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.

It's funny the New southpark reminded me allot of this debate, Xboxone kids are anti fw and ps4 kids are pro, go watch it

 da001 wrote:
Agreed.

You need to talk with the other player and explain what your units do. There is a "social contract" between the two. And the goal should be to enjoy the game, which will not happen if you take broken units the other player know nothing about. However, given that some players have used Forgeworld as a way to get unfair advantages through the use of broken units that the normal player didn´t even know they existed, the use of Forgeworld as a whole has taken a bad reputation.

I agree that both players have an input before the game starts and informing your opponents what you have is a necessary part of the game but I believe that some players have used the normal codices in order to get an unfair advantage in the game as well. I don't see the divide between the codices and FW here.

No way.

Most GW creators do not consider balance as an objective, and they do what they think is best for their favorite armies. Look at the Adepta Sororitas Codex and compare it with the Space Marine Codex. Or compare SM with CSM. Or Daemons with GK during the last year of 5th edition.

I never said balance. I said impartiality and I meant that. They don't make broken codices so that Mr Joe Bloggs down at the local store can stomp over everybody he plays against. Sure what they produce is still unbalanced but they don't reinvent the game to make their broken codices and they still have some restrictions in place. If their codex is clearly broken beyond game damaging repair then their codex just doesn't get authorised. A player making a homebrewed codex has no restrictions placed upon him at all, so he can stupid stuff that makes it absolutely impossible for him to lose. Consider the following unit:

Deep striking assault squad. Does not scatter. Can assault after deep striking. Each guy gets 10 attacks each at S10, I10 and always strikes first and also at AP1. Can re-roll failed hits and can re-roll failed wounds. All for 15pts for each model.

Whats to stop Mr Joe Bloggs from writing that into his own codex? Absolutely nothing. However I can gurantee you that you'll not find anything like that coming out of GW. Thats the point being made here. GW and FW are impartial unlike Mr Joe Bloggs down the road. Mr Joe Bloggs doesn't lose his job when he writes an overpowered fan dex.

And Forgeworld is the same in this regard: whoever wrote the rules for the R'Varna Riptide was not impartial in any way: he was 100% sure he was creating an absolutely broken unit. GW and FW do not care about impartiality. Never have. They have stated it many times. The players are supposed to fix that problem by themselves and find some common ground.

The person who wrote the R'Varna rules is held to the same standard as those the write the codices. That is the point being made when I talk about impartiality.

@Formosa: thanks for the recommendation, I grew bored of the series but some episodes are still brilliant. I will watch it.

 Formosa wrote:
It's funny the New southpark reminded me allot of this debate, Xboxone kids are anti fw and ps4 kids are pro, go watch it

I did actually watch this. Need to wait to see the second part of it now though.

In a sense you're right about it but its funny to see that I'm actually a xbox man and I prefer the xbox over the playstation.

As I was playing catch up this morning I was thinking about the claims that are often made and here's the thing: no matter how you want to define it personally there is no official definition for "standard"" or "normal" games.

All this talk of x + y being "standard" or "normal" is frankly just your personal opinion on what the game is. The main rulebook talks about the rules being an open ended framework for enjoyable experiences and says that players have a lot of room for where they get their army lists. So if the game itself is written like a tool kit to try and support an open ended and fun experience, why are we treating it like a list of instructions that prohibit things?

On another note: cheeseball players will always be cheeseballs regardless of what you're playing, banning FW doesn't suddenly make them not cheeseballs. If you really want to fix the issue of cheeseball players either make it painfully clear that you're not looking to play against the tournament army they read about last week and built since then (and if you're lucky they primed it too) and if they're still cheeseballs and you don't like playing that kind of person then don't play them. Christ it's not that hard. Additionally, making having a physical copy of the rules (if not books, at least a print off because let's be honest, not everyone will buy the rulebooks, some people will always insist on going the free route regardless of legality) cuts down on things by giving you something you can read over and understand before the game starts. You don't have to know every single rule about every single model in the game, just accept it already, learn to communicate better and move on.

I think we've reached the point where talking about if FW is part of GW is silly. So instead I'm going to point this out from IA1v1:


Now FW used VDR rules for their stuff for about 10 years (1999~2009) until about when C: IG came out for 8th and a number of their tanks, and the Valkyrie, where transfered from being FW only to being in the IG codex. And you know what? After 10 years of it being legal for "normal games" it's really too late to start saying it's not legal now. The genie was let out of the bottle back in 2000, it's too late in 2013 to be saying that it's time to put him back in. GW knew that there would be some reluctance to accept it in the beginning and that's why we got this statement written by the head of the dev team saying that they're legal. He even authored IA 1 and 2! And before anyone starts that "one man isn't GW" thing, like I said: head of the dev team. He's the senior most Dev and is about the only one who can truly speak for the entire dev team on stuff like this. Also, we don't need "all of GW" to approve this, just the devs, which we got in that introduction.

