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.

AnUnearthlyChilde wrote:I never change an army list once it is set in stone. I don't power game, I make themed lists which stay the same until a new dex/update to IA forces me to change.

I never accused you of doing otherwise... ?

When I have a handful of FW models in my list, or if you want to get picky... my Pre heresy army which is entirely FW, It'd make me raise my eyebrow and question why you refused to play it. and, If upon hearing your answer I found it illogical, I would then most likely consider it unsportsman-like.

Whoah - stop.

FW models using normal 40k rules? Fine. Even cool in many cases.

FW models using FW rules is where I draw the line at "If you didn't mention it when asking for the game, I'm probably going to politely bow out."

rigeld2 wrote:

AnUnearthlyChilde wrote:I never change an army list once it is set in stone. I don't power game, I make themed lists which stay the same until a new dex/update to IA forces me to change.

I never accused you of doing otherwise... ?

It seemed implied.

rigeld2 wrote:

AnUnearthlyChilde wrote:When I have a handful of FW models in my list, or if you want to get picky... my Pre heresy army which is entirely FW, It'd make me raise my eyebrow and question why you refused to play it. and, If upon hearing your answer I found it illogical, I would then most likely consider it unsportsman-like.

Whoah - stop.

FW models using normal 40k rules? Fine. Even cool in many cases.

FW models using FW rules is where I draw the line at "If you didn't mention it when asking for the game, I'm probably going to politely bow out."

That would still make me raise my eyebrow in honesty.

ZebioLizard2 wrote:

When those fan-dexs become produced by games workshop/forgeworld/black library/fantasy production games. I'll take that into account, till than those are something that has to be asked as they are supplements produced by outside sources and not given the greenlight by those Games Workshop affiliated companies.

If you can get your Fandex authorized by them, sure I'll gladly play you without questions. Because I have no separation at all between Forgeworld and games workshop. They are two halves of the same coin, to be played in the same games, or within the expanded game variants produced by GW or FW.

If you get your IA printed by GW, I'll follow suit with FW -stuff. As long as they keep GW and FW separated and only are affiliated (perhaps not commercially, but in the brands produce), I exercise my right to choice from the different brands on offer and stick with GW.

And as you make such a fuss about offical logos and endorsements, I would expect this to extend without question to the notably quite different labels indicating GW-main products from the products clearly labeled as coming from its affiliated FW spin-off.

Zweischneid wrote:

ZebioLizard2 wrote:

When those fan-dexs become produced by games workshop/forgeworld/black library/fantasy production games. I'll take that into account, till than those are something that has to be asked as they are supplements produced by outside sources and not given the greenlight by those Games Workshop affiliated companies.

If you can get your Fandex authorized by them, sure I'll gladly play you without questions. Because I have no separation at all between Forgeworld and games workshop. They are two halves of the same coin, to be played in the same games, or within the expanded game variants produced by GW or FW.

If you get your IA printed by GW, I'll follow suit with FW -stuff. As long as they keep GW and FW separated and only are affiliated (perhaps not commercially, but in the brands produce), I exercise my right to choice from the different brands on offer and stick with GW.

And as you make such a fuss about offical logos and endorsements, I would expect this to extend to the notably quite different labels indicating GW-main products from the products clearly labeled as coming from its affiliated FW spin-off.

Wow. Point missed. and with that I unsubscribe from this ever pointless thread. ttfn

imrandomghgh wrote:
2. FW is not an expansion game, any more than a codex is an expansion on 40k. Codex contain additional rules on top of the BRB, just like IA. They have models with stats, just like IA. Outside of a tournament, there really is no good reason not to play it. Unless you also refuse to play against every single army since their codex is an expansion on the BRB?

FW is an expansion of the miniature range. It is furthermore produced purposfully by a spin-off company, thus is even further removed from "basic" 40K than expansions or WD-rules. It sure is an optional, up-market brand introduced to those who enjoy it, but kept quite consciously very different from GW's main line of products and games. There is thus no good reason to treat as anything but that; an exotic supplement that is far outside the mainstream and in need of special consideration if brought into an "unfamiliar" 40K environment.

Trying to deny this separation between GW and FW in high-handed, sometimes arrogant ways by some FW-proponents is the very reason for the "hate" that gives this discussion it's title and name.

