentially game breaking combos and options that some people will play regardless?
Orock wrote: They COULD go thru and ban all blatently overpowered things from forgeworld, but op to one person is fine or even underpowered to another. Then they would have more headaches from people protesting for the inclusion or exclusion of units as legal. So like GW does, they take the cheap. lazy road, avoid playtesting all together and just blanket ban them all.
I really doubt this balance arguement, because as I've said the codexes are just as bad, if not worse in the ways they can be abused already. Plus there are tournaments and events GW does that allow FW. You can't claim that just because some events don't allow FW that all events don't because it's simply not the case.
And as for "playtesting", everything GW makes is playtested in-house. Is it playtested to the level you'd expect of something like Warmachine? No. It's playtested to make sure the biggest issues are ironed out, the rules make sense and it doesn't feel too imbalanced. They don't have the time nor the team to get it balanced down to a more competitive level and if GW was going to do so (which I doubt since 6th broke from tournaments almost completely, save for the events that are run at Warhammer World).
Orock wrote: Until GW comes out and says exactly this "the use of forgeworld models, where they have the stamp of 40k approved, are allowed in any and all standard games" it will not change. You can shout till your blue in the face about why it SHOULD be legal, or try and make others feel small and tell them they are playing by "house rules" by not allowing them. But the fact is most people don't have forgeworld units. and have no stake in letting them play.
IA1 (all rules being considered legal if they use VDR (which FW did for a decade, which makes it far too long to backpedal on without screwing over a very profitable part of the company, not to mention raise a lot of customer and fan ire, something GW does try to not do, at least not intentionally)), IA2 (Imperial Armor books are meant to provide rules for use in 40k. Written by Jervis Johnson, doesn't mention the VDR stipulation and doesn't say anything about special stipulations such as "permission", "comfort" or even that they're somehow separate from "regular" or "normal" 40k itself), and page 108 of the main rulebook (army lists come from the codex, can be altered (FW) or can be your own system (FW army lists or homebrew)) all support that FW started as legal, and is still legal. What more is needed? A notorized note signed in blood by the entire company saying it's legal, on video with the entire 40k Dakka community as witnesses that says the stuff FW makes is meant for play in "normal" and "standard" games?
Give me a break.
The idea of a "normal" or "standard" games is a joke anyways when you look at the Spirit of the Game (page 8 of the main rulebook). The rules are a framework for you to use to craft an enjoyable experiance with. If you think you enjoy the game without FW then it's fine, you just don't use those rules, alternative if you do enjoy FW you do. Same for homebrew, campaigns, expansions, supplements and everything else you can think of. It's all "standard" and your attempts to try and pigeonhole the game into a little box are frankly the reason I argue against the anti-FW crowd. This game isn't as tightly defined as you want to make it and isn't so narrow and restrictive that it needs to have these stipulations. The fact is that this game is bigger than the breadbox you're putting it in and frankly I'm well past sick of people acting like their narrow definition of what they think40k "is" frankly is disgusting. It's not that small and if you can't understand that I feel bad for you because you're so focused on one color you're missing a whole rainbow of possibility.
Orock wrote: If forgeworld was 100 precent legal in GW's eyes, they would allow them at their own company ran tournaments they still bother running in the UK. The fact they do not speaks volumes about the confidence of the balance of the game should they be used unchecked.
They COULD go thru and ban all blatently overpowered things from forgeworld, but op to one person is fine or even underpowered to another. Then they would have more headaches from people protesting for the inclusion or exclusion of units as legal. So like GW does, they take the cheap. lazy road, avoid playtesting all together and just blanket ban them all.
Until GW comes out and says exactly this "the use of forgeworld models, where they have the stamp of 40k approved, are allowed in any and all standard games" it will not change. You can shout till your blue in the face about why it SHOULD be legal, or try and make others feel small and tell them they are playing by "house rules" by not allowing them. But the fact is most people don't have forgeworld units. and have no stake in letting them play.
Right, but your two arguments boil down to:
1) Tournaments can do whatever they want. There are how many GW ran tournaments still left? And didn't those tournaments also have restrictions on allies and double force org? Correct me if I'm wrong, please, but that was my understanding.
If those tournaments did restrict the use of allies and/or double force org, than the whole FW aspect of your arguments falls right out.
2) Balance reasons. If balance is the reason to blanket ban OP units, then why not ban Tau and/or Eldar? Balance is an very poor argument for disallowing FW when you take a good, hard look at the balance issues with the current codices.
Your last line could be simply inversed to say the same thing from the FW camp. Look, "You can shout till your blue in the face about why it SHOULDN'T be legal, or try and make others feel small and tell them they are playing by 'house rules' by allowing them." Its the exact same argument either way. There are plenty of gamers who exist in a state of FW acceptance and look incredulously at people who don't, the same way you look at those who naturally accept FW.
The fact is that most players don't have SoB units either. Is that a good enough reason to blanket ban them?
Gw's problem with coming out and restricting or banning things that made it into torunaments is they haven't before, so if they were to try there would be an uproar of fans that they really don't want to deal with. GW today is like the reluctant comic book store owner, who only got into it because his father owned it first. Sure he will sell you comics, but that is where his involvement ends. If you stand there and chat their ears off about your favorite one, they will roll their eyes, sigh, and look disinterested at some corner of the store. If gw could figure out some magic way to sell just their models without ever having to update rules again, they would. But they have to update to keep interest. Again that falls under the blanket forgeworld ban. less headaches for them in official tournaments where people might write in and complain, then they would have to get off the couch and work on actual balance. And no, gw does not restrict double force org or allies, which is why you see so many cheezy tournament winning lists formulated on this site. If they did, they would take into account that restriction.
And I don't look down at people who want to run forgeworld, I would love to run an ork list from IA8 with mega dredds, and about 20 different types of trukks. But these were created with the sole purpose of sales in mind, and its very easy to sell an expensive model if its overpowered. Riptides in the regular games say that. Do you think its weird in magic that one card would be 10 cents, and another hundreds of dollars? People are willing to shell out for power. And the problem is in the last few years forgeworld has figured this out and has been catering to this type of player. Rvanna riptides, Spartan land raiders, the new chaos/marine flyer with redonculous firepower. The people buying these things for a blatant undercosted power boost on the board are the vocal minority, and making all forgeworld look bad. So people shun them. And none of this will change without GW stepping up their game, sitting down for some hard playtesting and decision making, and outright banning the cheese. This banning will cost them dollars in models that ARE the problem in the first place, so will never be addressed. And thus you have the situation you complain about now: nobody likes forgeworld. Nobody likes GW laziness, and its their fault.
Orock, the lists on this site have little to nothing to do with what GW does in tournaments. Or have you forgotten that competitive play exists outside of Warhammer World?
Here's my opinion, as I see it. As evidenced by GW's mentality towards third-party bitz and model producers that make things that even slightly emulate what they consider copyrighted material, the simple fact that FW can freely reproduce long- copyrighted GW material is proof that they are "GW approved". Therefore any material they make for each game system, is just like GW making those kits. there are plenty of "official" GW units/rules that are considered as overpowered as people consider FW stuff to be, and those are perfectly legal.
Once again, I really have to wonder why there is any kind of FW hate that isn't an instance of plain gamer-snobbiness, frankly. When the majority of 40K players likely won't even see a FW unit fielded against them in their gaming career, why else would they be so vehemently supporting the sorts of rulings that would be against a group they won't likely ever meet? Is there some sort of rogue band of FW-using marauders that show up to crash 40K games with their overpowered resin units and rules?
