Do you guys accept games against Titans vs. regular 40k codices? Is there a point? I just got stomped by one in a pickup game, and there really wasn't any point in the game, as the army list I had, while strong against probably any other 'regular 40k' list, would never have done anything against this Titan. It was an auto-win situation for my opponent, and he agreed.

How do you all deal with the baseline lack of parity with IA Titans against regular 40k armies?

~Sincerely, Butt Hurt and Curious

You know IA isn't behind this, but that Titan's are allowed by the base 40k rulebook.

Thus..A titan in a game is infact, a Regular 40k List.

*Drops the Mike*

What 40k codex has Titans?

(I'm not talking about that Eldar LOW thingy, or Imperial Knights, I'm talking about Imperial Titans)

 jasper76 wrote:
What 40k codex has Titans?

Imperial Knights.

Oh and this in the rulebook.

Lords of War are the most powerful and destructive units to wage war in the 41st Millennium. They include towering monstrosities and super-heavy vehicles that bristle with enough weaponry to lay waste to anything foolish enough to stand before them. You’ll find a selection of Lords of War units in some codexes and in Warhammer 40,000: Escalation.

I think you replied before my edit.

I am not talking about Imperial KNights. I'm talking about actual Titans.

 jasper76 wrote:
What 40k codex has Titans?

(I'm not talking about that Eldar LOW thingy, or Imperial Knights, I'm talking about Imperial Titans)

Escalation... Which has the Warhound. The Phantom and Renvaent Titans are both titans as well. And will cause just as much damage as a Warhound.




I see you edited your first post. At least you are putting some thought into the topic now....

 jasper76 wrote:
I think you replied before my edit.

I am not talking about Imperial KNights. I'm talking about actual Titans.

So the Eldar Revanant, the Ork Stompa, The Warhound, and the things added through forgeworld's update of it. (Chaos Titan, Imperium Titan).

 jasper76 wrote:
What 40k codex has Titans?

(I'm not talking about that Eldar LOW thingy, or Imperial Knights, I'm talking about Imperial Titans)

Warhound and Reaver titans are in the apocalypse rulebook, other than that you're gonna have to rely on fan-made rules.

Yeah, the Eldar and Stompa LOWs are semi-easy to deal with.

I am talking about the Imperial Titan. It doesn't seem like it belongs against any kind of 40k army.

~Sincerely, A Little Less Butthurt


Automatically Appended Next Post:

lycio wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:
What 40k codex has Titans?

(I'm not talking about that Eldar LOW thingy, or Imperial Knights, I'm talking about Imperial Titans)

Warhound and Reaver titans are in the apocalypse rulebook, other than that you're gonna have to rely on fan-made rules.

It was a Warhound, now that you have jogged my frustrated memory. So this wasn't from an IA book at all??? Grrrrr.....

 jasper76 wrote:
Do you guys accept games against Titans vs. regular 40k codices? Is there a point? I just got stomped by one in a pickup game, and there really wasn't any point in the game, as the army list I had, while strong against probably any other 'regular 40k' list, would never have done anything against this Titan. It was an auto-win situation for my opponent, and he agreed.

How do you all deal with the baseline lack of parity with IA Titans against regular 40k armies?

~Sincerely, Butt Hurt and Curious

GW wrote the rules that allows Titans in normal games. GW wrote the D weapon rules. GW wrote the rules for most of the current Titan models and all of their weapons, they're in the Apocalypse book.

FW just casts the resin for them a this point. The only rules they write for them is largely just copy-pasted from GW (e.g. GW made rules for the loyalist Reaver titan, but not the Chaos one).


They shouldn't be available in normal games really, but GW wants to sell kits and let anyone do anything they want to "forge a narrative".

 jasper76 wrote:
Yeah, the Eldar and Stompa LOWs are semi-easy to deal with.

I am talking about the Imperial Titan. It doesn't seem like it belongs against any kind of 40k army.

~Sincerely, A Little Less Butthurt


Automatically Appended Next Post:

lycio wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:
What 40k codex has Titans?

(I'm not talking about that Eldar LOW thingy, or Imperial Knights, I'm talking about Imperial Titans)

Warhound and Reaver titans are in the apocalypse rulebook, other than that you're gonna have to rely on fan-made rules.

It was a Warhound. So this wasn't from an IA book at all??? Grrrrr.....

a Warhound should be no harder to deal with than a Renvaent.

Sorry, it was presented to me as an 'Imperial Titan', and I was told the rules were from an IA book. Someone later said, "don't worry, he always wins with that Warhound" or some such, so I guess I don't know what kind of Titan it was, although the guy said the rules came from an IA book.

Methinks I may have been cheated...

 jasper76 wrote:
Sorry, it was presented to me as an 'Imperial Titan', and I was told the rules were from an IA book.

Methinks I have been cheated.

Keep in mind, the rules for the Warhound have been printed several times recently, and may be available in multiple sources. I THINK that escalation has the most up to date source for them,but I could be wrong.


I would suggest next time, calmly making a decent topic like "I just fought a Warhound, and got demolished, Seeking advice" then explain your situation. This will be much better than spamming the forum and causing all kinds of confusion. We could have gotten to the bottom of this problem much sooner.

They were at one point in an IA book, but currently all the Imperial Titans (warhound and reaver) are in the Apocalypse book.

Always insist an opponent actually have the rules on them if they're trying to play something like that.

This situation sounds very much like a classic example of what makes people hate FW stuff, unfortunately without it really being their fault

@Sasori: You're right. I'm a bit in the bottle now, so my apologies.

Anyway, for me personally, and incidentally my opponent, it was a stupid game. I'll just put the kaibosh on anything that includes the word "Titan" and be done with it. It's hard enough getting even games out of 40k without adding long range D weapons in the mix.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Vaktathi wrote:
They were at one point in an IA book, but currently all the Imperial Titans (warhound and reaver) are in the Apocalypse book.

Always insist an opponent actually have the rules on them if they're trying to play something like that.

This situation sounds very much like a classic example of what makes people hate FW stuff, unfortunately without it really being their fault

So that's the problem with IA. There are so many friggin books, how in the world are you supposed to know what is dated and what is not. Was I supposed to ask the version of the IA he was using, and be expected to know if it is still legit.

Easiest solution in my mind...no IA books.

 jasper76 wrote:
Sorry, it was presented to me as an 'Imperial Titan', and I was told the rules were from an IA book. Someone later said, "don't worry, he always wins with that Warhound" or some such, so I guess I don't know what kind of Titan it was, although the guy said the rules came from an IA book.

Methinks I may have been cheated...

A Warhound titan is(or was) the smallest class of Imperial Titan. I'm sure they are in a Forgeworld book somewhere, but they are also in the Apoc book, and I believe, the Escalation book as well. Remember Escalation is a legal expansion of regular 40k.
you do have a right to refuse to play anyone.. unless they have an actual gun?? I could refuse to play necron flying croissant spam.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 jasper76 wrote:


So that's the problem with IA. There are so many friggin books, how in the world are you supposed to know what is dated and what is not. Was I supposed to ask the version of the IA he was using, and be expected to know if it is still legit.

Easiest solution in my mind...no IA books.

How do I know if you have the latest Blood Angel book? I don't know what it looks like because no one plays it when I'm around.

 Pyeatt wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:
Sorry, it was presented to me as an 'Imperial Titan', and I was told the rules were from an IA book. Someone later said, "don't worry, he always wins with that Warhound" or some such, so I guess I don't know what kind of Titan it was, although the guy said the rules came from an IA book.

Methinks I may have been cheated...

A Warhound titan is(or was) the smallest class of Imperial Titan. I'm sure they are in a Forgeworld book somewhere, but they are also in the Apoc book, and I believe, the Escalation book as well. Remember Escalation is a legal expansion of regular 40k.
you do have a right to refuse to play anyone.. unless they have an actual gun?? I could refuse to play necron flying croissant spam.

I

I personally wouldn't back away from armies until after I have played them, and that hasn't happened until tonight with this Titan nonsense.

Next time I see the guy I'll ask him exactly what his 'Imperial Titan' was, and whether its legal. In either case, I won't play it again, unless I have the same thing coming back at him. It was not a game I could have won, even on my best night with nothing but 4s, 5s, and 6s.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Pyeatt wrote:

How do I know if you have the latest Blood Angel book? I don't know what it looks like because no one plays it when I'm around.

I know what the current BA book is.

There are 13 IA books. Which ones are still good, and which ones are now bad?

Is there a list of the books that are legit? I seriously want to know so I don't get cheated or what not.

 jasper76 wrote:
@Sasori: You're right. I'm a bit in the bottle now, so my apologies.

Anyway, for me personally, and incidentally my opponent, it was a stupid game. I'll just put the kaibosh on anything that includes the word "Titan" and be done with it. It's hard enough getting even games out of 40k without adding long range D weapons in the mix.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Vaktathi wrote:
They were at one point in an IA book, but currently all the Imperial Titans (warhound and reaver) are in the Apocalypse book.

Always insist an opponent actually have the rules on them if they're trying to play something like that.

