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.

But I see homebrewed rules as being an important part of the Hobby.

Be it a one off character for a campaign, or a scratchbuilt super killy tank, I say go for it. It really puzzles me why people keep using the word 'legal'. It's not as if you're going to get lifted by the pigs for it, nor is anyone likely to sue you.

Mr Mystery wrote:But I see homebrewed rules as being an important part of the Hobby.

Be it a one off character for a campaign, or a scratchbuilt super killy tank, I say go for it. It really puzzles me why people keep using the word 'legal'. It's not as if you're going to get lifted by the pigs for it, nor is anyone likely to sue you.

Yes , i understand its fun , refreshing , and again, FUN. a Normal 40k game i"normal" in the sense you wont be carrying your Reaver Titan to every 40k game you play with, why?
surely you can? but why do people not do that? Is it not because they KNOW FW units belongs only in games where everyone is expected to have FW units?

Actually can you reply to this?

All the GW expansions: Imperial Armor, Cities of Death , Apocalypse , Planet strike holds water legally 100% you say? Then lets look at this in a reversed angle.
Would you be able to field an army with units that is mixed with all the expansions combined together? ( hypothetically speaking , "yes" because like you guys said a billion times already, "anything s fine if you agreed to it with your opponent")
but realistically speaking , "No" anyone that did that asking for a game, you'll be laughed at. Why? Because then it gets painfully obvious that they arnt meant to be mixed outside their expansion games into a normal GW game.

So would you mix GW army book into the different expansion games? You can? why? Because they are designed with that in mind. GW army codex can be mixed with all those expansions perfectly , but not vice versa , why?
the "why" is what most of you are missing in amidst the confusion of " a game needs 2 player to agree with to begin with... "

Well, I would if I could make head or tail of what it's actually asking.

Put it this way, I'm cheap, nasty gaming crack ho, who'll play just about anyone, twice or more if I enjoy it.

Got a wacky army? Stick it on. Got a WAACy army? Stick it on. I prefer a narrative campaign, but am happy to go with any old John to get my gaming rocks off.

If you want to play an Apocalypse Game, using CoD terrain rules etc, under a Planetstrike Mission, bring it on!

Bring them on. The bigger they are, the more points they are worth.

ok

it's rare that this happens, but...

Mr Mystery wrote:Put it this way, I'm cheap, nasty gaming crack ho, who'll play just about anyone, twice or more if I enjoy it.

Got a wacky army? Stick it on. Got a WAACy army? Stick it on. I prefer a narrative campaign, but am happy to go with any old John to get my gaming rocks off.

If you want to play an Apocalypse Game, using CoD terrain rules etc, under a Planetstrike Mission, bring it on!

Yeah. What he said.

Back in the day we were JONESING for anything more then the four basic tanks and the truck.

Now we have them, we have D bag mentality on the brain about "Officially official." The point of fact is that these forgeworld guys are 40K races, but not your generic D bag list run of the mill cookie cutter armies from the codex, so people have an issue with them.

If you don't like them, go play the GW WW2 game with the forgeworld guys. pfft. I'll just go out on a limb here and saw it off.

!@##kids! Get off of my lawn!

As far as I am concerned FW units that are not superheavy/flyers are fair game in normal 40k, in recent IA books most units are labeled as taking up a standard FOC slot, and personally I have never seen a FW unit totally ruin a game.

In games besides tournaments (because we all know professional army men is serious business) I welcome different lists and playstyles and I find that FW units add to the background and offer players more choices when building their forces, second if somebody is going to throw a tantrum over something so mind-boggling and insignificant I can gaurentee that that person isn't an enjoyable opponent in any setting.

Alas what started as a constructive thread has degenerated into an inevitable pissing contest between those who accept and those who scorn FW models, and in my opinion I have not seen the nay sayers parrot one valid reason why I should not be able to use my Vulture in my IG lists, H.M.B.C if we werent continents apart I would invite you to a game because you seem to be one of those rare few that still possess a brain.

Just my opinion

play the damn game, if the concept of flavor and variety terrifies some of you, you don't deserve the great hobby that is warhammer 40k.

Here is what you should do. Take

The Night Stalker wrote: play the damn game, if the concept of flavor and variety terrifies some of you, you don't deserve the great hobby that is warhammer 40k.

