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.

My hero!

Kanluwen wrote:
Sorry, but no. The IA stuff, if you want to field it, is about as optional as an army book.

Really? Then why are they so rare? Why don't the major tourneys allow them except in no-holds-barred events like the Adepticon Gladiator event? Not even the 'Ard Boyz lets you use them.

You don't need the IA books to play standard 40k, Apoc or Planetstrike. That, by definition, makes them optional.

Scott-S6 wrote:If I'm spending points on a FW item rather than a codex item then of course I'm doing it for advantage.

That is such a crazily false statement that I thought it worth pointing out (not to mention that this statement seemingly claims the intent of everyone using FW items).

Before they became Codex units, I took a Leman Russ Executioner to lead my 'Odd-Ball' Leman Russ Company because I had a cool idea for the commander - a nutcase who loves the risks involved with using a massive plasma tank. The Executioner (was) a complete load of gak. Overpriced and woefully undergunned, bringing it was a liability, but I brought it anyway as I loved the idea of this crazy Tallarn commander waving his pistol around whilst his tank advanced forward.

For my Mordians I wanted a variety of units in my Artillery Company, so I got three Manticores and a Bombard (a unit that's not all that good) to go with the 3 Basilisks and 2 Griffons. I also picked up an enclosed Basilisk because it looked cool, and made a great Command Tank for my Arty Company, not because it provided any advantage (no one with a brain ever took Armoured Crew Compartment on a Bassie). The Bombard I mentioned I bought because it was my fav piece of Arty from Epic, and I had fond memories of using it to blow up buildings in Final Liberation.

So:

A). Not all people who take FW units are looking for an advantage. That's an idiotic and blatantly false statement that presumes to know what everyone is thinking.
B). It is difficult to get an advantage using FW units because most of them are so hideously over priced or underpowered or sometimes both.
C). Some people just buy models because they look cool.

H.B.M.C. wrote:

Arschbombe wrote:It doesn't matter what IA2 says.

I'll break this down into a dialogue for you:

Arschbombe: They're optional!
HBMC: No they're not *posts quotes directly from the rulebooks in question showing where it plainly says that it's not optional*
[b]Arschbombe: The rules don't matter. I'm right because... uhh... well just because! I don't need to listen to your 'rules' and your 'proof'. or your 'quotes' from the guy who 'wrote the rules'. My own made up opinion on what counts and what doesn't trumps an official Games Workshop publication.

Am I close? That is what you're saying, right?

Brilliant. Absolutely brilliant. I am truly stunned by the greatness of your intellect. Please try to wrap your epic intellect around the notion that something can be both legal and optional for use in 40k. IA: legal, optional. Planetstrike: legal, optional. Apoc: legal, optional. There's a pattern here. Maybe you can decipher it.

Arschbombe wrote:Really? Then why are they so rare?

Because they're expensive. Duh.

Arschbombe wrote:Why don't the major tourneys allow them except in no-holds-barred events like the Adepticon Gladiator event?

For two reasons:

1. The persistant misconception that FW units are somehow overpowered.
2. To avoid some of the situations we've been talking about, where someone has a heavily FW'ed army and 'forgets' the rules, leaving their clueless opponent at the whims of any TFG clever enough to try.

Arschbombe wrote:Not even the 'Ard Boyz lets you use them.

Which means all of nothing.

Arschbombe wrote:You don't need the IA books to play standard 40k, Apoc or Planetstrike. That, by definition, makes them optional.

You don't need all of the Codices to play 40K either. In fact, you could just pick one, and play that endlessly against an army from the same Codex. That would make the others optional wouldn't it, by your extremely messed up and utterly illogical attempt at logic, no?

But, once again for the record:

Forgeworld Rulebook, official publication of Games Workshop < your standards of rules.

Just so we're clear? You trump the written word of Games Workshop just because... well just because you do. Right?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Arschbombe wrote:Brilliant. Absolutely brilliant. I am truly stunned by the greatness of your intellect. Please try to wrap your epic intellect around the notion that something can be both legal and optional for use in 40k. IA: legal, optional. Planetstrike: legal, optional. Apoc: legal, optional. There's a pattern here. Maybe you can decipher it.

