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.
Strg Alt wrote: Because it isn´t important what you say but how you say it and your tone has been shrill from the beginning on.
IOW, "my hurt feelings are more important than the facts of the situation". You're forming your opinion out of ignorance. Sorry if that truth hurts, but it is true. If you want to care more about tone than substance then that's your problem.
I can´t even fathom why somebody should be so furious about this.
Because you're spreading ignorant statements and expecting veto power over your opponent's army when you can't even bother to learn about the rules you're trying to veto.
I admit, all three are third party sources. But unless we actually get our hands on financial reports or something that detail GW's relationship with FW, the consensus seems to be that FW is a subsidiary or child studio of GW.
As you said, all third party sources. On the other hand we have evidence directly from GW that all IP for the FW brand is owned by GW, all purchases of FW brand products are billed to GW, all packages are sent from GW, etc. The entire argument that FW is some kind of subsidiary is based on nothing more than people wanting it to be true.
I don´t like your tone. Consider yourself ignored.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/07/08 19:13:36
If I stick a Leman Russ Annihilator on the table i have to give my opponent the power to refuse my allowance to use it...as FW = overpowered.
But I can't then say anything about seeing Gulliman and 4 quad lascannon Predators in a salamander army...because reasons...
Well as your playing a 3k game
Quickest way to completely dodge the point I guess...
(Who even has 12 hours to play a game that size in 8th?)
Formosa wrote: I buy my battletech books from catalyst games and models from ral partha, easy peasy.
INSANITY!
What next Black Library books sold in none black library stores?!?!?!
Well, technically, Black Library has no stores (except, like FW, a store in Nottingham), so they're obviously not GW products, and anything in them is obviously non-canon.
ValentineGames wrote:I don´t like your tone. Consider yourself ignored.
You might not like his tone, and a lot of people don't, but he's not lying.
You can shut out people, but it doesn't make you right and them wrong.
In fact, this whole idea that you can "ignore" people because you disagree with them is exactly how the whole Forge World debate came about: people talking about FW from a position of relative ignorance and ignoring more recent and/or factual data.
Of course, you can always ignore people - no-one can force you to hear someone out, but refusing to? Depending on context, that doesn't give you the right to be immune from criticism.
I wouldn't worry overmuch, declaring you're putting somebody on ignore rather than just doing it and getting on with your life is right at the top of the "nuclear level passive aggressive list of things to do on Dakka."
I wouldn't be in the least surprised if he hasn't even actually put Peregrine on ignore.
We find comfort among those who agree with us - growth among those who don't. - Frank Howard Clark
The wise man doubts often, and changes his mind; the fool is obstinate, and doubts not; he knows all things but his own ignorance.
The correct statement of individual rights is that everyone has the right to an opinion, but crucially, that opinion can be roundly ignored and even made fun of, particularly if it is demonstrably nonsense!” Professor Brian Cox
Formosa wrote: I think this argument will never die, the anti FW crowd move the goal posts every time.
The anti-FW attitude in this age seems to generally seems to be with people who cannot move on from a convention that has held in their head for many editions are simply incapable of moving on or are too stubborn admit otherwise. There's no rational reason to not play against FW, that's been tread to death, and there's always a double-standard around it for whatever reason (nobody will bat an eye at playing a codex list or new WD unit, but an FW unit that's been around for 5 editions and used to be a Codex unit like Thudd Guns needs to be OK'd first...), and the goalposts have to be moved ever further to justify keeping the convention stuck in their heads.
It's the old sticks-in-the-mud. Nobody else cares, the attitude among new players certainly doesn't show the animosity to FW that a subset of the older crowd cling too.
IRON WITHIN, IRON WITHOUT.
New Heavy Gear Log! Also...Grey Knights! The correct pronunciation is Imperial Guard and Stormtroopers, "Astra Militarum" and "Tempestus Scions" are something you'll find at Hogwarts.
