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.

Ah OK I have no experience of tournaments, they are a different world to me, so I'm not really in a position to comment.

What you say makes sense - it's not how I like to play, but whatever floats your boat and all that!

Worglock wrote:It's not like people will actually play against armies/models they don't think they can beat anyway (see:Forge World) so it doesn't much matter.

This was posted in News and Rumors. And to think, this all started because of people on the internet insinuating that they might not always be interested in playing Moneytoys 40k, that they preferred playing the straight-up core game instead. A sentiment which has gotten some people soooo butthurt that they're going to start crying about it in other threads that aren't even related to the discussion, going off on some bs smear campaign and trying to make us dastardly "FW-haters" look as unreasonable and spiteful as possible.

Jesus Christ man, cry moar. Please. Maybe I can get drunk on your resin-tainted tears and hopefully forget this thread ever fething happened in the first place.

So yeah, way to miss the point entirely and, as always, be as much of a douchebag as possible while doing it.

Pacific wrote:Out of interest, has anyone here ever refused to play against a FW army or unit? I am genuinely curious.

No. But I haven't really encountered it often anyway so I've never had the chance.

This, however, might blow everyone's mind: I use FW models myself! I have a FW XV89 acting as my shas'el, and he's even mounted on a scenic 60mm resin base (the model came with a 60mm base IIRC), so it's double illegal! D:

Except I use it as a crisis suit, I don't use the XV89 rules (I think it does have unique rules but I'm not sure), so that may not "count" to you guys since proxying/counts-as for codex units is apparently not an acceptable use for them.

nkelsch wrote: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.

"Training for tourneys", god that sounds like a boring po-faced way to game. Turning it from a game into a competitive sport. Christ.


I can't understand the fuss, Forgeworld produce some weird and wonderful stuff, it's a blast to use them in a game. I've always wanted to play a game where one side, Chaos renegades or something, attack an Imperial airbase and the ground troops have to hold off the attackers with infantry or air crew and some of those sentinel power lifters while the pilots have to get the aircraft off the ground.

I don't see why they can't be used in Tournaments. I can't think of another company where the legitimacy of using some official products are debated to this extent, if they are made/published by the company that made the main ruleset then it's generally not questioned unless there's a practical issue like someone trying to squeeze a Tau Manta onto the table.

"Training for tourneys", god that sounds like a boring po-faced way to game. Turning it from a game into a competitive sport. Christ.

And? Some people find that enjoyable. Same as how some people find enjoyment in narrative play or storytelling, treating 40k almost like a cooperative RPG than a head-to-head wargame, going so far as to make up their own backstory (more like fan fiction in some cases), naming each individual troop and vehicle in their army, etc. Some people find enjoyment in throwing together the shittiest, most random list they can just using stuff they liked the look of, charging everything headlong into the other army and mindlessly tossing buckets of dice without thinking too hard about anything they're doing. And more still find enjoyment in not even playing the game at all, perfectly content sitting hunched over in a chair for 11 hours a day painting a single figure to the absolute best of their ability without any interest in building an actual army.

There are many facets of the hobby and none of them are inherently better than the other, the only "right" way to play (or not) is however you feel like it (and with like-minded people of course). Don't like treating 40k like a competitive sport? Don't.

You probably knew all that already though.

I would have thought that the rules are too shoddy and full of holes to play competitively, that's why there are so many arguments. There's also a huge reliance on chance in Warhammer, for all the 'tactics' used unless your approach is totally boneheadded games rest very much on die rolls. I'm sure there are better systems for competitive gaming if that's your bag.

I don't mind the idea of tournaments, they aren't my thing, but the idea you should 'train' yourself up for them and have days when no one else is allowed Forgeworld just to accommodate these people is taking it far too seriously.

Howard A Treesong wrote:I would have thought that the rules are too shoddy and full of holes to play competitively, that's why there are so many arguments. There's also a huge reliance on chance in Warhammer, for all the 'tactics' used unless your approach is totally boneheadded games rest very much on die rolls. I'm sure there are better systems for competitive gaming if that's your bag.

