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.

When I come to a game, be it with a stranger or long time friend I always assume it's a normal game unless otherwise said. Normal for me does not include FW rules. They've always seemed like something outside the BRB + codex + faq framework (which is also what I view as "the core" of the game). They may be owned by GW, but they are not GW.

A side from the above add the fact that as a consumer the idea that I have to purchase additional book(s) beyond the core rules and codex does not sit right. Especially when these books cost more and give less (units), they have a an incredibly low value/cost ratio by comparison. It's only IA:7 that has units for a Chaos Daemon army, but that's the third book in the fluff of The Siege of Vraks. So to get the full story I have to buy three +30£ books . . .

Also, looking at the covers of IA: 5, 6, 7, and 8 on the FW website I see the the stamp: Warhammer 40,000 Expansion. So, it seems like FW themselves consider their IA product as an Expansion to Warhammer 40,000 and not a part of the core game. Or am I misinterpreting their own cover design?

Agnosto - and again, it is not a vindicator because it is not a S10 AP2 shot. Your opinion is, strictly, invalid.

Titans do not, in any way shape or form, use up a "normal" FOC slot. Therefore saying "I want to play 40k" does not allow them.

Leez - read the interior first. And, again, why do YOU need to buy the books? If your opponent is using the lists I assume they would have the rujles, in the same way you would expect them to have their codex....

Leez wrote:Also, looking at the covers of IA: 5, 6, 7, and 8 on the FW website I see the the stamp: Warhammer 40,000 Expansion. So, it seems like FW themselves consider their IA product as an Expansion to Warhammer 40,000 and not a part of the core game. Or am I misinterpreting their own cover design?

no, you're not misinterpreting it. you're just witnessing a vocal minority that refuses to acknowledge the rules because it's inconvient to them. a "normal" 40k game involves the main rulebook and 1-2 codex books (depending if the armies are identical or not)... period! anything outside of that is extra and requires permission of the opponent. FW stuff is just as official as planetstrike, city fight, spearhead, white dwarf army lists and units, etc... all of which still require permission PER THE MAIN RULEBOOK. gw has had 3 editions of the main rulebook to acknowledge that FW can be used without permission and they chose NOT to. instead, the rulebook specifically states that in normal 40k you only use the books i listed above. that's really all there is to it.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Agnosto - and again, it is not a vindicator because it is not a S10 AP2 shot. Your opinion is, strictly, invalid....

Strictly speaking, an opinion can not be invalid. The basis for the opinion may or may not be invalid; however, the opinion itself can not, by definition be invalid as it is a view held by someone. You may hold an oppposing opinion but that does not make my opinion any less valid. I could really care less what you call the unit in question and that has no bearing on my opinion. I obviously know that it is in fact not a vindicator just as the blood raven is not a land raider; however, common usage calls it a flying land raider. I call the toys what I want and you call them what you want, it's easier than calling it "a flying ovoid model that fires a template attack similar but not exactly the same as a vindicator".

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Leez - read the interior first. And, again, why do YOU need to buy the books? If your opponent is using the lists I assume they would have the rujles, in the same way you would expect them to have their codex....

A side from reading what comes second first sounding strange, I don't own them. I went to their website and all I am shown is "IA: 8 Name, Warhammer 40,000 Expansion." So, and I would think naturally, I would say IA is an expansion and thus not core. I take it the the label "expansion" they place upon themselves is altered or revealed to be a lie once one started reading it? In a few days I'll be meeting a friend I know has IA: 4-8 or maybe just 4-7, could you tell me where they explain themselves in one of those?

And, what I meant by buying them is not that I think I need to buy them to play against them but rather I have to buy the releavent one(s) to use them myself and they are, as a book in the real world, incredibly expensive for what they offer (I'm not referring to the unit point costs). Pretty cheeky idea, create a relatively expensive supplement, make one or two really great and cost effective units in each book (the rest can be crap on the table even if great story-wise), then declare the book "core".

Page 4. The page reference has been given repeatedly...

Agnosto - it fires a shot NOTHING LIKE a vindicator, apart from the size. It fires a battle cannon shot, which is 2 points of strength and, crucially, 1 point of AP higher than a vindicator shot.

So again: it is a fying leman russ. Which i said about 2 pages back but you ignored.

Warboss - good of you to continue to ignore the rules given in the IA books, and claim others are doing the same. Fail.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Page 4. The page reference has been given repeatedly...

Agnosto - it fires a shot NOTHING LIKE a vindicator, apart from the size. It fires a battle cannon shot, which is 2 points of strength and, crucially, 1 point of AP higher than a vindicator shot.

So again: it is a fying leman russ. Which i said about 2 pages back but you ignored.

Actually, you called it a land raider and you later said it was AP2. I don't see how you can expect me to be exactly correct if you can't.

nosferatu1001 wrote:You are also slightly wrong on your comparison; the blight drone is a flying LR.

