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.

It's most likely fear of the unknown.

rockerbikie wrote:It's most likely fear of the unknown.

Nah. Quite the opposite. Thorough familiarity with the inferiority of FW stuff. Also, their humour-deprived, overly pretentious neckbeard-fluff sure doesn't help.

Grind that axe a little more...

IcedAnimals wrote:@ouze I am not attempting to insult anyone personally. Nor do I care if they disagree with me. Some people have very valid reasons why they feel forgeworld stuff should not be allowed. But once again "I can't have it so you can't either" is a very childish and selfish reason.

Do you understand you're simultaneously saying you're not trying to insult anyone personally, while calling the people who disagree with you childish? How exactly do you reconcile that in your head as you type it?

Anyway, let me try an analogy, although analogies are always suspect. Lets say you and your friend are having drawing contests with a coloring book and crayons, each from your local store (faction). Your store's box of crayons has 12 colors. Your friend's box has 64 colors. Who is more likely to produce better work? Obviously, the person who is the better artist is more likely to produce better work. However, assuming you're both on an even keel, can you honest say that the person who has significantly more options available to them has strategies and abilities and synergy available that you simply do not?

I don't really have much desire to spend any more time carrying the banner for a cause I don't particularly believe in, as I literally type this in between breaks painting a Kill Bursta. I'd like to see FW allowed all over the place and I don't see a problem with their rules. That being said, I'm willing to assume good faith in the people who don't agree with that stance, because I think their argument has at least some legitimacy, and I don't find it necessary to belittle them to not wish to play a game of chess in which they perceive they only get pawns.

The only hate I have for Forgeworld is the quality of editing/QC of their books.

Do they actually bother to proofread before printing?

That said:
Too much Imperial Guard/Marine stuff from Forgeworld is the only complaint I have. I understand why, but it creates a big imbalance!

Give me more Eldar goodies.

Ouze wrote:

Anyway, let me try an analogy, although analogies are always suspect. Lets say you and your friend are having drawing contests with a coloring book and crayons, each from your local store (faction). Your store's box of crayons has 12 colors. Your friend's box has 64 colors. Who is more likely to produce better work? Obviously, the person who is the better artist is more likely to produce better work. However, assuming you're both on an even keel, can you honest say that the person who has significantly more options available to them has strategies and abilities and synergy available that you simply do not?

Surely it depends though if those extra crayons are all sickly shades of brown, with perhaps some putrid-coloured green? There is a kind of nice blue in there, but it costs $300 so he probably won't use it.

We have a long standing rule in our club (which plays exclusive blind matches, you find out who you play after every gets their lists out). You can have 1 Apocalypse or 1 IA unit in any list. Provided: you own the model, you have the rulebook with you. If its a Super Heavy, each structure point or shield takes a Heavy FoC spot. If you use a formation, each unit takes its normal spot in the FoC.

So far, we've found that if anything, the FW and Apoc stuff is not game changing. Initially everyone took Baneblades, Skullhammers, etc, but quickly found it was too many points in one place... and no one with a super heavy has won a match yet, and one unit of Shadow Specters or Commander Culn running around really didn't change anything.

I agree with the consensus in this thread, people freaking out about FW stuff just can't stand the shattering of the munkin list they're running. Just like SW, BA, GK, etc all being unbeatable and broken when they first came out... but weren't

Lobukia wrote:
I agree with the consensus in this thread, people freaking out about FW stuff just can't stand the shattering of the munkin list they're running. Just like SW, BA, GK, etc all being unbeatable and broken when they first came out... but weren't

How is that a consensus? It is the rather condescending consensus adopted in this thread exclusively by people who like/use FW about other people who do not like/use FW (which, as these things runs, conveniently paints the former group in a good, the latter in a bad light). No poster who actually spoke out against FW has agreed with this in even the vaguest form. Not a single person has stepped forth and agreed that this is the reason they personally do not opt for or use FW.

You will keep fighting windmills if you continue to delude yourself that FW is rejected because individual units or army lists are considered overpowered (pretty much everone in this thread has said that this was not the case) or that FW is simply not/badly understood (again, I cannot find evidence for this in any post of anybody actually posting reasons here that speak against FW).

The sheer amout of reality denial FW-proponents put into this, even if the evidence is there to read, right in front of their noses, is just staggering.