This situation sounds very much like a classic example of what makes people hate FW stuff, unfortunately without it really being their fault

So that's the problem with IA. There are so many friggin books, how in the world are you supposed to know what is dated and what is not. Was I supposed to ask the version of the IA he was using, and be expected to know if it is still legit.

Easiest solution in my mind...no IA books.

A two second google search will fix that however.

We have a handly list right here on Dakka that goes through each unit and list http://www.dakkadakka.com/wiki/en/Forge_World_and_Apocalypse_Rules_Index

Wikipedia has some info as well, including which books are obsolete.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codex_%28Warhammer_40,000%29#Imperial_Armour

Not that much difference than codex books (there's been 5 different Codex books for the Imperial Guard over time for instance)

So you expect a player with an IA book will respect what DakkaDakka.com or Wikipedia.org has to say as to what IA books are still good, and what are bad??? I wouldn't. These aren't sources.

Is there a list available from GW?

@Vaktathi Exalted

 jasper76 wrote:
@Sasori: You're right. I'm a bit in the bottle now, so my apologies.

Anyway, for me personally, and incidentally my opponent, it was a stupid game. I'll just put the kaibosh on anything that includes the word "Titan" and be done with it. It's hard enough getting even games out of 40k without adding long range D weapons in the mix.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Vaktathi wrote:
They were at one point in an IA book, but currently all the Imperial Titans (warhound and reaver) are in the Apocalypse book.

Always insist an opponent actually have the rules on them if they're trying to play something like that.

This situation sounds very much like a classic example of what makes people hate FW stuff, unfortunately without it really being their fault

So that's the problem with IA. There are so many friggin books, how in the world are you supposed to know what is dated and what is not. Was I supposed to ask the version of the IA he was using, and be expected to know if it is still legit.

Easiest solution in my mind...no IA books.

The problem is, you don't want to paint all of forgeworld with that brush. Forgeworld makes some incredible models and rules, which the vast majority are very balanced. There are very few units that are actually overpowered.

Don't let your bad experience with a Warhound (Which is a regular unit anyway) spoil the greatness that is FW.

 jasper76 wrote:
So you expect a player with an IA book will respect what Dakka or Wikipedia has to say as to what IA books are still good, and what are bad???

Is there a list available from GW?

What would you do if we both met up in the game store (neither of us knowing each other) and I brought in a soft-covered Grey Knight book? You simply have to play the latest version. That is unless you're in one of those designated "3rd edition" gamer groups you find floating around. Speaking of which, I had the absolute worst time with that before we got the new Grey Knight codex, because I insisted on continuing to play my inquisitor HQ. It was in my book. And that was the latest Grey Knight book. Fun times.

 jasper76 wrote:
So you expect a player with an IA book will respect what DakkaDakka.com or Wikipedia.org has to say as to what IA books are still good, and what are bad???

It's a resource that's out there, and largely kept pretty up to date within a few days/weeks of any particular release, which I can't find any notable errors with. Use it or not.

Is there a list available from GW?

No, but by the same token, but there's no official list for which iteration of Codex: Space Marines is most up to date either

We have weird related issues from GW as well, the Chimera currently has different rules in an "Astra Militarum" army list, being both more expensive and with fewer firing ports, than in an Inquisition army list which still uses the older rules, and GW hasn't bothered to update that either

@Sasori, I'm noty sure it was a Warhound. It might have been a Reaver or something else.

Anyway, I can't seriously present something from this site, or Wikipedia especially, as a legit source as to what IA rules are still good or bad.

Does GW or FW have a list?


@Vakathi: The difference to me is that the new Space Marine Codex overwrites the old one.

Does IA 13 overwrite all previous IA editions? I seriously do not know, because I never bought any IA books.

 jasper76 wrote:
@Sasori, I'm noty sure it was a Warhound. It might have been a Reaver or something else.

Anyway, I can't seriously present something from this site, or Wikipedia especially, as a legit source as to what IA rules are still good or bad.

Does GW or FW have a list?

If it was a Reaver, then you got cheated fair and square. The points for it are far outside normal games of 40k.


That's really the gist of it. You can present the list to an honest player, and they would have no problem with it. If a player gets all upset and starts flipping out about it, it's likely that ins't the kind of person you want to play anyway;.

@Sasori: If I ever cast any bad light on my opponent, I didn't mean to. I think I said "I might have been cheated", but I don't think in any way whatsoever that it was intentional. I play whit this guy all the time and he's a good guy.

He was referencing an IA book. If it was old and out of date, I'm just wondering if there's a GW or FW publication that actually says its old and out of date. We both agreed it was nonsensical to play this game again. At this point, I am just asking in case I run into another player who is not so honest, using IA1 or whatever when it shouldn't be allowed to be played.

 jasper76 wrote:
@Sasori: If I ever cast any bad light on my opponent, I didn't mean to. I think I said "I might have been cheated", but I don't think in any way whatsoever that it was intentional. I play whit this guy all the time and he's a good guy.

He was referencing an IA book. If it was old and out of date, I'm just wondering if there's a GW or FW publication that actually says its old and out of date. We both agreed it was nonsensical to play this game again. At this point, I am just asking in case I run into another player who is not so honest.

There is no official list. The best thing you can do is arm yourself with the knowledge, so that you know.

Unfortunately there's no official list from GW as to which IA book has the latest rules for a unit. They appear to be about as interested in that as providing comprehensive FAQ and Errata (i.e. not very).

It'd be helpful, but alas...

@Sasori: So if there is no official list, there is no official knowledge.

So anyone can say any IA book they own is legit.

I come back to my opinion...no IA books. By saying this, I'm not judging people who choose to play with IA books, but I don't see any other way around the issue of what rules are allowed, and what rules are not allowed, since there doesn't seem to be anything that says older books are disallowed.

(People I play with have never heard of this website, so I can't use the list our friend so kindly provided here, and Wikipedia is just a popular vote)

Do we not all have smartphones and tablets? Just take a minute to bookmark those sites that list the relevant codexes.

 Vaktathi wrote:
Unfortunately there's no official list from GW as to which IA book has the latest rules for a unit. They appear to be about as interested in that as providing comprehensive FAQ and Errata (i.e. not very).

It'd be helpful, but alas...

Ah...for a perfect world!

 jasper76 wrote:
Does GW or FW have a list?

No. They really should, but they don't.

And question already answered, I are fast lel.

Meh. Play against who you want. Stop crying about losing to legit armies.

 Pyeatt wrote:
I think what we're forgetting is that this is just one ill-informed persons opinion we're trying to change, not the standard policy for any FLGS.
It does annoy me that Jasper has no clue what his opponents play, doesn't look at their lists and ask questions, and looks to blame anything for his losses.
I think all we're trying to do is make a statement so that when noobs read it, his argument doesn't poison their minds.

What are you talking about dude?

I am talking about Titans from IA books, who people here are now telling me may be illegal, however apparently there is nothing official whatsoever to say that they're illegal, so they are, in fact, legal.

I was in an auto-lose situation, which my (noble) opponent agreed was an auto-lose situation, and trying to figure out how to tell a future ignoble player whether he is using a bad book or not, which by everyone's admission is impossible to say, since GW or FW has apparently never put out any publication to say that any single IA book is, in fact, out of date.

Best way to deal with a mess like this IMO is to avoid it... = no IA books.

 jasper76 wrote:
So you expect a player with an IA book will respect what DakkaDakka.com or Wikipedia.org has to say as to what IA books are still good, and what are bad??? I wouldn't. These aren't sources.

Is there a list available from GW?

No, there isn't, but if you actually bothered to look at the dakka link and use the grey matter in your head, you would see that its pretty logical (for the most part) what is still current and what isn't. Example. Imperial Armor Volume 1, and Imperial Armor Volume 1 2nd Edition. Logic dictates that if there is a 2nd edition of the book, the first one is no longer valid. Granted, some are slightly less obvious, like Imperial Armor and Imperial Armor II. Technically not the same title as Imperial Armor VOLUME 1 and Imperial Armor VOLUME 2, but if you put two and two together, it seems clear that they are out of date as well... and if you dont believe that you can just take a look inside the rulebooks themselves, they reference rules that haven't existed in several editions. Admittedly, there are a couple cases where this isnt entirely clear, specifically Imperial Armor 5/6/7/9/10. In these cases, you only really know that they are obsolete books because rules have been reprinted from them on the forgeworld website and/or in other books which specifically state that they replace the rules found in those books. In any case, generally speaking, if your opponent doesn't trust this 'source', he's probably not worth your time.

 jasper76 wrote:
@Sasori, I'm noty sure it was a Warhound. It might have been a Reaver or something else.

Anyway, I can't seriously present something from this site, or Wikipedia especially, as a legit source as to what IA rules are still good or bad.

Sure you can, the list was compiled through lots of hard work from the community, specifically people who own those books and could appropriately cross reference rules to determine the most up to date source for them.

Does GW or FW have a list?

Nope, and they rarely (if ever) will tell you when one book supercedes the other. Hence your options are to either own every book and be able to cross reference the publication dates, or trust others who have already done it for you.

@Vakathi: The difference to me is that the new Space Marine Codex overwrites the old one.

