Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Perhaps I've just met the wrong people, but I've been quite surprised at how intolerant some players can be against unofficial armies.

By "unofficial", I also mean those semi-official ones like LatD, Squats and Kroot Mercs. The Hrud are a strange one to 'classify'; since their race is semi-official, their rules (or at least the ones I have) are fan-made, while their Fantasy counterparts are 100% official (which is why I'm trying to convert their rules here).

I can understand why some people might not want to play against a completely fan-made army even if it's had a decent attempt at balancing; since it can be harder to judge how well you played when the force your list was against may be harder to measure; in the sense that "I won VS Necrons" is much more straight forward and recognisable than "I won against [fan-made codex]. But apart from that point, I don't mind what army I play against as long as it's not a load of Pan Fo garbage, that was made by someone who doesn't know when to leave their fanboyism at the door when making the balance.

yeah,
the problem is always going to be balance. If it's not official, if you get beaten, you may think that list is too strong and the inventor undercosted/overpowered his wetdream. The flip side if you win you beat a unofficial list so where's the satifaction? and the inventor is just going to and reduce costs up power for the next time...

best leave game design to GW... they can get it right/wrong on their own...

the easiest way to play a unsupported army is to use counts as, that way you and you opponent get to have a fun game.
Hrud are basically space skaven, that are really techy, so why not use the tau list and counts as?
At the very least i'd expect units with costs and rules to be pulled from different codexs... and have the units name changed...


Panic

I've found the best approach to this kind of situation is to use "Counts As". Instead of trying to write your own "Hrud Codex", use the IG codex or something and just use models converted to look like Hrud and they are "Counts As" IG.

Does it matter?

If someone took the time to build, paint (hopefully), add a balanced stat lines/rules to his "unofficial" army, least you could do is give him a game. You have a chance to look rules/stats before playing so you shouldn't be walking into the great unknown.

The thought someone could be a big enough jackass to insult/discredit anyone and just not play is laughable, especially if inventor is a friend or local gamer.

I'm not saying play the 13 year old's all Superman list.

If someone thoughtfully made a army based on 40k fluff it could be fun.

It's just another facet of the hobby, much the same as doing a conversion, I imagine. We haven't had that many home brewed armies here that I've seen, but I know most people in my group would be happy to run against one if it was balanced.
For myself, if I were to create an army, I'd probably start out with a really low powered list and build it from there.
Truth is, you've now given me some inspiration to put all those old Warzone minis I've got kicking around to use again!
I can see the DL minis I've got turning into some variation of a LATD force.

I wonder if a contest could be initiated here to see who could come up with the best fluff and army list.

I wouldn't mind seeing more fan made armies, rules and all that stuff. It's proof that (if done correctly) fans are just as capable (if not more so) as GW to come up with quality stuff.

Old Man Ultramarine wrote:Does it matter?

The thought someone could be a big enough jackass to insult/discredit anyone and just not play is laughable, especially if inventor is a friend or local gamer.

One of the regulars at my club didn't even glance at the Exiled Cadres codex before immediatly whining "no, it's not offical" "those things don't exist*".

*that unit of in question was a 'Hunter' team- basicly Pathfinders but with all Railrifles instead of markerlights. Which isn't bending the fluff that far, considering that Pathfinders get Railrifles in the canon 'Tau Empire' codex anyway; not that he would've known that, since he didn't even bother to look at the Hunter team in the first place.

I understand that some people just don't have the time or interest to look through a codex during club-time, but that's no reason to completely discredit the thing.

There's nouthing wrong with contructive critism, but discrediting things purly because it's "not official" is very arrogant and unwelcoming.

With that particular 'Exiled Cadre' codex; someone else wrote it, though I later got very interested in the idea and contacted the author for it. I was thinking of working with the Advanced Tau Tactica community to iron out some balance issues, though the author later said that he mainly wrote it for fluff perposes, and didn't want it changed alot for the sake of further balance. Balanced or not, it's got some very interesting fluff on the exiled cadre(s), while at the same time keeping the vail of mystery around Farsight.

