Hello

Ive been using my FW hornets for awhile now at my local club and recently played a game with one of my club mates who disagreed with the use of forgeworld models and i was wondering if anybody could point me in the direction of the correct ruling on thier legality


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Im at work and on phone so cant find myself till later on tonite

No, total nonsense, it's polite to let him look at the rules and familiarise himself with the rules and you should always do so, but they are official, most recently there is a gw formation that uses khorne bezerkers and a kahrybis assault pod, a forge world unit, official gw publication, but as I said before, let your opponent know what everything is, same with any codex stuff.

Page 7 of Imperial Armour Apocalypse says 'it is best to make sure your opponent is happy to play a game with Forge World models before you start.' But it also says that they are allowed in regular games of 40k. 'Using this book' section. I'm sure there's equivalents in all the books. But, 'it is best' does not equal 'opponent must give permission'.

K thx guys

And note that even the main rulebook says that you need to agree with your opponent(s) about everything: how to build your armies, whether or not to use a point limit, etc. So saying "you need permission to use your FW units" is a pretty meaningless statement when you also need permission to use your tactical squads or to build a 1500 point army.

Ultimately, you need your opponent's ok to play any pick-up game.

There's not really any reason to not allow Forgeworld these days, although a lot of players will not be keen on the idea due to not being familiar with it, or the long-standing perception that Forgeworld stuff is all over-powered.

If this isnt in a tournament, you're being TFG.

 cosmicsoybean wrote:
If this isnt in a tournament, you're being TFG.

Because Death Korps of Krieg are seriously OP compared to some of the regular 40k stuff....

FW staff is resonably priced most of the time, you allways pay in points for wht you get out of them, In my club we allow any FW unit even Super Heavies.

Well,
FW models ARE GW models (as FW is a type of department to GW, not a seperate company not a subsidie)
You could argue that your FW models are more legal than his old metal models (if he has any)
Saying no to FW models is like saying no to a Tactical squad

Next time he says no Forgeworld tell him you wont play something he has in his army then or just refuse to play him, hate people like that especially since FW is legal.

The only area that can be an issue I think is the Expermental rules stuff - I think its best to discuss the use of those units.

Otherwise its just another unit - pretty much everywhere - especially tournaments- House rule something or lots of things so best to find out the local situtation.

Grrr, this boils my piss. I reckon he's just having a grumble about something and has singled out Forgeworld as it is, in his mind, an easy target. To be honest, if he's giving you hassle about running a few hornets, he's probably not worth playing.

Page 116 and 117 of the 40k "The Rules" has everything you need in terms of legality:

"The rules for your Citadel miniatures are found in a wide range of Games Workshop Publications"

and

"Regardless of where the information is found, it is known as an army list entry"

Finally

"Players must agree how they are going to select their armies, and if any restrictions apply to the number and type of models they can use"

Sounds pretty clear to me - both players have to agree on what they intend to use and if any objections arise. He's in his right to object to you using hornets. Consequently, you have every right to reject use of a random unit out of his army selection. Forgeworld is just a brand name for resin produced miniatures and Imperial Armour unit entries and army lists produced by Games Workshop.

My local GW doesn't allow FW, which does my nut in. Their argument being "not everyone has the FW books."

Most people are okay with FW, but people unfamiliar with it may be skeptical. My advice is ask before you make the list

Given the expectation of using assorted superheavies and the addition of forgeworld units to GW produced formations it seems that GW has an expectation that forgeworld is just another part of the game. Albeit one that is generally more competently balanced.

 ChazSexington wrote:
My local GW doesn't allow FW, which does my nut in. Their argument being "not everyone has the FW books."

Most people are okay with FW, but people unfamiliar with it may be skeptical. My advice is ask before you make the list

I don't have the Eldar codex. Does that mean you can't play Eldar against me?
If they have the rules for all their units with them, there should be no issue.

 zedmeister wrote:
Grrr, this boils my piss. I reckon he's just having a grumble about something and has singled out Forgeworld as it is, in his mind, an easy target. To be honest, if he's giving you hassle about running a few hornets, he's probably not worth playing.

Page 116 and 117 of the 40k "The Rules" has everything you need in terms of legality:

"The rules for your Citadel miniatures are found in a wide range of Games Workshop Publications"

and

"Regardless of where the information is found, it is known as an army list entry"

Finally

"Players must agree how they are going to select their armies, and if any restrictions apply to the number and type of models they can use"

Sounds pretty clear to me - both players have to agree on what they intend to use and if any objections arise. He's in his right to object to you using hornets. Consequently, you have every right to reject use of a random unit out of his army selection. Forgeworld is just a brand name for resin produced miniatures and Imperial Armour unit entries and army lists produced by Games Workshop.

Exalted for truth.

FW have even dropped the '40k approved' badge now because it's all considered part of the same game and system. Use whatever the hell you want man. They are your models, show him the rules and if he has a problem then it's his problem.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

 ChazSexington wrote:
My local GW doesn't allow FW, which does my nut in. Their argument being "not everyone has the FW books."

Most people are okay with FW, but people unfamiliar with it may be skeptical. My advice is ask before you make the list

I don't have the Eldar codex. Does that mean you can't play Eldar against me?
If they have the rules for all their units with them, there should be no issue.

That's what my brain was screaming when they told me, but I decided to be diplomatic and drop the issue. It is their store, and if they refuse to let their subsidiaries' miniatures be used, well, then that's their loss, 'cause I've moved to the LFGS. However, it was different when I played in Glasgow - they even had some FW stuff in store!

Its entirely down to the managers' discretion. My local GW is frustrating to the point where if the manager likes you, you can use as much Forge World as you like, but if one of his inner circle say you're lame, he'll ban you from anything you haven't bought directly from him.

Because I'm a girl, he likes me even though most of his clique hate me for being better at the game than them.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

 ChazSexington wrote:
My local GW doesn't allow FW, which does my nut in. Their argument being "not everyone has the FW books."

Most people are okay with FW, but people unfamiliar with it may be skeptical. My advice is ask before you make the list

I don't have the Eldar codex. Does that mean you can't play Eldar against me? .