Trying to deny this separation between GW and FW in high-handed, sometimes arrogant ways by some FW-proponents is the very reason for the "hate" that gives this discussion it's title and name.

Or it could be because of people like you who don't realize just how they aren't seperated.

Forgeworld is a Subsidiary of Games Workshop, which means that games workshop is the parent company of Forgeworld. Which means Games workshop owns Forgeworld to the point that they own 50%+ shares of stock, and that as a result they don't need to buy it out completely, which means there of course will be a barrier between them in the sense that games workshop would gain additional ownership, but it would give them more issues than they may prefer.

Do you know nothing of economics and the buisness model?

As you keep touting arrogant ways of the FW people, not to mention continuing brash insults along with the snide comments means you must have something against forgeworld in general at this point. Along with it's players, so that it's very likely at this point that you have a grudge in some manner. Which can show a biased viewpoint.

AnUnearthlyChilde wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

AnUnearthlyChilde wrote:I never change an army list once it is set in stone. I don't power game, I make themed lists which stay the same until a new dex/update to IA forces me to change.

I never accused you of doing otherwise... ?

It seemed implied.

No. What I said was that you're changing the game invitation. You first ask for a game of 40k.
The implication there is normal 40k codexes plus the BRB.
Then you pull out FW rules - which was not agreed on. Then suddenly I'm the one that's being unsportsmanlike?

rigeld2 wrote:

AnUnearthlyChilde wrote:When I have a handful of FW models in my list, or if you want to get picky... my Pre heresy army which is entirely FW, It'd make me raise my eyebrow and question why you refused to play it. and, If upon hearing your answer I found it illogical, I would then most likely consider it unsportsman-like.

Whoah - stop.

FW models using normal 40k rules? Fine. Even cool in many cases.

FW models using FW rules is where I draw the line at "If you didn't mention it when asking for the game, I'm probably going to politely bow out."

That would still make me raise my eyebrow in honesty.

Because... ? I have absolutely zero reason to expect FW rules to be used when invited to a game of 40k (unless it's normal for the area - but that's rare). Your insistence that it's unsportsmanlike for me to disagree seems like you're trying to force me to play your way, or I'm the jerk.
Passive aggressive behavior at its finest.

Zweischneid wrote:

imrandomghgh wrote:
2. FW is not an expansion game, any more than a codex is an expansion on 40k. Codex contain additional rules on top of the BRB, just like IA. They have models with stats, just like IA. Outside of a tournament, there really is no good reason not to play it. Unless you also refuse to play against every single army since their codex is an expansion on the BRB?

FW is an expansion of the miniature range. It is furthermore produced purposfully by a spin-off company, thus is even further removed from "basic" 40K than expansions or WD-rules. It sure is an optional, up-market brand introduced to those who enjoy it, but kept quite consciously very different from GW's main line of products and games. There is thus no good reason to treat as anything but that; an exotic supplement that is far outside the mainstream and in need of special consideration if brought into an "unfamiliar" 40K environment.

Trying to deny this separation between GW and FW in high-handed, sometimes arrogant ways by some FW-proponents is the very reason for the "hate" that gives this discussion it's title and name.

Forgeworld models use the same rules, same FOC, same game system with literally no change to the core rules as the rest of all 40k models. Not so for planet strike, for cities of death etc.

Plus, they sell it in the store so you cannot argue that it is owned by a different company.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

No. What I said was that you're changing the game invitation. You first ask for a game of 40k.
The implication there is normal 40k codexes plus the BRB.
Then you pull out FW rules - which was not agreed on. Then suddenly I'm the one that's being unsportsmanlike?

Yes. Disagreeing to play forge world simply because it is forge world is unsportsmanlike. If you have a specific model that you have serious problems with, then it's okay to say no.

If they have not brought the rules, then it is okay to say no.

If they use apoc in normal sized games, then it is okay to say no.

If you cannot check any of those boxes, then you saying no is unsportsmanlike.

rigeld2 wrote:Because... ? I have absolutely zero reason to expect FW rules to be used when invited to a game of 40k (unless it's normal for the area - but that's rare). Your insistence that it's unsportsmanlike for me to disagree seems like you're trying to force me to play your way, or I'm the jerk.
Passive aggressive behavior at its finest.

Because it's the same thing as refusing to play someone because they are wearing a red T-shirt. You can refuse to play anyone you want for any reason.

