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.

 MrMoustaffa wrote:

And on a completely unrelated note, any guard player who isn't bringing something besides meltaguns to help deal with enemy armor has glaring problems with his list.
.

What do you bring in your list to take out AV14 other than melta guns? Just out of curiosity.

 BryllCream wrote:

 MrMoustaffa wrote:

And on a completely unrelated note, any guard player who isn't bringing something besides meltaguns to help deal with enemy armor has glaring problems with his list.
.

What do you bring in your list to take out AV14 other than melta guns? Just out of curiosity.

For me, it is demolisher cannons, manticores and command vanquishers.

 Trickstick wrote:

 BryllCream wrote:

 MrMoustaffa wrote:

And on a completely unrelated note, any guard player who isn't bringing something besides meltaguns to help deal with enemy armor has glaring problems with his list.
.

What do you bring in your list to take out AV14 other than melta guns? Just out of curiosity.

For me, it is demolisher cannons, manticores and command vanquishers.

Same here. Usually it's one of my pair of command vanquisher tanks, or a Demolisher in a pinch.

Lascannons usually. I still bring meltas, but they're not the only thing I rely on for killing heavier armor. I also bring artillery sometimes, and manticores or basilisks can shave off hullpoints on av14 in a pinch if need be.

Also, had a bit to calm down and my head is clearer. didn't mean to snap on everyone, but watching that argument eat up the thread was the straw that broke the camel's back when it added on to the crap that happened to me last night.

I can see now why people with issues with fW would come into this thread, to voice WHY they dislike it. That way people wanting to introduce it know what they're up against, and I appreciate it. I just wish we wouldn't argue so much and cold have a civil discussion.

Also, thanks to everyone who's suggested ways to help get it accepted, they've helped give me several good ideas on how to slowly integrate FW in my area.

 Trickstick wrote:

 BryllCream wrote:

 MrMoustaffa wrote:

And on a completely unrelated note, any guard player who isn't bringing something besides meltaguns to help deal with enemy armor has glaring problems with his list.
.

What do you bring in your list to take out AV14 other than melta guns? Just out of curiosity.

For me, it is demolisher cannons, manticores and command vanquishers.

So any guard player who doesn't bring Demolishers and Manticores (AP4 and presumably firing indirect), would auto-lose and that's cool with you?

As I say, for I think the fifth time in this thread, it would be fine if you informed someone beforehand of what you were bringing, or what book, it's just showing up with an auto-win army and then demanding to be played that's tfg.

Actually, I think best way to bring FW units is go straight for an APOC game, with low points and maybe no superheavies.

I more or less use the same pattern Peregrine does.
Here are my FW models, here are the rules with the original book, have a look, find something nice for your own army and give me a call so we can share a mail order.

It's a bit odd that I get blamed for cheesing with a Tetra while the opponent has three Nightscythes on the field.
Usually FW models aren't even cheap in points terms. A fully kitted Storm Eagle costs the same as three fully kitted XV9 Hazard Suits and the same as 3 fully kitted XV88 Broadsides.

So, when someone tells me "I don't want you to field that fw model" I reply "I don't want you to field that gw model" just to point out how silly the discussion is. They sometimes ask me in advance to have a fw-less list, which I gladly agree to do. I proved there is no big difference in how much I win or lose with or without FW, it's just a different list.

TL : DR

Back to OP question:
go for a small APOC game or simply organize a friendly game "I would like to try something different". Show them your IA books and make them dream.

 BryllCream wrote:

 Trickstick wrote:

 BryllCream wrote:

 MrMoustaffa wrote:

And on a completely unrelated note, any guard player who isn't bringing something besides meltaguns to help deal with enemy armor has glaring problems with his list.
.

What do you bring in your list to take out AV14 other than melta guns? Just out of curiosity.

For me, it is demolisher cannons, manticores and command vanquishers.

So any guard player who doesn't bring Demolishers and Manticores (AP4 and presumably firing indirect), would auto-lose and that's cool with you?