Honestly, stuff like the reads like a 19th century "White Man's Burden Argument": bigots, who would like to see themselves as enlightened benefactors that are taking on themselves the "burden" of dragging the savages to a better place for their own good, rather than even considering "other opinions" on open and equal terms.

I'd like to put it out there that Forgeworld makes more than just super-heavies.

AegisGrimm wrote:I'd like to put it out there that Forgeworld makes more than just super-heavies.

I don't think anybody has yet to disagree with that.

But yet that's what all the freaking out seems to be based on.

Disclaimer: I don't use FW stuff and neither does anyone in my gaming circles.

But the argument that more options increases automatically power of an army is not actually 100% correct.
It depends on three things:
1) Are the new options overcosted, balanced or undercosted.
2) Does the codex have "better" units in the same FOC slot already.
3) Do the new options fill a weak spot in the codex.

For example, number 1 is pretty easy to point out:
Having grey hunters on other marine codexes at 16 ppm would be horrible. But being able to take them at 32 ppm wouldn't be an issue, because every marine codex has better options at that price range. => Overcosted options don't increase army power level.

Balanced units that already have equal/better units in their respective FOC in codex don't usually cause that many issues either.

I think the main issues come from units, that are either undercosted and/or fill role that is generally weak in codex.

General feeling seems to be that FW has some hugely undercosted and imbalanced units, large amount of slightly overcosted units and some balanced ones.
But players being players, I'd assume that people mostly want to use the units from the first category and the "fluffy" or "fun" choices coming from second and third category are rare.

AegisGrimm wrote:But yet that's what all the freaking out seems to be based on.

Not in my experience. Not by a long shot. Superheavies are, I believe, the least controversial stuff FW makes by far.

Seriously? We are seriously debating this?

Oh... wait, it's the internet...

How hard is it as an individual, to buy forgeworld models as you see fit, and then turn up to a game (any game) and inquire to your good man or woman across the table...

"why sir/madam, would you mind if i used this unit?"

If yes, play on.

If no, swap it out, or play someone else. Even (shock-horror), play 'counts as'.

IMHO It's irrelevant if it's overpowered/underpowered/cheap/nasty/expensive/whatever. It's YOUR choice to buy the models you like. It's your OPPONENTS choice to decide whether they play you or not because of it.

snowman40k wrote:Seriously? We are seriously debating this?

Oh... wait, it's the internet...

How hard is it as an individual, to buy forgeworld models as you see fit, and then turn up to a game (any game) and inquire to your good man or woman across the table...

"why sir/madam, would you mind if i used this unit?"

If yes, play on.

If no, swap it out, or play someone else. Even (shock-horror), play 'counts as'.

IMHO It's irrelevant if it's overpowered/underpowered/cheap/nasty/expensive/whatever. It's YOUR choice to buy the models you like. It's your OPPONENTS choice to decide whether they play you or not because of it.

/thread

Zweischneid wrote:

Lobukia wrote:
I agree with the consensus in this thread, people freaking out about FW stuff just can't stand the shattering of the munkin list they're running. Just like SW, BA, GK, etc all being unbeatable and broken when they first came out... but weren't

How is that a consensus? It is the rather condescending consensus adopted in this thread exclusively by people who like/use FW about other people who do not like/use FW (which, as these things runs, conveniently paints the former group in a good, the latter in a bad light). No poster who actually spoke out against FW has agreed with this in even the vaguest form. Not a single person has stepped forth and agreed that this is the reason they personally do not opt for or use FW.

You will keep fighting windmills if you continue to delude yourself that FW is rejected because individual units or army lists are considered overpowered (pretty much everone in this thread has said that this was not the case) or that FW is simply not/badly understood (again, I cannot find evidence for this in any post of anybody actually posting reasons here that speak against FW).

The sheer amout of reality denial FW-proponents put into this, even if the evidence is there to read, right in front of their noses, is just staggering.

Honestly, stuff like the reads like a 19th century "White Man's Burden Argument": bigots, who would like to see themselves as enlightened benefactors that are taking on themselves the "burden" of dragging the savages to a better place for their own good, rather than even considering "other opinions" on open and equal terms.

Wow... I hit a nerve. Page one: 7 comments on FW not being used because people were ignorant of how to counter it, unexposed to the unit, or worried FW would make them lose (not including the OPs referance to the same). Scared of the unknown some said. Another 2 or 3 posts along those lines in response to similar comments. Then another 8 posts along the same lines on page 2, with at least 2 posts from people who clearly overestimate the impact FW lists have on the game. Seemed to me, that several people in this thread felt that others in their local scene did not like FW because the didn't understand it. In my local scene, we made a nice rule that has shown FW to hardly be game breaking... seemed relevant to the discussion, thought I'd post it.