Some reasons are more stupid than others, though.

imrandomghgh wrote:

No. What I said was that you're changing the game invitation. You first ask for a game of 40k.
The implication there is normal 40k codexes plus the BRB.
Then you pull out FW rules - which was not agreed on. Then suddenly I'm the one that's being unsportsmanlike?

Yes. Disagreeing to play forge world simply because it is forge world is unsportsmanlike.

Are you serious?
Lets play a game of 40k.
I then bring out a Monopoly board.

What? You didn't want to play Monopoly? I thought it was implied. That's how we always decide who goes first back home.
Well, disagreeing is just unsportsmanlike.

If you have a specific model that you have serious problems with, then it's okay to say no.

If they have not brought the rules, then it is okay to say no.

If they use apoc in normal sized games, then it is okay to say no.

If you cannot check any of those boxes, then you saying no is unsportsmanlike.

Saying no *after* the game of 40k was agreed on?
Yes - if we agree on a game of 40k with FW rules, then opting not to play after initially agreeing is a bad move.
Agreeing to play a game of 40k does not imply agreeing to FW rules - asserting otherwise a) goes against what's said in the FW IA books and b) screams of "my way or the highway"


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kaldor wrote:Because it's the same thing as refusing to play someone because they are wearing a red T-shirt.

No, it's not - it's not even close.
Please stop comparing not wanting to play with FW units to ... well ... *anything* like that.
Many people have real reasons they don't want to bring in FW units.
There's no rules forcing you to interact with FW units.
I guess the only valid comparison is to WYSIWYG - if you think insisting on WYSIWYG is unsportsmanlike, then I can understand the insistence that denying FW is unsportsmanlike.

rigeld2 wrote:There's no rules forcing you to interact with FW units.

There's no rules forcing you to play against someone using Blood Angels. There's no rules foring you to play against a Kan wall. There's no rules forcing you to play against someone maxing out Long Fangs. There's no rules forcing you to play against someone wearing a red shirt.

He was quite correct in saying that you can refuse to play someone for any number of reasons. Those reasons might make sense. Those reasons might not make sense.

So far, the reasons I've seen for not playing someone using FW models haven't made sense to me.

'The barrier for entry into FW models to know the rules is too high! There's too many books you need!' - you need a total of one book. Not even GW themselves offer you an all in one book with all of their codices in it.

'Forgeworld models are overpowered' - a grand total of three models are powerful, one is overpowered against armies lacking long ranged anti tank. None are on the level of some of the things in official codices.

'Forgeworld is now a Games Workshop product! - Yes, they are. Forgeworld is a subsidary of Games Workshop. They own Forgeworld, and what Forgeworld produces. They wouldn't let Forgeworld authors put a paragraph in their books saying they were official rules otherwise. There's a very simple way to see if Forgeworld products are by rights Games Workshop products. This is on the bottom of the Forgeworld website.

Copyright © Games Workshop Limited 2000-2012. All Rights Reserved. Games Workshop, the Games Workshop logo, the Forge World, Warhammer and the Warhammer 40,000 device are either ®, TM and/or © Games Workshop Ltd 2000-2012, variably registered in the UK and other countries around the world. All Rights Reserved. Games Workshop Ltd, Willow Road, Lenton, Nottingham, NG7 2WS. Registered in England and Wales - Company No. 01467092. VAT No. GB 580853421

FW wouldn't be doing that if GW didn't own the rights to everything produced.

'Forgeworld models are not tournament legal!' - it's up to the TO. Some tournaments allow them. For example, Adepticon is a rather large tournament which allows FW models and rules. Previous years only in the team category, but now in all categories.

If you don't want to play against Forgeworld stuff for personal reasons, that's completely fine. We had a friend who wouldn't play against my brother because he had 3 Leman Russes. You don't have to play anyone. But stop bringing ludicrous arguments into it, telling people that the models are not official, or the barrier for entry to know the rules is too high, and all the other nonsense, because that's what it is.

rigeld,

It is not the same as bringing a monopoly board.
It is not an expansion.

It uses the BRB rules, with literally zero variations, at all. No change on the rules, no expansion. It is simply a list of models, and their stats. Sound familiar? That's because that's exactly what a codex is. Other than needing to be ordered, the ONLY difference between them and GW models is that they come in books with units of all factions.

-Loki- wrote:But stop bringing ludicrous arguments into it, telling people that the models are not official, or the barrier for entry to know the rules is too high, and all the other nonsense, because that's what it is.