Where does it say that specifically in any of the rulebooks?

Does IA 13 overwrite all previous IA editions? I seriously do not know, because I never bought any IA books.

No. IA 13 is actually Imperial Armor VOLUME 13, as in its the 13th installment in a series of books which will technically all be supported continually through revised editions. The contents of IA13 generally differs from previous books, there will be the occasional overlap in a unit here or there, but generally speaking each volume covers something specific. IA1 for example covers imperial guard and navy, volume 2 is space marines and inquisition, volume 3 is primarily Tau, volume 4 is primarily Tyranids, etc.

Anyway, to the original point of this thread, Titans are generally overpowered, for whatever reason, moreso than non-titan superheavies of the same points cost. I dont know how, or why, they just are, and generally I recommend avoiding playing with them unless both players bring one to the table. Ultimately though, that is a GW issue more than it is a FW issue.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 jasper76 wrote:

 Pyeatt wrote:
I think what we're forgetting is that this is just one ill-informed persons opinion we're trying to change, not the standard policy for any FLGS.
It does annoy me that Jasper has no clue what his opponents play, doesn't look at their lists and ask questions, and looks to blame anything for his losses.
I think all we're trying to do is make a statement so that when noobs read it, his argument doesn't poison their minds.

What are you talking about dude?

I am talking about Titans from IA books, who people here are now telling me may be illegal, however apparently there is nothing official whatsoever to say that they're illegal, so they are, in fact, legal.

I was in an auto-lose situation, which my (noble) opponent agreed was an auto-lose situation, and trying to figure out how to tell a future ignoble player whether he is using a bad book or not, which by everyone's admission is impossible to say, since GW or FW has apparently never put out any publication to say that any single IA book is, in fact, out of date.

Best way to deal with a mess like this IMO is to avoid it... = no IA books.

What you're missing is that if the rules are current, they are in fact GW rules from Apocalypse. The only reason IA comes into the picture is because they have reprinted those same rules in a couple places. Prior to that, they did have their own rules, those older rules are no longer current, though IIRC, they are significantly more balanced than the current GW iteration.

@chaosomega: I have read and considered everything you have written. Unfortunately, I suppose, I don't play in an environment where people take non-GW rules seriously.

It is common sense that the newest codex overwrites the older one. Now I understand that IA publications that are not updates to the same publication (like IA1 version 2 or whatever) do not overwrite older books, so the newest version of the oldest books are all valid technically.

Whatever the case, this is all too complicated for me. There are a gazillion rules in the BRB, and a gazillion rules in the gazillion codices without the headache of IA rules. I just will make it a personal rule to avoid IA armies except for amongst my trusted friends who I know dont have ill intentions and really, really want to play them for some reason.

It doesn't bother me one bit if other people play and enjoy the IA books. 40k is just one of like 6 tabletop games we play, and I don't need this kind of complication in an already extraordinarily complicated game (which I love )

chaos0xomega wrote:
Logic dictates that if there is a 2nd edition of the book, the first one is no longer valid.

Eh, not necessarily. Remember the old, old Dark Eldar codex with "2nd Edition" on the cover?

"It says right here on the cover 2nd Edition, that means it was printed during 2nd edition! It couldn't have possibly come out during 3rd, you idiot!"

Admittedly, it once threw me off, too.

 jasper76 wrote:


Whatever the case, this is all too complicated for me. There are a gazillion rules in the BRB, and a gazillion rules in the gazillion codices without the headache of IA rules.

And herein lies the reason why I have all but quit 40k. Its bad enough that Imperial Armour updates (as unnecessary as they are) are unclear, now GW has convoluted their own releases through campaign books, subcodecies, dataslates, white dwarf releases, etc. etc. etc. I have no idea what half of the rules published by the GW design studio are anymore, let alone where I can find them.

chaos0xomega wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:


Whatever the case, this is all too complicated for me. There are a gazillion rules in the BRB, and a gazillion rules in the gazillion codices without the headache of IA rules.

And herein lies the reason why I have all but quit 40k. Its bad enough that Imperial Armour updates (as unnecessary as they are) are unclear, now GW has convoluted their own releases through campaign books, subcodecies, dataslates, white dwarf releases, etc. etc. etc. I have no idea what half of the rules published by the GW design studio are anymore, let alone where I can find them.

I'm inclined to agree. We, my gaming group and I, are still able to extract good fun out of 40k by using the BRB and the codices. But the million other books and publications they release, IMO, seem more and more and more like cash grabs with no purpose other than to move paper and plastic. I understand and can respect that a company needs to stay afloat, but in the end, I just want to have fun going 'pew-pew' against my friends, and I don't need 400 books to do so....the BRB and the main codices are quite plenty enough for me.

I'm going to have a talk to my friend about this IA book with his Titan rules, and all other IA books, and let him know that, at least in as far as games with me are concerned, its getting the 86.

To be honest, any special rules we may need beyond the 'regular' set of books, me and my friends can handle just fine on our own without this headache.

 jasper76 wrote:
@Sasori: So if there is no official list, there is no official knowledge.

So anyone can say any IA book they own is legit.

I come back to my opinion...no IA books. By saying this, I'm not judging people who choose to play with IA books, but I don't see any other way around the issue of what rules are allowed, and what rules are not allowed, since there doesn't seem to be anything that says older books are disallowed.

(People I play with have never heard of this website, so I can't use the list our friend so kindly provided here, and Wikipedia is just a popular vote)

Anything thats IA 2nd editions is the most up to date source at this moment. Most units from 1st edition IA have an entry in the new apoc book and as such are no longer the most up-to-date entries.
IA books that currently have a 2nd edition are IA 1 trough 4 + IA 13.

I want to add that I've never had problems with titans on the condition that my opponent lets me know beforehand that he will be using a LoW.
With pickup games this is impossible because, well, they're pick up games. But ask your opponent if he's going to use any. If he is, then ask him whether you could make a tweak to your list before actually seeing his list.
Most of the time, people were reasonable and let me do so. If people are so friendly as to let you change your list, be kind in return and don't have a complete list-overhaul.
If you drop everything in your list in favor of an ungodly amount of melta and lascannons to counter his LoW, you're not being a good sport.

Just keep in mind that not all super heavies are Titans and some are not too bad. Also keep in mind that the Eldar Titans are far worse to play against than the Imperial ones.

You should find most of the rules for Titans in 2 books (Escalation and Imperial Armour: Apocalypse). There are some exceptions eg. The Eldar Phantom, but I highly doubt you will play/ want to play vs one of those unless it was a full on APOC game.

http://media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/1d/0d/6e/1d0d6e18381dd408353b7f121162fd9b.jpg

There's an image of the 2 main Imperial Titans, I'm going to assume you were up against the Warhound (Back left)

That's a really nice Wraithknight.

 jasper76 wrote:



Best way to deal with a mess like this IMO is to avoid it... = no IA books.

To be fair, as noted, this course of action will do nothing regarding your experience however, as the currently available Imperial Titans (along with D weapons) are all done through GW's core studio and mainstream publications.

It'll just mean you won't see cool stuff like Death Korps armies or Decimator Engines or Nightwing Fighters and the like.

Just a thought

It's really not any more difficult keeping track of IA books than it is Codexes and all the other crap GW is chucking out. And as people have said many times now which you seem to be ignoring, Titans are actually in GW books, not FW books. So just saying 'No IA!11!!!!11!1' isn't gonna help...

So my opponent is a class act...he left me a voicemail apologizing for throwing the titan at me. He said he just painted it up and it was the first time he's ever played it, and he won't play it in another 40k game but will keep it for Apoc games.

He didn't even have to call at all. I barely know the guy outside of gaming.

Butt less hurt, faith in humanity restored. Life goes on.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Vaktathi wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:



Best way to deal with a mess like this IMO is to avoid it... = no IA books.

To be fair, as noted, this course of action will do nothing regarding your experience however, as the currently available Imperial Titans (along with D weapons) are all done through GW's core studio and mainstream publications.

It'll just mean you won't see cool stuff like Death Korps armies or Decimator Engines or Nightwing Fighters and the like.

Just a thought

Dude, my gaming clup banned the IK codex, along with (my) T-CTan. quite a while ago. Implementing D-Weapons in standard 40k really was a jump the shark move IMO. I think it happened with Escalation book in 6th edition, right? Anyways, this particular episode didn't happen in my regular gaming club, where we don't play with D-weapons...it happened in a pickup game at my flgs.

Anywho...the guy left me a cool phone message, which he didn't have to do. I'll have no problem playing his Titan again if I have my own Titan, and he can teach me the rules for it and so forth, but IMO, and I don't care if people agree or not, it really has no place in a 40k game. D-weapons are a bit too much except against other D wepaons. Parity makes games fun. Lack of parity makes games stupid. It's just that easy IMO.

One things for certain, I am not wasting my time learning rules for IA books for pickup games. If this thread's taught me one thing, its that GW really doesn't regulate itsefl when it comes to mainitaing their IA books through different game versions. If they can't keep their own rules straight with these books, I sure as s--t am not gonna try to

DaPino wrote:
If you drop everything in your list in favor of an ungodly amount of melta and lascannons to counter his LoW, you're not being a good sport.

