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.

I'm sitting here with my copy of IA8. (the only one I have handy)
I can't find anything about "opponents permission" in there.

I was under the impression that that phrase had been removed from the IA books some time ago.

They are just as valid as any of the other codecies in my opinion.

Completely agree with Mr. Treesong - I think even if this passes, it will only effect a minimum number of people. I think for the most part people have been using things as long as they are reasonably balanced, and play in the kind of community where "go on then" is the response to a new model placed on the tabletop, rather than "actually no, the new model which you have spent many $ on and carefully painted may give you a 0.2% advantage in this game of toy soldiers" To be honest I suppose it depends what kind of environment you play in, how cut-throat the games are.

For the most part the FW is pretty well balanced, and I think if you look at many vehicle options they are probably overcosted if anything. There are a few exceptions (the Lucius pattern drop-pod that lets dreadnoughts charge out of it on the turn it arrives springs to mind) but I think those are a minority. Again, you could use it in a game, and if it ruins it through imbalance, the next time you don't include it in the game. Simple.

To be honest though I thought Apocalypse was a massive con for the same reason - "What do you mean Games Workshop, we can now use all of our models on the tabletop for one massive battle?! I can't believe that no-one thought of doing that before!!!!"

marv335 wrote:I'm sitting here with my copy of IA8. (the only one I have handy)
I can't find anything about "opponents permission" in there.

I was under the impression that that phrase had been removed from the IA books some time ago.

They are just as valid as any of the other codecies in my opinion.

Long and ugly argument, but then if GW Store #XX's made a flyer with the manager's house rules those are 100% legal as well? They're effectively the same: a non-studio branch of the company releasing rules. (admittedly, Store #XX probably wouldn't try to get their rules used outside the store and it's events, but...

If I was playing 40k I probably wouldn't be bothered by most FW stuff, but I think it's interesting how arbitrary 'official' is in this case.

Vaktathi wrote:Technically there's nothing disallowing FW from normal games currently. With respect to GT's, tournaments !=normal play, they are their own thing and it's not so much "banned" as "not included", there's a key difference (one is "there's something wrong with it", the other is "we just don't want to include it").

chaos drop pods and whatever other OP goodies are out there.

How on earth are the Chaos drop pods OP?

Plague Marines dropping behind my lines instead of having to slog it across the field and be whittled down by fire on the way; the blighters are just fantastic tarpits. Not sure if they can do this, but drop pods would actually make chaos dreads a viable option.

The reason the Dreadclaws seem OP is dependant on where in the book you get the rules from. In one section they are listed as acting like (overpriced) normal Drop Pods. In another they state the the Claws had special landing jets that allow models to move AFTER deploying. Really the problem with the IA books is shoddy editing!

(On another note.. the Blight Drones arethe 5 inch blast plate???? I thought they were the regular ML template! The 2 I have in my Purge Army look even better now... )

The Dreadclaw, while it got an update in IA:Apoc 2nd ed (it lost the rule whereby it had to be a flyer for a turn before landing) is still fairly terrible. It doesnt have drop pod assault, but you now cant assault the turn you land.

nosferatu1001 wrote:The Dreadclaw, while it got an update in IA:Apoc 2nd ed (it lost the rule whereby it had to be a flyer for a turn before landing) is still fairly terrible. It doesnt have drop pod assault, but you now cant assault the turn you land.

Wait.. what.. you can now??? hmmm.. can I add a few in my army....

Well, you could in IA5 onwards, but not now - they ahve altered the rules. Previously when you landed (earliest turn 3) you did not deepstrike - you scattered, but it wasnt deepstrike - and you counted as open topped when disembarking, meaning you have disembarked from a moving, open topped vehicle which allows you to assault after.

Rules are never broken. Any rule can be fair if the points reflect the value and impact on the metagame.

Forgeworld has lots of units that are overcosted (IE: suck) and undercosted (IE: Spam them for gamebreaking fun!)

If they make a book and only the stuff in that book becomes codex official and they have new balanced and point values, then so be it. We have already been seeing rumors in the ork forums that 'liftdroppas' are no longer autohit anymore and hit on a 4+ in the new book. Of course people see it as a NERF but it is probably more balanced if people are going to be taking them in regular games.

I reserve judgement until we see which units actually make it to the 'approved' book and the change in rules and points are seen. I doubt there is a be a blanket retroactive approval of old books.

Even if they become 'fair' and 'codex legal' no independent tourney has to allow them anyways. So realistically nothing actually changes.