Like I said to Redbeard on the previous page - it would have been quicker to just say "Yes". And the thing is you're now making up definitions. Something is legal yet optional. Can something be illegal yet not optional?

The rules in IA state they do not require permission, and I've quoted the relevant parts of the rules where it states this. That's all you need to know and that's all that matters. You may not like it, but that's hardly anyone else's problem and making up your own conditions and standards for what counts and what doesn't is absurd (and goes against the RAW, as it happens) I certainly can see your POV - I don't like the Chaos Codex and according to a thread in discussions there are a lot of other people that agree with me - but guess what? It's still the rules. I could make up some nonsense about it being optional but legal because... well just because (!)... but I'd be making that up and not following the rules.

Do you want to not follow the rules Arschbombe? Because the rules - y'know, the things that govern this game - state:

"...players should not pick and choose what equipment their opponent can or can't use..." and "... not all players can agree ... and need an official ruling ... The answer then is yes, feel free, use these vehicles..."

There's really no counter argument to the rules.

H.B.M.C. wrote:

Arschbombe wrote:Not even the 'Ard Boyz lets you use them.

Which means all of nothing.

Oh, I think it does. The one tournament GW runs that is supposed to separate the men from the boys and determine who's the hardest of the hard does not allow your preciousss FW stuff. Haven't you told them that their own rules are official and that you can use them?

But, once again for the record:

Forgeworld Rulebook, official publication of Games Workshop < your standards of rules.

Just so we're clear? You trump the written word of Games Workshop just because... well just because you do. Right?

Not saying that at all. I invite you to take a look at any of the GW sites. Look in 40k under 40 essentials. Do you see any mention of IA there? Nope. Take a look at any of the sites under Books and look at the section called Rulebooks. Are there any IA books there either? Nope. I wonder why that is. Could it be that they just aren't a part of the core 40k rule set like the rulebook and codices?

Anyway, best of luck to you with your "GW says I can so there" mantra with the FW rules. I'm sure it will work very well for you and get you many, many games.

Well going by your argument of its not on the GW site (and the IA books are there on the GW uk site), does that mean that you will refuse to play a space wolf player, or a blood angle player becourse there books are no longer on the gw site, so are no longer part of the "core rules"????

I'm not sure that your recursive proof is actually all that valid.

Party 1) I don't think that book is valid
Party 2) The book is valid because the book says it is valid.
Party 1) If the book is not valid, then the part of the book saying that it is doesn't matter.


The main 40k rulebook defines what you need to play. On page vi, it says a rulebook is necessary. On page vii, it says that a codex is included in what you need to play the game. No where is an IA book included as part of what you need to play. The 40k rules are permissive, not restrictive, they define what you can do, not what you cannot. There is no rule in the main 40k book that says you can include IA rules in a normal game of 40k. Therefore, you cannot. If the IA book is not included in what is needed to play a game of 40k, then why does anything printed in it matter at all?

If you choose to play with an expansion game, such as Cities of Death, then that is something both players agree to, and this expansion then defines additional elements that are included, such as the Cities of Death rulebook. If you choose to play a game including IA elements, then you have made that choice.

Can you show where it says that an IA book is part of the game of 40k, in the 40k rulebook? If not, I really don't think anything printed it matters at all. By default, an opponent who chooses to play 40k should be able to do so without expecting to encounter something that isn't included as part of the game by the main rulebook.

While I always thought that FW stuff was opponent's permission only, it's remarkable clear from HBMC's clear and concise quoting of the rules from IA2 that this is not, in fact the case.

Arschbombe, redbeard, where is your quote from a GW or FW publication that states that FW stuff is optional?

Oh and can I have GBP900 for a Manta?

chaplaingrabthar wrote:
Arschbombe, redbeard, where is your quote from a GW or FW publication that states that FW stuff is optional?