I haven't.

But the models and rules do require more permission than a normal game of 40k. There are rules surrounding their use.
Are there any similar rules surrounding the use of normal codexes?

I'm mainly objecting to the insistence that objecting to FW units in a game *after* agreeing to a game of 40k (without mentioning FW) is unsportsmanlike. That doesn't make sense. There's no reason to assume, from agreeing to a game of 40k, that FW units will be involved.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

imrandomghgh wrote:rigeld,

It is not the same as bringing a monopoly board.
It is not an expansion.

It uses the BRB rules, with literally zero variations, at all. No change on the rules, no expansion. It is simply a list of models, and their stats. Sound familiar? That's because that's exactly what a codex is. Other than needing to be ordered, the ONLY difference between them and GW models is that they come in books with units of all factions.

No variations? None at all?

So there isn't a statement about making sure the opponent is okay with using FW units in the front of the book? Like has been posted in the thread - nothing like that?

rigeld2 wrote:

-Loki- wrote:But stop bringing ludicrous arguments into it, telling people that the models are not official, or the barrier for entry to know the rules is too high, and all the other nonsense, because that's what it is.

I haven't.

But the models and rules do require more permission than a normal game of 40k. There are rules surrounding their use.
Are there any similar rules surrounding the use of normal codexes?

I'm mainly objecting to the insistence that objecting to FW units in a game *after* agreeing to a game of 40k (without mentioning FW) is unsportsmanlike. That doesn't make sense. There's no reason to assume, from agreeing to a game of 40k, that FW units will be involved.

Well I think we're looking at this different ways.

Yes, I would ask to play before asking to use FW.

No, I would not simply put them there and not bother mentioning it.

Me: Would you like to play a game?

Other Player: Sure, why not?

Me: I have several FW XV9s, would you mind if I use them?

Other Player: Sure, why not?

^For clarity's sake

imrandomghgh wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

-Loki- wrote:But stop bringing ludicrous arguments into it, telling people that the models are not official, or the barrier for entry to know the rules is too high, and all the other nonsense, because that's what it is.

I haven't.

But the models and rules do require more permission than a normal game of 40k. There are rules surrounding their use.
Are there any similar rules surrounding the use of normal codexes?

I'm mainly objecting to the insistence that objecting to FW units in a game *after* agreeing to a game of 40k (without mentioning FW) is unsportsmanlike. That doesn't make sense. There's no reason to assume, from agreeing to a game of 40k, that FW units will be involved.

Well I think we're looking at this different ways.

Yes, I would ask to play before asking to use FW.

No, I would not simply put them there and not bother mentioning it.

Me: Would you like to play a game?

Other Player: Sure, why not?

Me: I have several FW XV9s, would you mind if I use them?

Other Player: Sure, why not?

^For clarity's sake

And that's fine - and I might even agree to it.

That is *not* what I've been responding to in this thread. AUC said that disagreeing *at all* would be unsportsmanlike.
If your scenario went:

Me: I have several FW XV9s, would you mind if I use them?

Other Player: Well, I'd really rather not. Do you have another list, or would you like to find a different opponent?

How would that be unsportsmanlike?

Aww, cmon Rigeld2, he plays Tau. Throw him a bone.

I still don't understand why people can't just ask first. If you ask, things should be fine. And if the other player says he'd rather not, then drop it. I don't care if you violently curse him in your head, but don't act like he's less of a person because he'd just rather not right now. Don't try to argue and browbeat him into letting you, just let it go. If he goes off into a hate-filled rage on forge world being op, feel free to defend your position. But if he doesn't want to play fw right now, then that's that. No shame, and he's still the same person he was before.

rigeld2 wrote:

-Loki- wrote:But stop bringing ludicrous arguments into it, telling people that the models are not official, or the barrier for entry to know the rules is too high, and all the other nonsense, because that's what it is.

I haven't.

But the models and rules do require more permission than a normal game of 40k. There are rules surrounding their use.
Are there any similar rules surrounding the use of normal codexes?