And I'm still waiting for any real evidence by the "no-FW" crowd that shows actual proof that the dev team no longer supports FW. And again, we aren't taking tournaments as proof because they're run by the sales department, not the developers so what they say does not reflect what the developers actually have to say about FW, In short, it's a bunch of red shirts and everyone likes to complain when red shirts say FW is legal, so the same rules apply on the reverse anti-FW crowd.

I'm serious, I've seen a lot of claims by people that "GW never meant for FW to be legal" and "the devs don't support it" but we have proof that both of those statements are false at best and an outright lie at worst. So the ball is in your court. Evidence for FW has been produced numerous times, but no one has provided anything from the dev team, or the rulebook, or even a codex that says you can't play with FW. Ball is in your court, and the burden of proof is on you for a change.

Oh and the old "ask permission" statement FW had? Same one that GW had on special characters pre-5th Edition. So why is okay to let GW drop the rule no questions asked but when FW drops the same kind of rule it's some kind of "crime"?

 DarthOvious wrote:
I never said balance. I said impartiality and I meant that. They don't make broken codices so that Mr Joe Bloggs down at the local store can stomp over everybody he plays against. Sure what they produce is still unbalanced but they don't reinvent the game to make their broken codices and they still have some restrictions in place.

I don´t think that is correct. The GK Codex, for instance, was written so that Mr Joe Bloggs down at the local store could stomp over almost everybody, especially Daemons. Restrictions? Don´t reinvent the game? Not broken? Have you ever played 6 Vendettas against an army without anti-air at the beginning of sixth edition? GK against Demons in 5th?

Actually, the writers have admitted doing it on purpose. They favor their own armies, and they favor the new models while nerfing the old ones to the point of being useless.

Consider the following unit:

Deep striking assault squad. Does not scatter. Can assault after deep striking. Each guy gets 10 attacks each at S10, I10 and always strikes first and also at AP1. Can re-roll failed hits and can re-roll failed wounds. All for 15pts for each model.

Whats to stop Mr Joe Bloggs from writing that into his own codex? Absolutely nothing. However I can gurantee you that you'll not find anything like that coming out of GW. Thats the point being made here. GW and FW are impartial unlike Mr Joe Bloggs down the road. Mr Joe Bloggs doesn't lose his job when he writes an overpowered fan dex.

Now you consider the following list: a list with 3 R´Varna Riptides. What´s to stop Mr Andrew Bloggs from using this list? After all, Forgeworld is legal, just like House Rules or expansions. However, if he is ever to try to actually play the game, most players will say this Mr Andrew Bloggs to stay apart from them, just like the guy with the 4 Riptides or your Mr Joe Bloggs, or the guy who want to play a Forgeworld army but has forgotten the book or the guy that reeks like if he hasn´t washed in 45 days. There are two person implied in the game.

Unless you are in a tournament, then you abide by the rules.

Also, I don´t see Cruddace, Kelly or Ward being fired after breaking the game with an overpowered fan dex. They are fans too, and they write like them. They do not write "balanced" or "impartial" rules. They are not even trying.

The person who wrote the R'Varna rules is held to the same incredibly low standard as those the write the codices. That is the point being made when I talk about impartiality.

Fixed that for you

Sorry but whoever wrote that... thing... did nothing to help the pro-FW cause. At least it is still "experimental rules", but I think the less we talk about it, the better.

If we take the R'Varna as being one of the most overpowered units that FW have produced then lets compare it to one of the most powerful codex units, a daemon prince of tzeentch with a re-rollable 2++ save. Even if we allow the R'Varna to nova charge and to also hit with all four blast shots then this is the result.

12 hits
wounds = (5/6)*12 = 10 wounds
initial failed saves = ((1/6)*10) = 1.67 fails
re-roll saves = ((1/6)*1.67) = 0.28 fails overall

Is my math correct on this? This looks really poor.

So providing my calculations are correct (perhaps they are not) the R'Varna Riptide will have trouble wounding that thing. Needless to say the daemon prince of tzeentch will be lucky to have lost one wound before it wounds the Riptide apart in close combat.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Oh and the old "ask permission" statement FW had? Same one that GW had on special characters pre-5th Edition. So why is okay to let GW drop the rule no questions asked by when FW drops the same kind of rule it's some kind of crime?

The FW guys like to say "Warhammer 40k is a gentleman's game."

I went to Nottingham this year with the express purpose of playing with/against several of the guys from FW and the night before we played I was asked "Do you mind if I play some Forge World units?" At first I thought they were joking. Of COURSE I had flown all the way there to play against these guys so we could play WITH our FW toys. But I was informed they always ask because (as I mentioned before) it's a "gentleman's game".

So I think it is still considered polite to ask the person if they mind if you field the units (in a pick up game - not talking tournaments where the rules are explicit).

