# Would you allow me to use forge world rules



## yshabash (Apr 11, 2010)

Hey guys!

I was thinking of getting Death Korps of Kreig but the problem is that these are forge world rules, meaning if someone that I'm playing doesn't allow me to use them....... I'm ****.

That's why I wanted to hear from the community if I were to come to you tomorrow and ask you if you would play a game with me when I use death korps what would you say? If you live in Calgary, Alberta, Canada then you opinion REALLY matters to me (not that other peoples opinions don't matter at all


----------



## yanlou (Aug 17, 2008)

If it were me id actually say yes, im a fan of forgeworld and their rules and it would make a change to playing vanilla guard in normal games. But other people would not be so willing.
If your playing Apoc then there wouldnt be a problem at all.


----------



## yshabash (Apr 11, 2010)

Also by the way if you know about IG what do you think is the best version of them and why? Elysians, kreig, regular, tallarn? (although they only have special unit as far as I know) If you don't know anything about this stuff then simply answering the first question would be fine as well. Thanks!


----------



## yshabash (Apr 11, 2010)

yanlou said:


> If it were me id actually say yes, im a fan of forgeworld and their rules and it would make a change to playing vanilla guard in normal games. But other people would not be so willing.
> If your playing Apoc then there wouldnt be a problem at all.


I've been wondering this for a while... wth is a vanilla guard?!?!?!?!

:scratchhead:


----------



## Azkaellon (Jun 23, 2009)

Forgeworld army lists are 100% tournament legal luckily, if someone doesn't want to let you use them tell them to $#(@ing Bad suck it up princess  as long as you have your IA book there is nothing they can do.


----------



## Alsojames (Oct 25, 2010)

Krieg! Love Helghast-guard! Or Nazi stormtroopers. Still though. If I layed guard I'd use them as my stormtroopers.


----------



## projectda (May 12, 2008)

as long as its not an apoc unit im cool with it


----------



## Initiate (Mar 25, 2007)

Your first question seems to have been addressed, so I'll answer your other two:

Vanilla guard just means Imperial Guardsmen exactly as they are in the IG codex, so no special regiments or anything. Like how vanilla space marines means practically any chapter except Dark Angels, Blood Angels, Space Wolves and Black Templars.

My favorite regiment would have to be the Elysian Drop troops, just because airplanes are badass, and paratroopers are more badass. I myself run 6 valkyries and 2 vendettas.


----------



## Uber Ork (Aug 23, 2010)

projectda said:


> as long as its not an apoc unit im cool with it


Ditto.

Other than that, I wouldn't care at all if you used forgeworld rules and models.


----------



## Raptor_00 (Mar 17, 2008)

Well, I don't have any IA books so I'd want to read the rules first before I'd say anything. Next, (since I don't have the IA books I don't know this answer) if your unit was uber-powerful and I had nothing to counter it, I'd say no. If your unit added some simple rules and my list/models available could possibly counter what you had, then yes, defiantly.

Now, if you set up a game before hand I'd appreciate the info ahead of time. Not a whole list, just whatever non codex items you'll be useing so I can do the reading on my time and not on game time.

I'd just ask ahead of time. I'm not from Canada so my opinion isn't a whole lot for you though.


----------



## Dawnstar (Jan 21, 2010)

Raptor_00 said:


> Well, I don't have any IA books so I'd want to read the rules first before I'd say anything. Next, (since I don't have the IA books I don't know this answer) if your unit was uber-powerful and I had nothing to counter it, I'd say no. If your unit added some simple rules and my list/models available could possibly counter what you had, then yes, defiantly.


So basically you would only play him if you could beat what he was using? Fair enough about not letting uber-powerful units play, but only letting him use what you have a counter to?

Personally, I would be fine with it in a friendly game but for a tournament, unless the rules specifically allowed FW army lists, I would say no.


----------



## Raptor_00 (Mar 17, 2008)

Dawnstar said:


> So basically you would only play him if you could beat what he was using? Fair enough about not letting uber-powerful units play, but only letting him use what you have a counter to?
> 
> Personally, I would be fine with it in a friendly game but for a tournament, unless the rules specifically allowed FW army lists, I would say no.


Not exactly. As long as I have the possibility of beating him, a fighting chance. If he brings a Titan (or something powerful as such) and I have nothing that can possibly take it out no matter what, then I wouldn't want to play. If I have a 0% chance of winning, the fun starts to degrade for me.

