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.

 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.

This entire post reads like bait for everyone's favourite Falcon.

 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.

Yeah no, this here is BS right there.
In-built weaknesses: Ok let me tell you something a GAP in a roster is not a weakness, it's an issue.
Take for exemple the time when valkryes and flyers were the new hot stuff. Most armies lacked AA capabilites. Was it fun to play that way? Hell no, especially difficult to take down without flyers or AA guns, forcing you to either accept that you ain't gonna get that valkyrie down or playing a army with aa capalities.
Take the lack of drop pods for CSM and proper flyers, AND NO THE HELLTURKEY IS NOT A PROPER FLYER, and go back to other editions which favored that way of deployment, was it fun to play with such an army? no. Was it reasonable fluffwise? no.
Instead some options should be weaker, AA for exemple should be something IG masters, but the simple lack of AA for other armies which they tried to solve via AA missiles (horribly overpriced) did not solve any issues for those armies at all.
Should all armies have equal strengths? no. Should all armies have however similar options for counterplay and or hardcounters in their toolbox? yes, else you have situations like the implementation of flyers.
This is also why i don't mind the Sicarian, this is why i don't mind fireraptor gunship.

And this here is the problem, certain armies got massivly shafted longtime with only Codex via "in-built-weaknesses aka gaps in relevant counterplay/choice, because GW has a natural bias torwards certain codexes, which tend to get all the toys, meanwhile armies like Orks have to pray that GW feels nice for once and gives them a Codex that is not lacking options and viability of said options.

 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.

FW is there to create stuff GW is too lazy to make them self, or dont want to.

prior to the mortal wound save nerf i was in the planning of making a 2k ironhands pure dreadnought army. that could not be done whitout adding 5 FW dreads where 2 of them was the HQ as only blood angles and wolfs has a dread hq made by GW, and the 3 GW dreads are not good enugh to make an 2k army from. i included them ofc as FW rules demanded standard GW dreads to accompany the relic dreads, but they alone could not do the job that the FW dreads could do.

and take ad mechs. GW refuses to make a transport for them, so we have to use FWs 30k transport option.
they allso refuse to do anything about cult mech so we who hate skitarii have only the hope that the entire FW ad mech range gets 40k rules.

I'm definitely ok with it. Like others have said the FW models look amazing and I love seeing them in other armies because they add flavor. I use a handful of FW units in my IG (AM) lists, and eventually plan on making an entire Death Korps army.

 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.

You mean like how 8th edition added soup and allowed Imperial armies to mix in whatever units they want to cover their weaknesses? Need a horde of meatshields and a CP battery for your gold space marines? IG detachment has you covered. Need some melee troops for your IG army? Oh hi BA, you'll be useful. Your chapter doesn't have a primarch yet? How convenient, Ultramarines do and they're always willing to help. Conclusion: codex rules upset thematic coherency and should be banned.

Is it because they think the unit is unusually powerful, or to attempt to work around an intended limitation of their army?

You mean just like how the same people pick codex rules based on what is most powerful or works around intended limitations? If you show up with a codex army you'd better explain to me why you chose to use a codex and those particular units, because I need to understand your motives for doing so and your goals for the game.

Banville wrote:
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.

Not at all. My issue isn't that "Forgeworld is OP", because that's clearly not true across the board. My issue is that Forgeworld is significantly more expensive and less accessible (not to mention that resin is a horrible material to work with compared to plastic), and that there must be some compelling reason for the player to have made that choice. If the reason is "Because it looks awesome," or launches into a discussion about the army's backstory and why it makes sense for them to have this particular unusual unit, then we're golden. If the reason is "Because it's really strong," or "Because it counters a weakness that I can't otherwise overcome," then I doubt we're going to have a fun game.

To put it another way, I don't really care whether or not an opponent brings Forgeworld units. I care why, and I find that people often bring Forgeworld units for reasons that I don't agree with in normal games.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 nurgle5 wrote:

 Huron black heart wrote:
I have to admit a lot of my feelings on Forgeworld IS down to ignorance. I've only ever played one or two units from Forgeworld and my main gripe is that I usually don't know what they do, a bit of pre game chat sorts that out which is why I voted for 'yes, if coordinated...'
I have a bit of a preconception from previous eras that Forgeworld units tended to have better rules which was how they got the units sold at the high prices (also being very nice models) I haven't come up against any recently so it's probably not even true any more.

