From the new C:SM chapter tactics update:

Whilst these rules should be considered official, in the name of good sportsmanship you should inform your opponent when using these Chapter Tactics as they may not be familiar with them.

See anything missing here? That part about "make sure your opponent is happy" has been removed and replaced with "don't be TFG, show your opponent your rules". Now any ambiguity that may have once existed is gone. FW rules are part of the game, and your house rule against them is no less of a house rule than your house rule about having no more than one flyer per army.

Oh dear.

Quick, where's the popcorn?

Seems to be talking only about chapter tactics, not "hurr durr I need my forgeworld uber units"

So yea, nothing to see here folks.

Tthe main rule book actually mentions that you can play with things other than an army list from a codex (to include a modified army list).

For anyone who doubts me, just flip back to page 108 in the main rulebook and look under the section that says "The Army List":

The Rules wrote:With the points limit agreed, players need to pick their forces. The best way to do this is to make use of the army list in the relevant codex, although, of course, players are free to either adapt the army lists or use their own system as they wish...

Seeing as FW materials change the army list I'd say that's all the proof you need. Coincidentally it also works for homebrew as well.

in the name of good sportsmanship you should inform your opponent when using these Chapter Tactics as they may not be familiar with them.......

so heres this giant enemy TAU XV107 R'VARNA BATTLESUIT.

Peregrine, it doesn't matter.

You're never going to convince the nutjobs, so why bother continuing to try?

 juraigamer wrote:
Seems to be talking only about chapter tactics, not "hurr durr I need my forgeworld uber units"

Which just happens to be the most recent release. Unless you're going to argue that using new C:SM chapter tactics is part of the normal game but every other option requires special permission (which is obviously absurd, so please don't) this clarifies the "officialness" policy and confirms that the "make sure your opponent is happy" line was about not surprising your opponent with new rules halfway through the game, not giving them veto power over your army.

Also, the "I need my forgeworld uber units" straw man is pretty ridiculous when GW is printing codex armies with 4-5 Riptides or rerollable 2++ demons.

 Furyou Miko wrote:
Peregrine, it doesn't matter.

You're never going to convince the nutjobs, so why bother continuing to try?

Because every once in a while you need an excuse to make popcorn, sit back and watch the chaos unfold?

 Furyou Miko wrote:
You're never going to convince the nutjobs, so why bother continuing to try?

Because now there is absolutely no room for disagreement or pretending that "no FW" is anything but a house rule.

 Peregrine wrote:
Now any ambiguity that may have once existed is gone.

Un-likely.

What C:SM Chapter Tactics thingy are you talking about anyways...

 Peregrine wrote:

 Furyou Miko wrote:
You're never going to convince the nutjobs, so why bother continuing to try?

Because now there is absolutely no room for disagreement or pretending that "no FW" is anything but a house rule.

But at that point, you're just trying to force them to admit they're using a house rule. You're not going to convince them to start using Forge World, so it's just an argument for the sake of an argument.

 Furyou Miko wrote:
Peregrine, it doesn't matter.

You're never going to convince the nutjobs, so why bother continuing to try?

It's post like this that so polarises this subject.

But realy, buy and play with what you want . And be a nice and understanding player when people disagree with what they desire to play with also.

 pretre wrote:
What C:SM Chapter Tactics thingy are you talking about anyways...

http://www.forgeworld.co.uk/Downloads/Product/PDF/F/FWchaptertactics.pdf

 Furyou Miko wrote:
[But at that point, you're just trying to force them to admit they're using a house rule. You're not going to convince them to start using Forge World, so it's just an argument for the sake of an argument.

It matters because no-FW house rules don't exist in isolation. When people pretend that their house rule is official GW policy it influences what other people think, and you get people banning FW because they've been told that GW doesn't consider it part of the game. I don't care if someone wants to have that house rule for their own games, just as long as they admit that it's a house rule.

See anything missing here?

The part where it says anything at all about FW ....

I actually don't even care - I'll play against FW if someone has it, but really, this is stretching it.

Tycho wrote:

See anything missing here?

The part where it says anything at all about FW ....

I actually don't even care - I'll play against FW if someone has it, but really, this is stretching it.

Exactly.
It doesn't say anything at all about Forge World units, just these Chapter Tactics.

Apple Fox: This issue is not so much about what happens during in-person encounters. Rather, this issue is conceptual. It's about the wording of the rules themselves.

Personally, I thought this was entirely resolved when FW started labeling specific entries as usable in 40k and others as not. I don't see much room for "as long as you opponent agrees" in that practice.

 thenoobbomb wrote:
It doesn't say anything at all about Forge World units, just these Chapter Tactics.

You realize that those are FW rules, right?

 Peregrine wrote:

 thenoobbomb wrote:
It doesn't say anything at all about Forge World units, just these Chapter Tactics.

You realize that those are FW rules, right?

Yes. They're saying that you are allowed to use those Chapter Tactics no matter what because they're official.

It doesn't say anything about, say, a Death Korps regiment, or one of those fancy HH tanks.

 thenoobbomb wrote:
It doesn't say anything about, say, a Death Korps regiment, or one of those fancy HH tanks.

Yes, because those haven't been updated yet. The argument that this one rules document is official but everything else isn't is just absurd. This is the new policy.

 Furyou Miko wrote:
But at that point, you're just trying to force them to admit they're using a house rule. You're not going to convince them to start using Forge World, so it's just an argument for the sake of an argument.

Many, if not most, people are uncomfortable with house-rules. All they want to do is play by the status quo.
If that status quo allows FW in games, they won't complain.
If that status quo does not allow them, they will not allow them.

By proving that the rules allow Forgeworld, you can change the status quo and you will find less opposition when you want to play this expensive hobby.

 Peregrine wrote:

 thenoobbomb wrote:
It doesn't say anything about, say, a Death Korps regiment, or one of those fancy HH tanks.

Yes, because those haven't been updated yet. The argument that this one rules document is official but everything else isn't is just absurd. This is the new policy.

It's the new policy, indeed, and I expect this to be put in the rules when it is updated. I know it's rather pricky, but until those rules haven't been updated yet, it doesn't count for them.

 Peregrine wrote:
This is the new policy.

Or perhaps it was always the policy and FW just saw from this kind of thread that it desperately required clarification.

Kangodo wrote:
If that status quo allows FW in games, they won't complain.

I'm afraid the internet does not bear you out on this one.

 Manchu wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
This is the new policy.

Or perhaps it was always the policy and FW just saw from this kind of thread that it desperately required clarification.

Kangodo wrote:
If that status quo allows FW in games, they won't complain.

I'm afraid the internet does not bear you out on this one.

I think, as always, Peregrine makes the crucial error of being "almost certainly correct," while shouting that he is "completely certainly correct."

I agree that this is strong evidence of how FW sees itself being used. But that doens't make it 100% so.

 Manchu wrote:
Apple Fox: This issue is not so much about what happens during in-person encounters. Rather, this issue is conceptual. It's about the wording of the rules themselves.

Personally, I thought this was entirely resolved when FW started labeling specific entries as usable in 40k and others as not. I don't see much room for "as long as you opponent agrees" in that practice.

That's actuly what I was trying to say, to annoyed and it's 4am allmost. The rules always seemed to be official, realy shouldn't it be weather they have value in the community's themselves.
Tournaments will use what rules give the best environment for them, ones I go to dont use them due to general availability of rules mostly.

 Peregrine wrote:
The argument that this one rules document is official but everything else isn't is just absurd.

That's an absurd thing to say. It states this in this one and not in the others. If anything, saying that because one book has an officiallity policy everything does no matter what it says is the absurd statement.

That said, I'm quite happy to play Forgeworld and my group does to a very minor extent without any complaining. (no full armies but an odd vehicle or armament.)

If GW wanted to make forgeworld feel 101% legit, all they'd have to do was to add Death Korps and Elyssian Drop Troops and those bull space marines (am I missing anyone?) to the ally matrix. That, I think, would have sealed the deal for most anyone.

 Polonius wrote:
But that doens't make it 100% so.

One wonders just how much more explicit FW will have to be.

 Manchu wrote:
I'm afraid the internet does not bear you out on this one.

That's why I play against people and not against the internet.

The hardest thing is to break habits and tradition.
One of those traditions is that FW is banned and overpowered and you have to 'beg' your opponent for permission.
Seeing as they are 'banned by tradition' they are less likely to allow it.

Sure, this won't fix the problem in a month.
But within a year or two nobody will be shocked if you bring FW-models and rules.

 Manchu wrote:

 Polonius wrote:
But that doens't make it 100% so.

One wonders just how much more explicit FW will have to be.

I meant more generally. And even if they are meant for "standard play," plenty of groups will still ban or discourage them

I'm not even arguing against content, just tone. It's a kneejerk habit of mine: I react to sweeping, conclusory, and absolute statements with disdain.

Kangodo wrote:
That's why I play against people and not against the internet.

Good point. Hence:

 Manchu wrote:
This issue is not so much about what happens during in-person encounters. Rather, this issue is conceptual. It's about the wording of the rules themselves.

 Manchu wrote:

 Polonius wrote:
But that doens't make it 100% so.

One wonders just how much more explicit FW will have to be.

I don't think FW being explicit helps. FW could say anything they wanted and people would still argue. GW (I know, I know) itself has to do it.

If GW wanted to end this once and for all, they could put up an allies matrix and an official statement on their website saying 'The following FW units and books are official 40k units and usable in all 40k games.'

 Manchu wrote:

 Polonius wrote:
But that doens't make it 100% so.

One wonders just how much more explicit FW will have to be.

I tend to think a lot of it comes from GW rather than forge world. If everything was ballencing out a bit better people could be more acomidaiting to dropping in new units. At least that's some of my thaghts with it.

 Polonius wrote:
I react to sweeping, conclusory, and absolute statements with disdain.

I get the point about tone. But to hairsplit a little back, would you consider it sweeping, conclusory, and absolute to declare "one is allowed to play Space Marines in 40k" and, if so, do you disdain it?

 Manchu wrote:
would you consider it sweeping, conclusory, and absolute to declare "one is allowed to play Space Marines in 40k" and, if so, do you disdain it?

That's allowable based on the main rulebook.

 Manchu wrote:

 Polonius wrote:
But that doens't make it 100% so.

One wonders just how much more explicit FW will have to be.

Would be nice if the main rule book would just have a little box that says all FW units marked with the 40k stamp are acceptable for use in standard 40k games. Hell even add it to the FAQ. But until GW says something, there will be people who argue against it.

 pretre wrote:
That's allowable based on the main rulebook.

But is a claim based on the BGB any less conclusory or sweeping by virtue of being from the BGB?

 Manchu wrote:
One wonders just how much more explicit FW will have to be.

The Rule book has to say that FW products along side codex are also a source for legal rules in w40k games .

 Dannyevilguy wrote:
Would be nice if the main rule book would just have a little box that says all FW units marked with the 40k stamp are acceptable for use in standard 40k games. Hell even add it to the FAQ. But until GW says something, there will be people who argue against it.

That would end things once and for all.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Manchu wrote:

 pretre wrote:
That's allowable based on the main rulebook.

But is a claim based on the BGB any less conclusory or sweeping by virtue of being from the BGB?

No, but you're just trying to score points on Polonius now.

 Manchu wrote:

 Polonius wrote:
I react to sweeping, conclusory, and absolute statements with disdain.

I get the point about tone. But to hairsplit a little back, would you consider it sweeping, conclusory, and absolute to declare "one is allowed to play Space Marines in 40k" and, if so, do you disdain it?

Lol, good point. To respond to your clevernes with my own, I would say that people making sweeping announcments about things everybody agrees upon is often boring...

I guess making conclusory statement, about an issue in genuine controversy, is what rankles me. Especially when tied to one piece of evdience. I know we all like to look for a smoking gun or missing link, but the truth is usually hidden in a constellation of facts.

Makumba wrote:
The Rule book has to say that FW products along side codex are also a source for legal rules in w40k games.

So it would not be enough if a FW said that? For you, the BGB would have to also say it?

 Manchu wrote:

 pretre wrote:
That's allowable based on the main rulebook.

But is a claim based on the BGB any less conclusory or sweeping by virtue of being from the BGB?

No, but it is less absolute.

The statement "GW thinks we can play space marines" is more absolute than "the rulebook allows us to play space marines."

Kangodo wrote:
One of those traditions is that FW is banned and overpowered

That seems to be the assumption FW afficionados make a lot.
The real reason I see when I go places where it IS banned is because "12 books?... which one am I supposed to be reading?... Is that.. I don't get it, is my army in #1, #4 and #12?... Screw it, let's just stick to the codex system that makes sense."
And then since no one can be arsed to stick their nose into that hot mess, they know NOTHING about the army and so feel at a stark disadvantage to the guy fielding stuff that we have no idea how it works, so then it's easier to just say let's all play with the stuff we can all understand.

And please, FW afficionados, don't tell me that "it's actually easy, you see...." because it isn't. It isn't even close to easy ENOUGH for everyone. Could most people get into it? Yeah. Is everyone gonna invest that time when the army they want to play is in a crisp clear codex? No. Of course not.

Maybe if FW looked over how they release the units, the models wouldn't be used mostly for awesome looking counts-as.

I put the problem of the "FW isn't allowed here"-groups at the feet of FW's approach, and that's not gonna be fixed by a statement saying it's official. It can be as official as it wants when it's bigger to get into than people can be bothered with.

 Manchu wrote:

Makumba wrote:
The Rule book has to say that FW products along side codex are also a source for legal rules in w40k games.

So it would not be enough if a FW said that? For you, the BGB would have to also say it?

I think that as long as there is a divide between GW and FW, having FW say it's legal only applies if you feel that FW stuff is legal! Having GW allow it makes it clearer what's allowed.

 Polonius wrote:
making conclusory statement about an issue in genuine controversy

Yes, that right there is the heart of the matter -- whether there is a genuine controversy in the first place.

 Manchu wrote:

 Polonius wrote:
making conclusory statement about an issue in genuine controversy

Yes, that right there is the heart of the matter -- whether there is a genuine controversy in the first place.

And by "genuine," I meant that there are supportors and authority on both sides. You can find a crank to argue against anything, but the anti-FW crowd is not insignifcant.

But they are pretty cranky.

 Manchu wrote:
But they are pretty cranky.

Ba dum ching!

