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.

Comintern wrote:Also, to those that wish they put some Playtesting into the FW Rules to make them more balanced. Im not entirely sure that GW does with the Codexs they release half the time. So if GW doesnt care about playtesting, why should FW? Just make the gak up as you go along.

A lot of people say stuff like this, but it's not true.

The difference between the DKoK list and any 5th Ed Codex is huge. The DKoK list is clearly based off the 5th Ed. IG Codex. Yet it takes only a cursory reading to see that the DKoK list is a mess, with many units nerfed horribly compared to their IG equivalent, while some other units are massivley buffed.*

The DKoK list reads like the sort of lists GW was putting out 10-15 years ago. That doesn't mean you can't have fun with it, but you really can't claim that it's the same quality as any other (modern) GW Codex.

*: By the way: A Codex mixing equal parts great units and terrible units isn't a balanced codex. GW learned this a long time ago. Forge World still hasn't learned this.

Gorkamorka wrote:
Yes, the game requires consent to begin with, as others have said. But I agree there are distinct levels of consent and rules involved here.

The distinct levels of consent are pure fiction. There is no difference in the official standing between the rule sets, just the perception. I do not assert levels of consent. It is an absolute, you consent or you don't; what varies is the rational. Many of the rationals hinge on the "validity" or the "overpowered" nature of FW rules, FW is valid so the first one just an excuse and not a valid explanation. Overpowered is subjective, first most have restrictions on their use or are significantly over priced, while others were written for 3rd edition and power creep simply makes them even weaker.

Gorkamorka wrote:
If someone asked you to play a "game of 40k" and you said "sure"... and then the person started putting down superheavies or planetstrike turrets or rolling from the battle missions book or something, would you continue without question? Or would you have expected an additional level of initial consent to play by special rules outside the norm, such as those from FW?
I know I would.

You show your unfamiliarity with much of the FW rules. Your example fails because the superheavies have had their rules moved to the Imperial Armor Apocalypse books which supercede their previous version, which FW now says is where they will support super heavies. So super heavies require you to play Apocalypse now. So you should object on those grounds not on the FW origin. Second, the turrets that you'd restrict to planet strike which aren't restricted by FW are relatively over priced, they cost as much as the vehicles that carry them normally but are immobile. So there is no advantage, if anything the player has imposed a disadvantage on themselves. This is often the case with FW items. The number of FW units and rule sets that are actually open for standard 40k use is relatively restricted from what you're imagining. Alot of things are ruled out by virtue of FW own rules.

Gorkamorka wrote:
The question, as has been said, really doesn't have an answer. It's entirely a case-by-case basis whether people will play you and your special models or if a particular TO at a particular tournament will allow them.
I know that if anyone wants to play with FW units against me, I read through the descriptions carefully and make a pre-game determination at that time... I don't just say 'No, never!' or 'Sure, any rule you can throw at me is always fine.'.
The poll really doesn't support that option, however.

The model is special, the unit is sometimes special. The rules are rarely special and most of the time are just copied and pasted at increased cost. FW is mainly for fluffy purposes and people who think otherwise have never read them.

The only valid arguement against them is a general unfamiliarity with their rules, and that should only be applicable in a tournament setting.

insaniak wrote:
I wonder if some part of the problem is simply people balking at the implication of it requiring 'permission'... which isn't entirely accurate.

Ultimately, asking:
- Hey, want to play a game? I have a Cadian army...
- Hey, want to play a game? I have an Ork army with a Forgeworld Mega Dread...
- Hey, want to play a game? I have an Elysian army from Imperial Armour...
- Hey, want to play a game? I have a home-brew Squat list...

...all amount to the same thing. It's not so much seeking your opponent's permission as simply coming to an agreement to play by the rules you (or they) want to use. The set-up process isn't (or shouldn't be) as simple as finding someone who looks like they play 40K, saying 'Hey, let's play' and starting to plonk models down on the board under the assumption that you're both expecting the same game.

'Hey let's play, I have a warhound titan'. I said sure, the next thing I know, I'm taking Strength D template hits on all my units and the game was over in 2 turns. Gee, that was fun. Not.

