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.

Please don't act like this thread has been anything more than a bunch of people complaining that lots of players don't like playing forge world.

From saying that anyone who doesn't play against FW are liars who deny their real intent to saying people will be judged just because they pass on a game.

If your looking for childish remarks, they are about a dime a dozen in this thread.

 Evil Lamp 6 wrote:
So, when my opponent wants to use FW stuff that is outside of their codex, how am I as a non-FW person supposed to know it is on the up and up so to speak and is the most current rulings/info being used as opposed to being fleeced by something other than what it currently is supposed to be?

So long as they show you the rules before the game so that you know what to expect, does it matter if it is the most up-to-date version?

There is absolutely nothing that requires you to play the game with only the most up-to-date rules. All that is required is that both players agree to the rules being used.

I'm such new player. I have no issue letting people use FW models in a regular game if they provide a printed out page with their rules, same as any other GW unit (I'm still learning the game). FW is a subsidiary company of GW, much like Lamborghini is a subsidiary of VW. VW decides what does and doesn't get produced and the specs, just as GW does the same for FW. Saying they are illegal just seems petty.

 BarBoBot wrote:
Please don't act like this thread has been anything more than a bunch of people complaining that lots of players don't like playing forge world.

Again you refuse to actually read what is being said.

From saying that anyone who doesn't play against FW are liars who deny their real intent

No, I mentioned some people lying to justify their house rule.

If you, after participating in several of these threads, claim that FW is a third-party company, you are lying. It's just that simple. You know perfectly well that they aren't since you've been told the correct information many times, so continuing to bring up the same old "third-party" nonsense is lying.

to saying people will be judged just because they pass on a game.

And why shouldn't they be judged? Refusing to play against someone just because you don't like their choice of units is TFG behavior, whether it's because of a FW unit or because of a tactical squad. 40k is supposed to be a game with a list-construction component, and demanding veto power over your opponent's list choices is just one step short of being that guy who refuses to play against any list that could possibly beat them.

 BarBoBot wrote:
Excuse me, you want to lecture me on social interactions?

YOUR the one trying to FORCE your opinion on those that don't care to play against forge world.

Am I? Really? I'm threatening people at knife point down at the FLGS, to play FW or else?

Get a grip, buddy.

Please quote where I said anything about FW being a third party company.... I said FW is similar to an expansion to 40K. (also, just in case you failed to read it the 2 other times I posted it, I DO play against FW )

lets take a look at what you just accused me of; TFG

On one side we have me who said that its a GAME, and that people should play it the way they enjoy it...

And the flip side we have you... who admits to calling people liars accusing them of not coming out and saying they just have a grudge against FW as well as admitting you judge people on the basis that they dont want to play you.

Your calling me TFG

Im not the one having trouble finding opponents.

I feel like this image needs to be posted again since it has failed to appear in the last few pages LOL

please BarBoBot answer this...

Say that NewPlayer10 asks if Forge World units are legal for use in regular 40k.

The Anti-ForgeWorld crowd has two options to respond:
1) "No, it is not legal"
2) "Yes, it is legal, but I personally will not play against it."

(again I thank Unit1126PLL for originally posting this question)

The answer is stated clearly in the above image, which is used in all the Imperial Armour books, which in turn are published by Games Workshop(please correct me if I am wrong).

I think the intent of the original poster(way back on page 1 hehe) was to find out what problems he might run into if he bought a FW model and tried to use it in a game. That guy is long gone by now so this has turned into a thread about trying to change people's anti-FW view. After all they are a part of Games Workshop which I would HOPE everyone here wants to be successful so we can continue to enjoy our hobby.

Unfortunatley Mini-Wargaming Nerds(myself included) usually have a little bit of control freak in them, and being Nerds again don't like to be told that we are wrong(of course that is just about the entire human race). I am not saying that that is you, but anyone who cannot see this by now is being a little dishonest with thesmselves. I think the anti-FW people tend to be the same guys that refuse to play the new edition until the point that they can't find anyone else to play the old edition with anymore. I could be wrong with that assumption, it is just a personal observation.

 Evil Lamp 6 wrote:
There have been how many IA books, other FW books, updates to those books, supplements to those books, and so on that it is, at least seemingly for me, much harder to keep track of than the 14 different codexes we have for non-FW 40k.

