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.

 TheCaptain wrote:

 Godless-Mimicry wrote:

TheCaptain wrote:I don't really need to argue it, because I've played against it, but I offer you to try it face off against 4+ flyers and you'll discover I have a good idea of what I'm talking about.. A TAC list of flyers will beat all but the most tailored lists, even guard.

Your tone has certainly changed; a few weeks ago you claimed the only way to beat IG was to cheat. I might fathom a guess you are trolling again, since you have contradicted yourself which tells me you don't really believe the game is as cut-and-dry as you claim sometimes.

Oh man, where do I begin?

Claiming the only way to beat IG was to cheat was a joke, brah. Like...no one should take that at face value. If someone said to you "The only way to beat the Yankees is to cheat" would you say "NUH UH! TROLL" or would you understand the speaker means that they're an incredibly powerful team that you'll be very pressed to take on? Don't take things so seriously, especially hyperbole like that.

And I wasn't contradicting myself, even if I did mean that; because I RUN a TAC list with flyers. So yeah, my TAC Flyer GUARD list will beat regular guard, unless you're cheating, tailored, or lucky. No one fields enough AA to deal with the amount of flyers guard can field if they want to. I see no contradiction. Nor do I see any trolling at all in the post you've quoted. I'm pretty damn correct, actually. Face a TAC foot list against a TAC flyer list and, well...

This happens



Only army that can reliably take on Flyer Guard, while still being a viable list against other armies and not some tailored mess, is Flyer Necrons. Which would be an incredible fight to witness.

I watched half of that video and stopped, pretty much just cried a bit inside. I thought fighting Necrons with a mechanized list sucked, fighting against the Necrons in this list would have been utterly and completely boring.

 Jstncloud wrote:

I watched half of that video and stopped, pretty much just cried a bit inside. I thought fighting Necrons with a mechanized list sucked, fighting against the Necrons in this list would have been utterly and completely boring.

They seemed to enjoy themselves. The game is as fun as you make it; just shows when you play a list like this, you have to take yourself, and the game, a bit less seriously.

 NWansbutter wrote:
Question: what options to Imperial Guard have from Forgeworld for AA? Anything that's better than Hydras?

Wide variety of aircraft, most with autocannons, lasguns, and AA missiles out the wazoo (lightning, thunderbolt, avenger, vulture)

Plus a pretty hefty contingent of ground support, most of which are better than stock hydras i think.

-Manticore / Manticore platform with skyeagle rockets: S9 AP2 skyfire ordinance, with reroll to hit flyer (heat seekers). Plus, they're missiles so you can shoot off two at a time if you want (only got 4 though).
-Hydra platform: 50pts for av10 hp2 hydra turret, but it does get interceptor along with skyfire.
-Sabre platforms: an alternative to HWS in a platoon. Skyfire/interceptor artillery pieces that can fieldTL-heavy bolters, autocannons, lascannons, or two TL heavy stubbers. They also get scout, so you can redeploy them at the start of the game, even though theyre immobile.

Has Skyfire, 2/3 the price, not twinlinked

Two twin-linked hydra autocannons, which have skyfire, interceptor, and autotargeting.

McGibs -- many thanks! I like the sounds of those. On principle I refuse to use flyers in my army, so I might invest in some of that stuff.

Which IA are these things in?

Given that the Hydra plaform has skyfire and interceptor, I wonder why they didn't give Hydras interceptor in the BRB? They'd be much more attractive if they had it.

This video is making me really sad, lol.

 NWansbutter wrote:
McGibs -- many thanks! I like the sounds of those. On principle I refuse to use flyers in my army, so I might invest in some of that stuff.

Which IA are these things in?

Given that the Hydra plaform has skyfire and interceptor, I wonder why they didn't give Hydras interceptor in the BRB? They'd be much more attractive if they had it.

Imperial Armour Aeronautica (not to be confused with imperial aeronatica)

 TheCaptain wrote:

 Jstncloud wrote:

I watched half of that video and stopped, pretty much just cried a bit inside. I thought fighting Necrons with a mechanized list sucked, fighting against the Necrons in this list would have been utterly and completely boring.

They seemed to enjoy themselves. The game is as fun as you make it; just shows when you play a list like this, you have to take yourself, and the game, a bit less seriously.

Of course "they" enjoyed themselves, it was meant as an example of what Necrons could do and they lightened the mood with the whole milk challenge. That does not change the fact that playing against a list like that would be incredibly boring on the receiving end, and not only that, in a tournament scene you'd likely spend most of your allotted time watching others play considering how fast the Necrons would mop the floor.

