For the purposes of this thread, let's just assume that you can use FW units from the Imperial Armour books in games of 40k.

Assuming that, do you think that lists from that book should be used in 40k games?

In general, no - they're only balanced against each other.

The two allowances I would make, however, are for themed games (Legions vs Xenos) and the Ordo Reductor units.

The AdMech stuff in there is only "balanced" for HH games, too. And you'd need some HH-version of xenos rules for the same reason.

You can play HH armies vs 40k armies, but you're not supposed to. If a couple friends wanted to then fine, but if I ran into a random who was just playing people using his World Eaters army featuring Angron, then I'm not sure I'd be entirely supportive of that. I'd probably still fight him though, just so I can kill Angron.

The units seem way overcosted compared to 40k. Legio Astartes would get slaughtered.

No. FW have clearly stated that the Heresy stuff is its own separate game and not part of standard 40k. The two are compatible, but you'll need to agree with your your opponent to play a special house-ruled game and make up an appropriate list of lords of war options for the 40k army (or house rule that the Heresy player can't take theirs).

It is own game, like apocalypse and cities of death, now will I play 30k vs 40k, sure, I want to play orks and stuff with my iron warriors, it's perfectly acceptable to do so.

What if any changes would you make either to the ork rules or HH rules to do so?

 Formosa wrote:
It is own game, like apocalypse and cities of death, now will I play 30k vs 40k, sure, I want to play orks and stuff with my iron warriors, it's perfectly acceptable to do so.

That comparison doesn't make sense - Cities of Death, Apocalypse, Planetstrike, etc are not different games. They're scenarios with special rules - even Apocalypse. You also can't, like you said with HH books, play one vs the other. You can't have one person playing Cities of Death while the other plays Planetstrike, even in a friendly game. Both players are either playing one or the other, due to them, again, being scenarios.

Have any of you actually played the list? Either vs 40k or 30k?

Speaking from my experience, and you can find my vids for some of these games on YouTube, they are fine vs 40k forces, being neither overpowered or underpowered. The primarchs are basically over priced greater daemons and the legion lst lacks a great deal of flexibility that SM lists usually have

Wasn't it stated somewhere that they're formulated to be compatible with 40k? That's hearsay though, and I could be totally off.

Regardless, we allow HH in tournaments at my FLGS and we've never had problems with them. We don't allow Lords of War, but everything else in there is fair game.

What type of allies matrix would they have? Could be fun to field the Lion with his 40K chapter.

It would be a lot of fun punching holes in them with some eldar.

 ansacs wrote:
What type of allies matrix would they have? Could be fun to field the Lion with his 40K chapter.

It would be a lot of fun punching holes in them with some eldar.

It has a very in depth 30k Allies matrix but it's really an overview of intrigue in the 30th Millennium rather than hard and fast rules.
As you'd have to house rule/get opponent's permission for most of it anyway, there really isn't anything stopping you from taking the Lion in a friendly game.(well aside from the fact we don't have rules for him as of yet)

Personally I like to think of HH as an extension of 40k rules. I'm creating a Legion of space marines and I want to mix HH rules in. I would let people use HH rules if I vs them.

It's its own game but I would still play against a list in a heartbeat as long as I got an extra ~500pts if he was using a Primarch or Superheavy, to spend on any units. Even outside the FOC allowance.

wierdly enough I'm not that big a fan of the 40k marines but I do love the 30k ones for pure fluff reasons and I'll be happy to play with or against any legion list.

Incidentially my favorite one was Death Guard but I just never got into the whole plague marine side of things. I like them like they used to be. Incidentially I also love the Death Korps, lots of similarities in tactics and mindset between those forces.

 Deadshot wrote:
It's its own game but I would still play against a list in a heartbeat as long as I got an extra ~500pts if he was using a Primarch or Superheavy, to spend on any units. Even outside the FOC allowance.

That's just silly. As long as the 40k list uses the age of darkness force org and gets access to lords of war as per the FAQ there is no need for extra points

I don't think they're meant to be played outside of 30k Marine versus 30k marines.

However, my group will be trying some 30k Marines versus Xenos for Great Crusade action, as well as some 30k Marines on Chaos for some Scouring action. We like themed campaigns and games as much as possible.

I can't wait! What other people do or think about it is as important to me as finding naked pictures of Philis Diller on the interwebs.

 Massaen wrote:

 Deadshot wrote:
It's its own game but I would still play against a list in a heartbeat as long as I got an extra ~500pts if he was using a Primarch or Superheavy, to spend on any units. Even outside the FOC allowance.

That's just silly. As long as the 40k list uses the age of darkness force org and gets access to lords of war as per the FAQ there is no need for extra points

Having never the Age of Darkness chart or what units are Lords of War I can't agree or disagree.

I've gone up against World Eaters and Sons of Horus with my eldar and a BA playing friend. We had no lords of war choices and the points were even.
It was great fun, I'd happily recommend it to anyone.
Angron and Horus are powerful, but they are still killable.
For anyone who's not done it - leap at the chance.

Playing against primarchs is fantastic. It really brought something to the game.

Classic political poll.

Answering the title is the opposite of the question.

If you want a realistic answer, this thread should be closed and reopened by someone who isn't biased.

I'm not really biased, the title/poll difference was happenstance. I have change the title to match the poll.

In the middle of its lifetime? How committed to accuracy you are.

Player whatever you want. The 40k rules aren't tight to begin with.

 DarknessEternal wrote:
In the middle of its lifetime? How committed to accuracy you are.

I demand at least a 0.5% margin of error or it's gak!

Also, why so serious?

I agree with the sentiment one player has given me on this... "If you spend 1,000$ with every single detail and thing right on an a HH army, you can play no matter if it's from forgeworld."


I played my Dark Angels against The Sons of Horus on zone mortalis board. I think I only won because he had to many heavy weapons in a game your supposed to move around in.

Also, my DW knights slaughtered a 20 man legion tactical squad + praetorian + Apothecary in combat, they broke and a single Tactical marine swept the entire squad off the board he is in the process of receiving Terminator honors!

The loss of And They Shall Know No Fear is pretty huge.

They really aren't meant to be used together. After playing an opponent with HH marines and tabling him by turn 3 we decided never to try again.
In games now he uses the models for C:SM.

 -Loki- wrote:

 Formosa wrote:
It is own game, like apocalypse and cities of death, now will I play 30k vs 40k, sure, I want to play orks and stuff with my iron warriors, it's perfectly acceptable to do so.

That comparison doesn't make sense - Cities of Death, Apocalypse, Planetstrike, etc are not different games. They're scenarios with special rules - even Apocalypse. You also can't, like you said with HH books, play one vs the other. You can't have one person playing Cities of Death while the other plays Planetstrike, even in a friendly game. Both players are either playing one or the other, due to them, again, being scenarios.

Of course there different games, try walking up and useing city fight strategems in a 40k game, or assaulting after deep strike, and get laughed off the table, they have a separate set of rules that interact with 40k rules.

Hh is a diferent game too, it has its own set of rules that interact with the 40k ones, case in point the revised allies rules and lords of war foc, neither of these are usable in 40k, but.I still agree that you can play 30k vs 40k it just takes a little extra work before hand.

