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.

Kangodo wrote:
I think there is a difference between:
1) "We will not buy anything besides the Codex".
and
2) "We refuse to play against anything besides the Codex".

morgoth wrote:
About the IA books...
IA13 is outdated for sure, the latest IA:Apocalypse (2013) is the most up to date afaik.

IA13 is outdated? It was released like a week ago!

Then I have the old IA13 - which is outdated.

I have to agree those FW books are extremely confusing.

There is no old IA13... It literally has just come out.

My bad, I mixed it up with IA11 nevermind.

IA13 is the new one about chaos and other stuff right ?

Yeah... try telling most modern-ish nid players that they can't use their malanthropes because they are IA. Or Heirodules for that matter. Poor Tyranids...

lol

If you guys who use IA books can't agree on which ones are good or not, what is poor old me supposed to do in a pickup game???

I guess just accept whatever my opponent tells me, because its a "whatever book you have must be good to go" situation?

I dunno...maybe I should just quit pickup games of 40k altogether. Its a big universe, and one things for sure...I will not be missed

In any case, thanks for all the information. It's been very illuminating. In all honesty, I'm left feeling that IA books are a jumbled mess of "who-knows-what's-right-so-its-all-right" more than I was before . That's fine for games with people I know where we can plan the stuff and try to balance it out to make a fun game. For pickup games, its chaos, hit or miss for a game with parity, and I'll pass.

Again, I don't care at all that other people play and enjoy IA books, they're just not for me. Hopefully GW will one day standardize these books for you guys. As said before, since the news og 7th edition so close to 6th, my gaming club has been planning on "quitting" 40K releases (but still playing obviosuly ) after the last hardback dex is released, so the money savings is already on schedule.

Cheers everyone!

If your opponent comes in with the rules for their FW units, and goes over them in depth with you before the game starts (which they should do if you ask, and briefly even if you dont), and you understand and agree to play them, I really don't see what that has to do with you purchasing things from GW.

Your opponent has put all the effort in here They bought the rules, they bought (or converted) and painted the models. They conveyed the information to you. And then on the pure basis of "I don't own the book, or believe in feeding into GW", you shoot them down? That seems pretty crappy. There's literally no effort on your part to 'keep up with the biz', you just have to communicate with your opponent. Even if they ARE using outdated rules (which again, the onus should be on the player bringing the unit to know the most current rules), if you understand and agree to the rules, it doesnt really matter if its three editions behind, does it?

You don't have to agree to fighting a warhound titan (I wouldnt), but do so because it's a fricking titan, not because of some blanket bias youve made because you can't be assed to listen to your opponent explain what it's rules are.

 McGibs wrote:
If your opponent comes in with the rules for their FW units, and goes over them in depth with you before the game starts (which they should do if you ask, and briefly even if you dont), and you understand and agree to play them, I really don't see what that has to do with you purchasing things from GW.

Your opponent has put all the effort in here They bought the rules, they bought (or converted) and painted the models. They conveyed the information to you. And then on the pure basis of "I don't own the book, or believe in feeding into GW", you shoot them down? That seems pretty crappy. There's literally no effort on your part to 'keep up with the biz', you just have to communicate with your opponent. Even if they ARE using outdated rules (which again, the onus should be on the player bringing the unit to know the most current rules), if you understand and agree to the rules, it doesnt really matter if its three editions behind, does it?

You don't have to agree to fighting a warhound titan (I wouldnt), but do so because it's a fricking titan, not because of some blanket bias youve made because you can't be assed to listen to your opponent explain what it's rules are.

Yeah...but pickup games are supposed to be.....pickup games. Meaning to me, you know you're rules, I know mine, there's really no question about them, so lets get a game on, mofo! A new layer of complexity interms of IA books that even IA players here can't seem to agree are in or out is just another obstacle to getting that going. I have a gaming club that I play with for the complex stuff that needs planning....otherwise, I'm gonna see a dex, or I'm going to very very politely decline. Doesn't have to be your decision

Cheers!

 Sasori wrote:

If it was a Reaver, then you got cheated fair and square. The points for it are far outside normal games of 40k.

