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.

You know you aren't exactly strengthening your side's argument with name calling stranger who can't defend their side of the story. I didn't care that much one way or the other before this thread. However, seeing the resulting responses pro to allowing FW models, I am less inclined to play a PUG with a list that has one or more. I am already uncomfortable with adding units that aren't listed in regular codices. I likely don't know my opponent from Adam so I don't know why if they are the sort try to pull a fast one. While there are rules and Forge World has a page on DW's site there is a very clear distinction between the two lines. Additionally, the inclusion of Forge World models can open up a whole pandora's box I might regret later. I think it is far to consider Forge World inclusion the exception not the rule and as such does require permission to field.

So congratulations I guess, you (along with similar posts) made another anti-Forge World player.

The FW rules are no more optional than say a Codex, over an Index. That is to say, they aren't optional at all. They are a significant part of the game like it or not.

How the other poster expressed his point might have upset you, but his point is still quite valid, however he phrased it. It seem a huge flaw in reasoning to cite that as a reason to ignore a massive percentage of the rules of the game you're playing. In what other activity is it acceptable to expect others to play by rules that you are creating?

The attitude is beyond bizarre to me.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

HMint wrote:

And 'giving everyone access to everything' means exactly that:
(GW) Chaos does not have access to artillery tanks (other than DeathGuard?), but now they do thanks to FW.
(GW) Chaos does not have access to bombers, but now they do.
(GW) Chaos does not have access to drop pods, now they do.
(GW) Chaos does not have access to flying transports, now they do.

Sure, not each exact unit is available, but do you see how every options seems to get covered by FW somehow?

Can you explain to me how "Chaos gets its options expanded by Forge World" is the same as "everyone gets everything?"

...do you understand what and example is?

We allready know that xnos get shafted when it comes to soup and FW is basicly soup³.

HMint wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

HMint wrote:

And 'giving everyone access to everything' means exactly that:
(GW) Chaos does not have access to artillery tanks (other than DeathGuard?), but now they do thanks to FW.
(GW) Chaos does not have access to bombers, but now they do.
(GW) Chaos does not have access to drop pods, now they do.
(GW) Chaos does not have access to flying transports, now they do.

Sure, not each exact unit is available, but do you see how every options seems to get covered by FW somehow?

Can you explain to me how "Chaos gets its options expanded by Forge World" is the same as "everyone gets everything?"

...do you understand what and example is?

We allready know that xnos get shafted when it comes to soup and FW is basicly soup³.

Wait so FW doesn't give everyone everything, but instead merely represents an expansion to a few ranges?

WHAT?|

FORGEWORLD EXPANDS A FEW RANGES??!?!?!??! WHY DIDN'T I KNOW THIS BEFORE!!??!?!11oneoneeleven

Model ranges should be as God (GW) intended them to be, and FW is a heathen devil giving us things like "options" and "choice."

Alot of the problem is that GW doesent seem to take FW units into consideration with their Strategems.

The Leviathan dread is downright broken when you can Deepstrike one in a Deathwatch army, or double shoot in a CSM army. Or consider the Dark Eldar Tarantulus that turns into a Character killing Sniper rifle gun boat.

Ok now it get's ridicoulous.
Especially because FW and GW are literally one, ONE, company.
I mean that is to say that one should not be allowed to play Battlefield 1 with the russian DLC because it is made by another studio within EA/ Dice......

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

HMint wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

HMint wrote:

And 'giving everyone access to everything' means exactly that:
(GW) Chaos does not have access to artillery tanks (other than DeathGuard?), but now they do thanks to FW.
(GW) Chaos does not have access to bombers, but now they do.
(GW) Chaos does not have access to drop pods, now they do.
(GW) Chaos does not have access to flying transports, now they do.

Sure, not each exact unit is available, but do you see how every options seems to get covered by FW somehow?

Can you explain to me how "Chaos gets its options expanded by Forge World" is the same as "everyone gets everything?"

...do you understand what and example is?

We allready know that xnos get shafted when it comes to soup and FW is basicly soup³.

Wait so FW doesn't give everyone everything, but instead merely represents an expansion to a few ranges?

WHAT?|

FORGEWORLD EXPANDS A FEW RANGES??!?!?!??! WHY DIDN'T I KNOW THIS BEFORE!!??!?!11oneoneeleven

Model ranges should be as God (GW) intended them to be, and FW is a heathen devil giving us things like "options" and "choice."

