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.

Yeah, THAT guy is a jerk.

rigeld2 wrote:

 PredaKhaine wrote:
Don't be a dick to the other side, either by forcing people to play against it (something I've never seen irl) or by blanket banning everything you don't like (something else I've never seen irl)

I've personally experienced the bolded statement. He asked to play and mentioned his FW list (don't remember what it was). I wasn't feeling well and had come to play against a friend so I declined. He took that as "FW IS OVERPOWERED!" and went on a 15 minute rant (where I essentially ignored him) until my friend showed up. We started to deploy and my friend put his Contemptor out (proxied for a normal dread, his choice not mine) which is where $otherdude started yelling at me.

I'm not saying that anyone in this thread would be "that guy". I'm saying "that guy" exists and is really, REALLY damaging the way people look at FW.

Can't you just shut the doors, turn the lights off and pretend no-one's there when you see him coming?

Too many windows... wouldn't help :p

Regardless, my point was that he's not the only one (although he was a rather extreme case). Anyone who lectures/attempts to "educate" someone who declines a game is hurting more than helping - no matter why they declined.

rigeld2 wrote:
Too many windows... wouldn't help :p

Regardless, my point was that he's not the only one (although he was a rather extreme case). Anyone who lectures/attempts to "educate" someone who declines a game is hurting more than helping - no matter why they declined.

Damn windows

Yeah - I think thats the crux. People browbeating their point of view at you doesn't tend to work.
It's like a bath of custard. dip your toe in slowly and eventually you'll fully immerse yourself in custard. Tap it a few times, raise the surface tension and your can walk on it without having any effect whatsoever...





Custard metaphor achievement:Unlocked.

A greater presence of it in stores would indeed be a boon for it.

An official announcement made by GW would go even further. I would say I don't understand why they wont do that but I have a sneaky suspicion that if there were to do that sales from the main company models would go down where FW would surge and not only do they not want to lose regular sales but FW might not be equipped to handle the surge. From reading forums across the internet it seems that the sometimes have trouble keeping up with their current sales. Again, that's my view and does not mean I actually know reasons.

But again, it comes down to what the players WANT. What players want they will buy and use. Since GW is slacking on "advertising" FW, it is left up to the actual players to do the advertising and convincing players to WANT to play with FW models and rules. And on this issue I still think beating the over the head with "its legal" is not the best way to address it. Exposing players to it in a fun and friendly environment where they get to see/try it firsthand under guidance and tutelage of those who already use it would in my opinion be more effective because then they wont care if its legal or not.

This was said best in this article:

http://www.3plusplus.net/2013/03/whatswrongwithimperialarmour/

That article makes some great points about the whole Forgeworld debate. I highly suggest you read it.

I'm in the "against" camp. I am, at this point, against the use of Forgeworld units in my games of 40k. It has nothing to do with whether or not the units are "40k approved". I agree with most of the proFW camp about that, the units certainly were made with the intention of them being used in 40k.

No, what irks me the most is twofold:

1) The relative cost and availability of Forgeworld models. I can't get these units, or even the rules for these units, in any stores near me. I have to order them from across the ocean. And the shipping they charge is absolutely ludicrous! Some of their stuff is on par with the same type of thing you can buy from GW, but hey let's tack on 15% for shipping. Say what?!

2) Having a level playing field. With the current state of the game, I'm at least aware of what my opponent has available to him. But once Forgeworld gets tossed in, it adds a whole new dimension that feels unbalanced (whether it actually is or not). It's a very similar feeling to the "pay to win" model that so many people are against. I think the vast majority of Forgeworld units are probably overcosted/underpowered, but there are a few units that are just wacky powerful, and it really feels like my opponent has an upper hand because he could afford to buy the "better" units. This may or may not be true in any given game, but that's certainly what it feels like.

 EVIL INC wrote:
A greater presence of it in stores would indeed be a boon for it.

Except it wasn't selling when they did that so the problem is bigger than "just put it in stores".

