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.

Lemondish wrote:

kombatwombat wrote:
There is a long list of things that used to be a well established convention.

Now we just realise we were being racist, sexist, homophobic or whatever.

Don’t be stuck in the past. Let us move past our FWism.

This, ladies and gentleorks, is a strawman.

No, it’s drawing a parallel between people using ‘disallowing FW was an established convention’ as a justification for not allowing people to bring FW and something like ‘men making the decisions was an established convention’ as a justification for not allowing women to vote. (Hopefully without belittling the challenges facing the marginalised.)

It was a little provocative and over the top, I’ll grant you, but the similarity is there nonetheless. DaPino gets it.

I'm late to this thread but I'm sure you wouldn't have enjoyed that game much anyway.

 Peregrine wrote:
I expect the same policy to be applied to all other rules. If you don't give me an up front request/notification that you would like to use codex rules instead of the index rules then you are probably TFG. After all, codex rules are a major escalation in power and WAAC potential, and really just an expansion to the core of the game. And some armies don't even get codex rules at all, how is that fair? Plus they cost so much money and it's not reasonable to expect me to be familiar with them.

I don't think this analogy is entirely correct. It explicitly states in the core rulebook that the latest codex must be used for datasheets for your army outside of very specific circumstances. I've yet to see GW make an official announcement that "FW is a GW supported, and sponsored part of the game, and FW models/rules are fully intended to be used in matched play". TBH I don't have a problem with people using forgeworld against me so long as they have the book on them and show me the datasheet before deployment. But, many members of my gaming group refuse to play against forgeworld. Their reasoning being that those models are an optional expansion to the base WH40k game made by a different (related sure, but different) company, similar to something like the planetstrike or cities of death rulesets. You wouldn't show up to a game and spring "oh btw we are playing a planetstrike scenario" on your opponent would you?

w1zard wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
I expect the same policy to be applied to all other rules. If you don't give me an up front request/notification that you would like to use codex rules instead of the index rules then you are probably TFG. After all, codex rules are a major escalation in power and WAAC potential, and really just an expansion to the core of the game. And some armies don't even get codex rules at all, how is that fair? Plus they cost so much money and it's not reasonable to expect me to be familiar with them.

I don't think this analogy is entirely correct. It explicitly states in the core rulebook that the latest codex must be used for datasheets for your army outside of very specific circumstances. I've yet to see GW make an official announcement that "FW is a GW supported, and sponsored part of the game, and FW models/rules are fully intended to be used in matched play". TBH I don't have a problem with people using forgeworld against me so long as they have the book on them and show me the datasheet before deployment. But, many members of my gaming group refuse to play against forgeworld. Their reasoning being that those models are an optional expansion to the base WH40k game made by a different (related sure, but different) company, similar to something like the planetstrike or cities of death rulesets. You wouldn't show up to a game and spring "oh btw we are playing a planetstrike scenario" on your opponent would you?

that would be correct, were it not for the simple fact that CA literally has a whole dedicated part for the balance in 40k in regards to FW units.

w1zard wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
I expect the same policy to be applied to all other rules. If you don't give me an up front request/notification that you would like to use codex rules instead of the index rules then you are probably TFG. After all, codex rules are a major escalation in power and WAAC potential, and really just an expansion to the core of the game. And some armies don't even get codex rules at all, how is that fair? Plus they cost so much money and it's not reasonable to expect me to be familiar with them.

I don't think this analogy is entirely correct. It explicitly states in the core rulebook that the latest codex must be used for datasheets for your army outside of very specific circumstances. I've yet to see GW make an official announcement that "FW is a GW supported, and sponsored part of the game, and FW models/rules are fully intended to be used in matched play". TBH I don't have a problem with people using forgeworld against me so long as they have the book on them and show me the datasheet before deployment. But, many members of my gaming group refuse to play against forgeworld. Their reasoning being that those models are an optional expansion to the base WH40k game made by a different (related sure, but different) company, similar to something like the planetstrike or cities of death rulesets. You wouldn't show up to a game and spring "oh btw we are playing a planetstrike scenario" on your opponent would you?

You guys missed a couple of years ago, during 5th, I think, when FW had to stamp their stuff with the 40k logo to show that it was official. The experimental stuff was left unstamped. Since then any officially published FW stuff is considered part of 40k, the experimental stuff is released as pdf and labelled 'experimental'.