It's funny reading people complain about balance when they probably never played it.

As long as the FOCs match I do not see a problem. They are marines with slightly different weapons. Not much different from the Necron Codex and everyone as going "Oh their weapons do that now?"

People keep mixing rules out of ignorance. "I would not let him play Angron." Of course you don't. He would not be allowed. Angron needs a minimum of points to be fielded and uses an FOC slot which does not exist in 40K.

If you guys play with the same standard FOC he cannot field Angron or any Apocalypse Super-Heavy. What's left?
Marines, Bikes, Jetpack troops, devastators, dreadnoughts and predators. Nothing you have not really seen before.

I say bring it. It will be a nice change from all the cookie-cutter net lists.

Even Angron isn't too bad - you pay all those points and he still goes down to shooting.

ive played my 40k army against my buddies 30k one...

I felt he was at a significant disdvantage

going to up my handicapp and play again though, its all good fun

As long as both players consent to it, why not? Best case you will have a good game, worst case you'll do it once and never again.

Really, the only thing questionable is the phrasing "should", as it implies enforcement.

Well, it depends.

Should it be allowed in 40k in general? Sure, why not? As long as the FOC is the same, it shouldn't be a big deal.
Should it be allowed in 40k tournaments? Eh, probably not. There's a difference between Codex specific rules, and an entirely new rulebook (Mostly stuff like Pride of the Legion, methinks).

 Lynata wrote:
Really, the only thing questionable is the phrasing "should", as it implies enforcement.

That's because I'm wondering about organized events, as well. In casual play, someone may refuse to play you because you have a Tau army. Or because they don't like your t-shirt.

Oh. Well, don't all the tournaments have their own rules on what they allow and what not, anyways? Just like some will allow FW and others not, some could also allow HH stuff and others not.

People who don't like it would have to swallow the bitter pill and stay away. When you organise something involving so many people, it's pretty much impossible to please everyone.

The good thing is that the lack of a uniform policy allows so many different types of tournaments to exist that everybody gets something.

It's forge world, you need your opponents permission to play it against them instead of using normal 40k stuffs.

Case closed.

I think if TOs want to use 30k lists in their tournaments, they'll be fine. The Primarchs should be handled like Super heavies, though, and not allowed at tournaments unless super heavies are allowed.

 Lynata wrote:
Well, don't all the tournaments have their own rules on what they allow and what not, anyways?

I've never heard of one, aside from niche themed ones, where you couldn't bring, for example, Space Marine or Eldar. Yeah, they may have "their own rules" but a 40k tourney is generally understood to mean something pretty consistent with the BGB and current codices.

 Manchu wrote:

 Lynata wrote:
Well, don't all the tournaments have their own rules on what they allow and what not, anyways?

I've never heard of one, aside from niche themed ones, where you couldn't bring, for example, Space Marine or Eldar. Yeah, they may have "their own rules" but a 40k tourney is generally understood to mean something pretty consistent with the BGB and current codices.

But you have heard of dozes (or hundreds) of them that tacitly discourage those sort of things by selectively misinterpreting the rules and creating their own non-rules.

So what's really the difference?

juraigamer wrote:It's forge world, you need your opponents permission to play it against them instead of using normal 40k stuffs.

Case closed.

That hasn't been true for years.

Manchu wrote:

 Lynata wrote:
Well, don't all the tournaments have their own rules on what they allow and what not, anyways?

I've never heard of one, aside from niche themed ones, where you couldn't bring, for example, Space Marine or Eldar. Yeah, they may have "their own rules" but a 40k tourney is generally understood to mean something pretty consistent with the BGB and current codices.

It's more a fantasy thing than a 40k thing. Fantasy tournaments you often see something like;

- No more than 25% on monsters
- No Teclis
- No Wizard's Hat

or something along those lines.

While I don't think there's too much harm in using them for normal 40k games for the most part, FW has made it clear they aren't designed with that in mind, but rather are intended to be played against other HH lists.

I'd really have no problems playing with or against such a list for the most part, but if as a TO, despite allowing pretty much everything else FW, I don't think I'd allow the HH lists in a tournament because of the explicit statement from FW stating they weren't intended for such play.

Manchu wrote:I've never heard of one, aside from niche themed ones, where you couldn't bring, for example, Space Marine or Eldar. Yeah, they may have "their own rules" but a 40k tourney is generally understood to mean something pretty consistent with the BGB and current codices.

You're right. I was thinking of not every tournament allowing FW armies, but if they do it stands to reason that they would not make a difference between standard FW and Heresy stuff. Is this what OP's question is referring to? Maybe I interpreted it incorrectly.

[edit] Vaktathi raises a good point - if FW themselves recommend against mixing, then the organisers might still follow suit.

Sidenote: was it ever possible to play something like a Codex Catachans list at a GW tourney? You know, a non-codex GW list.

Furyou Miko wrote:That hasn't been true for years.

Technically, it still is. You cannot force someone to play your army - regardless of whether you play a GW Codex, a FW list, or your own homebrewn rules. The 1st one just has the advantage of being considered a "common ground" by most if not all players, whereas the community still feels split on the 2nd option. 3rd one should be obvious.

In friendly games against enemies who know they're going to be facing the list and are okay with it, fine. Don't show up to a pick-up game and expect the other guy to allow it, or complain if he objects.

 Manchu wrote:

 Lynata wrote:
Well, don't all the tournaments have their own rules on what they allow and what not, anyways?

I've never heard of one, aside from niche themed ones, where you couldn't bring, for example, Space Marine or Eldar. Yeah, they may have "their own rules" but a 40k tourney is generally understood to mean something pretty consistent with the BGB and current codices.

Except when you're talking about a comp-heavy event (of which there are plenty). They might not ban an entire codex, but you can't really call it "consistent with the BGB and current codices" when you have rules like "no more than two flyers per army".

The point costs for the Legions in Betrayal are BIZARRE and not in a good way at all. Almost every unit is charged a massive "Heresy tax" just for existing (look at those poor Breacher squad members, for a particularly egregious example). Using those army lists is a recipe for total failure in a competitive situation - they are not fairly priced, not balanced, and absolutely not consistent even within the book. I honestly think that the Forge World folks play some strange house rule monstrosity that bears no resemblance to the 40K seen by mere mortals.

Oddly for a Forge World product, the actual rules are pretty decent. They should be addressing the Chain Fire Serpenta issue in their next FAQ, and that's one of the only "gotchas" I've found so far.

I can't speak for tournies, never played in one, and I don't really have an interest in it, but I really think that kind of decision should come down to the players. All it really takes is a simple 'Do you mind if I field some FW stuff?' to get that taken care of.

I like to imagine that they don't exist at all.

 Melissia wrote:
I like to imagine that they don't exist at all.

But...the rules are...so beautifully balanced and well written...

Tzeench is correct, all the units come with a heresy tax, look at assault squads now, then the heresy ones, there more expensive due to being fairly rare

 Furyou Miko wrote:

juraigamer wrote:It's forge world, you need your opponents permission to play it against them instead of using normal 40k stuffs.

Case closed.

That hasn't been true for years.