This is probably the case for a lot of people, a lack of familiarity with Forgeworld units could exacerbate perceptions of any unit that seems strong as being "overpowered", because they don't know the unit's weaknesses or limitations.

Not an excuse. Did you deny Skitarii, Cult Mechanicus, and Genestealer Cult armies games when they first came out because you weren't familiar with the rules?

I was actually on a 40k hiatus when Skitarii, Cult Mechanicus and Genestealer Cult all came out, so I guess I was technically denying them games by not playing at all.

The poster I was responding to was talking about how their feelings about Forgeworld units were based on ignorance, I suggested this could be the case for a lot of people who feel the same way. It matches up with my experiences, YMMV. Putting forward a hypothesis on why people might have an issue with FW units is not making an excuse, trying to understand the negative feelings toward FW is not the same as endorsing it. Discussion is often an exchange of ideas, not just opinions.


For the record I have no problem with FW units.

If you think FW resin is horible to work with, try working with the old metal mini's, or failcast.
The only material I refuse to work on is failcast, it's so much worse than FW resin.

To be honest if you can use green stuff and have dones some minor conversion work you can probably manage a FW model, well atleast the newer kits. They tend to be better casts and more well though out.

 FrozenDwarf wrote:
prior to the mortal wound save nerf i was in the planning of making a 2k ironhands pure dreadnought army. that could not be done whitout adding 5 FW dreads where 2 of them was the HQ as only blood angles and wolfs has a dread hq made by GW, and the 3 GW dreads are not good enugh to make an 2k army from. i included them ofc as FW rules demanded standard GW dreads to accompany the relic dreads, but they alone could not do the job that the FW dreads could do.

Building a thematic Iron Hands list sounds like a solid reason to include Forgeworld units to me.

 FrozenDwarf wrote:
and take ad mechs. GW refuses to make a transport for them, so we have to use FWs 30k transport option.
they allso refuse to do anything about cult mech so we who hate skitarii have only the hope that the entire FW ad mech range gets 40k rules.

That one I'm far less sold on. "We don't get a transport, so we have to get one from Forgeworld" just sounds like Ad Mech are probably not a good fit for you. Hating Skitarii kind of seals the deal. It just sounds like GW didn't make Ad Mech into the army you wanted... that's not GW's fault, or yours, it's just the way it is.

 kadeton wrote:
My issue is that Forgeworld is significantly more expensive and less accessible

Are SoB an optional expansion then, that you need to get special permission for? After all, they're even more expensive than FW and just as inaccessible. Can I insist that you get special permission for any army that costs more than $500?

(Not that either is inaccessible. It's 2018, online shopping is normal. FW and SoB models are as easy to get as a book off Amazon.)

(not to mention that resin is a horrible material to work with compared to plastic)

Disagree. Resin has much better detail and GW's plastic kits require almost as much cleanup work if you actually care enough to build them properly. Not that this is relevant, as model difficulty has nothing to do with what rules are legal.

If the reason is "Because it's really strong," or "Because it counters a weakness that I can't otherwise overcome," then I doubt we're going to have a fun game.

But do you apply the same standard to codex rules? Because people are sure taking overpowered codex rules for those reasons, and the game isn't going to be fun for you. So why single out one particular set of rules? Why not demand justification for every unit and upgrade in your opponent's army?

 Peregrine wrote:
You mean like how 8th edition added soup and allowed Imperial armies to mix in whatever units they want to cover their weaknesses? Need a horde of meatshields and a CP battery for your gold space marines? IG detachment has you covered. Need some melee troops for your IG army? Oh hi BA, you'll be useful. Your chapter doesn't have a primarch yet? How convenient, Ultramarines do and they're always willing to help. Conclusion: codex rules upset thematic coherency and should be banned.

Whether or not you're comfortable playing against a soup list is also an important thing to settle with your opponent before the game, yes. I totally agree.

 Peregrine wrote:
You mean just like how the same people pick codex rules based on what is most powerful or works around intended limitations? If you show up with a codex army you'd better explain to me why you chose to use a codex and those particular units, because I need to understand your motives for doing so and your goals for the game.

