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.

 EVIL INC wrote:


6. Forcing someone to do something they do not wish to is inherently violent. Consider a woman who does not wish to have "relations", if you force her to, you are committing a violent act. If you force me to play a game I do not wish to and have made my mind up against, you will either have to have a credible threat of violence or death or physically manhandle me into it. So yes, forcing me to play you when I just don't wanna is a threat of violence.

I have now seen on this forum a user liken playing another system to having sex with a dog and this asking to play forgeworld is like raping a women?!?!!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!??!

What will they think of next?

Really where is this coming from?? No thread discussed on dakka including this one has implied that TO will not have the ability to ban whatever they choose.
I will reiterate forgeworld use or non-use is at the discretion of the TO's and players as a whole. This truth is not in dispute. I have had the experience of asking my local TO if I could use a forgeworld unit. He looked at the rules and decided against it, I proceeded to write my list for the tourny without that unit. No argument, no strongarming, no questions, and certainly no hard feeling. It was his tournament and his rules I just played by them.

Matt1785
Anyway, FW is as legal as you think it is I suppose, no one is ever swayed by these threads, and I can assure you that you will garner no FINAL answer from a forum.

This is the truth of the matter. Talk to your opponents and TOs before the games and you will have few problems.

You not wanting me to play at your store because I will not let you bully me does not bother me. I am actually glad that you do not play in my area because I do not like to see some bully boy ruin the game for the locals.
I still maintain that TO have the right to decide what gets used and players have the right o decide to play or not. if you were to try to politely introduce FW models instead of ramming down people's throats against their will, you will have better luck.
Calm discussions before games and tourneys to find out whats what locally and what players are open minded enough to try it ot can help you get FW introduced to an area where it is not already present.

 EVIL INC wrote:
You not wanting me to play at your store because I will not let you bully me does not bother me. I am actually glad that you do not play in my area because I do not like to see some bully boy ruin the game for the locals.
I still maintain that TO have the right to decide what gets used and players have the right o decide to play or not. if you were to try to politely introduce FW models instead of ramming down people's throats against their will, you will have better luck.
Calm discussions before games and tourneys to find out whats what locally and what players are open minded enough to try it ot can help you get FW introduced to an area where it is not already present.

No one's saying that anyone should be forced to play against Forge World if they don't want to.

No one's saying that tournament organizers shouldn't be able to ban it if they want to.

I think that you're operating on a very literal interpretation of the opening post of this thread.

What people are saying is they they'd like to reverse the onus from needing to seek explicit permission before each and every casual pickup game they want to use appropriate Forge World models in, to needing to be told, "Sorry, I'd rather not play against Forge World stuff," to know the opponent isn't into it, in much the same way they'd need to be told, "Sorry, I'd rather not play against a tournament list."

Essentially, the conversation would go from:

"Hey, wanna play some 40k?"
"Sure. Points?"
"Two thousand sound good?"
"Sure. Can I use some Forge World stuff? I've got the book with the rules if you wanna read em first."
"Is it alright if we skip the Forge World stuff?" / <reads rules> "Sure, looks good. Oughta be fun." / <reads rules> "Umm, sorry, I don't think so. Can you make a list without that stuff?" / "Sure, I don't mind Forge World at all."
(game is either played or not depending on whether a consensus is reached or not)

to

"Hey, wanna play some 40k?"
"Sure. Points?"
"Two thousand sound good?"
"Sure. But, um, does your list contain Forge World stuff? I see you've got Imperial Armour there."
"Yeah, it does. Is that a problem?"
"Yeah, actually it is. Can we skip the Forge World stuff?" / "Kinda depends, which Forge World stuff were you gonna use?"
(game is either played or not played depending on whether a consensus is reached or not?)

 FirePainter wrote:

I have now seen on this forum a user liken playing another system to having sex with a dog and this asking to play forgeworld is like raping a women?!?!!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!??!

What will they think of next?

Really where is this coming from?? No thread discussed on dakka including this one has implied that TO will not have the ability to ban whatever they choose.
I will reiterate forgeworld use or non-use is at the discretion of the TO's and players as a whole. This truth is not in dispute. I have had the experience of asking my local TO if I could use a forgeworld unit. He looked at the rules and decided against it, I proceeded to write my list for the tourny without that unit. No argument, no strongarming, no questions, and certainly no hard feeling. It was his tournament and his rules I just played by them.

Don't forget the OTHER one of THESE discussions where someone compared telling people they couldn't use Forgeworld to telling people they had to ride at the back of the bus... Yeah. Of course that almost got that thread shut down.

Anyway, probably should have shot out the note of sarcasm in the first part of my post, I would never think Titans are allowed in standard 40k... although the new supplement coming out may allow such things.. but that's GW doing that. Again, I'm an advocate of Forgeworld, since I have a lot, and like their models, but I'm not going to force people to play against it, I'll ask, and as of yet, I have NEVER had someone tell me no.. so I don't know where all this FW hate comes from.

ClockworkZion wrote:So nice of you to jump in after claiming you were done with these topics last time Lynata. Welcome back!

Did I not jump ship only on the last thread?
I fully realise that all of this is a futile effort, but I think it is important to at least once set straight certain claims in each of these threads, if only for the benefit of any readers and so to better allow them to decide for themselves after having heard everyone's arguments.

ClockworkZion wrote:Many, if not all, of same posters also said they weren't trying to force people to play against their FW stuff, but instead were trying to see it unbanned or at least not needing to beg people to let them play it. Actually I don't recall one post that said that anyone was trying to make anyone play with or against anything, but maybe I'm not reading into it enough?

