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.

StrayIight wrote:
[
Why is it any more acceptable in our game, for people to choose to play by - or omit - whatever rules they feel like, and then expect the rest of us to automatically be ok with it? That they can make that choice (and I accept they can), doesn't make the choice any less foolhardy if you are playing outside of your own private location or without implicit agreement beforehand.

I'll ignore the comment about physically beating people - it just doesn't warrant a response.

Not playing against somebody isn't omitting rules. It's simply choosing whom you play with.

I go to store, ask for game. Somebody says he would like. However seeing what he has makes me realize it won't be fun game. I have in my rights to decline. I'm neither legally nor morally obliged to play. The GAMES ARE NOT MANDATORY! I have not signed contract anywhere I'm forced to play games I don't want.

I'm free to play games I want with whom I want. Same others. I have no right demanding somebody to play with me. Why you should have right to demand ME to play YOU? You are asking for you to have bigger rights than I have.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

StrayIight wrote:


You be you. I fully support people playing however they want - but you can't go to a public place like a FLGS and expect to tell another random player they can't play by the official 40K rules, or they can't use a legal unit because you don't like it. Not without being unreasonable really.

I'm not asking them to play different ruleset. I just say then politely "sorry, not interested in the game". If that means I don't have opponent for that day fair enough. That's my problem and I'm fine with it. Stepping into game store does not make it required to play a game there no matter what. They have right to play with whom they want, I have right to play with whom they want.

FW does seem to have the problem of some few over the top units. Not OP, just over the top as in kinda unfun to play against.

As an Example:
There is a guy that goes to both of the FLGS that I go to, and he has the really big knight (poryphyrion IIRC). I've played against the model a couple times, won once and lost once. Its just not fun to play against. He's a chill guy too, but when I see that model on the field I feel like its just going to be a less enjoyable game.

I've also played against many arseholes that specifically abuse the OP FW units. I knew that the game was less enjoyable because of the guy across and not because of the units that they were using, but it could be really easy to make a false link of FW-> Unfun.

StrayIight wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

StrayIight wrote:
You can refuse to play whomever you wish - you have that right, but doing so on the basis that someone is using a model or rule (that's a legal part of the game) that you don't like, is (under general circumstances) open to being seen as unreasonable. If you're ignoring legitimate parts of a games rules or content, I feel that actually what you're now doing is playing your own version of a game, and not the 40K the rest of us are.

As for playing tennis against a professional player. Why? Because you'd likely lose? Does that then mean we should refuse to play against anyone who we suspect to better than us? I figure playing against a more talented individual is likely the best learning experience we'll ever have... Is the problem here actually one of humility?

Or not having any fun with zero chance of winning or even avoiding massacre.

I know my lists aren't tournament type of lists. I don't need to play against super hard core armies to know my lists aren't that caliber. I also have yet to find tournament lists that arent' so far from the kind of armies I like to play(the kind you often read about in fluff) that I don't go either "yawn, boring" or literally puke. I cannot play those kind of lists. Period.

As my lists are more for relaxed beer&prezel games they will get 0-20 slaughtered in 1 turn against hardcore army lists. What function playing game serves? Difference in power level gap is so big that it won't teach me anything. Similarly playing tennis against Federer would be so slopsided it wouldn't teach me anything. He would just send ball where I am not nor would I be able to get there. There would be nothing to be learned from there either.

It's been pointed out to you once already, but I will do so again: No one but you is saying anything about playing against tournament lists. We're talking about the refusal to play against a legal model because of a ridiculous and self invented policy against FW that someone has created, and that frankly, I see as deeply unfair toward the OP who is playing well within the spirit of the rules, let alone their granular content.

If you want to talk about tournament lists vs casual lists, we can have that separate discussion. But frankly taking a casual list to a location where you suspect or know people will be running super competitive armies is still on you. What you are bringing isn't in their control, only yours. My advice (unasked for admittedly) is to play at places or with groups that have a culture of casual play, not power play, or to suck it up if you go elsewhere.

I completely, completely understand you wanting to have a fun game. But you have to understand that 'fun' means different things to different people, and 'enforcing' your version of 'fun' on others (for any reason) via refusal of play, isn't going to be received favourably by many. Often times, the sporting thing to do is to compromise, and not be hardline and uncompromising regarding our own view.

Switch it up, and look at the underlying principle. There are people who refuse to play with or against Special Characters, ever since Special Characters were a thing. Even bypassing the move from "opponent's permission" to "whenever you feel like it", tourneys outlaw them at times, and some clubs make it a fast house rule. How is anti-FW any different? Other than someone spending a TON on a model that now won't see action one night they tried to play it?

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
If you think it's okay to deny Forge World, I hope you also think it's okay to deny playing against Space Marines, Custodes, T'au, Eldar, Dark Eldar, Tyranids, Sisters, Inquisition, Grey Knights, Deathwatch, Genestealer Cults, Chaos Marines, Chaos Daemons, Knights, Assassins, AdMech, Orks, etc etc etc - everyone except Imperial Guard.

After all, I don't know the rules and am not familiar with the other armies - I only know Imperial Guard, and I can't be bothered to research the other armies in the game.

/sarcasm

Yes you would be in your rights. Does mean you'll have lesser targets and nobody is required to get an IG army to play vs you. BUT YOU DO HAVE THAT OPTION! If I was in store looking an opponent with my orks and opponent says he doesn't want to play against orks I would shrug and look for another opponent. It's not a big deal so I have no reason to act like a baby and complain about opponent not wanting to play against orks.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:

 Saturmorn Carvilli wrote:
There is usual social contract about these things most places I have game. It I take something a little odd or unexpected, I check with my opponent if they are fine with it, especially if they don't know me, I have a contingency plan in place in case they decide they aren't conformable with the inclusion.

So basically you just ask permission to play with your own models.

Why don't you just say you want someone to write your list for you?

No. But I don't have right to demand random people to play with me. Seriously are we playing in free country or north korea? Some people have right to demand other to play regardless of what?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Vilehydra wrote:
FW does seem to have the problem of some few over the top units. Not OP, just over the top as in kinda unfun to play against.

As an Example:
There is a guy that goes to both of the FLGS that I go to, and he has the really big knight (poryphyrion IIRC). I've played against the model a couple times, won once and lost once. Its just not fun to play against. He's a chill guy too, but when I see that model on the field I feel like its just going to be a less enjoyable game.

I've also played against many arseholes that specifically abuse the OP FW units. I knew that the game was less enjoyable because of the guy across and not because of the units that they were using, but it could be really easy to make a false link of FW-> Unfun.

Yes FW has strong units. So it has weak units. GW codexes have even stronger more OP units. Whopedoo.

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Saturmorn Carvilli wrote:

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:


So basically you just ask permission to play with your own models.

Why don't you just say you want someone to write your list for you?

Isn't that exactly what you are doing when you say you ask to play any miniatures game? I am not stopping you from playing with your miniatures. I am stopping myself from playing with you.

As for your second point, I am pretty sure I can manage to make a list all on my own without including a single Forge World model. I am pretty sure the Citadel model line is large enough to accomplish that. I would hazard to guess most army lists in fact don't have any Forge World units within them. So asking if I want someone to write my list for me is highly disingenuous.

Most army lists don't have Valkyries or Genestealers or Trukks either, what's your point? The distinction you're making is one you're forcing between one sales channel and another of the same organization, not anything based in the rules, lore, source, or anything else.

My point is there is a huge gap between having someone write my own list because I choose not to make use of Forge World models (or play strangers that do) and creating a list that most players take exception to. I would think that is obvious, unless you agree with insinuation that Adeptus Doritos is making that not allowing Forge World models is akin to having someone else create your army list. I am guessing of those factions you list, all have a far lesser degree of players making use of Forge World models in them than the ones you mentioned. If I am facing an Ork list, I think it is reasonable expect it to have a Trukk or two. I don't even know if the orks have a special Forge World unit. If they do, I expect it is expensive and something several order of magnitude rarer that a trukk. I am not interesting in considering a unit that less than 5% (probably less than 1%) of ork players have and field.

I don't care if Forge World is merely a different sales channel. In Bolt Action, I wouldn't accept any unit from some random campaign book unit in my opponent's force without restriction even if that unit is a Warlord Games model and doesn't break any of the rules of Bolt Action nor would I run any random campaign book unit in my army list for a PUG with an unknown (possibly unfamiliar) opponent. That sort of stuff is going to require me to have a rapport with said opponent where I have some level of trust out of what they want our game which reasonably matches what I want out it.

Honestly, I don't care that much about this issue. I did take exception to the posts that became aggressive toward the player that didn't want to face Forge World units. Some of those posts included name calling. I continued in the thread due to several posts seeming pretty hyperbolic in thier statements. I am actually more inline with techsoldaten on what I am looking for out of a game. However, as mentioned, several of the posts here made me reconsider having an open policy about just allowing Forge World units. Every player has the right to refuse a game if they don't want to play for whatever reason. I have refused games and had other players refuse to play me. I don't consider it a big deal and often consider it a courtesy to not want a few hours being miserable when I should be having fun. This is my hobby not my job and no gaming is better than bad gaming.