I suppose if I cared enough to be strictly accurate, I could call it a flying defiler....

Actually I didnt - I called it "LR" meaning Leman russ. Dakka then decided it was Land raider insteasd.

I also didnt say it was AP2, I said it WASNT AP2.

It also isnt a flying defiler as it is only BS2...

Nos: Isnt a vindi shot S10?
In which case im not sure how the BC can be 2 Str higher 0_o

Titans do not, in any way shape or form, use up a "normal" FOC slot. Therefore saying "I want to play 40k" does not allow them.

Then it helps to prove my point about everyone throwing titans into the situation, simply because its made by FW.
People dont object to FW scenery do they? (might aswell check while im at it)

So thats titans out.



Now, onto basic armies.

You may not have the DKoK rules when playing against someone, they however will do.
The whole argument "but i dont know thier rules because i dont have the book" tends to fall flat because of that.
Not only that, but how many people know the exact rules from every book in 40k?
I would bet none apart from the main stream tournie players.

Like playing against anyone else, the rules should be there for you to see aswell.
If they refuse to show you the rules, by all means refuse to play them.
But 99% of players will happily let you look if your not used to such rules.

Gah, that comes from querying whether AP3 is considered "higher" than AP2 or not....

S8 vs S10, AP3 vs AP2. the only similarity is the size of the blast marker.

Flying leman russ is more accurate as it has no close combat skill, attacks, power weapon or S10 like a defiler, so in terms of similarity is more similar to a flying leman russ than a defiler.

You mean in the same way an ace is either a 1 or 11, yet is considered higher than any card?

But yea, back OT i would say AP3 is lower than AP 2 (going in terms of which is better)

But its still not 2 Str higher



And all in all, the drone is the same as a drone, its just that.
Cant really compare it to anything.
Allthough, i dont see why thats a problem, since we didnt need to compare it.

I was originally going for 2 poinst of strength and 1 point of ap "lower", but then decided to go with strictly numerically AP3 would be higher...

۞ Jack ۞ wrote:Now, onto basic armies.

With that bit, you went awry.
Basic ≠ Expansion.

Except it isnt important, as the IA books state you may use them in "normal" games of 40k, and provides FOC slots for those units that can be used.

With that bit, you went awry.
Basic ≠ Expansion.

Why arent DKoK a basic army?
They have a full list with points cost and FoC slots, just like any other army.
In fact, they are the same as any other army, except no fluff in the download.

Rules are all written and produced by citadel, so dont see what makes them different except they cost a ton more, and are resin.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Page 4. The page reference has been given repeatedly...

Okay, it's a slow day at work so I called my friend up. On page four of IA: VII its refers to itself as not being a "stand-alone supplement" and "the phrase "to use this book in games of Warhammer 40,000" in the smaller type paragraph at the bottom which is also found in IA: V and IA: 6 almost identically. Is that what you mean by saying IA's is part of normal 40K, because no where else on page 4 does it say anything along the lines of "IA can be used in normal 40K games." in IA: VII I am told.

So the part that states "to use this book in games..." isnt permission to use the book in games of 40k?

nosferatu1001 wrote:Except it isnt important, as the IA books state you may use them in "normal" games of 40k, and provides FOC slots for those units that can be used.

So does the 3e Tyranid codex.


So really, when you go to a 40k tourney, do you expect (or even demand) that IA is allowed?
Because the vehemence you are using to show that the expansion is normal is along that vein.

Why is it that GW sponsored events feel the need to state whether IA rules are used?
GW does not apparently think that IA is part of the basic rules.

No, because I go to a tournament knowing exactly what army books are allowed, and even the ISBN for them if you go to a GT or some local tournaments.

I am showing that they are "normal" (proven) and that therefore are subject to the exact same "opponents consent" as any other army, model, rule etc.

Which I have said since the start....whatever you do in a tournament is the TOs decision, what you do in a pick up game is between you and your opponent.

FW is no different in this regard than anything 40k.

nosferatu1001 wrote:So the part that states "to use this book in games..." isnt permission to use the book in games of 40k?

I didn't say that, I just wanted to be sure that is what you were referring to. So that's the part that makes IA books not an expansion of core-40K but instead a part of core-40K despite the stamp on the cover then. I ask because the complete sentence reads "To use the material in this book in games of Warhammer 40,000, you will need Warhammer 40,000 rulebook and the following Codexes: IG, SM, CSM, CD and the Cities of Death supplement." (abbreviated by me). I suppose the rebuttal that I could then require my opponent to have all these books would be facetious at best. But it isn't facetious to claim at Cities of Death is core-40K, after all IA refers to both itself and CoD as a supplement, and how could we argue an expansion is needed to play a normal game. Would you agree with that then?