If you want to see it "unbanned", then argue about the positive things that FW can bring to the table. Why don't we see more threads like that?
What I'm getting from these threads instead is the same old "I shouldn't have to ask" attitude, with what feels like a new attempt every week by now. Does anyone honestly believe that this is going to change people's attitude? I just don't get it.

ClockworkZion wrote:10+ years (1999~2009 when C:IG came out) is too long to let FW keep putting stuff out and then say "oh it's not legal NOW because they stopped using VDR". I've even addressed that in this thread, or did you skip that?

Nope, didn't see it - either because I already left, or because the thread was moving so fast. Either way, if the statement has lost its value (due to VDR no longer being in place), why do you continue using it - and then even leaving out that it had this condition attached?
Don't you think this may come across as a bit ... misleading? This is not a matter of interpretation - when the text says "as long as", then the attached condition is a requirement for the rest to apply.

ClockworkZion wrote:Does that work better for you? Written by Jervis Johnson, doesn't mention that it's meant as anything but a source of rules for you to use the models in 40k. It doesn't even mention VDR. Can we stop getting so hung up on the idea of VDR being the only thing that made FW valid to begin with now?

Hey, it's you who dug up that VDR quote - where do you think I have that scan from?
And no, this new picture does not work better for me. What is this supposed to express? Where would you use FW rules except in games of 40k?

I'm sorry, but all I'm seeing here is yet another attempt at semantic acrobatics. Honestly, why don't you just return to the argument in page 108 of the 6th edition Rulebook? That is GW's current stance on the subject, and that is what allowed you to change my mind on the subject of FW's legality back then. But apparently this is no longer sufficient?

In reality, you should fight for both FW and homebrewed to find more acceptance with the players. The problem is that this means you'd likely have to suddenly turn against a lot of FW-supporters who dislike house rules, and even use the latter to "taint" refusal of FW rules in an attempt to convince others, as homebrewed in this franchise apparently still has a certain negative stigma attached. Ironic, given that it seems GW has specifically intended to support house rules with FW by offering a professional outlet as an example for what players could strive to do themselves...

ClockworkZion wrote:I've also argued the facts from the rulebook supporting an open and more sandbox approach to the game than the anti-FW crowd says but you never comment on any of that, just your differing opinion on what Jervis mean in that intro. Go team.

Actually, I did. Here too. You even replied to me and asked for clarification. But this time it seems it is you who has forgotten. Are we even now?

I've even adopted that stance in other threads since, including this one. I am stubborn - but I am not incapable of changing my stance when presented with accurate and convincing arguments (as also proven by my current stance on the subject of "canon"), and I am consistent in my approach to such subjects.

 Lynata wrote:
What I'm getting from these threads instead is the same old "I shouldn't have to ask" attitude, with what feels like a new attempt every week by now.

The main barrier to use is the perception that it's not official, that's why it gets the most discussion. It comes up frequently because it's ridiculous that people still argue that it's not official - as has still happened in this thread. People shouldn't have to ask to use FW any more than they have to ask to use IG, Tau etc.

Does anyone honestly believe that this is going to change people's attitude? I just don't get it.
...
Honestly, why don't you just return to the argument in page 108 of the 6th edition Rulebook? That is GW's current stance on the subject, and that is what allowed you to change my mind on the subject of FW's legality back then. But apparently this is no longer sufficient?

That argument worked for you, it doesn't work for everybody. Most people object to FW on the "It's not official", "It's overpowered", or "the rules are too hard/rare/expensive to get" arguments. Each argument we successfully nullify brings this ridiculous argument closer to an end. This thread is focusing on the "It's not official" argument, what's the problem with that? It still ended up covering the other arguments, as always.

 Lynata wrote:

ClockworkZion wrote:So nice of you to jump in after claiming you were done with these topics last time Lynata. Welcome back!

Did I not jump ship only on the last thread?
I fully realise that all of this is a futile effort, but I think it is important to at least once set straight certain claims in each of these threads, if only for the benefit of any readers and so to better allow them to decide for themselves after having heard everyone's arguments.

I apologize, from the way you left it seemed more like you were abandoning these sorts of topics more permanently.

 Lynata wrote:

ClockworkZion wrote:Many, if not all, of same posters also said they weren't trying to force people to play against their FW stuff, but instead were trying to see it unbanned or at least not needing to beg people to let them play it. Actually I don't recall one post that said that anyone was trying to make anyone play with or against anything, but maybe I'm not reading into it enough?

If you want to see it "unbanned", then argue about the positive things that FW can bring to the table. Why don't we see more threads like that?
What I'm getting from these threads instead is the same old "I shouldn't have to ask" attitude, with what feels like a new attempt every week by now. Does anyone honestly believe that this is going to change people's attitude? I just don't get it.

Personally, at least with what I post I feel you're misreading it. I think people shouldn't need to be, bargin or plead to be able to play their cool toys. I feel that the current attitude of "no Forgeworld for anyone ever" is poisonious and shuts down creative thinking, freedom and the chance to really see what this game is. It shuts down cool fluffy armies, awesome campaign settings and in some cases the ability to bring some balance back in the game. All done some can enjoy the game while others are left unable to play the cool things they spent on (making it a waste of money for anyone who purchased them to actually, you know play the things), or out right banning them from people who want do cool things like convert up a Heretics and Renegades army. If you're reading into it as "I shouldn't have to ask" then you're missing what I'm trying to say and I'm sorry apparently I wasn't clear enough so let me try again.

I don't think this game should be pigeon-holed into some tight little box that makes it enjoyable only for some and tells everyone else to go screw themselves. I don't think the question of bringing FW should be any harder than the question to play any codex. I don't think that a player should be in a position where they can't choose to play what they wish to please a select few who are currently forcing their will down everyone else's throats in the defense as the hobby as they want it rather than what it should be.