I don't see how facing super rare, often niche units is going to improve my enjoyment of the game, but I can see several ways it can diminish it. I am not 100% against the use of Forge World. I am very uncomfortable with the idea of my first game with a person I never played before just fielding Forge World stuff. It is going to take me a few games with that person to feel out what they want from miniatures gaming before I am going to trust them enhance our gaming experience with them. Going by many of the posts here, I have been further pushed from wanting to play games with opponents that make use of Forge World stuff. I doubt I will have to worry about any of this. Forge World stuff is pretty rare, and I don't play PUG much since I feel they are more of a hassle than fun most of the time (again no gaming is better than bad gaming). I am more concerned about the prevalence of players here being upset that someone might refuse to play a game with them and the black or white stances of some posts (par for the internet I guess).

tneva82 wrote:

StrayIight wrote:
[
Why is it any more acceptable in our game, for people to choose to play by - or omit - whatever rules they feel like, and then expect the rest of us to automatically be ok with it? That they can make that choice (and I accept they can), doesn't make the choice any less foolhardy if you are playing outside of your own private location or without implicit agreement beforehand.

I'll ignore the comment about physically beating people - it just doesn't warrant a response.

Not playing against somebody isn't omitting rules. It's simply choosing whom you play with.

I go to store, ask for game. Somebody says he would like. However seeing what he has makes me realize it won't be fun game. I have in my rights to decline. I'm neither legally nor morally obliged to play. The GAMES ARE NOT MANDATORY! I have not signed contract anywhere I'm forced to play games I don't want.

I'm free to play games I want with whom I want. Same others. I have no right demanding somebody to play with me. Why you should have right to demand ME to play YOU? You are asking for you to have bigger rights than I have.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

StrayIight wrote:


You be you. I fully support people playing however they want - but you can't go to a public place like a FLGS and expect to tell another random player they can't play by the official 40K rules, or they can't use a legal unit because you don't like it. Not without being unreasonable really.

I'm not asking them to play different ruleset. I just say then politely "sorry, not interested in the game". If that means I don't have opponent for that day fair enough. That's my problem and I'm fine with it. Stepping into game store does not make it required to play a game there no matter what. They have right to play with whom they want, I have right to play with whom they want.

So, to sum up. Your argument is that unless you are allowed to kick up a fuss about the contents of an opponents list and remove their right to play the units they wish, your rights are infringed upon? They have greater rights than you by merely playing the vanilla game, unless you get to play them by your specific, non-default, preferences? Unless you get your way?

"Look, his Rhino has resin chapter doors! HE MUST BE NORTH KOREAN!"

Ridiculous. The number of people who expect to be specifically catered to in a public play setting is mind boggling. You know what? Stay at home, and play with your friends - that's the scenario where you get to dictate changes to the content of the game. Outside of your private space, let people play the game as it's intended. And yes, GW intend for people to purchase and use FW units.

It seems a bit pathetic to cancel just like that, especially given that your list is hardly exploitative.

Every game is a multi-player experience requiring compromise and negotiation between each player to make the best of it. Rigid, doctrinal behaviour is counter-productive and should be discouraged. It shocks me that he didn't even try to have a discussion about it.

However, OP I suspect that you dodged a bullet here. You probably don't want to be playing against people like this anyway.

 Saturmorn Carvilli wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Saturmorn Carvilli wrote:

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:


So basically you just ask permission to play with your own models.

Why don't you just say you want someone to write your list for you?

Isn't that exactly what you are doing when you say you ask to play any miniatures game? I am not stopping you from playing with your miniatures. I am stopping myself from playing with you.

As for your second point, I am pretty sure I can manage to make a list all on my own without including a single Forge World model. I am pretty sure the Citadel model line is large enough to accomplish that. I would hazard to guess most army lists in fact don't have any Forge World units within them. So asking if I want someone to write my list for me is highly disingenuous.

Most army lists don't have Valkyries or Genestealers or Trukks either, what's your point? The distinction you're making is one you're forcing between one sales channel and another of the same organization, not anything based in the rules, lore, source, or anything else.

My point is there is a huge gap between having someone write my own list because I choose not to make use of Forge World models (or play strangers that do) and creating a list that most players take exception to. I would think that is obvious, unless you agree with insinuation that Adeptus Doritos is making that not allowing Forge World models is akin to having someone else create your army list. I am guessing of those factions you list, all have a far lesser degree of players making use of Forge World models in them than the ones you mentioned. If I am facing an Ork list, I think it is reasonable expect it to have a Trukk or two. I don't even know if the orks have a special Forge World unit. If they do, I expect it is expensive and something several order of magnitude rarer that a trukk. I am not interesting in considering a unit that less than 5% (probably less than 1%) of ork players have and field.

I don't care if Forge World is merely a different sales channel. In Bolt Action, I wouldn't accept any unit from some random campaign book unit in my opponent's force without restriction even if that unit is a Warlord Games model and doesn't break any of the rules of Bolt Action nor would I run any random campaign book unit in my army list for a PUG with an unknown (possibly unfamiliar) opponent. That sort of stuff is going to require me to have a rapport with said opponent where I have some level of trust out of what they want our game which reasonably matches what I want out it.

Honestly, I don't care that much about this issue. I did take exception to the posts that became aggressive toward the player that didn't want to face Forge World units. Some of those posts included name calling. I continued in the thread due to several posts seeming pretty hyperbolic in thier statements. I am actually more inline with techsoldaten on what I am looking for out of a game. However, as mentioned, several of the posts here made me reconsider having an open policy about just allowing Forge World units. Every player has the right to refuse a game if they don't want to play for whatever reason. I have refused games and had other players refuse to play me. I don't consider it a big deal and often consider it a courtesy to not want a few hours being miserable when I should be having fun. This is my hobby not my job and no gaming is better than bad gaming.

I don't see how facing super rare, often niche units is going to improve my enjoyment of the game, but I can see several ways it can diminish it. I am not 100% against the use of Forge World. I am very uncomfortable with the idea of my first game with a person I never played before just fielding Forge World stuff. It is going to take me a few games with that person to feel out what they want from miniatures gaming before I am going to trust them enhance our gaming experience with them. Going by many of the posts here, I have been further pushed from wanting to play games with opponents that make use of Forge World stuff. I doubt I will have to worry about any of this. Forge World stuff is pretty rare, and I don't play PUG much since I feel they are more of a hassle than fun most of the time (again no gaming is better than bad gaming). I am more concerned about the prevalence of players here being upset that someone might refuse to play a game with them and the black or white stances of some posts (par for the internet I guess).

Now that is a bad analogy: because FW units are explicit 40 k content, offically sanctioned one at that, whilest Boltaction is a gamesystem published via Warlord, which also publishes other miniatures.
Yes you can deny in the later case, because it is not the same system, (considering sci-fi models are also published by Warlord it would make for some hillarious fun when they are introduced for fun into BA, but that is something else). You can't however argue that this would be the case for 40k units IN 40 for it from FW.
(If someone were to bring 30k units then this would be another debate but since we are talking about a 40k model with 40k rules ina match of 40k i will ignore that point)

That would be plain ridicoulous. As for your last point, seriously?

You are afraid because you can't handle "new" or "strage" stuff, because it might could diminish your experience?

I mean by that logic you would have had problems with the Dakkafiend release in 7th and anything new, because it is "new" and could diminish your experience. (CHANGE IS BAD THEREFORE WE SHOULD HAVE STAYED IN THE MEDIEVAL AGES WITH THE INQUISITION, sincerly a Catholic)

Btw. Girlyman is also new, and a GW model, that certainly diminished some experiences here, should we therefor be allowed to just ban such units?

Quite frankly you getting forced to play stands opposed in this case of you forcing somebody to play in a way you want, preferable aginst units you want to see, which may or may not be good enough to win against you.

StrayIight wrote:

So, to sum up. Your argument is that unless you are allowed to kick up a fuss about the contents of an opponents list and remove their right to play the units they wish, your rights are infringed upon? They have greater rights than you by merely playing the vanilla game, unless you get to play them by your specific, non-default, preferences? Unless you get your way?

My rights are violated if somebody tries to make me do something I don't when I'm not even violating rule.

Would you like if you are told you have to go and play soccer when you don't want?

Ridiculous. The number of people who expect to be specifically catered to in a public play setting is mind boggling. You know what? Stay at home, and play with your friends - that's the scenario where you get to dictate changes to the content of the game. Outside of your private space, let people play the game as it's intended. And yes, GW intend for people to purchase and use FW units.

You are the one expecting to have bigger rights than I. I don't expect others to provide game I want. But I don't have to play either. You demand right to tell me what I have to do. I don't do that.

From my POV You are free to do whatever you want to do and so am I. In your opinion *I* am not free to do what *I* want but instead I MUST do what YOU want.

