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: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.

Ummm...since when is the Eldar range as big as the imperial range in Forge World?? Eldar have 2 pages of units on the website. The IG have *at least* 5 more specific headings than that each with multiple pages underneath. That doesn't include Space Marine, Imperial Navy or other listings for the Imperial side. The Eldar range is definitely nice, though.

Skriker

Skriker wrote:

jgehunter wrote: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.

Ummm...since when is the Eldar range as big as the imperial range in Forge World?? Eldar have 2 pages of units on the website. The IG have *at least* 5 more specific headings than that each with multiple pages underneath. That doesn't include Space Marine, Imperial Navy or other listings for the Imperial side. The Eldar range is definitely nice, though.

Skriker

Many of the Imperial listings are FW versions of codex units. Most of the Eldar entries are IA units.

rigeld2 wrote:

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.

Sorry, but many in this thread seem clearly afraid of having to deal with FW models. Also your example of the new player implied that they would have a negative reaction to the fact that those new models appeared on the table. No strawman was created or implied here. Clearing responding to *your* example. What did *you* expect your "New player's" reaction would be to the malanthrope minis? Hrm? Your own example set up my response so stop acting like people are misrepresenting anything.

Skriker


Automatically Appended Next Post:

rigeld2 wrote: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.

Blah, blah, blah...nothing like cutting out ALL of the evidence that supported my arguement of that first line you quoted which proved my point. What you completely are missing here is that the things you complain about FW models introducing to the table top are exactly the same as things that are in the "more official" and "completely acceptable" GW lists. Land raiders are already really effing hard to kill no matter what they are armed with. So why is one specific version of the land raider so more horribly unbalancing than another? Dreadnought assaulting out of a drop pod. Wow yeah that completely unbalances the game. Not maybe with close combat focused dreads, but wait forces that use those extensively can't even use the dreadnought pods. So exactly where are the problems? In people's ability to adapt to the unknown. That is where it lies. If people are not "afraid" to face the FW models then what exactly is the problem and what is the point of excluding them from games? I've played games with and against with FW involved and without. All were fun. Not a single one was ruined by my not being familiar with a FW or a GW unit in the game. You learn on the fly, you adapt and you overcome. No different than a new codex book coming out and new units hitting the table from those books. You see them and face them and learn about them and move on. Next time they aren't new to you. This is how we learn and discover.

I don't really care if you like FW or not, but your arguments are bogus and equally apply to units and lists on the GW and FW side of the equation and the statement in the front of the FW volumes not withstanding it does come down to "I can refuse to play against FW stuff so I will," and that is a pointless argument.

Skriker

Skriker wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

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.

Sorry, but many in this thread seem clearly afraid of having to deal with FW models. Also your example of the new player implied that they would have a negative reaction to the fact that those new models appeared on the table. No strawman was created or implied here. Clearing responding to *your* example. What did *you* expect your "New player's" reaction would be to the malanthrope minis? Hrm? Your own example set up my response so stop acting like people are misrepresenting anything.

Confusion and misunderstanding is not the same thing as fear and loathing. I never equated the two - your side has.

What you completely are missing here is that the things you complain about FW models introducing to the table top are exactly the same as things that are in the "more official" and "completely acceptable" GW lists.

No, they aren't. Show me the non-FW Land Raider with a -1 on the damage chart and a Thunderfire Cannon. Show me the non-FW version of a drop pod that allows assaults on the turn of deep strike.
And I have never said that FW is horribly unbalanced. I've said that some units tend that way, but nothing that breaks the game.

All were fun. Not a single one was ruined by my not being familiar with a FW or a GW unit in the game.

I have as well. Many were fun, but not all. The ones that weren't were the ones I shouldn't have let my opponent play the unit.

No different than a new codex book coming out and new units hitting the table from those books.

Except it is.

I don't really care if you like FW or not, but your arguments are bogus and equally apply to units and lists on the GW and FW side of the equation and the statement in the front of the FW volumes not withstanding it does come down to "I can refuse to play against FW stuff so I will," and that is a pointless argument.

So - the statement in the front of the FW volumes notwithstanding, the rules aren't official. The same thing that says they're official is the thing that says you need to ask about it first.

