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.

Complaining about a tank that negates nigh-unkillable units is more of a stab at GW, considering that they created the offending unit in the first place.

Forge World should be praised for creating a counter to Eldar unhittable units.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Complaining about a tank that negates nigh-unkillable units is more of a stab at GW, considering that they created the offending unit in the first place.

Forge World should be praised for creating a counter to Eldar unhittable units.

All praise be FW, for even when they feth up, GW does worse.
Praise be upon the mighty Sicaran, our saviour that got created by FW and made even more Op thanks to GW CA.


sorry, i just had to.

If you have the rules & let your opponent have a look before you play I don't see the problem. FW is a subsidiary company to GW so as far as I'm concerned all FW stuff are legal.

I've seen two widely different discussions go down in this thread. Well, more actually but two I really want to zoom in on because they were the ones that interacted with each other the most.

- Can you refuse a game against anyone you want for whatever reason you want?
- Are leviathans overpowered to the point that refusing a game because of them seems a valid choice.

To the first discussion, I say "why of course". It's your good right to do so. At the same time, other people have the right to judge you for the choices you make in choosing an opponent. I've denied a game here and there in 7th when someone unpacked 3 riptides and a stormsurge in what was agreed upon to be a friendly casual game. Now I understood that this person just enjoyed riptides regardless of whether they were strong or not, but the game wasn't going any fun.
On the other hand I've come across people who only accept a challenge when they're all but guaranteed to win. I'd say that's a dick move.

So on to the second discussion. Honestly, having played a Leviathan myself in multiple games in 8th edition I'd scratch my head if someone turned down a game because "OMG you brought OP FW bs". Leviathans are good but not overly so. There're probably dozens of units out there I'd gladly change acces to a Leviathan with.
But as I've said, people have the right to turn down any game they like. If he dislikes playing against a leviathan so thouroughly that he'd turn a game down for it, that's up to him. Do I think it's justified? Definitely not, but to each their own.

Just wanted to pull these two apart because I see people from discussion 1 react to discussion 2 and I think these are distinctly different. A person can argue that deny'ing the game because of a single FW model is a dick move while still respecting their right to choose to deny games over anything.

I've seen two widely different discussions go down in this thread. Well, more actually but two I really want to zoom in on because they were the ones that interacted with each other the most.

- Can you refuse a game against anyone you want for whatever reason you want?
- Are leviathans overpowered to the point that refusing a game because of them seems a valid choice.

The crux of this thread to me was highlighted by Sgt Smudge a couple pages back.

It effectively boils down to "Do I have to inform people I'm using Forgeworld because they are beyond to scope of GW rules, or do you have to inform me that you only like playing with X rules and not Y rules because Forgeworld and GW are all the same company"

Honestly I'm 70% sure it used to be an explicit rule that both players must agree to use Forgeworld, so I would definitely not egg a players house, desecrate their mothers grave, or whatever else has been proposed in this thread for treating this as a well established convention

There is a long list of things that used to be a well established convention.

Now we just realise we were being racist, sexist, homophobic or whatever.

Don’t be stuck in the past. Let us move past our FWism.

This particular convention encourages communication and expectations management between players! That's a good thing in my book.

The bad feeling will be magnified if a game is refused after people have travelled to the shop and unpacked all their models. Chucking out a quick 'hey you're cool if I bring Forgeworld' at the game arranging stage, in the same way you would if you played Imperial Knights or Tau Riptide Wing, doesn't seem too onerous to me.

I expect the same policy to be applied to all other rules. If you don't give me an up front request/notification that you would like to use codex rules instead of the index rules then you are probably TFG. After all, codex rules are a major escalation in power and WAAC potential, and really just an expansion to the core of the game. And some armies don't even get codex rules at all, how is that fair? Plus they cost so much money and it's not reasonable to expect me to be familiar with them.

 Peregrine wrote:
I expect the same policy to be applied to all other rules. If you don't give me an up front request/notification that you would like to use codex rules instead of the index rules then you are probably TFG. After all, codex rules are a major escalation in power and WAAC potential, and really just an expansion to the core of the game. And some armies don't even get codex rules at all, how is that fair? Plus they cost so much money and it's not reasonable to expect me to be familiar with them.