I reckon you just missed it. The 40k rules are permissive, unless they say you can do something, you cannot. No where in the rules does it say that you can use the IA books. Whatever the IA books say is irrelevant, as they're not part of the defined set of what constitutes a 40k game.

Redbeard wrote:I reckon you just missed it.

Hard to miss something that doesn't exist.

Redbeard wrote:The 40k rules are permissive, unless they say you can do something, you cannot.

Now you're just getting desperate. But if you want to go down this road, by all means, let's skip down it together.

Redbeard wrote:No where in the rules does it say that you can use the IA books.

I want specific quotes saying where and when I'm allowed to use each Codex.
I want specific quotes telling me I can used Apocalypse.
I want specific quotes that tell me I can use CoD.
I want specific quotes that tell me I can use Planetstrike.

You opened this door, so the burden of proof is on you now Redbeard. If this is the line of argument you're taking - ill-advised as it may be - then prove it. Until then, it's nothing but your wish or desire for these rules to be optional vs actual quotes from the books themselves saying they're not.

Redbeard wrote:Whatever the IA books say is irrelevant

Translation: The written rules in an official GW publication are irrelevant.

Redbeard wrote:...as they're not part of the defined set of what constitutes a 40k game.

Based on... what? What benchmark other than your own opinion are you basing that on.

Now come on Redbeard. It's your hand to deal, balls in your court, [insert other cliché here]. I've done my job. I've backed up my assertions with hard evidence and quotes that quite clearly explain my point of view and the facts of the matter. Until you can do the same you've got little more than "Uhh... 'cause I said so!" on your side.

I'm genuinely interested to see what you come up with.

Oops! Missed this one:

Redbeard wrote: I don't think that book is valid

Because... why exactly? How? Based on what? Do you have an answer to that? You seem to think that just because you "think" it isn't valid, it therefore isn't valid. I'm sorry bucko, but what you 'think' isn't good enough. You need to prove it. I don't care what your opionion is - your opinions or what you 'think' is just as irrelevant as my own in this context - I want you to proove what you're saying. I can think that the sky is green and that Imperial Armour requires the permission of Jervis and only Jervis before I can use it, but it doesn't make me right unless I can prove it. I've proven what I came here to say, with direct quotes from an official Games Workshop product. You say that those quotes are wrong... now prove why.

Help me to help you=[insert other cliché here]

That's one of my favorite ones, personally.

fynn wrote:Well going by your argument of its not on the GW site (and the IA books are there on the GW uk site), does that mean that you will refuse to play a space wolf player, or a blood angle player becourse there books are no longer on the gw site, so are no longer part of the "core rules"????

Um, the SW codex was withdrawn because they're getting a new one soon. This hardly invalidates the army. They are in the rule book and on the site too. Blood Angels are likewise in the rulebook, have a readily accessible codex on the GW site and are still listed under the 40k armies on the site. BTW, I play Blood Angels.

chaplaingrabthar wrote:While I always thought that FW stuff was opponent's permission only, it's remarkable clear from HBMC's clear and concise quoting of the rules from IA2 that this is not, in fact the case.

Arschbombe, redbeard, where is your quote from a GW or FW publication that states that FW stuff is optional?

Show me where it is required. If it isn't required then it must be optional.

H.B.M.C. wrote:

Redbeard wrote:The 40k rules are permissive, unless they say you can do something, you cannot.

Now you're just getting desperate. But if you want to go down this road, by all means, let's skip down it together.

So you agree that this is true, that the rules are permissive. Good.

Redbeard wrote:No where in the rules does it say that you can use the IA books.

I want specific quotes saying where and when I'm allowed to use each Codex.

Page viii of the main rulebook states that you use a codex to choose your army, and that it contains the army specific rules. Throughout the rulebook, references to using your codex exist, I am not going to list them all for you.

I want specific quotes telling me I can used Apocalypse.
I want specific quotes that tell me I can use CoD.
I want specific quotes that tell me I can use Planetstrike.