 Jstncloud wrote:

Of course "they" enjoyed themselves, it was meant as an example of what Necrons could do and they lightened the mood with the whole milk challenge. That does not change the fact that playing against a list like that would be incredibly boring on the receiving end, and not only that, in a tournament scene you'd likely spend most of your allotted time watching others play considering how fast the Necrons would mop the floor.

The fact that Reecius' friend is actually taking that army to the Nova Tournament seems rather hypocritical to me. They complain about how ridiculous and not-fun that list is, and then they plan to employ it themselves at a tournament. They're just adding to the problem. Plus really, what is the point? So their friend will win the tournament and derive absolutely zero fun from the experience. Isn't having fun the whole point of playing this game in the first place?

 NWansbutter wrote:

 Jstncloud wrote:

Of course "they" enjoyed themselves, it was meant as an example of what Necrons could do and they lightened the mood with the whole milk challenge. That does not change the fact that playing against a list like that would be incredibly boring on the receiving end, and not only that, in a tournament scene you'd likely spend most of your allotted time watching others play considering how fast the Necrons would mop the floor.

The fact that Reecius' friend is actually taking that army to the Nova Tournament seems rather hypocritical to me. They complain about how ridiculous and not-fun that list is, and then they plan to employ it themselves at a tournament. They're just adding to the problem. Plus really, what is the point? So their friend will win the tournament and derive absolutely zero fun from the experience. Isn't having fun the whole point of playing this game in the first place?

In friendly games, yes. You don't pay a couple hundred dollars on meals, hotel, and airfare to go to a tournament to lose, unfortunately. Everyone there is trying to win; he'll just be doing it better.

I assure you, tournaments are much less about the narrative, laughs, and friends made than the "game" you refer to. It's all about scoring points.

They said something about 6 dedicated transports for the Warriors, 1 for a squad of Deathmarks and three Doom Scythes. 10 Fliers. Nasty.

I take back what I said about Reecius and his group being hypocritical -- it was actually for a customer that they painted up that list for Nova.

I'm just glad the tournaments I attend are not like what The Captain describes. To me it seems a total waste of money to pay for hotel, airfair, etc. just to table every opponent on turn 2. But I guess there are some folks who would find that somehow satisfying.

 NWansbutter wrote:
I take back what I said about Reecius and his group being hypocritical -- it was actually for a customer that they painted up that list for Nova.

I'm just glad the tournaments I attend are not like what The Captain describes. To me it seems a total waste of money to pay for hotel, airfair, etc. just to table every opponent on turn 2. But I guess there are some folks who would find that somehow satisfying.

The thing is, everyone is trying to table eachother. You get some really well-played, challenging games.

Tournaments are where the best lists and the strongest tactics get to show their faces without being called "WAAC" or "cheesy". It's fascinating.

Well-played, challenging games I am 100% in favour of, and that's what my tournament experience has been. But I've never been at a tournament where people had a list like that Necron thing that is basically unbeatable except by tailored lists (as you've pointed out, Captain). That just doesn't seem fun at all for either the Necron player or the other side in any way shape or form (as confirmed be Reecius from his playtesting).

 NWansbutter wrote:
Well-played, challenging games I am 100% in favour of, and that's what my tournament experience has been. But I've never been at a tournament where people had a list like that Necron thing that is basically unbeatable except by tailored lists (as you've pointed out, Captain). That just doesn't seem fun at all for either the Necron player or the other side in any way shape or form (as confirmed be Reecius from his playtesting).

Guess that all depends on how hard a player wants to table his opponents. Might wanna steer clear of national tournaments.

I for one would love to play that list over and over until I could come up with a list that could win, not just against it, but against everyone else too. It'd be excellent experience.

Yes, I think I will steer clear of national tournaments! Not sure if they even have them in Canada anyway.

Maybe if I had more time to play, but as it is, I think I'll stick to my local ones.

 NWansbutter wrote:
Well-played, challenging games I am 100% in favour of, and that's what my tournament experience has been. But I've never been at a tournament where people had a list like that Necron thing that is basically unbeatable except by tailored lists (as you've pointed out, Captain). That just doesn't seem fun at all for either the Necron player or the other side in any way shape or form (as confirmed be Reecius from his playtesting).

That's because if it comes up against an army it can't table, or the dice are away from it for even a little bit, it can't win, as it has such a pathetic ground presence that it can't take objectives, and thus tabling is the only way to win with it. I'd give it a few months when people cop onto some of the less conventional counters to flyers (many seem to think this game is all about killing), that such a list will struggle. As you can see in the video, there's a lot of space taken up in the air, and an army with a lot of troops can use that against them by moving to within 18" of specific flyers to prevent them getting shot with the others finding space hard to find to make up for it.