I'd really like to play as a Hrud (Skaven 40K) army. Since they're kinda like a furry steampunk version of the Vietkong (with the fixation on tunnels and light infantry). Hopefully converting their Fantasy rules will make the list somewhat more credible than a completely home-grown list.

whitedragon wrote:I've found the best approach to this kind of situation is to use "Counts As". Instead of trying to write your own "Hrud Codex", use the IG codex or something and just use models converted to look like Hrud and they are "Counts As" IG.

Ya, I think IG would be the best way to go. Though it still wouldn't be the same, of course. I see the Hrud as a kind of cross between the IG and Dark Eldar.

You can always write your own fluff for a different separated Tau cadre. Let it be one which was thought lost but actually got cut off, or else it has gone rebel but the core Tau government has so far kept it secret.

As for the original topic, I'm not surprised that people are intolerant of unofficial armies when the point of 40K is to provide a complete gaming hobby you buy off the shelf.

Homebrew armies are fine for special campaigns and projects with clubs and friends. It's not realistic to expect everyone to accept them.

You can't by Forgeworld off the shelf. And indeed, some people refuse to play against Forgeworld units even though they are licenced by GW as 40K models and rules.

I see 'the point of 40k' to be a fun game format with a rich backstory. Things such as a Hrud codex wouldn't be twisting the 40K universe, it'll merely be information (and rules) on what is already there.

And if you mean that 'buying off the shelf' term in a commercial sence, Hrud can be converted from other GW bitz (namely Skaven). So GW will still get their money, and resorting to 'poorhammer' or other model types is not necessary.

What I mean by off the shelf is that people go into a GW shop and there they can buy whatever they need to play the game and do the whole hobby (terrain, tools, paints etc.)

There is even a painting school and a wargaming club of sorts.

It is all so official that some people think you can't paint models without Citadel paint, or put texture on bases without Citadel sand.

Then some guy come along and says he has written a great new unofficial codex -- well, you can see the problem.

I'm not against unofficial armies myself.

Too true, Kil. Too true. I tried priming my models with Krylon once and the models spontaneously combusted.

I hope that taught you a lesson.

Yep. I tore off the sticker from a GW can and pasted it to the krylon one. Works like a charm now.

kill, i agree, i do only buy GW crap, simply because its easier than finding another seller for supplies. (even if it is 3x as much)

people should keep an open mind when playing 40k, you cant say no to something, unless you have given it a go.

Kilkrazy wrote:What I mean by off the shelf is that people go into a GW shop and there they can buy whatever they need to play the game and do the whole hobby (terrain, tools, paints etc.)

There is even a painting school and a wargaming club of sorts.

Sorry, what has this got to do with the topic?

It is all so official that some people think you can't paint models without Citadel paint, or put texture on bases without Citadel sand.

Well that's just profiteering, and we have no need to care for it since all/most of us don't work for GW. Though I agree with that 'must be at least 50% GW' rule (or 70%, around that number).

I always liked Harlequins. The codex made by Gav Thorpe was never made official. Too bad.

SDFarsight wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:What I mean by off the shelf is that people go into a GW shop and there they can buy whatever they need to play the game and do the whole hobby (terrain, tools, paints etc.)

There is even a painting school and a wargaming club of sorts.

Sorry, what has this got to do with the topic?

It helps explain why people are biased against unofficial armies.

Well technically you can buy FW stuff off the shelf in a GW store now. :p

Breton wrote:Well technically you can buy FW stuff off the shelf in a GW store now. :p

Really?

Kilkrazy wrote:
It helps explain why people are biased against unofficial armies.

That's true with unoffical armies that require extensive conversion techniques, but there's also codexes that can be made from 100% GW parts.

Do you mean a "counts as" army where you use one official codex and figures from a different range? For example, a Necron amy made with Tomb King figures.

Kilkrazy wrote:Do you mean a "counts as" army where you use one official codex and figures from a different range? For example, a Necron amy made with Tomb King figures.

Well, anything that can be made with 100% GW parts. Feral Orks, Hrud etc.