Bringing a titan to a pick-up game isn't being a good sport in the first place.

 jasper76 wrote:
So my opponent is a class act...he left me a voicemail apologizing for throwing the titan at me. He said he just painted it up and it was the first time he's ever played it, and he won't play it in another 40k game but will keep it for Apoc games.

Sounds like a reasonable guy. I've been in his position before, not with a Titan, but I know the feeling. You just got something REALLY awesome and you wanttotryitout but its just... aiya. Too good.

 jasper76 wrote:

Dude, my gaming clup banned the IK codex, along with (my) T-CTan. quite a while ago. Implementing D-Weapons in standard 40k really was a jump the shark move IMO. I think it happened with Escalation book in 6th edition, right? Anyways, this particular episode didn't happen in my regular gaming club, where we don't play with D-weapons...it happened in a pickup game at my flgs.

One things for certain, I am not wasting my time learning rules for IA books for pickup games. If this thread's taught me one thing, its that GW really doesn't regulate itsefl when it comes to mainitaing their IA books through different game versions. If they can't keep their own rules straight with these books, I sure as s--t am not gonna try to

So, would you refuse to play against my Repressor and Avenger Strike Fighter, if I showed you the most recent version of the rules, and you looked at them on an individual basis? Or would you just say "no, no IA stuff" blanket term because of losing against a Titan?

 Furyou Miko wrote:

So, would you refuse to play against my Repressor and Avenger Strike Fighter, if I showed you the most recent version of the rules, and you looked at them on an individual basis? Or would you just say "no, no IA stuff" blanket term because of losing against a Titan?

In a pickup game at an flgs, I'm afraid not, I'm done with IA there...there's plenty of game to be had with the million trillion rules available in the regular codices. By the same token, I may be done with dataslates too. Not because I'm scared or unfamiliar with dataslates that exits, only because I know GW is going to unleash an endless swarm of dataslates for post-hardback-codex $$$ that I don't care to stay on top of....keeping up with GW rule releases is becoming a full time job, and all I want out of 40k is a hobby.

If you were a good friend of mine, and you really really wanted to play with your cool IA model, I'd do it.

Simple as that, for me. Again, I don't care if other people use IA books in pickup games, and enjoy the crap out of them. Go for it! I'm only speaking for myself here.

Your loss, I guess.

Well, no, probably not since I'd just use a different list, but eh.

 Furyou Miko wrote:
Your loss, I guess.

Well, no, probably not since I'd just use a different list, but eh.

Yep...nobody loses squat really by me choosing not to play IA armies in pickups...just play me with a 40k list and I'm all smiles...or move on to the next guy and see if he minds




Automatically Appended Next Post:
You know, as I think about it, I suppose I am emblamatic of a poor marketing strategy on the part of Games Workshop. They've released all these attractive hardback codices, so a mutual completionist and cheapskate such as myself can feel like I have a complete 7th edition set by having the BRB plus the codices and not feel like I need to purchase or keep up with anything else.

In any case, a while ago (a bit before 7th was released) my gaming club decided we would stop purchasing GW books after the last codex was updated to hardback. This decision was made by veteran players who were vocally upset with all the money they have given to GW to keep up with their aggressive rules releases. But in my case, its a fun game, fun enough to keep up with the main books, but not really fun enough to get all the extra doodads. I may have mentioned earlier that my gaming club plays about 6 different tabletop games. 40k is just one of them. In a sense it competes for my time and energy and money with other games, some of them with flat-out better core rulesets. Its kinda like...I could keep up with all this IA and dataslate stuff, but why would I? I'd rather just play Necrons vs Space Marines, then switch to Romans vs. Celts, then switch to Gondor vs Mordor, etc, etc.

Well, I think part of the reason people are getting upset about you refuting the use of Imperial Armour books is that you keep saying they're not part of the 40k list.

The Repressor and the Avenger are part of the Sister of Battle army list for Warhammer 40k. There's no two ways about that. They're just as valid as Tauroxes were in the previous Imperial Guard codex, or as Toxicrenes are in the Tyranid army list.

The rules are published by the same company, under the same trademarks, for the same game system.

Does that mean you have to play against them? No, no more than it means you have to play against an all-Destroyer Unbound Necron list or a Space Marine list with Combi-melta Sternguard in Drop Pods... but insisting that they're not really part of the 40k army is purely fallacious.

Sorry, I think this has been a poor choice of words on my part.

FWIW, when I have been saying "40k army", really the only thing I mean by that is "BRB and main Codices" (and in the case of my gaming group, also minus the Imperial Knights codex, but that's neither here nor there). I never meant to suggest that the IA supplementsare not produced by GW for the purpose of 40k, only that its a kind of "extra", so to speak, along with the dataslates and so forth. Something GW is trying to get you to purchase beyond the primary books. I hope that makes sense.

Thanks for pointing that out to me.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Furyou Miko wrote:
The Repressor and the Avenger are part of the Sister of Battle army list for Warhammer 40k. There's no two ways about that. They're just as valid as Tauroxes were in the previous Imperial Guard codex, or as Toxicrenes are in the Tyranid army list.

So here is sorta my take on things. You accept the Toxicrene into your gaming world. Next month you will be accpeting the Acidcrene, and after that you will be accepting the Yolocrene, and then the Mamacrene, and then the Papacrene, and then the Yambocrene. And after that it will be the UKcrene, and then the USAcrene, and then the Argentinacrene. Do you see my poin?. For someone like me, its just easier to have everyone play with what's in that nice hardback Tyranid book, for all its strengths and weaknesses, amd forget all these products being thrown at you, than to buy into Games Worskshop's deliberately endless cycle of patches and dataslates and IA books and supplements and campaign books. Its a consumer cycle some people are stuck in that I don't really see a need for or wish to buy into, because honestly, the game really isnt that good. Instead of keeping up with all these new products, I'd rather invest time, energy, and money into other stuff, because, as I said, we have an active tabletop thing going on where 40k is just a slice.

But to each his own.

(P.S. I do realize the absurdity of railing against what is, in essence, a toy company)

I see your point, but my take on it is that I only have to follow the bits that interest me, and if someone else wants to include a hentai tentacle monster in their 'nid army... let 'em!

I'd also be perfectly happy to play a dozen games against a Titan, until I actually managed to kill it, though, so take that as you will. ^^;

 jasper76 wrote:
@Sasori: If I ever cast any bad light on my opponent, I didn't mean to. I think I said "I might have been cheated", but I don't think in any way whatsoever that it was intentional. I play whit this guy all the time and he's a good guy.

He was referencing an IA book. If it was old and out of date, I'm just wondering if there's a GW or FW publication that actually says its old and out of date. We both agreed it was nonsensical to play this game again. At this point, I am just asking in case I run into another player who is not so honest, using IA1 or whatever when it shouldn't be allowed to be played.

One unit... Ban the whole codex. makes sense.

 Furyou Miko wrote:
I see your point, but my take on it is that I only have to follow the bits that interest me, and if someone else wants to include a hentai tentacle monster in their 'nid army... let 'em!

I'd also be perfectly happy to play a dozen games against a Titan, until I actually managed to kill it, though, so take that as you will. ^^;

Right on. As a matter of fact, I play my own homebrew codex, so I guess I am sorta one to talk here. But in my case, its all done within the rules of the BRB, the SM codex, and the CSM codex. I don't pull from the "extras". Of course, I wouldn never ever pull my homebrew codex in a pickup game.

In any case, if we were good buddies, which I have a feeling if we met in person and played some games, we would become, I'd entertain your army lists, really whatever they contain.

But once it comes to pickup games with people I don't really know, that formula changes entirely for me personally. It's just really not that fun bringing a "normal" list, and having someone come at you with D weapons from 60 inches or whatever they do. Or a Mambocrene noone's ever heard of, has a 1+ Poison weapon with Range Infinite, 15 Void Shields, a 2++ Invul, and hits in CC with 12 D attacks (obvious exaggeration here), but GW put it out for $$$ and you spent the 20 bucks for the dataslate, so that just makes it all OK???

Anyhow...cheers!

 jasper76 wrote:


For someone like me, its just easier to have everyone play with what's in that nice hardback Tyranid book, for all its strengths and weaknesses, amd forget all these products being thrown at you, than to buy into Games Worskshop's deliberately endless cycle of patches and dataslates and IA books and supplements and campaign books.

You're one step away from being one of those "It's not worth it to buy a new codex every time it comes out." guy who's going to get stuck in a previous edition of the game. I'd definitely never play you because I don't like your "If I don't have your rules memorized, you can't play it" attitude. If someone brings the IA book, or at least the relevant print-outs for their units... well I'd say they're better off playing someone with sportsmanship in them.

 Pyeatt wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:
@Sasori: If I ever cast any bad light on my opponent, I didn't mean to. I think I said "I might have been cheated", but I don't think in any way whatsoever that it was intentional. I play whit this guy all the time and he's a good guy.