Yea I'm with you on this, with all the different sources atm it is always worth checking before the game where your opponent is taking their list from, are we both looking at the same FAQs etc.

I used to play a Salamanders list from White Dwarf back in 3rd Edition (it was also published in Codex:Armageddon if I recall correctly) and always made sure to make my opponent aware and talk them through the differences when arranging games so that they didn't feel like I tricked them into a game.

Actually i have an idea :
How about we make a collection of all Fw specific special rules army for army / model for model.
We mention each time what army has the rule (random leadership for R&H for exemple) and then go down.
Basically a really basic guide for FW rules and weaponry so that everyone can have access.
Not only would it stop cheating, no it would also make the bases of these armies and their playstyle open for all to get a grasp on the specific playstyle of them.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kroem wrote:

I've seen two widely different discussions go down in this thread. Well, more actually but two I really want to zoom in on because they were the ones that interacted with each other the most.

- Can you refuse a game against anyone you want for whatever reason you want?
- Are leviathans overpowered to the point that refusing a game because of them seems a valid choice.

The crux of this thread to me was highlighted by Sgt Smudge a couple pages back.

It effectively boils down to "Do I have to inform people I'm using Forgeworld because they are beyond to scope of GW rules, or do you have to inform me that you only like playing with X rules and not Y rules because Forgeworld and GW are all the same company"

Honestly I'm 70% sure it used to be an explicit rule that both players must agree to use Forgeworld, so I would definitely not egg a players house, desecrate their mothers grave, or whatever else has been proposed in this thread for treating this as a well established convention

I am not certain but didn't that get thrown over board when gw pushed LoW's?

Honestly I'm 70% sure it used to be an explicit rule that both players must agree to use Forgeworld, so I would definitely not egg a players house, desecrate their mothers grave, or whatever else has been proposed in this thread for treating this as a well established convention

No such rule exists in 8th edition, theres a lot of assumptions that players would know old edition rules or etticate, its not fair to ask newer players to be aware of old edition conventions or rules or social contracts that existed at a time when the game was incredibly different, we also do not know if the OP or the other player was new or old without hearing from them directly to 8th.

ive been watching the thread, as always many opposing views on Dakka, but in short yes you can refuse any game, but forgeworld is entirely legal and in no way seperate from 8th edition of Warhammer 40,000.

The model itself is incredibly expensive for what it does and realistically for its price there are many ways to deal with it quickly and efficiently, as a Chaos player myself i honestly feel both in this edition and in 7th edition without Forgeworld substitutes i would of likely given up playing the main antagonist/protaganist (dependant on your point of view), mainly because i was tired of not having decent Artillery support or anti tank weapons. We do have options in chaos but in 8th a lot of the overall "very good" 7th units took even more of a beatstick so things like the Drake and Fiend are really not as good as they were nor do i desire to use them against Necrons, Drukhari, Aeldari and the list goes on and on.

In addition thematically forgeworld allows players who buy models for 30k to use "some" of them in 40K meaning GW/FW offer players better value for money on their products with rules for both systems. I also get to play my iron warriors as a fun thematic gun army, focused on siege, i cant really do that with just defilers from the core codex so forgeworld offers me a chance to play fluffy thematic army in line with the books and in game universe. why is this relavent to this scenario you may ask, If the OP had the Levi as a thematic choice and it is legal it does seem unfair to pack that model for a long trip... to turn up to a pickup game to then be told i do not do forgeworld without a discussion when he pulled it out about why that is the case? i think he deserved to know why his game would be refused? that still leaves the other player with the option of refusing after a chat about why.

if we are to evolve as a society and have this so called social contract players must evolve and adapt to the current rulesets of 8th edition, if you do have an issue with the models then take that up with the manufacturer not the player. GW has been more responsive than ever to balance. If again forgeworld really was the issue then bloodofkittens would be showcasing all the super FW compliant lists that have won tournament games. This is not the case and has not been the case for a long time now. The only unit i have seen recently from forgeworld that has been adjusted due to its overall projected power was the fire raptor.

