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.

I cant think of a single non superheavy that is more broken than ten teleporting plasma/meltaguns with ignores cover/reroll to hit. Or hell even a unit of 2++ reroll invuls invalidate most forgeworld units. Times are a changing. Lol

 Zweischneid wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
I just want FW to be recognized as the valid part of the game it actually is.

It is. Forge World is fully recognized as the Forge World part of the game.

Just don't try to ask people to recognize it as the non-Forge World part of the game, when it clearly says Forge World on the cover.

Okay, so where is the rule that says that 40k is split into "parts" like you said?

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Zweischneid wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
I just want FW to be recognized as the valid part of the game it actually is.

It is. Forge World is fully recognized as the Forge World part of the game.

Just don't try to ask people to recognize it as the non-Forge World part of the game, when it clearly says Forge World on the cover.

Okay, so where is the rule that says that 40k is split into "parts" like you said?

how is this a rules discussion? This is about how people perceive forgeworld and 40k, there is no right and wrong.

For some people, 40k means the codexes/suppliments, and anything outside of that is not 'legit'. I am one such person, i'd happily play any of my friends with forgeworld models/rules, because it's a cool way of expanding the game. But i still don't regard it as 'standard' 40k because it isn't.

xruslanx wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Zweischneid wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
I just want FW to be recognized as the valid part of the game it actually is.

It is. Forge World is fully recognized as the Forge World part of the game.

Just don't try to ask people to recognize it as the non-Forge World part of the game, when it clearly says Forge World on the cover.

Okay, so where is the rule that says that 40k is split into "parts" like you said?

how is this a rules discussion? This is about how people perceive forgeworld and 40k, there is no right and wrong.

For some people, 40k means the codexes/suppliments, and anything outside of that is not 'legit'. I am one such person, i'd happily play any of my friends with forgeworld models/rules, because it's a cool way of expanding the game. But i still don't regard it as 'standard' 40k because it isn't.

Read the thread, rules have been a strong part of the discussion since e start.

This threads pretty much done.

The brand distinction between FW and GW in 40k exists not because of some decision to keep things separate, but due to a long, storied history involving how the game came to be. The incredibly short version of this story is that in the early days, GW had no intention of producing a number of units that were mentioned in the fluff or appeared in tiny form in Adeptus Titanicus. A number of US resin modelers (one of them that would form Armorcast) contacted GW and optioned the rights to make and sell models based on this material. Once GW saw how successful some of these were, they decided to form their own resin division, let the rights lapse and (as some people on both sides put it) steal the designs and ideas of the US modelers. This division would take the name that this ragtag group of modellers had dubbed themselves (borrowing a term from Heinlein): Forge World. Of course, most of this stuff was HUGE and had point values to match. Apoc didn't exist at the time (and didn't until 2007), so these units were intended to be used in regular games of 40k. But we're talking Baneblades and Reaver Titans and Thunderhawks here - not the type of thing a standard 1500 point army is armed to take on. So while the FW models were now no longer 3rd party, they stayed as permission only. As the company gained prominence, they started experimenting with creating other specialist units.

By the time IA 3 rolled around, they were creating all new units that were balanced to play in smaller games - but as was mentioned in my post earlier in the thread, FLGS owners wanted nothing to do with players playing with models they couldn't profit from for fear that players would spend their money on those rather then the models they could buy there in their store. GW didn't want to rock the boat. But that's not a problem anymore.

FW was never meant to be some off brand testing ground for rules. It evolved from the small but eager market of hardcore players who wanted bigger toys that didn't fit organically into the game or into GWs business model. What it became was ground zero for narrative play, built upon a business model that can't fail. Without having to produce items to sit on store shelves they can take risks on models or ideas that might be extraordinarily niche. So what they ended up with was some of the coolest, most original units and armies in the game. And now GW has decided they are no longer a sub-line; they are simply the resin, direct order only division of the company.