As stated it is listed that in order to use FW units, codexes, ect you must have your opponents permission and/or TO's allowing it. You cannot simply walk up to a guy and say lets play and not inform them what unit you would like to take and if it's ok.

I think they actually stopped printing that line in the last few books - or at least it is not as explicit anymore. It basically still suggests it.

http://theindependentcharacters.com/blog/?p=1984
This article has what I'd deem a fairly good analysis of the situation.

This isn't really the place to debate FW "validity", though - the OP specifically asked to keep that out of the thread.

Hi,

I play HH marines and they're not overpowered in my opinion, especially with the lack of things you can have compared to codex Space Marines. I didnt think I'd miss the Tac Squad and free Rocket Launchers and flamers but now I do, as well as having to have all weapons the same in a Devestator Squad.

I don't play any Lords Of War options and the Primarch of my legion isn't out yet but for the points you pay, there not invincible. A lot of the units that can actually do good such as the Contemptor are over 200 points so most of the time I have less things on the table, and with a lot less flexibility than 40k Codex SM Jockeys.

To be honest, they all use the same rules and I've found that when people hear the army I'm running, they come to fight me instead of worrying about things. How often are you going to fight a full HH legion?

No. because they should focus more on getting existing models up to scratch with current rules editions before running off on wild tangeants on the off chance a gamer wants something to act as a center piece (with large GW kits produced now means that has largely been made redundant) Edit: this may seem OT, but it underlines the problem of why it is a bad idea. if people think things are OP with current Models, imaggine the issues if you had a warhound and the other guy didn't have a gargant or equivalent? it'd make the game more fun in larger games and save the end user (you me and all the wargamers money) $$$ but at the same time create un-needed issues at this time (when GW is slowly trying to earn the trust of many of their fans of their miniatures. focus more on getting everything in line with the same codex and quit making bigger stuff as it only slows down production on everything else. if everything was in line and everyone had a super heavy or a titan then there'd be no issue's GP wise. if it is a Narrative game or a based on a Historical (for 40k) battle i don't see a problem. I thought you could use FW in reg games just not tourney's. which is the way it should be (makes everything potentially OP with FW kits)

 juraigamer wrote:
As stated it is listed that in order to use FW units, codexes, ect you must have your opponents permission and/or TO's allowing it. You cannot simply walk up to a guy and say lets play and not inform them what unit you would like to take and if it's ok.

Since when can you walk up to a guy and say let's play and not inform them what unit you would like to take with ANY rules? Do you plan to hold a gun to my head and force me to play against your necron flyerspam list just because I said "sure, I'll play" before realizing what you had in mind? Or does the fact that it's a codex list magically bind me to the table and prevent me from saying "sorry, not interested" and walking away?

 Orkimedes1000 wrote:
if people think things are OP with current Models, imaggine the issues if you had a warhound and the other guy didn't have a gargant or equivalent?

This is why it's important to understand the rules before having an opinion about whether they should be allowed or not. FW rules do NOT allow you to take a Warhound in a normal game of 40k. Even with the Heresy list that allows you to take a Warhound (in a 3000+ point game) if you want to play it against anything other than another Heresy list (with equal access to Warhounds) you are required to create an appropriate set of superheavy/etc options for the "standard" army to pick from, you can't just bring your Warhound and laugh as they have nothing to stop it.

I thought you could use FW in reg games just not tourney's.

GW doesn't run tournaments, so the only rules for them are "what some random person feels like doing in their event", which means FW can be allowed or banned depending on the TO's mood at the time.

Have any of you actually played the list? Either vs 40k or 30k?

Speaking from my experience, and you can find my vids for some of these games on YouTube, they are fine vs 40k forces, being neither overpowered or underpowered. The primarchs are basically over priced greater daemons and the legion lst lacks a great deal of flexibility that SM lists usually have

Hi,

I play HH marines and they're not overpowered in my opinion, especially with the lack of things you can have compared to codex Space Marines. I didnt think I'd miss the Tac Squad and free Rocket Launchers and flamers but now I do, as well as having to have all weapons the same in a Devestator Squad.

I don't play any Lords Of War options and the Primarch of my legion isn't out yet but for the points you pay, there not invincible. A lot of the units that can actually do good such as the Contemptor are over 200 points so most of the time I have less things on the table, and with a lot less flexibility than 40k Codex SM Jockeys.

To be honest, they all use the same rules and I've found that when people hear the army I'm running, they come to fight me instead of worrying about things

Thanks for some actual/solid gaming experience guys and not the usual knee jerk reaction (all) forums provide

I'd concur that while some rules are OP in the HH book, some are inevitably OP in the core Codicies.
We hammered out a 1500 HH vs SM list of late and whilst the Primarch did make a big(!) difference it was more ignorance of the ruleset and lack of practice than anything.
I'd happily put a Green Tide with Gazzy up agaisnt one of the HH lists.
Hell, 6th Flyer Spam? Goodnight HH.

Ponit being, lack of experience and pseudo list building mean little VS actual games.
Are they broken? Sure they are VS certain builds/lists. Bur c;mon peeps we've played 40k long enough to know most X lists are broken vs Y lists.
Rock, paper zzzzz

I like to imagine that they don't exist at all.

The HH book army lists?
Why?








Automatically Appended Next Post:

No. because they should focus more on getting existing models up to scratch with current rules editions before running off on wild tangeants on the off chance a gamer wants something to act as a center piece

Uhhm? FW is a subco of GW. They dont / do not have to update current GW army lists/codicies. That is not their goal / business model.
They are a subco catering for specialist/specifcs subsets of the GW experience - and that includes warhammer, 40k, aeronautica, terrain etc etc.

 Orkimedes1000 wrote:
if people think things are OP with current Models, imaggine the issues if you had a warhound and the other guy didn't have a gargant or equivalent?

This is why it's important to understand the rules before having an opinion about whether they should be allowed or not. FW rules do NOT allow you to take a Warhound in a normal game of 40k. Even with the Heresy list that allows you to take a Warhound (in a 3000+ point game) if you want to play it against anything other than another Heresy list (with equal access to Warhounds) you are required to create an appropriate set of superheavy/etc options for the "standard" army to pick from, you can't just bring your Warhound and laugh as they have nothing to stop it.

I thought you could use FW in reg games just not tourney's.

GW doesn't run tournaments, so the only rules for them are "what some random person feels like doing in their event", which means FW can be allowed or banned depending on the TO's mood at the time.

GW doesn't run tournaments? Did I miss something? >_>

http://www.games-workshop.com/MEDIA_CustomProductCatalog/m160017a_Throne_of_Skulls_-_Warhammer_40,000_Pack.pdf

that is right. i know the rules. and i also know GW doesn't personally endorse or promote tournaments. if it is a tournament that is it is under GW's rules and conditions of tournament/s. i am betting you haven't been to an official GW tournament? i wasn't generalising when you can you them in reg games. you need your oppoonents permission to use it. and also outside TO arrange whatever they feel is required to "make the game at that present time as enjoyable for one player and the next in equal measure, regardless of victory or defeat"

Hmm? If GW dont run regular tourneys then: How do FW models/rules affect said tourneys?