 EVIL INC wrote:
An official announcement made by GW would go even further. I would say I don't understand why they wont do that but I have a sneaky suspicion that if there were to do that sales from the main company models would go down where FW would surge and not only do they not want to lose regular sales but FW might not be equipped to handle the surge. From reading forums across the internet it seems that the sometimes have trouble keeping up with their current sales. Again, that's my view and does not mean I actually know reasons.

My money is that they don't see the issue, and if they do they don't understand why it is one. With the rulebook preaching freedom and choice and even Jervis preaching freedom and choice (again, that WD article) in the current edition they probably don't see why it's an issue and because of it don't respond to it.

 EVIL INC wrote:
But again, it comes down to what the players WANT. What players want they will buy and use. Since GW is slacking on "advertising" FW, it is left up to the actual players to do the advertising and convincing players to WANT to play with FW models and rules. And on this issue I still think beating the over the head with "its legal" is not the best way to address it. Exposing players to it in a fun and friendly environment where they get to see/try it firsthand under guidance and tutelage of those who already use it would in my opinion be more effective because then they wont care if its legal or not.

GW doesn't slack on advertising FW, it gets a slot in the WD Daily, it has a newsletter that announces new releases and gets featured in the White Dwarf, which is the same way GW markets all of their stuff.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

MadmanMSU wrote:
This was said best in this article:

http://www.3plusplus.net/2013/03/whatswrongwithimperialarmour/

That article makes some great points about the whole Forgeworld debate. I highly suggest you read it.

They had me until "it's not standard 40k" came up. Where does the rulebook define "standard" 40k? Becuase I've never seen it.

If you want to say that only what the rulebook says is allowed is "standard" then I recommend opening it to page 108 and looking at a little paragraph under the header "Army Lists". There we find that the rulebook says legal army lists come from codexes, can be altered lists (which is what FW does, what dataslates do, and what supplements do, so negating FW because it's not mentioned specifically here is a big hypocrisy if you don't also negate all these other options that are also not mentioned in the rulebook and work exactly the same way) or your own system (homebrew! Yes, homebrew is "legal" according to the codex). That is your "standard" 40k. Basically there is no limit to what you bring because every option you want is covered by that short paragraph.

So yeah, you can argue a lot of things, but really, and honestly, unless someone is intentionally deluding themselves the rulebook gives us plenty of room to say FW is "standard" 40k because everything is "standard" 40k.

@MadmanMSU

I'm just curious about your two points.

Why does cost and availability affect you so much? Do you feel the same about digital releases that take months for a hard copy to be released? I personally don't own a tablet type device, so I can view them using a browser at home, but not so much during a game. As for the shipping point, why does waiting a week or two make it unobtainable or difficult to obtain? I've personally never understood the whole hatred behind having to order FW. The shipping is a little painful, but its pretty easy to pool in with people to get an order large enough to get free shipping.

I think the cost of the models is a poor point, as there is a significant price gap between basic codex armies. Sisters are hugely more expensive than a horde Guard player, which in turn is significantly more expensive than an elite, small model count army. Not saying FW isn't more expensive in general, but the difference isn't any more significant than the difference between codex armies.

As for your second point, are you okay with all the new supplements and dataslates coming out? Mostly curiousity, because I assume if you want a level playing field and not 'pay to win', then you should naturally be against supplements and dataslates. If you are, then at least I can applaud your consistency.

 ClockworkZion wrote:
They had me until "it's not standard 40k" came up. Where does the rulebook define "standard" 40k? Becuase I've never seen it.

If you want to say that only what the rulebook says is allowed is "standard" then I recommend opening it to page 108 and looking at a little paragraph under the header "Army Lists". There we find that the rulebook says legal army lists come from codexes, can be altered lists (which is what FW does, what dataslates do, and what supplements do, so negating FW because it's not mentioned specifically here is a big hypocrisy if you don't also negate all these other options that are also not mentioned in the rulebook and work exactly the same way) or your own system (homebrew! Yes, homebrew is "legal" according to the codex). That is your "standard" 40k. Basically there is no limit to what you bring because every option you want is covered by that short paragraph.

