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.

Baneblades are actually quite vulnerable to normal 40k weaponry.

and again, THe IA books specifically restrict Flyers and Super Heavies to Appoc games.

everything else is given the Green Light.

I have my IA8 out still don't see were its say you they don't require permission, just how I to use it in 40K not a stand alone product and you need 40K and some codex to use it and that on the Introduction page.

Noir wrote:
I have my IA8 out still don't see were its say you they don't require permission, just how I to use it in 40K not a stand alone product and you need 40K and some codex to use it and that on the Introduction page.

right. the Imperial Armour expansions are not codexes, so they are not valid to use outside of an Apocalypse game. Like I said, "I paid $100 for my tank so I want to use it" is not a valid reason to think that IA expansions are obligatory. It is by the permission of the opponent. If I say I want to play 3,000 points and someone else doesn't, do I get to claim a moral victory because I have a larger army? Or do I get to whine because I have 3,000 points to play with and someone else doesn't?

omg seriously ... if your opponent oks it ... theyre not op'd i just dont wanna learn whats in the horrendously priced books ... lets whine some more about it now.

IA has no place in tournaments thats for certain, but in casual if you ask nicely i might let you play with ur overpriced resin

I'm fine with it either way.

Although it is probably a good idea to ask the opponent first, not as it's required (as it is not) but as a form of etiquette. The opponent may not have any real knowledge of the units to begin with and be under the impression that they are OP and cheesy. By simply bringing them without prior knowledge it can be seen as a cheap shot by them. If you show them the rules and explain it a bit as well as asking them it would likely go better, and once they find that they are not so OP as everyone thinks they would probably be alright with it.

I expect most would actually go with it if they had a brief glance at the rules and they actually had the models there (converted or standard) as it would likely be a good break from the standard armies they would face.

SoloFalcon1138 wrote:

Noir wrote:
I have my IA8 out still don't see were its say you they don't require permission, just how I to use it in 40K not a stand alone product and you need 40K and some codex to use it and that on the Introduction page.

right. the Imperial Armour expansions are not codexes, so they are not valid to use outside of an Apocalypse game. Like I said, "I paid $100 for my tank so I want to use it" is not a valid reason to think that IA expansions are obligatory. It is by the permission of the opponent. If I say I want to play 3,000 points and someone else doesn't, do I get to claim a moral victory because I have a larger army? Or do I get to whine because I have 3,000 points to play with and someone else doesn't?

If you were familiar with the IA books, you'd know that most of the IA units *are not* designed for Apocalypse, rather they are upgrades to normal units or variants of normal units designed for use in normal sized games using a normal FoC, and the Superheavies are very specifically even within the FW rules specified as Apoc units or otherwise require a 2nd FoC meaning your opponent gets 2 FoC's to face them (so up to six HS)

Are you really going to try and claim that a Leman Russ Annihilator, Eldar Firestorm, Multi Melta Razorback, Salamander, Thunderer, or a Thudd Gun Quad Launcher are Apocalypse level units? Half the IG codex was FW before GW stuck them in, and in all cases, made them cheaper, better, more flexible, or all three. A great example is the Hydra. Under FW rules, it was a 200pt HS unit with an AA mount (doesn't matter except against Flyers). Now it's a 75pt unit that can be taken in Squadrons and ignores Skimmer Moving Fast and Bike Turboboost cover saves (which it couldn't before).

I voted "Yes, but fair warning." I have seen no legitimate excuse to prevent the IA books from being used in a normal game of 40K, and the complaints that the units are overpowered or that Super-Heavies break the game are laughable at best. I personally would love to go up against a FW list even if I didn't already own IA:8 myself, simply to see what it's like.

I have no problems with anyone using the rules, and I hate the idea of limiting what people can play outside of tournaments, which are a completely different story than regular play. That being said, if I go up against someone that doesn't want to play against my list, fine. Then I won't play them and will find someone else that's ok with it.

SoloFalcon1138 wrote:

You want to use them? ask you opponent, because no one really loves losing because you had more money than they did.

Excluding FW units my regular opponent can choose from 20K+ of orks and 15K+ points of marines. Should he be penalised because he has more unit choices that I have?