I made the comparison to how people freak out about new codices, because its the same thing (IMO). Half of the unbeatable, OP units in each new codex, turn out to be easily manageable and not that bad. Its my rather well informed opinion that both reactions can and often do stem from ignorance of the "new" or FW unit and an overestimation of its effect on gameplay (I watch about 6 games of 40k a week, and frequent two FLGSs besides my own club). Almost without exception, if someone doesn't like FW stuff, its because they think its OP. I'm sorry if you don't like that reason or if its not your reason, but it is many others' reason. Just is. I'm all for people being able to buy and use a greater variety of models for their games, you clearly aren't. Could you maybe then enlighten us as to why you do not like GW owned products in your games so that we can see the other reasons people don't like FW. I am genuinely sorry if I oppressed your opinion, marginalized your point of view, or made you feel like I was attacking your worth as an individual.

Word of warning: opinions are often expressed on the old interweb these days. Opinions about toy soldier games and which toy soldiers make sense on the table, don't require a soap box rant that ends in people not agreeing with you being similar to 19th century bigots. Simply, Wow!

I'd gladly concede everything I said is wrong and move on not caring... maybe I did overstate others' opinions... not worth the worry. You, sir have a nice day and do something relaxing for yourself.

I really need to subscribe to one of these threads so I don't have to search for my answer everytime this comes up.

Our group uses Forge World rules and models in normal games. We have chosen NOT to use the Lucious Pattern Drop Pod outside of Apoc games. Otherwise, any non-flier and non-super heavy is allowed in standard games.

We like it, we have fun with it, and we'll continue to play this way.

Like any suppliment, Planet Strike, Cities of Death, Apocalypse, and the Battle Missions book, you and your opponent should agree on the type of game you're going to play. If one side really doesn't want to play against FW rules, then play without them. If you don't want to play without them, then move on and find another player. Don't try to force your way of playing on others, or let them force something on you that you're not comfortable with.

Have fun and all of that.

Lobukia wrote:
Wow... I hit a nerve. Page one: 7 comments on FW not being used because people were ignorant of how to counter it, unexposed to the unit, or worried FW would make them lose (not including the OPs referance to the same). Scared of the unknown some said.

I cannot find them. Maybe I am just blind, but there isn't a single post on page one with someone saying something along the lines of "I do not know FW, I thus deny them to others out of fear of losing". Every single post that raises this argument, without exception, is written by a "FW-fan" who makes this sort of condescending "mind-reading" about people he encountered, presuming this to be the reason, just as you did. Which bears pointing out I believe.

Then another 8 posts along the same lines on page 2, with at least 2 posts from people who clearly overestimate the impact FW lists have on the game.

When it has been said, time and again, that "the impact of FW lists on the game" in an advantage/disadvantage for winning sense isn't a major reason for passing up on FW. Windmills.

Lobukia wrote:
In my local scene, we made a nice rule that has shown FW to hardly be game breaking... seemed relevant to the discussion, thought I'd post it.

That is commendable. But you sadly draw the wrong conclusions. Rather than finding that, as you did, other local scenes should be free to find their rules to best enjoy the game, you deduce from it that FW cannot be "reasonably" rejected because "your group's" experience has provided the proof of sorts. That's what I critizised; your assumption of having taken the "burden" of finding how the game is the most fun from other people, rather than letting others find their own "fun" in each their own way.

Lobukia wrote:
I made the comparison to how people freak out about new codices, because its the same thing (IMO). Half of the unbeatable, OP units in each new codex, turn out to be easily manageable and not that bad.

Again, windmills. It's not the same, because lack of familiarity or "unbeatable" isn't the issue in the first place (except for pro-FW-posters who keep claiming it is in evident denial of reality).

Lobukia wrote:

Its my rather well informed opinion that both reactions can and often do stem from ignorance of the "new" or FW unit and an overestimation of its effect on gameplay (I watch about 6 games of 40k a week, and frequent two FLGSs besides my own club). Almost without exception, if someone doesn't like FW stuff, its because they think its OP. I'm sorry if you don't like that reason or if its not your reason, but it is many others' reason.

You are right. I don't like your reasons. But it has nothing to do with the power of FW stuff, as said many, many times.

