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.

H.B.M.C. wrote:
Or we could just go with the far simpler explanation that it's a GW rulebook, written by GW

Only it's not. It's a ForgeWorld book, which is a different company. Different staff, different payroll, different designers, different business model.

And I didn't draw any distinction between supplements and expansions. They're interchangable words which both mean an addition to the basic game (now you'll say I invented the word basic). They share the same principle too - make sure you're playing the same game as your opponent. If you're playing planetstrike and he's playing apocalypse, there will be misunderstandings. If he's playing Warhammer 40k, and you're playing with the IA supplement, there will be issues.

Is it that hard to talk to your opponent?

Redbeard wrote:No, you need your opponent's permission.

Uh, you need your opponent's permission to play 40k. Period. And that is regardless of supplement status, or whatever other artificial distinction you're making.

Actually, HBMC, a direct quote here from Imperial Armour Volume Four--The Anphelion Project:

"This book is not a stand-alone supplement, reference is made to other Warhammer 40,000 publications and you may find it helpful to have read these before reading this book. To use this book in games of Warhammer 40,000 you will need the Warhammer 40,000 rulebook and the following Codexes: Imperial Guard, Tyranids, and Space Marines. Some of the vehicles mentioned in this book and used in scenarios have rules that appear in Imperial Armour Volume 1: Imperial Guard and Imperial Navy and Imperial Armour Volume 2: Space Marines and Forces of the Inquisition. Having these books will assist in playing the scenarios and enriching the background of the campaign.

Page 6, Warwick Kinrade, Feb 06.

So. Not a stand-alone supplement, requires the standard rulebook and codexes...

Sounds like regular 40k to me!

I'm throwing in my vote for "regular 40k legal". The expansions clearly say that they are expansions, the Imperial Armor books say that they are not expansions, so they must be "regular" 40k.

H.B.M.C is so glaringly intolerant if silly/poorly based arguments, sometimes it can be hard to cut through to the actual point. I have felt his abrasive tongue lashings on more than 1 occasion.

Usually, it was because I said something basically stupid.

He is 100% accurate in his dealings with the posts I have read, regarding this point...

It really does seem to me that most of the arguments against the use of FW Models is that they are "unfairly cheezy" and "Not in the BBB or a Codex".

If I actually faced any goombah who said my army was 'illegal' to field without his/her permission, because I bought it from FW or AC, I would ask them if they used Citadel glue. If not, they have an illegally formed army = no game. What a shame *sigh*.

As for a different Business model-----are you serious dude? Selling Mini's?

I think there's a valid distinction between using models from Forgeworld and using rules from Forgeworld.

No one's trying to argue models themselves require your opponent's permission.

*sigh*- Ok, I meant the rules as well. sorry I wasn't clear.

H.B.M.C is so glaringly intolerant if silly/poorly based arguments, sometimes it can be hard to cut through to the actual point. I have felt his abrasive tongue lashings on more than 1 occasion.

Usually, it was because I said something basically stupid.

He is 100% accurate in his dealings with the posts I have read, regarding this point...

It really does seem to me that most of the arguments against the use of FW Models (and used the rules where applicable) is that they are "unfairly cheezy" and "Not in the BBB or a Codex".

If I actually faced any goombah who said my army was 'illegal' to field (and used the rules where applicable) without his/her permission, because I bought it from FW or AC,(and used the rules where applicable) I would ask them if they used Citadel glue. If not, they have an illegally formed army = no game. What a shame *sigh*.

As for a different Business model-----are you serious dude? Selling Mini's?

Fixed.

In that case, I don't see where the glue enters in.

Glue has nothing to do with the ruleset.

Redbeard wrote: It's a ForgeWorld book, which is a different company.

Only it not, it's a separate division of the company. If you can't tell the difference, ask a corporate lawyer.

Platuan4th wrote:
Congratulations, you entirely missed the point.

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

LOL. Who said anything about Forgeworld stuff not being official? Their products are official supplements, just not part of the core game and you shouldn't be surprised when someone who is used to playing regular 40k pauses when you put your Malcador on the table without having discussed it beforehand.

I will concede that newer FW books may be mroe 'in on the plan' than previous efforts.

I see my point about "Why is FW more valid than a decision made by store staff" was quietly ignored.

My ultimate point (as the 'store staff' argument is intentionally absurd) is determining the rules to be used is, ultimately, something of a consensus decision. I think a lot of people prefer to stick to 'Current rule book, most recent Codices' as a baseline because it's a relatively clear line that a large majority can agree to and meet with minimal effort. There's probably a few, but it seems like most FW buyers can field an army without FW rules if they want to, as opposed to the beginners that have scraped 1500 points of SpaM together from their allowance.

The flipside is that the nutcases who do spend thousands on FW should get to use their big toys occasionally... Jsut not without asking.

Much like my opinion of WYSIWYG, it's a form of politeness.