You ask for a game of 40k, not mentioning you want to use FW units. Your opponent agrees, though he dislikes FW. You plop down a Malanthrope. He objects. You call him unsportsmanlike, a scardeycat, a "simple minded berk" or whatever other insult has been used in this thread.

And that's okay? That's normal? That's not an elitest attitude trying to force others to place like you?


edit: To restate my standing because it might be lost...

I don't have a direct problem with most FW units. There's a few on my "frustration" list, but overall I'm still likely to play a game provided the guy has the most current book for that unit. There are days I don't feel like it, however, because it's yet another book to remember/think about during the game.

The problem I have is with the attitude that if you buy a FW unit/book you're entitled to ignore the other person's opinions, lie to him, and then force him to play with you or you are free to insult him as much as you want. That I cannot abide. And it seems like that is what a lot of people in this thread are showing.

There are 15 pages of great opininons in this thread. Most doing a great job explaining their position. But doesn't it boil down to "what is fun/worth the gaming time" for both players?

Personally, if you want to drop a FW model into a game on me - awesome! It makes it a more interesting game for me personally. It changes the same 'ole your Tac squads, etc.. vs. my Tac squads, etc... But then again, that's just me.

The problem I have is with the attitude that if you buy a FW unit/book you're entitled to ignore the other person's opinions, lie to him, and then force him to play with you or you are free to insult him as much as you want. That I cannot abide. And it seems like that is what a lot of people in this thread are showing.

If someone acted like you if I pulled out a forgeworld model, I probably would be somewhat insulting afterwords to him for his childish attitude over a game.

So - the statement in the front of the FW volumes notwithstanding, the rules aren't official. The same thing that says they're official is the thing that says you need to ask about it first.

You mean the same guideline that is the same for 40k? That's basically all it is, make sure your happy to play with your opponent.

Of course I always swap army lists from armybuilder beforehand, if he doesn't make a fuss till onto the game he gets a comment for not reading it through.

If he doesn't want to play, that's fine, I probably wouldn't play a 6 psyflemen list myself either.

ZebioLizard2 wrote:

The problem I have is with the attitude that if you buy a FW unit/book you're entitled to ignore the other person's opinions, lie to him, and then force him to play with you or you are free to insult him as much as you want. That I cannot abide. And it seems like that is what a lot of people in this thread are showing.

If someone acted like you if I pulled out a forgeworld model, I probably would be somewhat insulting afterwords to him for his childish attitude over a game.

...Did you read that before replying? You're exemplifying the attitude I dislike. Thanks for confirming my point though.

So - the statement in the front of the FW volumes notwithstanding, the rules aren't official. The same thing that says they're official is the thing that says you need to ask about it first.

You mean the same guideline that is the same for 40k? That's basically all it is, make sure your happy to play with your opponent.

No, it's different.
You can either a) ask your opponent for a game of 40k or b) ask your opponent for a game of 40k using FW units/rules. The IA books say you should do the latter. It's the same callout that says the rules are "official" so you can't ignore it on one hand and use it on the other.

Of course I always swap army lists from armybuilder beforehand, if he doesn't make a fuss till onto the table he gets a snarky comment for not reading.

On the table/on the armylist - same thing. If you agree on 40k, and you pull out a list using FW units, you've misrepresented yourself (ie - you lied). And you're saying your opponent would get a snarky comment?

On the table/on the armylist - same thing. If you agree on 40k, and you pull out a list using FW units, you've misrepresented yourself (ie - you lied). And you're saying your opponent would get a snarky comment?

Unless we were somehow playing planetstrike or cities of death while I wasn't looking, yes we were playing 40k, and how have I lied? There is nothing functionally different between forgeworld or 40k, if I want to play with some Mortis Dreads in my Dark Angel army? It is a standard 40k game through and through, there is no "40k vs 40k with FW in it" There's just "Standard game" unless doing apoc.

If he see's some strange units in the list, I'd pull out the dex, same as any other army.

ZebioLizard2 wrote:

On the table/on the armylist - same thing. If you agree on 40k, and you pull out a list using FW units, you've misrepresented yourself (ie - you lied). And you're saying your opponent would get a snarky comment?

Unless we were somehow playing planetstrike or cities of death while I wasn't looking, yes we were playing 40k, and how have I lied?

Because you agreed on a game of 40k, not on a game of 40k with Forgeworld units/rules.

