+++ IA8 - Raid on Kastorel-Novem - Introduces Units to Codex Orks? +++

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.

**mikhaila**

Actually, I think I'll just quit arguing with you. Nothing I say will ever change your mind, and you won't ever find something in the 40k rulebook that says IA is legal.

**Illumini**

I don't see the issue here. The only place "legality" matters, is in tournaments, and as TO's can do whatever they want, and that often includes adding "no FW allowed" to the rules pack, that would still mean that FW stuff isn't allowed.

If you want it to be allowed in tournaments, you should probably lobby with your local TO's, and convince them that there is nothing broken with FW rules etc.

Personally, I would love more variety, those grot tanks sound awesome, and the mega-dread is an amazing figure, but I can see the other side too. IMO, the biggest issue is with familiarity, not "broken" rules. The IA books are expensive, so most people won't have access to the rules before the event, and as such, won't be familiar with the rules. It then becomes much easier to think: OMG this is IMBA!

If you are worried about friendly games or pick-up games, I would find someone else to play against. If you won't allow FW stuff in a friendly match, you're kinda lame

**The Dreadnote**

mikhaila wrote:Actually, I think I'll just quit arguing with you. Nothing I say will ever change your mind, and you won't ever find something in the 40k rulebook that says IA is legal.

Find me anything in the rulebook that says planetstrike is legal.

**warboss**

mikhaila wrote:If GW wants them legal, it would only take adding a couple of paragraphs to the 40k FAQ/Errat, or publishing a White Dwarf article. But they haven't.

pretty much answers the question for me right there. you keep quoting snippets from forgeworld that say you can use it with a 40k codex army but frankly the sentances aren't very clear. as stated above, either FW or GW (i'd be fine with either but would prefer GW) could simply unequivocably say "The units in this book are legal in the appropriate 40k Codex army and do not require opponent's permission in regular games of Warhammer 40,000." they don't and the silence is telling for me. now, that being said, i DO allow opponents to use non-superheavy/gargantuan creatures as long as they ask me ahead of time (it's called being curteous as the opinion on this subject is divided). i've even told opponents that if the entry is something that is identical to an already existing unit, they have my preapproval ahead of time and don't need to ask (like ws/bs5 ven dreads for DA, valks for DH/WH, etc). In a tourny, though, i expect only codex units but am fine with FW models representing codex ones.

**Mr. Burning**

Quote from IA volume 1

...there are two common questions. Firstly is, when can I use my Forge World models, are they 'legal'? the real answer to this is that it is solely up to the players involved in the game - if the players agree then anything goes, after all it is their game and 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 'on 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'.......

Warwick Kinrade ,May 2003
Intro to IA volume 1.

Precedent seems to set doesn't it? But I can understand why Tourneys and some players are reluctant to allow FW rules...You have to buy a book costing £45 to view them. Regardless of utility on a tabletop the majority of players will have had no experience of FW rules or minis before hand.

**Redbeard**

The problem with that quote is that it comes from FW, not from GW. As such, claiming that it validates using IA requires that you accept that IA is legal to begin with.

If you believe IA isn't legal, then it doesn't matter what the IA book says, see. Circular reasoning and all.

Again, there is no official stance. At any given tournament, the legality of FW is determined by the organizer(s) of that tournament. And in any given game between friends, I'd hope that by being friends, you could work it out amicably between yourselves.

**Karon**

H.B.M.C. wrote:All IA stuff is legal, they do not require permission, and anyone can use them.

There are some caveats with that of course:

1. Apoc formations would only be available in Apoc games, obviously.
2. Super-Heavies require games of 2000+ points, they cannot be used in games lower.

People often claim that they require permission, even when the books themselves say they don't (check AI1 and AI2, really!) because people are afraid of losing (but pretend they aren't), and think that FW presents and opportunity for abusing rules (when they don't). When challenged, these same people who are afraid of losing (but pretend they aren't) will often fall back on the argument of 'it's just giving people who can afford them an advantage', which is a hilarious (and also not true).

This is not to say that common courtesy shouldn't play a part. Flyers change the dynamics of the game considerably, and proper AA mounts are few and far between, so anyone who springs flyers on someone (unless it's something harmless like an Arvus or Aquila) is probably being a bit of a dick. Same goes for showing up for a pickup game at your FLSG for a 2000 point game with a Stormblade in tow.

FW is something that should be used by everyone because it's fun. Threads like these should never, ever be necessary.

I wish everyone had the same opinion as you on this, mate.

**Scott-S6**

Mr. Burning wrote:
Precedent seems to set doesn't it? But I can understand why Tourneys and some players are reluctant to allow FW rules...You have to buy a book costing £45 to view them. Regardless of utility on a tabletop the majority of players will have had no experience of FW rules or minis before hand.

