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.

Different posting, same division and arguments.

If you want to play FW, great. If you don't want to ply FW, don't.

This argument is more boring than reading Matt Ward hate threads.

kronk wrote:Different posting, same division and arguments.

If you want to play FW, great. If you don't want to ply FW, don't.
.

If it were that way.. all would be fine and everyone could go to play their game.

The problem is the hypocritical attitude of people who first state .. "if you want to play FW great. If you don't want to play FW, you haven't read the rule/want to stick to your cookie-cutter-lists/are unable to grasp more diversity/are afraid to loose against the unkown/" with the most arrogant swagger, only to turn around the next second someone chooses to not play FW to whine about the arrogance/unfairness/mistreatment they suffer at the hands of those that opt for a no-FW game. It creates a loopsided environment where those on the "no-FW" side are either ridiculed as inferiour/less-noble/less-mature players or reviled as spiteful discriminators or, as little as it makes sense, even both.

Zweischneid wrote:The problem is the hypocritical attitude of people who first state .. "if you want to play FW great. If you don't want to play FW, you haven't read the rule/want to stick to your cookie-cutter-lists/are unable to grasp more diversity/are afraid to loose against the unkown/" with the most arrogant swagger,

I understand your frustration. I also have heard some pretty arrogant snearing from the other side of the fence.

Fortunately, my gaming group is in agreement with what we play. Also, few tournaments allow FW rules, so those that don't want to play it don't have to worry about it.

I'm honestly not sure why there is so much hate around this subject. Can't people let other people play the way they want?

kronk wrote:

Zweischneid wrote:The problem is the hypocritical attitude of people who first state .. "if you want to play FW great. If you don't want to play FW, you haven't read the rule/want to stick to your cookie-cutter-lists/are unable to grasp more diversity/are afraid to loose against the unkown/" with the most arrogant swagger,

I understand your frustration. I also have heard some pretty arrogant snearing from the other side of the fence.

Fortunately, my gaming group is in agreement with what we play. Also, few tournaments allow FW rules, so those that don't want to play it don't have to worry about it.

I'm honestly not sure why there is so much hate around this subject. Can't people let other people play the way they want?

Personally, I think it starts with the attempts to "legalize" your way into a game. This "lawyer's attitude" isn't very welcome usually. Not with "rules lawyers" and neither with "FW-is-legal lawyers". They may be correct on a "that's how it's written black-on-white" manner, but it misses the defining voluntarity the hobby rests upon and inevitably spoils the "fun".

I think the very approach to "convince" other players to play against your FW units by trying to make a legalistic case that they are legal / also GW / not-as-broken-perhaps-as-some-of-the-more-broken-GW-stuff / etc.. is the wrong angle from the start. There is no "enforcable" right to play anything (FW, Grey Knights, Heavy Support choices, whatever). Thus the presumption that there is for FW is wrong from the get-go.

If you want to convince other player to play against your FW units, try starting by looking up "convince" in the dictionary and proceed by presenting arguments for the inclusion of FW (including why 40K actually needs MORE stuff, Marines and IG in particular, when there's a new thread on Dakka at least every week that the game as such should arguably have LESS codexes and stuff in general and less Marine/Imperial bias in particular), and not arguments against the exclusion of FW.

Zweischneid wrote:

English Assassin wrote:Nothing obliges you to buy Forge World's models or rules if you don't like them. A reasonable and mature human being, however, doesn't arrogate to themselves the right to allow their preferences to dictate how other people play the game. Wargames require a measure of co-operation and mutual respect between the players, something you're simply refusing to extend to your opponents.

I would argue the same about other people trying to force an acceptance of Forgeworld products on my by presenting me with "play-it or be called a fool" choice. By and large, the attitude of FW players/proponents in this very thread has been to equate some people's reluctance to play against FW with a) ignorance, b) fear of loosing, c) small-mindedness and much worse.