IA rules should be used in regular games. Since the rules are designed to work within the existing framework there should be no nasty surprises and a quick look at a units rules should be all that is needed before a game begins.

DiscoVader wrote:I voted "Yes, but fair warning." I have seen no legitimate excuse to prevent the IA books from being used in a normal game of 40K, and the complaints that the units are overpowered or that Super-Heavies break the game are laughable at best. I personally would love to go up against a FW list even if I didn't already own IA:8 myself, simply to see what it's like.

I have no problems with anyone using the rules, and I hate the idea of limiting what people can play outside of tournaments, which are a completely different story than regular play. That being said, if I go up against someone that doesn't want to play against my list, fine. Then I won't play them and will find someone else that's ok with it.

How is not wanting to play against broken stuff "laughable at best"? FW seem to be doing very litte play testing and as such usually ends up with overcosted crap, sometimes with perfectly balanced units and then the occasional massively broken stuff. The fact that most of what FW produce is subpar matter litte since people can easily cherry pick and thus you end up with only the broken stuff.

As for the argument "I payed lots for this unit so you'd better let me play it" well guess what, I payed quite a bit for my two warhounds and my fellblade and no one forced me to buy it so I will not force anyone to play against it.

As I said before it is ment to be fun for both parts, playing with unbalanced stuff is usually not fun.

Noir wrote:

H.B.M.C. wrote:The 12 people who voted "only if my opponent says yes" clearly have never read an IA book and seen exactly where they say that they don't require permission.

Where dose it say that?

In the introduction to IA:A1. Super-heavies and aircraft have always been special cases. There has never been opponent's permission for other items.

SoloFalcon1138 wrote: how many things in normal play stand a chance of cracking a Baneblade?

How is a baneblade harder to kill than three landraiders?

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:IA has no place in tournaments thats for certain, but in casual if you ask nicely i might let you play with ur overpriced resin

IA does not have a place in tournaments. Not because of balance but because it's such a nightmare making sure that everyone is using the current rules for their units. That's by far the biggest thing forgeworld needs to fix - they need a list of every unit on their website with which book has the current rules. (they publish this list in the IA:Apoc books so they are aware of the need for it but printed lists invariably become out-of-date)

tedurur wrote:

DiscoVader wrote:I voted "Yes, but fair warning." I have seen no legitimate excuse to prevent the IA books from being used in a normal game of 40K, and the complaints that the units are overpowered or that Super-Heavies break the game are laughable at best. I personally would love to go up against a FW list even if I didn't already own IA:8 myself, simply to see what it's like.

I have no problems with anyone using the rules, and I hate the idea of limiting what people can play outside of tournaments, which are a completely different story than regular play. That being said, if I go up against someone that doesn't want to play against my list, fine. Then I won't play them and will find someone else that's ok with it.

How is not wanting to play against broken stuff "laughable at best"? FW seem to be doing very litte play testing and as such usually ends up with overcosted crap, sometimes with perfectly balanced units and then the occasional massively broken stuff. The fact that most of what FW produce is subpar matter litte since people can easily cherry pick and thus you end up with only the broken stuff.

How is *ANY* of this different from normal Codex's? Aside from probably a half dozen units at most, probably only 3 or 4, there's nothing FW offers that is designed for play within the context of a normal game that has balance issues in terms of being OP. I can find as many or more within each of the IG, BA and SW books.

I payed quite a bit for my two warhounds and my fellblade and no one forced me to buy it so I will not force anyone to play against it.

I was unaware there was a Fellblade model out. That said, such units (the Fellblade being entirely BoLS created aside from a single piece of CCG art) are very specifically stated as being for Apocalypse games, not normal "1 FOC, >2Kpts" games.

tedurur wrote:

DiscoVader wrote:I voted "Yes, but fair warning." I have seen no legitimate excuse to prevent the IA books from being used in a normal game of 40K, and the complaints that the units are overpowered or that Super-Heavies break the game are laughable at best. I personally would love to go up against a FW list even if I didn't already own IA:8 myself, simply to see what it's like.

I have no problems with anyone using the rules, and I hate the idea of limiting what people can play outside of tournaments, which are a completely different story than regular play. That being said, if I go up against someone that doesn't want to play against my list, fine. Then I won't play them and will find someone else that's ok with it.

