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:

 kestril wrote:
Seriously guys? This FW stuff comes up in every topic like it's Marbo or something.

That's what happens when people who are terrified of admitting that their "no FW rules" policy is a house rule show up, everything is immediately derailed into nitpicking the exact wording of every sentence and making absurd arguments about how their new fandex also has to be legal. It would easily be solved if they'd admit that the very clear explicit statement from GW is that FW is part of 40k, and that they just have a personal house rule that they don't use it or play against it. But I guess that would be too much of a blow to their ego...

Oh yeah. They're fine saying they play with no FW, but as soon as they're made to admit that its out of fear/ignorance, and not adherence to rules that they've misread, it becomes a huge deal.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:


And no, allowing FW doesn't require house rules. Banning it does though.

Than break out your 6th ed. rulebook and show me where you can use the IA book, it clearly spells out codex. Is the IA book a codex? (nope)

*Then

And you wrongly assume that the BGB is the only available source of official 40k rules.

I'd be more embarrassed, and less smug in your position. Continued insistence that something so silly is right is, well...silly.

Edit: to take a page from your logic, show me where it says you can't use it?

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:
Than break out your 6th ed. rulebook and show me where you can use the IA book, it clearly spells out codex. Is the IA book a codex? (nope)

Just as soon as you break out your (paper copy) 6th ed. rulebook and show me the full text of all of the errata and codex updates that are required to play 6th edition. Since even if you pretend otherwise here, I know you use them and consider them official.

(Hint: you won't find them outside of the pdfs GW put on their website.)

On the topic of forge world I agree that, while the FW book may say it its legal, there is still a clear division between 40k codex units and forge worlds supplement units to the codex. A big part of it is that the FW books are optional to running a codex army, another part is how expensive and limited in availability the books and models are. Many big tourneys disallow fw for this reason, and thus in friendly games where people want to test for tourneys fw is an unwanted addition.

On point, while I myself like vendettas, hydras and manticores still get the job done right? I mean, s10 ord for ground stuff and a hydra detachment for air stuff. Also, the aegis I feel is a good buy, but chimeras also work. Both provide cover and shooting for the other forces you have.

What about close combat by the way? Krak blobs and demo vets do well versus most vehicles, krak blobs being my choice. I think that divination sm allies really add a lot to a blob, but it is playable without them.

 TheCaptain wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

Sorry nah it doesn't say that in the least. IIRC it says "40k Approved" not 40k legal

Perhaps you should read the text explaining that little icon instead of just looking at the pretty pictures? It clearly states that the units marked with that icon are official and part of standard 40k.

Told you.

 Peregrine wrote:

We go back to the rulebook, does it say you can use your IA book? Or only Codex?

Who gives a about what the paper copy of the rulebook says? GW has a clear policy of updating the game and adding new rules through additional materials published later, which includes errata, codex updates, IA books, WD rules, etc. The rules for 40k include all of these updates.

This statement reeks of ignorance and unwillingness to accept factual evidence, Mr. Dean

Confronted with overwhelming facts pro FW, you resort to the weakest argument still available. "The BGB doesn't say you can use it."

It doesn't say you can use blue dice. Doesn't say you can play in cargo shorts. Doesn't say you can play in sunglasses.

Now, you can houserule those mentioned matters, but in the case of FW, Games Workshop eliminates the need by providing an actual rule of inclusion.

Or do you want Phil Kelly to handwrite "Use FW too" in your rulebook for you?

The rulebook states what you can use though.
It states codexes.
Are the IA books codexes?
Why wouldn't I fall back to it? It's not the weakest though, not by a long shot.

What I'd like, and truthfully it would be beneficial to us all. Would be an Errata to the main rulebook if they had wanted to allow IA Books, it would go there.

