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.

morgoth wrote:
If FW is fine, then unbound, dataslates, formations, dual CAD, triple allies, super heavies and everything else is fine too.

Can you link me the UN resolution that says I have to like all of those things if I like FW?
All of these things are decided on an individual level, you cannot say that because someone thinks X is fine, he must also agree with Y.
I personally only have an issue with "SHV's" if I have to face them every game, but I have no problem with any of the others as long as people don't start to 'WAAC'.

 Mecha_buddha wrote:
Just curious, how many folks that are pro-forgeworld in this thread have imperial armies or only imperial armies?

I have one Imperial Army tank and 5 or so Necron models from FW.

 Blacksails wrote:
Why is it difficult to understand that people can be fine playing against non superheavy FW stuff, and not want to play to against any type of superheavy?

Seems like a perfectly reasonable, logical position to hold

It's perfectly reasonable and everyone understood what they intended.
But sometimes there are people on the internet that, when they have no arguments left, start nitpicking every line you say until you need a solicitor to write down your comments.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Who cares about 13 months ago? We're playing 7th, and your claim that there is no CAD that can beat unbound is bogus NOW, and what happened before 13 months ago is irrelevant.

Don't latch onto his phrase "for years" because whether or not it is wrong, his larger point stands.

I did not make such a claim.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Blacksails wrote:
Seems like a perfectly reasonable, logical position to hold.

You feel it to be right, but it's not logical.
There is no logical argument to move the bar from consensus to +FW and stop it just before LoW.

morgoth wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Who cares about 13 months ago? We're playing 7th, and your claim that there is no CAD that can beat unbound is bogus NOW, and what happened before 13 months ago is irrelevant.

Don't latch onto his phrase "for years" because whether or not it is wrong, his larger point stands.

I did not make such a claim.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Blacksails wrote:
Seems like a perfectly reasonable, logical position to hold.

You feel it to be right, but it's not logical.
There is no logical argument to move the bar from consensus to +FW and stop it just before LoW.

Because they don't like to play with LOW? That's a pretty logical argument.

morgoth wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Who cares about 13 months ago? We're playing 7th, and your claim that there is no CAD that can beat unbound is bogus NOW, and what happened before 13 months ago is irrelevant.

Don't latch onto his phrase "for years" because whether or not it is wrong, his larger point stands.

I did not make such a claim.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Blacksails wrote:
Seems like a perfectly reasonable, logical position to hold.

You feel it to be right, but it's not logical.
There is no logical argument to move the bar from consensus to +FW and stop it just before LoW.

Quite a bit of logic actually. People don't like to play with LoW, and FW has always been legal.

 MWHistorian wrote:

Because they don't like to play with LOW? That's a pretty logical argument.

And liking is a feeling, not based on logic.

morgoth wrote:
There is no logical argument to move the bar from consensus to +FW and stop it just before LoW.

Sure there is. FW units function exactly like codex units, the only "argument" against them is nitpicking about which book they were published in. LoW are functionally very different and make significant changes in how the game plays. So while they're indisputably legal according to GW it's reasonable to not want to play against them.

12 pages so far this time and the same old arguments and impoliteness that got the other threads closed started back on page... One I think. Someone must be asleep at the wheel. lol

To reiterate, I have no problems playing against it. I rather think many of the models are cool. I usually bring extra stuff with me when I play in public. If I see someone pull out a reaver titan, I just tailor my list to match. If a tourney allows it, I just dont participate in that tourney. No because I dont like it, but because it negates the TAC list.

Either way, I'm not going to argue about it. Life is too short.

 Peregrine wrote:

morgoth wrote:
There is no logical argument to move the bar from consensus to +FW and stop it just before LoW.

Sure there is. FW units function exactly like codex units, the only "argument" against them is nitpicking about which book they were published in. LoW are functionally very different and make significant changes in how the game plays. So while they're indisputably legal according to GW it's reasonable to not want to play against them.

Because you refuse to acknowledge the existence of a core 40K consisting of only what you find in a shop, i.e. BRB, Codex, and the units mentionned in the codex.
Otherwise, it's really clear that there is core 40K, then DataSlates, then FW supplement, which you can divide in LoW / not LoW if you're really picky. Might as well divide it further. or not.

It's perfectly fine that you feel like that or that you'd like to play with other people who feel like you, it doesn't matter that it's not logical, let it go.

Nobody needs an argument against FW or LoW, let it go.

Be at peace, my brother, play how you feel, and with people who like that feel.

Don't ask of others to actually comply with your vision of the game.

morgoth wrote:
Because you refuse to acknowledge the existence of a core 40K consisting of only what you find in a shop, i.e. BRB, Codex, and the units mentionned in the codex.

