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.

Are these models legal to play with? Do they count as being made by Games-Workshop? I don't understand the relationship between Forge World and GW (if any).

I just ask because GW does not make an Ork Biker Warboss but over at http://www.forgeworld.co.uk/acatalog/QUATERMASTERS_STORE_ORKS_21.html I can buy a very impressive one (albeit at great cost for a single model).

So I guess my question is, if I were to buy this model, what situations would I not be able to use it?

Thanks in advance!

Nope, its totally legal to play with FW stuff. Im not 100% on how the 2 companies are together, but FW makes some things that you cant get from GW. So have fun with the resin lol

They are the same company. FW makes models for GW. Nothing they make requires opponent's permission (insofar as everything in the game requires concent, but move past that) so you can get FW units and use them to your heart's content.

Units in Forgeworld books like Imperial Armour, their various army lists, etc. aren't tournament legal, but using their models to represent units in the regular GW codecii is. Using that extremely expensive Warboss would be legal, as would doing something like using Death Korps of Krieg models for regular guardsmen.

Brother SRM wrote:Units in Forgeworld books like Imperial Armour, their various army lists, etc. aren't tournament legal

Incorrect.

It is the role of the tournament organiser to determine what can be used and what cannot be used - no rule in any IA book lists them as tournament illegal. A tournament organiser could outlaw Space Marines and they'd become not tournament legal for that tournament. Most Tournaments do not allow Imperial Armour units for a variety of reasons (the most common being that they think they provide an advantage where in most cases FW rules are really pathetic).

The Imperial Armour rules themselves are 100% legal in every single game you play and would only ever be illegal or "not allowed" if a tournament organiser has said so, your opponent is a pansy, or you haven't met any required inbuilt restrictions (ie. not a high enough points level to bring a Super Heavy, etc.).

U bai moar forgeworld now!!!!1!!!!ONE!!! As HBMC said, as long as it's not a super-heavy and has a codex entry in a current edition, you can buy it from Forge World and plonk it on the table without much problem.

BTW, an open letter to tourney organizers: quite being d-bags and let me use Imperial Armor rules, for cripe's sake. Honestly, somehow I'm going to break the game coz someone doesn't know that a Thunderer siege tank is just an over-priced Leman Russ Demolisher.

Forgeworld as a company is 100% owned by GW - it is a subsidiary. That means if a model is made by Forgeworld it is made by GW. So it is totally legit to field it at a GW store or other event requiring "GW only" models to be used.

As for any non-Codex rules (e.g. the rules that accompany some of the models that aren't in GW Codices but are published in Imperial Armour or other FW supplements), they are an "opponent's permission", or a "tournament organiser" call.

To use your example. The Ork Nob Biker is 100% fine to field anywhere - he's a GW model (as FW is 100% owned by GW) and his rules are in the Ork Codex so they are 100% "official" if that bothers you.

Osbad wrote:As for any non-Codex rules (e.g. the rules that accompany some of the models that aren't in GW Codices but are published in Imperial Armour or other FW supplements), they are an "opponent's permission", or a "tournament organiser" call.

Sorry, but this is a really big sticking point and personal pet peeve of mine:

You are 100% correct about the Tournament Organiser being the one who makes the call with IA stuff in tournaments, but they are not "Opponent's Permission" insofar as everything is opponent's permission in 40K, right down to the person you play against, but if we take that as a base assumption there are no special previsions, rules, caveats or any other such wording or language that singles out IA units as being somehow different or apart from Codex-based units.

To put it a different way, if I want to use my Bombard, or my Autocannon Turret Chimera, I don't need my opponent to say "Yes you may" any more than I need him to say "Yes you may" to me playing Imperial Guard.

from a purely looks perspective i use FW models all the time just to add a more varied look to armies. I have a drop sentinel sporting an autocannon as my "squadron leader" in its unit. I have venerable dreads just to make them look nicer and more important to the army fluff wise.
But HBMC is right. an opponent can see your army and if they play then they are accepting the list as is.
While Tourny organisers state what can be allowed. Like most GW tournys in my area just dont inclue any IA specific models at all for simplicity.