These are expansions. When you meet a friend to play 40k, you play standard 40k. When you meet a friend to play planetstrike, by definition, you're not playing standard 40k anymore. The main rulebook references all the expansions that were in print at the time of its printing on pages 274-281

You opened this door, so the burden of proof is on you now Redbeard. If this is the line of argument you're taking - ill-advised as it may be - then prove it.

You're blowing hot air now because you know I'm right. This is a solid logical basis for how to solve this question.

If you are playing standard 40k, you start with the 40k rulebook, and you see what it tells you is involved in a game of standard 40k. If you want to play a non-standard game of 40k, including games from other companies, that's on you and your opponent. But if you're playing standard 40k, how can you claim that you should be using a rulebook that nothing in the standard 40k rulebook tells you to use?

Translation: The written rules in an official GW publication are irrelevant.

I have rules for my fantasy models. They don't go in standard games of 40k. Why not? That's an official GW publication too. I have rules for my Dark Heresy characters. That's an officially licensed 40k supplement. Why don't they go in standard games of 40k?

You have to start somewhere. In the case of playing 40k, you start with the rulebook, and it tells you what to add from there. IA books are not mentioned anywhere in this. If you and your opponent agree to play a variant of 40k where you use IA, then by all means refer to IA books. But if you're playing 40k, you have to base what is allowed, or not, on what is in the rulebook.

You say you've backed up your position, but you haven't even attempted to explain why we should believe that IA books are part of a game of standard 40k. Until you can do that, nothing you cite from within an IA book has any value whatsoever in what's allowed in a standard game of 40k.

So that invalidates the Elysian Detachment 99 list, the Krieg siege lists, or the Renegade PDF lists?

Gotcha.


Your stance on disallowing Imperial Armor because it's "not readily available" is moronic. I could disallow people from playing Dark Eldar, Space Wolves, or Blood Angels in the fact that I don't have the codexes readily available to me. Or the Witchhunters, Daemonhunters, new SM, new Eldar, new Orks codexes either.

So you better bring your Guard, Tyranids, CSM, or an Imperial Armour list because otherwise I WON'T PLAY WITH YOU!

(Protip: That was my impersonation of the whiners there.)


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Quick addendum:

You shouldn't have any issues, whatsoever, if the person BRINGS THE BOOK WITH THEM.
End of story.
Fin.
Game over man, game over.

Redbeard wrote:

chaplaingrabthar wrote:
Arschbombe, redbeard, where is your quote from a GW or FW publication that states that FW stuff is optional?

I reckon you just missed it.

Then please, enlighten me with the quotes.

Arguing that Imperial Armour somehow isn't part of the game because it's not specifically mentioned in the rulebook is about as flying rodent gak insane as you can get.

By your logic then IA can never be used, ever, under any circumstances because the rulebook never specifically states that it can. Ditto for Apoc, CoD and Planetstrike for that matter. Apply Occam's Razor to that for a moment - see that whatever applies to CoD/Apoc/etc. applies to IA (otherwise you're creating clauses and making the rules less succinct) see how absurd it is, and see that the only other option is that IA is part of 40K, and, therefore, does not require permission as per its own rules.

I'm not blowing hot air either because you're not right. Imperial Armour states clearly that the rules are not optional. Pulling the old "Rulebook doesn't mention IA" falls apart the moment you mention Apoc, CoD and so on. You might go on to say (and have actually) that Apoc/CoD/etc. are different... different how? Again, you're creating new distinctions - out of thin air really - in order to prove an already thinning point. That's why Occam's point is called a RAZOR. It cuts through thin arguments.

But you know what. Razor bedamned - I will actually give this whole argument to you. By the rulebook, IA is completely 100% illegal.

So is CoD.

So is Apoc.

So is Planetstrike.

Afterall, I need the rulebooks permission to use them, and they don't give it.

Kanluwen wrote:So that invalidates the Elysian Detachment 99 list, the Krieg siege lists, or the Renegade PDF lists?

It doesn't invalidate them. If you and your opponent decide to play a game of 40k with IA supplements, then they're perfectly acceptable.