You are being very entitled here expecting others to play as YOU want. but you know what? World doesn't work like that. You can play how you want, I can play how I want. I don't demand you to play how I want, you demand me to play how you want. Which one of us is the unreasonable one here? You are throwing kid's tantrum because I don't want to play game that isn't fun for both sides.

You are making assumption that the moment I step to the store creates legal contract that I HAVE to play against anybody who wants to play. It does not work like that. I can ask for a game. But if I don't find game I would like to play I can refuse. Means I won't get a game unless there's another player. And that's ok. I do NOT have right to demand opponent make army I want him to have. We can of course TALK about the kind of game. Shock horror social game that involves talking! THE HORROR THE HORROR! You might have to actually TALK TO YOUR OPPONENT! Oh the horror! Never understood how hard it can be people to TALK when the whole game is social game to begin with.

Frankly talking with opponent about the type of game they are looking is 100% essential in 40k for a good game. Otherwise good fun game is not all that easy since players are looking different things from game. Hyper competive player vs casual player who is looking for recreating armies he has read are going to have a miserable game for both. Yet by your logic they are LEGALLY REQUIRED to play the game just like that just by setting foot on same store...Sheesh. Idea of actually talking to opponent seems to be alien concept to you.

Without talking to your opponent about game you want to play how you are going to work out game at all? Open, narrative, matched? 1000 pts, 60PL, 2500 pts? Maelstrom? Eternal? Open war? You cannon START the game without talking yet somehow I'm supposed to be legally bound to play without even agreeing about the game...

Well if somebody tries that stunt for me demanding I play boring game because I set foot on store I agree on that but it stilll leaves details of match up to play. I insist on 8100 pts armies. No more, no less. Both are legally bound to play, you can't even claim you don't have models with you enough for that size because no rule REQUIRES you to fill points so it's 100% legal game that you bring your 2k points vs my 8.1k So either you agree on that or I disagree with your conditions and we run out of time. There's no universal scenario to be played so we cannot start the game before scenario, including points, are agreed on. If you want to be TFG I have tools against that.

tneva82 wrote:

StrayIight wrote:

So, to sum up. Your argument is that unless you are allowed to kick up a fuss about the contents of an opponents list and remove their right to play the units they wish, your rights are infringed upon? They have greater rights than you by merely playing the vanilla game, unless you get to play them by your specific, non-default, preferences? Unless you get your way?

My rights are violated if somebody tries to make me do something I don't when I'm not even violating rule.

Would you like if you are told you have to go and play soccer when you don't want?

Ridiculous. The number of people who expect to be specifically catered to in a public play setting is mind boggling. You know what? Stay at home, and play with your friends - that's the scenario where you get to dictate changes to the content of the game. Outside of your private space, let people play the game as it's intended. And yes, GW intend for people to purchase and use FW units.

You are the one expecting to have bigger rights than I. I don't expect others to provide game I want. But I don't have to play either. You demand right to tell me what I have to do. I don't do that.

From my POV You are free to do whatever you want to do and so am I. In your opinion *I* am not free to do what *I* want but instead I MUST do what YOU want.

You are being very entitled here expecting others to play as YOU want. but you know what? World doesn't work like that. You can play how you want, I can play how I want. I don't demand you to play how I want, you demand me to play how you want. Which one of us is the unreasonable one here? You are throwing kid's tantrum because I don't want to play game that isn't fun for both sides.

You are making assumption that the moment I step to the store creates legal contract that I HAVE to play against anybody who wants to play. It does not work like that. I can ask for a game. But if I don't find game I would like to play I can refuse. Means I won't get a game unless there's another player. And that's ok. I do NOT have right to demand opponent make army I want him to have. We can of course TALK about the kind of game. Shock horror social game that involves talking! THE HORROR THE HORROR! You might have to actually TALK TO YOUR OPPONENT! Oh the horror! Never understood how hard it can be people to TALK when the whole game is social game to begin with.

Frankly talking with opponent about the type of game they are looking is 100% essential in 40k for a good game. Otherwise good fun game is not all that easy since players are looking different things from game. Hyper competive player vs casual player who is looking for recreating armies he has read are going to have a miserable game for both. Yet by your logic they are LEGALLY REQUIRED to play the game just by setting foot on same store...Sheesh. Idea of actually talking to opponent seems to be alien concept to you.

Officialy GW stores do have technically that policy, technically,but the last point seems important to highlight.
Granted, in this case the it was more of a overreactionof the opponent OP faced. Quite frankly i belive you should have right to refuse, if someone goes ultra competitive when you have a Fluff/fun- list. However throwing a tantrum because your enemy pulls out a FW modell (which is even relatively badly equipped btw.) and refusing to instatnly play a match because of that, well i guess that rubs many of us the wrong way. I mean that is like you play agaist an ork player, but as soon as he puts down a Wyrdboy you refuse to play the game.

tneva82 wrote:

You are throwing kid's tantrum because I don't want to play game that isn't fun for both sides.

Uh huh. Yes we are throwing a kids tantrum. Not the individual who is literally saying 'If you use that unit, I won't play, so there!'

No one is forcing you to do anything. Not once has anyone said that. Our argument (which I believe you have missed while complaining about your rights), is this: When you tell someone they can't play with you if they don't only use the units you are happy with - especially in a public setting - you come across as pretty unreasonable.

If you expect someone to conform to your wishes - when they are not the established way of doing things (as is literally the case here) - you are asking for special treatment.

What's being pointed out to you, is that a whole bunch of us don't feel you should necessarily expect that special treatment. No one is infringing on your supposed 'rights' in doing so.

 Saturmorn Carvilli wrote:

Isn't that exactly what you are doing when you say you ask to play any miniatures game? I am not stopping you from playing with your miniatures. I am stopping myself from playing with you.

No. I am asking if we can play together. Both of us are involved. If you elect to be a House Escher Male about it, you have every right to do so. And I have every right to label you as someone who is selective about what rules you follow.

If you refuse to play my Forge World tanks, I have every reason to suspect you'll cry about anything you aren't certain you can beat. I'll leave you to find another game, and I'll have no trouble finding a better player.

 Saturmorn Carvilli wrote:

As for your second point, I am pretty sure I can manage to make a list all on my own without including a single Forge World model. I am pretty sure the Citadel model line is large enough to accomplish that. I would hazard to guess most army lists in fact don't have any Forge World units within them. So asking if I want someone to write my list for me is highly disingenuous.

So can I. But I chose to include certain models because I like them, they're 100% legal, and it has an added bonus of helping me find the toxic manchildren and add them to my "disregard man-shaped toddler" list.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

tneva82 wrote:


No. But I don't have right to demand random people to play with me. Seriously are we playing in free country or north korea? Some people have right to demand other to play regardless of what?

No one is "demanding" anything. I don't have a 'right' to a game. I do, however, have an expectation like any other sane, rational, mature adult playing warhammer 40k ( all 10 of us) and that expectation is that if the rules allow it and you can't justify me excluding it (like, "I have no anti-air capability with me today")- then I would prefer the person be an adult about it and roll with the game.

It's my fun, too- and if you can't compromise then you can pack up and go home and play by or with yourself, it is comically easy to find another player. By virtue of not being a crybaby about Forge World, I am demonstrably more likely to find more games.

 Saturmorn Carvilli wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Saturmorn Carvilli wrote:

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:


So basically you just ask permission to play with your own models.

Why don't you just say you want someone to write your list for you?

Isn't that exactly what you are doing when you say you ask to play any miniatures game? I am not stopping you from playing with your miniatures. I am stopping myself from playing with you.

As for your second point, I am pretty sure I can manage to make a list all on my own without including a single Forge World model. I am pretty sure the Citadel model line is large enough to accomplish that. I would hazard to guess most army lists in fact don't have any Forge World units within them. So asking if I want someone to write my list for me is highly disingenuous.

Most army lists don't have Valkyries or Genestealers or Trukks either, what's your point? The distinction you're making is one you're forcing between one sales channel and another of the same organization, not anything based in the rules, lore, source, or anything else.

My point is there is a huge gap between having someone write my own list because I choose not to make use of Forge World models (or play strangers that do) and creating a list that most players take exception to. I would think that is obvious, unless you agree with insinuation that Adeptus Doritos is making that not allowing Forge World models is akin to having someone else create your army list. I am guessing of those factions you list, all have a far lesser degree of players making use of Forge World models in them than the ones you mentioned.

Sure, though when we're talking troops and transports I'm not sure how high a bar that is. Regardless, no, I don't agree with the hyperbolic level Doritos' statement goes to, but if you're basically going to tell people "I won't play you if you run X plastic toy soldier models in your army, unless...", you are on some level fundamentally dictating what their list can contain, if they they want to play you. That said, it's absolutely your right to do that if you choose, but recognize that restriction is coming from a distinction of your own creation rather than anything intended by the designers of the game or found within its rules.

If I am facing an Ork list, I think it is reasonable expect it to have a Trukk or two. I don't even know if the orks have a special Forge World unit.