Not being familiar with Eldar rules is a perfectly valid reason for choosing to not play against an Eldar player, yes.


Ultimately, we're talking about a game here. Getting worked up because someone is refusing to play against the miniatures you want to use is no less unreasonable than someone refusing to play you because of a mistaken impression of the effectiveness of the units you want to use.

stopcallingmechief wrote:
Hello

Ive been using my FW hornets for awhile now at my local club and recently played a game with one of my club mates who disagreed with the use of forgeworld models and i was wondering if anybody could point me in the direction of the correct ruling on thier legality


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Im at work and on phone so cant find myself till later on tonite

No such ruling is needed. You either agree to play or you don't.

This applies to your opinion on playing against FW, Come the Apocalypse allies, Super Heavies, Gargantuan Creatures, unpainted hordes, Eldar, Pink Horrors, and Purple mushrooms.

Just say "no" politely if that's your choice and shake the other guy's hand anyway.

If the store doesn't allow what you like in pick up games or other non-tournament situations, I'd tell them to suck a duck. Politely of course.

We actually have it as a club rule that FW is allowed and that players using FW must produce the rules if a question comes up. We've had a couple problems where players will not play anyone that uses FW. Might be our local meta but almost everyone uses some form of FW.

Now the legality, you are perfectly fine to use your FW stuff as long as you build your list right. Now if you want to use some of the experimental stuff, you should ask your opponent first. Also, be up front with the rules that your units have. I'm pretty familiar with most of the codex, but I still expect my opponents to know their army just as much as I know mine. This way if I have a question I can ask and I don't get some off the wall answer.

 gmaleron wrote:
Next time he says no Forgeworld tell him you wont play something he has in his army then or just refuse to play him, hate people like that especially since FW is legal.

Behaving like 7 year olds - The Game

Your opponent was within his rights. He is allowed to refuse to play vs. Forgeworld Models - just as he could refuse the game for any other reason. FW still has a bad reputation among older players due to its darker days of throwing overpowered stuff at IG people, but its reputation has improved ever since and rightfully so. If you're playing 7th, there's no balance anymore to begin with, so there's no reason to refuse playing against FW.

as an older player, anyone who refuses to play against any legit model, especially expensive FW models, is a jerk. just pack and walk away and find someone who actually enjoys their hobby.

To be honest I'd probably decline playing against Forgeworld, but then I'd also decline playing against anything in any thing that isn't in a normal codex/codex supplement, and super heavies/gargantuan creature. There's more than enough stuff in the normal books to try and remember, throwing stuff in that is outside of them just adds on more stuff to try and remember, which is more effort than I'm willing to put into the game.

As a side note I'm also declining any game above 1000pts right now, mainly because anything larger, right now, is sucking a lot of the fun out of the game. I find smaller games prevent a lot of the broken lists being played, which means fluffy/thematic lists are actually useable

Personally I have qualms with anyone fielding any unit that does not have an entry in that faction's parent codex or supplement.

I think there is a reason why certain Forgeworld units don't make it into the main codex.

Notice how 4 out of 5 players using forgeworld units to bolster their army go after the competitive ones and not the ones that just "are interesting". E.g. taking Earthshaker platforms instead of Basilisks, or more powerful Land Raider / Predator variants, or the Sicaran.

What irks me most is when certain dudes (looking at you, CSM players) bring Heresy era stuff into games of 40k because they're good units.

A rare few FW units did make the transition into the mainstream codex, e.g. the Tau Piranha.

 Sir Arun wrote:
Personally I have qualms with anyone fielding any unit that does not have an entry in that faction's parent codex or supplement.

I think there is a reason why certain Forgeworld units don't make it into the main codex.

Notice how 4 out of 5 players using forgeworld units to bolster their army go after the competitive ones and not the ones that just "are interesting".

What irks me most is when certain dudes (looking at you, CSM players) bring Heresy era stuff into games of 40k because they're good units.

A rare few FW units did make the transition into the mainstream codex, e.g. the Tau Piranha.

I don't think GW is smart enough to have reasons to do anything given that I'd rate a lobotomized Chimpanzee as being more intelligent than the likes of Johnson or Cruddace,

 cosmicsoybean wrote:
If this isnt in a tournament, you're being TFG.

Actually in this case it's either the other person or more likely neither of them. People are far too quick to throw around TFG.

 n0t_u wrote:

 cosmicsoybean wrote:
If this isnt in a tournament, you're being TFG.

Actually in this case it's either the other person or more likely neither of them. People are far too quick to throw around TFG.

totally agree. how am i TFG when im fielding legal models. Sounds like that guy is an older player much like the player im debating this wit in my club. I dont want to force a bad experience down anybodys throat, in this case in a league game which has no restrictions, it should be expected to possibly face FW and if you refuse, thats a forfeit. There are models in basically every single army i play that i hate (flyrant spam, anything to do with decurion), and if i refused to play them (which is his option with the FW) , i wouldnt find myself having very many games.

TFG is that guy who brings nasty stuff, and then is a complete douche when they win.

 Sir Arun wrote:
Personally I have qualms with anyone fielding any unit that does not have an entry in that faction's parent codex or supplement.

I think there is a reason why certain Forgeworld units don't make it into the main codex.

Notice how 4 out of 5 players using forgeworld units to bolster their army go after the competitive ones and not the ones that just "are interesting". E.g. taking Earthshaker platforms instead of Basilisks, or more powerful Land Raider / Predator variants, or the Sicaran.

What irks me most is when certain dudes (looking at you, CSM players) bring Heresy era stuff into games of 40k because they're good units.

A rare few FW units did make the transition into the mainstream codex, e.g. the Tau Piranha.

Have you ever considered that Heresy-era stuff can be taken by CSM for fluff reasons, or looking cool, or just fitting better with their army than some of the rubbish that GW gives us? A Typhon siege tank makes perfect sense for an IW army, Contemptors look awesome, and a Fire Raptor fits with "cleaner" CSM armies better than a Heldrake.