Dealing with unofficial rules requires a greater investment of work by both parties. This hobby takes enough effort to get going as-is that a lot of people are unwilling (or unable) to put on their game-designer's hat and try to figure out whether something is balanced or not.

Personally, I'll try anything once. I think that there are some great fan-made lists out there, Tim Huckleberry's in particular.

SDFarsight wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:Do you mean a "counts as" army where you use one official codex and figures from a different range? For example, a Necron amy made with Tomb King figures.

Well, anything that can be made with 100% GW parts. Feral Orks, Hrud etc.

It's the rules more than the models that could cause a problem.

I'm all for replacing GW figures with alternatives, for example, an IG army made with Pig Iron troops would be cool. But the figures are just markers, the game as such is in the rules.

I think there is some talking past each other here with regards to "unofficial armies." Some people seem to discussing old, no longer legal GW lists (Latd), others the semi-legal GW lists (Armored company, Kroot Mercs), still otehrs the never legal GW lists (ARbits, Harlies, exodites), those using rules for one army and models from anotehr to build counts as lists (LatD with Ork rules, Exodites with Tau rules, etc.) and finally those talking about completely homebrewed lists (Hrud, Pan Fo, Angry Marines)

As a general rule, anything released by GW in White Dwarf or a codex is going to be officially unofficial, so things like LatD would still be fine at most clubs if you really wanted to play them. The Old citadel journal lists (harlies, exodites, arbites) ranged from brutally broken to helplessly weak, but were generally fine for fun games.

Counts as armies should always be ok. As long it's clear what counts as what, there hasn't been a rule against that for a while now.

Finally, home brew codices run into some pretty steep opposition, simply because it's both new, relatively untested, and delightfully "unofficial". I can't really fault a person for not wanting to essentially beta test your homebrewed list, but to completely dismiss it would be a lost opportunity. I guess I'd have to factor in the person's time. If a guy gets 6 hours a week of 40k time, he might not want to dedicate that to a playtest. If a person can play a few games a week, it's less of a loss to spend on or two of them trying something new.

SDFarsight wrote:You can't by Forgeworld off the shelf. And indeed, some people refuse to play against Forgeworld units even though they are licenced by GW as 40K models and rules.

This is a misconception. They're not "licensed" by GW, they ARE GW. They're not some other company producing GW Models and rules, they are a section of GW producing 40K units and rules separate from the main design team.

Oh, and newer fluff changes Hrud from being "Space Skaven." Now they're human sized, light-sensitive beings that look somewhat like the "separate strands of worms building a single entity" like the Hunters from Halo.

Kilkrazy wrote:

SDFarsight wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:Do you mean a "counts as" army where you use one official codex and figures from a different range? For example, a Necron amy made with Tomb King figures.

Well, anything that can be made with 100% GW parts. Feral Orks, Hrud etc.

It's the rules more than the models that could cause a problem.

Why would they a problem? As said before, the only reason I can see is if someone hasn't got the time, interest or trust to look through a codex that they peronaly don't know about. And if the codex is of the Pan Fo or Stealth Marines variety.

Polonius wrote:I think there is some talking past each other here with regards to "unofficial armies." Some people seem to discussing old, no longer legal GW lists (Latd), others the semi-legal GW lists (Armored company, Kroot Mercs), still otehrs the never legal GW lists (ARbits, Harlies, exodites), those using rules for one army and models from anotehr to build counts as lists (LatD with Ork rules, Exodites with Tau rules, etc.) and finally those talking about completely homebrewed lists (Hrud, Pan Fo, Angry Marines)

As a general rule, anything released by GW in White Dwarf or a codex is going to be officially unofficial, so things like LatD would still be fine at most clubs if you really wanted to play them. The Old citadel journal lists (harlies, exodites, arbites) ranged from brutally broken to helplessly weak, but were generally fine for fun games.

Counts as armies should always be ok. As long it's clear what counts as what, there hasn't been a rule against that for a while now.

