Direct from FW on facebook:

Hi {person}, Forge World has always been an official part of Games Workshop. As with any Games Workshop games you are essentially entering into a social contract with your gaming opponent. Your opponent may not want to play against Forge World units, just as them may not want to play against a Grey Knights army etc.

Page seven in our Imperial Armour Apocalyspe book explains the use of 'stamps' for game classification purposes. Anything stamped with Warhammer 40,00 for example is usable within the normal Codex selection and Force Organisation charts.


This means that you are no longer allowed to complain about comparing "no-FW" house rules to "no-{codex army}" house rules, because that's exactly how GW sees it. There is nothing "optional" about FW rules beyond the usual fact that you can't hold a gun to someone's head and force them to play against you. You can talk all you want about whether you should or shouldn't have a "no-FW" house rule (just like you can propose all the limits on codex units you want), but the debate over what the standard rules of the game according to GW are is now over.

I would have been nice if that would put that on page 1 of all the FW books instead of spawning 1 X 10^6 internet arguments.

Still, though, my meta is strictly no FW, and this wont' change it.

And saying that Forge World has always been a part of Games Workshop....well yeah, they are the same company. But considering how bad GW is at play testing, the fact that no cross division play testing is done, the current feelings about FW in the Competitive meta, and the cost prohibition.....this means absolutely nothing and your not going to see a Carte-Blanche acceptance of FW all of sudden. Sorry to burst your bubble....

 quickfuze wrote:
And saying that Forge World has always been a part of Games Workshop....well yeah, they are the same company. But considering how bad GW is at play testing, the fact that no cross division play testing is done, the current feelings about FW in the Competitive meta, and the cost prohibition.....this means absolutely nothing and your not going to see a Carte-Blanche acceptance of FW all of sudden. Sorry to burst your bubble....

My goal with this isn't absolute universal acceptance of FW, it's to thoroughly demolish the idea that FW is somehow "not official" or that according to GW it isn't really part of the game. People can refuse to play against FW (just like they refuse to play against flyer spam armies or 5-Riptide gunline Tau) just as long as they admit that they're using a house rule.

Does it matter if it's a house rule?

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

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

With the things they are making legal in the main codexes it might not be long until people will only want to play FW.

 Eldarain wrote:
With the things they are making legal in the main codexes it might not be long until people will only want to play FW.

And there are two playing forums just for that....APOC and 30K.....most people dont refuse to play against FW unless its a comp. environment....the problem lies in the sheer quantity and unfamiliarity people have with the individual units and the cost prohibitive aspect that lends to fewer people having access to the rules for said units to ensure they are being played properly. Plus there are a couple stupid over the top units in FW (not all, but there are a couple).

The only way FW is going to be accepted in my area is if their prices come down. Most of the reasons I've heard for why people won't accept FW is because of price and poor balancing.

I look at this way, unfamiliarity is no excuse not to play.

For example:
I am unfamiliar with the Adepta Sororitas (nobody plays them and GW doesn't care enough to give them a proper codex), but as long as someone can show me the rules, I'm happy to play against them.

I'm not attacking you here, just the points.

Common FW problems brought up wrote:
the problem lies in the sheer quantity and unfamiliarity people have with the individual units

How is it any different to having to know about all the other codexes out there? The answer is you aren't expected to be able to understand or know all the units in other codexes, so why is this brought out as a problem for FW?

 quickfuze wrote:
the cost prohibitive aspect that lends to fewer people having access to the rules

It costs $1.30 more for a FW book than it does for a codex. 84.30 (using one of the newer FW books which seem to cost a bit more) compared to 83 AUD.

 quickfuze wrote:
Plus there are a couple stupid over the top units in FW (not all, but there are a couple).

Helldrake, Riptide, Screamerstar, etc, etc and on and on. There are awful stupid over the top units in a whole bunch of codexes as well. Nearly every codex. Again, not a problem with FW, but 40k as a whole.

Again, the subject here is not whether or not a "no FW" house rule is a good thing, it's what GW's official rules for the game are. And that question has just been answered beyond any possible doubt.

Martel732 wrote:
The only way FW is going to be accepted in my area is if their prices come down. Most of the reasons I've heard for why people won't accept FW is because of price and poor balancing.

Move to Australia, where it's cheaper now in a lot of cases to buy directly from Forgeworld in the UK than it is to buy the equivalent GW kit locally...


With the addition of allies, and the obvious lack of any editorial control over codexes now, balance is a fairly lame reason to exclude Forgeworld.