I know where my hesitancy comes from. There is no way that a person that doesn't play FW units can just look on their website and see the rules. Sure, the opponent can whip out their book (that costs $80 US) and show you the rules but that's completely different than saying, "Hey, I have a land raider." If you don't play Apoc or own any FW stuff, there's no way you know how void shields and structure points work.

Ok, that's an extreme example. You just have to think of it like this, there are two (2) people playing a game; ideally, they'll both have fun. Game minus fun = pointless.
My army being destroyed on turn 2 by fast moving blight drones = absence of fun (for me anyway). 1st turn, flat out = 3+ cover; its AV 12 or 13 if I recall so anything less than Strength 6 or 7 isn't going to do anything to it anyway. It's like a super landspeeder with a large blast weapon; a flying vindicator. No, not OP at all. It's a sweet-looking model but there's no place for it outside of Apoc or if I have my own FW stuff; like I said, I'll kitbash an Assault Ram and drop 5" melta templates after a 36" turbo-boost and we'll see who cries.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Your only "proof" that FW wasnt legal was a reference to the rulebook stating you select armies from codexes; you were then asked to prove which books that applies to and you diverted that with a non answer.

If you are claiming that the "use codex" rule is the only applicable rule to determine amy legality then you *do* uphold that the BA PDF is still legal, as that is the logical conclusion of your argument.

Adding more weight to your argument being a flawed one, no?

Mahmatori - incorrect argument as the IA books state they can be used in games of regular 40k as a " normal" book- go into quite a lot of detail, really, stating they have *exactly* the same weight as a standard codex.

SO you are undermined by GW themselves stating you are wrong....

It really doesn't really matter how much effort or detail they go into stating this or that. It's still a separate product, a separate rule set. If I don't want to play with those rules, am I going to have to go through an argument with you (in a casual game) that they are rules I am unprepared for, dislike, or may not even have prior knowledge about?

And keep in mind, I'm not arguing that the official RAW states that this or that is compatible or not, but rather how one should approach game rules in general. They are all subject to mutual agreement. Essentially accepting rules based on their "proximity" to the core rule book (BRB). It's a sort of tolerance level.

Quickly perusing the Forgeworld site, one thing stands out to me. Many of the IA books contain the logo "Warhammer 40,000 Expansion". This in itself actually does give fuel to the argument "sure, it might be official, but I don't feel like playing an expansion".

insaniak wrote:
I wonder if some part of the problem is simply people balking at the implication of it requiring 'permission'... which isn't entirely accurate.

Ultimately, asking:
- Hey, want to play a game? I have a Cadian army...
- Hey, want to play a game? I have an Ork army with a Forgeworld Mega Dread...

...all amount to the same thing.

They don't, which is the entire distinction I was talking about, and my entire point. You yourself made the distinction in your list... requiring additional permissions or agreements for the special cases, like FW units.
Someone agreeing to face an opponent saying "I have an ork army" and then facing something like a megadread is the core issue of the thread, once you progress beyond "Every game ever is an agreement" which is a nonstarter.

Saying 'It should all be taken care of before the game starts so these problems shouldn't exist in game' really is a given already, so I'm not sure why everyone keeps belaboring it when talking about other involved issues or issues within that pre-game discussion, which is where the problems actually lie.

aka_mythos wrote:
You show your unfamiliarity with much of the FW rules. Your example fails because...

I was making a point based on them all being separate and special cases... which you proceed to point out by listing them more specifically. And then brought balance arguments into play for some reason, despite me never even alluding to them. I think you showed your unfamiliarity with my post, more than anything.

The fact that 76% of poll-ees claim that the FW rules require additional opponents consent (above the normal level of codex agreement) and that many will simply refuse to play with them rather supports the idea that they're an additional case.

agnosto wrote:'Hey let's play, I have a warhound titan'. I said sure, the next thing I know, I'm taking Strength D template hits on all my units and the game was over in 2 turns. Gee, that was fun. Not.

So you know for next time.

As an aside, we ran a series of games a few years back with 1000-point armies up against Angrath (the 888-point FW Bloodthirster)... he slaughtered them all, but the games were a heck of a lot of fun.