BoW- John

H.B.M.C. wrote:

Osbad wrote:As for any non-Codex rules (e.g. the rules that accompany some of the models that aren't in GW Codices but are published in Imperial Armour or other FW supplements), they are an "opponent's permission", or a "tournament organiser" call.

Sorry, but this is a really big sticking point and personal pet peeve of mine:

You are 100% correct about the Tournament Organiser being the one who makes the call with IA stuff in tournaments, but they are not "Opponent's Permission" insofar as everything is opponent's permission in 40K, right down to the person you play against, but if we take that as a base assumption there are no special previsions, rules, caveats or any other such wording or language that singles out IA units as being somehow different or apart from Codex-based units.

To put it a different way, if I want to use my Bombard, or my Autocannon Turret Chimera, I don't need my opponent to say "Yes you may" any more than I need him to say "Yes you may" to me playing Imperial Guard.

QFT

I see FW stuff being more and more acceptable these days. Once people actually see it on the table they quickly realise that it's not uber-leet, quite the opposite.

FW is fairly accepted on the UK tournament scene but regarded as points-inefficient by many players.

H.B.M.C. wrote:Sorry, but this is a really big sticking point and personal pet peeve of mine:

*snip*

they are not "Opponent's Permission" insofar as everything is opponent's permission in 40K, right down to the person you play against, but if we take that as a base assumption there are no special previsions, rules, caveats or any other such wording or language that singles out IA units as being somehow different or apart from Codex-based units.

To put it a different way, if I want to use my Bombard, or my Autocannon Turret Chimera, I don't need my opponent to say "Yes you may" any more than I need him to say "Yes you may" to me playing Imperial Guard.

Sorry! My bad! I've gone back and checked the text of the IA intros (I was convinced that it mentioned the rules possibly unbalancing play and needing opponent's permission - but it doesn't! I was clearly wrong. In fact the intro to the IA book published in 2000 (the earliest I have to hand) it specifically states that "all of the vehicles in this book can be used in games of Warhammer 40,000 as part of an Imperial Guard army, even if they are not included in Codex: Imperial Guard".

Conclusion: I have had a brain fart.

I apologise for any confusion caused and thanks for pointing it out HBMC.

Personally I have no problem with IA rules as generally speaking (with 1 or 2 exceptions) they are under- rather than over- powered, and I'm not that competitive anyhow. I always love to see something cool, such as a FW model, on the gaming table whatever the rules!

H.B.M.C. wrote:
The Imperial Armour rules themselves are 100% legal in every single game you play and would only ever be illegal or "not allowed" if a tournament organiser has said so, your opponent is a pansy, or you haven't met any required inbuilt restrictions (ie. not a high enough points level to bring a Super Heavy, etc.).

So I'm a pansy if I believe that forgeworld is unable to appropriately cost their items, and don't want to play against an IG army that's bringing 9 heavy mortars with infernus shells for their elite choices, for only 450 points? Or if I think that a deathwind drop pod that can fire d6 *4 rending shots at every unit I have within 24" of where it lands is ludicrous for 90 points?

Most forgeworld stuff costs more points than it is worth, especially the big stuff. I mean, you want a malcador for 275 instead of a russ for 150, be my guest. (and, this too is an example of how completely inept the forgeworld writers are at costing stuff). But, then there are the true gems where they screw up completely in the other direction, and if someone finds and exploits these units, the game becomes pretty unfair.

Like that drop-pod I mentioned. My brother has a footslogging eldar aspect list. Goes to play at a local store, and some guy drops the assault pod into the middle of his lines. He lost nearly his entire army to a single 90-point model. And he's the pansy if he says he doesn't want to play against that any more?

Scott-S6 wrote:
I see FW stuff being more and more acceptable these days. Once people actually see it on the table they quickly realise that it's not uber-leet, quite the opposite.

