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.

 Senden wrote:
Centaurs as dedicated transports for command squads (That's the universal carriers were for after all)

And artillery pieces that don't cost twice much as a Basilisk at half the points cost

Lastly, Hydra needs to be a plastic kit

Even though FW rules are part of 40K as far as I'm concerned, and I essentially use whether or not a potential opponent agrees with that sentiment as a barometer to gauge whether they'll be fun to play against or a pedant, I would actually kill for the opportunity to take Centaurs as Dedicated Transports for Heavy Weapon Squads. Giving them a modicum of maneuverability would help compensate for their horrible fragility in 6th, and nobody can complain about a wee dinky stubber-armed Centaur like they could if you have HWS their own Chimeras.

Also, 40K rules for all the cool unique variant stuff from the Heresy-era. They can be 0-1 choices, or expensive, or whatever, but they should be available, and I don't just mean the Space Marine stuff, the Mechanicum and eventual Imperial Army stuff deserves the same treatment(40K Geno-chilliad Guard? Yurs puleez).

 Lynata wrote:
See, and here we are with the false claims again. Because I'm fairly sure you will fail to produce a quote that says "just as legal as standard codices".

Of course you can't find that quote, because the standard you're demanding is not the one that GW uses. GW has made it perfectly clear what their position is, the fact that certain players demand a different statement doesn't mean that GW is obligated to provide one.

No, because "this unit intended to be used in..." is not the same as "this unit is as legal as a standard Codex unit". I specifically pointed this out earlier, and I'll repeat: my houserules are intended to be used in standard games of 40k, too, and that doesn't make them as legal as a Codex unit either.

Sigh. Your house rules are not published by GW. When GW says "this is intended to be part of the game" their intent is the final word on the subject.

 Lynata wrote:
You've kind of dodged that question regarding an unsolicited use of other supplements like Cityfight, btw.

There's no dodging at all, it's a stupid question.

Cityfight/spearhead formations/etc change the rules for both players. They require new missions, different FOCs, stratagems, etc. You can't just bring a cityfight army to a normal game and play, you and your opponent have to agree to play the special game type and make all the necessary arrangements.

FW units (and supplements/WD/etc) do not change the core rules of the game. They're just another choice of unit, like picking a tactical squad vs. a scout squad. If your opponent brings a FW unit/army you play the exact same game you would normally play, just with different things to kill.

These are two entirely different situations. FW "needs" permission because certain people feel they are entitled to have veto power over their opponent's choices, expansions need permission because it isn't possible to have a game without that permission.

Well, everything Forgeworld makes for standard games of 40k is usable with my group, so that makes that question a little hard to answer

If you abstract it a little and think "what models from Forgeworld do you wish were made by GW prime" I'd have to say the Thunderbolt. I want that fighter so bad it hurts, but the cost is pretty damn high and I can't imagine the weight of a resin brick of a fighter plane on a flying stand.

 Brother SRM wrote:
I can't imagine the weight of a resin brick of a fighter plane on a flying stand.

I have one, and it's not bad. You just mount it on an acrylic rod instead of the awful GW stand (link) and use a 200mm round base instead of the oval for a bit better stability. Even on a 12" rod mine has been as solid and stable as any other flyer.

Honestly any group that says "You cannot use those things you spent the time and money on in games with us because" should be ignored. Lets say you went out of your way to have a DKOK army wonderfully painted with units/wargear etc that literally dont exist in the standard IG dex, and are run in configurations totally different. You move to a new area and they say "we dont allow FW rules/models (the latter is just idiotic), you have to use the regular IG dex which you have only passingly looked thorugh, because you started with DKOK and never wanted to be vanilla."
If ANYONE can say that they'd be totally fine with this, I'd say they are lying. I still find it odd that in a game where things like riptides, annihilation barges, bladestorm, and the slew of other completely OTT things that have come out in the past 3 codicies, that people are still whining and complaining about a handful of very defeatable units from a select few FW army lists. Seriously, even in a "friendly" setting, this is still a competitive game. If something beast you, after the game ask to look at the rules for it, so you know better what it does, and figure a way on how to beat it. Use strategy in the tabletop strategy game you're playing.

Don't forget that this is a forum: Why use strategy when you can try and ban the opponent from playing it?

 Peregrine wrote:
Of course you can't find that quote, because the standard you're demanding is not the one that GW uses. GW has made it perfectly clear what their position is, the fact that certain players demand a different statement doesn't mean that GW is obligated to provide one.

