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.

In tournaments, the issue is easily solved. One allowing forgeworld and one that doesn't. The community involved in that area will easily determine which format is more popular and in turn will be able to much easier determine which format to move forward with in the future. This eliminates any argument.

In casual games, it simply doesn't matter. People choose who and what they want to play against, and forgeworld will find acceptance or non-acceptance based on the play group.

Finally, I'll mention this again, since it bears mentioning. GW could easily settle the debate by mentioning Forgeworld in the 6th edition rulebook, or in the 6th edition faq, but they don't. I imagine they've been emailed that question hundreds of times, but obviously aren't answering the question.

xruslanx wrote:
Well I haven't broken any rules so you'll just have to put up with me eh.

Though, could you point me to any posts that dispute the legality of Forgeworld? Since that's the topic of this thread - and apparently the only topic that's allowed - it seems strange that it doesn't seem to have cropped up in the past few pages.

How about reading the first post which talks about a rule.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

xruslanx wrote:
Well I haven't broken any rules so you'll just have to put up with me eh.

Though, could you point me to any posts that dispute the legality of Forgeworld? Since that's the topic of this thread - and apparently the only topic that's allowed - it seems strange that it doesn't seem to have cropped up in the past few pages.

How about reading the first post which talks about a rule.

Oh you were referring to peregrine's bizarre insistence that not using Forgeworld is a houserule. I'd have thought it was obvious that such decisions are part of the social aspect and transcend rules, which is why I find it such a strange discussion.

I had a Dark Angel vs Tyranid battle the other day...obviously we house ruled since there were no Tau, and Tau are a legit part of the game. We also house-ruled by not having Eldar, who are a legitimate part of the game. Damn so many house rules and I never even realised

xruslanx wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

xruslanx wrote:
Well I haven't broken any rules so you'll just have to put up with me eh.

Though, could you point me to any posts that dispute the legality of Forgeworld? Since that's the topic of this thread - and apparently the only topic that's allowed - it seems strange that it doesn't seem to have cropped up in the past few pages.

How about reading the first post which talks about a rule.

Oh you were referring to peregrine's bizarre insistence that not using Forgeworld is a houserule. I'd have thought it was obvious that such decisions are part of the social aspect and transcend rules, which is why I find it such a strange discussion.

Regardless on how you want to quantify his argument, the very first post of this thread was quoting a rule from the FW Space Marine Chapter Tactics update. Really, reading comprehension is your friend so please use it for once.

And in the end, you can claim things "transcend rules" but regardless of the fact you can't force anyone to play anything (seriously, if that point was a horse I'd have beaten it to death, and are still beating it because people keep missing it), the argument has been about if FW was a legal part of the game or not. The fact that you don't know that and are forcing me to repeat myself once again shows the importance of reading the thread instead of being a ponce about it. You're not breaking any board rules, but you are breaking a few social ones. Congrats.

xruslanx wrote:
I had a Dark Angel vs Tyranid battle the other day...obviously we house ruled since there were no Tau, and Tau are a legit part of the game. We also house-ruled by not having Eldar, who are a legitimate part of the game. Damn so many house rules and I never even realised

Please kindly remove your dunce cap before posting. Banning FW is a house rule, refusing to play against it is not. Refusing to play anything is a choice any player can make about anything and was never really in question regardless of the accusations of people wanting to "force" others to do anyhting. Playing with FW isn't a house rule, it's a legitimate form of play supported by the rulebook, and even endorsed in the FW books. That's the stance most of us who are arguing pro-FW are saying. What you're saying hasn't been claimed.

Seriously, please stop because I can't help but to start thinking you're just trolling in attempt to get your jollies and drag the thread off track.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Regardless on how you want to quantify his argument, the very first post of this thread was quoting a rule from the FW Space Marine Chapter Tactics update. Really, reading comprehension is your friend so please use it for once.

There must be a version of Godwin's law for "reading comprehension". In the real world we say "I think you might have missed". Regardless, as I stated earlier, this is a false premise created because, once you accept that it's a rules question, you're already on the side of the forgeworld few.

And in the end, you can claim things "transcend rules" but regardless of the fact you can't force anyone to play anything (seriously, if that point was a horse I'd have beaten it to death, and are still beating it because people keep missing it), the argument has been about if FW was a legal part of the game or not.

So as I said, find me a post by someone claiming that Forgeworld is not legal in 40k. "reading comprehension" etc.

Banning FW is a house rule, refusing to play against it is not.