 Manchu wrote:

Makumba wrote:
The Rule book has to say that FW products along side codex are also a source for legal rules in w40k games.

So it would not be enough if a FW said that? For you, the BGB would have to also say it?

yep because the game is w40k and what is legal or not is decided by the main rulebook , not by outside source supplements.

But they are pretty cranky.

Come to europe outside of UK and check who is cranky trying to play his FW army.

Like a codex?

Makumba wrote:
yep because the game is w40k and what is legal or not is decided by the main rulebook , not by outside source supplements.

Citation needed.

 Manchu wrote:
Like a codex?

nope , because the rule book says that the source for rules are codex and the codex are made by GW , the same firm that makes the game and not an outside source sister firm .

I can buy ammo here for my sports rifle . They are made in a factory in china , they fit perfect , they don't damage anything . The factory is used to produce legal ammo too , that costs more , but on off hourse they produce identical ones that are cheaper. I can't use the ammo in any event . I know because I was disqualified once for taking the wrong ones with me .

Isn't a codex 'an outside source supplement' in relation to the rulebook?

Makumba wrote:
the same firm that makes the game and not an outside source sister firm

Oh Polonius, is this what you meant by "not insignificant"?

Ahhhh too slow......

I'll be putting the link in my sig. when this thread gets locked.

Poly Ranger wrote:
Isn't a codex 'an outside source supplement' in relation to the rulebook?

... which the rule book allows you to use on page 108.
What codexes does FW publish? (hint: none)

 Manchu wrote:

Makumba wrote:
the same firm that makes the game and not an outside source sister firm

Oh Polonius, is this what you meant by "not insignificant"?

I was actually just noting the mean spirted nature of these threads, when you post something that is frankly more than a bit mean.

I think that as long as FW rules are only available by expensive mail order books, it's not totally out of line for people to want more than a few minutes before a game reading over some rules.

 Polonius wrote:
I think that as long as FW rules are only available by expensive mail order books, it's not totally out of line for people to want more than a few minutes before a game reading over some rules.

Prepare to be countered with "Just pirate them." or "with the internet it's not a big deal to order from forgeworld - it's your fault you're uninformed"

 Polonius wrote:
I think that as long as FW rules are only available by expensive mail order books, it's not totally out of line for people to want more than a few minutes before a game reading over some rules.

Absolutely. But, again, we're not really discussing an actual in-person in counter but rather the meaning of a rule set.

rigeld2 wrote:
... which the rule book allows you to use on page 108.
What codexes does FW publish? (hint: none)

So are you going to cite the rule that says "only codices are permitted and we will never publish additional rules that are just as legal as a codex"? Because it sounds like you're assuming GW is using your personal legality policy without any evidence to support it.

rigeld2 wrote:
Prepare to be countered with "Just pirate them." or "with the internet it's not a big deal to order from forgeworld - it's your fault you're uninformed"

The argument cannot be that FW doesn't count because the books are too expensive. Therefore, no need to hypothesize bad arguments against it.

rigeld2 wrote:

 Polonius wrote:
I think that as long as FW rules are only available by expensive mail order books, it's not totally out of line for people to want more than a few minutes before a game reading over some rules.

Prepare to be countered with "Just pirate them." or "with the internet it's not a big deal to order from forgeworld - it's your fault you're uninformed"

Don't get me wrong, I feel that if you want to play a game competitively, you are responsible for keeping up on rules, and you don't need to pirate FW to get a pretty good idea of what units do by reading reviews and tactica.

And given the pace of codices now, if you're not playing a lot, you can't really keep up with super official GW releases, so what does a FW rule here or there really matter?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Manchu wrote:

 Polonius wrote:
I think that as long as FW rules are only available by expensive mail order books, it's not totally out of line for people to want more than a few minutes before a game reading over some rules.

Absolutely. But, again, we're not really discussing an actual in-person in counter but rather the meaning of a rule set.

I think that stating that no authority can bootstrap itself is enough for me to argue a theoretical legality.

Simply put, FW can call itself whatever it likes, but it's not the source of the authority to make rules legal.

Peregrine wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
... which the rule book allows you to use on page 108.
What codexes does FW publish? (hint: none)

So are you going to cite the rule that says "only codices are permitted and we will never publish additional rules that are just as legal as a codex"? Because it sounds like you're assuming GW is using your personal legality policy without any evidence to support it.

It's a permissive rule set (like any rule set must be). I've cited permission to use codexes. Are you just going to pretend such permission exists for FW books?
And note - I don't really care even a little bit about allowing Forgeworld or not. I'm aware it's your personal crusade that every event everywhere must always allow Forgeworld or they're lesser in your eyes.
But when someone is trying to argue that the rule book allows it when it clearly doesn't...

Manchu wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
Prepare to be countered with "Just pirate them." or "with the internet it's not a big deal to order from forgeworld - it's your fault you're uninformed"

The argument cannot be that FW doesn't count because the books are too expensive. Therefore, no need to hypothesize bad arguments against it.

Difficult to acquire != too expensive. You'll note I never mentioned price. You can have fun tilting at that windmill but you're right - it's a bad argument.

rigeld2 wrote:

Peregrine wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
... which the rule book allows you to use on page 108.
What codexes does FW publish? (hint: none)

So are you going to cite the rule that says "only codices are permitted and we will never publish additional rules that are just as legal as a codex"? Because it sounds like you're assuming GW is using your personal legality policy without any evidence to support it.

It's a permissive rule set (like any rule set must be). I've cited permission to use codexes. Are you just going to pretend such permission exists for FW books?
And note - I don't really care even a little bit about allowing Forgeworld or not. I'm aware it's your personal crusade that every event everywhere must always allow Forgeworld or they're lesser in your eyes.
But when someone is trying to argue that the rule book allows it when it clearly doesn't...

Manchu wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
Prepare to be countered with "Just pirate them." or "with the internet it's not a big deal to order from forgeworld - it's your fault you're uninformed"

The argument cannot be that FW doesn't count because the books are too expensive. Therefore, no need to hypothesize bad arguments against it.

Difficult to acquire != too expensive. You'll note I never mentioned price. You can have fun tilting at that windmill but you're right - it's a bad argument.

Sentinels of Terra is difficult to acquire. The cheapest way for me to view it is with an iPad mini.

rigeld2 wrote:
I'm aware it's your personal crusade that every event everywhere must always allow Forgeworld or they're lesser in your eyes.
But when someone is trying to argue that the rule book allows it when it clearly doesn't...

This demonstrates the problem I have with these threads. It's well known (or should be) that everything in 40k is "permission only." The rules are sort of collectively agreed upon.

I think a lot of the blowback you get in these threads isn't about stuff being "legal" or not, but simply an insulted reaction to being told that the way they play is lesser than somebody elses.

-Shrike- wrote:
Sentinels of Terra is difficult to acquire. The cheapest way for me to view it is with an iPad mini.

Any mac or PC computer will allow you to view it. You get to print one copy for free. I'm sure you can find a Fedex/Kinkos or whatever.

 pretre wrote:

-Shrike- wrote:
Sentinels of Terra is difficult to acquire. The cheapest way for me to view it is with an iPad mini.

Any mac or PC computer will allow you to view it. You get to print one copy for free. I'm sure you can find a Fedex/Kinkos or whatever.

D'oh, I forgot that they released it in .epub format.

rigeld2 wrote:
It's a permissive rule set (like any rule set must be). I've cited permission to use codexes. Are you just going to pretend such permission exists for FW books?

It's been cited over and over again. The only "problem" with it is that it hasn't been printed in the place you want it to be printed in, but that's only a problem if you assume GW has a policy that the only things that are official are the ones explicitly mentioned in the original core rulebook, instead of their actual policy of publishing new stuff and saying "this is part of the game now".

Difficult to acquire != too expensive. You'll note I never mentioned price. You can have fun tilting at that windmill but you're right - it's a bad argument.

If you're not talking about price then you certainly don't have an argument about them being difficult to acquire. If you have the money they're no more difficult to buy than any other GW products.

rigeld2 wrote:
You can have fun tilting at that windmill but you're right - it's a bad argument.

Especially with codex prices the way they are (+ supplements).

 Polonius wrote:
Simply put, FW can call itself whatever it likes, but it's not the source of the authority to make rules legal.

The thing is, FW calls itself whatever GW likes. Which kind of breaks down your third clause there.

 pretre wrote:

 Manchu wrote:

 Polonius wrote:
But that doens't make it 100% so.

One wonders just how much more explicit FW will have to be.

I don't think FW being explicit helps. FW could say anything they wanted and people would still argue. GW (I know, I know) itself has to do it.

If GW wanted to end this once and for all, they could put up an allies matrix and an official statement on their website saying 'The following FW units and books are official 40k units and usable in all 40k games.'

See my point here:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Tthe main rule book actually mentions that you can play with things other than an army list from a codex (to include a modified army list).

For anyone who doubts me, just flip back to page 108 in the main rulebook and look under the section that says "The Army List":

The Rules wrote:With the points limit agreed, players need to pick their forces. The best way to do this is to make use of the army list in the relevant codex, although, of course, players are free to either adapt the army lists or use their own system as they wish...

Seeing as FW materials change the army list I'd say that's all the proof you need. Coincidentally it also works for homebrew as well.

You can "alter" your army list with FW units as per the main rulebook and yet people still argue it.

 Manchu wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
You can have fun tilting at that windmill but you're right - it's a bad argument.

Especially with codex prices the way they are (+ supplements).

 Polonius wrote:
Simply put, FW can call itself whatever it likes, but it's not the source of the authority to make rules legal.

The thing is, FW calls itself whatever GW likes. Which kind of breaks down your third clause there.

Sure, in the sense that GW owns both FW and the 40k design studio. But when nearly everybody refers to "GW" rules, they mean those that come from the 40k design studio. And without knowing more about the communication between FW and the studio, i'm not comfortable assuming that everybody is on the same page.

rigeld2 wrote:

Poly Ranger wrote:
Isn't a codex 'an outside source supplement' in relation to the rulebook?

... which the rule book allows you to use on page 108.
What codexes does FW publish? (hint: none)

108 also says you're allowed to alter the army list and even use something other than the army list to play your army, but it seems we ignore the rest of that sentence when we want to selective interpret things to restrict choices.

 Polonius wrote:
And without knowing more about the communication between FW and the studio, i'm not comfortable assuming that everybody is on the same page.

Understandably so considering that there is debate about whether everyone in the studio itself is on the same page. But with that specifically in mind, let's recall that 40k is not intended to be the most tightly written and competitive ruleset on the market. So hypothetical balance arguments, which so often end up getting a lot of play in these threads, really shouldn't be on the table at all.

If we were talking about PP on the other hand ...

 Purifier wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
The argument that this one rules document is official but everything else isn't is just absurd.

That's an absurd thing to say. It states this in this one and not in the others. If anything, saying that because one book has an officiallity policy everything does no matter what it says is the absurd statement.

That said, I'm quite happy to play Forgeworld and my group does to a very minor extent without any complaining. (no full armies but an odd vehicle or armament.)

If GW wanted to make forgeworld feel 101% legit, all they'd have to do was to add Death Korps and Elyssian Drop Troops and those bull space marines (am I missing anyone?) to the ally matrix. That, I think, would have sealed the deal for most anyone.

Death Korps and Elysian Drop Troops are on the ally matrix.

They take up the same slot as Imperial Guard. It says so, right in their rules.

Thanks furyou miko, I had meant to post something like that but got sidetracked.

 Peregrine wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
It's a permissive rule set (like any rule set must be). I've cited permission to use codexes. Are you just going to pretend such permission exists for FW books?

It's been cited over and over again. The only "problem" with it is that it hasn't been printed in the place you want it to be printed in, but that's only a problem if you assume GW has a policy that the only things that are official are the ones explicitly mentioned in the original core rulebook, instead of their actual policy of publishing new stuff and saying "this is part of the game now".

Yes, I have a problem with someone bootstrapping themselves into the game and your assumption that it's valid.

Difficult to acquire != too expensive. You'll note I never mentioned price. You can have fun tilting at that windmill but you're right - it's a bad argument.

If you're not talking about price then you certainly don't have an argument about them being difficult to acquire. If you have the money they're no more difficult to buy than any other GW products.

Really? I can go to my FLGS and buy any of the FW books?
Wow that's news. Thanks for telling me!
Oh - you meant over the internet? Oh. But that's more difficult than just going down the street and buying them like I do for my other GW products. It's like your statement was incorrect or something.

 Polonius wrote:
But when nearly everybody refers to "GW" rules, they mean those that come from the 40k design studio.

But where is the evidence that GW draws this line and considers some of their brand names to be different? It seems like this has been invented entirely by certain players.

And without knowing more about the communication between FW and the studio, i'm not comfortable assuming that everybody is on the same page.

This is GW we're talking about, and we all know how much they love their lawyers and total control over everything. If their FW brand was publishing "this is official" statements without permission GW management would shut it down immediately.

 Manchu wrote:

 Polonius wrote:
And without knowing more about the communication between FW and the studio, i'm not comfortable assuming that everybody is on the same page.

Understandably so considering that there is debate about whether everyone in the studio itself is on the same page. But with that specifically in mind, let's recall that 40k is not intended to be the most tightly written and competitive ruleset on the market. So hypothetical balance arguments, which so often end up getting a lot of play in these threads, really shouldn't be on the table at all.

If we were talking about PP on the other hand ...

I'm not arguing balance. I'm saying that its wierd that some 40k rules come from the GW store/web page, and are all produced by the design studio. And then some other ones are produced and marketed by different people. That's a difference, and I can sympathize with the argument that until the people in charge of 40k rules say FW dandy, FW's view is less persuasive.

This thread is like the moron olympics.

"You can't use FW because it's not in the Rules Book!"

"Yes, I can because [this] and you have to let me!"

"Nutjobs won't allow it until GW says so!"

"herp-derp-derp"

"FW isn't a part of the core game!"

"Show me where it explicitly says that! SHOW ME! Citation! CITATIONNNN!"



Good God! How do you people even function in the real world?

rigeld2 wrote:
Yes, I have a problem with someone bootstrapping themselves into the game and your assumption that it's valid.

It's not much of an assumption to "assume" that when GW publishes a statement they mean it. You're the one assuming that GW must mention all legal sources of rules in the core rulebook despite no evidence at all that this is how GW runs their company.

Oh - you meant over the internet? Oh. But that's more difficult than just going down the street and buying them like I do for my other GW products.

