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.

AnUnearthlyChilde wrote:I don't see why FW is an issue over whether you play someone or not.

I don't often have a problem playing someone that uses a FW model.
I refuse if:
a) they don't have the book
b) they have the book, but are proxying the model (and have been for a significant time) or it's a poor scratchbuild
c) I don't feel like bringing in FW rules.

Yes, C is very subjective. Since there is a difference between a game of 40k and a game of 40k that includes FW rules/models I'm completely in my "rights" to refuse to play the latter.

AnUnearthlyChilde wrote: I don't see why FW is an issue over whether you play someone or not.

That's where your problem starts. Some people do have an issue with it, regardless of whether or not you understand them. FW is optional. It says so at the beginning of every FW book. Period.

As I have said at the beginning of this thread and every other thread that has popped up, I am 100% for Forge World in normal games, and play this way in my gaming group. We love the models, the rules, and the books!

But it would be silly of me to expect everyone to want to play the way my group does. To each their own, and so on and so forth.

AnUnearthlyChilde wrote:

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.

Well, I don't care what is brought to the table, what FoC or mission/scenario is used, as long as the opponent's army comes completely from the same Codex.

kronk wrote:

AnUnearthlyChilde wrote: I don't see why FW is an issue over whether you play someone or not.

That's where your problem starts. Some people do have an issue with it, regardless of whether or not you understand them. FW is optional. It says so at the beginning of every FW book. Period.

As I have said at the beginning of this thread and every other thread that has popped up, I am 100% for Forge World in normal games, and play this way in my gaming group. We love the models, the rules, and the books!

But it would be silly of me to expect everyone to want to play the way my group does. To each their own, and so on and so forth.

I guess I'll agree with you on that, but as I don't mind what people bring to the table, i'd hope (not force, but hope) that people wouldn't want to stifle my gaming experiences as well.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Zweischneid wrote:

AnUnearthlyChilde wrote:

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.

Well, I don't care what is brought to the table, what FoC or mission/scenario is used, as long as the opponent's army comes completely from the same Codex.

sorry but thats like saying I love any ice cream so long as its Vanilla :/

AnUnearthlyChilde wrote:
I guess I'll agree with you on that, but as I don't mind what people bring to the table, i'd hope (not force, but hope) that people wouldn't want to stifle my gaming experiences as well.

Just remember that not everyone wants the same thing from a game of 40k.

Some people want all painted and based armies. Some people love FW. Some people hate FW. Some people hate Grey Knights. Some people love Horde Ork armies.

I hope (for you) that the people you run into at your gaming store also enjoy FW and that you always get to use your stuff, man.

AnUnearthlyChilde wrote:

sorry but thats like saying I love any ice cream so long as its Vanilla :/

What is wrong with Vanilla?

Besides, I am sure some creative scenarios (just official GW Planetstrike, 'Ard Boyz, etc.. if you insist on the "official" tag) multiplied by the available options within the regular GW armies creates more diversity than FW could produce in a billion years. If you have truly played all possible combinations of scenariors with all possible army builds in all possible army-match-ups at all conceivable point values, we can perhaps reconsider if there is a need to broaden the game beyond "Vanilla".

I really don't see the point in keeping arguing in this thread, I think we can all agree to that anybody is free to HATE/LOVE FW and anybody can refuse to play any FW, just as anybody could refuse to play a particular codex.

kronk wrote:

AnUnearthlyChilde wrote:
I guess I'll agree with you on that, but as I don't mind what people bring to the table, i'd hope (not force, but hope) that people wouldn't want to stifle my gaming experiences as well.

Just remember that not everyone wants the same thing from a game of 40k.

Some people want all painted and based armies. Some people love FW. Some people hate FW. Some people hate Grey Knights. Some people love Horde Ork armies.

I hope (for you) that the people you run into at your gaming store also enjoy FW and that you always get to use your stuff, man.

No one has ever had a problem with my games/lists, and have always ended with a smile and a handshake. As I say I've yet to meet someone who's objected face to face.