What I do think is that players should communicate exactly what they want before the game starts: FW, codex, points levels, allies, double FOC, narrative, casual, campaign, homebrew, special scenario, Altar of War, ect. None of that should be treated any differently than any other part of it. That is what I think and what I've been trying to get across since post one several threads ago.

 Lynata wrote:

ClockworkZion wrote:10+ years (1999~2009 when C:IG came out) is too long to let FW keep putting stuff out and then say "oh it's not legal NOW because they stopped using VDR". I've even addressed that in this thread, or did you skip that?

Nope, didn't see it - either because I already left, or because the thread was moving so fast. Either way, if the statement has lost its value (due to VDR no longer being in place), why do you continue using it - and then even leaving out that it had this condition attached?
Don't you think this may come across as a bit ... misleading? This is not a matter of interpretation - when the text says "as long as", then the attached condition is a requirement for the rest to apply.

It's not about the state of the game now, I've addressed the fact that we're dealing with a genie that's been out of the bottle for 10 years now, it's where it comes from. It's the "proof" that's so often demanded that GW has supported FW from book one. That is all it ever was supposed to be, and that's all I've ever tried to present it as, proof that the arguments about FW "never having support" and "the studio never being involved with them" and "GW has never said FW could be allowed" in games was false at best and a lie at worst. IA2 actually does it better because it says that Imperial of Armour is a series of books to give you rules for using that stuff in 40k, proving even more, from a historical standpoint that these claims of GW somehow creating a department in itself to make these models and the rules for them while apparently never giving them any authority to do so were wrong.

Basically, it's a history lesson for those who have never done any research. I'm still waiting for their "proof" that says the opposite.

 Lynata wrote:

ClockworkZion wrote:Does that work better for you? Written by Jervis Johnson, doesn't mention that it's meant as anything but a source of rules for you to use the models in 40k. It doesn't even mention VDR. Can we stop getting so hung up on the idea of VDR being the only thing that made FW valid to begin with now?

Hey, it's you who dug up that VDR quote - where do you think I have that scan from?
And no, this new picture does not work better for me. What is this supposed to express? Where would you use FW rules except in games of 40k?

It expresses a point in history where the main dev studio showed support for FW and said the books were intended for use with 40k, that is all. It's "proof" for the ones who claim that we need to show it, something that comes up a lot. IA2 is probably even better because it has no VDR requirement, it just says the rules are intended for play in 40k, something that people claim the studio has never said.

 Lynata wrote:
I'm sorry, but all I'm seeing here is yet another attempt at semantic acrobatics. Honestly, why don't you just return to the argument in page 108 of the 6th edition Rulebook? That is GW's current stance on the subject, and that is what allowed you to change my mind on the subject of FW's legality back then. But apparently this is no longer sufficient?

No, it's not semantic acrobats, it's a history lesson to stop the claims that FW was never "official" and that the studio never supported them. If you look at this entire thread I've mentioned page 108. I actually mention it a lot in general when these sorts of topics come up as proof that the current rulebook supports in the game. I just dug up these old bits to stop the claims that FW was some how not "legal" or "official" before 6th edition.

 Lynata wrote:
In reality, you should fight for both FW and homebrewed to find more acceptance with the players.

And who says I wasn't? Everytime I bring up page 108 I talk about homebrew, FW, and usually codex supplements (think I skipped the last one at least once in this thread).

 Lynata wrote:
The problem is that this means you'd likely have to suddenly turn against a lot of FW-supporters who dislike house rules, and even use the latter to "taint" refusal of FW rules in an attempt to convince others, as homebrewed in this franchise apparently still has a certain negative stigma attached. Ironic, given that it seems GW has specifically intended to support house rules with FW by offering a professional outlet as an example for what players could strive to do themselves...

I'll continue supporting homebrew regardless what people are claiming, but let me deal with one battle at a time, eh? This thread is about FW, and that's a tall enough peak as is, give people some time to climb this summit before we start pushing them to climb another one.

And if you read my posts you may have noticed my disdain for people putting 40k into some kind of imaginary box on what they thing 40k "should" be. I'll gladly argue that anyone who is defining 40k beyond "a framework for an enjoyable experience between you and your friends" is doing it wrong. I naturally want 40k to be freed from the shackles people keep putting it in so we can get back to having a good time with it instead of trying to force it into only one tightly defined role.

 Lynata wrote:

ClockworkZion wrote:I've also argued the facts from the rulebook supporting an open and more sandbox approach to the game than the anti-FW crowd says but you never comment on any of that, just your differing opinion on what Jervis mean in that intro. Go team.

Actually, I did. Here too. You even replied to me and asked for clarification. But this time it seems it is you who has forgotten. Are we even now?

I was talking about this thread where you railed against my use of old information, without asking for what I'm really trying to say if you weren't sure (thanks for the assumptions about my character by the way, it's a real pick me up), something you've done before, and skipped right past every other point I've made, as evident by you not knowing I've mentioned page 108 before in this thread.

 Lynata wrote:
I've even adopted that stance in other threads since, including this one. I am stubborn - but I am not incapable of changing my stance when presented with accurate and convincing arguments (as also proven by my current stance on the subject of "canon"), and I am consistent in my approach to such subjects.

