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.

 insaniak wrote:
Do you have any evidence that the person handling Forgeworld's facebook page is a GW employee?

Besides the obvious evidence that GW doesn't have non-employee volunteers?

(Which is sad, really, since a lot of random players could do a better job of writing the rules.)

Really? I could have sworn that you just said that they clearly did have that authority.

I said it isn't absolute proof. It could in theory be some random person making stuff up, but it's not very likely.

No, it's a safe bet that this person is accurately presenting Forgeworld's attitude towards Forgeworld units. On account of them apparently being something to do with Forgeworld, rather than a member of the GW design studio.

Again, you're inventing a difference between FW and "real GW".

 Peregrine wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Does it matter if it's a house rule?

Yes, because many people default to to playing by the standard rules of the game unless they have a compelling reason to do otherwise. So when the anti-FW crowd makes up arguments about how it's "not official" those people are more likely to default to "no FW" because they've been told that's what the standard rule is. If the anti-FW crowd dropped that pretense of "officialness" for their position a lot fewer people would listen to them, and FW rules would be more widely accepted.

I understand your argument, however Forge World are not standard rules even if the company is owned by GW and FW say they are official.

The point of FW is that they offer optional, variant rules and models that aren't part of the core range. It's the same as the Cities of Death, Apocalypse and other variant rules from GW but more so.

Basically there is a difference between "official" and "always available".

 Kilkrazy wrote:
I understand your argument, however Forge World are not standard rules even if the company is owned by GW and FW say they are official.

Why do you get to decide what is and isn't official when GW says otherwise?

The point of FW is that they offer optional, variant rules and models that aren't part of the core range. It's the same as the Cities of Death, Apocalypse and other variant rules from GW but more so.

Not according to GW.

Peregrine wrote:That's nice. You as a player are inventing the rule that expansions can not add to the standard game. GW, on the other hand, is happy to release expansions/supplements for the standard game as well as expansions/supplements that provide new game types.

Again you attempt to attribute things to me I did not say. Yet actually, you argueing against yourself now, for when something can add to the standard game, it is not by default part of it.

The rulebook is quite clear that anything can be added to the standard game if the players agree on it. Your problem is that you're not happy with it applying to FW "just" in the same way this applies to homebrewed army lists, or anything else aside from the clearly mentioned codices.

Peregrine wrote:See the statements GW has published? That's the answer.

But don't say what you claim they say, otherwise you'd have given me that quote I requested. And this won't change just because you keep repeating yourself.

Peregrine wrote:You're just making the absurd claim that some rogue pro-FW zealot is publishing unauthorized claims under the GW name, and somehow GW management isn't stopping them.

And now you've just proven that you don't even read my posts, considering how I said the opposite. But I guess we are just generally not big on details in these threads, are we?

Peregrine wrote:And now we're back to you inventing the rule that only the sources given in the core rulebook are standard, and GW can't add additional standard sources in other books.

No, now we're back to you inventing a claim about "standard expansions". Do you even realise how contradictory this sounds?

Peregrine wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:I understand your argument, however Forge World are not standard rules even if the company is owned by GW and FW say they are official.

Why do you get to decide what is and isn't official when GW says otherwise?

Read his argument again. You clearly did not understand what he was saying.

Peregrine wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:The point of FW is that they offer optional, variant rules and models that aren't part of the core range. It's the same as the Cities of Death, Apocalypse and other variant rules from GW but more so.

Not according to GW.

Yes, according to GW. Otherwise FW would not call its books an Expansion on the same website you got your initial statement from.

TheCustomLime wrote:Ahhh, I gotcha. But then you are running into semantics. Is there a difference between being and intended to be?

It's not even that tricky, since the "intended to be" did not touch upon any issues of standards or default or legality at all - it's just a line saying "this was written so you can use it in X".

FW's intention seems pretty simple to me - "here, use this, or don't", echoing GW's general suggestion to expand the standard game by modifying army lists or introducing entirely new ones. The problem seems to be that some people claim this to mean more than it says, in the hopes of being able to either "force" others into greater acceptance of their Expansion armies or, if they say no, nagging about how their opponent doesn't want to play against a (supposedly) official standard GW army list that is an official integral official part of the standard normal game. Standard.