Is there some reason there should be a blanket ruling like this on ALL FW stuff. They already say that Heresy-era stuff is not meant to be balanced against normal 40K material, which is fine. But take things like the Eldar Hornet. Is it somehow horribly OP for an Eldar player to take it "without an opponent's permission", when just from the main codex they are ALREADY allowed to take things "without permission" like Wave Serpents, which actually have a larger group of people outspoken specifically against them because they think they are "overpowered".
GW already has enough rules in their games. Stop trying to put hard-line rules on absolutely everything that could some up in a game, most of which are conveniently and completely circumvented when two people decide to play a friendly game.
Wargaming is *supposed* to be a hobby where you go into a game with the trust that while your opponent will actively be trying to win, they aren't there to screw you over for their own enjoyment.
If you have to worry about your opponent pulling out crazy "overpowered" Forgeworld units to stick it to you, I think you have to wonder why you are choosing to play that person in the first place, before you even see what their army list is.
Forgeworld is owned by games workshop, so technically its a way for them to make premium models and sell them.
And nobody is running over to a board and knocking someones forgeworld models to the ground and calling them cheaters. If someone agrees to play forgeworld models other than using them as proxies for existing units, that's a decision made between two people. But on the same token they cant sit down some random forgeworld model that nobody has ever heard before, and show you a mag made in 1998 with its rules and points cost and say you have to accept it as legal. What if it was updated recently to be more in line for what it can do, like when some jerk tried to convince me his contemptor dread could do this and that for this many points, and only another guy overhearing stepped in and cleared up the NEW rules for it. He claimed he dident know, and when he went to pull up the rules, accidentally pulled up the most recent rules and tried to close it quickly on his pad like it was a mistake.
And also I am going to need some kind of citation on GW EVER allowing forgeworld units (not proxy models) in any of their run tournaments.
And yes, a tournament run by the company who produces the game SHOULD be indicative of how the rules are meant to be played. Do they allow homebrew rules at GW tournaments? Even super popular fan made ones like some versions of kill team on the net, considered superior to gws afterthought rules made for it? No because they can't control the effects on the game. Its the same as this, forgeworld adds sooooo many units, rules, and situations that to balance it for any kind of competitive play is all but impossible. And competitive play is really all anyone is argueing about anyway, because again, in a friendly game for fun anyone should be able to run them if both parties agree. And friendly games is really what this system is best for anyway. Terrible competitive lists with cheese and spamming really kill the fun in this game.
Orock wrote: Terrible competitive lists with cheese and spamming really kill the fun in this game.
And you'll find the worst examples of them from the "Sanctioned" Codexes and supplements. Seer Council, Screamerstar, Serpents IC Riptides etc.
sorry but you will never find a unit more broken to use as an example than the rvanna riptide. que people that claim that it will never make it "live" with those stats and points cost, and ignore that the Spartan was in a similar boat, and literally had zero changes. Because it sells. The Rvanna was the 3rd most popular sale item for forgeworld last month, and for the last few in the top 5. Do you really think they want to deal with customer complaints of "bait and switch" by bringing it in line?
Why does this thread keep coming back to tournaments instead of what two guys decide to field against each other in a friendly game to have fun, which is what the hobby is all about?
Tournaments can decide anything under the sun is either legal or illegal in that tournament. They could say "in the next tourney, Helldrakes are illegal because the TO doesn't like them".
People just want some official ruling to fall back on to enforce what they prefer their opponents to be able to field. The argument that your opinion should be enforced over the opponent's is hypocritical, and counter to the sportsmanship and fellowship of the hobby.
Orock, if that was the case we'd not be allowed to play with allies as the events at Warhammer World BANNED them at the start of 6th. Or are we playing the double standard card here on that?
Seriously, can you provide a single document from the design studio about the disapproval of FW in games? Anything at all that comes after 2000 is fair game (as that's when IA1v1 came out), if not your argument is based on what a tournament is doing and trying to apply it to everyone else's games. And that my friend, is just a load of bull that I don't think anyone is buying (well maybe one person, but I don't think you want "EVERYTHING ENDS IN TITANS" being in your camp).
Especially after we spent a few pages establishing tournaments can do what they want because they're already removing themselves from the standard game.
AegisGrimm wrote: Why does this thread keep coming back to tournaments instead of what two guys decide to field against each other in a friendly game to have fun, which is what the hobby is all about?
Tournaments can decide anything under the sun is either legal or illegal in that tournament. They could say "in the next tourney, Helldrakes are illegal because the TO doesn't like them".
People just want some official ruling to fall back on to enforce what they prefer their opponents to be able to field. The argument that your opinion should be enforced over the opponent's is hypocritical, and counter to the sportsmanship and fellowship of the hobby.
I think because a lot of people are practicing for tournaments.
Orock, the GW run tournaments (there's what, one that is run in the UK, and none anywhere else?) have zero bearing on the 'legality' of FW models. There are dozens of larger tournaments across NA and indeed the world that do allow FW. Are you going to argue that a GW tournament rule is now a hard and fast rule that everyone must follow?
The 2012 Throne of Skulls tournament had a restriction of 500pts of allies. Is that a rule we all have to follow whenever using allies? By logical extension of there being no FW at the event, it must also follow that no one may take more than 500pts of allies.
You can ask your opponent for the rules of whatever FW unit is in question. We're working under the assumption that the player has the latest rules available, which can be checked by looking at the table of contents for the books on their site. If you have any questions, just ask your opponent. Don't use one poor player as an example to rule out FW. Its the same assumption that I would make with SoB players, or Inquisition players, and so on. If you have any questions or issues, ask your opponent. FW has no relevance to that, as any player could do a stunt like that with any codex or unit.
Are you also seriously arguing that FW somehow upsets the delicate balance of 40k in a competitive sense? With 2++ re-rollable deathstars, wave serpents with 4+ cover everywhere, and Tau in general; yet you claim FW would ruin 40k's balance. I hope you acknowledge that current codices are incredibly unbalanced and have beyond broken/OP combinations available without FW.
Are you also seriously arguing that FW somehow upsets the delicate balance of 40k in a competitive sense? With 2++ re-rollable deathstars, wave serpents with 4+ cover everywhere, and Tau in general; yet you claim FW would ruin 40k's balance. I hope you acknowledge that current codices are incredibly unbalanced and have beyond broken/OP combinations available without FW.
I can't speak for Orock, but I personally think that the current codexes are reasonably balanced. And that not all of the Forgeworld offerings are. This seems to be a fairly divisive issue amongst people. Hmm. I wonder how the numbers shake out on that. Now I'm curious as to WHO is in the minority opinion on that...
ClockworkZion wrote:Personally, at least with what I post I feel you're misreading it. I think people shouldn't need to be, bargin or plead to be able to play their cool toys. I feel that the current attitude of "no Forgeworld for anyone ever" is poisonious and shuts down creative thinking, freedom and the chance to really see what this game is.
See, and there we go with the radicalisation again. It may well be that some people are argueing "no FW ever". At the same time there is a large group of people - like me - who are like "just ask, mkay?", but instead of even making this miniscule distinction you throw any and all critics into a big box ... but then go on to complain when somebody does the same to the "pro-FW crowd".
This is why we can't have nice things.
ClockworkZion wrote:What I do think is that players should communicate exactly what they want before the game starts: FW, codex, points levels, allies, double FOC, narrative, casual, campaign, homebrew, special scenario, Altar of War, ect. None of that should be treated any differently than any other part of it. That is what I think and what I've been trying to get across since post one several threads ago.
Then you've done a bad job getting that point across. Or, perhaps more likely, such fine points are drowned out by the radicals from both sides of the argument.