 Peregrine wrote:
Again, the subject here is not whether or not a "no FW" house rule is a good thing, it's what GW's official rules for the game are. And that question has just been answered beyond any possible doubt.

Well yeah a comment is nice, but why does a communication from a random GW/FW employee hold more value now than when they respond to a query in regards to rule questions, or the promised Elysian update that wasn't what we had been led to believe, etc. I'm happy they said it, but can you explain why this comment is gospel, but other comments from these people aren't?

 Peregrine wrote:
Direct from FW on facebook:

Hi {person}, Forge World has always been an official part of Games Workshop. As with any Games Workshop games you are essentially entering into a social contract with your gaming opponent. Your opponent may not want to play against Forge World units, just as them may not want to play against a Grey Knights army etc.

Page seven in our Imperial Armour Apocalyspe book explains the use of 'stamps' for game classification purposes. Anything stamped with Warhammer 40,00 for example is usable within the normal Codex selection and Force Organisation charts.


This means ...

...absolutely nothing to those who want to hear it from the GW design studio rather than from Forgeworld.

That statement is no better than the statement in the front of the IA books. It's still a statement from the guys making the supplemental rules, rather than from the guys in charge of the actual game. If someone isn't inclined to accept Forgeworld's word for it that they can claim to be producing 'official' material, then it makes no difference how many different places, and how many different ways, Forgeworld make that claim.

Some how I doubt this will suddenly make my opponents like Basilisk artillery squads.

Until GW takes the initiative or forge world learns to properly update (and wont cost a small fortune everytime) then it will forever be anathema to standard 40k.

Even if it was worded by the most high ghod and chiselled onto stone tablets, that FW proclamation still wouldn't end the debate on how official FW rules are .

If you think it's the end of the debate, dream on, my friend. A debate that has (nerd)raged for years and still has years left in it, because the one thing that nerds like to rage about is "You aren't playing the game right!".

When GW include FW units in their BASE rules or codices, when they include them in LARGE BLOCK CAPITALS as 'legal' in their army books, it STILL won't end the debate.

It's not quite a King James v Good News level issue, but some do see it that way.

While I broadly support Peregrine in that Forgeworld should be a default inclusion, I'm all for more variety, choice and the pretty, pretty models...

I recently arranged a game with a new member of our gaming club, his first with us, and one of only a few he'd played (he'd started two or three months previously, just playing at the local GW)

Knowing all this, I took a relatively moderate list (not that Blood Angels can exactly bring the pain just now) without (I hoped) being too patronising or soft just because he was new.

We set up a table and begin unpacking our models.

Guy plonks a Spartan down on the table.

Rude.

(Still won,couldn't hurt the bloody thing though!)

 motyak wrote:
Well yeah a comment is nice, but why does a communication from a random GW/FW employee hold more value now than when they respond to a query in regards to rule questions, or the promised Elysian update that wasn't what we had been led to believe, etc. I'm happy they said it, but can you explain why this comment is gospel, but other comments from these people aren't?

Because it reinforces what we already knew. We've already got the official published statements saying FW is part of the game, and now we have a GW representative explicitly stating that they see it as equivalent to any other rules GW publishes. The anti-FW crowd loves to argue that GW really meant that you need to ask for special permission beyond what you need to play with any other rules, and now we have even more evidence that GW doesn't see it that way.

 insaniak wrote:
That statement is no better than the statement in the front of the IA books. It's still a statement from the guys making the supplemental rules, rather than from the guys in charge of the actual game. If someone isn't inclined to accept Forgeworld's word for it that they can claim to be producing 'official' material, then it makes no difference how many different places, and how many different ways, Forgeworld make that claim.

The "actual game" difference is one invented entirely by certain players, GW has not divided their company into "real GW" and "less official".

And the difference isn't just that it's another claim, it's that it explicitly puts refusing to play against FW units on the same level as refusing to play against a codex army. There's no more room to argue the intent of the "show your opponent your rules" statement and pretend that it is a requirement to have special permission.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 azreal13 wrote:
Guy plonks a Spartan down on the table.

Rude.

Hardly. The Spartan is an overpriced paperweight most of the time, it only looks overpowered because the basic codex Land Raider is garbage. A new player using a single Spartan is hardly in WAAC territory, especially if the rest of their list wasn't anything worth mentioning.

Well, it's nice to know that Forgeworld is more official now than it has ever been. It really cleared up the confusion on just how official it was.