In an era when almost everyone has a device in their pocket capable of accessing the sum total of human knowledge from almost anywhere, one would think that would be an easy problem to solve.

Hell, the current FW index books are all cheaper than Codex books too to boot.

If they do, I expect it is expensive and something several order of magnitude rarer that a trukk.

Most of their stuff isn't all that rare or outrageously expensive. They've got everything from tiny little 30something point Grot tanks to up-armored Trukks and Trakks, a unique biker character and Warpcopta's, and Orky equivalents to some of the more recent Marine dreadnought classes and the like. Not everything is a Stompa.

I am not interesting in considering a unit that less than 5% (probably less than 1%) of ork players have and field.

That depends highly on the playgroup, I've played in areas where almost every other list had something FW in it, some that had almost none. That said, there's lots of FW stuff that dramatically outsell many core lines, it's really not as rare as you think in the broader world. More to the point, does this same logic apply when someone brings a codex unit that's almost never fielded and that almost nobody has from an army few people play?

I don't care if Forge World is merely a different sales channel. In Bolt Action, I wouldn't accept any unit from some random campaign book unit in my opponent's force without restriction even if that unit is a Warlord Games model and doesn't break any of the rules of Bolt Action nor would I run any random campaign book unit in my army list for a PUG with an unknown (possibly unfamiliar) opponent. That sort of stuff is going to require me to have a rapport with said opponent where I have some level of trust out of what they want our game which reasonably matches what I want out it.

If you want to enforce your own restrictions based on your own arbitrary restrictions, nobody is forcing you to do otherwise, but acknowledge what they are. 40k is a sandbox game for people to play with their plastic army toys with each other, not a relatively narratively-bound historical wargame, you're importing a distinction from another game set and imposing it where no rules or play guide state they exist. If a dude shows up with a Y robot instead of X robot that has gun A instead of gun B, and has the rules (written by games workshop employees working under the Forgeworld name) for them available, and you need some extra level of confidence and negotiation because the rules are in a book titled "Imperial Armour" instead of "Codex", I see no distinction as to why that would be different than new codex units or the like. If you go to an actual Games Workshop run event or tournament, they will not make any distinction or have any additional restrictions on FW.

 Saturmorn Carvilli wrote:
[I don't even know if the orks have a special Forge World unit. If they do, I expect it is expensive and something several order of magnitude rarer that a trukk. I am not interesting in considering a unit that less than 5% (probably less than 1%) of ork players have and field..

I don't see how facing super rare, often niche units is going to improve my enjoyment of the game, but I can see several ways it can diminish it. I am not 100% against the use of Forge World. I am very uncomfortable with the idea of my first game with a person I never played before just fielding Forge World stuff. It is going to take me a few games with that person to feel out what they want from miniatures gaming before I am going to trust them enhance our gaming experience with them. Going by many of the posts here, I have been further pushed from wanting to play games with opponents that make use of Forge World stuff. I doubt I will have to worry about any of this. Forge World stuff is pretty rare, and I don't play PUG much since I feel they are more of a hassle than fun most of the time (again no gaming is better than bad gaming). I am more concerned about the prevalence of players here being upset that someone might refuse to play a game with them and the black or white stances of some posts (par for the internet I guess).

You absolutely have the right to refuse a game, and all power to you for having the maturity to turn town a game that you know would make you not enjoy your hobby time.

However, just because you’re exercising a valid right, does not make your underlying reason above criticism.

I’m not deliberately trying to be antagonistic here, but as I see it your argument at its coldest, hardest truth comes down to ‘I am ignorant, and choose to remain ignorant.’ I say this because you appear to be saying that you’re hesitant to play against FW because you don’t know the rules of it. That might have been valid a decade or two ago, but today those rules are available at £60 total even if you go all out on the official versions, and there are plenty of less salubrious ways to have a quick read. Moreover, a quick glance at 1d4chan tactics page will give you a paragraph or two on just about every FW unit in existence - easy enough to read between seeing your opponent’s list and starting the game, and with enough information to give you a workable knowledge of how it’s going to play in the game. There is no excuse of availability - the rules are there, and your opponent should have the rules on hand just like they should have GW rules on hand.

Even if you wish to remain ignorant (which as someone with something of an intellectual bent I can’t really comprehend but people work differently), what really boggles my mind is how you’ve ringfenced what you’re willing to know. You’re setting a boundary and saying ‘I will try to understand everything within this boundary, and everything outside I won’t concern myself with.’ Ok, cutting something too big down to a manageable size I can kinda get behind, cool. But that throws up the really critical question:

Why is FW your decided-upon boundary?

Why not ‘only Indexes’, ‘no Superheavies’, ‘no flyers’, or ‘no Guard’? Any of those would be equally arbitrary and equally valid boundaries to set. Why have you singled out FW as being a bridge too far? Is it because it’s not official? No, it’s quire clearly outlined as being valid and official. Is it because GW is the main bit and FW is an expansion not covered in their rules? Nope, GW made that emphatically clear by including FW points updates in Chapter Approved with the GW ones. Is it because FW is nothing but Titans and Gargantuan Squiggoths? Not when most of FW are things like marginally different versions of Leman Russes. Is it because FW is overpowered? Definitely not, they have less criminally overpowered units than GW Codexes in both an absolute and relative count. Is it because the FW things that are overpowered aren’t fixed in a reasonable timeframe? Not really, most of the things that were overpowered in FW (Malefic Lords, the Super Chicken, most of the Superheavies) have been thoroughly nuked from orbit by catastrophic points increases.

It it because ‘FW is icky’? That might be closer to the mark. You (speaking now to the general rather than specific ‘you’) have a preexisting prejudice against FW that isn’t supported by fact and hasn’t been for some time. To my eyes you’re no different to the people who say ‘I don’t like people of XYZ race / religion / gender / sexual orientation.’ You’re within your rights to not invite ‘those people’ into your home, just as you have the right to not play against ‘those models’. Your rights don’t make your decision valid or above scrutiny and ridicule.

While I started addressing you directly, I seem to have wandered off into addressing a more general ‘you’ as representing ‘people who don’t like to play against FW’, so not all of what I’ve said may apply directly to you. But critically, the bolded question above does.

I defy (the general) you to present a solid case for why ‘no FW’ as a rule is valid, regardless of your right to impose that rule.


Edit: I’ll add an example to clarify.

The Knight Armiger is a recent brand new unit. You can have had no prior experience of it, and access to previews or even whole data sheets is all online and easily found.

If the Armiger came out under the GW banner, you’d let someone play with it in a PUG, no questions. If it was released under the FW banner, you might have reservations. Why? It’s the same unit.

I have seen those arbitary boundaries in many things: Mostly in ideolocial radical politics (extremists on all ends of the spectrum, might i add) which work with a prefabricated picture of the world (and a prefabricated picture of good and bad in a strict system of morality) and religion. Especially the more fundemantalist strains of any religion suffer these boundaries.

If one would go to the bottom of it, i guess there are stereotypes regarding FW units or whole FW armies that say that FW is strange and does not fit the theme and or is only spammed by powergamers and or is as a whole overpowered.

Just one thing. Let's pretend FW is "overpowered".

Now, in this reality where that's true, realize that everything else about 40k as a game and as a gaming community is still the same.

I have watched people at the drop of 8th Edition rush to get a Bobby G and several Imperial Knights and have no gas money for 2 weeks.

I have seen guys ration ramen packets to budget for a Baneblade.

I've seen dudes throw absurd amounts of money at Imperial Guard and Tau and Eldar.

This is the most absurdly expensive game I know of, and the average player throws a grand into it over a year without batting an eye.

Still with me? Bottom line: if it can be bought and it is good, players will pay comically absurd prices to get it, no matter how absolutely insane it is and what they have to sacrifice.

Consider that for a moment, and realize that literally the only thing required to get a Forge World model of your choice is an internet connection, a mailing address, and a means to pay for the damned thing.

No, really- that's it. You don't have to go down on a GW manager, sacrifice your firstborn, best Olaf the giant in combat, join a club, or win some grand competition or lottery. Anyone can do it, with the money to buy it.

That being realized, you would think that if those hunks of overpriced resin were "overpowered"... You'd see them all over the damned place, and they'd be hot items.

Add the fact that resourceful and less scrupulous shoppers can find absurdly identical counterfeit versions at a fraction of the cost.

...where the hell are all of these massive Forge World armies? Did the 40k community suddenly stop being chock full of powergamers, WAAC players, and competitive tournament guys?

Nope.

So maaaaaybe the "overpowered" thing is about as real as Malal.

I expect this guy felt like you were trying to trick him, asking for a casual game then you start pulling Forgeworld stuff out of your bag!
I know technically Forgeworld is a legal part of the game, but let's be honest it is more of an expansion pack. Giving people a heads up that you have a Forgeworld dreadnought when you ask for a game doesn't cost anything.

Saying that, if you have invested the money and the time into modelling and painting a sweet looking dreadnought then refusing to let you play with it is pretty harsh!

