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.

The 40K setting is owned and operated by GW. The FW books are operated by Forgeworld, which is a subsiduary company owned and controlled BY GW. There is a difference, even if they are owned by the same company.

In essence it would be something like asking if you could bring a Terrorgeist into a game of 40K, because they are both GW. Or asking if you can play a Solar Exalted in a game of Vampire, because they are both White Wolf. The rulesets are similar enough to allow for the fusion, but there is no reason for the other person to have to say yes

The forgeworld models and rules are a seperate entity to the main 40K rules and models for a reason. If they were intended to be used, no questions asked, in any game of 40K the models would be in the same section as GW's normal ones (perhaps with a FW sticker, like they do with Finecast) and the rules for the models would be in a codex, or the codex would have a line in it saying something like 'for extra choices please see our Forgeworld units, all of whom are acceptable for use with the units in htis book'

Ascalam wrote:


The forgeworld models and rules are a seperate entity to the main 40K rules and models for a reason. If they were intended to be used, no questions asked, in any game of 40K the models would be in the same section as GW's normal ones (perhaps with a FW sticker, like they do with Finecast) and the rules for the models would be in a codex, or the codex would have a line in it saying something like 'for extra choices please see our Forgeworld units, all of whom are acceptable for use with the units in htis book'

Your argument assumes that because something was initially one way it can't be changed.

IF GW sates that they are suddenly legal then they will be.

And you have no idea what the long term goals for inclusion have been all along. Maybe FW/GW WILL merge IA rules into the main line. Who knows.

IF the rumor happens, I don't think it will catch GW by surprise. GW is FW and vice vera...

And when they change them to be codex-legal, and say so, i'm cool with that.

I just don't deal well with someone feeling entitled to use them just because he has them, regardless of what i think.

Right now nothing FW is 'official' for most tournaments, and is 'discuss with your opponent'.

If they all become official then they're official

I don't get why the 'never play in tourneys' are so eager to kick in the sandcastle of the 'sportshammer' people?

If you play in friendly play, most people already use your forgeworld. If you don't like tourneys and don't play in them why do you care if they use forgeworld or not?

Balance is a legitimate concern for people who play tourneys. The only reason why tourneys are working as well as they are right now is because there is actually some balance out there. Arbitrarily widening the codex field that adds more imbalance may not be the best thing because when the game reaches a point of imbalance where the game is unfair and you can make I.W.I.N. lists, you then have to have comp... 3rd edition was broken due to wild imbalance and too many poorly tested chapter approved codexes and loose rules.

I suspect from seeing the new IA book and the changes in rumors that *ONLY* the units int he new book will be codex legal. All the existing units and books will still be expansions and not codex legal. If they address balance and invalidate the old datasheets (which it sounds like they are) the I will be fine with the shift in the META. They might actually be using this as a way to balance the lower tier codexes.

If they release something that is crap, I have no worries because smart TOs will simply disallow the book... because GW can't tell independent tourneys what to do.

nkelsch wrote:I don't get why the 'never play in tourneys' are so eager to kick in the sandcastle of the 'sportshammer' people?

Maybe becasue without fail any time any subject about a change/new addition/new codex/new unit etc. to the game comes up we get a post within seconds saying "not gonna happen it would ruin tournament play" or "this is going to ruin tournaments" or "one more thing to have to rememebr/learn for tournament play" as if all decisions have to be made in consideration of tourney play.

The tourney crowd seems to always want to assume that their way of playing is the most important consideration for any chnge/addition to the game.

Why?

As far as I am concerned tourney play is the Alt format. Rather then build the game around the artifical controls of "tournament balance", why not just assume that the tourney players/Tos are free to disallow material or set artifical limits as they feel the need and have a more open approach tot he default game?

CT GAMER wrote:
As far as I am concerned tourney play is the Alt format. Rathe rthen build the game around the artifical controls of "balance", why not just assume that the tourney players/Tos are free to disallow material or set artifical limits as they feel the need?