Joking aside, I wouldn't bother anymore with this Peregrine. People are going to dislike things that they don't really know about. That just how it and how it is always going to be. Jervis himself can proclaim that a IA book is on the same level as a codex yet people will still refer to p. 108 as the ultimate defense against the horrors of a sub-company that makes big stupid models.

 Peregrine wrote:
The "actual game" difference is one invented entirely by certain players, GW has not divided their company into "real GW" and "less official".

No, but they have divided their company into 'Games Workshop' and 'Forgeworld'... without ever addressing just where Games Workshop feel that Forgeworld sits within their game design structure.

That, coupled with the lack of a Forgeworld presense in GW stores, reinforces the belief that 'GW' releases and 'FW' releases are different things.

And the difference isn't just that it's another claim, it's that it explicitly puts refusing to play against FW units on the same level as refusing to play against a codex army. There's no more room to argue the intent of the "show your opponent your rules" statement and pretend that it is a requirement to have special permission.

Except that it's still coming from Forgeworld instead of from the design studio.

Again, no amount of insistence from Forgeworld is ever going to change the fact that to many players the only people with the authority to declare something 'official' are the guys in the GW design studio.

 Peregrine wrote:

 azreal13 wrote:
Guy plonks a Spartan down on the table.

Rude.

Hardly. The Spartan is an overpriced paperweight most of the time, it only looks overpowered because the basic codex Land Raider is garbage. A new player using a single Spartan is hardly in WAAC territory, especially if the rest of their list wasn't anything worth mentioning.

i love landraiders.

Anyway, I don't get how this debate over forgeworld legality in friendly games even began. Can you reference me any arguments from a while back where people sorta picked up these thoughts?

 insaniak wrote:
No, but they have divided their company into 'Games Workshop' and 'Forgeworld'... without ever addressing just where Games Workshop feel that Forgeworld sits within their game design structure.

Like how they've divided the company into Games Workshop and Citadel? You're imagining a major division between the two instead of them being different brand names GW sells their products under.

Again, no amount of insistence from Forgeworld is ever going to change the fact that to many players the only people with the authority to declare something 'official' are the guys in the GW design studio.

And, again, that belief has nothing to do with reality. Some players can demand an answer from the specific GW employee they want to hear it from before they'll change their house rule, but that doesn't mean that GW is obligated to run their company that way.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Largeblastmarker wrote:
Anyway, I don't get how this debate over forgeworld legality in friendly games even began. Can you reference me any arguments from a while back where people sorta picked up these thoughts?

It goes back years, so good luck finding the origins of it. But the general idea is that some people don't like FW for various reasons (too powerful, too expensive, etc) but are terrified of admitting that they want to play the game with a house rule, so they insist that FW isn't really part of the game according to GW. It's part of a larger issue with people being afraid of admitting they use house rules. For example, the whole idea of "1999+1" tournaments exists because people hated the idea of double FOC in 2000 point games but didn't want to admit that they're playing a 2000 point game with a "no double FOC" house rule. So we get the absurd idea that you play a 1999 point game where you're allowed to go exactly one point over the limit without the real limit being 2000 points, and a bunch of self-declared experts congratulating themselves on finding a loophole that lets them avoid double FOC.

 Peregrine wrote:
Like how they've divided the company into Games Workshop and Citadel?

Yes, exactly like that.

The difference being that GW have stated that Citadel models are used to play their games.

You're imagining a major division between the two instead of them being different brand names GW sells their products under.

No, I'm imagining them being two different brand names that GW sells their product under... but while they have made it clear that one of those brands is the miniatures range for their games, no such statement has been made for the other.

And, again, that belief has nothing to do with reality. Some players can demand an answer from the specific GW employee they want to hear it from before they'll change their house rule, but that doesn't mean that GW is obligated to run their company that way.

At no point have I made any claims about what GW is 'obligated' to do. They are certainly under no obligation to make any statement about the status of Forgeworld's range... but until they do, people will regard Forgeworld as an unofficial offshoot, and no amount of insistence by that offshoot that they are, in fact, official will change people's minds.

Ehhh, figures they finally 'clear' this up just before their supposed big push for superheavies in regular 40k (which I can't wait for tbh, gaks gonna be so cash)

Martel732 wrote:
The only way FW is going to be accepted in my area is if their prices come down.

+1.