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:
Just one thing. Let's pretend FW is "overpowered".

Now, in this reality where that's true, realize that everything else about 40k as a game and as a gaming community is still the same.

I have watched people at the drop of 8th Edition rush to get a Bobby G and several Imperial Knights and have no gas money for 2 weeks.

I have seen guys ration ramen packets to budget for a Baneblade.

I've seen dudes throw absurd amounts of money at Imperial Guard and Tau and Eldar.

This is the most absurdly expensive game I know of, and the average player throws a grand into it over a year without batting an eye.

Still with me? Bottom line: if it can be bought and it is good, players will pay comically absurd prices to get it, no matter how absolutely insane it is and what they have to sacrifice.

Consider that for a moment, and realize that literally the only thing required to get a Forge World model of your choice is an internet connection, a mailing address, and a means to pay for the damned thing.

No, really- that's it. You don't have to go down on a GW manager, sacrifice your firstborn, best Olaf the giant in combat, join a club, or win some grand competition or lottery. Anyone can do it, with the money to buy it.

That being realized, you would think that if those hunks of overpriced resin were "overpowered"... You'd see them all over the damned place, and they'd be hot items.

Add the fact that resourceful and less scrupulous shoppers can find absurdly identical counterfeit versions at a fraction of the cost.

...where the hell are all of these massive Forge World armies? Did the 40k community suddenly stop being chock full of powergamers, WAAC players, and competitive tournament guys?

Nope.

So maaaaaybe the "overpowered" thing is about as real as Malal.

I suppose my R&H army of around 4-5 k makes me wierd? In such a scenario i must be the worst offender there is.
And since the Codexes are avilable anyway as E-books at a (for GW FW standards) cheap price you should not have problems at finding the rules, or someone with the rules which you can pump for them.

The problem again is, that WAAC units get picked out and singled out. Most players will therefore only face that one unit by that one WAAC guy. Frankly in my opinion GW and FW could make the rules avilable for free online (pts, PL, rules, units stats,etc) and make the books with more of a focus on fluff. That change would really improve quality of life of many players aswell as making the hobby way more newbie friendly.

(Btw last time somebody complained playing with me, was that my army got tabled at turn 3 because of a combination of bad luck and the "WAAC" rules my FW army used,.)


Quite frankly you don't even need to buy the FW units to run many FW armies. Take for exemple corsairs, you can easily convert most of the stuff from normal Eldars.
Deathkorps you can easily find WW1 aesthetic German ww1 soldiers with gasmasks on, not that difficult. (however size will be difficult)
R&H literally you can mix and match with some kitbash between Nid Cult, IG and CSM (mainly the cultists). Tanks are anyway normal IG versions there and the units that you get in a starterbox for IG are easily converted to look more chaotic.
(Especially since R&H is really different in what is all in the faction you can run basically everything in there and make it look fitting and work with the list. Is it alot of work, yes. Can you personalize your army to your hearts content? YES. Is it expensive? depends)


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kroem wrote:
I expect this guy felt like you were trying to trick him, asking for a casual game then you start pulling Forgeworld stuff out of your bag!
I know technically Forgeworld is a legal part of the game, but let's be honest it is more of an expansion pack. Giving people a heads up that you have a Forgeworld dreadnought when you ask for a game doesn't cost anything.

Saying that, if you have invested the money and the time into modelling and painting a sweet looking dreadnought then refusing to let you play with it is pretty harsh!

That is again the same problem that you face when you are gaming online in a shooter. You can not expect somone to not use a weapon in that game that he got from a expansion/ DLC that he has bought.
Can the balancing be a issue? yes. Should you therefore instantly ban that / complain about that/ refuse to play the match? i don't think you should.
Do you have the right to be annoyed / refuse to play the match? absolutely.

Not Online!!! wrote:

Now that is a bad analogy: because FW units are explicit 40 k content, offically sanctioned one at that, whilest Boltaction is a gamesystem published via Warlord, which also publishes other miniatures.
Yes you can deny in the later case, because it is not the same system, (considering sci-fi models are also published by Warlord it would make for some hillarious fun when they are introduced for fun into BA, but that is something else). You can't however argue that this would be the case for 40k units IN 40 for it from FW.
(If someone were to bring 30k units then this would be another debate but since we are talking about a 40k model with 40k rules ina match of 40k i will ignore that point)

That would be plain ridicoulous. As for your last point, seriously?

You are afraid because you can't handle "new" or "strage" stuff, because it might could diminish your experience?

I mean by that logic you would have had problems with the Dakkafiend release in 7th and anything new, because it is "new" and could diminish your experience. (CHANGE IS BAD THEREFORE WE SHOULD HAVE STAYED IN THE MEDIEVAL AGES WITH THE INQUISITION, sincerly a Catholic)

Btw. Girlyman is also new, and a GW model, that certainly diminished some experiences here, should we therefor be allowed to just ban such units?

Quite frankly you getting forced to play stands opposed in this case of you forcing somebody to play in a way you want, preferable aginst units you want to see, which may or may not be good enough to win against you.

I am not referring to Gates of Antares or Konflict 47 units. I refering to things like Hobart's Funnies or national heroes like Vasily Zaytsev. Which have stats campaign books which are really meant for particular scenarios more than just adding to any given list. Most groups I have encountered have the social contract of requiring players make sure their opponent it okay with their inclusion because they can be quite disruptive.

I am also not talking about banning Forge World units. However, I do like if a player is adding something to their list to play random strangers maybe they should give consideration of certain units. And yes, Roboute Guilliman (and demon primarchs, super heavies and even flyers) might be very disruptive units in a game and should be discussed with an opponent beforehand.

Like I said, before this tread I was pretty neutral to the idea. However, this tread has had arguments for the inclusion of Forge World models things such as this:

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:

 Saturmorn Carvilli wrote:

Isn't that exactly what you are doing when you say you ask to play any miniatures game? I am not stopping you from playing with your miniatures. I am stopping myself from playing with you.

No. I am asking if we can play together. Both of us are involved. If you elect to be a House Escher Male about it, you have every right to do so. And I have every right to label you as someone who is selective about what rules you follow.

If you refuse to play my Forge World tanks, I have every reason to suspect you'll cry about anything you aren't certain you can beat. I'll leave you to find another game, and I'll have no trouble finding a better player.

 Saturmorn Carvilli wrote:

As for your second point, I am pretty sure I can manage to make a list all on my own without including a single Forge World model. I am pretty sure the Citadel model line is large enough to accomplish that. I would hazard to guess most army lists in fact don't have any Forge World units within them. So asking if I want someone to write my list for me is highly disingenuous.

So can I. But I chose to include certain models because I like them, they're 100% legal, and it has an added bonus of helping me find the toxic manchildren and add them to my "disregard man-shaped toddler" list.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

tneva82 wrote:


No. But I don't have right to demand random people to play with me. Seriously are we playing in free country or north korea? Some people have right to demand other to play regardless of what?

No one is "demanding" anything. I don't have a 'right' to a game. I do, however, have an expectation like any other sane, rational, mature adult playing warhammer 40k ( all 10 of us) and that expectation is that if the rules allow it and you can't justify me excluding it (like, "I have no anti-air capability with me today")- then I would prefer the person be an adult about it and roll with the game.

It's my fun, too- and if you can't compromise then you can pack up and go home and play by or with yourself, it is comically easy to find another player. By virtue of not being a crybaby about Forge World, I am demonstrably more likely to find more games.

That is really convincing me that allowing to play a stranger with Forge World models in is a wise idea. Please, continue name calling I sure it will bring people around to your way of thinking. Honestly it is this sort thing that has me making the consideration to be more selective about the inclusion of Forge World stuff in a stranger's army list. I don't care if it is overpowered or garbage on the table. I expect a sane, rational adult to not resort to name calling and harshly criticizing another oppoent's preferences. That seems far more like tantrum to me than saying I am not really comfortable with you including that Forge World model as I unfamiliar with it and I don't know you very well yet.

I am not saying I will NEVER play someone that has a Forge World unit in their list. I am just saying I am less inclined to and this tread has made me even less so due to some of the pro-Forge World camp which has ranged from outright demeaning someone for choosing to not play to sour grapes of 'Well, they are probably a terrible opponent anyways.'

@Vaktathi

I am well aware that this is an artificial distinction I am making based on my own bias and preferences. I do understand that I am dictating what can or can't be included in my opponent's army list (and I believe my opponent has the same right). I believe this to be part of the social contract of gaming. Maybe it was lost in translation, but none of this is hard fast rules of: "You have Forge World models, no game for you then." More of I am going to evaluate that person's intentions on what they want out of the game and why they included that unit. Which isn't easy if it the first time you met that person. This thread has made me consider taking a closer look at the what that prospective opponent wants out of the game. I am still far more opposed to playing an opponent that is practicing or play testing their list for a tourament than I am allowing a perfect stranger having a list with a Forge World model or two.