I know where my hesitancy comes from. There is no way that a person that doesn't play FW units can just look on their website and see the rules.

And that's different to the rest of the 40K rules how, exactly?

Sure, the opponent can whip out their book (that costs $80 US) and show you the rules but that's completely different than saying, "Hey, I have a land raider." If you don't play Apoc or own any FW stuff, there's no way you know how void shields and structure points work.

And if you don't play Blood Angels, you don't necessarily know their rules either. So long as the other player has the rules, and you can look at them if you need to, I'm honestly not seeing the difference.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Gorkamorka wrote:You yourself made the distinction in your list... requiring additional permissions or agreements for the special cases, like FW units.

The distinction I was making was that you're not so much seeking 'permission' as coming to an agreement to play a game.

It's the permission thing that people are getting hooked up on, and what I was trying to point out was that 'seeking permission' doesn't actually happen in the real world.

insaniak wrote:
The distinction I was making was that you're not so much seeking 'permission' as coming to an agreement to play a game.

It's the permission thing that people are getting hooked up on, and what I was trying to point out was that 'seeking permission' doesn't actually happen in the real world.

Asking your opponent if he would like to play a game with you in which you used FW miniatures and asking your opponent if you can use FW miniatures in a game with him are functionally identical actions, from the perspective of playing a FW-inclusive game with him. I really don't see a difference.

insaniak wrote:So you know for next time.

As an aside, we ran a series of games a few years back with 1000-point armies up against Angrath (the 888-point FW Bloodthirster)... he slaughtered them all, but the games were a heck of a lot of fun.

And that's different to the rest of the 40K rules how, exactly?

And if you don't play Blood Angels, you don't necessarily know their rules either. So long as the other player has the rules, and you can look at them if you need to, I'm honestly not seeing the difference.
quote]


I have one answer for all of these. I, like most people that play in my FLGS, own the rulebook and at least one codex. What the rulebook does is it gives you a taste of all the armies. I can look towards the back of the book and see what weapons and equipment all the other armies have available to them. By injecting FW units, you are going outside of what is general knowledge and entering an esoteric realm where you have to have copious amounts of money to know what everything does. FW does not make the statlines for their models available to a casual person that has no interest in buying the model. What is in fact happening is that you are playing upon my ignorance of these special rules.

I'll take your example, Blood Angels (BA). BA are a marine chapter. Anyone that owns a rulebook has a general idea of what to expect when they play BA, barring the recent addition of a couple of units. FW models break this comfortable understanding of the game because FW makes it their mission to take away every weakness that an army has; this is done so that people want to buy their models and so they can continue to charge a premium for them.

I could just as easily make up my own units and ask my opponents to play against them; kitbash something together and field it. The point here is that if it's not a part of the core game, it should not just be arbitrarily thrown against someone; that's not kosher IMHO. If GW wanted these things to be a part of the game and be used regularly, they should release codex and rules supplements for general consumption.

Agnosto - your last claim is complete and UTTER bull.

FW take away every weakness of an army? REALLY? That's your argument?

Brilliant. I will take the awesome servants of slaughter list...no, wait, thats a terrible army list. Or DKoK. Etc.

FW take away every weakness of an army? REALLY? That's your argument?

LOL, sorry, i had to.
So, DKoK have no weakness? they are like basic guard, but with no melta vets, flyers, or anything with a high volume of hitting power (well, for a decent points cost anyway)



TBH, im happy to play against FW units aslong as they have the rules so i can see them.
If they dont have the rules, i wont play since i know nothing about said units.
With them though, im up for a laugh, makes it more interesting to see new stuff too.

I do draw the line at apoc style things though (unless we are playing apoc)
I dont mind the odd baneblade, but a reaver is a bit of a piss take in smaller games. (i may still play though, could be amusing)




All in all though, i see no reason why FW units / armies would really need the permission from another player.
They are legal citadel rules, as are the codex's.





Also, about the blight drone complaint - So its basically a DE ravenger then? (but with a better looking model)

Insaniak, trying to compare a codex to IA book, as far as needing to buy it to see the rules isnt really a good comparison at all.