I am consistent as well, the thing is that sometimes people assume things about what you're trying to convey about a message and don't ask for clarification then accuse you of things you're not trying to do. I never intended any references to the past to be proof that the current rulebook supported FW, but rather that it started as legal and with full studio support and that 13+ years later it's a little preposterous to start claiming that it wasn't (actually I think it might be as recent as 2010 so that might be 11+ years when I started hearing these claims and the accusations of "NOT LEGAL" being tossed around). Page 108 and the Spirit of the Game are the ammunition for "now", the IA stuff is ammunition for "then",

Are we clear now, or do I need to worry about any more accusations on my character caused by you reading into things that aren't there? You know, sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

 Lynata wrote:
If you want to see it "unbanned", then argue about the positive things that FW can bring to the table. Why don't we see more threads like that?
What I'm getting from these threads instead is the same old "I shouldn't have to ask" attitude, with what feels like a new attempt every week by now. Does anyone honestly believe that this is going to change people's attitude? I just don't get it.

Why don't we expect the same kind of "talk about all the positives" from people who use codex armies? I'm sick of this assumption that people who use certain official rules to build their army need to constantly justify their decision and convince everyone that their choices improve the game, while people who build their army with other official rules just have to show up and say "hey, let's play a game of 40k".

Ironic, given that it seems GW has specifically intended to support house rules with FW by offering a professional outlet as an example for what players could strive to do themselves...

This is a pretty big assumption you're making, especially when GW has said nothing about rules published under their FW brand being examples of well-made "house rules", and has even said explicitly that rules published under their FW brand name are intended for the standard game of 40k. You might as well declare that supplements are just examples of house rules to inspire players, and FAQs/errata are just nice suggestions for house rules that some people might want to use.

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.

Well my position is that the units themselves are the one that should be judged and not the whole entire category. If you don't want to play against seer council on jet bikes because its a stupidly strong unit then I would be OK with that. Whats the point in saying that FW is banned because some particular units are way overpowered but then you still play against overpowered units in codex lists?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 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.)

It's the rules he is not contributing to anymore. Sorry if I didn't make that clear.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

anchorbine wrote:
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?

Just one point, there is one GW store that sells FW and thats the store at Warhammer World in Nottingham. The rest of the time its direct order only, which applies to some GW stuff anyway.

If GW created what you suggest then I wouldn't be bothered by it but I think the argument here is that they haven't and they mean for Forge World 40k approved stuff to be usuable in 40k in a normal manner


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 da001 wrote:

I apply the same rule to the Codex units, the Forgeworld units and the House Rules. Thus the "regardless of the origin of the unit". So I guess I disagree that we have a disagreement here (except in the House Rules part).

Perhaps we agree on this then.

Probably my fault, I should be working right now. I am writing in a hurry.

I'm actually now seeing that we probably agree on more than I first thought



Automatically Appended Next Post:

anchorbine wrote:

That exact same answer could be used to justify the use of the power 9 in a game of mtg, yet that hasn't created any issues for the MTG community. They understand and comprehend that there are different levels of play and adapted their game to it. It's accepted, nobody complains, and there are still means to utilize all of your magic cards regardless of expansion. They don't have 10 years of ongoing message board wars regarding their formats, they just choose a format and play.

I fail to see why people who enjoy forgeworld can't offer the same option without the drama or trying to create division. It's beyond simple. "I have an extended army, would you like to give it a go?" "Sure, let's roll some dice", or "I'm more comfortable with a game of 40k Standard."

No drama, no argument, nobody feeling like the other player is forcing them into anything.

This is because MTG created an official separation for all their games stating what can be used in what. GW on the other hand have said "take what you want the game is yours" and this is where the arguments come from because players still want to put things in a box. To be honest though I much prefer for 40k to keep its creative freedom for the players.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

anchorbine wrote:

No drama, no argument, nobody feeling like the other player is forcing them into anything.

Is it not ironic that you are advocating for a system that forces players to play a certain way? i.e. Lets have standard and extended, etc, etc. Unit X isn't allowed in standard and so on.

Well personally my reasoning for not allowing FW at my events has little to nothing to do with it being overpowered. Which is a bad argument as has been pointed out.

As to some other points:

The MTG thing while it has merit has issues due to frequency and length of most 40k tournaments. Local stores could do it but larger events unless they break up into multiple tournaments are not going to use it much.

As to why FW players should be keen to "prove" that it is no big deal. Many people are not familiar with FW, standing around shouting at the wind that its legal won't change that fact, won't convince everyone etc....so why should you because baby steps are easier to deal with.

That said I still fall into the feeling that all events have a place right now, and until FW becomes something everyone is comfortable with that is just how things will be.

So to recap the issue at hand, this is what seems to be going on:

1) Stores not selling FW material, thus not gaining anything from their use and generally seem to ban their use??
2) Information on available models for each army are not readily available, which leads to players staying ignorant
3) Tournament organizers do not want additional hassle that comes with the models/rules not being known
4) Thinking that all FW equals being OP
5) GW not endorsing FW in full

Nr 1 can't be helped. 2 and 4 needs to be addressed to solve 3. Nr 5 should be easy, have GW list in their web site stats and models for FW also.

It should be easy to figure out what models each army could use, but it isn't. I believe this is the biggest issue which leads to ignorance and unwillingness to give them a try.

herpguy wrote:
Please people stop dragging the Heldrake into this! Please show me one tournament list in the top 10 with more than 1 Heldrake.

Not anymore, but it was up there when the Chaos codex came out. At the moment Riptides, Wave Serpent Spam and Jetseer Councils are where its at.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 EVIL INC wrote:
the point (and the only one that really matters in this whole long drawn out conversation is comprised of two parts.

1. Does a TO have the RIGHT to decide what is allowed in their tournament? The answer is yes. They have the RIGHT to disallow people from bringing titans to 1500 point tournaments if they so desire. They have the RIGHT to eject someone who is disturbing the tournament or who shows up drunk or sets the tables on fire. They have the RIGHT to ban nyone who is wearing socks that have holes in the heels (this woulda put me out on at least one occasion).