Lobukia wrote:
I'm all for people being able to buy and use a greater variety of models for their games, you clearly aren't.

I am all for people playing the game in ways that they have the most fun, you clearly aren't.

Besides, if "greater variety of models" is the sole goal, why stop at FW? Why not add some fantasy regiments and characters? Why not include Warmachine? Some infinity stuff? Random homemade stuff? Just throw it all in and lets throw some dice?

Do you truly see no "line" where the inclusion of "more, no matter what, just for the sake of "more", would have diminishing returns, even detrimental effects overall? None at all?

Steelmage99 wrote:
That is just odd. If a Forgeworld unit in a Forgeworld book is said to be "approved", surely that means that Forgeworld says so, not GW

If you look at the actual book and read the disclaimer you will see that the GW logo is on the book.
In the copyright notice/disclaimer at the beginning of the book you will realizing that Forgeworld is only the publisher. Images, names, rules and each and every word in there is property of GW.

Now knowing the zeal with which GW enforcers their IP. Do you honestly think they would let that slide? That they would not have issued a statement to the contrary? Force Forgeworld to apologize or issue some sort of statement that they were not allowed to do it? You bet they would have if they had cause which they did not.

kb305 wrote:
the game is unbalanced enough as it is without it. if you like the model that's fine, use your "contemptor" as a normal dread. doesnt forgeworld have a drop pod that you can assault out of? that right there is fricken stupid and enough for me not to want to play against any forgeworld rules.

it's also not fair if your opponent isnt fielding any forgeworld stuff. if you and your friends wanna load up on forgeworld and go at it against eachother, that's fine. but dont try to spring all these new rules and crap onto unsuspecting people.

How is that different than facing the GK for the first time? Or the Necrons? How DARE someone field Draigo on unsuspecting people?

How is that different from ANY new codex?

Assaulting dreadnoughts is not that bad. There is a chance of immobilizing. The drop pod takes up a seperate FoC slot. Costs almost twice as a regular drop pod. Not much different than a full squad of Sternguard with melta as was mentionned in a previous post.

Blood Angels are not allowed to use it so no Blood Talons assaulting out of the Lucious Assault Drop Pod.

All in all the hate and fear comes from earsay and not from actual experience. How many haters have actually faced LEGAL FW units? Not talking about some douche fielding a Baneblade in a non-apoc game but a real FAIR FW units. Ever fought against a Wraithseer? Hornets? Tantalus? XV9?

I am all for people playing the game in ways that they have the most fun, you clearly aren't.

Besides, if "greater variety of models" is the sole goal, why stop at FW? Why not add some fantasy regiments and characters? Why not include Warmachine? Some infinity stuff? Random homemade stuff? Just throw it all in and lets throw some dice?

Do you truly see no "line" where the inclusion of "more, no matter what, just for the sake of "more", would have diminishing returns, even detrimental effects overall? None at all?

Of course, if I am to use a Hornet in my Eldar army instead of a Falcon, my opponent should be well within their rights to go "Rargh!" and throw up their arms and rage around the room because I just 'sploded their head with my cheesy (and beardy) heresy? Because that's tantamount to using a Warhammer Orc chariot and a Khador Heavy 'jack beside my Landraider!

Not.

All in all the hate and fear comes from earsay and not from actual experience. How many haters have actually faced LEGAL FW units? Not talking about some douche fielding a Baneblade in a non-apoc game but a real FAIR FW units. Ever fought against a Wraithseer? Hornets? Tantalus? XV9?

Probably not.

AegisGrimm wrote:

Of course, if I am to use a Hornet in my Eldar army instead of a Falcon, my opponent should be well within their rights to go "Rargh!" and throw up their arms and rage around the room because I just 'sploded their head with my cheesy (and beardy) heresy? Because that's tantamount to using a Warhammer Orc chariot and a Khador Heavy 'jack beside my Landraider!

Not.

I am not sure what your problem is. A Warhammer Orc Chariot is rather underpowered in a 40K game for it's points. Hardly game-breaking or cheesy. And the book it is published in even has the official GW stamp.

By all the criteria forwarded in this thread, there should be no reason not to field in my next 40K game.

By all the criteria forwarded in this thread, there should be no reason not to field in my next 40K game.

I'm pretty sure this thread was supposed to be about how some people are having a hard time understanding why if they want to use some of the cool stuff from Forgeworld to spice up their games, they are being ostracized and labelled as cheesy players. Because evidently people think that all the product FW put out "breaks Wh40K" because it's so over-powered and under-costed.