 Vaktathi wrote:

This situation sounds very much like a classic example of what makes people hate FW stuff, unfortunately without it really being their fault

In this case it is Forge World fault. The Reaver certainly has no place in a non-Apocalypse game, and GW didn't allow it with Escalation - but Forge World did with their Lords of War PDF (It's in the download section of the FW site).

 jasper76 wrote:


Yeah...but pickup games are supposed to be.....pickup games. Meaning to me, you know you're rules, I know mine, there's really no question about them, so lets get a game on, mofo! A new layer of complexity interms of IA books that even IA players here can't seem to agree are in or out is just another obstacle to getting that going. I have a gaming club that I play with for the complex stuff that needs planning....otherwise, I'm gonna see a dex, or I'm going to very very politely decline. Doesn't have to be your decision

Cheers!

Eh? But if a PUG is meant to be 'you know your rules, I know mine', then it should be just fine for the other guy to use Imperial Armour contents, since he knows his rules and you know yours.

There's a reason it's called the Pug Lottery though.

 Gashrog wrote:


In this case it is Forge World fault. The Reaver certainly has no place in a non-Apocalypse game, and GW didn't allow it with Escalation - but Forge World did with their Lords of War PDF (It's in the download section of the FW site).

But the Revenant Titan is kosher because its in an official GW publication.

 Gashrog wrote:


In this case it is Forge World fault. The Reaver certainly has no place in a non-Apocalypse game, and GW didn't allow it with Escalation - but Forge World did with their Lords of War PDF (It's in the download section of the FW site).

All they did was clarify which units were Lords of War after GW put it in the basic game. The Escalation book was never intended to be the sole authoritative Lord of War "allower", and, that said, they included a Titan in that book, albeit Eldar, and with the 7E book, the Escalation book list is superfluous anyway.

Once again, by default, everything is part of 40K.

Any limit you wish to put on the armies you wish to play is fine, but there is no point in trying to push your vision of "legal" / "illegal", "fair" / "unfair" or any other arbitrary differentiation on other players.

The Reaver certainly has a place in any game you want to play a Reaver, and as long as the opponent knows it's a possibility, there's no real issue with that.

 jasper76 wrote:
So my opponent is a class act...he left me a voicemail apologizing for throwing the titan at me. He said he just painted it up and it was the first time he's ever played it, and he won't play it in another 40k game but will keep it for Apoc games.

He didn't even have to call at all. I barely know the guy outside of gaming.

Butt less hurt, faith in humanity restored. Life goes on.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Vaktathi wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:



Best way to deal with a mess like this IMO is to avoid it... = no IA books.

To be fair, as noted, this course of action will do nothing regarding your experience however, as the currently available Imperial Titans (along with D weapons) are all done through GW's core studio and mainstream publications.

It'll just mean you won't see cool stuff like Death Korps armies or Decimator Engines or Nightwing Fighters and the like.

Just a thought

Dude, my gaming clup banned the IK codex, along with (my) T-CTan. quite a while ago. Implementing D-Weapons in standard 40k really was a jump the shark move IMO. I think it happened with Escalation book in 6th edition, right? Anyways, this particular episode didn't happen in my regular gaming club, where we don't play with D-weapons...it happened in a pickup game at my flgs.

Anywho...the guy left me a cool phone message, which he didn't have to do. I'll have no problem playing his Titan again if I have my own Titan, and he can teach me the rules for it and so forth, but IMO, and I don't care if people agree or not, it really has no place in a 40k game. D-weapons are a bit too much except against other D wepaons. Parity makes games fun. Lack of parity makes games stupid. It's just that easy IMO.

One things for certain, I am not wasting my time learning rules for IA books for pickup games. If this thread's taught me one thing, its that GW really doesn't regulate itsefl when it comes to mainitaing their IA books through different game versions. If they can't keep their own rules straight with these books, I sure as s--t am not gonna try to

You are aware that D weapons are in the core 7th edition (or is it 8th? i forget what edition were on) rulebook, right? And that D weapons dont work the way they used to anymore right?