I don't mind the idea of tournaments, they aren't my thing, but the idea you should 'train' yourself up for them and have days when no one else is allowed Forgeworld just to accommodate these people is taking it far too seriously.

Practice even in a horribly unbalanced game of chance still helps one be a better player. And there is nothing wrong with wanting to be more familiar with rules and tactics via experience. Denying that practice helps one be a better player is absurd. Also, games usually have a sense of fairness before they begin in order for people to engage. 40k expects a level of fairness and balance so there can be a winner and a loser based on some sort of skill. The core rules have gotten tighter but saying they aren't perfect is not a reason to extend the game to unreasonable levels by including fringe unbalanced units (by GW's own admission) to the core ruleset.


Forgeworld simply is not part of the core game and it never has been. If two people want to choose to play a game by different rules, that's fine. Otherwise it is fine for people to expect to play a fair game by the core rules and not play with an advantage or disadvantage that influences the outcome of the game.

Elysians and Dredbash are broken and are narrative lists. Unless GW was going to distinguish the narrative from the balanced, it all becomes narrative.

How about those shiny new armies in the book IA 10?
They look really cool and have cool additional rules. Has anyone tried?

Howard A Treesong wrote:
There's also a huge reliance on chance in Warhammer, for all the 'tactics' used unless your approach is totally boneheadded games rest very much on die rolls. I'm sure there are better systems for competitive gaming if that's your bag.

Only if other games like Backgammon or Poker are also "hugely" reliant on luck, and thus are unsuitable for "competitive" games.
As that clearly isn't the case, I think you'll find that "chance" is not as big a factor as you seem to think.

nkelsch wrote:

Elysians and Dredbash are broken and are narrative lists. Unless GW was going to distinguish the narrative from the balanced, it all becomes narrative.

Although I think on balance they would favour your opponent, not the player of those lists. Really the only broken rules I have come across for FW (which favour the forgeworld player) are Lucius drop pods, which allow dreadnoughts to jump out and then assault instantly. But, I think that was more to do with FW having a bunch of them sat around unsold after the plastic drop pod was released

Steelmage99 wrote:I think you'll find that "chance" is not as big a factor as you seem to think.

Competent list-building helps quite a bit. It's why you see people "spamming" units, because including multiples of the same unit reduces your reliance on chance or luck.

nkelsch wrote:
Elysians and Dredbash are broken and are narrative lists. Unless GW was going to distinguish the narrative from the balanced, it all becomes narrative.

Have you even played against either list?

Elysian and Dredd mob are the weakest of all the IA lists, even weaker than the codex lists. The Dredd Mob is actually worse than a Codex:Ork Kan/Dredd spam list, since you can actually take an all walker army in the codex army while the IA list forces you to take the weak Spanner Boyz and loses the options to take Nobz or the Warboss for the ability to take Meka-Dredz. Elysians on the other hand lose pretty much everything that makes the Guard shooting phase deadly (all artillery), relies on reserve heavy lists while LOSING the astropath all so you can take valkyries as dedicated transports. (note that Vendettas still take up that fast slot, so basically it's losing all tanks to trade chimera's for valkyries essentially). I know that a mech guard player who uses chimera/artillery spam is FAR more deadly than using vanilla valkyrie spam.

I use and play against both lists quite often, and they are no means overpowered but are actually underpowered. If you want an overpowered list, look through IA10. As a lot of the people in the thread have stated, they don't see a lot of FW about. If so, why argue so strongly about it? If your gaming clique does not, and never intends to use FW then there's no problem right? It's not like the guys who have FW armies are going to fly to your gaming club and start demanding they use their IA lists and FW units....

Snarky wrote:

nkelsch wrote:
Elysians and Dredbash are broken and are narrative lists. Unless GW was going to distinguish the narrative from the balanced, it all becomes narrative.

Have you even played against either list?