And apply it to

The Night Stalker wrote:As far as I am concerned FW units that are not superheavy/flyers are fair game in normal 40k

And leave the insults out, I have no brain?

The Night Stalker wrote:I have not seen the nay sayers parrot one valid reason why I should not be able to use my Vulture in my IG lists, H.M.B.C if we werent continents apart I would invite you to a game because you seem to be one of those rare few that still possess a brain.

Actually they have , or i have , and i well say it again. Where does one draw the line to judge what can and cannot be used? Who is qualified to if its not stated by FW? me? or you?
Now, "Vulture is fine" ? sure says you right? ( well sure im fine with it too! ) k , then why isnt Reaver Titans fine as well all of a sudden ? Are you again, going to be the one that says its not fine? why not?

See the problem with inconsistencies? Funny, this isnt just some discussion of not liking FW or not owning FW complaints.
I would very much love to have FW units in the games i play , but before that , we need consistencies. Which according even to your own posts, DID NOT HAVE.

Your turn :3

biccat wrote:

Worglock wrote:

biccat wrote:
Second, some units in FW lists may be overpowered and shouldn't be allowed at a game. I have no interest in going through your "codex" to figure out what those units are to decide if I want to play against your list.

So. What army do you play?

Thousand sons.

You have no problem beating me with a generic list, please leave your overpowered FW stuff at the door.

Forgeworld lists aren't overpowered. They're much more balanced than the GW codex.

The IA rules for things like Imperial Guard equivalents are hilariously more balanced. Just look at the availability of special weapons in the Command and Vet squads. It's really easy to min-max Codex IG. It's basically impossible to do that with the Imperial Armor lists.

A Mechanized IG army is infinitely more "overpowered" than any list FW has ever produced, outside of possibly the lists that allow you to field armies made up entirely of vehicles (Dread Mob, Armored company).

LunaHound wrote:Here is what you should do. Take

The Night Stalker wrote: play the damn game, if the concept of flavor and variety terrifies some of you, you don't deserve the great hobby that is warhammer 40k.

And apply it to

The Night Stalker wrote:As far as I am concerned FW units that are not superheavy/flyers are fair game in normal 40k

And leave the insults out, I have no brain?

The Night Stalker wrote:I have not seen the nay sayers parrot one valid reason why I should not be able to use my Vulture in my IG lists, H.M.B.C if we werent continents apart I would invite you to a game because you seem to be one of those rare few that still possess a brain.

Actually they have , or i have , and i well say it again. Where does one draw the line to judge what can and cannot be used? Who is qualified to if its not stated by FW? me? or you?
Now, Vulture is fine? sure says you right? k , then why isnt Reaver Titans fine as well? are you again, going to be the one that says its not fine? why not?

See the problem with inconsistencies? Funny, this isnt just some discussion of not liking FW or not owning FW complaints.
I would very much love to have FW units in my games, but before that , we need consistencies. Which according to your own posts, DID NOT HAVE.

Your turn

I agree that there is a line, but this whole thread is reminding me of the god awful mess that is the WYSIWYG debate, its just some of the opinions are just silly are people really that afarid of change? But as I said before superheavy units/flyer models have their place in apocalypse so the whole reaver titan debate is a moot point, I am concerned about models like the thunderer, destroyer, vulture, hazard suits, ect. In my opinion these are legal units in all respects and should not garner a shouting match.

Alright , lets take it one step at a time k?

I agree that there is a line

Thank you, thats shows there are some logics to this issue.

but this whole thread is reminding me of the god awful mess that is the WYSIWYG debate

Im afraid the mess isnt due to a debate, if you looked carefully ( and many people have agreed with me )
people seemed to be confused with 2 separate issues been mixed into one.

its just some of the opinions are just silly are people really that afarid of change?

Take me for example, do you think im afraid of change? I sure am not as i can get FW units if they interest me.
However! im not going to assume that everyone behaves like me, im sure there might be some that hates on FW for the reason that irked you.
So again, me for example. The only change i actually want, is for FW to acknowledge the whole FW is indeed an expansion that is suited , made for , 40k game intended usage.
Which means, even Tournaments will allow them.