As I say, for I think the fifth time in this thread, it would be fine if you informed someone beforehand of what you were bringing, or what book, it's just showing up with an auto-win army and then demanding to be played that's tfg.

Lol, I don't know how I drew your ire but it was not my intent. I was simply stating what AT I brought besides meltaguns.

What I think would help the topic of FW inclusion would be a compiled list of the most up to date rules for all of the units and lists. Also, I think that you need to take things into account at the list building stage, so that you don't make a broken army that would cause more FW opposition. I'm trying to make a list with all of my FW models (vulture, 2x hydra, vanquisher) that would be fun to play against. I have not decided if an IG/ABG would be too much for some people, but it is probably what I am going for.

BryllCream is the perfect example of the problem people that wish to use FW units encounter, the idea that FW lists are auto-win or broken.

Play with or against them and people will see they are not either. They are mostly very fluff lists that have built-in weaknesses due to the narrow focus. Or they are designed to be used in the campaign they are built for.

The first step to get FW in your group is to overcome this barrier.

 BryllCream wrote:
just showing up with an auto-win army and then demanding to be played that's tfg.

This is true.

However, it's dishonest to insist that FW fall into the auto-win category.

So, as has been mentioned before, a lot of it is attitude. You're talking about bringing new stuff into an environment to make changes. The way in which you do this is important. Also, it's why you're probably seeing a lot of reluctance towards groups opting in to forgeworld stuff. I mean, look at just the last few pages in this thread:

Kaldor wrote:and certainly don't ask if they're ok with playing against FW units.

Kaldor wrote:it's dishonest to insist that FW fall into the auto-win category.

Swissivy wrote:just to point out how silly the discussion is.

Peregrine wrote:or be rude and refuse to play because they don't like your army.

Peregrine wrote:Are you kidding?

hisdudeness wrote:Have you even played against them? I have

hisdudeness wrote:Most players are young and don't like to think on that large a scale so they pull the "FW is not legal or OP" silliness to not have to think too hard.

If these are the kinds of attitudes that people who are pushing FW are going to have, then of course they're going to meet resistance. Trick your opponent into using optional rules? That will build trust. Calling them dishonest? Calling them silly? Calling them rude? Being sarcastic? Being condescending?

If these are the kinds of people who are playing with FW stuff, then no wonder people don't like FW stuff - they don't like the people who play with it. That power gamers, WAACers and TFGs are attracted to FW units is neither a new phenomenon, nor has it ever been a secret. You don't have to be a bad person to play with forgeworld stuff, but if people who play with forgeworld stuff are disproportionately jerks, then it's going to reflect poorly on forgeworld by association.

Probably the best thing to do to be an ambassador to FW stuff is to be a good person. The goodness will rub off on the units. Actually listen to what people say, and facilitate meaningful dialogue. Bring a "my way or the highway" attitude to any relationship, be it marriage or to a gaming group, and the end result will always be the same. There is simply no substitute for good will and good communication.

MrMoustaffa wrote:Peregrine is saying that he either plays his forgeworld list, or he goes home. it's no different than if I showed up and somebody said "no, you can't use footguard". I would either find another opponent or head home. He doesn't mean anything malicious, he just wants to use his army.

Which brings up to this. Of course if people aren't going to play with you, then you're not playing with anyone.

That said, you shouldn't think ill of people for not being willing to play your game when they were wanting to play something else, no matter how similar. And this is where I unfortunately have to address the legality dispute. Whether FW units are legal for regular games of 40k or not, the fact is that there is a dispute. There is not a dispute about whether night scythes are legal, or a dispute about the legality about a lot of other stuff. Everybody expects that a necron player can show up with a doom scythe. Very far from everybody expects someone to show up with a bunch of sabre platforms or DKoK artillery. It isn't a part of the game to many people. If you show up with those things, you're literally playing a different game than they are.

And that's something that very seriously needs to be addressed when you're going to talk to people about forgeworld stuff, and it makes a stubborn pro-FW attitude come off as really bad. If we're playing a game, and you insist that something is a part of it that I don't think is, and I'M the bad guy for feeling offended that you're forcing me to play by different rules? This scenario is going to engender a great deal of hostility VERY quickly.