You're right, I refuse to acknowledge it because it's a concept that you've invented. It's just like how you refuse to acknowledge my definition of "core 40k" that doesn't include Tyranids (I hate them and wish they didn't exist) as anything more than my desired house rules.

Don't ask of others to actually comply with your vision of the game.

This is amusing hypocrisy when you're saying it in a post about how awesome your vision of the game is.

morgoth wrote:


You feel it to be right, but it's not logical.
There is no logical argument to move the bar from consensus to +FW and stop it just before LoW.

First of all, I never said it was 'right'. I just said it was a way some people enjoy the game.

Second, its perfectly logical. If you claim someone's argument is illogical, its generally best if you actually explain why you think that way.

I'll explain it to you how it's logical to like FW, but dislike LoW.

I don't like superheavies for a number of reasons. Therefore, I would generally avoid playing games with LoW (exceptions made to GW's ridiculous HQs becoming LoW for no change in stats). I enjoy a lot of non-SH FW stuff, including fun and fluffy lists. Therefore, I am totally okay with non-LoW FW stuff.

Perfectly logical. If anything is illogical its an argument based around the absurd notion that liking 'X' means I automatically have to like 'Y'. You'll find that some people enjoy this game differently than others.

Now, before anyone jumps down my throat about 'legality', yes, everything is technically 'legal', as far as that term applies to 40k list construction. That doesn't mean I have to play against it, and I would choose to turn down games against LoW more often than not, but readily throw down against a DKOK or Eldar Corsair list.

 Peregrine wrote:

morgoth wrote:
Because you refuse to acknowledge the existence of a core 40K consisting of only what you find in a shop, i.e. BRB, Codex, and the units mentionned in the codex.

You're right, I refuse to acknowledge it because it's a concept that you've invented. It's just like how you refuse to acknowledge my definition of "core 40k" that doesn't include Tyranids (I hate them and wish they didn't exist) as anything more than my desired house rules.

I know I'm not the person replied to, but I'd be more than happy to acknowledge your definition of "core 40k", I'd just point out that it is not a common definition The definition that is "core 40k" = rulebook + codices/FAQs is hardly a randomly contrived definition, there are legitimate reasons for wanting it like that even if you don't agree with them.

 Blacksails wrote:

I'll explain it to you how it's logical to like FW, but dislike LoW.

I don't like superheavies for a number of reasons. Therefore, I would generally avoid playing games with LoW (exceptions made to GW's ridiculous HQs becoming LoW for no change in stats). I enjoy a lot of non-SH FW stuff, including fun and fluffy lists. Therefore, I am totally okay with non-LoW FW stuff.

Perfectly logical. If anything is illogical its an argument based around the absurd notion that liking 'X' means I automatically have to like 'Y'.

Logical is a term you can use to describe a conclusion that depends on facts and implications.

Fact: a very large share (95+%) of the population of 40K gamers knows about BRB and Codex and uses those rules as well as the units described within.

Fact: a smaller share(maybe a minority) of that population of 40K gamers know about FW stuff, and use those rules as well as the units described within.

Fact: within that minority, there exist smaller sub-minorities that like FW models but cannot stand LoW, and even tinier smaller sub-minorities that are fine with Lord Kaldor Draigo and an Imperial Titan but would never play against an Eldar Titan.


You are part of a minority, and you are asking for everyone to join you in that minority.
But you do so without realizing you're actually part of a sub-minority (those who like FW but not LoW) and therefore what you ask for makes little sense.
You are asking that everyone joins your sub-minority, even though it represents the opinion of a very tiny fraction of players.


What would be a lot more logical, and what I was suggesting, is that you would ask people to join you in your large minority group, i.e. accepting everything that is not BRB+Codex with CAD or CAD+.
Then you would have a position that regroups everyone who does not limit themselves to just what you find in a shop, and that opinion would be a lot stronger by being a lot simpler and shared by more people: i.e.

We believe EVERYTHING GW should be considered standard. It makes the game better.

Otherwise, your current position is:

We believe FW miniatures are OK, but unbound is not, dataslates are not, Lords of War are not, etc.

Which has about as much weight as:

We believe unbound is OK, but FW miniatures are not except Lords of War, etc.

Which has a lot less weight than:

We believe BRB+Codex with CAD+allies is OK, the rest is on demand.

An opinion which is both simpler and shared by a lot more players.



Your position is not "logical" in the sense that it only matches that of a tiny minority of players, therefore it does not make sense to offer it as a consensus because it's practically impossible that it becomes a majority opinion.

morgoth wrote:

You are part of a minority, and you are asking for everyone to join you in that minority.

Can you point to the part of my post I said anything along the lines of asking people to join my take on the game?

You are asking that everyone joins your sub-minority, even though it represents the opinion of a very tiny fraction of players.

Once again, can you point to the part of my post I said anything even remotely along those lines?