I'd be very happy to explain my choice of codex and the units I've selected for my list, and how it fits with my army's backstory. I would certainly expect those considerations to be on anyone's mind when building a codex list. However, you've had to sacrifice more to bring those Forgeworld units - that gives the question more weight.

 Peregrine wrote:

w1zard wrote:
https://i.redd.it/n3g7779rddyz.jpg

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.

What? You aren't making any sense.

I said that until the forgeworld datasheets are published in the relevant codices, people are always going to THINK that forgeworld datasheets are optional expansions on the "core" datasheets, much like the "cities of death" is an optional ruleset on the "core" game of 40k.

Your rebuttal was that if this were the case, then codices were just "optional expansions" to the indices.

I replied with "no they aren't because it specifically says in the core rules that the most current datasheet applies, hence codices are meant to be used over indices" and posted a link to a NON-OPTIONAL FAQ/errata to the core rules to prove my point.

I have no idea what you are trying to argue at this point.

 Scott-S6 wrote:
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?

They aren't less legitimate. My original point was that until the forgeword datasheets are published in the actual codices themselves, that people are going to THINK they are optional, just like "cities of death" is optional because it is published in a supplementary rulebook. And how can you blame them with GW silent on the issue for god knows how long. Really all they need to do is make a public statement saying that forgeworld indices are just as non-optional as codices and a lot of this confusion would die down.

There is a difference between optional rules and non-optional rules. If a guy wants to play a game with me and he assumes we were playing "cities of death" without asking me first, I have every right to say "woah, I don't want to play cities of death, bye" and be totally "in the right". But apparently if a guy wants to play a game with me and assumes I am cool with forgeworld units without asking me first, and I say "woah, I don't want to play against forgeworld, bye", then I am literally the devil and completely "in the wrong".

I actually agree with everyone here. You have swayed me and changed my mind. Forgeworld is non-optional. I of course have the right to refuse a game against anyone for whatever reason, but refusing a game because my enemy has forgeworld is just as silly as refusing a game because my opponent plays a particular faction or has too many vehicles. However, GW NEEDS to change their policy and integrate forgeworld models/rules better if they want people to start taking forgeworld seriously and consider it a non-optional part of the core game instead of thinking of it as an optional ruleset. The forgeworld datasheets being in a seperate book, and forgeworld models being on a seperate site creates a sense of "seperation" from the base game that a sizeable minority of players seem to get stuck in their head.

 Peregrine wrote:
Are SoB an optional expansion then, that you need to get special permission for? After all, they're even more expensive than FW and just as inaccessible. Can I insist that you get special permission for any army that costs more than $500?

What do you mean by "permission"? I'm not stopping you from playing anything. I'm just stopping you from playing against me, if I feel like your army choices indicate that you're the sort of person who I don't enjoy playing against.

 Peregrine wrote:
But do you apply the same standard to codex rules? Because people are sure taking overpowered codex rules for those reasons, and the game isn't going to be fun for you. So why single out one particular set of rules? Why not demand justification for every unit and upgrade in your opponent's army?

I don't demand anything. Yes, if someone shows up with a bs codex army, I will absolutely question whether I'm going to enjoy the game. Forgeworld units aren't make-or-break, they're just a more significant choice, which means they're a good starting point for that conversation.

 kadeton wrote:

 FrozenDwarf wrote:
and take ad mechs. GW refuses to make a transport for them, so we have to use FWs 30k transport option.
they allso refuse to do anything about cult mech so we who hate skitarii have only the hope that the entire FW ad mech range gets 40k rules.

That one I'm far less sold on. "We don't get a transport, so we have to get one from Forgeworld" just sounds like Ad Mech are probably not a good fit for you. Hating Skitarii kind of seals the deal. It just sounds like GW didn't make Ad Mech into the army you wanted... that's not GW's fault, or yours, it's just the way it is.

they dident make ad mech an army in 8th period.
7th; 2 codex whit 2 seperate armys with 2 different backgrounds.
8th: one codex and in that prossess cult mech army is removed. their fluff and models are stuffed into the skitarii codex. they dont even have spesific cult mech traits or trategems...
only hope left is FW.

 kadeton wrote:
What do you mean by "permission"? I'm not stopping you from playing anything. I'm just stopping you from playing against me, if I feel like your army choices indicate that you're the sort of person who I don't enjoy playing against.