ClockworkZion wrote:It's not about the state of the game now, I've addressed the fact that we're dealing with a genie that's been out of the bottle for 10 years now, it's where it comes from. It's the "proof" that's so often demanded that GW has supported FW from book one.
But .. they didn't? "As long as FW uses our rules like any other player, they're okay" is no more support than GW has extended to any random player using the rules in their books. Hence my opinion that FW is like the "professional hobbyist" corner of the company - a bit like with the Citadel Magazine when it was still being printed. What, did no-one notice how CJ rules never had the "Chapter Approved" stamp usually featured in WD articles?
As for the proof you keep asking about, it's in the very same "evidence" you have fielded. The condition that FW acts like your random gamer from next door, rather than being "empowered" to write their own stuff. In this light, GW is actually supporting Forge World now more than ever, because before 6E there was apparently still the issue of "legality" (as mentioned in the VDR thingy), whereas now everything is equally okay. Yet instead of making use of this new-found freedom and campaign for greater voluntary acceptance, we're now seeing a war being waged on message boards focused on rules this rules that.
I'm sorry, but I just can't subscribe to this train of thought.
ClockworkZion wrote:I'll continue supporting homebrew regardless what people are claiming, but let me deal with one battle at a time, eh? This thread is about FW, and that's a tall enough peak as is, give people some time to climb this summit before we start pushing them to climb another one.
In that case I think you are already fighting a losing battle, because in the end all you'll achieve is your current allies turning away from you. In terms of perception, it also makes you seem a bit hypocritical when you seemingly ignore negative remarks about homebrewed rather than being consistent and setting everyone straight who is "doing it wrong".
I know this can be difficult - often enough, I've taken a "step back" from discussions myself, thinking it'd be better for me if I let them fight that one out on their own so as to not "sabotage" my own argument or just because I feel like I don't want to waste time on an issue that has no priority for me, but it never really quite feels right to do so, so maybe I am a bit hypocritical myself. Maybe we all are.
ClockworkZion wrote:Are we clear now, or do I need to worry about any more accusations on my character caused by you reading into things that aren't there? You know, sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.
I can only judge you by your actions (or rather the manner of your posts), and if I feel they clash with your supposed intentions, or even leave out critical information, then I have to point it out. Especially when I feel that my character is being accused as well.
Maybe this is all just a big misunderstanding, and I'm sure we would have no problem agreeing on a game if we ever had one, but unfortunately it seems we just can't level with each other on this one topic.
Well, at least we've already once again said all we had to say. Same time again next week?
DarthOvious wrote:Just thought I would put my opinion here. Personally I have nothing against homebrewed rules, my earlier post was just making a statement ealier on in regards to the difference between homebrewed and Forge World. i.e. FW I would consider to be from an impartial source whereas homebrewed rules are from a biased source. This doesn't mean I wouldn't play against somebody who used homebrewed rules, it just means I am very much more likely to want to read their rules before playing them and making a judgement based on balance issues.
Ah, but you realise that this is a matter of interpretation? You are biased yourself if you categorically treat homebrewed as less likely to be fun/balanced. It's an understandable bias, mind you (given that many or most homebrewed rules are focusing on one's personal favourite army), but at the same time other people are categorically biased against FW based on what they hear on the nets, or perhaps in some few cases based on exceptional individual experience.
Don't get me wrong - I understand where you're coming from, and personally I even agree with your assessment. But still, at the end of the day, it's all a matter of perspective. And I feel threads like these will only widen the gap in the playerbase rather than heal it, just because of how forcefully some few posters argue, and because the debate is still focused on such abstract terms like "legal" or "official" when GW themselves, with their newest rulebook, have made it clear that they don't care and that it's up to the players to sort it out.
Are you also seriously arguing that FW somehow upsets the delicate balance of 40k in a competitive sense? With 2++ re-rollable deathstars, wave serpents with 4+ cover everywhere, and Tau in general; yet you claim FW would ruin 40k's balance. I hope you acknowledge that current codices are incredibly unbalanced and have beyond broken/OP combinations available without FW.
I can't speak for Orock, but I personally think that the current codexes are reasonably balanced. And that not all of the Forgeworld offerings are. This seems to be a fairly divisive issue amongst people. Hmm. I wonder how the numbers shake out on that. Now I'm curious as to WHO is in the minority opinion on that...
Are you also seriously arguing that FW somehow upsets the delicate balance of 40k in a competitive sense? With 2++ re-rollable deathstars, wave serpents with 4+ cover everywhere, and Tau in general; yet you claim FW would ruin 40k's balance. I hope you acknowledge that current codices are incredibly unbalanced and have beyond broken/OP combinations available without FW.
I can't speak for Orock, but I personally think that the current codexes are reasonably balanced. And that not all of the Forgeworld offerings are. This seems to be a fairly divisive issue amongst people. Hmm. I wonder how the numbers shake out on that. Now I'm curious as to WHO is in the minority opinion on that...
Out of curiosity, which FW units (besides the R'varna, as even I admit its OP, but it is experimental only for now) are OP? I'm genuinely curious which FW are OP or in combination with some current codex unit would make it more so?
Do you think the wave serpent is balanced? Both internally and externally? Many would say it is an OP unit, and I would agree. It is very durable, very shoot, and very mobile, takes up no force org slot, and ferries around units that can add to its firepower. The 2++ re-rollable deathstars Eldar and Daemons can field are very clearly overpowered. Tau in general have some incredible combinations that are very powerful. Then C: CSM only has the Heldrake to really keep it afloat on its own, and C: DA has suffered compared to the offerings in C:SM.
The codices in general are poorly balanced both internally and externally. There are units in each that are vastly superior and see a lot of play time, while others are nearly forgotten. Then, codices like Tau and Eldar are rather distinctly on a different power level than CSM or C: DA. Torrent of Fire data would back all of this up.
Orock wrote: Forgeworld is owned by games workshop, so technically its a way for them to make premium models and sell them.
It's not even that they're owned by Games Workshop, they're a division of GW no different than Accounting, Facilities, etc. They just pursue stuff that the main Design Studio can't. Their books are written by people on GW payroll, have a GW logo on them, and state they are copyright and published by Games Workshop (not "forgeworld under license from games workshop").
But on the same token they cant sit down some random forgeworld model that nobody has ever heard before, and show you a mag made in 1998 with its rules and points cost and say you have to accept it as legal.
Nobody is going to claim that. Most especially because no such rules would be legal or even function.
What if it was updated recently to be more in line for what it can do, like when some jerk tried to convince me his contemptor dread could do this and that for this many points, and only another guy overhearing stepped in and cleared up the NEW rules for it. He claimed he dident know, and when he went to pull up the rules, accidentally pulled up the most recent rules and tried to close it quickly on his pad like it was a mistake.
Then that's cheating. That's no different than someone saying "well they FAQ'd it" which almost everyone can attest to someone having on them. Not unique to FW.
And also I am going to need some kind of citation on GW EVER allowing forgeworld units (not proxy models) in any of their run tournaments.
In the past their rules have been extremely non-standard, what was legal in a US GT was not legal in UKGT and what was legal in an EUGT was not legal in a US GT and so on. For instance, in 2007 US GT's allowed Armored Companies and Kroot Mercenaries and played at 1750pts, UKGT's did not allow those lists and played at 1500pts.
They don't run big GT events anymore, they just have their Throne of Skulls tournament a couple times a year for Nottingham locals, all the big GT events around the world are run independently by clubs and private groups, and each has their own rules, missions, and standards.
That said, Tournaments != normal play. GW itself has said this innumerable times.