So Peregrine missed this one I sent I guess (bold for emphasis):

Games Workshop: Digital Editions
Hey Miles,
Our books are primarily to accompany the Citadel Miniatures range as opposed to the Forge World series.
We don't tend to include Forge World only units in any of our codexes.
[/b]That said, you are of course welcome to use additional Forgeworld units alongside our codexes, but because they tend to be a bit more exotic, you're probably best letting your opponent know you will beforehand.[/b]

- Eddie

Who is Eddie? He's one of the people who works in the GW Digital Editions department and is the main face people deal with when it comes to questions about the digital codexes. He also has direct contact with the studio and has forwarded the Condemnor Boltgun question for people from Facebook.

Not what was said. Eddie didn't say "ask your friend for permission to play it" he said "you're probably best letting your opponent know you will beforehand". So what does this all mean?

FW is a valid option to play, just don't be a dick about it.

This brings me back to a point I've made before: if you think you don't want to play FW, just let your opponent know. No person who uses FW can force anyone else to play (and if they do we're dealing with more issues than sportsmanship because laws are likely being broken).

But moving beyond that, we still have the points that have been brought up in the past ("the rules are just a framework for an enjoyable experiance" and the permission to adapt your army list, both from the rulebook but always written off as "not enough").

I'm going to point out something else though. I see a lot of anti-FW people use the word "force", usually in a sentence like: "I don't want people to force people to play against FW."

Now stop and read that again. What do all these people who rally so hard to try and keep FW being treated as "not a legal part of the game" doing? They're forcing people to accept that it's not a part of the game and telling them they shouldn't play FW. Now consider that. The same people who don't want a different part of the game forced on them are forcing this idea that you can treat FW as not a part of the game and force people to not be allowed to use it.

How does that work exactly? Where's the Spirit of the Game in that? Where is the good sportsman or the friendly gamer in that? I've heard of very few people who will even try and force a game with FW models on others, but I know a lot of people who will argue that FW shouldn't be considered a standard part of the game in the same ruleset that allows homebrew.

Where's the freedom to be creative or to have fun in that exactly Anti-FW people? Why is it alright for you to force your attitudes on others, but if anyone points out the rules give you the freedom to do things you go down like a footballer faking a foul? I haven't seen a single "FW is legal" thread where the FW people say they're trying to make anyone play against or with FW stuff, just trying to change a rather false viewpoint through facts and reason. But I've seen a LOT of posts that amount to "I'm right because I keep moving the goal posts" or "I don't like FW so no one should play with it!". Where's the "freedom" the Spirit of the Game speaks of in that mentality? Where is the good sportsmanship? Where is that supporting the game being an enjoyable experience for everyone when you try and force these false notions on others?

If you don't like FW, or don't have an interest in it, or generally just don't care for anything that would require actual communication before the game to add anything to the game that isn't strictly a codex, or the rulebook that's fine. It's a perfectly fine way of playing. But don't pretend that it's the only valid way to play the game or that your way is somehow "better" or more "official" or "legal" than any other.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
The point of FW is that they offer optional, variant rules and models that aren't part of the core range. It's the same as the Cities of Death, Apocalypse and other variant rules from GW but more so.

That also describes supplements.

 Lynata wrote:
No, now we're back to you inventing a claim about "standard expansions". Do you even realise how contradictory this sounds?

It's only a contradiction because of the rules you've invented. A product released as an 'expansion' is not necessarily optional content that creates a special variant game like Apocalypse. An 'expansion' can also be new material that is added to the standard game. This is only a problem if you invent a rule that "standard" means "only those sources listed in the core rulebook" instead of "the default rules for playing a game of 40k". But that's not how GW does it. According to GW the standard game rules for building an army include the core rulebook, codices, FW rules, codex supplements, and FAQs/errata. Then in addition to these sources for standard-game rules GW also publishes other expansions that introduce new variant game types like Apocalypse, which have different rules for army construction, new missions, etc.

FW's intention seems pretty simple to me - "here, use this, or don't", echoing GW's general suggestion to expand the standard game by modifying army lists or introducing entirely new ones.

No, it's not the same. The quote compares refusing to play against FW to refusing to play against GK, not to refusing to play against someone's fan codex. IOW, FW's rules are equivalent to codex rules in terms of what is part of the normal game you expect when you say "let's play 40k".

ClockworkZion wrote:But don't pretend that it's the only valid way to play the game or that your way is somehow "better" or more "official" or "legal" than any other.

Yet is this not the very purpose of why Peregrine has created this thread? That by not allowing FW people would place "their houserules" over GW's official standards? That seems to be a critical centerpiece of his entire argument, intended entirely to "devalue" games where FW, for whatever reason, is not wanted as being "less official" or whatever.