Don't even try Apparently "intended to be used" and "official" is not proof enough.

Cityfight/spearhead formations/etc change the rules for both players. They require new missions, different FOCs, stratagems, etc. You can't just bring a cityfight army to a normal game and play, you and your opponent have to agree to play the special game type and make all the necessary arrangements.

Don't forget that Planet Strike and such actually state that it's a different game that only 'uses' the 40k rules.

 StarHunter25 wrote:
You move to a new area and they say "we dont allow FW rules/models (the latter is just idiotic), you have to use the regular IG dex which you have only passingly looked thorugh, because you started with DKOK and never wanted to be vanilla.

I don't see your point here. I get your side on this: you have the models and want to play with them. What you do not seem to see, however, is that there is an established group and you are the one who wants to join said group - and you claim them to be the bad guys who want to bully you. You are the one who chose to play with them and if you do not like the way they play, you simply do not play with said group and either try to look for another or found an own one that allows FW.

 Sigvatr wrote:

 StarHunter25 wrote:
You move to a new area and they say "we dont allow FW rules/models (the latter is just idiotic), you have to use the regular IG dex which you have only passingly looked thorugh, because you started with DKOK and never wanted to be vanilla.

I don't see your point here. I get your side on this: you have the models and want to play with them. What you do not seem to see, however, is that there is an established group and you are the one who wants to join said group - and you claim them to be the bad guys who want to bully you. You are the one who chose to play with them and if you do not like the way they play, you simply do not play with said group and either try to look for another or found an own one that allows FW.

The point being made is that he shouldn't have to deal with being ostracised, because this hypothetical group he is hypothetically attempting to play with are being irrational d-bags, just as much as they would be if they randomly decided to say "No Blood Angels" because one guy got beat one time by DC-spam last edition and everyone else in the group has just accepted their claim that the codex is irretrievably imbalanced at face-value.

That a person has the option to not participate in no way precludes them from being annoyed that they have to do so, nor does it make it right they should have to - the rationale(although obviously not the seriousness, even remotely, so if anyone is disingenuous to try and cast this post as equating the two in anything but the broadest terms, know that you'll just look daft) is the same as that behind discrimination law; sure, you could just refuse to work/play at the sexist/racist/ableist shop/bar/club, but you shouldn't have to.

One of the big arguments against FW in regular games seems to be that not everyone has the books or is familiar with the models/units and their rules.

This always makes me laugh because I don't know many people who can afford to own every 40k codex, I wouldn't refuse to play nids because I don't own the book or am unfamiliar with the models.

The best way to learn is through experience, you might overlook an unfamiliar unit in your opponents book (this can be true for FW and regular 40k) and it bites you in the arse. However you won't make the same mistake again, the only way realistically to become familiar with these units is to play them when you have the opportunity.

 Sigvatr wrote:
I don't see your point here. I get your side on this: you have the models and want to play with them. What you do not seem to see, however, is that there is an established group and you are the one who wants to join said group - and you claim them to be the bad guys who want to bully you. You are the one who chose to play with them and if you do not like the way they play, you simply do not play with said group and either try to look for another or found an own one that allows FW.

Sorry, but they are the bad guys, just like they'd be the bad guys if they decided to arbitrarily ban orks. The assumption in a game like 40k is that you're allowed to build your army out of all of the available options, telling people they aren't welcome unless they build their army the way you want them to is TFG behavior.

Contemptor Dreadnought. Failing that... No, instead
The DKOK. I went to my LGS once, and played against this really nice person who had an entire army of them. He was perfectly fine with me absolutely PORING over their rules like a librarian, searching out every fine little detail. It was incredibly enjoyable. He beat my Salamanders flat out, but it was a fair victory.

The LGS had a simple little rule for situations like that. Screw people who didn't want FW armies. It doesn't matter that people say 'They're not official GW released models!' or some other BS like 'They're only for Apoc!' And when they said that it was a GW rule (no such thing) the staff replied in unison
'It's a house rule. And a GW rule.'

 Yodhrin wrote:

That a person has the option to not participate in no way precludes them from being annoyed that they have to do so, nor does it make it right they should have to - the rationale(although obviously not the seriousness, even remotely, so if anyone is disingenuous to try and cast this post as equating the two in anything but the broadest terms, know that you'll just look daft) is the same as that behind discrimination law; sure, you could just refuse to work/play at the sexist/racist/ableist shop/bar/club, but you shouldn't have to.