Elysian and Dredd mob are the weakest of all the IA lists, even weaker than the codex lists. The Dredd Mob is actually worse than a Codex:Ork Kan/Dredd spam list, since you can actually take an all walker army in the codex army while the IA list forces you to take the weak Spanner Boyz and loses the options to take Nobz or the Warboss for the ability to take Meka-Dredz.

I am an ork player with 50k of orks. I played the core codex dredbash all last tourney season and have played every varient of it and can compare the core codex dredbash list to the dredbash codex and I can tell you it is not as weak as you claim.

First of all, Spanner boyz are not 'weak' and actually are comparative due to the ability to take burna nobs within the unit. Most dredbashes are footslogging so the primary goal of the spannaz is not the same as other ork armies. And if you knew anything about the 'dredbash' codex version, the list is not reliant on a Warboss or nobz. Nobz need transports most of the time which puts them ahead of their walker support. To get the 9 kanz and 2 dreds in the core codex dredlist, you are already taking dual meks. The only time I take nobz in a dredbash list is to take a minimal unit of MANZ to get a wagon on the table to deffroll and boading plank and then be a suicide PK unit while the bulk of the force tredges along in support of walkers.

Dredbash is a shooty codex. It can shoot amazingly well. It can take an amazing amount of pieplates and multiple KFFs in order to protect everything. And unlike the armored company alternatives, anything wishing to get up close and smash the dredbash has to take DCCW to the face. I find it is amazingly resilient to shooting while capable of belching out more effective damage than some of the most shooty ork codex lists. I would love to take a good dredbash to a competitive event as it is a great shooty list and many common armylists can't stand up to the stacking of unit types. You have a large ability to 'win big' due to people not expecting and being able to handle the list while the list is capable of responding fine to most other armies.

It has no place in a competitive environment and shows the lack of playtesting and balance... GW even admits it and says it is a narrative list. Hence it is an optional list, not part of the core ruleset. Needs opponents permission. Even friendly games should have an expectation of fairness and balance. I am unsure why friendly games is always code for 'I should be able to get away with whatever I want for my own personal advantage!' It is bullying at its worst. "you don't allow me to get away with forcing these rules on you? this is a friendly game! you are a toolbox!"

THe core ruleset is a good foundation for play. Unless both people choose to expand the ruleset. Not if one person bullies the other into including rules that change the game.

I use and play against both lists quite often, and they are no means overpowered but are actually underpowered. If you want an overpowered list, look through IA10. As a lot of the people in the thread have stated, they don't see a lot of FW about. If so, why argue so strongly about it? If your gaming clique does not, and never intends to use FW then there's no problem right? It's not like the guys who have FW armies are going to fly to your gaming club and start demanding they use their IA lists and FW units....

Underbalanced and overpowered both mean the game is not fair.

If your gaming clique does want FW units and approves, then why do you care if GW and everyone else sees them as unbalanced expansions not intended to be official core rulebook units/lists? They are not official for the core ruleset, they require opponents consent. GW deems some rules legal and some rules optional. Trying to say all rules are optionals so everything is legal is absurd.

Here's the "legal" argument again. It gets spouted quite often in this thread. What is "legal" in 40K? I asked this question before and it got ignored, if I'm playing a 40K expansion like Planetstrike, is it "illegal" and not 40K? If I'm playing a variant list from IA "illegal" and I am no longer playing 40K?

Tournaments are a VERY bad way to decide what is "legal" and "illegal". One tournament may allow variant units, while another won't. If IA is "illegal" then why are GW selling the IA books in their stores? If planetstrike, cities of death and all the other expansions are "illegal", why would GW ever bother developing these side expansions?

Well like I said I have never witnessed a game refused on the grounds of a FW model being used. I think most of the time players will champ at the bit to go up against something as characterful as an Elysian drop troop army or chaos renegade army - it more than outweighs the small penalty of it being inbalanced (in either way).

