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.

Can anyone arguing on here give me a good reason as to why/how "Forge World" at the bottom of the text can't just as easily be replaced with the name of any 40K race, model, or army, without changing the fundamental way that 40K is intended to be played between two players? you could put this disclaimer in the front of every codex and rulebook GW puts out for 40K.

That's why I don't view FW models as any less "official GW" than any other GW model I can use in 40K, and why I think that some people just plain "don't like FW stuff used against their army", but don't want to go out and tell an opponent that the only reason they won't play them because they don't like playing what their opponent wants to field.

Not liking FW stuff is a valid opinion that anyone can have, but it's a lot of work to go to such lengths to argue using nitpicky rules-lawyered supporting facts. Just man up and say so!

Aegisgrim

I read that as being quite dishonest and rather manipulative.
And even complain at the end about nitpicky rules-lawyered supporting facts, when isn't that what you are doing? And then even used man up....
Well Probably more than I am for sure.
When people pull that card I actuly think it causes more harm than good.
It say on the books I at least looked at that they are expansions
I don't want to play with the forge world rules often, but if someone was nice then it's unlikely I would turn them down, if they at least consider how I feel.

Look I understand they forge world costs a lot of money and you want to use them, but you also have to take responsibility and understand that when purchasing that some players may not wish to play with them. For what ever reason they choose, they have also pay into the hobby and wish to enjoy it.

And like I have said a few times in these threads I think this issue isn't a player one, but comes from the way GW handles the entire 40k line turning threads into arguments like this serves only to divide the game and is more harm than good.

That's my opinion of corse :p I play to have fun, if the player with forge world is fun person then I would put in effort to play with them.
Wow long post :0

Apple fox wrote:
Aegisgrim

I read that as being quite dishonest and rather manipulative.
And even complain at the end about nitpicky rules-lawyered supporting facts, when isn't that what you are doing? And then even used man up....
Well Probably more than I am for sure.
When people pull that card I actuly think it causes more harm than good.
It say on the books I at least looked at that they are expansions
I don't want to play with the forge world rules often, but if someone was nice then it's unlikely I would turn them down, if they at least consider how I feel.

Look I understand they forge world costs a lot of money and you want to use them, but you also have to take responsibility and understand that when purchasing that some players may not wish to play with them. For what ever reason they choose, they have also pay into the hobby and wish to enjoy it.

And like I have said a few times in these threads I think this issue isn't a player one, but comes from the way GW handles the entire 40k line turning threads into arguments like this serves only to divide the game and is more harm than good.

That's my opinion of corse :p I play to have fun, if the player with forge world is fun person then I would put in effort to play with them.
Wow long post :0

Can I ask you a quick question on this, now I'm in the complete opposite camp to you in this, I love the forge world line and see any forge world units that are 40k approved as legit parts of the 40k game. Can I ask what it is about these products that make you think that you wouldn't want to play against them? Is it the models, the close affiliation to separately labelled super powered apoc units, making you think that these models would be just as op. Or is it something else entirely? Would you oppose someone using a FW alternative model, like the winged hive tyrant, instead of the citadel hive tyrant kit, if it is this, not saying it is, how is this any different to a converted model?

Aegisgrim

I read that as being quite dishonest and rather manipulative.
And even complain at the end about nitpicky rules-lawyered supporting facts, when isn't that what you are doing? And then even used man up....
Well Probably more than I am for sure.
When people pull that card I actuly think it causes more harm than good.
It say on the books I at least looked at that they are expansions
I don't want to play with the forge world rules often, but if someone was nice then it's unlikely I would turn them down, if they at least consider how I feel.

Look I understand they forge world costs a lot of money and you want to use them, but you also have to take responsibility and understand that when purchasing that some players may not wish to play with them. For what ever reason they choose, they have also pay into the hobby and wish to enjoy it.

First of all, I can't see anything dishonest or manipulative about my post. At least not any more than your last lines above, where you make it seem like I am defensive about not being able to use any personal Forgeworld stuff. I also find the quote "they have also pay into the hobby and wish to enjoy it, too" is something that gets bandied about a lot in these discussions, but never very much in the favor of Forgeworld buyers- "they" is (nearly) always the people who are having FW stuff "forced" upon them.

