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.

The crux of this thread is essentially everyone trying to say that your logic for your personal decision to refuse to play is well... crappy and unfair logic. This isn't really about people coming into your LGS and getting butthurt that you wont play them. It's about you maybe rethinking about your reasons for not playing them.

Dispite this being the internet, you're still part of a greater wargaming community here. We won't come to your store, and probably never player against you, but you're still part of this community (otherwise, youd stay insular and never share this with us). And as part of this community, we're collectivity saying that "hey, you might want to rethink your outlook here. Its bad for the warhammer community as a whole, not just your group"

Not playing against forgeworld units purely because theyre forgeworld units and you can't be assed to even listen to the other person explain the rules for their unit is bad for the warhamer community as a whole. That's crappy behaviour, as a warhammer player.

 jasper76 wrote:


Then there is the isuue of outdated IA books.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.

Except there is consensus, nowhere here has there been a disagreement as to what is current and what isnt. I and others have told you this, repeatedly. We even provided you a handy dandy link that helps clarify what is current and what isnt based on very simple publication dates, yet like a petulant child you stick your fingers in your ear and scream lalalalala im not listening and pretend that consensus doesnt exist.

The same system used to determine what the most recent iteration of a codex is is the same system used for imperial armour, so yes, you did invent the problem. All we told you is that its less clear when it comes to IA because they use a different naming schema, you decided to run with that and pretend theres a problem where there isnt. Further, GW doesnt weigh in on what codecies are still valid. Nothibg states that Codex Space Marines has replaced the previous version of the codex. You assume that based on publication date. Nothing states Codex Astra Mitaruk replaced Codex Imperial Guard, you wre assuming that because it seems that Astra Militarum is the new name for Imperial Guard, but you have no proof of that. Hell, nothing states that Codex Black Templars was replaced by Codex Space Marines, you assume that because Black Templar units are contained in the new SM book.

Sorry dude, you can try that argument all day, but its a blatant and unjustifiable double standard.

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.

To clarify it for you? If you actually bothered to check said sources you would note they are in agreement, so regardless of "multiple sources" there is still a consensus, you just choose to not want to acknowledge that because reasons.

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

Sure it is, if you ever bothered to look at the books themselves you would find them in complete agreement with the lists weve offered you, I know this because I own a majority of those books myself. Sure the list itself might not be directly enforced, but the content from which the list is derived is, which means it is enforced by proxy.

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.

Thats, again, the same rule used with IA to determine what is and isnt current, and figuring out what the new books are is actually easier than the codecies, if there are multiple editions of the book, its always the 2nd edition (or in the case of IA Apocalypse, 3rd edition/2013). In only a couple instances are books without a 2nd edition no longer current, specifically IA 5/6/7/9/10, and we know this because there are these awesome free pdfs on the forgeworld site that update those rules and tell us so.

We won't come to your store, and probably never player against you, but you're still part of this community (otherwise, youd stay insular and never share this with us).

Personally I wouldnt want to... hes using all the same illogic and nonreasoning skills of a TFG/rules lawyer. If his attitude didnt cross over to actual gameplay id be surprised.

 jasper76 wrote:
I will not be missed
!

QFT


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 jasper76 wrote:
That's rich Peregrine. My decision not to play against armies derived from books of uncertain legitimacy = I want to ban them?

What's uncertain? Only whether or not you're a troll at this point.

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!

It does and doesn't. Refusing to play another player because he invested more money than you in GW SANCTIONED MODELS and rules slowly creates a hostile environment.

In all fairness, the BRB does advise players to use the most up to date rules for their armies. Just say'n.

SJ

It's just common sense. If you're saying you use the most recent codex and older rules are obsolete, just apply that to IA too...

I really don't see what the whole fuss in this thread is about. At this point I almost hope it's trolling...

Why is everyone so bent out of shape about this. If he doesn't want to play with titans then he doesn't want to play with titans. His money, his time, his hobby. It's no sweat off your sack.

Except that's not what everyone is getting bent out of shape about.
It's not "I dont want to play with titans",
it's "I lost to a titan, and now I will unfairly handwave away this entire collection of rules and models"
Saying "I dont want to pay against titans" is an entirely different attitude than "oh, youve got forgeworld units in your army? Well I don't know what they are, so I guess the game's off"

If youre walking through the forest, and you trip on a stick, you don't cut down the entire friggin forest. Just don't step on the stick.

And collectively, people are sweating their sacks about it because this forum is basically a virtual gaming group. If the OP walked into a DakkaDakka LGS with this attitude, then this is other players reacting to that. Come to forum for feedback, get feedback. Sometimes negative.

MarsNZ wrote:
Why is everyone so bent out of shape about this. If he doesn't want to play with titans then he doesn't want to play with titans. His money, his time, his hobby. It's no sweat off your sack.

What if he is the first player that a new 40k-interested person meets?

 jasper76 wrote:
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.

D-weapons aren't an IA-thing, they are in 40k books as well.
Hell, Necrons only get their D-weapons from non-IA books!

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.

No, not really. I had to tell my Ork-playing friend that there was a new Codex.
Not everyone plays in stores, visits the forum or follows rumours.

For IA it's just as simple, if there is a dataslate from 2013 and 2014 you can have one guess to what the most recent is.

chaos0xomega wrote:

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?

They're still plenty strong and break a lot of the old 40K too (ignoring invulnerable saves on a 6, causing multiple wounds per hit, etc.).

I heard they were worse, but they're nowhere close to "fairly balanced" even now.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Vaktathi wrote:

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.

I don't see what prevents you from taking it in a normal army really. It's only 1500 points.

Besides, it seems to me two Warhounds would deal more damage to a standard army, right ?

 Pyeatt wrote:

MarsNZ wrote:
Why is everyone so bent out of shape about this. If he doesn't want to play with titans then he doesn't want to play with titans. His money, his time, his hobby. It's no sweat off your sack.

What if he is the first player that a new 40k-interested person meets?

Oh, I see, everyone's on their high horse `for the good of the hobby`

sure thing

MarsNZ wrote:

 Pyeatt wrote:

MarsNZ wrote:
Why is everyone so bent out of shape about this. If he doesn't want to play with titans then he doesn't want to play with titans. His money, his time, his hobby. It's no sweat off your sack.

What if he is the first player that a new 40k-interested person meets?

Oh, I see, everyone's on their high horse `for the good of the hobby`

sure thing

Yet you ignore McGibs reply which tells you exactly why we're bent out of shape about it...

Kangodo wrote:

D-weapons aren't an IA-thing, they are in 40k books as well.
Hell, Necrons only get their D-weapons from non-IA books!

Pylon, IA 12. Strength D anti-aircraft gun.