But, I can see how in a very limited set of circumstances (tournament preparation) people might not want to use forgeworld.
Personally, I think the FW lists are some of the most exciting things coming out for 40k at the moment. The shortcomings of the Chaos codex for example (and people complaining about the extremely limited and uncharacterful lists of the latest codex) have been negated by some of the really interesting lists in IA 5, 6 and 7. Plague zombie horde ftw

nkelsch wrote:I will refuse fw proxies

nkelsch, by this do you mean a FW model proxying as a Codex choice, or someone proxying a FW unit (such as the closed drop pod as a Deathwind drop pod example used in one of these two threads)?

Snarky wrote:Here's the "legal" argument again. It gets spouted quite often in this thread. What is "legal" in 40K? I asked this question before and it got ignored, if I'm playing a 40K expansion like Planetstrike, is it "illegal" and not 40K? If I'm playing a variant list from IA "illegal" and I am no longer playing 40K?

I am sure you wouldn't be ignored if your "argument" made any sense at all.

Nobody, aside from you that is, even hints at that Planetstrike is "illegal".
The point is that there is a, quite obvious, distinction between playing a plain, normal, out-of-the-box game of Warhammer 40K using Codexes and the rulebook, and playing a game adding the use of one of the expansions (with the addition of the expansion being the distinction, for the nitpicky types).

And when using an expansion, and Imperial Armour is irrefutably an expansion as shown by the logo, you need to agree with your opponent to do just that. This is not a question of legality but rather an important social contract (much like, but not the same as, any game is a social contract).

All games are by agreement and expansions can be seen as a sub-contract within the original social contract. The fact that all games are by agreement, does not lessen the requirement to agree with your opponent before playing an expansion-game.

Insisting that one can, without prior agreement or information, field Imperial Armour units using personal desire, "The unit counts as X in Y army" or other rubbish as argument.....is exactly the same as bringing a Spearhead formation or using Cities of Death Stratagems.
This is not something that is done without prior agreement, I am sure you'll find.

Then why argue that IA is "illegal" then?

If both players agree, then where's the problem? I don't see why this discussion is going in a big round circle where everyone agrees that all games are player consent only, then for someone to mention that IA is not legal for regular games.

It even mentions inside the IA books that the lists and units are designed for missions played in the standard rulebook, with superheavies designated as designed for apocalypse.

Snarky wrote:Then why argue that IA is "illegal" then?

Who is claiming that IA is "illegal", and not making the distinction that they mean that IA cannot be used in a regular game of 40k without prior agreement from your opponent?

If both players agree, then where's the problem? I don't see why this discussion is going in a big round circle where everyone agrees that all games are player consent only, then for someone to mention that IA is not legal for regular games.

Perhaps because some posters insist that they can "surprise" their opponent with IA units without prior agreement because "all games require opponent consent", which is a worthless and completely unconnected argument, or it is some people can't grasp the fact that Imperial Armour is an Expansion and should be treated as such.

It has no place in a competitive environment and shows the lack of playtesting and balance...

Can we just stop with these sort of arguments? The argument assumes that "Codex" 40k has some sort of rigorous play testing and balance as an object of the design studio. Which is as we all know not the case. There is not someone at GW whose sole job is “Head of GW Codex Balance” and is vetting every unit entry against some common standard. The design studio has a limited budget and development time frame. What limited playtest function they had was gutted years ago. "Balance" is achieved through experience of the design staff and is highly dependent on the codex author. The “real” balance in 40K is that everything dies if you shoot it enough times and as long as nothing is grossly undercosted, to far over the lines or available in large amounts the meta game of 40K tourney play will adjust to whatever rules be them Codex or Forgeworld are printed as it has for decades. For all anyone knows the Forgeworld team had more ‘’test” games than the regular GW design team. Forgeworld posts experimental rules for a large portion of their models they release, take feedback on the rules and in many cases make adjusted to the final printed version. It could be argued that the Forgeworld rules have more play testing because of this public input. Regardless neither have anything one would call a full blown rigorous play testing function. Argue all you want about other merits of Forgeworld model involvement, the accessibility, the cost, the fact that Forgeworld models and rules are not evenly distributed across all armies, etc .. you know things that are real issues. But arguing 40K “codex balance” is really a non-starter guys.