Finally, home brew codices run into some pretty steep opposition, simply because it's both new, relatively untested, and delightfully "unofficial". I can't really fault a person for not wanting to essentially beta test your homebrewed list, but to completely dismiss it would be a lost opportunity. I guess I'd have to factor in the person's time. If a guy gets 6 hours a week of 40k time, he might not want to dedicate that to a playtest. If a person can play a few games a week, it's less of a loss to spend on or two of them trying something new.

Yes, depends on the player really.

And as the Hrud being a "completely homebrewed list", perhaps converting their Fantasy rules would make them somewhat more credible. Certainly more so than...Pan Fo.. :S

Platuan4th wrote:

SDFarsight wrote:You can't by Forgeworld off the shelf. And indeed, some people refuse to play against Forgeworld units even though they are licenced by GW as 40K models and rules.

This is a misconception. They're not "licensed" by GW, they ARE GW. They're not some other company producing GW Models and rules, they are a section of GW producing 40K units and rules separate from the main design team.

Oh, and newer fluff changes Hrud from being "Space Skaven." Now they're human sized, light-sensitive beings that look somewhat like the "separate strands of worms building a single entity" like the Hunters from Halo.

I'm not sure what the legal stuff is, but the last time I checked, you can get to FW via GW's website; which pretty much says it's part of GW.

You mean that bug-eyed sludge monster thing? That was a picture in the Xenology book; which is hard to take seriously considering that it conflicts so much against the fluff of both Kill Team, the GW 3rd ed 40K Rulebook and the Warhammer armies in general (most having a Fantasy equivalent). The only thing that gives it a shread of being canon is that it was published after those two. If GW were to release a Hrud codex, I highly doubt it'll be the Xenology version. I mean, it's as if that picture was just thrown in there by someone at the Black Library who doesn't like the idea of Space Skaven and the Hrud in general.

SDFarsight wrote:
I'm not sure what the legal stuff is, but the last time I checked, you can get to FW via GW's website; which pretty much says it's part of GW.

Which is what I said. You said their stuff was licensed, which means produced by a separate company with permission. FW is GW, therefore their stuff isn't licensed.

SDFarsight wrote:
You mean that bug-eyed sludge monster thing? That was a picture in the Xenology book; which is hard to take seriously considering that it conflicts so much against the fluff of both Kill Team, the GW 3rd ed 40K Rulebook and the Warhammer armies in general (most having a Fantasy equivalent). The only thing that gives it a shread of being canon is that it was published after those two. If GW were to release a Hrud codex, I highly doubt it'll be the Xenology version. I mean, it's as if that picture was just thrown in there by someone at the Black Library who doesn't like the idea of Space Skaven and the Hrud in general.

Exactly, it's newer. That's like saying that the RT fluff stating that the Ultramarines we have now aren't 1st Founding and are in fact a newer Founding chapter with the same name as a traitor legion is still relevant and official. GW rewrites and changes their fluff all the time, this is no different.

AndyFrogman, over at Tau Online wrote:
And I'm awake again...

The way I see it, even if that is an official explanation from BL, the games came first, the novels and stories are based on the game. It's not the other way around. Evbery now and again you get some models made of special characters, and it's really cool to see them made, (I'm a huge Kal Jericho fan... can you guess the only reason I started collecting Inquisitor?)

You don't get modellers going to the BL staff asking for a brain storming session about how a new race is going to look. However with creatures that don;t acctually have an army list or models... it's a little different. That "Hrud" was painted by a freelance artist... and probably had no idea what a Hrud acctually was.

I've done a bit more research into my argument, yes the story was written by BL Author, but the artwork was freelance. Not to mention that it's also from the point of view of a rogue Inquisitor, who made a sketch of it after seeing something in the distance. The creature you have there is also on the third edition page if you notice, on the top left marked as "unknown"

I'm guessing the artist drew one of those and it's simply been mislabeled (or willfully misslabaled) so that they didn't have a Space Skaven race in the book.

yeah,
I totally think you should make a space skaven army.. but I think you should base it on a tau codex list... or the necrons codex...

But, SDFarsight, what do you hope to achieve with this thread?
You seem to be at odds with anyone, who doesn't think exactly like you want....ie 'space skaven are awesome and you should make your own fan codex!'

Panic...