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:
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.

Your "legal truth" is just nitpicking. The corporate structure of Games Workshop has absolutely nothing to do with how the game design process works, what rules are considered "official", etc. It's a pointless trivia question determined by lawyers and/or accountants who probably don't even know how to play the game.

In terms of how Games Workshop games are created, which is the only thing that matters here, FW is GW.

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.

When it says "X unit is a Y choice in Z army" that means "please insert the following text into the army list found in the Z army codex". Just like how GW published 6th edition errata and suddenly the "official" rules for every army changed. Or how BT/DA suddenly got 3++ stormshields, even though the printed codex doesn't include them.

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.

You're missing the point so badly that I'm starting to suspect you're deliberately trolling.

If I want to play a game of Planetstrike, my opponent and I have to specifically agree in advance to play a game of Planetstrike, prepare special army lists, bring a lot of extra terrain, choose special stratagems, etc. And then once we start the game we deploy differently, follow different rules for scoring objectives, etc. It is impossible for me to play a Planetstrike army while my opponent plays standard 40k.

If I want to play a game with FW rules*, I include a Salamander in my army list instead of a Hellhound, just like I could include a Sentinel instead of a Hellhound. Other than my specific choice of units, the game proceeds exactly like any other game of standard 40k.

If you can't see a fundamental difference between these two scenarios, you're just trolling.


*As in the "official in standard 40k" rules we're talking about here, not the various campaign scenarios/etc.

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.

There is no additional permission to use an expansion, because GW has explicitly stated that the FW rules are to be added to standard 40k. Taking a Thunderbolt from the IG codex* army list requires no more additional permission than taking a Medusa.

*Where the codex includes all GW-published official updates, including online FAQs, FW/WD additions, etc.

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 must live a very sheltered life if you've never heard of tournaments with comp rules. Some of them outright ban lists/units/etc the tournament organizer dislikes, some of them just make arbitrary comp scores part of your final score and ensure that any list they dislike (lists with "too many" transports were especially popular in 5th) will lose enough points that they have no chance of winning the tournament. Or just take a look at the whining and crying about allies, fortifications and double FOCs. I can't even count the number of forum threads/blog posts/etc I've seen from tournament organizers talking about how they're going to change the rules of 6th edition because they don't like those elements.

If tournaments can include rule changes like the ridiculous "1999+1" dodge, your theory that "if FW bans weren't justified they wouldn't do it" is just laughably wrong. 40k tournaments have a long history of banning various elements of the game, even ones found in the main rulebook.

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.

It's only a "shift" if you're a nitpicking troll. Everyone with a bit of common sense understands that "no justification to refuse FW rules" is talking about special permission, not the basic fact that unless you have a gun to my head I can refuse to play a game of 40k.

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.

Easy: not everyone plays in tournaments, and a small minority play in "major" ones. Nothing in the OP suggested that they were preparing for a "major tournament", so the default assumption is the standard game of 40k, not the house rules preferred by "major tournaments".

Whatever man; you're not gunna' last here with a TFG stance like that. Saying someone is "nitpicking" is a pretty poor defense when you present an argument with so many holes it begs to be nitpicked. You've spent the past 3 posts repairing those holes and adding new ones. If you're gunna make bold claims like "the majority of the community is wrong to let people refuse FW rules, and TO's are dumb for doing so" at least stick to your guns when you try to back it up. Don't change them to fit.

If you're telling me you just throw FW units in your codex without telling your opponent beforehand, thats uncool, rules aside.

And calling someone a troll for holding a different opinion breaks plenty of the rules here, welcome to dakka.

PS. Just because an expansion changes the rules less, doesn't change it from being an expansion. That's absurd.

 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

So when you previously stated that it wasnt a problem to get all your fliers in by turn 4 you werent really telling the truth now were you? It would quite obviously be a huge issue if your fliers comes in so late that they have nothing to shoot at when they do come in. What the OotF does is not meerly delaying the reserves, it breaks them up giving a smaller alpha strike.