As for my angle onthe whole thing, I barely have anything from Forgeworld, other than a pair of Wave Serpent turrets gifted from a friend getting out of Eldar. But I still want to know how anyone can tell me that you can't replace "Forge World" with "Ork Warbikes" in the disclaimer above, when concerning the stipulations that go into laying out a good game of 40k between two players. No one can tell me that, but many are using that same line to make FW hobbyists bow and scrape for permission to use their stuff.

In the same way that I would hate to buy a Eldar Hornet and then have a player refuse to allow me to use it, I would hate to have another player refuse to let me use, for example, a Necron Doomscythe that I spent money on, because either can happen just as easily, and with many of the same supporting arguments for either case.

This thread is mostly about people using wierd suppositions and personal opinions to make cyclical arguments, to the point that a Thread about whether Forgeworld stuff is legal because it's an expansion or not now lets me also know that some people think that I shouldn't be able to use my Sisters of Battle because something in a GW publication that allows you to use product bought from the GW site somehow isn't official.

It's a meandering mess, where people keep trying to make attacks on each other and frankly a lot (not all!) of the opponents of Forgeworld seem to be giving off the vibe of leaning back and crossing their arms to say "I won't allow any of that crap in games against me, too bad", and that's unfortunate. Quite frankly, I don't think it will ever get settled even if GW puts something clear-cut on their site saying "FW models are/aren't official in all normal games of 40K and Warhammer", because someone will still argue that they didn;t say something quite precisely so the "intent" can be lawyered.

People should just say that they either don't want anyone to use such models against them, or that they don't really care and are happy to play a game of 40K, because at base those are really the two legitimate sides of the argument.

I actuly quite happy for the models to be used, it's the rules I dislike using.
Not realy any issue with weather they are op or not, but I actuly like the idea of the closed codex for one.
There some other reasons I have difficulty putting to words, as my English isn't very good and I'm extremely tired :(
Trying to put it into words, is I read all the rules I have access to befor as it takes me a long time.
I also have my own codex cut up and made into smaller portions so I can handle it as often the turning of pages and holding a book can be difficult.
This is why I place so much enfisis on fun and enjoyable players if you put in effort to play with me, I happy to play you and put in the effort
But I also dislike using the forge world rules.
Does that make sense :0 probably is a bit off , but best I can do right now

Aegis I honesty am sorry if I come of as hostle in return and my last paragraph reading again is probably not as intended, just frustrating to see this argument come up again and again.

But to try and offer some more clarity to where I sit
The forge world rules are an expansion, add on content.
I dislike using them for the most part, but will use them sometimes. The same as with board games and computer games, in some cases i don't play with the expansions.

The way GW handles it is realy sad, and I have change my stance but posts like the one befor do little but solidify the divide.
I think GW is happy to have forge world as something extra that they can do as they see fit outside of the standard game. (well as far as GW seems to think about it sometimes )
And the part put up I see as a reminder to the users that people may not always want to use them.
:(

Apple and aegis i get where you are both coming from. ya forgeworld is awesome and hell yes it costs an arm and a leg. but honestly some of the forgeworld stuff is just heads and tails above what exists thus far. in a friendly game having fw stuff even without a heads up i dont really see as angering anyone but a WAAC player (ive found they like playing against them as a chance, if for no other reason to see them since they do cost an arm and a leg). but for a competitive one, a bit mean to bring something if the other person has no idea what it does. so all and all i think it just depends on the game. And even in a friendly i bring a copy or two of the rules for them to look at during the game so they know what im doing.

I got my answer, everyone please stop posting

ya forgeworld is awesome and hell yes it costs an arm and a leg. but honestly some of the forgeworld stuff is just heads and tails above what exists thus far. in a friendly game having fw stuff even without a heads up i dont really see as angering anyone but a WAAC player (ive found they like playing against them as a chance, if for no other reason to see them since they do cost an arm and a leg). but for a competitive one, a bit mean to bring something if the other person has no idea what it does.

You could easily replace this sentence with "Vendetta's, Necron Airspam, Psyflemen" Or whatever people consider to be OP from the codex's these days.

Not to mention that last one is a pretty bad analogy, considering I've seen people try to trick people about standard codex units.

 King of the Elves wrote:
I got my answer, everyone please stop posting

lol, this must be kind of how Dr Frankenstein felt after creating his monster.

FW could not be more specific in their books.