Mmmpi wrote: I said maybe. Usually for a pick up game, sure. But I like to be told before the game.
Edit: and I just went and read the rest of this thread.
After seeing many of the posts here, I should probably change my answer to no. I'd rather not play against cultists.
But Cultists are in the Codex.
*ba-dum-tss*
No?
Nobody?
Fine.
Anyway, I think the issue with the "cultists" as you put it isn't actually that they're frothing at the mouth over people disliking FW, it's just the direction that these arguments tend to take.
Nowadays Forgeworld is an absolutely valid part of 40k. Nothing about it requires an opponent's permission, even if it might be considered good manners to let an opponent know before you bring Forgeworld units, in case they're the sort of player that still doesn't like them. Most of the arguments that people make against Forgeworld are therefore not rooted in game rules but in the fact that they personally don't like it. It might be that they had a bad experience playing against a Forgeworld model in the past, that they heard that FW was overpowered, that it required an opponent's permission in past editions, that they don't want to play against something they're not familiar with or simply that they can't afford FW and therefore don't want their opponent to have it either.
There's nothing wrong per se about refusing to play against FW for any of those reasons - it's your game and you can choose who and what you play against. But to the player who has saved, bought and painted an FW unit because they think it's cool, a lot of those reasons will sound unreasonable.
The same thing can be said of the arguments that people make against FW in these sorts of threads. They tend to base them on the OP/unbalanced side of things, or the status of FW in past editions. The pro-FW people are able to refute these arguments fairly easily - the main studio is also capable of unbalanced and OP awfulness, and the status of FW in past editions has no relevance nowadays, for example. In effect the pro-FW posters have the locigal and "technically correct" argument. The anti-FW people are approaching it from a more emotional position and aren't prepared to be swayed by the logical argument and tend to repeat their statements or switch to the other anti-FW arguments, any of which the pro-FW people believe they have already refuted. The pro-FW people start to become irritated because they've explained how and why FW is a valid part of the game yet the anti-FW crowd don't seem to get it. The anti-FW people become irritated because they don't know why the pro-FW people are attacking them for what is effectively a personal preference and they couldn't give two hoots whether it's a technically incorrect position.
The whole thing snowballs and you get "screaming" on both sides.
My issue at this point is that the pro-forgeworld group (not everyone who uses forgeworld) is that their default mode is to tell people their horrible. Many of their reasons are valid, but their message is lost with their approach. If someone is already against forgeworld, all the PFG is doing is making them dig in and hold even tighter to their beliefs, which, while not completely accurate now, most likely have a valid reason for being there. If someone says that they can't because their local group doesn't allow it, well, what is jumping on that guy going to do? Shouting at him isn't going to change someone else's mind, and may even push them into thinking their real-live friends are actually right about it.
WHAT!!! HERE'S five reasons why you're a horrible person that I'll scream at you for 30 pages in every thread that even mentions forgeworld.
Who cares if someone you'll never meet doesn't want to play with an expansion set? You're literally not going to play them, and by screaming at them all you're making them do is dig in.
There's nothing wrong with you not taking Forgeworld in your own army.
But saying "I don't play AGAINST Forgeword" - okay, so why? Surely there must be a reason why not. If you won't play against FW, then you surely shouldn't also want to play GW units either - what's the difference?
And that's where the problem comes in, because people rarely have well reasoned and rational beliefs as to why they shouldn't play against FW. Of course, you can't be forced into playing against it. You can't be forced into it. But your opponent reserves every right to call you out as narrow minded if you can't justify to them why you won't play against toy soldiers with a different name to the other toy soldiers.
And when you call them that what have you accomplished? You've just verified everything they've already felt about FW. Good job with that.
WHAT!!! HERE'S five reasons why you're a horrible person that I'll scream at you for 30 pages in every thread that even mentions forgeworld.
Who cares if someone you'll never meet doesn't want to play with an expansion set? You're literally not going to play them, and by screaming at them all you're making them do is dig in.