If every gw store stocked every imperial armour on the same level as codices that would be true.

You can always go pick up a codex and leaf through it, when gw shops and flgs start stocking imperial armour that point would be valid.

Not to mention 80$ a book and you need 8 of them, + exchange rate and heavy shipping.

Except Imperial Armour books are exactly the same legality for gameplay as any Codex.

Round and round and round we go.

۞ Jack ۞ wrote:So, DKoK have no weakness? they are like basic guard, but with no melta vets, flyers, or anything with a high volume of hitting power (well, for a decent points cost anyway)

For what it's worth, I'm pretty sure a DKoK list can absolutely dominate any tournament that posts the missions in advance, provided the missions all allow you the option to start on the board. For that reason, I think DKoK would have completely dominated the 'Ard Boyz prelim round, even if Mission 3 only counted vehicles as 1 KP.

If you know you won't be playing Dawn of War, the Heavy Mortar Battery is the best unit in Warhammer 40,000.* It's printed directly below the Grenadier Squad which is a serious candidate for the worst unit in Warhammer 40,000.**


*: Unless another FW unit is even more absurdly broken.

**: Once again, excluding the other terrible FW units.

The expansion books say they can be used in 40k.
Sure. Ok.

My 4e Tyranid codex says IT can be used in 40k also.

That would take permission to use in a 5e game, regardless--as it is not normal any longer.


I know people that use both IA and old codexes, fortunately they are polite and used to playing 40k so they ask about using them, explicitely.


ymmv

For what it's worth, I'm pretty sure a DKoK list can absolutely dominate any tournament that posts the missions in advance, provided the missions all allow you the option to start on the board. For that reason, I think DKoK would have completely dominated the 'Ard Boyz prelim round, even if Mission 3 only counted vehicles as 1 KP.

So you are basing en entire tournament winning idea, all on a single unit?
I think maybe you should go through the DKoK list and take a look at all of the units and options.
Granted, they have a few decent units (funnily enough, as do all armies)
But alot of thier units are variants or variations of the guard dex, and some are weaker than the basic guard.

I would consider it to be "opponent's consent" in a manner different from that of codices, not because Games Workshop sees it that way, but because the players do, and they're the ones who ultimately determine what is or isn't acceptable (barring tournaments). You could think of it as being sort of a "common law" concept.

I would, however, be willing to play a game against units from Forgeworld most of the time. Assuming I had a chance to read through their rules first, of course.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

kirsanth wrote:The expansion books say they can be used in 40k.
Sure. Ok.

My 4e Tyranid codex says IT can be used in 40k also.

That would take permission to use in a 5e game, regardless--as it is not normal any longer.


I know people that use both IA and old codexes, fortunately they are polite and used to playing 40k so they ask about using them, explicitely.

You know, I really should consider just bringing out my Chaos army with their 3rd Ed codex.

۞ Jack ۞ wrote:So you are basing en entire tournament winning idea, all on a single unit?

It's just an example. But it's a good example.

Another good example is the Heavy Ordinance Battery. You know how many IG players have been fielding Medusas? Paying 135 points for a 36" range direct fire gun? Well, the DKoK Medusa costs 100 points. It can fire directly or indirectly with a range of 120". And it can get a Trojan for free, which can help screen the vehicle.

DKoK artilery is super cheap, and can spread across both Elites and Heavy Support slots, with discount 3x Lascannon squads (or Hades breaching drills) as troops. It's the return of the SAFH.

kill dem stunties wrote:Insaniak, trying to compare a codex to IA book, as far as needing to buy it to see the rules isnt really a good comparison at all.

You don't need to buy it to see the rules. Your opponent should have a copy if he is using rules from it.

Gorkamorka wrote:

aka_mythos wrote:
You show your unfamiliarity with much of the FW rules. Your example fails because...

I was making a point based on them all being separate and special cases... which you proceed to point out by listing them more specifically. And then brought balance arguments into play for some reason, despite me never even alluding to them. I think you showed your unfamiliarity with my post, more than anything.