He was referencing an IA book. If it was old and out of date, I'm just wondering if there's a GW or FW publication that actually says its old and out of date. We both agreed it was nonsensical to play this game again. At this point, I am just asking in case I run into another player who is not so honest, using IA1 or whatever when it shouldn't be allowed to be played.

One unit... Ban the whole codex. makes sense.

You are missing the point. The point being, that the popular opinion here is that certain IA books are no longer kosher. This is not my opinion, this is everyone elses. However, there is absolutely no official guidance from GW to say that any of their published IA material is actually no longer kosher, so in the absence of any official rules, every IA book is, in fact, kosher, because how on earth would you argue against it.

If bad books are kosher, and I can't tell an opponent that their particular IA book is no longer legit, because GW never said it was no longer legit, I am stuck playing whatever an IA player says is OK. To be honest, this isn't my problem. It's GW's problem. They haven't kept up with their books good enough for Joe Six Pack like me to know what's good and what's bad.

Too complicated. Easier for me personally to remove IA from the equation. Just my decision, doesn't have to be yours.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Pyeatt wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:


For someone like me, its just easier to have everyone play with what's in that nice hardback Tyranid book, for all its strengths and weaknesses, amd forget all these products being thrown at you, than to buy into Games Worskshop's deliberately endless cycle of patches and dataslates and IA books and supplements and campaign books.

You're one step away from being one of those "It's not worth it to buy a new codex every time it comes out." guy who's going to get stuck in a previous edition of the game. I'd definitely never play you because I don't like your "If I don't have your rules memorized, you can't play it" attitude. If someone brings the IA book, or at least the relevant print-outs for their units... well I'd say they're better off playing someone with sportsmanship in them.

Nope. It's common sense that a new codex overwrites the oild one. However, IA 13, from what people have told me here, doesn't overwrite anything at all. Nor will IA14, nor will IA15, nor IA16, nor IA17, nor IA18. Spend your money and time as you will. I'm not playing that kind of ball game.

Oh, and in case you missed it, my gaming group actually did decide to freeze 40k when the Necron and BA codices come out in hard back. This actually wasn't my decision, it was the decision of the majority of our group who most of them have been with 40k since 2nd edition. It happened when they released 6.25 only 2 years after they released 6the Edition. Basically, they feel that GW is trying to bleed them for cash, and although I am much newer to the game, its hard to argue against.

About the IA books...

IA13 is outdated for sure, the latest IA:Apocalypse (2013) is the most up to date afaik.

It can even be found somewhere on the internet - like everything really.

In that book, there's a Chaos Reaver at 1460 points, with 18HP, 4 void shields and some badass weapons (up to 8 D-strength large blasts).

I can see how it would be tricky to take it down with anything else than 1460 points of pure unbound fast melta.

But... if you have the right units, dealing 18HP on AV14 within 12" (inside the power field / void shields) is not unrealistic - apart from the major incoming damage, it's 4.5 Land Raiders.

In my opinion, 1500 points of Titan should not happen without at least 3000 points of support, so if your opponent is bringing that kind of stuff, just bring what you'd take to counter it.

I think there is a difference between:
1) "We will not buy anything besides the Codex".
and
2) "We refuse to play against anything besides the Codex".

morgoth wrote:
About the IA books...
IA13 is outdated for sure, the latest IA:Apocalypse (2013) is the most up to date afaik.

IA13 is outdated? It was released like a week ago!

I'm sorry, you won't let people use IA models against you, but all you play is a home brew codex? Bit of hypocrisy there..?

And it's REALLY not difficult. Any IA books that have a Second Edition, the second edition is the one you use. IA 13 has the Chaos list from Vraks so you use that, and units in IA Apocalypse you use.

Kangodo wrote:
I think there is a difference between:
1) "We will not buy anything besides the Codex".
and
2) "We refuse to play against anything besides the Codex".

morgoth wrote:
About the IA books...
IA13 is outdated for sure, the latest IA:Apocalypse (2013) is the most up to date afaik.

IA13 is outdated? It was released like a week ago!

Then I have the old IA13 - which is outdated.

I have to agree those FW books are extremely confusing.

There is no old IA13... It literally has just come out.

My bad, I mixed it up with IA11 nevermind.

IA13 is the new one about chaos and other stuff right ?

Yeah... try telling most modern-ish nid players that they can't use their malanthropes because they are IA. Or Heirodules for that matter. Poor Tyranids...

lol

If you guys who use IA books can't agree on which ones are good or not, what is poor old me supposed to do in a pickup game???

I guess just accept whatever my opponent tells me, because its a "whatever book you have must be good to go" situation?

I dunno...maybe I should just quit pickup games of 40k altogether. Its a big universe, and one things for sure...I will not be missed

In any case, thanks for all the information. It's been very illuminating. In all honesty, I'm left feeling that IA books are a jumbled mess of "who-knows-what's-right-so-its-all-right" more than I was before . That's fine for games with people I know where we can plan the stuff and try to balance it out to make a fun game. For pickup games, its chaos, hit or miss for a game with parity, and I'll pass.

Again, I don't care at all that other people play and enjoy IA books, they're just not for me. Hopefully GW will one day standardize these books for you guys. As said before, since the news og 7th edition so close to 6th, my gaming club has been planning on "quitting" 40K releases (but still playing obviosuly ) after the last hardback dex is released, so the money savings is already on schedule.

Cheers everyone!

If your opponent comes in with the rules for their FW units, and goes over them in depth with you before the game starts (which they should do if you ask, and briefly even if you dont), and you understand and agree to play them, I really don't see what that has to do with you purchasing things from GW.

Your opponent has put all the effort in here They bought the rules, they bought (or converted) and painted the models. They conveyed the information to you. And then on the pure basis of "I don't own the book, or believe in feeding into GW", you shoot them down? That seems pretty crappy. There's literally no effort on your part to 'keep up with the biz', you just have to communicate with your opponent. Even if they ARE using outdated rules (which again, the onus should be on the player bringing the unit to know the most current rules), if you understand and agree to the rules, it doesnt really matter if its three editions behind, does it?

You don't have to agree to fighting a warhound titan (I wouldnt), but do so because it's a fricking titan, not because of some blanket bias youve made because you can't be assed to listen to your opponent explain what it's rules are.

 McGibs wrote:
If your opponent comes in with the rules for their FW units, and goes over them in depth with you before the game starts (which they should do if you ask, and briefly even if you dont), and you understand and agree to play them, I really don't see what that has to do with you purchasing things from GW.

Your opponent has put all the effort in here They bought the rules, they bought (or converted) and painted the models. They conveyed the information to you. And then on the pure basis of "I don't own the book, or believe in feeding into GW", you shoot them down? That seems pretty crappy. There's literally no effort on your part to 'keep up with the biz', you just have to communicate with your opponent. Even if they ARE using outdated rules (which again, the onus should be on the player bringing the unit to know the most current rules), if you understand and agree to the rules, it doesnt really matter if its three editions behind, does it?

You don't have to agree to fighting a warhound titan (I wouldnt), but do so because it's a fricking titan, not because of some blanket bias youve made because you can't be assed to listen to your opponent explain what it's rules are.

Yeah...but pickup games are supposed to be.....pickup games. Meaning to me, you know you're rules, I know mine, there's really no question about them, so lets get a game on, mofo! A new layer of complexity interms of IA books that even IA players here can't seem to agree are in or out is just another obstacle to getting that going. I have a gaming club that I play with for the complex stuff that needs planning....otherwise, I'm gonna see a dex, or I'm going to very very politely decline. Doesn't have to be your decision

Cheers!

 Sasori wrote:

If it was a Reaver, then you got cheated fair and square. The points for it are far outside normal games of 40k.

 Vaktathi wrote:

This situation sounds very much like a classic example of what makes people hate FW stuff, unfortunately without it really being their fault

In this case it is Forge World fault. The Reaver certainly has no place in a non-Apocalypse game, and GW didn't allow it with Escalation - but Forge World did with their Lords of War PDF (It's in the download section of the FW site).

 jasper76 wrote:


Yeah...but pickup games are supposed to be.....pickup games. Meaning to me, you know you're rules, I know mine, there's really no question about them, so lets get a game on, mofo! A new layer of complexity interms of IA books that even IA players here can't seem to agree are in or out is just another obstacle to getting that going. I have a gaming club that I play with for the complex stuff that needs planning....otherwise, I'm gonna see a dex, or I'm going to very very politely decline. Doesn't have to be your decision

Cheers!

Eh? But if a PUG is meant to be 'you know your rules, I know mine', then it should be just fine for the other guy to use Imperial Armour contents, since he knows his rules and you know yours.

There's a reason it's called the Pug Lottery though.

 Gashrog wrote:


In this case it is Forge World fault. The Reaver certainly has no place in a non-Apocalypse game, and GW didn't allow it with Escalation - but Forge World did with their Lords of War PDF (It's in the download section of the FW site).

But the Revenant Titan is kosher because its in an official GW publication.

 Gashrog wrote:


In this case it is Forge World fault. The Reaver certainly has no place in a non-Apocalypse game, and GW didn't allow it with Escalation - but Forge World did with their Lords of War PDF (It's in the download section of the FW site).