The biggest problem is that you can buy your £45 book and still not have the right rules because a different version has been reprinted since.

The big list in IA-Apoc2 which tells you which book has the current rules for every 40K unit is good but it should have been a living document on the website.

**Andarin**

if you go on GW website unand then look at the books section and then imperial armoursection then clock on the final book it states. "Imperial Armour Apocalypse II is a 112 page, full-colour hardback which provides comprehensive and updated descriptions, background and rules for using all of Forge World's recent models in your games of Warhammer 40,000 and Warhammer 40,000 Apocalypse."... so im guessing GW is fine with you using them in standard games.

**H.B.M.C.**

mikhaila wrote:Nothing I say will ever change your mind, and you won't ever find something in the 40k rulebook that says IA is legal.

On the other hand, we have several examples of IA books saying they do not require permission.

**Darkness**

Its been a long time since I bought an IA book, and back then they said they required players consent.

No GW GT or Ard Boyz has ever allowed the inclusion of FW. This is a pretty good template IMO

Regardless if you feel it is legal or not, a tournament is 99% of the time not going to allow it, and in a friendly game you should make sure your opponent knows what you are taking before hand and has time to read the rules instead of you springing it on them.

HBMC suggested that its because people feel that the IA rules can be abusive. This is very true. The spined beast and spores comes to mind immediatley.

**tokugawa**

It based on which tournament you play.

Go ask tournament organizer.

Don't go to ask dakkadakka. That make no sense at all.

**H.B.M.C.**

Darkness wrote:Its been a long time since I bought an IA book, and back then they said they required players consent.

You're right. It has been a long time since you bought an IA book. They don't say that any more.

**ArbitorIan**

Panic wrote:I disagree with the intention here, why say codex? We already know we are dealing with IA units for the ork race..

Why go to this amount of trouble? why use the word Codex?

Because there's a HUGE difference between "This model can be used in an Imperial Guard army" and "This model can be used in a Codex: Imperal Guard army". The first one allows the model to be used in a C:IG army, or a IA5 Siege Regiment List, or a IA3 Elysian Drop Troop List, or any other "Imperial Guard" force.

I think the reason for the new, clearer, wording is to sell more models. Previously, Engineers and Breaching Drills could only be taken in the IG Siege Regiment army, but now every regular C:IG player can take them, for example. Hence they sell more Drills and Engineers.

I'm leaning this way because, as people have pointed out, the whole question of 'legality' is a pointless argument. In a regular game you can choose to not play someone for any reason, or you discuss what you're happy with. The only situation 'legality' ever occurs is in a tournament, and then the TO can say whatever he likes is allowed. Even though my Breaching Drill is listed in IA:APOC as a choice for a Codex:Imperial Guard army, the TO is quite within his rights to allow C:IG but not allow IA:APOC....

**Melissia**

Tournaments hate Imperial Armour for some reason (but they love rules lawyers), so probably not.

But I'd play against those units!

**CT GAMER**

This thread has reaffirmed my conviction to avoid tournaments and the types of people that play in them.

Thank you.

**Artsoldier35**

I find it funny that someone will accept an article in White dwarf as law but not a book that was edited and produced by a splinter company of the main company. MAYBE, in the past, these two entities have been exclusive and competitive with each other due to perceived rule problems. Is it also possible that they may now be more coordinated in their releases and that FW would have cleared these additons and unit choices and wording with GW proper? WHY NOT?

If the same wording on the A books was written in an article in WD or online in the FAQ/Errata, would it be accepted? WHY? AND Why not from IA?

Silly of all of you who only accept the official release of codexes (which also have errors), the online FAQ/errata for these same codexes, and an article in a magazine but not another official book (IA) because of previous statements and problems.

Again it comes back to friendly games = clear with your opponent before hand, tournaments = TO decides.

**H.B.M.C.**

Artsoldier35 wrote:WHY? AND Why not from IA?

Because people are petty and afraid of losing.

**Jackal**

1: I would allow it, due to the new wording they seem to have pushed them into the basic codex.
So its more of an additional option than a permission one.

Also, had to quote this:

I'd imagine most tournament organizers will tend towards not allowing them, as there's still the conception that FW units are somehow broken, or make it too much into 'who spent more on FW' (which, considering the base GW prices, is a rather silly argument, but that's what people say anyway.)

I agree with red on this, just a shame units like crushers are soo over powered and for some reason cost £18 each, then get fielded in spam lists with 3x6 lol.

Anywho, hoping they add some nice units into the dex's.
Might add some variation, and a nice update between new codex releases to keep them fresh.