FW is fairly accepted on the UK tournament scene but regarded as points-inefficient by many players.

That just means they're not exploiting the oversights yet. Wait until someone shows up with the stupid and you'll see how fast the other players ask for FW rules to be banned, or demand errata for them. Sometimes the tournament organizers catch it before it happens, often they don't.

Redbeard wrote:

H.B.M.C. wrote:
The Imperial Armour rules themselves are 100% legal in every single game you play and would only ever be illegal or "not allowed" if a tournament organiser has said so, your opponent is a pansy, or you haven't met any required inbuilt restrictions (ie. not a high enough points level to bring a Super Heavy, etc.).

So I'm a pansy if I believe that forgeworld is unable to appropriately cost their items, and don't want to play against an IG army that's bringing 9 heavy mortars with infernus shells for their elite choices, for only 450 points? Or if I think that a deathwind drop pod that can fire d6 *4 rending shots at every unit I have within 24" of where it lands is ludicrous for 90 points?

Most forgeworld stuff costs more points than it is worth, especially the big stuff. I mean, you want a malcador for 275 instead of a russ for 150, be my guest. (and, this too is an example of how completely inept the forgeworld writers are at costing stuff). But, then there are the true gems where they screw up completely in the other direction, and if someone finds and exploits these units, the game becomes pretty unfair.

Just to be clear on this, you're fine with applying a grossly unfair collective punishment (i.e. stopping me from using my quad-launchers and Cyclops) just to get at a few rotten eggs?

I always found FW to have the coolness factor in spades, not the game winning stuff.

I think that it is relatively correct to sya that Forge World is a wholly owned subsidiary of Games Workshop LLC (or whatever the legal name is).

The whole "It's FW, so it's GW, so it's Legal" thing is kind of funny to me. The original statement of that comes from a book published by Forgeworld... So if not for the subsidiary thing, it'd be as if I started publishing $100 books for blocky expensive models and said they were legal for 40k.

The Subsidiary thing muddies stuff up a bit. It's all a bit fuzzy, in my opinion. The FW team seems to develop their stuff in something of a vacuum at best: No real effort or care about integrating with the 'core' GW Studio's plans. As has been said, balance can be erratic, although FW seems to lean towards overpricing stuff.

Also, if FW is 'canon' then does that mean anything the store staff say is canon, too?

Anyway, my personal opinion here is that I'd never complain about FW "replacement' models, I.E. those that are just more elaborate versions of GW kits or even models for stuff GW doesn't make a model for. The Dreadnought bodies, DKoK, etc.

The other stuff (Superheavies, Titans, flyers, etc.) I'd certainly be OK with using occasionally in a casual setting, although if a new unit has cumbersome rules that bog the game down I'd not want to use it often. Flyers, especially, have generally felt so tacked-on I'm not sure I'd want to deal with them.

For tournaments, it's probably best to just have a line in the rules like "No Forgeworld Rules in use" if the organizers don't want the headache. Again, I think discriminating against someone using the models for Codex stuff is pretty stupid. it would be a shame if a nicely-painted DKoK army (using Codex: Imperial Guard) was not allowed to compete because it was at a 'No Forgeworld' event.

Balance wrote:I think that it is relatively correct to sya that Forge World is a wholly owned subsidiary of Games Workshop LLC (or whatever the legal name is).

The whole "It's FW, so it's GW, so it's Legal" thing is kind of funny to me. The original statement of that comes from a book published by Forgeworld... So if not for the subsidiary thing, it'd be as if I started publishing $100 books for blocky expensive models and said they were legal for 40k.

Yeah, right up until GW sued you out of existence for plastering their logo all over your books without authorization.

There's no workable counter-argument to FW is GW.

Redbeard wrote:So I'm a pansy

Yup.

And it's no different to playing against someone bringing a 2 Lash/9 Oblit army, the 20 Biker Nob army or whatever this month's new power build is (probably some sort of Guard creation).