I'm subscribing to the page 108 argument. There's the default suggestion, and then there's anything you want to add or modify that is not in a codex. Nothing wrong with such expansions. They're still not standard.

Tyberos the Red Wake wrote:That also describes supplements.

This is how I would understand it, too. Anything that is not a codex is a modification of the standard game. Easy.

Peregrine wrote:It's only a contradiction because of the rules you've invented. A product released as an 'expansion' is not necessarily optional content that creates a special variant game like Apocalypse. An 'expansion' can also be new material that is added to the standard game.

I'm not inventing anything. You continuously claim stuff you then fail to back up with actual quotes, and fall back on how I would invent this or that. Yet you are the one falsifying quotes, and you are the one not reading my posts (or perhaps intentionally attributing false statements to me? hmm).
And you are claiming here that these expansions are "not optional"? So prove it.

Peregrine wrote:This is only a problem if you invent a rule that "standard" means "only those sources listed in the core rulebook" instead of "the default rules for playing a game of 40k". But that's not how GW does it. According to GW the standard game rules for building an army include the core rulebook, codices, FW rules, codex supplements, and FAQs/errata. Then in addition to these sources for standard-game rules GW also publishes other expansions that introduce new variant game types like Apocalypse, which have different rules for army construction, new missions, etc.

Um, no? Page 108 makes no distinction between FW or Apocalypse or homebrewed. They're all modifications from the codex army list.

Peregrine wrote:No, it's not the same. The quote compares refusing to play against FW to refusing to play against GK, not to refusing to play against someone's fan codex. IOW, FW's rules are equivalent to codex rules in terms of what is part of the normal game you expect when you say "let's play 40k".

Actually, the quote compares refusing to play against FW to refusing to play against GK etc. And yes, in the context of refusal it's all the same. Including homebrewed. As I said, show me the army it is forbidden to say no to playing against?

 Lynata wrote:

ClockworkZion wrote:But don't pretend that it's the only valid way to play the game or that your way is somehow "better" or more "official" or "legal" than any other.

Yet is this not the very purpose of why Peregrine has created this thread? That by not allowing FW people would place "their houserules" over GW's official standards? That seems to be a critical centerpiece of his entire argument, intended entirely to "devalue" games where FW, for whatever reason, is not wanted as being "less official" or whatever.

I'd say there is some serious problems with people looking down their noses at people who want to use FW, hiding behind the arguments of how "legal" or "official" it is (we've seen it on this board a few times), so I can agree with Peregrine that there is a serious problem here. People are treating what should be seen as valid (and hopefully fun) additions to their codex as being worthless, and are trying to force that viewpoint on others. And yet the pro-FW players are the ones being accused of trying to "force" things by pointing out things like the rulebook allowing them to be able to use them.

 Lynata wrote:

I'm subscribing to the page 108 argument. There's the default suggestion, and then there's anything you want to add or modify that is not in a codex. Nothing wrong with such expansions. They're still not standard.

You do realize page 108 contains the rules for playing a "standard" game of 40k though, right?

 ClockworkZion wrote:


I'm going to point out something else though. I see a lot of anti-FW people use the word "force", usually in a sentence like: "I don't want people to force people to play against FW."

Now stop and read that again. What do all these people who rally so hard to try and keep FW being treated as "not a legal part of the game" doing? They're forcing people to accept that it's not a part of the game and telling them they shouldn't play FW. Now consider that. The same people who don't want a different part of the game forced on them are forcing this idea that you can treat FW as not a part of the game and force people to not be allowed to use it.

You nailed it on the head, the rest of your post was great as well man but I especially like how you mentioned the "force" part. Personally with me I make an effort to allow my opponents to read my army book, fill them in on what I am bringing to the table and answer any questions they have. If they dont want to play against my FW army then I just dont play them or if it is a mature player (aka doesnt give some stupid "FW is OP" excuse) then I will use Codex IG. Never have I forced anyone to play my FW but I do find it funny that people are FORCING me not to play with the army I want to play with.

Just wanted to point this little factoid out: Jervis Johnson was one of the writers one Imperial Armor, Imperial Armour Vol I, and Imperial Armour Vol II. He also works in the main studio.