But as I said before superheavy units/flyer models have their place in apocalypse so the whole reaver titan debate is a moot point

No it really is not, because they all came from the same IA series . And again , i dont think you or me , are qualified to draw the line. IN FACT, IF the original intend was clear,
it wouldnt need us players to draw the line. at. all. Just like i mentioned about YMDC and its mess can only be corrected by an official FAQ from GW.

I am concerned about models like the thunderer, destroyer, vulture, hazard suits, ect. In my opinion these are legal units in all respects and should not garner a shouting match.

By your definition of "legal" , i think you pretty much meant "fair to be used, as in the unit type / unit rule / unit cost" would adjust nicely to GW codex units?
However thats not the case, if it is indeed truly legal, again, the Reaver Titan have just as much right.

The Night Stalker wrote: and in my opinion I have not seen the nay sayers parrot one valid reason why I should not be able to use my Vulture in my IG lists

You most certainly are able to bring your Vulture in your IG lists.....you just need to agree with our opponent that you are playing an Imperial Armour expansion game.

LunaHound wrote:

But as I said before superheavy units/flyer models have their place in apocalypse so the whole reaver titan debate is a moot point

No it really is not, because they all came from the same IA series . And again , i dont think you or me , are qualified to draw the line. IN FACT, IF the original intend was clear,
it wouldnt need us players to draw the line. at. all. Just like i mentioned about YMDC and its mess can only be corrected by an official FAQ from GW.

Actually, I believe the line (for super-heavies, at least - not sure about non-super-heavy flyers) is drawn by their inability to satisfy the FOC requirements for most standard scenarios. AS someone mentioned earlier (either in this or the other FW thread), you can't get a Reaver to be 1 HQ and 2 Troops selections - most Super-Heavy Detachments are defined as 1-3 of a specific super-heavy.

Ergo, you can't use a super-heavy within the standard framework until you hit a second (or later) FOC, which I believe is set at around 2500 points - and at that point, isn't Apocalypse a better fit anyway?

Well I wouldn't state it like that, but I would tell my opponent that I would be using it and provide the appropriate datasheet. Its just to have them decline a game with me just because of the presence of the vulture would annoy me. TBH If both players are polite and dedicated to having a good game I cant see the presence of FW gear that fits in with codex units becoming a problem.

Perhaps I should have been more clear in my initial post, both players should be familiar and have access to the printed rules in case they aren't. And I can't see this not working, its just those that have the conception that FW units are akin to cheating due to thier "epic overpoweredness" that gets under my skin.

So let me inquire Steelmage, lets say we are playing each other, annihilation, pitched battle (total BRB setup) would you have a problem with the presence of my vulture (I own IAA2 which has the correct datasheet.)

You do know that your argumenting symantics now?


At first, we're talking 2nd or third hand options here. We might as well talk to that pole over there when your sitting there steadly stuck on the same tired old - "You have to have your opponents permission?" What exactly are we talking about here with this thought process?

Luna's on a roll, and The Night Stalker here hit it exactly on the head when he mentioned the issues we had back in the day with the WYSIWYG mode of thinking from back in the day. The exact issue that particular list that brought to the table is the exactly the same one we see here today with FW's stuff.

Are you going to continue to parrot the point, ( albet now past the point of even relevent?) that "You need permission" like that has anything to do with the conversation? Reel that back in and come back to reality...

"NOW that we have the offending opponents "Permission"....

We will never all agree, and neither side will succeed in swaying other. Personally I'm up for for anything and everything, those who aren't its your loss. If I was to place my vulture/thunderer/destroyer on the table and my opponent flew into an "unofficial FW" induced rage, I would simply find a different opponent. People will argue until the end of time, those with such strict guidelines in reference to what can/can not be facing them isn't worth your time.

As for you Luna I fear this argument is moot no matter how it is addressed and all sums up to opinion, I don't know how familiar you are with IA material but most units nowadays are codex compatible meaning that in the datasheet for the vulture there is a line of text that states "1-3 vultures are a fast attack choice for an IG army" note that superheavy/gargants/flyers DO NOT HAVE that piece of info which clearly sets them apart from other units so you can stop mentioning the reaver now, AFAIK units that take up FOC slots are valid, they have a points cost, stat line, ect I don't konw how it can be clearer.