Not Online!!! wrote:

w1zard wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
I expect the same policy to be applied to all other rules. If you don't give me an up front request/notification that you would like to use codex rules instead of the index rules then you are probably TFG. After all, codex rules are a major escalation in power and WAAC potential, and really just an expansion to the core of the game. And some armies don't even get codex rules at all, how is that fair? Plus they cost so much money and it's not reasonable to expect me to be familiar with them.

I don't think this analogy is entirely correct. It explicitly states in the core rulebook that the latest codex must be used for datasheets for your army outside of very specific circumstances. I've yet to see GW make an official announcement that "FW is a GW supported, and sponsored part of the game, and FW models/rules are fully intended to be used in matched play". TBH I don't have a problem with people using forgeworld against me so long as they have the book on them and show me the datasheet before deployment. But, many members of my gaming group refuse to play against forgeworld. Their reasoning being that those models are an optional expansion to the base WH40k game made by a different (related sure, but different) company, similar to something like the planetstrike or cities of death rulesets. You wouldn't show up to a game and spring "oh btw we are playing a planetstrike scenario" on your opponent would you?

that would be correct, were it not for the simple fact that CA literally has a whole dedicated part for the balance in 40k in regards to FW units.

I'm sure if they wanted to update planetstrike or cities of death rules, they would do so in CA as well. So your point is?

Not only that, but most of the FW changes in CA were to nerf them all to hell to the point of unusability, as if to say "we don't want that gak in matched play".

Again, not saying I believe this argument, but its what I've gotten from numerous people in my gaming group. I think many 40k players who don't want to play against FW think this way.

w1zard wrote:

Their reasoning being that those models are an optional expansion to the base WH40k game made by a different (related sure, but different) company, similar to something like the planetstrike or cities of death rulesets. You wouldn't show up to a game and spring "oh btw we are playing a planetstrike scenario" on your opponent would you?

Whereas this is entirely incorrect.

Find me the word ‘optional’ with regards to their use in any 8th Ed ForgeWorld publication. Or the word ‘expansion’ as a title or classification. They do use the word ‘expanding’ in the phrase ‘expanding the range of datasheets’ but that certainly isn’t calling it the ‘ForgeWorld Expansion’ or the ‘ForgeWorld add-on’ or anything else to suggest that it’s distinct from the other rules.

Planetstrike and Cities of Death are both explicitly listed as Expansions along with Stronghold Assault and Death from the Skies on page 238 of the 8th Edition Rulebook. There is no equivalent for anything to do with ForgeWorld.

w1zard wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
I expect the same policy to be applied to all other rules. If you don't give me an up front request/notification that you would like to use codex rules instead of the index rules then you are probably TFG. After all, codex rules are a major escalation in power and WAAC potential, and really just an expansion to the core of the game. And some armies don't even get codex rules at all, how is that fair? Plus they cost so much money and it's not reasonable to expect me to be familiar with them.

I don't think this analogy is entirely correct. It explicitly states in the core rulebook that the latest codex must be used for datasheets for your army outside of very specific circumstances. I've yet to see GW make an official announcement that "FW is a GW supported, and sponsored part of the game, and FW models/rules are fully intended to be used in matched play". TBH I don't have a problem with people using forgeworld against me so long as they have the book on them and show me the datasheet before deployment. But, many members of my gaming group refuse to play against forgeworld. Their reasoning being that those models are an optional expansion to the base WH40k game made by a different (related sure, but different) company, similar to something like the planetstrike or cities of death rulesets. You wouldn't show up to a game and spring "oh btw we are playing a planetstrike scenario" on your opponent would you?

CA and the FAQ both have points revisions for FW models- points are used for matched play, therefore they are supported by GW. The fact FW stuff is present in a lot of the WHW tournaments shows they are supported and acknowledged as legitimate units. There simply is no argument here, FW is part of the game and whther people believe it or not, the rules will be reviewed by GW before they're released.

Regardless of whatever lawyering people come up with or whatever personal rules they have with regards to "i dont want to play against cheese" there is a pretty simple solution.... ask your opponent if their list is competitive or not. If they say yes and you're sat there with your fluffy narrative list, then just tell them that you fancy a more casual game.