There is nothing functionally different between forgeworld or 40k

You keep saying that, I'll keep pointing out that FW books say you need opponents permission to use the FW units - which goes past just the normal "want to game" permission.

and so what if I want to play with some Mortis Dreads in my Dark Angel army?

That has absolutely positively nothing to do with my point. I've been referencing FW units/rules and not FW models - FW models for codex units are fine, as I've said before.

It is a standard 40k game through and through, there is no "40k vs 40k with FW in it" There's just "Standard game" unless doing apoc.

The IA books do not support that statement.

If he see's some strange units in the list, I'd pull out the dex, same as any other army.

If it's a codex unit, it's fine. That's not what I'm arguing.

The IA books do not support that statement.

The book itself says "Standard game" and "Official"

Because you agreed on a game of 40k, not on a game of 40k with Forgeworld units/rules.

If the opposite person dislikes forgeworld, he an tell me that while looking over my list, he can see next to their name's (XXX Forgeworld Unit) and tell me than. No lying at all as he could voice his displeasure than since than he'd be able to see them quite clearly.

ZebioLizard2 wrote:

The IA books do not support that statement.

The book itself says "Standard game" and "Official"

And right next to where it says that, it says to "make sure they are happy to play a game using Forge World models before you start".

Because you agreed on a game of 40k, not on a game of 40k with Forgeworld units/rules.

If the opposite person dislikes forgeworld, he an tell me that while looking over my list, he can see next to their name's (XXX Forgeworld Unit) and tell me than. No lying at all as he could voice his displeasure than since than he'd be able to see them quite clearly.

That's a different habit - I normally don't trade lists until we've agreed to play a game, let alone decided point level. If you say "Want to play a game against this list?" that's fine... but "Want to play a game?" "Sure!" "Here's my list." "Erm, Forgeworld unit? No thanks." "<insert snarky insult here>" is what I find unacceptable.

rigeld2 wrote:
You keep saying that, I'll keep pointing out that FW books say you need opponents permission to use the FW units - which goes past just the normal "want to game" permission.

Just went through my IA5, can't find that line, how... odd... where am I supposed to find it?

Bobthehero wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
You keep saying that, I'll keep pointing out that FW books say you need opponents permission to use the FW units - which goes past just the normal "want to game" permission.

Just went through my IA5, can't find that line, how... odd... where am I supposed to find it?

I'm pretty sure IA5 doesn't even have the 40k stamp I'm referring to - I apologize for using such a broad brush to paint with.
Without that, however, they're even less "core", "official", or "standard".

Didn't look for that, but considering all the Death Korps rule are avaible online (except for weapon stats, found in IG codex) its pretty moot.

And said have this interesting little line :

This army list is primarily designed for use with the Standard
Missions from the Warhammer 40,000 rulebook

IF someone refuse to play me with my (still very WIP) Krieg list, I'll raise an eyebrow and leave.

I totally agree. Forgeworld brings new life to the game, and not just playing but modeling as well!

Soooo.... you want to know everything about your opponents army because thats like real life??

"I cry out for troops and you give me rhetoric, I plead for ammunition and you give me speeches, I ask you again Commander, What can you pledge me?"

"A Heroic death Captain"

Reported holocom conversation between Commander Gulim Tarrel and Capain Roima of the besieged Alharmo garrison shortly before the final Ork assault.

War isn't all pretty and convienent, I really think GW need to go back to this mentallity rather then SM save the day....again... =o\

quote]
And right next to where it says that, it says to "make sure they are happy to play a game using Forge World models before you start"That's a different habit - I normally don't trade lists until we've agreed to play a game, let alone decided point level.

rigeld2 wrote:You ask for a game of 40k, not mentioning you want to use FW units. Your opponent agrees, though he dislikes FW. You plop down a Malanthrope. He objects. You call him unsportsmanlike, a scardeycat, a "simple minded berk" or whatever other insult has been used in this thread.