And yes, a tournament run by the company who produces the game SHOULD be indicative of how the rules are meant to be played.
Aside from the fact that GW no longer runs Tournaments anymore really, can you show me in the rules where time limits, opponent matchups, etc are covered in the rules? Tournament rules and standards have no bearing on how the game is intended to be played. This is because 40k, especially 6th edition, was not designed as a competitive ruleset, such events are an afterthought because people like to make everything into competitive events. GW came right out and said as much at their Open Day event last year. Competitive balance is not something GW aims for or intends to achieve with their rules. It's not a secret. Warhammer 40,000 6th edition is simply a framework with which to construct a narrative environment for people to play with their Citadel models, a set of guidelines on how to play with their plastic army men. That's how GW views the rules. FW is a subdepartment of GW that produces plastic army men that the main design studio/production processes can't do or doesn't want to do. Ultimately you're still playing with GW's plastic army men either way.
Do they allow homebrew rules at GW tournaments?
You mean the ones they don't run anymore?
Even super popular fan made ones like some versions of kill team on the net, considered superior to gws afterthought rules made for it? No because they can't control the effects on the game. Its the same as this, forgeworld adds sooooo many units, rules, and situations that to balance it for any kind of competitive play is all but impossible. And competitive play is really all anyone is argueing about anyway, because again, in a friendly game for fun anyone should be able to run them if both parties agree. And friendly games is really what this system is best for anyway. Terrible competitive lists with cheese and spamming really kill the fun in this game.
This seems to dovetail nicely into my above point, nothing in the game was designed or intended for competitive tournament play, rather to provide a framework to play with their models. With that as the primary aim, it's odd that it's so consistently difficult to play with one's models just because they come from a different sales channel of the same company.
Wargaming is *supposed* to be a hobby where you go into a game with the trust that while your opponent will actively be trying to win, they aren't there to screw you over for their own enjoyment.
Well said. Everything depends on the person you are playing the game with.
As an aside at least some evidence would be how many US tournaments considered Chapter Approved stuff to be legal. And at least in Armored Companies, that included several Forgeworld tanks, such as the Vanquisher, Conqueror, Salamander and Destroyer Tank Hunter. Weren't the rules for those that were published in CA the same as Forgeworlds rules for them? If so, there you go.
Also if they were, that was an official GW publication, therefore showing at least SOME GW support for FW stuff.
About the faq: they are all located in an easy to find place, and with internet access could be confirmed rather quickly. Where is the official GW or forgeworld FAQ? Its all over the place. How do I know that that land raider has 5 hull points for some reason. How do I know its not doctored documentation unless I also own or have read the book? How do I know a book made in 2002 is the most recent, im not going to pirate all the imperial armor and other official books to check on someones obscure rule. At my local store, if I don't have the codex, there it is on the wall. AND they always get a copy of digital codexes, and make them available to anyone to fact check.
Faq cheating is 10x harder than just printing out some doctored sheets of forgeworld items that may just fudge the points cost, or adjust the stats ever so slightly. Mabye higher leadership for a group, maybe that flyer has ceramite plating and I just missed it when I happened to scan across it on the net.
That and just MMMABBBYYEEE I am I am disillusioned by the fact the ONLY forgeworld units that seem to show up in my area are closer in stupid to the rvanna, than some of the more reasonable units. Forgeworld is a bad word in my area, and the definition in the dictionary is player who pays to win with rules that are made purely to sell models.
Are you also seriously arguing that FW somehow upsets the delicate balance of 40k in a competitive sense? With 2++ re-rollable deathstars, wave serpents with 4+ cover everywhere, and Tau in general; yet you claim FW would ruin 40k's balance. I hope you acknowledge that current codices are incredibly unbalanced and have beyond broken/OP combinations available without FW.
I can't speak for Orock, but I personally think that the current codexes are reasonably balanced. And that not all of the Forgeworld offerings are. This seems to be a fairly divisive issue amongst people. Hmm. I wonder how the numbers shake out on that. Now I'm curious as to WHO is in the minority opinion on that...
Really? The codices are balanced? Name the last major tournament where you saw Orks by themselves take 1st place (hint:your gonna have to look back at least a year if I remember correctly). If the codices were balanced we would see all the races taking 1st at a variety of tournaments and not just a select few races on top (eldar tau daemons crons)
In case anyone hasn't seen it, here's what Aaron Dembski-Bowden had to say on the official status of Forgeworld here. Summarised/paraphrased quote copied from here.
Spoiler:
from the Comment Section of the article aarondembskibowden October 31, 2013 at 5:41 AM It's been official since forever. People have always taken polite phrasing to justify their incorrect opinions on what's official.
To GW, it's all official, and always has been, Like it or not, that's the literal truth. To see it being heralded now as something new to adapt to (or worse, that it's still not official) is the very definition of missing the point.
aarondembskibowden October 31, 2013 at 5:44 AM I just gave myself PTSD flashbacks to the time I foolishly tried to explain that simple policy to 3++. Oh, the rage. Oh, the resistance.
aarondembskibowden October 31, 2013 at 7:04 AM That's the thing. GW has released that statement, but the fanbase mistake it as "Forge World is a different company, so they don't count."
GW have released the statement countless times. With the 40K Approved stamps. With Forge World stuff being on almost every page and in almost every army in White Dwarf for months. With every Imperial Armour book since #2 saying "Consider these official, but be nice if an opponent hasn't read the rules, so ask permission." Because of that misunderstanding becoming so entrenched, FW changed it in recent updates to "inform your opponent you're using these rules" with no "ask" at all.
That's how GW chose to release the statement. It's the same as Black Library being canon. To GW, it's all the same, it's all canon, it's all official. But because people apply their misunderstandings to how the company functions, you get this meme about needing "GW" to release a statement.
They did. They have. It's clear as day. People just don't realise what GW is, and take their misconceptions as truth.
In response to please find some way to get GW to make some comment somewhere public to this effect
aarondembskibowden October 31, 2013 at 8:26 AM They have, though. That's the point. The company's made it abundantly clear. "GW" has made the comment through every avenue it's chosen: it's plain across White Dwarf; it's mentioned on Forge World's Facebook page every time it's asked; it's at every single signing and seminar and open day from countless staff in every department; it's in every single Forge World rulebook... FW *are* GW. The Black Library is GW. The "separate company" thing is massively misunderstood.
People set the boundary on this themselves, saying "I think the company works like X because I believe Internet Meme Y" so they start on incorrect foundations, and then move on to "The only way I'll be convinced is if GW issue a statement". GW *has*, countless times. People just choose not to believe the parts of the company that actually communicate with the public, and insist a statement must come from some mythical entity that doesn't actually exist.
Clever stuff, really. To set the goal lines in a place the other side of the argument (and the truth) will never reach. It's no different from saying that you'll only believe in dinosaurs if God sits you down personally and tells you they were real. The fossils and other evidence isn't good enough, but that's all reality will provide, because that's how the Earth works.
aarondembskibowden October 31, 2013 at 7:08 AM I think the biggest misunderstanding is the triumvirate of "companies" that make up GW.
They're just departments, in the same building. Their designers all go to the same range meetings. Their top brass all talk, all plan, all discuss stuff.
There's a lot more communication than people seem to believe.
Are you also seriously arguing that FW somehow upsets the delicate balance of 40k in a competitive sense? With 2++ re-rollable deathstars, wave serpents with 4+ cover everywhere, and Tau in general; yet you claim FW would ruin 40k's balance. I hope you acknowledge that current codices are incredibly unbalanced and have beyond broken/OP combinations available without FW.