How is not wanting to play against broken stuff "laughable at best"? FW seem to be doing very litte play testing and as such usually ends up with overcosted crap, sometimes with perfectly balanced units and then the occasional massively broken stuff. The fact that most of what FW produce is subpar matter litte since people can easily cherry pick and thus you end up with only the broken stuff.

As for the argument "I payed lots for this unit so you'd better let me play it" well guess what, I payed quite a bit for my two warhounds and my fellblade and no one forced me to buy it so I will not force anyone to play against it.

As I said before it is ment to be fun for both parts, playing with unbalanced stuff is usually not fun.

Forgeworld units are generally very expensive for what they do. Once GW decides to make them 'official', they drop in points and gain effectiveness. There are far more overpowered units in GW released codices. The 5th edition IG, Blood Angels and Space Wolves books have far more broken stuff than Forgeworld have released.

Then I guess the previously mentioned IG, BA and SW codices should be banned for being unfun to play against, since people can cherry pick unbalanced units in them?

Generally, the IA rules are fine. Tell your opponent you're using them though.

Some units need a warning though. Superheavies, fliers, the land raider achilles...

I wouldn't play against any of these without being given a chance to build an army specifically to beat your list, as I don't have any counters to those in my normal lists (Because they are overpowered for non-apocalypse games to begin with).

I find it fun how people say "most of the IA stuff is meh or overpriced". It's not that I don't believe them, it's that I look at the Vyper and compare to the Hornet and then laugh a bit at how bad the Vyper must be in the codex version.

Regardless, it's an expansion/extension, it's not a part of the ordinary stuff. I'll go for permission, regardless of what the rules actually say.
Has nothing at all to do with money.

P.S. There's two "opponent's permission" answers. Warning someone ahead of time is more or less the same thing, since he can just up say "I won't play you if you bring X"

There being overpowered units in a "normal" Codex has nothing to do with there being overpowered units in IA, two wrongs does not make one right. That said, I would probably allow my opponent to use whatever IA unit he or she'd want, as long as I get a heads-up before the game, with the notable exception of Lucius Pattern Drop Pods and LR Achilles. I'd say it's pretty obvious how deep striking, assaulting Ironclad Dreadnoughts or Furioso Dreadnoughts are OP. As for the Achilles, as many people have pointed out in various threads, there are simply some armies that can't stop it. What are Eldar or Orks supposed to do to stop it?

I have noticed that it's mainly posters from the U.S who mainly dislike IA rules.

Pretty much everyone i've played with have been really interested in IA lists and forgeworld stuff.

I think that the main problem with IA equipment stems from the pre-apocalypse days where large games had to be played with multiple detachments, and plonking a baneblade or warhound on the table at 2000 points generally wasn't fun (especially when you weren't expecting it and ill equipped to take on super-heavies!).

Still, if whenever I play a game, I still ask if it's ok to use my forgeworld list/units and have a more standard codex list ready if they're not ok with it.

I like knowing what 95% of things do in the games I play ... I don't want to have to buy these expensive books just so I can learn about what my opponents may bring.

codexes now are bad enough 23-35$

The only problem I have with Forgeworld is the Humans get all the cool stuff again and the Xeno scum get to sit and spin.

I mean: Lucius Pattern and Deathwind drop pods are crazy, as well as things like the Siege Dreadnaught. That 24" flamer may as well be a massive middle finger to any Xeno army that dares face it and the Achilles is just insane.

Now as Eldar I get an expensive Falcon that fires a couple more S6 shots than a usual one and loses it's S8 Heavy2 laser for only 75 more points, the Night Spinner, and this new Hornet. The Hornet is the nicest but it just doesn't compare.

Of course this is just IA suffering from the GW ethos of "Marines are more important than anything else". That's why Marines and Chaos Space Marines have their own books, with Guard not long after. I am aware there is an Eldar one coming soonish, but until then I, and anyone else who dares to use a Xeno army, are at a disadvantage when it comes to FW stuff.

But hey, what else is new?

I've used a baneblade in a regular game before. We made it count as two Heavy support slots and one elites slot. Instead of structure points, it counted as 'wounds'...I guess it worked out okay. I need to buy a copy of IA 4...I think that's the one.