You are taking onto yourself a responsibility which is not yours, by declaring that you feel entitled to dictate what models and units your opponents can and cannot use. Expect to be considered both foolish and arrogant for so doing, particularly since you can't provide any clearer or more logical justification for your stance beyond a blanket dislike of Forge World's rules and aesthetics.

Zweischneid wrote:

kronk wrote:

Zweischneid wrote:The problem is the hypocritical attitude of people who first state .. "if you want to play FW great. If you don't want to play FW, you haven't read the rule/want to stick to your cookie-cutter-lists/are unable to grasp more diversity/are afraid to loose against the unkown/" with the most arrogant swagger,

I understand your frustration. I also have heard some pretty arrogant snearing from the other side of the fence.

Fortunately, my gaming group is in agreement with what we play. Also, few tournaments allow FW rules, so those that don't want to play it don't have to worry about it.

I'm honestly not sure why there is so much hate around this subject. Can't people let other people play the way they want?

Personally, I think it starts with the attempts to "legalize" your way into a game. This "lawyer's attitude" isn't very welcome usually. Not with "rules lawyers" and neither with "FW-is-legal lawyers". They may be correct on a "that's how it's written black-on-white" manner, but it misses the defining voluntarity the hobby rests upon and inevitably spoils the "fun".

I think the very approach to "convince" other players to play against your FW units by trying to make a legalistic case that they are legal / also GW / not-as-broken-perhaps-as-some-of-the-more-broken-GW-stuff / etc.. is the wrong angle from the start. There is no "enforcable" right to play anything (FW, Grey Knights, Heavy Support choices, whatever). Thus the presumption that there is for FW is wrong from the get-go.

If you want to convince other player to play against your FW units, try starting by looking up "convince" in the dictionary and proceed by presenting arguments for the inclusion of FW (including why 40K actually needs MORE stuff when there's a new thread on Dakka at least every weak that the game as such should arguably have LESS codexes and stuff), and not arguments against the exclusion of FW.

There's not really any need to convince anyone of anything. I like the Tomb Stalker, I think it looks cool, and I would like to play it. If you and I are in a tournament where FW models are allowed, then you can expect to be playing against both my Tomb Stalker and other poeple's stuff. If I roll into my FLGS with a Tomb Stalker, I'll probably ask you if you're ok playing against my Tomb Stalker. If you say no, I'll probably readjust something in my list (assuming I have one ready).

If you don't want to use them in your army, that's fine. But I don't see the problem in letting other people use them, especially the ones listed in Apoc with the 40k seal of approval and FOC slot listing.

English Assassin wrote:

You are taking onto yourself a responsibility which is not yours, by declaring that you feel entitled to dictate what models and units your opponents can and cannot use. Expect to be considered both foolish and arrogant for so doing, particularly since you can't provide any clearer or more logical justification for your stance beyond a blanket dislike of Forge World's rules and aesthetics.

See. There goes the "mutual respect" you wanted to claim for yourself just one post before.

Q.E.D.

The fact they are considered separate companies is really a joke. They are in the same factory, they operate on the same floor, they use the same IP, they use the other companies game system! I cannot think of many things like this. One company has a retail arm, and the other cannot be bothered so rips everyone off using P&P as an excuse. GW Staff get their FW orders shipped to their store for free. So the question is why can they not do that for customers?

I can do it at hundreds of outlets in the UK, Order/reserve, pay and then pick up. Saving on Postage.

Maybe the Automobile industry where different cars and badges are made at same site. Like Halewood in Merseyside, where a Ford Mondeo is the same as Jaguar they have the same Chassis or Volkswagen engines in various cars.

GW has upped it's sizes and amounts of kits over the years. I would argue that with Gargants, baneblades and Stormravens GW is well on the way with Superheavies so we will have to see what FW will be making when they have finished their 30k line. They are the same at worst and symbiotic at best.

They work hand in glove.