So yeah, you can argue a lot of things, but really, and honestly, unless someone is intentionally deluding themselves the rulebook gives us plenty of room to say FW is "standard" 40k because everything is "standard" 40k.

I agree. The rulebook would not delineate between Forgeworld and Non-Forgeworld units for use in games. However, the problem with your argument is that there is a common understanding of what the game, Warhammer 40k, is.

I would posit that "standard" 40k is simply the part of 40k that is used by most people. It's a societal definition and, mathematically speaking, it's an average. You can ask most people if they want to play a "standard" game of 40k, and they will have a general grasp of what you are talking about a priori. When they start pulling out models to play the game, you probably won't find any forgeworld models hitting the table.

So when the article talks about forgeworld "not being standard 40k", what they mean is that if you show up to an average gaming place, the people there either won't know what Forgeworld is or don't play with it (which could be for any of a number of reasons that have already been discussed). Clearly, there is no "hard evidence" to back up this claim, as that would require us to survey a large number of 40k gamers, and that obviously isn't going to happen. I could probably go into some arguments from logic as to how Forgeworld does not meet the criteria to qualify as the average 40k gaming experience, but its really not worth the trouble. You can either accept that definition or not, its entirely up to you.

Now, if you're still with me, its easy to see what this thread's argument is really about. There is a portion of the 40k player-base that wants to challenge this definition of what a "standard", which is to say the average, game of 40k is.

And that makes sense. People who have bought and/or use forgeworld models want to be able to use them more often and in more places. I get that, it make sense. All I'm saying is that we should recognize what is actually being debated: changing the definition of what a "standard" game of 40k is.

The article had me until they mentioned how the Lucius drop pod is overpowered because it let Dreadnoughts charge upon deepstrike. Hah.

To address it's actual points I agree that their rules writing is a little off and it can be hard to obtain the rules in the first place but... to say that it isn't standard 40k is to say that there is a standard 40k in the first place. Yes, there is HH and Apoc but those are their own sub games. The rulebook itself doesn't have this attitude of there being a 40k where only things you can fields are those you can find and buy on http://games-workshop.com/. It even encourages you to take things outside of the codices meaning that everything is on the level of the codices since the game doesn't restrict you to them. If people really wanted to be that obtuse about what's okay in "standard 40k" then we should ban supplements and dataslates like the new Daemon prince since those aren't mentioned in the rulebook. I don't think the FAQ is either so that should be banned too. Yay, I get lumbering behemoth back!

In fact, some of the arguments presented here about IA can be made about supplements. They can be overpowered, useless, full of dumb rules and most or all could've been in a codex. You know, it's almost as if they were made by the same incompetent company!

All of that said, no one should be forced to be played a FW list just like no one should be forced to play Taudar or Iyanden Eldar.



@Madman MSU

The distinction, good sir, is that Standard 40k is something that exists in the rules rather than in the community. What you are talking about is people wanting to play what they are familiar with which is just fine. I agree with you on that.

MadmanMSU wrote:
This was said best in this article:

http://www.3plusplus.net/2013/03/whatswrongwithimperialarmour/

That article makes some great points about the whole Forgeworld debate. I highly suggest you read it.

I'm in the "against" camp. I am, at this point, against the use of Forgeworld units in my games of 40k. It has nothing to do with whether or not the units are "40k approved". I agree with most of the proFW camp about that, the units certainly were made with the intention of them being used in 40k.

No, what irks me the most is twofold:

1) The relative cost and availability of Forgeworld models. I can't get these units, or even the rules for these units, in any stores near me. I have to order them from across the ocean. And the shipping they charge is absolutely ludicrous! Some of their stuff is on par with the same type of thing you can buy from GW, but hey let's tack on 15% for shipping. Say what?!

2) Having a level playing field. With the current state of the game, I'm at least aware of what my opponent has available to him. But once Forgeworld gets tossed in, it adds a whole new dimension that feels unbalanced (whether it actually is or not). It's a very similar feeling to the "pay to win" model that so many people are against. I think the vast majority of Forgeworld units are probably overcosted/underpowered, but there are a few units that are just wacky powerful, and it really feels like my opponent has an upper hand because he could afford to buy the "better" units. This may or may not be true in any given game, but that's certainly what it feels like.

