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.

riplikash wrote:

Howard A Treesong wrote:You know what they could crack down on? Special Characters. Dante doesn't have to be in every game. Special Characters used to be 'permission' only, now they are ubiquitous.

The difference is how SC are used these days, as special rules to allow for whole new variations on the armies themes. Biker armies, deep striking armies, flame weapon armies, termy armies, sneaky armies, special weapons armies, etc. It is true they have become ubiquitous, but that isn't necessarily a bad thing when the rules of the game revolve around the concept. They aren't just big guns anymore, more often then not they are a key part of the flavor and strategy an army will use. By making them 'permission' only you essentially eliminate a good chunk of the available armies you can play against, because no one is going to spend hundreds of hours on an army who becomes illegal the moment the opponent refuses to give permission.

It really is a bad thing the way the codexes are going. A lot of those armies you mentioned could be played without a special character in the old days. It seems that these days the design studio guys are trying to compete with video game developers, with a mind set of if you take X you unlock Y. It also is a testament to the development of Death Star units rampaging across the battle field these days. This mentality does not really translate well into the world of table top gaming and accounts for the downhill spiral the game has been headed in for the past few years.

To the OP
You should consult the GW manager at your local store and talk to him about the issue if it is becoming a problem. There a several GWs near me and I have never heard of anyone refusing to play a codex unit just because it is represented with a FW model, craziness I say. If that was the guy’s only issue then he really was an arse.
As for FW rules people need to relax and realize that it is just a game. These things were not a problem in the old days before the tournament mentality took hold of the hobby. In most cases you pay way too many points for a FW unit then it is really worth, so anyone refusing to play against them in a pickup game is a D bag. If people refuse to play against FW lists then they should refuse to play against BA or GK because they are infinitely less balanced and under cost.
As gamers we all need to remember 2 things about the game.
1) The most important rule as printed in the main rulebook “is to have fun”
2) Regardless of where the rules come from be it GW, FW, or fandex there is no official list from GW as to what is legal or illegal to play. Everything is opponent’s permission, just done abuse this to the point of being an arse because then you are not worth playing anyway. The only place you are bound by what someone else wants is a tournament.

Howard A Treesong wrote:I thought that Forgeworld has always been part of Games Workshop, it's a subsidiary. Long before that was Armourcast which had a licence, but they are a different company.

Anyway, if something is made or licenced by GW then it's fair use for the tabletop IMO, though Apoc tend to be best in Apoc games.

This is entirely true.

Howard A Treesong wrote:You know what they could crack down on? Special Characters. Dante doesn't have to be in every game. Special Characters used to be 'permission' only, now they are ubiquitous.

This is, if anything, even truer. I too am sick and tired of seeing Crowe and Vulcan in every bloody game, but it seems - sadly for those of us who remember the good old days when characters added, well, character - to one's armies, that the studio are going to remain fixated for the time being on making special characters ubiquitous, either by virtue of being laughably overpowered, or by that of being requisite to unlocking particular army builds.

To wander back to the topic, if your opponents are making a fuss about Forge World models, they are idiots, find better people with whom to play.

English Assassin wrote:

Howard A Treesong wrote:I thought that Forgeworld has always been part of Games Workshop, it's a subsidiary. Long before that was Armourcast which had a licence, but they are a different company.

Anyway, if something is made or licenced by GW then it's fair use for the tabletop IMO, though Apoc tend to be best in Apoc games.

This is entirely true.

Howard A Treesong wrote:You know what they could crack down on? Special Characters. Dante doesn't have to be in every game. Special Characters used to be 'permission' only, now they are ubiquitous.

This is, if anything, even truer. I too am sick and tired of seeing Crowe and Vulcan in every bloody game, but it seems - sadly for those of us who remember the good old days when characters added, well, character - to one's armies, that the studio are going to remain fixated for the time being on making special characters ubiquitous, either by virtue of being laughably overpowered, or by that of being requisite to unlocking particular army builds.

To wander back to the topic, if your opponents are making a fuss about Forge World models, they are idiots, find better people with whom to play.

What SCs are "laughably overpowered"?

"Being GW" or "Being not GW" never was the issue.
Lower left corner of all (recent) FW books says fairly explicity that they are expansions. Thus, their rules (even the non-Apocalypse) fall into the same category as all other GW expansions (Spearhead, City Fight, etc..).

If I am in the mood of playing an expansion game (be it FW or be it Planetfall), those come to the table. If I am in the mood of playing a "regular" (i.e. non-expansion) game of 40K, Forgeworld rules should keep out.

I do consider it "tactless" if somebody drops a "Spearhead-formation" on the table on surprise when I "assume" (as I tend to by default) that we are playing a "non-expansion" game. Giving me a heads-up that we are playing "spearhead" is usually considered good form. Same for Forgeworld.

And yet there's no such stamp on IA:A 2.0. Nor IA 9 or 10.

Jidmah wrote:Just because your rules have nice looking models attached, doesn't allow you to use them without your opponents consent. And consent means that he is free to not play you simply because he doesn't want to worry about completely unexpected things, like orks suddenly having long-range artillery, eldar being able to field warwalkers in addition to fire prisms or the imperial guard suddenly bringing nothing but fast skimmers. Imperial Armor is an expansion to Warhammer 40k. You have no inherited right to use that expansion, just like your opponent doesn't have an inherited right to use apocalypse, city of death or planet strike rules.