SoloFalcon1138 wrote:Unless its agreed upon, Imperial Armour books are not permitted in regular 40k play. think about it this way: how many things in normal play stand a chance of cracking a Baneblade?

You want to use them? ask you opponent, because no one really loves losing because you had more money than they did.

Why the hell is everyone using superheavies as an example? There are PLENTY of other forgeworld models. And Baneblades are made by GW also in a plastic kit. And aren't allowed in regular play anyway, just in apoc. So yes, I might object to someone using a baneblade in a regular game, but there are so many other forgeworld models that aren't superheavies that seem to get ignored in this topic. So your above point is pretty much completely invalid.

GalacticDefender wrote:

SoloFalcon1138 wrote:Unless its agreed upon, Imperial Armour books are not permitted in regular 40k play. think about it this way: how many things in normal play stand a chance of cracking a Baneblade?

You want to use them? ask you opponent, because no one really loves losing because you had more money than they did.

Why the hell is everyone using superheavies as an example? There are PLENTY of other forgeworld models. And Baneblades are made by GW also in a plastic kit. And aren't allowed in regular play anyway, just in apoc. So yes, I might object to someone using a baneblade in a regular game, but there are so many other forgeworld models that aren't superheavies that seem to get ignored in this topic. So your above point is pretty much completely invalid.

that and the fact that Baneblades are woefully easy to kill. a couple of Melta guns can cripple it.

Mahtamori wrote:I find it fun how people say "most of the IA stuff is meh or overpriced". It's not that I don't believe them, it's that I look at the Vyper and compare to the Hornet and then laugh a bit at how bad the Vyper must be in the codex version.

You do realise that the hornet rules are prototypes? It'll probably get hit with the nerf stick before the book is published (although not as hard as the achilles)


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Samus_aran115 wrote: I need to buy a copy of IA 4...I think that's the one.

IA4 is the 'nids book. It's a good read (the only one of the IA books I would actually read for fun) but there's only a couple of units in it that haven't been superseded by the new codex so it's a bit of a bust for rules now.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

AlmightyWalrus wrote:As for the Achilles, as many people have pointed out in various threads, there are simply some armies that can't stop it. What are Eldar or Orks supposed to do to stop it?

Again, experimental rules. Generally the experimental version of the rules is either brilliant or terrible. Then they get tweaked to mediocre for publishing.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Melissia wrote:Some units need a warning though. Superheavies

Given that using superheavies in 40K requires multiple FoC charts it's impossible to spring it on someone - they need to write their list to accomodate the extra FoC.

Scott-S6 wrote:

Noir wrote:

H.B.M.C. wrote:The 12 people who voted "only if my opponent says yes" clearly have never read an IA book and seen exactly where they say that they don't require permission.

Where dose it say that?

In the introduction to IA:A1. Super-heavies and aircraft have always been special cases. There has never been opponent's permission for other items.

So were in my IA8 dose it say it, and can you give a quote of the rule you taking about. You know, the one that say you don't need permisson and way they decide not to add that info to all the IA.

Stop being obtuse. The forewords in both IA1 and IA2 address these issues explicitly and state that the IA series of books are not 'requires opponent permission' affairs.

Why is this:

A). So hard to believe.
B). Such a bad thing.

I go back to my original point from earlier - are all'a y'all so afraid of these units presenting even the slightest advantage that you would actually ban someone (even a friend) from using them? Because there is no other logical reason for banning these units outside of "I'm afraid the resin will poison me so can we please not use FW models" (and even that's kinda silly). If there is a reason, please tell us.

H.B.M.C. wrote:Stop being obtuse. The forewords in both IA1 and IA2 address these issues explicitly and state that the IA series of books are not 'requires opponent permission' affairs.

Why is this:

A). So hard to believe.
B). Such a bad thing.

I go back to my original point from earlier - are all'a y'all so afraid of these units presenting even the slightest advantage that you would actually ban someone (even a friend) from using them? Because there is no other logical reason for banning these units outside of "I'm afraid the resin will poison me so can we please not use FW models" (and even that's kinda silly). If there is a reason, please tell us.