This might come across as rude, which is not my intention, but there's 16 Codices in 40k, not 14...

 BarBoBot wrote:
Please quote where I said anything about FW being a third party company.... I said FW is similar to an expansion to 40K. (also, just in case you failed to read it the 2 other times I posted it, I DO play against FW )

 Peregrine wrote:


If you, after participating in several of these threads, claim that FW is a third-party company, you are lying. It's just that simple. You know perfectly well that they aren't since you've been told the correct information many times, so continuing to bring up the same old "third-party" nonsense is lying.

It's a conditional sentence. Thanks for proving Peregrine's point though; you don't read what he's saying.

x13rads wrote:


I feel like this image needs to be posted again since it has failed to appear in the last few pages LOL

please BarBoBot answer this...

Say that NewPlayer10 asks if Forge World units are legal for use in regular 40k.

The Anti-ForgeWorld crowd has two options to respond:
1) "No, it is not legal"
2) "Yes, it is legal, but I personally will not play against it."

(again I thank Unit1126PLL for originally posting this question)

The answer is stated clearly in the above image, which is used in all the Imperial Armour books, which in turn are published by Games Workshop(please correct me if I am wrong).

I think the intent of the original poster(way back on page 1 hehe) was to find out what problems he might run into if he bought a FW model and tried to use it in a game. That guy is long gone by now so this has turned into a thread about trying to change people's anti-FW view. After all they are a part of Games Workshop which I would HOPE everyone here wants to be successful so we can continue to enjoy our hobby.

Unfortunatley Mini-Wargaming Nerds(myself included) usually have a little bit of control freak in them, and being Nerds again don't like to be told that we are wrong(of course that is just about the entire human race). I am not saying that that is you, but anyone who cannot see this by now is being a little dishonest with thesmselves. I think the anti-FW people tend to be the same guys that refuse to play the new edition until the point that they can't find anyone else to play the old edition with anymore. I could be wrong with that assumption, it is just a personal observation.

In response to your observation at the end, I play the new 40k rule book I may dislike some of it but it's mostly the same stuff I dislike about 40k at the moment anyway and I would say around here its wrong for all people agenst FW. Difernt places difernt people I would guess.

As to your post I think if someone is asking for legality in 40k you are 100% correct, but I also think that it's being dishonest about the issues within the argument.
To answer honestly from my point of veaw I think it's ilreelivent, I know they are full well legal.
But I don't want to use the Expansion that forge world provide, I have a few reasons but I think that's realy as far as it matters.
I will also play agenst forge world sometimes, but I would much prefer not.
When you ask people to answer such a black and white answer I think what you are asking, at least with people who sit where I do to respond to something that I am not even agenst and taking that answer as an answer to prove they are wrong.
and I think it's always best for players asking to know that people may not want to play them outside of just the legality off it within the rules.

Apple fox wrote:

To answer honestly from my point of veaw I think it's ilreelivent, I know they are full well legal.
But I don't want to use the Expansion that forge world provide, I have a few reasons but I think that's realy as far as it matters.

I'm perfectly fine with you not wanting to play against it, but please, for the love of anglerfishes world-wide, stop calling it an expansion when it's not.

 BarBoBot wrote:
Please quote where I said anything about FW being a third party company.... I said FW is similar to an expansion to 40K. (also, just in case you failed to read it the 2 other times I posted it, I DO play against FW )

lets take a look at what you just accused me of; TFG

On one side we have me who said that its a GAME, and that people should play it the way they enjoy it...

And the flip side we have you... who admits to calling people liars accusing them of not coming out and saying they just have a grudge against FW as well as admitting you judge people on the basis that they dont want to play you.

Your calling me TFG

Can you find a quote of anyone in this thread saying people should be forced to include Forgeworld in all games? Because I'm sure it hasn't been said. There's pro-FW people trying to argue the acceptance of FW rules in 40k, and anti-FW players adamantly swearing because it's no legal, people shouldn't be using it. The side telling the other they cannot do it their way is not the pro-FW side. People on the anti-FW side have even gone as far as to call books published by Games Workshop nothing better than fandexes and rules made up on the spot, which brings the connotation that they're also calling pro-FW players cheaters, which is the usual reason to start making rules up. Pro-FW players are simply asking for somewhere where GW have explicitly dis-allowed a select portion of their own product to not be used.