Oh hey, kind of like the direct-only kits GW sells.

Plus, ordering online is easier than going to a store. Why spend an hour driving to and from a store when you can just buy online and have the package delivered right to your door?

 ClockworkZion wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Poly Ranger wrote:
Isn't a codex 'an outside source supplement' in relation to the rulebook?

... which the rule book allows you to use on page 108.
What codexes does FW publish? (hint: none)

108 also says you're allowed to alter the army list and even use something other than the army list to play your army, but it seems we ignore the rest of that sentence when we want to selective interpret things to restrict choices.

The rulebook also says to 4+ on any disagreement. So let's just pretend that we only apply what's actually written. Or we can have a game and I'll ask for a 4+ on literally everything you do.
Also, you're ignoring that - according to the actual rules and not CZ40k -

p108 wrote:If you're using the codex,then you'll need to know about Force Organisation - sometimes referred to as Force Org.

So let's not selectively ignore things. You don't have a Force Org when you play without a Codex.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Polonius wrote:
But when nearly everybody refers to "GW" rules, they mean those that come from the 40k design studio.

But where is the evidence that GW draws this line and considers some of their brand names to be different? It seems like this has been invented entirely by certain players.

Probably when they sell them on different websites, through different channels, and with totally different business models.

This is GW we're talking about, and we all know how much they love their lawyers and total control over everything. If their FW brand was publishing "this is official" statements without permission GW management would shut it down immediately.

Well, GW owns FW, they don't need to sue, so that's a bit of a silly point. I think GW execs are worried about the value of the brand, not the nature of the rules.

rigeld2 wrote:
You don't have a Force Org when you play without a Codex.

Yes you do. FW army lists provide a FOC, and individual units are taken as part of a codex army so they use the FOC of their "parent" codex.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Polonius wrote:
[Probably when they sell them on different websites, through different channels, and with totally different business models.

They sell supplements through the ipad store, which is a different source with a totally different business model. Yet somehow we don't see complaints about how Farsight Tau aren't "official" and you need special permission to use them.

Well, GW owns FW, they don't need to sue, so that's a bit of a silly point. I think GW execs are worried about the value of the brand, not the nature of the rules.

They wouldn't sue, but they would tell FW to stop doing it. And yes, it potentially hurts the value of the brand if you have people randomly adding statements about what is and isn't official.

rigeld2 wrote:


If you're not talking about price then you certainly don't have an argument about them being difficult to acquire. If you have the money they're no more difficult to buy than any other GW products.

Really? I can go to my FLGS and buy any of the FW books?
Wow that's news. Thanks for telling me!
Oh - you meant over the internet? Oh. But that's more difficult than just going down the street and buying them like I do for my other GW products. It's like your statement was incorrect or something.

rigeld2 wrote:
The rulebook also says to 4+ on any disagreement. So let's just pretend that we only apply what's actually written. Or we can have a game and I'll ask for a 4+ on literally everything you do.
Also, you're ignoring that - according to the actual rules and not CZ40k -

Just because you're wrong doesn't mean you need to start with the hyperbole. You only 4+ when you and your opponent disagree on the rules. You can try and dice off for everything but no one will play you.
Here's the actual facts: FW alters the army list by giving you more options to take in the army list. This is allowed by page 108. You can argue otherwise or not play me but one of us is following the rules and the other is not. And it isn't me.

 Peregrine wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
Yes, I have a problem with someone bootstrapping themselves into the game and your assumption that it's valid.

It's not much of an assumption to "assume" that when GW publishes a statement they mean it. You're the one assuming that GW must mention all legal sources of rules in the core rulebook despite no evidence at all that this is how GW runs their company.

It's like you've failed to actually understand what I'm saying. Yes, exactly like that in fact.
I'm not assuming that. At all. Your crusade has blinded you to the fact that I'm actually a neutral party. Let's look at the post I originally replied to in this thread:

Poly Ranger wrote:
Isn't a codex 'an outside source supplement' in relation to the rulebook?

Which was replying to:

Makumba wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
Like a codex?

nope , because the rule book says that the source for rules are codex and the codex are made by GW , the same firm that makes the game and not an outside source sister firm .

(my edit to cut irrelevant text)
Please read and understand my point. Page 108 includes Codexes. It does not include any other book. So trying to use the argument that you're allowed to by the rules is simply and indisputably false.

Oh - you meant over the internet? Oh. But that's more difficult than just going down the street and buying them like I do for my other GW products.

Oh hey, kind of like the direct-only kits GW sells.

Oh hey, and? That's not - and I'll quote you so I'm not putting words in your mouth - "any other GW products." That's some GW products.

Plus, ordering online is easier than going to a store. Why spend an hour driving to and from a store when you can just buy online and have the package delivered right to your door?

Because I play there and want them to stay open. And it's not an hour. Plus - I can call him and he'll have what I want waiting for me when I get there - even more convenient than buying online.

 Peregrine wrote:

They sell supplements through the ipad store, which is a different source with a totally different business model. Yet somehow we don't see complaints about how Farsight Tau aren't "official" and you need special permission to use them.

Agreed. Supplements work only because of the same rules that FW books do: the permissions given on page 108. If you can't take FW then you can't take supplements (and vice versa) because they need the same rule to work.

 Polonius wrote:
I think a lot of the blowback you get in these threads isn't about stuff being "legal" or not, but simply an insulted reaction to being told that the way they play is lesser than somebody elses.

 ClockworkZion wrote:
You can argue otherwise or not play me but one of us is following the rules and the other is not.

aaand there you go.

 Furyou Miko wrote:
So, you're trying to tell me that my Sisters of Battle aren't kosher for standard 40k, since you can't buy their codex or their models in your local store?

No - they have a codex and so are by definition allowed.

Anyway, if it's an FLGS you're talking about, then that's the manager's decision not to sell them, not GW's decision. GW stores often do sell Imperial Armour books. I'll get a photo of the ones for sale in my local store tomorrow if you want.

Well - no, it's GW/FW's decision. Since they won't sell FW books at a discount a non-GW store will be guaranteed to lose money on any that they order (since they have to pay shipping). GW stores might not have to pay shipping (I'm not sure) but all of the local ones (more than one) have told me that they can't order them for the shelves anymore and they can't get me free shipping unless I'm over the FW price for free shipping (like they used to be able to).

Zion is Schroedinger's Cultist?

Some people don't want to play with FW. That won't ever change, despite whatever wording FW chooses to use.


Bring it to any game I'm at, just have the rules with you and the proper model.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
The rulebook also says to 4+ on any disagreement. So let's just pretend that we only apply what's actually written. Or we can have a game and I'll ask for a 4+ on literally everything you do.
Also, you're ignoring that - according to the actual rules and not CZ40k -

Just because you're wrong doesn't mean you need to start with the hyperbole. You only 4+ when you and your opponent disagree on the rules. You can try and dice off for everything but no one will play you.
Here's the actual facts: FW alters the army list by giving you more options to take in the army list. This is allowed by page 108. You can argue otherwise or not play me but one of us is following the rules and the other is not. And it isn't me.

Wow. I'm wrong because you say so.

feth this, I'm out. I thought I was debating with intelligent, polite people.

 Polonius wrote:
That's a difference, and I can sympathize with the argument that until the people in charge of 40k rules say FW dandy, FW's view is less persuasive.

I agree with Peregrine, so far as I understand him, that this is a distinction manufactured to suit the forgone conclusion that there must be a distinction. The fact of any distinction between GW and FW in the first place is almost certainly to do with historical/business reasons, as per the distinction between GW and Citadel, rather than anything to do with the rules' validity. To spin this out otherwise, especially in light of FW itself being ever more clear (again, I get the difference between "almost certainly" and "absolutely certainly") smacks of the rankest artifice and is not, as a matter of rules discussion, worthy of intelligent sympathy.

rigeld2 wrote:

 Furyou Miko wrote:
So, you're trying to tell me that my Sisters of Battle aren't kosher for standard 40k, since you can't buy their codex or their models in your local store?

No - they have a codex and so are by definition allowed.

Anyway, if it's an FLGS you're talking about, then that's the manager's decision not to sell them, not GW's decision. GW stores often do sell Imperial Armour books. I'll get a photo of the ones for sale in my local store tomorrow if you want.

Well - no, it's GW/FW's decision. Since they won't sell FW books at a discount a non-GW store will be guaranteed to lose money on any that they order (since they have to pay shipping). GW stores might not have to pay shipping (I'm not sure) but all of the local ones (more than one) have told me that they can't order them for the shelves anymore and they can't get me free shipping unless I'm over the FW price for free shipping (like they used to be able to).

But you can't buy their codex in the store. It's just as hard to get hold of as any Imperial Armour book... as are their models.

You're ignoring half your own argument for the sake of disputing mine, and that just doesn't work. Either the prerequisite for an army being official is "The ability to buy the army list in my FLGS" or it's not. Which is it?

 Purifier wrote:

 Polonius wrote:
I think a lot of the blowback you get in these threads isn't about stuff being "legal" or not, but simply an insulted reaction to being told that the way they play is lesser than somebody elses.

 ClockworkZion wrote:
You can argue otherwise or not play me but one of us is following the rules and the other is not.

aaand there you go.

I like how every other example from either side is skipped and they use me instead.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Furyou Miko wrote:
Zion is Schroedinger's Cultist?

Apparently. Also apparently I'm the only example of phrasing things that way.

 Peregrine wrote:

They sell supplements through the ipad store, which is a different source with a totally different business model. Yet somehow we don't see complaints about how Farsight Tau aren't "official" and you need special permission to use them.

Well, they are distributed through a different channel, but they are promoted on the main GW webpage:
http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/content/article.jsp?aId=22200010a

I couldn't find a link to FW on the webpage at all.

I guess I see a concious attempt by GW (as a whole) to keep FW distinct, which is why IMO a zealous approach to GW legality is ill advised.

Well, GW owns FW, they don't need to sue, so that's a bit of a silly point. I think GW execs are worried about the value of the brand, not the nature of the rules.

They wouldn't sue, but they would tell FW to stop doing it. And yes, it potentially hurts the value of the brand if you have people randomly adding statements about what is and isn't official.

Maybe, but I really doubt it. Nobody cares what if their rules are theoretically official, they care if they can actually use them.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Purifier wrote:

 Polonius wrote:
I think a lot of the blowback you get in these threads isn't about stuff being "legal" or not, but simply an insulted reaction to being told that the way they play is lesser than somebody elses.

 ClockworkZion wrote:
You can argue otherwise or not play me but one of us is following the rules and the other is not.

aaand there you go.

I like how every other example from either side is skipped and they use me instead.

I thought it was a perfect example of absolutism condensed into one scathing sentence

rigeld2 wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
The rulebook also says to 4+ on any disagreement. So let's just pretend that we only apply what's actually written. Or we can have a game and I'll ask for a 4+ on literally everything you do.
Also, you're ignoring that - according to the actual rules and not CZ40k -

Just because you're wrong doesn't mean you need to start with the hyperbole. You only 4+ when you and your opponent disagree on the rules. You can try and dice off for everything but no one will play you.
Here's the actual facts: FW alters the army list by giving you more options to take in the army list. This is allowed by page 108. You can argue otherwise or not play me but one of us is following the rules and the other is not. And it isn't me.

Wow. I'm wrong because you say so.

feth this, I'm out. I thought I was debating with intelligent, polite people.

Your argument was never polite or intelligent. Don't get upset when someone points out you're not referencing the whole rule about what constitutes a "legal army list" and then points out that only selectively enforcing it isn't following the rules.

Like I said on page 1 of this thread, 108 gives you a lot of freedom on how you build a list. This can not be applied to homebrew but FW and supplements. Codex army lists are not the only "legal" way to play and to claim that 108 says so is not just a lie, but a damned lie.

 Polonius wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

They sell supplements through the ipad store, which is a different source with a totally different business model. Yet somehow we don't see complaints about how Farsight Tau aren't "official" and you need special permission to use them.

Well, they are distributed through a different channel, but they are promoted on the main GW webpage:
http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/content/article.jsp?aId=22200010a

I couldn't find a link to FW on the webpage at all.

I guess I see a concious attempt by GW (as a whole) to keep FW distinct, which is why IMO a zealous approach to GW legality is ill advised.

Well, GW owns FW, they don't need to sue, so that's a bit of a silly point. I think GW execs are worried about the value of the brand, not the nature of the rules.

They wouldn't sue, but they would tell FW to stop doing it. And yes, it potentially hurts the value of the brand if you have people randomly adding statements about what is and isn't official.

Maybe, but I really doubt it. Nobody cares what if their rules are theoretically official, they care if they can actually use them.

FW are regularly promoted on the GW blog. Oh hey, Sons of Horus is the first picture on today's post! Look, FW models on GW! They also have a link to FW at the bottom of their website.

 Manchu wrote:

 Polonius wrote:
That's a difference, and I can sympathize with the argument that until the people in charge of 40k rules say FW dandy, FW's view is less persuasive.

I agree with Peregrine, so far as I understand him, that this is a distinction manufactured to suit the forgone conclusion that there must be a distinction. The fact of any distinction between GW and FW in the first place is almost certainly to do with historical/business reasons, as per the distinction between GW and Citadel, rather than anything to do with the rules' validity. To spin this out otherwise, especially in light of FW itself being ever more clear (again, I get the difference between "almost certainly" and "absolutely certainly") smacks of the rankest artifice and is not, as a matter of rules discussion, worthy of intelligent sympathy.

Really? You honeslty don't see the possbility that GW is conciously keeping FW seperate as a rules making organization?

I think keeping FW seperate does a lot of good: it simplifies things somewhat for new players, it allows a clear cut line in the sand that doen'st involve offical "advanced rules," and it allows for more creativity and less balance when crafting rules.

the simple nature of FW production (far more laborious and finnicky) and distribution are strong indicators that FW is not completely integrated. After all, there's no reason that GW couldn't distribute the books, if not the models, other than they choose not to. Why make that choice, if not to preserve the division.

 Polonius wrote:
I couldn't find a link to FW on the webpage at all.

Bottom of the page, same line as the Black Library link. They're also in the drop down country select box.

 Polonius wrote:
I couldn't find a link to FW on the webpage at all.

There's one at the bottom of the page. And the same blog that promoted the ipad supplements also promotes FW releases.