I don't think that we should start any correlation between plastic miniatures and actual discrimination - it's a long shot that's leading nowhere. It's a game and as such, it also is a social contract between all participants. Nobody forces you to play with a certain group, you are free to choose where you play. You could just speak to them and have a talk on why they do not want to play with FW rules / models. In the end, if they stand their ground and keep the FW ban, or any other rule change such as banning certain units or even armies, you either have to deal with it and arrange yourself with the new situation or look for another group to play with that has less or no restrictions of any sort.

 Peregrine wrote:


Sorry, but they are the bad guys, just like they'd be the bad guys if they decided to arbitrarily ban orks. The assumption in a game like 40k is that you're allowed to build your army out of all of the available options, telling people they aren't welcome unless they build their army the way you want them to is TFG behavior.

They are the bad guys from *your* perspective, Peregrine, because you are a IG WAAC player and therefore a natural pro-FW player. That's your perspective. They got another. Objectively, both sides have their points and both can back theirs up with good, rational arguments. The, from your perspective, opposing side might also claim that only wanting to allow FW to throw ridiculously overpowered stuff in their armies would be TFG - and it is.

Furthermore, the comparison between banning FW and an entire army isn't good either. FW is an add-on to the game, whereas each army with a regular codex is part of the core game.

 Sigvatr wrote:
They are the bad guys from *your* perspective, Peregrine, because you are a IG WAAC player and therefore a natural pro-FW player.

Lol, no.

Objectively, both sides have their points and both can back theirs up with good, rational arguments.

You mean one side can back theirs up with good, rational arguments while the other makes up nonsense about FW being "third party rules" or whatever.

The, from your perspective, opposing side might also claim that only wanting to allow FW to throw ridiculously overpowered stuff in their armies would be TFG - and it is.

Good thing nobody here (AFAIK) only wants to allow FW to get overpowered stuff.

Furthermore, the comparison between banning FW and an entire army isn't good either. FW is an add-on to the game, whereas each army with a regular codex is part of the core game.

Not according to GW.

 Peregrine wrote:


You mean one side can back theirs up with good, rational arguments while the other makes up nonsense about FW being "third party rules" or whatever.

I know that you're not willing to allow any opinion but your own on this matter

Good thing nobody here (AFAIK) only wants to allow FW to get overpowered stuff.

Not according to GW.

GW officially states that FW isn't part of the core rules, it literally says that "40k approved" means that it's supposed to be used in "standard" 40k games which doesn't make it a part of the core game, but makes it an add-on that can be used in any 40k game.

 Sigvatr wrote:

Good thing nobody here (AFAIK) only wants to allow FW to get overpowered stuff.

I guess it's easier to just make up straw man arguments and spam s when someone calls you on it?

GW officially states that FW isn't part of the core rules, it literally says that "40k approved" means that it's supposed to be used in "standard" 40k games which doesn't make it a part of the core game, but makes it an add-on that can be used in any 40k game.

Standard 40k = core rules. By any sensible definition a "standard" game is what you play when you say "I want to play a game of 40k" without specifying any additional rules/expansions/etc. And that means FW, supplements, and WD rules are all included.

 Peregrine wrote:


I guess it's easier to just make up straw man arguments and spam s when someone calls you on it?

In reference to all your posts on the FW matter, especially the official FW rules thread, you made your point very clear and also showed a very hostile and rude behavior towards people disagreeing with you. Why would I want to argue with you if you're already dead-set on your opinion? Both sides have good and valid points, as proven in the FW thread, whether you want to acknowledge that or not.

Standard 40k = core rules. By any sensible definition a "standard" game is what you play when you say "I want to play a game of 40k" without specifying any additional rules/expansions/etc. And that means FW, supplements, and WD rules are all included.

If you want to disagree with what GW specifically states...feel free to do so, I'm most likely not going to play with you and do not have to bother then

Alas, this isn't the FW thread to begin with and FW legality isn't in question either, especially not here. I assume your answer to this thread would be "I'd like to see all FW units to be allowed to be used in normal 40k!" then? Glad we sorted this out.

The humble Tetra, such an awesome little skimmer. And the Barracuda since it dumps all over the Tau Codex flyers.

 Sigvatr wrote:
In reference to all your posts on the FW matter, especially the official FW rules thread, you made your point very clear and also showed a very hostile and rude behavior towards people disagreeing with you. Why would I want to argue with you if you're already dead-set on your opinion? Both sides have good and valid points, as proven in the FW thread, whether you want to acknowledge that or not.

