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.

 Marmatag wrote:
I'm tired of FW. Quite a few armies are in the "forgeworld or lose" camp. Which is dumb.

Quite a few armies are in the "codex or lose" camp. Which is dumb. Therefore ban codex rules.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Strg Alt wrote:
The bad impression results of past experiences according to the players which I have asked. I can´t judge, if this behaviour is warranted or not because I don´t own any FW rulebook.

IOW, you have an opinion based on nothing but ignorance, and you expect veto power over your opponent's army because of that opinion. Why do you think that this is acceptable?

 Strg Alt wrote:
I trust the people which I have asked. Isn´t that acceptable for you?

But you don't trust the people saying that FW is fine? Right here you see a poll with an overwhelming majority saying that FW is fine, are you going to abandon your previous opinion and accept that FW is ok and the people you asked were wrong?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Sinful Hero wrote:
I don’t particularly want to face down a Warlord with a bunch of Ripper Swarms

Fortunately you won't have to. A Warlord is so expensive that you can't fit one in a normal game. IIRC even a Reaver is too expensive for normal games, and a Warhound is a really weak unit for its point cost.

 Strg Alt wrote:
The people I asked seemed genuine to me. So I won´t change my opinion.

And the people here aren't genuine? The poll is currently at 84% in favor of FW with no conditions, and up to 93% if you count the people who are open to it but not all the way there. Only 7% of the votes so far are against FW. By choosing to stand by your opinion in the face of such overwhelming consensus that FW is not a problem you are demonstrating that you are acting out of ignorance and declaring that the minority must be right.

 Strg Alt wrote:
I can have an opinion of my own that deviates from the rest, thank you very much.

But you have no justification for that opinion. You admitted that you have never seen the rules you're expressing an opinion of, your opinion is based entirely on polling people. And now you have a poll that disagrees with your opinion, by an overwhelming majority, and you're rejecting that poll because it doesn't agree with you. You are clearly demonstrating that you have gone far beyond "I'm not sure, here's the best I know" into "I have nothing but ignorance on the subject, but I am 100% confident in my opinion".

 Strg Alt wrote:
I can´t understand why you are so upset about this.

Because you are posting misleading information out of self-admitted ignorance, and then doubling down on your position when confronted with evidence that you are wrong. You expect veto power over your opponent's list because you've come up with this bizarre opinion, and you don't seem to see a problem with this.

 Marmatag wrote:
In a general sense I think forgeworld is awful at writing rules.

Well yes, but so is everyone else at GW. It's just weird to single out one particular author when everyone else at GW regularly publishes a mix of blatantly overpowered mistakes and units that are unplayable unless you beg your opponent to go easy on you.

w1zard wrote:
FW may be a subsidiary company of GW

FW isn't a subsidiary company. It's a brand name used by GW for certain products. Arguing it's a subsidiary and therefore less official is like saying that Citadel model kits aren't really official and you need special permission for them.

FW has a completely different rules writing team that to my knowledge has little to no contact with the GW rules writing team.

So? How is this any different from one team member writing a codex and another team member writing a different codex? The rules are still compatible, how GW allocates its work assignments internally is irrelevant.

The fact that GW purposely nerfed many of the FW units into uselessness in the latest CA shows me that some FW units are absolutely not welcome in GWs eyes.

It shows no such thing. Only a tiny percentage of FW units were nerfed, and an even tinier percentage were nerfed for no apparent point besides "get titans out of normal games". Most of the nerfs at least had a plausible reason behind them, whether or not you disagree with the exact change that was made. And by this standard codex units are not welcome in GW's eyes because they nerfed IG conscripts into uselessness, so we should consider codex rules an optional expansion that needs special permission.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 NurglesR0T wrote:
This may come as a shock to you, but people on the internet may have different opinions

And people on the internet can point out when those opinions are based on ignorance and do not acknowledge the reality of the situation.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

phydaux wrote:
I have a standing rule - I won't play someone who fields Super Heavies.

It turns into a situation where you field a Super Heavy and you win, or you don't and you lose. Or you kit out your list specifically to take down Super Heavies, and you get tabled by a swarm assault list.