Now if he has a unit of guardsmen that are only slightly better than standard IG guardsmen, then that's fine. But if the guardsmen cost the same as a gaunt and are as powerful as a Space Marine, and he has a whole army of them; again it would start to really hurt any possibility of winning.
Two armies going head to head should have a roughly 50/50 shot of winning or loosing. Then skill should play apart. If I walk in knowing I WILL loose because I can't even damage a huge part of his army...where's the fun in that???


----------



## connor (Jan 31, 2011)

i haz a question, i never realy go to forgeworld, whats the difference between regular guard, and the tallarn, kreig, and other forge world stuff?


----------



## Katie Drake (Nov 28, 2007)

Witch King of Angmar said:


> Forgeworld army lists are 100% tournament legal luckily,


What tournaments are these?


----------



## Serpion5 (Mar 19, 2010)

Witch King of Angmar said:


> Forgeworld army lists are 100% tournament legal luckily, if someone doesn't want to let you use them tell them to $#(@ing Bad suck it up princess  as long as you have your IA book there is nothing they can do.


No they`re not. Most tourneys won`t allow it. GW tourneys won`t allow it unless it`s specifically an apoc event. 


This is something you need to arrange beforehand. I`d advise having an IG codex list as well as your IA list in case you meet with resistance, if that is at all possible.


----------



## TheAbominableDan (Sep 16, 2010)

If I remember correctly the Death Korps army list is designed to work with the 4th edition Imperial Guard codex. I think it has doctrines and such.

Personally I'd let you use it in a friendly game against me. My buddy has Death Korps and I've offered to do the same for him.


----------



## Katie Drake (Nov 28, 2007)

TheAbominableDan said:


> If I remember correctly the Death Korps army list is designed to work with the 4th edition Imperial Guard codex. I think it has doctrines and such.


Forge World ended up updating the Death Korps with an errata (at least, I'm 95% sure). It should be available on their site.


----------



## TheAbominableDan (Sep 16, 2010)

Katie Drake said:


> Forge World ended up updating the Death Korps with an errata (at least, I'm 95% sure). It should be available on their site.


Thank you. My buddy's gonna be pleased as punch next time we get a game in.


----------



## shaantitus (Aug 3, 2009)

They have done it for the chaos renegades lists too. To bring them into line with the new guard codex.


----------



## Eleven (Nov 6, 2008)

Yes, as long as you used a forge world codex. if you just wanted to add some forge world units to a normal codex, then that would be a big no.


----------



## Pssyche (Mar 21, 2009)

I'd insist that you used them. 
I love playing with and against Forgeworld models.

As for the poster not knowing if they have an army that can counter it, you do take a balanced list don't you?

Taking on a Forgeworld list is no different to taking on a brand new codex.
The models all look familiar but until you get up close and personal with them you won't know the difference. And I'm guessing that you haven't insisted Dark Eldar players loan you their codex before you'll play them.

Finally, as a gamer who plays both with and against Forgeworld models regularly, I find the models on the whole to be costed slightly high points wise.


----------



## Aramoro (Oct 7, 2009)

Witch King of Angmar said:


> Forgeworld army lists are 100% tournament legal luckily, if someone doesn't want to let you use them tell them to $#(@ing Bad suck it up princess  as long as you have your IA book there is nothing they can do.


You probably shouldn't tell people things which at not true, it's kinda unhelpful.


----------



## Whitehorn (Dec 17, 2009)

To answer OP, I would let you use Forgeworld rules. But we are unlikely to play a game.

I like to have as many options available to players as possible. I allow FW in our club tournaments and at last year's Games Expo and will continue to welcome it. I write custom rules for campaigns whenever possible. It's the fun of the hobby for me.

You need to find yourself some nice opponents - I'm sure most people are.

Gaming is a social contract between players. Nothing stops you refusing to play an opponent for any reason you devise, but you should always discuss and agree on what you are playing regardless of what different people deem 'official'. It's a game.

In a 1v1 battle, you and your opponent are the organisers, you decide what's happening.


----------



## Stella Cadente (Dec 25, 2006)

Eleven said:


> Yes, as long as you used a forge world codex. if you just wanted to add some forge world units to a normal codex, then that would be a big no.


shame thats what 90% of FW items are designed for, so your actually saying no to pretty much all FW stuff all the time.