If an opponent has a problem with you fielding Forgeworld models then you could decide upon what models in his army you don't want him to play, same principal.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 -Shrike- wrote:

 Sir Arun wrote:
Personally I have qualms with anyone fielding any unit that does not have an entry in that faction's parent codex or supplement.

I think there is a reason why certain Forgeworld units don't make it into the main codex.

Notice how 4 out of 5 players using forgeworld units to bolster their army go after the competitive ones and not the ones that just "are interesting". E.g. taking Earthshaker platforms instead of Basilisks, or more powerful Land Raider / Predator variants, or the Sicaran.

What irks me most is when certain dudes (looking at you, CSM players) bring Heresy era stuff into games of 40k because they're good units.

A rare few FW units did make the transition into the mainstream codex, e.g. the Tau Piranha.

Have you ever considered that Heresy-era stuff can be taken by CSM for fluff reasons, or looking cool, or just fitting better with their army than some of the rubbish that GW gives us? A Typhon siege tank makes perfect sense for an IW army, Contemptors look awesome, and a Fire Raptor fits with "cleaner" CSM armies better than a Heldrake.

I agree, Heresy-era CSM being used in games of 40k completely matches the fluff. The traitor legions have all the old vehicles and tanks that they escaped into the Eye of Terror with. It fits them more than any loyalist army.

 Sir Arun wrote:
Personally I have qualms with anyone fielding any unit that does not have an entry in that faction's parent codex or supplement.

Fair do's - you like to play the game a certain way and exclude certain options.

I think there is a reason why certain Forgeworld units don't make it into the main codex.

It's because they don't feel the market's there to support the creation of a plastic kit for the CRASSUS or an Eldar Firestorm or another FW unit. So, instead, produce it in resin as it's the more cost effective way to sell that kind of model. And, presumably, it's one of the reasons that the rumours of GW producing plastic Armour Mark variants for Space Marines - FW are effectively selling enough crusade era resin kits to prompt a switch to plastic production.

Notice how 4 out of 5 players using forgeworld units to bolster their army go after the competitive ones and not the ones that just "are interesting". E.g. taking Earthshaker platforms instead of Basilisks, or more powerful Land Raider / Predator variants, or the Sicaran.

Where do you get this 4 out of 5 players from?

What irks me most is when certain dudes (looking at you, CSM players) bring Heresy era stuff into games of 40k because they're good units.

Putting aside the fact that many CSM players aren't happy with the current codex offering, what's wrong with Chaos players choosing additional army list entries from a valid GW publication?

A rare few FW units did make the transition into the mainstream codex, e.g. the Tau Piranha.

Actually, GW will no longer re-make FW items in plastic. I seem to remember a while back that someone posted on here that after speaking with a FW rep, GW will only produce new vehicles from hereon in and not adapt existing FW kits. That's why you no longer see Leman Russ Executioners, Vanquishers, Baneblade, Shadowsword, etc getting re-makes in plastic. Nothing to do the with the rules.

 Sir Arun wrote:
I think there is a reason why certain Forgeworld units don't make it into the main codex.

And that reason has nothing to do with rules. It's entirely a sales issue: GW decided that putting a FW unit into the codex and giving it a plastic kit just transfers sales of the FW model to the new kit. On the other hand, if GW makes an entirely new unit and plastic kit for the codex they get to sell the new kit and the FW rulebook/models. The only reason to put a FW unit into a codex would be the fluff, and we all know that modern GW won't hesitate for a moment to ignore the fluff if it means selling another box of space marines to a kid.

stopcallingmechief wrote:

 n0t_u wrote:

 cosmicsoybean wrote:
If this isnt in a tournament, you're being TFG.

Actually in this case it's either the other person or more likely neither of them. People are far too quick to throw around TFG.

totally agree. how am i TFG when im fielding legal models. Sounds like that guy is an older player much like the player im debating this wit in my club. I dont want to force a bad experience down anybodys throat, in this case in a league game which has no restrictions, it should be expected to possibly face FW and if you refuse, thats a forfeit. There are models in basically every single army i play that i hate (flyrant spam, anything to do with decurion), and if i refused to play them (which is his option with the FW) , i wouldnt find myself having very many games.

You're acting like TFG not because you're 'fielding legal models' but because you're not playing in a tournament and still want to eliminate the other players fun. If they don't want to play with FW models and you start throwing around how you are right and they have to play them, thats a dick move. Forgeworld is legal, and unless it's in a tournament trying to make someone play FW stuff when they don't want to is not very fun for them.
So, to finish; Forgeworld is totally legal (it will say it in the book and unit you want to use) but trying to force someone who doesn't want to use it, regardless of its legality, is poor sportsmanship. (unless of course its a tournament, then the TO makes that call)

*Edit* Just read that you are playing in a league, If this is similar to a tournament, you are in the right and can field whatever the TO says you can, and if someones doesnt want to play, you are correct in a forfeit.

 cosmicsoybean wrote:

You're acting like TFG not because you're 'fielding legal models' but because you're not playing in a tournament and still want to eliminate the other players fun. If they don't want to play with FW models and you start throwing around how you are right and they have to play them, thats a dick move. Forgeworld is legal, and unless it's in a tournament trying to make someone play FW stuff when they don't want to is not very fun for them.
So, to finish; Forgeworld is totally legal (it will say it in the book and unit you want to use) but trying to force someone who doesn't want to use it, regardless of its legality, is poor sportsmanship. (unless of course its a tournament, then the TO makes that call)

So you could say, consequently, that the other player is being a TFG when objecting to FW and would, in effect, be spoiling his fun because he's being an arse and not letting him play his legal list?

 ChazSexington wrote:
My local GW doesn't allow FW, which does my nut in. Their argument being "not everyone has the FW books."

Most people are okay with FW, but people unfamiliar with it may be skeptical. My advice is ask before you make the list

o.0

Not everyone owns every Codex, either, but do they ban armies?

 Venerate1 wrote:

FW have even dropped the '40k approved' badge now because it's all considered part of the same game and system.

Right. Lets nix this in the butt right now.

