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.

aka_mythos wrote:GW designers "live" in a different gaming world than 90% of the gaming community, they don't percieve this problem.

90% of the [i]online[i] portion of the gaming community, possibly. But I think you would find that out in the real world, there are far more gamers willing to accept non-standard rules than you might think.

Once upon a time, designing your own rules, or coming up with ways to incororate new things into your games was a pretty standard part of wargaming and roleplaying. It's only comparitively recently that organised play and the gradual migration of gamers out of their own lounge rooms and into gaming stores and clubs has seen people start asking for more definition in the rules and start sneering at home-brew stuff.

And you'll find there are still quite a lot of gaming groups out there who don't give a rodent's dangly bits what rules the rest of the world is using...

insaniak wrote:

Steelmage99 wrote:The rulebook tells us how to pick an army (ie. using any one codex) and that is what you should do.

...if you and your opponent choose to play that way.


Ultimately, I think the idea that Forgeworld rules are akin to Apocalypse is probably the best way to look at it. If you just want to play by the core rules, then you have the rulebook and a codex. If you want to change up your gameplay, you have Apocalypse, and Planetstrike, and Forgeworld.

They're all 'legal'... but they're also all slightly different aspects of the game.

So the key is simply to discuss with your opponent beforehand, to make sure you're both wanting to play the same game.

I couldn't agree more.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

MasterSlowPoke wrote:

Steelmage99 wrote:Could you quote me that rule, preferably with a page number? I'm simply looking for a rule that grants me a specific exception to the general rule of "pick an army using any one codex".

Quote me the rule that says which codexes are valid.

Nice attempt at deflection and derailment of the thread. FAIL.

The rule book tells us how to select an army.

Steelmage - fail again I see.

Read the opening paragraphs of the IA books. States there that they can be used in "normal" games of 40k. Thus overriding the rulebook - you do remember specific > general, yes?

Edit: also you may note your "this is completely irrelevant" quote was referencing my response to you asking for even the "slightest hint" that GW accept FW - I provided 3 reasons that you then dismiss. Well done!

As for the poster trying to claim that FW make rules to make you want to buy their stuff - no, they really dont. I gave examples of precisely *2* units I consider in ANYWAY overpowered, the lucius pattern drop pod and the Hades drill, for their points cost. I cannot think of a single other example - if anything they err on the side of caution, for example (to requote myself) the 200 point Hydra in IA vs the 75pt hydra in Codex : IG.

Well, for me.
I don't mind it only if the opponent mentions it.
It's not that it requires consent, it's that they have the courtesy to tell the opponent and not assume they own AI stuff, nor know about it.

And I agree with Bartali's quote:

Allowing Forge World in 40k makes it more of a game of who's got the biggest wallett than it even is at the moment

It's quite taboo, but Dread Pods, utter broken-ness for some builds...

nosferatu1001 wrote:Steelmage - fail again I see.

Read the opening paragraphs of the IA books. States there that they can be used in "normal" games of 40k. Thus overriding the rulebook - you do remember specific > general, yes?

Which of course means that the units presented in the books from CC Services (which contains the exact same paragraphs) are also official and ok to use in a normal game of 40k, right?

Edit: also you may note your "this is completely irrelevant" quote was referencing my response to you asking for even the "slightest hint" that GW accept FW - I provided 3 reasons that you then dismiss. Well done!

Actually you didn't present anything of any value whatsoever. Do you really consider; "they are friends and work in the same building" as a valid indication that the Studio read through any FW material before publication and "checks" the rules and values?

As for the poster trying to claim that FW make rules to make you want to buy their stuff - no, they really dont. I gave examples of precisely *2* units I consider in ANYWAY overpowered, the lucius pattern drop pod and the Hades drill, for their points cost. I cannot think of a single other example - if anything they err on the side of caution, for example (to requote myself) the 200 point Hydra in IA vs the 75pt hydra in Codex : IG.

