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.

The question will be who will be the one to repost it again next week to restart the whole thing all over again? lol

 Massaen wrote:
40k (and almost any game for the matter) is all about the social contract between 2 players. You have to be mutually in agreement to play.

P1 - hey, want a game?
P2 - sure! 40K?
P1 - Yup, 1750 ok?
P2 - no probs, I would prefer battle forged though
P1 - all good. Happy with that - you ok with my FW (insert unit here)?
P2 - you got the rules handy for me to read?
P1 - here you go!

See how easy that is!

Of course someone can say no to many points in the above but the key is an open dialogue. When you both agree the game is much easier as the expectations are met on both sides. Telling the opponent its your tourney list would be good manners, as would be using a FW unit. This again sets expectations as they know what type of game they are in for.

Your list doesn't mention detachments, formations, LOW, Knights, large fortifications, etc that are new to 40k in the last two years and plenty of folks don't like playing against but are now unfortunately completely legal. There is a lot of stuff that GW has crammed down "regular" 40k's throat from the apocalypse side that plenty of players don't appreciate facing in normal sized games. A formations/detachments that gives you a bunch of bonuses for ZERO points making it a no brainer if you've got those models? Knights that are effectively LOW that you can field multiples of in a "normal" game? Minmaxed mashups from a half dozen sources in a 1500pt game (whether battleforged or unbound) that resemble a 5 year old's Thundercats teaming up with Ninja Turtles to help their buddies the Autobots on the battlefield that is under the coffee table more than a traditional wargame? Every game of 40k now is potentially a 5th edition apocalypse game.

If you prefer a more traditional 40k wargame experience, there is alot more to "negotiate" before a game than your overly simplistic example indicates. I'm not saying that any of the above is illegal but rather that it is legal. GW has shifted the stuff above from legal in apocalypse and permission only in 40k to just plain legal as a ham fisted attempt to sell every model to every player at the expense of the semblance of balance in the game. I don't play much 40k (and buy almost nothing more importantly) because of the changes that GW has chosen as the direction the game is heading and it doesn't seem like I'm the only one from their recent sales data.

 warboss wrote:
I don't play much 40k (and buy almost nothing more importantly) because of the changes that GW has chosen as the direction the game is heading and it doesn't seem like I'm the only one from their recent sales data.

Which does make your opinion slightly less relevant amirite ?

Sometimes I wonder why people who have "forsaken" 40K feel the need to share their doom and gloom with those who obviously haven't.

We are still having fun, too bad you aren't.

morgoth wrote:


Which does make your opinion slightly less relevant amirite ?

Sometimes I wonder why people who have "forsaken" 40K feel the need to share their doom and gloom with those who obviously haven't.

We are still having fun, too bad you aren't.

Because they would like to get more out of 40k, and would love to support GW if they pulled their head out of their ass?

Unless all you want to hear is a self-congratulatory circle jerk of people praising GW, get used to people who are on their way out, partly out, or contemplating getting out posting on these forums.

Posts like yours are completely useless, not to mention the fact that you are dismissing a good post because the person said they aren't playing that much.

If anyone's opinion is less relevant, its yours.

I think anyone who's been involved in a discussion about 40K with Morgoth knows to prioritise his opinion appropriately.

morgoth wrote:

 warboss wrote:
I don't play much 40k (and buy almost nothing more importantly) because of the changes that GW has chosen as the direction the game is heading and it doesn't seem like I'm the only one from their recent sales data.

Which does make your opinion slightly less relevant amirite ?

Sometimes I wonder why people who have "forsaken" 40K feel the need to share their doom and gloom with those who obviously haven't.

We are still having fun, too bad you aren't.

As an author, I take my critics' opinions far more seriously than I take praise. The critics are the ones telling you what to fix. If anything, a criticism is more valid than praise. It's to GW's detriment that they refuse to listen.

 MWHistorian wrote:
As an author, I take my critics' opinions far more seriously than I take praise. The critics are the ones telling you what to fix. If anything, a criticism is more valid than praise. It's to GW's detriment that they refuse to listen.

Yes, but this is a thread about what a guy fielding Forge World should expect.

Should he really expect people who said they don't like anything new, don't like 40K, barely even play it, etc. ?

