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.

Of course. More different types of units to slaughter!

 Peregrine wrote:


Key point: some missions. To use those options you have to agree with your opponent in advance to play one of those special missions instead of one of the standard core rulebook missions. This is NOT true of FW rules, which are part of standard 40k just like you don't have to make special agreements to take a flamer on your tactical squad instead of a plasma gun.

Where does it say that a special agreement over and above the one you'd need for Flamers or FW units is needed?

 Zweischneid wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:


Key point: some missions. To use those options you have to agree with your opponent in advance to play one of those special missions instead of one of the standard core rulebook missions. This is NOT true of FW rules, which are part of standard 40k just like you don't have to make special agreements to take a flamer on your tactical squad instead of a plasma gun.

Where does it say that a special agreement over and above the one you'd need for Flamers or FW units is needed?

Because the section you quoted is "Non-Standard missions" that is simple enough for you to understand, flamers and officially added 40k units are designed to be within the FoC, within an official game and marked as such.

But its the idea... that they have access to those beasts...

I just want to faint at the idea of my friend having them.

Not really, those are apocalypse units, which are designed purely for the Apoc scenario.

 Zweischneid wrote:
Where does it say that a special agreement over and above the one you'd need for Flamers or FW units is needed?

It's common sense. If we're going to play a Planetstrike mission (the only place where you can use the special Planetstrike FOC) then we both have to agree to play a Planetstrike mission. It's impossible for you to play a Planetstrike mission while I play 40k, so we have to agree to do one or the other. GW doesn't have to make this explicit because there's no way to violate the unwritten "special agreement" rule.

FW units, on the other hand, are just another unit choice in standard 40k.

Legion of Flame wrote:
But its the idea... that they have access to those beasts...

I just want to faint at the idea of my friend having them.

No it isn't. The context here is standard 40k units, not Apocalypse units. Those "scary" Apocalypse units are not allowed in standard 40k.

 Peregrine wrote:


It's common sense. If we're going to play a Planetstrike mission (the only place where you can use the special Planetstrike FOC) then we both have to agree to play a Planetstrike mission..

The same common sense would seem to apply to the mutual agreement to play with Forge World rules.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:


Because the section you quoted is "Non-Standard missions" that is simple enough for you to understand, flamers and officially added 40k units are designed to be within the FoC, within an official game and marked as such.

Why are non-standard missions / FoC added to 40K "outside" the official game but Forge World units and rules added to 40K "inside" the official game? Strikes me as a fairly arbitrary line to draw.

 Zweischneid wrote:
The same common sense would seem to apply to the mutual agreement to play with Forge World rules.

No it doesn't because FW rules are explicitly part of standard 40k.

Why are non-standard missions / FoC added to 40K "outside" the official game but Forge World units and rules added to 40K "inside" the official game? Strikes me as a fairly arbitrary line to draw.

Because that's what "standard" means.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Zweischneid wrote:
The same common sense would seem to apply to the mutual agreement to play with Forge World rules.

No it doesn't because FW rules are explicitly part of standard 40k.

Why are non-standard missions / FoC added to 40K "outside" the official game but Forge World units and rules added to 40K "inside" the official game? Strikes me as a fairly arbitrary line to draw.

Because that's what "standard" means.

Does it? Oxford dictionary defines "non-standard" as

adjective
not average or usual:

No mention of "unofficial". And Forge World rules are clearly neither "average" nor "usual" either.

 Zweischneid wrote:
No mention of "unofficial". And Forge World rules are clearly neither "average" nor "usual" either.

Your opinion is irrelevant. GW has explicitly stated that FW rules are part of standard 40k.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Zweischneid wrote:
No mention of "unofficial". And Forge World rules are clearly neither "average" nor "usual" either.

Your opinion is irrelevant. GW has explicitly stated that FW rules are part of standard 40k.

Where?

You keep harping on about this "standard" as the ultimate benchmark that supposedly overrides common sense and courtesy, but I find no reference to it in Forge World, nor a definite definition of it in the 40K Rulebook.

Indeed, the way Forge World uses the term in their "stamp entry", it seems (to me) to describe standard sized games in differentiation to Apocalypse games. It's a classification of size.

They also advise fairly explicitly that "owing to the fact they may be unknown to your opponent, it's best to make sure they are happy to play a game using Forge World models before you start."

 Zweischneid wrote:
Where?

Every FW book published in the past 2-3 years.

You keep harping on about this "standard" as the ultimate benchmark that supposedly overrides common sense and courtesy, but I find no reference to it in Forge World, nor a definite definition of it in the 40K Rulebook.