Even casual play deserves balance. Unbalanced games are less fun even in friendly play. No one wants to play monopoly where one player starts with all the railroads. And in casual play I don't know why you need a book to tell you what rules you can use. You could have been using IA all along.

What is wrong to have a core set of rules and allow casual people to allow/disallow expansions as they see fit? If GW isn't going to put the effort in to playtesting and making balanced or fair rules then those rules should not be in the core rule set and be 'expansion' or 'narrative' rules. Even friendly play benefits from having balanced and fair rulesets, balance is not just something wanted by sportshammer people.

nkelsch wrote:


What is wrong to have a core set of rules and allow casual people to allow/disallow expansions as they see fit? If GW isn't going to put the effort in to playtesting and making balanced or fair rules then those rules should not be in the core rule set and be 'expansion' or 'narrative' rules. Even friendly play benefits from having balanced and fair rulesets, balance is not just something wanted by sportshammer people.

Yes but one side is often far more concerned with the impact of a given unit, etc.

More often then not the average casual player isn't looking to break the game, min/max the best units or spam the power combos, so even if a FW unit is open to abuse or imbalance, most casual players aren't going to bother to exploit it to it's maximum potential, so it isn't really as big of a deal as it might be in the tournament setting...

Go take a look at the army lists posted int he tournament section or in the batreps that feature sportshammer games: they often have key power units spammed multiple times in the exact same configurations. I rarely encounter these sorts of builds or degree of spamming in my casual games.

What I do see are people fielding models that look cool, and fielding FW stuff simply for the variety or excuse to put the model on the table. So if makiing FW stuff fully legal opens up the game as far as variety of army builds and cooler models on the table in greater numbers, then that is a win win in my book.

Why it is important is becasue you often have that one guy that shows up at game night who rants and raves about how you shouldnt use FW, that it is unbalanced, etc., etc. causing a big stink. IF it is all made legal this guy gets silenced and we can get on to gaming...

Then tournaments and TOs can impose whatever artifical restrictions they want on what can be used in their events if they see fit, and as they are already doing...

CT GAMER wrote:

What I do see are people fielding models that look cool, and fielding FW stuff simply for the variety or excuse to put the model on the table. So if makiing FW stuff fully legal opens up the game as far as variety of army builds and cooler models on the table in greater numbers, then that is a win win in my book.

Why it is important is because you often have that one guy that shows up at game night who rants and raves about how you shouldn't use FW, that it is unbalanced, etc., etc. causing a big stink. IF it is all made legal this guy gets silenced and we can get on to gaming...

Then tournaments and TOs can impose whatever artificial restrictions they want on what can be used in their events if they see fit, and as they are already doing...

Actually this is the exact opposite of what I see when FW is allowed. Basically there are a handful of gamebreaking and unbalanced units which get spammed to holy hell (usually as proxies) as soon as forgeworld is allowed in any event, casual or tourneys. Larger imbalance doesn't build variety. The more things are balanced and fair, the more people can 'take what they want' because they won't be punished in-game by taking inferior units that will hand opponents a win. And don't pretend casual people don't care about balance and don't benefit from it. Many casual players are TFG and care more about crushing skulls than tourney people and don't think that somehow the casual gameplay arena will not suffer at the hands of gross imbalance.

I don't mind adding more units and armies to the game, as long as they are done in a thoughtful way with balance in mind. Releasing a new book with explicit units in it which have been re-tooled and re-pointed with balance in mind is a good thing. Blanket allowing years of unplaytested garbage rules into the scene is sloppy, lazy and does no one any good. (and everyone who is reasonable knows this... which is why even if 'game law' is passed, if the rules are unfair, no one will allow them as tourneys can disavow them and casuals can refuse to play you.)

nkelsch wrote:

CT GAMER wrote:

What I do see are people fielding models that look cool, and fielding FW stuff simply for the variety or excuse to put the model on the table. So if makiing FW stuff fully legal opens up the game as far as variety of army builds and cooler models on the table in greater numbers, then that is a win win in my book.