As I said, I don't need your permission to bring my FW stuff any more than I need your permission to play a game of 40K in the first place. Pointing out the few FW units that are broken doesn't in any way change the fact that:

1. There are Codex units that are equally as broken.
2. There are many more FW units that are complete junk.

Redbeard wrote:And he's the pansy if he says he doesn't want to play against that any more?

Yup, assuming both players played by the rules, that both players had a legal list, and nobody cheated, that is.

If one happens to be the perfect counter to the other, or has a unit that isn't balanced correctly... well... so what? That's 40K. It's not a balanced game. Stop being wilfully ignorant Redbeard and acting as if broken units are somehow unique to Forge World...

Balance wrote:The FW team seems to develop their stuff in something of a vacuum at best: No real effort or care about integrating with the 'core' GW Studio's plans.

In my experience it's quite the opposite. Usually a new FW book will give some hints as to what's coming up, and, especially with Guard and Marines in recent years, has given a good look at what is to come. FW had the (previous) Guard Codex style (upgrades, points values and all) out before the actual Guard Codex was around. They showed off the new style of Marine Tac Squads around the same time the Marine book appeared. Their rules are written side-by-side with GW, with FW taking all their ques from the direction GW is going.

Now, that said, FW are still pretty terrible at writing rules, but they dance to GW's tune.

Agamemnon2 wrote:
Just to be clear on this, you're fine with applying a grossly unfair collective punishment (i.e. stopping me from using my quad-launchers and Cyclops) just to get at a few rotten eggs?

How exactly is asking an opponent's permission before playing potentially abusive models a punishment? If your opponents are reasonable people, and the things you want to use really aren't over-the-top (like, say two quad launchers, and not nine), then permission is not exactly hard to obtain.

H.B.M.C. wrote:
And it's no different to playing against someone bringing a 2 Lash/9 Oblit army, the 20 Biker Nob army or whatever this month's new power build is (probably some sort of Guard creation).

Of course it is. Firstly, if you're going to play a pick-up game with someone, they have the opportunity to prepare for units that they would reasonably expect to appear in a game: those that are listed in codexes. I might not want to play against 9 obliterators, but at least I know what they do, and how to work around them. I have no idea what random FW tank X does.

Secondly is the perception that allowing FW into games ups the cost-to-entry. I'm well-off, I can reasonably afford anything I want. I know other gamers who plan their purchases months ahead of time because they don't have the same disposable income. If I buy a FW model because I like how it looks, no one thinks twice about it. If I buy a FW item that I like how it looks and use it as something in a codex, no one cares. If I buy a FW model, and insist on using FW rules, and end up winning games against my less-fortunate friends, regardless of whether the FW item is the cause of it, there will be some resentment - as if I was simply buying wins by fielding models that others cannot afford. One of the advantages to a point-based game, over say, M:tG, is that while it may be expensive to get started, for the most part, the amount of money someone spends doesn't improve their on-table ability, only their off-table flexibility. Adding FW into the mix changes that. And nothing is going to lead to resentment faster than a group of gamers who believe that someone is beating them because they spent more money.

As I said, I don't need your permission to bring my FW stuff any more than I need your permission to play a game of 40K in the first place.

Well, seeing as how you're half-the-world away, you're 100% correct, you don't need my permission for anything. You do however need your opponent's permission in order to play a game in the first place, don't you? So, doing a little logic:

A) You need your opponent's permission to play against you
B) Your opponent adamantly refuses to play against FW models
C) You either don't play that opponent, or you field a list without FW.

Looks like that's a fairly simple proof that whatever books say, or don't say, you do need your opponent's permission to use your FW models. Of course, that's true for anything really. If you're TFG and bring the lashes and oblits to friendly game night, you might end up leaving without a game.

