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.

Snarky wrote:some of it is, I honestly haven't seen a difference between the Made in China casts and the UK casts, except maybe a little less loose flash in the Chinese casts and better quality control than the UK casts.

I think they had moved some casting of the more popular ranges over to China (the ones that sell more and are smaller are more likely, as I've noticed that most of my Krieg infantry squads are casted in China, while things like my Vulture and Tank kits are still cast in the UK). They certainly still do cast things in the UK however.

Yeah, but shouldn't it be cheaper? Isn't that the whole point of China?

The purpose of Forgeworld?

Well, this summer it'll be helping me get my Epic Space Marine force some Warhound titans, Thunderbolts, and a Thunderhawk!

KamikazeCanuck wrote:

Snarky wrote:some of it is, I honestly haven't seen a difference between the Made in China casts and the UK casts, except maybe a little less loose flash in the Chinese casts and better quality control than the UK casts.

I think they had moved some casting of the more popular ranges over to China (the ones that sell more and are smaller are more likely, as I've noticed that most of my Krieg infantry squads are casted in China, while things like my Vulture and Tank kits are still cast in the UK). They certainly still do cast things in the UK however.

Yeah, but shouldn't it be cheaper? Isn't that the whole point of China?

The problem with China is that they occasionally have "Quality Control" issues because they at times just plain don't care and they're running their dissident slave labor on a death march.
They also have a lot of issues with IP that "falls out the back door". It's entirely possible that GW/FW decided the hold the bigger items in England to cut down on things like "black market warhounds"

Too my knowledge, the Chinese facility isn't owned by GW, it's a "partner". Which means that they need to be watched like a hawk.

nkelsch wrote: Someone unwilling to ask permission seems like the problem, not the rules that require you to ask.

Except for the fact that there IS no rule requiring you to ask.

Worglock wrote:

KamikazeCanuck wrote:

Snarky wrote:some of it is, I honestly haven't seen a difference between the Made in China casts and the UK casts, except maybe a little less loose flash in the Chinese casts and better quality control than the UK casts.

I think they had moved some casting of the more popular ranges over to China (the ones that sell more and are smaller are more likely, as I've noticed that most of my Krieg infantry squads are casted in China, while things like my Vulture and Tank kits are still cast in the UK). They certainly still do cast things in the UK however.

Yeah, but shouldn't it be cheaper? Isn't that the whole point of China?

The problem with China is that they occasionally have "Quality Control" issues because they at times just plain don't care and they're running their dissident slave labor on a death march.
They also have a lot of issues with IP that "falls out the back door". It's entirely possible that GW/FW decided the hold the bigger items in England to cut down on things like "black market warhounds"

Too my knowledge, the Chinese facility isn't owned by GW, it's a "partner". Which means that they need to be watched like a hawk.

Now I don't get this anti-Chinese sentiment. While I do think that there are fewer labour rights in China, I highly doubt that it's slave labour... Anyway, the casts I've received from Chinese casters have been actually better in quality than the UK casts, so quality control in China is actually probably better than the UK one. And I've bought a lot of forgeworld, (I have 3 pure FW armies at 2000 points)

As for costs still being high? No idea. Maybe GW are trying to milk more money off us, or perhaps there are shipment fees/taxes etc. I have no idea. The fact that they still cast from the UK (in fact, the majority of the casts you get are from the UK) makes it unlikely that they'll lower prices. I mean, if they offered a cheaper option from Chinese casts and a more expensive UK cast option, I'm certain that the UK casters would be soon out of a job, as pretty much everyone would just buy the cheaper option regardless of where it's from.

Platuan4th wrote:

nkelsch wrote: Someone unwilling to ask permission seems like the problem, not the rules that require you to ask.

Except for the fact that there IS no rule requiring you to ask.

It is an expansion. All expansions require mutual consent. Besides, almost all friendly games are based upon mutual consent.

If you want to use a ruleset not in the core rulebook or codexes, then you need to agree with your opponent.