Either way, id be pretty pissed in the OP's situation- this hobby is about more than gaming and personally the Leviathan is my absolute favorite model, couldn't wait to build and paint one then get it on the board, if i did that and some guy who's afraid of loosing a game of toy soldiers told me he doesn't play against FW id be gutted.

And i see the argument "what about that guy who says his list is fluffy and its the strongest cheddar around?" well shame on him, but its only the same as casual gamer guy who wants to play tournament level rules lawyering, remeasuring your moves and charge distances.

w1zard wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
I expect the same policy to be applied to all other rules. If you don't give me an up front request/notification that you would like to use codex rules instead of the index rules then you are probably TFG. After all, codex rules are a major escalation in power and WAAC potential, and really just an expansion to the core of the game. And some armies don't even get codex rules at all, how is that fair? Plus they cost so much money and it's not reasonable to expect me to be familiar with them.

I don't think this analogy is entirely correct. It explicitly states in the core rulebook that the latest codex must be used for datasheets for your army outside of very specific circumstances. I've yet to see GW make an official announcement that "FW is a GW supported, and sponsored part of the game, and FW models/rules are fully intended to be used in matched play". TBH I don't have a problem with people using forgeworld against me so long as they have the book on them and show me the datasheet before deployment. But, many members of my gaming group refuse to play against forgeworld. Their reasoning being that those models are an optional expansion to the base WH40k game made by a different (related sure, but different) company, similar to something like the planetstrike or cities of death rulesets. You wouldn't show up to a game and spring "oh btw we are playing a planetstrike scenario" on your opponent would you?

You might want to show this to your buds:

w1zard wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
I expect the same policy to be applied to all other rules. If you don't give me an up front request/notification that you would like to use codex rules instead of the index rules then you are probably TFG. After all, codex rules are a major escalation in power and WAAC potential, and really just an expansion to the core of the game. And some armies don't even get codex rules at all, how is that fair? Plus they cost so much money and it's not reasonable to expect me to be familiar with them.

I don't think this analogy is entirely correct. It explicitly states in the core rulebook that the latest codex must be used for datasheets for your army outside of very specific circumstances.

So I can't play Sisters of Battle then, or Inquisition, or Harlequins, or Genestealer Cults then? I mean, they don't have Codexes, they have Indexes?

Forge World have official publications, are recognised in CA, and are owned by GW. They're the same thing. Saying "no FW because they don't have codexes" is the same as saying "no Sisters of Battle etc etc because they don't have codexes".

I've yet to see GW make an official announcement that "FW is a GW supported, and sponsored part of the game, and FW models/rules are fully intended to be used in matched play".

I've yet to see GW make an official announcement that "FW isn't a GW supported and sponsored part of the game and FW models/rules aren't fully intended to be used in matched play".
We know Forge World is supported by GW - why? Because they're the same company!

Why shouldn't Forge World be just like everything else? Seriously, what are the differences?
Can't buy it in store? Depends on your store, firstly - secondly, a lot of models aren't stocked in store now. Can I not use Cato Sicarius now, or Telion?
Different book to the Codex? What about all the Index units still in play?
Made of resin? What about metal models and Finecast?

There is no reason Forge World isn't just as valid as everything else. Your club can have that rule, but it doesn't change the fact it's a stupid baseless one.

I think we've beaten this horse so thoroughly over the last few days, that it likely died several times over. At the risk of just doing so again, the take home perhaps should be this:

Forge World don't produce models or content for 40K (or any other game) that are any more or less optional than any other model that Games Workshop produce. What FW do is produce small batch, specialist resin models (from a hobby perspective - resin is arguably a slightly more advanced material to work with in terms of hobby knowledge). That's it, that's literally their remit. There is no 'OP rules' conspiracy, they just occasionally do something a little different because they tend to fill a niche that Citadels range didn't cover, rather than churn out the same stuff.

Now, if you choose to make FW models an optional part of your hobby, please feel free to do so! You absolutely can. What you can't do is try and make them an optional part of mine, or anyone elses, OR pretend that yours is the mainstream view. It isn't, nor do GW or FW intend it to be.

The attitude of FW being an optional expansion in general terms, needs to be put to bed. It is simply, factually, incorrect.

w1zard wrote:
It explicitly states in the core rulebook that the latest codex must be used for datasheets for your army outside of very specific circumstances.