Its semantics . You're taking what you said and trying to make the use of FW something more substantial than just playing Apocalype or even planet strike. But anyone familiar with the FW rules, knows that they aren't even as dramatic as those expansions, unless you use models now intended for those expansions.

You said:

Gorkamorka wrote:
If someone asked you to play a "game of 40k" and you said "sure"... and then the person started putting down superheavies or planetstrike turrets or rolling from the battle missions book or something, would you continue without question? Or would you have expected an additional level of initial consent to play by special rules outside the norm, such as those from FW?

You're adding a superflous qualifier to the determination on playing 40k that isn't apparent. As dramatic as you're making it out to be it is in fact less drastic than playing Planetstrike and Apocalypse.

There is only one level of consent. You consent to play 40k or you consent to play Planetstrike or Apocalypse. There is no "levels" because they are each distinct entities. The fact is FW rules are made to be a part of all three, so it is not a matter of consent as much a matter of rejection. Because FW is in fact a part of 40k, it is a harsher action then the simple walking away due to non-agreement in not consenting, it is rejection. It is an active action on the part of the person who refuses to allow you to use FW models.

Its really no different than someone saying special characters are not allowed; that they don't play against special characters. FW models are just less significant.

Gorkamorka wrote:
The fact that 76% of poll-ees claim...

What is right is not always popular. Many bad idea have been popular.... popular sentiment doesn't mean something is correct.

I don't like "flexible statistics" and their interpretation. I think they should stand as they're written above: "64% believe... 22% believe... etc" You pull 76% as those who "consent"... I'd say 86% believe FW should be allowed. Neither of which really represent the sentiments as purely as the uninterpreted stats.

The prejudice against FW rules and models come from a lack of familiarity with the rules. They give no advantage, mostly disadvantage. They have defined use for defined game expansions. They are part of 40k. It defies the intent of the games designer to reject their use. As far as I can tell its some sort of Fundamentalism that rejects it based on authorship. So what is the point of contention that drives rejection?

I didnt want to continue the debate , but by now its very very clear , that the 2 sides are actually debating on completely different things.

Having opponent's consent to using FW items are NO WAY the same as the usual examples given of "well you need consent to play anything in the first place"
Its like comparing apple to oranges.

The game 40k we play , the codice we use vs FW IA , there is no doubt many units in IA are not designed for normal 40k games. aka the Titan example mentioned by Agnosto.
hence the debate exists.

Its like asking if we are allowed to use codex from many editions ago , given the reasoning from some of you , you would say sure anything goes , but thats like monkey flinging poo can go too.
The point is , amusement aside , how would you like someone to play against you every time using out dated codice? I bet after the first few times , your opponents sense of amusement will be gone.

The point of example is , the "expired" codice's design is no longer able to fit in the loop of the current version of the game. Hence amusement aside , i dare anyone to start playing with
old edition codice and never use current edition codice again , and we'll see how serious people takes you.

Now IA , they are designed to play against other IA units , so i want to see people actually saying " Using Titan in normal 40k games are fine and perfectly balanced "
and bring their titan every game and kill every opponent every first of their turn. And we'll begin to see , "wow perhaps IA is really made for battling other IA units instead of in normal games"

Hence , the debate the 2 sides are going at , are actually completely different.

( disclaimer , as badly written as ^ is , i hope its enough to convey what im trying so say )

It'll all come down to the question "how much information about your army are you expected to present in your summary in a pick-up or friendly game?" Yes, that's a mouthful, but your summary shouldn't be.

Examine "Let's play Warhammer 40k, I've got an Ork army."
This let's your opponent know, while not exact, that you'll play the latest edition Warhammer available to you and that you've got a Codex: Orks (latest ed.) army. This is basic communication, spoken language is imprecise, so you as a speaker must anticipate what the recipient will interpret. If you plonk down an IA unit after saying that, someone who's unfamiliar with IA will say "Hey! You never said anything about having units with structure points!". Someone who's familiar with IA might react negatively as well on different grounds, who knows?