 Godless-Mimicry wrote:

 NWansbutter wrote:
Well-played, challenging games I am 100% in favour of, and that's what my tournament experience has been. But I've never been at a tournament where people had a list like that Necron thing that is basically unbeatable except by tailored lists (as you've pointed out, Captain). That just doesn't seem fun at all for either the Necron player or the other side in any way shape or form (as confirmed be Reecius from his playtesting).

That's because if it comes up against an army it can't table, or the dice are away from it for even a little bit, it can't win, as it has such a pathetic ground presence that it can't take objectives, and thus tabling is the only way to win with it. I'd give it a few months when people cop onto some of the less conventional counters to flyers (many seem to think this game is all about killing), that such a list will struggle. As you can see in the video, there's a lot of space taken up in the air, and an army with a lot of troops can use that against them by moving to within 18" of specific flyers to prevent them getting shot with the others finding space hard to find to make up for it.

Unfortunately, this is easier said than done.

http://www.belloflostsouls.net/2012/08/40k-flying-vehicle-flight-routes.html

The last demonstrated route almost completely nullifies that; even if you get your troops within 18" of the flyer-player's side of the board, only takes two turns to come about and get shots at your own edge.

Not to mention most, if not all AFAIK, flyers can deep strike.

And there's vector dancer. My vultures, and some other flyers, can move an ADDITIONAL 90 degrees after moving.

Hard to hide/run from that

 TheCaptain wrote:

 Godless-Mimicry wrote:

 NWansbutter wrote:
Well-played, challenging games I am 100% in favour of, and that's what my tournament experience has been. But I've never been at a tournament where people had a list like that Necron thing that is basically unbeatable except by tailored lists (as you've pointed out, Captain). That just doesn't seem fun at all for either the Necron player or the other side in any way shape or form (as confirmed be Reecius from his playtesting).

That's because if it comes up against an army it can't table, or the dice are away from it for even a little bit, it can't win, as it has such a pathetic ground presence that it can't take objectives, and thus tabling is the only way to win with it. I'd give it a few months when people cop onto some of the less conventional counters to flyers (many seem to think this game is all about killing), that such a list will struggle. As you can see in the video, there's a lot of space taken up in the air, and an army with a lot of troops can use that against them by moving to within 18" of specific flyers to prevent them getting shot with the others finding space hard to find to make up for it.

Unfortunately, this is easier said than done.

http://www.belloflostsouls.net/2012/08/40k-flying-vehicle-flight-routes.html

The last demonstrated route almost completely nullifies that; even if you get your troops within 18" of the flyer-player's side of the board, only takes two turns to come about and get shots at your own edge.

Not to mention most, if not all AFAIK, flyers can deep strike.

And there's vector dancer. My vultures, and some other flyers, can move an ADDITIONAL 90 degrees after moving.

Hard to hide/run from that

Wait. You're saying that a flyer having to take two turns to even be able to shoot at you is not a bad thing?

Turn one the player facing the flyers drives flat out to your side of the board as fast as possible. If they started 12" from the middle of the board then they cruise up 12" in the movement phase then flat out another 6", bringing them exactly 18" from your board edge. Your flyer comes in on turn 2 and has to either fly over these transports without being able to shoot or come in at an angle to allow shooting which will make it harder to turn back on them after their next turn when they have driven even closer to your board edge and dropped out their cargo.

Your taking two turns to come about and be in a position to shoot at them brings the game to turn 4, which doesn't leave a lot of time to table an opponent who has had several relatively easy turns to get everyone in cover on an objective and just wait you out.

Hell with Dark Eldar Raiders with Enhanced Aethersails they could be in your deployment zone turn one.

If you delay those flyers by even one turn (such as with an Officer of the Fleet or with the Warlord Trait or even both) then it becomes even less sure that the flyers will be able to table their opponent.

TheCaptain wrote:The last demonstrated route almost completely nullifies that; even if you get your troops within 18" of the flyer-player's side of the board, only takes two turns to come about and get shots at your own edge.

Exactly how is this a positive argument for you? If the list needs to table the opponent to win, how is shooting every two turns a good thing? When you think about flyers coming on turn 2 at most, and the game beng 5-7 turns, that's only 2-3 turns of shooting. And that's ignoring the fact that your flyers can be taken down in those respite turns when they can't shoot.

TheCaptain wrote:Not to mention most, if not all AFAIK, flyers can deep strike.