KamikazeCanuck wrote:

Snarky wrote:some of it is, I honestly haven't seen a difference between the Made in China casts and the UK casts, except maybe a little less loose flash in the Chinese casts and better quality control than the UK casts.

I think they had moved some casting of the more popular ranges over to China (the ones that sell more and are smaller are more likely, as I've noticed that most of my Krieg infantry squads are casted in China, while things like my Vulture and Tank kits are still cast in the UK). They certainly still do cast things in the UK however.

Yeah, but shouldn't it be cheaper? Isn't that the whole point of China?

Thats assuming GW will pass the savings to their customers.

No, they dont, they keep it as profit which looks good for the investors.

Steelmage99 wrote:You want a serious point of discussion, Grot 6?

How about this; Imperial Armour is an expansion just like Planetstrike, Cities of Death, Spearhead and Apocalypse.

Do you wish to refute this?

Grot 6, you there?

Steelmage99 wrote:

Steelmage99 wrote:You want a serious point of discussion, Grot 6?

How about this; Imperial Armour is an expansion just like Planetstrike, Cities of Death, Spearhead and Apocalypse.

Do you wish to refute this?

Grot 6, you there?

Whats the point? Your set in your idea that the expansion stuff is not even 40K, why bother saying anything anymore? An expansion? Why should I bang my head against the wall with a tool that continues to parrot the same misguided thought process about of all things.... minis, and more minis?

I refute it, but WTF. I'm done with you. Anything I have to say is going to be dazzled with diamonds and baffled by bullgak and a screenfull of alphabet.

Your not even discussing anything.

You say that it is an expansion, but.... What exactly is the purpose of Forgeworld, and what exactly is this... "expansion" used for, if not to play the game? Once again, your pretzil logic escapes me, and YOU being wrapped around the misguided thought process and not even seeing the real issue.

I posted the exact historics of "Forge World" in the other thread, and continue to say the same thing I've been saying the whole time...and what they are for. NOW that we have all the minis and more, we have a loophole for tools to call others out and poo poo that they are not "Official" 40K mini's. ( whatever the hell that means.) Heck why stop at forgeworld? We can now go on and call out each and every third party product and part as not "Officially official".

You want to use one of those high speed 3d party parts kits for a so and so tank? !@#$ you! its not "official".

You want to use Reaper, Ral Partha, or Vallejo paint? it's not "official!"

As wrapped around the axle as you are over one point, you have lost the discussion by default. and ergo- you have proven that you have no discussion.


<portions redacted; do NOT use obfuscated profanity>

Grot 6 wrote:
Whats the point? Your set in your idea that the expansion stuff is not even 40K, why bother saying anything anymore? An expansion? Why should I bang my head against the wall with a tool that continues to parrot the same misguided thought process about of all things.... minis, and more minis?

No, I am not saying that the "expansion stuff is not even 40K". Where have you gotten that idea from?
No, I am not talking about "minis, and more minis". I am talking about the rules. In the interest of intelligent discussion, that is a distinction that need to be made.

I refute it, but WTF. I'm !@$ing done with you. Anything I have to say is going to be dazzled with diamonds and baffled by bullgak and a screenfull of alphabet.

So, any argument that you don't like or can't refute is classed as "dazzled with diamonds and baffled by bullgak and a screenfull of alphabet". I see.

My question is very simple; "Do you see Imperial Armour as being something other than an expansion for Warhammer 40K, and if so, what?"

Your not even discussing anything.

I am very much prepared to, but so far I haven't had the need with you. All you present is a series of insults, spiced up with a handful of swearwords, while you avoid the simple questions posed to you.

You say that it is an expansion, but.... What exactly is the purpose of Forgeworld, and what exactly is this... "expansion" used for, if not to play the game? Once again, your pretzil logic escapes me, and YOU being wrapped around the misguided thought process and not even seeing the real issue.

I am not saying you can't play the game. I am saying; "use Imperial Armour as the expansion it is".

Please help me see the "real issue" that I am missing.