Well, at the end of the article is said "If Gamesworkshop were to say Imperial Armour units and rules are now equivalent to standard Codexes, and opponent’s permission is no longer needed, this would all change." Which is about to happend (if I let the already mentioned problem with definition of Standard).

Ad 1) Sorry, but nope. WH40K is costly hobby. Raising 1000pts army is now about 500 euro for me - now. Its basic for small games and its not a few bucks. WHen I look at FW models, its not so overpriced, I see Im paying for quality models. Shipping of course hurts, but it hurts at GW too. You are saing that FW is unacceptable, because you can pay for GW models but not a slightly more? Its not such huge difference in whole sum you give on WH.

Ad 2) Thats interesting. I agree and dont agree. Lets put aside pay-to-win argument. You can say whole WH is pay to win, because when you wont pay for your 2000pts army, you got crushed in 2000pts game... You are saing its not fair if you cant buy better units? Well, you have problem when you cant buy enough units. Its game based on selling models! Unbalance is really risk. I fear there will be bunch of new combos...but who knows, we did not see Escalation rules, did we? For the size of "playing field" I dont think problem is in FW. Its not so big number of models. Rather fear formations which makes combination much much wider.

MadmanMSU wrote:I agree. The rulebook would not delineate between Forgeworld and Non-Forgeworld units for use in games. However, the problem with your argument is that there is a common understanding of what the game, Warhammer 40k, is.

I would posit that "standard" 40k is simply the part of 40k that is used by most people. It's a societal definition and, mathematically speaking, it's an average. You can ask most people if they want to play a "standard" game of 40k, and they will have a general grasp of what you are talking about a priori. When they start pulling out models to play the game, you probably won't find any forgeworld models hitting the table.

So when the article talks about forgeworld "not being standard 40k", what they mean is that if you show up to an average gaming place, the people there either won't know what Forgeworld is or don't play with it (which could be for any of a number of reasons that have already been discussed). Clearly, there is no "hard evidence" to back up this claim, as that would require us to survey a large number of 40k gamers, and that obviously isn't going to happen. I could probably go into some arguments from logic as to how Forgeworld does not meet the criteria to qualify as the average 40k gaming experience, but its really not worth the trouble. You can either accept that definition or not, its entirely up to you.

Now, if you're still with me, its easy to see what this thread's argument is really about. There is a portion of the 40k player-base that wants to challenge this definition of what a "standard", which is to say the average, game of 40k is.

And that makes sense. People who have bought and/or use forgeworld models want to be able to use them more often and in more places. I get that, it make sense. All I'm saying is that we should recognize what is actually being debated: changing the definition of what a "standard" game of 40k is.

While I agree with you whole heartidly (I, after all, argue against this "standard"), I don't think the community should be trying to put 40k in a little box marked "standard". It's quite clear if you actually read the things that come out of GW (the rulebook, Jervis' article how players shouldn't be limiting each other's choice and there is no one "right" way to play) that doing that is about the only wrong thing you can do with 40k.

The definition of "standard" games is bad and it needs to be chucked out the pram so we can stop artificially limiting ourselves for no real reason.

Am I saying that choosing to not play FW, or homebrew is wrong? No. I'm saying that claiming they don't fit into an artificially created boundary of what is and is not standard is. GW didn't build a wall around the rules and say you couldn't bring new ideas or toys inside, the players did and honestly the wall needs to go instead of people begging GW to put a gate in.

TheCustomLime wrote:The article had me until they mentioned how the Lucius drop pod is overpowered because it let Dreadnoughts charge upon deepstrike. Hah.

Yeah. People forget that it used to immobilize on a 1:6 chance and in 6th you were still subject to overwatch and a random charge distance. Oh and how it changed completely a long while ago.

