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.

jgehunter wrote:If I play against somebody I'll ask him if he minds playing with FW, but if he doesn't want to, unless he gives me a good reason I'm not going to play him at all.

Indeed. I've never encountered someone small-minded enough to refuse, but if I did it would go something like this:

Me: "Fancy a game?"

Him: "Sure"

We both deploy.

He points at a FW unit and says "Whats that?"

Me: "Forgeworld"

Him: "I don't want to play against that unit"

Me: "Really?"

Him: "Yes really."

Me: "Ok, well do you mind packing your stuff up? I'd like to get another game in"

mwnciboo wrote:It's not 40k, it's 40k + additional rules.

There is subtle but distinct difference you are failing to recognise.

Well, perhaps that difference needs to be made more clear then. Because as it stands, IA fulfills the same role for my primary army that a Codex does for many others.

EDIT:

Also, hell, read the very same cover you quoted: New rules, yes additional ones, but also new ones. In the sense that the GK codex was new.

A Computer game is played and enjoyed. Someone from another company decides to modify it and add extra's into the game under license. Is it still the same game? Or a Modified version? If you bought the Original Game what would you expect to receive the original or the modified one? If you were describing them are they the same or different? Are they near identical yes, but they have differences and do not share the same name or attributes.

Except in this case it's more like a game being given an expansion by a company they own rather than doing it themselves, but they own the company so they still dictate things down from the top.

I am not going to bother anymore, I will pass the baton onto some-else to argue a self evident rational point, because frankly this cyclic logic is crazy.

I hope none of you ever get jobs in the Legal sector, god help us.

mwnciboo wrote:
A Computer game is played and enjoyed. Someone from another company decides to modify it and add extra's into the game under license. Is it still the same game? Or a Modified version? If you bought the Original Game what would you expect to receive the original or the modified one? If you were describing them are they the same or different? Are they near identical yes, but they have differences and do not share the same name or attributes.

You can play the original, but then if you moan about it not being as good as the modified one, play that one. You wouldn't expect developers to go back to the original game and modify to the 3rd party company's requirements.

FW is a third Party, i know it's ridiculous but it is a separate entity despite being on the same site et al.

If it was Core 40k then people would play IA at GT's they don't because it's not in the strictest sense Core 40k 5th edition, it is a supplementary book and units made by a third party.

Actually, this has happened in the past with a 40k game - Dawn of War.

Dawn of War 1 was released and fun was had by all, same with the expansion Winter Assault.

Then Dark Crusade was released.

I could play Winter Assault against the Dark Crusade forces, I just couldn't use the DC forces until I had them myself. Conversely, someone who only owned DC could play the Necrons and Tau, but was unable to play the other races in 40k.

So yes, the developers did patch the old game to fit in the new expansion (if only so that the players who owned it could remain on the multiplayer scene).

Kaldor wrote:

jgehunter wrote:If I play against somebody I'll ask him if he minds playing with FW, but if he doesn't want to, unless he gives me a good reason I'm not going to play him at all.

Indeed. I've never encountered someone small-minded enough to refuse, but if I did it would go something like this:

Seriously? Still with the insults? It's not small minded, unsportsmanlike, or anything like that - especially if you don't specify FW units before the game starts.

It could just as easily be like this:

Me: "Fancy a game?"

Him: "Sure"

We both deploy.

He points at a FW unit and says "Whats that?"

Me: "Forgeworld"

Him: "Hm. I don't think you mentioned you'd be playing a FW unit."

Me: "Really? Well too late now - either we play anyway or I consider you a tool and never play you again."

Him: "O... kay."

Me: "lulz"

Not a third party, THQ developed all the material for DoW.....(devil in the detail and the detail is defeating you throughout this thread)

New Codexes are not supplementary, they are updated. This affects 40k Core games at tournament and are core to 40k they are not supplementary you cannot play core 40k without it.

That's like saying tires are supplementary to a car.

Damn it broke my own vow, no more nonsense. Adieu.

mwnciboo wrote:Not a third party.....

New Codexes are not supplementary, they are updated. This affects 40k Core games at tournament and are core to 40k they are not supplementary you cannot play 40k without it.

That's like saying tires are supplementary to a car.

Damn it broke my own vow, no more nonsense. Adieu.

FW is not a Third Party to GW either. If I sign a contract with Forgeworld, I'm signing one with GW too.

And the codexes aren't necessary either. In their place you can use IA rules; you do not require them to play.

To use your own analogy:

The tires are not supplementary to a car, true. But a specific type of tire is not necessary, so let me use these other tires, which also happen to be much fancier and nicer and not worse at all for any (perceived) reason.