As for learning about what Forge World models can do. It is a bit of wilful ignorance on my part. As I have said this is my hobby not my job and I only need to pursue it as far as I want to. I am perfectly happy number of unit types with the regular Citadel line. I don't care about the Forge World expansion. So I don't want to waste my time learning more about that line. I am even less inclined to spend money on something I am completely disinterested in.

I don't see my hesitation of not wanting to play a game with Forge World models any different to another player not wanting to play Warhammer 40K with Power Levels (which I prefer). I don't get involved with organized play and especially not tournaments. I have never found them to be any fun. I think there is a distinction in that Forge World stuff is completely omitted from Codices both in rules and even photos. If GW wants me to treat these models as the same line they are they shouldn't have that wall of separation. Half a dozen photo splashes could be removed form of Codex to include Forge World units into them. Which would go a long ways removing my apprehension.

I think you have been one of the few rather measured pro-Forge World posters here which eases my concern. As I have said, I am not saying I won't play a player that has Forge World. I am just not particularly keen on the idea after some of the ideas expressed about players that don't want to. That may make me a bit of a contrarian. I see it has I need to be more diligent in who I accept to play games with.

Forge World does have some cool stuff however, I consider myself pretty casual and I simply don't want to spend excessive time concerning myself even more units in game that seems to have units uncounted already. I think the scope of the game isn't conducive to super heavy with how special considerations before hand. I also don't want 3-5 more variants to units to have to consider. That seems like a whole lot of rules bloating I don't want to deal with specially with a person I have never played before. We get a good rapport going, and I won't care if you have some crazy model (or toy) from some other maker and create custom rules for it. Same goes saying wanting to use a White Dwarf/d4Chan stated unit. If I know that player and what they want out of the game almost anything goes.

@combatwombat

No, it isn't above criticism. However, it is above being called names (such as manchild and toddler) because of it. As I mentioned above, I am not interested in Forge World and I am not going to spend additional money on something I am not interested in. People remain ignorant or all sort of things they probably shouldn't. However, remaining ignorant in a leisure activity that you are happy with the scope you stay within is probably decent concession to wilful ignorance.

I agree why not thos units you mentioned. In this instanance, we are specifically talking about Forge World not those units. However, I think many of those unit types can be disruptive to a game if not discussed before hand and players fielding them should consider that not all players want to deal with them in a random PUG.

I am perfectly happy with just using and playing against the non-Forge World units. That's it. I am sure you think that is some variation of I think Forge World is Icky, and I don't care if that is what you think. I think whole game systems are Icky then as I am fine not playing them either. I don't really want the additional bloat of additional rules that more models bring.

This biggest difference it GW keeps a barrier between the two. In one line they are included in their respective Faction's codex (eventually) in the other they are in whatever document Forge World models are in. I really only want to bother with two books: rules and codex. I don't need to have the latest and greatest publications (especially at the prices GW wants for them). I know, I know, that isn't legal or whatever. I have use bunch of other things to be current. I don't care that much about being current, but if I want to play a PUG I feel obligated to. I am sure that will have several Dakkanuats labeling me as CAAC. But is still name calling which is what I have largely been opposed to in this tread.

Your example about the online shooter is actually really bad. Most if not all modern games have an extensive in-game lobby if not private servers so you can play the exact way you want. Want to play only certain map packs?... that's fine just select those. Want to play without rocket launchers?.... that's fine select a server that does not include those. Even at the highest levels of MLG most games have a "banning" portion of the map where you ban certain maps/heroes.

What many people are arguing for in this thread is meeting a guy who plays a game online and only plays certain game mode such as (team deathmatch, no perks, no killstreaks). You ask him for a game and he says he plays the above rules and if you'd like to play with him that the only type of lobby he will join. What the argument of this thread seems to be is that the above player shouldn't be allowed to play on such a server and instead should be forced to play in a game mode with everything in the game unlocked. using your own stipulations the LVO shouldnt be allowed for having non GW official terrain rules.... You should go force them to play the correct way just like you would to the guy that doesnt want to play against FW.

Any events that I host (campaign events, I don't do tournament games until they fix the game and the balance) will always allow Forge World. They add a lot to the game visually.

 Saturmorn Carvilli wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

Now that is a bad analogy: because FW units are explicit 40 k content, offically sanctioned one at that, whilest Boltaction is a gamesystem published via Warlord, which also publishes other miniatures.
Yes you can deny in the later case, because it is not the same system, (considering sci-fi models are also published by Warlord it would make for some hillarious fun when they are introduced for fun into BA, but that is something else). You can't however argue that this would be the case for 40k units IN 40 for it from FW.
(If someone were to bring 30k units then this would be another debate but since we are talking about a 40k model with 40k rules ina match of 40k i will ignore that point)

That would be plain ridicoulous. As for your last point, seriously?

You are afraid because you can't handle "new" or "strage" stuff, because it might could diminish your experience?

I mean by that logic you would have had problems with the Dakkafiend release in 7th and anything new, because it is "new" and could diminish your experience. (CHANGE IS BAD THEREFORE WE SHOULD HAVE STAYED IN THE MEDIEVAL AGES WITH THE INQUISITION, sincerly a Catholic)

Btw. Girlyman is also new, and a GW model, that certainly diminished some experiences here, should we therefor be allowed to just ban such units?

Quite frankly you getting forced to play stands opposed in this case of you forcing somebody to play in a way you want, preferable aginst units you want to see, which may or may not be good enough to win against you.

I am not referring to Gates of Antares or Konflict 47 units. I refering to things like Hobart's Funnies or national heroes like Vasily Zaytsev. Which have stats campaign books which are really meant for particular scenarios more than just adding to any given list. Most groups I have encountered have the social contract of requiring players make sure their opponent it okay with their inclusion because they can be quite disruptive.

I am also not talking about banning Forge World units. However, I do like if a player is adding something to their list to play random strangers maybe they should give consideration of certain units. And yes, Roboute Guilliman (and demon primarchs, super heavies and even flyers) might be very disruptive units in a game and should be discussed with an opponent beforehand.

Like I said, before this tread I was pretty neutral to the idea. However, this tread has had arguments for the inclusion of Forge World models things such as this:

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:

 Saturmorn Carvilli wrote:

Isn't that exactly what you are doing when you say you ask to play any miniatures game? I am not stopping you from playing with your miniatures. I am stopping myself from playing with you.

No. I am asking if we can play together. Both of us are involved. If you elect to be a House Escher Male about it, you have every right to do so. And I have every right to label you as someone who is selective about what rules you follow.

If you refuse to play my Forge World tanks, I have every reason to suspect you'll cry about anything you aren't certain you can beat. I'll leave you to find another game, and I'll have no trouble finding a better player.

 Saturmorn Carvilli wrote:

As for your second point, I am pretty sure I can manage to make a list all on my own without including a single Forge World model. I am pretty sure the Citadel model line is large enough to accomplish that. I would hazard to guess most army lists in fact don't have any Forge World units within them. So asking if I want someone to write my list for me is highly disingenuous.

So can I. But I chose to include certain models because I like them, they're 100% legal, and it has an added bonus of helping me find the toxic manchildren and add them to my "disregard man-shaped toddler" list.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

tneva82 wrote:


No. But I don't have right to demand random people to play with me. Seriously are we playing in free country or north korea? Some people have right to demand other to play regardless of what?

No one is "demanding" anything. I don't have a 'right' to a game. I do, however, have an expectation like any other sane, rational, mature adult playing warhammer 40k ( all 10 of us) and that expectation is that if the rules allow it and you can't justify me excluding it (like, "I have no anti-air capability with me today")- then I would prefer the person be an adult about it and roll with the game.

It's my fun, too- and if you can't compromise then you can pack up and go home and play by or with yourself, it is comically easy to find another player. By virtue of not being a crybaby about Forge World, I am demonstrably more likely to find more games.

That is really convincing me that allowing to play a stranger with Forge World models in is a wise idea. Please, continue name calling I sure it will bring people around to your way of thinking. Honestly it is this sort thing that has me making the consideration to be more selective about the inclusion of Forge World stuff in a stranger's army list. I don't care if it is overpowered or garbage on the table. I expect a sane, rational adult to not resort to name calling and harshly criticizing another oppoent's preferences. That seems far more like tantrum to me than saying I am not really comfortable with you including that Forge World model as I unfamiliar with it and I don't know you very well yet.

I am not saying I will NEVER play someone that has a Forge World unit in their list. I am just saying I am less inclined to and this tread has made me even less so due to some of the pro-Forge World camp which has ranged from outright demeaning someone for choosing to not play to sour grapes of 'Well, they are probably a terrible opponent anyways.'

@Vaktathi

I am well aware that this is an artificial distinction I am making based on my own bias and preferences. I do understand that I am dictating what can or can't be included in my opponent's army list (and I believe my opponent has the same right). I believe this to be part of the social contract of gaming. Maybe it was lost in translation, but none of this is hard fast rules of: "You have Forge World models, no game for you then." More of I am going to evaluate that person's intentions on what they want out of the game and why they included that unit. Which isn't easy if it the first time you met that person. This thread has made me consider taking a closer look at the what that prospective opponent wants out of the game. I am still far more opposed to playing an opponent that is practicing or play testing their list for a tourament than I am allowing a perfect stranger having a list with a Forge World model or two.