Maybe not.

morgoth wrote:

 MWHistorian wrote:
As an author, I take my critics' opinions far more seriously than I take praise. The critics are the ones telling you what to fix. If anything, a criticism is more valid than praise. It's to GW's detriment that they refuse to listen.

Yes, but this is a thread about what a guy fielding Forge World should expect.

Should he really expect people who said they don't like anything new, don't like 40K, barely even play it, etc. ?

Maybe not.

As a new player, yes, I'd want to be aware of any potential problems before I start and weigh the pros and cons. Not hearing the cons isn't helping anyone.

 MWHistorian wrote:

morgoth wrote:

 MWHistorian wrote:
As an author, I take my critics' opinions far more seriously than I take praise. The critics are the ones telling you what to fix. If anything, a criticism is more valid than praise. It's to GW's detriment that they refuse to listen.

Yes, but this is a thread about what a guy fielding Forge World should expect.

Should he really expect people who said they don't like anything new, don't like 40K, barely even play it, etc. ?

Maybe not.

As a new player, yes, I'd want to be aware of any potential problems before I start and weigh the pros and cons. Not hearing the cons isn't helping anyone.

Exactly this. It's not helping anyone to just say yes, you have to preface it (as I did) that yes you can but it's frowned upon to spring it on people.

Persoally, if i were a new playe who warted to know if you cared if I used a FW model or not, I'd want a simple yes or no not an hour long tirade about how evil GW is or how great it is. ESPECIALLY one oth sides telling the other they are right or wrong and that their opinions and views are invalid.

It is ALWAYS a good idea to discuss it with your locals and local TO. When you go online, you should expect a soapbox convention that turns into a barroom brawl.
I'm beginning to think thats why people start these threads every other week, just to watch the baroom brawl. lol

WayneTheGame wrote:

 MWHistorian wrote:

morgoth wrote:

 MWHistorian wrote:
As an author, I take my critics' opinions far more seriously than I take praise. The critics are the ones telling you what to fix. If anything, a criticism is more valid than praise. It's to GW's detriment that they refuse to listen.

Yes, but this is a thread about what a guy fielding Forge World should expect.

Should he really expect people who said they don't like anything new, don't like 40K, barely even play it, etc. ?

Maybe not.

As a new player, yes, I'd want to be aware of any potential problems before I start and weigh the pros and cons. Not hearing the cons isn't helping anyone.

Exactly this. It's not helping anyone to just say yes, you have to preface it (as I did) that yes you can but it's frowned upon to spring it on people.

I think that buying FW models is a terrible idea for new 40k players. Aside from the problems that just stem from unfamiliarity by other players, they're expensive (in terms of real money), generally don't provide much of an "advantage", and certainly don't replace learning by playing. They're also all resin and significantly harder to work with than plastic models. Plus, because you have exotic game pieces, people have higher expectations of your game skill

I certainly have nothing against FW, and I love seeing them in a game; I just think that it's better to start with more conventional units. Sure, there are some FW models that are superior to their non-FW counterparts, but not so much that it's game-breaking.

morgoth wrote:

 warboss wrote:
I don't play much 40k (and buy almost nothing more importantly) because of the changes that GW has chosen as the direction the game is heading and it doesn't seem like I'm the only one from their recent sales data.

Which does make your opinion slightly less relevant amirite ?

Sometimes I wonder why people who have "forsaken" 40K feel the need to share their doom and gloom with those who obviously haven't.

We are still having fun, too bad you aren't.

No, urnotrite. You're in fact incredibly wrong and I'm glad folks responded before me because a response commensurate with the level of ignorance you show in that response would likely break Rule #1. In a nutshell, if you personally buy out my 18,000pts of fully painted and based 40k models only then is my opinion slightly less relevant. Just because I don't like the IMO short-sighted directions GW has taken recently doesn't mean that my existing rather large investment of time and money in the game along with my opinion suddenly becomes less relevant.

And, btw, I didn't forsake 40k. It is more correct to say that players who prefer the 3rd through 5th edition style of one army per player "standard" games without all the trappings of apocalypse were forsaken by GW.