Self-parody, nice. I would drag it out further by demanding that you define the difference between banning something and refusing to play against something...but I'm not that cruel

Refusing to play anything is a choice any player can make about anything and was never really in question regardless of the accusations of people wanting to "force" others to do anyhting. Playing with FW isn't a house rule, it's a legitimate form of play supported by the rulebook, and even endorsed in the FW books. That's the stance most of us who are arguing pro-FW are saying. What you're saying hasn't been claimed.

I don't see anyone who says that playing with Forgeworld is illegal. As I say, I've seen arguments over the past few pages, but no one saying that FW was illegal. I get the feeling you have no interest in debate whatsoever and prefer simply pontificating about "the thread".

Seriously, please stop because I can't help but to start thinking you're just trolling in attempt to get your jollies and drag the thread off track.

Hmm? If a thread has what I deem to be an incorrect premise then I am not "trolling" by questioning that premise.

edit - since you're so fond of discussing what this thread is about rather than anything meaningful, I went through the first page. Nothing there, just comments about popcorn and this gem from Perigrine -

Because now there is absolutely no room for disagreement or pretending that "no FW" is anything but a house rule.

Presumably this cavelcade of intelectual back and forth of the legality of FW in 40k takes place some time after this?

Actually, could you simplify it for me? Simply give me a list of posts that I am permitted to respond to, that'd be great. Cheers.

I think discussions like this is why my play group won't allow FW. And, of course, it can't be relied upon to be allowed in tournaments.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

xruslanx wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

xruslanx wrote:
Well I haven't broken any rules so you'll just have to put up with me eh.

Though, could you point me to any posts that dispute the legality of Forgeworld? Since that's the topic of this thread - and apparently the only topic that's allowed - it seems strange that it doesn't seem to have cropped up in the past few pages.

How about reading the first post which talks about a rule.

Oh you were referring to peregrine's bizarre insistence that not using Forgeworld is a houserule. I'd have thought it was obvious that such decisions are part of the social aspect and transcend rules, which is why I find it such a strange discussion.

Regardless on how you want to quantify his argument, the very first post of this thread was quoting a rule from the FW Space Marine Chapter Tactics update. Really, reading comprehension is your friend so please use it for once.

And in the end, you can claim things "transcend rules" but regardless of the fact you can't force anyone to play anything (seriously, if that point was a horse I'd have beaten it to death, and are still beating it because people keep missing it), the argument has been about if FW was a legal part of the game or not. The fact that you don't know that and are forcing me to repeat myself once again shows the importance of reading the thread instead of being a ponce about it. You're not breaking any board rules, but you are breaking a few social ones. Congrats.

xruslanx wrote:
I had a Dark Angel vs Tyranid battle the other day...obviously we house ruled since there were no Tau, and Tau are a legit part of the game. We also house-ruled by not having Eldar, who are a legitimate part of the game. Damn so many house rules and I never even realised

Please kindly remove your dunce cap before posting. Banning FW is a house rule, refusing to play against it is not. Refusing to play anything is a choice any player can make about anything and was never really in question regardless of the accusations of people wanting to "force" others to do anyhting. Playing with FW isn't a house rule, it's a legitimate form of play supported by the rulebook, and even endorsed in the FW books. That's the stance most of us who are arguing pro-FW are saying. What you're saying hasn't been claimed.

Seriously, please stop because I can't help but to start thinking you're just trolling in attempt to get your jollies and drag the thread off track.

You keep going on about magical page 108 that says in your mind banning forgeworld is only by player choice, and that god almighty says you're wrong. But page 108 also says you can adjust your army with homebrew rules, which generally turn out something like this "ok so my space marines are a little different. They pay less points per marine because their homeworld is so populated, so its easier to replace them because they grow 3 progenitor glands! Also my leader is in experimental dreadnaught armor with a built in 3+ invun force field, and ironclad armor except on the back which is also av 12. Its ok though because his points cost is huge, hes like 180 base)

Page 108 can be summed up as "do whatever you think is fun" not "hey we know we make ridiculous additions to the game thru forgeworld for the explicit purpose of selling high dollar value items to people that are not playtested/balanced beforehand, but they paid an arm and a leg to buy it so you have to accept its fair game". The concept of banning something specifically made for a game is not new. Golf has banned clubs that gave unfair mechanical advantage to players from tournaments for a long time. It dosent stop joe schmoe from buying one to beat his friends down at the club in a friendly game. But when it comes to official, these things do not pass, and for good reason.

xruslanx wrote:
So as I said, find me a post by someone claiming that Forgeworld is not legal in 40k. "reading comprehension" etc.

Why? You won't read the thread and I'm not your nursemaid.

xruslanx wrote:

Banning FW is a house rule, refusing to play against it is not.