Hoenstly, I don't think so. My opponent tells me whats in his list, and we agree to a game. If I don't want to play a certain type of list, I'll refuse. Forgeworld models should basically be the same. If you won't want to play against them, refuse. Absurd arguments as to why aren't needed. That's all I object to. Saying anything more than "No, I won't play that list with a Malanthrope in it because I don't want to' is all that's needed, because like any other game of 40k, you can decline the game at your leisure. Saying 'I won't play that list with a Malanthrope because Forgeworlds stuff is all overpowered' is stupid, especially if you read the rules for the Malanthrope. Or 'I won't play that list with a Malanthrope because they're not tournament legal' is stupid, because it depends on the tournament, and also has no bearing on the friendly game you're playing outside of a tournament.

rigeld2 wrote:I'm mainly objecting to the insistence that objecting to FW units in a game *after* agreeing to a game of 40k (without mentioning FW) is unsportsmanlike. That doesn't make sense. There's no reason to assume, from agreeing to a game of 40k, that FW units will be involved.

Well that's another thing entirely. Even in FW books they say, while official, you should inform your opponent beforehand that you are using them. But then, it can also be a misunderstanding with that person. Maybe his group uses FW stuff regularly, and doesn't bother with telling each other beforehand (since it would be tedious after the first few games). In that situation, the sporting thing to do is at least ask to see the rules for whatever they're using. If they refuse, then you know something is fishy.

I just don't know where all the worry about FW comes from.

I understand that some don't want FW things (that aren't already in the official codexes) included in their games, and that's their right, I guess. It does seem a little off-putting, and would sour me (a bit) as a gamer to be told I can't include a model I like in a game because my opponent "doesn't like playing against it", but I would have the same opinion of a person that refuses to play against say, "Eldar", or "Land raiders" any other certain army convention.

I'm just confused as to why, especially in the case of one or two models amongst an entire army, having a FW tank on the field skews the balance of the game so horribly bad that people would rather not play at all than play a game with one on the table.

I can understand it when people get disappointed when they buy an expensive model and it arrives with issues. FW has an excellent customer service though, so I've never had a problem with them.

AegisGrimm wrote:I'm just confused as to why, especially in the case of one or two models amongst an entire army, having a FW tank on the field skews the balance of the game so horribly bad that people would rather not play at all than play a game with one on the table.

Well, it doesn't. The problem is, people think it does. It's as if 40k is some paragon of game balance and Forgeworld make totally unbalanced units.

I actually had this discussion with someone on Warseer, who was completely anti-Forgeworld because someone beat him with a Baneblade before Apocalypse was release. In a 1500 point game. He didn't realize that there are barriers in place in FW books to stop super heavies being used in regular games (the biggest being the requirement of a second FOC, which is completely and utterly opponents permission, since you have to agree to use more than one FOC). Basically, the guy cheated, but even after that, he thought the guy didn't. Even after explaining the rules of superheavies to him, he didn't believe me and claimed all FW was just as bad as a superheavy in a regular game.

The reason I see so many arguments about Forgeworld being unbalanced is simply because people haven't read the rules. I can understand this, people might not want to buy the books, or (in the past) there were a lot to buy to have all of the rules. And so, they base their opinions on the balance of Forgeworld units on heresay from internet forums and random guys at their FLGS, which really isn't the best way to get accurate information.

I don't think FW aid inherently unbalanced. I do think that some FW units tend that direction, and are helped that way by plugging holes in codexes (Blight Drones for CSM).

That has little to do with my opposition towards them. I just dislike the entitled attitude I see often by players wanting to use FW. Similar to some in this thread, if you don't play against their list its because you're dumb, lazy, don't want a challenge, or are just unsportsmanlike. That's a subset of people I'd rather not be involved with.


That, and Tyranid FW units are pretty bad. :-)

I don't think FW aid inherently unbalanced. I do think that some FW units tend that direction, and are helped that way by plugging holes in codexes (Blight Drones for CSM).

It takes far more than one unit to plug a hole in that codex.

rigeld2 wrote:That has little to do with my opposition towards them. I just dislike the entitled attitude I see often by players wanting to use FW. Similar to some in this thread, if you don't play against their list its because you're dumb, lazy, don't want a challenge, or are just unsportsmanlike. That's a subset of people I'd rather not be involved with.

Well yeah, if someones being an entitled git about using Forgeworld stuff, it's just as bad as someone being a stubborn git about refusing.

