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.

I think most people who play 40k should be willing to play with and against forge world.

The game of 40k is "broken". The main rule book allows for min maxing of allies. The last few codexs have brought allot of unknown (Adeptus Mechanicus) and blatantly powerful (them Eldar...) rules into the game. Perfect balance has never been achieved in 40k, and has only gotten worse over the years (see new Marines vs Chaos marines).

Play for fun, play for story.

I would only refuse to play against something if my opponent didn't want to show me a copy of the rules (FW or codex) or if I had played against it and knew it to be an unfun waste of time. (pull models from box, opponent shoots, place models back into box... unless I'm playing Apoc then that's expected).

Fight, learn, adapt, fight again. If you think something is completely OP and broken, Fight it to prove it. Post an accurate battle report, get a discussion going, figure out new strategies or accept the imbalance of the game.

If it truly is TFG, thats your call to make.

 Igenstilch wrote:
If you think something is completely OP and broken, Fight it to prove it. Post an accurate battle report, get a discussion going, figure out new strategies or accept the imbalance of the game.

this!!! take an exalt! we routinely play "broken" units or lists we find people complaining about here on Dakka (just to test).... and so far none of them are ... not even close. in fact it makes me question if its not just mathhammering going on or people are not actually playing the rules correctly.

I have found nothing that is truly OP or broken. (caveat we play 3k maelstrom games) all knight armies are not fun to play against IMHO but they still dont win any more than any other list.

At my nearest GW,there is a league.
The rules for this league state 1000pts ect...
But FW IS allowed however 30k models are not (although mechanicum is allowed as the AdMech are still around in fluff terms)
However there are no restrictions on what you can take from there
(I.E bringing a librarian,2 scout squads and 1 wahound titan with 2 blasma blastguns is 100% legal and makes you THAT GUY)
This is to bring more elements of balance into the game (i.e it stop players ftom bringing primarchs just to win) however the warhound titan scenario would be very rare (as 40k is for fun not for winning+why bring down a £300 model for 1 game?)

 zedmeister wrote:
Aye, the archetypal TFG has nothing to do with Forgeworld. You can spot a TFG when they demonstrate some, or all, of these traits:

- Makes use of an elastic tape measures
- Tends to play inexperienced and/or younger players using massively overpowered lists
- Will brag about their prowess and point to their unbroken winning streak against said inexperienced players
- Will bend and break the rules for advantage as often as they can get away with it
- Brags about their general prowess and achievements in various mystery tournaments
- When you play them, the game becomes a tedious, grinding exercise in rules-lawyering
- Every move you do is scrutinised. Every special rule you wield is questioned
- His game turns goes at a blinding pace and equipment gains the surprising ability to morph into different equipment when the need arises

Which reminds me, we've not had a good horror stories thread on Dakka for while. Anyone fancy kicking one off? I've not had any recent horror stories to start one with...

There was a TFG at our store. Essentially he would bully other people around him. Eventually I got fed up and stood up to him.






I pushed him off his wheelchair.

FW gives more options. More options is much better than less options.

We play with FW around here.

 Peregrine wrote:
No, we're objecting to this bizarre idea that objecting to certain units is more legitimate than objecting to others.

You might be. That wasn't what I was responding to, though.

Some people think that FW rules are in a special category...

And they'll continue to do so as long as Forgeworld rules are sold with different branding and through a different sales channel to the rest of the rules of the game. It's not really that surprising that this attitude is slow to go away just because Forgeworld themselves suddenly started claiming their rules were 'official'.

 insaniak wrote:
Just because Forgeworld themselves suddenly started claiming their rules were 'official'.

Slight correction - there's been no recent claim - it's always been the case:

“as long as Imperial Armour rules conformed to the vehicle design rules, then as far as I and the rest of the 40k design team were concerned, then they were legitimate rules and could be used in any game of 40k.”

(Jervis Johnson, 2000, Imperial armour: imperial vehicles for Warhammer 40000, games workshop, Great Britain, pg 3)

“All the vehicles within this book exisit in the 41st millennium, they are deployed to do battle against the Emperor’s foes. It is not a case of legality, it is an actuality! Generally players should not pick and choose what equipment their opponent can and can’t use.”

(Warwick Kinrade, 2004, Imperial Armour: Volume Two – Space Marines & Forces of the Inquisition, games workshop, Great Britain, pg7.)