I can't believe I am actually responding to this thread which comes up every two weeks. What have I become?!

I was under the impression that Game Workshop had answered this question a while back? In talking to the GW rep at the last con out here in Denver he said that Forge World was a subsidiary of GW and legal in all sanctioned games. Furthermore he said GW had said this on several occasions over the last year.

Is this incorrect?

 cvtuttle wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Oh and the old "ask permission" statement FW had? Same one that GW had on special characters pre-5th Edition. So why is okay to let GW drop the rule no questions asked by when FW drops the same kind of rule it's some kind of crime?

The FW guys like to say "Warhammer 40k is a gentleman's game."

I went to Nottingham this year with the express purpose of playing with/against several of the guys from FW and the night before we played I was asked "Do you mind if I play some Forge World units?" At first I thought they were joking. Of COURSE I had flown all the way there to play against these guys so we could play WITH our FW toys. But I was informed they always ask because (as I mentioned before) it's a "gentleman's game".

So I think it is still considered polite to ask the person if they mind if you field the units (in a pick up game - not talking tournaments where the rules are explicit).

I can't believe I am actually responding to this thread which comes up every two weeks. What have I become?!

It's polite to ask regardless. No one likes being surprised by a Triptide army after all.

And the FW guys have the right idea, but my issue was never with them but with certain parts of the player base instead.

Reading through this thread has made me wonder how some people can play this game at all with such terrible reading comprehension...

 Stormdrake wrote:
I was under the impression that Game Workshop had answered this question a while back? In talking to the GW rep at the last con out here in Denver he said that Forge World was a subsidiary of GW and legal in all sanctioned games. Furthermore he said GW had said this on several occasions over the last year.

Is this incorrect?

Because Tom Kirby hasn't ridden down from the heavens in a chariot pulled by angels, bearing the notice that "FORGEWORLD IS LEGAL" written in gold ink on lambskin while a choir of angels sings behind him and a light shines down from God himself some people still won't accept it.

 DarthOvious wrote:
If we take the R'Varna as being one of the most overpowered units that FW have produced then lets compare it to one of the most powerful codex units, a daemon prince of tzeentch with a re-rollable 2++ save. Even if we allow the R'Varna to nova charge and to also hit with all four blast shots then this is the result.

12 hits
wounds = (5/6)*12 = 10 wounds
initial failed saves = ((1/6)*10) = 1.67 fails
re-roll saves = ((1/6)*1.67) = 0.28 fails overall

Is my math correct on this? This looks really poor.

So providing my calculations are correct (perhaps they are not) the R'Varna Riptide will have trouble wounding that thing. Needless to say the daemon prince of tzeentch will be lucky to have lost one wound before it wounds the Riptide apart in close combat.

Except that is not a unit to unit calculation.

1.) The DP of TZ is a minimum of 170 points with no upgrades. Typically it will run at 300+ points so more expensive than the R'Varna.
2.) The DP of TZ cannot carry the Grimior and use it on itself which means you need to spend at least 75 points on a herald with the Grimoir...but that only gets you to a 3++ re-rolls 1s save.
3.) the DP of TZ cannot cast Divination powers. The herald you just bought gets one roll on the chart to try to get the 4++ save power to get down to the 2++ re-roll. Want to improve that...well now we are adding more mastery levels and heralds , still trying for a random power. But if you want to plan on this you are looking at running at probably 300 more points (so we are at 600 points trying to make this work)
4) The grimoir still fails 1/3rd of the time unless of course we buy Fateweaver so that is 300 more points (900 points)

So not really fair here....the R'Varna will just shoot the Grimoir carrier and kill him.....

you might not have noticed but I am pro-forge world. I think the models are great and wish I was independently wealthy enough to own a few items. Unfortunately, I work for a living and don't have that kind of cash to toss about..

my point is that it is something that should be (in my opinion) differentiated between what is made for"narmal' games and what is not. The forgeworld guys design the stuff this way. They have items that are simply cosmetic replacements for things that already exist and they design things that are made to face not only "norml game" stuff but other forgeworld stuff as well. Think of it as a step above or what I prefer to think of a step to the side (as above appears to be better and elitist over guys who cant afford it).