Not relevant; Deep Striking is the turn they come in, and this discussion is about limiting their movement. The best Deep Strike will get you is getting you behind the enemy facing his rear, but that will often involve teleporting near to the board edge, and in the end all it accomplishes for this disucssion is that the enemy moves backwards rather than forwards to mitigate them.

TheCaptain wrote:And there's vector dancer. My vultures, and some other flyers, can move an ADDITIONAL 90 degrees after moving.

Only ForgeWorld have these. Not eveyrone plays with FW, and most tournaments don't either (or at least in Europe and parts of the US).

Basically, no it isn't easier said than done, and I say that from experience, both using and facing flyers.

 Godless-Mimicry wrote:

TheCaptain wrote:The last demonstrated route almost completely nullifies that; even if you get your troops within 18" of the flyer-player's side of the board, only takes two turns to come about and get shots at your own edge.

Exactly how is this a positive argument for you? If the list needs to table the opponent to win, how is shooting every two turns a good thing? When you think about flyers coming on turn 2 at most, and the game beng 5-7 turns, that's only 2-3 turns of shooting. And that's ignoring the fact that your flyers can be taken down in those respite turns when they can't shoot.

Most flyers have very specific targets; that said, shooting every other turn while still zooming is pretty much the norm. Your argument is exactly what happens all the time to flyers (Very hard to convince a player to keep his units still so you can slow-zoom at it and shoot.), and yet they simply have to scoot, turn, and then next turn scoot, turn and shoot. Your strategy works against single-flyers, because you can just run a circle around it; but flyer lists are strong when they saturate with flyers. When there's enough where you can't out-maneuver them all. Which happens. Even two vendettas flying mirrored flight patterns will almost always have something to shoot at.

TheCaptain wrote:Not to mention most, if not all AFAIK, flyers can deep strike.

Not relevant; Deep Striking is the turn they come in, and this discussion is about limiting their movement. The best Deep Strike will get you is getting you behind the enemy facing his rear, but that will often involve teleporting near to the board edge, and in the end all it accomplishes for this disucssion is that the enemy moves backwards rather than forwards to mitigate them.

Very relevant; the brb has a certain grey area around deep striking from off the board; deep strike says a vehicle counts as moving cruising speed. Since there are flyers with deep strike that don't have hover, and a flyer must enter zooming, it is safe to assume this means deep strike counts as a flyer entering zooming at cruising speed. So a flyer coming on the board from ongoing reserve can deep strike to guarantee it has a clear shot.

Meaning

(Assuming turn 2 entrance, which a flyer-heavy list should be able to rely on with +1 reserves to ADL and a possible +1 from warlord)

Turn 1: no shot (no flyer)
Turn 2: deep strike (+18" away on the opponent's side) and shoot
Turn 3: move up 18" and shoot
Turn 4: fly off the board
Turn 5: deep strike (+18" on the opponent's side) and shoot
3/5 turns shooting a viable target

Turn 6: move up 18" and shoot
4/6 turns shooting a target

Turn 7: hover and shoot if it's objectives or you have the last turn, just fly out of range if it's KP's

I say deep strike on the opponent's side so that your opponent has to choose; move back into his deployment zone (and away from forward objectives) to force the flying player to fly over him, or take the second round of shooting

The flyers that don't come on turn 2 will probably come on turn 3, meaning this strategy just shifts 1 turn later, meaning there will always be flyers on the board shooting. And if the opponent DOES decide to shift back in an effort to deny turn 2 flyers the second round of shooting, then your flyers just DS into YOUR deployment zone, giving them large zooming range to get a couple rounds of shots at the units that just shifted back.

Flyer saturation is really really good; I'm not making it up. Outmaneuvering it is incredibly hard (Unless you're one of the armies able to turbo boost all over the place, even then, eh..)

 Godless-Mimicry wrote:

TheCaptain wrote:And there's vector dancer. My vultures, and some other flyers, can move an ADDITIONAL 90 degrees after moving.

Only ForgeWorld have these. Not eveyrone plays with FW, and most tournaments don't either (or at least in Europe and parts of the US).

So what? In my 40k game my opponents are not allowed to bring flyers (I of course can bring all I want), therefore this thread is irrelevant.

Now that we've discussed stupid house rules, can we get back to discussing strategy for 40k according to the actual rules published by GW?

 Peregrine wrote:

 Godless-Mimicry wrote:

TheCaptain wrote:And there's vector dancer. My vultures, and some other flyers, can move an ADDITIONAL 90 degrees after moving.