Using the Vehicle Design Rules as a basis for legality is a little peculiar, given that the VDR were optional rules that required your opponent's permission...

 insaniak wrote:
Using the Vehicle Design Rules as a basis for legality is a little peculiar, given that the VDR were optional rules that required your opponent's permission...

Odd quirk perhaps, but it does show that Forgeworld have always said that they're part of the game and official in that respect

You're the one who said Forge World. I just said 'nasty stuff'.

Really I think it comes down to moderation and understanding. Both players have to agree, as the rules have always stated. If you are running a fluffy or fair list, the. I don't think anybody should mind. Your opponent more than likely didn't know how to handle them in-game, so they tried to avoid having to figure it out.

 zedmeister wrote:

Odd quirk perhaps, but it does show that Forgeworld have always said that they're part of the game and official in that respect

The problem of course being that this only counts for anything if you accept that Forgeworld have the authority to claim anything is or isn't official for 40K... And you'll find players who don't, as they expect a statement to that effect to come from the people in the studio that actually produces the game, rather than the offshoot company in a separate office.

There is no "correct" ruling, it's up to the players to agree upon the terms of the game before playing - likewise for tournament organizers.

 insaniak wrote:

 zedmeister wrote:

Odd quirk perhaps, but it does show that Forgeworld have always said that they're part of the game and official in that respect

The problem of course being that this only counts for anything if you accept that Forgeworld have the authority to claim anything is or isn't official for 40K... And you'll find players who don't, as they expect a statement to that effect to come from the people in the studio that actually produces the game, rather than the offshoot company in a separate office.

The only problem with that is that "the people in the studio that actually produces the game" have a hard enough time just doing that job properly.

 insaniak wrote:

 zedmeister wrote:

Odd quirk perhaps, but it does show that Forgeworld have always said that they're part of the game and official in that respect

The problem of course being that this only counts for anything if you accept that Forgeworld have the authority to claim anything is or isn't official for 40K... And you'll find players who don't, as they expect a statement to that effect to come from the people in the studio that actually produces the game, rather than the offshoot company in a separate office.

Well, the forgeworld studio has enough sense to not have their pants on their heads unlike the parent department.

 insaniak wrote:

 zedmeister wrote:

Odd quirk perhaps, but it does show that Forgeworld have always said that they're part of the game and official in that respect

The problem of course being that this only counts for anything if you accept that Forgeworld have the authority to claim anything is or isn't official for 40K... And you'll find players who don't, as they expect a statement to that effect to come from the people in the studio that actually produces the game, rather than the offshoot company in a separate office.

While I agree with your point, the big issue here is that FW isn't a different company, they're not even a subsidiary, they're just another department of GW, and the guys that work there work work at the same building as everyone else at GW (and have the same mailing/contact address).

They are legally a separate company, I believe, due to tax avoidance. They do, however, use the same publisher.

 Furyou Miko wrote:
They are legally a separate company, I believe, due to tax avoidance. They do, however, use the same publisher.

If true, it must be very new, before they redid their website they had an "about us" section that stated they were part of GW and not a separate company, though the new site doesn't have the "about us" section that I can find anymore...

 Vaktathi wrote:
While I agree with your point, the big issue here is that FW isn't a different company, they're not even a subsidiary, they're just another department of GW, and the guys that work there work work at the same building as everyone else at GW (and have the same mailing/contact address).

I know that, and you know that. It makes no difference. To the average gamer, the fact that the books have a different name on them means that they were written by someone different.

People want some sort of indication from the 'official' studio that these guys with the different name have any actual authority to write rules.

The problem is, while that's a reasonable thing to want, it's not going to happen, because the guys writing the 'official' rules for the game currently don't believe that rules are actually important. They're not going to put an 'official' stamp on anything, because they believe that every game should involve the players (wh presumably know each other) having a pre-game discussion about what they are going to use... and in that environment, having an 'official' stamp on anything isn't really necessary.


Of course, that overlooks the fact that so many games are pick-up games where the players don't know each other particularly well, and so don't want to have to hold an in-depth negotiation before getting on to actually putting minis on the table... Something GW would be aware of if there was some arcane way that they could find out about the ways that people are playing their games. Alas, such sorcery is currently beyond us... Maybe one day, when the world is linked by some sort of easy method of data transmission, perhaps involving computers, we might be able to communicate directly with those trapped at the pinnacle of the ivory tower in Nottingham.

 insaniak wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
While I agree with your point, the big issue here is that FW isn't a different company, they're not even a subsidiary, they're just another department of GW, and the guys that work there work work at the same building as everyone else at GW (and have the same mailing/contact address).