It's not about disallowing anything, it's about having open communication with your opponent, and being a good sportsman. The core rules for Warhammer 40k clearly define what is needed to play Warhammer 40k. Anything in addition to this is a supplement, and not part of Warhammer 40k. As you are using an additional supplement, it is simply a matter of communication with your opponent to ensure that they actually want to play Warhammer 40k + Supplement, instead of straight Warhammer 40k.

Then please, enlighten me with the quotes.

I have provided page numbers from the main rulebook that clearly define what is needed for a game of Warhammer 40k. There is no reason for me to type it all out as a quote, as we should all have access to the core rulebook.

How do you know you use the 40k rulebook to play 40k?

I'm reading those page numbers, and at no point does my copy of the rulebook state that IA/FW are opponent's permission, and since Codex > Rulebook, we go the supporting rules in IA2, which you have yet to refute with anything other than you think it's an invalid book.

H.B.M.C. wrote:By your logic then IA can never be used because the rulebook never specifically states that it can. Ditto for Apoc, CoD and Planetstrike for that matter.

Not at all. It's a supplement. If you want to use a supplement, there's nothing wrong with that at all. But you should ensure that your opponent is okay with playing Warhammer 40k + Supplement, instead of Warhammer 40k.

You wouldn't start playing 40k and start having buildings on the table take shots at your opponent without them being aware that you were playing Warhammer 40k + Planetstrike, would you? You wouldn't suddenly spring a Cities of Death strategem on them unless you had both agreed to play Warhammer 40k + Cities of Death would you?

So why would you bring in units from an IA supplement without making sure that your opponent was okay with playing Warhammer 40k + Imperial Armour?

Afterall, I need the rulebooks permission to use them, and they don't give it.

No, you need your opponent's permission.

Redbeard wrote:They're certainly not standard in any of the GW stores I've been in.

You've obviously never been in a GW Bunker, then, as not only do they sell them, they're actually out right next to the other 40K rule books/codecii. Seems pretty standard to me if they have dedicated spots like that. Also, the first 3 IA books before they went hard cover were actually sent out to FLGS's as wel as GW stores.

But then, you'll just come back saying something like "Bunkers aren't representative of the average GW store or your FLGS, so them carrying the IA books is irrelevant."

chaplaingrabthar wrote:I'm reading those page numbers, and at no point does my copy of the rulebook state that IA/FW are opponent's permission, and since Codex > Rulebook, we go the supporting rules in IA2, which you have yet to refute with anything other than you think it's an invalid book.

No, it doesn't say that they're opponent's permission. It defines what is needed in order to play Warhammer 40k. Codexes are included in that list. IA supplements are not. IA Supplements are exactly that, supplements to the main game. They're not part of the main game. And they're not codexes, so they don't trump the main rules.

Redbeard wrote:It's a supplement.

Ah, so you're arguing semantics then?

Understood.

In light of that I happily and humbly accept your concession.

Thanks for playing.

Redbeard wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:So that invalidates the Elysian Detachment 99 list, the Krieg siege lists, or the Renegade PDF lists?

It doesn't invalidate them. If you and your opponent decide to play a game of 40k with IA supplements, then they're perfectly acceptable.

It's not about disallowing anything, it's about having open communication with your opponent, and being a good sportsman. The core rules for Warhammer 40k clearly define what is needed to play Warhammer 40k. Anything in addition to this is a supplement, and not part of Warhammer 40k. As you are using an additional supplement, it is simply a matter of communication with your opponent to ensure that they actually want to play Warhammer 40k + Supplement, instead of straight Warhammer 40k.

Your brother's bad experience has apparently made you a cynic too.

If the person has the rules on hand, you'd also know that in IA Volume One, which details Vulture Gunships, Tarantulas, Valkyries, etc--it states that when you want to use a list with flyers to "be a good sportsman, and allow them to take Anti-Aircraft Mounts at a reduced points cost for vehicles that can take them".
So, not only are you taking overcosted(points wise) and fairly expensive models with a fairly expensive book for an army that is PURELY effective as a THEME, nowhere near being effective as an actual in-game unit--you even give your opponent the means to counter those expensive vehicles at a reduced points cost.