TheCustomLime wrote:To address it's actual points I agree that their rules writing is a little off and it can be hard to obtain the rules in the first place but... to say that it isn't standard 40k is to say that there is a standard 40k in the first place. Yes, there is HH and Apoc but those are their own sub games. The rulebook itself doesn't have this attitude of there being a 40k where only things you can fields are those you can find and buy on http://games-workshop.com/. It even encourages you to take things outside of the codices meaning that everything is on the level of the codices since the game doesn't restrict you to them. If people really wanted to be that obtuse about what's okay in "standard 40k" then we should ban supplements and dataslates like the new Daemon prince since those aren't mentioned in the rulebook. I don't think the FAQ is either so that should be banned too. Yay, I get lumbering behemoth back!

"Difficult" to get rules (seriously, you can order them on the internet and you can email them to confirm where the most recent rules for things are if you aren't sure, it's not "difficult" it just requires more effort than being a lazy sod is all) shouldn't be what determines what is or is not standard anyways, or else Sisters couldn't be "standard 40k" when they had the WD, or now as some people refuse to buy digital releases.

TheCustomLime wrote:
@Madman MSU

The distinction, good sir, is that Standard 40k is something that exists in the rules rather than in the community. What you are talking about is people wanting to play what they are familiar with which is just fine. I agree with you on that.

And where is it in the rules? Where do the rules say "this is standard 40k and anything outside of this is not standard 40k"? And how can we really keep claiming that said standard keeps you from doing "X" when the rulebook clearly allows altered army lists and homebrew into the game and it says the rules are just a framework to support anything you want to add to the game?

"Standard" 40k doesn't exist as rules. It exists as an imaginary wall people keep putting around the hobby to "protect it".....from itself apparently.

Availability of rules is stupid and downright obtuse, as previously said, if anyone wants to get the rules for any unit published by gw or fw, the internet exists and so do smart phones and tablets, I don't care who knows that I scan my fw books and put them on my phone or ipad, if my opponent wants it I simply Bluetooth or email it to them.

There are less scrupulous ways of course but that's between you and your god, lack of ability to get rules is simply false and not an excuse to disallow someone to use something they have paid alot for. Stinks of jealousy to me "I can't afford it so you can't use it" is all I seem to be seeing.

D'oh, I messed it up. What I meant was that the distinction in the argument is that some people consider "Standard 40k" a part of the rules rather than an community made concept. I agree it has no basis in the rulebook nor in anything Games Workshop has published.

And Forgeworld is relatively difficult to obtain compared to Codices. I can drive 10 minutes to my FLGS and get C:IG for $30 and bam, it's mine. I have to put slightly more work to get an IA book and spend a ton more money. O'course these are subjective complaints and have no real bearing on the argument.

I believe the only arguments against FW are subjective at this point... so... yeah. I think we're done here.

 Blacksails wrote:
@MadmanMSU

I'm just curious about your two points.

Why does cost and availability affect you so much? Do you feel the same about digital releases that take months for a hard copy to be released? I personally don't own a tablet type device, so I can view them using a browser at home, but not so much during a game. As for the shipping point, why does waiting a week or two make it unobtainable or difficult to obtain? I've personally never understood the whole hatred behind having to order FW. The shipping is a little painful, but its pretty easy to pool in with people to get an order large enough to get free shipping.

I think the cost of the models is a poor point, as there is a significant price gap between basic codex armies. Sisters are hugely more expensive than a horde Guard player, which in turn is significantly more expensive than an elite, small model count army. Not saying FW isn't more expensive in general, but the difference isn't any more significant than the difference between codex armies.

Cost isn't the biggest factor, for me personally. I'm fortunate that my wife and I have a large income, so I could easily afford to buy FW if I wanted. It's mostly a personal objection to the prices. Even the recent price increases in regular GW models have got me hitting the pause button. If I had an eldar army, I wouldn't buy a wraithknight model out of sheer principle.

 Blacksails wrote:
As for your second point, are you okay with all the new supplements and dataslates coming out? Mostly curiousity, because I assume if you want a level playing field and not 'pay to win', then you should naturally be against supplements and dataslates. If you are, then at least I can applaud your consistency.