As for FW being forced on people, the pro-FW crowd is always in support of showing rules before a game, just as if you hadn't played against a codex before, and also simply not using Forgeworld if people don't like it. But simply 'because I don't like it' hasn't been the reasons given in this thread, which honestly would have ended the thread on page 1.

So please, read the thread before continuing your rants - it might be enlightening.

 BarBoBot wrote:
Im not the one having trouble finding opponents.

I'd wager people in this thread aren't either.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

Apple fox wrote:

To answer honestly from my point of veaw I think it's ilreelivent, I know they are full well legal.
But I don't want to use the Expansion that forge world provide, I have a few reasons but I think that's realy as far as it matters.

I'm perfectly fine with you not wanting to play against it, but please, for the love of anglerfishes world-wide, stop calling it an expansion when it's not.

Considering I had to look at the front of the book to check my spelling, how is it not ?

Checking aeronautica it seems that one is a supliment by forgeworld, thats interesting for a few reason.

Apple fox wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

Apple fox wrote:

To answer honestly from my point of veaw I think it's ilreelivent, I know they are full well legal.
But I don't want to use the Expansion that forge world provide, I have a few reasons but I think that's realy as far as it matters.

I'm perfectly fine with you not wanting to play against it, but please, for the love of anglerfishes world-wide, stop calling it an expansion when it's not.

Considering I had to look at the front of the book to check my spelling, how is it not ?

Checking aeronautica it seems that one is a supliment by forgeworld, thats interesting for a few reason.

Planetstrike is an expansion. Cities of Death is an expansion. Apocalypse is an expansion. Spearhead is an expansion. The Imperial Armour books are, in the context of 40k, not expansions.

Apple fox wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

Apple fox wrote:

To answer honestly from my point of veaw I think it's ilreelivent, I know they are full well legal.
But I don't want to use the Expansion that forge world provide, I have a few reasons but I think that's realy as far as it matters.

I'm perfectly fine with you not wanting to play against it, but please, for the love of anglerfishes world-wide, stop calling it an expansion when it's not.

Considering I had to look at the front of the book to check my spelling, how is it not ?

Checking aeronautica it seems that one is a supliment by forgeworld, thats interesting for a few reason.

The books offer units to be included as part of Standard 40k, and it also offers units to be used in its expansion games, such as the Apocalypse units.

And according to the books they are an expansion also, they even have the same little tags as those books do.

That a better answer, but I still consider the books them selves to be expansion rules with that explanation serving to show which units are ok for 40k.
It's just a difernt perspective

it is expanded content guys, even if it is official. Not sure what else you can call it.

Apple fox wrote:
And according to the books they are an expansion also, they even have the same little tags as those books do.

1 out of 3. That's not "they".

I have had a look at the book on GW website, seems they have updated apocalypse over there.

Peregrine wrote:

 Evil Lamp 6 wrote:
There have been how many IA books, other FW books, updates to those books, supplements to those books, and so on that it is, at least seemingly for me, much harder to keep track of than the 14 different codexes we have for non-FW 40k.

FW have posted the table of contents for all their books online, so if you're really paranoid about someone cheating and using old rules then it's pretty easy to find out what book contains the most recent rules for a given unit. And it's especially easy right now since virtually everything is contained in four books (IA:Aeronautica, IA:Apocalypse, IA:Apocalypse 2, IA1 (second edition).

Yeah, I looked at those, and while not the easiest to read, they are there. If the majority of the units meant for 40k (not Apocalypse or 30k) are really just contained in those four books, then I may have to reconsider my position.

x13rads wrote:@ Evil Lamp 6

how do I know as a person that only owns and reads my own codex and rulebook that you playing any other army are not "cheating"(sorry for the use of that word but that is basically what you seem to be worried about, that you will be cheated).

I do not to wish to come off as rude when I typed that, just making an observation.