Pointing out the few FW units that are broken doesn't in any way change the fact that:

1. There are Codex units that are equally as broken.
2. There are many more FW units that are complete junk.

Point one is debatable. I see nothing in any current codex that would allow a ninety point model to destroy an entire 1500 point army in one shooting phase.

Point two is irrelevant. If I added 200 points to the cost of every unit that Forgeworld produced, and then reduced the cost of a Reaver Titan to, say 300 points, would the fact that anything except a reaver would be grossly overpriced mean that the reaver was reasonable to use at that price? It is only the underpriced units that anyone competitive cares about. Anything that's priced appropriately or higher is irrelevant.


So, you claim you don't need an opponent's permission to field your FW toys? I assume you're referring to the preamble in IA:Apocalypse, where Warwick talks about what is official. And, technically, you're right, he does say that their past approach of asking players to get their opponent's consent is something they don't want to do anymore.

But, he also states, "As far as we are concerned Codexes and the rulebook are official, everything else is up to the players to use or ignore at will." So, if you're unwilling to reach some sort of agreement with your opponent as to what will be a fun game for each of you, you're officially allowed to put your forgeworld models on the table, and he's officially allowed to ignore that they're there.

That doesn't really seem like it would be a very fun game for either of you, but I suppose that a game that's fun for neither player is better than one which is fun for one at the expense of the other.

If one happens to be the perfect counter to the other, or has a unit that isn't balanced correctly... well... so what? That's 40K. It's not a balanced game. Stop being wilfully ignorant Redbeard and acting as if broken units are somehow unique to Forge World...

It's not a perfectly balanced game, you're right. But some broken units are more broken than others. Are you so willfully ignorant that you can't see how removing some of the more egregious violations from the game makes it more fun for all involved?

Redbeard wrote:How exactly is asking an opponent's permission before playing potentially abusive models a punishment? If your opponents are reasonable people, and the things you want to use really aren't over-the-top (like, say two quad launchers, and not nine), then permission is not exactly hard to obtain.

Just saying "Yes" to Aggy's question would have been quicker.

Redbeard wrote:Of course it is. Firstly, if you're going to play a pick-up game with someone, they have the opportunity to prepare for units that they would reasonably expect to appear in a game: those that are listed in codexes. I might not want to play against 9 obliterators, but at least I know what they do, and how to work around them. I have no idea what random FW tank X does.

A few things:

1. I'll agree that there is a fair assumption that you should have an idea of what certain armies can do. I can concede that.
2. There is already an assumption, based upon the (false) notion that FW units require permission, that they are somehow broken or unfair or will otherwise give an advantage.
3. For that very reason, people are less inclined to play against them for no other reason than they're afraid of losing.
4. What you can reasonably expect to face should be expanded to anything that might be in the game.

If someone shows up with random FW tank X, then I have no issue with explaining what it does and then we can play. If you decide not to play against it... well... you're a pansy. Pure and simple.

Redbeard wrote:Secondly is the perception that allowing FW into games ups the cost-to-entry.

Oh stop that right now. Monetary cost has nothing to do with whether or not FW items require your opponent's permission in order to use. And I completely reject that it creates a higher cost entry point. If you win a game primarily because of a FW item that's no different to the Chaos player losing a game against another Chaos player who brought 9 Oblits and 2 Lash... now that Chaos player think that in order to win he has to go and get 6 more Oblits and an extra Lash Prince.

To put it another way - "Escalation" is an argument. It's a red herring, and has no bearing on this discussion. Furthermore it's not unique to FW items.

Redbeard wrote:Well, seeing as how you're half-the-world away, you're 100% correct, you don't need my permission for anything. You do however need your opponent's permission in order to play a game in the first place, don't you?

Face. Fething. Palm.

Do you actually try to read the entire thread before you knee-jerked your way into posting? Don't answer, that's rhetorical. But before you go scrolling upwards to find out what I mean, I'll save you some time and repeat myself:

"You are 100% correct about the Tournament Organiser being the one who makes the call with IA stuff in tournaments, but they are not "Opponent's Permission" ---- insofar as everything is opponent's permission in 40K, --- right down to the person you play against, but if we take that as a base assumption [then] there are no special previsions, rules, caveats or any other such wording or language that singles out IA units as being somehow different or apart from Codex-based units."