If even half the stuff FW made was put out as "official" kits by GW, but using the exact costs and rules published by Forgeworld, I'll bet players would eat them up with a spoon.

Forgeworld stuff is stupidly over-powered. I'd never play against a Forgeworld list unless I could proxy my own army as a forgeworld army as well.
And as I keep reminding people, you need your opponent's permission to field any army.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Zweischneid wrote:

rockerbikie wrote:It's most likely fear of the unknown.

Nah. Quite the opposite. Thorough familiarity with the inferiority of FW stuff. Also, their humour-deprived, overly pretentious neckbeard-fluff sure doesn't help.

So...why don't people refuse to play Grey Knights?
No, yeah.

AegisGrimm wrote:


If even half the stuff FW made was put out as "official" kits by GW, but using the exact costs and rules published by Forgeworld, I'll bet players would eat them up with a spoon.

True. But they are not. They are published by Forgeworld. There lies the hypocrisy. If someone sitting opposite the table insists on using that "line" between GW and Forgeworld to demark what he wants and does not want to play, you ridicule them as "ignorant"; "afraid as having their cookie-cutter-lists destroyed"; "afraid of loosing" and other rather unflattering prejudices that largely serve to elevate your own opinion of yourself as a "FW-player", who you clearly consider "superiour" hobbists to those that reject FW.

Yet at the same time, you're just as adamant about drawing your "lines" elsewhere, be it doing some WFB-40K cross-gaming, importing some Warmachine goodies for the fun of it. Or perhaps the latest Superheavy Tripod from Zweischneid's Garage Miniature Studio (I swear its overcosted and underpowered for its point values).

By that, you have disproven your own argument of "more variety can only be better for the game".


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Joey wrote:
So...why don't people refuse to play Grey Knights?
No, yeah.

If FW had ever written anything that could reasonably be considered only 1% as good as the Grey Knight Codex, we wouldn't be having the conversation.

Erik_Morkai wrote:

Steelmage99 wrote:
That is just odd. If a Forgeworld unit in a Forgeworld book is said to be "approved", surely that means that Forgeworld says so, not GW

If you look at the actual book and read the disclaimer you will see that the GW logo is on the book.
In the copyright notice/disclaimer at the beginning of the book you will realizing that Forgeworld is only the publisher. Images, names, rules and each and every word in there is property of GW.

I am not talking about the organisational structure of GW PLC.

I am talking about who writes what for whom.
The second I get ANY indication that the rules for IA are written by a Games Designer, are play-tested to any extent equal to the Design Studio (however little that may be), is balanced with the entire 40K universe in mind (fat chance with that name) or is approved by the Studio/Games Designers in ANY way, I might change my opinion.
Until that happens I will continually remind people that, when it comes to the rules, GW DOES NOT equal Forgeworld.

Zweischneid wrote:

AegisGrimm wrote:But yet that's what all the freaking out seems to be based on.

Not in my experience. Not by a long shot. Superheavies are, I believe, the least controversial stuff FW makes by far.

You are probably right, although a lot of the angst by players regarding FW comes back to the first IA book, and the possibility that your opponent could pick a Baneblade out of his bag and plonk it down on the table.

TBH I would never not play against someone who wanted to use something from FW. I have the odd FW unit in my army, and generally I get nothing but positive comments regarding them. I guess it comes down to that social contract GW is so fond of mentioning regarding the game. I'm not going to use some unit that is totally unbalanced against my friends, and I know the group I play with wouldn't do it to me either. Similarly, I wouldn't expect my opponent to do it in a PuG - if they did (I'm guessing because they're some kind of odd-ball) then that would be the last time I played them.

I'm curious what type of opponent you play Zweischneid or what kind of bad experiences you have had to have such a strong and belligerent opinion of FW stuff.

Joey wrote:Forgeworld stuff is stupidly over-powered. I'd never play against a Forgeworld list unless I could proxy my own army as a forgeworld army as well.

You can't be serious. Have you ever even played against a Forgeworld unit or army? My money's on no. There are choice few overpowered units, and even then they're no worse than most of what you'll find in standard 40k games. You can't give a blanket judgment like that when most of their stuff is just flavorful versions of things that already exist, but they serve a slightly different purpose with more flavorful rules.

Steelmage99 wrote:This is what I have posted in a previous thread concerning Forgeworld rules.