Doh.. serves me right for posting before my coffee...

marv335 wrote:I'm sitting here with my copy of IA8. (the only one I have handy)
I can't find anything about "opponents permission" in there.

I was under the impression that that phrase had been removed from the IA books some time ago.

They are just as valid as any of the other codecies in my opinion.

The lack of a rule doesn't mean much in 40k as you generally need the opposite (express permission to do something). Either way, there are plenty of threads in YMDC that should explain both sides of the argument. Probably best to check them out so this thread stays news/rumors instead of devolving into an argument about that.

I'd love to see the FW stuff become legal. It'd give me an excuse to purchase some thudd guns and immobile artillery from them to really Krieg-out my Krieg.

agnosto wrote:
Plague Marines dropping behind my lines instead of having to slog it across the field and be whittled down by fire on the way; the blighters are just fantastic tarpits.

Certainly no worse than FNP BA's doing so for significantly fewer points or 2+/3++ TH/SS termi's, etc.

Not sure if they can do this, but drop pods would actually make chaos dreads a viable option.

indeed, one might actually see one then!

My thoughts... More objective than just trivial whining.

Anyway... Awhile back we had heard rumors that 6th edition 40K was going to have "one book to rule them all"... An excellent idea IMO. Also rumored to be included within this book is a way to incorporate Apocalypse models into regular games of 40K. While not all FW models are Apocalypse models, that's primarily where they're used because Apocalypse is pretty much an 'anything goes' kind of game.

So... I'm thinking that it's not merely a mater of everyone will suddenly be able to use all of their FW stuff in regular games of 40K, but more along the lines of once 6th edition lands it will be more accessible and therefore 'legal' to use in regular games of 40K.

I firmly believe that GW will somehow keep separation of Codex rules and Imperial Armour rules, but allow them to coexist better with the new edition; "one book to rule them all". That being said, their use (FW/non-Codex models) will still need to be mutually agreed upon by the players before the game.

I honestly see both good and bad coming from this. In a sense it's a little like opening Pandora's Box because no one really knows what to expect or how it will pan out. It's funny as a friend and I were talking last week about how we wish we could use the FW Deathstorm Drop Pods.

GalaxyGames wrote:Oh it'll be a way to make more $$$ ;D

So? It is a model company.

ShatteredBlade wrote: I have a feeling they're going to sneak this in by simply adding Forge-World Models into the regular GW codex and the model will only be available from Forge-World.

So? It is the parent company.

Vampirate of Sartosa wrote:I don't really see the point- surely it's better to get your opponent's permission anyway?

Always, and with everything but the basics. I'd even get my opponents permission before running 1250 points of land raider.

Zid wrote:I could see some issues with this (some FW rules are a bit wonky) as then they'd have to actually balance new units from FW rather than just throw down a crapload of cool rules. I mean, seriously, I HATE the prospect of facing Land Raider Achilles in games hahaha....

I agree. it should be a case-by-case thing. or they should just be added to the codex.

H.B.M.C. wrote:I love the concept that only FW have unbalanced broken rules when nothing about 'regular' 40K is balanced to begin with.

I've said it before and I'll say it again - those that are vehemently against allowing FW rules in 'regular' games only do so because they are afraid of losing. The only other plausible explanation is that they've never read a FW book in their lives and base all their opinions on the experimental Achilles rules and what they've read of the Dreadnought Drop Pod rules.

This.

Vaktathi wrote: Certainly no worse than FNP BA's doing so for significantly fewer points or 2+/3++ TH/SS termi's, etc.

Not a whole lot of BA players around here so haven't really run into that but there's a fair number of chaos and a friend that I regularly play against has a veritable horde of plague marines. Which leads me to, why would anyone play with defilers when they could have plague hulks? And I absolutely hate blight drones.

Overall I don't have a problem with the occasional whatsit from FW on the table but when you make it standard it just makes the game into MtG; whoever spends the most, wins.

agnosto wrote:

Vaktathi wrote: Certainly no worse than FNP BA's doing so for significantly fewer points or 2+/3++ TH/SS termi's, etc.

Not a whole lot of BA players around here so haven't really run into that but there's a fair number of chaos and a friend that I regularly play against has a veritable horde of plague marines. Which leads me to, why would anyone play with defilers when they could have plague hulks? And I absolutely hate blight drones.

Overall I don't have a problem with the occasional whatsit from FW on the table but when you make it standard it just makes the game into MtG; whoever spends the most, wins.