Even though this isn't addressed to me, I must say I kinda agree with you. The vast majority of units from FW are not overpowered.
It is the complete brain-farts (you know, the ones most players really want to play with..) that I am worried about. Besides those you have already (re)mentioned I also consider the Deathstorm Drop Pod and any kind of Flyers to belong in that category.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Read the opening paragraphs of the IA books. States there that they can be used in "normal" games of 40k. Thus overriding the rulebook - you do remember specific > general, yes?

sorry, but the line in the rulebook that is the basis for specific over general yet again refers to codicies, which IA/FW stuff is not. there is NO mention of FW products in the main rules for 3 different editions of the game and this cannot be coincidental after that many editions and 12+ years of development. i thought you were a RAW purist from previous discussions? i don't however agree with some of the posts here that think FW stuff is overpowers; i'd say 80% of it is in fact overcosted with 10% right on the money and the final 10% overpowered. is it "official"? sure. it's made by a wholey owned subsidiary of GW so it is. so are white dwarf lists from 8 years ago and planetstrike/cityfight/etc. being official doesn't equate to being used without your opponent's permission. you have to ask your opponent if you want to use something other than the rulebook and a codex in the game.

Steelmage - are they published by GW as well then?

They have exactly the same validity as codexes, as they are

1) published by the same company
2) endorsed by the same company
3) and most crucially tell you you can use them in "normal" games of 40k.

1) and 2) are sufficient proof that the rules are ACCEPTED by GW, as duly authorised agents of citadel miniatures. Sorry, fail again.

Warboss - you are slightly wrong here. You are thinking of smoke launchers and the summary table, both of which are secondary to the entire basis of the entire ruleset - which is specific vs general.

The BRB lays out general rules that are then modified / superceded by the rulebook itself or by codexes. None of this is performed with ANY reference to specific vs general, as it is not needed. So you are incorrect on this point - the rulebook would have to speciically disallow FW for them to not be "legal" if a Citadel MIniatures production states that they are.

I am a RAW "purist" in terms of what the rules say,a nd the rules are VERY CLEAR: IA books ARE legal and certain units / lists CAN be used in games of normal 40k without requiring specific opponent consent.

You also miss out this vital concept: you have to ask your opponent for permission to play the game, full stop. For anyt reason whatsoever any opponent can refuse to play you. FW stuff does NOT alter this.

EDIT: actually MOST flyers are hideously overcosted (e.g. Hell talon / blade) as anything that flies seems to attract a 200% premium. As another example the AX1-0 is more than 500 points for a single S shot. Necron pylon is much less than that and fires more shots, the skimmer Tzeentch Tower pumps out more shots as well as the S class stuff, and so on. Given most fighters are AV10 therefore can be glanced with a *bolter* i dont think there is a single one that is "over powered".

Nos, You place a lot of weight of certain facets of this issue. I place weight on others.

We are going to have to disagree on this.

Sure, IA rules are book (RAW) legal for any regular game of 40K.

However, in the real world, many opponents do not want to play against IA items without some advance notice. I wouldn't, too many items completely change the game dynamics. And if I refuse to play you because you are using IA items, well, that makes it a defacto "opponent's permission".

And yep, this entire game is indeed completely based on oppnent's permission. I could refuse to play because I'm tired of facing Marines or cause I don't like the way you're dressed or any one of hundreds of reasons.

Steelmage99 wrote:Nos, You place a lot of weight of certain facets of this issue. I place weight on others.

We are going to have to disagree on this.

Yes, you place weight ona line in the BRB that states codexes [which defacto makes any 2nd ed codex "legal", along with chaos 3rd ed, craftworld eldar, etc - which was M's point earlier), and ignore the citadel miniatures published and endorsed (not just in IA but on the website and magazine) rules in FW, and the rules stating they can be used in normal games of 40k and thus supercedes (as it is more specific) the BRB rules.

One is based on rules, the other isnt.

Don - agreed that you can choose to not play FW, especially if you are not familiar - but I could do the same when someone wants to play army X. WHich is the point. Given the entire game, from beginning to end, is opponents permission then singling one item out (FW) and stating the same concept is just needlessly redundant.

Yep, but you're more likely to run into someone that doesn't want to play against IA (for whatever reason) than the other reasons. What I'm saying is that it's a defacto restriction, not a dejure restriction. I freely admit that RAw says you can use it. But given GWs stance on the use of IA in tourneys, which is then mirrored by most other indy tourneys, well, see what I mean?

So RAW, yes, IA is not opponent's permission.
Real world, better check first before you just show up with that spiffy flyer or those Infernus shells or that Chaos Spiny beast, etc etc.