Steelmage99 wrote:

If one takes the obvious step of excluding the use of super heavies and flyers, then one simply need to ban the Big Five (Lucius Pattern Drop Pod, Deathstorm Drop Pod, Hades Breaching Drill, Land Raider Achilles and the Caestus Assault Ram).

If those steps are taken I dare say that the complaints would be so few that they were basically non-existent.

People who complain about the exclusion of the Big Five are IMO the people who just wish to exploit Imperial Armours lack of play testing.

*Response from other poster*

Steelmage99 wrote:


I have no problem with you disagreeing with me on the relative "brokenness" of the various units. That wasn't really my point either.

Relative power-level or not, the units mentioned are the ones I hear complaints about every time I bring up IA.
So my solution was simply to remove those "offending" units, in order to play with all the others. Sort of like a sacrifice for the greater good, ie the ability to freely play with IA (with the mentioned units banned).

The thing I failed to articulate properly in my previous post was the reactions I received when proposing this.
I have, in my experience, found that people who champions the use of IA usually argues that the units in IA, as a whole, are not unbalanced and then proceeds to bring up a number of units from IA that most certainly are not broken, all the while carefully avoiding the Big Five mentioned earlier.
When I talk to opponents of the use of IA, they usually argue that some units are unbalanced and then proceeds to bring up the Big Five, as if they represented the total sum of Forgeworld rules.

Here is the kicker;

When I bring the two parties together and suggest a modification that should leave all parties involved happy (exclude the Big Five, allow everything else save Super Heavies/Flyers), I get a lot of resistance.
Not from the previously opposed to IA-crowd (they are mostly fine with IA being allowed like that), but from the pro-IA-crowd.

The side that previously talked about all those units not being unbalanced (while avoiding the Big Five) don't like the Big Five being excluded!

You know what that tells me?

It tells me that the pro-IA crowd clearly knows which IA-units are the "better" ones, and they want to use those units.
It tells me that the not-broken units mentioned earlier are simply a smoke-screen used in an attempt to "sneak in" the Big Five.

This is, of course, just my experience in attempting to mediate between the two opposing sides in my gaming circle.
All attempts motivated by a desire to find a way to include IA that leaves everybody happy, I might add.

I play Eldars so I'm not affected in a good way by any of those units, however I do not feel that. "the big five" are as OP as you make them seem, they are insanely good and not that cheap.

In my experience many of the anti-FW are GK players that fear that some armies can put a better fight.

gmaleron wrote:

nomotog wrote:Maybe it has something to do with how you get the rules. You have to roll up with a book that looks unlike any warhammer rule book or have a print out from the internet. Just picture how it must look form the other end of the table.

I think the phrase "never judge a book by its cover" is relevant here, just because it doesnt look like a standard GW codex doesnt mean that it is not legal or cant be used

Ya, but just kind of picture how it would feel if you didn't know about forge world. I am basically pulling out a model you haven't seen before and the rules are on a piece of paper I printed off my computer. (I don't think people would lug the imperial armor book with them, or would they.) It also dosen't help that a lot of the stuff from forge world is a little strange rules wise. Just try and picture how you would react.

There lies the hypocrisy. If someone sitting opposite the table insists on using that "line" between GW and Forgeworld to demark what he wants and does not want to play, you ridicule them as "ignorant"; "afraid as having their cookie-cutter-lists destroyed"; "afraid of loosing" and other rather unflattering prejudices that largely serve to elevate your own opinion of yourself as a "FW-player", who you clearly consider "superiour" hobbists to those that reject FW.

*looks back at posts*

Nope, sorry- I have never said anything of the sort. It's been implicated as such by some in this thread, but not by me.

Yet at the same time, you're just as adamant about drawing your "lines" elsewhere, be it doing some WFB-40K cross-gaming, importing some Warmachine goodies for the fun of it. Or perhaps the latest Superheavy Tripod from Zweischneid's Garage Miniature Studio (I swear its overcosted and underpowered for its point values).

By that, you have disproven your own argument of "more variety can only be better for the game".

No, I don't think I have. I'm pretty transparent in my opinions.

And if I have indeed drawn a "line", then yeah. The line is that you have to use stuff in 40K games that was designed for the 40K game and uses the 40K rules. It's not really a very complicated line. And hey, if you want to field a weird creation of your own, then sure. Just use the 3rd/4th edition Vehicle Design Rules for it. They'll even make it slightly over-costed for it's stats, too.