Me too, don't worry about it we'll start our own tournie for people who have holes in their socks.

2. Do players have the RIGHT to not play a game is someone if bringing a warlord titan to to a 500 point squd match? Yes Do players have the RIGHT to turn down a game because they feel ill? yes Does a player have the RIGHT to turn down a game against a player who shows up with 3 riptides? yes. Does a player have the RIGHT to turn down a game against a person who uses vulgar language,mishandles models and stinks to high heaven while digging down the front of their pants and then insisting they reach their grubby mitts into your potato chip bag (I know I would turn this game down) yes.

Yuck, what kind of players do you have down at your store?

What seems to be being overlooked is that regardless ofwho is argueing what side, thee basic gaming rights are being totally ignored in the vain attempt to "one up" the other side and get the last jab in.

Nothing is being ignored, we are having a discussion about Forge World and what it is meant for. In another thread I stated that this runs both ways. If a player refuses to play a player just because that player is using Forge World, not because he considers the unit to be overpowered then it is fair for the returning player to just say he won't play against him either at all in any game. What is good for the goose is good for the gander. Everybody should remember that.

Vaktathi, that is EXACTLY what is being proposed and it is being proposed that TO and players forfeit their rights to make the single person at the shop who owns the titan happy and why they are posting here supporting that. I am well versed in how FW stuff "works".

Well I didn't propose it and I didn't see anyone else propose it either.

 EVIL INC wrote:
Titans are made by FW (although armorcast used to make them as well) and as FW models are what is being discussed, I use a titan as an extreme example because you know as well as I do that if a "line" is not drawn, the arms race will eventually go to titans.

GW also make Super Heavies that are not allowed in normal games. i.e. Shadowsword/Baneblade kit.

http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/catalog/productDetail.jsp?catId=cat1080014a&prodId=prod2130074a

Your argument here is a slippery slope argument. A logical fallacy.

Tough guy sundrome? The "internet tough guy syndrome" is the internet bully. The one who insists that no one has rights but themselves constantly harasses and bullies them as you are doing. Someone come to my private residence and threatens me and my family, YES, I will defend myself. I'm sorry if you think I don't have the right to do so.

Strawman fallacy. No-one has argued this.

Yes, we all know you are trolling and straying from the topic. I forgive you for it. I refuse to troll myself sticking instead to truths and facts but whatever floats your boat, your welcome to do.

Except for the fact that you are making grandiose claims about peoples character in this thread. Nobody is threatning you or trying to force you into playing games you don't want to play. Its the people who use FW models who are being shunned because whole communities are blanket banning FW.

Players have the right to turn down any game they want. You are proposing that players be forced to play you because you brought FW models whether they want to or not. Not a single person is proposing mass bannings. That is only in your imagination. the game is for the pleasure of BOTH players, not just one. if a person does not get enjoyment of being the dunce who is forced to play games they cannot win just so someone with FW models can enjoy a game, than both players are not enjoying themselves. Why are you so against the FW guy bringing items that rae halfway balanced and not overpowered in a normal game? What do you find so wrong with him asking if an opponent minds if he uses it or not? Remember, the enjoyment of playing is for BOTH players.

Not a single person has denied the right of players to bring cool models to show off? heck, you can BET that as soon as I was done painting and basing my armorcast reaver titan that I dragged it straight to the shop to show off and see if anyone was up for an apocalypse type game (shoulda never sold it). you can also bet that I am proud of and show off my cool conversions that feature non-GW models. As a matter of fact, I have YET to see an "anti-FW posters in this entire thread. So far, everyone is impressed with the models and are more than happy to face them so long as they have ample warning to prepare.

Nobody is saying you don't have any right to refuse to play against players. This is just a poorly constructed strawman.

Once more, I mention titans because it is an extreme example that you know as well as I do will end up at. You follow my logic when you say it was not designed for normal games. Those types of models that are not designed for normal games are exactly what we are discussing. Not a single person is saying you cant use a FW dreadnought to represent a GW dreadnought even in a tourney. The only things that are being discussed are the FW models that are specifically designed to be used in apoc games or to face other FW models. I mention titans because they are the most iconic example of this.

Titans cannot be used in normal games. Period. Even if your opponent was happy to play against one it is not legal anyway. It doesn't have a FOC slot, so therefore cannot be taken in a game which uses a FOC.

I don't know how many times people need to say this.

point one is indeed one of the two things being disputed. You guys are saying that you have the right to force TO to follow your personal wishes instead of their own or the communities they cater to.the units in question range from FW dreadnoughts to titans. Titans are indeed one of the units your attempting to force TO to use against their wills Models like dreads and all that have the "official" 40k stamp are not in question at all.

No it is not. For crying out loud. Let me explain it to you. Forge World itmes are split into different categories. They are Forge World models with rules that are 40k approved and have a 40k stamp on it. Look at the following rules:

http://www.forgeworld.co.uk/Downloads/Product/PDF/F/fire-raptor.pdf

Do you see the stamp on the sheet that says warhammer 40k? That means that Forge World have given the green light for this item to be used in 40k games. Titans have never been given the green light for 40k games and have an apocalypse stamp instead. Meaning that Titans can only be taken in apocalypse games.

point two is also in dispute as you are proposing strongarming people to play games they don't want to. As I said, give me fair warning of the scale of what I might be expecting and I'll be happy to prepare for it. Ram it down my throat at the last second and I likely wont play you just because of the disrespect your showing me.

