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.

Zweischneid wrote:

ZebioLizard2 wrote:

All I did was apply the rules you made to justify your use of FW-stuff. If the results seem ludicrious to you, it just shows how ludicrious your own arguments are.

Contemptor: Can be used as a FoC slot in normal warhammer games

Planetstrike: An entire supplement based around changing around entire rules for both the attacker and defender along with scenario rules, standard gameplay, and various other changes..

Here's the simple, you only have strawman arguments.

I don't see your point? Planetstrike does different things than a FW model? A given. But how does that make one "ok" and the other "not" for unprepared play.

Because planetstrike is an entirely different supplement that requires an entire setup change to both the standard gameplay, FoC changes, both to the enemy and yourself.

Because it changes your ENEMY instead of just adding on something to yourself. Forgeworld is one model (or multiple) that is apart of the standard FoC list. Planetstrike changes not just for yourself, but EVERYTHING for your enemy in various ways.

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 love how one person went as far as calling "good manners" that they reject their opponents FW models/lists unless they have the actual book and if they just don't feel like playing against them for whatever reason, and that the opponent is just supposed to shut up and accept *their* decision as if they have no say in the game at all. Good manners would be saying something to the effect of "I am not familiar with those FW models. Is it OK if we just use official codex forces instead? If not I don't mind you looking for a different player than me." In that instance they are voicing their disinterest in the forge world models, but still being a reasonable and mature human being as you say too. Unfortunately many people in general are not reasonable and mature human beings, and those people can equally be found in the gaming community too. I just love how it is apparently obnoxious for people to even think of bringing FW models to the table for some people, but it is OK for them to treat that other player like crap for doing so. Yeah who really is the obnoxious one??

Skriker

kronk wrote:

AnUnearthlyChilde wrote:

kronk wrote:

AnUnearthlyChilde wrote:It's not in my copy of the book

Explain?

I cannot find that snapshot you posted within any page of the copy of IA Apoc 2nd ed that I own.

Are you honestly saying that you don't see the following sentence at the beginning of your IA Apoc Second Edition book?

"As with all our models these should be considered 'official', but owing to the fact they may be unknown to your opponent, it's best to make sure they are happy to play a game using Forge World models before you start. "

Yes I am honestly saying that. I have been through my copy of the book several times whilst replying to this thread. That does not exist within my copy. tbh this wouldn't be the first time GW/FW have printed differing versions.

AnUnearthlyChilde wrote:

kronk wrote:

AnUnearthlyChilde wrote:It's not in my copy of the book

Explain?

I cannot find that snapshot you posted within any page of the copy of IA Apoc 2nd ed that I own.

Then you do not own IAA2. It's as simple as that.

ZebioLizard2 wrote:

Because planetstrike is an entirely different supplement that requires an entire setup change to both the standard gameplay, FoC changes, both to the enemy and yourself.

Because it changes your ENEMY instead of just adding on something to yourself. Forgeworld is one model (or multiple) that is apart of the standard FoC list. Planetstrike changes not just for yourself, but EVERYTHING for your enemy in various ways.

Just because introducing FW at a different stage, when you write the list, rather than during the actual game, does not mean it has no repercussions on the gameplay, the "enemy" and how he needs to play his game, etc.. .

And still, the criteria seems a slippery slope. Introducing stuff that only changes things "a little" can be done without prior consent. Stuff that changes "a lot" cannot be done without prior consent? Seems vague. What is still "a little"? A contemptor? Perhaps. A Caestus? Unlikely. Three Achilles. Surely that defines a game through and through? Or not?

Chowderhead wrote:

AnUnearthlyChilde wrote:

kronk wrote:

AnUnearthlyChilde wrote:It's not in my copy of the book

Explain?

I cannot find that snapshot you posted within any page of the copy of IA Apoc 2nd ed that I own.

Then you do not own IAA2. It's as simple as that.

Imperial Armour Apocalypes, 2nd Edition is sat in my hands. How do you quantify such an absurd statement?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Zweischneid wrote:

ZebioLizard2 wrote:

Because planetstrike is an entirely different supplement that requires an entire setup change to both the standard gameplay, FoC changes, both to the enemy and yourself.

