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.

H.B.M.C. wrote:

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?

Probably the same number.

Scott-S6 wrote:
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.

You're right, I've played no games against these. I'm relaying what my brother told me about his experience playing against them, in a pickup game at a local shop. But, this does reinforce my point about the rules for FW items not being easily accessible, so that when someone who owns them feels that they need to cheat with them, there isn't an easy way to check it.

But this isn't about me, or at least it wasn't until HBMC decided that it should be. I've never refused anyone a game for any reason, least of all their use of FW items. I simply don't think it's right to call someone a childish name because of their choice whether or not to play against something they believe to be unfair.

H.B.M.C. wrote:You're sick and you're posting at Dakka. What would your wife say? Go back to bed.

Oh look, more personal attacks. Big surprise. What are you, like 12?

Agamemnon2 wrote: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.

I don't own the $90 book that would be required to check the facts, as I stated above, I am conveying a story that happened to my brother, who also doesn't own the book. Again, part of the problem with FW stuff is that the rules aren't easy or cheap to get ahold of.

If you go to a game store, and, because no opponent's permission is required to use FW items, your opponent drops a drop pod in the center of your lines, and starts rolling a lot of dice, what do you do? You ask to see the rules on it, and they say they left them at home. Now what? It isn't like the game store has a copy on the shelf that you can reference, so you take your opponent at their word. And maybe later a stranger on the internet lets you know that your opponent was a cheating git, but until then, all you know is that one 95 point model destroyed your whole army, and maybe you don't want to play against FW stuff anymore.

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?

Well, educating the multitude, in this case, is what would solve the problem. If people don't want to play against FW stuff because of a common misconception about it, and you have FW stuff that you want to play with, don't you think it is in your best interest to correct those misconceptions, so that you'll be able to find games?

H.B.M.C. wrote:

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?

And then HBMC has to make more personal attacks.

Redbeard wrote:
You're right, I've played no games against these. I'm relaying what my brother told me about his experience playing against them, in a pickup game at a local shop. But, this does reinforce my point about the rules for FW items not being easily accessible, so that when someone who owns them feels that they need to cheat with them, there isn't an easy way to check it.

I don't own the $90 book that would be required to check the facts, as I stated above, I am conveying a story that happened to my brother, who also doesn't own the book. Again, part of the problem with FW stuff is that the rules aren't easy or cheap to get ahold of.

Actually, all the marine and inquistion/grey knight rules (from IA2) are available to download for free since they changed it all to match the new codex.

Also, if someone wants to play any rules and doesn't have the appropriate codex/IA book/download/whatever and can't borrow one then he's out of luck. I've pulled models out of my list in the past when I've left my IA books at home (I carry photocopies of the useful pages stapled to my roster sheet these days)

I've seen the exact same thing at clubs with people who play unusual armies and "forget" their codex at which point they pull all of the rules and stats out their arses.

The FW models as substitutes for standard GW metal and plastic kits has been adequately addressed. The models aren't the problem anyway. It's the rules.

The FW rules aren't a part of standard 40k. When you ask an opponent if he wants to play a game of 40k then he expects to play just 40k, not apocalypse, cities of death or planetstrike. Essentially when you plan on using FW rules you are asking an opponent if he wants to play 40k +FW which is different from regular 40k. It's in your interest to make that clear when establishing the parameters of the game. Plopping down FW stuff and telling your opponent you don't need his permission to use it when he is expecting standard 40k is not a recipe for success. Calling him names when he declines the game at that point doesn't help much either.

*smiles broadly*

Redbeard wrote:You're right, I've played no games against these. I'm relaying what my brother told me about his experience playing against them, in a pickup game at a local shop. But, this does reinforce my point about the rules for FW items not being easily accessible, so that when someone who owns them feels that they need to cheat with them, there isn't an easy way to check it.

Whoa... ok, so now someone using the FW rules as written (balanced or not) is cheating. My my Readbeard, you've gone off that deep end.

Redbeard wrote:But this isn't about me, or at least it wasn't until HBMC decided that it should be.

Persecution complex much? I made a broad statement, you came right for the jugular with "So I'm a pansy if...". I didn't start this my friend. You did.

But nevertheless, this isn't about either of us really. What it is about - despite all the straw-filled red herrings you've thrown - is the legality of FW items and the "permission required-ness" of said rules. And here the rules of Imperial Armour are quite clear. I'm not going to repeat myself for the FIFTH time. I'm sure you can read one of my previous posts.