You could say that about normal 40k as well. To get all the bits for the best builds and huge numbers of tanks for the mechanized edition requires a huge chunk of change. If you want to play IG or Orks at all be prepared to spend at least half as much again as you would on a Space Marine army.

Hell, I could make an SM army out of entirely FW models (using codex rules) and still come out on part with my entirely mainstream line plastic mech IG.

I honestly don't believe this rumor. As everything else, 40k is a social game played between two or more people. You'll agree to play a game of x points from x codex using the BRB, Planet Strike, or some other rule set. If you can't agree, you won't play. No change there.

Further, tournaments have always gone by what the TO says in legal in that tournament. Whether certain or all FW is allowed, if the FOC is altered for a themed tournament, or if the latest codex needs to be out for a month to be allowed. No change there either.

If you want to debate Forge World being overpowered, see one of the Monthly threads that pops up in the 40k discussion area. It's been talked to death.

If you want to debate if you can force your opponent to let you play Forge World, go see one of the Monthly threads that pops up in the 40k discussion area. It's also been talked to death.

For the record, I'm all for Forge World rules and models, except fliers and super heavies outside of Apoc Games. Bring it on.

But I'm not sure this thread belongs in the News and Rumors section as I'm pretty sure this is bull gak.

My favorite analogy is always how people have little issue with 'broken' things in official codexes but hate FW for havign the same issue. I recall some podcast saying that if TH/SS termies were a FW invention people would have flipped.

Theduke07 wrote:My favorite analogy is always how people have little issue with 'broken' things in official codexes but hate FW for havign the same issue. I recall some podcast saying that if TH/SS termies were a FW invention people would have flipped.

It's not that people have little issue with broken things in codex but more that they can do NOTHING about it other than not playing anyone who uses a clearly legal (albeit broken) unit/rule. With FW stuff, there is a choice and people frequently exercise it.

There's always a choice out side of say a tournament. As stated always its always a gentlemen agreements for any game. its just that some things are taken for granted(I'm allowed to play any legal unit in my codex). People will always turn down games if they don't want to face GK or some kid's necrons, etc. It's a just a choice of what people want to fight. They rarely understand any concepts of 'balance'. These are often the same people whining about IG shooting up their foot SM and wonder how they lost

It's up to individual tournaments to decide this, methinks. Regardless, I doubt things like superheavies and fliers will be allowed in standard games, although there are hints of fliers for 6th ed considering how many aircraft are in the game now.

I think the books would require a bit more playtesting for this to be a really good thing, but considering Forgeworld has folks out there (for instance, The Independent Characters podcast) reviewing their product, checking pre-release rules, and so on, I think it's possible. The rumor of them being generally, all-round legal sounds a bit wishlisty for me to put any credibility to it though.

If it becomes so, I wouldn't let anyone proxy FW units. Your not using them spiffy rules if you aint forking over the $$ for the model

Nice idea in general. There are some FW units i'd like to try out.

The points values are seriously out of whack on some units though, and there are some just plain silly LR variants..

Also not all factions get the same FW love. Eldar, Tau, orks and the IOM get some awesome FW stuff, and tons of different units to boot. Necrons have 2 models

I would like to have an excuse to pick up a mega dredd or so and some gunwagons though

You are facing my Manta and you shall like it!

Ascalam wrote: Necrons have 2 models

Hell i would settle for one if the rules for it were made within the past 2 editions!
If the one was a Tomb Stalkers (T7/s6/5w SM/MC poison wounds only on 6+, fleet, move through cover, DS, Hit and Run, night vision and An extra attack when charging for 6)

As it sounds now the Necron Codex is going to be made for 6th edition (if we listen to rumors ... and you are reading this so you probably do.)

And if GW put a 10 Structure Point flyer into a Codex of theirs, would it be any less of a balance-wrecker for the game? What about it being FW rules makes it somehow 'different'?

H.B.M.C. wrote:And if GW put a 10 Structure Point flyer into a Codex of theirs, would it be any less of a balance-wrecker for the game? What about it being FW rules makes it somehow 'different'?

I think it's pretty safe to assume that if this did go through, superheavies wouldn't be included. Nobody wants to be surprised by a game of OGRE when they want to play 40k.

Not really the point I was making Brother SRM...

Having constant update would help out Xenos condexs in between the ten years it takes to update each one since its almost impossible to take your blue army and just call it Red because they have better rules. .Imagine if necrons had a dozen new unit options due to regular content updates. People would be able to play old codexes and not just get rolled by the new hottness netlist.