{citation needed}

GW has said this in their FAQs, but I can't find any statement about it in the rulebook. In fact, I found a statement that says the exact opposite:

To use a points limit, you will need to reference
the points values, which are found in a number of
Warhammer 40,000 publications, such as codexes.

Here GW explicitly presents the codex as merely one of multiple possible sources for point values, and only for point values. If you want to play a PL or open play game you don't even have that statement suggesting the use of a codex.

Also, nowhere does it say that FAQs/errata are a standard part of the game. If you would like to use the optional FAQ/errata expansion rules (such as the one requiring the use of a codex) then I expect you to notify me in advance and ask for permission, just like with FW units.

made by a different (related sure, but different) company

JFC this nonsense needs to die. FW is not a separate company. FW is a brand name used by GW to sell certain products, just like Finecast or White Dwarf. The people working on the FW product line are GW employees, GW owns all of the IP, and all purchases of FW products are paid to GW and shipped by GW.

You wouldn't show up to a game and spring "oh btw we are playing a planetstrike scenario" on your opponent would you?

No, but that's a nonsense comparison. Planetstrike/Apocalypse/etc change how the scenario works, including adding additional rules for both armies. You can't have an asymmetrical use of those rules, one player can't play a normal 40k game while the other plays Apocalypse. It's not a matter of courtesy, the rules simply do not function that way. FW rules, on the other hand, are asymmetrical. They change only the contents of one player's army, in a way that is fully compatible with whatever army the other player chooses to bring. There is no functional reason to require advance warning and agreement, only the expectation by certain players that they get to have veto power over their opponent's army.

w1zard wrote:
Their reasoning being that those models are an optional expansion to the base WH40k game made by a different (related sure, but different) company, similar to something like the planetstrike or cities of death rulesets.

Your friends are wrong.

It's not 'optional' any more than a Land Raider is optional. It is the same company, and 100% legal. If your friends want to place their own personal restrictions on their games, that's up to them. But don't expect anyone else to recognize this restriction.

 Peregrine wrote:
There is no functional reason to require advance warning and agreement, only the expectation by certain players that they get to have veto power over their opponent's army.

So much this. Beautifully and succinctly put.

I don't think it's everyone's intent, but it is this attitudes ultimate result. You should not expect to dictate to another player what they may include in their list if they're using units the game fully supports.

If you want to refuse play because you don't like a unit someone has included in an army - no one can stop you. But recognise that within normal circumstances, it's probably you who are the 'problem' player when you're behaving like that.

(For the reactionaries who won't read properly, or who will ignore the spirit of the argument, no. We're not talking about the common sense edge cases where someone dumps a Warhound titan on the table etc. The entire thread has been about FW models that you *should* expect to see legally fielded in normal play - and yes, that's the vast majority of FW's range.)

FFS this topic is older than some of the posters in this thread...

Banville wrote:

w1zard wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
I expect the same policy to be applied to all other rules. If you don't give me an up front request/notification that you would like to use codex rules instead of the index rules then you are probably TFG. After all, codex rules are a major escalation in power and WAAC potential, and really just an expansion to the core of the game. And some armies don't even get codex rules at all, how is that fair? Plus they cost so much money and it's not reasonable to expect me to be familiar with them.

I don't think this analogy is entirely correct. It explicitly states in the core rulebook that the latest codex must be used for datasheets for your army outside of very specific circumstances. I've yet to see GW make an official announcement that "FW is a GW supported, and sponsored part of the game, and FW models/rules are fully intended to be used in matched play". TBH I don't have a problem with people using forgeworld against me so long as they have the book on them and show me the datasheet before deployment. But, many members of my gaming group refuse to play against forgeworld. Their reasoning being that those models are an optional expansion to the base WH40k game made by a different (related sure, but different) company, similar to something like the planetstrike or cities of death rulesets. You wouldn't show up to a game and spring "oh btw we are playing a planetstrike scenario" on your opponent would you?

You might want to show this to your buds:

Please read the last 5 lines of the picture you posted.