So why wouldn't the main studio see it as a "valid", "legal" or otherwise "official" part of the game when one of their members has helped make rules for it?

http://wh40k.lexicanum.com/wiki/Jervis_Johnson#.UnnrkiddCBg

ClockworkZion wrote:People are treating what should be seen as valid (and hopefully fun) additions to their codex as being worthless, and are trying to force that viewpoint on others. And yet the pro-FW players are the ones being accused of trying to "force" things by pointing out things like the rulebook allowing them to be able to use them.

I've repeatedly praised FW itself (except their fluff division ), just as I like some homebrewed ideas. That I'm being thrown into one bucket with "FW haters" because I'm instinctively argueing against Peregrine attempting to devalue pure Codex games just exemplifies the divide some posters are willing to create in the community, and that it is, as per Peregrine's own posts, not enough to view Forge World as optional expansions.

The rulebook also allows us to use homebrewed armies, yet would the majority of FW players attribute the same liberty to them? I think not. And That, this hypocrisy, is the sad part here.

ClockworkZion wrote:You do realize page 108 contains the rules for playing a "standard" game of 40k though, right?

Yes, and that standard game suggests to use the codices. You are, by the standard rules, allowed to modify them, but once you do, it's technically not standard anymore, is it?

Again, I'm not argueing legality or officialness - I'm argueing against FW being put on a higher pedestal than any other expansion, whether it be CA lists, homebrewed, etc. Legal is what the players ultimately agree to.

Does anyone here think that homebrewed armies are "a part of standard 40k"? Because that's what your page 108 argument is currently heading to.

I've got a "Homebrew is Legal" article. OF COURSE I think it's just as valid in "standard" games as everything else.

Here's the thing I thing defines a standard game: the rules for how the game is played are found in the core rulebook. If you need to look in another book (Planetstrike, Cities of Death, Apoc) then you're not playing a "standard game" but instead a variant of the standard game.

Everything else, to include FW and even homebrew is then "standard" as long as it uses those core rules.

Also here's a little bit from a much longer intro in IA Vol I by Jervis Johnson, showing that FW was intended from day one to be a place for rules that were considered legal for any game of Warhammer 40,000:


Now obviously, no one in GW uses the Vehicle Design Rules anymore, but that doesn't change the fact that FW was created to create new and additional rules for the game AND that they where intended for regular games of 40k.

Can we stop pretending that it's anything else now?

 Lynata wrote:


The rulebook also allows us to use homebrewed armies, yet would the majority of FW players attribute the same liberty to them? I think not. And That, this hypocrisy, is the sad part here.

Does anyone here think that homebrewed armies are "a part of standard 40k"? Because that's what your page 108 argument is currently heading to.

Big difference between homebrewed armies and FW since Homebrewed armies (though fluffy) can be given ridiculous rules that are often created by people who do not understand how to make it balanced. We had a homebrewed player here who tried to claim that his "Space Marines" were so elite and veteran that they all had 5 across the board in their stats, 3 wounds each, a 3+ invulnerable save in place of their armor and could run and shoot on top of a few other shinanigans for around a 5pt increase per model.

And that is the difference, FW actually is play tested and they create FoC to fit the theme of the army (hence Elysian Drop Troops) and most importantly has the GW logo or stamp of approval. I dont have beef with Homebrewed armies (as I am a fan of the Nippon fan book for Warhammer Fantasy) however comparing Homebrewed to FW is somewhat ridiculous. No hypocrisy as there is a very valid and BIG difference between the two.

 Lynata wrote:
Um, no? Page 108 makes no distinction between FW or Apocalypse or homebrewed. They're all modifications from the codex army list.

You keep inventing rules about how page 108 is the final word on the subject and GW can never publish anything else that will be part of the standard game. GW, on the other hand, disagrees you, and adds to the standard game through IA books, supplements, and FAQs/errata.

 gmaleron wrote:

 Lynata wrote:


The rulebook also allows us to use homebrewed armies, yet would the majority of FW players attribute the same liberty to them? I think not. And That, this hypocrisy, is the sad part here.

Does anyone here think that homebrewed armies are "a part of standard 40k"? Because that's what your page 108 argument is currently heading to.

Big difference between homebrewed armies and FW since Homebrewed armies (though fluffy) can be given ridiculous rules that are often created by people who do not understand how to make it balanced. We had a homebrewed player here who tried to claim that his "Space Marines" were so elite and veteran that they all had 5 across the board in their stats, 3 wounds each, a 3+ invulnerable save in place of their armor and could run and shoot on top of a few other shinanigans for around a 5pt increase per model.