As for learning about what Forge World models can do. It is a bit of wilful ignorance on my part. As I have said this is my hobby not my job and I only need to pursue it as far as I want to. I am perfectly happy number of unit types with the regular Citadel line. I don't care about the Forge World expansion. So I don't want to waste my time learning more about that line. I am even less inclined to spend money on something I am completely disinterested in.

I don't see my hesitation of not wanting to play a game with Forge World models any different to another player not wanting to play Warhammer 40K with Power Levels (which I prefer). I don't get involved with organized play and especially not tournaments. I have never found them to be any fun. I think there is a distinction in that Forge World stuff is completely omitted from Codices both in rules and even photos. If GW wants me to treat these models as the same line they are they shouldn't have that wall of separation. Half a dozen photo splashes could be removed form of Codex to include Forge World units into them. Which would go a long ways removing my apprehension.

I think you have been one of the few rather measured pro-Forge World posters here which eases my concern. As I have said, I am not saying I won't play a player that has Forge World. I am just not particularly keen on the idea after some of the ideas expressed about players that don't want to. That may make me a bit of a contrarian. I see it has I need to be more diligent in who I accept to play games with.

Forge World does have some cool stuff however, I consider myself pretty casual and I simply don't want to spend excessive time concerning myself even more units in game that seems to have units uncounted already. I think the scope of the game isn't conducive to super heavy with how special considerations before hand. I also don't want 3-5 more variants to units to have to consider. That seems like a whole lot of rules bloating I don't want to deal with specially with a person I have never played before. We get a good rapport going, and I won't care if you have some crazy model (or toy) from some other maker and create custom rules for it. Same goes saying wanting to use a White Dwarf/d4Chan stated unit. If I know that player and what they want out of the game almost anything goes.

@combatwombat

No, it isn't above criticism. However, it is above being called names (such as manchild and toddler) because of it. As I mentioned above, I am not interested in Forge World and I am not going to spend additional money on something I am not interested in. People remain ignorant or all sort of things they probably shouldn't. However, remaining ignorant in a leisure activity that you are happy with the scope you stay within is probably decent concession to wilful ignorance.

I agree why not thos units you mentioned. In this instanance, we are specifically talking about Forge World not those units. However, I think many of those unit types can be disruptive to a game if not discussed before hand and players fielding them should consider that not all players want to deal with them in a random PUG.

I am perfectly happy with just using and playing against the non-Forge World units. That's it. I am sure you think that is some variation of I think Forge World is Icky, and I don't care if that is what you think. I think whole game systems are Icky then as I am fine not playing them either. I don't really want the additional bloat of additional rules that more models bring.

This biggest difference it GW keeps a barrier between the two. In one line they are included in their respective Faction's codex (eventually) in the other they are in whatever document Forge World models are in. I really only want to bother with two books: rules and codex. I don't need to have the latest and greatest publications (especially at the prices GW wants for them). I know, I know, that isn't legal or whatever. I have use bunch of other things to be current. I don't care that much about being current, but if I want to play a PUG I feel obligated to. I am sure that will have several Dakkanuats labeling me as CAAC. But is still name calling which is what I have largely been opposed to in this tread.

You do realize however, that i did call out that person on their non-civil conduct, so you do not need to tell me that.
You do however lump people like me in the same group, and that pisses me off because it is the same slowed argumentation that is used to seperate groups. (Worst exemple radical ideologies, same idea and same argumentation.) funnily enough you do basically the same by fingerpointng but instead of actually calling out said person you just complain about any random player in a store that has FW models and runs them.

Also again the really bad overcomplication argument: last time i checked you need more then 2 books, you forgot the CA or chapter approved and you forgot the FAQ's (BTW In chapter approved there are also FW units,basically connecting those systems)

As for you beeing willfully ignorant, quite frankly you do you, however stop grouping people in such groups , because that does bring you down to the same level as our fellow commenter that just had to "namecall"




Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also Asmodius, that is often not anymore the case, (BF1 for exemple does not allow private run servers with special rules anymore) .
However that brings in another point, could a "Banlist" or a community guidline help improve the general balance of the game kinda like it is done with certain champions in lol?
Yes absolutely, but i am also certain that you will find more GW units on it then other units.

 Scott-S6 wrote:

 p5freak wrote:

 Scott-S6 wrote:

 zedsdead wrote:
what the hell makes a 300+ point Dread OP ?

It's pretty tough and it can have some awesome guns that OP didn't take.

If it has twin storm cannons its easily disabled. Charge it from 9" away, avoiding its heavy flamers. If you can surround it it cant fallback. It has only two attacks at S8 AP0 D1. Tie it up in CC until the game is over. If you cant surround it you have at least disabled its shooting for one turn. Unless its ultramarines, then it can still shoot after falling back, with -1.

OP had a siege claw and a drill.

lol... even more of a reason for the WTF ?! the thing should never get into combat with anything important. I mean really ...

Asmodios wrote:
Your example about the online shooter is actually really bad. Most if not all modern games have an extensive in-game lobby if not private servers so you can play the exact way you want. Want to play only certain map packs?... that's fine just select those. Want to play without rocket launchers?.... that's fine select a server that does not include those. Even at the highest levels of MLG most games have a "banning" portion of the map where you ban certain maps/heroes.

What many people are arguing for in this thread is meeting a guy who plays a game online and only plays certain game mode such as (team deathmatch, no perks, no killstreaks). You ask him for a game and he says he plays the above rules and if you'd like to play with him that the only type of lobby he will join. What the argument of this thread seems to be is that the above player shouldn't be allowed to play on such a server and instead should be forced to play in a game mode with everything in the game unlocked. using your own stipulations the LVO shouldnt be allowed for having non GW official terrain rules.... You should go force them to play the correct way just like you would to the guy that doesnt want to play against FW.

You shot yourself in the foot with that analogy.

If the person wants to play no rockets, they join a private server (i.e. play with friends).

If the person Quick-Plays a game (i.e. sets up a random PUG), then he shouldn't be surprised when the quickplay game doesn't have rocket launchers banned.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Asmodios wrote:
Your example about the online shooter is actually really bad. Most if not all modern games have an extensive in-game lobby if not private servers so you can play the exact way you want. Want to play only certain map packs?... that's fine just select those. Want to play without rocket launchers?.... that's fine select a server that does not include those. Even at the highest levels of MLG most games have a "banning" portion of the map where you ban certain maps/heroes.

What many people are arguing for in this thread is meeting a guy who plays a game online and only plays certain game mode such as (team deathmatch, no perks, no killstreaks). You ask him for a game and he says he plays the above rules and if you'd like to play with him that the only type of lobby he will join. What the argument of this thread seems to be is that the above player shouldn't be allowed to play on such a server and instead should be forced to play in a game mode with everything in the game unlocked. using your own stipulations the LVO shouldnt be allowed for having non GW official terrain rules.... You should go force them to play the correct way just like you would to the guy that doesnt want to play against FW.

You shot yourself in the foot with that analogy.

If the person wants to play no rockets, they join a private server (i.e. play with friends).

If the person Quick-Plays a game (i.e. sets up a random PUG), then he shouldn't be surprised when the quickplay game doesn't have rocket launchers banned.

I guess i should have been more precise, i.e. i am talking about BF1 and no sadly you are not able anymore to rent privatservers that are customable to that way anymore.
My bad there.

Here is my take. If you are showing up to play pick up games, you cant have these personal quips and ticks about legal rules and units. FW is not optional, it is not a xpack. It is part and parcel of the Warhammer 40k game. They are just as legal as a GW codex.

Showing up to a place where people are expecting each other to use the same rules to play the game and then put down personal restrictions is kinda daft. Im sorry. If you want more control of your game time then find a gaming group or play with like minded folks.

In pick up games it is even more important to follow RAW than any other game type because it allows total strangers to be on a level playing field and expectations of how a game is played.

While no one is going to force you to play, and it is your choice to show up to pick up games with your personal checklist of rules you choose to not follow. But do not be suprised when people label you as a tosser.

Its like showing up to a game of street basketball (pick up game) and refusing to play if they use a certain brand of ball or are wearing socks in a color you dont like.

 Saturmorn Carvilli wrote:
No, it isn't above criticism. However, it is above being called names (such as manchild and toddler) because of it. As I mentioned above, I am not interested in Forge World and I am not going to spend additional money on something I am not interested in. People remain ignorant or all sort of things they probably shouldn't. However, remaining ignorant in a leisure activity that you are happy with the scope you stay within is probably decent concession to wilful ignorance.

I agree why not thos units you mentioned. In this instanance, we are specifically talking about Forge World not those units. However, I think many of those unit types can be disruptive to a game if not discussed before hand and players fielding them should consider that not all players want to deal with them in a random PUG.