Don't put words in my mouth. I've not called anyone unsportsmanlike, or a simple minded berk. I am most annoyed by the attitude that it is considered by many that it is more obnoxious to have the audacity to even consider using FW minis than to be a arrogant prat who treats people who use FW minis like some elitest jerks. I also have a problem with people who refuse to play against them simply because they can and for no other reason than rumors and fear that they are overpowered and unstoppable they will refuse facing *ANY* FW models. If someone raises a stink about it I will move on to a different opponent and let them play in their own little corner of the game, just don't try and tell me their own abject refusal and rudensss is acceptable because the IA books say you should ask your opponent first. I generally avoid this completely by playing with people I know only anymore. I don't need to face people over the table top who get upset if your army is anything that they don't consider "right". Whether it is a codex book or an IA list, in my book it is "right" if it has 1 HQ, or 2, at least 2 troops, but no more than 6 and no more than 3 each of fast attack, elite and heavy units. I don't care where they come from as long as they aren't apocalypse units. Once someone starts telling me what I can and can't play in my *own* army is the time I move on and don't waste my time playing them. It is that simple for me. Whether my force is pure codex based (hey its cheesy to have raptors in the nurgle force, you can't use *that* model (my plague hulk) it's forge world! (even though it is pretty much the same as a defiler with shorter ranged weapons which limits me), your khorne marines are supposed to be berserkers, not regular CSMs or havocs, etc. etc). Once the composition of my force outside of the proper FoC table requirements becomes more important than the game itself I can't be bothered anymore, because obviously this person is too busy worrying about my army than wanting to play a game in the first place.

rigeld2 wrote:
The problem I have is with the attitude that if you buy a FW unit/book you're entitled to ignore the other person's opinions, lie to him, and then force him to play with you or you are free to insult him as much as you want. That I cannot abide. And it seems like that is what a lot of people in this thread are showing.

As I said above don't put words into *my* mouth. I have said none of these things. I don't encourage lying to opponents or other players about anything or ignoring their opinions. Not even forcing anyone to play me. I got hooked into this thread because there were folks clearly stating that it was OK to be total jerks to people with FW and they were supposed to just shut up and take it. Good manners and polite play goes both ways. I just want to play games and as long as everyone has rules and is ready to have fun I don't care. There are more offensive things in the entirety GK codex than the 2 things that are so horrible on the FW side of things you listed as examples and your chances of facing the GK spam is pretty high these days, whlie your chances of seeing an achilles is pretty darn low. I don't expect to know EVERY fiddly little rule of my opponent's army when I play and if we based letting people play their forces solely on those rules we knew well ourselves we'd be playing a lot fewer games now wouldn't we or only against similar armies to our own and where is the fun in that?

I don't really see us as directly opposed or at odds in this conversation, but we certainly don't fully agree on the subject.

Skriker

I allow forgeworld stuff but at the same time i hate them and am suspicious of them. Forgeworld and IA popularized drop pods and flyers to the point that they are now codex standard units and i hate them, completely and utterly. Fast skimmers should solely be the realm of eldar vehicles and deepstriking should be for very specific units that specialize in that style of deployment. I hate the way they homogenize army and unit roles by giving options for everything, regardless of how fairly they are overpriced. I hate flyer stands that make it look like a giant geyser of plastic is erupting from my game board with a big garish battlefleet gothic unit glued on top of it, and I wish they would all go away and never come back. But they aren't, so i deal.

I really like the purely aesthetic stuff like pre-heresy armor and alternate bolter patterns, those look beautiful and I hope to paint them eventually. Or stuff like kommando conversion kits because really gw, if I want to field a squad of 15 kommandos you expect me to buy 3 full box sets and wind up with 2 nobz I can't use and still needing to buy 2 special weapon boyz separately? I think kommandos are some of gw's best looking models but i'll take the conversions.

However, anytime FW touches rules I just groan. Not because they're too strong, I just don't want to deal with them. I feel much the same way about the new dark eldar codex, i was fine with that army fading into the night never to return. I have no interest in ever playing as them and I wouldn't mind never playing against them. I would have much preferred to see a different army updated and given new models. But I'm not about to refuse to play all dark eldar players, so now I've read their new dex and memorized their rules and account for their effective army lists when building my own lists. It is simply a necessary chore i had to do. And anytime someone puts down a forgeworld model and I need to ask to read their rules it is also just a chore for me.

So yes, I'll allow my opponent to field forgeworld models. But to answer the thread title, i still hate them.

rigeld2 wrote:If you say "Want to play a game against this list?" that's fine... but "Want to play a game?" "Sure!" "Here's my list." "Erm, Forgeworld unit? No thanks." "insert snarky insult here" is what I find unacceptable.

Comments in red are douchey. Thus comments in blue are justified.