I guess that's being a terrible sportsman.

All rules discussions come down to semantics. I accept your concession as well.


At the end of the day, this issue is about being a good sport. It's about being open and communicative with your opponent. Whether it is required or not, you can be the kind of person who doesn't give a damn if their opponent has an enjoyable game, and who does whatever they believe they can get away with, or you can be the kind of person who talks to their opponent and makes sure that they understand what sort of game to expect.

I know which sort of person I am. I will ask my opponent's permission to use anything that's not part of the main game out of respect for them, their enjoyment of the game, and the time that they're going to spend playing a game of toy soldiers with me. Whether the rules technically demand this of me, I will do this, because it's the sportsmanlike thing to do.

I am advocating being a good sport. Not worrying about whether my opponent might refuse to let me use my toys, but rather, worrying about their experience in the game. Others here seem to advocate doing whatever they want without any regard for their opponent's feelings on the matter.

Platuan4th wrote:You've obviously never been in a GW Bunker, then, as not only do they sell them, they're actually out right next to the other 40K rule books/codecii. Seems pretty standard to me if they have dedicated spots like that. Also, the first 3 IA books before they went hard cover were actually sent out to FLGS's as wel as GW stores.

But then, you'll just come back saying something like "Bunkers aren't representative of the average GW store or your FLGS, so them carrying the IA books is irrelevant."

Well done! You've made your argument and then refuted it all by yourself in your own post. You could have done a little better by noting that there are only 4 bunkers in the US out of all the GW stores. Still, good job.

Arschbombe wrote:

Platuan4th wrote:You've obviously never been in a GW Bunker, then, as not only do they sell them, they're actually out right next to the other 40K rule books/codecii. Seems pretty standard to me if they have dedicated spots like that. Also, the first 3 IA books before they went hard cover were actually sent out to FLGS's as wel as GW stores.

But then, you'll just come back saying something like "Bunkers aren't representative of the average GW store or your FLGS, so them carrying the IA books is irrelevant."

Well done! You've made your argument and then refuted it all by yourself in your own post. You could have done a little better by noting that there are only 4 bunkers in the US out of all the GW stores. Still, good job.

Congratulations, you entirely missed the point.

Yes, there are only 4 bunkers, but they carry several things that other GW stores and several FLGS's don't carry. Are you honestly going to tell me that since I can't go into the "average" GW store and buy BFG/Epic/Battle of 5 Armies/etc.(which I can do in a Bunker but several GW stores don't carry in stock) that they're somehow less official?

Platuan4th wrote:
Yes, there are only 4 bunkers, but they carry several things that other GW stores and several FLGS's don't carry. Are you honestly going to tell me that since I can't go into the "average" GW store and buy BFG/Epic/Battle of 5 Armies/etc.(which I can do in a Bunker but several GW stores don't carry in stock) that they're somehow less official?

No, but I will point out that everything you mentioned has nothing to do with standard Warhammer 40k. The Bunkers carry a lot of products that are related to Warhammer 40k in the fluff, but that aren't part of the core game. Imperial Armour would be another example of these.

But Platuan4th, it works the same way for everything.

IA is a Supplement. Apoc and so on are Expansions. This makes them different and it means that IA cannot be used at all ever because it's not in the rulebook.

By the same token, GW Bunkers are not the same as GW stores, so they don't count. And because Bunkers sell IA, and Bunkers don't count, neither does GW.

Wow! Inventing reasons for things is fun. I should try this more often.

H.B.M.C. - He doesn't fear Occam's Razor, the Razor fears him!!!


Or we could just go with the far simpler explanation that it's a GW rulebook, written by GW, for use with GW games, explicitly says it does not require opponent's permission (or any more permission than any any other unit in the game blah blah blah etc.), and therefore you can use it, as intended, as written, without the need to invent reasons why it doesn't count or argue fething semantics over the difference between a supplement or an expansion.

Redbeard wrote:core game

He's invented another clause! My razor must be blunt today...