If I am informed that I may be facing superheavies and titans before coming to the shop, iwill come prepared. I would not even need to now exactly what ones as I would want that to be a surprise. However, I would at least know no to bring my all infantry army with heavy bolters being the stroingest weapon.

i am not saying you cant argue over who owns what company or what is a subsidiary of what. i was only pointing out that it does not affect the bottom line. by al means discuss that all you like. i actally think that FW is a side company owned by GW designed to build extras for the more fluf driven hobby aspect driven players who have the extra cash topay for nicer looking models.and that FW models should be allowed to be used (within areasonable limit) in friendly games. as a matte of fact, I would LOVE to get bunch of tohse guard jeep looking things with the turret on top. For tournaments, I personally feel that only stuff in the normal game" codexes be used (welcome FW versions cause they often look cooler) and that the TO should draw the line somewhere and that that is as good a place as any. personally, I feel that in situation such as tournaments this line needs to be drawn because of the different opinions and possible arguments that could arise.
Player 1-'Well,this jeep isn't really powerfull and it looks cool so why cant I use it"
player 2- "Well, if he gets to use his jeep, why cant I use this warlord titan, its cool looking and I don't think its really powrful'
Player 3- How am I supposed to compete against that?"
Player 4-"What is that stff and whats this forgeworld you guys are talking about"
Tournament organizer- "*pulls out hair*
and so on and so on all day without a single game being played and multiple fistfights in the parking lot.

thats wh Im more than happy to play against it if i know its an option beforehand in order to be prepared but don't want to se it in tournaments (although i bow to the authority of the TO..

BTW, i vote pepperoni, mushroom and extra cheese with NO (as in ZERO) anchovies on your pizza issues..

 EVIL INC wrote:
you might not have noticed but I am pro-forge world. I think the models are great and wish I was independently wealthy enough to own a few items. Unfortunately, I work for a living and don't have that kind of cash to toss about..

my point is that it is something that should be (in my opinion) differentiated between what is made for"narmal' games and what is not. The forgeworld guys design the stuff this way. They have items that are simply cosmetic replacements for things that already exist and they design things that are made to face not only "norml game" stuff but other forgeworld stuff as well. Think of it as a step above or what I prefer to think of a step to the side (as above appears to be better and elitist over guys who cant afford it).

If I am informed that I may be facing superheavies and titans before coming to the shop, iwill come prepared. I would not even need to now exactly what ones as I would want that to be a surprise. However, I would at least know no to bring my all infantry army with heavy bolters being the stroingest weapon.

i am not saying you cant argue over who owns what company or what is a subsidiary of what. i was only pointing out that it does not affect the bottom line. by al means discuss that all you like. i actally think that FW is a side company owned by GW designed to build extras for the more fluf driven hobby aspect driven players who have the extra cash topay for nicer looking models.and that FW models should be allowed to be used (within areasonable limit) in friendly games. as a matte of fact, I would LOVE to get bunch of tohse guard jeep looking things with the turret on top. For tournaments, I personally feel that only stuff in the normal game" codexes be used (welcome FW versions cause they often look cooler) and that the TO should draw the line somewhere and that that is as good a place as any. personally, I feel that in situation such as tournaments this line needs to be drawn because of the different opinions and possible arguments that could arise.
Player 1-'Well,this jeep isn't really powerfull and it looks cool so why cant I use it"
player 2- "Well, if he gets to use his jeep, why cant I use this warlord titan, its cool looking and I don't think its really powrful'
Player 3- How am I supposed to compete against that?"
Player 4-"What is that stff and whats this forgeworld you guys are talking about"
Tournament organizer- "*pulls out hair*
and so on and so on all day without a single game being played and multiple fistfights in the parking lot.

thats wh Im more than happy to play against it if i know its an option beforehand in order to be prepared but don't want to se it in tournaments (although i bow to the authority of the TO..

BTW, i vote pepperoni, mushroom and extra cheese with NO (as in ZERO) anchovies on your pizza issues..

"I think having three Riptides is cool and not very powerful".

Trying to use the 'balance' argument against Forge World is totally nonsensical

@Stormdrake: Well, it depends. What is a "sanctioned" game?

As far as I know, the matter is still like this: if it is a tournament, the tournament organizer is the one making the decision; if it is a friendly game, you need consent from the other player. It has been always that way, and FW recently insisted on it again. However, there are some players that say that you can force other players to play with them even in casual games, and some players that say that FW should be banned forever. Business as usual.

@DarthOvious: At this point I should admit that I know nothing of the R'Varna, I was using it as a counter-example given the general consensus that it is an overpowered unit. If you want, please ignore the example and exchange the name "Riptide R´Varna" for whichever you think is the most overpowered FW unit right now in any reasoning I did. Needless to say, I will gladly play against it if it is really balanced.

 da001 wrote:
I don´t think that is correct. The GK Codex, for instance, was written so that Mr Joe Bloggs down at the local store could stomp over almost everybody, especially Daemons. Restrictions? Don´t reinvent the game? Not broken? Have you ever played 6 Vendettas against an army without anti-air at the beginning of sixth edition? GK against Demons in 5th?

I doubt GW have ever met Mr Joe Bloggs with his Grey Knights army. And just exactly what tournaments is Mr Joe Bloggs winning these days with his Grey Knights cheese army? Can you prove the underlined please with a citation.

You're still not getting the picture. Mr Joe Bloggs when writing his own codex can always include something in his codex to beef up to ridiculous levels. Even beyond the levels of codex creep. The stuff you have mentioned may have been strong, it may have been cheese but it was never impossible to beat. The writers are still required to improve each codex within a framework that is going to make sense.