McNinja wrote:There's not really any need to convince anyone of anything. I like the Tomb Stalker, I think it looks cool, and I would like to play it. If you and I are in a tournament where FW models are allowed, then you can expect to be playing against both my Tomb Stalker and other poeple's stuff. If I roll into my FLGS with a Tomb Stalker, I'll probably ask you if you're ok playing against my Tomb Stalker. If you say no, I'll probably readjust something in my list (assuming I have one ready).

If you don't want to use them in your army, that's fine. But I don't see the problem in letting other people use them, especially the ones listed in Apoc with the 40k seal of approval and FOC slot listing.

Obvious. I think it's been stated innumerous times that in tournaments.. tournament rules apply. If the tournament requires people to wear pink rabbit costumes, that'll be what people who want to play the tournament will have to do. If the tournament excludes all special characters. It'll be it. If the tournament changes missions and deployment rules or victory conditions. That is what they'll do.

But, mainly, the consideration has been what happens in a "normal" 40K pick-up game. If you "drop" an Adepticon or 'Ard Boyz style scenario on an unsuspecting player in a "pick-up-game" that fundamentally alters things like deployment or victory condition, it will be considered inappropriate, likely "strange" and mostly be responded with "it would have been nice if you'd had let us know beforehand". If you try to make a "legal case" that this Ard Boyz scenario is "legal" because it came from GW and "isn't more broken than a normal pitched battle", you'll likely get some blank looks because you evidently missed the point. Exactly the same for FW.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

mwnciboo wrote:The fact they are considered separate companies is really a joke.

What's that got to do with it?

If I bring an army with 6 Elite choices to a "pick-up" game, people will likely respond with irritation. Just because it is "officially" made by GW in their Planetfall expansion to work with the ruleset of 40K doesn't mean I can just use it whenever and wherever I like to.

Zweischneid wrote:

McNinja wrote:There's not really any need to convince anyone of anything. I like the Tomb Stalker, I think it looks cool, and I would like to play it. If you and I are in a tournament where FW models are allowed, then you can expect to be playing against both my Tomb Stalker and other poeple's stuff. If I roll into my FLGS with a Tomb Stalker, I'll probably ask you if you're ok playing against my Tomb Stalker. If you say no, I'll probably readjust something in my list (assuming I have one ready).

If you don't want to use them in your army, that's fine. But I don't see the problem in letting other people use them, especially the ones listed in Apoc with the 40k seal of approval and FOC slot listing.

Obvious. I think it's been stated innumerous times that in tournaments.. tournament rules apply. If the tournament requires people to wear pink rabbit costumes, that'll be what people who want to play the tournament will have to do. If the tournament excludes all special characters. It'll be it. If the tournament changes missions and deployment rules or victory conditions. That is what they'll do.

But, mainly, the consideration has been what happens in a "normal" 40K pick-up game. If you "drop" an Adepticon or 'Ard Boyz style scenario on an unsuspecting player in a "pick-up-game" that fundamentally alters things like deployment or victory condition, it will be considered inappropriate, likely "strange" and mostly be responded with "it would have been nice if you'd had let us know beforehand". If you try to make a "legal case" that this Ard Boyz scenario is "legal" because it came from GW and "isn't more broken than a normal pitched battle", you'll likely get some blank looks because you evidently missed the point. Exactly the same for FW.

There's a difference between showing up and declaring you want to play a brand new scenario with brand new deployment rules and showing up and asking if you can use a FW model.

McNinja wrote:There's a difference between showing up and declaring you want to play a brand new scenario with brand new deployment rules and showing up and asking if you can use a FW model.

How so? Ard Boyz senarios are clearly made by GW, have the "offical" stamp and are intended to by used in conjunction with the 40K rules. By your own argument, they should be just as "legal" as a given FW unit. You're foppish response of "bwwwahahaha but they are not the same" just futher illustrates your inherent bias that is not grounded in any sound reasoning.