I posted the exact historics of "Forge World" in the other thread, and continue to say the same thing I've been saying the whole time...and what they are for. NOW that we have all the minis and more, we have a loophole for tools to call others out and poo poo that they are not "Official" 40K mini's. ( whatever the hell that means.) !@$#ing things. Heck why stop at forgeworld? We can now go on and call out each and every third party product and part as not "Officially official".

You want to use one of those high speed 3d party parts kits for a so and so tank? !@#$ you! its not "official".

You want to use that Battlefoam @#$%? @#$% you! it's not "official."

You want to use Reaper, Ral Partha, or Vallejo paint? !@#$ you! it's not "official!"

What are you saying here? I really cannot make heads or tails of it.
I have all through this thread, and the other, said that Imperial Armour is a 100% official Expansion for Warhammer 40K.
It is official and is meant to be played with Warhammer 40K.

But...

Like any other expansion, it requires that you agree with your opponent beforehand.

As wrapped around the axle as you are over one point, you have lost the discussion by default. and ergo- you have proven that you have no discussion.

Other then that I'm !@#^ing done with you.

I continuously bring up that single point because it answers ALL questions about how and when to use Imperial Armour units.

And so far it seems to have been irrefutable as well.

Steelmage99 wrote: Same song... different verse. Being just as petty, but a whole lot worse.

What exactly are you trying to do here?

Do you even have a point anymore?

There will be no more discussion with you on anything. Welcome to ignore.

Ive always viewed forge world as a pre-curso to what will be released, and a provider of apoc products, and a way to customize your army. Ive never viewed their rules as serious or something to be used in actual play....

Lets say you want Apoc Super Heavies....Forgeworld is where you go.
Lets say you want customized rhino doors/units/squads, forgeworld is where you go.

If you look at the forgeworld eldar models. Shadow Specteres/Hornets/Lynx's/Wraithseer will probably be in the new eldar codex when it is released.

As far as Forgeworld units being used with forgeworld rules in non apoc games.....no that doesnt work and itsnt done and shouldnt be done....unless your opponent is a friend and just wants to have a fun game.

Here's something I've been wondering - and that's the order of the books. Apocalypse and Apocalypse II - are these IA: Book One? most of the units appear later in other books, do these later books supercede the earlier ones?

Tek wrote:Here's something I've been wondering - and that's the order of the books. Apocalypse and Apocalypse II - are these IA: Book One? most of the units appear later in other books, do these later books supercede the earlier ones?

a lot of the earlier books are disappearing from sale because they're preparing updates and reprints. IA1 was 'Imperial Guard and Imperial Navy' - a lot of what's in it is updated in IAA, IAA2 and the current IG Codex but they have said they're planning to fully update the rules and army lists that IA1 contains to bring it into line with the current rules, because all the technical data and treadhead detail is still valid... personally I hope they make it look like IA9 and 10!!

with regard to 'the point' as the OP asks, it is this:
Forge World exists to expand and explore the 40k (and now WFB) background in a way that the main range of Codices and Army Books cannot, by necessity. A Forge World release will always seek to provide a very specific, incredibly deep and detailed slice of the background (Badab War for example) accompanied by highly detailed, unique miniatures and vehicles that again expand the background of 40k.
To a certain extent they are a testing ground for the popularity of certain kits (Sky Ray, Pirahna, Drop Pod, Baneblade, Valkyrie etc) but this isn;t their sole reason for being.

with regard to the 'officiallity' of the models and rules, Grot6 and Steelmage99 are both correct - the models are totally official 40k models but the rules are an expansion like any other 'Studio' release.
So to clarify, Grot6, you wouldn't rock up to the table for a pick-up game and insist on using a Planetstrike force (for example) without discussing it with your opponent beforehand, because while Planetstrike IS 40k, it is not 40k becuase it alters the basic game rules quite a lot.

The same is true of a Forge World ruleset, be it the DKK list or the Siege Assault Vanguard list, or even the inclusion of a Land Raider Achilles (which, by the way, I love deeply). However, i love playing with and against FW rules, I don;t play tourneys and I've never had an opponent complain.

Grot 6 wrote:

Steelmage99 wrote: Same song... different verse. Being just as petty, but a whole lot worse.