And BTW this futile thread does represent the WYSIWYG perfectly due to two reasons
1. Nobody will ever agree
2. Nobody will ever agree

Grot 6 wrote:Back in the day we were JONESING for anything more then the four basic tanks and the truck.

Now we have them, we have D bag mentality on the brain about "Officially official." The point of fact is that these forgeworld guys are 40K races, but not your generic D bag list run of the mill cookie cutter armies from the codex, so people have an issue with them.

If you don't like them, go play the GW WW2 game with the forgeworld guys. pfft. I'll just go out on a limb here and saw it off.

!@##kids! Get off of my lawn!

I love your posts Grot. That make my posts look rational and sane.

balance wrote:

The Happy Pig: Also, the Space Wolves Codex, Dark Elder Codex, etc. are published by Games Workshop. Imperial Armor is published by Forge World, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Games Workshop.

They are separate entities, albeit nested and intertwined.

This is an interesting topic to me not because I really care either way but because it's interesting how people do feel the need to set boundaries, albeit somewhat arbitrarily.

If we accept that the entity 'Forge World' has the authority to speak on rules with the same authority as other branches of Games Workshop, doesn't this mean that every Store Employee's rulings are also binding? They are speaking as representatives of Games Workshop as well.

The manual for my car was not made by Ford, it was made by a third party operating under license from Ford. Does this mean it is not compatible? As an end user, it does not (Or should not) matter who made it. If it is stamped with Ford, Games Workshop, Sony or whatever brand name, does this not make it an official product?

Also, a lot of the people where I live do think the the word of the GW employees is pretty much law. I don't go to the shop myself, but I know the store staff said that any SM chapter can now take a Storm raven, now every SM player in town owns one and will argue to the point of violence that it is legal.

Steelmage99 wrote:

Forgive me for cutting a lot of your quotes out. It is not for lack of respect, but rather for nicer formatting.

The texts you quote are not permission to "use at will". It is rules telling you HOW to use the army WHEN you have agreed with your opponent to do so.
It is much like using the argument; "The unit says that it is a Heavy Support in an Ork army" as a way to be allowed to field it at will. It is not. It is simply instructions on how to field it when allowed to.

Missions have nothing to do with the legality and use of expansions.

You said that there were no rules for using them in a normal game. I gave evidence that there are. You still haven't defined a 'normal' game.

LunaHound wrote:
Like i mentioned in earlier post in previous page , we arnt talking about count as.
Im sure all the extra chapter Marine kits , DKOK ( i used this example earlier ) could easily count as the counter parts and be used in the appropriate GW SM . IG army books.

Im talking about the FW units that arnt in our normal GW codex. anywhere from Blight Drones to Super Heavy Tanks to Small Eldar Titans to Large Reaver Titans.

You guys claimed, sure some of the smaller tanks are over costed hence its fine , then how about the larger Titans?
where does one draw the line? who holds the qualification to draw the line? There are no consistency!
Im not against FW , i LOVE FW items, but there needs to be pre planned ,designed , and printed by FW that they created those with Normal 40k games in mind , not just to go with the other FW expansion units.

All the GW expansions: Imperial Armor, Cities of Death , Apocalypse , Planet strike holds water legally 100% you say? Then lets look at this in a reversed angle.
Would you be able to field an army with units that is mixed with all the expansions combined together? ( hypothetically speaking , "yes" because like you guys said a billion times already, "anything s fine if you agreed to it with your opponent")
but realistically speaking , "No" anyone that did that asking for a game, you'll be laughed at. Why? Because then it gets painfully obvious that they arnt meant to be mixed outside their expansion games into a normal GW game.

So would you mix GW army book into the different expansion games? You can? why? Because they are designed with that in mind. GW army codex can be mixed with all those expansions perfectly , but not vice versa , why?
the "why" is what most of you are missing in amidst the confusion of " a game needs 2 player to agree with to begin with... "

Its 2 completely 2 separate issue some of you are attempting to mix into this argument. Its also why more than half of the posters here kept bringing up "home brewed rules to be compared with FW IA....
they hold the same amount of water" under that theory of 2 players agreeing. "

I don't even know why you quoted me on this one. I'm not talking about counts as either. And I don't know where the arguments about 'Super Heavy Tanks to Small Eldar Titans to Large Reaver Titans.' keep on coming from, unless you have a different FOC in your brb than the one I have in mine, because there are not FOC slots marked 'super heavy' or 'flyer' in my rule book.