Because it changes your ENEMY instead of just adding on something to yourself. Forgeworld is one model (or multiple) that is apart of the standard FoC list. Planetstrike changes not just for yourself, but EVERYTHING for your enemy in various ways.

Just because introducing FW at a different stage, when you write the list, rather than during the actual game, does not mean it has no repercussions on the gameplay, the "enemy" and how he needs to play his game, etc.. .

And still, the criteria seems a slippery slope. Introducing stuff that only changes things "a little" can be done without prior consent. Stuff that changes "a lot" cannot be done without prior consent? Seems vague. What is still "a little"? A contemptor? Perhaps. A Caestus? Unlikely. Three Achilles. Surely that defines a game through and through? Or not?

I see playing a friend who uses FW no different than playing someone at a tourney who you have never faced before. Its a challenge, and the spirit of the game. again, Lord Wellington didn't turn up to Waterloo, ask Napoleon what was in his army, and then when he didn't like the answer refuse to play him...

AUC, please check your page numbers starting from the cover page and moving forwards. It sounds like you have a misprint and should contact Forge World about your missing pages.

Zweischneid wrote:

ZebioLizard2 wrote:

Because planetstrike is an entirely different supplement that requires an entire setup change to both the standard gameplay, FoC changes, both to the enemy and yourself.

Because it changes your ENEMY instead of just adding on something to yourself. Forgeworld is one model (or multiple) that is apart of the standard FoC list. Planetstrike changes not just for yourself, but EVERYTHING for your enemy in various ways.

Just because introducing FW at a different stage, when you write the list, rather than during the actual game, does not mean it has no repercussions on the gameplay, the "enemy" and how he needs to play his game, etc.. .

And still, the criteria seems a slippery slope. Introducing stuff that only changes things "a little" can be done without prior consent. Stuff that changes "a lot" cannot be done without prior consent? Seems vague. What is still "a little"? A contemptor? Perhaps. A Caestus? Unlikely. Three Achilles. Surely that defines a game through and through? Or not?

I've never faced a manticore before, or an IG list in general, shall I deny it because It has a repercussion on the gameplay and how I need to play the game because I've never faced it before?

Three Achilles is so expensive that you'd better make those models count, 975 points dedicated to a moderately killy land raider? And I thought NidZilla lists were small.

kronk wrote:AUC, please check your page numbers starting from the cover page and moving forwards. It sounds like you have a misprint and should contact Forge World about your missing pages.

I'll be taking it with me to Nottingham next week

AnUnearthlyChilde wrote:

kronk wrote:AUC, please check your page numbers starting from the cover page and moving forwards. It sounds like you have a misprint and should contact Forge World about your missing pages.

I'll be taking it with me to Nottingham next week

AnUnearthlyChilde wrote:

I see playing a friend who uses FW no different than playing someone at a tourney who you have never faced before. Its a challenge, and the spirit of the game. again, Lord Wellington didn't turn up to Waterloo, ask Napoleon what was in his army, and then when he didn't like the answer refuse to play him...

Same would apply to a "short-notice" Planetstrike game. Or me fielding Zweischneid's Custom Tank. Or playing last year's Ard Boyz scenario instead of the basic missions. By that logic, I fail to see the difference as previously stated many, many times!

AnUnearthlyChilde wrote:

Chowderhead wrote:

AnUnearthlyChilde wrote:

kronk wrote:

AnUnearthlyChilde wrote:It's not in my copy of the book

Explain?

I cannot find that snapshot you posted within any page of the copy of IA Apoc 2nd ed that I own.

Then you do not own IAA2. It's as simple as that.

Imperial Armour Apocalypes, 2nd Edition is sat in my hands. How do you quantify such an absurd statement?

Because I hold the same book. Bottom of Page 3. The rule is right there.

Maybe you should get your eyes checked. They seem to deceive you...

ZebioLizard2 wrote:

Zweischneid wrote:

ZebioLizard2 wrote:

Because planetstrike is an entirely different supplement that requires an entire setup change to both the standard gameplay, FoC changes, both to the enemy and yourself.