Oh FFS, is it really that complicated? "Standard 40k" is the basic core game of 40k with no expansions. Armies chosen from the standard army lists according to the core rulebook FOC/composition rules/etc, missions from the core rulebook table, etc. This is just ridiculous nitpicking.

Indeed, the way Forge World uses the term in their "stamp entry", it seems (to me) to describe standard sized games in differentiation to Apocalypse games. It's a classification of size.

No, it's about more than just size because it's part of the same sentence stating that the rules are official. You just don't like the consequences of that statement.

They also advise fairly explicitly that "owing to the fact they may be unknown to your opponent, it's best to make sure they are happy to play a game using Forge World models before you start."

1) This is different from the similar statement about Apocalypse units where it states that you MUST get special permission to use them in a standard 40k game. It's a statement about being polite and not surprising your opponent, not a rule.

2) This is also true about every other rule GW publishes. Before you play a game with your orks you should make sure that your opponent is happy to play against orks, because you can't force them to play against orks if they don't want to. FW just makes it explicit because some people aren't familiar with the rules and able to form opinions about what they want to play against, while most players are familiar with orks and know whether or not they want to face them.

They also advise fairly explicitly that "owing to the fact they may be unknown to your opponent, it's best to make sure they are happy to play a game using Forge World models before you start."

I've never played a Black Templar list, the same principle would apply, I'd show them the list, the models rules, just as they would if I don't know what X does.

No mention of "unofficial". And Forge World rules are clearly neither "average" nor "usual" either.

Neither are SoB to most people, but they are clearly official.

Course this is just going around needlessly at this point.

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:
Course this is just going around needlessly at this point.

Pretty much.

People who read the rules and make a sincere effort to understand them see the obvious, that FW rules are official and part of normal 40k but, like every part of the game, you can choose to add house rules that remove them if that's how you want to play the game.

People who can't stand the thought of having to admit that their anti-FW policy is a house rule (stubborn pride I guess?) grasp desperately for any slight ambiguity in wording that might "prove" that a GW product that says "this is official" is somehow not official.

The two groups will never agree, and the only point in posting in these threads is to counter the myth that the rules say something that they don't.

 Zweischneid wrote:

They also advise fairly explicitly that "owing to the fact they may be unknown to your opponent, it's best to make sure they are happy to play a game using Forge World models before you start."

Isn't this the case with everything ever?

Like...Make sure someone is okay with a high-five before you high five them. Make sure someone isn't allergic to peanuts before throwing peanuts at them. Make sure they are using 1850 points in an 1850 point game.

That's not a rule. That's an urging of courtesy.

And FW's books for the past 2-3 years have been endorsed by GW. It seems like your information is really out of date, and as such; your insistent arguing sounds ridiculous.

 TheCaptain wrote:

Isn't this the case with everything ever?

Exactly.

Which is why I find it so perplexing that people try to "legislate" their way around it with such effort with respect to Forge World units. It seems to me like an excruciatingly stupid way to start off a "fun" afternoon/evening/whatever of 40K. But maybe I am just wired the wrong way there.

 Zweischneid wrote:

 TheCaptain wrote:

Isn't this the case with everything ever?

Exactly.

Which is why I find it so perplexing that people try to "legislate" their way around it with such effort with respect to Forge World units. It seems to me like an excruciatingly stupid way to start off a "fun" afternoon/evening/whatever of 40K. But maybe I am just wired the wrong way there.

Simple enough

"Oh hey is that a Forgeworld model"
"Yes"
"Okay cool, I'll play someone else"

Same as

"Oh hey are you running Black Templar?"
"Yes"
"Okay cool, I'll play someone else"

The problem is your trying to legislate it as being "Unofficial", while it is official. Nobody is denying you your freedom of choice to not play Forgeworld, you just havn't made an actual case against it being unofficial.

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:
you just havn't made an actual case against it being unofficial.

And I wasn't trying.

I was making a case against the assumption that a people with at least minimal social skills wouldn't have the "common sense" (to use Peregrine's phrase) to give their opponent a heads-up, ideally a day or so in advance, if they intend to bring Forge World rules.

 Zweischneid wrote:

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:
you just havn't made an actual case against it being unofficial.

And I wasn't trying.

I was making a case against the assumption that a people with at least minimal social skills wouldn't have the "common sense" (to use Peregrine's phrase) to give their opponent a heads-up, ideally a day or so in advance, if they intend to bring Forge World rules.

I'm not sure why I would need to give a days heads up in order to play a normal pickup game. Not like we pre-plan every game we play if we're just playing around, we do pre-plan if we're going to be setting up Planetstrike or City of Death though, due to the necessity of all the changes to the standard game.