No the other side of that is asking why you won’t and expecting a rational answer, which so far not a single anti FW person has done, not one, in all these threads that pop up, so are you surprised that when you say “no” you get 10 people saying “why not”
Every answer you've gotten about why not is rational. Maybe some of them weren't true anymore (aka the reason behind that rationalization changed) but still based on the use of rational thought and logic. Forcing people to change their mind doesn't work. You have to put them in a position to figure it out for themselves.
WHAT!!! HERE'S five reasons why you're a horrible person that I'll scream at you for 30 pages in every thread that even mentions forgeworld.
Who cares if someone you'll never meet doesn't want to play with an expansion set? You're literally not going to play them, and by screaming at them all you're making them do is dig in.
it is not a expansion set. it is 100% legal unit entries to the base game.
It's an expansion.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2018/07/08 23:24:21
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: They don't need a "be nice" approach when there is no reason to be anti-FW in the first place.
So the best solution to someone who politely tells you they don't play with the same toy men as you is to be the biggest jerk you can. That'll show em'
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: They don't need a "be nice" approach when there is no reason to be anti-FW in the first place.
So the best solution to someone who politely tells you they don't play with the same toy men as you is to be the biggest jerk you can. That'll show em'
FW bans are not polite.
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: They don't need a "be nice" approach when there is no reason to be anti-FW in the first place.
There are valid reasons if you:
a. consider FW to be "overpowered"
b. consider FW to be an optional "expansion"
c. or too unavailable
Those opinions may be based off of faulty information, but regardless of the facts people still think these things. I was guilty of b. up until I was convinced otherwise earlier in the thread.
My dad taught me a really good lesson about convincing other people to change their opinions. He said "If you want someone to eat a sandwich, trying to shove it down their throat is probably the most counter-productive thing you can do. Trying to convince someone to come around to your way of thinking is the same way."
And I still think GW needs to come out and just straight up say that FW needs to be treated the same way as codex armies. I think that if the pro-FW people could quote an official GW source on that, it would solve a lot of arguments.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2018/07/09 00:13:39
And I still think GW needs to come out and just straight up say that FW needs to be treated the same way as codex armies. I think that if the pro-FW people could quote an official GW source on that, it would solve a lot of arguments.
Thing is that's only going to work "online". If GW wants FW to be mainstream the most simplistic way is to simply print the rules inside the relevant army codex and then to print data-slate releases for future FW models in the very same way that they do for regular model releases.
So long as FW models remain within a separate book (Imperial Armour) then there will always be the potential view of taking FW as an expansion to the core rules set of the game rather than a default inclusion that many here want/see it to be
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/07/09 00:16:00
And I still think GW needs to come out and just straight up say that FW needs to be treated the same way as codex armies. I think that if the pro-FW people could quote an official GW source on that, it would solve a lot of arguments.
Thing is that's only going to work "online". If GW wants FW to be mainstream the most simplistic way is to simply print the rules inside the relevant army codex and then to print data-slate releases for future FW models in the very same way that they do for regular model releases.
So long as FW models remain within a separate book (Imperial Armour) then there will always be the potential view of taking FW as an expansion to the core rules set of the game rather than a default inclusion that many here want/see it to be
Agreed.
But then you are going to get people saying that "goes against the idea of forgeworld" to have "exclusive" models' rules printed in the normal codex. To which my response is still the same "you can't have your cake at eat it too". Either FW is a part of the base game in which case the models shouldn't be any harder to get than normal GW models (they aren't really with the ease of online ordering), and the rules should be condensed into one spot (codex), OR forgeworld is an optional "expansion". You can't have both.
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2018/07/09 01:36:32
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: They don't need a "be nice" approach when there is no reason to be anti-FW in the first place.