Are you trying to troll me or something?
How about, if you want to reply to me, you read what I wrote? If you do not understand the difference between language (what we are using to partake in a discussion atm) and RAW (hint: not to applied to language) then please stop doing so.

HMint wrote:
Are you trying to troll me or something?
How about, if you want to reply to me, you read what I wrote? If you do not understand the difference between language (what we are using to partake in a discussion atm) and RAW (hint: not to applied to language) then please stop doing so.

What I am trying to do is get you to elaborate on your point, which seems to be "I don't like FW because it gives armies options that GW didn't give them itself."

I guess one could interprete it losely as sarcasm, literally, he made fun off you, because surprise you realized that they were official addons.
He just did it in a sarcastic way.
(maybee with a hint of a meme, can't place that, have seen it tho.)
Wait so FW doesn't give everyone everything, but instead merely represents an expansion to a few ranges?

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

HMint wrote:
Are you trying to troll me or something?
How about, if you want to reply to me, you read what I wrote? If you do not understand the difference between language (what we are using to partake in a discussion atm) and RAW (hint: not to applied to language) then please stop doing so.

What I am trying to do is get you to elaborate on your point, which seems to be "I don't like FW because it gives armies options that GW didn't give them itself."

Yes, that is my point.
How about instead of elaborating it, you adress it?
Or maybe you feel like that is ok?

I know they are official. We are not discussing that point. We are discussing wether that is a good thing.

Saying 'it is legal' is like saying 'the death penalty is OK, because it is the law' therefore discarding the argument completely.

HMint wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

HMint wrote:
Are you trying to troll me or something?
How about, if you want to reply to me, you read what I wrote? If you do not understand the difference between language (what we are using to partake in a discussion atm) and RAW (hint: not to applied to language) then please stop doing so.

What I am trying to do is get you to elaborate on your point, which seems to be "I don't like FW because it gives armies options that GW didn't give them itself."

Yes, that is my point.
How about instead of elaborating it, you adress it?
Or maybe you feel like that is ok?

Here is my reply:
"It is fine to give armies options that GW did not give them, as long as those options are balanced. In fact, more options is always better than fewer options."

HMint wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

HMint wrote:
Are you trying to troll me or something?
How about, if you want to reply to me, you read what I wrote? If you do not understand the difference between language (what we are using to partake in a discussion atm) and RAW (hint: not to applied to language) then please stop doing so.

What I am trying to do is get you to elaborate on your point, which seems to be "I don't like FW because it gives armies options that GW didn't give them itself."

Yes, that is my point.
How about instead of elaborating it, you adress it?
Or maybe you feel like that is ok?

I know they are official. We are not discussing that point. We are discussing wether that is a good thing.

Saying 'it is legal' is like saying 'the death penalty is OK, because it is the law' therefore discarding the argument completely.

Except here we have a bad analogy that does not work.
Comparing the death Penalty, which btw is in most developped countries regarded as amoral and banned, to a offically sanctionized expansion in rules / laws from the same company/ country.
Infact it speaks against you.
Quite frankly it is only your own opinion that speaks against including FW codexes/ indexes.

Some people are weird about Forgeworld. It's a understandable thing considering Forgeworld do a pretty bad job of their rules sometimes. But so are the standard rules so it's silly to reject a game over it.

Edit: How in the name of sanity did people end up arguing about the death penalty...

Then it is a good thing I did not do that, huh?

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Strg Alt wrote:

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:

 Strg Alt wrote:


Why didn´t you change the FW dreadnought for a regular one? You could have had a game that day, if you had done so. FW stuff just has a bad reputation among a lot of players.

No, only the manchildren. What else- can I throw a tantrum over Robby G? Baneblades? Knights?

I bought models for me to enjoy. I shouldn't have to change them because some manbaby doesn't like it. There are always better players.

So why do you waste time with these guys? Play with your buddies and you´ll never have any issues whatsoever. But when you do pick-up games, you will get to know new people who won´t have the same opinion as you about the game.

Generally, it is my opinion that when playing a pick-up game, all normal rules for the game are used, and all you should discuss beforehand are rules that are not clear. Whether or not a Leviathan Dreadnought exists and should be used is not unclear, therefore, I generally assume it would be allowed to be used, since "following the basic rules" is generally okay for a pickup game.

And that´s the problem right there. A lot of people have the understanding that basic rules mean BRB and codices. FW is for them just the icing on top. Luxury items for the well endowed hobbyist. Most of them are also not familiar with the FW units and may feel cheated by anybody using them.

HMint wrote:
Then it is a good thing I did not do that, huh?