Besides Apocalypse books and models, nobody in my meta has any motivation to try Forgeworld stuff. Occasionally someone will want to try something though and, for instance, convert an Eldar Wraithlord into a Wraithseer. At which point, the rest of us will go "Cool. Let's see what it does."

 Peregrine wrote:
But the general idea is that some people don't like FW for various reasons (too powerful, too expensive, etc) but are terrified of admitting that they want to play the game with a house rule, so they insist that FW isn't really part of the game according to GW.

That's a ridiculously biased view of what is actually happening.

The fact that you regard non-acceptance of Forgeworld as a house rule doesn't mean that those that don't regard Forgeworld material as offical are scared of house rules. It just means that they don't regard Forgeworld rules as official.

. For example, the whole idea of "1999+1" tournaments exists because people hated the idea of double FOC in 2000 point games but didn't want to admit that they're playing a 2000 point game with a "no double FOC" house rule.

As much as I dislike the '1999+1' convention, this is also innacurate.

People aren't calling it 1999+1 to avoid admitting they are playing with a house rule. They're calling it 1999+1 because that's quicker and eaiser (at least amongst people who know what you're talking about) than saying '2000 points with a single FOC'. For the most part, they're well aware that allowing that point over is a house rule.

The argument about the inclusion of forgeworld stuff has never been about the level of authority of forgeworld. It's always been about other things including, among others, whether you want to browbeat other people from an argument from authority fallacy.

Just saying that FW is more of an authority doesn't change this fact. It's just another pointless thread created to explain what people already know, but disagree with for more complex reasons.

What happened to the old thread?

Threads like these need to stop being locked because they seem to be a recurring theme, so we may as well have one thread running at all times.

 Ailaros wrote:
The argument about the inclusion of forgeworld stuff has never been about the level of authority of forgeworld. It's always been about other things including, among others, whether you want to browbeat other people from an argument from authority fallacy.

Just saying that FW is more of an authority doesn't change this fact. It's just another pointless thread created to explain what people already know, but disagree with for more complex reasons.

Agree 110%. Forge World clearly states that both players have a full say in what rules and therefore it is not a 'house rule' if you agree not to use them.

This again.

Peregrine wrote:Forge World has always been an official part of Games Workshop

It's a sub-division of that company - of course it was always an official part of GW, and I don't recall anyone disputing this - which I've already mentioned in the last thread you felt compelled to open in your Eternal Crusade here. Just like Black Library was always an official part of it, and just like Black Library novels don't have to have any relevance on what it says in a Codex.
Look: This has no relevance at all to how its material would or would not have to tie in with GW codices. I just don't see why you still don't get the difference between FW as a company being an official part of GW as a company, FW rules being an official FW product, and FW rules being an official part of GW's main game. But I suppose it is a matter of zeal and preferred interpretation, just like you were argueing there is no difference between something written for use in and being a part of.

Your conviction and endurance would be commendable, if the way you keep shoving this down everyone's throat didn't make you come across like someone who desperately wants to climb on a high horse, slapping anyone who dares to refuse playing against their FW army with a "SO you are refusing to play against an OFFICIAL GW ARMY" line to make you feel better.

If you'd only put half as much energy into actually trying to convince the critics that FW armies are fun to play against (and, imho more importantly, just cool to look at), I imagine you'd have a higher chance to convert your critics rather than these attempts to "force" people into acceptance.

Peregrine wrote:Anything stamped with Warhammer 40,00 for example is usable within the normal Codex selection and Force Organisation charts.

Just like anyone's houserules are. Again, no difference.

Peregrine wrote:This means that you are no longer allowed to complain about comparing "no-FW" house rules to "no-{codex army}" house rules, because that's exactly how GW sees it. There is nothing "optional" about FW rules beyond the usual fact that you can't hold a gun to someone's head and force them to play against you. You can talk all you want about whether you should or shouldn't have a "no-FW" house rule (just like you can propose all the limits on codex units you want), but the debate over what the standard rules of the game according to GW are is now over.

It's not over just because you say so. To quote from page 108 of the rulebook:

"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 systems as they wish."

In short: The default recommended game is the official Codices. If you want to go beyond that, fine, your choice. This option would include both homebrewed army lists as well as Forge World. The latter are, one might say, official optional suggestions to expand your game. It's all equally "legal" for games like these.*

So, if you think banning FW is a house rule, then so would be banning homebrewed army lists, or supplements, or CA articles, etc.