There are valid reasons if you:
a. consider FW to be "overpowered"
b. consider FW to be an optional "expansion"
c. or too unavailable
Those opinions may be based off of faulty information, but
There IS no "but". The information has been presented over and over and you still have people in this thread ignoring all those reasonings being disproved simply because it just utterly DESTROYS their world view or some crap like that.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: They don't need a "be nice" approach when there is no reason to be anti-FW in the first place.
So the best solution to someone who politely tells you they don't play with the same toy men as you is to be the biggest jerk you can. That'll show em'
FW bans are not polite.
Bingo!
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/07/09 01:38:03
CaptainStabby wrote: If Tyberos falls and needs to catch himself it's because the ground needed killing.
jy2 wrote: BTW, I can't wait to run Double-D-thirsters! Man, just thinking about it gets me Khorney.
vipoid wrote: Indeed - what sort of bastard would want to use their codex?
MarsNZ wrote: ITT: SoB players upset that they're receiving the same condescending treatment that they've doled out in every CSM thread ever.
And I still think GW needs to come out and just straight up say that FW needs to be treated the same way as codex armies. I think that if the pro-FW people could quote an official GW source on that, it would solve a lot of arguments.
Thing is that's only going to work "online". If GW wants FW to be mainstream the most simplistic way is to simply print the rules inside the relevant army codex and then to print data-slate releases for future FW models in the very same way that they do for regular model releases.
So long as FW models remain within a separate book (Imperial Armour) then there will always be the potential view of taking FW as an expansion to the core rules set of the game rather than a default inclusion that many here want/see it to be
Hmm mm... Maybe they should bring out a series of indexes to update their stuff in the same way as Index 1,2 etc. Then, in order to stop all this arguing, they should roll their errata and FAQs into one big compilation alongside the codex stuff. That'd make it easy to access and it'd be a proper GW publication. They could call it Chapter Approved, or something. That'd work. Right?
Banville wrote: Hmm mm... Maybe they should bring out a series of indexes to update their stuff in the same way as Index 1,2 etc. Then, in order to stop all this arguing, they should roll their errata and FAQs into one big compilation alongside the codex stuff. That'd make it easy to access and it'd be a proper GW publication. They could call it Chapter Approved, or something. That'd work. Right?
The counter to that though is the view that (for example) the Imperial Guard codex is the Imperial Guard codex, and that anything that ADDS to it is an optional expansion (CA is an errata/FAQ). In the same way that the core rules are the core rules, and that anything that adds to it (cities of death... etc) is just an optional expansion.
Just because GW updates a ruleset like cities of death in CA doesn't mean it is intended to be used every game, or considered part of the core rules.
I would love to see the FW stuff added to the actual codices. I think that is a great move.
This message was edited 5 times. Last update was at 2018/07/09 05:01:58
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: They don't need a "be nice" approach when there is no reason to be anti-FW in the first place.
So the best solution to someone who politely tells you they don't play with the same toy men as you is to be the biggest jerk you can. That'll show em'
Telling someone to change their perfectly valid army to accomodate your preferences without even offering a reason that makes sense isn't polite.
This is the big difference between the two sides, only one side is demanding that other people change their armies to accomodate them. It's on them to offer an excellent justification for that.
As you said, all third party sources. On the other hand we have evidence directly from GW that all IP for the FW brand is owned by GW, all purchases of FW brand products are billed to GW, all packages are sent from GW, etc. The entire argument that FW is some kind of subsidiary is based on nothing more than people wanting it to be true.
Additionally, FW is not listed as a PLC or Limited company, does not have a company number or a VAT number (they list GW's details).
This would not be the case for a wholly owned subsidiary.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2018/07/09 05:23:32
w1zard wrote: The counter to that though is the view that (for example) the Imperial Guard codex is the Imperial Guard codex, and that anything that ADDS to it is an optional expansion (CA is an errata/FAQ). In the same way that the core rules are the core rules, and that anything that adds to it (cities of death... etc) is just an optional expansion.
That is no more reasonable than arguing that the rules for Imperial Guard are Index Imperium II, and anything that ADDS to it is an optional expansion therefore you need to ask special permission before using your optional Codex: Imperial Guard expansion.