McNinja wrote:And that has even less to do with me bringing a single FW model that takes up one of 3 HS slots on the FOC. If we are playing a planetfall game, then maybe, but we most likely aren't, so that point is moot.

Neither are we playing a FW-game most likely.

Zweischneid wrote:

English Assassin wrote:

You are taking onto yourself a responsibility which is not yours, by declaring that you feel entitled to dictate what models and units your opponents can and cannot use. Expect to be considered both foolish and arrogant for so doing, particularly since you can't provide any clearer or more logical justification for your stance beyond a blanket dislike of Forge World's rules and aesthetics.

See. There goes the "mutual respect" you wanted to claim for yourself just one post before.

Q.E.D.

You'll find that "mutual respect" entails putting forward sound arguments and supporting them. It also includes reading and responding to the arguments of others, rather than taking refuge in smug "no, you!" replies. Don't expect to have your position taken seriously if you can do no more to substantiate it than make specious straw man comparisons with 'Ard Boyz, and whinge about about how Forge World favour Imperial players.

I don't understand why people are making such a big deal about this. If I come into a store, looking to play a pick-up game of 40k, and someone plants down a forgeworld unit i've never heard of without even asking, he's going to get an annoyed look, and perhaps a sharp comment on how he should have asked. And if he starts preaching to me how perfectly legal it is for him to use his forgeworld stuff, I don't care if he is right, I'm probably not going to play him, and will probably avoid him in the future. He missed the point.

If it's not a unit described in a codex, I want to know about it before hand if he's going to use it. I don't care how legal it is, he should ask me first. I have every right to play against what I want to play against, and if you're going to try and crucify me for not letting you use your forgeworld Krieg-drill-cestious-achilles-drone-thing, then I'm not going to play with you, and i'll probably warn my friends about you, too.

If you had said, "Hey man, i just got this really cool reaver-XV9-decimator-assault-ram from forgeworld, do you mind if I try it out?" I'd ask for the rules, and if they seemed alright I'd say sure. But i'd still retain every right to say "Maybe anouther time, man. I'd like to just play plain old 40k right now." And if he gets really mad and starts saying i'm "afraid of losing/fear the unknown/balantly uninformed" then he can take a hike, and i'll warn my friends about him. It's that simple.

English Assassin wrote:
You'll find that "mutual respect" entails putting forward sound arguments and supporting them. It also includes reading and responding to the arguments of others, rather than taking refuge in smug "no, you!" replies. Don't expect to have your position taken seriously if you can do no more to substantiate it than make specious straw man comparisons with 'Ard Boyz, and whinge about about how Forge World favour Imperial players.

Well, I love sound arguments as much as anyone. Why is the 'Ard Boyz argument a straw man comparison? As noted, it complies with all the "criteria" provided. They are made "officially" by GW. They are made for the 40K game system. They ain't "more broken" than alot of other GW stuff.

If you see a difference between them and FW, please elaborate. Otherwise, I would probably need to redirect you to things like this:

---
can only assume that people objecting to it:
a) Have not read the rules and are just going off hearsay.
b) Have some inaccurate notion about the 'balance' of 40k, and think that the 'Ard Boyz scenarios are spoiling something that does not actually exist.
c) Have played so few games of 40k that they haven't got bored with the basic set-up yet.



Or perhaps more something like this:

---
The human condition:

1. People are afraid of things they don't understand (eg. they haven't read the 'Ard Boyz rules, therefore they don't know what it does, therefore they are scared of it).
2. People are afraid of losing.

Combine the two and you have the reason why people dislike 'Ard Boyz scenarios

loota boy wrote:I don't understand why people are making such a big deal about this. If I come into a store, looking to play a pick-up game of 40k, and someone plants down a forgeworld unit i've never heard of without even asking, he's going to get an annoyed look, and perhaps a sharp comment on how he should have asked. And if he starts preaching to me how perfectly legal it is for him to use his forgeworld stuff, I don't care if he is right, I'm probably not going to play him, and will probably avoid him in the future. He missed the point.