Peregrine wrote:And the difference isn't just that it's another claim, it's that it explicitly puts refusing to play against FW units on the same level as refusing to play against a codex army

Or a homebrewed army. So?

insaniak wrote:...absolutely nothing to those who want to hear it from the GW design studio rather than from Forgeworld.

Technically, it shouldn't make a difference - I assume GW would not allow FW to make statements "in its name" if they're not cool with it.
The problem is that these statements are still just wishy-washy vagueness - ambiguous comments to appease those for whom it's enough (-> seeing what they want to see), whilst still avoiding that precious "it's a fully integrated part of the main game" that would actually settle this for the critics.


*: This is actually the one thing I learned in the last debate - 40k as a game is way more open than I had first imagined. "Legal" is anything you and your opponent agree upon - including FW or homebrewed. That still does not make either be the default approach, though.

Anyways - this thread will go to places. /popcorn

 Lynata wrote:
*: This is actually the one thing I learned in the last debate - 40k as a game is way more open than I had first imagined. "Legal" is anything you and your opponent agree upon - ...

But that's the case for any game. You don't need written permission from the writer of the game to change the rules to suit yourself.

insaniak wrote:But that's the case for any game. You don't need written permission from the writer of the game to change the rules to suit yourself.

Technically, yes, but I guess it's "common sense" to stick to the rules as they are the one common ground - which is why the standard recommendation is to stick to the codices here.
But I suppose GW wanted to emphasise the "make your own game" bit, quite similar to their loose approach for the fluff. To be fair, they've always supported experiments, releasing alternate army lists in WD (both with and without CA stamps), or alternate units like the Ephrael Stern SoB Dread. Or their new digital supplements. FW's army lists are really nothing else, as per that statement.

In a way, it fits to their focus on producing miniatures, that they perhaps see the rules and army lists only as a necessary add-on to sell plastic?

Could you post a link of where you have or got that Peregrine so I can show my FLGS owner? I know he will say no (he is even contemplating banning supplement books ) but it would be nice to have that so I could show other players who try to say "cant use FW because its not GW" nonsense. Am estatic they finally released a more official statement on the matter, now I will ONLY be running my Elysians out of IA32E as me and friends (which is most of the stores players) are boycotting tournaments at the store until FW and Supplement books are allowed in them.

 gmaleron wrote:
Could you post a link of where you have or got that Peregrine so I can show my FLGS owner? I know he will say no (he is even contemplating banning supplement books ) but it would be nice to have that so I could show other players who try to say "cant use FW because its not GW" nonsense. Am estatic they finally released a more official statement on the matter, now I will ONLY be running my Elysians out of IA32E as me and friends (which is most of the stores players) are boycotting tournaments at the store until FW and Supplement books are allowed in them.

Does he ban all of that in his store or just in tourneys? It's his right to do so but it still screwed up he won't let people play with the models they bought just because it doesn't have Games Workshop stamped on it everywhere.

You know, I have never seen people argue that just because a company doesn't explicitly state that it's subsidiaries are it's subsidiaries that they aren't part of the company before. It's like saying that just because Taco Bell doesn't have "Yum! Brand Foods" plastered everywhere makes them different companies. Or that Cadillac is a different company than GM. It's a strange argument certainly but I don't really see the point of it. Even if Forge World was a different company the Rulebook wouldn't ban it's use anymore than it would supplements. If it's player perception than how would statements by Forgeworld solve that? Of course FW would say that, they are the ones that want you to think that they are a part of Games Workshop. To them, a liar is going to maintain it's lies. Games Workshop has to say it.

 Lynata wrote:
Look: This has no relevance at all to how its material would or would not have to tie in with GW codices. I just don't see why you still don't get the difference between FW as a company being an official part of GW as a company, FW rules being an official FW product, and FW rules being an official part of GW's main game.

I don't "get" the difference because the difference only exists in the minds of certain players. You have invented this supposed difference between the two, while GW (the people who actually decide what is and isn't official) go on publishing things under whatever brand they feel like and saying "this is official".

But I suppose it is a matter of zeal and preferred interpretation, just like you were argueing there is no difference between something written for use in and being a part of.

The point you keep failing to understand is that when the people with the authority to determine what is and isn't part of the game say "this is intended for the standard game" that's the final word on the subject. GW's intent is law.

If you'd only put half as much energy into actually trying to convince the critics that FW armies are fun to play against (and, imho more importantly, just cool to look at), I imagine you'd have a higher chance to convert your critics rather than these attempts to "force" people into acceptance.