I am perfectly happy with just using and playing against the non-Forge World units. That's it. I am sure you think that is some variation of I think Forge World is Icky, and I don't care if that is what you think. I think whole game systems are Icky then as I am fine not playing them either. I don't really want the additional bloat of additional rules that more models bring.

This biggest difference it GW keeps a barrier between the two. In one line they are included in their respective Faction's codex (eventually) in the other they are in whatever document Forge World models are in. I really only want to bother with two books: rules and codex. I don't need to have the latest and greatest publications (especially at the prices GW wants for them). I know, I know, that isn't legal or whatever. I have use bunch of other things to be current. I don't care that much about being current, but if I want to play a PUG I feel obligated to. I am sure that will have several Dakkanuats labeling me as CAAC. But is still name calling which is what I have largely been opposed to in this tread.

I... think we’ll have to agree to disagree on the wilful ignorance part. I think our world views are irreconcilable there.

If you want to draw a line in the sand and say ‘FW is beyond the scope of how I want to enjoy my hobby time’ then cool, you do you. To me you’ve made an arbitrary decision on where to draw your line. If you’re happy to accept that you’ve made an arbitrary decision then I have no issue with you; I make arbitrary decisions too. What I contend is that there is no valid reason why FW is a sound place to draw that boundary. There are places that are to my mind far less arbitrary to set that boundary - ‘no superheavies’ or ‘no Primarchs’ because they lock the game into a certain type, or a fuzzier ‘no super-competitive cheese lists’ which is a bit harder to pin down. To me ‘no FW’ is a purely arbitrary line drawn from nothing more than prejudice, and I’ve yet to see a valid argument as to why that isn’t so.

I think the Knight Armiger example really hits what I’m getting at. If they release it under the GW banner and you’re happy to play against it, but they release it under the FW banner and you’re hesitant to, I’m flabbergasted to how that could ever be considered rational distinction given that, as it’s a new unit you’re going to have to buy a new book to get the rules.

If you’re happy to make an arbitrary decision against allowing FW, then great. But if you’re contending that the distinction is rational and logical rather than arbitrary, I ask you to show me why it is so.

 Saturmorn Carvilli wrote:

Like I said, before this tread I was pretty neutral to the idea. However, this tread has had arguments for the inclusion of Forge World models things such as this:

....

That is really convincing me that allowing to play a stranger with Forge World models in is a wise idea.

I'm going to be as nice as possible when I say this: What makes you think I was trying to convince you to change your mindset? I'm not. I'm ridiculing the absurdity of your position.

 Saturmorn Carvilli wrote:
Please, continue name calling I sure it will bring people around to your way of thinking.

Why would I want to change anyone's mind? As I have seen, the people who shriek about Forge World like I'm laying a dead baby on the table are the exact kind of people I don't want to game with under any circumstances whatsoever, and are extremely outnumbered by the people who take no issues with it or even encourage it.

 Saturmorn Carvilli wrote:
Honestly it is this sort thing that has me making the consideration to be more selective about the inclusion of Forge World stuff in a stranger's army list. I don't care if it is overpowered or garbage on the table. I expect a sane, rational adult to not resort to name calling and harshly criticizing another oppoent's preferences. That seems far more like tantrum to me than saying I am not really comfortable with you including that Forge World model as I unfamiliar with it and I don't know you very well yet.

Fella, I don't want you 'comfortable' with me. Your mindset? I don't want anywhere near me, until you can learn to accept something very simple:

1- Anyone can get Forge World models, and the information on said models just as easily as you can anything else. GOOGLE. Or go and order the book, if you're too sheepish to ask your opponent to look over his. Hey, why don't you do that? You might see a model you like.

2- Your own personal preference might have to take a hit every now and then in a game that requires at least two players. Otherwise, you may as well by action figures and sit at home alone.

 Saturmorn Carvilli wrote:
I am not saying I will NEVER play someone that has a Forge World unit in their list. I am just saying I am less inclined to and this tread has made me even less so due to some of the pro-Forge World camp which has ranged from outright demeaning someone for choosing to not play to sour grapes of 'Well, they are probably a terrible opponent anyways.'

Dude, your excuses for not wanting to play Forge World models are as follows:

"I am not familiar with them"- well, dude- it's 2018 and you have a phone or at least a computer so that's not anyone's problem but your own. I'm not familiar with Genestealer Cults and that's my own problem, but if I told someone "No I'm not playing your army because I don't know anything about it" (Which is the same basis for your argument here) then he's got every right to think I'm off, at best. You know how you get familiar with them? YOU PLAY THEM. It's not hard, but then again maybe you're adverse to a new experience that could give you perspective. Then again, this is 40k- people whine for change, then they whine things change. I guess you kind of have to expect people to want stagnation.

"Some guy on the internet had a bad attitude about it" - well, then you better lock yourself in a padded room with no windows because there's always a worse jerk than me about literally anything on the planet.

Like it or not, you saying "I don't want to play Forge World" is your own choice and has no basis in reality. And I tend to get a bit hostile, because it's this sort of mindset that needs to be pushed into a corner of the FLGS and forgotten while everyone else has fun.

I don't know how you can say "Playing Forge World won't be fun to me", because you've got nothing to substantiate that- it comes off like your idea of 'fun' is knowing everything your opponent has and being able to beat them, and if you can't do that you start enforcing your own personal and arbitrary house rules based on ignorance. It sounds like your idea of 'enjoying the game' means 'must win'. That, my friend, is limiting YOUR games. Not mine.

Did you refuse to play against GSC when they came out? Deathwatch? Thousand Sons? Custodes? By your logic, you should have. Because you weren't familiar with them. Then again, if you like playing the same things over and over again, I have nothing to say- that's you. More power to you.

Now, in ANY case if there was a simple thing like "I can't deal with flyers" or "I don't have the means to deal with that much armor on the table"- that's a reasonable excuse and it's asking for a degree of balance in the game. I do this quite often with IG players, and the ones that get pissy about it can go find someone else to play with.

Also, if the dude didn't have a book to support his model? Then I get it, screw that- No book, no game.

But you're being silly and feigning umbrage to substantiate a position of blatant ignorance. You can call it 'preference' if you want, but that doesn't make it immune to scrutiny or ridicule on any part of Holy Terra.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Not Online!!! wrote:


As for you beeing willfully ignorant, quite frankly you do you, however stop grouping people in such groups , because that does bring you down to the same level as our fellow commenter that just had to "namecall"

Up to. Up to my level.

And I didn't specifically call him anything, I was very general about whiny manbabies. If he elected to put that shoe on and wear it, then by all means- I at least want him to lace it tight.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Asmodios wrote:
Your example about the online shooter is actually really bad. Most if not all modern games have an extensive in-game lobby if not private servers so you can play the exact way you want. Want to play only certain map packs?... that's fine just select those. Want to play without rocket launchers?.... that's fine select a server that does not include those. Even at the highest levels of MLG most games have a "banning" portion of the map where you ban certain maps/heroes.

What many people are arguing for in this thread is meeting a guy who plays a game online and only plays certain game mode such as (team deathmatch, no perks, no killstreaks). You ask him for a game and he says he plays the above rules and if you'd like to play with him that the only type of lobby he will join. What the argument of this thread seems to be is that the above player shouldn't be allowed to play on such a server and instead should be forced to play in a game mode with everything in the game unlocked. using your own stipulations the LVO shouldnt be allowed for having non GW official terrain rules.... You should go force them to play the correct way just like you would to the guy that doesnt want to play against FW.

You shot yourself in the foot with that analogy.

If the person wants to play no rockets, they join a private server (i.e. play with friends).

If the person Quick-Plays a game (i.e. sets up a random PUG), then he shouldn't be surprised when the quickplay game doesn't have rocket launchers banned.

Not really
Person 1: Wanna play a game
Person 2: Sure I only play game type x if you wanna play with me
Person 1: Yeah Sure/ No Thanks
What you are advocating for in this thread
Person 1: Wanna play a game
Person 2: Sure i only play game type x if you wanna play with me
Person 1: WTF you cant play game type x and you have to play me in game mode y........ YOU HAVE TO PLAY ME REEEEEEEEE!!!!!!!!!

Asmodios wrote:

Not really
Person 1: Wanna play a game
Person 2: Sure I only play game type x if you wanna play with me
Person 1: Yeah Sure/ No Thanks
What you are advocating for in this thread
Person 1: Wanna play a game
Person 2: Sure i only play game type x if you wanna play with me
Person 1: WTF you cant play game type x and you have to play me in game mode y........ YOU HAVE TO PLAY ME REEEEEEEEE!!!!!!!!!

At the end of the day, it boils down to a simple courtesy.

If you and I agree to do something together, then it's pretty scummy for you to have me come all the way to meet you and then you start enforcing additional restrictions on me after I've gone through the trouble of driving and putting a list together. A simple, "Yeah I'll play but I don't play Forge World" will probably just get an "Okay" from me on the phone or whatever, and I may silently judge you- but that'll be the end of it and you won't be wasting either of our time.