Redbeard wrote:I've never refused anyone a game for any reason, least of all their use of FW items. I simply don't think it's right to call someone a childish name because of their choice whether or not to play against something they believe to be unfair.

Ah! The truth comes out at last. That's why you decided to pick a fight with me. Do you feel better now? I do. I love the smell of pointless internet debates in the morning.

Redbeard wrote:Oh look, more personal attacks. Big surprise. What are you, like 12?

Makaleth is a friend of mine. He's part of my gaming group. And really, he is actually sick at home. But you weren't to know that... still, your reaction was priceless.

Redbeard wrote:I don't own the $90 book that would be required to check the facts, as I stated above, I am conveying a story that happened to my brother, who also doesn't own the book. Again, part of the problem with FW stuff is that the rules aren't easy or cheap to get ahold of.

That's true. What else is true is that it has no bearing whatsoever on the legality and "permission required-ness" of IA rules. This getting through yet?

Redbeard wrote:If you go to a game store, and, because no opponent's permission is required to use FW items, your opponent drops a drop pod in the center of your lines, and starts rolling a lot of dice, what do you do? You ask to see the rules on it, and they say they left them at home. Now what? It isn't like the game store has a copy on the shelf that you can reference, so you take your opponent at their word. And maybe later a stranger on the internet lets you know that your opponent was a cheating git, but until then, all you know is that one 95 point model destroyed your whole army, and maybe you don't want to play against FW stuff anymore.

Oh no! All aboard the meaningless argument train - first stop, absurdity!

What your describing, Redbeard, is a situation that I'm sure can, has and will happen in the future. You know what else is true about your hypothetical situation?

It's got nothing to do - at all - the legality and "permission required-ness" of IA rules.

Redbeard wrote:Well, educating the multitude, in this case, is what would solve the problem. If people don't want to play against FW stuff because of a common misconception about it, and you have FW stuff that you want to play with, don't you think it is in your best interest to correct those misconceptions, so that you'll be able to find games?

A fair point. And best way to do that is to play a game with them so they can see how much (usually) they suck and maybe discover imbalances (both for and against the unit) together. But of course none of this matters because the original point of contention was whether or not IA rules required the permission of your opponent (any more than any other unit in the game, etc. etc.) and the answer is still a resounding NO.

Redbeard wrote:And then HBMC has to make more personal attacks.

You have an interesting defintion of personal attack.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Arschbombe wrote:Essentially when you plan on using FW rules you are asking an opponent if he wants to play 40k +FW which is different from regular 40k.

Not according to IA2, which quite clearly states that all the FW units are completely legal and require no opponent's permission (any more than any other unit in the game, etc. etc. and I'm sick of typing that line out now).

Arschbombe wrote:Plopping down FW stuff and telling your opponent you don't need his permission to use it when he is expecting standard 40k is not a recipe for success.

See now we're talking about sportsmanship, which is a separate issue and yes, I'd agree, just going "I'm using this and there's nothing you can do about it" would be a bad way to conduct one's self in a game. Still though, doesn't change the fact that FW units are completely legal and require no opponent's permission (any more than any other unit in the game, etc. etc. and my fingers'll fall off if I have to type that again).

For the sake of the lazy or ignorant, this the IA2 document referred.

Not quite. I refer to the foreword at the start of the actual IA2 book.

Should I provide a page scan then of the relevant part?

Wow..welcome to useless internet argument #1,00,339,999.

GG

Quoting it would do.

But let me save you the trouble:

"... The very idea that some vehicles are 'legal' and some not seems odd to me. All the vehicles within this book exist in the 41st Millennium, they are deployed to do battle against the Emperor's foes. It is not a case of legality, it is an actuality. Generally, players should not pick and choose what equipment their opponent can or can't use. The idea that an Ork Warboss or Eldar Farseer can somehow object to the Land Raider Helios or Tarantula sentry guns is strange.

In the past we have advised players to seek their opponent's permission, but this seems an unsatisfactory solution. Of course you need your opponent's permission to play any game, unless you intend to force people to play you (There we go, that kills that argument dead - Ed)! Eldar players don't feel they need permission to field their Avatar, although each Craftworld has just one, only awoken in direst need. Using this 'opponent's permission' system I believe that too often players object, felling that their opponent is getting an unfair advantage, which is actually nonsense. By all means ask permission, but how this is different to organising any game? Your opponent is, by agreeing to play you, giving you permission to use your miniatures collection.