As I took great lengths to explain earlier, The army lists in IA books are designed to be used in conjunction with the FOC in the brb. Ergo, they are designed to be used in a standard game.

LunaHound wrote:
Yes , i understand its fun , refreshing , and again, FUN. a Normal 40k game i"normal" in the sense you wont be carrying your Reaver Titan to every 40k game you play with, why?
surely you can? but why do people not do that? Is it not because they KNOW FW units belongs only in games where everyone is expected to have FW units?

There you go again with your magic brb that allows Super Heavy walkers in a standard game. And I have seen no evidence of a rule that states FW units only belong in a game where everyone is expected to have FW units.

LunaHound wrote:

Actually they have , or i have , and i well say it again. Where does one draw the line to judge what can and cannot be used? Who is qualified to if its not stated by FW? me? or you?
Now, "Vulture is fine" ? sure says you right? ( well sure im fine with it too! ) k , then why isnt Reaver Titans fine as well all of a sudden ? Are you again, going to be the one that says its not fine? why not?

There you go again with the argument about Titans. Seriously, I need to get a copy of your brb, mine is evidently woefully out of date.

LunaHound wrote:
By your definition of "legal" , i think you pretty much meant "fair to be used, as in the unit type / unit rule / unit cost" would adjust nicely to GW codex units?
However thats not the case, if it is indeed truly legal, again, the Reaver Titan have just as much right.

And again.


You have valid points when you're not banging on about bringing a Reaver Titan to the table. For a game to start you need agreement from both players in order to even start taking minis out of their case. If the side you are playing against is from a rulebook that has been stamped as official by GW, and conforms to the FOC for standard missions, what is the problem? TBH I think that the GK Codex is way more overpowered than most of the units someone with an IA side might field, I won't refuse to play them on those grounds though, or on the grounds that there has been insufficient play testing because they have yet to have an FAQ/Errata published in order to balance them slightly.

If GW wanted them to be included in the core rulesets all they had to do is add two words: chapter approved. They didn't.

There are a few IA units that are obscene and should have never been introduced to the game. You don't have to like it but those units put a turd in the entire IA punchbowl.

the arrogance of people refusing to ask permission and refusing to accept these rules are not part of the core rulesets is astonishing. How do you start a game and just declare "I will be using these rules and you don't have the right to protest, if you refuse the game, you are the one with the defect." I would decline a game right there due to the complete lack of respect regardless of your IA units reasonableness.

MeanGreenStompa wrote:My opinion:

I would expect a game against a stranger to use the appropriate GW armybook or codex. If they asked me about using a forgeworld unique vehicle or character, I would likely agree but not mentally count the game as 'legitimate' as these weird and wonderful things tend to be strangely costed and have unbalancing rules.

There is also a huge huge bias towards imperial vehicles, especially tanks. Dark Eldar, Necrons etc are at a woeful disadvantage in this regard.

Apocalypse is a different matter and where the super heavy vehicles should be seen.

Well FW did a line of evolving LATD which was interesting. they are now doing eldar with a plethora of new vehicles and aspects. Its very interesting.

nkelsch wrote:

There are a few IA units that are obscene and should have never been introduced to the game. You don't have to like it but those units put a turd in the entire IA punchbowl.

There are a few GW Codex that are obscene should have never been introduced to the game. You don't have to like it but those codex put a turd in the entire GW punchbowl.

Next time it'll be Necrons. And then Sisters. And then Tau. And then whatever the hell comes after that, and after that...

Seriously this gak happens so often with every new codex it's impossible to take seriously anymore. Besides, I'm officially calling bs on the internet after their "sky is falling" panic with the Tyranids codex.

^^ +1

nkelsch wrote:If GW wanted them to be included in the core rulesets all they had to do is add two words: chapter approved. They didn't.