I know that, and you know that. It makes no difference. To the average gamer, the fact that the books have a different name on them means that they were written by someone different.

Aye

Vaktathi wrote:

 Furyou Miko wrote:
They are legally a separate company, I believe, due to tax avoidance. They do, however, use the same publisher.

If true, it must be very new, before they redid their website they had an "about us" section that stated they were part of GW and not a separate company, though the new site doesn't have the "about us" section that I can find anymore...

More likely to be older, I first heard years ago :p

 Furyou Miko wrote:

Vaktathi wrote:

 Furyou Miko wrote:
They are legally a separate company, I believe, due to tax avoidance. They do, however, use the same publisher.

If true, it must be very new, before they redid their website they had an "about us" section that stated they were part of GW and not a separate company, though the new site doesn't have the "about us" section that I can find anymore...

More likely to be older, I first heard years ago :p

They are a different company, but they are owned and operated by Games Workshop. Just like Black Library and Citadel Miniatures.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Furyou Miko wrote:

Vaktathi wrote:

 Furyou Miko wrote:
They are legally a separate company, I believe, due to tax avoidance. They do, however, use the same publisher.

If true, it must be very new, before they redid their website they had an "about us" section that stated they were part of GW and not a separate company, though the new site doesn't have the "about us" section that I can find anymore...

More likely to be older, I first heard years ago :p

They are a different company, but they are owned and operated by Games Workshop. Just like Black Library and Citadel Miniatures.

Incorrect. Unless you can find them on companies house which all uk companies have to be registered with, then they are merely just a brand name

 zedmeister wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Furyou Miko wrote:

Vaktathi wrote:

 Furyou Miko wrote:
They are legally a separate company, I believe, due to tax avoidance. They do, however, use the same publisher.

If true, it must be very new, before they redid their website they had an "about us" section that stated they were part of GW and not a separate company, though the new site doesn't have the "about us" section that I can find anymore...

More likely to be older, I first heard years ago :p

They are a different company, but they are owned and operated by Games Workshop. Just like Black Library and Citadel Miniatures.

Incorrect. Unless you can find them on companies house which all uk companies have to be registered with, then they are merely just a brand name

Correct. All FW and BL financial data are included in the Games Workshop annual financial reports.

*nvm.

 Sir Arun wrote:
Personally I have qualms with anyone fielding any unit that does not have an entry in that faction's parent codex or supplement.

I think there is a reason why certain Forgeworld units don't make it into the main codex.

My FW model DID make it into the previous codex, but not this one. It also made it into the Apoc book. Last I checked that had a GW label on the cover, not a FW Label.

Notice how 4 out of 5 players using forgeworld units to bolster their army go after the competitive ones and not the ones that just "are interesting". E.g. taking Earthshaker platforms instead of Basilisks, or more powerful Land Raider / Predator variants, or the Sicaran.

Statistic brought to you by the accounting firm of Dewey, Faye, Kitt, And Howe?

What irks me most is when certain dudes (looking at you, CSM players) bring Heresy era stuff into games of 40k because they're good units.

The horror! They brought good units to a game? And tried to play you with them? Did you kick them in the junk for being such cheeky blokes?

nothing wrong with forge world, they're a GW subsidiary specializing in "boutique products" for lack of a better term. some people have this idea that they're automaticly evil. but just like anything from the parent company things vary pretty widely. even the Siciran tank now with the new SM 'dex has some faults in comparison. now that we can squadron predators and vindicators. it doesn't totally eclipse those tanks (until FW erratas it)

BrianDavion wrote:
(until FW erratas it)

I wouldn't expect that. I think errata for the Dreds are a long shot as well. You might see them squadroned in 30K, but not in 40K.

 Enigwolf wrote:
stuff

I know you were agreeing with me (I think) but - you fool! Why did you conjour this back up? Look what you've done!

Breton wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:
(until FW erratas it)

I wouldn't expect that. I think errata for the Dreds are a long shot as well. You might see them squadroned in 30K, but not in 40K.

I doubt you'll see em squadroned eaither. they're supposed to be rare heresy era relics. I'd rather if they errata it simply allow you to take a single siciran tank as an auxillery.

ohh or maybe add a rule onto the gladius strike formation.

it may have 1-2 core. 0-3 command 1+ Aux 0-1 Relics of the armory.