DevianID wrote:
On the topic of forge world I agree that, while the FW book may say it its legal, there is still a clear division between 40k codex units and forge worlds supplement units to the codex. A big part of it is that the FW books are optional to running a codex army,

So are heavy support, elites, and fast attack. Point?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:


The rulebook states what you can use though.
It states codexes.
Are the IA books codexes?
Why wouldn't I fall back to it? It's not the weakest though, not by a long shot.

What I'd like, and truthfully it would be beneficial to us all. Would be an Errata to the main rulebook if they had wanted to allow IA Books, it would go there.

Where.

Grab your Dark Vengeance rulebook (The most recently published version of the rules) and show me where it says that. I dare you. Because I have it next to me, and it says nothing of the sort.

TheCaptain wrote:And you wrongly assume that the BGB is the only available source of official 40k rules.

Why on earth should I assume that things outside of the rule book for a game are rules for a game?

PLEASE stop taking this thread off-topic.

DevianID wrote:
Many big tourneys disallow fw for this reason, and thus in friendly games where people want to test for tourneys fw is an unwanted addition.

Which is a fair point. If you want to test for an upcoming tournament then it's reasonable to ask to only play a no-FW game (though I still wouldn't play that person), but I don't think the OP plays in tournaments.

(Of course the solution is to convince the TO to allow FW units.)

how expensive and limited in availability the books and models are

Just to deal with this misconception: every model and book FW sells can be bought through their website. It's expensive, sure, but in the modern age when you order a pizza through the internet it's not really "limited availability" to have to buy something online.

On point, while I myself like vendettas, hydras and manticores still get the job done right? I mean, s10 ord for ground stuff and a hydra detachment for air stuff. Also, the aegis I feel is a good buy, but chimeras also work. Both provide cover and shooting for the other forces you have.

They don't get the job done very well. Manticores took a big hit with AP 4 now being the equivalent of 5th edition AP -, while Hydras are crippled against ground targets thanks to getting skyfire but not interceptor. With only three slots available taking a combination of the two and expecting them both to get the job done isn't very realistic.

Speaking of which Marbo is not bad at some of the stuff you are struggling with...sorry Marbo made me. Seriously though, please stay on topic as this discussion will go nowhere.

Now in all seriousness without FW or valkeries you probably aren't gonna be able to deal with fliers. This means doubling down on number of bodies (since most fliers are better against tanks than troops) and fixing your problem with tough units. Tough units means plasma or melta stormies...Marbo perhaps...and your current lascannon/melta. Part of your problem is the small amount of cover I have been seeing in your battle reports.

An aegis defense line with an icarus lascannon would really behoove you as it will help against everything you have problems with (BiD still TL the thing against everything you dislike).

Of course the book struggles with the new flier rules without updates. Which would mean forgeworld but if you don't like it you don't like it. (Sorry for the text wall)

 TheCaptain wrote:

DevianID wrote:
On the topic of forge world I agree that, while the FW book may say it its legal, there is still a clear division between 40k codex units and forge worlds supplement units to the codex. A big part of it is that the FW books are optional to running a codex army,

So are heavy support, elites, and fast attack. Point?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:


The rulebook states what you can use though.
It states codexes.
Are the IA books codexes?
Why wouldn't I fall back to it? It's not the weakest though, not by a long shot.

What I'd like, and truthfully it would be beneficial to us all. Would be an Errata to the main rulebook if they had wanted to allow IA Books, it would go there.

Where.

Grab your Dark Vengeance rulebook (The most recently published version of the rules) and show me where it says that. I dare you. Because I have it next to me, and it says nothing of the sort.

Considering it's the same book minus all the fluff as the hardback copy I have outside ...
You'll have to wait a few than.

 Ailaros wrote:

TheCaptain wrote:And you wrongly assume that the BGB is the only available source of official 40k rules.

Why on earth should I assume that things outside of the rule book for a game are rules for a game?

Because GW has a clear policy of publishing updates and additions to the game outside of the paper copies of the core rulebook and codices. They publish errata and FAQs online, and additional rules through WD and FW. All of these things are part of the standard game.