No, it is a good question. Well, first off, I will pretty much not play anyone that doesn't have their codex present. Although I have many things from most of the codexes memorized, I don't remember everything. So no book, no game. I abide by the same policy for myself. I bring my codexes with me for my armies so that anyone I'm playing has the same transparency that I expect from them. I will often ask during a game to look at an opponent's codex, or even my own, just to be sure of something.

To more answer your question, ask to see their codex.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 insaniak wrote:

 Evil Lamp 6 wrote:
So, when my opponent wants to use FW stuff that is outside of their codex, how am I as a non-FW person supposed to know it is on the up and up so to speak and is the most current rulings/info being used as opposed to being fleeced by something other than what it currently is supposed to be?

So long as they show you the rules before the game so that you know what to expect, does it matter if it is the most up-to-date version?

Call me paranoid, but yes it does matter to me. Now, if it was something agreed on beforehand, then that is something entirely else. My point with the FW books would be more akin to me still trying to play C:WH for my SoB knowing damn well that the WD codex supersedes that. Now if I arranged prior to the game that I'd be using C:WH instead of the WD SoB codex, as I said that is entirely different. Things get out of line when I, or anyone, try to deceive opponents into playing C:WH as the most "current" and up-to-date rules for the SoB. Now equate that with FW. Someone trying to use units from IA Vol. 1, knowing full well that IA Vol 1, 2 Ed. supersedes it (I don't even know if this is true or not, just using it to illustrate a point) is where my concern lies. And as someone not familiar with the FW books, this is why I wouldn't agree to play with FW in the first place. Now if FW units for 40k are really just limited to those four books listed earlier and they are the most up-to-date, then I may need to rethink this.

insaniak wrote:There is absolutely nothing that requires you to play the game with only the most up-to-date rules. All that is required is that both players agree to the rules being used.

Agreed. I did not mean to imply that there is that requirement in general. That is, however, that requirement for me to play unless worked out well beforehand.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Evil Lamp 6 wrote:
There have been how many IA books, other FW books, updates to those books, supplements to those books, and so on that it is, at least seemingly for me, much harder to keep track of than the 14 different codexes we have for non-FW 40k.

This might come across as rude, which is not my intention, but there's 16 Codices in 40k, not 14...

No, not rude at all. A slip of the pen on my part and for that I apologize. Yes, there are 16 current codexes.

Apple fox wrote:
As to your post I think if someone is asking for legality in 40k you are 100% correct, but I also think that it's being dishonest about the issues within the argument.
To answer honestly from my point of veaw I think it's ilreelivent, I know they are full well legal.
But I don't want to use the Expansion that forge world provide, I have a few reasons but I think that's realy as far as it matters.
I will also play agenst forge world sometimes, but I would much prefer not.
When you ask people to answer such a black and white answer I think what you are asking, at least with people who sit where I do to respond to something that I am not even agenst and taking that answer as an answer to prove they are wrong.
and I think it's always best for players asking to know that people may not want to play them outside of just the legality off it within the rules.

The reality of the situation is 2 guys meeting at game shop and...

Guy 1: Hey wanna play a game of 40k?
Guy 2: Sure
Guy 1: Just to let you know I have some FW models
Guy 2: Oh, I really don't like playing with FW
Guy 1: OK(then he finds someone else to play or pulls out another list)

I think this is where the idea of 40k the hobby and 40k the game cross into troubled waters. As a hobby I understand the anti-FW descent. As a game It is hard to get over it. If I were new to the hobby/game and one of the first books I bought was an IA one, it would be hard for me to understand why someone would refuse me a game because I had FW stuff. I think that the burden of proof would be on the anti-FW person to explain to me why my army is "illegal" when really it is just the their personal taste.

Apple fox wrote:
And according to the books they are an expansion also, they even have the same little tags as those books do.

That a better answer, but I still consider the books them selves to be expansion rules with that explanation serving to show which units are ok for 40k.
It's just a difernt perspective

To this I would just like to point out that the little "40k Expansion" tag has been removed from recent books of IA. Why do you think that is so? Far be it from me to explain why GW does what GW does, but they do usually have a reason for subtle changes like this.

The comparison of 40k expansions and regular video game expansions just does not hold water. They are 2 different types of gaming. 40k requires 2 people to play. Video games do not(for the most part). But if you decide to play a video game online with other people they usually require you to have the same expansion packs. When you meet someone at a game shop to play is it...