The idea that anyone can force anyone else to play against FW is ludicrous; just as ludicrous as saying you can force anyone else to play 6E rather than the edition they prefer. But pretending that FW is an entirely separate entity and not part of the game you're playing flies in the face of everything the company has repeatedly said as of late. The 6e rulebook art is littered with FW models and units; the 6e Apocolypse book (not FW) is where I have to go for the latest rules for a number of my FW models. This isn't wishful thinking on the part of FW fans; it really is happening.

A passing comment which clockwork made really summed up this entire thread - "Seriously, it's like people don't even listen". This actually made me chuckle after 11 (12 I see now in the corner of my screen) pages.
It's blatently obvious that numerous people have decided to contribute without reading the thread and have just repeated lines you and others have already countered. The most laughable is the 100th person who tried to claim you were trying to force people to play against FW, despite you all mentioning again and again that this is not the case and in fact, what you are trying to do is make people realise that it is exactly the same as agreeing to play a serp spam for instance.
It reminds me of people joining a conversation halfway through story and the teller has to begin again so they understand the context and ends up repeating themselves, and then a new person arrives and joins the conversation halfway through the story and the teller has to begin again so they understand the context and ends up repeating themselves, and then a new person arrives...
Anyway, I admire your patience!

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Read the thread, rules have been a strong part of the discussion since e start.

Then they've been off topic. Rules have nothing to do with it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Poly Ranger wrote:
The most laughable is the 100th person who tried to claim you were trying to force people to play against FW, despite you all mentioning again and again that this is not the case and in fact, what you are trying to do is make people realise that it is exactly the same as agreeing to play a serp spam for instance.

Notice how we don't have a thread from someone complaining that no one wants to play against his 1500 point IG list with 6 vendettas in it. It is the same, but for some reason the fact that it's Forge World makes it okay to whine about it.

Renegade_commander wrote:
This whole thread is pointless.

Forgeworld is official when you and your opponent agree on it beforw hand or did we all forget THE SPIRIT OF THE GAME?!?

I don't understand this argument. It is like saying the new Eldar codex is not valid unless I agree to it. In other words, you choose to or don't choose to play against an army. Opponent fielding FW should not matter at all.

Do I want to face wavespam with my BA in 6th? Must I play against it? Of course not, if I do not want to. But that does not invalidate the status of the codex. Why do you think it invalidates the rules from FW?

As for tournaments, if the TO says forgeworld units are allowed (usually with pre aproval or within set guidlines, who am i, or any of us for that matter to dissagree? Dont like it then dont pay your entree fee and enjoy hours of playing what i consider my favorit game off all time and arguably the best edition of 40k iv ever played.

Tournaments should allow FW by default. But it looks like we are of the same opinion.

Gawd I hate mobile devices for web surfing..

Poly Ranger wrote:
A passing comment which clockwork made really summed up this entire thread - "Seriously, it's like people don't even listen". This actually made me chuckle after 11 (12 I see now in the corner of my screen) pages.
It's blatently obvious that numerous people have decided to contribute without reading the thread and have just repeated lines you and others have already countered.

Well, seeing as many people have read probably a hundred pages or more about essentially this same topic, no wonder they - or even I - can be bothered to read all the pages of this particular thread Every single relevant argument for both sides has been made a billion times (including what I am writing on this reply). So one could ask why even post - but hey, that's Internet forums for you!

Naw wrote:

I don't understand this argument. It is like saying the new Eldar codex is not valid unless I agree to it. In other words, you choose to or don't choose to play against an army. Opponent fielding FW should not matter at all.

Well you are correct. The new eldar codex isn't valid unless people agree to play against it.

Do I want to face wavespam with my BA in 6th? Must I play against it? Of course not, if I do not want to. But that does not invalidate the status of the codex. Why do you think it invalidates the rules from FW?

Well if you don't like wavespam you can refuse to play it if you like.

Tournaments should allow FW by default

Why? Tournaments reflect what their player base want.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Poly Ranger wrote:
The most laughable is the 100th person who tried to claim you were trying to force people to play against FW, despite you all mentioning again and again that this is not the case and in fact, what you are trying to do is make people realise that it is exactly the same as agreeing to play a serp spam for instance.