If it's not a unit described in a codex, I want to know about it before hand if he's going to use it. I don't care how legal it is, he should ask me first. I have every right to play against what I want to play against, and if you're going to try and crucify me for not letting you use your forgeworld Krieg-drill-cestious-achilles-drone-thing, then I'm not going to play with you, and i'll probably warn my friends about you, too.

If you had said, "Hey man, i just got this really cool reaver-XV9-decimator-assault-ram from forgeworld, do you mind if I try it out?" I'd ask for the rules, and if they seemed alright I'd say sure. But i'd still retain every right to say "Maybe anouther time, man. I'd like to just play plain old 40k right now." And if he gets really mad and starts saying i'm "afraid of losing/fear the unknown/balantly uninformed" then he can take a hike, and i'll warn my friends about him. It's that simple.

This is the correct way to approach FW. It's for fun games and campaigns. It can be used for tournies, but the people need to be informed. Bring your IA book to the game if you want to use it. Allow the opponent the ability to deny/confirm your ability to use it. If he/she says yes, go play it. Have fun! But if they say no, be Ok with it. Bring enough to play a full game in addition to your FW, to be able to not be stuck with a lot of unplayable FW and not enough Citadel Minis to play an actual game.

It's a courtesy. Respect for respect. If your opponent has a question on how a IA thing works, tell them. Don't leave them in the dark.

loota boy wrote:I don't understand why people are making such a big deal about this. If I come into a store, looking to play a pick-up game of 40k, and someone plants down a forgeworld unit i've never heard of without even asking, he's going to get an annoyed look, and perhaps a sharp comment on how he should have asked. And if he starts preaching to me how perfectly legal it is for him to use his forgeworld stuff, I don't care if he is right, I'm probably not going to play him, and will probably avoid him in the future. He missed the point.

If it's not a unit described in a codex, I want to know about it before hand if he's going to use it. I don't care how legal it is, he should ask me first. I have every right to play against what I want to play against, and if you're going to try and crucify me for not letting you use your forgeworld Krieg-drill-cestious-achilles-drone-thing, then I'm not going to play with you, and i'll probably warn my friends about you, too.

If you had said, "Hey man, i just got this really cool reaver-XV9-decimator-assault-ram from forgeworld, do you mind if I try it out?" I'd ask for the rules, and if they seemed alright I'd say sure. But i'd still retain every right to say "Maybe anouther time, man. I'd like to just play plain old 40k right now." And if he gets really mad and starts saying i'm "afraid of losing/fear the unknown/balantly uninformed" then he can take a hike, and i'll warn my friends about him. It's that simple.

There is no rule that states you must ask your opponent whether or not you can use a FW model. If you refuse to play a person for the simple fact he's using something FW, your missing the fundamental point of the game, TO HAVE FUN.

It is plain old 40k, and if you paint it any different thats your loss.

Playing something from FW that you don't know is EXACTLY THE SAME as playing a brand new codex you don't know... Now seriously, are you going to decline playing someone with a new Dex? No, I didn't think so. Sorry but that just smacks of WAAC.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Chowderhead wrote:
This is the correct way to approach FW. It's for fun games and campaigns. It can be used for tournies, but the people need to be informed. Bring your IA book to the game if you want to use it. Allow the opponent the ability to deny/confirm your ability to use it. If he/she says yes, go play it. Have fun! But if they say no, be Ok with it. Bring enough to play a full game in addition to your FW, to be able to not be stuck with a lot of unplayable FW and not enough Citadel Minis to play an actual game.

It's a courtesy. Respect for respect. If your opponent has a question on how a IA thing works, tell them. Don't leave them in the dark.

Sorry, but thats being too much or a Rules lawyer. So every player has to vet his list with his opponent before he starts? If I ever had to play you in a tourney I'd take much delight in ripping your list apart.