Only FW models I've played against (with FW rules) was the Cestus Assault Ram. Two of them. With a Deathwing list.. That was painful.

I got to say, the FW rules I've seen in action does not seem very balanced, but hey, it's all good fun, innit?

It kind of depends on which FW units you end of playing against. I think a lot of them are underpowered if anything... but they're kind of wacky and can really add character to the game. Oftentimes, those aren't the units people field... rather they go for the ones that are broken in the overpowered direction, which of course lends itself to many people and TO's not allowing IA rules in their tournaments. Of course the same could be said for a lot of main-stream GW units as well.

The best argument I've heard against using IA units, is that here in the 'States the vast majority of people... due to cost and rarity... don't have access to the IA units or more specifically, to the rules for them. Thus allowing them puts some people at an unfair disadvantage because they can't properly prepare for them like they could a unit who's rules were more readily available (due to cost and distribution). I think that's a legitimate point, especially for competitive tournament gaming.

That being said... Adepticon allows IA units in it's team tournament and the world has not ended... nor have I heard other participants complaining about it. Most of my team this year will be fielding some kind of IA unit, though for us they're very fluffy choices and not particularly powerful. (not bad choices... but nothing you'd see in a real "power list")

 Zweischneid wrote:
I was making a case against the assumption that a people with at least minimal social skills wouldn't have the "common sense" (to use Peregrine's phrase) to give their opponent a heads-up, ideally a day or so in advance, if they intend to bring Forge World rules.

Do you also demand a warning a day in advance if your opponent is playing orks? If not, why not, given that both are equally official and part of standard 40k?

Also, the thought of demanding days of advance warning is pretty absurd in my experience, since you don't know who you're playing until you show up at 40k night at the local store and see who is there. Do you only play specially arranged games against specific opponents?

 Peregrine wrote:
Do you only play specially arranged games against specific opponents?

For games that use supplements like (the official) Spearhead or Forge World books, yes.

 Zweischneid wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
Do you only play specially arranged games against specific opponents?

For games that use supplements like (the official) Spearhead or Forge World books, yes.

Please stop saying that the two are the same. Spearhead is a separate expansion that is not compatible with standard 40k, therefore it's reasonable to expect advance notice and special arrangements so that both players can comply with the special rules that Spearhead adds to the game. FW rules are part of standard 40k and do not require any special arrangements beyond whatever is required to play against orks instead of space marines.

Also, do you demand similar advance notice and special arrangements before you'll play against people who are using SoB or any of the other WD additions?

 Peregrine wrote:


Please stop saying that the two are the same. Spearhead is a separate expansion that is not compatible with standard 40k, therefore it's reasonable to expect advance notice and special arrangements so that both players can comply with the special rules that Spearhead adds to the game. FW rules are part of standard 40k and do not require any special arrangements beyond whatever is required to play against orks instead of space marines.

We've been over this. I see no mention in either Spearhead or Forge World that would support the idea that one would be treated differently than the other. They are both official additions to Warhammer 40K. There are no more or less "special arrangements" for either player for either supplement. Why would you require an extra advance notice to go up against a Spearhead formation of Eldar Falcons but not against a formation of IG Leman Russ? Doesn't make sense, unless you say you'd need an extra advance notice for any and all supplements, not selectively those you don't like but not those you do like.

 Zweischneid wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:


Please stop saying that the two are the same. Spearhead is a separate expansion that is not compatible with standard 40k, therefore it's reasonable to expect advance notice and special arrangements so that both players can comply with the special rules that Spearhead adds to the game. FW rules are part of standard 40k and do not require any special arrangements beyond whatever is required to play against orks instead of space marines.

We've been over this. I see no mention in either Spearhead or Forge World that would support the idea that one would be treated differently than the other. They are both official additions to Warhammer 40K. There are no more or less "special arrangements" for either player for either supplement. Why would you require an extra advance notice to go up against a Spearhead formation of Eldar Falcons but not against a formation of IG Leman Russ? Doesn't make sense, unless you say you'd need an extra advance notice for any and all supplements, not selectively those you don't like but not those you do like.

Well that depends, can you tell me an official warhammer 40k formation that is stamped that way, and not for apocalypse or spearhead?

 Zweischneid wrote:
We've been over this. I see no mention in either Spearhead or Forge World that would support the idea that one would be treated differently than the other. They are both official additions to Warhammer 40K.

You're right, we've been over this. FW books explicitly state that the rules are for standard 40k. Spearhead does not. The fact that you refuse to admit that this difference exist does not make it go away.

Why would you require an extra advance notice to go up against a Spearhead formation of Eldar Falcons but not against a formation of IG Leman Russ?