I can't speak for Orock, but I personally think that the current codexes are reasonably balanced. And that not all of the Forgeworld offerings are. This seems to be a fairly divisive issue amongst people. Hmm. I wonder how the numbers shake out on that. Now I'm curious as to WHO is in the minority opinion on that...
Really? The codices are balanced? Name the last major tournament where you saw Orks by themselves take 1st place (hint:your gonna have to look back at least a year if I remember correctly). If the codices were balanced we would see all the races taking 1st at a variety of tournaments and not just a select few races on top (eldar tau daemons crons)
Funny, we only have one Orks player locally, and he's taken first in every tournament I've ever seen him play in. The last tourney we had here saw Space Wolves clinch the victory, and the last one before that (which was before the 6th Ed Space Marine Codex dropped) was Space Marines.
The prevalence of the newest Codex in high-ranking positions at national tournaments (which is what I assume you were referring to) is not, I think, due to the codex being unbalanced, it's due to it being new. Experience is the greatest deciding factor in this game, and the newest codex is always going to occupy a strong position, since it's the one that people will have a deficit of play experience against. This leads to a misconception that these codexes are unfair or unbalanced, when they really aren't.
ClockworkZion wrote:Personally, at least with what I post I feel you're misreading it. I think people shouldn't need to be, bargin or plead to be able to play their cool toys. I feel that the current attitude of "no Forgeworld for anyone ever" is poisonious and shuts down creative thinking, freedom and the chance to really see what this game is.
See, and there we go with the radicalisation again. It may well be that some people are argueing "no FW ever". At the same time there is a large group of people - like me - who are like "just ask, mkay?", but instead of even making this miniscule distinction you throw any and all critics into a big box ... but then go on to complain when somebody does the same to the "pro-FW crowd".
This is why we can't have nice things.
"Radicalism". Christ, this is why people can't agree on things, because people want to sit there and point fingers and name call.
People can, do, and have said that they think FW shouldn't be allowed in games period. We've seen it in these kinds of threads in the past. Is it everyone? No. But it is a loud enough group that my energy is focused against that argument.
ClockworkZion wrote:What I do think is that players should communicate exactly what they want before the game starts: FW, codex, points levels, allies, double FOC, narrative, casual, campaign, homebrew, special scenario, Altar of War, ect. None of that should be treated any differently than any other part of it. That is what I think and what I've been trying to get across since post one several threads ago.
Then you've done a bad job getting that point across. Or, perhaps more likely, such fine points are drowned out by the radicals from both sides of the argument.
Or being ignored in favor of other, easier arguments. Like accusations of intentionally being misleading.
ClockworkZion wrote:It's not about the state of the game now, I've addressed the fact that we're dealing with a genie that's been out of the bottle for 10 years now, it's where it comes from. It's the "proof" that's so often demanded that GW has supported FW from book one.
But .. they didn't? "As long as FW uses our rules like any other player, they're okay" is no more support than GW has extended to any random player using the rules in their books. Hence my opinion that FW is like the "professional hobbyist" corner of the company - a bit like with the Citadel Magazine when it was still being printed. What, did no-one notice how CJ rules never had the "Chapter Approved" stamp usually featured in WD articles?
IA2v1 says books are a source of rules that are meant for use in 40k with no stipulations on how those rules are made. Yes you can't use the IA books in WFB, but the fact remains that we have a lot more saying "this is real, official and legitimate to use in games" versus the claims that it never was.
Lynata wrote: As for the proof you keep asking about, it's in the very same "evidence" you have fielded. The condition that FW acts like your random gamer from next door, rather than being "empowered" to write their own stuff. In this light, GW is actually supporting Forge World now more than ever, because before 6E there was apparently still the issue of "legality" (as mentioned in the VDR thingy), whereas now everything is equally okay. Yet instead of making use of this new-found freedom and campaign for greater voluntary acceptance, we're now seeing a war being waged on message boards focused on rules this rules that.
I will have to disagree. IA2 has no prerequisite about VDR and yet it still says it's a source of rules for use. That actually removes VDR as a possible disqualifier as IA2v1 says that the Imperial Armour books are an ongoing series meant to give you rules to play the stuff in 40k. No stipulations on anything that would make them "illegal" were in there anymore. My guess is that there was a change in what they wanted to do with the books between 1 and 2 and it went from a small project to a full blown line (likely positive acceptance by the community and sales figures).
And even if you want to argue that VDR is a requirement we've got how many books printed between 2000~2010 that fit the requirements still? I'd guess "most".
You know what 6th edition gave us that 5th didn't? A list of where you get a legal army list. That was the arguement in 5th: that nothing "let" you play FW in the core rulebook. It was being shutdown by people who have never read a FW book, and didn't want it near their tournaments who were arguing "there is no rule that says FW is allowed". And let's not go into some of the other, sillier arguements.
Lynata wrote: I'm sorry, but I just can't subscribe to this train of thought.
Fine. Don't subscribe, but don't go making accusations about it because you don't agree with it. Attack the idea not the person otherwise you just fail.
ClockworkZion wrote:I'll continue supporting homebrew regardless what people are claiming, but let me deal with one battle at a time, eh? This thread is about FW, and that's a tall enough peak as is, give people some time to climb this summit before we start pushing them to climb another one.
In that case I think you are already fighting a losing battle, because in the end all you'll achieve is your current allies turning away from you. In terms of perception, it also makes you seem a bit hypocritical when you seemingly ignore negative remarks about homebrewed rather than being consistent and setting everyone straight who is "doing it wrong".
I'm sorry I can't hit up every single arguement in every post all the time. I mean it's not like you are either. You've only been critiquing my posts since you started posting this thread.
Lynata wrote: I know this can be difficult - often enough, I've taken a "step back" from discussions myself, thinking it'd be better for me if I let them fight that one out on their own so as to not "sabotage" my own argument or just because I feel like I don't want to waste time on an issue that has no priority for me, but it never really quite feels right to do so, so maybe I am a bit hypocritical myself. Maybe we all are.
Prioritization is not the same as hypocrisy. Sometimes you have to choose to put one thing over another because you can't do everything without shooting yourself in the foot.
ClockworkZion wrote:Are we clear now, or do I need to worry about any more accusations on my character caused by you reading into things that aren't there? You know, sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.
I can only judge you by your actions (or rather the manner of your posts), and if I feel they clash with your supposed intentions, or even leave out critical information, then I have to point it out. Especially when I feel that my character is being accused as well.
Maybe this is all just a big misunderstanding, and I'm sure we would have no problem agreeing on a game if we ever had one, but unfortunately it seems we just can't level with each other on this one topic.
Well, at least we've already once again said all we had to say. Same time again next week?
If you're unclear, ask, don't assume. Assuming just makes things worse for all of us.
f your local TO does not allow FW models talk to them privately to discuss the reason. Having a screaming match with them at the shop 5 mnutes before the tourney starts is not exactly the way to go. Maybe invite them over for a match where you use your FW stuff or let them use some of yours. Possibly have a game at the shop this way during "off hours" and discuss the faults and merits of the models as the game goes on. This would be a way to demonstrate that 'it aint so bad".
I think that a lot of the reason it is not allowed because of the lack of information. most people (including myself) see the models as for "rich people'. face it, look at the prices and you hafta make special orders and so on. it is also not readily available for most players as most shops just don't carry it. this adds to the former image of them being for rich people. then there is the lack of knowledge, The rles are kept separate where you need to buy big books that are twice the cost of the GW codexes. All this combines to make FW some sort of mystical thing where if you have money, you are buying advantages. it does not matter that this is not true because it is so ingrained. Many players will just refuse to play in a tourney for FW because they don't have anything to compete with in their eyes.