Not really. The biggest obstacle to FW acceptance is people like you spreading ridiculous ideas like "FW is just like my fan codex" in blatant defiance of GW's actual position on the subject. If you remove all the bad information about FW being "not official" then most people in my experience are happy to play against it.

In short: The default recommended game is the official Codices.

And you, as a player, are inventing a rule that GW can't modify that statement in other GW products. GW, on the other hand, has decided that they can add things to the standard game by saying "this is now part of the game", which is why we have IA books, supplements, and online FAQs/errata.

The problem is that these statements are still just wishy-washy vagueness - ambiguous comments to appease those for whom it's enough (-> seeing what they want to see), whilst still avoiding that precious "it's a fully integrated part of the main game" that would actually settle this for the critics.

There's nothing vague in the statement in the OP at all. According to GW all FW 40k rules are part of the game, and refusing to play against them is no different than refusing to play against a GK army. The only "ambiguity" in that is certain anti-FW people deliberately looking for any excuse they can find to avoid having to admit that they're wrong.

TheCustomLime wrote:Does he ban all of that in his store or just in tourneys? It's his right to do so but it still screwed up he won't let people play with the models they bought just because it doesn't have Games Workshop stamped on it everywhere.

I'd assume it's at least "just" the rules, not the models? Even the GW tournaments and events that do not allow FW rules still allow their models.

TheCustomLime wrote:You know, I have never seen people argue that just because a company doesn't explicitly state that it's subsidiaries are it's subsidiaries that they aren't part of the company before.

I don't think people actually say this - FW's website clearly states they are a part of GW, which is why I'm confused on why we needed yet another thread on the subject as this one features nothing new. The argument is about how a differently branded item sold via a separate catalogue behaves to the core company's main product - or, specifically, whether said differently branded item should be considered an integral and standard part of said main product (which is what Peregrine is crusading for), rather than an expansion (which is, by the way, how Forge World's own Facebook site advertises itself).

 TheCustomLime wrote:
Does he ban all of that in his store or just in tourneys? It's his right to do so but it still screwed up he won't let people play with the models they bought just because it doesn't have Games Workshop stamped on it everywhere.

A store ultimately provides gaming space to encourage people to spend money in the store. It's not at all uncommon for stores to refuse to let people use stuff that the store doesn't (in this case can't sell.

Many of GW's own stores have over the years had bans on using Forgeworld models.

You know, I have never seen people argue that just because a company doesn't explicitly state that it's subsidiaries are it's subsidiaries that they aren't part of the company before.

You're not seeing it now, either. You're just seeing people misrepresenting an opposing argument.

 insaniak wrote:
The fact that you regard non-acceptance of Forgeworld as a house rule doesn't mean that those that don't regard Forgeworld material as offical are scared of house rules. It just means that they don't regard Forgeworld rules as official.

At this point the support for FW material being official is so overwhelming that it is no longer possible to have an honest belief that it isn't official.

People aren't calling it 1999+1 to avoid admitting they are playing with a house rule. They're calling it 1999+1 because that's quicker and eaiser (at least amongst people who know what you're talking about) than saying '2000 points with a single FOC'. For the most part, they're well aware that allowing that point over is a house rule.

I guess you don't remember the "tournament community" congratulating themselves for being so clever and finding the loophole that would let them run 2000 point tournaments without having to use double FOC?

Actually, FW is JUST like a fan codex. One might say the actual codices are JUST like a fan codex. In fact, I'm pretty sure that I can write better books than GW or FW. I can do simple arithmetic

 insaniak wrote:
The difference being that GW have stated that Citadel models are used to play their games.

And GW have stated that FW rules are used to play their games.

At no point have I made any claims about what GW is 'obligated' to do. They are certainly under no obligation to make any statement about the status of Forgeworld's range... but until they do, people will regard Forgeworld as an unofficial offshoot, and no amount of insistence by that offshoot that they are, in fact, official will change people's minds.

People still insist that the earth is only 6-10,000 years old, and no amount of evidence will ever change their mind. That doesn't mean we need to respect such an utterly insane belief. Now, granted, believing that FW isn't "real GW" isn't the same kind of utter lunacy as young-earth creationism, but the fact that people stubbornly insist on believing it doesn't make it a legitimate belief to hold.

 Peregrine wrote:
At this point the support for FW material being official is so overwhelming that it is no longer possible to have an honest belief that it isn't official.

Forgeworld declaring themselves official is not exactly what some people are going to consider 'overwhelming support'...