Not wanting to play a game because FW units are involved is just as stupid as not wanting to play because any other type of unit is involved, or any other equally arbitrary reason. Like if you don't want to play Asians or something.

You can piss and moan about how unfair it is, and how elitist it is, but at the end of the day it's a damn stupid reason to refuse a game.

Kaldor wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:If you say "Want to play a game against this list?" that's fine... but "Want to play a game?" "Sure!" "Here's my list." "Erm, Forgeworld unit? No thanks." "insert snarky insult here" is what I find unacceptable.

Comments in red are douchey. Thus comments in blue are justified.

Not wanting to play a game because FW units are involved is just as stupid as not wanting to play because any other type of unit is involved, or any other equally arbitrary reason. Like if you don't want to play Asians or something.

You can piss and moan about how unfair it is, and how elitist it is, but at the end of the day it's a damn stupid reason to refuse a game.

No, really - it's never justified. The comments in red would not have to be said if you were up front about the fact that you're not playing normal 40k. Because you started off the lie, you feel justified in insulting someone if they decide not to play you.

Remember - you agreed to a game of 40k. That has certain implications. Backing out of a game of 40k because your opponent plays Blood Angels or includes a Dreadknight is silly, yes. That's not what is happening.

You agreed to a game of 40k. Then you introduced something that's not-40k. And now you feel justified for insulting the person who decides not to play a game with you. That's what is insane to me - and the attitude that just drives me batty.

It'd be great for the hobby overall if people would lose the attitude. More people would likely play FW units if the people trying to field them weren't as elitist/forceful as they are in this thread.

Am I really the only one seeing that?

From FW website, on the Siege Regiment pdf wrote:This army list is primarily designed for use with the Standard Missions from the Warhammer 40,000 rulebook

Sounds a lot like we'll be playing a standard game in my eyes.

Skriker wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:You ask for a game of 40k, not mentioning you want to use FW units. Your opponent agrees, though he dislikes FW. You plop down a Malanthrope. He objects. You call him unsportsmanlike, a scardeycat, a "simple minded berk" or whatever other insult has been used in this thread.

Don't put words in my mouth. I've not called anyone unsportsmanlike, or a simple minded berk.

You're right, you didn't - I didn't mean to make it seem like you were advocating that directly, but it seemed like you were on the side of "stfu and play or you're dumb". I went back and filtered the thread on just your posts and I think I agree with one of your posts:

Skriker wrote:Good manners would be saying something to the effect of "I am not familiar with those FW models. Is it OK if we just use official codex forces instead? If not I don't mind you looking for a different player than me." In that instance they are voicing their disinterest in the forge world models, but still being a reasonable and mature human being as you say too.

Unfortunately, many in this thread would take such a show of disinterest and feel free to insult the person who doesn't want to play against FW models. That's my point.

I am most annoyed by the attitude that it is considered by many that it is more obnoxious to have the audacity to even consider using FW minis than to be a arrogant prat who treats people who use FW minis like some elitest jerks.

Based on this thread, I don't have to treat many of them like that - I can observe that many already are.

I also have a problem with people who refuse to play against them simply because they can and for no other reason than rumors and fear that they are overpowered and unstoppable they will refuse facing *ANY* FW models. If someone raises a stink about it I will move on to a different opponent and let them play in their own little corner of the game, just don't try and tell me their own abject refusal and rudensss is acceptable because the IA books say you should ask your opponent first.

Rudeness is not acceptable on either side. I've never said that it is. I've declined to face FW models before because all I want to do is play a friendly chill-out game, and adding in FW rarely lets that happen in my experience. I've always tried to be polite when turning down the game - and if it's similar to the situations I've outlined here (ask for a game of 40k, see FW units on list) I do my best to be polite when turning the game down, but I get frustrated at the same time.

As I said above don't put words into *my* mouth. I have said none of these things. I don't encourage lying to opponents or other players about anything or ignoring their opinions. Not even forcing anyone to play me.

Again - even if I quoted you, I wasn't replying to specifically you. There's been a few people in this thread I've been talking with. Sorry if it seemed like I was attacking you.

I got hooked into this thread because there were folks clearly stating that it was OK to be total jerks to people with FW and they were supposed to just shut up and take it.

I agree - I don't advocate either side being a jerk about the situation.