In my opinion, the root cause of all 'legality' issues comes from the predominant culture of points based wargaming. Address this and many 'legality' issues vanish. Many players do not realise that points based gaming is only one style of gaming... (Yadda, yadda, yadda - Ed)

... All this goes out the window when it comes to tournaments. Tournaments have their own rules, so whether you can use Imperial Armour vehicles and rules is really up to the tournmanet organisers.

..."

And then he goes on to talk about backrounds. The bit in the middle I omitted was talk about designing custom scenarios. The implications of what Copypasta is saying are quire clear - "[P]layers should not pick and choose what equipment their opponent can and can't use."

And from IA one:

"... Firstly is, when can I use my Forge World models, are they 'legal'? The real answer to this is that it is soley up to the players involved in the game (Note: 'Players', collective, not 'opponent', singular - Ed) - if the players agree then anything goes, after all it is there game, their hobby and their free time. Of course, I understand that not all players can agree over such matters..., and need an official ruling from high. The answer then is yes, feel free, use these vehicles, none of them will 'ruin' the game by giving an unfair advantage, in fact I think they can only enhance it."

Copypasta then goes onto explain that there are some limitations, specifically the limitations or restrictions on Super-Heavy vehicles, which is, amazingly, exactly what I said in my second post in this thread, if y'all had cared to pay attention:

"The Imperial Armour rules themselves are 100% ... [blah blah blah] ... and would only ever be illegal ... [if you] haven't met any required inbuilt restrictions (ie. not a high enough points level to bring a Super Heavy, etc.)."

Happy everyone?

H.B.M.C. wrote:

Redbeard wrote:You're right, I've played no games against these. I'm relaying what my brother told me about his experience playing against them, in a pickup game at a local shop. But, this does reinforce my point about the rules for FW items not being easily accessible, so that when someone who owns them feels that they need to cheat with them, there isn't an easy way to check it.

Whoa... ok, so now someone using the FW rules as written (balanced or not) is cheating. My my Readbeard, you've gone off that deep end.

My brother played a guy who used a forgeworld deathwind droppod.
His opponent did not have the rules with him. His opponent claimed that his droppod got d6 assault cannon shots at all of my brother's units within 24" of where it landed. My brother took him at his word.
Two people in this thread have since claimed that the actual rules for this droppod are that it gets d3 assault cannon shots at all units within 12".
Therefore, my brother's opponent cheated, as he did not use the rules as written.
My brother no longer wishes to play against people who use FW items, as a result of this experience.

Everyone else was able to figure this out, but you're dead set on proving how superior you are, you completely ignored what I wrote in favor of an interpretation that was never even hinted at.

But nevertheless, this isn't about either of us really. What it is about - despite all the straw-filled red herrings you've thrown - is the legality of FW items and the "permission required-ness" of said rules. And here the rules of Imperial Armour are quite clear. I'm not going to repeat myself for the FIFTH time. I'm sure you can read one of my previous posts.

You keep harping on this, and I've never questioned it. What I have questioned is your need to insult people who don't want to play against FW items, for any number of reasons, including prior situations that they've been in against cheating opponents.

See now we're talking about sportsmanship, which is a separate issue and yes, I'd agree, just going "I'm using this and there's nothing you can do about it" would be a bad way to conduct one's self in a game. Still though, doesn't change the fact that FW units are completely legal and require no opponent's permission (any more than any other unit in the game, etc. etc. and my fingers'll fall off if I have to type that again).

Wait, it's poor conduct to say "i'm using this and there's nothing you can do about", but not poor conduct to call someone a pansy if they question you using it? These seem like equally poor behaviours to me.

Ok this is how I personally would handle a situation like this. If someone dropped down some cool FW anything, Id admire it, oogle at its splendor, and continue the game. Now if they started dropping a gak ton of dice, saying it does all this and that, Id demand to see the rules for it. If they conveniently let the rules at home, Id stop them right there. I dont CARE if someone uses FW stuff. It looks nice, and is pretty. But if they dont have any type of rules to prove that it does indeed drop a million hits on my army, then I wouldnt allow that to happen. At all. Period. If they have a problem with it, then I guess its about to get heated, because I dont allow people to cheat me, specially not in a game.
Thats how everyone should handle things like that, not a flame war, where we sit and insult each other in a pissing match over the internet. Just deal with it like an adult, and stop complaining and throwing words at one another.