I guess I see a concious attempt by GW (as a whole) to keep FW distinct, which is why IMO a zealous approach to GW legality is ill advised.

There's a separation of sales, most likely so that kids don't get expensive resin kits they can't handle because their non-gamer parents don't know the difference between a plastic space marine kit and a FW space marine kit. In terms of rules there isn't any real separation, GW just publishes stuff and says "here, go play with it".

Maybe, but I really doubt it. Nobody cares what if their rules are theoretically official, they care if they can actually use them.

But it's not just theory. If GW gets complaints from people who are buying FW stuff and being told it isn't legal that's bad for their brand image, and they'd tell FW to stop putting the "this is official" statement on their rules. The fact that FW keeps doing it is pretty clear proof that GW management is ok with it.

I'm getting this general gist - 'you can't use forge world because it's too expensive and there are too many sources to keep on top of them all for it to be considered fair.'
Ok may I remind you how rediculously expensive GW models are anyway? And there are THIRTEEN (i think I got that right), core codices, not to mention other supplements. So if you are a dedicated gamer you will have come across characters and units which you are not totally used to. Also you will have already invested a substantial amount into the hobby. So I don't really see these arguments being valid.
Furthermore, just a friendly piece of advice to those saying that if you cannot buy it at your local gw store it is not accessible... stop buying from your local gw store - its 30% cheaper elsewhere! Imagine you're army 30% larger. Bet you could get plenty of fw models with what you save ;-).

 Purifier wrote:
I thought it was a perfect example of absolutism condensed into one scathing sentence

Which was a follow up to being told that "we're not playing CZ40k" because the person I was replying to didn't want to admit the rest of a rule was just as important as the part he was claiming. I was already being damned for it so I went in without the gloves on.

 Polonius wrote:
You honeslty don't see the possbility that GW is conciously keeping FW seperate as a rules making organization?

Careful, that's a different question. The question to hand is whether rules published by FW are invalid for play in 40k simply as a matter of being published by FW.

-Shrike- wrote:
]
FW are regularly promoted on the GW blog. Oh hey, Sons of Horus is the first picture on today's post! Look, FW models on GW! They also have a link to FW at the bottom of their website.

Ah, there it is. I thought I had seen it at one point.

 Peregrine wrote:
And the same blog that promoted the ipad supplements also promotes FW releases.

Not to mention the monthly catalog, WD.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Purifier wrote:
I thought it was a perfect example of absolutism condensed into one scathing sentence

Which was a follow up to being told that "we're not playing CZ40k" because the person I was replying to didn't want to admit the rest of a rule was just as important as the part he was claiming. I was already being damned for it so I went in without the gloves on.

I think that sort of validates my observation.

 Manchu wrote:

 Polonius wrote:
You honeslty don't see the possbility that GW is conciously keeping FW seperate as a rules making organization?

Careful, that's a different question. The question to hand is whether rules published by FW are invalid for play in 40k simply as a matter of being published by FW.

Well, my first post in this thread is that I'm leery of any viewpoint that refuses to even acknowledge the possbility that another view could be valid.

I feel both validated in my leeriness, and glad that we have such well thought out arguments for a purely theoretical discussion.

 Manchu wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
And the same blog that promoted the ipad supplements also promotes FW releases.

Not to mention the monthly catalog, WD.

And at Games Day, and it's sold at Warhammer World and they do their events there too...

It's almost as if they're supported by the rest of GW.

I love the forge world stuff even though I don't buy it. I like the variety it adds to games. AWESOME.

 Purifier wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Purifier wrote:
I thought it was a perfect example of absolutism condensed into one scathing sentence

Which was a follow up to being told that "we're not playing CZ40k" because the person I was replying to didn't want to admit the rest of a rule was just as important as the part he was claiming. I was already being damned for it so I went in without the gloves on.

I think that sort of validates my observation.

That both sides do the same thing?

So can I use my Mortis dreads now?

 sing your life wrote:
So can I use my Mortis dreads now?

I'll play you.

Poly Ranger wrote:
I'm getting this general gist - 'you can't use forge world because it's too expensive and there are too many sources to keep on top of them all for it to be considered fair.'
Ok may I remind you how rediculously expensive GW models are anyway? And there are THIRTEEN (i think I got that right), core codices, not to mention other supplements. So if you are a dedicated gamer you will have come across characters and units which you are not totally used to. Also you will have already invested a substantial amount into the hobby. So I don't really see these arguments being valid.
Furthermore, just a friendly piece of advice to those saying that if you cannot buy it at your local gw store it is not accessible... stop buying from your local gw store - its 30% cheaper elsewhere! Imagine you're army 30% larger. Bet you could get plenty of fw models with what you save ;-).

"It's already taking up almost all of your time and money, might aswell take the rest of both too"

That's one way to look at it.

However, I didn't even understand that Forgeworld was anything but awesome replacement models until I was a few hundred euros into this hobby. I don't think I'm alone in this. So we've invested into something thinking we saw the whole picture, and we liked that picture. Then comes these 12 books, and you're like "maaaan, I already worked my way through that heavy ass rulebook!"

It's a lot to take in, and the fact that you thought it was the best 1½ weeks of your life getting into this stuff doesn't mean everyone else will agree.

I think the arguments are perfectly valid and disagree completely with what you are saying.

Also: Sponsoring our FLGS is a large part of this hobby for a lot of us. They lend us store space for games and we show loyalty back.

 Polonius wrote:
I'm leery of any viewpoint that refuses to even acknowledge the possbility that another view could be valid

I quite agree. I prefer an argument that demonstrates a viewpoint's lack of actual rather than potential validity. Hence I conclude that the purported distinction between 40k and this other game people think FW publishes is meaningless rather than arguing from that conclusion.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Purifier wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Purifier wrote:
I thought it was a perfect example of absolutism condensed into one scathing sentence

Which was a follow up to being told that "we're not playing CZ40k" because the person I was replying to didn't want to admit the rest of a rule was just as important as the part he was claiming. I was already being damned for it so I went in without the gloves on.

I think that sort of validates my observation.

That both sides do the same thing?

Of course. Polo's quote didn't take any sides and I wholeheartedly agree with him. I took yours because I thought it was the sharpest core of what Polo was talking about. It was short, concise and the aim of it seemed not to prove a point but to simply say "you're wrong, prrrrrrt!"

 Purifier wrote:
and the aim of it seemed not to prove a point but to simply say "you're wrong, prrrrrrt!"

Pointing out that someone is wrong is not necessarily a bad thing. Now this prrrrrt stuff, that's another matter.

 Purifier wrote:
Of course. Polo's quote didn't take any sides and I wholeheartedly agree with him. I took yours because I thought it was the sharpest core of what Polo was talking about. It was short, concise and the aim of it seemed not to prove a point but to simply say "you're wrong, prrrrrrt!"

Only the non-contextual part of the post you used though. In full context I'm arguing that his stated interpretation of the rules are incorrect and why I belive so, out of context I'm just being an ass.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Purifier wrote:
Of course. Polo's quote didn't take any sides and I wholeheartedly agree with him. I took yours because I thought it was the sharpest core of what Polo was talking about. It was short, concise and the aim of it seemed not to prove a point but to simply say "you're wrong, prrrrrrt!"

Only the non-contextual part of the post you used though. In full context I'm arguing that his stated interpretation of the rules are incorrect and why I belive so, out of context I'm just being an ass.

True, but in context you still were. You weren't just being an ass in context, but you still sorta were.

Polonius wrote:

 Manchu wrote:

 Polonius wrote:
That's a difference, and I can sympathize with the argument that until the people in charge of 40k rules say FW dandy, FW's view is less persuasive.

I agree with Peregrine, so far as I understand him, that this is a distinction manufactured to suit the forgone conclusion that there must be a distinction. The fact of any distinction between GW and FW in the first place is almost certainly to do with historical/business reasons, as per the distinction between GW and Citadel, rather than anything to do with the rules' validity. To spin this out otherwise, especially in light of FW itself being ever more clear (again, I get the difference between "almost certainly" and "absolutely certainly") smacks of the rankest artifice and is not, as a matter of rules discussion, worthy of intelligent sympathy.

Really? You honeslty don't see the possbility that GW is conciously keeping FW seperate as a rules making organization?

I think keeping FW seperate does a lot of good: it simplifies things somewhat for new players, it allows a clear cut line in the sand that doen'st involve offical "advanced rules," and it allows for more creativity and less balance when crafting rules.

the simple nature of FW production (far more laborious and finnicky) and distribution are strong indicators that FW is not completely integrated. After all, there's no reason that GW couldn't distribute the books, if not the models, other than they choose not to. Why make that choice, if not to preserve the division.

There is a very simple reason that Forge World production is not completely integrated with GW production (the rules are, by the way - both are published by Games Workshop PLC):

Taxes.

Forge World is a separate company from Games Workshop for tax purposes. It has most of the same Board of Directors. It's based on the same Industrial Park. It uses the same printing presses and ISBN licence. It's registered as a separate company.

 Manchu wrote:

 Polonius wrote:
I'm leery of any viewpoint that refuses to even acknowledge the possbility that another view could be valid

I quite agree. I prefer an argument that demonstrates a viewpoint's lack of actual rather than potential validity. Hence I conclude that the purported distinction between 40k and this other game people think FW publishes is meaningless rather than arguing from that conclusion.

I'm glad you enoy a certainty about a decision GW has made that I would rarely enjoy about anything. I really am. It's been my experience that they couldn't pour piss out of a boot with instructions on the heel, and so I assume that they do everything in a sort of fog.

 Polonius wrote:
I'm glad you enoy a certainty about a decision GW has made that I would rarely enjoy about anything. I really am. It's been my experience that they couldn't pour piss out of a boot with instructions on the heel, and so I assume that they do everything in a sort of fog.

So what you're saying is that the last remaining anti-FW argument is "you can never be absolutely 100% sure about anything"?

 Purifier wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Purifier wrote:
Of course. Polo's quote didn't take any sides and I wholeheartedly agree with him. I took yours because I thought it was the sharpest core of what Polo was talking about. It was short, concise and the aim of it seemed not to prove a point but to simply say "you're wrong, prrrrrrt!"

Only the non-contextual part of the post you used though. In full context I'm arguing that his stated interpretation of the rules are incorrect and why I belive so, out of context I'm just being an ass.

True, but in context you still were. You weren't just being an ass in context, but you still sorta were.

Perhaps, but taking me out of context like that just paints an unfair pictures of a child with their fingers in their ears screaming that they're right and the other person is wrong when the tone of the original post was different.

I also used "" because I was trying to be light-hearted with that statement and not brow beat anyone. But that doesn't always come across well online.

 Purifier wrote:
However, I didn't even understand that Forgeworld was anything but awesome replacement models until I was a few hundred euros into this hobby. I don't think I'm alone in this. So we've invested into something thinking we saw the whole picture, and we liked that picture. Then comes these 12 books, and you're like "maaaan, I already worked my way through that heavy ass rulebook!"

It's a lot to take in, and the fact that you thought it was the best 1½ weeks of your life getting into this stuff doesn't mean everyone else will agree.

Which is potentially a reason to have a no-FW house rule. It doesn't, however, mean that the house rule is the way the game as published by GW works. It's no different than refusing to play against flyers because you've spent lots of money on your 5th edition army and don't want to have to spend even more money on buying your own flyers and AA units to compete.

Also: Sponsoring our FLGS is a large part of this hobby for a lot of us. They lend us store space for games and we show loyalty back.

Your personal decision to pay more for a product to thank your FLGS doesn't make it difficult to buy FW stuff.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Polonius wrote:
I'm glad you enoy a certainty about a decision GW has made that I would rarely enjoy about anything. I really am. It's been my experience that they couldn't pour piss out of a boot with instructions on the heel, and so I assume that they do everything in a sort of fog.

So what you're saying is that the last remaining anti-FW argument is "you can never be absolutely 100% sure about anything"?

Nope, not even close.

I'm saying that arguments that excude absolute certainty annoy me. Only zealots are 100% certain of anything, and I don't argue with zealots.

I'm not saying you are wrong, I'm saying you claim to be right in a way that makes me ignore you.

And as a person who is persuasive for a living, it bugs me watching somebody take the achingly easy claim of "FW is meant for all 40k play" and botch it.

 Polonius wrote:

Nope, not even close.

I'm saying that arguments that excude absolute certainty annoy me. Only zealots are 100% certain of anything, and I don't argue with zealots.

I'm not saying you are wrong, I'm saying you claim to be right in a way that makes me ignore you.

And as a person who is persuasive for a living, it bugs me watching somebody take the achingly easy claim of "FW is meant for all 40k play" and botch it.

I'm 100% certain that electricity works by the movement of a charge between atomic particles, does that make me a zealot?

Seriously though, ignoring people because you don't like their tone doesn't make you gain any sort of high ground but instead means you willfully and intentionally ignore arguments you don't agree. That doesn't make you better, it makes you close-minded which is just as bad as being a zealot.

 Polonius wrote:
I'm glad you enoy a certainty about a decision GW has made that I would rarely enjoy about anything. I really am. It's been my experience that they couldn't pour piss out of a boot with instructions on the heel, and so I assume that they do everything in a sort of fog.

I think you have us mixed up. You're the one saying they have carefully maintained a distinction between what's published under the GW and FW imprints for the sake of sound business strategies. Meanwhile I'm saying they never really intended such a thing and have been fumblingly clarifying as much for a long while now.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Polonius wrote:

Nope, not even close.

I'm saying that arguments that excude absolute certainty annoy me. Only zealots are 100% certain of anything, and I don't argue with zealots.

I'm not saying you are wrong, I'm saying you claim to be right in a way that makes me ignore you.

And as a person who is persuasive for a living, it bugs me watching somebody take the achingly easy claim of "FW is meant for all 40k play" and botch it.

I'm 100% certain that electricity works by the movement of a charge between atomic particles, does that make me a zealot?

Seriously though, ignoring people because you don't like their tone doesn't make you gain any sort of high ground but instead means you willfully and intentionally ignore arguments you don't agree. That doesn't make you better, it makes you close-minded which is just as bad as being a zealot.

I don't ignore their argument, I ignore them. As people. Rarely is only one person making an argument for any given point.

And it's not just tone... it's attitude. A person that is 100% certain isn't looking for a discussion, they are looking for converts. that's fine, and go forth, but I'm not gonna engage on it.