There are more offensive things in the entirety GK codex than the 2 things that are so horrible on the FW side of things you listed as examples and your chances of facing the GK spam is pretty high these days, whlie your chances of seeing an achilles is pretty darn low.

You're probably right, but that's not the point. I listed the two things that popped into my head first, definitely not the two most powerful things in an IA book that people would likely field. The point isn't that FW is more or less powerful than standard 40k - it's that it requires more permission and many people in this thread ignore that and berate opponents that don't want to face FW units.

I don't really see us as directly opposed or at odds in this conversation, but we certainly don't fully agree on the subject.

You're probably right.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Bobthehero wrote:

From FW website, on the Siege Regiment pdf wrote:This army list is primarily designed for use with the Standard Missions from the Warhammer 40,000 rulebook

Sounds a lot like we'll be playing a standard game in my eyes.

That's the closest one to standard I can see. The only problem with it is things like the Hades Breaching Drill - which book is that detailed in?

You agreed to a game of 40k. Then you introduced something that's not-40k.


Remember - you agreed to a game of 40k. That has certain implications. Backing out of a game of 40k because your opponent plays Blood Angels or includes a Dreadknight is silly, yes. That's not what is happening. .

Because it is 40k, and I have introduced nothing that isn't 40k. I haven't inserted another standard game line into the mix, except for 40k models in a standard game. If I somehow insert fantasy models, sure it wouldn't be 40k, that would be fantasy.

So thus, yes it is exactly what's happening.

Forgeworld produces 40k models for standard games, thus they are to be used in the standard situations. That is all.

Forgeworld produces models and rules that can be combined with standard rules, and Forgeworld states that units stamped with a 40k approved symbol require additional permission.

Hence, it's not 40k - it's 40k with FW units.
40k is the BRB and codexes. None of the IA books is a codex.
Introducing an IA book is outside the standard 40k.

That is all.

rigeld2 wrote:Forgeworld produces models and rules that can be combined with standard rules, and Forgeworld states that units stamped with a 40k approved symbol require additional permission.

Hence, it's not 40k - it's 40k with FW units.
40k is the BRB and codexes. None of the IA books is a codex.
Introducing an IA book is outside the standard 40k.

That is all.

Let's end this here, we will never agree on this, and it is pointless trying to one up each other at this rate because we have no further conclusive evidence to offer besides one vague rule which states they are both official and can be used in standard games and yet to try to please the other player.

I believe that if.

An Eldar player takes a unit of Fire Dragons: It is 40k

An Imperial Guard player takes a baneblade: It is Apocalypse

A Blood angel player takes 6 units of terminators: It is Planetstrike

A board is filled with ruins and city buildings with destructible ruin rules: It is City Fight

An Eldar player takes a unit of Shadow Specters: It is 40k


Until Games Workshop, in the BRB states that Forgeworld models are not official models and that they are a variant game if used within a game of 40k, or within the books of Imperial Armor themselves in a clear manner. I will continue to believe that standard Forgeworld models can be used just as easily as Necrons can take a unit of warriors.

I don't know how you can read that blurb and not figure out that you need to do more than just ask for a game of 40k. It's spelled out that you need to ask to make sure he's okay with FW rules.

And, as my entire stance, if you don't do that and your opponent backs out - its not "justified" to insult him. In fact, it's a Rick move.

That got autocorrected, but I'll leave it. Silly phone.

rigeld2 wrote:I don't know how you can read that blurb and not figure out that you need to do more than just ask for a game of 40k. It's spelled out that you need to ask to make sure he's okay with FW rules.

And, as my entire stance, if you don't do that and your opponent backs out - its not "justified" to insult him. In fact, it's a Rick move.

That got autocorrected, but I'll leave it. Silly phone.

I ask whenever we share army lists, I'd probably ask why, and if he says overpowered I'd probably make the snarky remark. The only one I've used is the Mortis dread, and I doubt anyone would call the standard dreadnought with twin liked AC overpowered.

I'm just defending the people's rights to use Forgeworld in standard games.

Forgeworld models, sure. (Mortis is just dual ac dread, right?)
Forgeworld units/rules, requires extra permission... And if you're polite, you'll hold back the snarky remark. Because as long as he's polite in declining, it's not justified.

Personnally if I get declined, I'll leave and find someone else, that good enough?