And that is the difference, FW actually is play tested and they create FoC to fit the theme of the army (hence Elysian Drop Troops) and most importantly has the GW logo or stamp of approval. I dont have beef with Homebrewed armies (as I am a fan of the Nippon fan book for Warhammer Fantasy) however comparing Homebrewed to FW is somewhat ridiculous. No hypocrisy as there is a very valid and BIG difference between the two.

How is this different than the ridiculous rules made by GW?

 Lynata wrote:
The rulebook also allows us to use homebrewed armies, yet would the majority of FW players attribute the same liberty to them?

No, because a homebrewed army is not approved by GW. You are allowed to modify the game to include one if you and your opponent agree, but you shouldn't show up to a random pickup game and expect your opponent to allow it. FW units, on the other hand, are part of the normal game and you should expect to be able to use them, just like you should expect your opponent to follow the FAQs/errata GW has published for their codex.

Again, I'm not argueing legality or officialness - I'm argueing against FW being put on a higher pedestal than any other expansion, whether it be CA lists, homebrewed, etc. Legal is what the players ultimately agree to.

FW isn't put on a higher pedestal, it's put on the same pedestal as supplements and FAQs/errata.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Martel732 wrote:
How is this different than the ridiculous rules made by GW?

Please don't troll. You know perfectly well that there's a difference between GW rules that aren't balanced very well and my "homebrew" army of units with 10s in every stat for 1 point per model.

Martel732 wrote:


How is this different than the ridiculous rules made by GW?

I never said that everything GW has come out with is balanced but at the same time there still is a BIG difference wether you like it or not. Again I actually like Homebrewed armies if they are done correctly, however often people tend to create things that are a bit over the top (look at the proposed rules part of the forum). Are their ridiculous things in GW and FW? Yes, but that does not give Homebrewed the right to instantly create over the top units as well. The biggest thing is the fact that the GW and FW books and lists are playtested before release so it helps some in regards to that. I dont know which army has made you so bitter but there is a difference between homemade and something with the GW stamp on it, for better or worse.

Given that I could write more balanced books than GW, I honestly don't think I'm trolling. The codices in 6th are looking a lot like homebrew codices, imo.

It absolutely sucks, but the ONLY thing that will ever 'end' this debate, is a statement saying forgeworld is prefectly valid, directly in the core rulebook, or its FAQ. The 'officialness' comes from the way GW operates to outside observers, There seems to be little interplay between the core materials team, and the forgeworld dudes.

 davou wrote:
It absolutely sucks, but the ONLY thing that will ever 'end' this debate, is a statement saying forgeworld is prefectly valid, directly in the core rulebook, or its FAQ.

That's what it looks like.

Martel732 wrote:
Given that I could write more balanced books than GW, I honestly don't think I'm trolling. The codices in 6th are looking a lot like homebrew codices, imo.

Very high opinion of yourself coming from someone we know nothing about. Maybe YOU think you could come up with better books then GW but I say again, dont know what army has made you so bitter but saying "GW books suck so Homebrews have the right to be" is a very poor argument.

These are the same people who authored 2nd edition 40K. It's not like there is some high bar here. I'm sure you could write something more fair as well.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Also here's a little bit from a much longer intro in IA Vol I by Jervis Johnson, showing that FW was intended from day one to be a place for rules that were considered legal for any game of Warhammer 40,000:
...

Now obviously, no one in GW uses the Vehicle Design Rules anymore, but that doesn't change the fact that FW was created to create new and additional rules for the game AND that they where intended for regular games of 40k.

Being based on the VDR doesn't make them a regular part of the game, since the VDR were optional rules.

 davou wrote:
It absolutely sucks, but the ONLY thing that will ever 'end' this debate, is a statement saying forgeworld is prefectly valid, directly in the core rulebook, or its FAQ. The 'officialness' comes from the way GW operates to outside observers, There seems to be little interplay between the core materials team, and the forgeworld dudes.

Agreed. 100%. Or, do as MTG did, and create formats. 40k and 40k plus. 40k utilizes only standard codices. 40k plus utilizes standard codices, supplemental codices, and forgeworld. Problem solved, argument over.

anchorbine wrote:

 davou wrote:
It absolutely sucks, but the ONLY thing that will ever 'end' this debate, is a statement saying forgeworld is prefectly valid, directly in the core rulebook, or its FAQ. The 'officialness' comes from the way GW operates to outside observers, There seems to be little interplay between the core materials team, and the forgeworld dudes.