We're a very open gaming group tbh.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Zweischneid wrote:

AnUnearthlyChilde wrote:

sorry but thats like saying I love any ice cream so long as its Vanilla :/

What is wrong with Vanilla?

Besides, I am sure some creative scenarios (just official GW Planetstrike, 'Ard Boyz, etc.. if you insist on the "official" tag) multiplied by the available options within the regular GW armies creates more diversity than FW could produce in a billion years. If you have truly played all possible combinations of scenariors with all possible army builds in all possible army-match-ups at all conceivable point values, we can perhaps reconsider if there is a need to broaden the game beyond "Vanilla".

Nothing is wrong with Vanilla, my point is when there are other options to be tried, why stick to just one flavour?

Zweischneid wrote:

AnUnearthlyChilde wrote:

sorry but thats like saying I love any ice cream so long as its Vanilla :/

What is wrong with Vanilla?

Besides, I am sure some creative scenarios (just official GW Planetstrike, 'Ard Boyz, etc.. if you insist on the "official" tag) multiplied by the available options within the regular GW armies creates more diversity than FW could produce in a billion years. If you have truly played all possible combinations of scenariors with all possible army builds in all possible army-match-ups at all conceivable point values, we can perhaps reconsider if there is a need to broaden the game beyond "Vanilla".

Nothing is wrong with it, but you know... The more the merrier!!

In my experience people don't go to forge world because they desperately want to win but because they want to add a bit of flavor to their armies.

AnUnearthlyChilde wrote:

Nothing is wrong with Vanilla, my point is when there are other options to be tried, why stick to just one flavour?

Well, but you applied rather stringent requirements of sticking with the "core" FoC and the "core" publisher that is GW/FW and the "core" missions. Did you not?

The point, as might be apparent, is that this strikes me as a rather hypocritical and ultimatly biased approach to "diversity" if you open up only one aspect of the Game, unit selections, and only to one "non-GW" producer, namely FW.

If diversity is your aim, why this frugality? If frugality is your aim, why open up to FW (and only FW) in (only) unit selection? It doesn't make sense no matter how you put it.

jgehunter wrote:

Nothing is wrong with it, but you know... The more the merrier!!
.

Everyone keeps saying that. And then I bring forth my Zweischneid's custom tanks deployed in Spearhead-formations to play last year's 'Ard Boyz scenario and, suddenly, surprise, people say "those things aren't part of 'regular' 40K".

Odd, isn't it?

And that is besides the fact that there are literally hundreds of threads in this very forum that demand less Space Marine books, less Special Characters, less Imperial bias in the GW-product line, etc.. . So "the more the merrier" doesn't appear to be something universally shared.

The name of the thread is "Forgeworld... Why the hate?"

Forgeworld allows codex armies supplemental units to take one of the FOC slots available within those lists. Forgeworld is the metaphorical seasoning to GW's stew. Add to taste. My armies have a splash of seasoning to make them different to the same old bland lists I see on a regular basis.

jgehunter wrote:just as anybody could refuse to play a particular codex.

And that's the attitude that I disagree with.

Using FW models/rules requires more permission than normal GW models/rules. There is a difference.
I am always willing to play a game of 40k.
I am not always willing to play a game of 40k using FW models/rules.

jgehunter wrote:

Nothing is wrong with it, but you know... The more the merrier!!
.

Everyone keeps saying that. And then I bring forth my Zweischneid's custom tanks deployed in Spearhead-formations to play last year's 'Ard Boyz scenario and, suddenly, surprise, people say "those things aren't part of 'regular' 40K".

Odd, isn't it?

And that is besides the fact that there are literally hundreds of threads in this very forum that demand less Space Marine books, less Special Characters, less Imperial bias in the GW-product line, etc.. . So "the more the merrier" doesn't appear to be something universally shared.

AnUnearthlyChilde wrote:The name of the thread is "Forgeworld... Why the hate?"