Kanluwen wrote:Actually, HBMC, a direct quote here from Imperial Armour Volume Four--The Anphelion Project:

"This book is not a stand-alone supplement, reference is made to other Warhammer 40,000 publications and you may find it helpful to have read these before reading this book. To use this book in games of Warhammer 40,000 you will need the Warhammer 40,000 rulebook and the following Codexes: Imperial Guard, Tyranids, and Space Marines. Some of the vehicles mentioned in this book and used in scenarios have rules that appear in Imperial Armour Volume 1: Imperial Guard and Imperial Navy and Imperial Armour Volume 2: Space Marines and Forces of the Inquisition. Having these books will assist in playing the scenarios and enriching the background of the campaign.

Page 6, Warwick Kinrade, Feb 06.

So. Not a stand-alone supplement, requires the standard rulebook and codexes...

Sounds like regular 40k to me!

Well said Kanluwen.

But Kanluwen, you don't get it. IA is a supplement, Cod/Apoc/PS are expansions. That makes them different... some... how...?

Redbeard wrote:

Agamemnon2 wrote:Incidentally, the Deathstorm Drop Pod does 4D3 attacks on every unit within 12", not 4D6 at 24". But please, don't let a silly thing like actually checking the facts get in the way. Whether it's overpowered is still debatable, but that doesn't mean you're allowed to argue the case from false premises.

I don't own the $90 book that would be required to check the facts, as I stated above, I am conveying a story that happened to my brother, who also doesn't own the book. Again, part of the problem with FW stuff is that the rules aren't easy or cheap to get ahold of.

Apparently you are so clueless as not to know that FW obligingly released the rules for Deathstorm Drop Pods in a free PDF update on their website. It could not be cheaper, or easier to come by those. Again, you're arguing the matter with incomplete facts.

H.B.M.C. wrote:But Kanluwen, you don't get it. IA is a supplement, Cod/Apoc/PS are expansions. That makes them different... some... how...?

I think the argument going is that they should be considered the same; in the same way that you wouldn't assume a regular game of 40k will make use of the rules from those expansions, you shouldn't assume that a regular game of 40k will make use of the rules from Forge World.

Some of the specialized rules, sure.

But the vast majority of the rules are no more far out than the standard codex creep BS.

Arschbombe wrote:

H.B.M.C. wrote:

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

Which means all of nothing.

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

Are you really arguing that tournament playing is some kind of higher form of the game from the silly little games people play outside them? Is that smug condescension a happy accident on your part, or did you actually intend to come across as a gigantic prick?

I've said this before, and I'll say it again. Feth tournaments, they're as much fun as having a root canal, and last up to five times longer. The 40k rules are barely suitable for casual gaming, being full of holes and inconsistencies, nevermind any kind of competitive setting. I'm sorry if I sound insensitive, but I am, so that's pretty much how it comes across.

H.B.M.C. wrote:

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

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

I said "I" - i.e. me. Not talking about anyone else. All the FW stuff that I use fills a hole in one of my lists or finds synergy with something else. I'm not taking them just for fun although they are occassionally substitute for units that I have an irrational dislike of (like bikes & attack bikes).

Redbeard wrote:

H.B.M.C. wrote:
Or we could just go with the far simpler explanation that it's a GW rulebook, written by GW

Only it's not. It's a ForgeWorld book, which is a different company.

Wrong. Get your facts straight, and then post.

Quick poll, if you planned a pick up game and someone brought a FW item, would you.

a) Not play unless he was using it under non FW rules
b) Play with it (assuming he had the rules witth him so that you could read what they do before you play
c) Play regardless
d) Other

I'm in 2 camps,
I would play regardless (otherwise I'd not get a game), or just ask to see the rules (so I would know how to play).

If he then went and picked up 100 D6 the first time he used it, I would double check his rules.

That would be it.

Option B. Unless the opponent was only doing so to give himself an insurmountable advantage; superheavies etc.

Option B and same would apply to non-FW stuff (got to have the rules).

Option B, but that goes for everything. No documentation or play sheet means no game. I've seen asses so big and what was pulled from those, oh lordy!

Option B.

A second poll:

If you planned a pickup game with someone, and you brought some FW stuff (including the rules for it), would you:

A) Not even mention it and just play with it.
B) Tell your opponent you were going to use it whether they liked it or not.
C) Ask your opponent if he minded that you use it.

I'm Option C here.

Option B, if the opponent had no reasonable grounds to object (ie, impossible to counter)

Option B, for both Polls.

Again, B.

Option B again - I don't ask if he minds me using landraiders or THSS termies, why do I need to ask if he minds me using a razorback with multi-melta?

They're valid army list selections and I have the rules if he wants to see them.

Redbeard wrote:Option B.

A second poll:

If you planned a pickup game with someone, and you brought some FW stuff (including the rules for it), would you:

A) Not even mention it and just play with it.
B) Tell your opponent you were going to use it whether they liked it or not.
C) Ask your opponent if he minded that you use it.

I'm Option C here.

I would also go with Option C.

If it's not in the Codex, I think it's politeness to ask.