This is actually being debated amongst my local gaming group right now. Yes, I'm against them. To wit, I would actually like to use the Tau dataslate, but it does feel like I would be "paying to win", something that I don't think my other gaming friends would appreciate.

That's probably a simplistic answer, but based on the facebook discussion of my gaming group right now, Dataslates/Super Heavies will probably never see the table unless we're playing Apocalypse. Which, for me, is never. Not that I have anything against Apoc, I just have a full time job, a wife, and am working on my PHD, which means less time for huuuuuuuge games.

Let us sip tea while we philosophically think of the answer to the ultimate question... What is a true game of Warhammer 40k?
It's rolling dice with toy soldiers, and if people want to roll dice with underpowered, better-looking toy soldiers than me then I'm fine with that.

MadmanMSU wrote:
This was said best in this article:

http://www.3plusplus.net/2013/03/whatswrongwithimperialarmour/

That article makes some great points about the whole Forgeworld debate. I highly suggest you read it.

I'm in the "against" camp. I am, at this point, against the use of Forgeworld units in my games of 40k. It has nothing to do with whether or not the units are "40k approved". I agree with most of the proFW camp about that, the units certainly were made with the intention of them being used in 40k.

No, what irks me the most is twofold:

1) The relative cost and availability of Forgeworld models. I can't get these units, or even the rules for these units, in any stores near me. I have to order them from across the ocean. And the shipping they charge is absolutely ludicrous! Some of their stuff is on par with the same type of thing you can buy from GW, but hey let's tack on 15% for shipping. Say what?!

2) Having a level playing field. With the current state of the game, I'm at least aware of what my opponent has available to him. But once Forgeworld gets tossed in, it adds a whole new dimension that feels unbalanced (whether it actually is or not). It's a very similar feeling to the "pay to win" model that so many people are against. I think the vast majority of Forgeworld units are probably overcosted/underpowered, but there are a few units that are just wacky powerful, and it really feels like my opponent has an upper hand because he could afford to buy the "better" units. This may or may not be true in any given game, but that's certainly what it feels like.

On point 1, I think Forgeworld has realized this is a problem on a certine level with their stuff. Their Imperical armour Apoc and Aeronautica books sort of adress this, by being lower cost books that cover almost every FW unit ever listed for every army. You can get this one/two book(s) and get new units for your army and see the units other people's armies can now take in one book. This helps with the fact alot of forgeworld units can be spread out across mutiple expensive books. Still suffers from the fact you can only get the book from them, but I does seem like they are not totally oblivious to this issue.

What realy needs to happen, is imperail armour Apoc and Aeronautica need to be avilable in digital copies like other GW supplements. (Perferably with out dueing away with the hard books for thows of us who like them.)

MadmanMSU wrote:
This was said best in this article:

http://www.3plusplus.net/2013/03/whatswrongwithimperialarmour/

That article makes some great points about the whole Forgeworld debate. I highly suggest you read it.

the problem is that it's salient point is incorrect, we have GW published books which say it is "standard" for 40k.

No, what irks me the most is twofold:

1) The relative cost and availability of Forgeworld models. I can't get these units, or even the rules for these units, in any stores near me. I have to order them from across the ocean. And the shipping they charge is absolutely ludicrous! Some of their stuff is on par with the same type of thing you can buy from GW, but hey let's tack on 15% for shipping. Say what?!

With regards to availability, large numbers of people already order stuff online, and nobody says you can't play Sisters of Battle despite them being direct order/online only.

With regards to cost, have you seen the cost of GW units lately? It's cheaper for me to fill out my troops for my Death Korps Assault Brigade than rebuilding my Dire Avengers squads for my Eldar army.

New GW tanks are on par with FW tank costs. Character model costs between the FW and GW are identical in most cases. Some FW stuff is still rather expensive, usually things like flyer kits or alternative infantry armor marks, but over the last 6 years, GW have closed the gap on much of it. If GW codex costs

Shipping is silly, nobody will argue that, but then depending on what/how much you buy, you can also avoid it altogether.