Forgeworld allows codex armies supplemental units to take one of the FOC slots available within those lists. Forgeworld is the metaphorical seasoning to GW's stew. Add to taste. My armies have a splash of seasoning to make them different to the same old bland lists I see on a regular basis.

Yes. But to answer the question posed in the thread, you have to understand where the "hate" comes from.

1. FW offers optional (!) often experimental units/rules that demand explicit player's consent.

2. FW proponents frequently try to "rule lawyer" their FW-selection into the game by rather petty-minded "it's legal" / "it's really also "GW" / "it's not overpowered I sweeeeaaar!!" arguments.

3. FW proponents frequently deride those that opt against the inclusion of FW as "lesser players", often describing them (as demonstrated in this very thread) as small-minded / ignorant / childishly fearful of loosing / and worse.

Thus, as a consequence of the commony exhibited behaviour of FW-proponents, FW has a bad reputation.

To reverse this image and reduce the "hate", FW-proponents would need to take pointers from stuff like Planetstrike and forward their FW-toys without alot (alot, alot, alot) more humility.

But since they largely refuse to do so, the "hate" can only grow.

Childe, what you have been doing throughout this whole thread is the best way to make me not play with FW. If I chose to not play with forgeworld, that's my choice, and people berating me and telling me why i'm a horrible person for not letting them use their forgeworld models is not going to make me want to play forgeworld with them. To me, that sounds like your just brow-beating me into letting you use them, and i refuse to be bullied into that.

I said it before, and i'll say it again. If the person asked me before hand, and asked nicely, and i'm up for it, and they have the rules with them, and they aren't OTT ridiculous, then sure. I'll play. It'll probably be fun. The models and rules will be cool, and i'll have a good time. But if i don't feel like playing forgeworld, it doesn't make me any worse of a person to say no. It is entirely in my right to say no. It's the same as if someone had a kited out mechdar army, focused on evasion and annoyance, but i really didn't feel like playing against that, because it just wasn't my cup of tea right then. Same thing with forgeworld.

Sometimes, it just might not be my cup of tea at the time. And anyone who starts on me for saying no can stuff it and play someone else, because i'm going to play forgeworld if i want to play forgeworld, and you yelling at me isn't going to make me want to. In fact, it will probably make me develop a bias against forgeworld, and i'll want to play against it a whole lot less.

AnUnearthlyChilde wrote:


There is a difference between fan-made rules and official sanctioned rules.

There is also a difference between GW rules and FW rules.

Zweischneid wrote:

jgehunter wrote:

Nothing is wrong with it, but you know... The more the merrier!!
.

1 Everyone keeps saying that. And then I bring forth my Zweischneid's custom tanks deployed in Spearhead-formations to play last year's 'Ard Boyz scenario and, suddenly, surprise, people say "those things aren't part of 'regular' 40K".

Odd, isn't it?

2 And that is besides the fact that there are literally hundreds of threads in this very forum that demand less Space Marine books, less Special Characters, less Imperial bias in the GW-product line, etc.. . So "the more the merrier" doesn't appear to be something universally shared.

I'll answer those 2 statements (kind of):

1) 'Ard Boyz is a veeeery different scenario, I don't think that here we are discussing wether you should use FW in a tournment, that is up to the TO, but in a tournament there are things like money involved that make it a very peculiar situation, and very often make people disregard the Most Important Rule as set by the BRB (that is what I don't play tournaments, other than narratives)

2) Strawman, I'm not going to bother answering. But just to state it I'm all for the things you mentioned, I think it would be far more boring to have all the Space Marine players playing out of 1 book, with DA BA SW BT, at least there is some variety.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

rigeld2 wrote:

jgehunter wrote:just as anybody could refuse to play a particular codex.

And that's the attitude that I disagree with.

Using FW models/rules requires more permission than normal GW models/rules. There is a difference.
I am always willing to play a game of 40k.
I am not always willing to play a game of 40k using FW models/rules.

How does it require more permission?
You can decide not to play any of them in the same way, and you can decide not to play them partially in the same way, and if I decided to do it you could do nothing in either case. Well I guess you could make me play on gunpoint, but it wouldn't be much fun.