Only ForgeWorld have these. Not eveyrone plays with FW, and most tournaments don't either (or at least in Europe and parts of the US).

So what? In my 40k game my opponents are not allowed to bring flyers (I of course can bring all I want), therefore this thread is irrelevant.

Now that we've discussed stupid house rules, can we get back to discussing strategy for 40k according to the actual rules published by GW?

Well that's not very nice.

Fact is, Godless is right. I don't agree with the exclusion of FW, but the large majority of tournaments (where strategy matters most) exclude it.

Boom.

 TheCaptain wrote:
Well that's not very nice.

Fact is, Godless is right. I don't agree with the exclusion of FW, but the large majority of tournaments (where strategy matters most) exclude it.

Boom.

Of course tournaments have various comp rules that try to force people to play how the game is "meant" to be played instead of according to the actual rules GW has published, but that doesn't mean we have to grant it any legitimacy. Tournament organizers who exclude FW rules should be mocked and ignored just like tournament organizers who give you a 0/10 comp score if you take more than one transport.

And, in any case, nothing in the OP suggests that this is a discussion of a particular tournament and its house rules, so we should stick to discussing the standard game of 40k.

 Peregrine wrote:

 TheCaptain wrote:
Well that's not very nice.

Fact is, Godless is right. I don't agree with the exclusion of FW, but the large majority of tournaments (where strategy matters most) exclude it.

Boom.

Of course tournaments have various comp rules that try to force people to play how the game is "meant" to be played instead of according to the actual rules GW has published, but that doesn't mean we have to grant it any legitimacy. Tournament organizers who exclude FW rules should be mocked and ignored just like tournament organizers who give you a 0/10 comp score if you take more than one transport.

And, in any case, nothing in the OP suggests that this is a discussion of a particular tournament and its house rules, so we should stick to discussing the standard game of 40k.

He asks about the topic in regard to 40k. He doesn't say it excludes house-rules or tournaments. Because 40k DOES include house-rules and tournaments. Ignoring some of the most common ones is just closed minded. Closed mindedness is silly.

Not to mention it's just as much a house-rule to include IA lists as it is to not include them.

They aren't the Rule Book and they aren't a Codex. They're rules supplements for the main-game. I love them. I love using them. But assuming you'll be able to use them is wrong.

 TheCaptain wrote:
He asks about the topic in regard to 40k. He doesn't say it excludes house-rules or tournaments. Because 40k DOES include house-rules and tournaments. Ignoring some of the most common ones is just closed minded. Closed mindedness is silly.

So let's spend ten pages talking about my house rule where I'm the only one allowed to bring flyers and they come in if and only if I want them to, so the OoF is worthless. Or we could just assume that, in the absence of specific information about any house rules which may be in effect, we're talking about the standard game of 40k.

Not to mention it's just as much a house-rule to include IA lists as it is to not include them.

They aren't the Rule Book and they aren't a Codex. They're rules supplements for the main-game. I love them. I love using them. But assuming you'll be able to use them is wrong.

Wrong. It's a 40k book published by GW, with a statement on the first page that all of the rules in the book are official and intended for use in standard games of 40k. When it says "X is a heavy support choice for IG" it very clearly means "add this page to the IG army list in the following location". Just like when it says the same thing in every White Dwarf addition. Just like any other official rules GW chooses to publish for standard games of 40k, no matter what form they're published in. The simple fact is that there is absolutely no justification in the rules (as published by GW) for excluding FW units.

Now, you can argue all you want that some people have their own ideas about how 40k "should" be played and will refuse to play against you unless you follow their arbitrary house rules in constructing your army, but that's an entirely different subject and not relevant to a discussion of strategy in standard 40k.

 Peregrine wrote:
The simple fact is that there is absolutely no justification in the rules (as published by GW) for excluding FW units.

Wrong. Suuuuuper wrong.

Sorry; first of all, ignoring popular opinion because you think it's justified is silly.

If your "house rule of no flyers except you" was common enough to warrant mention, it would have been mentioned. Again, ignoring frequent occurrences like this is too close-minded for dakkadakka. Welcome to dakkadakka, by the way. We take things like this into account.

Then, Forgeworld is not GW. I don't know where you got this, but it's wrong. It is a subsidiary. Read fine print at the beginning of many of the Imperial Armour games; it introduces itself as a supplement. Just like planetstrike and apocalypse are supplements. You don't think it's okay to use Baneblades in regular games just because it's a game-book released by FW, do you? It's still 40k, it's released by GW, so by your logic, it would be okay. Goodness, even just look on the cover. I'm staring at the cover of IA8 right now; it says, in the bottom right corner, Warhammer 40,000 EXPANSION. All caps there, so I repeat it as such. No rule says you have to include expansions in your play, even if your opponent proposes them.

