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.

Again, there is no exception given for any Games Workshop publication. Telling you that the rules for your Citadel miniatures are found in a wide range of Games Workshop publications, such as codexes, codex suppliments and dataslates doesn't mean that you can use them without an agreement with your opponent. It simply tells you where to find the rules, nothing more.

 Ghaz wrote:
Again, there is no exception given for any Games Workshop publication.

Assuming that you refer to the former (not sure):



And repeating, to make sure you get it: your opponent has to agree on everything you field. Absolutely everything. Zero exceptions.

Again, 'official' does not equal 'use without your opponent's permission'. 'Official' simply means that it was produced by Games Workshop for use with Warhammer 40,000. Nothing more.

Again: everything requires your opponent's permission. If I did not want to play vs. Wave Serpents, you'd have to accept it. Or there won't be a game.

And I'm simply saying that the rulebook actually says that and makes it a rule.

Ah, I get it now. Yes, I agree - although we don't need the rule to begin with

You can't force an opponent to play, so it's natural that he has to agree on everything. It's the basic rule of every game, not just 40k.

Trust me, as often as the Forge World question has come up in the past, its a good addition to the rules.

Why is it a good addition to the rules?

 Ghaz wrote:
Where does it say that it doesn't include Forge World? It doesn't. It is all inclusive in it's wording. It covers everything as I've already stated, from codices to Forge World to house rules.

Wait, this is crazy.

What you're saying is that if something isn't explicitly banned from a game before you start playing, it's permissible? Bound lists aren't restricted to force org, right? We didn't actually say that was a restriction? The fandex I just wrote says all of my vehicles have 10,000 hull points. Too bad you didn't ban the fandex I just created before the game began. We didn't restrict my model that starts yours on fire, did we? Good, lemme see your land raider.

Inclusive rules aren't rules. You're just playing storytime pretend if you can do whatever you want unless the person you're playing with explicitly prevents you from doing it before you do.

A realistic interpretation of the quote from the rulebook is that players have to agree on any restrictions IN ADDITION to the ones already provided (or, of course, if they want to house-rule stuff and get rid of them, but that has to be explicit before you begin, hence the wording in the rulebook in the first place).

You might as well go to the part of the rulebook where it says "players may set up the table however they like" and say that it "proves" that forgeworld is part of the game, because the way you like to set up the table includes forgeworld units.

Sigvatr wrote: The first is part of any FW GW publication - I don't think I need to quote that.

And here we go...

Ailaros wrote:It's always the same every time, too. The argument basically boils down to.

Side A: GW is magic and you have to do whatever they say. If they pooped in a box, it would be legal for 40k, because it was GW doing the pooping.

Side B: That's an argument from authority fallacy. Want to make an argument based on logic? Let me know when you find where in the rules say forgeworld stuff is the same as the other rules.

And it's exactly the same every time. A deluge of people hating in favor of forgeworld, and everybody else waiting patiently for a real, rational argument.

Saying "Because X said so, it must be true" is the very definition of an argument from authority fallacy.

A game is defined by its rules. Any person can also add their own rules afterwords, but it's something added afterwards, not a part of the game itself. If you choose to always add something to the game just because GW wrote it, you can, but you're still adding something else to the game after the fact. If GW has the pretense of authority, it is only because YOU have ceded authority to them, as a personal choice, not because of any underlying truth.

Because if you're talking about truth relative to which person says what, then it's an argument from authority fallacy, every time.

 Ailaros wrote:

Saying "Because X said so, it must be true" is the very definition of an argument from authority fallacy.

A game is defined by its rules. Any person can also add their own rules afterwords, but it's something added afterwards, not a part of the game itself. If you choose to always add something to the game just because GW wrote it, you can, but you're still adding something else to the game after the fact. If GW has the pretense of authority, it is only because YOU have ceded authority to them, as a personal choice, not because of any underlying truth.

Ehm...it's their game. They made it. They make the rules. That's how games work.

If playing tag and you suddenly stand in the middle of the field saying it's a safe zone - you broke the rules, no matter how much you explain yourself.

GW has the authority on rules because they make them. You can change that by house-ruling, but GW will always be the lowest common denominator.

Sweet jumping jehovazat, why does every thread involvinG FW devolve into this?

 gregor_xenos wrote:
Sweet jumping jehovazat, why does every thread involvinG FW devolve into this?

I have no idea what i have done D:

I think what most people are saying is forge world is as legal as codex eldar, but you opponent would have to agree for you to use either.

haroon wrote:
I think what most people are saying is forge world is as legal as codex eldar, but you opponent would have to agree for you to use either.

Precisely!

 gregor_xenos wrote:
Sweet jumping jehovazat, why does every thread involvinG FW devolve into this?

Been that way since FW was a thing, so, yes.

 gregor_xenos wrote:
Sweet jumping jehovazat, why does every thread involvinG FW devolve into this?

Its actually quite comical.

 BrotherOfBone wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:
Sorry, but those are the rules. Forge World requires both players to agree, whether you like it or not.

Where does it specifically say Forge World? Why is Forge World different from C:SM? You'd have to agree that you were allowed to play C:SM, or any other codex or unit in the book.

That is, however, basically the case. You can't force someone to play vs C:SM or C: AS or C: Orks or any other army you want to put on the table if they don't want to. That's just the way it goes.