Ailaros wrote:

TheCaptain wrote:And you wrongly assume that the BGB is the only available source of official 40k rules.

Why on earth should I assume that things outside of the rule book for a game are rules for a game?

PLEASE stop taking this thread off-topic.

Sorry man, but this is pretty on topic. You said yourself "I want to use things from the guard codex because I want to be a guard player. As for forgeworld, when I see in the rulebook where it says they're allowed, I'll consider it."

We're just working that one out.

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:

 TheCaptain wrote:

DevianID wrote:
On the topic of forge world I agree that, while the FW book may say it its legal, there is still a clear division between 40k codex units and forge worlds supplement units to the codex. A big part of it is that the FW books are optional to running a codex army,

So are heavy support, elites, and fast attack. Point?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:


The rulebook states what you can use though.
It states codexes.
Are the IA books codexes?
Why wouldn't I fall back to it? It's not the weakest though, not by a long shot.

What I'd like, and truthfully it would be beneficial to us all. Would be an Errata to the main rulebook if they had wanted to allow IA Books, it would go there.

Where.

Grab your Dark Vengeance rulebook (The most recently published version of the rules) and show me where it says that. I dare you. Because I have it next to me, and it says nothing of the sort.

Considering it's the same book minus all the fluff as the hardback copy I have outside ...
You'll have to wait a few than.

Actually its quite different. Because I have both next to me. So by referring to the hardback copy you have "outside" you are referring to an outdated version of the rules.

Capt wins the day again.

 TheCaptain wrote:
Sorry man, but this is pretty on topic. You said yourself "I want to use things from the guard codex because I want to be a guard player. As for forgeworld, when I see in the rulebook where it says they're allowed, I'll consider it."

We're just working that one out.

And it's a very relevant discussion too. Allow me to summarize the conversation:


FW guy #1: Hey, I noticed that foot IG are going to have some problems in 6th. Think we can do anything about that?
FW guy #2: What about those Sabre guns sitting around waiting for an update? Let's replace those old worthless HWS.
FW guy #1: Yeah, if we make them awesome anti-air units we can fill in that weakness and give foot lists a chance.

*FW publishes IA:Aeronautica*

Ailaros: That's not official! Give me another AA unit or I'll just quit playing IG!

 Peregrine wrote:

 TheCaptain wrote:
Sorry man, but this is pretty on topic. You said yourself "I want to use things from the guard codex because I want to be a guard player. As for forgeworld, when I see in the rulebook where it says they're allowed, I'll consider it."

We're just working that one out.

And it's a very relevant discussion too. Allow me to summarize the conversation:


FW guy #1: Hey, I noticed that foot IG are going to have some problems in 6th. Think we can do anything about that?
FW guy #2: What about those Sabre guns sitting around waiting for an update? Let's replace those old worthless HWS.
FW guy #1: Yeah, if we make them awesome anti-air units we can fill in that weakness and give foot lists a chance.

*FW publishes IA:Aeronautica*

Ailaros: That's not official! Give me another AA unit or I'll just quit playing IG!

It's official just not 40k official. (which is funny, guess that's false advertising??)

Also Cap; pg 108 of the rulebook. Codexes and Army List.

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:
It's official just not 40k official. (which is funny, guess that's false advertising??)

Only if you stubbornly insist on making up your own policy about how things work. Fortunately GW is more sensible about it, and their policy is the only one that matters.

 Peregrine wrote:

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:
It's official just not 40k official. (which is funny, guess that's false advertising??)

Only if you stubbornly insist on making up your own policy about how things work. Fortunately GW is more sensible about it, and their policy is the only one that matters.

Or in your case stubbornly ignore RAW

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:


Also Cap; pg 108 of the rulebook. Codexes and Army List.

"Each of the races or space-born empires in WH40k has a codex - a book that contains rules background, and collecting information for that army."