If GW do run these tourneys but you need your opponents permission to run a Warhound or HH list, and he/shes says no?.....

Im really confused by your post.

And lastly it said list of options and i clicked No. add your reasoning. IIRC i did just that.....i apologise for not going into 7000 word overdrive. but when i do people cannot comprehend what i say. so forgive me if i left out some important details (that left me open to attack, i am by no means a noob, by somone thinking i am a 10 year veteran or less, because i have played 40k the better part of 29 years. started with D&D in '87 and progressed to HQ/Spacecrusade. several years later i bought my first actual 40k. there is no rule i haven't read. in ANY rules editions. or expansions etc. if i am incomprehenisble it might due in part because i know so much on the matter, the human mind can only hold so much data before older data is pushed to the back of your mind to make room "concentration-wise" for more information. I am not a servitor. if i was i'd parrot what was written by those who wrote for GW @ the time word for word. i think this needed to be liffted off my chest. i am tired of people assuming i know NOTHING about 40k)

 Lynata wrote:
GW doesn't run tournaments? Did I miss something? >_>

http://www.games-workshop.com/MEDIA_CustomProductCatalog/m160017a_Throne_of_Skulls_-_Warhammer_40,000_Pack.pdf

Ok, GW doesn't run tournaments unless you live within driving distance of Warhammer World. For the vast majority of 40k players there is no such thing as a GW tournament.

 Orkimedes1000 wrote:
i am betting you haven't been to an official GW tournament?

No, I haven't, because I live in the US where every single tournament is run by third-party groups, each of them with their own house rules.

i wasn't generalising when you can you them in reg games. you need your oppoonents permission to use it.

Just like you need your opponent's permission to use anything. What are you going to do, hold a gun to my head and force me to play against your orks even though I don't like that you brought so many boyz?

and also outside TO arrange whatever they feel is required to "make the game at that present time as enjoyable for one player and the next in equal measure, regardless of victory or defeat"

What's your point? Some TOs include FW stuff in their events, some ban it. But that has nothing to do with GW's official rules on the subject.

there is no rule i haven't read. in ANY rules editions. or expansions etc.

Then why did you post a pointless rant about how unfair it would be for someone to use a Warhound titan in a "normal" game when anyone who has read the relevant rules knows that it isn't possible to do that?

 Ratius wrote:

that is right. i know the rules. and i also know GW doesn't personally endorse or promote tournaments. if it is a tournament that is it is under GW's rules and conditions of tournament/s. i am betting you haven't been to an official GW tournament? i wasn't generalising when you can you them in reg games. you need your oppoonents permission to use it. and also outside TO arrange whatever they feel is required to "make the game at that present time as enjoyable for one player and the next in equal measure, regardless of victory or defeat"

Hmm? If GW dont run regular tourneys then: How do FW models/rules affect said tourneys?

If GW do run these tourneys but you need your opponents permission to run a Warhound or HH list, and he/shes says no?.....

Im really confused by your post.

1. GW do run Tourney's. just not in the capacity or scope that would work for all gamers in different social economic/geographic and or demographic groups or whatever reasoning (idk i do not work for GW)

2. too bad you have spent money on a miniature on an offical level is considered a shiny new center piece or in friendly games that means, in games run by your friends, including you. and if you both agree then you can use super heavies. in a official game in an actual GW store you cannot unless the Store manager allows it (and it is rare)

3. that is only normal. i was confused for the better part of my first 7 years in the hobby. sometimes people claim i still am.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Lynata wrote:
GW doesn't run tournaments? Did I miss something? >_>

http://www.games-workshop.com/MEDIA_CustomProductCatalog/m160017a_Throne_of_Skulls_-_Warhammer_40,000_Pack.pdf

Ok, GW doesn't run tournaments unless you live within driving distance of Warhammer World. For the vast majority of 40k players there is no such thing as a GW tournament.

 Orkimedes1000 wrote:
i am betting you haven't been to an official GW tournament?

No, I haven't, because I live in the US where every single tournament is run by third-party groups, each of them with their own house rules.

i wasn't generalising when you can you them in reg games. you need your oppoonents permission to use it.

Just like you need your opponent's permission to use anything. What are you going to do, hold a gun to my head and force me to play against your orks even though I don't like that you brought so many boyz?

and also outside TO arrange whatever they feel is required to "make the game at that present time as enjoyable for one player and the next in equal measure, regardless of victory or defeat"

What's your point? Some TOs include FW stuff in their events, some ban it. But that has nothing to do with GW's official rules on the subject.

there is no rule i haven't read. in ANY rules editions. or expansions etc.

Then why did you post a pointless rant about how unfair it would be for someone to use a Warhound titan in a "normal" game when anyone who has read the relevant rules knows that it isn't possible to do that?

the point is YOU can use it in a NORMAL game, just not in the Offical context "outside of friends". that is what GW explicitly conveyed when they were designing each of the expansions in this case Apocalypse and IA/ Forgeworld units read as warhound titan. there are 2 defintions of a normal game and i'll list both so we both can agree i didn't say or did say ok here goes:
1. friendly games with mates, at either persons house or gaming area.
2. within a GW store/FLGS and the manager agrees (or if considered, in tournaments)

what is pointless about me raising an issue within one? see below for my reasoning and also my acknowledgement of a bad example of FW product:

isn't this thread about our opinions on and why our opinions are such? the OP explained in a small text what he wanted this thread to be about. and that was "should FW HH list be allowed into 40k" while i do agree i did make a bad example. but it could be used equally because GW doesn't stock and stockists ie FLGS's don't stock FW HH. or FW. the only way to "play with the notion of buying" outside of 2nd owner/ebay is from FW direct. so bad example. i rolled a instead of a this time and it up.

1. GW do run Tourney's. just not in the capacity or scope that would work for all gamers in different social economic/geographic and or demographic groups or whatever reasoning (idk i do not work for GW)

2. too bad you have spent money on a miniature on an offical level is considered a shiny new center piece or in friendly games that means, in games run by your friends, including you. and if you both agree then you can use super heavies. in a official game in an actual GW store you cannot unless the Store manager allows it (and it is rare)

3. that is only normal. i was confused for the better part of my first 7 years in the hobby. sometimes people claim i still am.

Thats ok Orki!

I fully get your post now.
I was just a little confused with the back and forth comments.

in a official game in an actual GW store you cannot unless the Store manager allows it (and it is rare)

Didnt know that - very interesting.

So to clarify (mainly for me!).

No FW models can be used in offical GW tourneys (limited as they are) unless the TO (GW guy) authorises it?

 Ratius wrote:

No FW models can be used in offical GW tourneys (limited as they are) unless the TO (GW guy) authorises it?

Nothing can be used in any tournament unless the TO authorizes it.

firstly:

No, I haven't, because I live in the US where every single tournament is run by third-party groups, each of them with their own house rules. therefore in each country or region and/or area manager or owner of a stockist/FLGS make rules based on their own merit's it has nothing to do with GW because it is not an OFFICIAL event. it is in your area, but globally it is just another gaming convention. the rules that are affecting tournaments might say change from that where any other person in another country. the reasoning could be justified by different play style favored by each player on the basis of how they play 40k or wargaming in general.