Forge World has NOT abandoned the stamp.

This is from page 6 of Imperial Armour 13, the most recent (original) Imperial Armour book:


And these are the updated rules for the new Deimos Pattern Laser Vindicator that was released last *month* which also clearly has the stamp:
http://www.forgeworld.co.uk/Downloads/Product/PDF/D/Deimos_Vindicator_Laser_Destroyer.pdf

I'm not saying you're one of them, you may have simply been hoodwinked by one, but the claim that Forge World has abandoned the stamp is bullcrap created by douchebags to trick people into allowing them to use units that Forge World specifically HASN'T given the 40k stamp to.

This kind of douchebaggery has been around a long time, and it's this that's responsible for a lot of the anti-Forge World sentiment in the community because the kind of people who pull it are the kind of people who can get a bit creative when remembering their units stats as well. (I'm pro-Forge World, but I'm anti-douchebag).

 Gashrog wrote:
This is from page 6 of Imperial Armour 13, the most recent (original) Imperial Armour book:

IA:Vraks is newer and does not use the stamp.

And even before then there's a key difference in the description: the former "make sure your opponent is happy to play with these rules" was replaced by "make sure they're aware of the rules".

 Gashrog wrote:

 Venerate1 wrote:

FW have even dropped the '40k approved' badge now because it's all considered part of the same game and system.

Right. Lets nix this in the butt right now.

Forge World has NOT abandoned the stamp.

This is from page 6 of Imperial Armour 13, the most recent (original) Imperial Armour book:


And these are the updated rules for the new Deimos Pattern Laser Vindicator that was released last *month* which also clearly has the stamp:
http://www.forgeworld.co.uk/Downloads/Product/PDF/D/Deimos_Vindicator_Laser_Destroyer.pdf

I'm not saying you're one of them, you may have simply been hoodwinked by one, but the claim that Forge World has abandoned the stamp is bullcrap created by douchebags to trick people into allowing them to use units that Forge World specifically HASN'T given the 40k stamp to.

This kind of douchebaggery has been around a long time, and it's this that's responsible for a lot of the anti-Forge World sentiment in the community because the kind of people who pull it are the kind of people who can get a bit creative when remembering their units stats as well. (I'm pro-Forge World, but I'm anti-douchebag).

"As with all our models these should be considered official". Kind of speaks for itself to me? It's not like someone is turning up with a PP gargantuan and putting it on the table with home brew rules, it's all from the same system so I really struggle to understand why people have a problem with it. As has been already said I don't own 70% of the current cod exes but I wouldn't turn a game down because someone was using a unit I wasn't familiar with.

On a personal level it varies from model to model in the same way that LoW units do.

Imperial knights bring a class of power into a game that not everyone is prepared for. You should get permission.

But the Malanthrope? It's a good model but not something a regular army cannot deal with just like anything else in a standard codex.

As long as you are not using FW to bring out the big guns I would say he is misinformed about FW or just acting like a baby.

But fw = op + tfg X lolnewb.

English, all fw is op cos I don't know what it does!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

It's sad but I remember when the idiocy of this started, and that same idiocy trickled down from the interwebs and infected the normals, they then grew older and infected more people with this idiocy and now they are everywhere.... They will rule the world one day! Exponential growth (like zombies people) were dooooooooooooommmmmmmmeeeeedd.

 Formosa wrote:
It's sad but I remember when the idiocy of this started, and that same idiocy trickled down from the interwebs and infected the normals,...

We seem to have different memories, then, because I can remember there being opposition to people using Forgeworld models in games clubs and tournies back to when Forgeworld first started producing their own rules for models.

This isn't some new thing. If anything, I see more acceptance of Forgeworld now than ever before.

 Psienesis wrote:

 ChazSexington wrote:
My local GW doesn't allow FW, "not everyone has the FW books."

Not everyone owns every Codex, either, but do they ban armies?

This being a game store they probably have the paper codex books for people to have a look at.

As for playing FW - unless I'm doing a tournament it's entirely up to whether I think the game will be fun or not. If I can refuse to play a flying circus (or Eldar, Necrons, superheavies etc) I don't see why I couldn't refuse to face FW stuff. An hour of my time spent on picking up casualties without any chance to do anything doesn't sound like any fun to me. If some random guy thinks it's his right to have me do it because he'd find it fun, well, sucks to be him because that's not happening.

 Furyou Miko wrote:
TFG is that guy who brings nasty stuff, and then is a complete douche when they win.

TFG are the latter statement, but not the former. The former is often a symptom, but its not part of the definition. Someone who brings nasty stuff isn't automatically a TFG.

I think it's pretty much accepted that the game on it's own is alreayd unbalanced and adding Forgeworld doesn't seem to change that.

I believe that some Forgeworld armies or units are actually weaker than the current GW armies. The new Vraks gives me that sort of impression.

An opponent not facing you because your model is Forgeworld, rather than it being too powerful, is a pretty sad reason. Someone can refuse to play with another person for any reason, but that doesn't stop it from being rather sad.

I could be biased, being someone who has recently ordered a Vulture with Punisher cannons. I'm worried now that some players would choose not to play my army because I carry a model they don't recognize, just because it's Forgeworld, rather than because of a good reason such as thinking it's too powerful. I suppose I will have to buy and paint a whole new model, such as a Vendetta, to replace it in case someone refuses on that basis.

As long as you bring the rules with you, and the unit isn't too powerful for it's points cost, any reasonable person will play.

stopcallingmechief wrote:
Hello

Ive been using my FW hornets for awhile now at my local club and recently played a game with one of my club mates who disagreed with the use of forgeworld models and i was wondering if anybody could point me in the direction of the correct ruling on thier legality


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Im at work and on phone so cant find myself till later on tonite

He is living in the past. Everything about FW is legit these days. His argument is based on an old (and flawed) premise. Look at the front of ANY of the recent FW books and it talks all about it. How are they NOT legal? In what sense? Not legal in Tournaments? GW doesnt run tournaments anymore so that doesn't matter. Not legal in games of 40k? Why would they print rules for units that aren't "legal".