Do I have to make that any clearer?

Redbeard wrote:So, doing a little logic:

If you want to call it that.

Redbeard wrote:A) You need your opponent's permission to play against you
B) Your opponent adamantly refuses to play against FW models
C) You either don't play that opponent, or you field a list without FW.

Blah blah blah. Meaningless crap. I won't be dealing with the "you need permission to play a game of 40K" line of thinking as it's an idiotic counter to a cut-and-dry issue. To put it another way:

Do Forge World units require any more permission than a standard Codex unit? The answer to that is no. They are as valid and legal as a Tactical Squad.

Does that mean that Forge World units are balanced? No. Adepticon has been a good litmus test for those things, finding all sorts of issues with Cyclops Demo Vehicles, Myotic Spores (or whatever they're called), Infernus Shells and their underpriced Reaver Titans. But to claim that they are somehow more broken or more unbalanced or even just 'different' from the broken things in 40K... no. Broken is broken. Doesn't matter whether it's made of resin or plastic.

Redbeard wrote:Point one is debatable.

He says, without debating it. Too funny...

Redbeard wrote:I see nothing in any current codex that would allow a ninety point model to destroy an entire 1500 point army in one shooting phase.

Give it a rest on the Heavy Mortars. Heavy Mortars are not broken. Infernus Shells are, and I believe their rules were amended from their original version (I think they have to cause casualties now - I could be wrong, it's been a while since I've looked at IA5), but it is up to the players to find a middle ground there. We can blame Warwick "Copypasta" Kincaid for it until the cows come home, but nothing will change there. If you know that Infernus Shells are broken, don't use them. Or, if you do, and bring them anyway, you're as much as pansy as the person who refuses to play against FW units for fear of losing.

But, whether you bring them or not, at no point does it change the fact that the opposing player never has to give consent for them to be used any more than he would have to give consent for someone to use a Land Raider or a unit of Gretchin!

Redbeard wrote:So, you claim you don't need an opponent's permission to field your FW toys? I assume you're referring to the preamble in IA:Apocalypse, where Warwick talks about what is official. And, technically, you're right, he does say that their past approach of asking players to get their opponent's consent is something they don't want to do anymore.

But, he also states, "As far as we are concerned Codexes and the rulebook are official, everything else is up to the players to use or ignore at will." So, if you're unwilling to reach some sort of agreement with your opponent as to what will be a fun game for each of you, you're officially allowed to put your forgeworld models on the table, and he's officially allowed to ignore that they're there.

Good. And whenever I'm playing Apocalypse and using IA:Apoc Datasheets, I'll be sure to remember that. For regular games of 40K though that don't use Apoc Datasheets, I'll refer to the preamble in IA2, where he plainly states that the units do not require opponent's permission (any more than standard units do, etc. etc. ad nauseum).

Redbeard wrote:That doesn't really seem like it would be a very fun game for either of you, but I suppose that a game that's fun for neither player is better than one which is fun for one at the expense of the other.

Spare me the moral high ground nonsense. I get enough of that irrelevant claptrap from JonnyDD.

Redbeard wrote:It's not a perfectly balanced game, you're right. But some broken units are more broken than others.

And aren't strictly the domain of FW either... but I'll let you continue:

Redbeard wrote:Are you so willfully ignorant that you can't see how removing some of the more egregious violations from the game makes it more fun for all involved?

Sure. And I would. We don't use the Infernus Shells rules as written because we know they're broken. But you know what:

This in no way changes the fact that a player does not require permission to field FW units any more than he does a standard Codex unit. Whether the unit in question is horribly underpowered or horribly broken has NO bearing on this fact. None.

At all.

I say we roll d6's to decide who is right in this conversation.