Also, referring to the quote, at the beginning of Imperial Armour Aeronautica (used as an example) on page 4, it clarifies that before using the contained rules, you should make sure your opponent is happy to play with them. Meaning your opponent, BY RULE, is at liberty to decline. Always. 100% of the time, according to the books.

I believe that's three strikes; in American baseball, that's considered an "out". At least by common house rules.

Now, I'm going to assume you're this stubborn because you've taken to running a couple FW units to supplement your list at your FLGS. If they're fine with that, awesome. Good. I encourage FW friendliness. But many places just aren't. Including tournaments, again, where strategy is paramount. I run an Elysian list of over $2000 when my opponent allows me to. I wish I could run it all the time. I wish you were right; but alas, you aren't. And I know this for a fact.

You can argue all you like the opposite, you can even decide you're right despite all my source-based information to the contrary, but even if you're right and no one agrees, what good is there?

If you own a dog, and everyone is convinced it's a cat, what use is there in calling it a dog?

 TheCaptain wrote:
Then, Forgeworld is not GW. I don't know where you got this, but it's wrong. It is a subsidiary.

Nonsense. No matter what corporate structure the accountants/managers/whatever decided was best for tax/legal/whatever purposes, FW is part of GW. Everything they publish has to be approved just like any other GW product, and everything they publish is official just like any other GW product. This magical dividing line between FW and GW exists only in the minds of people who aren't actually part of GW.

Read fine print at the beginning of many of the Imperial Armour games; it introduces itself as a supplement.

Just like the White Dwarf rules are a "supplement" that is a 100% official change/addition to the codex army list in question. And yet I don't see anyone arguing that, say, the SoB codex is "just a supplement" and therefore the old Witch Hunters codex should be used in tournaments.

Just like planetstrike and apocalypse are supplements.

Planetstrike and Apocalypse are different game types that are not compatible with standard 40k (IOW, I can't play a Planetstrike army against your standard 40k army).

Forge World rules are explicitly intended for use in standard 40k.

See a difference here?

You don't think it's okay to use Baneblades in regular games just because it's a game-book released by FW, do you?

Sure, just as soon as you can show me which FOC slot a Baneblade occupies in a standard game of 40k.

Also, referring to the quote, at the beginning of Imperial Armour Aeronautica (used as an example) on page 4, it clarifies that before using the contained rules, you should make sure your opponent is happy to play with them. Meaning your opponent, BY RULE, is at liberty to decline. Always. 100% of the time, according to the books.

Just like I'm at liberty to decline to play against you because I don't like the color you painted your army, or because you have too many transports, or because I hate Orks, or any of countless other reasons. Unless you're going to hold a gun to my head and force me to play, you have to make sure that I'm happy to play against you and your chosen army. However, that doesn't make green space marines, armies with more than one transport, or the entire Ork codex any less official.

What the note in question is aimed at is the kind of person who would show up to a random game and not bother mentioning their FW units until the game has already started and a unit their opponent has never even heard of starts killing stuff. It's about basic courtesy, not a requirement that your opponent approve your special "supplement" rules.

 Peregrine wrote:

 TheCaptain wrote:
Then, Forgeworld is not GW. I don't know where you got this, but it's wrong. It is a subsidiary.

Nonsense. No matter what corporate structure the accountants/managers/whatever decided was best for tax/legal/whatever purposes, FW is part of GW. Everything they publish has to be approved just like any other GW product, and everything they publish is official just like any other GW product. This magical dividing line between FW and GW exists only in the minds of people who aren't actually part of GW.

Sorry, but that's your opinion, and it's legally incorrect. By all legal concerns, they're different companies. Not to mention, you first said FW is GW, now you say it's a part. (Both are wrong, subsidiary isn't a part of something; it's more of a father-son relationship).

Read fine print at the beginning of many of the Imperial Armour games; it introduces itself as a supplement.

Just like the White Dwarf rules are a "supplement" that is a 100% official change/addition to the codex army list in question. And yet I don't see anyone arguing that, say, the SoB codex is "just a supplement" and therefore the old Witch Hunters codex should be used in tournaments.

The SoB codex is a codex. Not an expansion. Big green book says, in it's holy pages, codices overrule the rulebook. There's a reason the codices don't have "Expansion" on their cover. Because they're meant to be used with the base-game, and any expanded versions. They are rules just like the Big Green Book. Not rule expansions.

