What is your opinion on FW armies or units in GW games?

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_Happy_Pig**

nkelsch wrote:
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.

Right.

So forgive me if I've never heard of chapter approved. As I have said earlier in this thread, I've been playing for a couple of years. I've been collecting and painting for a bit longer than that. There is nothing in my rulebook, or any of the codices I own that mentions 'Chapter approved' I have never bought a copy of White Dwarf, neither have I ever heard of this semi-annual publication you speak of.

Your argument here seems to stem from a view of 'It's always been this way' - Hell, most police forces across the globe have been institutionally racist since their inception, it's always been this way, so according to your argument this is fine? . Please, please point me to a scan of the article where it says that 'Chapter approved' means that it can be included in the core ruleset. A link to a pdf will work equally well. Or any official GW publication that states this. I asked you to evidence this, and your say so does not give your argument any weight to me. I have evidenced my arguments in this thread, so I'm waiting for you to do the same. Like I said, I am happy to be disproved, I'm just waiting for you to do so. You say rules are either chapter approved or expansion. My rulebook does not say it is chapter approved, neither do any of the codices I own, in no part of any of them does the words 'chapter approved' even appear. Does this mean that Orks, Space Wolves, Blood Angels, Dark Eldar and Chaos Daemons are expansions? Back up your arguments with evidence, and try not to slide into insults by calling me dense at not knowing the distinction in something that I have never come across or ever had pointed out to me in the written materials I own or have seen.

Also you are way off the mark, I find that most people I play against want to play against me because I have a few IA models in my army. You seem to be deaf to the people in this thread that are tired of playing cookie cutter army builds and want a bit of variation, and perish the thought... fun in a game. I understand that you evidently don't want to have a fun and varied gaming experience, you clearly want a 'valuable' experience. Whatever that means. If you had mentioned Tourney play in one of your initial posts then I would have realised that the spirit of the game has long been leeched from you and would have left it at that. But as you have now mentioned Tourney play... You seriously think that I want to play in a tournament if the players share a similar mindset to you? I'll point you to my earlier post:

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.

I look forward to something more than merely anecdotal evidence from you.

Edited to add:

Hang on, if for any reason I was going to play in a tourney, I'd be turning up knowing the rules that the TO has regarding IA models and rules, so you argument there is pretty invalid.

**The Night Stalker**

The poll results are very informational, as many people either don't care or welcome IA units in friendly games, but alas TFG is never totally absent, I don't know how many times I have to say it but this argument is meaningless, FW models/rules are a good thing, they add to both the backstory and tabletop game that is warhammer 40k and this arbitrary nonsense that is this thread is nothing more than a pissing contest.

If the idea of FW units in 40k enrage some of you, I think its time to re-evaluate your priorities in life.

**Melkhiordarkblade**

As long as the player as a rulebook that show me that:
"Such a unit my be add to this army in this FO slot for this number of points."

I'd be happy with that.

**Grot 6**

The Night Stalker wrote:The poll results are very informational, as many people either don't care or welcome IA units in friendly games, but alas TFG is never totally absent, I don't know how many times I have to say it but this argument is meaningless, FW models/rules are a good thing, they add to both the backstory and tabletop game that is warhammer 40k and this arbitrary nonsense that is this thread is nothing more than a pissing contest.

If the idea of FW units in 40k enrage some of you, I think its time to re-evaluate your priorities in life.

Not really. It just shows that there are many ways to read "Official" interpretation when your talking about supplimental information that relies on a D6 rule, and no serious further discussion, other then.... "It's a suppliment, it's up to YOU to play the game."

Problems come in later, when you start adding all of those other ambiguous " They said so's" to the conversation.

I totally agree with your earlier point though, and gobsmacked myself for not seeing the issue of the WYSIWYG debacle. I don't care, my dog in the fight comes when I've already HAD home made units available from FW that I've played for years, then to be told something to the effect that "Your not playing the game the right way." in the perception that the armies, ( even if they are broken and tooled to the FOTM player) are not fully and supported by the company that makes them.

It would be one thing if we were discussing a run of the mill product, and quite another when the product is misrepreseted and left for open to suggestion rules and ambiguous decisions like it is now...