So you would refuse a game because I bring a Macharius, a unit that is considerably worse than just bringing its point cost in LRBTs?

w1zard wrote:
You are wrong. On Forgeworld's page:

"Forge World is a subcompany of Games Workshop Inc. that creates models outside of the normal auspices of Games Worshop. It is a company similar to Black Enterprises and Warp Artefacts, dedicated to creating high quality, exotic miniatures for passionate gamers."

it is absolutely a subsidiary company.

Can you provide a link to this page? Because the only search result I'm getting is a third-party wiki site, and as far as I can tell the Warp Artefacts thing was a GW brand that hasn't existed in over a decade.

Because even different team members writing different codices collaborate to iron out balance issues, and any particular codex usually has multiple authors and staff within the GW design team helping even if it is mainly authored by one person. There is no collaboration to my knowledge between GW writers and FW writers.

Again, why does it matter how GW allocates its employees? That's GW internal policy, all that matters is the end result they publish. And what they publish is rules that are treated no differently from any other rules.

 Strg Alt wrote:
Because it isn´t important what you say but how you say it and your tone has been shrill from the beginning on.

IOW, "my hurt feelings are more important than the facts of the situation". You're forming your opinion out of ignorance. Sorry if that truth hurts, but it is true. If you want to care more about tone than substance then that's your problem.

I can´t even fathom why somebody should be so furious about this.

Because you're spreading ignorant statements and expecting veto power over your opponent's army when you can't even bother to learn about the rules you're trying to veto.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

w1zard wrote:
https://www.reddit.com/r/Warhammer40k/comments/1nx1s5/what_is_the_difference_between_forge_world_and/ - top comment
http://wh40k.lexicanum.com/wiki/Forge_World_(company)
http://everquest.allakhazam.com/wiki/Games_Workshop#Subsidiaries

I admit, all three are third party sources. But unless we actually get our hands on financial reports or something that detail GW's relationship with FW, the consensus seems to be that FW is a subsidiary or child studio of GW.

As you said, all third party sources. On the other hand we have evidence directly from GW that all IP for the FW brand is owned by GW, all purchases of FW brand products are billed to GW, all packages are sent from GW, etc. The entire argument that FW is some kind of subsidiary is based on nothing more than people wanting it to be true.

meleti wrote:
TS has more than double the firepower of a Riptide while being much quicker, just as tough if not tougher, and being well under twice the points. Tau gun lines do not outperform them.

I'm not seeing it, at all. Compare them to Hammerheads instead of Riptides. The Hammerhead costs 100 points base, the Tigershark costs 245 points base. So that's 200 points for a pair of Hammerheads. Both the tanks and the Tigershark can carry the same pair of ion cannons at the same price, so the only difference in firepower is 4x burst cannons on the tanks vs. 2x burst cannon and 2x missile pod on the Tigershark. The Tigershark has +1 T and -1 to hit, the Hammerheads have almost double the wounds. Mobility doesn't matter when most of your firepower has cross-table range. Maybe the Tigershark isn't a terrible unit, and there's a case to be made for taking it? But it's hardly on the "best unit in the game" shortlist.

 oni wrote:
Forge World as I understand it have blatantly said in their seminars that they did not play test their Index rules.

GW doesn't playtest their codex rules, so I'm not sure what your point here is.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

meleti wrote:
My man Peregrine, you’re taking the wrong weapons! Here’s the proper load out:

2 HBC
2 BC
2 MP
2 Skyspear Missile Racks
6 Seeker Missiles

Per the errata, we’ll be using the codex versions of these weapons. That’s 24 HBC shots at BS2+, plus all the other weapons, plus a first turn alpha strike of 6 additional seeker missiles. This flyer has fangs.

Ok, then we put the HBC on a Hammerhead, except it's a twin HBC with 50% more shots (unofficially it should have double the shots as the intent of twin weapons). And we still take two Hammerheads. One of the few good things about 8th is that GW has separated even default weapon costs from their carrier, so most of unit analysis is looking at the carrier rather than its weapons. The Tiger Shark and Hammerhead pair both have similar weapon options and pay the same point cost for those weapons, so the primary question is how 200 points of Hammerhead compares to a 245 point Tigershark as a platform for those weapons you're buying. And yeah, you can conclude that the Tiger Shark has some arguments in its favor, but it's a case of "this might be viable" rather than "this is so obviously overpowered it's one of the best units in the game". At best it's a modest upgrade over the alternatives.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 LunarSol wrote:
Personally, I do not at all understand why TAC Razorbacks are in my Codex, but I need the FW book to have the rules for a Mortis Dreadnought.