Right on. As a matter of fact, I play my own homebrew codex, so I guess I am sorta one to talk here. But in my case, its all done within the rules of the BRB, the SM codex, and the CSM codex. I don't pull from the "extras". Of course, I wouldn never ever pull my homebrew codex in a pickup game.

Sorry dude, but youre still sounding pretty butthurt if youre trying to justify selectivd enforcement of your own rules (as in that its BRB + primary hardback codecies only, except no knights, and I get to play with my own homebrew rules, but absolutely no white dwarf or dataslates or imperial armour, even though the unit that trashed me comes from what is technically speaking a primary gw rulebook not at all tied to forgeworld."

You are missing the point. The point being, that the popular opinion here is that certain IA books are no longer kosher. This is not my opinion, this is everyone elses. However, there is absolutely no official guidance from GW to say that any of their published IA material is actually no longer kosher, so in the absence of any official rules, every IA book is, in fact, kosher, because how on earth would you argue against it.

Theres no guidance as to any of GWs publications as to whats kosher or not. There is not a line in any of the rulebooks that states "these rules overwrite all previous versions of this title" there is no list on gws website indicating which books are still valid and which are not. By your argument, perhaps you should just quit playing all GW games entirely, as you are left to assume that all GW publications are still "kosher". Or you can use your brain and figure out that if rules for a unit were published in book A in the year 2001, and again in book B in the year 2014, and the rules in book B are different from book A, its because book B has superceded book A by publication date and book A is no longer valid. Thats the same justification you use to make an argument that the current Space Marine codex has outdated previous iterations, so theres no reason why you cant do that with IA.

If anything, FW is actually clearer on this, as the "2nd Edition" books theyve published (for Imperial Armours 1-4) clearly do state that it is an update to the previous version of the books.

Nope. It's common sense that a new codex overwrites the oild one. However, IA 13, from what people have told me here, doesn't overwrite anything at all. Nor will IA14, nor will IA15, nor IA16, nor IA17, nor IA18. Spend your money and time as you will. I'm not playing that kind of ball game.

Did Codex Dark Eldar overwrite Codex Space Wolves? No, theyre different books. Just because FW uses numbers in its naming system instead of referring to it as a specific faction doesnt make it any different from the GW pubs youre going on about. Would it be different if Imperial Armour 13 was called Imperial Armour Chaos, and Imperial Armour 12 had been called Imperial Armour Necrons? Because thats basically what they are.

The failure in your argument is that the same common sense is used for FW publications, youre just being confused by different naming conventions because of your own willful ignorance and refusal to dedicate the 10 seconds it takes people to figure out whats what.

Oh, and in case you missed it, my gaming group actually did decide to freeze 40k when the Necron and BA codices come out in hard back. This actually wasn't my decision, it was the decision of the majority of our group who most of them have been with 40k since 2nd edition. It happened when they released 6.25 only 2 years after they released 6the Edition. Basically, they feel that GW is trying to bleed them for cash, and although I am much newer to the game, its hard to argue against.

I weep for you. Theres no point even discussing this with you anymore, as its very clear you only selectively enforce your own beliefs, i.e. - youre a hypocrite. Youre not even playing with the most up to date rules yourself, if thats the case why make others use the most recent version of Imperial Armour rules? They should be just as free to use whatever outdated version they so please.

PS - your gaming group sounds fairly miserable.

IA13 is outdated for sure, the latest IA:Apocalypse (2013) is the most up to date afaik.

IA13 came out like 1 week ago... IA: Apocalypse 2013 came out like a year ago... get with the program man.

Then I have the old IA13 - which is outdated.

No you dont, that title was literally never published until likr a week ago.

I have to agree those FW books are extremely confusing.

They can be... if you dont know what youre looking at. But generally speaking its pretty straightforward, and if you need help there is that great reference guide linked earlier that dakka users have gone through the effort of making so you can see whats current and what isnt. It even lists which units are published where so you can cross reference the publication dates to determine what the most recent release is if you dont trust our word for it.

If you guys who use IA books can't agree on which ones are good or not, what is poor old me supposed to do in a pickup game???

We can, but of course the fact that one poster confused he numbers 11 and 13 means that we cant, right? I get confused between Space Wolves and Blood Angels all the time, does that mean we can ban all Space Marine codexes?