You chose to play by a set of rules, and if a different set says "we're fine to be used with that other set of rules" that doesn't mean you've agreed to that set as well.

With WH40K you get:
BRB - Core rules, no army lists
Codices - Army lists needed to make an army
Imperial Armour - Army list expansions
Apocalypse - Core rules expansion
etc

Bringing any new level of rules to the game alters the rule set under which you've agreed to play in. Imperial Armour only says "we're compatible" and "we're official Citadel" - but that doesn't mean they are on the same level as the BRB or the Codices.

If I expect a nice game of Talisman, I will be intrigued if my friends bring an addon to the game such as the dungeon expansion, but it's still a process of everyone agreeing on what rules we play by. Do we play with the dungeon expansion or stick to the good old standard rules that we all know?

By the way, regarding the codices, I believe that there's a section in the BRB where it lists all units you'll find in the standard (non-chapter) codices. Regardless, I'll say this:
Each additional book or text, codex or otherwise, is opponent's approval. You can have approval for section-by-section or set-by-set. You can't ever assume that you'll have approval of the entire Citadel WH40k range simply because it's WH40K you're playing.

What's next? You expect to play a multiplayer game of Starcraft where you use Brood War units and your opponent use vanilla? Yes, that's a good analogy, 'cause Imperial Armour is an expansion

Hell, be happy if they turn up with a spined beast, you can get daemon princes that are better for the same points cost and it takes up an Oblit^H^H^H^H^H Heavy slot

Actually RAW IA *is* opponents permission; just the same as anything else - which is the point I was making. It is no more or less so than anything else, including bringing craftworld eldar (whcih steelmage believes to be "legal") to make a sniper army would be, or the 4th ed BA PDF codex along to a friendly game.

I have found that, in a TRULY friendly game, most people are up fro a challenge and want to learn something new - so as long as you dont come along with an expectation to be able to use the DKoK, and are willing to explain (and explain, and explain as the game goes on ) what is what then most people will be up for it.

It just requires some form of social interaction, whcih does seem to be anathema to a lot of posters

nosferatu1001 wrote: It is no more or less so than anything else, including bringing craftworld eldar (whcih steelmage believes to be "legal") to make a sniper army would be, or the 4th ed BA PDF codex along to a friendly game.

I don't believe so.

That is a totally different discussion, one which I am happy to continue in another thread.

Your only "proof" that FW wasnt legal was a reference to the rulebook stating you select armies from codexes; you were then asked to prove which books that applies to and you diverted that with a non answer.

If you are claiming that the "use codex" rule is the only applicable rule to determine amy legality then you *do* uphold that the BA PDF is still legal, as that is the logical conclusion of your argument.

Adding more weight to your argument being a flawed one, no?

Mahmatori - incorrect argument as the IA books state they can be used in games of regular 40k as a " normal" book- go into quite a lot of detail, really, stating they have *exactly* the same weight as a standard codex.

SO you are undermined by GW themselves stating you are wrong....

Perhaps the people more afraid of FW rules are the ones that fear that their twinky armies will be trumped by even more twinked out lists?

I have never had a problem with FW rules or models. I think they are cool and I do wish we saw more of them. Wtih Apoc rules and game setups, I truely hope we do.

As far as should they be allowed to play, I think that they are there for a reason and should be allowed. It is however, polite gaming etiquitte to inform your oppenent that you will be using them. Sort of like its polite to inform them what units are in which transports.

However, in tournements, most times fair play goes out the window.



The game is ultimately meant to be fun. In this regards, I obey a D&D rule over GW. If you dont like something, or feel something takes away from the Fun then ignore it or rework it. We have used this a time or two in our group of friends. And, as above, I think the FW rules ARE okay and I allow them whenever I am confronted by them.


Also, to those that wish they put some Playtesting into the FW Rules to make them more balanced. Im not entirely sure that GW does with the Codexs they release half the time. So if GW doesnt care about playtesting, why should FW? Just make the gak up as you go along.

I dfon't think there really is a "right" answer to the question the OP asked.

As has already been mentioned the bulk of the stuff in the FW books aren't particularly overpowered and points costs are generally on the high side.