Not a third party, THQ developed all the material for DoW.....(devil in the detail and the detail is defeating you throughout this thread)
New Codexes are not supplementary, they are updated.

Codex GK and SoB didn't exist before.

mwnciboo wrote:This affects 40k Core games at tournament and are core to 40k they are not supplementary you cannot play 40k without it.

Yes you can as we have proven.

Not a third party, THQ developed all the material for DoW.....(devil in the detail and the detail is defeating you throughout this thread)

THQ owns relic, which created dawn of war through dark crusade

Relic gave the final expansion rights to Iron Lore, which made crusade.

So yeah, still wrong. THQ is the publisher in this case who made the games.

Games workshop owns Forgeworld, and everything within it.

By your logic, Everything forgeworld does is developed all by Games Workshop.

ZebioLizard2 wrote:

Not a third party, THQ developed all the material for DoW.....(devil in the detail and the detail is defeating you throughout this thread)

THQ owns relic, which created dawn of war through dark crusade

Relic gave the final expansion rights to Iron Lore, which made crusade.

So yeah, still wrong. THQ is a publisher who owns developers.

Even a better argument than mine - it really was a third party, as much as ForgeWorld is.

lol.

THQ has the license not the subcontractor.

Games workshop owns Forgeworld, and everything within it.

Er Yes it does, it owns the Intellectual Property, infact it can revoke their license. FW is third party now inhouse. FW does not have a leg to stand on if GW pulled the license.

rigeld2 wrote:It's not small minded, unsportsmanlike, or anything like that

lol, yes it is.

mwnciboo wrote:THQ has the license.

GW has the 40k license too, and ForgeWorld is a part of it as much as Iron Lore is a part of THQ.

mwnciboo wrote:THQ has the license.

By license I mean Video games License. Although this has changed with 40K MMO etc.

Back on topic,

Forge World makes third party stuff for 40k, it is additional supplementary and licensed. IT IS NOT CORE 40K so stop crying that most people call BS when someone throws a FW model on a Tabletop and says "I'm using this..." if you think this is okay you are a dick.

mwnciboo wrote:

mwnciboo wrote:THQ has the license.

By license I mean Video games License. Although this has changed with 40K MMO etc.

Back on topic,

Forge World makes third party stuff for 40k, it is additional supplementary and licensed. IT IS NOT CORE 40K so stop crying that most people call BS when someone throws a FW model on a Tabletop and says "I'm using this..." if you think this is okay you are a dick.

No, I don't think that's ok.

However, I would like to know their reasoning behind refusing - and, if I may be so bold, I'd bet it's their reasoning I would find very much not ok.

Bobthehero wrote:I don't consider it GW stuff, unlike Forgeworld, there's no officiial mention that its approved either, so your tank can stay in its box.

But you forget that the rules for the Zweischneid Awsome Tank tell us that it is indeed official and for use in 40K.....it even tells us what slot in the FOC it is taken as.

jgehunter wrote:I think what the FW users are trying to say here is that, of course, we can't force you on gunpoint to play against FW units, but really I see no reason why you wouldn't play against somebody with FW, If I play against somebody I'll ask him if he minds playing with FW, but if he doesn't want to, unless he gives me a good reason I'm not going to play him at all.

This is, of course, the attitude to take. The inability of those shrilly asserting their right to Forge World-free gaming to provide good reasons for so doing are why this thread now comprises fourteen pages of irrelevant comparisons and hair-splitting. As to the actual reasons concealed by this specious babble, I'll let Zweichneid explain them in his own words:

Zweischneid wrote:I don't much care if they are overcosted. FW adds even more Imperial bias to a game suffering from Imperial bias. If FW drop their IG and Space Marine ranges, and add an Eldar, Tau, Necron catalogue equal to their current IG offering, I'll reconsider.

Frankly, Pacific hit the nail on the head many pages ago...

English Assassin wrote:[

Zweischneid wrote:I don't much care if they are overcosted. FW adds even more Imperial bias to a game suffering from Imperial bias. If FW drop their IG and Space Marine ranges, and add an Eldar, Tau, Necron catalogue equal to their current IG offering, I'll reconsider.

Frankly, Pacific hit the nail on the head many pages ago...

Do you know anything about FW, I play Eldar and I assure you that the Eldar range is equal, if not bigger, than the Imperial one and I wouldn't probably have pushed my Eldar army above my Imperial one if I couldn't use FW. Without FW the gap between Imperials and Xenos is even bigger, If you don't like that don't play war hammer at al.