Until FW becomes moremainstream and I think GW should be the one to champion this alongside players and the models are more readily available, I think tis will be the case. When I say GW should champion this, I mean give FW more credit than an occasional "heres a new thing they made". I mean give them more official rules, build their stuff into the codexes work closer together in general, offer their stufto be carried in normal stores and so on.
Emphasize th difference between apoc only and '40k approved". Most players (including myself) simply don't know which is which (aside from titans). Define the line better and which models are on which side of the line. heck, release a codex supplements "codex: DKoK".
I think that until then with ONLY FW players championing it, they will "appear" to be elitist snobs trying to make thiertoys official so they can have an advantage over the peons. I understand your view and agree. heck, I wish I could afford some of the cool stuff and am jealous I don't have any but you know as well as I do, that this is not the case with the vast majority of players and would be a headache for TO that most simply don't wanna have.:
All this combines to make FW some sort of mystical thing where if you have money, you are buying advantages. it does not matter that this is not true because it is so ingrained.
Agreed.
I actually agreed with the entire post but this part sounds like me.
It's like I barely have enough expensive models to play a regular
Game of 40k, and now you are pulling out big tank that I've never seen or heard of before and you are saying my whole army just died?
It reminds me of playing with imaginary swords or guns when you are a kid: "I just got you!"
"no, that part of my body is invincible."
"well I just cast a spell that made it un-invincible"
Etc etc
Automatically Appended Next Post: It's cool that there are a larger variety of models for the same game and that you can use them for 40k, but it does kind of suck and ruin a game experience when someone brings a huge tank thing and says: "this has 6 assault cannons, and 7 typhoon
Missile launchers"
"oh and they're twin linked.."
"oh and they're barrage and pinning. And cause you take an initiative test minus your strength but plus your weapon skill and divided by nine on two d3. "
"oh and if its gets a kill then you lose a turn"
"oh yeah, they also can go in any slot so I brought nine of them."
"this one is my hq, pretty cool huh?"
"but I'm just here to have fun, if I get tabled first turn by you that's ok, I'm just here to have fun."
EVIL INC wrote: Try reading them instead of skimming and making snap judgements. You will see that I am championing FW models.
Nice attempt on trying to turn words around on me. If you have been championing things it's impossible to tell between talk about how everything ends in everyone bringing titans to 500 point games, talk about punching people over rules disagreements, as well as telling people who have been actively participating in the thread what you think it's really about and overall generally making your point so obfuscated that I'm not sure even Sherlock Holmes could have found it.
Thank you. I used to be one of the guys who thought FW models were the mystical rich mans models they bought to get auto wins. After being exposed to them and checking out the rules, I found they are the rich mans models to look extra cool and have extra cool rules and all. They were not to gain an advantage in normal games (although they CAN be abused in this way but hey, so can the "official" units as well).
they are more to expand the horizons and allow in more units and ideas and all that actually make some sense and which the "core" GW company just does not have the resources to do. The "normal game" stuff is clearly marked as being separate from the super heavies and titans that are specifically designed for apoc only and most FW model users respect that. Although as you have seen, there are some who think ANYTHING should go regardless of the markings but those are in the minority.
Until, GW brings them closer into the fold and starts giving them more exposure and helps champion the FW cause, it will APPEAR to many to be rich bullies trying to get their way for an unfair advantage. Not saying that its the case, just what the appearances are to the average gamer. This is why I also feel that a more "social' approach to introducing them where you educate the players, show them the models and rules and demonstrate their use, maybe even start a community order list so that the players can start to get a few introductory pieces for themselves and so forth is better than beating them with the "you have to play because it's legal" attitude.
For tournaments.... I wouldn't hold my breath on that anytime before you get your local community on board. You just have to overcome the lack of knowledge and open players minds to it. alone as gamers without GW support, I think it is an uphill battle. maybe, if you have enough local players who have FW models, maybe run your OWN tournaments in addition to the normal local ones (most shops will jump to let you do that) where FW is allowed and let anyone participate regardless of if the have FW or not. If your local FW group is that gung ho, make entry free and have prizes be credit on the next FW order.
Until, GW brings them closer into the fold and starts giving them more exposure and helps champion the FW cause, it will APPEAR to many to be rich bullies trying to get their way for an unfair advantage.
Rich bullies eh?? So I am a rich bully for trying to use my 60 dollar contemptor dreadnought (FW) but you are not a rich bully for using your 85 dollar riptide (GW)? Or am I a rich bully for trying to use my 50 dollar XV9 battlesuit (FW) but you are not a rich bully for using your 66 dollar vendetta (GW).
All this combines to make FW some sort of mystical thing where if you have money, you are buying advantages. it does not matter that this is not true because it is so ingrained.
Agreed.
I actually agreed with the entire post but this part sounds like me.
It's like I barely have enough expensive models to play a regular
Game of 40k, and now you are pulling out big tank that I've never seen or heard of before and you are saying my whole army just died?
It reminds me of playing with imaginary swords or guns when you are a kid: "I just got you!"
"no, that part of my body is invincible."
"well I just cast a spell that made it un-invincible"
Etc etc
Automatically Appended Next Post: It's cool that there are a larger variety of models for the same game and that you can use them for 40k, but it does kind of suck and ruin a game experience when someone brings a huge tank thing and says: "this has 6 assault cannons, and 7 typhoon
Missile launchers"
"oh and they're twin linked.."
"oh and they're barrage and pinning. And cause you take an initiative test minus your strength but plus your weapon skill and divided by nine on two d3. "
"oh and if its gets a kill then you lose a turn"
"oh yeah, they also can go in any slot so I brought nine of them."
"this one is my hq, pretty cool huh?"
"but I'm just here to have fun, if I get tabled first turn by you that's ok, I'm just here to have fun."
Please let me know what this unit is that is labeled 40k approved that your talking about. I've never seen anything remotely close to what your describing.
So, um, you remember that guy who was saying stuff about Titans and the like being used in regular games of 40k?
Here's a quote from Opening Salvo of December 2013's White Dwarf (I got it in the mail today).
Jes Bickham, Editor wrote:[...] Stronghold Assault and Escalation allow you to, respectively, add more big guns and fortifications to your Warhammer 40,000 armies, and use Lord of War units such as the Necron Tesseract Vault in "regular" games of Warhammer 40,000. All of these have sent the White Dwarf team and friends into a frenzy of brushwork as they add Wall of Martyrs Imperial Defence Lines, Baneblades and other Super-heavy units to their collections [...]
Page 52 mentions differences between Stronghold Assault/Escalation and Apocalypse such as things like "Strategic Assets, different types of Formations, Finest Hours and the like" remaining in the realm of Apocalypse games.
Looks like Escalation is about including superheavies in non-Apoc games, and Stronghold Assault is about using defensive fortifications like the Wall of Martyrs stuff.
Looks like a couple of expansions.
Also, god damn it. Jeremy Vetock this month. It's not that I have anything against him or what he says, it's just that his photo in every one of his articles makes me want to punch him in the face enough that I just skip the article altogether. That stupid laughing smile of his.
So, quick question. I don't know of any standard codex flyers that come in on turn one. Does the not overpowered Forgeworld rules allow for flyers on turn one?
Pouncey wrote: So, um, you remember that guy who was saying stuff about Titans and the like being used in regular games of 40k?
Here's a quote from Opening Salvo of December 2013's White Dwarf (I got it in the mail today).