At the end of the day, though it comes down to choice. You can use them or not. The units and armies are not deal breakers, but they are not collective to the grand scheme either.

I may still get the tanks, but it won't be something I "need" and all depends on if I have some extra cash sometime.

**Etna's Vassal**

Personally, I believe that the rules are usually way overpowered/under-playtested/etc.

I will continue to think that until they give me a Death Guard army list to use with my masses of Plague Marines I bought.

Then, of course, they'll be well thought out and balanced. (^_^)

**Worglock**

Etna's Vassal wrote:Personally, I believe that the rules are usually way overpowered/under-playtested/etc.

I will continue to think that until they give me a Death Guard army list to use with my masses of Plague Marines I bought.

Then, of course, they'll be well thought out and balanced. (^_^)

wut?

**The Night Stalker**

Grot 6 wrote:
The Night Stalker wrote:The poll results are very informational, as many people either don't care or welcome IA units in friendly games, but alas TFG is never totally absent, I don't know how many times I have to say it but this argument is meaningless, FW models/rules are a good thing, they add to both the backstory and tabletop game that is warhammer 40k and this arbitrary nonsense that is this thread is nothing more than a pissing contest.

If the idea of FW units in 40k enrage some of you, I think its time to re-evaluate your priorities in life.

Not really. It just shows that there are many ways to read "Official" interpretation when your talking about supplimental information that relies on a D6 rule, and no serious further discussion, other then.... "It's a suppliment, it's up to YOU to play the game."

Problems come in later, when you start adding all of those other ambiguous " They said so's" to the conversation.

I totally agree with your earlier point though, and gobsmacked myself for not seeing the issue of the WYSIWYG debacle. I don't care, my dog in the fight comes when I've already HAD home made units available from FW that I've played for years, then to be told something to the effect that "Your not playing the game the right way." in the perception that the armies, ( even if they are broken and tooled to the FOTM player) are not fully and supported by the company that makes them.

It would be one thing if we were discussing a run of the mill product, and quite another when the product is misrepreseted and left for open to suggestion rules and ambiguous decisions like it is now...

At the end of the day, though it comes down to choice. You can use them or not. The units and armies are not deal breakers, but they are not collective to the grand scheme either.

I may still get the tanks, but it won't be something I "need" and all depends on if I have some extra cash sometime.

Very well put, I recently bought IAA1 and IAA2, and this issue is sort of addressed in the preface of the first book, although no difinitive answer is produced. I think this "What is official" crap creates conflict where there shouldn't be any.

**Etna's Vassal**

I meant that I'll think Forgeworld rules are overpowered until they apply to me, and then I'll conveniently change my mind once they do.

It was a joke, that seemingly fell flat...

**nkelsch**

The_Happy_Pig wrote:

I look forward to something more than merely anecdotal evidence from you.

They released 2 books and all the articles from WD... They have this: (actually a lot more language... buy the books)

Chapter Approved 2004 book: These are official modifications/clarifications/additions to the warhammer 40,000 game. This is the default for anything that's in Chapter Approved if it's not noted as being experimental in some way.

WD 297: First up, from Gav Thorpe, we have the ‘Fleet of Foot’ rule for the Eldar. This is an extra rule we’venintroduced in the Dark Eldar Codex but it was originally envisaged for the Craftworld Eldar and we’ll be including it in their Codex when that gets done. As with all new material in the Chapter Approved column, this is officially sanctioned and should be fair and balanced.

All the WEB FAQs actually were called Chapter Approved articles. Hence why they were official during the period before 5th edition.
http://www.games-workshop.com/MEDIA_CustomProductCatalog/m1180149_Dark_Eldar_FAQ_2004-11_Edition.pdf

During this time, (1998 to 2005) we had Imperial Armorer which was explicitly *NOT* chapter approved. Hence the separation between rules that were official since Chapter Approved included FAQs and Erratta as well as full codexes and individual units while IA included optional, non-official additions.

And White dwarf clearly says Apocalypse expansion as well as spear head expansion.