Because the only way you can legally take a Spearhead formation of Falcons is if we're playing one of the special Spearhead missions, in which case MY FOC is changed as well, my vehicles gain special rules, etc. There is no way to simply put that formation of Falcons into a standard game of 40k like you were choosing between Falcons and Fire Prisms.

Doesn't make sense, unless you say you'd need an extra advance notice for any and all supplements, not selectively those you don't like but not those you do like.

I require advance notice for all alternate mission/game types that require both players to bring special armies and comply with special rules, since it is impossible for me to play those missions without advance notice that I need to bring an army that works under different rules.

I do not require advance notice for choosing different units from the ones available in standard 40k, whether they are printed in a FW book, a codex, or in WD.

It has nothing to do with selective like or dislike and everything to do with what is and isn't part of standard 40k.

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:


Well that depends, can you tell me an official warhammer 40k formation that is stamped that way, and not for apocalypse or spearhead?

No official GW-studio publication is "stamped". Because unless products published by the actual same company, rather than a different one owned by the same holding, they are all part of the game by default. Codex Orks isn't "stamped" either as far as I am aware.

Is it those funny little stamps you've been going on all along? That's where you draw your argument from?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:

You're right, we've been over this. FW books explicitly state that the rules are for standard 40k. Spearhead does not. The fact that you refuse to admit that this difference exist does not make it go away.

As noted, your definition of "standard" 40K appears to be one conveniently made up by you to support your preferences. Show me a definition of "standard" 40K (and of what is the extra prep "demanded" of non-standard 40K) and the thing would be settled.

 Zweischneid wrote:
Because unless products published by the actual same company, rather than a different one owned by the same holding, they are all part of the game by default.

This is entirely wrong. FW is a specific set of products sold by GW under a certain brand name, just like your models are sold under the Citadel brand name, you get new rules printed in White Dwarf magazine, etc. This "separation" between GW and FW is nothing more than a myth, and when FW prints a statement saying "this is official and part of standard 40k" it is the final word on the subject until GW prints a conflicting statement elsewhere.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Zweischneid wrote:
As noted, your definition of "standard" 40K appears to be one conveniently made up by you to support your preferences. Show me a definition of "standard" 40K and the thing would be settled.

No, my definition of standard 40k is the one GW has provided: core rulebook, codices, and WD/FW units that are published as additions to standard 40k. You can complain all you like but GW has made it absolutely clear that FW rules are part of the standard game.

 Peregrine wrote:


I require advance notice for all alternate mission/game types that require both players to bring special armies and comply with special rules, since it is impossible for me to play those missions without advance notice that I need to bring an army that works under different rules.

Your regular army (including Forge World units if you choose to) works just fine in playing Spearhead or Planetstrike.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:


No, my definition of standard 40k is the one GW has provided: core rulebook, codices, and WD/FW units that are published as additions to standard 40k. You can complain all you like but GW has made it absolutely clear that FW rules are part of the standard game.

Just as they made it absolutely clear that this doesn't relief you of the obligation to "make sure your opponent is comfortable with you using FW units".

 Zweischneid wrote:
Your regular army (including Forge World units if you choose to) works just fine in playing Spearhead or Planetstrike.

No it doesn't. The FOC is different, alternate rules apply to my army (for example, in Planetstrike I have to deep strike everything), I have to choose stratagems, etc. I might technically be able to use the same models, but it's absolutely ridiculous to claim that playing Planetstrike doesn't mean changing your army to function under the Planetstrike rules.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Zweischneid wrote:
Just as they made it absolutely clear that this doesn't relief you of the obligation to "make sure your opponent is comfortable with you using FW units".

Just like it doesn't remove the obligation to make sure that your opponent is comfortable with you using orks.

See the little warhammer 40000 stamp in blue on the codex entry.

this was placed to avoid this form of debate, and to designate what was "legal" for what variation of the base game.



Now these are stamped for Apoclypse games..so they may only be used in those versions of the base game.

Planetstrike and Spearhead, modify the base game with stratagems and formation rules that entail changes from the base game, and changes that both players need be aware of, both for point expenditure and modification of unit abilities.

Forgeworld has gone to lengths with GW to make it abundantly clear what units are suitable for what version of the base 40k game.

Now of course you are always free to play or not to play against anyone at anytime, but FW has been made ( on a unit by unit basis ) legal in standard 40k play, and the argument that not everyone has acess to the rules , can be said for every army,I do not set every new codexes entries to memory nor buy every one that comes out, but If I use a said unit I will be more than happy to produce the official and most current rules for said unit.

(note both examples above are from FW own site.)