I only have IA8 (Ork player), IA8 dosen't say I need any other AI. So my question still stand, and if they real meant it to be that way why wouldn't it be in all of them. How is that being obtuse, I think it's a pertty valid question.

P.S. I use a few IA unit myself my fav is my Big Meks Junka, but as its in a Expansion with what came down to being experimental rules I don't require they let my use uints I wanted to buy. No one makes you buy noncodex unit it your decision, if you feel you wasted money becouse some poeple don't want to play vs something not in the GW Codex (you know the only book outside of the main rulebook said to be usable), don't blame the other guy.

IA1 and 2 give you permission to use ALL IA books in normal games.

just because you only have IA8 and it doesn't say you can use it in normal games doesn't make the point any less valid.

Hello,
My two cents is this, first lets quit crying about the fact that the books do not "state" you have to get permission to use them. Neither do codexs, just a thought there. Second, superheavies, are not the issue here, thier are rules in place that say no. As for all of the other options, I say why not? They have points there, they would be considered unit upgrades, they fit in regular oganazation slots, so no problem. Can they wreck your day, yep? You can overcome, just plan for the worst, hell if your worried about that Achillies, then avoid it, attack something else, the deep striking dread, meh spread out, don't clump like AOE fodder. For those that might wonder if I play SM, nope I am a demon player, we like DS.

Regards,
Carl

Noir wrote:How is that being obtuse

It's obtuse because it doesn't say "These do not require your opponent's permission" in IA8 and you knew that when you asked.

But, as mentioned above, IA1 and IA2 essentially give a blanket "this series is A-OK to use" disclaimer, so it doesn't matter what is or isn't in IA8, because IA1/IA2 cover it. Ok?

Noir wrote:... becouse some poeple don't want to play vs something not in the GW Codex (you know the only book outside of the main rulebook said to be usable), don't blame the other guy.

But why would they say that outside of fear of losing? I want to know why.

H.B.M.C. wrote:

Noir wrote:... becouse some poeple don't want to play vs something not in the GW Codex (you know the only book outside of the main rulebook said to be usable), don't blame the other guy.

But why would they say that outside of fear of losing? I want to know why.

Spite? They don't have a nice Forgeworld toy, so they need to deny someone else the chance to use their Forgeworld toy?

Some of the stuff is completely ridiculous, with very obvious drawbacks, that I wouldn't want to field it myself. A Sentinel Powerlifter? A Trojan support vehicle? A Salamander transport? They're all inferior to units in Codex Imperial Guard, but have nice models. Even a Cyclops demolition vehicle - I'd want to fight against one just to see how my opponent planned to get one close enough to me to actually detonate it.

edit - speaking of Forgeworld, my Heirophant, Winged Hive Tyrant and Tyranid Warrior Wings are on their way, but are being delayed by bad weather (in the UK) and the Christmas customs rush over here.

-Loki- wrote: A Salamander transport?

The Salamander isn't a transport - it's a scout vehicle, i.e. a sentinel alternative. (what's the point of a scout vehicle that's slower than the vehicles it's scouting for?)

And it's just fine for that. Faster than sentinel, but vulnerable to assault. About 5-10 points too expensive though. (which is IA units all over - nice model, fluffy concept, slightly too expensive) If only it could have the hull heavy flamer!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Noir wrote:

Scott-S6 wrote:

Noir wrote:

H.B.M.C. wrote:The 12 people who voted "only if my opponent says yes" clearly have never read an IA book and seen exactly where they say that they don't require permission.

Where dose it say that?

In the introduction to IA:A1. Super-heavies and aircraft have always been special cases. There has never been opponent's permission for other items.

So were in my IA8 dose it say it, and can you give a quote of the rule you taking about. You know, the one that say you don't need permisson and way they decide not to add that info to all the IA.

"In the past, to avoid 'rabbits out of hats' we have suggested that players ask for their opponent's consent when using super-heavy vehicles and aircraft. This is not so that your opponent can say no and stop you using your models but more so you pre-warn your opponent who can try to do something about it. But players shouldn't expect to use super heavies and aircraft in every game or in smaller games."

There has never been anything to suggest that 'normal' units (i.e. not super heavies or flyers) required any kind of permission.