Nothing has changed and none of the expansions or IA have anything that says they are game legal, balanced, tested or intended to be modifications to the core ruleset the way chapter approved was. And considering there has been an official set-in-stone divide between the rules by GW itself and I don't see any change in that divide and even events like 'ardboyz 2011 recognize that divide, I am not inclined to believe FW IA rules have somehow gone from being untested optional expansions to core rules, especially since GW has not told us to the way they have other rules in the past.

**Sidstyler**

The Night Stalker wrote:If the idea of FW units in 40k enrage some of you, I think its time to re-evaluate your priorities in life.

Actually I'd say it's the other way 'round...the FW owners are the ones who seem to be raging. The rest of us are just saying we'd like at least a heads up if you plan on bringing FW units because they're uncommon, and we're getting called all sorts of nasty names for it.

Grot 6 wrote:then to be told something to the effect that "Your not playing the game the right way."

Now you know how it feels to be every single hobbyist who participates in tournaments.

**CadianXV**

So, as the discussion here rages on, I took the time to find the 'official' stance. The complete transcript is below, and should help clarify matters.

Forgeworld wrote:
Hi,

Thanks for your e-mail. We are indeed aware of the various discussions currently ongoing, and the wide range of opinions expressed therein.

The crux of the debate appears to revolve around tournament play, and actually several of our lists (such as the Siege Assault Vanguard from IA10 or the Dred Mob from IA8) are designed with narrative play in mind rather than competitive game balance; certainly in the case of the Siege Assault Vanguard list the additional objective rules and specific victory conditions deliberately make it more difficult to win.

The downside to this thematic and narrative approach is that the balance of the game is altered so that it is not a level playing field. Some of the options included in other lists, such as the Artillery Strikes, provide one player with something that their opponent cannot counter, and again in competitive play this is less balanced.

As such many of our lists are not used in tournaments (by both independent events and GW tournaments), but you may rest assured that every set of rules we make available is thoroughly playtested; perhaps not as exhaustively as a Codex or Army Book, but that is partially why we make experimental rules available – the 50,000 people who subscribe to our newsletter are a resource that we simply do not have internally! As an interesting aside, we are currently looking at the prospect of producing a set of ‘Tournament edition’ army lists that will be permitted for use in future Throne of Skulls events, however we stress that this is in its early stages at this time.

Our ‘official’ stance, if you will, is that each and every set of rules we produce is completely compatible with the existing Warhammer 40,000 rules, and most of the more recent IA publications take care to specify what FOC slot a unit fits into within the relevant Codex. We thoroughly recommend that you should make your opponent aware of the rules and capabilities of a vehicle or unit in advance, as is only the gentlemanly thing to do; simply because one should not assume that the other player has access to or is aware of all the various kits we produce. This is exactly the same as using Planetstrike, Cities of Death or any other Warhammer 40,000 expansion; it’s simply polite to discuss the various game options in advance if you wish to use different units, FOC’s, deployment, etc. However all Imperial Armour books are official expansions, they are designed to fit into the main rules and should be seen as alternatives to a standard army list if the relevant models are not being used to represent a Codex option (for example DKK or Elysians simply using the Guard Codex).

I hope this is of use – with regard to the scenery range, much of our lines of solid resin scenery are some of the most expensive kits to make in terms of material and labour, and many of the moulds are damaged and deteriorating beyond a useable point. Regrettably our options here are either to remake the moulds, and raise the prices of the kits to cover the increased manufacturing costs (which we’re loath to do) or to find a different way of making them. You may have seen the Imperial Strongpoint expansion tile we debuted at the Forge World Open Day; this has been extremely well received and will be up on general release towards the start of July as part of a new range of scenery.

Regards,

Ead Brown

Customer Service Manager

Forge World

**Frazzled**

nkelsch wrote:
The_Happy_Pig wrote:

I look forward to something more than merely anecdotal evidence from you.

They released 2 books and all the articles from WD... They have this: (actually a lot more language... buy the books)

Chapter Approved 2004 book: These are official modifications/clarifications/additions to the warhammer 40,000 game. This is the default for anything that's in Chapter Approved if it's not noted as being experimental in some way.

WD 297: First up, from Gav Thorpe, we have the ‘Fleet of Foot’ rule for the Eldar. This is an extra rule we’venintroduced in the Dark Eldar Codex but it was originally envisaged for the Craftworld Eldar and we’ll be including it in their Codex when that gets done. As with all new material in the Chapter Approved column, this is officially sanctioned and should be fair and balanced.