Flyers and superheavies could unbalance a game if you turned up with them against an allcomers "codex" list which wouldn't be fair. Let me know in advanace and I wouldn't have a problem

I would have no problem playing people using IA rules.
Unless they did not mention it before the game.

Expansion rules are not normal--or they would be normal rules.

IA used in 40k? Ok, but that is hardly normal.

Assuming your opponent has to be ok with Forgeworld rules is as valid as assuming your opponent is ok with an outdated codex.

ymmv

Sceleris wrote:I don't think there really is a "right" answer to the question the OP asked.

The answer is all games involving two or more players to consent to play a particular game a particular way. FW rules are just not the most common and thus are difficult to get people to consent.

insaniak wrote:

aka_mythos wrote:GW designers "live" in a different gaming world than 90% of the gaming community, they don't percieve this problem.

90% of the [i]online[i] portion of the gaming community, possibly. But I think you would find that out in the real world, there are far more gamers willing to accept non-standard rules than you might think.

Once upon a time, designing your own rules, or coming up with ways to incororate new things into your games was a pretty standard part of wargaming and roleplaying. It's only comparitively recently that organised play and the gradual migration of gamers out of their own lounge rooms and into gaming stores and clubs has seen people start asking for more definition in the rules and start sneering at home-brew stuff.

And you'll find there are still quite a lot of gaming groups out there who don't give a rodent's dangly bits what rules the rest of the world is using...

I remember when it was very common for someone to write some house rules and try them out, not so much anymore. Whilel maybe my "90%" is a bit inflated for the sake of hyperbole, when the main play style here in the states is seemingly tournament rules, where FW is disallowed in that setting I can't whole heartedly agree with your evaluation. I know there are some people who are perfectly willing to accept non-standard rule sets, but I was addressing the fact that in GW's internal bubble a greater majority of games are "for fun" and aren't taken as seriously as even the most easy going tournament. That the GW designers see the FW rules and the codices fundamentally equal, while the vast majority of gamers do not. I've walked into a packed game store and only found one person willing to play me if I was using forgeworld.

Games Workshop plays internally like a gaming club or group. The vast majority of game stores I've been to do not have that type of organization and thus are not as single minded as GW about what can or cannot be used. The few clubs or groups that I've encountered don't play in public spaces they play in a basement or home somewhere climbing out of the wood work only for tournaments. So while my "90%" maybe stilted, it might be better said less exactingly that, when you walk into a store the vast majority of players will baselessly disallow an individuals use of a particular unit, purely on the grounds of its unofficial "FW" status.

I think that is the wrong approach and wrong mentality for play.

aka_mythos wrote:

Sceleris wrote:I don't think there really is a "right" answer to the question the OP asked.

The answer is all games involving two or more players to consent to play a particular game a particular way. FW rules are just not the most common and thus are difficult to get people to consent.

Yes, the game requires consent to begin with, as others have said. But I agree there are distinct levels of consent and rules involved here.

If someone asked you to play a "game of 40k" and you said "sure"... and then the person started putting down superheavies or planetstrike turrets or rolling from the battle missions book or something, would you continue without question? Or would you have expected an additional level of initial consent to play by special rules outside the norm, such as those from FW?
I know I would.

The question, as has been said, really doesn't have an answer. It's entirely a case-by-case basis whether people will play you and your special models or if a particular TO at a particular tournament will allow them.
I know that if anyone wants to play with FW units against me, I read through the descriptions carefully and make a pre-game determination at that time... I don't just say 'No, never!' or 'Sure, any rule you can throw at me is always fine.'.
The poll really doesn't support that option, however.

People conveniently seem to be ignoring the earlier comment about it turning even more to who has deeper pockets.

Granted id be all for that heh, but i know many others cant afford to purchase as much product as i do, and would feel slighted.

If GW came and said all IA is legal id just buy all the fw stuff that i wanted right away, I pretty much have gotten everything i want as far as using for counts as or things without kits, e.g Medusas etc.

kill dem stunties wrote:People conveniently seem to be ignoring the earlier comment about it turning even more to who has deeper pockets.

Not ignoring. It has been pointed out the, generally, FW rules are NOT overpowered. In fact it tends to be that the rules are lacking for the cost in points.

That said, there are very obvious exceptions.