Again, brand separation. It has two purposes:

1) Maintain the image of FW products as a "premium" line. By keeping the rules separate it says "this is something special" and justifies why you're paying all that money for a FW kit. If the rules were in the codex people would be more likely to expect the prices to be the same as that plastic kit they can buy off the shelf at their local GW store. It's all very subjective, but brand identity is a thing.

2) Maintain the idea of GW's core brand being 100% "out of the box" plastic kits. It's the same as the theme park vs. sand box debate in video games, GW wants their own retail stores to be on the theme park end of the scale. Every plastic kit has rules for using it right out of the box, every entry in the codex has a matching plastic kit you can buy. It's all very friendly to handing small children a copy of the space marine codex and getting them to beg their parents for toys. You can also see this goal in things like removing models/options from the codex if they didn't have a plastic kit available. GW doesn't want customers in their store having to hear about conversions or buying extra stuff to finish a model, they want to hand you a single plastic kit for the unit. Putting FW rules in the codex would mean having to tell those kids (and their parents!) no, you can't buy a plastic kit for this and you really shouldn't be attempting expensive resin kits at your age. And, worse, you can't even buy it through the local GW store, you have to order it from the UK. It's much better for their sales strategy to put all those rules in a separate book where only "advanced" players will find them.

meleti wrote:
There’s not a codex twin HBC, so there’s no newer profile for the twin HBC Hammerhead to use. Thus, it’s still left with the much inferior index profile.

But you still have two of them, one twin HBC per Hammerhead. That's a total of 32 HBC shots vs. 24 for the Tiger Shark.

Go play a few games with two Tiger Sharks proxied. They’re one of the deadliest units in 8E.

I really don't see it. You're getting firepower roughly comparable to its point cost in Hammerheads, and that's just considering other Tau units. Let's compare that Tiger Shark to its point cost in LRBTs. A LR Punisher has 49 shots (main gun and hull/sponson HBs) for 166 points. That's 98 shots, a mix of STR 5 AP - and STR 5 AP -1. Sure, the shots are individually a bit weaker, but you're talking about over double the shot count compared to the Tiger Shark. For a supposed "deadliest unit in 8th" it's sure an underwhelming comparison.

meleti wrote:
LRBTs are 4+ BS, not 2+.

The Tigershark is BS 3+, not 2+, for its HBCs. Only the missile pods and burst cannons get to fire at BS 2+.

They don’t have an invulnerable save, minus to hit, or the alpha strike from 6 missiles.

They don't have the same defense, but they do have 24 total wounds vs. 16 and a much smaller profile that lets them stay out of LOS of some threats (assuming you play with sensible terrain and terrain rules).

As for the alpha strike, so what? It's not like those missiles are free, you're paying full price for them and you could just put them on any other vehicle in your army. The LRBTs can take a pair of hunter-killer missiles if you want to, and you can spam more of the missiles on all of your other IG vehicles. And TBH seeker missiles aren't very impressive anyway. You save 1 point per missile over HKs, but you need markerlights to fire them. If you're investing a lot of points in one-shot missiles you're probably better off buying conventional weapons with those points.

The Punisher is a one damage gun that wounds DE vehicles and Custodes on a 5 instead of a 4.

Again, twice the shots. You have slightly better shots, but you have half the volume of fire. Against multi-wound targets you maybe break even, against single-wound targets (the thing you want to throw tons of low-strength shots at) you do a lot less damage.

IG lack a stratagem to add +1 to wound and thus wound T11 and lower on a 4.

And? If you're going to get into buffs then you need to consider all buffs. Tau get a stratagem that costs 3 CP, locks you into using a specific sept which gives zero benefit to the Tigershark, and requires you to get a wound through with another unit before you can activate it. IG can take the Cadian doctrine and re-roll 1s, take a tank commander and get BS 3+ as well as re-rolling 1s, have a Cadian stratagem that gives a similar +1 to hit if another unit wounds first except it only costs 2 CP instead of 3, a Vostroyan stratagem that adds a flat +1 to hit to a single unit for 1 CP, and I'm probably missing a buff or two. Oh, and on top of having the cheapest units to fill up detachments and get a huge CP pool to power those stratagems IG also have the best CP regen in the game. So no, I wouldn't consider a Tau stratagem to be very impressive here.