You just did use that Analogy and failed miserably.

 Strg Alt wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Strg Alt wrote:

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:

 Strg Alt wrote:


Why didn´t you change the FW dreadnought for a regular one? You could have had a game that day, if you had done so. FW stuff just has a bad reputation among a lot of players.

No, only the manchildren. What else- can I throw a tantrum over Robby G? Baneblades? Knights?

I bought models for me to enjoy. I shouldn't have to change them because some manbaby doesn't like it. There are always better players.

So why do you waste time with these guys? Play with your buddies and you´ll never have any issues whatsoever. But when you do pick-up games, you will get to know new people who won´t have the same opinion as you about the game.

Generally, it is my opinion that when playing a pick-up game, all normal rules for the game are used, and all you should discuss beforehand are rules that are not clear. Whether or not a Leviathan Dreadnought exists and should be used is not unclear, therefore, I generally assume it would be allowed to be used, since "following the basic rules" is generally okay for a pickup game.

And that´s the problem right there. A lot of people have the understanding that basic rules mean BRB and codices. FW is for them just the icing on top. Luxury items for the well endowed hobbyist. Most of them are also not familiar with the FW units and may feel cheated by anybody using them.

Really though, it's on them as to whether or not they feel cheated. The FW user isn't cheating. It only take a sensible and civil conversation pre-game to learn what that unfamiliar unit does. If sensible and civil is an issue for someone, then they're unlikely to be happy or able to be helped regardless of the situation.

Not Online!!! wrote:

HMint wrote:
Then it is a good thing I did not do that, huh?

You just did use that Analogy and failed miserably.

You fail at reading.
I am equating saying 'FW is OK because it is legal to use and therefore your arguments are all invalid' (which you did) to saying that a very controverisal law (death penalty) should not be a point of discussion because it is legal after all.

Just because things are legal, or 'official' does not mean we aren't allowed to complain about them.

Not Online!!! wrote:

HMint wrote:
Then it is a good thing I did not do that, huh?

You just did use that Analogy and failed miserably.

^^

@HMint, It pretty much was in the same league as invoking Hitler, and really wasn't relevant or expansive to the larger discussion. I don't really blame someone for calling you on it.

40K is not a matter of life and death, nor does it have anything to do with a very provocative aspect of morality and social justice. It's a completely unequal parallel to use.

 Strg Alt wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Strg Alt wrote:

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:

 Strg Alt wrote:


Why didn´t you change the FW dreadnought for a regular one? You could have had a game that day, if you had done so. FW stuff just has a bad reputation among a lot of players.

No, only the manchildren. What else- can I throw a tantrum over Robby G? Baneblades? Knights?

I bought models for me to enjoy. I shouldn't have to change them because some manbaby doesn't like it. There are always better players.

So why do you waste time with these guys? Play with your buddies and you´ll never have any issues whatsoever. But when you do pick-up games, you will get to know new people who won´t have the same opinion as you about the game.

Generally, it is my opinion that when playing a pick-up game, all normal rules for the game are used, and all you should discuss beforehand are rules that are not clear. Whether or not a Leviathan Dreadnought exists and should be used is not unclear, therefore, I generally assume it would be allowed to be used, since "following the basic rules" is generally okay for a pickup game.

And that´s the problem right there. A lot of people have the understanding that basic rules mean BRB and codices. FW is for them just the icing on top. Luxury items for the well endowed hobbyist. Most of them are also not familiar with the FW units and may feel cheated by anybody using them.

The people who think this are wrong for a few reasons:
The Basic Rules for the game are the BRB, Chapter Approved 2017, the Spring FAQ, other source-specific FAQs, the Indexes, the FW Indexes, and the Codexes. Anyone who believes it's just BRB + Codexes is houseruling the gak out of the game, but at least Commissars & Conscripts are still good.

FW is not for "well-endowed" people. I bought FW models in college when I worked at a grocery store. The entire range of 40k FW rules right now costs 15 quid or about $20 per book, for a whopping total of 60 quid or about $80. That's literally two codexes.

As for whether or not people "feel" cheated - I mean, that's on them. It's like feeling cheated because someone surrounded your unit and it couldn't fall back, or feeling cheated because someone fired a heavy bolter at something 35" away. Them's the rules, feeling cheated or not.

Well, it is hard for people to get to that conclusion by themselves.
GW certainly isn't helping it, by not having the models, or literature on display and not mentioning FW anywhere in their own literature.

I am not sure what the reason is for this, but apparently GW wants to have that distinction in place.
Maybe it is time for some GW driven FW advertising?