Notice how we don't have a thread from someone complaining that no one wants to play against his 1500 point IG list with 6 vendettas in it. It is the same, but for some reason the fact that it's Forge World makes it okay to whine about it.

 tvih wrote:

 Zweischneid wrote:
Forge World is fully recognized as the Forge World part of the game.

Just don't try to ask people to recognize it as the non-Forge World part of the game, when it clearly says Forge World on the cover.

Pretty much this. The The GW 40k BRB may blather on about a framework etc, but that also allows for house rules and all kinds of other things. That doesn't make them "official." The GW 40k BRB doesn't say "treat FW units as if they were official codex units in terms of status" or anything even near that, and therefore players will keep having these arguments forever. As long as there's a brand distinction with the "main brand" not directly addressing the sister brand in the rules there's going to be a division between the two product lines.

This is exactly what I have been trying to say. We play by the BRB rules rather than creating our own. As it is, this whole mess could be cleared up by GW. Want more sales? Then endorse FW!

And just for the record I wouldn't mind playing against FW, though I don't think anyone locally even has FW stuff. But as it is, there are so many broken "official" units that it really doesn't matter whether or not FW is broken, too.

This is my understanding also. Now people will jump up and say it isn't so. Sort of like people arguing Riptides are fine, even if there were 5 on board. That evidence itself should prove the point that they are too good for their point cost.

Naw wrote:

Renegade_commander wrote:
This whole thread is pointless.

Forgeworld is official when you and your opponent agree on it beforw hand or did we all forget THE SPIRIT OF THE GAME?!?

I don't understand this argument. It is like saying the new Eldar codex is not valid unless I agree to it. In other words, you choose to or don't choose to play against an army. Opponent fielding FW should not matter at all.

Do I want to face wavespam with my BA in 6th? Must I play against it? Of course not, if I do not want to. But that does not invalidate the status of the codex. Why do you think it invalidates the rules from FW?

As for tournaments, if the TO says forgeworld units are allowed (usually with pre aproval or within set guidlines, who am i, or any of us for that matter to dissagree? Dont like it then dont pay your entree fee and enjoy hours of playing what i consider my favorit game off all time and arguably the best edition of 40k iv ever played.

Tournaments should allow FW by default. But it looks like we are of the same opinion.

Gawd I hate mobile devices for web surfing..

I see your point and agree with the codexes being "official" as fw is more of a grey area. My argument with "the spirit of the game" is that as long as you and your opponent discuss the use of forgeworld before models are even placed on the table( with the exception of tournaments, which we both agree on) there should be no reason somone cant use a forgeworld model/unit/list. I think maybe its the fear of the unknown? But this can be mitigated by simply talking to your opponent beforehand.

Now if your opponent doesnt agree with you using your fw models/army lists then thats a whole nother threads worth of discussion. Lol

 ClockworkZion wrote:

xruslanx wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Zweischneid wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
I just want FW to be recognized as the valid part of the game it actually is.

It is. Forge World is fully recognized as the Forge World part of the game.

Just don't try to ask people to recognize it as the non-Forge World part of the game, when it clearly says Forge World on the cover.

Okay, so where is the rule that says that 40k is split into "parts" like you said?

how is this a rules discussion? This is about how people perceive forgeworld and 40k, there is no right and wrong.

For some people, 40k means the codexes/suppliments, and anything outside of that is not 'legit'. I am one such person, i'd happily play any of my friends with forgeworld models/rules, because it's a cool way of expanding the game. But i still don't regard it as 'standard' 40k because it isn't.

Read the thread, rules have been a strong part of the discussion since e start.

That is a weak argument! Following your logic _all_ homebrewn would be perfectly fine, following the framework. But it isn't so. Why must you try to argue that point at all?

Naw wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

xruslanx wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Zweischneid wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
I just want FW to be recognized as the valid part of the game it actually is.

It is. Forge World is fully recognized as the Forge World part of the game.

Just don't try to ask people to recognize it as the non-Forge World part of the game, when it clearly says Forge World on the cover.