The real question whether tournaments can still ban FW. As long as tourneys can legally ban FW, I won't consider playing with it.

 Manchu wrote:

 Polonius wrote:
I'm glad you enoy a certainty about a decision GW has made that I would rarely enjoy about anything. I really am. It's been my experience that they couldn't pour piss out of a boot with instructions on the heel, and so I assume that they do everything in a sort of fog.

I think you have us mixed up. You're the one saying they have carefully maintained a distinction between what's published under the GW and FW imprints for the sake of sound business strategies. Meanwhile I'm saying they never really intended such a thing and have been fumblingly clarifying as much for a long while now.

I think that I'm not sure how seperate they want them to be. I think they've maintained distinctions in some ways, and blurred them in others. I think the decision to have FW books print "for official 40k use only" could have involved a formal meeting with pros and cons, or the FW team may have asked Jervis in the hall if it was cool.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Martel732 wrote:
The real question whether tournaments can still ban FW. As long as tourneys can legally ban FW, I won't consider playing with it.

Tournaments could ban anything they want. I wouldn't hold your breath on that.

Martel732 wrote:
The real question whether tournaments can still ban FW. As long as tourneys can legally ban FW, I won't consider playing with it.

Tournaments can do whatever they want. There's no law against banning rules.

 Purifier wrote:

Poly Ranger wrote:
I'm getting this general gist - 'you can't use forge world because it's too expensive and there are too many sources to keep on top of them all for it to be considered fair.'
Ok may I remind you how rediculously expensive GW models are anyway? And there are THIRTEEN (i think I got that right), core codices, not to mention other supplements. So if you are a dedicated gamer you will have come across characters and units which you are not totally used to. Also you will have already invested a substantial amount into the hobby. So I don't really see these arguments being valid.
Furthermore, just a friendly piece of advice to those saying that if you cannot buy it at your local gw store it is not accessible... stop buying from your local gw store - its 30% cheaper elsewhere! Imagine you're army 30% larger. Bet you could get plenty of fw models with what you save ;-).

"It's already taking up almost all of your time and money, might aswell take the rest of both too"

That's one way to look at it.

However, I didn't even understand that Forgeworld was anything but awesome replacement models until I was a few hundred euros into this hobby. I don't think I'm alone in this. So we've invested into something thinking we saw the whole picture, and we liked that picture. Then comes these 12 books, and you're like "maaaan, I already worked my way through that heavy ass rulebook!"

It's a lot to take in, and the fact that you thought it was the best 1½ weeks of your life getting into this stuff doesn't mean everyone else will agree.

I think the arguments are perfectly valid and disagree completely with what you are saying.

Also: Sponsoring our FLGS is a large part of this hobby for a lot of us. They lend us store space for games and we show loyalty back.

If it took you only one and a half weeks to get your head around the rules I am amazed. I've been playing since 1999 and I still screw up loads (admittedly I had a 7 year break)! Plus with books, supplements and magazines coming out all the time, it is constantly evolving!
It's brilliant in that respect as it always keeps you on your toes. Admittedly it makes it uncomfortable for those who don't like change. But everybody has a different preference I suppose.
I do not own a single FW model, however, I am considering investing in some, and if an opponent won't let me use what I've bought with my hard earned cash, then I will personally consider them a total b*ll end! But thats just an opinion based on subjective emmotions. I know next to nothing about DE or Deamons but I'd love to find out about them by playing them, not be quaking in my boots because they have unknown aspects for me (not saying you would so don't take that personally). Yes I know they are without argument legitimized by gw, but the end result would still be the same - a player facing an unknown aspect, and I like it - very realistic in a battles sense.
I admire your loyalty to your FLGS.

 Polonius wrote:
I think the decision to have FW books print "for official 40k use only" could have involved a formal meeting with pros and cons, or the FW team may have asked Jervis in the hall if it was cool.

Sure, but if "ask Jervis in the hall" is GW's policy for determining whether new releases are official or not then that's just how it is. You can't argue for "ambiguity" in the situation because GW's decision-making process isn't the one you want them to use.

Martel732 wrote:
The real question whether tournaments can still ban FW. As long as tourneys can legally ban FW, I won't consider playing with it.

Tournaments can legally ban anything they want. What do you think GW is going to do, sue a TO for not running their tournament the way GW wants? The ability of third-party TOs to change the rules for their events is completely irrelevant to this discussion.

(And of course by that standard you can't play 40k at all since every codex army can be banned by tournaments.)

 Polonius wrote:
I think they've maintained distinctions in some ways, and blurred them in others.

As far as I know, the HH books are a great example of this in contrast to the recent IA books/new editions.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Purifier wrote:
However, I didn't even understand that Forgeworld was anything but awesome replacement models until I was a few hundred euros into this hobby. I don't think I'm alone in this. So we've invested into something thinking we saw the whole picture, and we liked that picture. Then comes these 12 books, and you're like "maaaan, I already worked my way through that heavy ass rulebook!"

It's a lot to take in, and the fact that you thought it was the best 1½ weeks of your life getting into this stuff doesn't mean everyone else will agree.

Which is potentially a reason to have a no-FW house rule. It doesn't, however, mean that the house rule is the way the game as published by GW works. It's no different than refusing to play against flyers because you've spent lots of money on your 5th edition army and don't want to have to spend even more money on buying your own flyers and AA units to compete.

Also: Sponsoring our FLGS is a large part of this hobby for a lot of us. They lend us store space for games and we show loyalty back.

Your personal decision to pay more for a product to thank your FLGS doesn't make it difficult to buy FW stuff.

1) It's a good thing I never said it was!
2) Well, then I guess it's lucky I have never claimed it was!

I've stated in this thread, quite specifically my opinion on FW, and those two things are just something you seem to have labeled me with which I have never said nor even entertained the thought of.
You see things in black and white, Peregrine. Try not to.

He said those were bad reasons to not want to play against FW. I say they're not bad reasons, but rather quite good reasons.

Honestly, my opinion is that the page 108 rule isn't as obviously in their favour as the yay-sayers want it to be. It clearly allows for additions to the game, but FW still falls into this weird self-inflicted (and, I think, intentional) grey zone.

The real question seems to be "when I say Let's Play 40K, what is included in that statement per default and what isn't."
And that's gonna be different from group to group in hundreds of ways, so how is this one different in any way?

When I say that to my friends, it's understood, for example, that it's gonna be at my friend Filip's house. It's not in the rulebook, but that's where our table is. If I want to play at the FLGS, I'm gonna have to say that, as they will otherwise assume at Filip's house.

Martel732 wrote:
The real question whether tournaments can still ban FW. As long as tourneys can legally ban FW, I won't consider playing with it.

Tournaments can also flyers, that doesn't stop me from buying them.

Tournaments can declare that you can take no more of 1 of any unit that is not a Troops choice. It doesn't make it represntitive of the game as a whole in terms of what is or is not "legal" to play.

I like how no one has argued contrary to the point that codex supplements and FW use the same permissions to be playable in normal games.

And if it where really the case that GW realized they didn't give you permission to play with codex supplements in the rules we'd see an erratta to make it possible. The lack of such a thing is rather telling I believe as it shows that they didn't feel the need to say "you can use this now", but instead knew we understood that already. So why are we arguing different about the IA materials?

In my crew FW rules have always been accepted as part of the game.

*shrug* We like cool gak, what can i say ?

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Tthe main rule book actually mentions that you can play with things other than an army list from a codex (to include a modified army list).

For anyone who doubts me, just flip back to page 108 in the main rulebook and look under the section that says "The Army List":

The Rules wrote:With the points limit agreed, players need to pick their forces. The best way to do this is to make use of the army list in the relevant codex, although, of course, players are free to either adapt the army lists or use their own system as they wish...

Does that mean you will let people use whatever fandex's, rewrites, or whatever that they chose to do because the rule you quoted most definitely allows that.
As a note, I don't care if people use forgeworld or not, but you cannot say people must allow it just because a forgeworld publication says it is allowed.

I mean, the way I see these arguments being presented seems to be
1) You MUST let me use forgeworld
2) Nope, I don't have to play against anything I (or the TO in the case of a tournament) don't feel like.

Banbaji wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Tthe main rule book actually mentions that you can play with things other than an army list from a codex (to include a modified army list).

For anyone who doubts me, just flip back to page 108 in the main rulebook and look under the section that says "The Army List":

The Rules wrote:With the points limit agreed, players need to pick their forces. The best way to do this is to make use of the army list in the relevant codex, although, of course, players are free to either adapt the army lists or use their own system as they wish...

Does that mean you will let people use whatever fandex's, rewrites, or whatever that they chose to do because the rule you quoted most definitely allows that.
As a note, I don't care if people use forgeworld or not, but you cannot say people must allow it just because a forgeworld publication says it is allowed.

I'm not against playing fandexes. If you see my signature I've got an article on why homebrew is legal.

I look at FW and codex supplements falling in the "...players are free to... adapt the army lists..." portion of that rule as they both change the way the army lists work through new rules and models.

Banbaji wrote:
I mean, the way I see these arguments being presented seems to be
1) You MUST let me use forgeworld
2) Nope, I don't have to play against anything I (or the TO in the case of a tournament) don't feel like.

My argument is that FW is legal. I won't force anyone to play anyone to play anything, but we have rules that support allowing FW so claiming it to be "illegal" is pointless (at least in my mind). That said, tournaments can do what they want, and most of them do and that's fine. House rules are just as valid as everything else in the game.

 Peregrine wrote:
FW rules are part of the game, and your house rule against them is no less of a house rule than your house rule about having no more than one flyer per army.

You are wrong. I will offer nothing of substance to back up my assertion. You're also a hater and/or a WAAC tournament player, I guess (?).




That about cover it?

 ClockworkZion wrote:

My argument is that FW is legal. I won't force anyone to play anyone to play anything, but we have rules that support allowing FW so claiming it to be "illegal" is pointless. That said, tournaments can do what they want, and most of them do and that's fine. House rules are just as valid as everything else in the game.

I can agree with this. Though, you almost make this sound like a game designed to allow people to make modifications they feel are appropriate to maximize the fun they have.

Banbaji wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

My argument is that FW is legal. I won't force anyone to play anyone to play anything, but we have rules that support allowing FW so claiming it to be "illegal" is pointless. That said, tournaments can do what they want, and most of them do and that's fine. House rules are just as valid as everything else in the game.

I can agree with this. Though, you almost make this sound like a game designed to allow people to make modifications they feel are appropriate to maximize the fun they have.

I'm pretty sure that's exactly what they tried to do with this game actually.

Page 8, "Spirit of the Game" (bold parts are mine for emphasis):

The Rules wrote:Warhammer 40,000 may be somewhat different from any other game you have played. Above all, it's important to remember that the rules are just a framework to support an enjoyable game. Whether the battle ends in victory or defeat, your goal should always to be to enjoy the journey. What's more, Warhammer 40,000 calls on a lot from you, the player. Your job isn't just to follow the rules, it's also to add your own ideas, drama and creativity to the game. Much of the appeal of this game lies in the freedom and open-endedness that this allows; it is in this spirit that the rules have been written.[/b]

 Polonius wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

They sell supplements through the ipad store, which is a different source with a totally different business model. Yet somehow we don't see complaints about how Farsight Tau aren't "official" and you need special permission to use them.

Well, they are distributed through a different channel, but they are promoted on the main GW webpage:
http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/content/article.jsp?aId=22200010a

I couldn't find a link to FW on the webpage at all.

I guess I see a concious attempt by GW (as a whole) to keep FW distinct, which is why IMO a zealous approach to GW legality is ill advised.

Well, GW owns FW, they don't need to sue, so that's a bit of a silly point. I think GW execs are worried about the value of the brand, not the nature of the rules.

They wouldn't sue, but they would tell FW to stop doing it. And yes, it potentially hurts the value of the brand if you have people randomly adding statements about what is and isn't official.

Maybe, but I really doubt it. Nobody cares what if their rules are theoretically official, they care if they can actually use them.

The link to Forgeworld is at the very bottom of the page.

As a lowly and poor newbie who averages a model every three months (buying. I paint like crazy, even though my paint job is nothing to sneeze at) was Forge World really a problem or is this an arena for the Devout and Tournament Ridden?

I can't say I've played a game that was completely "official" in scope, particularly because I've yet to meet an opponent who has been 100% in the know about the rules going on. So, by default, we're playing some kind of house rules.

That said, in my house, I play almost no rules and more of a framework. For example, I proxy like mad because I'm poor. I also have invented my own hazards for my (badly made) home table (it's made out of bird feeders. Pretty funny). Which brings me to above's post, in bold:

Above all, it's important to remember that the rules are just a framework to support an enjoyable game.

And think about it for a moment....this is a WAR game. What rules exist in WAR?

I think if there are pro's out there getting bent out of shape, they should start a circuit tour to compete in, where each shop has it's own boards, it's own "House Rules" etc. etc. and if at the end of the season you've got the best record, consider yourself Season Leader because you were not only flexible to all the shenanigans of individual players and their rules, not just what the game could "legally" roll out.

And to me, that's a champ right there.

"What? Garden of Nurgle has a jungle full of Razorwing Nests and Brainleaf Fronds? BRING IT ON!!!"

Seriously though, where's the fun in these last 5 pages? lol

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Manchu wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
And the same blog that promoted the ipad supplements also promotes FW releases.

Not to mention the monthly catalog, WD.

And at Games Day, and it's sold at Warhammer World and they do their events there too...

It's almost as if they're supported by the rest of GW.

As far as I'm concerned I agree with you and that Forge World is part of the game.

Firstly, Forge World units are put into the codex. i.e. IA3 Taros book puts the Tau units into Codex: Tau Empire and even gives them and FOC slot.

Secondly, GW stores allow the use of FW models. Sometimes I take my FW models to GW and even use the rules for them. None of the staff bat an eyelid and they all say that this is allowed and is offical GW policy. Notice that any other models from any other company are strictly banned from store and cannot be used. So in essence FW models and rules meet the requirements for fielding GW models in a GW store.

As far as I'm concerned, this is end of argument and FW is official.

Didn't want to post this before confirming by looking at my books last evening but all the FW (IA and HH) books I have are marked with the GW logo on the base of the spine. All the IA books are also marked with the 40k logo.

 Peregrine wrote:

Tournaments can legally ban anything they want. What do you think GW is going to do, sue a TO for not running their tournament the way GW wants? The ability of third-party TOs to change the rules for their events is completely irrelevant to this discussion.