 TheCaptain wrote:

If you're telling me you just throw FW units in your codex without telling your opponent beforehand, thats uncool, rules aside.

Uhm... AFAIK there are some GW stuff out there that says that FW units with the GW stamp are 100% legal. So if I should pre-anounce my FW units to my opponent, then the only reason to do that would be a "nice person" mentality, like pre-warning someone to a Necron Space Invader list.

tedurur wrote:

 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

So when you previously stated that it wasnt a problem to get all your fliers in by turn 4 you werent really telling the truth now were you? It would quite obviously be a huge issue if your fliers comes in so late that they have nothing to shoot at when they do come in. What the OotF does is not meerly delaying the reserves, it breaks them up giving a smaller alpha strike.

Do me a favor and read the thread, especially my post on how flyers can be deep-struck as to have something to shoot 2 out of three turns.

Worst a player can force is a 5+ reserves. That means a third on average will come on turn two, and another third turn three, and the rest on turn 4. I never said it's not a problem, just not a big enough deal to bother me. Which is a subjective opinion.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 AtoMaki wrote:

 TheCaptain wrote:

If you're telling me you just throw FW units in your codex without telling your opponent beforehand, thats uncool, rules aside.

Uhm... AFAIK there are some GW stuff out there that says that FW units with the GW stamp are 100% legal. So if I should pre-anounce my FW units to my opponent, then the only reason to do that would be a "nice person" mentality, like pre-warning someone to a Necron Space Invader list.

Exactly what I said; that's uncool. Rules aside.

Assuming your opponent will be cool with me including a Vulture is uncool. Assuming he knows the rules before I shoot it at him is even more uncool

 TheCaptain wrote:
Whatever man; you're not gunna' last here with a TFG stance like that. Saying someone is "nitpicking" is a pretty poor defense when you present an argument with so many holes it begs to be nitpicked. You've spent the past 3 posts repairing those holes and adding new ones.

Because all you've done is nitpick at "holes" that have nothing to do with the substance of the argument. The only "change" is that you seem to think that unless I copy/paste the exact same words in every post, it's somehow a new concept.

If you're telling me you just throw FW units in your codex without telling your opponent beforehand, thats uncool, rules aside.

No, I didn't say that. I bring them with my standard 40k list, and before the game I offer to show my opponent the rules and explain anything they don't understand, just like I expect that we will exchange army lists, explicitly state what each model/unit represents (since no army is ever 100% WYSIWYG), have our codex available to answer any questions, etc.

What I do NOT do is ask for special permission to use FW rules, just like I don't ask for special permission to bring a Hellhound instead of a Valkyrie, or any other choice of official units in standard games of 40k.

And calling someone a troll for holding a different opinion breaks plenty of the rules here, welcome to dakka.

No, I'm calling you a troll for missing the point and nitpicking to the point that the only explanation is that your only goal is to argue, not to make a legitimate effort to understand what I'm saying or address the substance of my argument.

PS. Just because an expansion changes the rules less, doesn't change it from being an expansion. That's absurd.

Call it an "expansion" if you want, but the simple fact is there are two very different products that share the same "expansion" label. One of them is an alternate game type based on 40k, while the other contains additions to the standard game of 40k (just like White Dwarf codex updates, BT 3++ stormshields, etc).

And, to put it very simply: one of them says that it is a set of rules intended for use in standard games of 40k, one of them does not.

 TheCaptain wrote:

Exactly what I said; that's uncool. Rules aside.

Assuming your opponent will be cool with me including a Vulture is uncool. Assuming he knows the rules before I shoot it at him is even more uncool

Uhm... So? This stands for every unit in every army. My opponent could be in the dark for every unit in my codex since he isn't forced to know every unit of every codex. And if he is, then he could look up the rules of the Vulture too, nobody will butcher him for doing so....