Zweischneid wrote:

AnUnearthlyChilde wrote:The name of the thread is "Forgeworld... Why the hate?"

Forgeworld allows codex armies supplemental units to take one of the FOC slots available within those lists. Forgeworld is the metaphorical seasoning to GW's stew. Add to taste. My armies have a splash of seasoning to make them different to the same old bland lists I see on a regular basis.

Yes. But to answer the question posed in the thread, you have to understand where the "hate" comes from.

1. FW offers optional (!) often experimental units/rules that demand explicit player's consent.

2. FW proponents frequently try to "rule lawyer" their FW-selection into the game by rather petty-minded "it's legal" / "it's really also "GW" / "it's not overpowered I sweeeeaaar!!" arguments.

3. FW proponents frequently deride those that opt against the inclusion of FW as "lesser players", often describing them (as demonstrated in this very thread) as small-minded / ignorant / childishly fearful of loosing / and worse.

Thus, as a consequence of the commony exhibited behaviour of FW-proponents, FW has a bad reputation.

To reverse this image and reduce the "hate", FW-proponents would need to take pointers from stuff like Planetstrike and forward their FW-toys without alot (alot, alot, alot) more humility.

But since they largely refuse to do so, the "hate" can only grow.

Because you will never back down. We override many of your points, you bring in new one's to try and deride forgeworld. We try and do it peacefully, you get angry in return and than make forgeworld look like the bad guys.

Maybe one will show a bit of modesty when you're not trying to burn all the strawmen under their faces. Afterall you are the one deriding them as snobbish elitists, as rule-lawyers when you're doing the EXACT same thing by using it to prevent them from bringing forgeworld in

jgehunter wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

jgehunter wrote:just as anybody could refuse to play a particular codex.

And that's the attitude that I disagree with.

Using FW models/rules requires more permission than normal GW models/rules. There is a difference.
I am always willing to play a game of 40k.
I am not always willing to play a game of 40k using FW models/rules.

How does it require more permission?

Do you ask people to play a game of 40k?
or
Do you ask people to play a game of 40k with FW rules/models?

The latter is what you should be doing, based on what was posted from IA2:2E, and that's requiring more permission than the former.

rigeld2 wrote:

jgehunter wrote:just as anybody could refuse to play a particular codex.

And that's the attitude that I disagree with.

Using FW models/rules requires more permission than normal GW models/rules. There is a difference.
I am always willing to play a game of 40k.
I am not always willing to play a game of 40k using FW models/rules.

I agree with you rigied2.

Even though the 40k could potentially be even more OPd than FW,
atleast its from the same supplement.

Zweischneid wrote:

AnUnearthlyChilde wrote:The name of the thread is "Forgeworld... Why the hate?"

Forgeworld allows codex armies supplemental units to take one of the FOC slots available within those lists. Forgeworld is the metaphorical seasoning to GW's stew. Add to taste. My armies have a splash of seasoning to make them different to the same old bland lists I see on a regular basis.

Yes. But to answer the question posed in the thread, you have to understand where the "hate" comes from.

1. FW offers optional (!) often experimental units/rules that demand explicit player's consent.

2. FW proponents frequently try to "rule lawyer" their FW-selection into the game by rather petty-minded "it's legal" / "it's really also "GW" / "it's not overpowered I sweeeeaaar!!" arguments.

3. FW proponents frequently deride those that opt against the inclusion of FW as "lesser players", often describing them (as demonstrated in this very thread) as small-minded / ignorant / childishly fearful of loosing / and worse.

Thus, as a consequence of the commony exhibited behaviour of FW-proponents, FW has a bad reputation.

To reverse this image and reduce the "hate", FW-proponents would need to take pointers from stuff like Planetstrike and forward their FW-toys without alot (alot, alot, alot) more humility.

But since they largely refuse to do so, the "hate" can only grow.