Tell him to get over it and get with the times. Nothing FW has produced in the last 2-3 years is even close to being "overpowered" compared to just basic games of 40k. His REAL concern is that he just doesn't know the rules of the units you are using. Show them to him. Let him take a good long look, and if he still doesn't want to play against them - that is HIS choice. But they are legitimate rules for 40k. He can also choose not to play against, Eldar, Knights, Space Marines, or any other army if he wants. His loss.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 ChazSexington wrote:
My local GW doesn't allow FW, which does my nut in. Their argument being "not everyone has the FW books."

A lame argument - not everyone has every codex either. It's absurd to think so. As long as you have the book with you - whats the problem? What local GW store is this by the way?

 cvtuttle wrote:

He is living in the past. Everything about FW is legit these days. His argument is based on an old (and flawed) premise. Look at the front of ANY of the recent FW books and it talks all about it. How are they NOT legal? In what sense? Not legal in Tournaments? GW doesnt run tournaments anymore so that doesn't matter. Not legal in games of 40k?

Being legal doesn't mean someone can't refuse to play against them.

Why would they print rules for units that aren't "legal".

They did, for quite a long time. They were optional extras, for those who wanted to use them, in the same way as Cityfight and Apocalypse were.

A lame argument - not everyone has every codex either.

Indeed they don't. And again, refusing to play against an army you're not familiar with is an equally valid decision.


People are behaving as if players are contractually obliged to play against whatever you want to put on the table, which is just a little bit puzzling. We're talking about a game. If someone doesn't want to play a game that involves something that they don't want to play against, is that really such a big deal? Just find someone else to play, or drop it from your list, and move on.

It annoys me when players flat out refuse to play against Forge World units, without any clue as to what the rules are for those units.

It isn't the fact that they decline to play against something. It's just the blanket assumption that every unit taken from a FW book is overpowered and that you're a cheapass for taking one.

One player I enjoy squaring off against doesn't want to fight me if I'm running a 2 Heldrake list. Fair enough, because he doesn't have any models that can realistically deal with flyers and the drakes especially will just annihilate his hordes. At least that makes sense based on what he knows will happen in the game.

My contemptor is not going to change the outcome of the game. It will make me more likely to lose, if anything...

 insaniak wrote:
People are behaving as if players are contractually obliged to play against whatever you want to put on the table, which is just a little bit puzzling. We're talking about a game. If someone doesn't want to play a game that involves something that they don't want to play against, is that really such a big deal? Just find someone else to play, or drop it from your list, and move on.

No, we're objecting to this bizarre idea that objecting to certain units is more legitimate than objecting to others. Some people think that FW rules are in a special category that require special permission and can be refused without question, while other rules are assumed to be legal by default and you're TFG if you refuse to play against them. You can quote the rulebook and "you can always refuse to play" all you like, but the simple fact is that people act like FW rules and tactical squads require different levels of agreement. And that's both wrong by the rules of the game and inappropriate behavior.

Grey Templar wrote:

 Furyou Miko wrote:
TFG is that guy who brings nasty stuff, and then is a complete douche when they win.

TFG are the latter statement, but not the former. The former is often a symptom, but its not part of the definition. Someone who brings nasty stuff isn't automatically a TFG.

I disagree - you can bring nasty stuff and not be TFG, and you can be a douche when you win and not be TFG - you're just a douche.

It's the combination of the two that makes TFG.

no one should object to any unit. Its ridiculous. This is a game for fun. its not blanaced nor meant to be.

Now objecting to playing against a douche.. well thats totally fine.

But if you are truly "scared" of certain units you need immediate psychiatric care and possible heavy medication.

just because you cant afford, dont have, or dont want to have a particular unit does not mean someone else doesnt. If you feel you have the right to dictate what everyone plays buy all armies and hire people to play at your house and let you win every game.

I know that, for some people, Forgeworld changes the established paradigm and that can be difficult to handle. For example, for 10+ years, SM tanks have been bad to mediocre. FW gives SM some good tanks like the Sicaran and the laser Vindicator. These tanks are by no means overpowered, but being better than the bad alternatives makes some people think so.

It's like the difference between McDonald's and, say, Sonic. Sonic certainly don't make the best burgers in the world, but they would certainly seem that way compared to McDonald's.

It is really not that hard. The only time one should question FW is when it is an experimental rule - THATS IT. Stop being children. It is quite ridiculous to call someone TFG for playing with FW models, and you should be quite ashamed. What is your excuse - that you don't know the rules? Well thats what army builder or battlescribe is for - look they print out the rules for you for free. You didn't know it was going to do that? Please, you probably use that excuse any time you lose a game to something new. You think it might be OP - well news flash, FW has done some of the most ridiculous balancing acts these past couple of years - to the point where Horus Heresy is more balanced then a 40k game.

You have no excuse, none, to deny someone the right to use FW models. Ask what the models do, as you or I would do with ANY OTHER GAME of 40k where we don't know what the person is playing.

Here is an example. Recently played against a person with a Harlequinn list. Apparently one of his models makes me take a leadership test at -2, and he chooses the direction of where they flee. I was playing my normal heresy bike army (heresy FW bikes that I use for 40k cause its awesome) and he made my command squad flee off the table with a 3d6 run. Now am I going to call OP, or am I going to cry, or am I going to say I won't play with someone who uses that. NO! You know why, because my dumb ass didn't stop to think and ask what his units did.

Saying that FW is or isn't legal is like arguing whether or not a Tactical Squad is legal or not legal. Calm down, buckle up, and play the damn game.

fidel wrote:
You have no excuse, none, to deny someone the right to use FW models.

Absolutely 100% right.
And you have no right to force anyone to play against FW models if they don't want to.

So, it's quite easy. "legality" doesn't come into it. I'm not TFG just because I decide that I don't like FW and would rather play without it, and you're not TFG for wanting to play with your FW models.
We're just not going to play a game at that point. Not wanting to play against FW is no different that not wanting to play against someone that is playing Skitarii with Fleshtearer taxis. "I don't want to face that as it will not be enjoyable for me." Everyone should be fine with that.