What exactly are you trying to do here?

Do you even have a point anymore?

There will be no more discussion with you on anything. Welcome to ignore.

I'll see if I can survive without your unique brand of intelligent discussion.

.

Grot 6 wrote:Then to hear tell people actually want to split hairs over (I/E rules lawyer) thier interpritation of decision making process of use or non use.

I guess it must be an unwritten law that everyone posting on the internet must have no idea what the feth a "rules lawyer" actually is.

Grot 6 wrote:Too bad too, would have loved to buy me a few of those Grot tanks, and some of those variant Ork truck and tanks.

If you want them, buy them. If you only want them because you want to use them in every single 40k game as if they were a codex-legal unit then no, don't bother, because they're not.

Grot 6 wrote:As a IG player, I see it as a matter of self interest to actually WANT to buy something, not just have some cat come across as a total Rules Joke and try to finangle a win out of not letting you play your army.

Yeah, I'm sure that's what's going on here...I just want to tell everyone I beat you even though we didn't even play a fething game.

wat

mikhaila wrote:Great models. I ran two big tracks, a megadread, and a killkrusha at the Colonial GT. Used them as trucks, deffdread, and battlewagon. I use my grot tanks a lot as buggies.
In non tournament games I run them using the IA rules, and I've never had a problem using them, but always ask first.

Not a bad point, actually. You can't claim that FW is a "defective" product because you can generally use FW models as representations of codex entries easily enough without much contention. And as it's been said time and again, if you just tell people you're bringing FW before hand I bet you 9 times out of 10 people would be okay with it. And despite what you seem to believe, telling people before hand is just a common courtesy and not some bs "rules lawyering" because FW items do change the game up quite a bit, and you can't just spring it on somebody as a surprise, shrug your shoulders and say "What? We're just playing 40k, what are you upset about?" like everything is normal.

nkelsch wrote:Sometimes that squiggoth is a squiggoth, sometime he is a battlewagon!

lol, now I'm imagining a picture like the "I'm a Porsche!" razorgore, but with a squiggoth saying "I'm a battlewagon!"...

And the squiggoth is more trukk-sized, really. Although I guess the battlewagon wouldn't be much of a stretch considering how small GW made it.

Snarky wrote:except maybe a little less loose flash in the Chinese casts and better quality control than the UK casts.

So there isn't much of a difference...except for the part where the models are actually of good quality?

Platuan4th wrote:Except for the fact that there IS no rule requiring you to ask.

I don't recall Planetstrike (does anyone even play that?) or Apocalypse requiring permission either.

Grot 6 wrote:Whats the point? Your set in your idea that the expansion stuff is not even 40K, why bother saying anything anymore? An expansion? Why should I bang my head against the wall with a tool that continues to parrot the same misguided thought process about of all things.... minis, and more minis?

Pot calling the kettle black if you ask me.

Grot 6 wrote:You say that it is an expansion, but.... What exactly is the purpose of Forgeworld, and what exactly is this... "expansion" used for, if not to play the game? Once again, your pretzil logic escapes me, and YOU being wrapped around the misguided thought process and not even seeing the real issue.

Oh FFS.

If it helps you, think of Imperial Armour as "40k +". It's pretty much the same game, except you have rules for fliers, AA, superheavies, and special army lists not covered by GW which are designed by people outside the regular studio. The whole reason why everyone is saying it is, and should be, kept separate and be permission-based like every single other 40k supplement is because none of that stuff is covered in any of the "main" 40k material, IE the 5th edition rulebook and codices.

Grot 6 wrote:I posted the exact historics of "Forge World" in the other thread, and continue to say the same thing I've been saying the whole time...and what they are for. NOW that we have all the minis and more, we have a loophole for tools to call others out and poo poo that they are not "Official" 40K mini's. ( whatever the hell that means.) Heck why stop at forgeworld? We can now go on and call out each and every third party product and part as not "Officially official".