Sorry, as I said before, from experience I have met no FW haters. the only haters I see are people who play a FW list then come onto places like Dakka and complain that the only reason they lost was that someone was using FW and by association that means it's overpowered. which is all a big pile of steaming horse caca... I find it deeply unfair that people scream blue murder when it is all about the dice roll whether someone wins or not.

LunaHound wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

jgehunter wrote:just as anybody could refuse to play a particular codex.

And that's the attitude that I disagree with.

Using FW models/rules requires more permission than normal GW models/rules. There is a difference.
I am always willing to play a game of 40k.
I am not always willing to play a game of 40k using FW models/rules.

I agree with you rigied2.

Even though the 40k could potentially be even more OPd than FW,
atleast its from the same supplement.

I don't get but not everybody has to agree.

I see that you need permission in both cases, not more or less permission.

ZebioLizard2 wrote:

Maybe one will show a bit of modesty when you're not trying to burn all the strawmen under their faces. Afterall you are the one deriding them as snobbish elitists, as rule-lawyers when you're doing the EXACT same thing by using it to prevent them from bringing forgeworld in

You keep saying they are straw-man, but don't burn them. Given, they are analogies and as such imperfect. But you have yet failed to refute the hypocrisies I was trying to point out.

1. You claim that "rejecting" FW is foolish, because "FW is just GW". But you yourself reject other "variant" games offered by GW. If it's expansions, alternative formations, "official" tournament scenarios re-used for friendly games doesn't really matter. Clearly, "everything ever produced by GW is good to go" is not an option, yet you keep raising the inverse argument to claim rejecting FW is a fallacy.

2. You claim "the more the merrier" that more diversity is improving the game. Subjectivity of that claim aside, diversity through home-made stuff seems not to be on your agenda (nor diversity through expansion), yet diversity through FW is. Seems biased to me.

3. Not you perhaps, but many people in this very discussion have claimed that people who reject FW are afraid, childish, misinformed or ignorant, etc.. That is infact a snobbish, elitist position. I just point it out.

And I am not preventing anyone from brining FW in. I am just saying you shouldn't so in an aggressive, rules-lawyering way. If you give people enough time to decide and, should they decide to accept a FW challenge, enough time to properly prepare, noone is taking your "right to play" FW away from you.

I'm just wondering why this is true:

If i want to play a game where i include a FW tank in my army, I then have to beg the other player if it's ok, and if they say "no, I don't like FW stuff, I don't know the rules and I think their stuff is OP", I have to shut up, back down and either put up with it and substitute other models in it's place, or walk away without being able to play. Because "it's understandable because that's their right".

But if an opponent shows up with an army with a Dark Eldar army, and I say "Sorry I don't play people with Dark Eldar armies, I don't know their rules and I think they are overpowered- you have to play an army that uses rules I like", I'm pretty sure I would get "the look" and be labelled as "that f'ing guy".

jgehunter wrote:I don't get but not everybody has to agree.

I see that you need permission in both cases, not more or less permission.

Are you married?

"Honey, do you mind if I go to the bar tonight?"
Restricts actions to just a bar. Go to a strip club instead of a bar and there will likely be a reaction (even more likely a negative one)

"Honey, do you mind if I go to a strip club tonight?"
More open this time - permission should mean that there's no objections to mostly naked women dancing inches from your face

Zweischneid wrote:

ZebioLizard2 wrote:

Maybe one will show a bit of modesty when you're not trying to burn all the strawmen under their faces. Afterall you are the one deriding them as snobbish elitists, as rule-lawyers when you're doing the EXACT same thing by using it to prevent them from bringing forgeworld in

You keep saying they are straw-man, but don't burn them. Given, they are analogies and as such imperfect. But you have yet failed to refute the hypocrisies I was trying to point out.

1. You claim that "rejecting" FW is foolish, because "FW is just GW". But you yourself reject other "variant" games offered by GW. If it's expansions, alternative formations, "official" tournament scenarios re-used for friendly games doesn't really matter. Clearly, "everything ever produced by GW is good to go" is not an option, yet you keep raising the inverse argument to claim rejecting FW is a fallacy.