That's more or less all this is about. In a tournament you get the rule sources you can expect presented to you, so no use whining. Inform your opponent in friendly or pick up games ahead of time so they can prepare. Doesn't matter what the ink in the expensive book says.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Agnosto - your last claim is complete and UTTER bull.

FW take away every weakness of an army? REALLY? That's your argument?

Brilliant. I will take the awesome servants of slaughter list...no, wait, thats a terrible army list. Or DKoK. Etc.

Chill dude; it's a conversation, not me calling your mother names. We're all expressing our opinions here, my opinion is just as valid as yours.

I have 0 experience vs. complete FW lists; I was referring to the creation of units (keyword, not list, not army) that mitigates known weaknesses in existing 40k armies. Examples: A flying vindicator (Blight Drone) that's able to drop large blast templates on the 1st turn. Close support battlesuits for Tau with increased toughness, higher volume of fire and the ability to escape close combat. More recently, the assault ram which is immune to the most common way tanks are destroyed in this version, melta, and can drop 5" melta blast templates and can carry 10 termies and can turbo 36 inches and has a cool 1-shot weapon and has a teleport homer and (ad infinatum)... all for less points than a land raider...

I know it's the internet, I know people like extremes on this board; I was explaining my thoughts and the reasons why I don't like FW units in game (thus the IMHO placed in my summation; sorry if you didn't notice that). We all know the amount of playtesting that GW does (nearly nil), I don't imagine FW does any more. I guess I'm going to have to steal from kirsanth and put "ymmv" at the end of my posts so people don't choke on their tongues and die trying to call BS on my every OPINION. /rant

LunaHound wrote:
The game 40k we play , the codice we use vs FW IA , there is no doubt many units in IA are not designed for normal 40k games. aka the Titan example mentioned by Agnosto.
hence the debate exists.
...
Now IA , they are designed to play against other IA units , so i want to see people actually saying " Using Titan in normal 40k games are fine and perfectly balanced "
and bring their titan every game and kill every opponent every first of their turn. And we'll begin to see , "wow perhaps IA is really made for battling other IA units instead of in normal games"

One of things I've been getting at though is that the FW rules have moved on. While there might be some ambiguity from someone pulling out an older IA book, the newer ones have made clear the fact that certain units are meant for Apocalypse, in the case of titans. So the arguement that inappropriate use is possible is defunct.

No one asserts that in a basic 40k game FW super heavies are an option, even in the older rules they're not. While in the newer rules superheavies are restricted almost exclusively to the realm of Apocalypse games.

This only really leaves the alternate lists and few add-on (non-superheavy) units for each army, that FW has invented. In almost every instance these rules exist in the game and are merely copy and pasted to a new unit, or rearranged for a list. Often these result in added point costs that aren't balanced to the codex and thus end up over priced. The perception that it can be used to gain a significant advantage is thus also mistaken.

To the people who object to FW models and rules, I would like to know (aside from titans and superheavies) what specific units do you actually object to?

LunaHound wrote:
...Its like asking if we are allowed to use codex from many editions ago...

Only to a degree, unlike old codices units are not superceded in IA unless they specifically appear in revised form. Where your analogy is right is that using FW units puts you at a disadvantage on par with playing an old codex that hasn't seen the benefits of power creep. FW=overpriced units.

Agnosto - then being more precise would have been better.

You are also slightly wrong on your comparison; the blight drone is a flying LR - the large blast is battle cannon scale, NOT vindicator. You also conveniently ignore that given Daemons deepstrike that "turn 1" they can already do this with existing units, and if you remember BA now have fast vindicators that can do it even better...

I also explained why you argument was, frankly, gak - because it is. There are numerically an insignificant amount of the total units that are worth taking vs stuff that just looks cool. Humans being what they are, the most common units you see are unfortunately those that have some utility, as opposed to the utter gak (i have the exception in that i looooove macharius vulcans...) that is the vast majority.

Mahtamori - the minute you find a place in the FOC for a stompa, you should expect to see it. Oh wait, it doesnt HAVE a place in the FOC, therefore saying "can we have a game of 40k" already excludes all titans and super heavies....so your argument is moot.