Doesn't it get old slinging childish insults at people simply because they have a different point of view than you?

lol, why am I asking this question, of course it doesn't. But still, getting a little annoyed by how I keep being indirectly labelled a tool because I might have a slight problem with someone who showed up with a 2000 point FW army with fliers and superheavies without saying a fething word about it beforehand, and just expecting me to play a game with him like it's no big deal.



I don't know why the hell this is such a big deal to you. Is it that hard to use Krieg as regular Imperial Guard in case someone actually said "No, I don't want to play with FW units today."? Considering how you made a point out of saying the Death Korps, Elysians, etc. are "just another regiment" I'm curious to hear an explanation as to why playing with their FW rules is so god-damned important, because surely they're not THAT different that they can't be represented just fine with the IG codex as it is? Hell, with the valkyrie/vendetta it's hard to argue that Elysians can't be represented "properly", and I'm not sure what DKoK has that makes them unique other than gas masks, so...

Steelmage99 wrote:

Steelmage99 wrote:You want a serious point of discussion, Grot 6?

How about this; Imperial Armour is an expansion just like Planetstrike, Cities of Death, Spearhead and Apocalypse.

Do you wish to refute this?

Grot 6, you there?

Boy, talk about blatantly looking for a fight...
I see why you didn't go with 'Subtlemage66'.



Ghidorah

Smitty0305 wrote:

As far as Forgeworld units being used with forgeworld rules in non apoc games.....no that doesnt work and itsnt done and shouldnt be done....unless your opponent is a friend and just wants to have a fun game.

it never ceases to amaze me how many people use "fun" as a descriptor that implies "out of the ordinary" when it comes to Warhams.

Really guys, get your heads checked. If you're only playing Warhams to kick someone in the jeans and make them quit Warhams, do us all a favor and go play Warmachine.

Why do you take winning or losing so personally? Losing sucks, I do it all the time, but I'll never be a fan of this hand-holding, ass-coddling "everyone's a winner!" attitude that seems so popular in the 40k community. The quicker people realize that getting your toy soldiers asses handed to them isn't a slight against your manhood the better off we'll all be.

I say if losing one game is so damaging to your ego that you quit Warhams forever then please do so.

Sidstyler wrote: A whole bunch of random.

It would be better to sit back there and see what we as a whole, were actually discussing from the beginning, instead of coming in out of left field in a point per point verbage fest to intetionally try to bait me. YET AGAIN.

Sidstyler.


Seriously dude...


Your starting to go in on a tangent of biblical proportions when your cutting and pasting to suit your misconvincing argumentative that you are actually bringing something to the table here.

Knock it off and address the discussion, STOP with the attacks when your not even AT the A and B point of the cross talk of the heated discussion.

I've already posted that I'm not playing symantic nut roll with one guy, withdrawn from the conversation, and AM NOW NOT EVEN IN this conversation anymore. My points are there, but I'm just .... done with the conversation.


You want to dog pile me too? What is that all about, and WHY would I possibly want to continue?

Your not even discussing, you just spouted off a bunch of random.



Other then that, I've already discussed my point of order in conversation, and I've been reminded that this is just a conversation and to tame it down with the newborn mod on this subject.

You should do the same and try discussing the subject with something new to bring to the table.

run on along now and play nice with the other posters....

Sidstyler wrote:lol, why am I asking this question, of course it doesn't. But still, getting a little annoyed by how I keep being indirectly labelled a tool because I might have a slight problem with someone who showed up with a 2000 point FW army with fliers and superheavies without saying a fething word about it beforehand, and just expecting me to play a game with him like it's no big deal.

Out of interest, Sid, where has anyone defending the use of FW units in general play defended the idea of fielding SHTs or flyers in their lists? You can't fit a SHT in a standard FOC (and I believe the threashold for two FOCs is 2500 points - or it least it used to be - which is encroaching on Apocalypse territory), though I do need to check where the non-SH flyers fit these days.

Stripping out those elements from your slightly hyperbolic example, would you have issues with someone turning up with a 2k DKoK list? Or Elysians? I could see an Armoured Company being a shock, but given that Mech IG seems to be the standard form of that list at the moment, it doesn't seem a huge leap further on.....

nkelsch wrote:

Platuan4th wrote:

nkelsch wrote: Someone unwilling to ask permission seems like the problem, not the rules that require you to ask.