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
w1zard wrote: The counter to that though is the view that (for example) the Imperial Guard codex is the Imperial Guard codex, and that anything that ADDS to it is an optional expansion (CA is an errata/FAQ). In the same way that the core rules are the core rules, and that anything that adds to it (cities of death... etc) is just an optional expansion.
That is no more reasonable than arguing that the rules for Imperial Guard are Index Imperium II, and anything that ADDS to it is an optional expansion therefore you need to ask special permission before using your optional Codex: Imperial Guard expansion.
Except that GW stated in the core rules that you are supposed to use the latest datasheets for things published in the index, which means that codex>index except under certain circumstances. I have yet to see anything in the core rules regarding the legitimacy of forgeworld units.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2018/07/09 07:44:44
Every answer you've gotten about why not is rational. Maybe some of them weren't true anymore (aka the reason behind that rationalization changed) but still based on the use of rational thought and logic. Forcing people to change their mind doesn't work. You have to put them in a position to figure it out for themselves.
It is irrational to believe that something that was true in a previous edition, which is in fact an entirely different game, applies to things in a new edition, which is again an entirely different game.
I don't use my experiences from Risk as a baseline for how to feel about Twilight Imperium. Anyone who is carrying over thoughts and feelings about FW from 6th/7th into 8th is not providing a rational response to the units in 8th. They are providing an irrational emotional response born from experiences they had playing a different game.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/07/09 07:47:51
These are my opinions. This is how I feel. Others may feel differently. This needs to be stated for some reason.
w1zard wrote: Except that GW stated in the core rules that you are supposed to use the latest datasheets for things published in the index, which means that codex>index except under certain circumstances. I have yet to see anything in the core rules regarding the legitimacy of forgeworld units.
{citation needed}
I know that GW published something like that in one of their optional FAQ/errata expansions, but I'd expect you to ask special permission before using any of that in your army.
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
w1zard wrote: Except that GW stated in the core rules that you are supposed to use the latest datasheets for things published in the index, which means that codex>index except under certain circumstances. I have yet to see anything in the core rules regarding the legitimacy of forgeworld units.
{citation needed}
I know that GW published something like that in one of their optional FAQ/errata expansions, but I'd expect you to ask special permission before using any of that in your army.
FAQ and erratas are not optional. You either use them or you are not playing "real" 40k. Supplements like "cities of death" are optional rulesets that can be applied to your game. Games using these optional rulesets are legal games, but games that do not use them are also still legal.
Learn the difference between an optional ruleset and an actual rule please.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2018/07/09 08:03:10
I'm sorry, but did you just quote from an optional FAQ/errata expansion to "prove" that the expansion is mandatory? If I choose not to use this optional expansion then none of its contents, including the page you quoted, apply.
FAQ and erratas are not optional. You either use them or you are not playing "real" 40k.
Forge World rules are not optional. You either use them or you are not playing "real" 40k.
Learn the difference between an optional ruleset and an actual rule please.
Learn the difference between the rules as published by GW and your personal house rules about how you like to play your games please.
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
The Forgeworld Store in Nottingham isn't even run as a separate business for what it is worth. It's run by the exact same team that run the regular store, the staff are totally interchangeable between them from shift to shift.
I don't understand how the spreadsheet helps your cause.
You take a Forgeworld model, it doesn't have an entry in the Codex, so you take the official entry in the index. Problem solved.
FW units have been adjusted in an official GW document (Chapter approved). You can't get more official than that.
There's absolutely no reason to assume FW models are not part of the usual/official 40K line in 8th edition. Their official page (warhammer community) constantly tells you that FW is just as viable in your army as GW products (custodes and knights were the most obvious).
Formosa wrote: I think this argument will never die, the anti FW crowd move the goal posts every time.