I’m not saying that Tiger Sharks break the game, but there’s nothing in the Tau codex (or most codexes) that has such a mix of firepower, high accuracy, speed, and toughness.

Maybe that is true, but only because the Tau codex is fairly weak. Compared to stronger armies the Tigershark is, at best, comparable to some of the standard tournament units/lists. It's hardly the kind of game-breaking thing that is justification for banning FW.

 LunarSol wrote:
I'd agree with this 100%, but the point is the only place you can get a Twin Assault Cannon for the Razorback is from Forge World, but the option is in my Codex.

This is a rarity though. TBH I'm kind of surprised that GW didn't remove the option from the codex, since it doesn't fit their policy of having a plastic kit for everything in the codex and removing any options that don't have one.

meleti wrote:
Yeah, S6 2D is more than twice as good as S5 1D against T6 multiwound models, which just happen to be some of the most important units in the game - Vertus Praetors, Ravagers, Raiders, Hemlocks, Eldar flyers, Necrons vehicles, etc. You’re confusing HBCs with generic Dakka.

But, again, half the volume of fire. S6 D2 may be twice as good, but the LRBTs have twice the shots. That's a break-even situation, in the best case scenario for the Tigershark. Facing hordes of guardsmen/orks/etc? LRBTs win decisively. Facing proper tanks? Neither is great, take real anti-tank weapons*. The Tigershark is only winning against a particular class of targets, and not by a very impressive margin. Maybe that's enough to put it in the category of units that have a role to fill and see some use, but it's hardly the kind of thing that gets it the "one of the most overpowered units in the game" title.

*A Tigershark's HBCs do 5.333 wounds to a T7/8 SV3+ tank. A pair of LR Punishers does 5.444 wounds, even assuming the HBs don't get their AP because I'm lazy. A Shadowsword, for only a small point increase over the Tigershark, removes the tank from the table.

Hilariously, the supposed "best unit in 8th" Tigershark isn't even the best large FW flyer. The Marauder Destroyer is what the Tigershark wishes it could be. Better guns, equal durability, and the ability to delete half a unit each game with mortal wounds. All that for less than 100 points more.

meleti wrote:
HBC are best at shooting multiwound targets below T7

Only by a small margin. Remember, the LRBTs have more than double the shots. The Tigershark is throwing 36+2D6 shots (average 43) if you give up the drones, the LRBTs have 98. You have to out-perform them by a huge margin per-shot to even come close to beating the overall firepower.

Said it was one of the best. There’s a lot of great units.

If there are lots of great units then "one of the best" becomes a meaningless term. You've redefined it to mean "possibly tournament viable" instead of "one of the few overpowered units that most exceed the level of what is appropriate", at which point who cares if it reaches that threshold?

meleti wrote:
2 LRBT (3 HBs), re-roll 1s: 3.76 wounds

Uh, no. It's more than that. The punisher cannons alone are doing 5.18 wounds, and then the heavy bolters add another 1.75 wounds for a total of 6.93. So, your Tigershark is doing less than twice the damage against tanks when compared to an anti-horde LRBT. And it should be noted that a third of your firepower is coming from the highly variable 2D6 missile shots.

Just for fun, let's do the average damage for a Shadowsword, since we're discussing LoW-class models against tanks. The Cadian (because why not re-roll 1s when you never need to move your 120" range gun) Shadowsword does 20.45 wounds to the Predator with its primary weapon, annihilating it with a substantial margin for bad dice, then puts another 7.4 wounds into a second Predator with its secondary weapons. Tigershark doesn't look so hot anymore, does it?

and there’s still seeker missiles that can be fired as well.

Seekers suck, and you aren't taking them, especially in a Tigershark list where the biggest advantage is independence from markerlights. But, as I said, you have to pay for them, and you can put them anywhere in your list. The IG list can match those seekers with HK missiles of its own, and the HK missile alpha strike doesn't rely on markerlight hits. Seeker/HK capacity is of very little value.

Having a torrent of low quality shots doesn’t come close to higher strength multiwound shooting.