That's nitpicking and you know it. The fact that someone can maybe go find a game elsewhere after you veto their army doesn't change the fact that you're telling them "you can't play that against me without special permission". And you aren't applying that same demand for justification to all units.

Forgeworld units aren't make-or-break, they're just a more significant choice

They really aren't. They're just normal units, this weird separation only exists in the minds of certain players. For many of us buying and using a FW unit is no different from buying a plastic kit for a codex unit.

I think one important thing to remember is that MANY of the people saying/treating Forgeworld as an expansion of the core game experience are NOT saying they won't play against Forgeworld models.

What they are saying in the pre-game phase when you are agreeing to a game with a person is that the inclusion or exclusion of Forgeworld forms part of that discussion.

That isn't so they can say GOTCHA you can't play your Forgeworld. Heck myself I've got a malanthrope and I WANT to use it. So confirming that FW is allowed lets me use my FW model.




Some are making this into a battle between those who own and those who do not own FW models with a view that all those who are arguing for treating FW as an expansion are attempting to deny people using FW models. That is far from the truth of the matter and a false representation of the situation.



Yes some are going to refuse to play against FW models; heck some might even refuse to play against your baneblade or your quadrupal flying hive tyrant list because you beat them every time with it and that isn't fun so lets play together but play something else.

Warhammer games are a game for two or more people, not one; and outside of a tournament setting there is always a degree of give and take with what people want to play with and which produces a fun game for BOTH players. Part of that is very simple, very straight forward negotiation before the game. And in the vast majority of cases neither side is trying to play the denial or gotcha or mean game.

w1zard wrote:
I replied with "no they aren't because it specifically says in the core rules that the most current datasheet applies, hence codices are meant to be used over indices" and posted a link to a NON-OPTIONAL FAQ/errata to the core rules to prove my point.

Here's where you're wrong: the core rules do not include anything stating that you must use the FAQ/errata expansion. It is purely an optional expansion, so the statements about using codex rules over index rules or the most recent datasheet do not apply unless you choose to use the optional FAQ/errata expansion in your personal games.

The point here is that your definition of "core rules" is completely arbitrary and based on your personal opinions, not the rules GW publishes. According to GW's rules there is no separation, FW rules are just as much a part of the core rules as a codex or the FAQ/errata document. Your choice to separate out FW rules as an optional expansion is no more reasonable than my choice to separate out the FAQ as an optional expansion. That is, it isn't reasonable at all.

 Peregrine wrote:

Here's where you're wrong: the core rules do not include anything stating that you must use the FAQ/errata expansion. It is purely an optional expansion, so the statements about using codex rules over index rules or the most recent datasheet do not apply unless you choose to use the optional FAQ/errata expansion in your personal games.

This is wrong. If I were to show up to a tournament using the index datasheets for conscripts for Imperial Guard I would NOT be allowed to play. GW have come out and said you MUST use the most current datasheet in matched play and gave us an official flowchart to follow in regards to when taking the index datahseets is allowed. This flowchart was included in the FAQ/errata section for the core rulebook. It is NOT optional for matched play.

 Overread wrote:
Some are making this into a battle between those who own and those who do not own FW models with a view that all those who are arguing for treating FW as an expansion are attempting to deny people using FW models. That is far from the truth of the matter and a false representation of the situation.

There is absolutely no reason to discuss using FW rules before a game unless someone is trying to veto them. If you aren't trying to veto FW rules then there is nothing to talk about, just like there's no need to talk about whether you're allowed to take a scout squad instead of a tactical squad to fill a troops choice. So yes, I assume that if you propose pre-game discussion about them that you are either advocating that veto yourself, or expecting your opponent to do so and still considering them a reasonable person. I, on the other hand, see no reason for discussion. If my opponent has FW rules they can state them when they show me their army list, just like they state their codex rules. And if they want to veto FW rules then the obligation is on them to announce themselves as TFG and ragequit the game. I see no reason to grant any legitimacy to such poor behavior by pretending that it's something I expect a reasonable person to do, and therefore worth talking about. It's just like how I don't have a pre-game conversation and ask my opponent if they think it's ok to throw my models across the room in frustration if they lose.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

w1zard wrote:
This is wrong. If I were to show up to a tournament using the index conscripts for Imperial Guard I would NOT be allowed to play. GW have come out and said you MUST use the most current datasheet in matched play and gave us an official flowchart to follow in regards to when taking the index datahseets is allowed.