Agreed. 100%. Or, do as MTG did, and create formats. 40k and 40k plus. 40k utilizes only standard codices. 40k plus utilizes standard codices, supplemental codices, and forgeworld. Problem solved, argument over.

Or just say FW units and the FoC found in the Imperial Armor Books are official for Standard 40k gameplay (not counting apocalypse units) I like that option much better, dont need two different versions of the same game.

 insaniak wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
Did you even read the OP, where a GW representative explicitly said that refusing to play against FW is no different than refusing to play against GK?

I saw a re-post of a comment purporting to be from a GW representative on Facebook.

I didn't see anything from someone who is actually a part of the GW design studio.


From my experience, most players stopped accepting rules judgements from random GW representatives in the late 90s, once it became widely understood that random GW people have no greater insite into the rules of the game than the janitor at Costco..

100% this.

The facebook post changes nothing.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
I understand your argument, however Forge World are not standard rules even if the company is owned by GW and FW say they are official.

Why do you get to decide what is and isn't official when GW says otherwise?

The point of FW is that they offer optional, variant rules and models that aren't part of the core range. It's the same as the Cities of Death, Apocalypse and other variant rules from GW but more so.

Not according to GW.

I'm not saying they aren't official, I am saying that players have no obligation to play with them.

The core game obviously is the 40K rulebook and the codexes. You can't play a game of 40K without the 40K rulebook. It doesn't matter what GW and FW might say about the other rulebooks. Cities of Death and so on are by definition optional expansions as they are extra purchases, not part of the 40K rulebook.

To explain my point in more detail, if two people agree to have a game of 40K, they commit themselves to use the rules as they stand in the core game. Any expansions or variant rules need to be agreed before the players plan the game, so they can reasonably plan their armies and so on.

If there is no discussion of using non-core rules, and one guy turns up with a Hierophant Biotitan and a copy of Apocalypse, saying he must be allowed to use it because they are "official", the other guy morally is completely justified in dropping out of the game.

If the second guys suggests the use of Apocalypse, etc. during the planning phase, the first guy can agree or not as he likes. He is not oblisged to play with expansions if he doesn't want to.

 TheCustomLime wrote:

Yeah, but the rules themselves are big investment (Stupid as hell but that Gee Dubs for you). People telling you that the $80 you spent is banned kinda hurts.

As for the second point, that what I got out of the whole thing. At least that's what the average anti-FW gamer thinks (Which I have no evidence to back up so... neehh. Then again, who does?). I believe Forgeworld's rules say that it is a part of the core gameplay but here is where it gets a little murky. The books have the word "Expansion" plastered on them so, by that logic, they are Expansions. But the rules say they are a part of the core of 40k. So, is it an expansion in that it adds onto the codices (Like the supplements) or that it's a "Forge World" expansion a la Planetstrike or Spearhead? I believe that is where a lot of the contention arises from.

Also, I believe the reason why is that in light of additional information the argument is worth reopening. Of course, since it's not really "New" information since Forgeworld has been saying this since 2011 (I think. It was new when I signed up). It's just sort of a clarification on a statement that the anti-FW people do not believe on the basis it's from FW. Does that make this thread pointless? Yes. But it is kinda fun to exercise the old noodle, don't you think?

World of Warcraft expansions are still an official part of the World of Warcraft game, so I don't think anybody can use the word expansion to try and discredit FW as being unofficial in any way.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
I've got a "Homebrew is Legal" article. OF COURSE I think it's just as valid in "standard" games as everything else.

Here's the thing I thing defines a standard game: the rules for how the game is played are found in the core rulebook. If you need to look in another book (Planetstrike, Cities of Death, Apoc) then you're not playing a "standard game" but instead a variant of the standard game.

Everything else, to include FW and even homebrew is then "standard" as long as it uses those core rules.

Also here's a little bit from a much longer intro in IA Vol I by Jervis Johnson, showing that FW was intended from day one to be a place for rules that were considered legal for any game of Warhammer 40,000:


Now obviously, no one in GW uses the Vehicle Design Rules anymore, but that doesn't change the fact that FW was created to create new and additional rules for the game AND that they where intended for regular games of 40k.

Can we stop pretending that it's anything else now?

Oh Snap!!!!!!!!!

I think I hear some anti-fw guys crying in a corner somewhere.

Thank you for your very helpful contribution to the discussion.