Just like planetstrike and apocalypse are supplements.

Planetstrike and Apocalypse are different game types that are not compatible with standard 40k (IOW, I can't play a Planetstrike army against your standard 40k army).

Forge World rules are explicitly intended for use in standard 40k.

See a difference here?

Intended doesn't mean mandated by rules. Gloves are intended for hands. I am fully justified in refusing to wear gloves. See the flaw in your logic? Also, Apocalypse and Planetstrike are just as compatible if not moreso than ForgeWorld books. They all do the same thing. They alter lists, introduce new rules, and shift around point-values. They all change the game. Apocalypse adds new units with high points values for large games of 40k. FW adds new units with varying points values for any-size games of 40k. They do the same thing, just with different models and different point-values.

You don't think it's okay to use Baneblades in regular games just because it's a game-book released by FW, do you?

Sure, just as soon as you can show me which FOC slot a Baneblade occupies in a standard game of 40k.

You don't really get what expansions mean, do you? Doesn't matter what kind of expansion it is, it's still an expansion, and can be included or excluded based on player agreement. That's the point of expansions. Your definition of "standard" is staggeringly vague.

Just like I'm at liberty to decline to play against you because I don't like the color you painted your army, or because you have too many transports, or because I hate Orks, or any of countless other reasons. Unless you're going to hold a gun to my head and force me to play, you have to make sure that I'm happy to play against you and your chosen army. However, that doesn't make green space marines, armies with more than one transport, or the entire Ork codex any less official.

Who said FW isn't official? You said there is no written justification to refuse to play a game with FW. I proved there was, and you just contradicted yourself by saying a player is at liberty to do so.

What the note in question is aimed at is the kind of person who would show up to a random game and not bother mentioning their FW units until the game has already started and a unit their opponent has never even heard of starts killing stuff. It's about basic courtesy, not a requirement that your opponent approve your special "supplement" rules.

Does it say that? No. It says it in general. As in to anyone wishing to use these rules.

In summary:
The Big Green Book: Rules
Codices: Rules
Anything with Warhammer 40,000 Expansion on the cover: Optional

I dare you to debate that.

Picking parts of a person's whole argument to argue against is fallacious, disrespectful, and looks bad on your part. As does purposefully ignoring the rules for use of expansions. Your original argument was that there is no justification for someone to refuse games including FW. Forgeworld themselves writes in all their books that they disagree.

I'm sorry you can't tell people "The rules say I'm perfectly in my right to field this Avenger Strike Fighter", but I'm more sorry I can't use my 2.5 grand of Elysians in tournaments. Deal with it.

But you'll change your argument, and argue select parts of mine anyways, so what does it matter.

Thing is, I'm the RAW TFG around these parts; if you wanna' challenge me, at least make sure you read the RAW right.

 TheCaptain wrote:
Sorry, but that's your opinion, and it's legally incorrect. By all legal concerns, they're different companies. Not to mention, you first said FW is GW, now you say it's a part. (Both are wrong, subsidiary isn't a part of something; it's more of a father-son relationship).

The point is that the exact corporate structure has absolutely nothing to do with what is official and what isn't. FW is a subsidiary legally because some lawyer and/or accountant decided it worked better that way. Those decisions, and the people making them, have nothing to do with game design. The fact that (hypothetically) FW's separate online store works better if it's a separate corporate entity for accounting purposes has no impact on relevant questions like "do the FW authors have their work approved just like any other GW rules".

If you instead look at it in terms of what is an official GW product, who has influence on game design choices, etc, FW is GW. "Imperial Armour", "codex", etc, are nothing more than brand names which GW products are sold under.

The SoB codex is a codex. Not an expansion.

It's still a supplement, and there is no reason that it should be treated any differently than FW rules.

You don't really get what expansions mean, do you? Doesn't matter what kind of expansion it is, it's still an expansion, and can be included or excluded based on player agreement. That's the point of expansions.

An expansion like Apocalypse is a different way of playing 40k. It makes major changes to the core rules of the game, and it is not compatible with the "standard" game.

An "expansion" like a FW book or White Dwarf supplement says "insert the following page into the IG codex army list where it becomes a part of the standard game of 40k".

Why is it so hard to see the difference between the two?

Who said FW isn't official? You said there is no written justification to refuse to play a game with FW. I proved there was, and you just contradicted yourself by saying a player is at liberty to do so.

Now you're just nitpicking. You know perfectly well that by "permission required" we mean something more than the "permission" that is required to play ANY unit or army. In other words, FW rules require permission above and beyond the permission involved in every single game of 40k that doesn't occur at gunpoint.