Except for the fact that there IS no rule requiring you to ask.

It is an expansion. All expansions require mutual consent. Besides, almost all friendly games are based upon mutual consent.

If you want to use a ruleset not in the core rulebook or codexes, then you need to agree with your opponent.

They're supplements, NOT expansions(please note the lack of the word expansion on the covers of the non-Apoc books like Apoc, Planetfall, et al. bear proudly). Incidentally, the Codecii all used to say Supplement on them as well.

We're going to just have to agree to disagree, especially since a good number of Imperial Armour books specifically have a sentence in the front about NOT needing permission to use them.

Platuan4th wrote: especially since a good number of Imperial Armour books specifically have a sentence in the front about NOT needing permission to use them.

None of them have such a line.

For the people in the UK who sell Forgeworld on every streetcorner and the datasheets rain from the sky everywhere... The US position on forgeworld pretty much is that of 'ard boyz' for most groups of people.

Only the main army lists may be used for the army in
question. No appendix lists are permitted.

Only armies listed in the Approved Army Lists section
may be taken.

Forge World models are permitted in the tournament,
but they can only be used to represent models from
existing Codex list. No Forge World rules are allowed.

nkelsch wrote:

Platuan4th wrote: especially since a good number of Imperial Armour books specifically have a sentence in the front about NOT needing permission to use them.

None of them have such a line.

Not in explicit terms, but try actually reading the intros, where they DO say(paraphrased) "we used to tell you to ask permission, but that's unnecessary now, because you basically do that every time you ask someone for a game of 40K".

Platuan4th wrote:

nkelsch wrote:

Platuan4th wrote: especially since a good number of Imperial Armour books specifically have a sentence in the front about NOT needing permission to use them.

None of them have such a line.

Not in explicit terms, but try actually reading the intros, where they DO say(paraphrased) "we used to tell you to ask permission, but that's unnecessary now, because you basically do that every time you ask someone for a game of 40K".

So the stance is nothing is official and they don't do official modification to the core rules anymore. Which means BRB and codexes only unlike the days of 'chapter approved' being official modifications to the core rules and Imperial Armorer was an unofficial segmented set of rules and never reached officially legal status.

Boils down to IA is not core rules and is not legal...

nkelsch wrote:

Platuan4th wrote:

nkelsch wrote:

Platuan4th wrote: especially since a good number of Imperial Armour books specifically have a sentence in the front about NOT needing permission to use them.

None of them have such a line.

Not in explicit terms, but try actually reading the intros, where they DO say(paraphrased) "we used to tell you to ask permission, but that's unnecessary now, because you basically do that every time you ask someone for a game of 40K".

So the stance is nothing is official and they don't do official modification to the core rules anymore. Which means BRB and codexes only unlike the days of 'chapter approved' being official modifications to the core rules and Imperial Armorer was an unofficial segmented set of rules and never reached officially legal status.

Boils down to IA is not core rules and is not legal...

This is the completly wrong way to look at this situation, this whole conception of legallity and official rules is total crap. IA material is supplementary, it adds on to the core rules and is completly opptional and in no way vital to the integrity of the BRB. The whole FW models are not official is complete and total bullgak and forever will be. Now on the topic of permission/opponent consent, many people don't like this myself included however this does not entitle anybody to be rude to each other, if I was going to use a FW vehicle/unit in a game I would tell my opponent and supply them with the printed rules in case they had any questions or concerns. If it really became a problem, I would just find someone else to play with.

It is true that FW things are a supplement but they are more of a minor tweak, and add variety to the game unlike planetstrike/apoc/cities of death which totally change the way the game is played.

My local GW does not let us use forgeworld models because they say they put the newbies of. Yet they still have a huge titan (bigger than me) in the front window and one about half its size at the back.

haloreach4ever wrote:My local GW does not let us use forgeworld models because they say they put the newbies of.