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.

No theres no flaw there.

Your talking about two different types of game. ONE- the tourny- your already going to have a set peramiter of your army make up. They will already have the Yey or Ney on the FW units in question, and they will ALREADY have up front told you the permitted unit/ army organization choices.

The second is a game between two guys in the store, or your pals or something. "Hey, I've got so and so army, you have the equivilent points? " Other guy says, "Yeah, I have that too. Here is my FW XYZ army. they have this neat thing where you deep strike so and so and do this and this."
At this point is where we're picking up the conversation.

Opponent looking at the FW stuff says something to the effect of the conversation we have been having...

Point of contention in here has been what constitutes the "Officially official" to something thats off the cuff and makes you go ??? because you haven't seen it before. It seems to be that TFG type to just arbitrarily just pull out an Armored Crassus death company assult and start laying down units while player two, with his vanilla army, or general assault Ork mobbs is sitting there like, "Hey guy, whats that stuff there?"

Points of contention actions here being (1.) the permission thing, (2.) the type of unit, and what particular book they cvame out of, and (3.) WHO's idea of officially official, ( GW, or FW) because point of fact, they ARE the same armies, but.. not the same because they haven't been played in the same way based on the purpose of the units in question. Straight leg in this context being "The Army" in question being made up from the "CODEX" of choice, as opposed to being out of the IA or equvilent FW books.


Tournies aren't the thing here. That was established back on Pdges 1 and 2.
You walk in like TFG without having alreadu given in your list, you pretty much know your not going to play. Tournies are not the issue here, either. Thats just like adding in another layer to the question and confusing the point of order on the FW stuff.

IA was designed for the particular war that it is showcasing in the book of the month( or war of the month, or however you call it.), or whatever your using on the specialty unit. If someone showed up with a LATD army, you know pretty much off that your going to take a heap of gak ovet that, because .. face it, LATD armies don't show up every day. You might be running them straight leg pure IG rules infantry, but YOU have to have something there to use it. And Like I said, your not running something out of the IA books as a matter of course in the Tourny. Ones I've played in, you had to hand in your lists for approval beforehand, and then AT the tourny, your opponents pretty much had it out for you if you came in with cheese.
I don't even see that as an issue in this point here. Tournies are a whole different animal.

People try that, but then you start playing, so many opponents B and M over it, that your TFG is basicly shamed out of the tourny, or they don't even get in to begin with.
I don't see it either as "reinventing" history. They've had these units and vehicles the whole time, it is just that now they are prevelent and that the game has changed its dynamic FROM- being a "standard run "# troops and a vehicle, and a HQ sideorder, with some special weapons options in the special troops area", TO- "Here are the units that are available out there, you pick the ones you want and roll a d 6 to have fun!"

When they started out with 3-4th edition, they were cranking out FW stuff almost continuously. They were in the hayday fo the summer RT events, and they had showcase wars to showcase the supplimentals like Citys Of Death, Or the newer codexs coming out there for Special unit X,Y, or Z.

Eldar come to mind, Dark Angels, and the Tau. Just like the issue of Codex Creep, we're seeing a issue of the FW creep.

I am really mystified by these huge arguments online. There's no point declaring what models are 'legal' and 'illegal' in a vacuum. As several people have pointed out, all games are an implicit contract between the 2 players. I wouldn't accept or refuse a game based on a list or models, forgeworld or codex rules. I would look at the guy I was playing, and make a guess as to whether he'd be a decent opponent or not.

In tournaments, well, it's up to the organiser to make a consistent decision and clearly inform everyone involved.

What's the big drama here? Would anyone in the anti-FW camp really just see forgworld models and run screaming from the room? Course not, they'd try and estimate if their opponent was trying to gain an advantage or just wanted to play with his army. Then, I presume they would discuss it like adults, hopefully more fruitfully than here.