I guess you don't remember the "tournament community" congratulating themselves for being so clever and finding the loophole that would let them run 2000 point tournaments without having to use double FOC?

I don't recall too many people seriously suggesting it was actually a 'loophole', no.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:
People still insist that the earth is only 6-10,000 years old, and no amount of evidence will ever change their mind.

Sure it would. It just needs to be the right evidence. Like, say, a statement in their rulebook that the earth is a fair bit older than that.

Peregrine wrote:I don't "get" the difference because the difference only exists in the minds of certain players.

So you are maintaining that

"company A is an official part of company B" is 100% equal to "the product of company A is a standard part of company B's product"?

Okay, I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree then. There's no point argueing with this kind of logic.

Peregrine wrote:The point you keep failing to understand is that when the people with the authority to determine what is and isn't part of the game say "this is intended for the standard game" that's the final word on the subject. GW's intent is law.

The point you keep failing to register is that I've never actually argued against FW being "intended for the standard game". That's just you not getting the difference between "written for" and "part of" again.

Peregrine wrote:And you, as a player, are inventing a rule that GW can't modify that statement in other GW products. GW, on the other hand, has decided that they can add things to the standard game by saying "this is now part of the game", which is why we have IA books, supplements, and online FAQs/errata.

Then stop creating these endless nonsense threads and find a statement akin to "this is now part of the game".

Peregrine wrote:There's nothing vague in the statement in the OP at all. According to GW all FW 40k rules are part of the game, and refusing to play against them is no different than refusing to play against a GK army. The only "ambiguity" in that is certain anti-FW people deliberately looking for any excuse they can find to avoid having to admit that they're wrong.

You mean refusing to play against any army. Or did I miss something and there is actually an army somewhere that you are forced to play?

Oh, I'm not an Anti-FW person just because I feel compelled to argue against your crusade. That's just you trying to paint me as "the enemy". Quite the opposite, I'll happily play FW armies, because I find the minis beautiful and would be curious to see those rules in action at least once. I'd still expect the other person to ask nicely, though. Which I fear is what you would not do. You'd expect not having to ask, so that's where we have a problem.

 Lynata wrote:

TheCustomLime wrote:Does he ban all of that in his store or just in tourneys? It's his right to do so but it still screwed up he won't let people play with the models they bought just because it doesn't have Games Workshop stamped on it everywhere.

I'd assume it's at least "just" the rules, not the models? Even the GW tournaments and events that do not allow FW rules still allow their models.

TheCustomLime wrote:You know, I have never seen people argue that just because a company doesn't explicitly state that it's subsidiaries are it's subsidiaries that they aren't part of the company before.

I don't think people actually say this - FW's website clearly states they are a part of GW, which is why I'm confused on why we needed yet another thread on the subject as this one features nothing new. The argument is about how a differently branded item sold via a separate catalogue behaves to the core company's main product - or, specifically, whether said differently branded item should be considered an integral and standard part of said main product (which is what Peregrine is crusading for), rather than an expansion (which is, by the way, how Forge World's own Facebook site advertises itself).

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

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

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

Oh. there's no asking with me. If I see FW, I tell them to put it up or I walk. I live close to the FLGS, so it's no skin off my nose.

 Lynata wrote:
So you are maintaining that

"company A is an official part of company B" is 100% equal to "the product of company A is a standard part of company B's product"?

Only when company AB (because it's just two brand names used by the same company, just like Citadel or White Dwarf) says "this is a standard part of our products". Which is what we have here.

The point you keep failing to register is that I've never actually argued against FW being "intended for the standard game". That's just you not getting the difference between "written for" and "part of" again.

There is no difference when the person writing for is the person with the authority to decide what is and isn't part of the game. You're just nitpicking exact words instead of addressing the substance of the statement.

Then stop creating these endless nonsense threads and find a statement akin to "this is now part of the game".

Did you even read the OP, where a GW representative explicitly said that refusing to play against FW is no different than refusing to play against GK? Or any of the other statements saying similar things?

I'd still expect the other person to ask nicely, though.

Do you expect people to ask nicely before playing with their codex-only GK army?

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

There's a point to that, but I suppose this is just GW maximising its profits.
I mean, not gonna argue against the digital codices, but sheesh - for that price we used to get a real book with more content.