@the OP:

Basically, yes, you *SHOULD* still tell your opponent ahead of time. The FW rules say you should in effect tell your opponent ahead of time (as quoted by Yak) and the main rules say that you should *AGREE* with your opponent ahead of time about how to make up your armies. Common accepted courtesy (regardless of a few outspoken "FW is legal and you can't stop me!" diehards) indicates you should discuss it ahead of time and not just spring something uncommonly seen from an alternate (but still official) source on a stranger if you ever want to play against them again. I say that as someone who owns and uses FW models and FW rules. I'd also suggest trying if possible to come up with a codex "alternate" use for your model in case the person says no. I've got two primarchs that I'm working into a small Space Wolf force at the moment. In apocalypse or really big games, I plan on playing them as primarchs. I'm also trying to model them so that I can use them within the Space Wolf codex in smaller games or when my opponent objects to LOW or FW rules. A quickie solution would be (and this is coming from a way out of date ork player) is to compare the size of the squiggoth to the models in the codex and to model it as a possible "counts as" battlewagon or somesuch in case you encounter resistance. It's not wise IMO to make a FW army list that can't at all (whether at the same or less points) be played as a "codex" one.

 warboss wrote:

morgoth wrote:

 warboss wrote:
I don't play much 40k (and buy almost nothing more importantly) because of the changes that GW has chosen as the direction the game is heading and it doesn't seem like I'm the only one from their recent sales data.

Which does make your opinion slightly less relevant amirite ?

Sometimes I wonder why people who have "forsaken" 40K feel the need to share their doom and gloom with those who obviously haven't.

We are still having fun, too bad you aren't.

No, urnotrite. You're in fact incredibly wrong and I'm glad folks responded before me because a response commensurate with the level of ignorance you show in that response would likely break Rule #1. In a nutshell, if you personally buy out my 18,000pts of fully painted and based 40k models only then is my opinion slightly less relevant. Just because I don't like the IMO short-sighted directions GW has taken recently doesn't mean that my existing rather large investment of time and money in the game along with my opinion suddenly becomes less relevant.

I was merely pointing out that the opinion of those who do not play (or barely) 40K is not very relevant to someone who's asking about people he IS going to play.

Which are unlikely to be you because you barely play 40K and are so pissed about everything new or ForgeWorld that you probably protect yourself from it by not accepting any pick-up game.

morgoth wrote:


I was merely pointing out that the opinion of those who do not play (or barely) 40K is not very relevant to someone who's asking about people he IS going to play.

And everyone else is pointing out how incredibly moronic your point is.

Well, Morgoth, you can't win with Waveserpent spam apparently, so how valid does that make your opinion?

morgoth wrote:
I was merely pointing out that the opinion of those who do not play (or barely) 40K is not very relevant to someone who's asking about people he IS going to play.

Which are unlikely to be you because you barely play 40K and are so pissed about everything new or ForgeWorld that you probably protect yourself from it by not accepting any pick-up game.

If you don't think that he's ever going to bump into someone who is at the store looking for a game that only plays occasionally but is unhappy with the current mindset of GW regarding the direction 40k is taking yet is still looking for a game, that's a pretty naive assumption. Players come in all sizes and flavors from "Derp...I'm happy that I can use everything!" unbound types all the way to "Hrumpf... Why can't I use my Rogue Trader beastmen band like I use to!" old timers. I still bring a 40k army with me every time I go to the games store but it went from my game of choice to the "backup" game that I'm likely to be able to get in just in case the one I actually want to play is cancelled. That is the effect that the cramming of apocalypse into normal 40k has had on my own interest. If GW got their heads out of the sand and returned some semblance of balance and organization to the game again, I'd give it another shot. Unfortunately, the premature cash grab 7th edition doubled down on the insanity.

As for the FW comment, I've been buying, building, and using FW stuff for over a decade. I generally (with a few exceptions) have no problems facing it as long as the opponent gives me the common courtesy of telling me ahead of time and having the MOST RECENT rules there for me to refer to as needed.

Gentlemen, the tone ITT is way too hostile. This is a forum about the fun of playing with toy soldiers. Please take a break if you find yourself irritated with other users to the point of making harsh posts. Thanks!

 Azreal13 wrote:
I think anyone who's been involved in a discussion about 40K with Morgoth knows to prioritise his opinion appropriately.