Actually, the writers have admitted doing it on purpose. They favor their own armies, and they favor the new models while nerfing the old ones to the point of being useless.

This means nothing in a Vacuum. Oh my goodness, the writers actually like wrting the codices for their favourite armies. What an unexpected surprise. Now what you need to do is supply me with a quote from one of those writers saying the following "I wanted to make army X unbeatable in every single game. I wanted to include complete cheese that meant that army X would wipe out an opponents army in one turn without given them a chance to win".

Now if you can supply that then perhaps you will have an argument.

Now you consider the following list: a list with 3 R´Varna Riptides. What´s to stop Mr Andrew Bloggs from using this list? After all, Forgeworld is legal, just like House Rules or expansions. However, if he is ever to try to actually play the game, most players will say this Mr Andrew Bloggs to stay apart from them, just like the guy with the 4 Riptides or your Mr Joe Bloggs, or the guy who want to play a Forgeworld army but has forgotten the book or the guy that reeks like if he hasn´t washed in 45 days. There are two person implied in the game.

The assault marines I mentioned would butcher those Riptides. Ergo the R'Varnas are not as powerful as the theorectical assault marines I listed.

Also see my post about how much damage a R'Varna will do to a daemon prince of tzeentch with a re-rollable 2++
.

Unless you are in a tournament, then you abide by the rules.

Of course

Also, I don´t see Cruddace, Kelly or Ward being fired after breaking the game with an overpowered fan dex. They are fans too, and they write like them. They do not write "balanced" or "impartial" rules. They are not even trying.

At this point you are just listing every writer at GW and saying they all write overpowered codices. So what exactly is the problem with FW again? Afterall all the codices are totally overpowered and one sided as it is so why is FW all of a sudden frowned upon? Just wait until the next codex comes out and that FW unit will obviously be crap again because of codex creep contineously pumping up the ridiculousness of cheese with each codex release.

Also note that Ward isn't writing codices anymore. I found this out when I spoke to him at Games Day. Perhaps it was decided it was best if he didn't for some reason we will keep to ourselves.

The person who wrote the R'Varna rules is held to the same incredibly low standard as those the write the codices. That is the point being made when I talk about impartiality.

Fixed that for you

What exactly is your point here? Nothing you are saying makes sense. You state that GW codices are overpowered cheese that continually get more and more powerful with each release to ridiculous levels, but then argue that FW is what will break the game.

Your argument is invalid.

Sorry but whoever wrote that... thing... did nothing to help the pro-FW cause. At least it is still "experimental rules", but I think the less we talk about it, the better.

You mean that thing that obviously can't compete with the cheese that Kelly, Cruddace or Vetock write.

Your argument is all over the place. It is not consistent and I have no clue how you judge all the codices to be on a ridiculous power creep curve with each new codex pumping out bigger cheese than the previous but then imply that this FW unit will always be the unit that breaks the game.

I'm sorry but I just don't understand what you are trying to say here.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Breng77 wrote:

Except that is not a unit to unit calculation.

I agree that its not, but then it is a common thing for a daemon list to take.

1.) The DP of TZ is a minimum of 170 points with no upgrades. Typically it will run at 300+ points so more expensive than the R'Varna.
2.) The DP of TZ cannot carry the Grimior and use it on itself which means you need to spend at least 75 points on a herald with the Grimoir...but that only gets you to a 3++ re-rolls 1s save.
3.) the DP of TZ cannot cast Divination powers. The herald you just bought gets one roll on the chart to try to get the 4++ save power to get down to the 2++ re-roll. Want to improve that...well now we are adding more mastery levels and heralds , still trying for a random power. But if you want to plan on this you are looking at running at probably 300 more points (so we are at 600 points trying to make this work)
4) The grimoir still fails 1/3rd of the time unless of course we buy Fateweaver so that is 300 more points (900 points)

And yet daemon players still take this for some weird reason. it can't be as bad as you're making it out to be.

So not really fair here....the R'Varna will just shoot the Grimoir carrier and kill him.....

Of course and the Space Wolf Rune Priest will just kill the R'Varna with JotWW. Of course we all know its not as simple as that. The R'Varna could just shoot the Herald as you state but then of course it then gets butchered by the daemon prince in close combat in the next turn anyway. Oh Ghee, my 300pt unit killed a herald. How lucky am I.

Would it be better if I used the Seer Council on Jetbikes as a comparison instead?

 EVIL INC wrote:

Player 1-'Well,this jeep isn't really powerfull and it looks cool so why cant I use it"
player 2- "Well, if he gets to use his jeep, why cant I use this warlord titan, its cool looking and I don't think its really powrful'
Player 3- How am I supposed to compete against that?"
Player 4-"What is that stff and whats this forgeworld you guys are talking about"
Tournament organizer- "*pulls out hair*
and so on and so on all day without a single game being played and multiple fistfights in the parking lot.