People not accepting that as enough? *Triplefacepalm*

 TheCaptain wrote:
FW could not be more specific in their books.

People not accepting that as enough? *Triplefacepalm*

Remember, Forgeworld is only fandex material. This gak needs to come from Kirby, hand delivered and signed personally.

 -Loki- wrote:

 TheCaptain wrote:
FW could not be more specific in their books.

People not accepting that as enough? *Triplefacepalm*

Remember, Forgeworld is only fandex material. This gak needs to come from Kirby, hand delivered and signed personally.

That's total crap, and you know it. It's an utterly absurd statement, exactly the same as saying that the Monster Manual is illegal for D&D because it's not the core rule book.

 -Loki- wrote:

 TheCaptain wrote:
FW could not be more specific in their books.

People not accepting that as enough? *Triplefacepalm*

Remember, Forgeworld is only fandex material. This gak needs to come from Kirby, hand delivered and signed personally.

Not good enough, we need to get Rick Priestly and Andy Chambers in here asap!

 Still Standing wrote:

 -Loki- wrote:

 TheCaptain wrote:
FW could not be more specific in their books.

People not accepting that as enough? *Triplefacepalm*

Remember, Forgeworld is only fandex material. This gak needs to come from Kirby, hand delivered and signed personally.

That's total crap, and you know it. It's an utterly absurd statement, exactly the same as saying that the Monster Manual is illegal for D&D because it's not the core rule book.

He's being sarcastic in relation to earlier comments about White Dwarf and Chapter Approved articles being claimed as being fan-dexes...........

 King of the Elves wrote:
I got my answer, everyone please stop posting

Just because you're done with the discussion doesn't mean that everyone else has to be. So long as it stays civil and on-topic, there's no particular need to lock it.

And please stop editing the thread title. Keeping a clear title on the thread makes it easier for other people interested in the topic to find it.

What is the name of the company at the bottom? I cleared it with my pals first but I will be regularly fielding a preheresy army in standard games. Anyone who would have an issue with it, is a GIT.

valace2 wrote:


What is the name of the company at the bottom? I cleared it with my pals first but I will be regularly fielding a preheresy army in standard games. Anyone who would have an issue with it, is a GIT.

Actually, anyone who's actually read the rules in that book will know that Horus Heresy stuff isn't compatible with "normal" 40k, because the points costs of the units are only balanced with other HH books. The book even says so!

If you actually want to play a HH army against a standard 40k army, the best way to do it is have both opponents use the crusade force org. The book is most certainly NOT intended to be played against regular 40k armies but using that method works pretty well. Mind you games of HH are intended to be played at 2000+ points as well.

The force org also happens to work well for 40k games at 2000 points and over since it doesn't use double force org...

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:


Actually, anyone who's actually read the rules in that book will know that Horus Heresy stuff isn't compatible with "normal" 40k, because the points costs of the units are only balanced with other HH books. The book even says so!

Actually what they said was that it is debatable how well the two genres mix, they didn't explicitly say that it wasn't compatible.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 cvtuttle wrote:
If you actually want to play a HH army against a standard 40k army, the best way to do it is have both opponents use the crusade force org. The book is most certainly NOT intended to be played against regular 40k armies but using that method works pretty well. Mind you games of HH are intended to be played at 2000+ points as well.

The force org also happens to work well for 40k games at 2000 points and over since it doesn't use double force org...

I wouldn't have a problem letting them use the 30k FOC that is really the only standard mechanic they changed. There is also Lords of War but its pretty much implied that it should be used for Apoc.

 AegisGrimm wrote:


Can anyone arguing on here give me a good reason as to why/how "Forge World" at the bottom of the text can't just as easily be replaced with the name of any 40K race, model, or army, without changing the fundamental way that 40K is intended to be played between two players? you could put this disclaimer in the front of every codex and rulebook GW puts out for 40K.

That's why I don't view FW models as any less "official GW" than any other GW model I can use in 40K, and why I think that some people just plain "don't like FW stuff used against their army", but don't want to go out and tell an opponent that the only reason they won't play them because they don't like playing what their opponent wants to field.

Not liking FW stuff is a valid opinion that anyone can have, but it's a lot of work to go to such lengths to argue using nitpicky rules-lawyered supporting facts. Just man up and say so!