Probably the worst way to get add-ons allowed into a game is by blaming or demeaning those who don't want to play with them. It's a terrible strategy, regardless of the subject, and will just wind up making you isolated and frustrated.

MrMoustaffa wrote:We have a TON of IG players and it's getting really boring playing the same codex over and over again.

I also wanted to comment on this statement from before.

I really doubt that including FW will fix this problem. Your problem is that you have uncreative opponents who all play more or less the same army in all more or less the same way. Add more options, and you'll still find yourself with this problem, just with different models on the table. The opportunity for more creativity will be useless to those who insist on being boring.

Rather than trying to go the FW route, I think it would be a lot cheaper and easier to mix things up through other ways. Do some campaigns, or start a league with a bunch of house rules that are going to force people to be more creative. Like a rule that says you must take one thing from every slot before you take something from one slot twice, or have a bidding system wherein you limit the number of any particular type of unit that can be used. Go wild.

In any case, you're probably going to have to force people to be more original here. Simply giving them the option to be so won't make much of a difference. Or take a more carrot approach. Doesn't matter.

 Ailaros wrote:
Trick your opponent into using optional rules?

Don't go there, buddy.

 Ailaros wrote:
If these are the kinds of people who are playing with FW stuff, then no wonder people don't like FW stuff - they don't like the people who play with it. That power gamers, WAACers and TFGs are attracted to FW units is neither a new phenomenon, nor has it ever been a secret. You don't have to be a bad person to play with forgeworld stuff, but if people who play with forgeworld stuff are disproportionately jerks, then it's going to reflect poorly on forgeworld by association.

I really hate the image that FW can get from those sorts of people. Then again, I suppose every aspect of 40k has its share of TFGs. Just pick any army and you will see people taking very broken units and such like.

All I can say is that there are plenty of people who use FW stuff for other reasons than sheer power. The models are better, not every one but the average if far higher. For some people that is enough. Speaking for myself, I jumped in to get some of those lovely hydra models and a Ramilies class star fort, only recently picking up IA1:2e when I saw it existed. That led me on to a vulture (as I wanted a gunship not a weird super-transport-gunship) and a vanquisher. I think all of these models look awesome and I love using them. I use the ABG rules for my list because I want a command vanquisher to be in charge, not because the list is awesome (it isn't, it is pretty weak).

The "two list" method, having a FW and non-FW list ready, simply would not work for me. I have a carry case, I can just fit an 1850 point list in it. I don't have room to carry a spare vendetta or a load of infantry around with me. I even had to sacrifice my rule book to fit IA1:2e in. So if I turn up to a game, I have to play with my ABG (or more likely ABG/IG). I'm not going to ask for special permision, yet I would not be weird if people don't want to play. I just state what I'm playing when people ask, like I would whatever I take. I let people look over my book if they want, explain things that they may need to know about, etc. I am getting a bit sick of pointing out what a beast-hunter shell does, but it is better mentioning it before the fight than one hit killing a trygon out of nowhere.

I think people need to talk more before games, it would solve so many problems.

Here are my FW models, here are the rules with the original book, have a look, find something nice for your own army and give me a call so we can share a mail order.

What do you do if he plays nids and there is nothing there for him in FW , but you adding hellfire mortars or sentry guns etc. or if he plays marines and doesnt want another bad land raider ?

I understand it is easier in the uk or us where the access to FW stuff is easy and everyone has the models/books . But here no one plays FW and I doubt people ever well, the cost of books alone is a barrier, I can tell stories about boring armies or mirror matchs all day long , but when my dex is IG and his is non IG , he just wont let me use FW, because the stuff I would take would make my army a lot better , then the stuff he could take .

Makumba wrote:

Here are my FW models, here are the rules with the original book, have a look, find something nice for your own army and give me a call so we can share a mail order.