Guy 1 plays 40k w/FW expansion
Guy 2 plays 40k

or is it...

Guy 1 plays 40k
Guy 2 plays his version of 40k

I honestly think it is the second circumstance. IMHO this is what I think the argument boils down to. It is frustrating to spend all that money on FW stuff only to find out that it makes it harder to get a pick-up game when you go out to play. The FW guy is following the rules, the anti-FW guy is being picky(and sometimes just plain hard-headed).

Since the beginning of this thread most of the pro-FW people have really just wanted the anti-FW people to just fess up and admit that using FW models is a legal and justifiable choice. But instead they have been met with many arguments that are unreasonable or just not based on the spirit of the game. I am not saying that this is anyone currently left in the conversation, but the shadow of unreasonableness(is that a word?) is still there.

Isn't IA vol 1 second ed the newest FW book?

It says expansion right on the cover....

I do agree that when the convo comes up that's how it will probably go, and I am not agenst forge world being part of 40k but I don't want to use it all the time. (much of the time :p)
To the not the same as computer games, this comes up a lot with expansions and DLC about not splitting the community and the troubles that can come from it. And a lot of games have had expansions for MP with potentially lots of people.
And board games also have them :0 we often don't use all the expantions in some board games. ( people I play with)
I have more of a look at the page and now see the ones at the bottom of the page Don't have it, but my understanding is that the most recent imperial armor does have it. It's hard to tell just looking at there website.

But I think this has got outside of my intent, I not good at English. But I wanted to place emphasis on that page people keep putting up.
To me I think it only means anything within the context that people want to use forgeworld to begin with.
and to me everyone plays 40k and some people use forge world, and others do not (better answer , iPad makes long posts hard :( )
And I think a lot of the pro people have takening it far to far , as I know they are legal and intended.
Difference off opinions always difficult to deal with, and I think when a lot of people argue they argue agenst the argument rather then where I stand. So it can get quite frustrating with my difficultys at English only adding to it :0

 BarBoBot wrote:
Isn't IA vol 1 second ed the newest FW book?

It says expansion right on the cover....

Ok thats just my bad. I was thinking about the old old IA books(which I am too lazy to go up into the attic and look for right now ). I can't remember them having anything on the covers which is something that has been confusing me, but I could be wrong.

 insaniak wrote:

 Baldsmug wrote:
I don't get the argument of " I don't know what the model does or what its rules are so i refuse to play against it." Are you saying that you know the rules for every other model in the game that is not Forgeworld? Have you committed all of the standard codex material to memory? That is just silly, get over yourself.

For what it's worth, I've met quite a few players over the years who did know the rules for every codex. Hell, so did I through 3rd and 4th edition, when I had a little more time for gaming.

Not endorsing it as a reason to not play against Forgeworld, just pointing out that it's not actually as uncommon as you might think.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with knowing all the codexes by heart but not being able to be flexible and enjoy some change once and a while and maybe learn something new is pretty dumb. Now, I am not a competitive player at all and focus mostly on what looks cool and what is fun so my view of 40k is skewed but its kind of a bummer to see the exact some army builds i read about on the internet every i make it out to game nights. But i can understand how a player who specializes in the tournament scene would rather have a predictable army to face off against so they can focus on beating the general and not the army. If someone doesn't want to play against me because my toys are different then they are probably not looking to play the same kind of game i want to play anyway. It's not really that big of a deal. To each their own though.

 Evil Lamp 6 wrote:
Call me paranoid, but yes it does matter to me. Now, if it was something agreed on beforehand, then that is something entirely else. My point with the FW books would be more akin to me still trying to play C:WH for my SoB knowing damn well that the WD codex supersedes that.

And my point was: Why is that a problem?

I get that you don't like the idea... but why? What difference does it actually make if someone is using a superceded codex, so long as it still works within the current rules, or the two of you can agree on any rules issues that arise from it?