Why it is important is because you often have that one guy that shows up at game night who rants and raves about how you shouldn't use FW, that it is unbalanced, etc., etc. causing a big stink. IF it is all made legal this guy gets silenced and we can get on to gaming...

Then tournaments and TOs can impose whatever artificial restrictions they want on what can be used in their events if they see fit, and as they are already doing...

Actually this is the exact opposite of what I see when FW is allowed. Basically there are a handful of gamebreaking and unbalanced units which get spammed to holy hell (usually as proxies) as soon as forgeworld is allowed in any event, casual or tourneys. Larger imbalance doesn't build variety. The more things are balanced and fair, the more people can 'take what they want' because they won't be punished in-game by taking inferior units that will hand opponents a win. And don't pretend casual people don't care about balance and don't benefit from it. Many casual players are TFG and care more about crushing skulls than tourney people and don't think that somehow the casual gameplay arena will not suffer at the hands of gross imbalance.

I don't mind adding more units and armies to the game, as long as they are done in a thoughtful way with balance in mind. Releasing a new book with explicit units in it which have been re-tooled and re-pointed with balance in mind is a good thing. Blanket allowing years of unplaytested garbage rules into the scene is sloppy, lazy and does no one any good. (and everyone who is reasonable knows this... which is why even if 'game law' is passed, if the rules are unfair, no one will allow them as tourneys can disavow them and casuals can refuse to play you.)

I guess my point is that the casual players I meet and play with police our own. We don't spam broken units and we don't netdeck, so the concerns you describe are not our issues. Of course tournaments will impose restrictions on what they see as damaging their alt format, but they are already doing that anyway at times.

What this change would do is allow casual players a little more freedom to play what they want in public games (non-tournament) without someoen being a dick and refusing you the right to play a model that might in no way be broken simply becasue it happens to be FW...

CT GAMER wrote:
I guess my point is that the casual players I meet and play with police our own. We don't spam broken units and we don't netdeck, so the concerns you describe are not our issues. Of course tournaments will impose restrictions on what they see as damaging their alt format, but they are alrady doign that anyway.

What this change would do is allow casual players a little more freedom to play what they want in public games (non-tournament) without someoen being a dick and refusing you the right to play a model that might in no way be broken simply becasue it happens to be FW...

I don't get it... if you police your own and already force comp on friendly games, then how are you having issues with so-called 'dicks' refusing to let you use forgeworld. If you have already convinced people from spamming units then how are you unable to convince them to let you use FW? These 'dicks' are going to be the first ones proxying deathwind drop pods or nurgle blight drones in spammy numbers and killing your now legal spanna boyz... How has the so-called variety increased and made the game better? Because people have lost the ability to deny you games?

Social issues and politics in your group doesn't seem like a valid reason to throw the game back to 3rd edition levels of imbalance. I don't mind adding to the core codexes with game legal units if they are done with balance in mind. It is actually a good way to refresh some of the older codexes who are neglected. A new book of limited approved units is good. Allowing all of the retro garbage just run free is a bad thing.

Has everyone seen this?:
http://apocalypse40k.blogspot.com/2011/09/imperial-armor-apocalypse-second.html

For orks there isn't a single new unit. Not a single one. So if they planned on just making all the current books 'codex legal' why the need to reprint any of these? The only reason I can see for a reprint is if they are changing point values and rules for all these units and declaring these 'core' now. Pretty sure the only units which would fit a normal force org are the grot tanks, lifta wagon, mekadred and grot bomb launchas. With 6th edition on the horizon, and them designing codexes for 6th, this may be the list of 'codex legal' units which we will get from FW and for 6th edition.

We will have to see.

And there's the flaw in what you're saying:

"force comp on friendly games"

They're not 'forcing' anything, because they're not in the tournament mindset.

H.B.M.C. wrote:And there's the flaw in what you're saying:

"force comp on friendly games"

They're not 'forcing' anything, because they're not in the tournament mindset.

The person who claims they are in 'friendly' game mindset are the ones who are 'policing' gameplay. That sounds like 'forcing' to me.