 AtoMaki wrote:

 TheCaptain wrote:

Exactly what I said; that's uncool. Rules aside.

Assuming your opponent will be cool with me including a Vulture is uncool. Assuming he knows the rules before I shoot it at him is even more uncool

Uhm... So? This stands for every unit in every army. My opponent could be in the dark for every unit in my codex since he isn't forced to know every unit of every codex. And if he is, then he could look up the rules of the Vulture too, nobody will butcher him for doing so....

Uhm...clarifying rules for your opponent is sportsmanlike, and sportsmanship is an important part of a social game.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:

Call it an "expansion" if you want, but the simple fact is there are two very different products that share the same "expansion" label. One of them is an alternate game type based on 40k, while the other contains additions to the standard game of 40k (just like White Dwarf codex updates, BT 3++ stormshields, etc).

And, to put it very simply: one of them says that it is a set of rules intended for use in standard games of 40k, one of them does not.

I call it an expansion because FW calls it an expansion. If FW is GW like you say, then transitively GW calls it an expansion, and GW makes the rules. Implementing expansions without mutual permission is not allowed.

Your little fit can cease, now. This has derailed the thread horribly, and has become annoying. Both of which are against the rules. Welcome to dakka.

 TheCaptain wrote:

Uhm...clarifying rules for your opponent is sportsmanlike, and sportsmanship is an important part of a social game.

Yes, but it won't allow your opponent to say "no" to your units.

 AtoMaki wrote:

 TheCaptain wrote:

Uhm...clarifying rules for your opponent is sportsmanlike, and sportsmanship is an important part of a social game.

Yes, but it won't allow your opponent to say "no" to your units.

This has been covered here and in the book. By rules, an opponent can say no to whatever unit he likes.

 TheCaptain wrote:

This has been covered here and in the book. By rules, an opponent can say no to whatever unit he likes.

Oh, really? I didn't know that... But then, this whole arguement is invalid. Vulture or not-Vulture, the enemy can say "no". End of story. Or am I misreading something ?

 AtoMaki wrote:

 TheCaptain wrote:

This has been covered here and in the book. By rules, an opponent can say no to whatever unit he likes.

Oh, really? I didn't know that... But then, this whole arguement is invalid. Vulture or not-Vulture, the enemy can say "no". End of story. Or am I misreading something ?

Now you've got it. An opponent can technically deny a game for whatever reason they like. That's the beauty of freedom. They can do it because they don't like a unit you have, or they can do it because they don't like your moustache; and there are rules that say so.

 TheCaptain wrote:
Implementing expansions without mutual permission is not allowed.

Please provide a page number and quotation for this claim.

Until you do, there is a very simple statement from GW on the subject: the most recent FW books all contain some variant of "these are official rules intended for use in standard games of 40k". Not "expansion games", not "games where you and your opponent have agreed to add new rules", standard games.

 TheCaptain wrote:
This has been covered here and in the book. By rules, an opponent can say no to whatever unit he likes.

Which is true, but meaningless. An opponent can say no to a Valkyrie just like they can say no to a Vulture. Nobody is saying that GW is holding a gun to your head and forcing you to play games that you don't want to play, we're just saying that FW units are no different than any other official unit in standard 40k, and that people who refuse to allow FW units in their games/tournaments are no different (and no more worthy of respect) than people who refuse to allow various codex units/allies/etc in their games/tournaments.

 TheCaptain wrote:

tedurur wrote:

 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

So when you previously stated that it wasnt a problem to get all your fliers in by turn 4 you werent really telling the truth now were you? It would quite obviously be a huge issue if your fliers comes in so late that they have nothing to shoot at when they do come in. What the OotF does is not meerly delaying the reserves, it breaks them up giving a smaller alpha strike.

Do me a favor and read the thread, especially my post on how flyers can be deep-struck as to have something to shoot 2 out of three turns.