What do you do if he plays nids and there is nothing there for him in FW

Then he didn't look hard enough. Malanthropes, Meiotic Spores and Stone Crusher Carnifexes, while not being top-teir selections (just like 90% of Forgeworld stuff), are fun new units for regular 40k.

 -Loki- wrote:

Makumba wrote:

Here are my FW models, here are the rules with the original book, have a look, find something nice for your own army and give me a call so we can share a mail order.

What do you do if he plays nids and there is nothing there for him in FW

Then he didn't look hard enough. Malanthropes, Meiotic Spores and Stone Crusher Carnifexes, while not being top-teir selections (just like 90% of Forgeworld stuff), are fun new units for regular 40k.

They're far from top-tier. Really, there's nothing in a Forge World book I'd bother using.

rigeld2 wrote:

 -Loki- wrote:

Makumba wrote:

Here are my FW models, here are the rules with the original book, have a look, find something nice for your own army and give me a call so we can share a mail order.

What do you do if he plays nids and there is nothing there for him in FW

Then he didn't look hard enough. Malanthropes, Meiotic Spores and Stone Crusher Carnifexes, while not being top-teir selections (just like 90% of Forgeworld stuff), are fun new units for regular 40k.

They're far from top-tier. Really, there's nothing in a Forge World book I'd bother using.

Which, with the exception of a handful of units (really, you can count them on one hand), is the case for the rest of Forgeworlds range. The vast, vast majority are simply outdone by codex units.

The Tyranid stuff is fun in a non-competitive environment if you can get them to work though.

Ailaros, your view is one of the greatest problems with the idea of FW in regular games. The monotonous drone of “FW not being legal” and “FW is too OP” speak volumes in that nothing anyone says will change these views. Anyone that plays a game or two with FW units will see they are no different than codex units. Some games the win the day, others they are the weakest link. Sadly all it takes is one off game against a FW unit/list for someone to cry OP and never play with FW again…but these are the same people that would most likely do (and may have done) the same with normal units/lists. Most veteran players have seen it…the player that will not play against X list or any army that contains x unit(s).

Until the blind emotion against FW units is fixed there will be little luck in wide acceptance.

I’ve yet to see anyone suggest tricking others into playing against FW. All the suggestions I’ve seen are the opposite.

I’m sorry MrMoustaffa, but this will keep being brought up because this is the core of the issue with FW acceptance. The prejudice of FW units is a real thing and only people seeing the units on the table and get rid of this “player permission” idea will change that. Too many players believe they have the skill to look at a unit on paper and make a summary judgment on the power.

 hisdudeness wrote:

I’m sorry MrMoustaffa, but this will keep being brought up because this is the core of the issue with FW acceptance. The prejudice of FW units is a real thing and only people seeing the units on the table and get rid of this “player permission” idea will change that. Too many players believe they have the skill to look at a unit on paper and make a summary judgment on the power.

Sorry but this argument goes both ways. I'm pretty tired of seing Perigrine (sp?) come into EVERY FW discussion (even ones not about legality - like this one) and constantly remind us that according to him FW is totally 100% a part of WH40K which I guess they forgot to add to the codicies and BRB and he won't play anyone who doesn't play FW, good for you mate, we get it, move on. The only piece of guidance from GW on the topic quite clearly states you should talk to your opponent before using any of that stuff. Anything else is just what you're complaining about, people making judgements based on their opinions regarding how a unit looks on paper.

MarsNZ wrote:

 hisdudeness wrote:

I’m sorry MrMoustaffa, but this will keep being brought up because this is the core of the issue with FW acceptance. The prejudice of FW units is a real thing and only people seeing the units on the table and get rid of this “player permission” idea will change that. Too many players believe they have the skill to look at a unit on paper and make a summary judgment on the power.

Sorry but this argument goes both ways. I'm pretty tired of seing Perigrine (sp?) come into EVERY FW discussion (even ones not about legality - like this one) and constantly remind us that according to him FW is totally 100% a part of WH40K which I guess they forgot to add to the codicies and BRB and he won't play anyone who doesn't play FW, good for you mate, we get it, move on. The only piece of guidance from GW on the topic quite clearly states you should talk to your opponent before using any of that stuff. Anything else is just what you're complaining about, people making judgements based on their opinions regarding how a unit looks on paper.