Because it changes your ENEMY instead of just adding on something to yourself. Forgeworld is one model (or multiple) that is apart of the standard FoC list. Planetstrike changes not just for yourself, but EVERYTHING for your enemy in various ways.

Just because introducing FW at a different stage, when you write the list, rather than during the actual game, does not mean it has no repercussions on the gameplay, the "enemy" and how he needs to play his game, etc.. .

And still, the criteria seems a slippery slope. Introducing stuff that only changes things "a little" can be done without prior consent. Stuff that changes "a lot" cannot be done without prior consent? Seems vague. What is still "a little"? A contemptor? Perhaps. A Caestus? Unlikely. Three Achilles. Surely that defines a game through and through? Or not?

I've never faced a manticore before, or an IG list in general, shall I deny it because It has a repercussion on the gameplay and how I need to play the game because I've never faced it before?

Three Achilles is so expensive that you'd better make those models count, 975 points dedicated to a moderately killy land raider? And I thought NidZilla lists were small.

you sir, are a man after my own heart!

Chowderhead wrote:Because I hold the same book. Bottom of Page 3. The rule is right there.

It sounds like he's missing pages.

My IA8 was missing pages so I took it back.

Chowderhead wrote:

AnUnearthlyChilde wrote:

Chowderhead wrote:

AnUnearthlyChilde wrote:

kronk wrote:

AnUnearthlyChilde wrote:It's not in my copy of the book

Explain?

I cannot find that snapshot you posted within any page of the copy of IA Apoc 2nd ed that I own.

Then you do not own IAA2. It's as simple as that.

Imperial Armour Apocalypes, 2nd Edition is sat in my hands. How do you quantify such an absurd statement?

Because I hold the same book. Bottom of Page 3. The rule is right there.

Maybe you should get your eyes checked. They seem to deceive you...

Or maybe the copy I own is one of a batch including a missing page. Ever thought about that? Jeeeeez just because you think you know everything doesn't make it true. BOOK IS IN MY LAP. fact. my copy does not contain that part. fact.

AnUnearthlyChilde wrote:

Chowderhead wrote:

AnUnearthlyChilde wrote:

kronk wrote:

AnUnearthlyChilde wrote:It's not in my copy of the book

Explain?

I cannot find that snapshot you posted within any page of the copy of IA Apoc 2nd ed that I own.

Then you do not own IAA2. It's as simple as that.

Imperial Armour Apocalypes, 2nd Edition is sat in my hands. How do you quantify such an absurd statement?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Zweischneid wrote:

ZebioLizard2 wrote:

Because planetstrike is an entirely different supplement that requires an entire setup change to both the standard gameplay, FoC changes, both to the enemy and yourself.

Because it changes your ENEMY instead of just adding on something to yourself. Forgeworld is one model (or multiple) that is apart of the standard FoC list. Planetstrike changes not just for yourself, but EVERYTHING for your enemy in various ways.

Just because introducing FW at a different stage, when you write the list, rather than during the actual game, does not mean it has no repercussions on the gameplay, the "enemy" and how he needs to play his game, etc.. .

And still, the criteria seems a slippery slope. Introducing stuff that only changes things "a little" can be done without prior consent. Stuff that changes "a lot" cannot be done without prior consent? Seems vague. What is still "a little"? A contemptor? Perhaps. A Caestus? Unlikely. Three Achilles. Surely that defines a game through and through? Or not?

I see playing a friend who uses FW no different than playing someone at a tourney who you have never faced before. Its a challenge, and the spirit of the game. again, Lord Wellington didn't turn up to Waterloo, ask Napoleon what was in his army, and then when he didn't like the answer refuse to play him...

besides that, it's all about adapting. It'd be the same thing if you'd never played against a Land Raider or a Monolith or even Kaldor Draigo.

Oh, and not Apoc 2nd ed. Apoc 2. There's apoc, apoc reload, apoc 2, and apoc 2nd ed.

ZebioLizard2 wrote:

I've never faced a manticore before, or an IG list in general, shall I deny it because It has a repercussion on the gameplay and how I need to play the game because I've never faced it before?