Jes Bickham, Editor wrote:[...] Stronghold Assault and Escalation allow you to, respectively, add more big guns and fortifications to your Warhammer 40,000 armies, and use Lord of War units such as the Necron Tesseract Vault in "regular" games of Warhammer 40,000. All of these have sent the White Dwarf team and friends into a frenzy of brushwork as they add Wall of Martyrs Imperial Defence Lines, Baneblades and other Super-heavy units to their collections [...]
Page 52 mentions differences between Stronghold Assault/Escalation and Apocalypse such as things like "Strategic Assets, different types of Formations, Finest Hours and the like" remaining in the realm of Apocalypse games.
Looks like Escalation is about including superheavies in non-Apoc games, and Stronghold Assault is about using defensive fortifications like the Wall of Martyrs stuff.
Looks like a couple of expansions.
Also, god damn it. Jeremy Vetock this month. It's not that I have anything against him or what he says, it's just that his photo in every one of his articles makes me want to punch him in the face enough that I just skip the article altogether. That stupid laughing smile of his.
Does that mean Forgeworld is even more official-ier now?
Srsly though, my stance on FW is thus: They make sexy models, are a part of GW (Or else they would've been sued into the ground) and you can use them in 40k. If the people in your group don't want to play it why not just try and change their mind about it? We're all raisinable beings here I am sure it can be done. I do disagree with Forgeworld being a rich man's "Pay to win" avenue since it's implying that 40k isn't pay to win. I think how you need to buy a new army almost every year to be at the top pretty much disproves that notion.
anchorbine wrote: So, quick question. I don't know of any standard codex flyers that come in on turn one. Does the not overpowered Forgeworld rules allow for flyers on turn one?
There is exactly one FW option for turn-1 flyers, the Elysian drop troops list (pure air cav IG). It has a lot of restrictions and only works with Valkyries, a unit you don't really care about having on the table early, so it's really just a fluff thing. FW does not offer any way of getting any other flyers on turn 1.
Until, GW brings them closer into the fold and starts giving them more exposure and helps champion the FW cause, it will APPEAR to many to be rich bullies trying to get their way for an unfair advantage.
Rich bullies eh?? So I am a rich bully for trying to use my 60 dollar contemptor dreadnought (FW) but you are not a rich bully for using your 85 dollar riptide (GW)? Or am I a rich bully for trying to use my 50 dollar XV9 battlesuit (FW) but you are not a rich bully for using your 66 dollar vendetta (GW).
Double standard much
If you will read my post, you will se that is an impression that is often given. I did not say it was the truth (likely it is not) or that that is an image that I agree with. I'm only saying that that is an image that FW users need to overcome. Personally, I would love to face your contemptor dread. I like the image of those and am interested in how they are on the field of battle.
FW is not pay to win no matter what some people think. There are many FW units that are more expensive and less powerful than other viable options in the "official" codex for that army that would otherwise occupy the same category in the army list.
It's cool that there are a larger variety of models for the same game and that you can use them for 40k, but it does kind of suck and ruin a game experience when someone brings a huge tank thing and says: "this has 6 assault cannons, and 7 typhoon
Missile launchers"
"oh and they're twin linked.."
"oh and they're barrage and pinning. And cause you take an initiative test minus your strength but plus your weapon skill and divided by nine on two d3. "
"oh and if its gets a kill then you lose a turn"
"oh yeah, they also can go in any slot so I brought nine of them."
"this one is my hq, pretty cool huh?"
"but I'm just here to have fun, if I get tabled first turn by you that's ok, I'm just here to have fun."
Really? Please, find even one example in the entire Eldar (or any other race) section from FW that fits any one part of what you just said. Titan's don't count, as those are obviously apocalypse-only, even though they can't do any of that either.
And then compare that to fielding three Heldrakes or tons of Riptides.
Not to feed the fire, because I'm sure there are some people who will run with it, but the new Warrior's Code rules actually prohibit FW rules at Warhammer World events.
When asked for clarification, they explained you can use the models, but not any FW rules for them (Contemptor could be used as a regular dread, or DKoK/Elysians as regular IGuard, for example).
Though my favorite rule there, just for the lolz, is that you can't use any third party conversion kits. If they can't win the Chapterhouse lawsuit, they'll just take away your toys.
Veteran Sergeant wrote: Not to feed the fire, because I'm sure there are some people who will run with it, but the new Warrior's Code rules actually prohibit FW rules at Warhammer World events.
Doesn't matter. Those events are run by GW's sales department, not the game designers. The rules are relevant if you're attending a specific event where they are in effect, but for the other 99.9999% of us they might as well not exist.
Breng77 wrote: How then do you deal with tournaments then. FW is always legal at all times? Because players will not be able to turn it down as they want in a game in that case.
The way I see it is tournaments "banning" it is essentially just that they are deciding that they would rather not deal with them, for all players that wish to attend.
The same question can be asked about Tripple Riptide lists though. How do you deal with them? If tournaments want to ban FW from their tournaments then I am fine with it. If it really makes it that much easier for them then they can knock themselves out.
Gw's problem with coming out and restricting or banning things that made it into torunaments is they haven't before, so if they were to try there would be an uproar of fans that they really don't want to deal with. GW today is like the reluctant comic book store owner, who only got into it because his father owned it first. Sure he will sell you comics, but that is where his involvement ends. If you stand there and chat their ears off about your favorite one, they will roll their eyes, sigh, and look disinterested at some corner of the store. If gw could figure out some magic way to sell just their models without ever having to update rules again, they would. But they have to update to keep interest. Again that falls under the blanket forgeworld ban. less headaches for them in official tournaments where people might write in and complain, then they would have to get off the couch and work on actual balance. And no, gw does not restrict double force org or allies, which is why you see so many cheezy tournament winning lists formulated on this site. If they did, they would take into account that restriction.
And I don't look down at people who want to run forgeworld, I would love to run an ork list from IA8 with mega dredds, and about 20 different types of trukks. But these were created with the sole purpose of sales in mind, and its very easy to sell an expensive model if its overpowered. Riptides in the regular games say that. Do you think its weird in magic that one card would be 10 cents, and another hundreds of dollars? People are willing to shell out for power. And the problem is in the last few years forgeworld has figured this out and has been catering to this type of player. Rvanna riptides, Spartan land raiders, the new chaos/marine flyer with redonculous firepower. The people buying these things for a blatant undercosted power boost on the board are the vocal minority, and making all forgeworld look bad. So people shun them. And none of this will change without GW stepping up their game, sitting down for some hard playtesting and decision making, and outright banning the cheese. This banning will cost them dollars in models that ARE the problem in the first place, so will never be addressed. And thus you have the situation you complain about now: nobody likes forgeworld. Nobody likes GW laziness, and its their fault.
Did you really just cite the Land Raider Spartan as an overpowered FW unit?
DarthOvious wrote:Just thought I would put my opinion here. Personally I have nothing against homebrewed rules, my earlier post was just making a statement ealier on in regards to the difference between homebrewed and Forge World. i.e. FW I would consider to be from an impartial source whereas homebrewed rules are from a biased source. This doesn't mean I wouldn't play against somebody who used homebrewed rules, it just means I am very much more likely to want to read their rules before playing them and making a judgement based on balance issues.
Ah, but you realise that this is a matter of interpretation? You are biased yourself if you categorically treat homebrewed as less likely to be fun/balanced. It's an understandable bias, mind you (given that many or most homebrewed rules are focusing on one's personal favourite army), but at the same time other people are categorically biased against FW based on what they hear on the nets, or perhaps in some few cases based on exceptional individual experience.