The simple truth is that there is variety on the opinion of if FW should be standard or expansion. Therefore the sensible approach is to, when dealing with a new person you don't know, to approach it as an expansion. Therefore you spend a few moments going "hey lets have a battle, are we including FW or not". You then both agree to include or not to include and go from either place.
The only ones that will get disgruntled are when you get a die-hard no and yes person together and neither one is willing to give in to the other. And honestly such situations are super rare. The pages and hours of arguing online is represented in the real world with a few moments of pre-game chatter that is typically amicable.
I like to use a Contemptor in my DG. Why should I have to deviate from my list on occasion because GW decided only Loyalists could have it as a codex entry and CSM were stuck with FW?
Games Workshop Delenda Est.
Users on ignore- 53.
If you break apart my or anyone else's posts line by line I will not read them.
Except that GW stated in the core rules that you are supposed to use the latest datasheets for things published in the index, which means that codex>index except under certain circumstances. I have yet to see anything in the core rules regarding the legitimacy of forgeworld units.
Can you point to anything that says the FW indexes (which have the GW and 40K logos just like the other indexes) are less legitimate?
ValentineGames wrote:I don´t like your tone. Consider yourself ignored.
You might not like his tone, and a lot of people don't, but he's not lying.
You can shut out people, but it doesn't make you right and them wrong.
In fact, this whole idea that you can "ignore" people because you disagree with them is exactly how the whole Forge World debate came about: people talking about FW from a position of relative ignorance and ignoring more recent and/or factual data.
Of course, you can always ignore people - no-one can force you to hear someone out, but refusing to? Depending on context, that doesn't give you the right to be immune from criticism.
Err....I never said that though. So I dunno why I've been quoted saying it...
I don't feel comfortable playing against Forgeworld units, because they tend to upset any sense of thematic coherency in an army. Armies tend to have "baked-in" weaknesses or limitations as part of their core theme, which to some extent offset their strengths. When one design team is creating units with those limitations in mind, and the other is adding units that "fill the gaps" in the first team's work, they are working in opposition.
I am generally suspicious of people who want to use Forgeworld units, because I have to ask myself why they've made that choice, instead of using units that are more easily (and cheaply) available. Is it because they think the model looks super cool, or because it's really thematically appropriate for their army? Great! Is it because they think the unit is unusually powerful, or to attempt to work around an intended limitation of their army? If so, I'm more inclined to think of them as someone who is looking for something different out of the game to what I want.
In a tournament, I wouldn't question the use of Forgeworld units - it's a competitive environment, so seeking any advantage is intended. In a normal game, I'd prefer that my opponents give me some insight into why they've made the choice to go with Forgeworld, so I can make sure we're on the same page.
kadeton wrote: I don't feel comfortable playing against Forgeworld units, because they tend to upset any sense of thematic coherency in an army. Armies tend to have "baked-in" weaknesses or limitations as part of their core theme, which to some extent offset their strengths. When one design team is creating units with those limitations in mind, and the other is adding units that "fill the gaps" in the first team's work, they are working in opposition.
I am generally suspicious of people who want to use Forgeworld units, because I have to ask myself why they've made that choice, instead of using units that are more easily (and cheaply) available. Is it because they think the model looks super cool, or because it's really thematically appropriate for their army? Great! Is it because they think the unit is unusually powerful, or to attempt to work around an intended limitation of their army? If so, I'm more inclined to think of them as someone who is looking for something different out of the game to what I want.
In a tournament, I wouldn't question the use of Forgeworld units - it's a competitive environment, so seeking any advantage is intended. In a normal game, I'd prefer that my opponents give me some insight into why they've made the choice to go with Forgeworld, so I can make sure we're on the same page.
But this is the same old 'FW is OP' canard. Very very few competitive tourney lists make use of FW. Leviathans are decent but cost 300+ points. Fire Raptors, maybe. Vulture gunship is too easily gunned down. I have seen Vendettas used a bit.
Most people use FW cos the models are cool and give you access to Heresy era stuff to flesh out your force and give it character.