(And of course by that standard you can't play 40k at all since every codex army can be banned by tournaments.)

Exactly, its just considered a house rule which is fine and dandy and is allowed under the 40k rulebook. The only distinction is that in order to play in that tournament you need to abide by their house rules.

Yeah. Just gotta try to find a tournament that doesn't have craptastic house rules.



... good luck with that. Haven't found any local tournies that didn't have SOME houserule or other I hated.

...so what's the issue here?

"In a casual game, my opponent can run his Minotaurs chapter and there is nothing I can do about it! Tomorrow, I'll probably have to play against armored company IG and Contemptor dreads! This is how the world ends! Woe is me!"

 Melissia wrote:
Yeah. Just gotta try to find a tournament that doesn't have craptastic house rules.



... good luck with that. Haven't found any local tournies that didn't have SOME houserule or other I hated.

Its part of the give and take I find. Usually when every edition gets updated I see online a lot of posters complaining about some rule or other. I usually find that every eidtion there are things that I like and things that I don't like. I still play the game and get on with it because my overall feeling of the game is still a pleasant one. Its the same for tournaments, you're not going to find one that matches your expectations perfectly, just go with the best you can find that matches your preferrences the closest.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Wilytank wrote:
...so what's the issue here?

"In a casual game, my opponent can run his Minotaurs chapter and there is nothing I can do about it! Tomorrow, I'll probably have to play against armored company IG and Contemptor dreads! This is how the world ends! Woe is me!"

At the end of the day you can just not play them. However people who don't want to play against FW want something official because they don't want to look like they are being pickey. They want a magical argument that says "that isn't official because it is uber cheese and you can only use it with your opponents permission".

Peregrine, I get the sense that you are TFG. In fact, I am certain of it.

Bottom line; the BRB also states that players are free to modify or throw out any rule they want. So it is really a moot point.

Net - Any player can decide if he want to play any particular game, against any particular opponent.

Any TO can decide how he wants to run his event, and with what rules.

Aftermath. wrote:
Peregrine, I get the sense that you are TFG. In fact, I am certain of it.

Bottom line; the BRB also states that players are free to modify or throw out any rule they want. So it is really a moot point.

Net - Any player can decide if he want to play any particular game, against any particular opponent.

Any TO can decide how he wants to run his event, and with what rules.

I think that Peregrine gets that point. The argument is over wether or not FW is considered official or not.

Oh geez, this again.

Can someone explain how this is something new? Forge World rules were always "official" in that they were a licensed product distributed by a professional company with explicit permission by the GW parent corporation.

Does this set them on the same level as codices? Nope. Not as long as this is not explicitly stated somewhere. Not as long as GW itself keeps banning FW's rules from its events.
http://www.games-workshop.com/MEDIA_CustomProductCatalog/m2730448a_Throne_of_Skulls_Rules_WHWorld_2013.pdf
http://www.games-workshop.com/MEDIA_CustomProductCatalog/m2670124a_WHW_Battle_Brothers_Event_Pack


If we really need to discuss the term "official" then we need to discuss what this means for other products, as it could greatly help to see what this term means to GW:

"Here's our standard line: Yes it's all official, but remember that we're reporting back from a time where stories aren't always true, or at least 100% accurate. if it has the 40K logo on it, it exists in the 40K universe. Or it was a legend that may well have happened. Or a rumour that may or may not have any truth behind it.
Let's put it another way: anything with a 40K logo on it is as official as any Codex... and at least as crammed full of rumours, distorted legends and half-truths."
- Marc Gascoigne, chief editor BL

"The same applies to transference from Black Library back into the gaming supplements. If the developers and other creative folks believe a contribution by an author fits the bill and has an appeal to the audience, why not fold it back into the ‘game’ world – such as Gaunt’s Ghosts or characters from the Gotrek and Felix series. On the other hand, if an author has a bit of a wobbly moment, there’s no pressure to feel that it has to be accepted into the worldview promulgated by the codexes and army books."
- Gav Thorpe, GW game designer, BL author

tl;dr: "official" =/= "part of"

Games Workshop wants us to take ownership of the game and expand it ourselves - this mindset applies to both background as well as rules, and in this context the BRB and codices represent the intended "common ground" whereas FW appears to be marketed more like a suggestion, an optional addition of what you could do yourself, but with professional artistry and commercially distributed, over a separate website with its own catalogue.

That GW doesn't allow homemade models on its own turf is quite likely a business decision, given that up until a few years ago they still gave advice on how to convert things or create stuff by yourself using materials other than what they are selling. The spirit is still there, though, and there is obviously no rule in the BRB that these limitations need to apply to your games in your club. This applies to models just as well as any rules, regardless of whether they are from FW or you've written them yourself. What matters is that your opponent consents (though this should obviously be the case in any way as you cannot force someone to play you, not even with a 100% Codex army list).


This entire thread is nothing else than yet another attempt to twist some (perhaps intentionally) vague sentence to drive one's cause, just like Peregrine didn't see the difference between something being "written for" and "part of" 40k, and kept misquoting it as supposed evidence in various threads in the hopes that others would just believe him - even after it was pointed out that this was not what the original text said.

Peregrine wrote:[...] their actual policy of publishing new stuff and saying "this is part of the game now".

And I see he's doing it again.

I regard this in a similar manner to Polonius. Personally, I have no problem with the rules or models distributed by FW and would gladly play each army at least once to see if it's fun. However, I too feel compelled to this "kneejerk" reaction of immediate rejection as soon as certain people try to use such underhanded methods to force their opinion on others.

ClockworkZion wrote:108 also says you're allowed to alter the army list and even use something other than the army list to play your army, but it seems we ignore the rest of that sentence when we want to selective interpret things to restrict choices.

I don't think people are ignoring this as much as not seeing how this supposedly makes FW different from homebrewed army rules.

Yes, with opponent's consent we can play anything we want in 40k, but that isn't really news, and not what is being discussed here, is it? It's the usual suspects trying to force FW onto the sceptics again.

Furyou Miko wrote:Death Korps and Elysian Drop Troops are on the ally matrix.
They take up the same slot as Imperial Guard. It says so, right in their rules.

And the BRB's rules say you should use Codex: IG for them.

"Find the row for the codex of your primary detachment on the left side of the matrix."

DarthOvious wrote:Secondly, GW stores allow the use of FW models.

Models, yes. You can bring those to the events as well - they still ban the rules, though, and I think this is what is being debated here.


tl;dr: Nothing has changed, including the behaviour of the posters in this debate. Move along.

@Lynata: GW events are no different than tournaments in that they use what rules they see fit and damn the rest. It's not really indicative if FW is "legal" or not to play.

And you missed the fact that the same Codex Supplements require the same exact permissions in the rules to operate yet no one argues against those being legal.

ClockworkZion wrote:GW events are no different than tournaments in that they use what rules they see fit and damn the rest. It's not really indicative if FW is "legal" or not to play.

Are you saying that GW is biased against FW?

Your point still serves as a good example - "legal" apparently is what those involved agree upon.

ClockworkZion wrote:And you missed the fact that the same Codex Supplements require the same exact permissions in the rules to operate yet no one argues against those being legal.

Actually, the supplements are mentioned in the rules packs, as well as digital codices.

The Throne of Skulls pack lists them individually, whereas Battle Brothers says "any current and official list, except FW".

[edit] Or was that referring to normal games between players? If so, then yes, you would need permission. They are an alternate list, similar to the Ordo Hereticus Strike Force from Citadel Journal. They may just have greater acceptance, but I hear in some regions people are similarly accepting of FW.

 Lynata wrote:

ClockworkZion wrote:GW events are no different than tournaments in that they use what rules they see fit and damn the rest. It's not really indicative if FW is "legal" or not to play.

Are you saying that GW is biased against FW?

Your point still serves as a good example - "legal" apparently is what those involved agree upon.

Actually based on the rules anything you want to play is legal, and events/tournaments just choose the rulesets that they prefer for their events in the name of fun.

 Lynata wrote:

ClockworkZion wrote:And you missed the fact that the same Codex Supplements require the same exact permissions in the rules to operate yet no one argues against those being legal.

Actually, the supplements are mentioned in the rules packs, as well as digital codices.

The Throne of Skulls pack lists them individually, whereas Battle Brothers says "any current and official list, except FW".

The supplements aren't covered in the main rulebook though (at least not by name) which was rather the point since people like to harp that it has to be in the rulebook for FW to be legal. The codex supplements use the same rule to be a valid addition to the game, so it rings hollow to claim that FW is less valid because of it.

 Lynata wrote:
[edit] Or was that referring to normal games between players? If so, then yes, you would need permission. They are an alternate list, similar to the Ordo Hereticus Strike Force from Citadel Journal. They may just have greater acceptance, but I hear in some regions people are similarly accepting of FW.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
FW rules are part of the game, and your house rule against them is no less of a house rule than your house rule about having no more than one flyer per army.

You are wrong. I will offer nothing of substance to back up my assertion. You're also a hater and/or a WAAC tournament player, I guess (?).




That about cover it?

What are you talkin about?

ClockworkZion wrote:my point is that FW is a legitimate and legal addition to the game, it's really just up to the players on what they want to play. I can not and will not force people to play with or against anything, but I think we need to stop hiding behind this fake shield of "legality" when it's pretty clear that what the rules permit is anything you want as long as it's fun (again, Spirit of the Game).

This I can agree with.

I've really just developed an inherent allergy against all this "it's part of the main game now! you must play me!" talk coming from certain people.

 sing your life wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
FW rules are part of the game, and your house rule against them is no less of a house rule than your house rule about having no more than one flyer per army.

You are wrong. I will offer nothing of substance to back up my assertion. You're also a hater and/or a WAAC tournament player, I guess (?).




That about cover it?

What are you talkin about?

Just summing up the quarterly "Is FW Legal/Official/Whatever" conversations...

 kronk wrote:

 sing your life wrote:
So can I use my Mortis dreads now?

I'll play you.

Well then have fun spending $2000+ to go to england just to play someone.

 sing your life wrote:

 kronk wrote:

 sing your life wrote:
So can I use my Mortis dreads now?

I'll play you.

Well then have fun spending $2000+ to go to england just to play someone.

Nah. You seem lippy. I'll pass. Thanks, though!

"Only a Sith deals in absolutes" - Obi-Wan Kenobi (A horrible 3rd prequal.. forget the name.. or at least am trying to forget )

I imagine some of this boils down to GW's plausible deniability. If they don't officially sanction FW products in their books, then they are not held responsible for the complaints and questions that those rules generate. When you have a FW problem, who do you go to? FW because they publish the rules.

I love Forgeworld stuff, and I usually by lots of it but don't get to use the rules because of the 'not official chants'. Although, the GW I played at did allow FW rules and units for their escalation tournaments and so on.

Overall, as I think it's been stated, until there is a GW publication that says "Forgeworld rules are official in 40K" then you will still see the argument; however, no matter what side you stand on, I think none would be able to argue against that sort of statement.

Matt, even if it said that you'd still get arguments.

Haha, agreed. People argue about everything, but it would become more 'socially accepted' I'd wager if GW just came out and said it instead of dancing around the point.

I play it as legal, I let others play it as legal, and heck, I'll agree some of the stuff is crazy hard to understand without reading it over a few times, but that's all good, always willing to learn new units.

 Matt1785 wrote:

Overall, as I think it's been stated, until there is a GW publication that says "Forgeworld rules are official in 40K" then you will still see the argument; however, no matter what side you stand on, I think none would be able to argue against that sort of statement.

My group's setting is in 38k, so neener, neener!

38k, so the bore-us heresy era

I imagine it'd be funny to watch HH era minis get stomped by Sisters of Battle

Psst, I think the Heresy was M30.

M38 seems interesting.

http://wh40k.lexicanum.com/wiki/M38#.Umli4PkjL4S

Kronk is a pioneer...

 Lynata wrote:
Psst, I think the Heresy was M30.

To be fair, given that FW has horus heresy era rules...

 Melissia wrote:

 Lynata wrote:
Psst, I think the Heresy was M30.

To be fair, given that FW has horus heresy era rules...

But what options would we get for our "Lords of War" slot?

Melissia wrote:To be fair, given that FW has horus heresy era rules...

Yeah, I know - but I'm about as interested in those as I am in the novels. I much prefer that era as a time of legend in the past, a part of Imperial history and the founding myth, rather than something "physical", if you get my drift. The novels read as if someone took said myths literal, and FW's Primarchs seem much more powerful than GW's - probably because of the novels.

M38, on the other hand, that I could get used to! Generally, I am of the opinion that the other millennia deserve to be fleshed out more. M36 and the Age of Apostasy would be cool as well. You'd have Proto-Sisters and Frateris Templars as new armies. I'd also like to read more about this "Nova-Terra Interregnum".

Gameplaywise, there's probably be few differences, but on occasion you could have an army that does not exist anymore in M41, or special rules for those that do because something had changed over the millennia.

 Lynata wrote:

Melissia wrote:To be fair, given that FW has horus heresy era rules...

Yeah, I know - but I'm about as interested in those as I am in the novels. I much prefer that era as a time of legend in the past, a part of Imperial history and the founding myth, rather than something "physical", if you get my drift. The novels read as if someone took said myths literal, and FW's Primarchs seem much more powerful than GW's - probably because of the novels.

M38, on the other hand, that I could get used to! Generally, I am of the opinion that the other millennia deserve to be fleshed out more. M36 and the Age of Apostasy would be cool as well. You'd have Proto-Sisters and Frateris Templars as new armies. I'd also like to read more about this "Nova-Terra Interregnum".

Gameplaywise, there's probably be few differences, but on occasion you could have an army that does not exist anymore in M41, or special rules for those that do because something had changed over the millennia.

GW has primarchs? I only know about Daemon Prince Angron...

-Shrike- wrote:GW has primarchs? I only know about Daemon Prince Angron...

That's the one I meant. I took his rules as a rough indicator for their "power levels".
Sorry if I was evoking a false hope there for a moment.

rigeld2 wrote:
Really? I can go to my FLGS and buy any of the FW books?
Wow that's news. Thanks for telling me!
Oh - you meant over the internet? Oh. But that's more difficult than just going down the street and buying them like I do for my other GW products. It's like your statement was incorrect or something.

I have the same access to the Wave Serpent right now as I do a FW product.....

