| Author |
Message |
 |
|
|
|
|
Advert
|
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. |
|
 |
2013/02/08 13:56:20
Subject: Whirlwind Hyperios in standard 40k?
|
|
Servoarm Flailing Magos
|
 AlmightyWalrus wrote: Purifier wrote:nosferatu1001 wrote:
"THEY" is GW. GW is saying they are legitimate. Same as GW says in WD that a nightspinner is legal, or skull crushers, etc.
People want that in black and white. CAN I USE FW MODELS/RULES WITH THE SAME IMPLIED ACCEPTANCE AS ANY MODEL IN MY CODEX
The philosophical questions of "everything is by permission only, you can't force someone to play 40k!" are irrelevant and misleading.
So people can't accept that a statement that says it's official does infact mean that it's official?
Do you also treat all WD units as stuff that requires opponent's explicit consent?
Official is not the same as part of the same ruleset. And I ask permission to use the WD rules before using them, yes.
I ask if the WD Sisters are ok with my opponents. They always have been, but that doesn't mean I take it for granted.
I already mentioned the example with Apocalypse a few times. I will do it again as you keep pressing the matter and ignoring the question.
Would you bring an apocalypse army to the table if you were asked to play 40k with someone?
|
|
|
|
 |
|
2013/02/08 13:56:38
Subject: Whirlwind Hyperios in standard 40k?
|
|
Executing Exarch
|
So the problem isn't the models or the rules - we're literally arguing over courtesy?
Both sides agree they aren’t game breakers.
Purifier wrote:Not that the models in and of themselves are OP or ruin the game
|
 Blacksails wrote:
Its because ordinance is still a word.
However, firing ordinance at someone isn't nearly as threatening as firing ordnance at someone.
Ordinance is a local law, or bill, or other form of legislation.
Ordnance is high caliber explosives.
No 'I' in ordnance.
Don't drown the enemy in legislation, drown them in explosives.
|
|
|
|
|
2013/02/08 13:59:20
Subject: Whirlwind Hyperios in standard 40k?
|
|
Servoarm Flailing Magos
|
PredaKhaine wrote:So the problem isn't the models or the rules - we're literally arguing over courtesy?
Both sides agree they aren’t game breakers.
Purifier wrote:Not that the models in and of themselves are OP or ruin the game
I'm arguing that it's not a courtesy, but a requirement that you make your opponent aware of which version of the game you wish to play.
And I'm arguing that " 40k" is not the same version as " 40k+ FW"
|
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/02/08 13:59:55
|
|
|
|
|
2013/02/08 14:00:39
Subject: Whirlwind Hyperios in standard 40k?
|
|
Executing Exarch
|
In a friendly, why wouldn't you as a matter of course anyway?
|
Blacksails wrote:
Its because ordinance is still a word.
However, firing ordinance at someone isn't nearly as threatening as firing ordnance at someone.
Ordinance is a local law, or bill, or other form of legislation.
Ordnance is high caliber explosives.
No 'I' in ordnance.
Don't drown the enemy in legislation, drown them in explosives.
|
|
|
|
|
2013/02/08 14:02:59
Subject: Whirlwind Hyperios in standard 40k?
|
|
Servoarm Flailing Magos
|
The difference is that a courtesy can be foregone and leaves room for interpretation. A requirement makes things black and white. If the rules said "you may, as a courtesy to your enemy, allow him armour saves." instead of simply stating that he gets armour saves, then that would not exactly make for a good rulebook, no matter how friendly the environment, right?
|
|
|
|
|
|
2013/02/08 14:14:36
Subject: Whirlwind Hyperios in standard 40k?
|
|
Executing Exarch
|
It sounds like you're playing friendlies against people who aren't at all friendly.
At which point I'd go for tourney levels of RAW 
Although the example you gave would be a brilliant way to determine who the people I'm not going to play are.
I'm lucky with my group - we play 40k+ 40k stamped = 40k.
Apoc - ask first as it involves many completely different rules, like formations and a lot more free time.
My opponants know what forgeworld I have and I tell them when I bring it too.
But I've no idea why anyone wouldn't talk about an army/list with an opponant in a friendly beforehand, unless they're both trying to spring nasty surprises on each other.
At that point it's not 40k thats the issue, it's the level of competitiveness in the players thats the issue.
The way I see it is if you're preparing for a tourney, play tourney level of comp. Check to see if forgeworld is an issue.
If you're playing a friendly, actually play friendly.
|
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/02/08 14:15:20
Blacksails wrote:
Its because ordinance is still a word.
However, firing ordinance at someone isn't nearly as threatening as firing ordnance at someone.
Ordinance is a local law, or bill, or other form of legislation.
Ordnance is high caliber explosives.
No 'I' in ordnance.
Don't drown the enemy in legislation, drown them in explosives.
|
|
|
|
|
2013/02/08 14:16:35
Subject: Whirlwind Hyperios in standard 40k?
|
|
Decrepit Dakkanaut
|
Steelmage99 wrote:nosferatu1001 wrote:Steel - because one is included in the other. Requires permission (ALL) contains within it ( FW)
How does the implied requirement for general consent in any way diminish the explicit requirement for Imperial Armour?
That there is no explicit requirement for IA stuff, mainly. There is no such requirement in IA:Aeronautica or IA Vol1 2nd edition
"It's best to make sure...." does not mean "you must make sure...." - one is a directive, the other a suggestion.
Purifier - yet GW have stated, in the form of the 40k stamp, that this is explicitly the same as codex material, same as WD materials, and is " 40k" as much as a codex is. This IS 40K, and has been told to you EXPLICITLY by the same people that make 40k. What more do you want? A signed letter from them?
You are making a strawman comparison to apocalypse, which can be ignored as irrelevant to this conversation.
You may see them as separate, 40k and FW, but that is expicitly untrue and simply just your opinion, unrelated to actual facts
|
|
|
|
|
2013/02/08 14:20:20
Subject: Whirlwind Hyperios in standard 40k?
|
|
Decrepit Dakkanaut
|
Gentlemen, there are 43 pages of Is Forge World legal that can be found in the two links in my signature.
None of you are bringing anything new to the table. The OP asked a question and it was answered. He and his group are "cool" with FW models.
|
DA:70S+G+M+B++I++Pw40k08+D++A++/fWD-R+T(M)DM+
 |
|
|
|
|
2013/02/08 14:22:18
Subject: Re:Whirlwind Hyperios in standard 40k?
|
|
[DCM]
Et In Arcadia Ego
|
Covers it nicely.
|
The poor man really has a stake in the country. The rich man hasn't; he can go away to New Guinea in a yacht. The poor have sometimes objected to being governed badly; the rich have always objected to being governed at all
We love our superheroes because they refuse to give up on us. We can analyze them out of existence, kill them, ban them, mock them, and still they return, patiently reminding us of who we are and what we wish we could be.
"the play's the thing wherein I'll catch the conscience of the king,
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