Worst a player can force is a 5+ reserves. That means a third on average will come on turn two, and another third turn three, and the rest on turn 4. I never said it's not a problem, just not a big enough deal to bother me. Which is a subjective opinion.

Aah, yes. Surely nothing can go wrong when deep striking 4 or so fliers at the same time. Especially seeing as the oppoenent will be aware of the deep striking fliers and thus spread out as much as possible. Even without an opponent that spreads out, there are plenty of things that can go wrong.

 Peregrine wrote:

 TheCaptain wrote:
This has been covered here and in the book. By rules, an opponent can say no to whatever unit he likes.

Which is true, but meaningless. An opponent can say no to a Valkyrie just like they can say no to a Vulture. Nobody is saying that GW is holding a gun to your head and forcing you to play games that you don't want to play, we're just saying that FW units are no different than any other official unit in standard 40k.

Not meaningless. Quite the opposite. It's clear justification that you can refuse a game for any reason. Now no one can hold a gun to your head forcing you to play games that you don't want to without breaking both the LAW and 40k written rules. That's plenty of meaning.

Like I said, I'm done arguing with you. We obviously disagree, I share my opinions with most of the community on the interpretation; you share yours with people who furiously dig for an excuse to force FW into gameplay. Please kindly get over it; this has grown exhausting and un-fun.

The difference being I am suggesting you make sure your opponent is okay with playing FW, and you are saying they have to.

In this regard, I am being courteous, you are being overassuming and unnecessarily WAAC. Even if the rules did say "FW lists are official codices and rules associated with GW WH40k." You should still make sure your opponent is okay with it. If I bring my 7 flyer-list, I make sure I tell my opponent beforehand "So you know, I'm fielding 7 flyers, they're Valkyries and Vendettas, and here are the rules and point costs." Making sure your opponent agrees with everything he is getting into is important. It's common, human courtesy, and common human courtesy will get you much further in life than FW units.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

tedurur wrote:

Aah, yes. Surely nothing can go wrong when deep striking 4 or so fliers at the same time. Especially seeing as the oppoenent will be aware of the deep striking fliers and thus spread out as much as possible. Even without an opponent that spreads out, there are plenty of things that can go wrong.

He can just deep strike onto impassible terrain. Problem solved. Not to mention, few armies short of all-foot gaunts/orks could spread out enough to make deep-striking impossible.

Your idea of denying flyers their shots works in theory; it is incredibly hard to apply on the table. The best players in the game still struggle with flyerspam; there is a reason for this, and it's not because they "don't spread out".

A point that hasn't been raised yet is to just kill the CCS. Pretty do-able in practice.

Peregrine: FW is not part of the Rulebook. It is an Expansion. Your opponent have to allow you to use FW rules (that is writen in FW books).

My opinion:
Of course your game opponent has to allow you to play with any of your units. If he does not allow it, he is not going to play with you. But this is not an official rule. However, it is official, that in order to play FW units your opponent has to agree.

And again, you miss the point. Obviously you have to make sure your opponent is happy to play against FW units, just like you have to make sure your opponent is happy to play against Orks. However, let's go back to my comments that started this whole tangent:

Should we ignore house rules and assume "standard" 40k (which includes FW) in forum discussions unless house rules have been clearly stated? YES.

Should we, in the absence of "I'm preparing for X tournament", discuss strategy for the full range of standard 40k and not assume the most restrictive tournament house rules? YES.

Should we laugh at "competitive" tournament organizers who ban FW units just like we laugh at "competitive" tournament organizers who ban allies/double FOC/etc or come up with multi-page comp scoring systems that penalize armies the tournament organizer doesn't like? YES.

Should we stop bringing out the same old "not everyone likes FW" excuse every time someone mentions a FW unit in a strategy discussion (when we don't say "not everyone likes Orks")? YES.

Should we stop reinforcing obsolete misconceptions about "permission" that were removed from FW books years ago? YES.


If "the community" disagrees with that, then too bad, "the community" needs to change. It wouldn't be the first time "the community" was wrong and needed to change, and it certainly won't be the last.