I'll twist your argument:

I don't much care if they are overcosted. Normal GW adds even more Imperial bias to a game suffering from Imperial bias. If Games Workshop drop their Imperial Codex (is that the plural?) and add a Xenos Codex catalogue equal to their current Imperial offering, I'll reconsider playing normal game.

Kaldor wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:It's not small minded, unsportsmanlike, or anything like that

lol, yes it is.

Can you explain why you feel like its okay to insult someone when:
1) You agreed to a game of 40k - not mentioning FW
2) it's not an implied agreement in your area to auto-include FW
3) when the IA books say, rather specifically, that they require more permission to use than standard books

Agreeing to a game of 40k without additional restrictions means all the codexes and the BRB.
Agreeing to a game of 40k including forgeworld is the same as above plus the 40k stamped FW units.

Changing from one to the other without consent from both parties is unsportsmanlike on either side.
Just blatantly assuming the latter, and insulting your opponent when he disagrees is poor form.

rigeld2 wrote:Agreeing to a game of 40k without additional restrictions means all the codexes and the BRB.
Agreeing to a game of 40k including forgeworld is the same as above plus the 40k stamped FW units.

Whether or not this distinction is a valid one - something which is far from being as unarguable as you endeavour to suggest - you have done nothing to demonstrate why it is a meaningful one. Hence, you might as well expect to be treated like an small-minded berk for making a fuss rather than getting over yourself and playing the game.

English Assassin wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:Agreeing to a game of 40k without additional restrictions means all the codexes and the BRB.
Agreeing to a game of 40k including forgeworld is the same as above plus the 40k stamped FW units.

Whether or not this distinction is a valid one - something which is far from being as unarguable as you endeavour to suggest - you have done nothing to demonstrate why it is a meaningful one. Hence, you might as well expect to be treated like an small-minded berk for making a fuss rather than getting over yourself and playing the game.

How is it not a valid distinction? The IA books themselves make the distinction that you should ask about FW 40k stamped units.
Which means it's meaningful. If I'm supposed to receive the courtesy of being asked to allow FW units, and I don't - how is my rejection unsportsmanlike or, in your words, being a "small-minded berk"?

The IA books say that the onus is on the FW unit player to clear the FW units with his opponent. Not doing so, and then fielding them anyway with the expectation that "Meh, who cares - no one sane should object", makes HIM the unsportsmanlike person - because that's literally pushing your way on the other person.

If you say otherwise you're fooling yourself.

And still, how ever many times the question is asked, you can't provide a better reason for refusing to play against another gamer who who wants to use Forge World material than "I can, so I will.". That's simple pettiness. Now I'll cheerfully accept that it's sportsmanlike to ask, but until you provide any kind of equally sportsmanlike reason to refuse, the point is moot.

Until you do so, the assumption of the majority of us who would rather play the game than argue about it, will remain that your motivations are suspect - which is to say based in the ignorant fear that you will incur some disadvantage, or the desire to be difficult for the sake of it. (Or, lest we forget, in deranged shrieking about how Forge World unfairly favours Imperial players.)

English Assassin wrote:And still, how ever many times the question is asked, you can't provide a better reason for refusing to play against another gamer who who wants to use Forge World material than "I can, so I will.". That's simple pettiness. Now I'll cheerfully accept that it's sportsmanlike to ask, but until you provide any kind of equally sportsmanlike reason to refuse, the point is moot.

So because the reasons *might* be petty, it's cool to insult someone and not even ask if it's okay in the first place? That's pretty presumptive.
And still - the onus is on *you* to ask *before* the game. I might have my reasons - I don't have the books, I don't feel like learning the rules for a new unit today, FW stabbed my mother and slept with my wife - who knows? It doesn't really matter... if you didn't ask and instead assumed that it'd be cool, you're the one being unsportsmanlike.

Until you do so, the assumption of the majority of us who would rather play the game than argue about it, will remain that your motivations are suspect - which is to say based in the ignorant fear that you will incur some disadvantage, or the desire to be difficult for the sake of it. (Or, lest we forget, in deranged shrieking about how Forge World unfairly favours Imperial players.)

So because you lied when asking for the game (by not mentioning FW units) *I'm* suddenly the bad guy here? What kind of crap is that?

And yes, FW does favor Imperial armies over Xenos armies in general.

Well, since I'm tired of asking for logical reasons and instead getting rhetorical windbaggery, I shall unsubscribe and leave these fourteen pages of dross to flourish further in my absence.

You have had your chance to provide good reasons for insisting that one set of unit rules for this game is acceptable while another is not, and it has passed you by. Enjoy playing your pure Warhammer 40,000 with twelve year-olds who've just unwrapped Assault on Black Reach.