Secondary:

Just like you need your opponent's permission to use anything. What are you going to do, hold a gun to my head and force me to play against your orks even though I don't like that you brought so many boyz?

no one would play you if you kept rejecting offers to play even if you didn't like it- meaning i have 1000 boyz and you don't like it, chances are your IG have 10000 chimera's leman russes and basilisk's, i'd like it just as much as you'd like fighting my 1000 example only orks and only fighting with a handful of Guardsmen and no support (like probably most of the time since you raised the topic and made an issue out of it)

it is only pointless when you cannot bring something back into the debate. did i make you think? then it wasn't pointless now was it?

it is only pointless when you cannot bring something back into the debate. did i make you think? then it wasn't pointless now was it?

Hey Orki,
I wanst having a go!
I see your point quite well

 Ratius wrote:

1. GW do run Tourney's. just not in the capacity or scope that would work for all gamers in different social economic/geographic and or demographic groups or whatever reasoning (idk i do not work for GW)

2. too bad you have spent money on a miniature on an offical level is considered a shiny new center piece or in friendly games that means, in games run by your friends, including you. and if you both agree then you can use super heavies. in a official game in an actual GW store you cannot unless the Store manager allows it (and it is rare)

3. that is only normal. i was confused for the better part of my first 7 years in the hobby. sometimes people claim i still am.

Thats ok Orki!

I fully get your post now.
I was just a little confused with the back and forth comments.

in a official game in an actual GW store you cannot unless the Store manager allows it (and it is rare)

Didnt know that - very interesting.

So to clarify (mainly for me!).

No FW models can be used in offical GW tourneys (limited as they are) unless the TO (GW guy) authorises it?

Ratius: it is ok i was confused in probably the same way when i first starting reading dakka dakka threads back in 2002 (or earlier memory is fuzzy) Dakka has alot of back and forth. don't feel shy in asking questions. this is a friendly forum and gaming community (for the most part, but not a insult on anyone on dakka, just some personality's clash, as do idea's of what is what. taking into account the rules are slightly different country to country in regards to grammar and wording- so it's easy to become confused even for diehard longfangs or longbeards who remember the good old days)

Ratius:

i don't feel insulted nor do i mean to insult anyone else. and from here on in i can only offer my hope of good faith in some other "residents" in helping you enjoy your time posting. if you require any information in relation to the hobby all you need is ask

My group has a little rule. If you are playing a 2500-4000 point game you can bring HH units and add 1 Lord of War slot for up to 3250 and 2 for 3251-4000 points. A bit OP? Maybe, but fun as hell.

#hugs Orki!

 Orkimedes1000 wrote:
in this case Apocalypse and IA/ Forgeworld units read as warhound titan.

That's nonsense. FW makes a lot more than Apocalypse stuff, many of their units and army lists are just additions to normal 40k (different Leman Russ variants, etc).

but it could be used equally because GW doesn't stock and stockists ie FLGS's don't stock FW HH. or FW. the only way to "play with the notion of buying" outside of 2nd owner/ebay is from FW direct.

So what? Should we ban all of the other things that you can only order online directly from GW?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Orkimedes1000 wrote:
therefore in each country or region and/or area manager or owner of a stockist/FLGS make rules based on their own merit's it has nothing to do with GW because it is not an OFFICIAL event. it is in your area, but globally it is just another gaming convention. the rules that are affecting tournaments might say change from that where any other person in another country. the reasoning could be justified by different play style favored by each player on the basis of how they play 40k or wargaming in general.

And the point you still don't seem to understand is that there is no such thing as a universal tournament policy. Some events allow FW. Some don't. Some allow you to take orks. Some don't. Some allow you to take 9x flyers. Some don't. Etc.

no one would play you if you kept rejecting offers to play even if you didn't like it- meaning i have 1000 boyz and you don't like it, chances are your IG have 10000 chimera's leman russes and basilisk's, i'd like it just as much as you'd like fighting my 1000 example only orks and only fighting with a handful of Guardsmen and no support (like probably most of the time since you raised the topic and made an issue out of it)

Again, you're missing the point entirely. Saying "FW requires permission" is a meaningless statement because everything in this game requires permission. It doesn't matter what is in your list, before you start a game you have to show your opponent your army and have them agree to play against it. If they don't like it, whether because of your FW units or because they just don't enjoy playing against orks, they don't have to play against you.

Again, you're missing the point entirely. Saying "FW requires permission" is a meaningless statement because everything in this game requires permission. It doesn't matter what is in your list, before you start a game you have to show your opponent your army and have them agree to play against it. If they don't like it, whether because of your FW units or because they just don't enjoy playing against orks, they don't have to play against you.

Uhhm, not in a tournament though

If you bring Orks and I dont like playing Orks - well tough beep on me. Its a gak matchup but I have to fight on, otherwise, I might as well pack my army up game #1.

I still have to play you or I get booted from the tounrey. No?

 Peregrine wrote:

 Orkimedes1000 wrote:
in this case Apocalypse and IA/ Forgeworld units read as warhound titan.

That's nonsense. FW makes a lot more than Apocalypse stuff, many of their units and army lists are just additions to normal 40k (different Leman Russ variants, etc).

but it could be used equally because GW doesn't stock and stockists ie FLGS's don't stock FW HH. or FW. the only way to "play with the notion of buying" outside of 2nd owner/ebay is from FW direct.

So what? Should we ban all of the other things that you can only order online directly from GW?

did you read my post? and did you read the OP's original text? if you did then you'd know that regardless is i said a FW squat or a slann it'd matter just as little, the point still stands.

should we. can you reprhase the question because i'll misconstrue it. but here goes nothing. unless if it is stocked by games workshop either instore via a stockist or online via GW offical webpage. then the answer to your question is yes. yes they should ban them from being sold. before all the "cheap" bits companies released a ton of competition in the market GW has responded in part by increasing prices. you may disagree but that is the trend i have witnessed for the better part of the last decade


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ratius wrote:

Again, you're missing the point entirely. Saying "FW requires permission" is a meaningless statement because everything in this game requires permission. It doesn't matter what is in your list, before you start a game you have to show your opponent your army and have them agree to play against it. If they don't like it, whether because of your FW units or because they just don't enjoy playing against orks, they don't have to play against you.

Uhhm, not in a tournament though

If you bring Orks and I dont like playing Orks - well tough beep on me. Its a gak matchup but I have to fight on, otherwise, I might as well pack my army up game #1.

I still have to play you or I get booted from the tounrey. No?

nope your not banned or booted. if there is time you might get re-matched up with someone else depending on 2 factors:
1. overall game time and avail game time in tournament setting
2. overall players, and if there are stragglers ie they have no opponent but they are still in the tournament ie odd man out.

there are many FW things you could bring but CSM/SM/Ork and IG appear to have the most heavy units in FW. in a "normal" game you could if your opponent agreed and you owned either proxies or the real deal then nothing stops you from using all titans. as it is not a "official game, as defined within the rulebook, rather an expansion or add on"

 Orkimedes1000 wrote:
did you read my post? and did you read the OP's original text? if you did then you'd know that regardless is i said a FW squat or a slann it'd matter just as little, the point still stands.