Please re-read my post and understand what I said.

 Blacksails wrote:

Please re-read my post and understand what I said.

I did.

Your post says it's a perfectly logical position.
Saying it's perfectly logical is asking people to recognize your opinion as more than an opinion.

Asking them to recognize that is also asking them to join you in that belief, to believe that opinion has good reasons to exist.

I did extend the post to the implied request of all the pro-FW anti-LoW because you joined that side of the debate, because there's only one thread and only one debate.

morgoth wrote:


Fact: a very large share (95+%) of the population of 40K gamers knows about BRB and Codex and uses those rules as well as the units described within.

Fact: a smaller share(maybe a minority) of that population of 40K gamers know about FW stuff, and use those rules as well as the units described within.

Fact: within that minority, there exist smaller sub-minorities that like FW models but cannot stand LoW, and even tinier smaller sub-minorities that are fine with Lord Kaldor Draigo and an Imperial Titan but would never play against an Eldar Titan.

CITATION NEEDED. You don't just get to make factual claims without backing it up.

morgoth:

It's logical because it's used logic. It's logical to play games with FW but without LoW because LoW is not fun to play with/against, and this game is about fun, no? In a game meant to have fun it makes perfect sense to not play with something that is not fun. You seem to have taken the position that you have to have all or none. The thing is, LoWs are often very hard to beat with a TAC list. Thus, not fun. FW items marked as 40k legal are no stronger than normal 40k (And often over-priced. Hazards much?).

Please, stop being purposely obtuse just to support your side, there are plenty of other perfectly reasonable arguments you could use.

morgoth wrote:

 MWHistorian wrote:

Because they don't like to play with LOW? That's a pretty logical argument.

And liking is a feeling, not based on logic.

You don't understand the argument at all.
I dislike playing with LOW, so I wont play with or against them. This is a game for fun. It would be illogical to play something I don't find to be fun.
If you can't understand that then I can't help you.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:
In the past, FW was most well-known for releasing overpowered units. Which wasn't true, actually, as most of their releases are underpowered, but some examples were ridiculously over the top (e.g. Thudd) and those stood out.

Actually the thudd guns aren't a very good example. In 4th/5th edition (when they were first created) they were a mediocre unit at best, the old artillery rules made them incredibly easy to kill and their only redeeming quality was that they were cheaper than the far superior Griffon. Then 6th edition arrived and brought the sheer idiocy of the new artillery rules, where all of the meatshield crew are T7. All FW did was replace AV 10/10/10 with T7 W2 in the stat line just like the other artillery units (the codex TFC, for example), and even then it took quite a while for people to figure out what had happened.

The eldar warp hunter was a good example as well. It was so over powered for a while. AP2 large template ignores cover. (or maybe it was barrage which isn't much better).

I am happy they fixed it. It was so unfun to play against lol

morgoth wrote:


I did.

It appears you didn't. Or maybe you did, and you just felt like putting words in my mouth and twisting the things I did write into your own fabrication to make a point I never intended to even discuss.

Your post says it's a perfectly logical position.

It is. I can like one thing, and dislike another. Perfectly logical. You have to yet to provide a reason why it isn't logical.

Saying it's perfectly logical is asking people to recognize your opinion as more than an opinion.

No, no it isn't. An opinion is simply just that. Being logical doesn't mean its a fact, it just means there's a reason behind my thinking. Liking one thing and disliking another is totally reasonable when they're two entirely different things.

Asking them to recognize that is also asking them to join you in that belief, to believe that opinion has good reasons to exist.

No, no it isn't. This is a joke right? With argumentation like this, there's no way anyone can make headway with you. You're just going to twist everyone's words to fit your own conclusion. Stop.

I did extend the post to the implied request of all the pro-FW anti-LoW because you joined that side of the debate, because there's only one thread and only one debate.

And that's where you failed. Do not put words into peoples' mouths. Don't extend a post beyond what was written unless its painfully obvious. Do not attempt to turn a complex issue into a black and white, right and wrong, us vs. them debate.

In case you lost track of my original post, I'll remind you that my first post was about how its simple for people to like FW, but dislike LoW. That's it. Its a perfectly reasonable stance to have, and convincing people otherwise is entirely futile and pointless. I'd stop this crusade of yours to convince people of a correct/logical/standard way to play the game and what people should and shouldn't like. Its tiresome.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

morgoth wrote:


Fact: a very large share (95+%) of the population of 40K gamers knows about BRB and Codex and uses those rules as well as the units described within.

Fact: a smaller share(maybe a minority) of that population of 40K gamers know about FW stuff, and use those rules as well as the units described within.

Fact: within that minority, there exist smaller sub-minorities that like FW models but cannot stand LoW, and even tinier smaller sub-minorities that are fine with Lord Kaldor Draigo and an Imperial Titan but would never play against an Eldar Titan.