...just sayin'.

Finding the ability to keep up on each obscure rule in each Codex isn't easy either. I don't see this as any different from FW units, all it takes is to ask for clarification before a game starts. Done and done.

And it also requires people to actually pay attention when you do that...

Having just read through those Chapter Tactics and Special Characters that FW have updated makes them seem like a great addition. It would be saddening to see people thrash against what is simply an addition to an offical Codex. Variety people!

 Medium of Death wrote:
Variety people!

Which seems to be the real issue. Some of us really like variety as it keeps the games from locking into set builds and stale match-ups, others prefer those set builds so they can build to handle those said builds. It's all in what you want in a list I think.

ClockworkZion wrote:

Medium of Death wrote: Variety people!

Which seems to be the real issue. Some of us really like variety as it keeps the games from locking into set builds and stale match-ups, others prefer those set builds so they can build to handle those said builds. It's all in what you want in a list I think.

You make it sound as if anyone who doesn't like variety would have a competitive mindset and be interested only in easy wins. Perhaps they just don't ... like (excessive) variety?

Case in point, look at how many people are sceptical against Centurions just because they're something new and because it changes the face of an army that people have become used to.

Anytime you change something, add something, or remove something it can turn people off because they may like how it felt before this change. This has nothing to do with "building to win", just with humans being creatures of habit.

 Lynata wrote:

ClockworkZion wrote:

Medium of Death wrote: Variety people!

Which seems to be the real issue. Some of us really like variety as it keeps the games from locking into set builds and stale match-ups, others prefer those set builds so they can build to handle those said builds. It's all in what you want in a list I think.

You make it sound as if anyone who doesn't like variety would have a competitive mindset and be interested only in easy wins. Perhaps they just don't ... like (excessive) variety?

Someone is reaching. I was aiming more for "predictability" in the meta there not "easy wins". I've seen that complaint before so it's not unfounded to say that some of the people who are most against it don't like how much it screws with the potential meta.

 Lynata wrote:
You make it sound as if anyone who doesn't like variety would have a competitive mindset and be interested only in easy wins.

I don't think that's necessarily an inaccurate assessment of many of the lesser kinds of competitive players.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Melissia wrote:

 Lynata wrote:
Psst, I think the Heresy was M30.

To be fair, given that FW has horus heresy era rules...

But what options would we get for our "Lords of War" slot?

Extra Avenger Strike Fighters. (They're a Lord of War choice for the Marines, after all).

On a related note, sacred Emperor, have you seen what Mantis Warriors do?! Awesome!

 Furyou Miko wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Melissia wrote:

 Lynata wrote:
Psst, I think the Heresy was M30.

To be fair, given that FW has horus heresy era rules...

But what options would we get for our "Lords of War" slot?

Extra Avenger Strike Fighters. (They're a Lord of War choice for the Marines, after all).

On a related note, sacred Emperor, have you seen what Mantis Warriors do?! Awesome!

They also have access to Titans, Super Heavies and Primarchs.

I propose that we get a Living Saint who counts as a Gargantuan Creature!

 Lynata wrote:
Does this set them on the same level as codices? Nope. Not as long as this is not explicitly stated somewhere. Not as long as GW itself keeps banning FW's rules from its events.
http://www.games-workshop.com/MEDIA_CustomProductCatalog/m2730448a_Throne_of_Skulls_Rules_WHWorld_2013.pdf
http://www.games-workshop.com/MEDIA_CustomProductCatalog/m2670124a_WHW_Battle_Brothers_Event_Pack

GW's "tournaments" are run by their sales team, not by their game designers. The rules about no FW in certain events are no more relevant than the FW-only rule for the Heresy events.

And let's not forget that GW's "tournaments" at the beginning of 6th all had a limit of only 500 points of allies, but somehow nobody wanted to cite that rule as something we need to apply to normal games. Apparently the rules for GW HQ's events only matter when they say "no FW".

If we really need to discuss the term "official" then we need to discuss what this means for other products, as it could greatly help to see what this term means to GW:

Sorry, but that's just silly. Those quotes are talking about canon policy for the fiction, not what is and isn't an official rule. Those are two very different things.

Games Workshop wants us to take ownership of the game and expand it ourselves - this mindset applies to both background as well as rules, and in this context the BRB and codices represent the intended "common ground" whereas FW appears to be marketed more like a suggestion, an optional addition of what you could do yourself, but with professional artistry and commercially distributed, over a separate website with its own catalogue.

Except for the part where FW rules say "these are part of the standard game".

 Lynata wrote:
Case in point, look at how many people are sceptical against Centurions just because they're something new and because it changes the face of an army that people have become used to.

Sure, people were annoyed about them (though TBH that had more to do with how ugly the models are than the fact that they were new). But how many people were saying that they would not play against Centurions?

Melissia wrote:I don't think that's necessarily an inaccurate assessment of many of the lesser kinds of competitive players.

Some, sure. Perhaps even many.
I just didn't like that it sounded like a rather sweeping, generalist statement.

ClockworkZion wrote:Someone is reaching. I was aiming more for "predictability" in the meta there not "easy wins".

Same mindset, no? And when you think I was reaching with that, then I say you are reaching if you believe that is the only reason one may not like FW.

Really, it could be anything from what you have said, to fear of it being OP (regardless of whether it's justified or unjustified), to actual bad experience with it or its players, to not liking the fluff, all the way to simply not enjoying how it changes the look and feel of an army. Focusing on the one possibility that paints the other side in the most negative light possible just sounds a bit biased, s' all.

This is my kneejerk reaction again.

Peregrine wrote:And let's not forget that GW's "tournaments" at the beginning of 6th all had a limit of only 500 points of allies, but somehow nobody wanted to cite that rule as something we need to apply to normal games. Apparently the rules for GW HQ's events only matter when they say "no FW".

You don't "need" to apply anything to your normal games. And when GW's events introduce additional limits, then obviously because they aim to steer the games into a specific direction. This could be a narrative, or balancing, or some sort of interesting mission they've come up with. What would they gain from banning FW, though? Why are they doing this? What is their reasoning? You should try to answer those questions in your mind.

Peregrine wrote:Sorry, but that's just silly. Those quotes are talking about canon policy for the fiction, not what is and isn't an official rule. Those are two very different things.

How are they different? It's a perfect example of what they mean when they say something like "this is official", and I think you are misunderstanding the meaning of this term.

"Official" doesn't mean anything by itself. Any product published by GW, FW, or BL is "official", as is any product distributed under license.

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/official

Peregrine wrote:Except for the part where FW rules say "these are part of the standard game".

Citation needed.

You are doing it again, Peregrine. Stop misquoting stuff. It doesn't work in your favour - quite the opposite.

Peregrine wrote:Sure, people were annoyed about them (though TBH that had more to do with how ugly the models are than the fact that they were new). But how many people were saying that they would not play against Centurions?

Not many, because everyone still thinks that IT'S THE LAW. This goes back to what I and some other posters have been saying about the vagueness of "legality". But of course codices are generally treated with more acceptance as they represent the common ground, the basis. In the end, it's up to the players.

 Lynata wrote:

ClockworkZion wrote:Someone is reaching. I was aiming more for "predictability" in the meta there not "easy wins".

Same mindset, no? And when you think I was reaching with that, then I say you are reaching if you believe that is the only reason one may not like FW.

Really, it could be anything from what you have said, to fear of it being OP (regardless of whether it's justified or unjustified), to actual bad experience with it or its players, to not liking the fluff, all the way to simply not enjoying how it changes the look and feel of an army. Focusing on the one possibility that paints the other side in the most negative light possible just sounds a bit biased, s' all.

This is my kneejerk reaction again.

If you want to claim it's the same mindset, all the power to you, but my intention was stating that there is a resistance to change, especially how much change FW can bring. We've seen that explicitly stated in these threads before that some people just don't like how much FW changes stuff.

I wasn't trying to focus on any one possibility, just limiting myself to a specific complaint I've actually seen raised instead of conjecture is all.

I think you're kneejerk reactions seem biased towards trying to make me look like I'm an ass who just wants to talk badly about people who don't like FW, but that might just be a perception thing.

It was biased, but only because I really perceived your post to come along in that similarly biased manner that I complained about.

Maybe it was just a misunderstanding. We were of one mind earlier, after all, and I still don't have anything against FW per se, just the way it is occasionally "advertised" here.

(okay, and some of FW's fluff, but that doesn't have to do anything with their models or rules)

 Lynata wrote:
You don't "need" to apply anything to your normal games.

No, but it's a pretty hilarious double standard when GW HQ's tournament rules only matter to anyone outside of GW HQ when they ban FW. When they impose limits on allies, using non-GW models or proxies, etc, those rules don't matter. It's almost like nobody really holds GW HQ up as an example of a well-run tournament, and the "this is how GW does it" argument is just looking for evidence to justify the conclusion.

And when GW's events introduce additional limits, then obviously because they aim to steer the games into a specific direction. This could be a narrative, or balancing, or some sort of interesting mission they've come up with. What would they gain from banning FW, though? Why are they doing this? What is their reasoning? You should try to answer those questions in your mind.

What they gain is simplicity (GW's event staff are probably about as well trained as their rule "experts") and focusing on "core" product lines. Remember, GW's events are run by their sales department, not by their game designers.

How are they different? It's a perfect example of what they mean when they say something like "this is official", and I think you are misunderstanding the meaning of this term.

They're different because fluff is something you do by yourself, while rules are something you do with other people. What GW considers "canon" in the 40k fiction is left open-ended because there are no real consequences if two people have different personal opinions about what books should count. That's different from official rules, where what is "official" forms the common ground that two players have to start from.

You are doing it again, Peregrine. Stop misquoting stuff.

Stop nitpicking the exact words every time I don't copy/paste the entire rulebook statement. If you can't address the substance of the argument instead of just nitpicking the exact words then don't post at all.

But of course codices are generally treated with more acceptance as they represent the common ground, the basis.

Not according to GW. According to GW the common ground is codices, supplements, FW, and anywhere else they decide to publish standard-40k rules.

In the end, it's up to the players.

And I'm not disputing the fact that the players have the right to decide what to include in their games. My entire point here is that, according to GW, FW is part of the game and not including it is a house rule. I just want people to stop pretending that their house rules are GW policy and misleading other people into accepting their house rules without question.

Peregrine wrote:They're different because fluff is something you do by yourself, while rules are something you do with other people.

"With the points limit agreed, players need to pick their forces. The best way to do this is to make use of the army list in the relevant codex, although, of course, players are free to either adapt the army list or use their own system as they wish."
- 6E Rulebook, p.108

There is no difference at all between the fluff or the rules. It is up to the players and how they come to an arrangement regarding their game. The Codex is the standard, and the common ground, but there is no specific requirement to use it.
Also notice how, in this sentence, Forge World is not singled out as a specific alternative, but instead grouped in with other homebrewed "custom" rules.

Peregrine wrote:Stop nitpicking the exact words every time I don't copy/paste the entire rulebook statement. If you can't address the substance of the argument instead of just nitpicking the exact words then don't post at all.

No. I won't let you get away with lying to the community in the hopes of convincing other players with falsified quotes.

This is the fourth thread I've pointed it out, and I find it conspicuously consistent that you keep using the very same wording "part of the normal game" rather than what is actually said in the book. This isn't just a mistake anymore, this is intentional misleading.

Peregrine wrote:Not according to GW. According to GW the common ground is codices, supplements, FW, and anywhere else they decide to publish standard-40k rules

I know you like to believe this, but as you can see above this is still not the case.

 Lynata wrote:
If we really need to discuss the term "official" then we need to discuss what this means for other products, as it could greatly help to see what this term means to GW:

No we don't. GW explicitly says which FW rules are "official"/"intended to be used in 'standard' games of Warhammer 40,000" in FW books. Anyone can choose not to play against someone using FW models just like anyone can choose not to play against someone using something from a Codex.

 Lynata wrote:

Peregrine wrote:They're different because fluff is something you do by yourself, while rules are something you do with other people.

"With the points limit agreed, players need to pick their forces. The best way to do this is to make use of the army list in the relevant codex, although, of course, players are free to either adapt the army list or use their own system as they wish."
- 6E Rulebook, p.108

Sigh. Once again you keep inventing the rule that GW can not publish additional things which are added to the codices. For example, the Farsight supplement or the FW Barracuda if you're a Tau player.

There is no difference at all between the fluff or the rules.

Err, lol. Did you somehow manage to miss the part where I explained the difference between a non-interactive thing (fluff) and an interactive thing that players have to agree on (rules)?

Also notice how, in this sentence, Forge World is not singled out as a specific alternative, but instead grouped in with other homebrewed "custom" rules.

Along with supplements and FAQs. Could this be because GW is willing to say "codex" in the basic rules and then say "this is in addition to your codex" in additional rules later?

This is the fourth thread I've pointed it out, and I find it conspicuously consistent that you keep using the very same wording "part of the normal game" rather than what is actually said in the book. This isn't just a mistake anymore, this is intentional misleading.

And once again you refuse to address the substance of the argument and just declare that if I don't copy/paste the exact statement every time I refer to it I must be lying about something. If you can't do more than pointless nitpicking then don't post at all.

 Lynata wrote:
"With the points limit agreed, players need to pick their forces. The best way to do this is to make use of the army list in the relevant codex, although, of course, players are free to either adapt the army list or use their own system as they wish."
- 6E Rulebook, p.108

There is no difference at all between the fluff or the rules. It is up to the players and how they come to an arrangement regarding their game. The Codex is the standard, and the common ground, but there is no specific requirement to use it.
Also notice how, in this sentence, Forge World is not singled out as a specific alternative, but instead grouped in with other homebrewed "custom" rules.

Speaking of misleading statements, I think your's is one here. FW, Homebrew, Comp, Codex Supplements, tournament restrictions, GW special events, anything you can thing of that isn't sold as a "Codex" falls under this category. If we're going to try and lump things together let's be completely honest and state the fact that all of these use the same rule to be considered "legal". To claim that anyone of those is more or less official than anything else in this game (speaking only from a general gameplay standpoint) is misleading, and frankly a bit rude.

Now you can choose to play with or without any of those things, but they are still "legal" as far as the rules are concerned and to act as if FW is the only thing on that list outside of homebrew is frankly a bit of a stretch at least and intentionally misleading at worst.

