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.

"Play a game of Imperial Armour?" It's not a separate system you know.

I show them my list, the book, I point out the special rules (if any) belonging to outlandish units and I've yet to meet someone who doesn't want to play a game.

First of all, it's not the same thing. Imperial Armour is an expansion and so both players have to agree to play said expansion. If you're playing 40k, then Space Wolves are a legal list from a current codex for the current edition, so there's really no reason at all to decline that game. Unless you're just tired of playing against Marines, in which case I can forgive you.

Second, it's not unacceptable to do that, because you don't have to accept any game if you don't want to.

Finally, three land raiders? Really? Unless you're playing as Orks or Chaos Daemons (and maybe Necrons) you really have no reason to fear a list with three land raiders. Most armies have the tools to deal with them. Seriously, you would probably have more of a problem dealing with massed razors/chimeras than you would with three land raiders.

BrookM wrote:"Play a game of Imperial Armour?" It's not a separate system you know.

Apparently it's considered an expansion now, so yeah, it's not unlike saying "Wanna play Planetstrike?" (Of course not, no one plays Planetstrike, the only thing people cared about was the new terrain)

BrookM wrote:"Play a game of Imperial Armour?" It's not a separate system you know.

You don't have to play dim-witted on my account.

Do you say; "Lets play a game of 40k with Planetstrike", or do you say; "Lets play a game of Planetstrike"?

Because Planetstrike is EXACTLY the same as Imperial Armour....an expansion.

Steelmage99 wrote:So you are not disagreeing with the statement that the use of Imperial Armour requires opponents agreement?

No more or less than using any unit.

You can choose not to play someone because they have a land speeder Tempest.
You can choose not to play them because they have Vulcan.


I would say that to refuse a game purely on the basis of army composition is fairly bad form. Doubly so if you haven't actually played that person with that army.

Steelmage99 wrote:

BrookM wrote:"Play a game of Imperial Armour?" It's not a separate system you know.

You don't have to play dim-witted on my account.

Do you say; "Lets play a game of 40k with Planetstrike", or do you say; "Lets play a game of Planetstrike"?

Because Planetstrike is EXACTLY the same as Imperial Armour....an expansion.

And do you know why Imperial Armour volumes 5-10 are listed as 'expansions'?

Because they use alternative mission setups for their campaigns.

The actual army lists within the books are to be treated the same as codices, with the caveat that some of them(the Marine Siege list from IA10, the Krieg list with the Hades breaching drills come to mind) are really only balanced for those specific mission types and the special rules in place within them.

Kanluwen wrote:The actual army lists within the books are to be treated the same as codices, with the caveat that some of them(the Marine Siege list from IA10, the Krieg list with the Hades breaching drills come to mind) are really only balanced for those specific mission types and the special rules in place within them.

Which has little to do with the units which may explicitly be used in regular codex armies.

Scott-S6 wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:The actual army lists within the books are to be treated the same as codices, with the caveat that some of them(the Marine Siege list from IA10, the Krieg list with the Hades breaching drills come to mind) are really only balanced for those specific mission types and the special rules in place within them.

Which has little to do with the units which may explicitly be used in regular codex armies.

Yes, but those are quite clear about "this may be used in X codex armies" wouldn't you agree?

Steelmage99 wrote:

BrookM wrote:"Play a game of Imperial Armour?" It's not a separate system you know.

You don't have to play dim-witted on my account.

Do you say; "Lets play a game of 40k with Planetstrike", or do you say; "Lets play a game of Planetstrike"?

Because Planetstrike is EXACTLY the same as Imperial Armour....an expansion.

Sheesh, did a FW book touch you in a bad place or something?

Kanluwen wrote:

Scott-S6 wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:The actual army lists within the books are to be treated the same as codices, with the caveat that some of them(the Marine Siege list from IA10, the Krieg list with the Hades breaching drills come to mind) are really only balanced for those specific mission types and the special rules in place within them.

Which has little to do with the units which may explicitly be used in regular codex armies.

Yes, but those are quite clear about "this may be used in X codex armies" wouldn't you agree?

Absolutely. So that covers almost everything in the IA-Apoc books (since we have a listing telling us which force org slot they occupy in their codex), IA1, IA2 and an assortment of units from other books (which state it on a unit-by-unit basis). The vast majority of IA units in fact.

There are a few things which are not covered though. The Heavy Mortars, for example, are DKoK only while the quad-launchers can be used in a C:IG army.

The "X count as a Y choice in a Z army" is not a permission to use at will.

It is instructions on HOW to use them WHEN you play with the Imperial Armour Expansion.....which requires that you agree to do that with your opponent.



Just like you cannot bring a Spearhead formation to a "normal" game, even though the rules in Spearhead tells us that we can.

That would be the case if IA didn't state that these units may be used in regular missions of Warhammer 40k on the front of all the army lists in the IA lists and unit entries..

I've found most of the recent IA lists from IA5 on-wards to be a bit tepid. Almost like they tried to put a cap on how good a list they were trying to make. Lots of flavor and variety and I love to see 'em.

My opponent is welcome to play any legal configuration they like from any officially published book. I'm just happy to get a game.

Steelmage99 wrote:It is instructions on HOW to use them WHEN you play with the Imperial Armour Expansion.....which requires that you agree to do that with your opponent.