Honestly though, it says to play Warhammer 40,000 and I don't see how that overrides the Expansion stamp on the cover. Cities of Death, Spearhead, and Planetary Strike are also Warhammer 40,000. And all four also carry the Warhammer 40,000 Expansion bold as day on their covers.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Warboss - good of you to continue to ignore the rules given in the IA books, and claim others are doing the same. Fail.

lol, referring to a rule in a book that i (and the vast majority of the people here... and the main rulebook) consider opponent permission only is fail. you're missing the whole point. the vast majority of people here are following the rules for a standard 40k game in the rulebook and consider the WHOLE IA BOOK permission only, not just certain units or entries. picking a line out of it to prove it's not doesn't change the fact that warhammer 40,000 rulebook says it's not among the legal books in a regular game. if GW wanted to allow them, they would have specifically done it in 3rd edition... or maybe fourth a few years later... or even fifth edition by simply stating it. they did not. three times. in a row. no amount of spin changes any of the facts in this post.

insaniak wrote:

Steelmage99 wrote:The second anybody convinces me that FW rules are playtested and balanced to the same extent (such as it is) that GWs "real" rules are, I'll happily allow any and all FW additions to the game.

That's kind of a good point, though... It's pretty much accepted that the regular 40K rules aren't particularly balanced, and that the studio don't go to any great lengths to make them so... because the game was never really intended to be a 'competitive' ruleset.

I think that's where a lot of the conflict comes from here... If you try to pretend that the 40K rules are more or less balanced, then 'outside' rules would be an unknown quantity that potentially unbalances the game. If you accept that the rules are a mess to begin with, that the game is only supposed to be a bit of mindless fun, and Forgeworld's additions are simply there to add variety rather than tactical depth, it's all much less of an issue.

I see Forge World rules as analogous to Apocalypse rules: they can potentially make for some really interesting games, but it isn't appropriate for one player to spring them on an unsuspecting player.

This seems to be a recurring theme throughout threads like this. I'm having trouble figuring out how you spring any rules on an unsuspecting opponent. Don't you discuss what sort of game you're playing, and what rules you'll be using, before setting up?

I'm with Insaniak on this 100%. The FW rules are no more or less balanced than most of the GW products. Pretending that they'll massively unbalance and "ruin" the game is as foolish as assuming GW never produced a P.O.S. codex. Other than the two Drop Pods (dreadnought and shooty) I can't think of anything in the IA books that wouldn't be perfectly acceptable.

kirsanth wrote:
So really, when you go to a 40k tourney, do you expect (or even demand) that IA is allowed?
...
Why is it that GW sponsored events feel the need to state whether IA rules are used?
GW does not apparently think that IA is part of the basic rules.

I would assert a 40k Tournament is not a "normal" game, since there are often prizes at stake there needs to be a heighten sense of fairness, which cannot exist when people would assert an unfamiliarity as being unfair.

Why do events feel the need to state it- because of they didn't they'd be bombarded by emails asking one way or the other. GW leaves it to event coordinators to decide based on the competence of the people participating.

A tournament being inherently atypical the fact that they feel the need to answer questions regarding the use of FW rules, only give credence that the rules are considered a viable "normal" way to play.

warboss wrote:
lol, referring to a rule in a book that i (and the vast majority of the people here... and the main rulebook) consider opponent permission only is fail.

Ignoring rules and ignoring the intent of the game designers, in favor of succumbing to irrational and paranoid insecurities of someone else using a set of rules that are factually in favor of the person who doesn't use them is stupid.

It is exclusionary in the worst possible way for a game built around cooperative play, by reject the fun of the other player without justification.

warboss wrote:
you're missing the whole point. the vast majority of people here are following the rules for a standard 40k game in the rulebook and consider the WHOLE IA BOOK permission only, not just certain units or entries.

What is popular is not always right. Waving around a banner of "the majority" doesn't confront the more critical aspects of general acceptance.

There is also an argument for power... no one likes to be forced to do anything so as long as their is an option for choosing people will always take that over an imposition, whether the imposition is justified or not.

warboss wrote:
picking a line out of it to prove it's not doesn't change the fact that warhammer 40,000 rulebook says it's not among the legal books in a regular game. if GW wanted to allow them, they would have specifically done it in 3rd edition... or maybe fourth a few years later... or even fifth edition by simply stating it. they did not. three times. in a row. no amount of spin changes any of the facts in this post.

Does the Warhammer 40,000 rulebook explicitly name every codex and expansion?-No. Did it list any of the different compendium books GW had put out?-No Did the rule books ever list the different campaign books from over the years?-No.

Nor would they because to do so would restrict their ability to produce viable books. "Imperial Armour" is just like any of those, its part compendium and part campaign book.

You want explicit permission of such a heighten degree, but you miss the fact that GW perceives IA as being such a part of 40k it needs not be so explicit.