I dunno...maybe I should just quit pickup games of 40k altogether. Its a big universe, and one things for sure...I will not be missed

I dont think you will. if anything it sounds like youd be doing the rest of the 40k community a favor, certainly for your potential future opponents who wont have to deal with you dictating to them which books are and arent kosher for use based on whatever subjective reasoning you use to determine that.

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Gashrog wrote:


In this case it is Forge World fault. The Reaver certainly has no place in a non-Apocalypse game, and GW didn't allow it with Escalation - but Forge World did with their Lords of War PDF (It's in the download section of the FW site).

All they did was clarify which units were Lords of War after GW put it in the basic game. The Escalation book was never intended to be the sole authoritative Lord of War "allower", and, that said, they included a Titan in that book, albeit Eldar, and with the 7E book, the Escalation book list is superfluous anyway.

Could you please provide a page reference for the rule in either Escalation or 7th edition that says any Titan and/or Apocalypse unit is automatically now treated as a Lord of War? As I can't seem to find one.

 Gashrog wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Gashrog wrote:


In this case it is Forge World fault. The Reaver certainly has no place in a non-Apocalypse game, and GW didn't allow it with Escalation - but Forge World did with their Lords of War PDF (It's in the download section of the FW site).

All they did was clarify which units were Lords of War after GW put it in the basic game. The Escalation book was never intended to be the sole authoritative Lord of War "allower", and, that said, they included a Titan in that book, albeit Eldar, and with the 7E book, the Escalation book list is superfluous anyway.

Could you please provide a page reference for the rule in either Escalation or 7th edition that says any Titan and/or Apocalypse unit is automatically now treated as a Lord of War? As I can't seem to find one.

Nor will you,

the downloads section of the FW site has this however...

http://www.forgeworld.co.uk/Downloads/Product/PDF/L/lordsofwar.pdf


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Anything produced since tends to have what slot it takes listed in the rules (such as the new Knights, which are only LOW in CA detachments that aren't taken from the IK book)

 Gashrog wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Gashrog wrote:


In this case it is Forge World fault. The Reaver certainly has no place in a non-Apocalypse game, and GW didn't allow it with Escalation - but Forge World did with their Lords of War PDF (It's in the download section of the FW site).

All they did was clarify which units were Lords of War after GW put it in the basic game. The Escalation book was never intended to be the sole authoritative Lord of War "allower", and, that said, they included a Titan in that book, albeit Eldar, and with the 7E book, the Escalation book list is superfluous anyway.

Could you please provide a page reference for the rule in either Escalation or 7th edition that says any Titan and/or Apocalypse unit is automatically now treated as a Lord of War? As I can't seem to find one.

I think we're being a wee bit pedantic here. GW introduced Lords of War into their core game and included rules for at least one Titan in their first foray into that. GW's core rules state that the Lords of War slot includes Superheavies. GW never put a restriction on what that would include or how big they could be (again, they included a Titan on their original list). FW just clarified which armies can take which of their superheavies. In fact, FW's rules for the Reaver titans say to reference GW's Apocalypse book.

Let me get this straight... the OP agreed to play against a titan, got stomped, then decided that all Imperial Armour books should be banned, even though the unit he got stomped by is not exclusively an IA unit and is in two other sources, because he didn't know the rules for the titan that he agreed to play against?

Doesn't seem very logical to me. I'd like to know if the OP knows every rule from every 'main' codex? if not, surely the ones he isn't familiar with should be banned?

 tyrannosaurus wrote:
Let me get this straight... the OP agreed to play against a titan, got stomped, then decided that all Imperial Armour books should be banned, even though the unit he got stomped by is not exclusively an IA unit and is in two other sources, because he didn't know the rules for the titan that he agreed to play against?

Doesn't seem very logical to me. I'd like to know if the OP knows every rule from every 'main' codex? if not, surely the ones he isn't familiar with should be banned?

This. IIRC, the OP did state that his opponent should "know his rules" and that he should know his own. In the scenario stated, this was correct, as both parties were well versed in their respective codices. And besides, it's not that much of a stretch to ask to look at their codex and check it's validity and rules, is it?