2. You claim "the more the merrier" that more diversity is improving the game. Subjectivity of that claim aside, diversity through home-made stuff seems not to be on your agenda (nor diversity through expansion), yet diversity through FW is. Seems biased to me.

3. Not you perhaps, but many people in this very discussion have claimed that people who reject FW are afraid, childish, misinformed or ignorant, etc.. That is infact a snobbish, elitist position. I just point it out.

And I am not preventing anyone from brining FW in. I am just saying you shouldn't so in an aggressive, rules-lawyering way. If you give people enough time to decide and, should they decide to accept a FW challenge, enough time to properly prepare, noone is taking your "right to play" FW away from you.

1. I NEVER have claimed that as I have clearly stated that anybody is free to not play whatever they want and they are neither better nor worse for it.

2. I play my Eldar with a Fandex. I regularly play Planetstrike.

3. See point 1

AegisGrimm wrote:I'm just wondering why this is true:

If i want to play a game where i include a FW tank in my army, I then have to beg the other player if it's ok, and if they say "no, I don't like FW stuff, I don't know the rules and I think their stuff is OP", I have to shut up, back down and either put up with it and substitute other models in it's place, or walk away without being able to play. Because "it's understandable because that's their right".

But if an opponent shows up with an army with a Dark Eldar army, and I say "Sorry I don't play people with Dark Eldar armies, I don't know their rules and I think they are overpowered- you have to play an army that uses rules I like", I'm pretty sure I would get "the look" and be labelled as "that f'ing guy".

One is a normal expectation on entering the game of 40k. The other is not.

rigeld2 wrote:

jgehunter wrote:I don't get but not everybody has to agree.

I see that you need permission in both cases, not more or less permission.

Are you married?

"Honey, do you mind if I go to the bar tonight?"
Restricts actions to just a bar. Go to a strip club instead of a bar and there will likely be a reaction (even more likely a negative one)

"Honey, do you mind if I go to a strip club tonight?"
More open this time - permission should mean that there's no objections to mostly naked women dancing inches from your face

I don't understand why so many people cant see the difference in that....

Which is the main issue of this thread.

rigeld2 wrote:

jgehunter wrote:I don't get but not everybody has to agree.

I see that you need permission in both cases, not more or less permission.

Are you married?

"Honey, do you mind if I go to the bar tonight?"
Restricts actions to just a bar. Go to a strip club instead of a bar and there will likely be a reaction (even more likely a negative one)

"Honey, do you mind if I go to a strip club tonight?"
More open this time - permission should mean that there's no objections to mostly naked women dancing inches from your face

HAHA

Ok, you win the argument, +1 for you

What I am trying to state is that you have exactly the same right to refuse to do one as you have to refuse to do the other one, and you shouldn't get looked down for either of them.

1. You claim that "rejecting" FW is foolish, because "FW is just GW". But you yourself reject other "variant" games offered by GW. If it's expansions, alternative formations, "official" tournament scenarios re-used for friendly games doesn't really matter. Clearly, "everything ever produced by GW is good to go" is not an option, yet you keep raising the inverse argument to claim rejecting FW is a fallacy.

I don't reject other variant games. It's just that they change up far more than just a simple addition to the FoC list.

Forgeworld: Add X unit to the appropriate FoC slot, so long as isn't an apocalypse model, you can stuff it in, be good to go.

I will play you in planetstrike, but we'd need to choose attacker/defender, as the attacker gets 6 elite FoC slots, and the defender 6 Heavy support. Not to mention the defender gets to deploy the entire board and gets to choose bastions, strategems and various other nifty things that change up the game far more heavily than adding one to three models.

I'd be glad to play you if you pulled out a battle missions book, as while those are different scenario's, that is generally what most of them are, scenarios and you can roll off on those, since most of them don't change up things so heavily enough to be a bother. Hell I'd love to play some of them, they are kinda neat, especially the orky ones.