All the WEB FAQs actually were called Chapter Approved articles. Hence why they were official during the period before 5th edition.
http://www.games-workshop.com/MEDIA_CustomProductCatalog/m1180149_Dark_Eldar_FAQ_2004-11_Edition.pdf

During this time, (1998 to 2005) we had Imperial Armorer which was explicitly *NOT* chapter approved. Hence the separation between rules that were official since Chapter Approved included FAQs and Erratta as well as full codexes and individual units while IA included optional, non-official additions.

And White dwarf clearly says Apocalypse expansion as well as spear head expansion.

Nothing has changed and none of the expansions or IA have anything that says they are game legal, balanced, tested or intended to be modifications to the core ruleset the way chapter approved was. And considering there has been an official set-in-stone divide between the rules by GW itself and I don't see any change in that divide and even events like 'ardboyz 2011 recognize that divide, I am not inclined to believe FW IA rules have somehow gone from being untested optional expansions to core rules, especially since GW has not told us to the way they have other rules in the past.

Dude that was like two editions ago.

**Steelmage99**

That is nice.

Now we just need GWs stance for it to be really meaningful.

**monkeyh**

The only stipulations we use is that if you use super heavy stuff you have to say in advance, also each build point counts as one heavy support unit.

**btemple0**

Bieng one of those who has a few Forge World pieces, I generally ask if it is okay to use one in a friendly game, otherwise I come prepared with another list that does not include them, in addition to that I bring the book so you can physically see what the character does.

If playing at one of the tournaments we have at the FLGS, I generally will not use any of the Special Characters or units otherwise because we generally have the rule stating that once the Special Character or unit is gone, it is gone for the rest of the tournament.

My lists will never include a Super Heavy unless there is an agreement to play an apocalypse game at least a week prior to the game's date, so players have enough time to discuss game length and other specifics.

**Stella Cadente**

FW are models for moddelers and painters first gamers second, but unlike GW rules writers who inflate everything to have the OOH SHINY appeal, FW just go with fluffy, underpowered overpriced rules because the OOH SHINY appeal is satisfied by the models.

so I am fine with FW stuff in any points level of games, even super heavies in none apoc games as FW have rules for them anyway, with one or two small exceptions FW are much better at doing rules than the poor excuse GW constantly puhes out of there tight rear entry ports.

I laugh at the 10 people who voted them overpowered, obviously those people have never faced anything created by FW.

**nkelsch**

Frazzled wrote:
Dude that was like two editions ago.

Hey, he asked what it was... So I was showing him. Chapter approved means it is official. Just because they haven't done it in 5th edition doesn't retroactively go back and make all other books official and part of the core ruleset. GW has had a distinction and still keeps a distinction between core rules and expansion rules.

3rd Edition:
Core rulebook - Official and legal
Codexes - Official and legal
Chapter approved - Official and legal
Imperial Armorer - Optional expansion, opponents consent

4th Edition:
Core rulebook - Official and legal
Codexes - Official and legal
Chapter approved - Official and legal
Imperial Armorer - Optional expansion, opponents consent

5th Edition:
Core rulebook - Official and legal
Codexes - Official and legal
Imperial Armorer - Optional expansion, opponents consent
Apocalypse - Optional expansion, opponents consent
Cities of Death - Optional expansion, opponents consent

GW has a way to make it official... They have implemented it in the past. Until they do, IA and all the rules are not part of the core ruleset and should be treated by gamers as just that, extra rules outside the core ruleset.

The crux of the debate appears to revolve around tournament play, and actually several of our lists (such as the Siege Assault Vanguard from IA10 or the Dred Mob from IA8) are designed with narrative play in mind rather than competitive game balance; certainly in the case of the Siege Assault Vanguard list the additional objective rules and specific victory conditions deliberately make it more difficult to win.

That is all that needs to be said. They unbalance the game, which is fine as long as both opponents agree to play with broken, unbalanced or disadvantaged rules that promote narrative play over competitive play. Not all 'friendly' play should throw the integrity of the fairness of the game out the window. 'friendly' play doesn't mean anything goes... it means you play the game the way both players agree to play it. if you can't reach an agreement, many people revert to the 'default' way of playing which is the core rules.