I have read every post in this thread and this guy is spot on. Especially the last 2 sentences of his post.

valace2 wrote:
Actually what they said was that it is debatable how well the two genres mix, they didn't explicitly say that it wasn't compatible.

No. Every time someone asks about it on their facebook page FW's response is that the two are NOT meant to be played together, you should not assume that you can use the Heresy list in a standard game, and any Heresy vs. 40k game needs to involve specific permission from your opponent and an agreement on things like a lords of war section for the 40k player. They have made it very clear that, while the rules are compatible, they are meant to be two separate games by default.


Of course this just reinforces the point about "40k approved" units. Notice the completely different treatment those get compared to Heresy vs. 40k and Apocalypse units in "normal" games: one gets a token "these are part of the game, but be polite about it" note, while the others get explicit statements that you need to ask for permission and make special arrangements to play a non-standard game. We see very clearly what FW does in the case of things that aren't meant to be part of the standard game of 40k, and it's not how they handle the "40k approved" stuff.

I've been playing death korps of krieg for several years and have only run into 1 guy who doesn't approve of me playing my dkok so I just play my dark eldar against him because he's a regular at my flgs and he's actually a pretty cool guy.

I play Armored Battlegroup.

I don't have a codex. I don't have a White Dwarf supplement (although I did have two different Chapter Approved lists). I don't even have an errata/FAQ.

My army list is from Forge World, In IA1:2E. I am pleased that I get to use such an awesome book for my army list, hard-cover, full of full-color pictures, and including unit-synopsies above and beyond what is required for my own codex.

I have not encountered anyone who refuses to play against it when I hand them the book. I have had one person request that I use a normal Codex:IG army because he was practicing for a tournament and I was ok with this.

ForgeWorld is not any bigger deal than the new Chaos book as far as balance goes. To claim that the ForgeWorld rules are not official is tantamount to saying that my army, assembled over 12 years and lovingly hand-painted through several iterations, with unit names and even individual names is less official than someone with a similar love and list from Codex: Chaos Space Marines is to say that my army is worth less than another players army and is even irrelevant.

This is quite disheartening, especially when it says right at the very front of the list that it is official. Just as official as any one else's Iron Warriors army, for example.

 King of the Elves wrote:
I got my answer, everyone please stop posting

Son, its far to late for that.

In reply to the op.

I point blank refuse to play against forge world units. As in, non codex units with rules I have never seen before as I don't have the £60 forge world book that they lurk in. I play warhammer 40k, not warhammer imperial armor.

I have no problem using the models (as they are usually fantastic) themselves in proxy for codex units so long as it's clear what they are.

Mr Mugguffins wrote:
In reply to the op.

I point blank refuse to play against forge world units. As in, non codex units with rules I have never seen before as I don't have the £60 forge world book that they lurk in. I play warhammer 40k, not warhammer imperial armor.

I have no problem using the models (as they are usually fantastic) themselves in proxy for codex units so long as it's clear what they are.

Would you play me if I had the £55 book for you to peruse before the game?

Mr Mugguffins wrote:
In reply to the op.

I point blank refuse to play against forge world units. As in, non codex units with rules I have never seen before as I don't have the £60 forge world book that they lurk in. I play warhammer 40k, not warhammer imperial armor.

I have no problem using the models (as they are usually fantastic) themselves in proxy for codex units so long as it's clear what they are.

What is the difference between not owning all the Imperial Armour books and not owning all the Codeci? It's a silly argument.

Edited by Manchu

Mr Mugguffins wrote:
In reply to the op.

I point blank refuse to play against forge world units. As in, non codex units with rules I have never seen before as I don't have the £60 forge world book that they lurk in.

So...I'm assuming you also won't play against SoB players since you can't buy their rules? You won't play against players who play armies that cost more to collect than yours? You won't play against people with books you don't own? This line of thinking is silly.

An IG or Ork army typically costs twice what an SM army does, would you refuse to play against them on the same basis you're taking to refuse to play against FW stuff?

I play warhammer 40k, not warhammer imperial armor.

This makes no sense as Imperial Armour is part of Warhammer 40k, you're trying to make a distinction that exists only in your mind.

If someone doesn't want to play against FW units in regular 40k, they won't play.

Insisting that they play against FW or HH isn't going to change their mind.

If you want to play with FW or HH units, you will have to find someone WILLING to play against it.... AKA opponents permission.