And, like it or not, the simple fact is they don't.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 TheCaptain wrote:
I'm sorry you can't tell people "The rules say I'm perfectly in my right to field this Avenger Strike Fighter", but I'm more sorry I can't use my 2.5 grand of Elysians in tournaments. Deal with it.

What does your ability to use your Elysians in tournaments have to do with anything? Tournaments are run by third party individuals, using their own personal rules. I've already acknowledged that many tournament organizers have house rules that FW rules are not allowed, I just think that those people and their rules should be given no more respect than the tournament organizers who ban lists with "too many" dedicated transports.

 Peregrine wrote:

 TheCaptain wrote:
Sorry, but that's your opinion, and it's legally incorrect. By all legal concerns, they're different companies. Not to mention, you first said FW is GW, now you say it's a part. (Both are wrong, subsidiary isn't a part of something; it's more of a father-son relationship).

The point is that the exact corporate structure has absolutely nothing to do with what is official and what isn't. FW is a subsidiary legally because some lawyer and/or accountant decided it worked better that way. Those decisions, and the people making them, have nothing to do with game design. The fact that (hypothetically) FW's separate online store works better if it's a separate corporate entity for accounting purposes has no impact on relevant questions like "do the FW authors have their work approved just like any other GW rules".

If you instead look at it in terms of what is an official GW product, who has influence on game design choices, etc, FW is GW. "Imperial Armour", "codex", etc, are nothing more than brand names which GW products are sold under.

Your opinion on what is and isn't morally included as a part of GW is completely factually irrelevant. You still said FW is GW, I've provided legal truth against the statement and you've given no factual evidence on the contrary; just product-based conjecture on what "counts as being GW" despite falling under a different brand.

The SoB codex is a codex. Not an expansion.

It's still a supplement, and there is no reason that it should be treated any differently than FW rules.

Reread the rule book. Please. It clearly states codices override rules in the rulebook. They take precedence, and they are a part of the rules. FW army lists say no such thing. They say they can be used WITH the rules. Difference. See it.

You don't really get what expansions mean, do you? Doesn't matter what kind of expansion it is, it's still an expansion, and can be included or excluded based on player agreement. That's the point of expansions.

An expansion like Apocalypse is a different way of playing 40k. It makes major changes to the core rules of the game, and it is not compatible with the "standard" game.

An "expansion" like a FW book or White Dwarf supplement says "insert the following page into the IG codex army list where it becomes a part of the standard game of 40k".

Why is it so hard to see the difference between the two?

I see the difference; they're different expansions. But they're both still different ways to play the game. Your opinion on how many core rules are changed is irrelevant. FW flat out adds it's own new core rules. That, in it's own right, is a different way of playing the game. Please buy more than one FW book and read it.

Who said FW isn't official? You said there is no written justification to refuse to play a game with FW. I proved there was, and you just contradicted yourself by saying a player is at liberty to do so.

Now you're just nitpicking. You know perfectly well that by "permission required" we mean something more than the "permission" that is required to play ANY unit or army. In other words, FW rules require permission above and beyond the permission involved in every single game of 40k that doesn't occur at gunpoint.

And, like it or not, the simple fact is they don't.

They do, actually. They require permission to play the game as written, and then permission to additionally use an expansion (additional, external rules not mentioned as included automatically by the main rulebook). A game not including FW just requires the former.

What does your ability to use your Elysians in tournaments have to do with anything? Tournaments are run by third party individuals, using their own personal rules. I've already acknowledged that many tournament organizers have house rules that FW rules are not allowed, I just think that those people and their rules should be given no more respect than the tournament organizers who ban lists with "too many" dedicated transports.

Everything. If you were right, and refusing FW was not justified by the rules, major tournaments would not do it. I've never heard of tournaments banning lists with "too many" dedicated transports, but that's only because I pay attention to major Tournaments, because they are relevant. Like you've said, a tournament can hold any house rule, it's the common ones that are relevant for discussion.

You've successfully shifted your argument from "There is no justification to refuse FW rules" to "Well, they can do it, but no different from any 40k game." Go ahead, keep changing it till it's right. That's called "learning". Learning by changing your argument while maintaining bullheaded stubbornness, however, will quickly cause you to lose credibility on these forums. Welcome to dakka. We don't like when people begin an argument with pseudo-fact based adamance, get proven wrong by real facts and source-based information, and devolve their argument to "That's not what I meant" and defensive opinion-based assertions.

Oh, and please tell me again how a discussion of strategy can ignore the rules of major tournaments, because that's just unclear and staggeringly foolish.