If it's a tournament the rules for the tournament will be clear and refusing to play anyone there is clearly a forfeit.

 Purifier wrote:

fidel wrote:
You have no excuse, none, to deny someone the right to use FW models.

Absolutely 100% right.
And you have no right to force anyone to play against FW models if they don't want to.

So, it's quite easy. "legality" doesn't come into it. I'm not TFG just because I decide that I don't like FW and would rather play without it, and you're not TFG for wanting to play with your FW models.
We're just not going to play a game at that point. Not wanting to play against FW is no different that not wanting to play against someone that is playing Skitarii with Fleshtearer taxis. "I don't want to face that as it will not be enjoyable for me." Everyone should be fine with that.

If it's a tournament the rules for the tournament will be clear and refusing to play anyone there is clearly a forfeit.

Allow me to rephrase then. You have absolutely no right to deny someone the of FW models, and you have no right to force someone to play against your FW models. Just like if I didn't want to play against Riptide spam or Wraithknight spam, or list with only Imperial Knights. You always reserve the right to not play a game. The point I was making is that you do not have have the right to separate FW into this category of "other" and then deem everything else allowed - thats where people get mad. If you don't want to play FW, you better be prepared for someone to say no to your army just in the same respect. And if your counterargument is "but my army is GW your army is FW" - then thats where people get mad

FW = GW, and GW = FW.

fidel wrote:

 Purifier wrote:

fidel wrote:
You have no excuse, none, to deny someone the right to use FW models.

Absolutely 100% right.
And you have no right to force anyone to play against FW models if they don't want to.

So, it's quite easy. "legality" doesn't come into it. I'm not TFG just because I decide that I don't like FW and would rather play without it, and you're not TFG for wanting to play with your FW models.
We're just not going to play a game at that point. Not wanting to play against FW is no different that not wanting to play against someone that is playing Skitarii with Fleshtearer taxis. "I don't want to face that as it will not be enjoyable for me." Everyone should be fine with that.

If it's a tournament the rules for the tournament will be clear and refusing to play anyone there is clearly a forfeit.

Allow me to rephrase then. You have absolutely no right to deny someone the of FW models, and you have no right to force someone to play against your FW models. Just like if I didn't want to play against Riptide spam or Wraithknight spam, or list with only Imperial Knights. You always reserve the right to not play a game. The point I was making is that you do not have have the right to separate FW into this category of "other" and then deem everything else allowed - thats where people get mad. If you don't want to play FW, you better be prepared for someone to say no to your army just in the same respect. And if your counterargument is "but my army is GW your army is FW" - then thats where people get mad

FW = GW, and GW = FW.

Well.... someone does have the right to deny someone a game and seperate them into categories.

It's just a bad thing to do. You probably shouldn't play with someone like that.

O god, I wouldnt play against that person... i use to get backlash for using Forgeworld models too....

You know who disagrees with people using Forgeworld models? People who cant afford Forgeworld models. People need to realize its an expensive hobby .

 Furyou Miko wrote:

Grey Templar wrote:

 Furyou Miko wrote:
TFG is that guy who brings nasty stuff, and then is a complete douche when they win.

TFG are the latter statement, but not the former. The former is often a symptom, but its not part of the definition. Someone who brings nasty stuff isn't automatically a TFG.

I disagree - you can bring nasty stuff and not be TFG, and you can be a douche when you win and not be TFG - you're just a douche.

It's the combination of the two that makes TFG.

I have played against many TFGs. I have played against many people using Forge World units.

None of them were the same people. No TFG was using Forge World. None of the guys who were using Forge World were TFG.

TFG is an attitude, its not related to army composition.

Aye, the archetypal TFG has nothing to do with Forgeworld. You can spot a TFG when they demonstrate some, or all, of these traits:

- Makes use of an elastic tape measures
- Tends to play inexperienced and/or younger players using massively overpowered lists
- Will brag about their prowess and point to their unbroken winning streak against said inexperienced players
- Will bend and break the rules for advantage as often as they can get away with it
- Brags about their general prowess and achievements in various mystery tournaments
- When you play them, the game becomes a tedious, grinding exercise in rules-lawyering
- Every move you do is scrutinised. Every special rule you wield is questioned
- His game turns goes at a blinding pace and equipment gains the surprising ability to morph into different equipment when the need arises

Which reminds me, we've not had a good horror stories thread on Dakka for while. Anyone fancy kicking one off? I've not had any recent horror stories to start one with...

I think most people who play 40k should be willing to play with and against forge world.

The game of 40k is "broken". The main rule book allows for min maxing of allies. The last few codexs have brought allot of unknown (Adeptus Mechanicus) and blatantly powerful (them Eldar...) rules into the game. Perfect balance has never been achieved in 40k, and has only gotten worse over the years (see new Marines vs Chaos marines).

Play for fun, play for story.

I would only refuse to play against something if my opponent didn't want to show me a copy of the rules (FW or codex) or if I had played against it and knew it to be an unfun waste of time. (pull models from box, opponent shoots, place models back into box... unless I'm playing Apoc then that's expected).

Fight, learn, adapt, fight again. If you think something is completely OP and broken, Fight it to prove it. Post an accurate battle report, get a discussion going, figure out new strategies or accept the imbalance of the game.

If it truly is TFG, thats your call to make.

 Igenstilch wrote:
If you think something is completely OP and broken, Fight it to prove it. Post an accurate battle report, get a discussion going, figure out new strategies or accept the imbalance of the game.

this!!! take an exalt! we routinely play "broken" units or lists we find people complaining about here on Dakka (just to test).... and so far none of them are ... not even close. in fact it makes me question if its not just mathhammering going on or people are not actually playing the rules correctly.

I have found nothing that is truly OP or broken. (caveat we play 3k maelstrom games) all knight armies are not fun to play against IMHO but they still dont win any more than any other list.