HMint wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

HMint wrote:
Then it is a good thing I did not do that, huh?

You just did use that Analogy and failed miserably.

You fail at reading.
I am equating saying 'FW is OK because it is legal to use and therefore your arguments are all invalid' (which you did) to saying that a very controverisal law (death penalty) should not be a point of discussion because it is legal after all.

Just because things are legal, or 'official' does not mean we aren't allowed to complain about them.

That my friend is just an entitled opinion, based on the simple fact that you are to lazy to look up the rules for these armies and or have the feeling that they are again OP, because you literally played against "That Guy" which just had to spam Leviatans, etc (not to mention that GW itself made units that are way more op when spammed and are objectively better then most FW stuff, but he).

You lump again all FW indexes behind that unit and complain about the fact that GW is actively pushing torwards bringing in more FW stuff. Meanwhile you are fine about everything GW does and certainly don't complain about the even more Overpowered stuff, that is seriously more unbalanced on a large scale from GW.
Here is a friendly reminder, this list could go on:
"Tide of Traitors" Stratagem.
The LOLZ you can't hit me Eldar faction buff for one Craftworld, in combination with certain psychic powers.
SOUP itself on the bigger faction keywords was again GW's doing.

Also assuming i don't read your posts properly whilest maintaining your stance even if proven to be hypocrisy at it's finest is quite amusing to be honest.

Forgeworld is becoming more mainstream, but you have to understand that it has been a long struggle for Forgeworld and many players till don't fully accept Forgeworld for legacy reasons that aren't as apparent anymore.

Here is the thing. Forgeworld has some really broken units. But on the whole, are those broken units *really* worse than the stuff GW has already shameless put in their Codex? Is that Leviathan Dread- while very good- really more broken than Alaitoc Dark Reapers?

At the end of the day it comes down to the lists the two players are playing. If they are roughly the same "competitive level" it'll be a fun game.

HMint wrote:
Well, it is hard for people to get to that conclusion by themselves.
GW certainly isn't helping it, by not having the models, or literature on display and not mentioning FW anywhere in their own literature.

I am not sure what the reason is for this, but apparently GW wants to have that distinction in place.
Maybe it is time for some GW driven FW advertising?

The updates on FW models appear in GWs chapter approved and their FaQs. GW does advertize FW on their community side, on their FB pages and in the White dwarf, literally in all their PR channels.

Not Online!!! wrote:

HMint wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

HMint wrote:
Then it is a good thing I did not do that, huh?

You just did use that Analogy and failed miserably.

You fail at reading.
I am equating saying 'FW is OK because it is legal to use and therefore your arguments are all invalid' (which you did) to saying that a very controverisal law (death penalty) should not be a point of discussion because it is legal after all.

Just because things are legal, or 'official' does not mean we aren't allowed to complain about them.

That my friend is just an entitled opinion, based on the simple fact that you are to lazy to look up the rules for these armies and or have the feeling that they are again OP, because you literally played against "That Guy" which just had to spam Leviatans, etc (not to mention that GW itself made units that are way more op when spammed and are objectively better then most FW stuff, but he).

You lump again all FW indexes behind that unit and complain about the fact that GW is actively pushing torwards bringing in more FW stuff. Meanwhile you are fine about everything GW does and certainly don't complain about the even more Overpowered stuff, that is seriously more unbalanced on a large scale from GW.
Here is a friendly reminder, this list could go on:
"Tide of Traitors" Stratagem.
The LOLZ you can't hit me Eldar faction buff for one Craftworld, in combination with certain psychic powers.
SOUP itself on the bigger faction keywords was again GW's doing.

Also assuming i don't read your posts properly whilest maintaining your stance even if proven to be hypocrisy at it's finest is quite amusing to be honest.

I am still waiting to be 'proven'. So far people seem to nitpick at semantics of my writing, or just have a different opinion.
You for example seem to have the opinion, that because GW has a lot of bad rules, it is fine to introduce even more bad rules? Did I understand that part I quoted correctly?

In that case I maintain, that keeping the game less complex, with less rules (bad or otherwise) seems to help balance things.

Now to expand a bit, I am not even completely against FW personally. In this thread I am arguing why people might not want to play it. Others brought up FWs past imbalances, but I feel like the added complexity and possibity for even more broken things coming in from FW is also a factor. Keep in mind that to many players the FW lineup is kind of mysterious, as they do not have access to all of those rules typically. An unknown lineup that introduces weird new rules into their games.