2) Having a level playing field. With the current state of the game, I'm at least aware of what my opponent has available to him. But once Forgeworld gets tossed in, it adds a whole new dimension that feels unbalanced (whether it actually is or not). It's a very similar feeling to the "pay to win" model that so many people are against. I think the vast majority of Forgeworld units are probably overcosted/underpowered, but there are a few units that are just wacky powerful, and it really feels like my opponent has an upper hand because he could afford to buy the "better" units. This may or may not be true in any given game, but that's certainly what it feels like.

There's lots of Codex units that are wacky and powerful and have expensive models, nobody seems to level the same complaints at them (e.g. Riptides) in such debates.

 BrotherOfBone wrote:
Let us sip tea while we philosophically think of the answer to the ultimate question... What is a true game of Warhammer 40k?
It's rolling dice with toy soldiers, and if people want to roll dice with underpowered, better-looking toy soldiers than me then I'm fine with that.

Exactly. The only thing one can really say the rules do say is that the game is meant for rolling dice and pushing your toy soldiers around the table. Any restrictions on which toy soldiers you do that with aren't in the rules, they're in the players.

@MadmanMSU

Yeah, the prices overall bother me, but I just feel its weird to single out FW when discussing them as a reason to keep FW in a separate box for gameplay reasons. I'll be slowly collecting a HH Salamanders army despite the prices because the models are fantastic and well worth the ~25% price increase over the standard Tac marines.

I'm just saying, as far as a point for FW being kept distinct in 'standard' games, I think the pricing argument is fairly weak. There's just too much of a price gap between existing armies already.

As for your second point, I largely agree that the new supplements/dataslates feel like some sort of micro-transaction/pay to win option, but, if I'm going to support FW as a normal option for play, I'd also have to support these new options. I don't like them, but if someone wants to use them, I'd be 100% okay with it.

 ClockworkZion wrote:
While I agree with you whole heartidly (I, after all, argue against this "standard"), I don't think the community should be trying to put 40k in a little box marked "standard". It's quite clear if you actually read the things that come out of GW (the rulebook, Jervis' article how players shouldn't be limiting each other's choice and there is no one "right" way to play) that doing that is about the only wrong thing you can do with 40k.

The definition of "standard" games is bad and it needs to be chucked out the pram so we can stop artificially limiting ourselves for no real reason.

Am I saying that choosing to not play FW, or homebrew is wrong? No. I'm saying that claiming they don't fit into an artificially created boundary of what is and is not standard is. GW didn't build a wall around the rules and say you couldn't bring new ideas or toys inside, the players did and honestly the wall needs to go instead of people begging GW to put a gate in.

Now, I would argue that having a "box" that exists to limit what a "standard" game of 40k should be is a good thing. It allows people to have a common definition when sitting down to play a game, and it gives people a shared starting point. To use a silly metaphor, chess has a standard ruleset that allows you to really develop interesting tactics and strategies. When I sit down to play a game of chess, I don't have to worry that my opponent has a "new rook" that can teleport once per game up to 6 squares. That's not fun.

Again, that's a silly example, but it does illustrate my point.

MadmanMSU wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
While I agree with you whole heartidly (I, after all, argue against this "standard"), I don't think the community should be trying to put 40k in a little box marked "standard". It's quite clear if you actually read the things that come out of GW (the rulebook, Jervis' article how players shouldn't be limiting each other's choice and there is no one "right" way to play) that doing that is about the only wrong thing you can do with 40k.

The definition of "standard" games is bad and it needs to be chucked out the pram so we can stop artificially limiting ourselves for no real reason.

Am I saying that choosing to not play FW, or homebrew is wrong? No. I'm saying that claiming they don't fit into an artificially created boundary of what is and is not standard is. GW didn't build a wall around the rules and say you couldn't bring new ideas or toys inside, the players did and honestly the wall needs to go instead of people begging GW to put a gate in.