At my nearest GW,there is a league.
The rules for this league state 1000pts ect...
But FW IS allowed however 30k models are not (although mechanicum is allowed as the AdMech are still around in fluff terms)
However there are no restrictions on what you can take from there
(I.E bringing a librarian,2 scout squads and 1 wahound titan with 2 blasma blastguns is 100% legal and makes you THAT GUY)
This is to bring more elements of balance into the game (i.e it stop players ftom bringing primarchs just to win) however the warhound titan scenario would be very rare (as 40k is for fun not for winning+why bring down a £300 model for 1 game?)

 zedmeister wrote:
Aye, the archetypal TFG has nothing to do with Forgeworld. You can spot a TFG when they demonstrate some, or all, of these traits:

- Makes use of an elastic tape measures
- Tends to play inexperienced and/or younger players using massively overpowered lists
- Will brag about their prowess and point to their unbroken winning streak against said inexperienced players
- Will bend and break the rules for advantage as often as they can get away with it
- Brags about their general prowess and achievements in various mystery tournaments
- When you play them, the game becomes a tedious, grinding exercise in rules-lawyering
- Every move you do is scrutinised. Every special rule you wield is questioned
- His game turns goes at a blinding pace and equipment gains the surprising ability to morph into different equipment when the need arises

Which reminds me, we've not had a good horror stories thread on Dakka for while. Anyone fancy kicking one off? I've not had any recent horror stories to start one with...

There was a TFG at our store. Essentially he would bully other people around him. Eventually I got fed up and stood up to him.






I pushed him off his wheelchair.

FW gives more options. More options is much better than less options.

We play with FW around here.

 Peregrine wrote:
No, we're objecting to this bizarre idea that objecting to certain units is more legitimate than objecting to others.

You might be. That wasn't what I was responding to, though.

Some people think that FW rules are in a special category...

And they'll continue to do so as long as Forgeworld rules are sold with different branding and through a different sales channel to the rest of the rules of the game. It's not really that surprising that this attitude is slow to go away just because Forgeworld themselves suddenly started claiming their rules were 'official'.

 insaniak wrote:
Just because Forgeworld themselves suddenly started claiming their rules were 'official'.

Slight correction - there's been no recent claim - it's always been the case:

“as long as Imperial Armour rules conformed to the vehicle design rules, then as far as I and the rest of the 40k design team were concerned, then they were legitimate rules and could be used in any game of 40k.”

(Jervis Johnson, 2000, Imperial armour: imperial vehicles for Warhammer 40000, games workshop, Great Britain, pg 3)

“All the vehicles within this book exisit in the 41st millennium, they are deployed to do battle against the Emperor’s foes. It is not a case of legality, it is an actuality! Generally players should not pick and choose what equipment their opponent can and can’t use.”

(Warwick Kinrade, 2004, Imperial Armour: Volume Two – Space Marines & Forces of the Inquisition, games workshop, Great Britain, pg7.)

Using the Vehicle Design Rules as a basis for legality is a little peculiar, given that the VDR were optional rules that required your opponent's permission...

 insaniak wrote:
Using the Vehicle Design Rules as a basis for legality is a little peculiar, given that the VDR were optional rules that required your opponent's permission...

Odd quirk perhaps, but it does show that Forgeworld have always said that they're part of the game and official in that respect

You're the one who said Forge World. I just said 'nasty stuff'.

Really I think it comes down to moderation and understanding. Both players have to agree, as the rules have always stated. If you are running a fluffy or fair list, the. I don't think anybody should mind. Your opponent more than likely didn't know how to handle them in-game, so they tried to avoid having to figure it out.

 zedmeister wrote:

Odd quirk perhaps, but it does show that Forgeworld have always said that they're part of the game and official in that respect

The problem of course being that this only counts for anything if you accept that Forgeworld have the authority to claim anything is or isn't official for 40K... And you'll find players who don't, as they expect a statement to that effect to come from the people in the studio that actually produces the game, rather than the offshoot company in a separate office.

There is no "correct" ruling, it's up to the players to agree upon the terms of the game before playing - likewise for tournament organizers.

 insaniak wrote:

 zedmeister wrote:

Odd quirk perhaps, but it does show that Forgeworld have always said that they're part of the game and official in that respect

The problem of course being that this only counts for anything if you accept that Forgeworld have the authority to claim anything is or isn't official for 40K... And you'll find players who don't, as they expect a statement to that effect to come from the people in the studio that actually produces the game, rather than the offshoot company in a separate office.

The only problem with that is that "the people in the studio that actually produces the game" have a hard enough time just doing that job properly.

 insaniak wrote:

 zedmeister wrote:

Odd quirk perhaps, but it does show that Forgeworld have always said that they're part of the game and official in that respect

The problem of course being that this only counts for anything if you accept that Forgeworld have the authority to claim anything is or isn't official for 40K... And you'll find players who don't, as they expect a statement to that effect to come from the people in the studio that actually produces the game, rather than the offshoot company in a separate office.

Well, the forgeworld studio has enough sense to not have their pants on their heads unlike the parent department.

 insaniak wrote:

 zedmeister wrote:

Odd quirk perhaps, but it does show that Forgeworld have always said that they're part of the game and official in that respect

The problem of course being that this only counts for anything if you accept that Forgeworld have the authority to claim anything is or isn't official for 40K... And you'll find players who don't, as they expect a statement to that effect to come from the people in the studio that actually produces the game, rather than the offshoot company in a separate office.

While I agree with your point, the big issue here is that FW isn't a different company, they're not even a subsidiary, they're just another department of GW, and the guys that work there work work at the same building as everyone else at GW (and have the same mailing/contact address).

They are legally a separate company, I believe, due to tax avoidance. They do, however, use the same publisher.

 Furyou Miko wrote:
They are legally a separate company, I believe, due to tax avoidance. They do, however, use the same publisher.

If true, it must be very new, before they redid their website they had an "about us" section that stated they were part of GW and not a separate company, though the new site doesn't have the "about us" section that I can find anymore...

 Vaktathi wrote:
While I agree with your point, the big issue here is that FW isn't a different company, they're not even a subsidiary, they're just another department of GW, and the guys that work there work work at the same building as everyone else at GW (and have the same mailing/contact address).