I am confident that you know that you have to roll the scatter die when deep striking. And with the huge flier base hitting something that will force a mishap roll is not very unlikely. While by no means impossible its still a significant drawback to flier heavy lists.

 Lothar wrote:
Peregrine: FW is not part of the Rulebook. It is an Expansion. Your opponent have to allow you to use FW rules (that is writen in FW books).

This is completely false. It used to be written in FW books, but the whole "permission" bit was removed years ago. Unfortunately people who don't actually own any FW books continue to repeat this obsolete statement as if it were still true, but they're wrong.

The current FW books state that the rules are official and intended for use in standard games of 40k.

Peregrine wrote:And again, you miss the point. Obviously you have to make sure your opponent is happy to play against FW units, just like you have to make sure your opponent is happy to play against Orks. However, let's go back to my comments that started this whole tangent:

Should we ignore house rules and assume "standard" 40k (which includes FW) in forum discussions unless house rules have been clearly stated? YES.

Should we, in the absence of "I'm preparing for X tournament", discuss strategy for the full range of standard 40k and not assume the most restrictive tournament house rules? YES.

Should we laugh at "competitive" tournament organizers who ban FW units just like we laugh at "competitive" tournament organizers who ban allies/double FOC/etc or come up with multi-page comp scoring systems that penalize armies the tournament organizer doesn't like? YES.

Should we stop bringing out the same old "not everyone likes FW" excuse every time someone mentions a FW unit in a strategy discussion (when we don't say "not everyone likes Orks")? YES.

Should we stop reinforcing obsolete misconceptions about "permission" that were removed from FW books years ago? YES.


If "the community" disagrees with that, then too bad, "the community" needs to change. It wouldn't be the first time "the community" was wrong and needed to change, and it certainly won't be the last.

Continuing to argue a point that derails a thread after being asked to stop is spam. Which is against the WRITTEN rules here. Welcome to dakka.

tedurur wrote:I am confident that you know that you have to roll the scatter die when deep striking. And with the huge flier base hitting something that will force a mishap roll is not very unlikely. While by no means impossible its still a significant drawback to flier heavy lists.

As long as you don't scatter within 1" of an enemy model, you don't mishap. That's all. Very easy to avoid.

Lothar:
Not exactly:

You don't really have to get your opponent's permission. You tell him that you will bring FW, and the rest is up to him. Just like for every other army lists, FW or not.

 TheCaptain wrote:

tedurur wrote:I am confident that you know that you have to roll the scatter die when deep striking. And with the huge flier base hitting something that will force a mishap roll is not very unlikely. While by no means impossible its still a significant drawback to flier heavy lists.

As long as you don't scatter within 1" of an enemy model, you don't mishap. That's all. Very easy to avoid.

1" of an enemy model or on top of a friendly model...

 Peregrine wrote:

 Lothar wrote:
Peregrine: FW is not part of the Rulebook. It is an Expansion. Your opponent have to allow you to use FW rules (that is writen in FW books).

This is completely false. It used to be written in FW books, but the whole "permission" bit was removed years ago. Unfortunately people who don't actually own any FW books continue to repeat this obsolete statement as if it were still true, but they're wrong.

The current FW books state that the rules are official and intended for use in standard games of 40k.

While this is true, you should still make sure your opponent is fine with you using FW units.

 TheCaptain wrote:
Continuing to argue a point that derails a thread after being asked to stop is spam. Which is against the WRITTEN rules here. Welcome to dakka.

And when someone with actual authority on this forum offers an opinion here, I'll pay attention to it. Last time I checked, you're not a moderator, so if you want the tangent to stop then I'd suggest that you stop insisting on getting the last word and continuing to post about it.

As long as you don't scatter within 1" of an enemy model, you don't mishap. That's all. Very easy to avoid.

