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.

 Peregrine wrote:

It has been settled then. Every single Forge World book is a GW book, and all of the recent ones clearly say so.

And they also clearly say to seek your opponents acceptance.

Steelmage99 wrote:
And they also clearly say to seek your opponents acceptance.

No, they say to make sure your opponent is willing to play against you, just like you need to make sure your opponent is willing to play against orks before you start a game with your ork army. It says nothing at all about granting veto power to your opponent, or that FW rules are anything other than part of standard 40k just like orks are.

Please, please, please keep this to the large thread already going.

 Peregrine wrote:

Steelmage99 wrote:
And they also clearly say to seek your opponents acceptance.

No, they say to make sure your opponent is willing to play against you, just like you need to make sure your opponent is willing to play against orks before you start a game with your ork army.

Ladies and gentlemen, I give you the logical fallacies of "Affirming a disjunct"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirming_a_disjunct

It says nothing at all about granting veto power to your opponent, or that FW rules are anything other than part of standard 40k just like orks are.

And "Straw man"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

With a general case of "Cherry picking"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cherry_picking_%28fallacy%29

Ladies and gentlemen, I give you the logical fallacy of "posting wikipedia links about fallacies without bothering to understand what they mean or how they aren't accurate criticism."

Please, do elaborate. Though I prefer if we take this to PM.

Please do.

So the summation of this thread is that Forgeworld, while it may not/may be perfectly legal (we are leaving that as a 50/50), it is up to your opponent. Always be clear about what your units are, their abilities, and their rules. If an opponent of yours comes onto a forum asking 'what the hell was that big dreadnought thingie' then you have done something seriously wrong. Always be clear, have your FW books/printouts (in the case of experimental rules) with you, and then yeah.

accurate?

 motyak wrote:
So the summation of this thread is that Forgeworld, while it may not/may be perfectly legal (we are leaving that as a 50/50), it is up to your opponent. Always be clear about what your units are, their abilities, and their rules. If an opponent of yours comes onto a forum asking 'what the hell was that big dreadnought thingie' then you have done something seriously wrong. Always be clear, have your FW books/printouts (in the case of experimental rules) with you, and then yeah.

accurate?

That about sums it up, yes.

Yes, legality aside, the user of an Imperial Armour unit should always make extra sure that his opponent understands the units rule.

I feel that this courtesy is even more important in the case of Imperial Armour units than compared to regular codex units.

As an aside I really wish that people would get their terminology straight;
Forgeworld is a company that publishes rules. These rules are called Imperial Armour.
A distinction should always be made between the company itself, the models they make and the rules they publish.

My issue is that, as a player who will probably never be an expert, it's difficult to tell how overpowered a "new" unit is when it's presented to me from Imperial Armor (ESPECIALLY when it's literally right before I'm about to play a game against said unit and setup already takes forever). I understand that it's proper ettiquette to show me the rules of the unit prior to the game and to ask me if I'm alright with it being used, but is my answer ever really going to be, "No"? I can't tell if I'm alright with it being used because I have no idea if it's overpowered, and this is the case because it comes from a series of books that I don't have regular access to and the units are not commonly used...

This isn't really meant to be a complaint, by the way. It's the same way in any game. If I'm playing Magic: The Gathering and I don't want to be an expert (and so I haven't spent the money to buy all the cards) then it is reasonable to assume that I might play against someone who uses cards that I've never seen before. But my purpose in this thread was just to get a better idea of Forgeworld and stuff, as I was so confused.

In a way, this also applies to many games within "Codex 40k" itself. Do you know how Sisters play, for example? Granted, the current rules are somewhat ... "broken down" compare to 3E, but surely still a surprise for someone who does not know SoB at all.

And that's just a Codex that I imagine most players do not have any experience with. I am sure that many fans have never played other armies as well, considering what I hear of people complaining about only ever fighting Marines.

I guess the best way would be to simply give it a go and then see at the end whether you had fun or not. Can always say "no" next time.

That's a good point. But I guess that's actually what I'm sort-of getting at. To use the D&D analogy again, there was Dragon magazine and then there were D&D books. Maybe it's just the format (magazines and online, which feels like a blog, versus an actualy physical book), but Dragon magazine was an untrusted source from a balance perspective while all of the stuff in the books was almost automatically included, no questions asked.

And that's how I feel about the codexes (or is it codices?). A codex is auto-include, while "supplements" might have questionable balance. So, even though I've never read the SoB codex, I trust it as balanced because it's a codex. The Imperial Armor and Forgeworld stuff, not so much.