The OP asked whether Heresy armies should be allowed by default. That has nothing to do with your pointless rant about Warhound titans, which are not allowed in standard games even if you include Heresy armies.

unless if it is stocked by games workshop either instore via a stockist or online via GW offical webpage. then the answer to your question is yes. yes they should ban them from being sold.

Fortunately everything FW sells is available via the official GW webpage: http://www.forgeworld.co.uk/

before all the "cheap" bits companies released a ton of competition in the market GW has responded in part by increasing prices. you may disagree but that is the trend i have witnessed for the better part of the last decade

And what does that have to do with anything?

Fortunately everything FW sells is available via the official GW webpage: http://www.forgeworld.co.uk/

they also.....

have a link to http://www.blacklibrary.com/ (while one sells books and another sells miniatures the difference is BL books are displayed under the "books" tab, while forgeworld is only a weblink directing those who don't know about FW or those that do but to make it easier for the customer to view and then buy said product)

and you claim it is on their page. a LINK to FW is. but product is not directly sold via online or stockist or instore.

my rant as you put it is to put into perspective of WHY i disagree with it being a good idea. i could list the reasons of why it'd be good:

because i wouldn't have to wait 4+ weeks for an order, and i could in a standard game use said FW item.

tbh and frank i don't think that is a good enough reason to include them. if GW changes there stance and includes them i retract my stance on the matter.

 Orkimedes1000 wrote:
and you claim it is on their page. a LINK to FW is. but product is not directly sold via online or stockist or instore.

http://www.forgeworld.co.uk/ is a GW website just like http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/home.jsp

if GW changes there stance and includes them i retract my stance on the matter.

GW has explicitly stated that (non-Apocalypse) Imperial Armour (FW's non-Heresy stuff) units are part of standard 40k. That has already been decided, the question here is whether the Heresy rules should be treated the same way or not.

The really interesting question here might be why GW has chosen to distance themselves from Forgeworld by having them run a completely separate website.
In the case of Black Library, we know (thanks to an interview with Dan Abnett) that they established it because the products of both franchises distribute conflicting material.

Peregrine wrote:GW has explicitly stated that (non-Apocalypse) Imperial Armour (FW's non-Heresy stuff) units are part of standard 40k.

Ugh, that again.

"Intended for use in" and "part of" are still not the same thing. Why would you mislead people like that?

 Lynata wrote:
The really interesting question here might be why GW has chosen to distance themselves from Forgeworld by having them run a completely separate website.
In the case of Black Library, we know (thanks to an interview with Dan Abnett) that they established it because the products of both franchises distribute conflicting material.

Well, "GW does stupid things" is an obvious answer, but there's a legitimate reason in that the "separation" establishes a clear brand identity for FW as the "premium" product for dedicated collectors. It doesn't make it any harder to find for the people who are in their target market, and having a visually distinct website and everything makes it as obvious as possible that you're buying a special kit when you order that titan. It's a slightly more dramatic version of what GW does with having the special logo and different box style on all finecast models.

Peregrine wrote:"Intended for use in" and "part of" are still not the same thing. Why would you mislead people like that?

Because when the people declaring their intent are the ones who create the rules for the game "intended for" and "part of" are the same thing and you're just nitpicking the exact wording.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Orkimedes1000 wrote:
and you claim it is on their page. a LINK to FW is. but product is not directly sold via online or stockist or instore.

http://www.forgeworld.co.uk/ is a GW website just like http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/home.jsp

if GW changes there stance and includes them i retract my stance on the matter.

GW has explicitly stated that (non-Apocalypse) Imperial Armour (FW's non-Heresy stuff) units are part of standard 40k. That has already been decided, the question here is whether the Heresy rules should be treated the same way or not.

merely conjecture. you mentioned that their product or i am lead to presume that is your meaning, is listed directly on their website. at any rate it was designed to make me back pedal. when you didn't actually do your homework!

regardless if it is canon or not it isn't sold therefore it shouldn't be allowed. if they do in the future then i'll gladly accept that fact and move on. is there an actual reason on why it'd be a good thing?????


Automatically Appended Next Post:
It doesn't make it any harder to find for the people who are in their target market, and having a visually distinct website how do you figure that?

do you actually think everyone who is either new or is a veteran, but is too lazy to scroll to the bottom of the page and see a tiny weblink?

while BL and FW do need brand identifiers, the difference is BL has product as in official website of GW while FW does not.

it only has a tiny weblink in between BL and Investor relations.

if you consider this pointless then quit going on wild goose chases!!!!

Peregrine wrote:Well, "GW does stupid things" is an obvious answer, but there's a legitimate reason in that the "separation" establishes a clear brand identity for FW as the "premium" product for dedicated collectors. It doesn't make it any harder to find for the people who are in their target market, and having a visually distinct website and everything makes it as obvious as possible that you're buying a special kit when you order that titan.

Just because you don't like something does not make it stupid.
You are also implying that GW does not offer collectors items in their main studio catalogue, which is false.

GW sells other dedicated brands such as Citadel on their main website, too. If they just wanted to establish FW as a collectors brand, they could have done so without giving them their own website and online shop, seeing as this merely creates additional hassle for the customer should he or she wish to combine orders from multiple franchises.

Peregrine wrote:Because when the people declaring their intent are the ones who create the rules for the game "intended for" and "part of" are the same thing and you're just nitpicking the exact wording.

I am nitpicking the propaganda-like use of altered wording. "Intended for use in" means that the rules were written for a specific type of game - nothing more, nothing less.
If you believe it's the same why do you not use the original phrase?

Because when the people declaring their intent are the ones who create the rules for the game "intended for" and "part of" are the same thing and you're just nitpicking the exact wording.

while the first part is true,

the second half isn't and here is why,

"Intended" for can in the pretext given, the meaning: "intended for the standard game system",

while "part of" explains the reasoning behind what is and what isn't allowed to be part of either by total exclusion or partial. GW writes the rules. i don't but i sure follow them. why because it is their game and i have made it my hobby. either game as dictated by GW or rage quit. tbh it won't really affect GW's overall sales as i have found out many times. (but it is my crack so i keep coming back)

 Orkimedes1000 wrote:
either game as dictated by GW or rage quit.

I do. That's why I consider FW rules allowed by default.

 Orkimedes1000 wrote:
merely conjecture. you mentioned that their product or i am lead to presume that is your meaning, is listed directly on their website. at any rate it was designed to make me back pedal. when you didn't actually do your homework!

http://forgeworld.co.uk/ is GW's website.

regardless if it is canon or not it isn't sold therefore it shouldn't be allowed.

It is sold by GW on http://forgeworld.co.uk/

it only has a tiny weblink in between BL and Investor relations.

It also has http://forgeworld.co.uk/ which is part of GW's website, frequent mentions in GW's daily blog, etc. I'm sorry if this doesn't meet your personal standards for being easy enough to find, but your personal demands aren't what determine whether GW considers something official.

 Lynata wrote:
GW sells other dedicated brands such as Citadel on their main website, too. If they just wanted to establish FW as a collectors brand, they could have done so without giving them their own website and online shop, seeing as this merely creates additional hassle for the customer should he or she wish to combine orders from multiple franchises.