So if you don't like someone's attitude it's ok to make up ridiculous straw man arguments about how they're WAAC players who only want FW because they want to use the overpowered units and make their WAAC armies even more powerful?

If you want to disagree with what GW specifically states...

Would you like to provide an exact quote of where GW says that FW isn't part of the "core" game? Because AFAIK they never even define "core game", and the only statement on FW legality says that they're official and part of the standard game.

 Sigvatr wrote:

 Yodhrin wrote:

That a person has the option to not participate in no way precludes them from being annoyed that they have to do so, nor does it make it right they should have to - the rationale(although obviously not the seriousness, even remotely, so if anyone is disingenuous to try and cast this post as equating the two in anything but the broadest terms, know that you'll just look daft) is the same as that behind discrimination law; sure, you could just refuse to work/play at the sexist/racist/ableist shop/bar/club, but you shouldn't have to.

I don't think that we should start any correlation between plastic miniatures and actual discrimination - it's a long shot that's leading nowhere. It's a game and as such, it also is a social contract between all participants. Nobody forces you to play with a certain group, you are free to choose where you play. You could just speak to them and have a talk on why they do not want to play with FW rules / models. In the end, if they stand their ground and keep the FW ban, or any other rule change such as banning certain units or even armies, you either have to deal with it and arrange yourself with the new situation or look for another group to play with that has less or no restrictions of any sort.

So, you decided to go with looking daft then? It is an entirely acceptable rhetorical device to compare two things which share attributes even in circumstances where the relationship is not equal in terms of the relative severity of the things, providing you make clear that you acknowledge that differential, which I did. Everything is a "social contract", that is the very foundation of human society, the point is we acknowledge that the terms of some social contracts are not equitable and decide to eliminate those terms, despite the objections of those who favour them, because we consider the harm done to those disadvantaged by the terms of the contract to be of greater import than any harm done to those who disagree.

I contend that arbitrarily preventing one player from using their expensive and carefully constructed army is, on balance, worse behaviour than a small amount of people having to play against armies they consider imbalanced(something everyone has to do at one time or another regardless even if you only ever play with the bare minimum of rules), and as such people should not pretend that they are equivalent in all respects. One person, at the absolute worst, would have to occasionally play against an army they think is OP, the other is potentially the owner of several hundred pounds worth of paper weights since there is no guarantee there is another club in an area, or that there are enough players locally to support a second.

 Peregrine wrote:


Sorry, but they are the bad guys, just like they'd be the bad guys if they decided to arbitrarily ban orks. The assumption in a game like 40k is that you're allowed to build your army out of all of the available options, telling people they aren't welcome unless they build their army the way you want them to is TFG behavior.

They are the bad guys from *your* perspective, Peregrine, because you are a IG WAAC player and therefore a natural pro-FW player. That's your perspective. They got another. Objectively, both sides have their points and both can back theirs up with good, rational arguments. The, from your perspective, opposing side might also claim that only wanting to allow FW to throw ridiculously overpowered stuff in their armies would be TFG - and it is.

Furthermore, the comparison between banning FW and an entire army isn't good either. FW is an add-on to the game, whereas each army with a regular codex is part of the core game.

Ludicrous. Absolutely, utterly ludicrous, and further extremely disingenuous - the insinuation being that people only want FW to be accepted as-standard so that they can be a WAAC-facestomping beardy cheesemonger, and as such their arguments are selfish and suspect. What about the much, much larger group of pro-FW players who willingly handicap themselves by taking FW units which are objectively worse than the choices from their parent codex because they fit their theme, or they like the models? What argument does this hypothetical opposing side have against them other than arbitrary spitefulness?

@Peregrine: If you want to discuss the legality of FW, I'll forward you to this thread:

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/530411.page

Be my guest.

 Sigvatr wrote:
@Peregrine: If you want to discuss the legality of FW, I'll forward you to this thread:

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/530411.page

Be my guest.

Nice attempt at deflection, but we're not talking about tournaments here, we're talking about regular gameplay in stores and clubs. Tournaments can make up whatever house rules they like, they frequently do so with what you would call "core" rules, but they have the decency not to try and pretend they're doing anything other than making up house rules.

 Yodhrin wrote:

So, you decided to go with looking daft then?

Watch your tone.