Self-parody, nice. I would drag it out further by demanding that you define the difference between banning something and refusing to play against something...but I'm not that cruel

"I don't want to play against your FW army" is not the same as "no one can play FW here ever." There is a difference in magnitude there that you're missing. One is a refusal to play something at that time, the other is a refusal for anyone to every play it because you've made it forbidden. It seems despite living in the UK you don't understand the finer points of English.

xruslanx wrote:

Refusing to play anything is a choice any player can make about anything and was never really in question regardless of the accusations of people wanting to "force" others to do anyhting. Playing with FW isn't a house rule, it's a legitimate form of play supported by the rulebook, and even endorsed in the FW books. That's the stance most of us who are arguing pro-FW are saying. What you're saying hasn't been claimed.

I don't see anyone who says that playing with Forgeworld is illegal. As I say, I've seen arguments over the past few pages, but no one saying that FW was illegal. I get the feeling you have no interest in debate whatsoever and prefer simply pontificating about "the thread".

I have a feeling you have no desire to read the thread yourself and lack the understanding that this debate isn't new and the point of regarding FW a regular part of the game has arisen before and in the past people have shot down FW as a legitimate part of the game because according to them there is no rule that says it is.

xruslanx wrote:

Seriously, please stop because I can't help but to start thinking you're just trolling in attempt to get your jollies and drag the thread off track.

Hmm? If a thread has what I deem to be an incorrect premise then I am not "trolling" by questioning that premise.

"I decided the thread should be about something else, damn everyone else who was here first." Gotcha.

xruslanx wrote:
edit - since you're so fond of discussing what this thread is about rather than anything meaningful, I went through the first page. Nothing there, just comments about popcorn and this gem from Perigrine -

Because now there is absolutely no room for disagreement or pretending that "no FW" is anything but a house rule.

Presumably this cavelcade of intelectual back and forth of the legality of FW in 40k takes place some time after this?

I love how you misspelled "intellectual". Good show old chap!

Page 1: Peregrine posts a RULE, someone later responds and says the RULE only applies to Chapter Tactics, there is debate about the RULE applying to other things from FW. If you read page 1 you would have seen that this topic STARTED with a rule, and that rule was debated one PAGE ONE.

I'm not summarizing the entire thread for you because you're too lazy to read it. No one here is your nanny, so kindly find somewhere else to play if you don't want to take the time to actually read and comprehend things.

xruslanx wrote:
Actually, could you simplify it for me? Simply give me a list of posts that I am permitted to respond to, that'd be great. Cheers.

Pft. Maybe if you understood the debate, perhaps. But you prefer wearing your dunce cap, so no.

Also, this is the last post of yours I'm responding to in this thread. You're just not worth my time to keep replying too.

Also forgeworld lost any goodwill or credibility they had when they pumped out the xv-107 rvanna specifically to get powergamer tau players to finally add that 4th 5th and 6th riptide to their armies. And experimental rules don't fly. If they started their points value for this thing at 260, there is no way in hell no matter how many points revisions they make that it will ever be bumped up to the 500 points it should cost for what kind of havoc it could wreak.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also I expect a lock soon because now its just devolving into personal attacks.

 Orock wrote:
Also forgeworld lost any goodwill or credibility they had when they pumped out the xv-107 rvanna specifically to get powergamer tau players to finally add that 4th 5th and 6th riptide to their armies. .

Forgeworld had OP before that. for 60 points more than a Land Raider, you get a normal land raider with +15 transport capacity, +2 twin-linked lascannons, and immune to melta.

I'm sure that someone, somewhere uses these models in a fluffy, non-cheese army...and fair play to them. But don't let's pretend that the average pick-up gamer is going to do that.

 Orock wrote:
You keep going on about magical page 108 that says in your mind banning forgeworld is only by player choice, and that god almighty says you're wrong. But page 108 also says you can adjust your army with homebrew rules, which generally turn out something like this "ok so my space marines are a little different. They pay less points per marine because their homeworld is so populated, so its easier to replace them because they grow 3 progenitor glands! Also my leader is in experimental dreadnaught armor with a built in 3+ invun force field, and ironclad armor except on the back which is also av 12. Its ok though because his points cost is huge, hes like 180 base)

I never said it was magical.

I know what page 108 says. I've got an article in my signature about homebrew being a legal part of the game too. It's even been mentioned a couple pages ago. The thing is that the rule is very wide in scope because it also allows Codex Supplements to work without the rulebook needing an errata to explain how they can work when the rulebook could have restricted us to only using the codexes and nothing else.

Seriously, the reason I keep "going on" about it is because the rule gives players a lot of freedom to do stuff, which includes the stuff that FW itself does to the army list (as I've said).