I didn't say it was a good idea, I said that it's a possible reason. Having a separate website helps to establish a brand identity for FW. You can debate all you want about whether or not that's a good idea, but it's still a reason that has nothing to do with legality in games.

I am nitpicking the propaganda-like use of altered wording. "Intended for use in" means that the rules were written for a specific type of game - nothing more, nothing less.

And when the person writing the rules for a specific type of game is the one who decides what is and isn't part of that type of game intent is the same as fact.

If you believe it's the same why do you not use the original phrase?

Because I didn't feel like copy/pasting the exact wording just to protect against nitpicking.

Peregrine wrote:Having a separate website helps to establish a brand identity for FW.

And removing it from the main line. Yes.

Peregrine wrote:And when the person writing the rules for a specific type of game is the one who decides what is and isn't part of that type of game intent is the same as fact.

Except that none of the people writing the FW books are part of GW's core studio staff. They do not "get to decide what is and isn't part of that type of game".

But even if that were the case, there is still a difference between "intended for use in" and "part of". Compatibility isn't the same as affiliation.
GW's own Codex: Catachans, the Ordo Hereticus Strike Force in Citadel Journal, or White Dwarf's Blood Pact rules were also written with the intention of being used in standard games of 40k, yet they are barred from GW's own tournament.

Since I already made a comparison between Forgeworld and Black Library, let's look at the latter a second time. Its stories and fluff are also "intended for use" with the setting of 40k, yet they are quite obviously (and evidently, for here we have clear statements from the relevant people) not part of the studio's own vision for it. And just like Black Library has its own website because of this barrier between them, it could be the same for FW. You don't know. You simply assume and then use altered phrases in the hopes of forcing your personal preferences - in this case acceptance of Forgeworld - upon others. The latter part is what makes this so condemnable.

Peregrine wrote:Because I didn't feel like copy/pasting the exact wording just to protect against nitpicking.

But you did feel like copy/pasting the exact wording you already used in the last thread concerning the validity of FW rules?
After I already called you out for this there as well?

Interesting.

Look. It's real easy. If GW wanted to endorse FW in a way that its rulebooks were treated the same as any Codex, they could have chosen an appropriate wording.
And they could sell the Army Books on the official GW online shop.
Or, hell, they could incorporate FW minis into the GW army Codices right away, if you feel that they are "part" of this.
Unless you wish to claim that Forgeworld should also be established as a brand for collector rules rather than just minis now.

 Lynata wrote:
Except that none of the people writing the FW books are part of GW's core studio staff. They do not "get to decide what is and isn't part of that type of game".

They're acting with GW's approval. If the core studio didn't agree 100% with the statement then it wouldn't be published.

But even if that were the case, there is still a difference between "intended for use in" and "part of". Compatibility isn't the same as affiliation.

Of course it's the same. There's a difference between "intended for use in standard 40k" and "compatible with 40k". The key point here is standard 40k, FW rules are intended for use in standard games, not special FW-expansion games.

GW's own Codex: Catachans, the Ordo Hereticus Strike Force in Citadel Journal, or White Dwarf's Blood Pact rules were also written with the intention of being used in standard games of 40k, yet they are barred from GW's own tournament.

So what? Who cares what GW did years ago when they used to run tournaments?

And if you're referring to a modern tournament those rules are long obsolete, their removal from tournaments has nothing to do with what the original intent was, it's just because of the simple fact that they aren't updated for the current edition of the game.

Since I already made a comparison between Forgeworld and Black Library, let's look at the latter a second time. Its stories and fluff are also "intended for use" with the setting of 40k, yet they are quite obviously (and evidently, for here we have clear statements from the relevant people) not part of the studio's own vision for it.

That's a terrible comparison. GW has no "standard fluff" policy.

But you did feel like copy/pasting the exact wording you already used in the last thread concerning the validity of FW rules?
After I already called you out for this there as well?

Interesting.

I see, so now you're just going to nitpick the exact wording I use every time and hope to find some "inconsistency"?

Look. It's real easy. If GW wanted to endorse FW in a way that its rulebooks were treated the same as any Codex, they could have chosen an appropriate wording.

They did. GW has made it perfectly clear, they just haven't done it in the precise way that you want them to.

And they could sell the Army Books on the official GW online shop.

They do. http://forgeworld.co.uk/

Or, hell, they could incorporate FW minis into the GW army Codices right away, if you feel that they are "part" of this.

They could, but their decision to sell rules in different books does not change their legality. GW is not obligated to follow your preferred publishing method.

Peregrine wrote:They're acting with GW's approval. If the core studio didn't agree 100% with the statement then it wouldn't be published.

Perhaps they agree because it is not, as you claimed, the same person making said statement, thus removing the condition you yourself have posed for making "intended for use" equal to "part of"?

Peregrine wrote:Of course it's the same.

By what logic is "I'm designing these rules to be used in standard games of 40k" possibly the same as "these rules are an integral part of standard games of 40k"? I just can't understand you here.

Let's just assume the hypothetical situation that next month's White Dwarf would publish mini-rules for some odd unit. No "Chapter Approved" stamp, no anything.
Would this unit, in your mind, suddenly become "part of standard 40k" just because of that?

Peregrine wrote:That's a terrible comparison. GW has no "standard fluff" policy.

As per Dan Abnett's interview, apparently it has. That was the very reason they created the Black Library. GW just doesn't care whether you prefer the fluff in their own books or the things in a BL novel. Just like GW does not care whether you use a Codex or FW rules when playing 40k with a friend. As far as the players/readers are concerned, they are all free to pick what they like.

Peregrine wrote:I see, so now you're just going to nitpick the exact wording I use every time and hope to find some "inconsistency"?

I "nitpick" your manipulative and repeated use of a supposed GW statement which was never made. You can easily avoid it simply by using the correct wording when making such claims, instead of evoking the appearance that you are twisting words in an effort to propagate your cause. After all, when it's really the same to you, it'd make no difference ...

Peregrine wrote:They do. http://forgeworld.co.uk/

That is the Forgeworld shop. While the company is a subsidiary of GW, it does not make the FW shop the same, just like the BioWare store is not the EA store. What were you saying about "establishing brand identity" up there...?

Peregrine wrote:They could, but their decision to sell rules in different books does not change their legality.

As per GW, that apparently depends:

"Warhammer 40,000: 1,500 points chosen from any army list in an in-print Warhammer 40,000 Codex."
http://www.games-workshop.com/MEDIA_CustomProductCatalog/m2540053a_US_Throne_of_Skulls_Info_Pack_2012

"You may use any current and in print Warhammer 40,000 Codex book, as well as any current and official updates in White Dwarf, eg. Codex: Sisters of Battle and the Chaos Daemons update.
Rules from Forge World’s productions are not in use at Kill Team. However, you may use the models where they appropriately represent a Codex entry (eg. Contemptor Dreadnought as a Dreadnought, of Death Korps of Krieg as Imperial Guardsmen)."
http://www.games-workshop.com/MEDIA_CustomProductCatalog/m2860630a_40K_Kill_Team_Pack_2013_(6).pdf

Arguably, if the rules for FW units would be printed in a Codex, they could have been fielded in the above instances. In this, their legality is indeed different simply because they are not part of the Codex armies.