English Assassin wrote:Well, since I'm tired of asking for logical reasons and instead getting rhetorical windbaggery, I shall unsubscribe and leave these fourteen pages of dross to flourish further in my absence.

You have had your chance to provide good reasons for insisting that one set of unit rules for this game is acceptable while another is not, and it has passed you by. Enjoy playing your pure Warhammer 40,000 with twelve year-olds who've just unwrapped Assault on Black Reach.

Farewell - you can enjoy accusing others of unsportsmanlike conduct, and being "simple minded berks" if they don't enjoy playing your way. Have fun!

rigeld2 wrote:You're also not considering that if "FW should always be allowed" then you'd be fine fielding it against a new player who doesn't even know Forgeworld exists - but knows the BRB and his codex inside and out. If you both happen to play Tyranids, and you throw down some Malanthropes - how do you expect him to react?

I know how I would react: "Oh wow, cool!! What are those models and where can I get them??!!??"

I wouldn't start crying that it is unfair that my opponent has models that I didn't know were out there.

For me seeing that new model creates interest and curiousity, not fear and loathing. I first saw the forge world models in Golden Daemon and I wanted, no NEEDED to know where they came from and had to have some. I don't exactly like the new GK codex, but I won't stop someone from playing a game with me using a GK list. Years ago when Eldar were supposedly broken I had no trouble beating eldar opponents regularly, despite their army supposedly being "instant win" all the time. FW just adds another challange to me as a player and I welcome the challange.

Skriker

Skriker wrote:For me seeing that new model creates interest and curiousity, not fear and loathing.

Good god stop with the strawman insults.
There's no fear of losing. There's no fear of the unknown.

There's the lack of knowledge because I don't feel like ponying up for the books.
There's confusion based on what was agreed vs what is happening.
There's potential confusion because your opponent might not even know FW exists.

People react differently when surprised by something. Why is it unsportsmanlike to react poorly to a surprise, but not unsportsmanlike to purposely set up the surprise in the first place?

mwnciboo wrote:It's not 40k, it's 40k + additional rules.

But this actually no different than any codex, though. How many of the codex books are full of exceptions to the rules in the BRB? Most of them. They all have their special abilities and silliness involved. So it is crazy to say that a Codex book with all its exceptions to the rules is drastically different than an IA army list which is pretty similar in its approach to the rules. They both use *and* supplement the rules for their own edification and usage. It is silly to split them into two separate entities of "acceptable" and "only occasionally acceptable". I'd rather play against an elysian drop troop list than yet another blood angels list with stupid librarian dreadnoughts that not a single other force gets, even the GKs which are made up almost exclusively of psykers. GW does stupid exclusive crap like that all the time in their codex books. Why are long fangs so special with their long range shooting abilities? ALL space marines are as long lived as Space Wolves so those rules should apply to *every* devastator squad and not just to long fangs, but it doesn't. The simple fact is that there are actually MORE exceptions to the rules in every Space Marine codex than in your typical FW list.

For me comparing forge world and GW lists is similar to flames of war official rulebook lists and the PDF lists on the website. They are official, so why are people so uptight about them? I know plenty of people who refuse to let anyone play a PDF list from the Battlefront website for similar reasons to people complaining about FW lists. When it all boils down to a fear of the unknown. How often in a real war do you know *everything* about the opponent? Pretty much NEVER. So why is it such an issue in table top wargaming?

Skriker

Skriker wrote:

mwnciboo wrote:It's not 40k, it's 40k + additional rules.

But this actually no different than any codex, though.

But it is - the IA books even say so at the front.

For me comparing forge world and GW lists is similar to flames of war official rulebook lists and the PDF lists on the website. They are official, so why are people so uptight about them? I know plenty of people who refuse to let anyone play a PDF list from the Battlefront website for similar reasons to people complaining about FW lists. When it all boils down to a fear of the unknown. How often in a real war do you know *everything* about the opponent? Pretty much NEVER. So why is it such an issue in table top wargaming?

Because tabletop wargaming is about fun. Real wars are about winning and killing the other guy.
Being surprised because I didn't know there's a dreadnaught pod that allows you to assault from Deep Strike isn't my idea of fun.
Or that I didn't know there's a Land Raider out there with a Thunderfire cannon that is also really effing hard to kill.

Also - we pretty much do know the max capabilities of the enemy forces. We know approximately how many tanks and what kind he has, what kind of ammo/fuel stores, etc.
See the similarity between that and knowing what is possible your opponent can bring against you?

In real war, bad intel means people die. In tabletop wargaming, bad intel means one of the players might not have as much fun. Since the game is all about having fun, that's a bad thing.