Tournaments are not standard 40k. They very often make assumptions about which expansions you're using, choose their interpretations of ambiguous rules, and even change the rules to suit their ideas for how to run the event. The fact that a tournament uses house rules requiring you to use the optional FAQ/errata expansion does not have anything to do with the rules as published by GW. Just like how a tournament imposing a "no duplicate datasheets" rule or declaring that you can't draw LOS through windows on a ruin does not have anything to do with the rules as published by GW.

And I agree that GW has come out and said this. GW has also come out published FW rules just like codex rules, as part of the standard game. You are the one trying to disregard what GW has published and invent your own rules separating the game into "core" and "expansions".

 Peregrine wrote:
And I agree that GW has come out and said this. GW has also come out published FW rules just like codex rules, as part of the standard game. You are the one trying to disregard what GW has published and invent your own rules separating the game into "core" and "expansions".

No I am not. I am playing devil's advocate... I am quoting myself here...

"They aren't less legitimate. My original point was that until the forgeword datasheets are published in the actual codices themselves, that people are going to THINK they are optional, just like "cities of death" is optional because it is published in a supplementary rulebook. And how can you blame them with GW silent on the issue for god knows how long. Really all they need to do is make a public statement saying that forgeworld indices are just as non-optional as codices and a lot of this confusion would die down.

There is a difference between optional rules and non-optional rules. If a guy wants to play a game with me and he assumes we were playing "cities of death" without asking me first, I have every right to say "woah, I don't want to play cities of death, bye" and be totally "in the right". But apparently if a guy wants to play a game with me and assumes I am cool with forgeworld units without asking me first, and I say "woah, I don't want to play against forgeworld, bye", then I am literally the devil and completely "in the wrong".

I actually agree with everyone here. You have swayed me and changed my mind. Forgeworld is non-optional. I of course have the right to refuse a game against anyone for whatever reason, but refusing a game because my enemy has forgeworld is just as silly as refusing a game because my opponent plays a particular faction or has too many vehicles. However, GW NEEDS to change their policy and integrate forgeworld models/rules better if they want people to start taking forgeworld seriously and consider it a non-optional part of the core game instead of thinking of it as an optional ruleset. The forgeworld datasheets being in a seperate book, and forgeworld models being on a seperate site creates a sense of "seperation" from the base game that a sizeable minority of players seem to get stuck in their head."

 kadeton wrote:
However, you've had to sacrifice more to bring those Forgeworld units - that gives the question more weight.

Yeah, how about no. This, coupled with your other posts, really smacks of hobby elitism. Why the hell should I have to justify any of my hobby purchases to you, and why should it be more relevant if I am using Forge World models? That kind of attitude is horrible for pick-up gaming.

Besides, depending on the country, buying Forge World models rather than plastic models can work out to be the cheaper option.

 kadeton wrote:

Not at all. My issue isn't that "Forgeworld is OP", because that's clearly not true across the board. My issue is that Forgeworld is significantly more expensive and less accessible

Well...not really...
For example allot of Ork FW stuff can be made by kitbashing GW kits and regular model kits...so it's still FW rules (which are the issues (apparently))
Heck allot of guard and marine FW stuff can be kitbashed.
Get a Land Raider and a Whirlwind and you have a Helios.
Would people moan about that?

w1zard wrote:
I am playing devil's advocate.

Then stop. Playing devil's advocate means presenting an argument that you know is false. AKA dishonesty.

(And this goes for playing devil's advocate in general. It's a concept I really wish would die.)

There is a difference between optional rules and non-optional rules. If a guy wants to play a game with me and he assumes we were playing "cities of death" without asking me first, I have every right to say "woah, I don't want to play cities of death, bye" and be totally "in the right". But apparently if a guy wants to play a game with me and assumes I am cool with forgeworld units without asking me first, and I say "woah, I don't want to play against forgeworld, bye", then I am literally the devil and completely "in the wrong".

The two are not comparable at all.

CoD changes the game for both players. It changes the mission rules, objectives, etc. It is simply not possible for one player to play CoD while the other player doesn't, therefore both players need to agree on whether or not CoD will be used. It's not a matter of reasonable or not, it's just how the rules function.