Forge World IS 100% a part of WH40K. If you want to argue the point, take it over to the other thread.

To be fair, I've changed my mind on many a thing in my life. I have never once changed my mind based on what opinion is popular, or how emotionally invested anyone else is in their opinion, however.

And I think that's really part of the problem. It is difficult to have meaningful dialogue about a topic in which people have emotional investment, regardless of what the topic is about. Once people burrow down into a religious-like conviction that their point of view is correct, and that it's not worth listening to people whose opinion is inconcruent with one's own, that's where the communication breaks down, and that's when nothing useful is able to be done about anything.

It really isn't unique to forgeworld in 40k, of course, but is a common feature of how human brains work. It's easy to imagine that a pro-forgeworld person gets just as offended and in the exact same way as a gay person gets when talking about gay marriage, or that a pro-core-rules person gets just as sick and tired of being around people who absolutely insist that they must believe in Jesus, and it is their personal mission to convert a person by sheer force of will regardless of the other's opinions.

If religion and politics can both be a place wherein people communicate, then certainly other contentious issues can likewise lead to useful dialogue.

Skullduggery, on the other hand, will just make you a gigantic jerk. In this case, approaching this problem with how you can manipulate other people into doing what you want would be a very, very bad place to start from.

Kaldor wrote:Forge World IS 100% a part of WH40K. If you want to argue the point, take it over to the other thread.

This is exactly what I'm talking about.

Let's say that in order to have a conversation with someone, whatever the topic is about, the other person must agree to the statement that "Jesus IS Lord. If you disagree, you can't be useful to this conversation".

Really think about it.

 -Loki- wrote:
Which, with the exception of a handful of units (really, you can count them on one hand), is the case for the rest of Forgeworlds range. The vast, vast majority are simply outdone by codex units.

I'm honestly curious, and not trolling with the following:
Could you name them?
If someone was 100% okay with not allowing those handful of units but perfectly fine with the rest, would that be acceptable?
For things like the Ork Half-Trukk that has hull point stats but no actual rules - how would that be resolved?
I've meant to ask things like this for the past dozen or s FW threads, but they usually devolve into hatred from both sides so quickly it's not worth it. This one at least hasn't said that players who don't want to play against Forge World are TFG and don't ever deserve to be played against - and I hope it does t devolve to that level.

The Tyranid stuff is fun in a non-competitive environment if you can get them to work though.

Knowing the rules for those units I can't see a reason to use them outside of a scenario. And to me, that's barely worth the paper they're printed on. I make fun non-competitive lists. Why should I make a significant investment to make them worse?

 Ailaros wrote:
Skullduggery, on the other hand, will just make you a gigantic jerk. In this case, approaching this problem with how you can manipulate other people into doing what you want would be a very, very bad place to start from.

Social etiquette and how best to present things to people are a very far cry from manipulation and skullduggery.

 Ailaros wrote:

Kaldor wrote:Forge World IS 100% a part of WH40K. If you want to argue the point, take it over to the other thread.

This is exactly what I'm talking about.

Let's say that in order to have a conversation with someone, whatever the topic is about, the other person must agree to the statement that "Jesus IS Lord. If you disagree, you can't be useful to this conversation".

Really think about it.

 MrMoustaffa wrote:
THIS IS NOT A DISCUSSION OVER WHETHER FORGEWORLD IS 40K "OFFICIAL" OR NOT.

Please, use the other thread for legality discussion.

I wish I had something on topic to add...

Um...

Smile at people when you ask for a game?

Here's my FLGS's take on FW.

If you want to run FW models for codex units (say the Daemon Prince of Nurgle + Herald for the appropriate units in the codex) that's fine without permission, so long as the size is about right. The FW Greater Daemon models are much larger than the standard ones, and so are not allowed in their tournaments, and are 'if your opponent is ok with it, go for it' in casual games.