To summarise, 1) you have the right to refuse absolutely 2) you also have the ability to be open minded and the rights to ask each other the question "why" 3) it is more than fair to personally decide for you what is reasonable and unreasonable and whether you feel someone is being fair/unfair/sarcastic/humourous we are all different just like our armies. 4) ITS....A.....GAME....win or lose i would of advised both players if at my club to play 2 games if time permitted 1 with 1 without, then both players get to see how things pan out... seems fair to me.

 p5freak wrote:


Lets say you play eldar, and you built your army to stack negative to hit modifiers....

Your complaint is that I can, at best, put down three tanks that can hit your modifier-spamming flyers. Oh no, someone found a way around your cheese. And odds are, they still can't do much. All I've got laying around that can do anything about that is an Assassin and maybe I could put down Greyfax to deal with that Psyker.

Sorry, find a new tactic. In no way does that Sicaran give me an 'unfair advantage'. It just eliminates your cheap auto-win.

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:

 p5freak wrote:


Lets say you play eldar, and you built your army to stack negative to hit modifiers....

Your complaint is that I can, at best, put down three tanks that can hit your modifier-spamming flyers.

Sorry, find a new tactic.

The main problem is not the tactic, the main problem is that Gw has overdone it with the abilities the eldar get.
However his complaint about a unit which has restrictions and is relatively expensive and does work as intended is Hollow in this case.

Not Online!!! wrote:
The main problem is not the tactic, the main problem is that Gw has overdone it with the abilities the eldar get.
However his complaint about a unit which has restrictions and is relatively expensive and does work as intended is Hollow in this case.

Yeah, I made an edit.

He's whinging about a counter to a cheese tactic, which is comical. And for every Sicaran I still need an Elite choice that isn't a Relic.

If he brought that army to a PUG in my area- as soon as it happened people would chuckle, nod, and say "good game" in a deadpan tone while putting away their models. Then loudly ask "Anyone else want a game?" Doesn't sound like much, but that's a not-so-subtle way of saying, "This guy's a cheeseball and a waste of time". If he complained about someone's Sicarans, we would laugh him into the street.

 Kroem wrote:
This particular convention encourages communication and expectations management between players! That's a good thing in my book.

The bad feeling will be magnified if a game is refused after people have travelled to the shop and unpacked all their models. Chucking out a quick 'hey you're cool if I bring Forgeworld' at the game arranging stage, in the same way you would if you played Imperial Knights or Tau Riptide Wing, doesn't seem too onerous to me.

I agree with the sentiment, but I think the onus should be on the player who has an issue with FW or another rule to state that up front. If something is legal within the rules of the game, you should be able to reasonably expect it to be acceptable to use it under normal circumstances.

TLR. If you want a change to the game, it should be your responsibility to provide the heads up, and have that agreed as soon as humanly possible.

My favorite way of telling if Forge World is OP is looking at tournament results and seeing what OP Forge World Cheese is there.

*Checks every tournament since Chapter Approved*
Dark Reapers
Hive Tyrants
Poxwalkers

....damn you forgeworld ruining tournaments. ()

StrayIight wrote:
I agree with the sentiment, but I think the onus should be on the player who has an issue with FW or another rule to state that up front. If something is legal within the rules of the game, you should be able to reasonably expect it to be acceptable to use it under normal circumstances.

TL;DR. If you want a change to the game, it should be your responsibility to provide the heads up, and have that agreed as soon as humanly possible.

I agree. It's very simple. If you are going to invite someone to a game, you need to be up front about any exclusions. It's no different than asking someone if they can do a 'no flyers' or 'No LoW' game.

Any Forge World 40k model is as much a part of Warhammer 40k as a Land Raider or Leman Russ. Provided the player has the book on hand (digital or hard copy), then it's a legal model.

There are absolutely no reasons that anyone can justify to bar FW products from a game. Let's run down the excuses:

"They are OP!" - As opposed to what, GW's perfectly-balanced stuff? Come on, anyone who's played more than a handful of games out in the wild knows there's plenty of stuff that is arguably OP in the basic Codex of several armies.

"They offer some armies more options than others!" - Yeah, all the armies out there on the shelf have the same amount of things to choose from, do they? Yeah, there's just as much stuff for Harlequins as there is for Space Marines, for sure.