Three Achilles is so expensive that you'd better make those models count, 975 points dedicated to a moderately killy land raider? And I thought NidZilla lists were small.

Than I fail to see how you could object to my (quite pricy) 60 TH/SS Terminators. Or my Zweischneid's Custom Tank. Or a short-notice 'Ard Boyz scenario from GW's last year's tournament. Unafraid as you are of the unknown, I am puzzled why you keep making objections!

kronk wrote:

Chowderhead wrote:Because I hold the same book. Bottom of Page 3. The rule is right there.

It sounds like he's missing pages.

My IA8 was missing pages so I took it back.

As I said, it isnt the first time it's happened.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

McNinja wrote:Oh, and not Apoc 2nd ed. Apoc 2. There's apoc, apoc reload, apoc 2, and apoc 2nd ed.

Yeah, the one i am referring to is Imperial Armour Apocalypse: 2nd Edition.

Zweischneid wrote:

ZebioLizard2 wrote:

I've never faced a manticore before, or an IG list in general, shall I deny it because It has a repercussion on the gameplay and how I need to play the game because I've never faced it before?

Three Achilles is so expensive that you'd better make those models count, 975 points dedicated to a moderately killy land raider? And I thought NidZilla lists were small.

Than I fail to see how you could object to my (quite pricy) 60 TH/SS Terminators. Or my Zweischneid's Custom Tank. Or a short-notice 'Ard Boyz scenario from GW's last year's tournament. Unafraid as you are of the unknown, I am puzzled why you keep making objections!

Because each of those scenario's (with the exception of one) are scenario's, if you want to play me with those, go for it! But if you say you are using planetstrike rules, you'd better be bringing that book because I'd want some of those stratagems out of it, maybe even bring in some bastions and some walls.

Also, play dark angels, than you can bring as many terminators as you want. Or even gray knights

Zweischneid wrote:

AnUnearthlyChilde wrote:

I see playing a friend who uses FW no different than playing someone at a tourney who you have never faced before. Its a challenge, and the spirit of the game. again, Lord Wellington didn't turn up to Waterloo, ask Napoleon what was in his army, and then when he didn't like the answer refuse to play him...

Same would apply to a "short-notice" Planetstrike game. Or me fielding Zweischneid's Custom Tank. Or playing last year's Ard Boyz scenario instead of the basic missions. By that logic, I fail to see the difference as previously stated many, many times!

Within the terms of GW/FW sanctioned rules, I have no problem playing any list. If I was to play a planetstrike game that would be pre arranged as I'd need to write a new list due to it using a different FOC. If someone turns up with FW Models I have no problem with that either, because I make sure I know my enemy and read up on the rules of most things going. and should it arise I'm playing something I don't know. I don't care... I'll still play it. It's a game, its meant to be fun, I like to be challenged. And as it is meant to be a strategy game which pushes you to adapt to new and different strategies, I honestly have no problem.

ZebioLizard2 wrote:But if you say you are using planetstrike rules, you'd better be bringing that book because I'd want some of those stratagems out of it, maybe even bring in some bastions and some walls.

Than, inversely, I assume that if you play FW rules, you are offering me with the full selection of FW models so I can likewise choose a FW-complement to the ones you included in your list?

Now that will be expensive, not to mention logicially challenging for pick-up games I'd imagine.

By that effort however, I would certainly also agree to a FW game.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

AnUnearthlyChilde wrote:

Within the terms of GW/FW sanctioned rules, I have no problem playing any list.

Within the terms of GW (but not FW) sanctioned rules, I have no problems playing any list.

Zweischneid wrote:

ZebioLizard2 wrote:But if you say you are using planetstrike rules, you'd better be bringing that book because I'd want some of those stratagems out of it, maybe even bring in some bastions and some walls.

Than, inversely, I assume that if you play FW rules, you are offering me with the full selection of FW models so I can likewise choose a FW-complement to the ones you included in your list?

Now that will be expensive, not to mention logicially challenging for pick-up games I'd imagine.

By that effort however, I would certainly also agree to a FW game.

Thats being exceptionally picky with the rules.