CITATION NEEDED. You don't just get to make factual claims without backing it up.

1+1=2, citation needed.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 MWHistorian wrote:

You don't understand the argument at all.
I dislike playing with LOW, so I wont play with or against them. This is a game for fun. It would be illogical to play something I don't find to be fun.
If you can't understand that then I can't help you.

That's a personal dislike, it doesn't make your POSITION logical, it just makes it logical for YOU.

Some people dislike chocolate, it doesn't make the position "Ban chocolate" a logical position.
Your point of view is exactly as logical as that.

Morgoth, you keep using that word "logical." I do not think it means what you think it means.

If you think what I find to be fun should fit in a mathematical formula, then you're out of your mind.

Yes, it's a personal dislike. That's exactly what I said it was. I dislike LOW. I don't know how to make it clearer than that.

I dislike LOW so I won't play them. End. Done. I don't care if you've taken a semester of Logic 101 and didn't take good notes. Your argument is completely pointless and no one is really sure what you're trying to say.

Are you saying I should play something I dislike because I can't quantify my personal taste with fractal geometry?
That makes zero sense.

(Edit: and I never mentioned banning anything.
And yes, if you present statistical 'facts' you have to back it up.)

morgoth wrote:


1+1=2, citation needed.

Seriously? That's your counter point to Almighty?

Do you wonder why people in this thread aren't taking your points seriously?

 MWHistorian wrote:
I dislike LOW so I won't play them. End. Done.

Good for you, you're an extremist for a minority within a minority. Stop trying to derail this thread that could have been about keeping an open mind in the context of toy miniature soldiers.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Blacksails wrote:

morgoth wrote:


1+1=2, citation needed.

Seriously? That's your counter point to Almighty?

Do you wonder why people in this thread aren't taking your points seriously?

CITATION NEEDED BRO !!!
you can't say people in this thread without a citation !!!

morgoth wrote:

CITATION NEEDED BRO !!!
you can't say people in this thread without a citation !!!

Cute.

morgoth wrote:
Because you refuse to acknowledge the existence of a core 40K consisting of only what you find in a shop, i.e. BRB, Codex, and the units mentionned in the codex.

Sisters don't exist at all in a shop. Are the now not "core 40k"? What about Inquisition, as their only book (and all of their unique models) is online? Or Legion of the Damned, who, like Sisters, can't be found in the shop either?

 ClockworkZion wrote:

morgoth wrote:
Because you refuse to acknowledge the existence of a core 40K consisting of only what you find in a shop, i.e. BRB, Codex, and the units mentionned in the codex.

Sisters don't exist at all in a shop. Are the now not "core 40k"? What about Inquisition, as their only book (and all of their unique models) is online? Or Legion of the Damned, who, like Sisters, can't be found in the shop either?

I do believe they are not part of the core 40K, the 40K that every 40K player knows about.
I do believe they're a "specialist army" that mostly attracts experienced hobbyists.
I think the electronic only is shifting more and more towards being "the norm", but right now, it's still underrepresented.

Every single player I've met knows what Sisters are, even if they've never played them until I bring them to a tournament.

People do read the rulebook and browse the web, you know.

And with such huge amounts of products only available by ordering or, worse, website only... it's hard to say they are a 'specialist' army.

morgoth wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

morgoth wrote:
Because you refuse to acknowledge the existence of a core 40K consisting of only what you find in a shop, i.e. BRB, Codex, and the units mentionned in the codex.

Sisters don't exist at all in a shop. Are the now not "core 40k"? What about Inquisition, as their only book (and all of their unique models) is online? Or Legion of the Damned, who, like Sisters, can't be found in the shop either?

I do believe they are not part of the core 40K, the 40K that every 40K player knows about.
I do believe they're a "specialist army" that mostly attracts experienced hobbyists.
I think the electronic only is shifting more and more towards being "the norm", but right now, it's still underrepresented.

Yeah, no. People know who Sisters, the Inquisition and Legion of the Damned are, even if they aren't readily available in your local shop. A brand new player might be a bit caught off guard, but your average player knows of them at least.

That's the thing, sisters are somewhat obscure already.

This whole thread is about fear of the unknown, and IMO, sisters are a lot more unknown than the basic stuff, like your comment on a brand new player shows.

morgoth wrote:

 MWHistorian wrote:
I dislike LOW so I won't play them. End. Done.

Good for you, you're an extremist for a minority within a minority. Stop trying to derail this thread that could have been about keeping an open mind in the context of toy miniature soldiers.

That's extremist at all. Most people now about forgeworld (go to where you play and ask each person if they know about FW, see what happens). Many people don't play with LoW (because it drastically changes the game, and many people prefer to play without it).