"Many players aren't familiar with them!" - sounds like a personal problem, or laziness in an era where you can Google the rules easily. And 'not playing against something' isn't really going to get you familiar with it, either.

"The store can't sell it!" - they don't have my Sisters of Battle, Kaskrins, Inquisitorial Stormtroopers, or any of the bits I've purchased from Kromlech, Spellcrow, Puppetswar, Chapter House, Anvil, or Statuesque. And never once, even in a GW store, has anyone told me that those models aren't legal because they can't sell them or the bits on them.

"The rules aren't as accessible as the Codex!" - are you lacking an internet connection and the means to purchase this book online? If so, please just let me know. I'll take cash in hand and make the order for you when I order my next Forge World model. I might even be nice and not ask you to throw down for shipping, but we're going to have a long talk about being a grown-up.

Darsath wrote:
Wow. OK, so there's a lot of strawmanning and ignorance happening in this thread, so I thought I would add fuel to the fire.

Firstly, I am anti-FW units in most games. It's pretty easy to see why actually. It can benefit certain armies much more than others, and widen the "choice gap", that is, the number of available, good units and army has from a gap to a chasm. It wouldn't make much sense to agree to a rule that gives your opponent a significant advantage over you in each game.

When the game allows you to build armies composed of basically any combination of units from any combination of factions, even in matched play, this line of thinking has long since passed being moot.

Secondly, we know that GW and FW don't communicate well between each other.

GW's main studio doesn't communicate well with itself half the time

Just look at some of the 8th ed launch rules from FW. They aren't really able ti include FW units in strategems and rules because GW designs their game around only GW units.

They don't have stratagems specific to FW units, but most FW units can make use of army stratagems just fine, they just don't get any special ones just like most units don't.

FW units to me are the same as adding superheavies, and should be saved for larger games.

So my Death Korps of Krieg grenadier army, Decimator walkers, Rapier batteries, Autocannon equipped Chimeras, formerly Codex Vendettas, etc only have a place in *huge* games?

 Vaktathi wrote:
So my Death Korps of Krieg grenadier army, Decimator walkers, Rapier batteries, Autocannon equipped Chimeras, formerly Codex Vendettas, etc only have a place in *huge* games?

Didn't you know that if you bring one 40 point Cyclops Demolition Vehicle you'd better be playing Apocalypse?

Have you seen what those things can do at 2000 points? Ridiculous. It's a whole 2% of your army. Forgeworld is obviously for bigger games.

 Vaktathi wrote:

Darsath wrote:
Wow. OK, so there's a lot of strawmanning and ignorance happening in this thread, so I thought I would add fuel to the fire.

Firstly, I am anti-FW units in most games. It's pretty easy to see why actually. It can benefit certain armies much more than others, and widen the "choice gap", that is, the number of available, good units and army has from a gap to a chasm. It wouldn't make much sense to agree to a rule that gives your opponent a significant advantage over you in each game.

When the game allows you to build armies composed of basically any combination of units from any combination of factions, even in matched play, this line of thinking has long since passed being moot.

Secondly, we know that GW and FW don't communicate well between each other.

GW's main studio doesn't communicate well with itself half the time

Just look at some of the 8th ed launch rules from FW. They aren't really able ti include FW units in strategems and rules because GW designs their game around only GW units.

They don't have stratagems specific to FW units, but most FW units can make use of army stratagems just fine, they just don't get any special ones just like most units don't.

FW units to me are the same as adding superheavies, and should be saved for larger games.

So my Death Korps of Krieg grenadier army, Decimator walkers, Rapier batteries, Autocannon equipped Chimeras, formerly Codex Vendettas, etc only have a place in *huge* games?

Come on in,my renegade leman russ obviously is also just usefull for bigger matches, my Decimator certainly qualifies me for apocalypse no?

Well, yes, Not Online!!!. Your renegade leman russ is Apoc-only, but if you ran it as an Imperial Guard Leman Russ you could do so at 500 points and be alright.

Obviously.