Nobody is arguing this. Poorly constructed strawman is poorly constructed.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 EVIL INC wrote:
the thread is about using FW models. This with no differentiation between those designed for normal 40k games and those that are not. There are 3 sides so far. those who say no FW of any kind because it is evil, the side saying force ALL FW models on everyone regardless of their rights and those of us that I agree with.
if you wish to disagree with me, that is your right. My stance covers a few items...
1. TO have the right to disallow anything they want.
2. players do not have to play against something they don't want to.
(Both 1 and 2 are what you are having the most trouble dealing with)
3. FW models are great, look cool and have fairly balanced rules from what I have seen.
4. Models that already have 40k equivelants are not even in dispute as they are just different looking representations of things that are already there.
5. models that are designed for "normal" 40k games but not already in the codexes I only remind you og #1 and #2 and sugest that instead of arrogantly forcing them on people with the threat of violence (as I earlier mentioned I would defend against as I am not going to letsomeone just beat on or kill me because they want to use their models. it is a GAME and not worth you getting that bent out of shape), I would suggest introducing the possible opponent to the unit, it's abilities and so forth and give them the option of not facing it or seeing it used in a demo game or some other polite way to ease the player into allowing it into their comfort zone to where they would want to play against it (possibly eventually buy one of their own or some other FW model(s) of their own.
6.Remember, it is a game. With you threatening violence, telling TO what they can and cant do, plaers who they can and cant play and so forth, you are removing the enjoyment of these people from the game and possibly even turning them against 40k as a whole because of the sort of people they see as playing it. I find that you get a lot better results from treating people with dignity and respect along with being on the level with them.

This isn't even funny anymore. Please quote one person in this thread who said that they threaten someone if they didn't let them use forge world models.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Matt1785 wrote:
Now we have FW players demanding to bring Titans in standard 40K, that's solid, I'll have to buy a Warhound now... or maybe I'll get that Reaver...

No, we have one person posting paranoid delusions about FW players coming to his house and murdering his family if he won't play against their titan in a 500 point game. Nobody is arguing for titans in standard 40k.

I will confirm this as I have read this whole thread. The guy is getting desparate because he knows he is losing the discussion on this. SO he has resorted to just making stuff up about the posters in this thread. I repeat:

1) No-one has threatned anyone else in this thread about not being able to use FW.

2) Nobody has argued that players should be forced to play any game whatsoever.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
EvilINC is now on my mental list of people I don't pay attention to lest I become rude, or invoke the Yellow Triangle of Friendship. It's clear he is a) not reading the actual thread, b) will continue to argue things regardless of what the facts are and c) seems to live someplace magical where people can demand things of others, no questions asked and force them to physically unpack their stuff, build list, deploy the army, roll dice, move bits and bobs around the board and more, against their will.

You would think he considers Puppet Master to be a real psychic power which anybody can use on him to force him to play the game.

Speaking of hard-to-obtain rules like Forge World stuff, can someone link me to the Sisters of Battle Errata/FAQ? I can't seem to locate it in my sleep-deprived state (I stayed up all night foruming and playing video games and neglecting the painting of my nice conversion of an anthro fox Marine).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 DarthOvious wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
EvilINC is now on my mental list of people I don't pay attention to lest I become rude, or invoke the Yellow Triangle of Friendship. It's clear he is a) not reading the actual thread, b) will continue to argue things regardless of what the facts are and c) seems to live someplace magical where people can demand things of others, no questions asked and force them to physically unpack their stuff, build list, deploy the army, roll dice, move bits and bobs around the board and more, against their will.

You would think he considers Puppet Master to be a real psychic power which anybody can use on him to force him to play the game.

If so, can you get someone to use it on me to force me to enjoy painting models and scenery?

 Pouncey wrote:
Speaking of hard-to-obtain rules like Forge World stuff, can someone link me to the Sisters of Battle Errata/FAQ? I can't seem to locate it in my sleep-deprived state (I stayed up all night foruming and playing video games and neglecting the painting of my nice conversion of an anthro fox Marine).

There isn't one at the moment. All changes, FAQ stuff and erratas are being posted directly into the codex itself through updates.

 Lynata wrote:

In reality, you should fight for both FW and homebrewed to find more acceptance with the players. The problem is that this means you'd likely have to suddenly turn against a lot of FW-supporters who dislike house rules, and even use the latter to "taint" refusal of FW rules in an attempt to convince others, as homebrewed in this franchise apparently still has a certain negative stigma attached. Ironic, given that it seems GW has specifically intended to support house rules with FW by offering a professional outlet as an example for what players could strive to do themselves...

Just thought I would put my opinion here. Personally I have nothing against homebrewed rules, my earlier post was just making a statement ealier on in regards to the difference between homebrewed and Forge World. i.e. FW I would consider to be from an impartial source whereas homebrewed rules are from a biased source.

This doesn't mean I wouldn't play against somebody who used homebrewed rules, it just means I am very much more likely to want to read their rules before playing them and making a judgement based on balance issues. If their homebrewed codex looks OK and isn't anything better than say a Tau or Eldar army then I would be OK with playing against it.

If the scenario I posted ealier on happens though where some cheeseball makes his Assault Marines charge after deep strike at S10, I10, AP2 with 10 attacks each, 15pts per model then I will tell that guy to jog on. In the case of Forge World I am happy to know beforehand that I will not come up against something like that. Some FW units may be powerful but they are not unkillable.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Pouncey wrote:
Speaking of hard-to-obtain rules like Forge World stuff, can someone link me to the Sisters of Battle Errata/FAQ? I can't seem to locate it in my sleep-deprived state (I stayed up all night foruming and playing video games and neglecting the painting of my nice conversion of an anthro fox Marine).

There isn't one at the moment. All changes, FAQ stuff and erratas are being posted directly into the codex itself through updates.

Well, looks like I'll be getting my own tablet at some point then.