Except that no one is trying to bring a titan into a normal game of 40k. Those are apocalypse units, we are not discussing those. Your argument is invalid the units being discussed have a seal of "40k Approved" on them. You can choose not to play against it just like you can refuse to play any codex army. But that does not make forgeworld illegal.

 EVIL INC wrote:
you might not have noticed but I am pro-forge world. I think the models are great and wish I was independently wealthy enough to own a few items. Unfortunately, I work for a living and don't have that kind of cash to toss about..

my point is that it is something that should be (in my opinion) differentiated between what is made for"narmal' games and what is not. The forgeworld guys design the stuff this way. They have items that are simply cosmetic replacements for things that already exist and they design things that are made to face not only "norml game" stuff but other forgeworld stuff as well. Think of it as a step above or what I prefer to think of a step to the side (as above appears to be better and elitist over guys who cant afford it).

If I am informed that I may be facing superheavies and titans before coming to the shop, iwill come prepared. I would not even need to now exactly what ones as I would want that to be a surprise. However, I would at least know no to bring my all infantry army with heavy bolters being the stroingest weapon.

i am not saying you cant argue over who owns what company or what is a subsidiary of what. i was only pointing out that it does not affect the bottom line. by al means discuss that all you like. i actally think that FW is a side company owned by GW designed to build extras for the more fluf driven hobby aspect driven players who have the extra cash topay for nicer looking models.and that FW models should be allowed to be used (within areasonable limit) in friendly games. as a matte of fact, I would LOVE to get bunch of tohse guard jeep looking things with the turret on top. For tournaments, I personally feel that only stuff in the normal game" codexes be used (welcome FW versions cause they often look cooler) and that the TO should draw the line somewhere and that that is as good a place as any. personally, I feel that in situation such as tournaments this line needs to be drawn because of the different opinions and possible arguments that could arise.
Player 1-'Well,this jeep isn't really powerfull and it looks cool so why cant I use it"
player 2- "Well, if he gets to use his jeep, why cant I use this warlord titan, its cool looking and I don't think its really powrful'
Player 3- How am I supposed to compete against that?"
Player 4-"What is that stff and whats this forgeworld you guys are talking about"
Tournament organizer- "*pulls out hair*
and so on and so on all day without a single game being played and multiple fistfights in the parking lot.

thats wh Im more than happy to play against it if i know its an option beforehand in order to be prepared but don't want to se it in tournaments (although i bow to the authority of the TO..

BTW, i vote pepperoni, mushroom and extra cheese with NO (as in ZERO) anchovies on your pizza issues..

Ok fair enough. a good explanation for your thoughts. I will just add that the player argument that you're talking about still exists. It just exists as a FW/no FW argument. I believe it should be on the individual units though. Anybody who says the words "Well, if he gets to use his jeep, why cant I use this warlord titan, its cool looking and I don't think its really powerful' is obviously just being a douche. Also it can always be stated that the Titan is not 40k approved and is for apocalypse only. A division already exists for it. I would also add that experimental rules can be left out on this basis as well, so no R'Varna in a tournament game. I even own one, but I won't begrudge anybody who doesn't want to play it because I am a reasonable guy and I know its a very strong unit.

If you ever do get those jeeps then I won't begrudge you a game. I am 100% happy to play against them, as you've could have guessed.

Lol, I am going to go with texas Barbeque pizza (BQ sauce base, peppers & bacon). Yum.

The copyright notice should have nailed it, a number of pages back.

The books are OWNED BY GW. They are not "FW" books, as every single word and picture in there is owned by GW. So all the rules etc are, literally, GW saying they are part of the 40k game. All of them.

SO they are as legal as any and every codex, supplement and FAQ out there. Yes, you can refuse to play against them, and I can refuse to play against you for any reason I want - even in a tournament, I can refuse to play the game.

 da001 wrote:

@DarthOvious: At this point I should admit that I know nothing of the R'Varna, I was using it as a counter-example given the general consensus that it is an overpowered unit. If you want, please ignore the example and exchange the name "Riptide R´Varna" for whichever you think is the most overpowered FW unit right now in any reasoning I did. Needless to say, I will gladly play against it if it is really balanced.

The R'Varna is a very strong unit so its not necessarily a bad example. However I would rather that players point out individual units they don't want to play against rather than just banning all FW. The point I was making is that the game itself is filled with these kind of units. Banning all FW would be equivalent to just banning 40k all together. i.e.

1) There are a few overpowered FW units, so lets ban FW

2) There are a few overpowered GW units, so lets ban GW

Thats the double standard. 1 is practiced but 2 isn't and obviously can't be without quiting the game altogether.