Even the GW events at Warhammer World fall under this as they do things outside of the basic, standard rules (as mentioned, the 500 pt limit on allies, and as it's been pointed out before in other threads, the restriction from using double-FOC) thus making them alterations of the rules (Spirit of the Game again!). Does it make those events less valid? No because the rulebook still supports them just like it supports any other way you choose to play. The fact is that everything is official and it's up to the players to choose what they will and won't play with and against, but we really need to drop this pre-tense of something not being official or permitted by the rules when they're pretty clear that the only limitations that exist aren't a part of them.

Manchu wrote:No we don't. GW explicitly says which FW rules are "official"/"intended to be used in 'standard' games of Warhammer 40,000" in FW books. Anyone can choose not to play against someone using FW models just like anyone can choose not to play against someone using something from a Codex.

How is this different from what I've been saying?

Peregrine wrote:Sigh. Once again you keep inventing the rule that GW can not publish additional things which are added to the codices. For example, the Farsight supplement or the FW Barracuda if you're a Tau player.

This doesn't change what it says in the rulebook, does it?
Unlike you, I have not invented anything.

Peregrine wrote:Did you somehow manage to miss the part where I explained the difference between a non-interactive thing (fluff) and an interactive thing that players have to agree on (rules)?

Did you miss the part that you are currently using a medium that makes fluff interactive? And how is this relevant in any way? The bottom line is that players need to agree on stuff, and this doesn't change just because you keep repeating that "part of the standard game" misquote.

Peregrine wrote:Along with supplements and FAQs. Could this be because GW is willing to say "codex" in the basic rules and then say "this is in addition to your codex" in additional rules later?

No. FAQs clarify things in the codex and thus serve as errata. Supplements are not a part of the codex, they are supplements.

Peregrine wrote:And once again you refuse to address the substance of the argument and just declare that if I don't copy/paste the exact statement every time I refer to it I must be lying about something. If you can't do more than pointless nitpicking then don't post at all.

I have addressed the substance of the argument. You seem intent on derailing it with made-up "quotes", forcing me to intervene just like I intervene when people post made-up rules about "canon".

This "nitpicking" wouldn't be necessary if you would simply argue with the facts as they are, rather then taking the short route and producing your own. So, if you dislike being called out like this, just refrain from posting things that aren't true?
You opened this thread. You started argueing with quotes. So don't get upset when someone points out when you've made them up. Your own arguments obviously place great weight on such wording, so accept that it goes both ways and that you will be held responsible if they do not actually say what you claim they do.

ClockworkZion wrote:Speaking of misleading statements, I think your's is one here. FW, Homebrew, Comp, Codex Supplements, tournament restrictions, GW special events, anything you can thing of that isn't sold as a "Codex" falls under this category. If we're going to try and lump things together let's be completely honest and state the fact that all of these use the same rule to be considered "legal". To claim that anyone of those is more or less official than anything else in this game (speaking only from a general gameplay standpoint) is misleading, and frankly a bit rude.

How is this misleading or dishonest? I've replied to you in an earlier post that I apply the same logic to the supplements.
To quote myself: "They are an alternate list, similar to the Ordo Hereticus Strike Force from Citadel Journal. They may just have greater acceptance, but I hear in some regions people are similarly accepting of FW."

ClockworkZion wrote:Now you can choose to play with or without any of those things, but they are still "legal" as far as the rules are concerned and to act as if FW is the only thing on that list outside of homebrew is frankly a bit of a stretch at least and intentionally misleading at worst.

It is Peregrine, not me, who is placing FW above Homebrewed and advocates automatic acceptance on the same level as codices. I have always said nothing more than that you should ask your opponent whether or not he is fine with playing an FW army. I am argueing against this mindset ->

Kangodo wrote:
They are an official and legal choice in WH40k and you shouldn't have to ask permission for that.

... which seems typical of a lot of FW fans on this forum (frankly, I think it gives them a bad image, similar to how some posters are making Space Marines look bad), and which leads me to the aforementioned kneejerk reaction.

 Lynata wrote:

Manchu wrote:No we don't. GW explicitly says which FW rules are "official"/"intended to be used in 'standard' games of Warhammer 40,000" in FW books. Anyone can choose not to play against someone using FW models just like anyone can choose not to play against someone using something from a Codex.

How is this different from what I've been saying?

Let's find out: Are FW rules less official than a codex? Can you use (some) FW rules in standard games of 40k just like anything from a codex?

If the players agree on it, sure. There's no difference to homebrewed rules.

They are not "part of the standard game", though, as is occasionally claimed - they are an optional add-on, as I've said earlier, and as the rulebook implies.

 Lynata wrote:
It is Peregrine, not me, who is placing FW above Homebrewed and advocates automatic acceptance on the same level as codices.

Let's be clear, it's GW not Peregrine who says some FW rules are intended for play in "standard" (exact quote) games of Warhammer 40,000. There is no similar statement about homebrew rules.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Lynata wrote:
They are not "part of the standard game", though, as is occasionally claimed

As claimed by GW in FW books.

Manchu wrote:Let's be clear, it's GW not Peregrine who says some FW rules are intended for play in "standard" (exact quote) games of Warhammer 40,000. There is no similar statement about homebrew rules.

Anyone writing homebrew rules could add this line to them and it wouldn't be in conflict.

"Intended for standard games of Warhammer 40,000" means that a ruleset was written for playing it with the rulebook of the relevant edition. Not Cityfight, not Apocalypse. And anyone could write these.

Manchu wrote:As claimed by GW in FW books.

To you as well: Citation needed.

 Lynata wrote:
Citation needed.

Do you own any of the more recent FW books? Check out page 4 or 6 of any of them (including second editions of older books).

 Lynata wrote:
"Intended for standard games of Warhammer 40,000" means that a ruleset was written for playing it with the rulebook of the relevant edition. Not Cityfight, not Apocalypse. And anyone could write these.

But not just anyone did. Employees of GW did. And GW published them. And only GW can call them "official," which it also did.

 Lynata wrote:
Anyone writing homebrew rules could add this line to them and it wouldn't be in conflict.

"Intended for standard games of Warhammer 40,000" means that a ruleset was written for playing it with the rulebook of the relevant edition. Not Cityfight, not Apocalypse. And anyone could write these.

Seriously? Do you really not see the difference between GW saying "this is intended for standard games" and a random player saying it? When the people who decide what is and isn't part of the game intend for something to be part of the game then that intent is reality. When some random fan says the same thing it's just some random fan making claims they can't back up.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Lynata wrote:
This doesn't change what it says in the rulebook, does it?
Unlike you, I have not invented anything.

You've invented the rule that GW can never revise that "build your army with a codex" statement to include other sources. For example, by publishing the Farsight supplement and saying "you can now build your army using this".

Did you miss the part that you are currently using a medium that makes fluff interactive? And how is this relevant in any way? The bottom line is that players need to agree on stuff, and this doesn't change just because you keep repeating that "part of the standard game" misquote.

The point you keep missing is that there is no obligation to agree on fluff, while there is an obligation to agree on rules. A statement about "official" fluff only matters if you're a 40k author working with the 40k license, a statement about "official" rules matters if you're trying to play the game.

No. FAQs clarify things in the codex and thus serve as errata. Supplements are not a part of the codex, they are supplements.

This is your personal invention. According to your interpretation of the rulebook statement FAQs are not part of the standard game because they aren't mentioned in the core rulebook statement. Their only "officialness" is given in the FAQ itself, and you've already made it very clear that you don't consider such statements to have any value.

I have addressed the substance of the argument. You seem intent on derailing it with made-up "quotes", forcing me to intervene just like I intervene when people post made-up rules about "canon".

You've addressed nothing. You just nitpick the exact words and declare that if it isn't an exact quote it must somehow be a lie.

Manchu wrote:Do you own any of the more recent FW books? Check out page 4 or 6 of any of them (including second editions of older books).

Were you trying to win this argument by claiming it's true until someone can disprove it? You've made a claim, you should back it up when called out on it.



If you were referring to this, then you should note that this is not the same thing as "part of the standard game". You're making the same mistake as Peregrine.

Manchu wrote:But not just anyone did. Employees of GW did. And GW published them. And only GW can call them "official," which it also did.

And what does this change? Nothing. They're still not part of a codex, so the rulebook's wording applies.

Peregrine wrote:When some random fan says the same thing it's just some random fan making claims they can't back up.

How could this player make a claim they "cannot back up"? It is the creator who decides what game his or her unit is intended to be used with. Nobody else can decide this, as nobody else has control over the creator's intent.

You've invented the rule that GW can never revise that "build your army with a codex" statement to include other sources. For example, by publishing the Farsight supplement and saying "you can now build your army using this".

The fact is that they did not revise this statement. You are making this up.
Twist: You could build your army with homebrewed rules, too, and it'd be just as okay in the eyes of GW.

The point you keep missing is that there is no obligation to agree on fluff, while there is an obligation to agree on rules.

No, there isn't. People who do not agree on rules just won't have a game. They do not have to agree to anything.

This is your personal invention. According to your interpretation of the rulebook statement FAQs are not part of the standard game because they aren't mentioned in the core rulebook statement.

Incorrect. FAQs clarify things the codex already contains. They serve as an arbitrator, not an addition.

You just nitpick the exact words and declare that if it isn't an exact quote it must somehow be a lie.

Things don't have to be a 100% exact quote, but there is a fairly big difference between something being "intended to be used in" and "part of".
Anyone could make up the former. Only GW could state the latter.


I see we are moving in circles, however, so I will butt out of this. We won't make any progress here and I've already done my self-imposed duty of calling out your standard misquote. There is no sense in continueing this debate further as I'm sure we all have better things to do.

 Lynata wrote:
If you were referring to this, then you should note that this is not the same thing as "part of the standard game". You're making the same mistake as Peregrine.

Neither Peregrine nor I are making a mistake. The fact that you post the citation itself and argue against it is simply evidence of your misunderstanding.

 Lynata wrote:
And what does this change? Nothing. They're still not part of a codex, so the rulebook's wording applies.

Whether they are part of the codex or not is immaterial. GW itself published the clarification. The stuff marked as 40k in FW books is by GW's own account just as "official" as anything in a codex.

 Lynata wrote:
If you were referring to this, then you should note that this is not the same thing as "part of the standard game". You're making the same mistake as Peregrine.

When the people with the power to decide whether or not something is part of the standard game intend for something to be part of the standard game then it is. You're just nitpicking the exact word and missing the substance of the statement.

And what does this change? Nothing. They're still not part of a codex, so the rulebook's wording applies.

Only if you invent a rule that GW can never revise the rulebook statement to say "and also this". Which they have obviously done by having FAQs that update the game, codex supplements that add new variant armies, and FW books that add new units to existing armies.

How could this player make a claim they "cannot back up"?

By saying "this is official". They can say it all they want, but that doesn't make it true.

GW, on the other hand, gets to say that kind of thing and make it true.

The fact is that they did not revise this statement. You are making this up.

Only by your invented rule.

Twist: You could build your army with homebrewed rules, too, and it'd be just as okay in the eyes of GW.

So what? The question is what is official and part of the standard game (codex, supplement, FW, FAQs/errata), not whether or not you can change the standard rules and add your own.

Incorrect. FAQs clarify things the codex already contains. They serve as an arbitrator, not an addition.

Really? So when GW issued errata to completely change how the "look out sir" rule works that was just clarifying something? Of course it wasn't, it changed the rule. By your standard that change isn't part of the standard game (because it isn't a codex). By GW's rules it is part of the standard game because they have no problem publishing stuff in non-codex sources and making it part of the game.

Things don't have to be a 100% exact quote, but there is a fairly big difference between something being "intended to be used in" and "part of".
Anyone could make up the former. Only GW could state the latter.

And guess what: GW did state the latter.

 Peregrine wrote:
You're just nitpicking the exact word and missing the substance of the statement.

It's not even nitpicking. It's pretending words have some meaning beyond what is plain even in an expression that explicitly clarifies the company's intention.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Furyou Miko wrote:
You're never going to convince the nutjobs, so why bother continuing to try?

Because now there is absolutely no room for disagreement or pretending that "no FW" is anything but a house rule.

Lol. Something that the book lists as an option is NOT a house rule. You have the option of using allies, doesn't mean that not using allies is an add-on.

xruslanx wrote:
Lol. Something that the book lists as an option is NOT a house rule. You have the option of using allies, doesn't mean that not using allies is an add-on.

You don't seem to understand that "not using X in your own army" and "not allowing your opponent to use X" are two very different things. Not taking an allied detachment (or FW unit) in your own army is just a choice you make in army construction. Telling your opponent that you won't play them if they take an allied detachment (or FW unit) is a house rule.

Not that I'd really expect a good argument from someone who thinks that playing a non-GW game is like having sex with your dog.

 Peregrine wrote:

xruslanx wrote:
Lol. Something that the book lists as an option is NOT a house rule. You have the option of using allies, doesn't mean that not using allies is an add-on.

You don't seem to understand that "not using X in your own army" and "not allowing your opponent to use X" are two very different things. Not taking an allied detachment (or FW unit) in your own army is just a choice you make in army construction. Telling your opponent that you won't play them if they take an allied detachment (or FW unit) is a house rule.

It's only a rule if you regard the social interaction before a game as being a part of the rulebook. You don't do that, do you?

"What army are you playing?"

"Carcharodons. Here are their official chapter tactics from Forge World."

"I'm sorry, but you can't use Forge World rules."

"Okay. I am playing a custom space marine chapter. They're called the Carcharodons. Here are their custom chapter tactics that I totally made up myself as per page 108 of the main rulebook."

feth the police!

The GW Throne of Skulls 2013 PDF actually allows Forge World models. Most players would allow them as counts-as as well, even in world-famous GTs and GW stores. Now, why would FW's products as a company be allowed (models) and at the same time not allowed (rules)?

- Removed by insaniak. Please see Dakka's Rule #1 -

 Tyberos the Red Wake wrote:
Now, why would FW's products as a company be allowed (models) and at the same time not allowed (rules)?

Because using a resin Space Marine in MkIII armour instead of a plastic Space Marine in MkVII armour doesn't really have any impact on the game, while using different rules to those in the Space Marine Codex does?

Yes, keep in mind that GW does not intend all rules published under the FW imprint to be used in standard games of 40k. They specifically mark the ones that are. So far as I understand, and can tell from my copy of Betrayal, none of the HH rules are so intended.