AnUnearthlyChilde wrote:

loota boy wrote:I don't understand why people are making such a big deal about this. If I come into a store, looking to play a pick-up game of 40k, and someone plants down a forgeworld unit i've never heard of without even asking, he's going to get an annoyed look, and perhaps a sharp comment on how he should have asked. And if he starts preaching to me how perfectly legal it is for him to use his forgeworld stuff, I don't care if he is right, I'm probably not going to play him, and will probably avoid him in the future. He missed the point.

If it's not a unit described in a codex, I want to know about it before hand if he's going to use it. I don't care how legal it is, he should ask me first. I have every right to play against what I want to play against, and if you're going to try and crucify me for not letting you use your forgeworld Krieg-drill-cestious-achilles-drone-thing, then I'm not going to play with you, and i'll probably warn my friends about you, too.

If you had said, "Hey man, i just got this really cool reaver-XV9-decimator-assault-ram from forgeworld, do you mind if I try it out?" I'd ask for the rules, and if they seemed alright I'd say sure. But i'd still retain every right to say "Maybe anouther time, man. I'd like to just play plain old 40k right now." And if he gets really mad and starts saying i'm "afraid of losing/fear the unknown/balantly uninformed" then he can take a hike, and i'll warn my friends about him. It's that simple.

There is no rule that states you must ask your opponent whether or not you can use a FW model. If you refuse to play a person for the simple fact he's using something FW, your missing the fundamental point of the game, TO HAVE FUN.

It is plain old 40k, and if you paint it any different thats your loss.

Playing something from FW that you don't know is EXACTLY THE SAME as playing a brand new codex you don't know... Now seriously, are you going to decline playing someone with a new Dex? No, I didn't think so. Sorry but that just smacks of WAAC.

To me, it reads of respect. And you misused WAAC.

In the Americas, most FLGS's don't have access to IA books on hand. To the vast majority, it's very different that normal GW. So people ask if they can use it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

AnUnearthlyChilde wrote:

Chowderhead wrote:
This is the correct way to approach FW. It's for fun games and campaigns. It can be used for tournies, but the people need to be informed. Bring your IA book to the game if you want to use it. Allow the opponent the ability to deny/confirm your ability to use it. If he/she says yes, go play it. Have fun! But if they say no, be Ok with it. Bring enough to play a full game in addition to your FW, to be able to not be stuck with a lot of unplayable FW and not enough Citadel Minis to play an actual game.

It's a courtesy. Respect for respect. If your opponent has a question on how a IA thing works, tell them. Don't leave them in the dark.

Sorry, but thats being too much or a Rules lawyer. So every player has to vet his list with his opponent before he starts? If I ever had to play you in a tourney I'd take much delight in ripping your list apart.

It's called bringing more than one list. If the opponent declines the FW rules, then just pull out your normal list. No list tailoring involved. And you ALWAYS have to show your opponent your list.

Also, you misused rules lawyer.

AnUnearthlyChilde wrote:There is no rule that states you must ask your opponent whether or not you can use a FW model. If you refuse to play a person for the simple fact he's using something FW, your missing the fundamental point of the game, TO HAVE FUN.

It is plain old 40k, and if you paint it any different thats your loss.

Playing something from FW that you don't know is EXACTLY THE SAME as playing a brand new codex you don't know... Now seriously, are you going to decline playing someone with a new Dex? No, I didn't think so. Sorry but that just smacks of WAAC.

THIS is the attitude that grates on people, Childe. You putting things in all caps doesn't make them right, either.

Also, as Chowder said, that is not the proper use of WAAC.

Zweischneid wrote:

English Assassin wrote:
You'll find that "mutual respect" entails putting forward sound arguments and supporting them. It also includes reading and responding to the arguments of others, rather than taking refuge in smug "no, you!" replies. Don't expect to have your position taken seriously if you can do no more to substantiate it than make specious straw man comparisons with 'Ard Boyz, and whinge about about how Forge World favour Imperial players.