FW rules don't work the same way. There is no functional need for both players to agree, because FW rules only apply to the army taking the FW unit. From a functional point of view it's no different from choosing to take a tactical squad instead of a scout squad. The only reason for your opponent to have anything to say about it is if they feel they're entitled to veto list-building choices that don't fit their arbitrary rules about what should be allowed. And that is not acceptable behavior in a game where customizing your personal army is a core element. The default assumption is that all legal armies are acceptable, and you don't get to tell your opponent that they can't bring tactical squads or FW units or whatever.

However, GW NEEDS to change their policy and integrate forgeworld models/rules better if they want people to start taking forgeworld seriously and consider it a non-optional part of the core game instead of thinking of it as an optional ruleset.

This might be nice, but it won't change much. FW hate hasn't been based on reality for years now, no matter what GW does the anti-FW majority will just move the goalposts and find another reason to keep banning it. We've already seen this happen, every time GW gives them some symbol of "officialness" they demand the anti-FW crowd just comes up with a different demand.

 Peregrine wrote:

w1zard wrote:
I am playing devil's advocate.

Then stop. Playing devil's advocate means presenting an argument that you know is false. AKA dishonesty.

(And this goes for playing devil's advocate in general. It's a concept I really wish would die.)

Or to people without a stick up their rear end, it is a way of presenting an argument or an idea they don't personally believe in, but believe has merit or is worth consideration in some way.

 Peregrine wrote:

The two are not comparable at all.

CoD changes the game for both players. It changes the mission rules, objectives, etc. It is simply not possible for one player to play CoD while the other player doesn't, therefore both players need to agree on whether or not CoD will be used. It's not a matter of reasonable or not, it's just how the rules function.

FW rules don't work the same way. There is no functional need for both players to agree, because FW rules only apply to the army taking the FW unit. From a functional point of view it's no different from choosing to take a tactical squad instead of a scout squad. The only reason for your opponent to have anything to say about it is if they feel they're entitled to veto list-building choices that don't fit their arbitrary rules about what should be allowed. And that is not acceptable behavior in a game where customizing your personal army is a core element. The default assumption is that all legal armies are acceptable, and you don't get to tell your opponent that they can't bring tactical squads or FW units or whatever.

Are you saying that me having to play a game against forgeworld units doesn't affect me in any way? Are you for real? It's a two player game buddy.

 Peregrine wrote:
This might be nice, but it won't change much. FW hate hasn't been based on reality for years now, no matter what GW does the anti-FW majority will just move the goalposts and find another reason to keep banning it. We've already seen this happen, every time GW gives them some symbol of "officialness" they demand the anti-FW crowd just comes up with a different demand.

Stop with the persecution complex. Most of the anti-FW crowd only think that way because they view FW as unfamiliar and illegitimate in some way, despite these feelings not having a basis in fact. They don't just hate FW irrationally for no reason.

You know what's a shame? I met a really nice guy a few weeks back with a very nicely painted Space Marine army for a pick-up game, and he sheepishly asked me if I was cool with Forge World models, almost as if he was afraid of asking. Why should he or anyone else have to be be worried about asking opponents if he can use the models he has bought, built, painted, etc just because they are resin? The anti-Forge World stigma is just another form of elitism and it absolutely stinks.

Caederes wrote:
You know what's a shame? I met a really nice guy a few weeks back with a very nicely painted Space Marine army for a pick-up game, and he sheepishly asked me if I was cool with Forge World models, almost as if he was afraid of asking. Why should he or anyone else have to be be worried about asking opponents if he can use the models he has bought, built, painted, etc just because they are resin? The anti-Forge World stigma is just another form of elitism and it absolutely stinks.

Elitism and bullying I'd say.

Caederes wrote:
You know what's a shame? I met a really nice guy a few weeks back with a very nicely painted Space Marine army for a pick-up game, and he sheepishly asked me if I was cool with Forge World models, almost as if he was afraid of asking. Why should he or anyone else have to be be worried about asking opponents if he can use the models he has bought, built, painted, etc just because they are resin? The anti-Forge World stigma is just another form of elitism and it absolutely stinks.

You do realize that this is a reaction to the "oh you can't afford a 500$ forgeworld model? Plebeian..." elitism that oldschool forgeworld players used to dish out?