It is possble that GW might put out a "reinforcements" book that writes up certain FW units to be used as fully legal choices in the codexes.

It could be the size of a book like Planetstrike or COD, and give x units to each codex. i could also see this happenign as a WD feature...

This could be more controlled as opposed to a blanket lifting of restriction, though i think a blanket lifting would be fine if they plan to update unit's rules/points in a future IA book release.

CT GAMER wrote:The tourney crowd seems to always want to assume that their way of playing is the most important consideration for any chnge/addition to the game.

Why?

Because balanced gameplay benefits all people who play the game? And I'd say judging from all the whining and crying on this forum about how unbalanced 40k is because their army hasn't gotten updated yet, that balance is something that most people do crave whether they play in tournaments or not, despite the fact that you personally don't care for it.

Its a highlighted part of GW's idiocy that Forgeworld never was 'Chapter Approved' for regular play.

It makes 0% business sense not to include it.

Sidstyler wrote:

CT GAMER wrote:The tourney crowd seems to always want to assume that their way of playing is the most important consideration for any chnge/addition to the game.

Why?

Because balanced gameplay benefits all people who play the game? And I'd say judging from all the whining and crying on this forum about how unbalanced 40k is because their army hasn't gotten updated yet, that balance is something that most people do crave whether they play in tournaments or not, despite the fact that you personally don't care for it.

An attempt at ballpark balance on some level is surely important, but I think many cases of supposed imbalance and the DOOM that accompanies many interwebz discusssions are largely overblown and irrelevant...

Making FW available to casual play will not break the game. Not to mention that if it happens it seems to be GW hoping that just maybe people will tone back the sportshammer mentality and simply have some fun pushing some cool models around a table with friends. That shift in mentality would be welcome as far as I'm concerned. If it drives the hardcore sportshamemr players to other games? Not gonna lose sleep over it tbh...

Not to mention that what you read on this forum or the internets in general ISN'T representative of the whole of the 40k comunity. What it represents are the most vocal and opinionated of those players that also happen to haunt such places...

Ascalam wrote:
The 40K setting is owned and operated by GW. The FW books are operated by Forgeworld, which is a subsiduary company owned and controlled BY GW. There is a difference, even if they are owned by the same company.

In essence it would be something like asking if you could bring a Terrorgeist into a game of 40K, because they are both GW. Or asking if you can play a Solar Exalted in a game of Vampire, because they are both White Wolf. The rulesets are similar enough to allow for the fusion, but there is no reason for the other person to have to say yes

Analogy does not work. The Terrorgeist does not say anywhere in its profile something to the effect of 'May be taken as a Troops choice in a Space Marine army'. At least the newer IA books say in the bottom corner 'Warhammer 40,000 Expansion', just like Cities of Death and Planetstrike (and very unlike the Terrorgeist), which are 'opponents consent' in that you agree to use those rules. IA books should really be treated no differently. They're branded as 40k expansions. Use them as such. If someone wants to use something from the book which is legal in the points level you're playing (ie If they want to use a superheavy in a normal game, tell them to stand in the traffic), ask to see the entry in the book. If they refuse or don't have the book, then refuse, if they have it, have a read of the rules before you say anything.

After people get over that feeling they're going to lose because someone whipped out a super heavy in a 1000 point game, they might start having fun with Forgeworld units. Which is kind of the point.

After people get over that feeling they're going to lose because someone whipped out a [insert FW model name here], they might start having fun with Forgeworld units. Which is kind of the point.

This.

CT GAMER wrote:

After people get over that feeling they're going to lose because someone whipped out a [insert FW model name here], they might start having fun with Forgeworld units. Which is kind of the point.

This.

But see, that's the thing. I see hear more people whine about Forgeworld because super heavy units are too powerful than because that Sentinal Powerlifter wiped out half of their army. The majority of the Forgeworld hate revolves around people thinking theyre going to have a surprise Macharius thrown down on the table.

But, again. If someone has a FW model, ask to see the rules before dismissing them. You might even catch the bug and order a FW model yourself.