Though I'm gonna take a wild stab and guess that new codices are released as Digital Editions about 2-3 months after the release of the physical books.

 Pouncey wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Pouncey wrote:
Speaking of hard-to-obtain rules like Forge World stuff, can someone link me to the Sisters of Battle Errata/FAQ? I can't seem to locate it in my sleep-deprived state (I stayed up all night foruming and playing video games and neglecting the painting of my nice conversion of an anthro fox Marine).

There isn't one at the moment. All changes, FAQ stuff and erratas are being posted directly into the codex itself through updates.

Well, looks like I'll be getting my own tablet at some point then.

Though I'm gonna take a wild stab and guess that new codices are released as Digital Editions about 2-3 months after the release of the physical books.

You can open the ePub ones on your PC, plus they're cheaper, and you can print them if you really want.

And GW DE said some books won't be seeing a physical release (C:=][= is likely on this list as releasing it would make it harder to update when C:GK gets it's update). C:AS is in a funny gray area where it's unclear what will happen at the moment.

as its another case of 'here we go around the mulberry bush'


here is my take:

In my humble experience folks tend to 'accept' FW when you plonk the rules down in front of them and say 'there read them for yourself..' I'm not pushy, with my IG Tank army I can run it using the normal codex if someone was that picky.

However some of the FW rules seem tame when you look at certain combs out there. Tau are good but tend to fall over when folks realise that you kill the marker-light source first. The worst thing currently is the screamerstar- personally its the most broke thing currently 2+ saves are not to be sniffed at but when it gets a re-roll its a 'tad OP' .

that that is unquestionably legal...

thought for the most part it is folks sheer ignorance or 'can't be arsed' attitude that causes the issues, at tourneys its up to the TOs as usual.

but I can't see the problem if people have the books and give their opponent the chance to read the rules- its their loss

just my humble view

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Pouncey wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Pouncey wrote:
Speaking of hard-to-obtain rules like Forge World stuff, can someone link me to the Sisters of Battle Errata/FAQ? I can't seem to locate it in my sleep-deprived state (I stayed up all night foruming and playing video games and neglecting the painting of my nice conversion of an anthro fox Marine).

There isn't one at the moment. All changes, FAQ stuff and erratas are being posted directly into the codex itself through updates.

Well, looks like I'll be getting my own tablet at some point then.

Though I'm gonna take a wild stab and guess that new codices are released as Digital Editions about 2-3 months after the release of the physical books.

You can open the ePub ones on your PC, plus they're cheaper, and you can print them if you really want.

And GW DE said some books won't be seeing a physical release (C:=][= is likely on this list as releasing it would make it harder to update when C:GK gets it's update). C:AS is in a funny gray area where it's unclear what will happen at the moment.

Awesome. I prefer having the rules with me at the gaming table, as my memory is, well, bad for details like specific wording especially. I always mess up quotes. I can usually remember that there is a relevant rule too look up though.

 Art_of_war wrote:
Tau are good but tend to fall over when folks realise that you kill the marker-light source first

As you brought this up, dependancy on markerlights is so yesterday. Forget about that already.

The worst thing currently is the screamerstar- personally its the most broke thing currently 2+ saves are not to be sniffed at but when it gets a re-roll its a 'tad OP' .

It is also very expensive and usually backfires sooner or later. Besides of that, there should not be units with rerollable 2+.

 ClockworkZion wrote:
C:AS is in a funny gray area where it's unclear what will happen at the moment.

Cruddace did say that it'd likely get a physical release if it sold well (and it apparently did!), so I think that we're likely to get one. Physical releases of digital stuff tends to take a while to surface anyway.

1.The till remains that TO have the right to disallow anything they want in their tourneys.
2. Players have the right to play or not.

f your local TO does not allow FW models talk to them privately to discuss the reason. Having a screaming match with them at the shop 5 mnutes before the tourney starts is not exactly the way to go. Maybe invite them over for a match where you use your FW stuff or let them use some of yours. Possibly have a game at the shop this way during "off hours" and discuss the faults and merits of the models as the game goes on. This would be a way to demonstrate that 'it aint so bad".
I think that a lot of the reason it is not allowed because of the lack of information. most people (including myself) see the models as for "rich people'. face it, look at the prices and you hafta make special orders and so on. it is also not readily available for most players as most shops just don't carry it. this adds to the former image of them being for rich people. then there is the lack of knowledge, The rles are kept separate where you need to buy big books that are twice the cost of the GW codexes. All this combines to make FW some sort of mystical thing where if you have money, you are buying advantages. it does not matter that this is not true because it is so ingrained. Many players will just refuse to play in a tourney for FW because they don't have anything to compete with in their eyes.
Until FW becomes moremainstream and I think GW should be the one to champion this alongside players and the models are more readily available, I think tis will be the case. When I say GW should champion this, I mean give FW more credit than an occasional "heres a new thing they made". I mean give them more official rules, build their stuff into the codexes work closer together in general, offer their stufto be carried in normal stores and so on.
Emphasize th difference between apoc only and '40k approved". Most players (including myself) simply don't know which is which (aside from titans). Define the line better and which models are on which side of the line. heck, release a codex supplements "codex: DKoK".
I think that until then with ONLY FW players championing it, they will "appear" to be elitist snobs trying to make thiertoys official so they can have an advantage over the peons. I understand your view and agree. heck, I wish I could afford some of the cool stuff and am jealous I don't have any but you know as well as I do, that this is not the case with the vast majority of players and would be a headache for TO that most simply don't wanna have.:

 Troike wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
C:AS is in a funny gray area where it's unclear what will happen at the moment.