The best thing I've found is this - prepare two army lists, one with the FW unit, one without. Let your opponent know beforehand you have FW stuff in your list. If they say no, simply smile and use the other list. Chances are you'll do better with the list without FW units anyway.

gmaleron wrote:Hello eveyone, this is a question that has sparked some serious debate (and a little drama) @ my local gaming store recently and wanted to take it up with the community of Dakka. As the title of the thread says why do people have a beef with taking Forgeworld lists/models in games? I really see no point to it, especially since Forgeworld is part of GW. The most common complaint that I have seen is that "oh Forgeworld lists are totally OP and cheessy" however when actually playtested and using them we have found this to be hugely exaggerated. People can make the argument that the lists are "unbalanced" but with the playing field of 40k in particular already unbalanced I find it to be an empty argument. Seriously what is the point of GW tempting us to buy these amazing models to only be told we cant use them in games, there is nothing in the books that says they are illegal to run in tournaments or friendly games and I think is taking away alot of the diversity of the game. This all started when the local store owner gave no real or good reason as to why you cant run forgeworld lists (we basically have come to the opinion that its because he doesnt know how to power game against them) and it has now forced us to possibly play a tournament @ another game store so we actually can use the books and minitures. So I want to know guys, what are your reasons for and against running/using Forgeworld books and lists in tournaments and friendly games?

Elysians, for example (which I play) have access to a huge amount of Valkyries (as they can be dedicated transports). This is not a huge problem, at least not when I've played friendly games, there is a problem however, and that is their heavy support options. They can take Lightnings and/or Thunderbolts as heavy support choices. These are 'flyers' and use 'flyer rules.' For anyone who uses a normal codex they will have little to no chance of taking them out unless they build specifically to fight them and even then some codeces are still screwed, see Tyranids versus flyers.

Jstncloud wrote:

gmaleron wrote:Hello eveyone, this is a question that has sparked some serious debate (and a little drama) @ my local gaming store recently and wanted to take it up with the community of Dakka. As the title of the thread says why do people have a beef with taking Forgeworld lists/models in games? I really see no point to it, especially since Forgeworld is part of GW. The most common complaint that I have seen is that "oh Forgeworld lists are totally OP and cheessy" however when actually playtested and using them we have found this to be hugely exaggerated. People can make the argument that the lists are "unbalanced" but with the playing field of 40k in particular already unbalanced I find it to be an empty argument. Seriously what is the point of GW tempting us to buy these amazing models to only be told we cant use them in games, there is nothing in the books that says they are illegal to run in tournaments or friendly games and I think is taking away alot of the diversity of the game. This all started when the local store owner gave no real or good reason as to why you cant run forgeworld lists (we basically have come to the opinion that its because he doesnt know how to power game against them) and it has now forced us to possibly play a tournament @ another game store so we actually can use the books and minitures. So I want to know guys, what are your reasons for and against running/using Forgeworld books and lists in tournaments and friendly games?

Elysians, for example (which I play) have access to a huge amount of Valkyries (as they can be dedicated transports). This is not a huge problem, at least not when I've played friendly games, there is a problem however, and that is their heavy support options. They can take Lightnings and/or Thunderbolts as heavy support choices. These are 'flyers' and use 'flyer rules.' For anyone who uses a normal codex they will have little to no chance of taking them out unless they build specifically to fight them and even then some codeces are still screwed, see Tyranids versus flyers.

They are apocalypse units, check the listing for the Fast Skimmers that are flyers in apoc, and unless its apocalypse, flyers cannot be used explicitly.

You'll only have one Heavy support slot, but hey the sky talon is pretty nice.

AnUnearthlyChilde wrote:

Playing something from FW that you don't know is EXACTLY THE SAME as playing a brand new codex you don't know... Now seriously, are you going to decline playing someone with a new Dex? No, I didn't think so. Sorry but that just smacks of WAAC.

Really? So When some plants a Thunderhawk or Warhound on the Board you go "yeah thats fine". Bollox. FW is uber units (in the main) for apocalypse and big games and it should be considered an official addon to 40k. "Lets play 40k" and you bring something like a T-Hawk or Warhound etc, "I would say we are not playing apocalypse".

No it's not the same due to things like Structure points, Super Heavy Weapons and D Strength Weapons. A Vulcan-Mega Bolter against a ork horde will cause mass casualties, if you aren't playing a large or Super-heavy you are at a serious disadvantage. There is a semblance of balance (despite everyone's objections) within the Codex's, even fighting a new codex you have a reasonable chance of finding out from FOC what they do and you should ask what those units do.