Nope. Flyers don't take dangerous terrain tests for ending their move in terrain, but a mishap is not a dangerous terrain test. A flyer will suffer a mishap exactly as normal if it lands in impassable terrain, on top of a friendly model, within 1" of an enemy model, or off the table. Given the large size of the average flyer, deep striking onto a crowded table has a significant chance of producing a mishap.

 Peregrine wrote:

 TheCaptain wrote:
Continuing to argue a point that derails a thread after being asked to stop is spam. Which is against the WRITTEN rules here. Welcome to dakka.

And when someone with actual authority on this forum offers an opinion here, I'll pay attention to it. Last time I checked, you're not a moderator, so if you want the tangent to stop then I'd suggest that you stop insisting on getting the last word and continuing to post about it.

As long as you don't scatter within 1" of an enemy model, you don't mishap. That's all. Very easy to avoid.

Nope. Flyers don't take dangerous terrain tests for ending their move in terrain, but a mishap is not a dangerous terrain test. A flyer will suffer a mishap exactly as normal if it lands in impassable terrain, on top of a friendly model, within 1" of an enemy model, or off the table. Given the large size of the average flyer, deep striking onto a crowded table has a significant chance of producing a mishap.

Actually a flier can be deployed in impassable terrain so that restriction is removed from what causes mishap. That said, deepstriking 5-10 fliers is far from easy.

It'd be best if people took a breath, counted to 10, whatever and stayed calm before posting.

It's just toy soldiers people, it's not worth getting all that upset over.

Honest

to reds8n: Dont worry, I am absolutely calm, I like a good discussion with many opinions, it is the good way to find out what may or may not be true and/or good

 AtoMaki wrote:
Lothar:
Not exactly:

You don't really have to get your opponent's permission. You tell him that you will bring FW, and the rest is up to him. Just like for every other army lists, FW or not.

This is actually what I had in mind, thank you . Your opponents have to "be happy to play a game using FW models before you start". So before both players agree to actually play a game, both of them should know if there are going to be FW models in that game. If they both know and agree with that, its ok. But the restriction is here and its official.

Peregrine wrote: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.

Ok so you want to play the GW rules as published; please go read the introduction pages to each and every Imperial Armour book please and then get back to me; if you need a hand, I'm refering to the section that says these units aren't designed for consistent 40k play and should require your opponent's permission. This hasn't changed. And as much as your want to say the individual comps of different tournies don't matter to the discussion, they do, because they are still something people here might play. As you said, the OP didn't state a set of parameters for which environment we are discussing, so why are you being a hypocrite in trying to exclude ours?

 Lothar wrote:

This is actually what I had in mind, thank you . Your opponents have to "be happy to play a game using FW models before you start". So before both players agree to actually play a game, both of them should know if there are going to be FW models in that game. If they both know and agree with that, its ok. But the restriction is here and its official.

Hmmmm... Okay then. But then what's the difference? I can bring FW, tell my opponent that I will do so and everybody will be happy. Or I can bring a 3 Land Raiders with Lyander and some random stuff, tell my opponent that I will do so and everybody will be happy... My opponent can say "no" in both cases.

to AtoMaki: Yes, your opponent can say "no", and it is quite possible he sometimes will do that. The problem is, that Forge world books are aditional stuff, which players have to know in order to be prepared for it (and count that possibility in their army lists and strategy). Many players just dont bother to do that. It is easier for them to focus only on Rulebook, FAQs and codices. Therefore there is bigger chance that someone will say "no" to your FW IA unit then to your codex unit. Many tournament organizators (almost all of them in my country - Czech republic) dont allow FW. That is their right and I have to count with that. And because many players count with this restriction, they build their army lists without FW units and they usually do not want to play against them, because they want to test the army against something they can meet at tournament.

I myself like FW, but I do not create my army lists with FW units, because I want to be able to play with everyone, not only with FW positive players. There are both FW positive and FW negative players in my group so it is easier and a lot cheaper for me to build army lists without FW IA units.