Planetstrike is a scenario based expansion that is meant for two players to agree upon, or as part of a campaign.

Forge World, is a model supplement where anyone one who owns the book and models can use them.

BIG DIFFERENCE.

Zweischneid wrote:

ZebioLizard2 wrote:But if you say you are using planetstrike rules, you'd better be bringing that book because I'd want some of those stratagems out of it, maybe even bring in some bastions and some walls.

Than, inversely, I assume that if you play FW rules, you are offering me with the full selection of FW models so I can likewise choose a FW-complement to the ones you included in your list?

Now that will be expensive, not to mention logicially challenging for pick-up games I'd imagine.

By that effort however, I would certainly also agree to a FW game.

Than, inversely, I assume that if you play GK against me, you are offering me with the full selection of GK models so I can likewise choose a GK-complement to the ones you included in your list?

Now that will be expensive, not to mention logicially challenging for pick-up games I'd imagine.

By that effort however, I would certainly also agree to a game against GK's

AnUnearthlyChilde wrote:

Thats being exceptionally picky with the rules.

Planetstrike is a scenario based expansion that is meant for two players to agree upon, or as part of a campaign.

Forge World, is a model supplement where anyone one who owns the book and models can use them.

BIG DIFFERENCE.

Wrong. Forge World is a model supplement that is meant for two players to agree upon, or as part of a campaign.

The second half-sentence is identical with Planetstrike

AnUnearthlyChilde wrote:
Thats being exceptionally picky with the rules.

Planetstrike is a scenario based expansion that is meant for two players to agree upon, or as part of a campaign.

Forge World, is a model supplement where anyone one who owns the book and models can use them.

BIG DIFFERENCE.

As has already been brought up, no it isn't. It's only different to you.

Every Forge World book as the following phrase or something similar in the front of it for a reason.

"As with all our models these should be considered 'official', but owing to the fact they may be unknown to your opponent, it's best to make sure they are happy to play a game using Forge World models before you start. "

I'll now bow out AGAIN. You folks can keep arguing with each other.

AnUnearthlyChilde wrote:

Within the terms of GW/FW sanctioned rules, I have no problem playing any list.

Within the terms of GW (but not FW) sanctioned rules, I have no problems playing any list.

AnUnearthlyChilde wrote:
also, out of curiosity, in a tourney what would you do if your opponent brought a load of FW stuff? Not play him? If so, that would lose you sportsmanship points

Silly argument, AUC. That's up to the TO to post the rules before the tournament.

Obviously, if a tournament is going to allow FW, everyone will know about it ahead of time. Then, people can chose to play or not to play.

Kronk, from experience, your views are in a minority of players I have faced and talked to. I don't see why FW is an issue over whether you play someone or not.

There is the view "It's only different to you" from my point of view as well, that is not to say I am saying your wrong either.

AnUnearthlyChilde wrote:



As FW is owned by GW I have absoloutely no problem with the rules for any of it.


also, out of curiosity, in a tourney what would you do if your opponent brought a load of FW stuff? Not play him? If so, that would lose you sportsmanship points

FW is owned by GW PLC, not by the GW miniature company. And it couldn't be "owned" by a different company, if it weren't a different company to begin with. If I order a Pepsi, I would object to be served some Tropicana, though they are both managed by the same company.

And as said, the TO would adverstise the rules beforehand and I would agree to them by agreeing/inscribing in the tournament. Now, if a TO did not make an explicit note saying FW was allowed, but than people would play FW stuff without a sanction by the TO, I would likely cry foul and the TO, I imagine, would not have a good reputation for long. For a tournament, like any pick-up game, use of FW (or Planetstrike, or home-made stuff, or whatever that falls outside the normal GW game) requires an early heads-up!

Zweischneid wrote:
FW is owned by GW PLC, not by the GW miniature company. And it couldn't be "owned" by a different company, if it weren't a different company to begin with. If I order a Pepsi, I would object to be served some Tropicana, though they are both managed by the same company.

There is no difference between the two. but that is splitting hairs. Either way. I see no difference between the two. I don't care what is brought to the table so long as we are both playing off of the same FOC. and to the same mission.