I've never played in a match with anyone using FW models. I probably wouldn't have too much issue with players using the models as long as they have no issues displaying the rules for me.

Although I do have to agree with Agnosto that the Caestus Assault Ram is a rediculous unit for it's cost.

http://www.forgeworld.co.uk/Downloads/Product/PDF/c/caestus.pdf

aka_mythos wrote: Only to a degree, unlike old codices units are not superceded in IA unless they specifically appear in revised form.

I recall FW rules saying that new FW rules invalidate old FW rules, but I do not see anything like that in the main rules. Page number for old units being invalidated?

Assuming of course that you use the codex they came from--since the book allows itself to be used.

I just meant that some of the IA books rewrote the rules for a number of units that had appeared in previously IA books. That FW has stated in such instances the newer rules are the official ones.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

hamsterwheel wrote:I've never played in a match with anyone using FW models. I probably wouldn't have too much issue with players using the models as long as they have no issues displaying the rules for me.

Although I do have to agree with Agnosto that the Caestus Assault Ram is a rediculous unit for it's cost.

http://www.forgeworld.co.uk/Downloads/Product/PDF/c/caestus.pdf

I agree, the Caestus at its 245pts it is underpriced. Fortunately those are just expermental rules, most times FW will revise them before they make it to an IA book and become official. Experimental rules aren't formally official, they're meant to generate feedback.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Agnosto - then being more precise would have been better.

You are also slightly wrong on your comparison; the blight drone is a flying LR - the large blast is battle cannon scale, NOT vindicator. You also conveniently ignore that given Daemons deepstrike that "turn 1" they can already do this with existing units, and if you remember BA now have fast vindicators that can do it even better...

I also explained why you argument was, frankly, gak - because it is. There are numerically an insignificant amount of the total units that are worth taking vs stuff that just looks cool. Humans being what they are, the most common units you see are unfortunately those that have some utility, as opposed to the utter gak (i have the exception in that i looooove macharius vulcans...) that is the vast majority.

So adding more shooting to an army that deepstrikes behind your lines isn't reducing negatives? It deepstrikes, kills a unit and then gets shot up, maybe. I'm not saying it's uber powerful or anything it just adds something that the army is missing, a vindicator [opinion] (and a flying one at that). Yeah, fast vindicators and deep striking land raiders were a bad idea (opinion).

You're thinking that I'm arguing where I'm just presenting my opinion so it doesn't matter if the argument is "gak" because I'm not arguing, I just don't like FW units in regular games. Codex power creep is bad enough (in my opinion) but then you get the FW units that can further break the game (in my opinion). I think that many people will agree (again, opinion) when I say that the game isn't all that well balanced to begin with but then units get added that were never part of the original "plan" which causes further imbalance (opinion).

FW makes some very nice looking models but the units themselves have no place in a regular game (opinion).

To be honest, i think the whole "using a titan in a normal game" thing isnt much if an argument here anyway.

Its an apoc or special even unit, not something you take in regular 2,000 games.
DKoK and ele's are the main supporting to the argument, since they are a full list, rather than a single super unit.

Out of curiosity, does it say in IA? (whatever number) that "A reaver titan uses a heavy support space" or does it list it as a heavy support choice?

If so, ill leave this argument here.


However, i dont own any IA books, but im sure it doesent.


DKoK have an army structure, simply to make them a legal list to use, rather than a super unit (i use said term in general for something without a unit selection type, as in general they tend to be massive, and too fething strong for your average game)

But yea, thats my whole point
If it has a list structure or says it takes up a single (or multiple) "X" selection, then i see no problem.
Its only un structured units that i cant really see in basic games.

Also, new ork stuff states that it can be used in a 40k ork army, taking up a "X" slot, for "X" amount of points.

Consent is key, the same consent that you need for every TTMG game you wish to play with any other individual.

Even if my opponent had a codex legal army modelled exclusively with GW product, carried in a GW carrying case within a GW store etc I would not have to play a game with them.

FW is part of GW. FW create miniatures and rules to work within established GW game systems BUT not everyone has as easy access to the rulesets from IA book as, say, codex release.