Forge world is already available for casual play... That's the point.

People who won't give opponents permission in 'casual play' now won't give it even if they are made codex legal. 'casual play' already has people who won't play against net lists, grey knights and spammers...

Sounds like people with issues want GW to step in and say "stop being mean to Billie and let him play with you other kids with his little tank thing..." because they can't seem to handle it themselves. If people don't want to play against your forge world in casual play, a note from mommy GW won't change that.

Forge world is already available and legal for casual play.

Edit: don't assume people who want balance and are not wanting forge world forced on everyone somehow hate forge world. I own thousands of dollars of forge world models and I have no problem using them in casual play and apoc games. I also realize FW is a 'sometimes' thing and not for all the time due to imbalance.

-Loki- wrote:

CT GAMER wrote:

After people get over that feeling they're going to lose because someone whipped out a [insert FW model name here], they might start having fun with Forgeworld units. Which is kind of the point.

This.

But see, that's the thing. I see hear more people whine about Forgeworld because super heavy units are too powerful than because that Sentinal Powerlifter wiped out half of their army. The majority of the Forgeworld hate revolves around people thinking theyre going to have a surprise Macharius thrown down on the table.

But, again. If someone has a FW model, ask to see the rules before dismissing them. You might even catch the bug and order a FW model yourself.

It is impossible to Surprise someone with a super heavy unit. IF you are playing Apoc. you expect they will be present.

Otherwise they can only be included via a special scenario that allows them ( A few exist, but in these cases the players would have had to agree to play one of said scenarios).

Allowing FW units in games does not mean dissolving force org restrictions nor format restrictions. A default format restriction for standard 40K is a non-allowance of Super heavies.

I still don't see the issue...




Automatically Appended Next Post:

nkelsch wrote:Forge world is already available for casual play... That's the point.

People who won't give opponents permission in 'casual play' now won't give it even if they are made codex legal. 'casual play' already has people who won't play against net lists, grey knights and spammers...

Sounds like people with issues want GW to step in and say "stop being mean to Billie and let him play with you other kids with his little tank thing..." because they can't seem to handle it themselves. If people don't want to play against your forge world in casual play, a note from mommy GW won't change that.

Forge world is already available and legal for casual play.

Edit: don't assume people who want balance and are not wanting forge world forced on everyone somehow hate forge world. I own thousands of dollars of forge world models and I have no problem using them in casual play and apoc games. I also realize FW is a 'sometimes' thing and not for all the time due to imbalance.

making it legal in all casual play lessons the instances of/justification for resistance one will encounter when one goes to play in say a store or other public place you might not normally frequent.

It might also lead to more casual gamers coming out and bringing their FW goodies when they might have stayed away before.

The guys that will still refuse to play me because I have some FW in my list are probably guys I don't want to waste my time playing to begin with...

CT GAMER wrote:

-Loki- wrote:

CT GAMER wrote:

After people get over that feeling they're going to lose because someone whipped out a [insert FW model name here], they might start having fun with Forgeworld units. Which is kind of the point.

This.

But see, that's the thing. I see hear more people whine about Forgeworld because super heavy units are too powerful than because that Sentinal Powerlifter wiped out half of their army. The majority of the Forgeworld hate revolves around people thinking theyre going to have a surprise Macharius thrown down on the table.

But, again. If someone has a FW model, ask to see the rules before dismissing them. You might even catch the bug and order a FW model yourself.

It is impossible to Surprise someone with a super heavy unit. IF you are playing Apoc. you expect they will be present.

Otherwise they can only be included via a special scenario that allows them ( A few exist, but in these cases the players would have had to agree to play one of said scenarios).

Allowing FW units in games does not mean dissolving force org restrictions nor format restrictions. A default format restriction for standard 40K is a non-allowance of Super heavies.

I still don't see the issue...

Except that's the problem. People don't know the specific rules around the Forgeworld units, don't know if something is actually superheavy or not until the game starts and the take takes a hit and is told it has structure points. If they don't know the units, surprising someong with a unit not legal in non-Apocalypse games isn't difficult. This is why you always offer th book to them and let them read the entry.