Also he plays his own homebrew codex. But he won't play against IA because it confuses him.

 Vaktathi wrote:
I think we're being a wee bit pedantic here. GW introduced Lords of War into their core game and included rules for at least one Titan in their first foray into that. GW's core rules state that the Lords of War slot includes Superheavies. GW never put a restriction on what that would include or how big they could be (again, they included a Titan on their original list). FW just clarified which armies can take which of their superheavies. In fact, FW's rules for the Reaver titans say to reference GW's Apocalypse book.

I don't think it's pedantic at all, it's called playing by the rules. GW never put a restriction on what would be included in the Lords of War slot in the same way they never put a restriction on what would be in a Troop slot or an Elite slot or a Fast Attack slot, there's no restriction because it's not up to the player to decide what slot something occupies. You field a unit in the slot they tell you to.

Codex: Armageddon allowed Salamander Predator *Destructors* to take Heavy Flamer sponsons. Does that mean I could give Heavy Flamer sponsons to my Predator Annihilators too? They are both Predators after all. No, because an entry specific to a single unit only affects that unit. The fact that Escalation gave the Warhound and Revenant the Lord of War stamps is as irrelevant to the Reaver as the Salamander Predator Destructor modification was to the Predator Annihilator.

Both Escalation and 7th edition *could* have made the Reaver a Lord of War but didn't, only Forge World did.

You're overfocusing just on the Reaver. GW's core studio already put out Titans in the Escalation book (the Eldar Revenant Titan), along with things like the Harridan (flying GC sporting S10 T8 W8 with twelve 48" S10 AP3 shots a turn and is only hit on 6's without skyfire) and Transcendant C'tan.

Unless you're one to see the Escalation book as ever having been intended to be the exclusive list for such things (which few thought even before FW released its PDF), then all FW did was classify who can take what, and either way, GW's core studio opened that door by including Titans available for Lords of War before FW did.

Being mad at FW for the Reaver is kind of absurd in hindsight, especially considering its base points cost prevents it from being taken in anything but an Unbound army (as an army of itself alone) for most games. Expecting them not to include one specific product as a Lord of War right after GW comes out with a big book and, very shortly after, a new edition, that goes out of its way to emphasize such things, is kinda silly.

The problem here isn't with FW unless you're going out of your way to frame it as one. GW's core studio wrote the expansion book and subsequent new edition brought Titans into the game, GW's core studio wrote the rules for said titans.

 ImAGeek wrote:
Also he plays his own homebrew codex. But he won't play against IA because it confuses him.

I would never bring my homebrew codex to a pick up game. That is used for campaigns in my gaming club.

I never said I wanted anything banned at all. It bothers me not one bit if other people use and enjoy their IA books. It doesn't confyuse me, I just personally thinking range D weapons are not to my liking in 40k games.

In fact I think D weapons in general on a non-Apoc game have led 40k in a direction that I'm not a fan of.

Then there is the isuue of outdated IA books. I didn't even know that was an issue, until people on this thread told me. That's why I don't want to play against IA books in pickup games. Because this thread has taught me that there's not really consensus as to what IA books are good or bad, and GW doesn't bother to weigh in on it. I didn't know that til reading through all the replies and learning it. Didn't invent this problem. This problem does not exist for 40k codices. I and everyone else know what the latest codicrs are.

It all just like a bit of a mess I'd rather avoid, and my opinion on this IA stuff is actually independent of my opinion on long range D weapons and D weapons in geneal.

Go on and play with them if you like! Not my bag, but I don't begrudge any player who wants to play with IA rules and can find a consenting opponent to do so.

 jasper76 wrote:
I never said I wanted anything banned at all.

Sure you did:

That's why I don't want to play against IA books in pickup games.

Saying "I'm not going to play against this" and "you're banned from using this" are the same thing.

Because this thread has taught me that there's not really consensus as to what IA books are good or bad, and GW doesn't bother to weigh in on it.