Heck, my first experience with forgeworld was a guy coming into my FLGS and plopping down an entire army of resin. He then said he didn't have the book on him and then spent the entire game making up bullcrap rules and abilities that his units didn't actually have. I took it at face value because he was older, until I looked it up later and got pissed. It REALLY put me off against playing against forgeworld for quite awhile.

There are these kinds of stories on both sides.

w1zard wrote:
You do realize that this is a reaction to the "oh you can't afford a 500$ forgeworld model? Plebeian..." elitism that oldschool forgeworld players used to dish out?

Heck, my first experience with forgeworld was a guy coming into my FLGS and plopping down an entire army of resin. He then said he didn't have the book on him and then spent the entire game making up bullcrap rules and abilities that his units didn't actually have. I took it at face value because he was older, until I looked it up later and got pissed. It REALLY put me off against playing against forgeworld for quite awhile.

There are these kinds of stories on both sides.

I'm very much aware of that type of elitism. I've dealt with one particular "my resin hobby is better than your cheap plastic hobby" guy, and suffice to say he doesn't come to my local store anymore because that kind of attitude is unacceptable.
Both are products of people that aren't worth my time.

That also doesn't mean a person who bought Forge World models should be afraid to ask if they can use their models. The anti-Forge World stigma has a far wider reach in my experience.
Besides, there's a difference between a person cheating by preying on your lack of knowledge of their rules, and someone being outright denied the usage of models they own.

w1zard wrote:

Caederes wrote:
You know what's a shame? I met a really nice guy a few weeks back with a very nicely painted Space Marine army for a pick-up game, and he sheepishly asked me if I was cool with Forge World models, almost as if he was afraid of asking. Why should he or anyone else have to be be worried about asking opponents if he can use the models he has bought, built, painted, etc just because they are resin? The anti-Forge World stigma is just another form of elitism and it absolutely stinks.

You do realize that this is a reaction to the "oh you can't afford a 500$ forgeworld model? Plebeian..." elitism that oldschool forgeworld players used to dish out?

Heck, my first experience with forgeworld was a guy coming into my FLGS and plopping down an entire army of resin. He then said he didn't have the book on him and then spent the entire game making up bullcrap rules and abilities that his units didn't actually have. I took it at face value until I looked it up later and got pissed. It REALLY put me off against playing against forgeworld for quite awhile.

There are these kinds of stories on both sides.

But none of that is Forgeworlds fault. Why would you play something you hadn't experienced before and not be asking for physical rules?

Using your logic I should have been put off playing marines in my second ever game because some gakbag plonked about 1000 extra points down.

Point being unless it's someone you regularly play against, who doesn't go over your opponents list and rules for anything you aren't sure on?

w1zard wrote:

Caederes wrote:
You know what's a shame? I met a really nice guy a few weeks back with a very nicely painted Space Marine army for a pick-up game, and he sheepishly asked me if I was cool with Forge World models, almost as if he was afraid of asking. Why should he or anyone else have to be be worried about asking opponents if he can use the models he has bought, built, painted, etc just because they are resin? The anti-Forge World stigma is just another form of elitism and it absolutely stinks.

You do realize that this is a reaction to the "oh you can't afford a 500$ forgeworld model? Plebeian..." elitism that oldschool forgeworld players used to dish out?

Heck, my first experience with forgeworld was a guy coming into my FLGS and plopping down an entire army of resin. He then said he didn't have the book on him and then spent the entire game making up bullcrap rules and abilities that his units didn't actually have. I took it at face value because he was older, until I looked it up later and got pissed. It REALLY put me off against playing against forgeworld for quite awhile.

There are these kinds of stories on both sides.

Ayy lmao:
>has a new guy come to store
>new guy lacks rules
>new guy makes up rules
>w1zard to afraid to say he can go bite the dust and get his rules
>w1zard later looks rules up
>realises that the guy was TFG and get's angry at all FW owners
>decides to put all FW owners in the same bin
>misses point entirely that he made the mistake of playing against an opponent that has brought no rules

Again, this was your own fault and this is why people that play FW and are not a bunch of A**holes, i.e. bring their rules with them, don't like you because for them you are entierly illocigal, since it was mainly your fault for not pointing out the basic: NO RULES, NO GAME.