-Loki- wrote:But see, that's the thing. I see hear more people whine about Forgeworld because super heavy units are too powerful than because that Sentinal Powerlifter wiped out half of their army. The majority of the Forgeworld hate revolves around people thinking theyre going to have a surprise Macharius thrown down on the table.

People always pick on the few examples where the FW writers have lost their minds and created something either powerful, or just plain overpowered (the Dreadnought Drop Pod and the Achilles Land Raider always get brought up) and, yes, super heavies get brought up as well as people seem to forget that super heavies have their own built-in limitations (must be a games 2000 points or above, which means most 1550-1850 tournament style games are safe). That and most people completely over-estimate super heavies. Aside from things like the Baneblade and the Stompa, most super heavies have exactly one big gun, and a couple of little ones as backup.

The Macharius is actually a wonderful example because it's not a very dangerous super heavy and is in a lot of ways worse than most regular tanks in the game (Land Raider v Macharius - guess who wins? Hint: It's not the Macharius!). Once the Macharius loses its main gun what does it become? An ultra-slow Twin-Linked Heavy Stubber and a pair of Heavy Bolters. That's about as much fire power as a Russ without its turret. It only gets worse with vehicles like the Valdor and even larger things like the Shadowsword (who might as well go home once the Volcano Cannon's been blown off).

That and people freak out at the idea of structure points. I've seen super heavies vanish one after another as a group of Chainfist Terminators ran from one tank to the next ripping them apart in HTH. Meltas have much the same effect. Again, the Macharius exists as a great example here because it's only slightly tougher than a Russ, but has comparable fire power to a single Russ (two Russes would be a better choice).

As I said earlier in the thread, those that refuse to play against FW units are just doing so because they are afraid of losing. The only other explanation is that they've never used/read FW rules outside of the few tired old examples that always get trotted out (the aforementioned Dreadnought Drop Pod and Achilles Land Raider) and then use them as the basis for their entire opinion on why bringing a Power Loader Sentinel or an Malanthrope would suddenly break the game.

As far as I'm concerned FW stuff is already "legal" for casual play. There are quite a few people in my FLGS that bring some FW models to the table. I think that the problem with some kind of GW announcement concerning FW models being "legal" is that we will begin seeing more tournaments allowing them, and we won't be seeing lists that spam Atlases or Spanner Boys, but we'll see a lot of lists spamming the dready assault pods. I think it might turn into a bad thing for tournaments in the short run, which could turn some people off to the game.

This is pure bs. FW is technically not by opponents permission, not any more than a codex unit by any chance. The entire game is really by opponents permission, I have a right to refuse to play you, as your opponent, by any metric I so choose. Using a Dark Angels codex? Its too old, I don't know it that well, Deathwing are OP, etc. I refuse to play you. Grey Knights? I'm using Daemons, you make it to hard for me to win, refused, etc.

Besides that, GW can't mandate that individual TO's allow Forgeworld items. A TO can allow and disallow whatever they see fit, including entire codecies/armies...

H.B.M.C. wrote:

-Loki- wrote:But see, that's the thing. I see hear more people whine about Forgeworld because super heavy units are too powerful than because that Sentinal Powerlifter wiped out half of their army. The majority of the Forgeworld hate revolves around people thinking theyre going to have a surprise Macharius thrown down on the table.

People always pick on the few examples where the FW writers have lost their minds and created something either powerful, or just plain overpowered (the Dreadnought Drop Pod and the Achilles Land Raider always get brought up) and, yes, super heavies get brought up as well as people seem to forget that super heavies have their own built-in limitations (must be a games 2000 points or above, which means most 1550-1850 tournament style games are safe). That and most people completely over-estimate super heavies. Aside from things like the Baneblade and the Stompa, most super heavies have exactly one big gun, and a couple of little ones as backup.