 Mmmpi wrote:

Banville wrote:

w1zard wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
I expect the same policy to be applied to all other rules. If you don't give me an up front request/notification that you would like to use codex rules instead of the index rules then you are probably TFG. After all, codex rules are a major escalation in power and WAAC potential, and really just an expansion to the core of the game. And some armies don't even get codex rules at all, how is that fair? Plus they cost so much money and it's not reasonable to expect me to be familiar with them.

I don't think this analogy is entirely correct. It explicitly states in the core rulebook that the latest codex must be used for datasheets for your army outside of very specific circumstances. I've yet to see GW make an official announcement that "FW is a GW supported, and sponsored part of the game, and FW models/rules are fully intended to be used in matched play". TBH I don't have a problem with people using forgeworld against me so long as they have the book on them and show me the datasheet before deployment. But, many members of my gaming group refuse to play against forgeworld. Their reasoning being that those models are an optional expansion to the base WH40k game made by a different (related sure, but different) company, similar to something like the planetstrike or cities of death rulesets. You wouldn't show up to a game and spring "oh btw we are playing a planetstrike scenario" on your opponent would you?

You might want to show this to your buds:

Please read the last 5 lines of the picture you posted.

I don't see anything there that suggests my opponent can veto my army. "Make sure the opponent is happy with <insert choices here>" is a default case for social-contract games. Furthermore, if my opponent is unhappy with <choice>, then I reserve the right to judge them. I can't force them to play me, but depending on their reasoning I can absolutely think they're being silly.

Well, It specifically calls out the fact that people might not know about Forgeworld, and then continues to ask you to make sure they're ok with it.

You might think that a possible opponent is being silly, but it appears that GW and Forgeworld don't agree with you.

What it does is spell out that FW is legal, but like any other part of the game, you don't have to play against it.

Once more, everyone is entitled to turn down a game for whatever reason, but that doesn't mean your reason makes any sense to the majority of players.

 Mmmpi wrote:
Well, It specifically calls out the fact that people might not know about Forgeworld, and then continues to ask you to make sure they're ok with it.

You might think that a possible opponent is being silly, but it appears that GW and Forgeworld don't agree with you.

Didn't agree. The image in question is from a previous edition, no such statement exists in 8th edition.

Removing it doesn't automatically mean they went on to full inclusion. It could very well mean that they're back to the older way.

I'm checking the FW site now to see if they say anything there.

 Mmmpi wrote:
Well, It specifically calls out the fact that people might not know about Forgeworld, and then continues to ask you to make sure they're ok with it.

You might think that a possible opponent is being silly, but it appears that GW and Forgeworld don't agree with you.

It is worth mentioning that that statement is from the 6th Edition printing of Imperial Armour Volume 1: 2E over half a decade ago. They were outright legal then.

 Mmmpi wrote:
Removing it doesn't automatically mean they went on to full inclusion. It could very well mean that they're back to the older way.

I'm checking the FW site now to see if they say anything there.

You can speculate all you want, that's all you have. GW just publishes the FW books with 40k rules in them. At no point does GW say they are separate, or require any special treatment compared to any other 40k rules they publish.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Mmmpi wrote:
Well, It specifically calls out the fact that people might not know about Forgeworld, and then continues to ask you to make sure they're ok with it.

You might think that a possible opponent is being silly, but it appears that GW and Forgeworld don't agree with you.

Didn't agree. The image in question is from a previous edition, no such statement exists in 8th edition.

This is also true. They removed that stamp and paragraph and now just flag "experimental rules" before they release them officially.

 Mmmpi wrote:
Removing it doesn't automatically mean they went on to full inclusion. It could very well mean that they're back to the older way.

I'm checking the FW site now to see if they say anything there.

They don't. I own all four of the indexes. Here is the totality of the introduction for Imperial Armour - Index: Forces of the Astra Militarum:

"Welcome to Imperial Armour – Index: Forces of the Astra Militarum. This book is designed to update the rules for Forge World’s current and recent ranges of models for use with the latest incarnation of the Warhammer 40,000 game. It provides rules for Forge World’s Astra Militarum, Death Korps of Krieg, Elysian Drop Troops, Questor Imperialis and Titan Legions, as well as the malevolent traitors of the Renegades and Heretics army.