I know that, and you know that. It makes no difference. To the average gamer, the fact that the books have a different name on them means that they were written by someone different.

People want some sort of indication from the 'official' studio that these guys with the different name have any actual authority to write rules.

The problem is, while that's a reasonable thing to want, it's not going to happen, because the guys writing the 'official' rules for the game currently don't believe that rules are actually important. They're not going to put an 'official' stamp on anything, because they believe that every game should involve the players (wh presumably know each other) having a pre-game discussion about what they are going to use... and in that environment, having an 'official' stamp on anything isn't really necessary.


Of course, that overlooks the fact that so many games are pick-up games where the players don't know each other particularly well, and so don't want to have to hold an in-depth negotiation before getting on to actually putting minis on the table... Something GW would be aware of if there was some arcane way that they could find out about the ways that people are playing their games. Alas, such sorcery is currently beyond us... Maybe one day, when the world is linked by some sort of easy method of data transmission, perhaps involving computers, we might be able to communicate directly with those trapped at the pinnacle of the ivory tower in Nottingham.

 insaniak wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
While I agree with your point, the big issue here is that FW isn't a different company, they're not even a subsidiary, they're just another department of GW, and the guys that work there work work at the same building as everyone else at GW (and have the same mailing/contact address).

I know that, and you know that. It makes no difference. To the average gamer, the fact that the books have a different name on them means that they were written by someone different.

Aye

Vaktathi wrote:

 Furyou Miko wrote:
They are legally a separate company, I believe, due to tax avoidance. They do, however, use the same publisher.

If true, it must be very new, before they redid their website they had an "about us" section that stated they were part of GW and not a separate company, though the new site doesn't have the "about us" section that I can find anymore...

More likely to be older, I first heard years ago :p

 Furyou Miko wrote:

Vaktathi wrote:

 Furyou Miko wrote:
They are legally a separate company, I believe, due to tax avoidance. They do, however, use the same publisher.

If true, it must be very new, before they redid their website they had an "about us" section that stated they were part of GW and not a separate company, though the new site doesn't have the "about us" section that I can find anymore...

More likely to be older, I first heard years ago :p

They are a different company, but they are owned and operated by Games Workshop. Just like Black Library and Citadel Miniatures.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Furyou Miko wrote:

Vaktathi wrote:

 Furyou Miko wrote:
They are legally a separate company, I believe, due to tax avoidance. They do, however, use the same publisher.

If true, it must be very new, before they redid their website they had an "about us" section that stated they were part of GW and not a separate company, though the new site doesn't have the "about us" section that I can find anymore...

More likely to be older, I first heard years ago :p

They are a different company, but they are owned and operated by Games Workshop. Just like Black Library and Citadel Miniatures.

Incorrect. Unless you can find them on companies house which all uk companies have to be registered with, then they are merely just a brand name

 zedmeister wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Furyou Miko wrote:

Vaktathi wrote:

 Furyou Miko wrote:
They are legally a separate company, I believe, due to tax avoidance. They do, however, use the same publisher.

If true, it must be very new, before they redid their website they had an "about us" section that stated they were part of GW and not a separate company, though the new site doesn't have the "about us" section that I can find anymore...

More likely to be older, I first heard years ago :p

They are a different company, but they are owned and operated by Games Workshop. Just like Black Library and Citadel Miniatures.

Incorrect. Unless you can find them on companies house which all uk companies have to be registered with, then they are merely just a brand name

Correct. All FW and BL financial data are included in the Games Workshop annual financial reports.

*nvm.

 Sir Arun wrote:
Personally I have qualms with anyone fielding any unit that does not have an entry in that faction's parent codex or supplement.

I think there is a reason why certain Forgeworld units don't make it into the main codex.

My FW model DID make it into the previous codex, but not this one. It also made it into the Apoc book. Last I checked that had a GW label on the cover, not a FW Label.

Notice how 4 out of 5 players using forgeworld units to bolster their army go after the competitive ones and not the ones that just "are interesting". E.g. taking Earthshaker platforms instead of Basilisks, or more powerful Land Raider / Predator variants, or the Sicaran.

Statistic brought to you by the accounting firm of Dewey, Faye, Kitt, And Howe?

What irks me most is when certain dudes (looking at you, CSM players) bring Heresy era stuff into games of 40k because they're good units.

The horror! They brought good units to a game? And tried to play you with them? Did you kick them in the junk for being such cheeky blokes?

nothing wrong with forge world, they're a GW subsidiary specializing in "boutique products" for lack of a better term. some people have this idea that they're automaticly evil. but just like anything from the parent company things vary pretty widely. even the Siciran tank now with the new SM 'dex has some faults in comparison. now that we can squadron predators and vindicators. it doesn't totally eclipse those tanks (until FW erratas it)

BrianDavion wrote:
(until FW erratas it)

I wouldn't expect that. I think errata for the Dreds are a long shot as well. You might see them squadroned in 30K, but not in 40K.

 Enigwolf wrote:
stuff

I know you were agreeing with me (I think) but - you fool! Why did you conjour this back up? Look what you've done!

Breton wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:
(until FW erratas it)

I wouldn't expect that. I think errata for the Dreds are a long shot as well. You might see them squadroned in 30K, but not in 40K.

I doubt you'll see em squadroned eaither. they're supposed to be rare heresy era relics. I'd rather if they errata it simply allow you to take a single siciran tank as an auxillery.

ohh or maybe add a rule onto the gladius strike formation.

it may have 1-2 core. 0-3 command 1+ Aux 0-1 Relics of the armory.

As always when this debate comes up i say let them use fw hh stuff isnt over powered compared to other broken items aghrm wraithkinght decurion ect.

BrianDavion wrote:


it may have 1-2 core. 0-3 command 1+ Aux 0-1 Relics of the armory.

Alternately (if anything on the formation list, which it probably shouldn't) one formation may replace one Land raider with it OR one Ven Dred formation may replace one model with a Deredo OR one yadda yadda you get the idea.

I'd hate to see them fix it so you could take one of each of their Relics Of the Past type models at the same time.