I personally am ok with FW where it expands the army, but upkeeps their identity.
I do not really like if FW gives an army something completely new, which changes the internal balance of that army too much.
What I absolutely do not like is when FW writes entire allies into the rules where they did not exist formerly.

People that get super butthurt over FW really fall into two camps generally.

First: the ignorant. People that just dont know about FW and have likely been taken advantage of. Everyone has that horror story of some dude proxying an FW model with made up or erroneous (usually old) rules and poisoning FW in that group forever and either never bother looking into what really should have happened and never get over it.

Second: the intransigent. They just dont like anything outside that isnt from the main GW studio line for whatever reason, and that simple fact in and of itself is all that they really have to hate against despite nothing in the rules supportinf such a stance, but theyll bend over backwards to find every possible excuse to exclude FW, but ultimately really never have a better root explanation than "it doesnt say Codex on the cover".

Meanwhile I'm sitting here waiting for my DKoK to get all these massively powerful goodies that FW supposedly offers and wondering where all thats at

 Saturmorn Carvilli wrote:

So congratulations I guess, you (along with similar posts) made another anti-Forge World player.

Good. You just made me want to buy even more.

what the hell makes a 300+ point Dread OP ?

Sgt. Cortez wrote:

HMint wrote:
Well, it is hard for people to get to that conclusion by themselves.
GW certainly isn't helping it, by not having the models, or literature on display and not mentioning FW anywhere in their own literature.

I am not sure what the reason is for this, but apparently GW wants to have that distinction in place.
Maybe it is time for some GW driven FW advertising?

The updates on FW models appear in GWs chapter approved and their FaQs. GW does advertize FW on their community side, on their FB pages and in the White dwarf, literally in all their PR channels.

Typically for online multiplayer games, the percentage of players that take part in online forums such as this one and visit official websites and community pages are in the minority. Most players seem to just play the game as they aquired it.
So I am guessing this is even more so the case for 40k?

I mean... the only way I got to know the FW rules is by aquiring those books from.. shady sources. Obviously not everyone does evil things like that.
And they won't buy the rules unless there is a reason dor them to do so. Isn't that kind of a problem?
If you want to know if a certain GW army suits you, you can walk into any GW store, read through their open codizes (all stores I went to had a few of those), look at the models on display, talk to the store-guys...
That venue does not exist for FW, so I don't find it very surprising that a lot of players aren't familiar with their lineup.

HMint wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

HMint wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

HMint wrote:
Then it is a good thing I did not do that, huh?

You just did use that Analogy and failed miserably.

You fail at reading.
I am equating saying 'FW is OK because it is legal to use and therefore your arguments are all invalid' (which you did) to saying that a very controverisal law (death penalty) should not be a point of discussion because it is legal after all.

Just because things are legal, or 'official' does not mean we aren't allowed to complain about them.

That my friend is just an entitled opinion, based on the simple fact that you are to lazy to look up the rules for these armies and or have the feeling that they are again OP, because you literally played against "That Guy" which just had to spam Leviatans, etc (not to mention that GW itself made units that are way more op when spammed and are objectively better then most FW stuff, but he).

You lump again all FW indexes behind that unit and complain about the fact that GW is actively pushing torwards bringing in more FW stuff. Meanwhile you are fine about everything GW does and certainly don't complain about the even more Overpowered stuff, that is seriously more unbalanced on a large scale from GW.
Here is a friendly reminder, this list could go on:
"Tide of Traitors" Stratagem.
The LOLZ you can't hit me Eldar faction buff for one Craftworld, in combination with certain psychic powers.
SOUP itself on the bigger faction keywords was again GW's doing.

Also assuming i don't read your posts properly whilest maintaining your stance even if proven to be hypocrisy at it's finest is quite amusing to be honest.

I am still waiting to be 'proven'. So far people seem to nitpick at semantics of my writing, or just have a different opinion.
You for example seem to have the opinion, that because GW has a lot of bad rules, it is fine to introduce even more bad rules? Did I understand that part I quoted correctly?

In that case I maintain, that keeping the game less complex, with less rules (bad or otherwise) seems to help balance things.

Now to expand a bit, I am not even completely against FW personally. In this thread I am arguing why people might not want to play it. Others brought up FWs past imbalances, but I feel like the added complexity and possibity for even more broken things coming in from FW is also a factor. Keep in mind that to many players the FW lineup is kind of mysterious, as they do not have access to all of those rules typically. An unknown lineup that introduces weird new rules into their games.