There are a few IA units that are obscene and should have never been introduced to the game. You don't have to like it but those units put a turd in the entire IA punchbowl.

the arrogance of people refusing to ask permission and refusing to accept these rules are not part of the core rulesets is astonishing. How do you start a game and just declare "I will be using these rules and you don't have the right to protest, if you refuse the game, you are the one with the defect." I would decline a game right there due to the complete lack of respect regardless of your IA units reasonableness.

You'll have to point me to the written rule that states 'Chapter approved' means you can run it in the core ruleset. I play Orks. They don't have chapters, should I be looking for 'Clan approved'? maybe 'Waaugh approved'? As far as I'm aware, the fact that GW has their logo emblazoned on the books, along with the fact that the rules inside the aforementioned books are designed for 40k makes them official GW 40k materials, no matter who has produced them. But I am happy to be disproved.

I find the arrogance of players that turn up saying 'I'm going to be using Dark Eldar/Tyranids/Grey Knights/Any other codex side and you don't have the right to protest, if you refuse the game, you're the one with the defect' similarly astonishing.

If you are putting yourself in a position where you are going to be facing all comers, most of whom may be strangers to you and you have not discussed what they can and can't play until the time comes to start playing, don't be surprised if they field something that is an official GW product, but just something that you may not be expecting. I'd be relieved that you declined a game, it would mean that I would be able to have a fun game with someone else.

Frazzled wrote:
they are now doing eldar with a plethora of new vehicles and aspects. Its very interesting.

I suspect that IA 11 or 12 will be heavily Eldar based. I'm sure this will annoy a lot of non Eldar players as it will inject a new breath of life into a side with an aging codex. I do hope the book comes with 'Farseer approved' stamped on the pages...

I suspect that IA 11 or 12 will be heavily Eldar based. I'm sure this will annoy a lot of non Eldar players as it will inject a new breath of life into a side with an aging codex. I do hope the book comes with 'Farseer approved' stamped on the pages...

I like that.

I love these and foresee these in the next codex
http://www.forgeworld.co.uk/Warhammer-40000/Eldar/ELDAR-HORNET.html

These are cool as well.
http://www.forgeworld.co.uk/Warhammer-40000/Eldar/SHADOW-SPECTRES-ASPECT-WARRIOR-SQUAD.html

The_Happy_Pig wrote:I find the arrogance of players that turn up saying 'I'm going to be using Dark Eldar/Tyranids/Grey Knights/Any other codex side and you don't have the right to protest, if you refuse the game, you're the one with the defect' similarly astonishing.

Now you're getting it!

The_Happy_Pig wrote:

I find the arrogance of players that turn up saying 'I'm going to be using Dark Eldar/Tyranids/Grey Knights/Any other codex side and you don't have the right to protest, if you refuse the game, you're the one with the defect' similarly astonishing.

If you are putting yourself in a position where you are going to be facing all comers, most of whom may be strangers to you and you have not discussed what they can and can't play until the time comes to start playing, don't be surprised if they field something that is an official GW product, but just something that you may not be expecting. I'd be relieved that you declined a game, it would mean that I would be able to have a fun game with someone else.

This is so true, FW units in a list is just the same as someone taking say Ogryns or Ratlings in an IG list. Not something you see often, but not game breaking. I understand that some people are sketchy when playing variant lists due to the fact their lists that they have on them simply can't handle a list that might crop up (something like having Dark Eldar vs the IA10 Siege Mantlet), but refusing to play simply when someone mentions FW (without even knowing what the unit is) just strikes me a little odd. The argument that "Oh, IA units are a big surprise, I don't know what they do?!?!", well unless if you own all the GW codex books and know what every unit does by memory (I certainly know that I don't), then something from a Codex book can throw just as much as an IA unit. Also seeing that nearly half of the IA unit entries are now free to download on the FW website, I don't see how it's worse to face off against IA units than GW codex units, which you have to pay £20 odd for the codex anyway.

Does that happen often though? How many games have you played where someone has rolled up on the table and said something to the effect that-

"Hey I'm playing this list... You like it or not, tough!" without so much as a thought?

I don't see the issue of the "permission thing" between players here as even a point of conjecture here. I do see The Happy Pig's like minded thinking on the subject though. To me a models a model. NO doubt I'm not just coming to the table and fighting you withiout knowing what is going on there. The basic no frills rules need to be out there for the reference.