Okay, so where is the rule that says that 40k is split into "parts" like you said?

how is this a rules discussion? This is about how people perceive forgeworld and 40k, there is no right and wrong.

For some people, 40k means the codexes/suppliments, and anything outside of that is not 'legit'. I am one such person, i'd happily play any of my friends with forgeworld models/rules, because it's a cool way of expanding the game. But i still don't regard it as 'standard' 40k because it isn't.

Read the thread, rules have been a strong part of the discussion since e start.

That is a weak argument! Following your logic _all_ homebrewn would be perfectly fine, following the framework. But it isn't so. Why must you try to argue that point at all?

Check my signatue, I have an article that says exactly that. Homebrew is legit too, but this isn't about that.

Also Codex Supplements use the same rule your arguing against

Im starting to see that this is less of a division between forgeworld and games workshop, and more of a division of us gamers as to what we see as broken or overpowered. Otherwise why would anyone not want to play against a forgeworld unit? Not including superheavys of course. Can somone please tell me?

I checked the rules for the official gw tourneys that still take place in Nottingham. They don't allow forge world. If they don't have the confidence in the balance of the units, why should I put up with more crap than the already imbalanced units we deal with now?

GW has tourneys? That is new to me. I thought they gave up on them.

Wow, that is pretty bad for FW, if true. I mean how can you have a Tourney and you say your own product is not legal.

Davor wrote:
GW has tourneys? That is new to me. I thought they gave up on them.

Wow, that is pretty bad for FW, if true. I mean how can you have a Tourney and you say your own product is not legal.

You know what else is not legal at Tournaments? Codexes that have a newer edition (such as the 4th edition Eldar codex). If someone showed up at your store with that and said you wanna play my Eldar, are you going to say no?

 Orock wrote:
I checked the rules for the official gw tourneys that still take place in Nottingham. They don't allow forge world. If they don't have the confidence in the balance of the units, why should I put up with more crap than the already imbalanced units we deal with now?

They also limit allies to 500 points and don't allow double FOC. Tournaments have never been indicitive of e actual game.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Naw wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

xruslanx wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Zweischneid wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
I just want FW to be recognized as the valid part of the game it actually is.

It is. Forge World is fully recognized as the Forge World part of the game.

Just don't try to ask people to recognize it as the non-Forge World part of the game, when it clearly says Forge World on the cover.

Okay, so where is the rule that says that 40k is split into "parts" like you said?

how is this a rules discussion? This is about how people perceive forgeworld and 40k, there is no right and wrong.

For some people, 40k means the codexes/suppliments, and anything outside of that is not 'legit'. I am one such person, i'd happily play any of my friends with forgeworld models/rules, because it's a cool way of expanding the game. But i still don't regard it as 'standard' 40k because it isn't.

Read the thread, rules have been a strong part of the discussion since e start.

That is a weak argument! Following your logic _all_ homebrewn would be perfectly fine, following the framework. But it isn't so. Why must you try to argue that point at all?

Check my signatue, I have an article that says exactly that. Homebrew is legit too, but this isn't about that.

Also Codex Supplements use the same rule your arguing against

I started with the Rogue Trader, I still have the book in perfect condition (as it hasn't been used, otherwise it would have fallen apart already
..) Are you seriously trying to tell me that I would perfectly fine fielding an army created following those rules?

We both know this issue isn't so black or white. I just feel that the gaming community expects GW to validate FW. So far they have not done that. It does not matter what it says on page 108, players would not follow arbitrary house rules anyway.

Naw wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Naw wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

xruslanx wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Zweischneid wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
I just want FW to be recognized as the valid part of the game it actually is.

It is. Forge World is fully recognized as the Forge World part of the game.

Just don't try to ask people to recognize it as the non-Forge World part of the game, when it clearly says Forge World on the cover.

Okay, so where is the rule that says that 40k is split into "parts" like you said?

how is this a rules discussion? This is about how people perceive forgeworld and 40k, there is no right and wrong.