Yes, it's an understandable bias because sometimes you do get TFG trying to have it on. Thats why I would have a read of the homebrew rules first. I don't mind if they are competitive or strong. I just don't want to see units with 10s all across the board for their stats and costing a pittance for what they do.
Don't get me wrong - I understand where you're coming from, and personally I even agree with your assessment. But still, at the end of the day, it's all a matter of perspective. And I feel threads like these will only widen the gap in the playerbase rather than heal it, just because of how forcefully some few posters argue, and because the debate is still focused on such abstract terms like "legal" or "official" when GW themselves, with their newest rulebook, have made it clear that they don't care and that it's up to the players to sort it out.
Alas it is the nature of debate. People can feel really strongly about the littliest of things. Myself included.
Veteran Sergeant wrote: Not to feed the fire, because I'm sure there are some people who will run with it, but the new Warrior's Code rules actually prohibit FW rules at Warhammer World events.
Doesn't matter. Those events are run by GW's sales department, not the game designers. The rules are relevant if you're attending a specific event where they are in effect, but for the other 99.9999% of us they might as well not exist.
Wrong. The tournaments are run by red shirts who actively promote converted models and creativity. Warhammer world even sells forgeworld, so why the hell would the sales department *not* want to encourage the more expensive forgeworld? Just sounds like another emotionally driven argument from perry.
If you'd like to know why they ban fw rules, i'm sure you could email them.
Orock wrote: About the faq: they are all located in an easy to find place, and with internet access could be confirmed rather quickly. Where is the official GW or forgeworld FAQ? Its all over the place. How do I know that that land raider has 5 hull points for some reason. How do I know its not doctored documentation unless I also own or have read the book? How do I know a book made in 2002 is the most recent, im not going to pirate all the imperial armor and other official books to check on someones obscure rule. At my local store, if I don't have the codex, there it is on the wall. AND they always get a copy of digital codexes, and make them available to anyone to fact check.
Faq cheating is 10x harder than just printing out some doctored sheets of forgeworld items that may just fudge the points cost, or adjust the stats ever so slightly. Mabye higher leadership for a group, maybe that flyer has ceramite plating and I just missed it when I happened to scan across it on the net.
That and just MMMABBBYYEEE I am I am disillusioned by the fact the ONLY forgeworld units that seem to show up in my area are closer in stupid to the rvanna, than some of the more reasonable units. Forgeworld is a bad word in my area, and the definition in the dictionary is player who pays to win with rules that are made purely to sell models.
Trust me, my Hazard Suits are not pay to win. On the other hand the 8 Broadsides and the 2 Riptides I have are pay to win.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
yukondal wrote: It's cool that there are a larger variety of models for the same game and that you can use them for 40k, but it does kind of suck and ruin a game experience when someone brings a huge tank thing and says: "this has 6 assault cannons, and 7 typhoon
Missile launchers"
"oh and they're twin linked.."
"oh and they're barrage and pinning. And cause you take an initiative test minus your strength but plus your weapon skill and divided by nine on two d3. "
"oh and if its gets a kill then you lose a turn"
"oh yeah, they also can go in any slot so I brought nine of them."
"this one is my hq, pretty cool huh?"
"but I'm just here to have fun, if I get tabled first turn by you that's ok, I'm just here to have fun."
I'm not aware of any FW stuff that does this. However this is the reason why I would homebrewed rules before playing.
Veteran Sergeant wrote: Not to feed the fire, because I'm sure there are some people who will run with it, but the new Warrior's Code rules actually prohibit FW rules at Warhammer World events.
Doesn't matter. Those events are run by GW's sales department, not the game designers. The rules are relevant if you're attending a specific event where they are in effect, but for the other 99.9999% of us they might as well not exist.
Wrong. The tournaments are run by red shirts who actively promote converted models and creativity. Warhammer world even sells forgeworld, so why the hell would the sales department *not* want to encourage the more expensive forgeworld? Just sounds like another emotionally driven argument from perry.
If you'd like to know why they ban fw rules, i'm sure you could email them.
The event organizers do it to make the event easier to run, and because their personal views are that it's an add-on. But these are red shirts and we throw out the statements of the ones who mention things pro-FW so the ones who say the opposite have to go right out the window too or we're just playing favorites.
anchorbine wrote: So, quick question. I don't know of any standard codex flyers that come in on turn one. Does the not overpowered Forgeworld rules allow for flyers on turn one?
No, its apcalypse rules that state flyers come in first turn, which includes all the codex flyers as well.
If you're using FW units in normal games then you don't use apocalypse rules.
Srsly though, my stance on FW is thus: They make sexy models, are a part of GW (Or else they would've been sued into the ground) and you can use them in 40k. If the people in your group don't want to play it why not just try and change their mind about it? We're all raisinable beings here I am sure it can be done. I do disagree with Forgeworld being a rich man's "Pay to win" avenue since it's implying that 40k isn't pay to win. I think how you need to buy a new army almost every year to be at the top pretty much disproves that notion.
Veteran Sergeant wrote: Not to feed the fire, because I'm sure there are some people who will run with it, but the new Warrior's Code rules actually prohibit FW rules at Warhammer World events.
Doesn't matter. Those events are run by GW's sales department, not the game designers. The rules are relevant if you're attending a specific event where they are in effect, but for the other 99.9999% of us they might as well not exist.
Wrong. The tournaments are run by red shirts who actively promote converted models and creativity. Warhammer world even sells forgeworld, so why the hell would the sales department *not* want to encourage the more expensive forgeworld? Just sounds like another emotionally driven argument from perry.
If you'd like to know why they ban fw rules, i'm sure you could email them.
Wrong, theyre actually yellow shirts, as they are "Events" team. I'm sure you knew that.
Theyre doing it because it is simpler for them. I know this as I asked them. Did you?
Breng77 wrote:
How then do you deal with tournaments then. FW is always legal at all times? Because players will not be able to turn it down as they want in a game in that case.
Yes, FWis 100% legal. This has been proven - the armybooks are GW rules. Not sanctioned, they ARE GW rules. Those GW rule states they can be used in normal games of 40k. So yes, they ARE legal AT ALL TIMES
However, what you seem to miss is that whether they arelegal or not has NO BEARING on whether you can turn them down or not. Out of a tournament - hell, IN a tournament - I can turn a game down for any reason I like. I dont like pink orks. Cant stand Tau gun line boredom. Hate the models for grots, so please dontuse any or I wont play you. ANY reason. That is because even playing a game is a social contract - something you both agree on.
So FW being legal - which it is, so dont question it further - does not, in any way shape or form, restrict YOUR ability to not play a game against someone.
What a realisaiton of FW legality DOES do is turn the onus around - instead of having to ask permission to use FW, the onus is on th eperson who doesnt like something to ask if they could play a game with out FW. Asubtle, but important, distinction.
Which brings us back full circle to the attitude in which the subject is broached. As it is up to the individual TO and players how they run their games or if they will play, it doesn't matter how legal it is. They don't have to if they don't want to..
This is why I suggest introducing it to them in a polite and reasonable way. The use of demonstration games, discussions focused on merits rather than legalities, heck even play a few "team games and let them borrow a unit or two. There are a lot of ways to do it in a non-confrontational manner. Without GW support, it is an uphill battle overcoming years of ingrained attitudes.
nosferatu1001 wrote: What a realisaiton of FW legality DOES do is turn the onus around - instead of having to ask permission to use FW, the onus is on th eperson who doesnt like something to ask if they could play a game with out FW. Asubtle, but important, distinction.
Yes, a very important distinction. Replace "FW" with "flyers" and people will understand - they need to realize it's the same thing.