The R'Varna is really strong but it's weakness is its inability to hurt 2+ armour saves. Its guns are AP3. So its role is brilliant when shooting at most vehicles, most light infantry and even monsterous crectures. However anything with a 2+ armour save or a solid invulnerable save is going to be fine against it. Armour 14 is is in the middle and can be a hit or miss, with either the R'Varna glancing it to death or completely fluffing and not doing a jot of damage.

"2) There are a few overpowered GW units, so lets ban GW "

I'd be in favor

I kind of get a bit irritated when I see people categorically banning Forge World.

The only army I played for quite a long time was Armored Company, dropped by GW's Chapter Approved sometime in 2006ish. I quit the game, then, because the six or so Leman Russ tanks I owned were no longer usable as an Army.

Come 2008, and my friend who plays told me about Imperial Armor Vol. 1 with the Armored Battlegroup list in it, and YAY I can play 40k again.

Except apparently not, because Forge World is illegal according to some people.

I guess those people would have rather I quit the hobby than use a Forge World list.

 DarthOvious wrote:

At this point you are just listing every writer at GW and saying they all write overpowered codices. So what exactly is the problem with FW again? (...) Nothing you are saying makes sense. You state that GW codices are overpowered cheese that continually get more and more powerful with each release to ridiculous levels, but then argue that FW is what will break the game.
(...) Your argument is all over the place. It is not consistent and I have no clue how you judge all the codices to be on a ridiculous power creep curve with each new codex pumping out bigger cheese than the previous but then imply that this FW unit will always be the unit that breaks the game.

Wait, what? When did I say that? FW will break the game?

You have perhaps mistaken me with someone who is against FW. I am OK with Forgeworld, remember? I will gladly play against it and welcome it for a change. I own Forgeworld units and FW books. I am getting Massacre for Christmas. I consider FW of a higher quality than the regular w40k.

However, I will refuse to play in a casual game against someone with an overpowered / unfun list, regardless of the origin of the unit. And the choice of who I play with is mine. Which is exactly the position of FW on the matter, "ask the opponent in casual games, ask the tournament organizer in tournaments". I do not like it when someone says that FW "no longer requires consent".

Our conversation started when I pointed out that House Rules were also contemplated in the Rulebook, and found funny that some pro-forgeworld players will insist that people should do the effort to know the rules they want while claiming that all other rules (expansions, house rules) where somehow "unworthy" of their attention. I asked: "Why should I make the effort of reading your DKoK full codex when you will not do the effort of reading my 10 sentences house rule that gives my CSM a Legion Trait?". Keep in mind, however, that I will gladly read that book, or a 300 pages fan-made codex about the Barghesi, I really like this kind of stuff.

I'm sorry but I just don't understand what you are trying to say here.

Yeah I noticed.

I think you intermixed my conversation with other conversation with someone else. It happens.

Also note that Ward isn't writing codices anymore. I found this out when I spoke to him at Games Day. Perhaps it was decided it was best if he didn't for some reason we will keep to ourselves.

Didn´t know that.... He writes good rules, yet awful, awful fluff. I don´t know if this makes me happy or sad.

Except unless you are going to go through and ban units across the boad you still get a doubel standard.

1.) There are a Few OP FW units...lets ban those.

Pisses people off just as much as banning it all together (infact it pisses off more people. the Pro FW people are not happy because FW is being targeted, and the anti FW people are pissed because they don't want any FW.)

So unless you include

2.) Some GW units are OP lets ban those....

It is still a double standard. Now you can ban units across the board if you want, but most people don't because they want to be able to use their toys.

Really there are a few broken rules across the game and the rules should be fixed not the units banned if you want to balance the game.

Breng77 wrote:
Except unless you are going to go through and ban units across the boad you still get a doubel standard.

1.) There are a Few OP FW units...lets ban those.

Pisses people off just as much as banning it all together (infact it pisses off more people. the Pro FW people are not happy because FW is being targeted, and the anti FW people are pissed because they don't want any FW.)

So unless you include

2.) Some GW units are OP lets ban those....

It is still a double standard. Now you can ban units across the board if you want, but most people don't because they want to be able to use their toys.

Really there are a few broken rules across the game and the rules should be fixed not the units banned if you want to balance the game.

I think this is what da001 was saying, though, he does include both statements.

A normal player, who does not ban any units published in an army's codex, should not ban similar units from Forge World. Seeing that Forge World is meant to be played in 40k, there are no units dissimilar enough to warrant banning on their own.

 da001 wrote:

 DarthOvious wrote:
Also note that Ward isn't writing codices anymore. I found this out when I spoke to him at Games Day. Perhaps it was decided it was best if he didn't for some reason we will keep to ourselves.

Didn´t know that.... He writes good rules, yet awful, awful fluff. I don´t know if this makes me happy or sad.