In fact, doesn't even mention FAQs and Errata. Guess those are out the window. What a shame. Good thing flawed logic trumps actual adherence to rules as they are presented, right?

Boy, you sure showed me.

No wait.

Yes, HQ? Copy that.

No, sorry, I'm getting intel that the text in question does absolutely nothing for your argument. Codices contain rules and info about armies. Doesn't say FW stuff isn't to be included as a part of them, or that FW rules supplements aren't a part of 40k.

So, congratulations, you have proven to me that Codices are official parts of 40k rules. Nice.

Good thing FW stuff is too.

 TheCaptain wrote:

DevianID wrote:
On the topic of forge world I agree that, while the FW book may say it its legal, there is still a clear division between 40k codex units and forge worlds supplement units to the codex. A big part of it is that the FW books are optional to running a codex army,

So are heavy support, elites, and fast attack. Point?

Captain notice I said codex army. A heavy support is still an ig codex unit, and the op wants to play with the ig codex, not the ig space wolves codecs and collected imperial armor books. Guy has enough to carry around with guard as it is.

 TheCaptain wrote:

Good thing FW stuff is too.

Only in your quaint little houseruled Dreamworld you happen to be sharing with Peregrine.

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:

 TheCaptain wrote:

Good thing FW stuff is too.

Only in your quaint little houseruled Dreamworld you happen to be sharing with Peregrine.

Good job dodging my rebuttal up there.

Get proved wrong? Better resort to rhetoric and insult.

Nice.

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:
Only in your quaint little houseruled Dreamworld you happen to be sharing with Peregrine.

At least my houseruled dreamworld is a functioning game, which is more than I can say for your houseruled dreamworld where the only legal rules are the printed copies of the core rulebook and codices and no other material, including the errata and codex updates that are required to play the game, can be used.

DevianID wrote:
and the op wants to play with the ig codex, not the ig space wolves codecs and collected imperial armor books. Guy has enough to carry around with guard as it is.

The OP has unrealistic ideas about what is possible. It's entirely fair to point out that FW has published nice gift-wrapped units that do exactly what he wants, and that refusing to use them out of some bizarre interpretation of the rules is just plain self destructive.

 TheCaptain wrote:

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:

 TheCaptain wrote:

Good thing FW stuff is too.

Only in your quaint little houseruled Dreamworld you happen to be sharing with Peregrine.

Good job dodging my rebuttal up there.

Get proved wrong? Better resort to rhetoric and insult.

Nice.

Which part?

The one about the army list?
The first line under force org on 108?

The fine line is you can't teach a blind man to see.
So I'm going to stop trying.

Ailaros, I know you to be a lascannon advocate. How have they been holding up for you in recent games?



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:


The OP has unrealistic ideas about what is possible. It's entirely fair to point out that FW has published nice gift-wrapped units that do exactly what he wants, and that refusing to use them out of some bizarre interpretation of the rules is just plain self destructive.

Oddly enough, it's not that bizarre of an interpretation.

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:
Oddly enough, it's not that bizarre of an interpretation.

Well, I suppose if your definition of "not that bizarre" includes "directly contradicts both the policy of the people who create the game and common sense" and "pulled entirely from your own imagination based on stubborn refusal to accept that your house rule is a house rule", then yeah, I guess it isn't that bizarre.

The op does not have unrealistic expectations. Besides vendettas, I thought the whole codex is available? Heck we don't even have a point cost from the op yet. Writing off the ig codex for imperial armor is premature, when the stated goal is not to win every game but crowd source ig heavy unit answers.

I still think the hydra and manticores have value, but other options are out there. Multilasers sentinels I have a sweet spot for, and I always like to have straken when playing pure guard. Straken took a hit with init on furious charge, but is still a monster with s7 2d6 armor pen attacks.

Also foot guard with rough riders I think should be considered. Speedy charges, decent attacks, and a few upgrade options.

 Peregrine wrote:

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:
Oddly enough, it's not that bizarre of an interpretation.