Now, I would argue that having a "box" that exists to limit what a "standard" game of 40k should be is a good thing. It allows people to have a common definition when sitting down to play a game, and it gives people a shared starting point. To use a silly metaphor, chess has a standard ruleset that allows you to really develop interesting tactics and strategies. When I sit down to play a game of chess, I don't have to worry that my opponent has a "new rook" that can teleport once per game up to 6 squares. That's not fun.

Again, that's a silly example, but it does illustrate my point.

Another issue we're facing is that "standard" 40k, as most people have imagined it, is about to go out the window here, with GW releasing apocalypse style Formations as out-of-FoC detachments, and Escalation bringing Superheavies into "standard" 40k.

 UlrikDecado wrote:
Well, at the end of the article is said "If Gamesworkshop were to say Imperial Armour units and rules are now equivalent to standard Codexes, and opponent’s permission is no longer needed, this would all change." Which is about to happend (if I let the already mentioned problem with definition of Standard).

Games Workshop can say an opponent's permission is no longer needed all they want, but its still needed.

The most recent Imperial Armour book has the "Warhammer 40000" official logo printed right on the front. On the inside it says the rules are official. FW = 40k = GW = Official. It's all the same game, whether you like the rules or not.

jasper76 wrote:

 UlrikDecado wrote:
Well, at the end of the article is said "If Gamesworkshop were to say Imperial Armour units and rules are now equivalent to standard Codexes, and opponent’s permission is no longer needed, this would all change." Which is about to happend (if I let the already mentioned problem with definition of Standard).

Games Workshop can say an opponent's permission is no longer needed all they want, but its still needed.

Before everyone jumps on you I see what you tried to say.

You need permission to play every and any game

@MadmanMSU: The issue with the box it is only in the minds of the players, not the game itself, unlike your chess example.

 Formosa wrote:

jasper76 wrote:

 UlrikDecado wrote:
Well, at the end of the article is said "If Gamesworkshop were to say Imperial Armour units and rules are now equivalent to standard Codexes, and opponent’s permission is no longer needed, this would all change." Which is about to happend (if I let the already mentioned problem with definition of Standard).

Games Workshop can say an opponent's permission is no longer needed all they want, but its still needed.

Before everyone jumps on you I see what you tried to say.

You need permission to play every and any game

Exactly, sorry if I didn't come across as such...I wasnt tryng to riddle.

For example, if you go to my local hobby store with a pure-codex Eldar army, there's a near 100% chance you will not get a game. It's just the way it is, and even moreso for forgeworld. So noone around buys the forgeworld stuff for much else than the arts-and-crafts side of the hobby.

jasper76 wrote:

 UlrikDecado wrote:
Well, at the end of the article is said "If Gamesworkshop were to say Imperial Armour units and rules are now equivalent to standard Codexes, and opponent’s permission is no longer needed, this would all change." Which is about to happend (if I let the already mentioned problem with definition of Standard).

Games Workshop can say an opponent's permission is no longer needed all they want, but its still needed.

Of course, its some basic human decency To make agreement I was just pointing to the article which is IMO strongly contradicting.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 BrotherOfBone wrote:
Let us sip tea while we philosophically think of the answer to the ultimate question... What is a true game of Warhammer 40k?
It's rolling dice with toy soldiers, and if people want to roll dice with underpowered, better-looking toy soldiers than me then I'm fine with that.

Exactly. The only thing one can really say the rules do say is that the game is meant for rolling dice and pushing your toy soldiers around the table. Any restrictions on which toy soldiers you do that with aren't in the rules, they're in the players.

Exactly my point. If you don't want to play against FW then nobody can force you, but I personally think it's ridiculous to do it purely on the grounds of 'Oh it's FW so it must be overpowered because of what I've read on the internet'. You never read 'Today at Adepticon some guy rocked up with a really underpowered FW list which consisted of a load of well-painted, fluffy units and he lost'. You hear 'Today at Adepticon some guy rocked up with a Saberspam/Thudd Gun list and completely obliterated all of his opponents with a shoddy, 3 colour army which he'd bashed together the night before'.

Cheers!