GO!

Don't worry I will roll for you...

Redbeard: =

H.M.B.C: =

Wow... okay then.

Wait... re-roll

Redbeard: =

H.M.B.C. = (perhaps a bit of dice-dropping, but hey, the pins are almost down anyway)

I think these dice may be broken as well...

I love the FW items. They look great, and spice up the army list with a little variety. My Land Speeder Tempest fits in great with my Ravenwing, and looks classy to boot. Plus a lot of the rules GW has been coming out with where originally FW rules, so having those items on hand gave you a one up on everyone else model wise. The auto cannon and plasma cannon LR turret, and the drop pod come to mind, always brought a crowed when I plopped one of those down before the plastic one came out.

On that note, FW has better sculpts, with a nuclear period on the end. I can't afford any at the moment, but there is absolutely no way I would deny such cool models access to a table.

H.B.M.C. wrote:
If someone shows up with random FW tank X, then I have no issue with explaining what it does and then we can play. If you decide not to play against it... well... you're a pansy. Pure and simple.

Again, anyone who views the game differently than you gets a derogatory label.

Redbeard wrote:Secondly is the perception that allowing FW into games ups the cost-to-entry.

Oh stop that right now. Monetary cost has nothing to do with whether or not FW items require your opponent's permission in order to use. And I completely reject that it creates a higher cost entry point. If you win a game primarily because of a FW item that's no different to the Chaos player losing a game against another Chaos player who brought 9 Oblits and 2 Lash... now that Chaos player think that in order to win he has to go and get 6 more Oblits and an extra Lash Prince.

To put it another way - "Escalation" is an argument. It's a red herring, and has no bearing on this discussion. Furthermore it's not unique to FW items.

You'll note I stated "perception". Whether or not it is true is irrelevant. There IS the perception that FW items, that cost more, are unfair, and that players who use them to win are doing so because they spent more. Maybe you only play with enlightened, or rich people. I've played against people who have voiced this opinion.
You may believe it's not the case, but that doesn't change their perception of the situation.

Redbeard wrote:Point one is debatable.

He says, without debating it. Too funny...

I haven't seen anything from you resembling a debate either. You slap your fist around and insult people, and you make a lot of noise ignoring points that you don't want to address, but you don't debate.

Redbeard wrote:I see nothing in any current codex that would allow a ninety point model to destroy an entire 1500 point army in one shooting phase.

Give it a rest on the Heavy Mortars. Heavy Mortars are not broken. Infernus Shells are, and I believe their rules were amended from their original version (I think they have to cause casualties now - I could be wrong, it's been a while since I've looked at IA5), but it is up to the players to find a middle ground there. We can blame Warwick "Copypasta" Kincaid for it until the cows come home, but nothing will change there. If you know that Infernus Shells are broken, don't use them. Or, if you do, and bring them anyway, you're as much as pansy as the person who refuses to play against FW units for fear of losing.

First of all, it's not heavy mortars that I'm referring to. It's the assault-cannon deathwind drop pod. The one that you can basically put in front of an opponent's army, and it gets up to 24 assault cannon shots at every enemy unit within some distance, I think 24".

Secondly, it has nothing to do with fear of losing, it has to do with wanting an enjoyable game, rather than one where you set up your models, and then take them off, without having actually done anything. But go ahead calling people names, it seems to make you feel better about yourself.

I'll refer to the preamble in IA2, where he plainly states that the units do not require opponent's permission (any more than standard units do, etc. etc. ad nauseum).

Is that IA2, or IA Vol2? IA2 is no longer current, referring to a preamble in it would be like referring to a rule in 3rd edition - an interesting historical note, but not really applicable anymore.

This in no way changes the fact that a player does not require permission to field FW units any more than he does a standard Codex unit. Whether the unit in question is horribly underpowered or horribly broken has NO bearing on this fact. None.