I would always allow it, there is no good reason NOT to allow them in an army, the rules are fair (usually underpowered) and more based on fluff than gameplay, and if you've made the effort of using your money to buy the model saying "no you can't use that" just makes you sound like an asshole.

and if somone uses the whole "but FW isn't GW so the rules aren't GW" point out to them who owns the copyright to the rules in the book.


----------



## Fallen (Oct 7, 2008)

if it was a game that we scheduled then id be all for you using it

however if you simply show up to the store/club with a FW list id want to review it & get a feel on how it would work before id agree. for these situations i feel that simply using the IG codex would keep any fence sitters from simply going "no"

for a tournament ask the organizer since like 90% of tournies dont allow FW rules. some local non RT tournaments do allow it since they are just to have fun.


----------



## fynn (Sep 19, 2008)

well one surgestion is this, when you work out your list, make 2 lists, one useing the IA rules for your army, and a second list useing the standard IG dex, incase you meet an arsehole who wont play agaisnt FW/IA lists and belives there not by GW (who also own and created FW)


----------



## Aramoro (Oct 7, 2009)

Most people will play against it in friendly games but it won't fly in most tourneys for obvious reasons.


----------



## IanC (Sep 3, 2010)

I played against an army with a forgeworld model last night, a Ork Mega Dread. First time they used it. Blew it up on the first turn with my Devastator Squads Lascannons.:laugh:

(they had the last laugh though, won the game 10 KP to 4)


----------



## yshabash (Apr 11, 2010)

I guess your actually right that IG is more competitive in a normal game. Soc aught up in excitement I forgot tht they won't let me use a trio of macharius in a normal game (macharius is a 3 strucutre point tank, much weaker than banblade but costs much less points wise as well and was found in the same IA as kreig.) I was thinking maybe a kreig army list would be more useful in a apoc game where kreig truly shine? if they aren't worth it in apoc either than my just get nilla guard.


----------



## Vaz (Mar 19, 2008)

I play Elsyians - Air Cav Guard work better than Elysians (aside from Deep Striking Multimelta's and Blob Squads which are hilarious to spring on an unsuspecting opponent).

Also, Macharias is 2 Structure Points IIRC.

Mostly, anything that doesn't have Gargantuan monster, flyer or Structure Points I'll allow.


----------



## davidmumma66 (May 11, 2010)

As seems to be the common trend, Pretty much I allow my opponents to use forge world as long as it isn't a flyer super heavy or gargantuan creature, regular 40k isn't meant for those. There is nothing wrong however with the use of normal vehicles or monstrous creatures or even just infantry from forge-world, for the most part they are fairly well balanced to be used in regular games, like my most common opponent a tau player uses a unit of hazard battle suits from forge world, they are fairly priced points wise, and their rules aren't over powered but they can be a lot of fun and a good break from your normal fish of fury and fire knife style units.


----------



## Stella Cadente (Dec 25, 2006)

davidmumma66 said:


> as long as it isn't a flyer super heavy or gargantuan creature, regular 40k isn't meant for those.


despite being designed for regular 40k before apocashit


----------



## SilverTabby (Jul 31, 2009)

I have absolutely no problem at all with FW miniatures. They tend to be gorgeous, and to say you can't use them because they aren't the standard models is just silly. 

The rules however, are another matter entirely. There are reasons they aren't tourney-legal, and that's because they were written purely to sell the models, rather than to be balanced with the rest of the 40K system. They aren't written or playtested by Games Dev, and have far fewer restrictions on how they can be presented and sold in relation to the main Codex books. They are very much a "your choice to use / play against" thing, and to say someone is being unreasonable to say "I'm sorry, but no" is in itself an unreasonable thing. 

Yes, GW holds the Copyright. But then, they hold the copyright to many things, like CS Goto novels. Doesn't make those right, or any good :wink:


----------



## SilverTabby (Jul 31, 2009)

Stella Cadente said:


> despite being designed for regular 40k before apocashit


'Designed for' is not the same as 'balanced within'.


----------



## Stella Cadente (Dec 25, 2006)

SilverTabby said:


> 'Designed for' is not the same as 'balanced within'.


