What is your opinion on FW armies or units in GW games?

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.

**I-bounty-hunt-the-elderly**

Pacific wrote:
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 )

The post directly below yours is an immense, completely adversarial rant trying to enforce the poster's view of game law on his opponents. We have failed here. The internet has claimed another set of argumental victims.

**Ouze**

I-bounty-hunt-the-elderly wrote: We have failed here. The internet has claimed another set of argumental victims.

While the "talking to each other" part has clearly failed, I think the poll is rather unambiguous. Approx 90% of players polled don't care if you use FW units.

**mikhaila**

Ouze wrote:
I-bounty-hunt-the-elderly wrote: We have failed here. The internet has claimed another set of argumental victims.

While the "talking to each other" part has clearly failed, I think the poll is rather unambiguous. Approx 90% of players polled don't care if you use FW units.

If 'don't care' includes 'ask permission in a friendly game', then correct. Most of the agurement seems not to revolve around whether or not you care if someone uses forgeword, but about whether or not you can use it at all times.

**Sidstyler**

I-bounty-hunt-the-elderly wrote:The post directly below yours is an immense, completely adversarial rant trying to enforce the poster's view of game law on his opponents. We have failed here. The internet has claimed another set of argumental victims.

Whatever, you clearly didn't read any of that. I'm not the fething bully here.

**Worglock**

Sidstyler wrote:
I-bounty-hunt-the-elderly wrote:The post directly below yours is an immense, completely adversarial rant trying to enforce the poster's view of game law on his opponents. We have failed here. The internet has claimed another set of argumental victims.

Whatever, you clearly didn't read any of that. I'm not the fething bully here.

You're not good at trolling in PM's either.

**Janthkin**