Well, I suppose if your definition of "not that bizarre" includes "directly contradicts both the policy of the people who create the game and common sense" and "pulled entirely from your own imagination based on stubborn refusal to accept that your house rule is a house rule", then yeah, I guess it isn't that bizarre.

Right considering you have so much support from the 6th ed rulebook ...

Wait a second, no. In fact it's the opposite so ... yea ...

40k is a game. It has a rulebook. The rules are found in that rulebook. To take rules from somewhere else and attempt to apply them to a game that doesn't mention them in the rules makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. You might as well be talking about using forgeworld units in a game of poker or roulette. Furthermore it is completely out of scope of this discussion.

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:Ailaros, I know you to be a lascannon advocate. How have they been holding up for you in recent games?

Well, but the problem is that I never seem to have enough of them. Night fighting is harsh, and so are ruins saves. Given how flimsy HWSs are, I'm almost getting desperate enough to consider armored sentinels with lascannons. A squad of 3 of them costs as much as 2 lascannon HWSs which have twice the lascannons. Are the sentinels twice as durable as an HWS? I'm tempted to answer "yes".

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:
Oddly enough, it's not that bizarre of an interpretation.

Well, I suppose if your definition of "not that bizarre" includes "directly contradicts both the policy of the people who create the game and common sense" and "pulled entirely from your own imagination based on stubborn refusal to accept that your house rule is a house rule", then yeah, I guess it isn't that bizarre.

Right considering you have so much support from the 6th ed rulebook ...

Wait a second, no. In fact it's the opposite so ... yea ...

Closemindedness and refusal of understanding isn't a pretty color on you, bud.

Continually citing a rulebook verse that doesn't exist is getting ridiculous.

Both peregrine and I have demonstrated direct text-based ruling that FW stuff is to be included.

You've presented naught a rune in contrary.

But, as you said, teaching the blind to see and whatnot.

 Ailaros wrote:
40k is a game. It has a rulebook. The rules are found in that rulebook. To take rules from somewhere else and attempt to apply them to a game that doesn't mention them in the rules makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. You might as well be talking about using forgeworld units in a game of poker or roulette. Furthermore it is completely out of scope of this discussion.

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:Ailaros, I know you to be a lascannon advocate. How have they been holding up for you in recent games?

Well, but the problem is that I never seem to have enough of them. Night fighting is harsh, and so are ruins saves. Given how flimsy HWSs are, I'm almost getting desperate enough to consider armored sentinels with lascannons. A squad of 3 of them costs as much as 2 lascannon HWSs which have twice the lascannons. Are the sentinels twice as durable as an HWS? I'm tempted to answer "yes".

Have you thought about trying the Scout ones? Hoping for a T2 outflank to hit side armor where applicable might not be a bad idea.

That's more than enough with regards to the FW and legality for common play.
Points have been made, both here and on prior occasions. best just drop that for now please.

Further posts on this topic on this thread will be considered spam, will be deleted and warnings/suspensions will be issued to the posters.

Thank you.

 Ailaros wrote:
40k is a game. It has a rulebook. The rules are found in that rulebook. To take rules from somewhere else and attempt to apply them to a game that doesn't mention them in the rules makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

Except when said external source says they're rules for the same system in reference. Endorsed and published by the same company that develops the game and rulebook in question.

Edit: Red, I apologize and do hope this isn't taken as spam, as it was in the process of being written before your post was made.

I actually have been experimenting with them recently. The problem with scout sentinels is that they're like stormtroopers - unreliable. They show up on turn 2 from the right board edge and hit with 2 or 3 shots... or they don't, and do nothing. I'm starting to see them as AV10 HWSs, which isn't even that much more durable than HWSs.

Thus my sudden, if non-canonical interest in armored sentinels.

Sure are expensive, though. For the same points, I could have a regular russ with multimeltas and a hull lascannon. Mostly the same anti-tank with better armor and the option of splat-cannoning.