Redbeard wrote:My brother played a guy who used a forgeworld deathwind droppod.
His opponent did not have the rules with him. His opponent claimed that his droppod got d6 assault cannon shots at all of my brother's units within 24" of where it landed. My brother took him at his word.
Two people in this thread have since claimed that the actual rules for this droppod are that it gets d3 assault cannon shots at all units within 12".
Therefore, my brother's opponent cheated, as he did not use the rules as written.
My brother no longer wishes to play against people who use FW items, as a result of this experience.

Two things... no... three:

1. Do you know that the person involved actually cheated, or is there a chance that they honestly forgot?
2. No impact on the legality of the rules and so on and so forth blah blah blah as I've said a dozen times now.
3. If that truly is the case, then your brother is narrow-minded. But let me ask this - If someone shows up with a FW unit and the rulebook and shows him beforehand, will he play then. Or is it just a case of "FW... nope. Not playing that."

As for the rest of your post... read my quotes above and let's put this issue to bed.

KingCracker wrote:Just deal with it like an adult, and stop complaining and throwing words at one another.

But it's an internet forum KingCracker. Words are all we have man! What else could I do? Sit here and glare angrily at my monitor? Well... I 'spose I could do that, but it probably wouldn't solve anything.

Hm, glaring at the monitor is like entering a staring contest you can never win.

H.B.M.C. wrote:
Not according to IA2, which quite clearly states that all the FW units are completely legal and require no opponent's permission (any more than any other unit in the game, etc. etc. and I'm sick of typing that line out now).

It doesn't matter what IA2 says. It doesn't matter how many times you type it or say it to someone. The fact is that IA2 is not part of normal 40k and random opponents in pick up games have no expectation that it will be used regardless of its official status according to GW. What they expect is something from the codices that are actually regularly available in stores. The problem with IA rules is that they're not sold in independent retailers and even most GW stores. GW doesn't sell it on their website. It is outside the mainstream of 40k. That's the crux of the issue: FW rules are obscure and exotic.

My recommendation is not to harp on what IA2 says and try to bulldoze your opponent. That won't get you many games. If you include FW units, you should have a backup list that doesn't include them, have a scan of their rules available for your opponent and then dicuss them with him before the game. Make your opponent comfortable with the unit(s) and convince him you're using it because the model is cool not because you think it will give you an advantage.

Actually ass bomb..

Imperial Armour books are standard kit for GW stores and their on-line store.

They may standard kit on the online store, and I'm not even sure about that, as while the link you posted works, clicking the books doesn't appear to, and you cannot add them to your cart. They're certainly not standard in any of the GW stores I've been in.

KingCracker wrote:Now if they started dropping a gak ton of dice, saying it does all this and that, Id demand to see the rules for it. If they conveniently let the rules at home, Id stop them right there.

Surely the exact same is true if someone's using an army with a codex you don't know?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

H.B.M.C. wrote:*smiles broadly*

Redbeard wrote:You're right, I've played no games against these. I'm relaying what my brother told me about his experience playing against them, in a pickup game at a local shop. But, this does reinforce my point about the rules for FW items not being easily accessible, so that when someone who owns them feels that they need to cheat with them, there isn't an easy way to check it.

Whoa... ok, so now someone using the FW rules as written (balanced or not) is cheating. My my Readbeard, you've gone off that deep end.

Not what redbeard was saying at all.

I can add them to my cart just fine from where I'm sitting.

Arschbombe wrote: If you include FW units, you should have a backup list that doesn't include them, have a scan of their rules available for your opponent and then dicuss them with him before the game.

All players should have rules for their army available regardless of whether they're FW or not.

Make your opponent comfortable with the unit(s) and convince him you're using it because the model is cool not because you think it will give you an advantage.

If I'm spending points on a FW item rather than a codex item then of course I'm doing it for advantage. While they may not be especially points efficient, the extra variety of FW units can be used to good effect when combined with the rest of your army. (MM razorbacks are a much-needed anti-tank boost if, like me, you have a strong dislike of attack bikes)

BrookM wrote:Actually ass bomb..

Imperial Armour books are standard kit for GW stores and their on-line store.

Interesting. I can follow your link and see the books. I cannot arrive at that page from anywhere else on the site. I have no link for IA books. They're not under expansions. They're not under rulebooks. They're not under codexes. When I do click on them using your link I get an error because the item has no price.
It was the same whether on the UK site, German site or US site.

Odd that, the US site lacks them but the UK and NE site has them up for sale.