Steelmage99 wrote: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?

No, it's not a deflection at all.

Both WD and IA books have units which are add-ons for standard codex armies.

Do you treat the WD units the same as the IA units?

Scott-S6 wrote:

Steelmage99 wrote: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?

No, it's not a deflection at all.

Both WD and IA books have units which are add-ons for standard codex armies.

Do you treat the WD units the same as the IA units?

I would assume not as the whole "Chapter Approved" stuff from before is a compilation of White Dwarf articles and lists from what my Google-fu is showing. Several other discussions I have seen have mentioned that if you have the White Dwarf copy with you that the unit is legal. From what I have just seen the Imperial Guard Armoured Company is also a "Chapter Approved" article out of WD253.

Scott-S6 wrote:

Steelmage99 wrote: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?

No, it's not a deflection at all.

Both WD and IA books have units which are add-ons for standard codex armies.

Do you treat the WD units the same as the IA units?

In regard to bolded part; No, they have not. Just no. Would you use Spearhead Formations without prior agreement as that is just add-ons to a standard codex army? Why Imperial Armour units then?

And please don't present the usual "they count as an X choice in a Y army". Yes, they count as a X choice when playing with the Imperial Armour Expansion.
When not playing with the Imperial Armour Expansion, they count as nothing as they cannot be taken.

How do we play expansion games?

In regard to your question; no, I certainly don't treat the WD units (the Nightspinner specifically) the same as the IA units.

Steelmage99 wrote:

Scott-S6 wrote:

Steelmage99 wrote: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?

No, it's not a deflection at all.

Both WD and IA books have units which are add-ons for standard codex armies.

Do you treat the WD units the same as the IA units?

In regard to bolded part; No, they have not. Just no. Would you use Spearhead Formations without prior agreement as that is just add-ons to a standard codex army? Why Imperial Armour units then?

And please don't present the usual "they count as an X choice in a Y army". Yes, they count as a X choice when playing with the Imperial Armour Expansion.
When not playing with the Imperial Armour Expansion, they count as nothing as they cannot be taken.

So how do you treat WD or PDF units like the night spinner?

WD is neither a 40K rulebook, a codex or an expansion.

I edited while you answered. Sorry about that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Scott-S6, I'll get back to you once I have the relevant WD in hand. I'm currently on a job away from my home. It'll be either Tuesday or Thursday.

nkelsch wrote: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.

[citation needed]

Also, could you explain to me the difference between legality and officialness? Are you saying I could have a legal army which would be disallowed because it's not official? Or an official illegal army? Because I hope you can see that either scenario makes not a whit of sense.

I-bounty-hunt-the-elderly wrote:I am really mystified by these huge arguments online. There's no point declaring what models are 'legal' and 'illegal' in a vacuum. As several people have pointed out, all games are an implicit contract between the 2 players. I wouldn't accept or refuse a game based on a list or models, forgeworld or codex rules. I would look at the guy I was playing, and make a guess as to whether he'd be a decent opponent or not.

In tournaments, well, it's up to the organiser to make a consistent decision and clearly inform everyone involved.

What's the big drama here? Would anyone in the anti-FW camp really just see forgworld models and run screaming from the room? Course not, they'd try and estimate if their opponent was trying to gain an advantage or just wanted to play with his army. Then, I presume they would discuss it like adults, hopefully more fruitfully than here.

This is the most sensible post I have read in the thread.

Like you said it comes down to any particular situation, but I think instead we have two sides here in this discussion trying to make their own subjective viewpoint a universal one. There is no way either side will capitulate, and so the thread reaches 9 pages (.. and I've just bumped it to the top again )

Snarky wrote: What is "legal" in 40K? I asked this question before and it got ignored

No it didn't, apparently the answer you got just wasn't satisfactory.

Snarky wrote:
Tournaments are a VERY bad way to decide what is "legal" and "illegal". One tournament may allow variant units, while another won't. If IA is "illegal" then why are GW selling the IA books in their stores? If planetstrike, cities of death and all the other expansions are "illegal", why would GW ever bother developing these side expansions?