The Macharius is actually a wonderful example because it's not a very dangerous super heavy and is in a lot of ways worse than most regular tanks in the game (Land Raider v Macharius - guess who wins? Hint: It's not the Macharius!). Once the Macharius loses its main gun what does it become? An ultra-slow Twin-Linked Heavy Stubber and a pair of Heavy Bolters. That's about as much fire power as a Russ without its turret. It only gets worse with vehicles like the Valdor and even larger things like the Shadowsword (who might as well go home once the Volcano Cannon's been blown off).

That and people freak out at the idea of structure points. I've seen super heavies vanish one after another as a group of Chainfist Terminators ran from one tank to the next ripping them apart in HTH. Meltas have much the same effect. Again, the Macharius exists as a great example here because it's only slightly tougher than a Russ, but has comparable fire power to a single Russ (two Russes would be a better choice).

As I said earlier in the thread, those that refuse to play against FW units are just doing so because they are afraid of losing. The only other explanation is that they've never used/read FW rules outside of the few tired old examples that always get trotted out (the aforementioned Dreadnought Drop Pod and Achilles Land Raider) and then use them as the basis for their entire opinion on why bringing a Power Loader Sentinel or an Malanthrope would suddenly break the game.

QFT.

Nobody wants to lose a game because their opponent surprised them with a unit that requires special tactics or weapons to beat. The problem is that most FW rules are NOT those kind of rules. Barring a couple glaring examples, the vast majority of FW stuff are just like regular codex units. It's only when you get into super-heavies, titans, flyers, etc, that you start to mess with the fairness of the game. (And as HBMC stated, you can't use 2/3 of those in under 2k point games).

But that's to be expected. There is a reason those types of units appear prominently in Apocalypse - that's what those rules were designed for. If FW stuff becomes equitable with GW codices, people need to realize that they aren't going to suddenly start seeing Imperator Titans dropping from the sky to ruin their fun. 90% of games will be exactly the same as they are now. Sure, there's gonna be that 10% of people who really want to spam flying Nurgle battlecannons, or fill Dreadnought drop pods full of blood talon furiosos, but everyone is still going to have the right to deny those people a game - just like they can today.

chaos0xomega wrote:This is pure bs. FW is technically not by opponents permission, not any more than a codex unit by any chance.

They are, actually. Codices are not labelled as 'expansions'. They're core rules, just like the rulebook. IA books are 'expansions', just like Apocalypse, Cities of Death and Planetstrike, and those expansions aren't used without both people agreeing. That said, they're just as legal for casual play as those books. You just agree to use those optional rules. They're not, however, 'illegal' rules. They're just expansion rules.

I mean, I'm just seeing it from both points of view. Personally, I'd be all for folding IA rules into being 'core'. If my friend brought a few of the new Eldar units, like the Warp Hunter, to a game, I'd agree in an instant.

Xca|iber wrote:Sure, there's gonna be that 10% of people who really want to spam flying Nurgle battlecannons, or fill Dreadnought drop pods full of blood talon furiosos, but everyone is still going to have the right to deny those people a game - just like they can today.

But apparently, refusing to play those people would make you a dick and result in a flinstone-esque situation where people scream, "You can't refuse to play me, I quit!"

Why not only make the 90% of good units legal for play... or even fix the 10%?

Oh... and for every tough guy who wants to play FW that says "You are just afraid of losing." The people on the other side can say "You just want to spam broken units and play to win at all costs." Hyperbole abound.

nkelsch wrote:Oh... and for every tough guy who wants to play FW that says "You are just afraid of losing." The people on the other side can say "You just want to spam broken units and play to win at all costs." Hyperbole abound.

That doesn't work though, because the spammable Forgeworld stuff isn't broken outside of the Dreadnought drop pod, and even that requires a very counterable variant list form a single codex.

Clearly you missed the "just like they can today" part of Xca|iber's post nkelsch.

And it's not a 'tough guy' comment to say that people who don't want to use FW are afraid of losing, especially when it's coming from someone like me who couldn't give two gaks about tournament play.

Hell we even use flyers in normal games from time to time and they're no big issue.