I laugh at the 10 people who voted them overpowered, obviously those people have never faced anything created by FW.

There are many units that are obscene... and most of them are space marine units (surprise surprise) and in my experience it goes like this:

"Can we use IA rules? yes? ok these 3 regular drop pods now are deathwind assault pods!!! The doors are closed so it is WYSIWYG! Game on! pew pew!"

When 'friendly' games have already degenerated into fullblown proxies everywhere, I see the scramble for the unbalanced IA units to be a shameless power grab. This is where 'rule of cool' kicks in. You have a cool FW model? then I will probably want to play... If it is a garbage proxy then I am going to be skeptical about extending the rules outside the lines any further than already has been.

**Dysartes**

nkelsch wrote:There are many units that are obscene... and most of them are space marine units (surprise surprise) and in my experience it goes like this:

"Can we use IA rules? yes? ok these 3 regular drop pods now are deathwind assault pods!!! The doors are closed so it is WYSIWYG! Game on! pew pew!"

When 'friendly' games have already degenerated into fullblown proxies everywhere, I see the scramble for the unbalanced IA units to be a shameless power grab. This is where 'rule of cool' kicks in. You have a cool FW model? then I will probably want to play... If it is a garbage proxy then I am going to be skeptical about extending the rules outside the lines any further than already has been.

If they're not fielding the FW model, they don't get to use the FW rules - simple. I might give some leeway if someone has specifically converted a piece to represent a FW model, but the above example would not be acceptable.

If the dude wants a "Deathwind" pod that can't fire - as the doors are closed - then he's welcome to it.

**BrookM**

Got to agree there, FW models should not be proxied. You want to play with the big toys, buy them!

**Stella Cadente**

Dysartes wrote:If the dude wants a "Deathwind" pod that can't fire - as the doors are closed - then he's welcome to it.

agreed, proxied deathwinds with doors closed is hilarious and should be encouraged to further reinforce how moronic it is, unless they want LOS to the inside of the pod?

**btemple0**

BrookM wrote:Got to agree there, FW models should not be proxied. You want to play with the big toys, buy them!

I bought Tyberos, and I have the Games Day Boarding Marine, I doubt I will buy a lot more unless it is the power armor variant kits, I have a BIG issue with proxying even without adding the FW toys to the mix, but I can say that I love Orky Scratchbuilds.

**BrookM**

I should've probably added to that: buy or convert.

**Snarky**

I still don't get the point of what is "legal".

If IA, Cities of Death, Spearhead and planetstrike are all "illegal", then why the hell are GW still selling the books and models?

If you don't want to play an expansion, fine. Have your vanilla unimaginative games of 40k. If someone wants to have a game with me, and play a narrative storyline battle from Cities of Death, is the game we're playing no longer 40k and "illegal"?

NO. Every game of 40k is "Opponent's permission". If you show up with a standard codex army, there is no guarantee that you will get a game since you need a willing person to play against your army. Same with a FW list. I have not met a single person with either a FW list or a standard codex army who was impolite and demanded they use and play their army. These fictional scenarios of players who demand they use their FW units are utterly bizarre, and if true, I simply wouldn't play them even if they weren't using FW rules since they just sound like TFG.

All the people I've played who have used FW units have been nothing but polite in asking if they can use their units, and make no fuss when people say they don't feel like playing against IA. They simply remove the units and play standard, there's none of this whining involved.

If anything, the guys who are so against FW units and their owners, you might want to think about getting new friends or going to a new gaming club, since the guys you play with seem to be douchebags.

**Sidstyler**

Snarky wrote:If you don't want to play an expansion, fine. Have your vanilla unimaginative games of 40k.

Because 40k with FW units is inherently superior and any other way to play is boring and wrong.

**Snarky**

Sidstyler wrote:
Snarky wrote:If you don't want to play an expansion, fine. Have your vanilla unimaginative games of 40k.

Because 40k with FW units is inherently superior and any other way to play is boring and wrong.

Did not say that. Expansions add flavour and character to narrative battles. Just having two armies duke it out gets a little boring after playing against the same few armies over and over again.