Except he's not incorrect this time? I get that it's Morgoth, but if he's right, he's right. The opinion of someone that doesn't actually play the game and simply lurks in the corner of the Internet hating the new direction of the game matters little to me, compared to someone actually playing the game that hates the new direction.
The main question is whether or not that direction is good. I can't complain. People say that you have to negotiate, but at most you just have to negotiate the point range. I don't care if LOW or FW is used since they're part of the game, and it's not my fault someone simply can't accept that.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Azreal13 wrote:
I think anyone who's been involved in a discussion about 40K with Morgoth knows to prioritise his opinion appropriately.

Except he's not incorrect this time? I get that it's Morgoth, but if he's right, he's right. The opinion of someone that doesn't actually play the game and simply lurks in the corner of the Internet hating the new direction of the game matters little to me, compared to someone actually playing the game that hates the new direction.
The main question is whether or not that direction is good. I can't complain. People say that you have to negotiate, but at most you just have to negotiate the point range. I don't care if LOW or FW is used since they're part of the game, and it's not my fault someone simply can't accept that.

No, he is not. Absolutely everyone is entitled to their opinion, and if it is informed opinion, then it's validity should be weighed against everyone else's.

I haven't played 40K in about 6 weeks, does that suddenly make my opinion less valid than someone who played at the weekend? Does the opinion of a 20 year vet who stopped 6 months ago count for more or less than a 3 month rookie who's been playing 4 times a week since his first game?

No, it is a stupid assertion, every thought, opinion and argument should be considered on it's own merits, if someone is poorly informed because they've not played in a long time, then their arguments won't hold up, if they're well informed enough to effectively argue a point, then the last time they rolled dice in anger becomes irrelevant.

The poster in question that Morgoth so eloquently dismissed had provided nothing but accurate information and the potential downfalls of the system 40k is headed towards. The same poster also said that they play less, but that they still play. The reasons for not playing are relevant, as questions of 'legality' and list building and negotiation wear people out.

The issue with Morgoth is that he dismissed a poster out of hand because they don't play often. Frankly, its ludicrous. As long as the post is informed and correct, I see no reason the level of play of someone has on the discussion and their validity.

If you want to take other factors surrounding a certain poster into account, consider that Morgoth thinks Wave Serpents aren't broken. That speaks volumes more to me than someone who is getting out of 40k for reasons relevant to this discussion.

In short, Morgoth is very incorrect. He is very far from right.

As for the negotiation thing, it provides barriers to pick up games. That's the issue. The negotiating can be easy; it can end at any point when someone disagrees on something. Which is part of the issue. Further to this, the notion of a TAC list is slowly vanishing, when you have to prepare for everything you used to, plus flyers, superheavies, and fortifications.

Everything is part of the game, but that's not what a lot of people want.

I was happy having Apoc as its own game. Now, every game is Apoc, like it or not. Colour me not surprised when people recoil against it or leave entirely.

morgoth wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:
It is highly unlikely that when an Ork player tells his opponent "I'm bringing a LoW next week" he is referring to a Transcendent C'Tan.

Unless he really really wants to win of course.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I'd be happy to see a Squiggoth.

And then I would table you because it's a really weak choice.

I don't think I can be pissed when my opponent doesn't cheat+win.

Since Squiggoth is neither cheat nor win, I don't mind.

Apparently, some people get all sandy when FW is mentioned, or Imperial Knights, or non 6x4 tables.

i am gonna ask this and its OT. why do you play 40k on a non 6x4? i dont think iv ever played a "standard" sized game on anything other. and only go bigger at the 4k+ points a side.

I would have thought most opponents would love to see a well painted new model and will relish the challenge of trying to kill it. Depends on the person of course. You could always take it and take some alternatives just in case.

Ff

 calarok wrote:
I found your comparison really bad... D&D, really? their is a DM, the god of the rules! The DM is always right, their is no such thing in W40k!

Please stop posting answer like : He can refuse if he want for any reason! ( DUDE, TRUST ME, I KNOW!!)

That wasnt the main question... or the main answer a was looking for (because i had my answer several time in this thread)

What do you want then?

If you want to know if FW is legal to use and we say "yes" - then that answer alone means nothing. What if your opponent denieds to play against FW? Would you rub the page with the rule on it under his nose, shouting "YOU MAY NOT REFUSE" at him?

Rules are rules. Ultimatively, your opponent decides if he plays or not. Regardless of the rules.