One person, at the absolute worst, would have to occasionally play against an army they think is OP, the other is potentially the owner of several hundred pounds worth of paper weights since there is no guarantee there is another club in an area, or that there are enough players locally to support a second.

I get your point. What I do not get is how you claim that the one who spent "hundreds of dollars" on his miniatures he knows they usually pose problems when using in regular 40k games and actively looks for a group to play with, suddenly is portrayed as a victim in this case. Let's just assume that this was a real situation. A has lots of FW models he wants to use, but due to being forced to move, he now has to look for a new group to play with. He finds one, but they openly state that they do not allow FW. How is A to react now?

Ludicrous. Absolutely, utterly ludicrous, and further extremely disingenuous - the insinuation being that people only want FW to be accepted as-standard so that they can be a WAAC-facestomping beardy cheesemonger, and as such their arguments are selfish and suspect. What about the much, much larger group of pro-FW players who willingly handicap themselves by taking FW units which are objectively worse than the choices from their parent codex because they fit their theme, or they like the models? What argument does this hypothetical opposing side have against them other than arbitrary spitefulness?

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/530411.page

 Yodhrin wrote:


Nice attempt at deflection, but we're not talking about tournaments here, we're talking about regular gameplay in stores and clubs. Tournaments can make up whatever house rules they like, they frequently do so with what you would call "core" rules, but they have the decency not to try and pretend they're doing anything other than making up house rules.

Your reaction tells me that you did not look at the thread yet. The thread does not discuss FW on tournaments, it mainly tackles FW legality as a whole. It's a lengthy thread where all sides presented and defended all arguments they could come up with. If you are really interested in a discussion of FW legality or how to treat FW as a whole, you will read through the thread and then continue to discuss your very own point based on the new information you got.

 Sigvatr wrote:
Your reaction tells me that you did not look at the thread yet. The thread does not discuss FW on tournaments, it mainly tackles FW legality as a whole. It's a lengthy thread where all sides presented and defended all arguments they could come up with. If you are really interested in a discussion of FW legality or how to treat FW as a whole, you will read through the thread and then continue to discuss your very own point based on the new information you got.

Not really.
The thread is named "Do we still need forge world in tournament play?" and the last few pages are about how hard it is for TO's to check lists.

We are discussing FW in normal games.
And now that we are talking about WAAC, how much more 'WAAC' can you get than banning armies because you don't want to play against them?
Sounds like a great idea: "I don't want to learn the units, so I will ban them!"

Kangodo wrote:
Not really. The thread is named "Do we still need forge world in tournament play?" and the last few pages are about how hard it is for TO's to check lists. We are discussing FW in normal games.

Has been covered in the thread I provided. I've followed the entire thing, so you either have to take my word for it or look into it on your own.

I was a bit hesitant at starting a Krieg army at our local gaming store, but then I learned their policy was everything FW is allowed, from individual units and Imperial Armour lists.

We now have 2 Krieg players (1 being myself), 2 Elysian players, 1 Corsair, FW Tau flyers, sensor towers and HQ's, Lucius drop pods and way more.

They have not detracted from the fun of the game at all. Nothing has been over powered, maybe the first time something has been faced they have seen how it can be powerful, but counter tactics are created and the unit loses its punch.

My recommendation to all the anti FW people out there is to give them a shot, either using or facing them, stretch your mind and live a little

DOOMONYOU wrote:

My recommendation to all the anti FW people out there is to give them a shot, either using or facing them, stretch your mind and live a little

Excellent point. A lot of FW-hate usually stems from the very few strongly overpowered units that are, surprise, mostly IG exclusive. 99% of FW models are either fairly balanced or even underpowered / overcosted. The best solution would be to widely allow FW but ban the very few overpowered units at tournaments. FW offers great-looking models (at a ridiculously price) and they really improve the variety 40k has to offer.

 Sigvatr wrote:

Kangodo wrote:
Not really. The thread is named "Do we still need forge world in tournament play?" and the last few pages are about how hard it is for TO's to check lists. We are discussing FW in normal games.

Has been covered in the thread I provided. I've followed the entire thing, so you either have to take my word for it or look into it on your own.

Except you've been arguing it in this thread before as well. You are technically deflecting at this point.

Better be safe than sorry!

I wished the Sicarian Battle Tank was what the Predator is now.

A lot of people seem to be forgetting a couple key rules in 40K:

1. Have Fun
2. It's OK if your opponent says it's OK

I think this thread's gone so far off the rails that it has noped out of the very concept of rails.