**Grot 6**

Snarky wrote:I still don't get the point of what is "legal".

If IA, Cities of Death, Spearhead and planetstrike are all "illegal", then why the hell are GW still selling the books and models?

If you don't want to play an expansion, fine. Have your vanilla unimaginative games of 40k. If someone wants to have a game with me, and play a narrative storyline battle from Cities of Death, is the game we're playing no longer 40k and "illegal"?

NO. Every game of 40k is "Opponent's permission". If you show up with a standard codex army, there is no guarantee that you will get a game since you need a willing person to play against your army. Same with a FW list. I have not met a single person with either a FW list or a standard codex army who was impolite and demanded they use and play their army. These fictional scenarios of players who demand they use their FW units are utterly bizarre, and if true, I simply wouldn't play them even if they weren't using FW rules since they just sound like TFG.

All the people I've played who have used FW units have been nothing but polite in asking if they can use their units, and make no fuss when people say they don't feel like playing against IA. They simply remove the units and play standard, there's none of this whining involved.

If anything, the guys who are so against FW units and their owners, you might want to think about getting new friends or going to a new gaming club, since the guys you play with seem to be douchebags.

That is my thought, but I'm starting to think that I've been playing in different circles them some of these other cats.

Our guys seem comparitivly tame compared to how some of these other guys are implying it.

Most of the FW guys I've played against were along the lines of run of the mill IG, SM, and Chaos armies with some crazy side kick stuff that ends up being a nice doorstop, then gets obliterated by turn 2 or 3. Troops? I've seen those chaos and DKoK guys and the elisians(?) that was in the emerging TFG flying rhino thing that they had going on.( I hate that one, by the way.) I took a step back from the heat and had to stand out the other conversation, but in hindsight, I think my prospective of this permission thing is just... different.

The way in how we play is pretty much against the same couple of guys who have a set army or three, that you already know what they play, and then if they get the FW stuff, they put it out there right away. Because it'snew, so everyone wants to see the lickies and chewies before we start busting on it or running it over with our other stuff. (Thats why I was getting pissed at the other guy because he kept pounding sand on that point.) As for the whole WYSIWYG thing, We already had that issue, so when they keep pounding that fact, it's just seeming like someone is either intentionally ignoring past issues, or they are intentionally instigating contentious rules scraps over silly issues. It's bad enough that they are doing that FOTM crap to a whole new level of suck, but they are just being outright blaitent about it now, and FW stuff is comparitivly tame, these days to even be blowing such gaskets over it.

Already seeing the effects of the Grey Knight Bullgak snappy specials. ( One guy came up with a Ld10, attacks 8, Ac 2 and some other special stuff, so you know he's laughing it up.) So the additionals of making the new and improved FW contingents should only be putting icing on the turdcakes. As for the new stuff? Oh Yes. We see it coming.

I play with the old gobsmasha home made truck and the converted Leman Russ ork tanks. As for the other end of the spectrum, I've been using the darn thing ( the gobsmasha) since before they had a FW, so you can see I've not only had to slog though that thought process of "Oh, FW? yeah, thats the expensive killy stuff, whoo whoo!" Even though every time I've ever seen it was either in a Large scale kursk type of battles, or in watching the Apocalype stuff that I though was crap to begin with, and the excuse to buy the most expensive stuff you could get hold of with the Planet strike stuff. (Of course by this time, I've already been mad as a wet cat at GW for the wackyness of the last year or so.) We didn't need apocylipse stuff. We didn't need Planet strike. (We had epic)

The thing I don't understand is that they made this stuff with 40K in mind, why is it so damned contentious, and the differences this extreme? We already had the issues with the home made stuff and the varients of Small, Med, and Large scale vehicles, didn't someone cross talk this stuff out with the different staffs of FW and GW in the game evolutions?

Why wasn't it addressed in the 4th and 5th edition changes, and in the consecutive FW books?

**Sidstyler**

I dunno Grot 6, there's a lot of things I wish GW would do that they don't. I think they deliberately avoid making "official" rulings because they're afraid of pissing people off by ruling one way or the other, and possibly losing sales, so they just let us bitch and argue with each other. GW could very easily put an end to arguments like this if they wanted to, but since that might make the difference between Jimmy Fatwallet deciding to buy or not buy that new FW model to use in regular 40k games, they don't care.