I never said it did. I took exception to your statement that anyone who didn't want to play against FW units was a pansy. You made a sweeping generalization, without any regard for some people's entirely valid choices about what they want to play against. Rather than stick to the facts, you, for some reason, felt it necessary to throw out insults to anyone who doesn't see the game your way.

I never said that you were wrong with the fact that they don't require opponent consent. But you're 100% wrong that anyone who doesn't want to play against them is a pansy - or any other sort of childish name that you want to resort to. It's an opponent's choice to refuse to play against someone else for whatever reason, including the inclusions of FW items that will make the game unenjoyable for them.

combatmedic wrote:The auto cannon and plasma cannon LR turret, and the drop pod come to mind, always brought a crowed when I plopped one of those down before the plastic one came out.

Actually, the Leman Russ Exterminator(autocannons) was in the 3rd ed IG Codex and was released as a Metal/plastic Hybrid kit before there was ever a FW Resin version of it.

Wow,
This is such a simple issue and has beem degraded to the sides of good and evil in an epic tug of war (metaphorical of course).

Fun to read thought

I would say that FW stuff can be used unless the tournie says they can't. I'm of the opinion that you can always play against sosmething once (and if the guy with the FW stuff is an ass about it then you don't play with them any more).

But that is the same as the other super powered combinations that can be placed down.

The drop pods things,
Those rules are totally crap, I would understand that people don't want them used (But I think the better way to go about it is to ask for them to be 4 shots per gun instead of D6 at everything) and move on would be the best way to go about it,

We all want to play a fun game,
hopefully not just decimate everyone until noone wants to play anymore.

or something like that.

You're sick and you're posting at Dakka. What would your wife say? Go back to bed.

Incidentally, the Deathstorm Drop Pod does 4D3 attacks on every unit within 12", not 4D6 at 24". But please, don't let a silly thing like actually checking the facts get in the way. Whether it's overpowered is still debatable, but that doesn't mean you're allowed to argue the case from false premises.

Redbeard wrote:You'll note I stated "perception". Whether or not it is true is irrelevant. There IS the perception that FW items, that cost more, are unfair, and that players who use them to win are doing so because they spent more. Maybe you only play with enlightened, or rich people. I've played against people who have voiced this opinion.
You may believe it's not the case, but that doesn't change their perception of the situation.

That it's a commonly held perception still doesn't mean it needs to be given any attention whatsoever. I much prefer to deal with the facts, not shadowboxing with the misconceptions of the witless multitude. I'm not responsible for educating them. If they can't cope, what do I care?

Redbeard wrote: Or if I think that a deathwind drop pod that can fire d6 *4 rending shots at every unit I have within 24" of where it lands is ludicrous for 90 points?

Actually, it's 95pts and it fires D3 assault cannon shots at units with 12" and line of sight on the turn it lands. On subsequent turns it fires a single shot at one unit.

I think that's okay. It does force your opponent to spread out his deployment a bit but an unlucky scatter can make it fairly useless. After the first turn it's a free kill point whenever your opponent feels like taking it. It also takes a heavy support slot.

How many games have you played with or against deathwinds? I'm guessing none.

Scott-S6 wrote:How many games have you played with or against deathwinds?

How many has he played against 9 Heavy Mortars w/Infernus Shells?

combatmedic wrote:I love the FW items. They look great, and spice up the army list with a little variety. My Land Speeder Tempest fits in great with my Ravenwing, and looks classy to boot. Plus a lot of the rules GW has been coming out with where originally FW rules, so having those items on hand gave you a one up on everyone else model wise. The auto cannon and plasma cannon LR turret, and the drop pod come to mind, always brought a crowed when I plopped one of those down before the plastic one came out.

Ah yes, whenever I field my D-99 Elysians the kiddies go wild at the sight of actual FW stuff facing their "own crappy plastics" as one put it. Most of the awe is replaced with"hurhurhur" when they see how they perform in the coming battle. Granted, with Apocalypse FW has gotten more common so the shock of playing against FW stuff has worn off by now.