Found the link on both the UK and Dutch sites. It looks to me like most of the sites just feed off the UK site and those that don't (US, Canada, Spain, Germany, Italy, Autralia etc) don't have links for the IA books. I think it reinforces my point that IA stuff is optional material that is not part of the core 40k game.

Right, I'll avoid Kansas next time I come over to play then.

BrookM wrote:Right, I'll avoid Kansas next time I come over to play then.

Awesome. We don't need any Forgeworld-toting kaaskoppen.

Arschbombe wrote:Found the link on both the UK and Dutch sites. It looks to me like most of the sites just feed off the UK site and those that don't (US, Canada, Spain, Germany, Italy, Autralia etc) don't have links for the IA books. I think it reinforces my point that IA stuff is optional material that is not part of the core 40k game.

So because it's not in the craphole of an online store that is the US site...it's not part of the core game? So, by your logic Apocalypse and Planetstrike and Cities of Death, are standard rules and I should be able to have stratagems whenever I want. Hooray!

IA1+2 are fine, or will be once IA1 gets brought up to speed with the new IG codex. I'm actually thinking Forge World might be redoing IA1 for that purpose alone, given how dramatically the Guard codex changed since the first printing.

It's when you get into the realm of the Taros campaign, Anphelion, and the Vraksian Siege that things can get muddled. The Elysian list makes for some dang interesting gaming from Taros though, as does D-99. And frankly, Anphelion's corridor fighting rules and the Imperial defenses present in the codex should have been put into the Guard codex. Sabre batteries are far, far too cool to pass up.
Can't really comment on Vraks, as I only read it in passing at my FLGS before they went under.

Kanluwen wrote: So, by your logic Apocalypse and Planetstrike and Cities of Death, are standard rules and I should be able to have stratagems whenever I want. Hooray!

Uh, no. They are expansions. They are additions to the core game. To play 40k you need the rules and at least one codex. You don't need CoD, Planetstrike or Apoc to play 40k just like you don't need any IA book. Those are all optional additions. That's what the FW crowd doesn't seem to get. IA stuff is optional, you can't make anyone opt in and you really have no grounds for complaint when someone declines your attempt to tilt the field in your favor by using obscure units and rules with which they are unfamiliar.

Arschbombe wrote:

Kanluwen wrote: So, by your logic Apocalypse and Planetstrike and Cities of Death, are standard rules and I should be able to have stratagems whenever I want. Hooray!

Uh, no. They are expansions. They are additions to the core game. To play 40k you need the rules and at least one codex. You don't need CoD, Planetstrike or Apoc to play 40k just like you don't need any IA book. Those are all optional additions. That's what the FW crowd doesn't seem to get. IA stuff is optional, you can't make anyone opt in and you really have no grounds for complaint when someone declines your attempt to tilt the field in your favor by using obscure units and rules with which they are unfamiliar.

Sorry, but no. The IA stuff, if you want to field it, is about as optional as an army book.

As long as you BRING the rules with you, and the rules fit with the current game being played(ex: Superheavy Detachments only allowable in games alongside a force of at least 2k points) it shouldn't be an issue. People making it an issue is absurd. You'd call someone out if they tried to plop an army down on the table without the rules for that army present, in some form or another.

Arschbombe wrote:

Kanluwen wrote: So, by your logic Apocalypse and Planetstrike and Cities of Death, are standard rules and I should be able to have stratagems whenever I want. Hooray!

Uh, no. They are expansions. They are additions to the core game. To play 40k you need the rules and at least one codex. You don't need CoD, Planetstrike or Apoc to play 40k just like you don't need any IA book. Those are all optional additions. That's what the FW crowd doesn't seem to get. IA stuff is optional, you can't make anyone opt in and you really have no grounds for complaint when someone declines your attempt to tilt the field in your favor by using obscure units and rules with which they are unfamiliar.

Somehow I doubt that one is familiar with all the regular armies and whatnots. Using the "oh gak I don't know that one" a.k.a. refusal of the unknown comment is rather weak.

Arschbombe wrote:It doesn't matter what IA2 says.

I'll break this down into a dialogue for you:

Arschbombe: They're optional!
HBMC: No they're not *posts quotes directly from the rulebooks in question showing where it plainly says that it's not optional*
Arschbombe: The rules don't matter. I'm right because... uhh... well just because! I don't need to listen to your 'rules' and your 'proof', or your 'quotes' from the guy who 'wrote the rules'. My own made up opinion on what counts and what doesn't trumps an official Games Workshop publication.

Am I close? That is what you're saying, right?