Actually it does, when you have more than double the shot count.

And, as you’d expect, going from 1-2 ML to 5 giving the Tiger Shark a 1+ BS that ignores movement penalties makes it that much deadlier against any unit, but especially ones with hit penalties.

Ok, sure, but now you're including a bunch of points in buff units when a major benefit of the Tigershark is that you already have reliable shooting without markerlights (unlike pretty much everything else in the codex). And the LRBTs can get buffs of their own. Want +1 BS? Upgrade them to tank commanders for the cost of a Pathfinder squad that averages 5 ML hits, and the IG +1 BS buff is just always applied instead of depending on keeping your ML sources alive and able to shoot. Oh, and because your tank commanders can order themselves to re-roll 1s you are free to make them Vostroyan instead of Cadian, which means you get to use that 1 CP stratagem which gives another +1 BS to a unit. Now instead of BS 3+ with a re-roll to hit you have BS 2+ with a re-roll, essentially guaranteeing that all 49 of your shots will hit. And god help your opponent if they're playing Chaos, since another 1 CP gives you full re-rolls to hit and wound for a unit.

This is all on a faster unit with an invulnerable save, Fly, and -1 to hit, too.

Which is offset by the LRBTs having 50% more wounds. And remember, that save doesn't matter against anything with worse than AP -3, against another Tigershark (since you praise them so much) the invulnerable save is blank text.

meleti wrote:
Wait. You seem to think Custodes bikes have a 3+ instead of a 2+? That explains your numbers. I’m not sure I should talk to you about competitive balance if you don’t know what a Vertus Praetor does at this point...

Oh, oops. I misread that as "versus Predators".

But sure, let's kill some jetbikes, because the only thing better than killing space marines is killing gold space marines. The Shadowsword, having made an utter joke out of the Tigershark's performance against Predators, puts an average of 19.18 wounds into the idiots in sparkly armor in the shooting phase and then charges them (spending 1 CP to become a god of combat) for another 5 wounds. Granted, the Shadowsword is a bit more prone to overkilling single models because of its greater damage per wound, but I think it's safe to say that some jetbikes are thoroughly dead.

meleti wrote:
I think you’ve made a mistake on the bikes, though, as they’re actually a multiple model unit and most of that damage you’re mentioning is just the Volcano Cannon doing an average of 1.25 unsaved wounds, meaning a lot of that damage is wasted as one unsaved wound can only do a maximum of 4 damage.

That's what I mentioned about overkill. The Shadowsword has a high chance of overkilling models and won't do its full ~25 wounds every turn, but the Tigershark also loses some damage (granted, not as much) to overkill. Even if you assume that half its volcano cannon wounds are lost to overkill (~6.5 wounds) it's still out-performing the Tigershark by a solid margin in the shooting phase and then charging for even more damage.

I’m also not sure what sponsons you’re running, but that Shadowswords is likely significantly more expensive than a TS.

Four sponsons, each with a twin HB and a lascannon. The total is 540 points, compared to ~350-400 points for the Tigershark (depending on how you arm it). That's a significant difference, but the Shadowsword is also out-performing the Tigershark by a significant margin against pretty much any target type. Even against hordes of guardsmen/orks/etc the titan killer specialist is putting out the same average volume of fire, then piling on even more damage in the assault phase. The best you can say for the Tigershark is that in some cases it compares reasonably well with the Shadowsword in damage per point, and it probably won't cost you the game if you bring a Tigershark or three. Which goes back to the original point: the Tigershark looks better than the codex options because most of the Tau codex is underwhelming and the Tigershark avoids several of its flaws, not because it's amazingly powerful compared to tournament-tier units/armies in general.

meleti wrote:
409/379 for the Tiger Shark with/without Seekers yeah. It’s comparable to a naked Shadowsword. Not so much a unit that’s 140-170 points more.

But the point is that the Shadowsword out-performs the Tigershark by a greater margin than the increase in point cost. You pay ~33% more points for more than 33% more power in most situations. In terms of power per point the Shadowsword wins. The Tigershark is not a terrible unit, as it's at least in the same conversation as the Shadowsword, but its perceived power level has far more to do with the Tau codex being deeply flawed than the Tigershark being overpowered relative to tournament-tier stuff in general.

meleti wrote:
The more you mention that Tau are “deeply flawed” the less I am convinced you’re a serious tournament player, or at least an objective one. I’m a bigger Tau homer than anybody but Tau are clearly in the discussion of competitive 40k. Tau sometimes win tournaments and more often Tau finish highly at tournaments. Do you have an axe to grind or something?