This book and its contents are fully compatible with Warhammer 40,000 – Index: Imperium 2, expanding the datasheets which are found there and contains all the information you need to field your Forge World models from the Astra Militarum, Death Korps of Krieg, Elysian Drop Troops, Questor Imperialis, Titan Legions and Renegade and Heretics factions in the new edition of the Warhammer 40,000 game. Also included are both Power Ratings and Appendices for their use in Battle-forged armies.

You will need a copy of the Warhammer 40,000 rulebook and Warhammer 40,000 – Index: Imperium 2 to make full use of this book and its contents."

 Mmmpi wrote:
Removing it doesn't automatically mean they went on to full inclusion. It could very well mean that they're back to the older way.

I'm checking the FW site now to see if they say anything there.

Again, if it were a seperate non mandatory expansion, would it be in CA?
Also the text in all fw books state that they are a part of Wh 40k.
Additionaly all links between Gw sites and Fw sites and Warhammer community site are connected......

 Mmmpi wrote:
Well, It specifically calls out the fact that people might not know about Forgeworld, and then continues to ask you to make sure they're ok with it.

"It is best to ask". Not "You must seek permission". In other words, I think that's a real GW way of saying "You might have a guy like the OP of this thread met who'll freak out over it, so just get that out of the way ahead of time before some neckbeard comes unhinged at the table".

 Mmmpi wrote:
You might think that a possible opponent is being silly, but it appears that GW and Forgeworld don't agree with you.

"Make sure your opponent is happy with it"- you do realize this is kind of a general rule with anything in 40k, not just Forge World, right? I've had people ask me not to use a flyer because the guy didn't have any real anti-air capability.

Again, however, I'll stand by it- you can refuse to play any army you like in 40k. I knew a weird Christian kid that didn't want anything associated with Daemons on the table with him, and that was his prerogative- but it limited his own gameplay experience, and only he (and the Lord, I suppose) could judge whether or not that was worth it to him.

PUG's and the like require at least two parties to generally agree on something, however the game quickly loses its appeal when we create a trend of opponents vetoing against what you can and cannot bring- and it becomes just one more game that doesn't happen. It is outright detrimental to the game as a whole.

However, the absolute worst that can happen when you go against an unfamiliar model or unit? You lose. Oh, big deal. If losing a game about little angry space people is such a problem for you, then you probably need to go out and find some better fulfillment in life. Or you could be a big boy and say, "Wow, that thing really smashed me. Now I need to figure out a way to deal with one of those next time, because at least now I know how they work."

Dude, and if someone isn't familiar with the Forge World models, and I own the book? Easy fix. "Here, dude- get your phone out and take a picture of the pages so you can read it over later". Hell, if your army can use one of mine I'll let you borrow it and try it out.

Also, let's see if I can make some heads spin:

"You have a right to refuse to play Forge World if you like, also you have just as much right to refuse to play against Female Space Marines"

 Mmmpi wrote:
Removing it doesn't automatically mean they went on to full inclusion. It could very well mean that they're back to the older way.

I'm checking the FW site now to see if they say anything there.

Yeah, it's also a suggestion, not a rule. They don't say you 'must' do anything.

If your best argument is a one sentence, polite, unintended to be enforced in any way, suggestion from an old edition... Well, the conclusion doesn't really need to be stated does it?

You're in great danger of trying to find or invent evidence to fit your argument, not looking at the evidence and reaching the answer it points to. In doing so, you're ignoring the vast swathes of obvious proof that Forge World models are utterly a part of 40K today, and intended to be used in games of all types, at all levels.

 Mmmpi wrote:
Removing it doesn't automatically mean they went on to full inclusion. It could very well mean that they're back to the older way.

No, the absence of any sort of rule means that rule is no longer in effect.

If politicians remove the law against smoking marijuana, that doesn't mean "oh well it might still be illegal".


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, I've already started to figure out how people see Forge World.

Lose to someone playing Forge World models? "They're overpowered and not part of the game, I refuse to play them!"

Win against someone playing Forge World models? "They are a waste of money and not worth it!"

Can't afford a Forge World model? Memorize the two responses above, you'll need them to feel better about your shortcomings.

*shrug* I would rather lose to a Forgeworld unit I have never played against because I didn't know what it does then to play yet another unimaginative soup list. I am much more likely to pass on a game if I see Imperial Guard and Death Company for example. Even more likely then that I would rather not play a mirror match. Variety is the spice of life.