Regardless, we are discussing playing a pick-up game--the only time this matters as in a tourney it is up to the TO. If someone wants to buy a win in a pick-up game, odds are the problem with accepting that game is already apparent.

insaniak wrote:
Once upon a time, designing your own rules, or coming up with ways to incororate new things into your games was a pretty standard part of wargaming and roleplaying.

QFT. It was absolutely endorsed. VDR in 3rd ed... loved it.

kill dem stunties wrote:People conveniently seem to be ignoring the earlier comment about it turning even more to who has deeper pockets.

Probably because it's not a very good point. IA vehicles aren't particularly overpowered and the only real advantage is that your opponent may not understand how the unit works. Then it's your responsibility to provide them with the datasheet.

One common rule I have seen at relaxed tournaments is 'You may include ONE unit from Imperial Armour'. I don't mind if and when they are completely restricted, and another good reason people don't just build massive FW armies is that, besides the cost, you can't use them in tournaments. 'Competitive' players have nothing to widdle their pants about and casual/friendly gamers can still play their game however they damn well please.

KDS - there is a limit to how many lucius drop pods you can buy and use. Name some other "over powered2 units and you may have a point.

I thought IA rules were ok until I met the blight drone....yeah, a fast skimmer with an instant death template weapon....joy

I guess none of you that are arguing that nothing is OP would mind me fielding an Assault Ram....because 5" template, melta weapons are so common in the usual game, right?

The general thing is this:

They are legal to the point that anything in 40K is legal... in that everything is opponents permission as they can just pack up and leave anytime they want.

The way I see it is that anyone I play should have a reasonable amount of familiarity with the game (ie: what a monstrous creature is, how far things move, the wound table) and preferably at least a smattering of knowledge on each codex although that one is less critical. I like to think I have a rather good grasp on the rules, I know how to handle just about any situation and in any random game may have to look up one or two things in the BRB just to make sure.

However, I have no fething idea how a superheavy works, or a flier, or SD weapons. Nor do I have access to a really big blast template. Nor do I expect my opponent to know any of these things. I would refuse to play against someone playing THOSE FW models only because I don't know the rules for them. You want to take some fancy infantry model? That's fine. I know how infantry work. You want to take a superheavy? Sorry pal, no dice. That or give me 2 hours or so to poor over the rules.

Exactly, people saying the stuff is overcosted and not good seem to not have ever read any imperial armour ...

I'm not saying every single thing is ridiculously OP, but every single army has a few things that are, and those will start to turn up in every army, or at least of those who can afford them.

Name "a few things" KDS, you have been asked a few times now.

Blight drones may have a large blast but they are still dead easy to kill and have low BS...

Forgeworld is optional.

(A) My World

My gaming group allows all forgeworld, so long as the forgeworld has something along the lines of "___ army can bring this unit as a (Troop/Elite/Heavy/HQ) choice." We all know each other very well. Most of us have been friends for 10+ years.

Anything goes in our Apoc games.

(B) Going to the game store for a pick up game.

If I don't know you, I would ask your permission before bringing a FW item to a pick-up game against you. I expect the same treatment and curtesy. I honestly can't see me telling you "no, you can't use forgeworld." Again, it's still optional so you need my permission the same as I need yours.

(C) Tournaments

A TO can tell you to keep your FW stuff at home, so you had better ask ahead of time before you get your hopes up.

Gorkamorka wrote:If someone asked you to play a "game of 40k" and you said "sure"... and then the person started putting down superheavies or planetstrike turrets or rolling from the battle missions book or something, would you continue without question? Or would you have expected an additional level of initial consent to play by special rules outside the norm, such as those from FW?
I know I would.

I wonder if some part of the problem is simply people balking at the implication of it requiring 'permission'... which isn't entirely accurate.

Ultimately, asking:
- Hey, want to play a game? I have a Cadian army...
- Hey, want to play a game? I have an Ork army with a Forgeworld Mega Dread...
- Hey, want to play a game? I have an Elysian army from Imperial Armour...
- Hey, want to play a game? I have a home-brew Squat list...

...all amount to the same thing. It's not so much seeking your opponent's permission as simply coming to an agreement to play by the rules you (or they) want to use. The set-up process isn't (or shouldn't be) as simple as finding someone who looks like they play 40K, saying 'Hey, let's play' and starting to plonk models down on the board under the assumption that you're both expecting the same game.