In any case though I think the reason why I find it hard to see where you're coming from is that you keep bringing up Grey Knights and how "bullgak" they are. I find it hard to take people seriously when I see that, because it literally happens every time a codex comes out. It's the most "broken" thing ever, GW is ruining the game, etc., and after a couple months it all dies down and people realize how stupid they're being...until the NEXT one comes out and it starts all over again. "OMG Necrons are so fething BROKEN! I'm quitting the game because you can't beat them, it's IMPOSSIBLE!"

It gets so old and there's almost always no truth in it whatsoever. Remember when Tyranids broke the game? Or Blood Angels? What, in the holy hell, do Grey Knights do that is soooooo much worse than Space Marines, Imperial Guard, Blood Angels, Tyranids, Space Wolves, or Dark Eldar? The only thing in the GK book that is truly abysmal is the background, and the dreadknight on account of how stupid it looks.

I wonder if people wouldn't be happier if GW just went back to how they used to do updates and never put a new codex out for anyone if it didn't end in "Marines".

**Steelmage99**

Snarky wrote:I still don't get the point of what is "legal".

If IA, Cities of Death, Spearhead and planetstrike are all "illegal", then why the hell are GW still selling the books and models?

Who is saying that Imperial Armour, Spearhead, Cities of Death, Apocalypse and Planetstrike is "illegal"? "Illegal" implies that it is completely unusable under all circumstances. This isn't the case.

If you don't want to play an expansion, fine. Have your vanilla unimaginative games of 40k. If someone wants to have a game with me, and play a narrative storyline battle from Cities of Death, is the game we're playing no longer 40k and "illegal"?

That is going a bit too far. Playing a narrative storyline battle form Cities of Death is indeed not a game of "normal straight-up no-frills" 40K.....but that doesn't make it illegal, and I don't believe anybody claims that.

NO. Every game of 40k is "Opponent's permission". If you show up with a standard codex army, there is no guarantee that you will get a game since you need a willing person to play against your army. Same with a FW list. I have not met a single person with either a FW list or a standard codex army who was impolite and demanded they use and play their army. These fictional scenarios of players who demand they use their FW units are utterly bizarre, and if true, I simply wouldn't play them even if they weren't using FW rules since they just sound like TFG.

Excellent. So we are in agreement? People need to seek agreement with their opponent to use units from the Imperial Armour Expansion?

All the people I've played who have used FW units have been nothing but polite in asking if they can use their units, and make no fuss when people say they don't feel like playing against IA. They simply remove the units and play standard, there's none of this whining involved.

Awesome. It sounds like you have a great bunch of players in your area.

If anything, the guys who are so against FW units and their owners, you might want to think about getting new friends or going to a new gaming club, since the guys you play with seem to be douchebags.

Here you create an imaginary link and an unfair representation. You equate being against FW to being against the owners.
That is taking this discussion to a personal level where it doesn't need to be.

I leave you all with three question;

Is it acceptable to say; "I would rather not play a game of Cities of Death*, as I don't find it enjoyable"?
Is it acceptable to say; "I would rather not play a game of Imperial Armour, as I don't find it enjoyable"?
Does one need to justify his decision in some cases more than others?

*CoD can be replaced by Planetstrike, Apocalypse and Spearhead as one see fit.

**Scott-S6**

Steelmage99 wrote:Excellent. So we are in agreement? People need to seek agreement with their opponent to use units from the Imperial Armour Expansion?

No more or less so than any other units.

Steelmage99 wrote:I leave you all with three question;

Is it acceptable to say; "I would rather not play a game of Cities of Death*, as I don't find it enjoyable"?
Is it acceptable to say; "I would rather not play a game of Imperial Armour, as I don't find it enjoyable"?
Does one need to justify his decision in some cases more than others?

Is it acceptable to say; "I would rather not play a game against your Space Wolf army, as I don't find it enjoyable"?
Is it acceptable to say; "I would rather not play a game against your three land raider army, as I don't find it enjoyable"?

**Steelmage99**

So you are not disagreeing with the statement that the use of Imperial Armour requires opponents agreement?