All they did was clarify which units were Lords of War after GW put it in the basic game. The Escalation book was never intended to be the sole authoritative Lord of War "allower", and, that said, they included a Titan in that book, albeit Eldar, and with the 7E book, the Escalation book list is superfluous anyway.

Once again, by default, everything is part of 40K.

Any limit you wish to put on the armies you wish to play is fine, but there is no point in trying to push your vision of "legal" / "illegal", "fair" / "unfair" or any other arbitrary differentiation on other players.

The Reaver certainly has a place in any game you want to play a Reaver, and as long as the opponent knows it's a possibility, there's no real issue with that.

 jasper76 wrote:
So my opponent is a class act...he left me a voicemail apologizing for throwing the titan at me. He said he just painted it up and it was the first time he's ever played it, and he won't play it in another 40k game but will keep it for Apoc games.

He didn't even have to call at all. I barely know the guy outside of gaming.

Butt less hurt, faith in humanity restored. Life goes on.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Vaktathi wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:



Best way to deal with a mess like this IMO is to avoid it... = no IA books.

To be fair, as noted, this course of action will do nothing regarding your experience however, as the currently available Imperial Titans (along with D weapons) are all done through GW's core studio and mainstream publications.

It'll just mean you won't see cool stuff like Death Korps armies or Decimator Engines or Nightwing Fighters and the like.

Just a thought

Dude, my gaming clup banned the IK codex, along with (my) T-CTan. quite a while ago. Implementing D-Weapons in standard 40k really was a jump the shark move IMO. I think it happened with Escalation book in 6th edition, right? Anyways, this particular episode didn't happen in my regular gaming club, where we don't play with D-weapons...it happened in a pickup game at my flgs.

Anywho...the guy left me a cool phone message, which he didn't have to do. I'll have no problem playing his Titan again if I have my own Titan, and he can teach me the rules for it and so forth, but IMO, and I don't care if people agree or not, it really has no place in a 40k game. D-weapons are a bit too much except against other D wepaons. Parity makes games fun. Lack of parity makes games stupid. It's just that easy IMO.

One things for certain, I am not wasting my time learning rules for IA books for pickup games. If this thread's taught me one thing, its that GW really doesn't regulate itsefl when it comes to mainitaing their IA books through different game versions. If they can't keep their own rules straight with these books, I sure as s--t am not gonna try to

You are aware that D weapons are in the core 7th edition (or is it 8th? i forget what edition were on) rulebook, right? And that D weapons dont work the way they used to anymore right?

Right on. As a matter of fact, I play my own homebrew codex, so I guess I am sorta one to talk here. But in my case, its all done within the rules of the BRB, the SM codex, and the CSM codex. I don't pull from the "extras". Of course, I wouldn never ever pull my homebrew codex in a pickup game.

Sorry dude, but youre still sounding pretty butthurt if youre trying to justify selectivd enforcement of your own rules (as in that its BRB + primary hardback codecies only, except no knights, and I get to play with my own homebrew rules, but absolutely no white dwarf or dataslates or imperial armour, even though the unit that trashed me comes from what is technically speaking a primary gw rulebook not at all tied to forgeworld."

You are missing the point. The point being, that the popular opinion here is that certain IA books are no longer kosher. This is not my opinion, this is everyone elses. However, there is absolutely no official guidance from GW to say that any of their published IA material is actually no longer kosher, so in the absence of any official rules, every IA book is, in fact, kosher, because how on earth would you argue against it.

Theres no guidance as to any of GWs publications as to whats kosher or not. There is not a line in any of the rulebooks that states "these rules overwrite all previous versions of this title" there is no list on gws website indicating which books are still valid and which are not. By your argument, perhaps you should just quit playing all GW games entirely, as you are left to assume that all GW publications are still "kosher". Or you can use your brain and figure out that if rules for a unit were published in book A in the year 2001, and again in book B in the year 2014, and the rules in book B are different from book A, its because book B has superceded book A by publication date and book A is no longer valid. Thats the same justification you use to make an argument that the current Space Marine codex has outdated previous iterations, so theres no reason why you cant do that with IA.

If anything, FW is actually clearer on this, as the "2nd Edition" books theyve published (for Imperial Armours 1-4) clearly do state that it is an update to the previous version of the books.

Nope. It's common sense that a new codex overwrites the oild one. However, IA 13, from what people have told me here, doesn't overwrite anything at all. Nor will IA14, nor will IA15, nor IA16, nor IA17, nor IA18. Spend your money and time as you will. I'm not playing that kind of ball game.

Did Codex Dark Eldar overwrite Codex Space Wolves? No, theyre different books. Just because FW uses numbers in its naming system instead of referring to it as a specific faction doesnt make it any different from the GW pubs youre going on about. Would it be different if Imperial Armour 13 was called Imperial Armour Chaos, and Imperial Armour 12 had been called Imperial Armour Necrons? Because thats basically what they are.

The failure in your argument is that the same common sense is used for FW publications, youre just being confused by different naming conventions because of your own willful ignorance and refusal to dedicate the 10 seconds it takes people to figure out whats what.

Oh, and in case you missed it, my gaming group actually did decide to freeze 40k when the Necron and BA codices come out in hard back. This actually wasn't my decision, it was the decision of the majority of our group who most of them have been with 40k since 2nd edition. It happened when they released 6.25 only 2 years after they released 6the Edition. Basically, they feel that GW is trying to bleed them for cash, and although I am much newer to the game, its hard to argue against.

I weep for you. Theres no point even discussing this with you anymore, as its very clear you only selectively enforce your own beliefs, i.e. - youre a hypocrite. Youre not even playing with the most up to date rules yourself, if thats the case why make others use the most recent version of Imperial Armour rules? They should be just as free to use whatever outdated version they so please.

PS - your gaming group sounds fairly miserable.

IA13 is outdated for sure, the latest IA:Apocalypse (2013) is the most up to date afaik.

IA13 came out like 1 week ago... IA: Apocalypse 2013 came out like a year ago... get with the program man.

Then I have the old IA13 - which is outdated.

No you dont, that title was literally never published until likr a week ago.

I have to agree those FW books are extremely confusing.

They can be... if you dont know what youre looking at. But generally speaking its pretty straightforward, and if you need help there is that great reference guide linked earlier that dakka users have gone through the effort of making so you can see whats current and what isnt. It even lists which units are published where so you can cross reference the publication dates to determine what the most recent release is if you dont trust our word for it.

If you guys who use IA books can't agree on which ones are good or not, what is poor old me supposed to do in a pickup game???

We can, but of course the fact that one poster confused he numbers 11 and 13 means that we cant, right? I get confused between Space Wolves and Blood Angels all the time, does that mean we can ban all Space Marine codexes?

I dunno...maybe I should just quit pickup games of 40k altogether. Its a big universe, and one things for sure...I will not be missed

I dont think you will. if anything it sounds like youd be doing the rest of the 40k community a favor, certainly for your potential future opponents who wont have to deal with you dictating to them which books are and arent kosher for use based on whatever subjective reasoning you use to determine that.

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Gashrog wrote:


In this case it is Forge World fault. The Reaver certainly has no place in a non-Apocalypse game, and GW didn't allow it with Escalation - but Forge World did with their Lords of War PDF (It's in the download section of the FW site).

All they did was clarify which units were Lords of War after GW put it in the basic game. The Escalation book was never intended to be the sole authoritative Lord of War "allower", and, that said, they included a Titan in that book, albeit Eldar, and with the 7E book, the Escalation book list is superfluous anyway.

Could you please provide a page reference for the rule in either Escalation or 7th edition that says any Titan and/or Apocalypse unit is automatically now treated as a Lord of War? As I can't seem to find one.

 Gashrog wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Gashrog wrote:


In this case it is Forge World fault. The Reaver certainly has no place in a non-Apocalypse game, and GW didn't allow it with Escalation - but Forge World did with their Lords of War PDF (It's in the download section of the FW site).

All they did was clarify which units were Lords of War after GW put it in the basic game. The Escalation book was never intended to be the sole authoritative Lord of War "allower", and, that said, they included a Titan in that book, albeit Eldar, and with the 7E book, the Escalation book list is superfluous anyway.

Could you please provide a page reference for the rule in either Escalation or 7th edition that says any Titan and/or Apocalypse unit is automatically now treated as a Lord of War? As I can't seem to find one.

Nor will you,

the downloads section of the FW site has this however...

http://www.forgeworld.co.uk/Downloads/Product/PDF/L/lordsofwar.pdf


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Anything produced since tends to have what slot it takes listed in the rules (such as the new Knights, which are only LOW in CA detachments that aren't taken from the IK book)

 Gashrog wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Gashrog wrote:


In this case it is Forge World fault. The Reaver certainly has no place in a non-Apocalypse game, and GW didn't allow it with Escalation - but Forge World did with their Lords of War PDF (It's in the download section of the FW site).

All they did was clarify which units were Lords of War after GW put it in the basic game. The Escalation book was never intended to be the sole authoritative Lord of War "allower", and, that said, they included a Titan in that book, albeit Eldar, and with the 7E book, the Escalation book list is superfluous anyway.