For some people, 40k means the codexes/suppliments, and anything outside of that is not 'legit'. I am one such person, i'd happily play any of my friends with forgeworld models/rules, because it's a cool way of expanding the game. But i still don't regard it as 'standard' 40k because it isn't.

Read the thread, rules have been a strong part of the discussion since e start.

That is a weak argument! Following your logic _all_ homebrewn would be perfectly fine, following the framework. But it isn't so. Why must you try to argue that point at all?

Check my signatue, I have an article that says exactly that. Homebrew is legit too, but this isn't about that.

Also Codex Supplements use the same rule your arguing against

I started with the Rogue Trader, I still have the book in perfect condition (as it hasn't been used, otherwise it would have fallen apart already
..) Are you seriously trying to tell me that I would perfectly fine fielding an army created following those rules?

We both know this issue isn't so black or white. I just feel that the gaming community expects GW to validate FW. So far they have not done that. It does not matter what it says on page 108, players would not follow arbitrary house rules anyway.

If you converted those rules to work in the current ruleset, sure. Otherwise I'd recommend 2nd.

108 is a legitimate part of the rules, not an arbitrary house rules. Arguing that it's NOT is more house rules than FW is.

Naw wrote:
I started with the Rogue Trader, I still have the book in perfect condition (as it hasn't been used, otherwise it would have fallen apart already
..) Are you seriously trying to tell me that I would perfectly fine fielding an army created following those rules?

We both know this issue isn't so black or white. I just feel that the gaming community expects GW to validate FW. So far they have not done that. It does not matter what it says on page 108, players would not follow arbitrary house rules anyway.

Yep. Of course it might take some time to figure out rules interaction.

Renegade_commander wrote:
Im starting to see that this is less of a division between forgeworld and games workshop, and more of a division of us gamers as to what we see as broken or overpowered. Otherwise why would anyone not want to play against a forgeworld unit? Not including superheavys of course. Can somone please tell me?

Queue a probable flamestorm directed at this, but many forgeworld units are very OP.

Check this pdf. The Sabre Defence platforms in it are *very* powerful for what you pay. 60 points for a twin-linked lascannon with AV 10 and 3 wounds. Oh and they get to shoot at aircraft with normal BS too.

Or check out this. 290 points for a Land Raider with 25 transport capacity (!!!) and four twin-linked lascannons (well actually 2 Heavy 2 lascannons). And for 20 points it can be made immune to melta. That is crazy op.

Obviously I should point out that the vast majority of Forgeworld is not OP, but to say that there are no OP units is disingenuous.

 Happyjew wrote:

Naw wrote:
I started with the Rogue Trader, I still have the book in perfect condition (as it hasn't been used, otherwise it would have fallen apart already
..) Are you seriously trying to tell me that I would perfectly fine fielding an army created following those rules?

We both know this issue isn't so black or white. I just feel that the gaming community expects GW to validate FW. So far they have not done that. It does not matter what it says on page 108, players would not follow arbitrary house rules anyway.

Yep. Of course it might take some time to figure out rules interaction.

I agree. Take the time to talk to me about it and yeah, il allow rogue trader. Lol spirit of the game?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

xruslanx wrote:

Renegade_commander wrote:
Im starting to see that this is less of a division between forgeworld and games workshop, and more of a division of us gamers as to what we see as broken or overpowered. Otherwise why would anyone not want to play against a forgeworld unit? Not including superheavys of course. Can somone please tell me?

Queue a probable flamestorm directed at this, but many forgeworld units are very OP.

Check this pdf. The Sabre Defence platforms in it are *very* powerful for what you pay. 60 points for a twin-linked lascannon with AV 10 and 3 wounds. Oh and they get to shoot at aircraft with normal BS too.

Or check out this. 290 points for a Land Raider with 25 transport capacity (!!!) and four twin-linked lascannons (well actually 2 Heavy 2 lascannons). And for 20 points it can be made immune to melta. That is crazy op.