I'm not talking about just a competitive tournament context. The Tau codex is underwhelming in a lot of areas, especially for veteran players who played Tau in previous editions. Crisis suits are weak, railguns are weak, our tanks still can't move and shoot effectively, etc. It feels like a lot of the codex is a house of cards where everything, especially the magic laser pointers, has to work together perfectly just to equal what other factions can do with single units. After getting frustrated with crisis suits having poor accuracy and apparently being intended to win through ork-style rolling tons of dice it seems too good to be true when you get a unit like the Tigershark that just plain works. It delivers cost-effective shooting every turn without depending on stratagems or aura bubbles or magic laser pointers. It has BS 3+ by default, no buffs needed. But it's still only comparable to good units from other factions.

 Overread wrote:
I hold the view that the "core" of any GW game is basically the content within the Battletome/codex of any army.

GW disagrees with you, and does not separate army rules into "core" and "expansion".

Rules expansions such as Cities of Death, Malign Sorcery etc... are all expansions to the core rules that you agree to use with your opponent prior to the game (in the case of Malign you might even decide to include which specific parts - eg Endless spells, realm spells, realm artifacts*).
In this context bringing models from the FW site into regular matches is also adding to the base content of the game - ergo its expanded content.

This is not at all the same. Playing a Cities of Death game adds rule changes that affect both players. They change objectives, terrain setup, mission rules, etc. It is not possible to bring a Cities of Death army while your opponent plays without Cities of Death, so of course you have to agree on the use of the expansion. FW rules do not work the same way at all. Bringing a FW unit is no different from bringing a scout squad instead of a tactical squad. It changes what is in your army, but it has no effect on your opponent's army. Therefore the only reason to consider it "optional" and demand special permission is that you feel entitled to veto your opponent's list-building choices if you don't like the units they're taking. It is no better than attempting to tell your opponent that they aren't allowed to bring any transports for their space marines because you don't like that your shooting units have to kill transports before they can get to the passengers.

In reality a lot of people don't use/have access to FW stuff and thus might well not permit its use in games for a variety of reasons.

There is no such thing as not having access to FW stuff. It is 2018, online shopping is the default for everyone over 18. You can choose not to buy FW rules/models, but don't try to claim that it isn't possible for you to do so unless you are a small child who doesn't have money of their own.

The reasons honestly don't matter - like any wargame - you agree with your opponent(s) as to what the game will entail.

Of course the reasons matter. There are legitimate reasons and there are TFG reasons for accepting or rejecting a game. You can't force someone to accept a game because you don't like their reasons, but you can certainly be honest in describing their TFG behavior as exactly that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Overread wrote:
In my view its still adding content to the base game thus its polite and important to inform your opponent that they might well encounter things not in the codex/battletome.

But why draw the line there? I could equally reasonably argue that the original index books are the "base game" and everything else is an expansion, so you'd better be polite and ask permission before using a codex army.

 Overread wrote:
" It is important to note that the rules presented here are optional; they can be used , or not, in any combination that you and your table top adversaries find enjoyable"

GW agrees with me, that's from the first page of the rule segment in Malign Sorcery. The core game has always been the main rule book and codex/battletomes. Nearly every other publication that GW produces is an expansion to those core components; with the exception in recent years of models sold by GW central with Warscrolls/dataslates - as in the past those would have been in the codex/battletome but not released whereas now GW releases the rules after with the model (due to issues with 3rd parties making alternate sculpts before GW can bring them to market themselves).

First of all, that's an AoS book and not relevant here. Second, I said they don't separate army rules. They separate out expansions for different ways of playing the game: different missions, campaigns, etc. But they don't set aside certain unit/upgrade rules and say "these are an optional expansion".

As such agreeing to include units from outside of the codex/battletome in advance is part of what will influence what a player takes in their army.

Knowing if your opponent is taking IG LoW spam or a green tide ork army influences what you take in your army. But it would be ridiculous to suggest that you need to state up front that you're taking some boyz in your army and ask for special permission to do so.