Where legality is not different is in games between friends, where everyone needs to consent to play the other's army anyways. Of course, this does not only go for GW or FW units but also any homebrewed rules..


You know what ... I suppose there's no real point in continueing the debate, given that your definition of "intended for use with" is so very different from mine. If it ever had a point, that is. I've achieved what I set out to (-> correcting falsified statements), so I'll withdraw and let the thread run its course instead of making the both of us push it further and further away from the original topic.

Manchu wrote:Assuming that, do you think that lists from that book should be used in 40k games?

If you are going to say that FW modules are necessary core components of the rules, and not modules, then there is no serious answer except for "yes".

Saying that some things that FW produces is in and some of it is out doesn't make sense.

 Ailaros wrote:

Manchu wrote:Assuming that, do you think that lists from that book should be used in 40k games?

If you are going to say that FW modules are necessary core components of the rules, and not modules, then there is no serious answer except for "yes".

Saying that some things that FW produces is in and some of it is out doesn't make sense.

No, it makes perfect sense because not only have FW not included the "this is part of standard 40k" statement in the Heresy rules, they've explicitly stated that it is NOT part of standard 40k and you need to ask your opponent to agree to a special non-standard game to use the Heresy rules. It's just like how the Apocalypse-only rules FW publishes aren't magically part of standard 40k just because FW published some other rules that are.

 Lynata wrote:
]By what logic is "I'm designing these rules to be used in standard games of 40k" possibly the same as "these rules are an integral part of standard games of 40k"? I just can't understand you here.

The key point is that the designer has the authority to decide what is and isn't part of standard 40k. It's simple:

If you or I write something intended for standard 40k our intent is meaningless. It might be useful to some people as a statement about compatibility, but it's just our wishful thinking as far as legality is concerned.

If GW writes something intended for standard 40k then intent is the same as fact.

Let's just assume the hypothetical situation that next month's White Dwarf would publish mini-rules for some odd unit. No "Chapter Approved" stamp, no anything.
Would this unit, in your mind, suddenly become "part of standard 40k" just because of that?

No, because, unlike FW rules, there's no statement saying "this is for standard 40k". Since GW also publishes things like special scenario units/rules that aren't meant for general use outside of a specific scenario we can't assume that the unit is supposed to be part of the standard game.

Peregrine wrote:As per Dan Abnett's interview, apparently it has. That was the very reason they created the Black Library. GW just doesn't care whether you prefer the fluff in their own books or the things in a BL novel. Just like GW does not care whether you use a Codex or FW rules when playing 40k with a friend. As far as the players/readers are concerned, they are all free to pick what they like.

Except that's still a horrible comparison. There's no NEED to have two people agree on 'standard fluff' because fluff is something you do by yourself. Rules, on the other hand, involve at least two players and so GW has to say what is and isn't official/standard. And with FW they have stated that it is part of the standard game.

I "nitpick" your manipulative and repeated use of a supposed GW statement which was never made. You can easily avoid it simply by using the correct wording when making such claims, instead of evoking the appearance that you are twisting words in an effort to propagate your cause. After all, when it's really the same to you, it'd make no difference ...

Or you could stop nitpicking. The intent of the statement is perfectly clear.

That is the Forgeworld shop. While the company is a subsidiary of GW, it does not make the FW shop the same, just like the BioWare store is not the EA store. What were you saying about "establishing brand identity" up there...?

FW is a brand name used by GW to sell various products, just like Citadel and White Dwarf. The fact that some parts of their webpage have a different design doesn't mean they aren't part of the same company.

As per GW, that apparently depends:

And your point is?

Throne of Skulls US is a tournament that no longer exists. And not only does it no longer exist, it obviously contains house rules like not allowing more than 500 points of allies. If you're going to insist that the "no FW" rule in ToS matters then I expect you to play all of your games under the "500 points of allies" restriction.

Kill Team is a special variant game, not standard 40k, so it is irrelevant.

The points are way off and I think if you played Eldar or Orks against a HH list then it will be a slaughter, do it if you want but make a custom scenario.

 DiRTWaL wrote:
The points are way off and I think if you played Eldar or Orks against a HH list then it will be a slaughter, do it if you want but make a custom scenario.

Having actually faced CSM, Necrons, Space Wolves, Orks, Eldar, and Daemons with an HH list, there is literally nothing unbalancing. The HH armylist is very balanced and frankly fantastically written.

FW has come out and said HH lists aren't meant for standard 40k play, but they are perfectly balanced for use against them (with some exceptions I can't offer an opinion on having not used them, namely the Lord of War detachment".)

TLDR: The points aren't way off. They're quite fine, actually.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Lynata wrote:

Peregrine wrote:They do. http://forgeworld.co.uk/

That is the Forgeworld shop. While the company is a subsidiary of GW, it does not make the FW shop the same, just like the BioWare store is not the EA store. What were you saying about "establishing brand identity" up there...?

FW is the brand GW sells their resin stuff under.

Just like Citadel is the brand GW sells finecast, pewter, and plastic stuff under.

They're both GW.

I don't get how people keep manufacturing a difference between being a part of GW and being GW.

TheCaptain wrote:I don't get how people keep manufacturing a difference between being a part of GW and being GW.

That may be because said difference was artificially created by GW opting to create separate websites for some parts of their company but not others.
For example, Citadel, the very brand you mentioned, does not have a Citadel website but is distributed on the main GW online store. Citadel also sells resin minis, so you are incorrect about that being a unique trait of Forgeworld.
And then we have statements such as the interview with Mr. Abnett (the one about the Ultramarines movie) where he explains why GW opted to create Black Library instead of simply distributing the novels under their main brand.

So ... yes, there are differences between GW and "GW", if you will.

The Heresy Betrayal FAQ specifically says that you can use the army list (excluding Lord of War units) in regular games of 40k, you should simply use the normal 40k Force Org chart.

 Lynata wrote:
That may be because said difference was artificially created by GW opting to create separate websites for some parts of their company but not others.

No, that "difference" was created by some people with a no-FW agenda declaring that "separate website" means "keep them apart" rather than "our web designer likes it this way". Fortunately their declarations have nothing to do with GW's actual policies.

 Lynata wrote:
GW doesn't run tournaments? Did I miss something? >_>

http://www.games-workshop.com/MEDIA_CustomProductCatalog/m160017a_Throne_of_Skulls_-_Warhammer_40,000_Pack.pdf

And

http://www.games-workshop.com/MEDIA_CustomProductCatalog/m2730448a_Throne_of_Skulls_Rules_WHWorld_2013.pdf

Forge World and Warhammer Forge rules and Army Lists are not in use at Throne of Skulls events.

Manchu wrote:http://www.games-workshop.com/MEDIA_CustomProductCatalog/m2730448a_Throne_of_Skulls_Rules_WHWorld_2013.pdf
Forge World and Warhammer Forge rules and Army Lists are not in use at Throne of Skulls events.

Ah, thanks! For some reason I only found the 2012 version of that one.