Really? What's your opinion on the Nightspinner then? I mean, White Dwarf isn't even a 40K expansion.

What are you talking about?

The release of the rules for Nightspinner through WD has absolutely nothing to do with how one uses expansions.

What is this; a purposeful deflection of the subject?

Humour us, please.

Would you be so kind as to remind me which WD the Nightspinner rules are in?

Steelmage99 wrote:Would you be so kind as to remind me which WD the Nightspinner rules are in?

I'll do you one better: they are available as a pdf, to save you some searching.

I know it was from the same month they did the spearhead expansion magazine, because that was the month that the new fire prism kit was released.

My opinion is that FW stuff and armies are awesome to play against and even just to look at. So put 'em on the table!

With a bit of Google-fu the issue with the Night Spinner was White Dwarf 365, which was released in June of 2010.

Source: http://www.merlyns.biz/index.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&t=1172

I think that Games Workshop has an archive to look through that stuff, BUT I am on a work computer.

If I recall correctly, the Night Spinner was not the only model to have that particular weapon, the Eldar Weapons Platform was also re-released that month with a Death Spinner added to the sprue.

Why would they make a distinction that the night spinner is official if all rules made by GW are equally official? Because they are not. There are core rules and there are expansions.

Night spinner gets to be official and IA gets to rot as obscure opponents permission. Working as intended.

nkelsch wrote:Why would they make a distinction that the night spinner is official if all rules made by GW are equally official? Because they are not. There are core rules and there are expansions.

Night spinner gets to be official and IA gets to rot as obscure opponents permission. Working as intended.

Actually, it's because just like the IA units that say "This can be taken as a <Slot> choice for a <Codex Here> army"--they wanted you to be able to know exactly where it fits in your FOC.

nkelsch wrote:Why would they make a distinction that the night spinner is official if all rules made by GW are equally official? Because they are not. There are core rules and there are expansions.

Night spinner gets to be official and IA gets to rot as obscure opponents permission. Working as intended.

Except that we've established earlier in the thread that if it's not "Chapter Approved" it's not "Officially Official".

So. Night Spinner isn't "Officially Official" since it's not "Chapter Approved".

Strange that this thread has managed to go as long as it has on such a basically flawed presmise. Unless it's a tournament, you can refuse to play anyone for any reason, and so every game essentially requires opponents permission. I don't distinguish between someone who won't allow a, say, Land Raider Ares vs someone who won't allow Nob Bikers because there is no fundamental difference; they are equally legal, you can refuse to play against anything you consider "overpowered", and doing so makes you an enormous toolbox in either case.

The point being that a lot of people who have made up FW armies (especially some of the DKoK, Elysian and chaos renegade armies) almost always do a great job of painting and modelling them, so they look a real pleasure on the tabletop. Presentation is a big thing for me, and as long as the guy who owned them is not a nasty piece of work I would have no hesitation in playing them. Again, I find that people who spend a lot of time painting/modelling are usually quite affable in nature, so that has never been a problem for me.

On the whole FW stuff is well balanced. I think a lot of the worry about facing them is the lingering memories of 'Forgeworld' meaning someone was going to plonk a Baneblade on the table (which was indeed their early selling point). But, they have come a long way since then.

Presentation is a big thing for me

I think that's mostly what it boils down to. I doubt many people would actually refuse to play a FW army that looked really good.

Ouze wrote:Strange that this thread has managed to go as long as it has on such a basically flawed presmise. Unless it's a tournament, you can refuse to play anyone for any reason, and so every game essentially requires opponents permission. I don't distinguish between someone who won't allow a, say, Land Raider Ares vs someone who won't allow Nob Bikers because there is no fundamental difference; they are equally legal, you can refuse to play against anything you consider "overpowered", and doing so makes you an enormous toolbox in either case.

See you are trying to distort moral high ground to make your position the default which makes you an enormous toolbox.

There is a difference in legality and officialness in GW eyes. Forge wold explicitly has said some fw lists are unbalanced, under play tested and not suited for balanced play. The core game as designed by the studio does not include fw units. This is fact and always has been.

Pretending there is not a valid distinction is dense and arrogant. Accepting there is a distinction and saying it doesn't impact because people will agree to play anyways is different, but do not start name calling people who don't accep fw rules as law because they are not and never have been.

Just on a side note, and to detract from the potential of a 'handbags at dawn' scenario above ( )

I've also never witnessed anyone refuse to play against FW, and that's going back over many years and various gaming environments.
Out of interest, has anyone here ever refused to play against a FW army or unit? I am genuinely curious.

Pacific wrote:Just on a side note, and to detract from the potential of a 'handbags at dawn' scenario above ( )

I've also never witnessed anyone refuse to play against FW, and that's going back over many years and various gaming environments.
Out of interest, has anyone here ever refused to play against a FW army or unit? I am genuinely curious.

I will refuse fw proxies, and since fw is not allowed in tourneys, when the group is training or play testing for tourneys, no fw is allowed as they will not be seen at tourneys and are not good practice and defeat the purpose of people's goal to test a list.

Reinventing history and people trying to push these lists into tourneys is the problem. Just admit they have no place in tourneys and opponents permission covers friendly play, not that these lists rise to the level of always legal.