Obviously I should point out that the vast majority of Forgeworld is not OP, but to say that there are no OP units is disingenuous.

thank you for your reply. Do you feel that any of those units listed are more OP than my taudar farsight bomb? Or my screamerstar?

xruslanx wrote:
Check this pdf. The Sabre Defence platforms in it are *very* powerful for what you pay. 60 points for a twin-linked lascannon with AV 10 and 3 wounds. Oh and they get to shoot at aircraft with normal BS too.

Let's compare to the Hydra shall we: Sabre - cheaper, less HP, worse front armour, fewer options, immobile, and has Interceptor.

Or check out this. 290 points for a Land Raider with 25 transport capacity (!!!) and four twin-linked lascannons (well actually 2 Heavy 2 lascannons). And for 20 points it can be made immune to melta. That is crazy op.

295 points. And 25 model capacity? Whoop-de-doo. The only two ways you will get close to filling that capacity is with either a full 10-man terminator squad, or a crap-ton of Death Company. Hmmm...this gives me an idea for starting up a BA army...

xruslanx wrote:

Renegade_commander wrote:
Im starting to see that this is less of a division between forgeworld and games workshop, and more of a division of us gamers as to what we see as broken or overpowered. Otherwise why would anyone not want to play against a forgeworld unit? Not including superheavys of course. Can somone please tell me?

Queue a probable flamestorm directed at this, but many forgeworld units are very OP.

Check this pdf. The Sabre Defence platforms in it are *very* powerful for what you pay. 60 points for a twin-linked lascannon with AV 10 and 3 wounds. Oh and they get to shoot at aircraft with normal BS too.

Or check out this. 290 points for a Land Raider with 25 transport capacity (!!!) and four twin-linked lascannons (well actually 2 Heavy 2 lascannons). And for 20 points it can be made immune to melta. That is crazy op.

Obviously I should point out that the vast majority of Forgeworld is not OP, but to say that there are no OP units is disingenuous.

Well the rules for the Sabre Defence Platforms are the wrong edition for a start.

The Spartan rules are "Experimental Rules, Imperial Sanction not yet granted"

So is that the best you can do?

Xanrn wrote:
The Spartan rules are "Experimental Rules, Imperial Sanction not yet granted"

Actually they are sanctioned. The rules are in Imperial Armour Apocalypse, The rules for it are exactly the same.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also I would like to point out that "immune to melta" only hurts a couple of armies out there.

Tyranids have no melta.
Eldar and their Dark Kin can still use Lance weaponry.
The Imperium has access to Lascannons as well as other S9+ weapons.
Sisters might be in trouble though.

 Happyjew wrote:

xruslanx wrote:
Check this pdf. The Sabre Defence platforms in it are *very* powerful for what you pay. 60 points for a twin-linked lascannon with AV 10 and 3 wounds. Oh and they get to shoot at aircraft with normal BS too.

Let's compare to the Hydra shall we: Sabre - cheaper, less HP, worse front armour, fewer options, immobile, and has Interceptor.

Or check out this. 290 points for a Land Raider with 25 transport capacity (!!!) and four twin-linked lascannons (well actually 2 Heavy 2 lascannons). And for 20 points it can be made immune to melta. That is crazy op.

295 points. And 25 model capacity? Whoop-de-doo. The only two ways you will get close to filling that capacity is with either a full 10-man terminator squad, or a crap-ton of Death Company. Hmmm...this gives me an idea for starting up a BA army...

You're comparing a crappy unit that takes up IG's limited HS slots to a unit that can be taken in large numbers for a start with the Sabre-Hydra comparison.

Why is the Sabre better?

-Vehicles suck. They're too easy to kill and when they're as fragile as the Hydra you're practically handing your opponent first blood.
-Did I mention Vehicles suck? They can't take use cover saves in area terrain and can be instantly killed pretty easily. Sabres aren't vehicles, they have a toughness value, that FAQ is out of date.
-Doesn't suck against ground targets
-Doubles as effective defense against those ground targets that come in from reserve.

295 points for an effective tank hunter/MC tackler that is very hard to kill and can transport the hardest of Deathstars that you can imagine is a very good deal.