I personally allow anyone to bring his forgeworld rules to the game as long as it says something along the lines of "Can be used as X in Codex:Y". If you bring anything else, I want a warning before I build my list, or we are not having a game.

Ah, you're one of those players. Can't have any surprises when you tailor your anti-X against my X army list, that would be absurd.

But onto the topic:

I have no problem playing against people using ForgeWorld models. They have alot of intricate detail and look absolutely gorgeous on the table-top, and people take alot of time to clean and paint such models should be allowed to proxy them as something.


I myself field a rather large Elysian Drop Army, rather not by choice, but by the terrible Update that is the current Guard Codex.

Zweischneid wrote:I do consider it "tactless" if somebody drops a "Spearhead-formation" on the table on surprise when I "assume" (as I tend to by default) that we are playing a "non-expansion" game. Giving me a heads-up that we are playing "spearhead" is usually considered good form. Same for Forgeworld.

It's really not.

No one can accidentally play a game of Planetstrike or Apocalypse against you. It's not like you show up at the store and someone plonks down 4000 points of Orks and goes "Sorry... I thought we were playing Apoc?". Planetstrike, Apocalypse and Spearhead are games that require prior organisation. "Imperial Armour" isn't a variant game system, it's just new models with some new rules that are designed to interact either with regular 40K (most of them) or Apoc (the big stuff, and most of the flyers).

KplKeegan wrote:Ah, you're one of those players. Can't have any surprises when you tailor your anti-X against my X army list, that would be absurd.

That's a pretty offensive statement. I don't tailor at all (unless I'm asked to) and I would refuse to play against someone without the book - and even if they have the book if I think there's some iffy rules I'll pass.

It's not about not liking surprises - it's about knowing what is possible given a codex. I don't like the possibility that I lose because I was lied to/was misled, intentionally or not.

H.B.M.C. wrote:

Zweischneid wrote:I do consider it "tactless" if somebody drops a "Spearhead-formation" on the table on surprise when I "assume" (as I tend to by default) that we are playing a "non-expansion" game. Giving me a heads-up that we are playing "spearhead" is usually considered good form. Same for Forgeworld.

It's really not.

No one can accidentally play a game of Planetstrike or Apocalypse against you. It's not like you show up at the store and someone plonks down 4000 points of Orks and goes "Sorry... I thought we were playing Apoc?". Planetstrike, Apocalypse and Spearhead are games that require prior organisation. "Imperial Armour" isn't a variant game system, it's just new models with some new rules that are designed to interact either with regular 40K (most of them) or Apoc (the big stuff, and most of the flyers).

Not to mention that half the point of Apocalypse is that anything goes. It's specifically designed to let you field every model you own.

rigeld2 wrote:

KplKeegan wrote:Ah, you're one of those players. Can't have any surprises when you tailor your anti-X against my X army list, that would be absurd.

...even if they have the book if I think there's some iffy rules I'll pass.

It's not about not liking surprises - it's about knowing what is possible given a codex. I don't like the possibility that I lose because I was lied to/was misled, intentionally or not.

So even if I gave you a copy of the rules/models Forge World related, allowed you enough peace to read through it, you'd still wouldn't play a game for fear of being intentionally decieved? Or would you, if by some happenstance you played, discredit a loss because of player espionage?

This is why we play random matches

We have a standing rule: Any army can have 1 IG model in it, and everyone has to know about it and its special rules 24 hr before game day (email).

Then on game day we roll dice to see who plays who AFTER everyone has made their lists and set out their models.

Then we roll mission types and off we go... so far, its been real.

KplKeegan wrote:
Ah, you're one of those players. Can't have any surprises when you tailor your anti-X against my X army list, that would be absurd.

You know, selective reading, purposefully misquoting and falsely accusing someone of list tailoring does not make for a good argument. I even gave the reason why I want a warning in advance, but you removed that in the quote you manipulated, because that would be inconvenient to your discrediting argument.

KplKeegan wrote:So even if I gave you a copy of the rules/models Forge World related, allowed you enough peace to read through it, you'd still wouldn't play a game for fear of being intentionally decieved? Or would you, if by some happenstance you played, discredit a loss because of player espionage?

"I got the new book from forgeworld, and I want to try some of the eldar stuff in it in the game tomorrow!"
Is more than enough of a warning. I still expect you to have the rules ready at the table.

The only reason not to give warnings in advance is, if you are trying to catch an opponent unprepared.

The point of default Warhammer 40k games is to have a level playing field. You know what to expect in a game. Not the exact army, but you simply don't have to expect dreadnaughts charging out of drop pods, orks shelling your army with more artillery firepower than the imperial guard or terminators charging out of a fast skimmer. When building a list I pick units and upgrades just for the purpose of blocking meltas, preventing deep strikes behind my army, holding skimmers in place, etc. That list is not going to change if my opponent is an ork player who has none of these options. If you are building an all-comers list, you have to know what all comers are going to field.