Could you please provide a page reference for the rule in either Escalation or 7th edition that says any Titan and/or Apocalypse unit is automatically now treated as a Lord of War? As I can't seem to find one.

I think we're being a wee bit pedantic here. GW introduced Lords of War into their core game and included rules for at least one Titan in their first foray into that. GW's core rules state that the Lords of War slot includes Superheavies. GW never put a restriction on what that would include or how big they could be (again, they included a Titan on their original list). FW just clarified which armies can take which of their superheavies. In fact, FW's rules for the Reaver titans say to reference GW's Apocalypse book.

Let me get this straight... the OP agreed to play against a titan, got stomped, then decided that all Imperial Armour books should be banned, even though the unit he got stomped by is not exclusively an IA unit and is in two other sources, because he didn't know the rules for the titan that he agreed to play against?

Doesn't seem very logical to me. I'd like to know if the OP knows every rule from every 'main' codex? if not, surely the ones he isn't familiar with should be banned?

 tyrannosaurus wrote:
Let me get this straight... the OP agreed to play against a titan, got stomped, then decided that all Imperial Armour books should be banned, even though the unit he got stomped by is not exclusively an IA unit and is in two other sources, because he didn't know the rules for the titan that he agreed to play against?

Doesn't seem very logical to me. I'd like to know if the OP knows every rule from every 'main' codex? if not, surely the ones he isn't familiar with should be banned?

This. IIRC, the OP did state that his opponent should "know his rules" and that he should know his own. In the scenario stated, this was correct, as both parties were well versed in their respective codices. And besides, it's not that much of a stretch to ask to look at their codex and check it's validity and rules, is it?

Also he plays his own homebrew codex. But he won't play against IA because it confuses him.

 Vaktathi wrote:
I think we're being a wee bit pedantic here. GW introduced Lords of War into their core game and included rules for at least one Titan in their first foray into that. GW's core rules state that the Lords of War slot includes Superheavies. GW never put a restriction on what that would include or how big they could be (again, they included a Titan on their original list). FW just clarified which armies can take which of their superheavies. In fact, FW's rules for the Reaver titans say to reference GW's Apocalypse book.

I don't think it's pedantic at all, it's called playing by the rules. GW never put a restriction on what would be included in the Lords of War slot in the same way they never put a restriction on what would be in a Troop slot or an Elite slot or a Fast Attack slot, there's no restriction because it's not up to the player to decide what slot something occupies. You field a unit in the slot they tell you to.

Codex: Armageddon allowed Salamander Predator *Destructors* to take Heavy Flamer sponsons. Does that mean I could give Heavy Flamer sponsons to my Predator Annihilators too? They are both Predators after all. No, because an entry specific to a single unit only affects that unit. The fact that Escalation gave the Warhound and Revenant the Lord of War stamps is as irrelevant to the Reaver as the Salamander Predator Destructor modification was to the Predator Annihilator.

Both Escalation and 7th edition *could* have made the Reaver a Lord of War but didn't, only Forge World did.

You're overfocusing just on the Reaver. GW's core studio already put out Titans in the Escalation book (the Eldar Revenant Titan), along with things like the Harridan (flying GC sporting S10 T8 W8 with twelve 48" S10 AP3 shots a turn and is only hit on 6's without skyfire) and Transcendant C'tan.

Unless you're one to see the Escalation book as ever having been intended to be the exclusive list for such things (which few thought even before FW released its PDF), then all FW did was classify who can take what, and either way, GW's core studio opened that door by including Titans available for Lords of War before FW did.

Being mad at FW for the Reaver is kind of absurd in hindsight, especially considering its base points cost prevents it from being taken in anything but an Unbound army (as an army of itself alone) for most games. Expecting them not to include one specific product as a Lord of War right after GW comes out with a big book and, very shortly after, a new edition, that goes out of its way to emphasize such things, is kinda silly.

The problem here isn't with FW unless you're going out of your way to frame it as one. GW's core studio wrote the expansion book and subsequent new edition brought Titans into the game, GW's core studio wrote the rules for said titans.

 ImAGeek wrote:
Also he plays his own homebrew codex. But he won't play against IA because it confuses him.

I would never bring my homebrew codex to a pick up game. That is used for campaigns in my gaming club.

I never said I wanted anything banned at all. It bothers me not one bit if other people use and enjoy their IA books. It doesn't confyuse me, I just personally thinking range D weapons are not to my liking in 40k games.

In fact I think D weapons in general on a non-Apoc game have led 40k in a direction that I'm not a fan of.

Then there is the isuue of outdated IA books. I didn't even know that was an issue, until people on this thread told me. That's why I don't want to play against IA books in pickup games. Because this thread has taught me that there's not really consensus as to what IA books are good or bad, and GW doesn't bother to weigh in on it. I didn't know that til reading through all the replies and learning it. Didn't invent this problem. This problem does not exist for 40k codices. I and everyone else know what the latest codicrs are.

It all just like a bit of a mess I'd rather avoid, and my opinion on this IA stuff is actually independent of my opinion on long range D weapons and D weapons in geneal.

Go on and play with them if you like! Not my bag, but I don't begrudge any player who wants to play with IA rules and can find a consenting opponent to do so.

 jasper76 wrote:
I never said I wanted anything banned at all.

Sure you did:

That's why I don't want to play against IA books in pickup games.

Saying "I'm not going to play against this" and "you're banned from using this" are the same thing.

Because this thread has taught me that there's not really consensus as to what IA books are good or bad, and GW doesn't bother to weigh in on it.

GW doesn't weigh in on which codices are good or bad either. When C:AM was published nobody explicitly said that it replaces C:IG and you're not allowed to use C:IG anymore, GW just assumed that everyone could figure out that the most recent rules for an army/unit replace any previous rules for that army/unit. Same thing with FW books, new rules replace all previous versions. The only "lack of consensus" that exists is from people who don't check carefully enough before making claims about which rules are current. It's no different than someone not realizing that there's a new IG codex and talking about the best way to use 130 point Vendettas.

This problem does not exist for 40k codices. I and everyone else know what the latest codicrs are.

Well yes, if you tend to play in an area where "I'm not going to play against FW rules in a pickup game" is accepted behavior then it's inevitable that players will be more familiar with codex updates and not pay as much attention to updates for books that you're going to refuse to play against. That doesn't mean it's impossible to figure out which ones are current, it's just a matter of what you spend effort on learning about.

That's rich Peregrine. My decision not to play against armies derived from books of uncertain legitimacy = I want to ban them?

As a single player, I had no idea whatsoever that I had that kind of power! It's not like the guy couldn't go down and ask the next player or anything!

 jasper76 wrote:
My decision not to play against armies derived from books of uncertain legitimacy = I want to ban them?

There's nothing uncertain about it at all. They're part of the game, regardless of your opinion.

As a single player, I had no idea whatsoever that I had that kind of power! It's not like the guy couldn't go down and ask the next player or anything!

But they're banned in games with you. You're saying "ban this from your army, or don't play against me". The fact that people can go elsewhere and play without your ban is no different than a TO banning FW in their event and saying "it's not a ban, you can always go play at this other event".

You ar using the word "ban" in a way I'm not used to, so it's semantics here. I have said repeatedly that I dont Care if other people use IA.

If all IA books are legit, why was I directed to multiple sources showing which IA books and units are out of date and which ones are not.

Put simply, that matrix is one I don't care to memorize, because it's totally unenforceable since its not supported by GW

In any case, my opinion on this is pretty clear. As said before, it doesn't have to be your opinion.

 jasper76 wrote:
You ar using the word "ban" in a way I'm not used to, so it's semantics here. I have said repeatedly that I dont Care if other people use IA.

Of course you care, you won't play a pickup game against someone who wants to use FW rules in their army.

If all IA books are legit, why was I directed to multiple sources showing which IA books and units are out of date and which ones are not.

For the same reason that you can find sources saying that the 5th edition space marine codex is out of date, but the current one is legal: GW publishes new rules that replace older rules.

Put simply, that matrix is one I don't care to memorize, because it's totally unenforceable since its not supported by GW

And how is that different from the "matrix" of which codices are current and legal? After all, GW doesn't support that either.

I guess there is a common rule locally that the new codices are the good ones. Around here everyone knows what the new codices are.

With IA books, people don't know so much, and 40k is well complicated enough IMO without keeping up with a whole other set of books that hardly anyone uses locally, until they do.

If I tried to say you was trying to keep anyone from playing IA with any opponent ever, I could take your accusations of trying to ban them seriously. But alas, I am not.

Done arguing on this. My position is clear. Cheers!

 jasper76 wrote:
I guess there is a common rule locally that the new codices are the good ones.

That's a common rule that you created, not one published by GW. Essentially what you're saying here is "we've house ruled away the problems with codex rules, but haven't done the same for FW and we don't want to".

With IA books, people don't know so much, and 40k is well complicated enough IMO without keeping up with a whole other set of books that hardly anyone uses locally, until they do.