So I can only bring Corsairs to huge games? So instead of being able to take ~600 pts in a 2k game, I need to face 4/5/6k points with that same ~600pts?

 Kroem wrote:

I've seen two widely different discussions go down in this thread. Well, more actually but two I really want to zoom in on because they were the ones that interacted with each other the most.

- Can you refuse a game against anyone you want for whatever reason you want?
- Are leviathans overpowered to the point that refusing a game because of them seems a valid choice.

The crux of this thread to me was highlighted by Sgt Smudge a couple pages back.

It effectively boils down to "Do I have to inform people I'm using Forgeworld because they are beyond to scope of GW rules, or do you have to inform me that you only like playing with X rules and not Y rules because Forgeworld and GW are all the same company"

Honestly I'm 70% sure it used to be an explicit rule that both players must agree to use Forgeworld, so I would definitely not egg a players house, desecrate their mothers grave, or whatever else has been proposed in this thread for treating this as a well established convention

It used to be a thing in 4th and 5th, over a decade ago. Since 6th GW/FW has considered them a part of the game that requires no special permission.


The only times I have had people ever complain about FW is when they are a particularly sore loser looking for excuses as to why they lost.

Asmodios wrote:
have fun in the thread I'm out, this was just too much.

Awfully convenient way of not acknowledging the hyperbolic nature of most of your own posts in this thread, not having really supported your exaggerations at all.

Asmodios wrote:Hahahahahahahahahahaha
Wow if this isn’t the most over the top post I have ever seen... we are talking on a wargaming forum about a war game and about reasons to turn down a game that are hobby related and now people are jumping the shark and talking about racial discrimination.... I’m done that’s enough Dakka for the day

Unit1126PLL wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
I'll agree with this, though I'd say comparing FW bias to homophobia or racism is a little much. FW bias makes a certain hobby less fun. Homophobia and racism can make you lose jobs, get attacked, get killed...

They're similar in theme, it's a matter of scale that's different.

Yes, right, of course they're not even in the same league. I was picking something very obviously not fine so that the opposing debater couldn't reasonably worm out of it with "but of course that is just fine" without addressing the actual point.

The point being, of course:
"While you certainly can turn down any game you wish for any reason you wish, that does not protect your reasons from scrutiny, nor does it mean everyone automatically has to be fine with possibly flawed, ignorant, irrational, selfish, unreasonable, or outright bigoted reasons."

Reading is hard for some people...

kombatwombat wrote:
There is a long list of things that used to be a well established convention.

Now we just realise we were being racist, sexist, homophobic or whatever.

Don’t be stuck in the past. Let us move past our FWism.

This, ladies and gentleorks, is a strawman.

 Peregrine wrote:
I expect the same policy to be applied to all other rules. If you don't give me an up front request/notification that you would like to use codex rules instead of the index rules then you are probably TFG. After all, codex rules are a major escalation in power and WAAC potential, and really just an expansion to the core of the game. And some armies don't even get codex rules at all, how is that fair? Plus they cost so much money and it's not reasonable to expect me to be familiar with them.

I don't often exalt posts, but when I do *Is there a 40k Dos Equis image around somewhere? *

kombatwombat wrote:
There is a long list of things that used to be a well established convention.

Now we just realise we were being racist, sexist, homophobic or whatever.

Don’t be stuck in the past. Let us move past our FWism.

Dont be a conformist sheep. Be all of those!

Bharring wrote:
So I can only bring Corsairs to huge games? So instead of being able to take ~600 pts in a 2k game, I need to face 4/5/6k points with that same ~600pts?

Ideally you are supposed to be outnumbered in points by around 25% CHAOS FW and by about 50% for xenos.
Didn't you know that?

Lemondish wrote:

kombatwombat wrote:
There is a long list of things that used to be a well established convention.

Now we just realise we were being racist, sexist, homophobic or whatever.

Don’t be stuck in the past. Let us move past our FWism.

This, ladies and gentleorks, is a strawman.

Well... not really!
Yes, it's a hyperbole but the point still stands. What people used to think/do in previous editions has no real bearing on what people think/do now. Opinions and consensuses change.

You can't just say "this is how we should do it becaude it's how we've always done it!" and expect people to follow suit.