I know it doesn't make any sense... but maybe it's an "official" thing, where the codexes feel official but White Dwarf doesn't, for instance.

 Tangent wrote:
That's interesting - I would think it would be the opposite to try to get people to buy those models (being generally more expensive).

Given they are now a full subsidiary of GW it is kind of hard to believe isn't it? I really like forge world models and started adding them in to my collection when I felt my existing armies were "done" to add some variety and some cool look things to my force. Some people complain about them being unbalanced, but they really aren't. I am hoping that it stays that way and Forge World doesn't become the power escalation path. Of course in many cases the minis are just replacements for existing GW minis, like th chaos renegade conversion pieces, or the Death Korps of Krief forces, all the dreadnoughts and dreadnought weapons, land raider and rhino doors and the list goes on. There are also many unique options as well, but many of them are solely for the Apocalypse tabletop as they are various kinds of superheavies and the like. The "flyers" used to be annoying when they appeared out of the blue, but now have become a baseline in 6th edition so no longer stand out. Truth be told there are about 4 or 5 pieces that are somewhat undercosted for what they do that lead people to hate all of Forge World, but they are the exceptions and not the rule.

Skriker

Tangent wrote:I know it doesn't make any sense... but maybe it's an "official" thing, where the codexes feel official but White Dwarf doesn't, for instance.

Naw, it does make sense, from a psychological point of view. You have the studio designers on one end, and FW on the other. As fans, we should assume that GW designs its codices to tie into each other perfectly (even though it sometimes appears this is not the case ), whereas they would not for example keep in mind that some Forgeworld unit has this and this ability, as it's not something they ever bothered with / were involved in creating.
As has already been mentioned, it may well be possible that FW is more balanced than some mainline codices, but it's just not something that we as gamers would expect.

On a sidenote, with White Dwarf it would depend on the article - if it has the Chapter Approved stamp is is meant to be "Codex level", too, and was in fact written by the same people.
The latter is why I generally lump WD in with other GW publications, simply because it's the same team writing those articles. At least it used to be - I think in the last couple years more and more was "outsourced" to other authors, but Chapter Approved is still written by GW game designers only iirc.

Skriker wrote:Given they are now a full subsidiary of GW it is kind of hard to believe isn't it?

Weren't they always a full subsidiary? Just like Black Library, founded as a sub-division to segregate the franchise into different semi-autonomous labels. They have their own writers/designers in their own offices, but sharing the same building and (probably) various studio resources such as photo equipment etc.

Here's a good way to look at it. Every single item outside of the main rulebook is a supplement. This does include codecies, which is kind of funny. Theoretically, any player could attempt to use any codex (within reason) in a game. On the same note, any player can attempt to use material from any other supplements, including Imperial Armour. The reality though, is that anything outside of the rulebook needs permission. This is straight forward with current codecies, but starts to run into trouble with other material, including major supplements like Cities of Death. Even on that level, there needs to be a joint understanding that these rules are being used. On the same note, you can agree to use older codecies, uncommon WD material, or Imperial Armour material, but both players need to agree to that.

Hell, players can agree to play with previous rules. There's nothing wrong there. The idea though is that everyone agree on what is being used, and everyone be given access to those rules/supplements.

Is the "chapter approved" thing found in IA/FW books also? Or is that only found in White Dwarf?

 Tangent wrote:
Is the "chapter approved" thing found in IA/FW books also? Or is that only found in White Dwarf?

That is found in IA books

AND White Dwarf?

To my knowledge, the only stuff that's even remotely relevant to standard-scale 40k and not just to Apocalypse can be found in Imperial Armor 8 (Korvyde and the Elysians list), 11 (the Corsairs list), and Aeronautica (flying and anti-flying things). Most of the time, the Imperial Armor books can be ignored entirely if you aren't using an army list found in one of them.

 AnomanderRake wrote:
To my knowledge, the only stuff that's even remotely relevant to standard-scale 40k and not just to Apocalypse can be found in Imperial Armor 8 (Korvyde and the Elysians list), 11 (the Corsairs list), and Aeronautica (flying and anti-flying things). Most of the time, the Imperial Armor books can be ignored entirely if you aren't using an army list found in one of them.

Not true. The IA:Apocalypse books have "Apocalypse" in the name but they contain a lot of units for standard 40k in addition to all the big Apocalypse stuff. Instead of publishing an entire extra book for standard 40k they just put them into the IA:Apocalypse series. And you also missed all of the other IA books that contain army lists and additional units.