It also confirms for a player that FW is allowed and thus influences their choices on what models they can take as they too can then take FW models as well.

FW being allowed is confirmed by the fact that FW rules are part of the standard game as published by GW. No further confirmation is needed. It may be helpful to confirm that your opponent is not TFG, but I prefer to assume that by default until proven otherwise.

Far as I'm aware many overseas have to pay a lot in postage/import costs for FW models so that's in initial extra barrier right there. Plus many people are under 18 in this game. There are still those with more limited access to FW models/unit options - yes even in 2018,

"This model costs more than I want to pay for it" is not the same as not having access. Otherwise guess what, your codex costs more than I want to pay so you're only allowed to use the index rules.

And sure, there are people under 18. Most of them are people I have zero interest in playing, and therefore their concerns don't really matter to me. They can have their special starter set only game in the corner and leave the rest of us alone.

The key is that you and your opponent agree to what you are both going to play in advance of the game beginning and you putting models on the table. All I'm saying is that when it comes to the inclusion of FW models its a point that is raised as an extra as opposed to accepted as the default state for a game.

And all I'm saying is that when it comes to the inclusion of codex rules its a point that is raised as an extra as opposed to accepted as the default state for a game. Your position is no more reasonable than mine.

Danny slag wrote:
All you have to do to answer this question is look at the WAAC tournament scene and see everyone spam the gak out of broken forgeworld models.

Just like they spam broken codex models, therefore ban codex rules.

 Mmmpi wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
They don't need a "be nice" approach when there is no reason to be anti-FW in the first place.

So the best solution to someone who politely tells you they don't play with the same toy men as you is to be the biggest jerk you can. That'll show em'

FW bans are not polite.

w1zard wrote:
The counter to that though is the view that (for example) the Imperial Guard codex is the Imperial Guard codex, and that anything that ADDS to it is an optional expansion (CA is an errata/FAQ). In the same way that the core rules are the core rules, and that anything that adds to it (cities of death... etc) is just an optional expansion.

That is no more reasonable than arguing that the rules for Imperial Guard are Index Imperium II, and anything that ADDS to it is an optional expansion therefore you need to ask special permission before using your optional Codex: Imperial Guard expansion.

w1zard wrote:
Except that GW stated in the core rules that you are supposed to use the latest datasheets for things published in the index, which means that codex>index except under certain circumstances. I have yet to see anything in the core rules regarding the legitimacy of forgeworld units.

{citation needed}

I know that GW published something like that in one of their optional FAQ/errata expansions, but I'd expect you to ask special permission before using any of that in your army.

w1zard wrote:
https://i.redd.it/n3g7779rddyz.jpg

I'm sorry, but did you just quote from an optional FAQ/errata expansion to "prove" that the expansion is mandatory? If I choose not to use this optional expansion then none of its contents, including the page you quoted, apply.

FAQ and erratas are not optional. You either use them or you are not playing "real" 40k.

Forge World rules are not optional. You either use them or you are not playing "real" 40k.

Learn the difference between an optional ruleset and an actual rule please.

Learn the difference between the rules as published by GW and your personal house rules about how you like to play your games please.

 kadeton wrote:
I don't feel comfortable playing against Forgeworld units, because they tend to upset any sense of thematic coherency in an army. Armies tend to have "baked-in" weaknesses or limitations as part of their core theme, which to some extent offset their strengths. When one design team is creating units with those limitations in mind, and the other is adding units that "fill the gaps" in the first team's work, they are working in opposition.

You mean like how 8th edition added soup and allowed Imperial armies to mix in whatever units they want to cover their weaknesses? Need a horde of meatshields and a CP battery for your gold space marines? IG detachment has you covered. Need some melee troops for your IG army? Oh hi BA, you'll be useful. Your chapter doesn't have a primarch yet? How convenient, Ultramarines do and they're always willing to help. Conclusion: codex rules upset thematic coherency and should be banned.

Is it because they think the unit is unusually powerful, or to attempt to work around an intended limitation of their army?

You mean just like how the same people pick codex rules based on what is most powerful or works around intended limitations? If you show up with a codex army you'd better explain to me why you chose to use a codex and those particular units, because I need to understand your motives for doing so and your goals for the game.