He's still doing Army Books for WFB it seems, and he's doing supplements (he wrote the Iyanden one and the fluff there wasn't bad, not to mention his fluff work in the Sisters WD codex was pretty decent and overall he's been improving steadily.)

Forgeworld isn't available in the GW retail stores, nor are any of the rule books. Further, forgeworld doesn't make complete army additions for each of the 40k armies, which allows for certain armies a huge amount of additional army choices. Nice models, certainly made by a branch of GW, intended for the 40k game, but still not listed in the main rulebook or the main faq. A huge amount of standard codex mini's are listed in the main rulebook, this isn't the case for the forgeworld ones.

Solution is pathetically easy, mtg solved it almost immediately. Two basic game formats. 40k Standard and 40k extended. (extended allows forgeworld) Hey guys, I have an extended army, is that ok?

Problem solved. Nobody is the bad guy, the ongoing argument ceases to exist, and we can all just roll dice without the drama. How about it forgeworld guys, is this a fair enough compromise?

 da001 wrote:

 DarthOvious wrote:

At this point you are just listing every writer at GW and saying they all write overpowered codices. So what exactly is the problem with FW again? (...) Nothing you are saying makes sense. You state that GW codices are overpowered cheese that continually get more and more powerful with each release to ridiculous levels, but then argue that FW is what will break the game.
(...) Your argument is all over the place. It is not consistent and I have no clue how you judge all the codices to be on a ridiculous power creep curve with each new codex pumping out bigger cheese than the previous but then imply that this FW unit will always be the unit that breaks the game.

Wait, what? When did I say that? FW will break the game?

You have perhaps mistaken me with someone who is against FW. I am OK with Forgeworld, remember? I will gladly play against it and welcome it for a change. I own Forgeworld units and FW books. I am getting Massacre for Christmas. I consider FW of a higher quality than the regular w40k.

Perhaps.

However, I will refuse to play in a casual game against someone with an overpowered / unfun list, regardless of the origin of the unit. And the choice of who I play with is mine. Which is exactly the position of FW on the matter, "ask the opponent in casual games, ask the tournament organizer in tournaments". I do not like it when someone says that FW "no longer requires consent".

Hmm, this is where we disagree to an extent. Yes, I believe that a player can choose to not play a game against another player but I view FW as being just as legal as the codices. Heck I view the FW units as being part of the codex since their entries say they are.

Our conversation started when I pointed out that House Rules were also contemplated in the Rulebook, and found funny that some pro-forgeworld players will insist that people should do the effort to know the rules they want while claiming that all other rules (expansions, house rules) where somehow "unworthy" of their attention. I asked: "Why should I make the effort of reading your DKoK full codex when you will not do the effort of reading my 10 sentences house rule that gives my CSM a Legion Trait?". Keep in mind, however, that I will gladly read that book, or a 300 pages fan-made codex about the Barghesi, I really like this kind of stuff.

Yes and I was arguing a difference between fan dexes and FW/GW stuff.

I'm sorry but I just don't understand what you are trying to say here.

Yeah I noticed.

I think you also misunderstand my reply I suppose. This convo is perhaps just one big mess.

I think you intermixed my conversation with other conversation with someone else. It happens.

I think we are misunderstanding each other.

Also note that Ward isn't writing codices anymore. I found this out when I spoke to him at Games Day. Perhaps it was decided it was best if he didn't for some reason we will keep to ourselves.

Didn´t know that.... He writes good rules, yet awful, awful fluff. I don´t know if this makes me happy or sad.

anchorbine wrote:
Forgeworld isn't available in the GW retail stores, nor are any of the rule books.

Neither are Sisters of Battle. Nor is such a requirement listed anywhere in the game rules.

Further, forgeworld doesn't make complete army additions for each of the 40k armies, which allows for certain armies a huge amount of additional army choices.

And GW doesn't make supplement codex books (or equal number of supplement books) for all armies. Nor does each codex have the same number of units and options. And if you want to look at allies...well, lets compare the armies that can ally with the Imperial Guard to those that can ally with Dark Eldar, or worse, Tyranids.

Nice models, certainly made by a branch of GW, intended for the 40k game, but still not listed in the main rulebook or the main faq.

Neither are Riptides or Centurions.

A huge amount of standard codex mini's are listed in the main rulebook, this isn't the case for the forgeworld ones.

That's an out of date reference section, nothing more.

Solution is pathetically easy, mtg solved it almost immediately. Two basic game formats. 40k Standard and 40k extended. (extended allows forgeworld) Hey guys, I have an extended army, is that ok?

Problem solved. Nobody is the bad guy, the ongoing argument ceases to exist, and we can all just roll dice without the drama. How about it forgeworld guys, is this a fair enough compromise?

the issue is that this is used to prevent people from using their GW models produced by the FW department at many events and casual games, in many instances in scenarios where they were explicitely designed to be used, and such a standard isn't applied to other things you can't get in stores or aren't listed in reference sections.