And this is just a circular argument: nobody uses FW rules, so there's no reason to keep up with what is legal, so FW rules are banned/discouraged, so nobody uses them. Maybe instead of trying to limit the scope of the game to the rules you personally want to use you could just let your opponents keep up with their rules while you keep up with yours?

If I tried to say you was trying to keep anyone from playing IA with any opponent ever, I could take your accusations of trying to ban them seriously.

You're banning them for your games. The fact that you haven't created some kind of universal ban (as if that would even be possible) doesn't mean it isn't a ban.

You win dude. Cheers. Your prize is if we ever meet, and you want to play with your IA book from1992, I'll make an exception to my scary spooky ban.

Not really much of a prize, right? But it's yours!

The crux of this thread is essentially everyone trying to say that your logic for your personal decision to refuse to play is well... crappy and unfair logic. This isn't really about people coming into your LGS and getting butthurt that you wont play them. It's about you maybe rethinking about your reasons for not playing them.

Dispite this being the internet, you're still part of a greater wargaming community here. We won't come to your store, and probably never player against you, but you're still part of this community (otherwise, youd stay insular and never share this with us). And as part of this community, we're collectivity saying that "hey, you might want to rethink your outlook here. Its bad for the warhammer community as a whole, not just your group"

Not playing against forgeworld units purely because theyre forgeworld units and you can't be assed to even listen to the other person explain the rules for their unit is bad for the warhamer community as a whole. That's crappy behaviour, as a warhammer player.

 jasper76 wrote:


Then there is the isuue of outdated IA books. I didn't even know that was an issue, until people on this thread told me. That's why I don't want to play against IA books in pickup games. Because this thread has taught me that there's not really consensus as to what IA books are good or bad, and GW doesn't bother to weigh in on it. I didn't know that til reading through all the replies and learning it. Didn't invent this problem. This problem does not exist for 40k codices. I and everyone else know what the latest codicrs are.

Except there is consensus, nowhere here has there been a disagreement as to what is current and what isnt. I and others have told you this, repeatedly. We even provided you a handy dandy link that helps clarify what is current and what isnt based on very simple publication dates, yet like a petulant child you stick your fingers in your ear and scream lalalalala im not listening and pretend that consensus doesnt exist.

The same system used to determine what the most recent iteration of a codex is is the same system used for imperial armour, so yes, you did invent the problem. All we told you is that its less clear when it comes to IA because they use a different naming schema, you decided to run with that and pretend theres a problem where there isnt. Further, GW doesnt weigh in on what codecies are still valid. Nothibg states that Codex Space Marines has replaced the previous version of the codex. You assume that based on publication date. Nothing states Codex Astra Mitaruk replaced Codex Imperial Guard, you wre assuming that because it seems that Astra Militarum is the new name for Imperial Guard, but you have no proof of that. Hell, nothing states that Codex Black Templars was replaced by Codex Space Marines, you assume that because Black Templar units are contained in the new SM book.

Sorry dude, you can try that argument all day, but its a blatant and unjustifiable double standard.

If all IA books are legit, why was I directed to multiple sources showing which IA books and units are out of date and which ones are not.

To clarify it for you? If you actually bothered to check said sources you would note they are in agreement, so regardless of "multiple sources" there is still a consensus, you just choose to not want to acknowledge that because reasons.

Put simply, that matrix is one I don't care to memorize, because it's totally unenforceable since its not supported by GW

Sure it is, if you ever bothered to look at the books themselves you would find them in complete agreement with the lists weve offered you, I know this because I own a majority of those books myself. Sure the list itself might not be directly enforced, but the content from which the list is derived is, which means it is enforced by proxy.

I guess there is a common rule locally that the new codices are the good ones. Around here everyone knows what the new codices are.

Thats, again, the same rule used with IA to determine what is and isnt current, and figuring out what the new books are is actually easier than the codecies, if there are multiple editions of the book, its always the 2nd edition (or in the case of IA Apocalypse, 3rd edition/2013). In only a couple instances are books without a 2nd edition no longer current, specifically IA 5/6/7/9/10, and we know this because there are these awesome free pdfs on the forgeworld site that update those rules and tell us so.

We won't come to your store, and probably never player against you, but you're still part of this community (otherwise, youd stay insular and never share this with us).

Personally I wouldnt want to... hes using all the same illogic and nonreasoning skills of a TFG/rules lawyer. If his attitude didnt cross over to actual gameplay id be surprised.

 jasper76 wrote:
I will not be missed
!

QFT


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 jasper76 wrote:
That's rich Peregrine. My decision not to play against armies derived from books of uncertain legitimacy = I want to ban them?

What's uncertain? Only whether or not you're a troll at this point.

As a single player, I had no idea whatsoever that I had that kind of power! It's not like the guy couldn't go down and ask the next player or anything!

It does and doesn't. Refusing to play another player because he invested more money than you in GW SANCTIONED MODELS and rules slowly creates a hostile environment.

In all fairness, the BRB does advise players to use the most up to date rules for their armies. Just say'n.

SJ

It's just common sense. If you're saying you use the most recent codex and older rules are obsolete, just apply that to IA too...

I really don't see what the whole fuss in this thread is about. At this point I almost hope it's trolling...

Why is everyone so bent out of shape about this. If he doesn't want to play with titans then he doesn't want to play with titans. His money, his time, his hobby. It's no sweat off your sack.

Except that's not what everyone is getting bent out of shape about.
It's not "I dont want to play with titans",
it's "I lost to a titan, and now I will unfairly handwave away this entire collection of rules and models"
Saying "I dont want to pay against titans" is an entirely different attitude than "oh, youve got forgeworld units in your army? Well I don't know what they are, so I guess the game's off"

If youre walking through the forest, and you trip on a stick, you don't cut down the entire friggin forest. Just don't step on the stick.

And collectively, people are sweating their sacks about it because this forum is basically a virtual gaming group. If the OP walked into a DakkaDakka LGS with this attitude, then this is other players reacting to that. Come to forum for feedback, get feedback. Sometimes negative.

MarsNZ wrote:
Why is everyone so bent out of shape about this. If he doesn't want to play with titans then he doesn't want to play with titans. His money, his time, his hobby. It's no sweat off your sack.

What if he is the first player that a new 40k-interested person meets?

 jasper76 wrote:
I never said I wanted anything banned at all. It bothers me not one bit if other people use and enjoy their IA books. It doesn't confyuse me, I just personally thinking range D weapons are not to my liking in 40k games.

In fact I think D weapons in general on a non-Apoc game have led 40k in a direction that I'm not a fan of.

D-weapons aren't an IA-thing, they are in 40k books as well.
Hell, Necrons only get their D-weapons from non-IA books!

Then there is the isuue of outdated IA books. I didn't even know that was an issue, until people on this thread told me. That's why I don't want to play against IA books in pickup games. Because this thread has taught me that there's not really consensus as to what IA books are good or bad, and GW doesn't bother to weigh in on it. I didn't know that til reading through all the replies and learning it. Didn't invent this problem. This problem does not exist for 40k codices. I and everyone else know what the latest codicrs are.

No, not really. I had to tell my Ork-playing friend that there was a new Codex.
Not everyone plays in stores, visits the forum or follows rumours.

For IA it's just as simple, if there is a dataslate from 2013 and 2014 you can have one guess to what the most recent is.

chaos0xomega wrote:

You are aware that D weapons are in the core 7th edition (or is it 8th? i forget what edition were on) rulebook, right? And that D weapons dont work the way they used to anymore right?

They're still plenty strong and break a lot of the old 40K too (ignoring invulnerable saves on a 6, causing multiple wounds per hit, etc.).

I heard they were worse, but they're nowhere close to "fairly balanced" even now.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Vaktathi wrote:

Being mad at FW for the Reaver is kind of absurd in hindsight, especially considering its base points cost prevents it from being taken in anything but an Unbound army (as an army of itself alone) for most games. Expecting them not to include one specific product as a Lord of War right after GW comes out with a big book and, very shortly after, a new edition, that goes out of its way to emphasize such things, is kinda silly.

I don't see what prevents you from taking it in a normal army really. It's only 1500 points.

Besides, it seems to me two Warhounds would deal more damage to a standard army, right ?

 Pyeatt wrote:

MarsNZ wrote:
Why is everyone so bent out of shape about this. If he doesn't want to play with titans then he doesn't want to play with titans. His money, his time, his hobby. It's no sweat off your sack.

What if he is the first player that a new 40k-interested person meets?

Oh, I see, everyone's on their high horse `for the good of the hobby`

sure thing

MarsNZ wrote:

 Pyeatt wrote:

MarsNZ wrote:
Why is everyone so bent out of shape about this. If he doesn't want to play with titans then he doesn't want to play with titans. His money, his time, his hobby. It's no sweat off your sack.

What if he is the first player that a new 40k-interested person meets?

Oh, I see, everyone's on their high horse `for the good of the hobby`

sure thing

Yet you ignore McGibs reply which tells you exactly why we're bent out of shape about it...

Kangodo wrote:

D-weapons aren't an IA-thing, they are in 40k books as well.
Hell, Necrons only get their D-weapons from non-IA books!

Pylon, IA 12. Strength D anti-aircraft gun.