Now the most valid argument for or against FW, is the "most important rule... the rules are not important." It is the most important rule yet singularly overlooked. Its there to remind people not to be uptight or asinine. Saying I can't use something made by GW in a blanketly baseless way is clearly contrary to the first rule.

aka_mythos wrote: Does the Warhammer 40,000 rulebook explicitly name every codex and expansion?-No. Did it list any of the different compendium books GW had put out?-No Did the rule books ever list the different campaign books from over the years?-No.

Nor would they because to do so would restrict their ability to produce viable books. "Imperial Armour" is just like any of those, its part compendium and part campaign book.

You want explicit permission of such a heighten degree, but you miss the fact that GW perceives IA as being such a part of 40k it needs not be so explicit.

the rulebook doesn't need to mention them because it ONLY describes standard/core game setup. that's it. Standard games allow you to use a codex and the rulebook.. that's it. having non-core books in the product line doesn't make them any less official, balanced, or hamper GW's production of them like you're suggesting. It simply makes them expansions and therefore need permission of the opponent to use. GW assumes that its players are mature enough to simply ask their opponent if they can use an expansion product of limited availability that alot of people are unfamiliar with instead of just stomping into a store/home and crying "but i wanna!!!".

warboss wrote:the rulebook doesn't need to mention them because it ONLY describes standard/core game setup. that's it. Standard games allow you to use a codex and the rulebook.. that's it. having non-core books in the product line doesn't make them any less official, balanced, or hamper GW's production of them like you're suggesting. It simply makes them expansions and therefore need permission of the opponent to use.

You demand explicitness for one and not the other. If the rulebook makes no distinction, why should the players?

Standard games also allow you to use FW units with no modification to the core rules.

I didn't say having what you call "less official" books hampered GW's production. I said that the level of explicit permission you expect of the core rule book would hamper production; if it was the reality, which it isn't.

They aren't all "expansions" in the way GW defines an expansion. They don't modify the core rules like an expansion does. They are more analogous to the Codex Armageddon and Codex Eye of Terror a compendium of themed armies.

warboss wrote:
GW assumes that its players are mature enough to simply ask their opponent if they can use an expansion product of limited availability that alot of people are unfamiliar with instead of just stomping into a store/home and crying "but i wanna!!!".

Assuming they weren't trying to cheat, it would be cold hearted to turn away a crying person.

Its not limited in its availability its limited in its market distribution; anyone who wants IA can order IA.

Unfamiliarity is only an excuse in tournaments where there are necessary heighten demands of fairness, in the day to day the threshold is much lower. That threshold purely on the merits of the text are equal to any codex. If unfamiliarity was truly justification for disallowing an army there would never be new armies.


There exists every reason to allow them and little reason to reject them. I've asked before and still haven't received an answer, but what makes IA different from any other GW rule book?

aka_mythos wrote: You demand explicitness for one and not the other. If the rulebook makes no distinction, why should the players?

There exists every reason to allow them and little reason to reject them. I've asked before and still haven't received an answer, but what makes IA different from any other GW rule book?

i do allow them and i've said so in this thread several times. the rulebook does make a distinction in that it only allows you to use itself and a codex for a standard game; players who are following the rulebook and playing standard games do this.

as for your question, no one is answering because we all (both sides) agree with you. IA is NO different from other GW expansions; both sides seem to agree on this. the only difference is that the expansions are separate from the rulebook and codicies, which are core books necessary for a standard game. i don't demand explicitness for one and not the other; i treat them all the same in that i consider them (as do the rules) non-standard and therefore permission only. the core rules support this.

To put forth my own views of the matter:

The entire game is Opponents permission only. If I don't want to play against a Necron Army with Monoliths, are you going to force me? No.

The Same applies to any FW stuff.

One point that no one seems to be mentioning is that FW rules are NOT considered part of normal 40k by most players, largely because they are simply not available to most players.

Our flgs has all of the GW 40k rules and armies available. There is zip, zero...nothing from FW available there. A few (around here very very few) stores will have some of FW books available, but FW really just isnt readily available to people here. And that makes it different from the rest of 40k in the players minds.

Another point with FW is that since very few people have any idea what it is, very few people have any idea on what is current from FW. So there would be few people who would have any idea if some rules being presented as a current FW list are even correct or current. People tend to know what the current 40k rules look like at least, with FW thats entirely lacking.



So one large strike against FW is the difference in the availability of the product, and information on the product.



Sliggoth

gwar, where ya been? nosferatu has been straying from the path of RAW without you.

Sliggoth wrote:One point that no one seems to be mentioning is that FW rules are NOT considered part of normal 40k by most players, largely because they are simply not available to most players.

No, that's been mentioned, several times.

The thread's largely just going around in circles at this point. I think it's time to give it a rest.