Well, I love sound arguments as much as anyone. Why is the 'Ard Boyz argument a straw man comparison? As noted, it complies with all the "criteria" provided. They are made "officially" by GW. They are made for the 40K game system. They ain't "more broken" than alot of other GW stuff.

One is set of scenarios drawn up for a specific tournament, the other rules and models into which your fellow players have invested time and money. Comparison between the two is specious to the point of being nonsensical.

In a Theatre of war, you do not go up to your opponent and ask what he has in his army do you? No.

we are deemed generals in this game, and as such it is down to you to learn of your opponent. Not by asking him for his army list, which no person has to show.

I have yet to meet a person who refuses to play FW, and I've yet to meet a person to ask for my army list either. because that is how the game should be played, blind.

In a roleplay game you don't ask the GM what he has in store for you, because that spoils the point of it all.


Give me a very good reason why anyone should bring multiple lists just so an opponent can pick and chose?

And Kronk, you didn't exactly put forth a counter argument.

EDIT: Using caps is for emphasis. Never said it made me right, it just that is the point I am making.

AnUnearthlyChilde wrote:
And Kronk, you didn't exactly put forth a counter argument.

Because I've already done so a few times in this thread and feel no need to go through it again.

AnUnearthlyChilde wrote:
Give me a very good reason why anyone should bring multiple lists just so an opponent can pick and chose?

No one has made that claim in this thread. You're reading far too much into people's responses.

kronk wrote:

AnUnearthlyChilde wrote:
Give me a very good reason why anyone should bring multiple lists just so an opponent can pick and chose?

No one has made that claim in this thread. You're reading far too much into people's responses.

Scroll up a bit.

English Assassin wrote:

One is set of scenarios drawn up for a specific tournament, the other rules and models into which your fellow players have invested time and money. Comparison between the two is specious to the point of being nonsensical.

So it is the models then? Fine. I made a custom-build, custom-rules Zweischneid Monster-Madness-Tank (c) for my army. I invested loads of time and money in it. It's a bit broken I admit, but arguably not worse than some Space Wolves cheese and having invested time and money in it, there can be no reason to deny me its use? Right. Oh, and I also add my lovingly painted 60 Th/SS Terminators as per Planetfall rules. It's official GW stuff after all.

Chowderhead wrote:
It's called bringing more than one list. If the opponent declines the FW rules, then just pull out your normal list. No list tailoring involved. And you ALWAYS have to show your opponent your list.

Show me where it says that in the rule book.

AnUnearthlyChilde wrote:

kronk wrote:

AnUnearthlyChilde wrote:
Give me a very good reason why anyone should bring multiple lists just so an opponent can pick and chose?

No one has made that claim in this thread. You're reading far too much into people's responses.

Scroll up a bit.

Not seeing where anyone is picking and choosing between lists.

I only see where it is suggested that you bring a second list in case the people you run into don't like Forge World.

That's two completely different things.

The responses to me and Kronk's posts make me lose faith in gamers.

again, I ask why should anyone HAVE to do that?

AnUnearthlyChilde wrote:again, I ask why should anyone HAVE to do that?

You don't HAVE to do it.

If you only want to play games with Forge World, that's your choice, man. I support you.

If someone only wants to play non-Forge World games, that's their choice. I support them.

No one is making you play any game you don't want to. Not really sure why you're confused and/or upset over this.

It is because a lot of people come across as if they are telling others this is what they should do.

This game is meant to be fun, take the blows your dealt and roll with them, thats how it should be played.

AnUnearthlyChilde wrote:This game is meant to be fun, take the blows your dealt and roll with them, thats how it should be played.

What is fun for you is not fun for 100% of the players out there. Your definition of how the game should be played does not match 100% of the players out there.

Do you not understand that concept?