Playing someone with a FW super Heavy while you have normal army is like being dry humped by a Rhino, deeply unfair, unpleasant and there is nothing you can do to stop it. People who do this kind of thing are complete "Richard Heads" and are definite WAAC tossers.

I went to a Tournament last year that allowed a single choice (upto 400points) from Planetstrike, Spearhead or FW. I took a Landraider "Terminus Ultra" I would never take this in an ordinary game, only in Apocalypse or Special Tournaments.

ZebioLizard2 wrote:

Trying to deny this separation between GW and FW in high-handed, sometimes arrogant ways by some FW-proponents is the very reason for the "hate" that gives this discussion it's title and name.

Or it could be because of people like you who don't realize just how they aren't seperated.

Forgeworld is a Subsidiary of Games Workshop, which means that games workshop is the parent company of Forgeworld. Which means Games workshop owns Forgeworld to the point that they own 50%+ shares of stock, and that as a result they don't need to buy it out completely, which means there of course will be a barrier between them in the sense that games workshop would gain additional ownership, but it would give them more issues than they may prefer.

Do you know nothing of economics and the buisness model?

As you keep touting arrogant ways of the FW people, not to mention continuing brash insults along with the snide comments means you must have something against forgeworld in general at this point. Along with it's players, so that it's very likely at this point that you have a grudge in some manner. Which can show a biased viewpoint.

I do know my share of economics and business models. And GW as a company produces different brands and games. WFB and 40K are not the same, just because they are produced by the same company. 40K basic and Planetstrike are not the same, even though they are produced by the same company. 40K basic and FW are not the same, even though they are produced by the same company. It seems rather ridiculous to assume that because it flows into the same shareholder value, it is all just one big product. Clearly, my advanced knowledge of business tells me that on occassion, the same company may actually sell different things, as well as "optional" expansion to existing product lines. Moreover, if the same company goes through the trouble of actually creating seperate brands, they do so for a reason.

Do you keep telling people that Tropicana tastes just like Pepsi because its by the same company? Do you keep telling people their Porsche is no different from a VW because its from the same company? Seems a rather skewed perception of "business" you have there, not me.

Really? So When some plants a Thunderhawk or Warhound on the Board you go "yeah thats fine". Bollox. FW is uber units (in the main) for apocalypse and big games and it should be considered an official addon to 40k. "Lets play 40k" and you bring something like a T-Hawk or Warhound etc, "I would say we are not playing apocalypse".

*Sigh* Forgeworld has little marking inside it, they say "Warhammer 40k" and "Apocalypse". If someone tries to pull the "No Apocalypse book" and says its for standard games, feel free to smack him with his model.

40K basic and FW are not the same, even though they are produced by the same company

As I will say to him, there are little marks in the book. "For Standard Games of Warhammer 40k" with indications for basic game use, and apocalypse use if there can be a difference between them. Not "This is only suitable for non-standard games of warhammer 40k". That's what the apocalypse sticker is for.

Do you keep telling people that Tropicana tastes just like Pepsi because its by the same company? Do you keep telling people their Porsche is no different from a VW because its from the same company? Seems a rather skewed perception of "business" you have there, not me.

It's less a different product line, and more or less this.

It's true meaning would be along the lines of you buy these parts from a different factory owned by someone else but produces parts for their company, it's the same parts, they may be different, they may have different specifications, but they are built for the same car. You are not going to tell someone who's bought some shiny new rims his Porsche is not a Porsche because he's using different parts for it will you?

I am honest to god sick of this argument. We are not discussing Warhammer fantasy being mixed with 40k, it does not mean Bloodbowl rules will be fighting 40k, there are specifications, that doesn't mean we'll be seeing a Chaos Cruiser staring down pirate ships floating in the water ridden by vampire orks!

ZebioLizard2 wrote:

*Sigh* Forgeworld has little marking inside it, they say "Warhammer 40k" and "Apocalypse". If someone tries to pull the "No Apocalypse book" and says its for standard games, feel free to smack him with his model.

Absolutely, I don't mind the troop stand-ins and proxy units (although I do point out to people using Contemptors as normal Dreads is a bit silly because in a game of LOS they are a good deal higher than normal dreads). It's a case or realising this is a game and we are all grown up's, if you buy something expensive and barely ever use it, well sorry that's your fault chum.