I'm sure most of these so-called newbies wouldn't even know they were facing some FW things. AC Chimera turrets and the like don't exactly scream "I'M FORGE WORLD".

Dysartes wrote:Stripping out those elements from your slightly hyperbolic example, would you have issues with someone turning up with a 2k DKoK list? Or Elysians? I could see an Armoured Company being a shock, but given that Mech IG seems to be the standard form of that list at the moment, it doesn't seem a huge leap further on.....

I've stated this before. Don't remember if it was this or the other FW thread (it feels like we have two of the same discussion going on doesn't it?), but anyway...

If someone wanted to play with a FW army and told me about it ahead of time (I would say like you would for an expansion game, but really any game I play is planned ahead of time) then I'd be up for it. If someone asked for a pick-up game and plopped that stuff out on the table just expecting me to be okay with it, like you would if you were fielding a regular GW codex you can grab off the shelf, then I'd have an issue with it. And even then I'd probably still play, it just depends on how big of a dick they were being about it. Can't say I'd really be in the mood to play toy soldiers anymore when someone starts going off on a rant about how people like me are ruining 40k.

Grot 6 wrote:Your starting to go in on a tangent of biblical proportions when your cutting and pasting to suit your misconvincing argumentative that you are actually bringing something to the table here.

Knock it off and address the discussion, STOP with the attacks when your not even AT the A and B point of the cross talk of the heated discussion.

...this is kind of embarrassing, but I'm honestly having a hard time understanding what you're trying to say. I'm not joking, other than the complete dismissal of everything I said as a "pile of random", which I consider to be an insult no matter how true, and obviously being talked down to, your post literally had me scratching my head thinking "...what?"

Anyway, I did read the whole thread before I posted what you replied to, so I'm not sure exactly what I missed that was so critical to the point you were making, or how anything I said could be construed as an "attack" when you are the one calling people tools and clowns for having a different opinion, which is what I would call "baiting", personally.

Also, I have kind of a messed-up work schedule, so I usually am a little late to the party in threads like this. Most of the heated discussion took place while I was gone so I apologize if it seemed like I was trying to drag you back into a debate that you had stepped out of.

Anyway, as for the discussion (you're free to ignore this part if you're not talking about it anymore), personally I just get the feeling that you're willfully ignoring points brought up by the other side, and being too defensive and using the "attacks" and "dog-piling" as an excuse to dismiss people entirely, which in my opinion makes you look a little hypocritical by calling people "tools" or "clowns" for having contentions with FW product, and then when said clowns explain their reasoning, you put them on Ignore. It makes you look like the one who's baiting people.

Like this for example:

Grot 6 wrote:If you going to say something, just say it. You didn't make any kind of serious points of discussion there, all you ended up doing is pretty much saying the same thing you just did in the other post.

I disagree, I thought Steelmage99's post was pretty good and that he did quite a bit to explain why he thought the way he did, without being too insulting. In fact I'd say one of the "serious points of discussion" he made was that Imperial Armour has "Warhammer 40k Expansion" stamped on it, which is pretty damning proof that IA is not intended to be "no frills 40k" as you described, which lends credence to the idea that FW rules should remain permission-based like other expansions, and that letting your opponent know of them ahead of time is just common courtesy.

You're saying a lot of things, that his "thought process is misguided", that he's "not even discussing anything" (wut?)...you're doing everything in your power to make him look like he's speaking in riddles and doublespeak and not really providing any proof of that whatsoever. I can't go looking for it myself because I've been reading the guy's posts and he's making sense...whereas I'm giving myself a headache constantly watching you post things like "dazzled with diamonds and baffled by bullgak and a screenfull of alphabet", and I don't even know what the feth.