This isn't really that hard to understand.

IA, Planetstrike, etc. are all being sold in stores because they're perfectly usable products, if both players are using them. The rules in Planetstrike are "legal" if you're playing a Planetstrike game, the rules for Apocalypse are "legal" if you're playing Apocalypse, and the same applies to IA because it's not the core game, it's an expensive set of add-on/optional rules and units that alter how the core game is played, like an expansion. The reason why we're arguing that it changes the core game is because the rules are developed outside of GW's studio, and that the guys that are designing the rules themselves have even come out and said, in print, that they're UNBALANCED and not meant for regular play! They're made to be used with regular codex armies, but they're not designed for regular, balanced play, they're made under the assumption that you're playing in strictly friendly games with people who are okay with playing against them in narrative campaigns, reenactments and the like.

If one guy wants to play 40k with the core rules and you want to play Planetstrike, then it becomes "illegal" to use the Planetstrike rules because that's practically a different game altogether, with it's own special rules and missions outside of those in the core book. If you and your opponent can't agree to play one or the other then you can't really play at that point and it's time to find someone else who wants to play Planetstrike (because omg vanilla 40k is so boring and stupid and I hate it so much omgomg).

What it seems like you're arguing is that every single expansion GW has ever released is all the same game, and that if you wanted you could legally mix and match strategems, datasheets, whatever the hell you wanted and play against a standard codex army no problem, and if that's not possible then it's the exact opposite and nothing can ever be used at any point because it's not in the main rulebook. No one has ever argued for the latter, that's the "pro-FW" side putting words in our mouths, and the former is just so absurd and unreasonable that I can't believe anyone would seriously try to argue that point if they were over 11-years-old.

And here's what's going to happen. You're going to repeat the question because everyone "ignored" you again and you still have no idea what "legal" or "illegal" means. "No, wait...what you say? Planetstrike is 40k. IA is 40k. The IA models are designed to be used with 40k because Orks and IG are obviously 40k armies, so how can they not be 'legal' for 40k? That makes no sense."



You're right about one thing however, tournaments are a bad way to judge what's "legal" and what isn't because TO's can literally do whatever the hell they want, since it's their event. The problem is most TO's don't know any more about the game than the average player does, sometimes even less, and they use their positions of authority to exert their own biases and beliefs on the crowd at their store, ruling in favor of how they think the game should be played and now how it was originally designed or intended to be played according to GW. A TO can just decide on the spot that no army can use Heavy Support choices if he wanted, and if you were an attendee then you'd either have to put up with it or find another event.

Snarky wrote:Then why argue that IA is "illegal" then?

If both players agree, then where's the problem? I don't see why this discussion is going in a big round circle where everyone agrees that all games are player consent only, then for someone to mention that IA is not legal for regular games.

It even mentions inside the IA books that the lists and units are designed for missions played in the standard rulebook, with superheavies designated as designed for apocalypse.

Holy god man are you just trolling or what? I swear you aren't paying any attention at all, I'm a god-damned moron and if I were just browsing this thread -I- would have found the answer to these questions already.

No one is saying IA is "illegal" and can never be used at all. No one is even implying as such, so how the hell you're constantly inferring this from what's been said beats the hell out of me.

If both players agree, THERE IS NO PROBLEM. This has been said already on damn near every single page of this stupid thread! This discussion continues to go around in circles precisely because of bs like this where some guy comes in asking what the definition of "legal" is, completely ignoring the ongoing argument where his question was answered about a half dozen times, and starting it all up again for no reason.

People mention that IA is not legal for regular games because it's not, same reason why an Apoc baneblade isn't legal for regular games, because it's meant for Apocalypse games, it's not balanced for regular 40k otherwise it'd be in a god-damn codex and not in a separate rulebook that's designed to work as an expansion.