 Orock wrote:
Page 108 can be summed up as "do whatever you think is fun" not "hey we know we make ridiculous additions to the game thru forgeworld for the explicit purpose of selling high dollar value items to people that are not playtested/balanced beforehand, but they paid an arm and a leg to buy it so you have to accept its fair game". The concept of banning something specifically made for a game is not new. Golf has banned clubs that gave unfair mechanical advantage to players from tournaments for a long time. It dosent stop joe schmoe from buying one to beat his friends down at the club in a friendly game. But when it comes to official, these things do not pass, and for good reason.

You know what else says "do what you think is fun"? Page 8: Spirit of the Game. The thing is these permissions are wide and open for a reason: they don't want to tell you that you can't, but instead want to allow you to do anything you and your opponent will agree on.

In a ruleset where they devs go out of their way to tell you that you "can" why are we still having people argue that people "can't" use FW because GW doesn't support it? They support every other permutation of the game you can dream up, so why not support their own studio in there as well? The argument is frankly ridiculious.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Orock wrote:
Also forgeworld lost any goodwill or credibility they had when they pumped out the xv-107 rvanna specifically to get powergamer tau players to finally add that 4th 5th and 6th riptide to their armies. And experimental rules don't fly. If they started their points value for this thing at 260, there is no way in hell no matter how many points revisions they make that it will ever be bumped up to the 500 points it should cost for what kind of havoc it could wreak.

You mean the experimental rules that will most certainly change once they get into an actual book? You know why FW does experimental rules? To publicly play-test things that they think might be too overpowered (even if it falls into the fluff correctly). People who play with or against them can, and often do write in about them and those criticisms are often addressed in a later release. This is a really common thing for them to do actually.

FW, admittedly, is handcuffed by GW in play testing. One can not both simultaneously balance against the Vendetta and Dark Angel fliers. Or Wave Serpents and razorbacks.

Martel732 wrote:
FW, admittedly, is handcuffed by GW in play testing. One can not both simultaneously balance against the Vendetta and Dark Angel fliers. Or Wave Serpents and razorbacks.

That's a good point too. FW is essentially bound to end up striking a balance in there somewhere but it's hard when GW is all over the map in their design approach.

 Peregrine wrote:

Davor wrote:
Anyone can refuse anyone anything, if they don't want to play against it. There is no rule saying YOU HAVE TO PLAY AGAINST your potential opponent.

And nobody is disputing that. What we want people to stop doing is pretending that their personal "I don't want to play against FW" policy is just following the rules as provided by GW.

Page 108 disallows it though...

"With the points limit agreed, players need to pick their forces. The best way to do this is to make use of the army list in the relevant codex, although, of course, players are free to either adapt the army lists or use their own system as they wish." (108, Emphasis mine)

What Codex does FW produce?

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
FW, admittedly, is handcuffed by GW in play testing. One can not both simultaneously balance against the Vendetta and Dark Angel fliers. Or Wave Serpents and razorbacks.

That's a good point too. FW is essentially bound to end up striking a balance in there somewhere but it's hard when GW is all over the map in their design approach.

It's not just hard; it's impossible. FW would have to recost the entire game. Which I wouldn't be opposed to. If you compare the cost of Imperial weapons upgrade to Eldar, it's just a joke.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

Davor wrote:
Anyone can refuse anyone anything, if they don't want to play against it. There is no rule saying YOU HAVE TO PLAY AGAINST your potential opponent.

And nobody is disputing that. What we want people to stop doing is pretending that their personal "I don't want to play against FW" policy is just following the rules as provided by GW.

Page 108 disallows it though...

"With the points limit agreed, players need to pick their forces. The best way to do this is to make use of the army list in the relevant codex, although, of course, players are free to either adapt the army lists or use their own system as they wish." (108, Emphasis mine)

What Codex does FW produce?

I added emphasis to a part you ignored. FW adapts the army list as found in the codex. This has been a point I've said a few times.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Martel732 wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
FW, admittedly, is handcuffed by GW in play testing. One can not both simultaneously balance against the Vendetta and Dark Angel fliers. Or Wave Serpents and razorbacks.

That's a good point too. FW is essentially bound to end up striking a balance in there somewhere but it's hard when GW is all over the map in their design approach.

It's not just hard; it's impossible. FW would have to recost the entire game. Which I wouldn't be opposed to. If you compare the cost of Imperial weapons upgrade to Eldar, it's just a joke.

I too would not be opposed to the game being re-costed so that it's all standardized in a way that is predictable and makes sense.

So, this seems to have devolved into going around in circles... I think we're about done here.