 Tangent wrote:
The thing is, I'm the kind of person who craves balance in the rules, and while I can accept that GW doesn't design 40k to be balanced or competitive, I still recognize that the addition of more stuff can potentially serve to push the limits further out. I play D&D, and I'm looking at this from the standpoint of Dragon Magazine, which put out new rules and character options every month that were considered "official" but were often broken.

Out of the entire Forgeworld range, out of all of their models intended for use in regular 40k, you can count the amount of 'broken' units on one hand. And they aren't as bad as units in regular codices either.

And the Mortis pattern Contemptor Dreadnought is not amongst them.

Forgeworld tend to err on the side of caution and overprice or underpower (or both!) units, for this very reason. They're niche products in a niche hobby intended for the hobbyist, not the powergamer.

Marthike wrote:

Tangent wrote:Is the "chapter approved" thing found in IA/FW books also? Or is that only found in White Dwarf?

That is found in IA books

What? Where exactly?
To my knowledge, "Chapter Approved" is the stamp of approval of the GW studio design team, appearing solely in some select magazine articles, usually those written by GW designers themselves. Examples being the new SoB Codex or the Tau Gue'vesa addon.
I'd be willing to alter my previous stance based on this new revelation.

I'm a fan of FW models/units.

That said, they'd see a LOT more acceptance if they supported all factions equally.

IOM gets a crapload of FW stuff for non-apoc play. Tau and Eldar and orks get some.

non-apoc nids and DE have precious little IIRC,

Ascalam wrote:IOM gets a crapload of FW stuff for non-apoc play.

*cough cough*

 Ascalam wrote:
non-apoc nids and DE have precious little IIRC,

This bugs me with the Tyranid range.

Basically, they get Stonecrusher Carnifexes (which were never meant to be a specific unit, just Carnifexes with the Wrecker strategem) and Malanthropes for regular 40k. Granted the Tyranid stuff was done in 3rd edition, and has the much improved Hive Tyrant models, and Warrior wings, and Rippers and Sky Slashers (which don't really count - no one uses them anyway).

I'd be a lot happier if they simply moved the Heirodules to regular 40k. They've got basically the same stats as Tervigons and Tyrannofexes, and the models are about the same size as well.

 Lynata wrote:

Ascalam wrote:IOM gets a crapload of FW stuff for non-apoc play.

*cough cough*

But everyone knows SOB aren't a real army in the IOM ...

I feel your pain. Old-time SOB player here too (but not for a long while).

My point still stands though, as the rest of the IOM gets a lot of ooh-shinies!

 AnomanderRake wrote:
To my knowledge, the only stuff that's even remotely relevant to standard-scale 40k and not just to Apocalypse can be found in Imperial Armor 8 (Korvyde and the Elysians list), 11 (the Corsairs list), and Aeronautica (flying and anti-flying things). Most of the time, the Imperial Armor books can be ignored entirely if you aren't using an army list found in one of them.

There are available units across all the books. Also found in all 3 of the Imperial Armour Apocalypse books as well. Some models, like the chaos plague hulk, is not listed in an actual campaign book and can only be found in Imperial armour apocalypse 2 (or Imperial Armour apocalypse 2nd edition). The Apocalypse title of those books is misleading in this regard, though they do include standard 40k scale units, plus super heavy units and apocalypse formations.

So you have to look through a lot of books to find all of those units that are usable in standard 40k games.

Skriker

 Lynata wrote:

Marthike wrote:

Tangent wrote:Is the "chapter approved" thing found in IA/FW books also? Or is that only found in White Dwarf?

That is found in IA books

What? Where exactly?
To my knowledge, "Chapter Approved" is the stamp of approval of the GW studio design team, appearing solely in some select magazine articles, usually those written by GW designers themselves. Examples being the new SoB Codex or the Tau Gue'vesa addon.
I'd be willing to alter my previous stance based on this new revelation.

To my knowledge they are not in any IA books.

I don;t quite understand the labeling of the previous Imperial Armour books as hugely expensive - the new Chaos Codex is £30 - and is the first Codex I have therefore not bought - its production values and content are lower than IA.

The 30K rulebook is a different matter - its way over the top -but I wonder if that pricing was partly sugested by GW so its not too popular what with being able to field actual Primarchs etc. If it had been £45-50 it would have really made the new Codex look bad..........