FW rules are allot more balanced and playtested allot better than the crap you'll find in a codex I'm afraid, with a leaning to being slightly underpowered, thats pretty much proven by every single unit and only 1 or 2 being overpowered, unlike in a codex where 50% might be overpowered.

hell for further proof use a baneblade with standard 40k rules, that things as useless as people claim Orks to be, the only difference in that in this case is that unlike the muppets who claim orks are crap, this is true, but it looks good being useless.

and even more proof would come from looking at recent codexes, if you think any of those are playtested you'd have to be blind, stupid, retarded or a mixture of all 3 (or a fanboy as they are known)


----------



## IanC (Sep 3, 2010)

Do you like anything GW do Stella? I really have to wonder why you post on a forum mostly dedicated (i'd say 85 - 90%) to the GW "hobbies".


----------



## Stella Cadente (Dec 25, 2006)

IanC said:


> Do you like anything GW do Stella? I really have to wonder why you post on a forum mostly dedicated (i'd say 85 - 90%) to the GW "hobbies".


I've said what I like hundreds of times before, I'm not gonna keep saying it over and over again when nobody bothers to remember or listen.

but that has nothing to do with the fact that GW codexes DO have more overpowered crap than anything FW churns out, thats just a simple and obvious fact


----------



## Kalshinko (Oct 22, 2010)

It's been said a thousand times but no forgeworld is not allowed at a tourney unless your judge/organiser will allow it.

Just for example the dread drop pods allow you to assault out of them after a DS. You can see how this is unfair regarding normal drop pod rules.

I would get with the organiser of your tourney if he says I will allow it, then you are good to go.

Edit: Everything is not more OP with GW, there are a lot of IA stuff you could use in conjunction with your GW codex that would give you an unfair advantage.


----------



## MetalHandkerchief (Aug 3, 2009)

FW model rules are designed close to a similar algorithm as the vehicle design rules Andy Chambers wrote for Chapter Approved. Everything will usually be rather expensive for what it does, but FW are good at conjuring up a mish mash of special rules you can't really put a price on, mostly undershooting, thus balancing it out.

I'd still say FW model power level is lower than GW codex models. Generally.

Just look at the Stormlord. That cheese-bearded piece of gaming extravaganza was designed fully by GW.


----------



## Vaz (Mar 19, 2008)

Stella Cadente said:


> I've said what I like hundreds of times before, I'm not gonna keep saying it over and over again when nobody bothers to remember or listen.


You have? All I seem to remember is you actually posting this very quote.

Although, then again, I don't tend to bother remembering useless crap.



> but that has nothing to do with the fact that GW codexes DO have more overpowered crap than anything FW churns out, thats just a simple and obvious fact


That I do agree with though.


----------



## davidmumma66 (May 11, 2010)

Look, in a standard game of 40k I could adjust to forge world armies, but its a bit of a stretch especially as a fluff death-wing player or thousand sons army to adjust to flyers or super heavies especially if I was planning to play a regular game. Gargantuan creatures I could maybe adjust to easier considering the power-fists but overall Super heavies in a non apocalypse 1v1 game are a bit over powered. Plus you don't find super heavies flyers and gargantuan creatures in a codex army, so at least to me, if you have the IA book and use units like non super heavies, non gargantuan creatures and, no flyers it's fine for regular 40k, other wise save it for an apocalypse game


----------



## Azkaellon (Jun 23, 2009)

Me thinks the general answer is Yes.


----------



## yshabash (Apr 11, 2010)

Awesome guys thanks for the feedback. I decided I'm going to go ahead with the kreig army and I'm going to make it apoc so that I can take full advantage of its available super-heavy detachments which to me really seem to make the army complete (like eylesians and their cute little useless fliers XD, well they are useful but the rest of the army isn't.)


----------



## SilverTabby (Jul 31, 2009)

Stella said:


> FW rules are allot more balanced and playtested allot better than the crap you'll find in a codex I'm afraid, with a leaning to being slightly underpowered, thats pretty much proven by every single unit and only 1 or 2 being overpowered, unlike in a codex where 50% might be overpowered.
> 
> hell for further proof use a baneblade with standard 40k rules, that things as useless as people claim Orks to be, the only difference in that in this case is that unlike the muppets who claim orks are crap, this is true, but it looks good being useless.
> 
> and even more proof would come from looking at recent codexes, if you think any of those are playtested you'd have to be blind, stupid, retarded or a mixture of all 3 (or a fanboy as they are known)


You know, normally I'd ignore this kind of responce. However, having a lot more experience and knowledge of how these things are made, playtested and generally put together than you, all I will say to you is _you are wrong_ and leave it at that. 

And as yshabash has brought this nicely to a close, I think I'll leave it there.