I personally am ok with FW where it expands the army, but upkeeps their identity.
I do not really like if FW gives an army something completely new, which changes the internal balance of that army too much.
What I absolutely do not like is when FW writes entire allies into the rules where they did not exist formerly.

And again you are trapped by the imagination that FW rules will overcomplicate the game that GW recently streamlined extremely. (By the way you should also be against new releases in armies of GW then when "something new that changes the balance of an army" shows up)

And again you fail to see that the new rules are basically just new variations of the same rules, played with the same dice and with the same profile/ statsystem.

And again you would rather play a game deep as a puddle in order to keep something simple for simplicities sake instead of buidling and allowing players to have choices and options. Actually no, you would rather have the excact same rules always and forever, because you literally can't seem to live with change.

And AGAIN no access to the rules is wrong because the player that brings FW units / armies has to bring the index and you certainly have a right to read the rules, because if else then certainly you have a player at your hand which is either going to cheat and or "that guy/ rule lawyer" and then i can only reccomend you not to play that match.

As for the bad rules argument: "because GW makes bad rules we should not allow a company which mostly does better internal rules then GW into the system because it could be even worse" Well how come that FW rules generally are more balanced and the problem is less with FW and more with the players that just inherently pick the most OP stuff ( also known as Powergamer). Secondly considering they are literally one company that releases the 40 k gamesystem toghether more or less, do you honestly think FW could screw the balance up even moreso then GW, which btw does this on a regular basis? Don't you think it might be time to bring some fresh wind into their rule/ gamedesign team via introducing somebody else into that system?

HMint wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

HMint wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

HMint wrote:
Then it is a good thing I did not do that, huh?

You just did use that Analogy and failed miserably.

You fail at reading.
I am equating saying 'FW is OK because it is legal to use and therefore your arguments are all invalid' (which you did) to saying that a very controverisal law (death penalty) should not be a point of discussion because it is legal after all.

Just because things are legal, or 'official' does not mean we aren't allowed to complain about them.

That my friend is just an entitled opinion, based on the simple fact that you are to lazy to look up the rules for these armies and or have the feeling that they are again OP, because you literally played against "That Guy" which just had to spam Leviatans, etc (not to mention that GW itself made units that are way more op when spammed and are objectively better then most FW stuff, but he).

You lump again all FW indexes behind that unit and complain about the fact that GW is actively pushing torwards bringing in more FW stuff. Meanwhile you are fine about everything GW does and certainly don't complain about the even more Overpowered stuff, that is seriously more unbalanced on a large scale from GW.
Here is a friendly reminder, this list could go on:
"Tide of Traitors" Stratagem.
The LOLZ you can't hit me Eldar faction buff for one Craftworld, in combination with certain psychic powers.
SOUP itself on the bigger faction keywords was again GW's doing.

Also assuming i don't read your posts properly whilest maintaining your stance even if proven to be hypocrisy at it's finest is quite amusing to be honest.

I am still waiting to be 'proven'. So far people seem to nitpick at semantics of my writing, or just have a different opinion.
You for example seem to have the opinion, that because GW has a lot of bad rules, it is fine to introduce even more bad rules? Did I understand that part I quoted correctly?

In that case I maintain, that keeping the game less complex, with less rules (bad or otherwise) seems to help balance things.

Now to expand a bit, I am not even completely against FW personally. In this thread I am arguing why people might not want to play it. Others brought up FWs past imbalances, but I feel like the added complexity and possibity for even more broken things coming in from FW is also a factor. Keep in mind that to many players the FW lineup is kind of mysterious, as they do not have access to all of those rules typically. An unknown lineup that introduces weird new rules into their games.

I personally am ok with FW where it expands the army, but upkeeps their identity.
I do not really like if FW gives an army something completely new, which changes the internal balance of that army too much.
What I absolutely do not like is when FW writes entire allies into the rules where they did not exist formerly.

With respect, what you like or don't like is irrelevant. What I like or don't like is also irrelevant.

Factually, FW units are legal and if you're playing by the rules of 40K, they are part of those rules. We don't have to like it, we do have to accept it. Where we refuse to, we also have to accept we are no longer playing 40K, but instead our own homebrew version of that game.

Isn't it massively arrogant to expect others to play by your special version of the rules because you don't like the official ones?

I hate the term personally, but generally someone expecting that level of special treatment is referred to as a snowflake.

Now, if you can have a polite conversation and agree to play by x, y or z, that's fine! But you certainly shouldn't expect your opponent to automatically agree and childishly refuse to play when they don't.