If you want to run FW units, you are SOL in tournament games, because their tournaments are and have always been core-codex only. A big part of this is that the TO is the guy who gets to deal with the rules questions and check the lists, and he doesn't own every FW book, let alone know all the rules for every single FW unit. He has all the current codex ones down, which is tough enough.

If you want a pickup or casual game with FW units it's pretty much up to whether anyone feels like taking you up on it. You have no right to stomp your feet and insist that it's mandatory that people play with you, because acting like a spoilt kid will just make sure that your tasty models will stay in foam. No-one wants to play someone like that.

The best approach for those who don't mind playing FW units (i'm one of them) to get a game is a lot more :

'Hey, i just got IA8 and it has some pretty cool new ork units. Want to see what they can do? '

rather than

'But you have to accept FW ork units as legal for regular play. I insist that you allow me to use my FW units, and if not i'm going to pack up, sulk and whine about it on a forum when i get home.'

The first one will likely get you games, especially if you show them the book, and doubly so if you can suggest some units for them to try for a rematch if they enjoy the game. You come across as a reasonable human being who wants to try something new, and is looking for a gaming test-pilot to try it with. Ask for feedback from the guy about the new unit. For best results do this in a casual game setting, not with your gak-kicking tournament list. If the guy has a good experience he might well be willing to try FW units himself next game, or be more willing to play yours.

The second one comes across as someone who has come up with some broken-ass combination of trap cards that he wants to spring on an unsuspecting opponent in order to add a notch to their W/L/D through an easy win. This likely isn't so, as only a few of the FW units are that out of whack, but the attitude does suggest it. Refusing to play someone unless they play it your way will generally result in them playing someone else who's more laid back.


Personally i will play FW units fairly happily, with the right criteria.

My criteria:

I either have the book, or they can show me the book right at the table and give me a moment to read the unit entry.

They ASK if i'm ok with playing against FW units/lists when we agree to play a game, rather than just pulling them from the case and then telling me they are using them and that I have to accept them.

They don't come across as a pillock.

The last one is the most important. Playing against a pillock is a joykiller, regardless of the relative power of their list, and i play for fun not for my W/L/D percentage.


My compliments to the OP for having the balls to open up a thread like this, and my best wishes on getting his FLGS to accept FW. FW units can be fun, but the person running them (like any codex unit for that matter) is the main test of how fun they are to play against.

 Ascalam wrote:
They ASK if i'm ok with playing against FW units/lists when we agree to play a game

I have the same requirement for people with Terminators in their armies. If you just turn up to game with them in your army, I won't be playing you.

Fair enough. Not a fan of termies myself, though i'll play against them anyway

In tourmanents i don't get a say, as they are codex units

Thanks Ascalam that was a pretty good way of putting it.

I highly doubt we'll be seeing FW at the tournaments at my store, except for mabye the Rusty Scabbard if the regional tournaments start using FW (They like to use main tournament scenarios a lot)

I'm really just wanting to use it for pickup games.

Also, for Ailaros, the problem with the IG players not having enough variety is that there's only so many ways you can run a mech list. And when you have at least 4 regulars, and a few more every now and then players, all using chimera heavy lists, it's hard to keep things fresh. We have a guy who runs armored fist platoons, and nothing else (one heck of an army to see on the table) a guy who spams russes, a guy who runs the more typical "leafblower" style, and a guy who spams tons of artillery and chimeras behind an aegis defence line for laughs. But to a non IG player, they're all the same. I was hoping by maybe encouraging a bit of FW play we could mix things up a bit. No idea if it would work or not, but it's always worth a shot I guess.

At the moment I'm just saving up for the newest Imperial Armour book and trying to paint up all my russes.

rigeld2 wrote:

 -Loki- wrote:
Which, with the exception of a handful of units (really, you can count them on one hand), is the case for the rest of Forgeworlds range. The vast, vast majority are simply outdone by codex units.

I'm honestly curious, and not trolling with the following:
Could you name them?