----------



## Stella Cadente (Dec 25, 2006)

SilverTabby said:


> all I will say to you is _you are wrong_ and leave it at that.


thats fine, a "you are wrong" without proof is utterly worthless anyway, there is plenty of proof that nothing GW does must be playtested, and that has been the general thoughts of pretty much every single player for years and years.

of course now that I've said what they have said for years I'm sure they'll all jump on the "GW playtests very well" train like a bunch of hypocritical assholes like they always do


----------



## Vaz (Mar 19, 2008)

As opposed to "I am right" without any proof?


----------



## TheAbominableDan (Sep 16, 2010)

Stella Cadente said:


> thats fine, a "you are wrong" without proof is utterly worthless anyway, there is plenty of proof that nothing GW does must be playtested, and that has been the general thoughts of pretty much every single player for years and years.
> 
> of course now that I've said what they have said for years I'm sure they'll all jump on the "GW playtests very well" train like a bunch of hypocritical assholes like they always do


I'm new here so I challenge you to find an instance where I've said anything negative about GW's playtesting. So calling me a hypocritical asshole would be untrue.

To suggest that GW does no playtesting whatsoever is pretty ludicrous. If they released product that way it would be unplayable. Yes there are issues, but it's the million monkeys with a million typewriters theory. GW playtests but they can't catch everything that every player will find. Yes there have been some glaring issues in the past but they do a better job than a lot of game companies. And again, if they did no playtesting at all, almost nothing would work.

Also I'd like to know what proof you have that "nothing GW does must be playtested"


----------



## SilverTabby (Jul 31, 2009)

Stella Cadente said:


> thats fine, a "you are wrong" without proof is utterly worthless anyway, there is plenty of proof that nothing GW does must be playtested, and that has been the general thoughts of pretty much every single player for years and years.
> 
> of course now that I've said what they have said for years I'm sure they'll all jump on the "GW playtests very well" train like a bunch of hypocritical assholes like they always do


Why do you feel the need with every single post to add something on the bottom that says "you're all assholes and will disagree with me because I'm me"? I'm disagreeing with you because I know you to be wrong. I dislike the way I get constantly insulted by your replies. If nothing else, it makes you look like you can't post a reasonable or well-thought out responce, instead you have to fall back on childish name-calling. 

As to 'How do I know'? Well, if you were GW HQ staff, you wouldn't be posting on this forum, especially using the language and obscenities that you do. Breach of contract would have you fired in an instant. If you were ex-GW HQ staff, you wouldn't be posting the things that you do because you'd know better how it all worked behind the scenes. I have posted in other threads about how Codex writing and playtesting works, in great detail, and the tiniest amount of digging would have you come up with proof that I know what I'm talking about, and that I am perfectly right to say that you are, indeed, wrong in this case.


----------



## Stella Cadente (Dec 25, 2006)

Vaz said:


> As opposed to "I am right" without any proof?


the proof is in those books GW sells, the ones with the rules in.


----------



## jaws900 (May 26, 2010)

friend of mine at my local plays Eysen Drop troops so i wouldn't have any problems with it. I would like to know about any "diffrences" before the game though. As with the aformatented Drop troops they have drop sentiels which i would like to know about before so that i can adjust my deployment accoringly (no rear armour shots for you!)
*p.s. sorry for my bad spelling in this one*


----------



## SilverTabby (Jul 31, 2009)

Stella Cadente said:


> the proof is in those books GW sells, the ones with the rules in.


What, the rules tens of thousands of people worldwide use to play fun and enjoyable games on a regular basis with little to no problems? Those rules?


----------



## Vaz (Mar 19, 2008)

Stella Cadente said:


> the proof is in those books GW sells, the ones with the rules in.


You mean the ones which were designed in mind for fun gamers such as yourself (as you like to say anyway) without having overly analytic arseholes such as myself finding every which way to exploit them?


----------



## IanC (Sep 3, 2010)

Stella Cadente said:


> I've said what I like hundreds of times before, I'm not gonna keep saying it over and over again when nobody bothers to remember or listen.


You didn't answer my question. But whatever.


----------



## Stella Cadente (Dec 25, 2006)

IanC said:


> You didn't answer my question. But whatever.


because it would be a waste of time wouldn't it?, obviously you thinking I didn't answer it proves it is, because as I said I've mentioned what I like plenty of times.
you want a straight answer (again) PM me, or if you feel inclined why not go on off topic and beg me to answer your precious questions so that you can ignore it/forget it/tell me I'm wrong


----------