GW doesn't weigh in on which codices are good or bad either. When C:AM was published nobody explicitly said that it replaces C:IG and you're not allowed to use C:IG anymore, GW just assumed that everyone could figure out that the most recent rules for an army/unit replace any previous rules for that army/unit. Same thing with FW books, new rules replace all previous versions. The only "lack of consensus" that exists is from people who don't check carefully enough before making claims about which rules are current. It's no different than someone not realizing that there's a new IG codex and talking about the best way to use 130 point Vendettas.

This problem does not exist for 40k codices. I and everyone else know what the latest codicrs are.

Well yes, if you tend to play in an area where "I'm not going to play against FW rules in a pickup game" is accepted behavior then it's inevitable that players will be more familiar with codex updates and not pay as much attention to updates for books that you're going to refuse to play against. That doesn't mean it's impossible to figure out which ones are current, it's just a matter of what you spend effort on learning about.

That's rich Peregrine. My decision not to play against armies derived from books of uncertain legitimacy = I want to ban them?

As a single player, I had no idea whatsoever that I had that kind of power! It's not like the guy couldn't go down and ask the next player or anything!

 jasper76 wrote:
My decision not to play against armies derived from books of uncertain legitimacy = I want to ban them?

There's nothing uncertain about it at all. They're part of the game, regardless of your opinion.

As a single player, I had no idea whatsoever that I had that kind of power! It's not like the guy couldn't go down and ask the next player or anything!

But they're banned in games with you. You're saying "ban this from your army, or don't play against me". The fact that people can go elsewhere and play without your ban is no different than a TO banning FW in their event and saying "it's not a ban, you can always go play at this other event".

You ar using the word "ban" in a way I'm not used to, so it's semantics here. I have said repeatedly that I dont Care if other people use IA.

If all IA books are legit, why was I directed to multiple sources showing which IA books and units are out of date and which ones are not.

Put simply, that matrix is one I don't care to memorize, because it's totally unenforceable since its not supported by GW

In any case, my opinion on this is pretty clear. As said before, it doesn't have to be your opinion.

 jasper76 wrote:
You ar using the word "ban" in a way I'm not used to, so it's semantics here. I have said repeatedly that I dont Care if other people use IA.

Of course you care, you won't play a pickup game against someone who wants to use FW rules in their army.

If all IA books are legit, why was I directed to multiple sources showing which IA books and units are out of date and which ones are not.

For the same reason that you can find sources saying that the 5th edition space marine codex is out of date, but the current one is legal: GW publishes new rules that replace older rules.

Put simply, that matrix is one I don't care to memorize, because it's totally unenforceable since its not supported by GW

And how is that different from the "matrix" of which codices are current and legal? After all, GW doesn't support that either.

I guess there is a common rule locally that the new codices are the good ones. Around here everyone knows what the new codices are.

With IA books, people don't know so much, and 40k is well complicated enough IMO without keeping up with a whole other set of books that hardly anyone uses locally, until they do.

If I tried to say you was trying to keep anyone from playing IA with any opponent ever, I could take your accusations of trying to ban them seriously. But alas, I am not.

Done arguing on this. My position is clear. Cheers!

 jasper76 wrote:
I guess there is a common rule locally that the new codices are the good ones.

That's a common rule that you created, not one published by GW. Essentially what you're saying here is "we've house ruled away the problems with codex rules, but haven't done the same for FW and we don't want to".

With IA books, people don't know so much, and 40k is well complicated enough IMO without keeping up with a whole other set of books that hardly anyone uses locally, until they do.

And this is just a circular argument: nobody uses FW rules, so there's no reason to keep up with what is legal, so FW rules are banned/discouraged, so nobody uses them. Maybe instead of trying to limit the scope of the game to the rules you personally want to use you could just let your opponents keep up with their rules while you keep up with yours?

If I tried to say you was trying to keep anyone from playing IA with any opponent ever, I could take your accusations of trying to ban them seriously.

You're banning them for your games. The fact that you haven't created some kind of universal ban (as if that would even be possible) doesn't mean it isn't a ban.

You win dude. Cheers. Your prize is if we ever meet, and you want to play with your IA book from1992, I'll make an exception to my scary spooky ban.

Not really much of a prize, right? But it's yours!