I've tried very hard to see what your point is, and here's all I've really gathered after a second look, which isn't much more than what I understood from the first read through. "GW sells FW models. FW models are obviously designed for 40k. Hence FW models are official and can be used in every 40k game, despite the fact that the rules for FW models are sold in books that are labelled as expansions, and if that's not true then GW are crooks for selling models that I'm not guaranteed to be able to use whenever I damn well please." A couple of things though:

1. GW isn't forcing you to buy these models, nor are they attempting to be deceptive in any way from what I can tell. The Imperial Armour books have "Warhammer 40k Expansion" printed on the corner (we have a screenshot from this very thread proving that so I think it's safe to say that's not an arguable point anymore), so they're not being marketed as a "core" product like the 5th edition rulebook or codices. When buying Forge World models, like buying plastic baneblades or stompas, there's no guarantee you'll be able to use them in every single game. Hell, if you want to you could argue that buying an official codex doesn't even guarantee that you can always play the game, because people can still decline games with you for any reason. 40k itself is a permission-based game, if I don't feel like playing at all then we're not playing.

2. The fact that it's obvious which systems FW's models are intended for doesn't really mean anything. It's obvious which system the baneblade and stompa are designed for, but that doesn't mean they're kosher in a "regular" game of 40k. In some people's eyes, FW is the same, it's not designed for a normal game and so showing up to a normal game with it is comparable to bringing a stompa to a regular 2000 point game. I understand that it might sound odd that there are models that are obviously designed for 40k armies, that can't always be used with those 40k armies (yet, anyway), but that's why they're called expansions. Like I said before, there's 40k, and then there's 40k+ which is stuff like Imperial Armour, Apocalypse, etc., which is like 40k but with extras.

3. You can still use the models. A lot of stuff FW makes can be used to represent regular codex units just fine, so you're not really "wasting" money buying a "defective" product, the product still works just fine. You just can't always use the rules that FW developed for them, which bothers some people because, apparently, they can't play with a model without using it's "official" rules...they bought a megadread, not a deffdread, and if they can't use the special megadread rules then there's no point in using the model at all ever! Yeah, "counts-as" is a little more difficult with the special FW tanks and stuff like fliers and titans, but that's something you should keep in mind before buying that product anyway. In my opinion, buying a titan and then whining because it's not "legal" in regular 40k games, is like buying a special racing mod for your car which is not road legal, and then complaining because you can't drive the car anymore. You kinda knew what you were getting into in the first place.

4. This whole "problem" is being grossly exaggerated. Odds are if you just treat people like human beings and act reasonable, few people will decline a game with FW units, and if they do then you can just find someone else to play with, no big deal. Personally I don't think it should be held against someone if they ever do decline to play with FW rules, because I know I'm not always in the mood for stuff like that either (I'll probably never play an Apoc game simply because the idea of dedicating an entire weekend to one game of 40k whose outcome no one will really give a gak about once the game is finally over appealing). I think accusing those people of being against the idea of "having fun" is wrong, but then again I'm pretty sure Worglock is just a big fat troll anyway so I'm not too concerned about what he/she thinks.

Platuan4th wrote:
They're supplements, NOT expansions(please note the lack of the word expansion on the covers of the non-Apoc books like Apoc, Planetfall, et al. bear proudly).

Every Imperial Armour volume, from 5 and onwards, carry the "Warhammer 40.000 Expansion" logo on the front. I know this because I just need to turn my head slightly to the left and look at my book shelf in order to verify it.

Incidentally, the Codecii all used to say Supplement on them as well.

When was this and how is it relevant? You seem to try to draw an imaginary similarity between the GW Codecii and the Forgeworld publications based on names. This fails on two accounts. One being the fact that Imperial Armour books DO carry the "Expansion" logo and not a Supplement logo. The other being that fact that the GW Codecii doesn't either.
The codecii doesn't say Supplement on them. They say "Warhammer 40.000 Codex".

One is an Expansion and the other is a Codex, and those two are clearly different.

We're going to just have to agree to disagree, especially since a good number of Imperial Armour books specifically have a sentence in the front about NOT needing permission to use them.

Last time Forgeworld addressed their own "legality" and how do use them, was in Imperial Armour Apocalypse.

This is what they said;



Notice how they address Imperial Armour rules as a whole, and not just this specific book.

Would you be so kind as to point out exactly where, and in which book, Forgeworld "specifically have a sentence in the front about NOT needing permission to use them", please.