The usual suspects.
The Lucius drop pod - mostly because it allows a dreadnought to assault the turn it arrives. It's not that it's overpowered, just that it does something a codex unit doesn't. The one army with a dreadnought that can abuse it can't even take it (Blood Angels with their blenderboxes). I also don't know what the ruling is on assaulting out of it now, since you're techinically assaulting from reserves, which isn't allowed anymore. And the dreadnought can immobilise itself assaulting out of it. And it takes an FA slot.
The Land Raider Achilles - this thing is a brick. Wrapped in concrete. Dipped in titanium. With a thunderfire cannon sticking out the front. It's ungodly hard to kill for some armies. However, it's main issue was sticking a scout squad in it and sitting on objective - this doesn't work in 6th, and has the usual issues Land Raiders have (expensive, huge targets, 'all eggs in one basket' syndrome).
The Land Raider Spartan. I can see peoples issues with it. Massive transport capacity (that you'll never actually fill up), lots of firepower. Again, it's got the exact same issues normal Land Raiders have.
The Caestus Assault Ram - it's a flying Land Raider. With a Magna Melta. And can ram things to death. And is a flyer. This one has legitimate balance issues.
Blight Drones. Flying Battle Cannons - nuff said.

There might be a few more that have popped up, but I haven't heard much in the way of whining about anything but those 5. Two of them were sufficiently neutered in 6th edition (Achilles and Lucius), and one of those was never really an issue anyway (Lucius).

rigeld2 wrote:
If someone was 100% okay with not allowing those handful of units but perfectly fine with the rest, would that be acceptable?

Of course. Same reason as one of my friends refused to play my brothers Guard army in 3rd edition with 2 Leman Russes. People can refuse for any reason they want.

rigeld2 wrote:
For things like the Ork Half-Trukk that has hull point stats but no actual rules - how would that be resolved?

Tell them to use it as a Trukk?

rigeld2 wrote:
I've meant to ask things like this for the past dozen or s FW threads, but they usually devolve into hatred from both sides so quickly it's not worth it. This one at least hasn't said that players who don't want to play against Forge World are TFG and don't ever deserve to be played against - and I hope it does t devolve to that level.

I hate Forgeworld threads for the same reasons. Forgeworld is a wealth of new gaming options, and people will either like them or not like them for their own reasons. When threads devolve into the legality debate in the usual murky environment GW fosters, threads turn very toxic very quickly.

I don't know, I think it might just make your problem worse.

Once you show up with a mechanized guard army that can take russes as troops and doesn't even need to bother with infantry, guess how long it's going to take before everyone is playing an armored company?

In any case, it's still a problem with the players, not with the rules and options available. No one is forcing them all to play guard, and no one is forcing them all to play mech. There are other guard builds, and there are other armies.

Kaldor wrote:

Ailaros wrote:Let's say that in order to have a conversation with someone, whatever the topic is about, the other person must agree to the statement that "Jesus IS Lord. If you disagree, you can't be useful to this conversation".

I'm not going to disregard the facts in order to entertain a discussion that FW may not be legal, any more than I'd accept that 2+2=/=4 in order to have a discussion about mathematics.

 Ailaros wrote:
I don't know, I think it might just make your problem worse.

Once you show up with a mechanized guard army that can take russes as troops and doesn't even need to bother with infantry, guess how long it's going to take before everyone is playing an armored company?

In any case, it's still a problem with the players, not with the rules and options available. No one is forcing them all to play guard, and no one is forcing them all to play mech. There are other guard builds, and there are other armies.

Kaldor wrote:

Ailaros wrote:Let's say that in order to have a conversation with someone, whatever the topic is about, the other person must agree to the statement that "Jesus IS Lord. If you disagree, you can't be useful to this conversation".

I'm not going to disregard the facts in order to entertain a discussion that FW may not be legal, any more than I'd accept that 2+2=/=4 in order to have a discussion about mathematics.

Oh real mature. So just because you disagree with a fact, everyone you talk to must accept that this fact is now up for debate?