Cruddace did say that it'd likely get a physical release if it sold well (and it apparently did!), so I think that we're likely to get one. Physical releases of digital stuff tends to take a while to surface anyway.

I know what Cruddace said, but I remain open to possibility that it doesn't until it gets a model update and that this version never sees print just in case that's what ends up happening.

 ClockworkZion wrote:
I know what Cruddace said, but I remain open to possibility that it doesn't until it gets a model update and that this version never sees print just in case that's what ends up happening.

Interesting point, could be their plan. Though 2014 seems quite solidly booked for the moment, so they could get a physical release of the digi-dex out in ample time if they wanted to. We'll see.

Edit: though of course, we just know about 2014's lineup from rumours, and those can change.

Evil INC, I'm not going to even respond to that typo ridden mess you call a post. You've been consistently ignoring actual facts to spew whatever you want about the people posting and generally behaving in a manner that I would consider trolling if I thought it was being done intentionally. I just don't think it's worth my time to keep trying to explain things to you when you read maybe a sentence or two and then quote the whole post in response to that small bit you actually read forcing us to figure out the context of you reply.

No, instead I'm going to not respond to your "points" because they're full of fallacies, factual errors and out right accuse people of things they've said time and again they would never do.

You haven't had a leg to stand on in this thread since you started posting and unless you can find a real arguement to use I've got nothing to say to you any longer and I really doubt many others do either.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Troike wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
I know what Cruddace said, but I remain open to possibility that it doesn't until it gets a model update and that this version never sees print just in case that's what ends up happening.

Interesting point, could be their plan. Though 2014 seems quite solidly booked for the moment, so they could get a physical release of the digi-dex out in ample time if they wanted to. We'll see.

I was write in my original assesment last year that late 2013 was a good time for a Sisters update, I was wrong about the scope though so you really never know.

2015 is looking good unless the rumor schedule is wrong.

 Troike wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
I know what Cruddace said, but I remain open to possibility that it doesn't until it gets a model update and that this version never sees print just in case that's what ends up happening.

Interesting point, could be their plan. Though 2014 seems quite solidly booked for the moment, so they could get a physical release of the digi-dex out in ample time if they wanted to. We'll see.

If they release the digi-dex as physical, it might be the first ever codex released with the biggest most obvious glaring YMDC questions fixed before print. Wouldn't that be something?

 Purifier wrote:

 Troike wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
I know what Cruddace said, but I remain open to possibility that it doesn't until it gets a model update and that this version never sees print just in case that's what ends up happening.

Interesting point, could be their plan. Though 2014 seems quite solidly booked for the moment, so they could get a physical release of the digi-dex out in ample time if they wanted to. We'll see.

If they release the digi-dex as physical, it might be the first ever codex released with the biggest most obvious glaring YMDC questions fixed before print. Wouldn't that be something?

Brotherhood of Psykers vs Psychic Barrage and how neither rule is more specific than the other in how they handle Perils leading to a constant circular increase and decrease of the number of models suffering from Perils?

Or is there another one?

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Purifier wrote:

 Troike wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
I know what Cruddace said, but I remain open to possibility that it doesn't until it gets a model update and that this version never sees print just in case that's what ends up happening.

Interesting point, could be their plan. Though 2014 seems quite solidly booked for the moment, so they could get a physical release of the digi-dex out in ample time if they wanted to. We'll see.

If they release the digi-dex as physical, it might be the first ever codex released with the biggest most obvious glaring YMDC questions fixed before print. Wouldn't that be something?

Brotherhood of Psykers vs Psychic Barrage and how neither rule is more specific than the other in how they handle Perils leading to a constant circular increase and decrease of the number of models suffering from Perils?

Or is there another one?

Celestine specifically ONLY awarded slay the warlord on her second death in the first release of the digidex. You can fail to resurrect her or simply opt not to. Now it takes failure into account but still says nothing about opting not to use the AoF.

Repentia can only use their FNP right before hitting, meaning it can only be used in CC (that's intentional, but I bring it up to show the limit of what it can do) and never against any unit that is initiative 2 or higher. A lot of initiative 1 weapons will have 6 or more strength too, making FNP not work. Seems a little too limiting for a one use, doesn't it?

 Purifier wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Purifier wrote:

 Troike wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
I know what Cruddace said, but I remain open to possibility that it doesn't until it gets a model update and that this version never sees print just in case that's what ends up happening.

Interesting point, could be their plan. Though 2014 seems quite solidly booked for the moment, so they could get a physical release of the digi-dex out in ample time if they wanted to. We'll see.

If they release the digi-dex as physical, it might be the first ever codex released with the biggest most obvious glaring YMDC questions fixed before print. Wouldn't that be something?

Brotherhood of Psykers vs Psychic Barrage and how neither rule is more specific than the other in how they handle Perils leading to a constant circular increase and decrease of the number of models suffering from Perils?

Or is there another one?

Celestine specifically ONLY awarded slay the warlord on her second death in the first release of the digidex. You can fail to resurrect her or simply opt not to. Now it takes failure into account but still says nothing about opting not to use the AoF.

I think we can all suss out the RAI on that one versus what RAW is giving us, but fair enough.

 Purifier wrote:
Repentia can only use their FNP right before hitting, meaning it can only be used in CC (that's intentional, but I bring it up to show the limit of what it can do) and never against any unit that is initiative 2 or higher. A lot of initiative 1 weapons will have 6 or more strength too, making FNP not work. Seems a little too limiting for a one use, doesn't it?

Repentia are already hurting by losing FnP in general but I really can't say anyone intended to make Repentia THAT bad (and if they did shame on them!).

So really we have three big issues then. Well I raised the Psyker one with GW DE and if someone else messages the other two to them that might get that resolved too.