It also mentions in the IA books that the rules are not well-balanced and aren't meant to be used in games where that's an issue (i.e., with an opponent who's interested in playing with just the core rules and doesn't want to play against IA units). We've even got a screenshot as proof that this is the case on an earlier page (probably in the other FW thread going, they're so similar now it's hard to distinguish between them...seriously, why did this deserve a separate thread, why can't this discussion take place in the other one where it's already taking place?), implying that their use should be discussed beforehand. Here's the relevant quote:

Steelmage99 wrote:No, what I said is a complete 100% carved-in-stone irrefutable certainty.

All newer Forgeworld books carry the expansion logo, and the last time Forgeworld addressed their own legality, they equated themselves to an expansion like Cities of Death.

You wanna complain about people ignoring you, that's exactly what your entire side seems to be doing! What do you need, Jervis Johnson himself descending from the ivory tower to proclaim that IA and regular 40k should indeed be kept separate, unless both players agree to play one or the other? No, because people would still be insisting that everything with a 40k logo on it is perfectly legal with everything else that has a 40k logo and that it's all the exact same game, otherwise they wouldn't have bothered making the models or rules at all, right? Which is an argument based so far away from reality I can't help but smack myself in the fething head as hard as possible every single time it gets brought up.

I'm starting to like the pain now. Hurt me, Snake! Hurt me more...

muwhe wrote:*snip*

Do you actually have proof that FW rules are more rigorously tested?

Scott-S6 wrote:So how do you treat WD or PDF units like the night spinner?

WD is neither a 40K rulebook, a codex or an expansion.

Man...why do I get the feeling that this entire argument hinges on this one stupid point? That no matter what answer you get you're just going to say "If I can't use IA in regular games then the night spinner is also 'illegal', as is anything else printed in WD because it's not a codex or expansion!"

Here's the relevant link, since no one in their right mind would waste a perfectly good $10 bill buying that rag that has the rules in it: http://www.games-workshop.com/MEDIA_CustomProductCatalog/m1640390a_NightSpinner_Rules.pdf

And, literally, all it says is 40k in one corner, and "Official" stamped in the other. I would say that means it's "official" for use in 40k, but that's going to lead nowhere good since half of the people posting in this thread are fully convinced that everything with the 40k logo is technically part of the core game and that Apoc, PS, and IA should be treated exactly like the night spinner rules (meaning they can be used in regular games without warning or prior discussion at all), despite words printed from the designers themselves claiming otherwise (on the topic of IA and other expansions anyway, not sure what else they had to say about the night spinner in particular and the website says nothing more than what's in that PDF). A complete waste of time trying to argue about this, especially when you consider that the night spinner SUCKS and you shouldn't be taking it over the fire prism anyway.

Who the hell builds their Eldar army, which already has a lot of S6 firepower, and tells themselves "You know what this army needs? More god-damned S6 firepower! What are vehicles? I'm sure I'll never fight anything but foot hordes so who cares!" And how may of those people went online to cry afterward about how "broken" IG was because of all their vehicle spam? lol

I suggest this thread be shut down, because it should be clear by now that there's never going to be an end to this argument. It's just going to keep going in circles until one side eventually gets tired of the bs, and the other declares victory by default. Just like every other internet argument.


I need a fething drink, are liquor stores still open at 11pm on Sundays?

Do you actually have proof that FW rules are more rigorously tested?

I do not think I need proof Sid as my point is neither are what would pass for rigorous testing in other industries so arguments that have some reliance on one being more valid or balanced do not hold much merit as both fall short of any sort of standard that would matter. What proof do we have of GW play testing in general these days? On the Forgeworld side we do have them releasing experimental rules and some instances of them altering the final published version of them based on community feedback. The final Achilles rules, changes made to the Trygon, and the Cyclops between versions a while back come to mind. Whether putting “experimental” rules out there for the community to view and provide feedback on counts as more rigorous .. people can decide for themselves.

The only real question is do you want to have to adjust the meta game for strictly codex releases or do you also want to have to account for Forgeworld additions? That is a choice everyone can make for themselves.