The game opens itself up to play interpritation on a good day, let alone when you pull out something that people don't even see very often.

As with the like thought that The Night Stalker brought up with the issue of WYSIWYG, the models themsleves arn't the problem, it's the general metagame issue of "officially official." that leads into the dissention.

THIS has been the issue with the evolution of 40K since day 1. We had it with the Leman Russ variants, we had it with the Land raider variants- why put it out on a limb there when your talking about a resin model thats cost to use is to the tune of 3-500 bucks? Way I saw it, and still do, The 40K models are strictly for the game, so why is the game broken down to the point where A is ok, but B, C, and D are not? How is it that they can be even in the same conversation, then?

Is it that 40K is now broken up into seperate games here? Are we not talking one game range?

With as simple a cop out as "Roll a D6 if you have apoint of contention?" the product needs to be readdressed and the rules clearified to the accounting of the new and increasingly complex veriants.

We're getting ready to add flyers in there. Some armies, (IG, Space marines, tyranids, orks.) already have them. what now with the next introduction, and then the codex creep continues with the shlock that GK brought up and into the game.

Like was pointed out before, WYSIWYG. Only this time, on a whole different level.

The_Happy_Pig wrote:
You'll have to point me to the written rule that states 'Chapter approved' means you can run it in the core ruleset.

You mean the past 25 years of GW history where the 'chapter approved' has been the way for them to implement official lists into the core game without a full-blown codex? It started in the Rogue Trader days and continued as WD articles with a semi-Annual publication being released?

Rules are either chapter approved or Expansion. FW rules are not Chapter approved. If you want to be dense about the distinction, then you are not doing yourself any favors. Pretending your FW units are legal won't get you into any tourneys or make anyone agree to play you.

I play Orks. They don't have chapters, should I be looking for 'Clan approved'? maybe 'Waaugh approved'? As far as I'm aware, the fact that GW has their logo emblazoned on the books, along with the fact that the rules inside the aforementioned books are designed for 40k makes them official GW 40k materials, no matter who has produced them. But I am happy to be disproved.

Yes, they are official expansions for 40k. If you choose to play an expanded version of 40k, then knock yourself out. Most events, tourneys and friendly play people expect the core game and codexes. Anything outside of that is out of the ordinary, and while simetimes excepted take knowledge of both players and agreement to expand the game beyond the limits.

I find the arrogance of players that turn up saying 'I'm going to be using Dark Eldar/Tyranids/Grey Knights/Any other codex side and you don't have the right to protest, if you refuse the game, you're the one with the defect' similarly astonishing.

You can protest... but these are core rulebooks accepted at events and most friendly games. You can again pretend to not see a distinction to further your personal agenda, but it won't win you any arguments when people don't want to play your IA units.

If you are putting yourself in a position where you are going to be facing all comers, most of whom may be strangers to you and you have not discussed what they can and can't play until the time comes to start playing, don't be surprised if they field something that is an official GW product, but just something that you may not be expecting. I'd be relieved that you declined a game, it would mean that I would be able to have a fun game with someone else.

many people play explcitily to gain practice for competative play. Playing against grot tanks in no way prepares them for 'all comers' in a tourney enviroment. Learning how to compat deathwind droppods is in all functional purposes a waste of time and a balanced 'take on all commers' list will not be facing those fringe IA units in competative play and there is no need even play the game as the exerpience is not valuable. If the goal is to play against wacky stuff, sure, the players can agree to play but lots of people do not want to deviate from the core rules. Pretending they are core rules doesn't help anything, just causes problems.

Seriously, this argument again?

If a TO at a tournament rules that FW is ok, then expect IA units. If a TO at a tournament rules that FW is not ok, then IA units will not crop up using the IA rules.

It's the exact same as a TO saying that Space Wolves are not allowed Long Fangs, or Eldar not allowed to take Seer Councils.

I don't know what the big deal with all the must win and "competitive" gaming in North America that goes with all the number crunching and min-maxing of lists, but in the UK people actually LIKE playing thematic and narrative battles.

I don't know, but it seems the big stigma of IA comes from American gamers, and the fact that Forgeworld items are pretty rare compared to the UK, where pretty much everyone has at least one FW item in their army.