The WH codex was perfectly acceptable for opponents to use up until the WD list. The release of a new list didn't change the WH codex at all. So if we're just talking a casual game (which we presumably are, since a tournament would have allowable rules defined and this wouldn't be an issue to begin with) why is it such a big deal? The absolute worst that can happen is ... what? That you lose a game due to being unfamiliar with the rules? If you're unfamiliar enough to not know which rules are current, isn't that going to happen regardless of which rules they are using?

 Hunterindarkness wrote:
it is expanded content guys, even if it is official. Not sure what else you can call it.

It is expanded content, but only as far as Codex's are expanded content, from the rules laid out in the main rulebook. It's not expanded content that makes it a seperate game, other than the Apocalypse units.

Also if you look at the three cover pages, two of them say they are (new) rules for Warhammer 40000 and Warhammer 40000 Apocalypse, the third, does say it is an expansion, but it also says 'Imperial Guard' at the top. Now to me these tells me a few things.

The first two books offer me additional rules and units for me to use freely alongside other up to date codex's and the main rulebook, in W40K, it also offers me up date rules, for all my big toys, and formations for games of W40K Apocalypse.

The third book however, would only offer me an expanded version of Codex: Imperial Guard. Which I can choose to use, if I feel like it, or just stick with the vanilla codex.

Now that same choice is still true for the opponent, he can choose to play my super sized IG codex, or he could choose to not play me and my supersized codex. However, what he doesn't get to do, is call foul, and say I am using an illegal army.


(On a side note, even though I quoted you Hunterindarkness, I'm not personally aiming this post at you, I'm not saying you do or don't use or like FW. please don't take personal offence)

x13rads wrote:
The FW guy is following the rules, the anti-FW guy is being picky(and sometimes just plain hard-headed).

Bingo.

Eldercaveman wrote:

 Hunterindarkness wrote:
it is expanded content guys, even if it is official. Not sure what else you can call it.

It is expanded content, but only as far as Codex's are expanded content, from the rules laid out in the main rulebook. It's not expanded content that makes it a seperate game, other than the Apocalypse units.

That is dishonest. A Codex allows play of a Faction. The FW stuff expands upon those factions. They are apples and oranges and you no that. I am not saying this as an attack on FW, but it is what it is man.

 Hunterindarkness wrote:

Eldercaveman wrote:

 Hunterindarkness wrote:
it is expanded content guys, even if it is official. Not sure what else you can call it.

It is expanded content, but only as far as Codex's are expanded content, from the rules laid out in the main rulebook. It's not expanded content that makes it a seperate game, other than the Apocalypse units.

That is dishonest. A Codex allows play of a Faction. The FW stuff expands upon those factions. They are apples and oranges and you no that. I am not saying this as an attack on FW, but it is what it is man.

There was nothing dishonest about this at all, it's how I see it. So please don't tell me what I know. I take THAT personally.

Now I'll try explain my point and opinion a little clearer,

First thing it is not expanded content that makes it a separate game, but I don't think that is the debate.

What I meant by it being expanded content in the same context that a codex is too the rule book, is I see it working in a reverse pyramid, at the bottom you need the one rule book, to know the core rules of the games. And then in order to play the game you need the further expansion on these rules, which is found in the different codex. If you wish the to play further units, you can use the expanded FW rules. These don't at any point change the game you are playing. And if codex's weren't an expansion of the rule book, they'd just be a bunch of army list included in the rule book, however since every faction has its own rules which supersede those in the book, they are a further expansion of the core rules.

 Hunterindarkness wrote:

Eldercaveman wrote:

 Hunterindarkness wrote:
it is expanded content guys, even if it is official. Not sure what else you can call it.

It is expanded content, but only as far as Codex's are expanded content, from the rules laid out in the main rulebook. It's not expanded content that makes it a seperate game, other than the Apocalypse units.

That is dishonest. A Codex allows play of a Faction. The FW stuff expands upon those factions. They are apples and oranges and you no that. I am not saying this as an attack on FW, but it is what it is man.

FW books often have their own faction lists as well. There is no Armored Battlegroup, Siege Regiment, Eldar Corsair, Elysian Airborne, Ork Dread Mob, Tyrants Legion, Renegade & Heretic or Servants of Decay codex books (despite having codex books for almost half a dozen individual space marine chapters), and their army lists for their factions are instead found in Imperial Armour books.