TheCustomLime wrote:I believe Forgeworld's rules say that it is a part of the core gameplay but here is where it gets a little murky. The books have the word "Expansion" plastered on them so, by that logic, they are Expansions. But the rules say they are a part of the core of 40k. So, is it an expansion in that it adds onto the codices (Like the supplements) or that it's a "Forge World" expansion a la Planetstrike or Spearhead? I believe that is where a lot of the contention arises from.

The contention primarily arises from people making wrong statements or even falsifying quotes. The rules do not say they are "part of core 40k", they say they are intended to be used there - which is still a difference, but thus fits nicely to the "Expansion" you mentioned.

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

Nah, the thread will just move in circles for 20 pages again before it gets locked.
And in another 2 months Peregrine will open the next one.

Peregrine wrote:Only when company AB (because it's just two brand names used by the same company, just like Citadel or White Dwarf) says "this is a standard part of our products". Which is what we have here.

Lies.

It's an Expansion. See the link I provided above. It's from your own source.

Peregrine wrote:There is no difference when the person writing for is the person with the authority to decide what is and isn't part of the game.

Yet did the person with this authority decide it? No. Feel free to show me that statement to prove me wrong.

Peregrine wrote:Did you even read the OP, where a GW representative explicitly said that refusing to play against FW is no different than refusing to play against GK? Or any of the other statements saying similar things?

Did you even read your own statement where a GW representative explicitly said that refusing to play against FW is no different than refusing to play against ANY army?

Peregrine wrote:Do you expect people to ask nicely before playing with their codex-only GK army?

Nope. Because the 6E Rulebook says codices are standard.

 insaniak wrote:
Forgeworld declaring themselves official is not exactly what some people are going to consider 'overwhelming support'...

Only because of this invented "difference" between FW and "real GW".

Sure it would. It just needs to be the right evidence. Like, say, a statement in their rulebook that the earth is a fair bit older than that.

That's actually a very good comparison. Young-earth creationists demand a statement in their "rulebook" and ignore the overwhelming evidence that they are wrong, and because of this we laugh at their shameful ignorance and stupidity. Meanwhile the anti-FW crowd acts the same way: as long as they don't have the exact statement they want they cling to their beliefs and reject all other evidence.

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

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

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


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

As with any Games Workshop games you are essentially entering into a social contract with your gaming opponent.

That right there says that BOTH PLAYERS have an equal say in what rules will be used in a game. It is NOT a house rule. Official =! you get to dictate what rules are used in the game no matter what your opponent says.

 Lynata wrote:
It's an Expansion. See the link I provided above. It's from your own source.

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

Yet did the person with this authority decide it? No. Feel free to show me that statement to prove me wrong.

See the statements GW has published? That's the answer. You're just making the absurd claim that some rogue pro-FW zealot is publishing unauthorized claims under the GW name, and somehow GW management isn't stopping them.

Did you even read your own statement where a GW representative explicitly said that refusing to play against FW is no different than refusing to play against ANY army?

Well, now we agree. FW is just like any other army. You can refuse to play a game, but that doesn't mean your refusal is anything more than your personal preference not to play against certain armies/units/people/whatever.

Nope. Because the 6E Rulebook says codices are standard.

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

 Peregrine wrote:
That's actually a very good comparison. Young-earth creationists demand a statement in their "rulebook" and ignore the overwhelming evidence that they are wrong, and because of this we laugh at their shameful ignorance and stupidity.

The thing is, they ignore that 'overwhelming evidence' because in their understanding the contrary evidence that they have is from a higher authority. So that 'overwhelming evidence' is nothing of the sort, because it's not actually coming from a source that they trust to have the right information.

Meanwhile the anti-FW crowd acts the same way: as long as they don't have the exact statement they want they cling to their beliefs and reject all other evidence.

Yes, that's what is happening. 'Evidence' from a source that someone does not believe to be in a position to provide said evidence is not evidence. It's someone making a statement that they are unable to back up with authority.

 Lynata wrote:

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

There's a point to that, but I suppose this is just GW maximising its profits.
I mean, not gonna argue against the digital codices, but sheesh - for that price we used to get a real book with more content.

TheCustomLime wrote:I believe Forgeworld's rules say that it is a part of the core gameplay but here is where it gets a little murky. The books have the word "Expansion" plastered on them so, by that logic, they are Expansions. But the rules say they are a part of the core of 40k. So, is it an expansion in that it adds onto the codices (Like the supplements) or that it's a "Forge World" expansion a la Planetstrike or Spearhead? I believe that is where a lot of the contention arises from.

The contention primarily arises from people making wrong statements or even falsifying quotes. The rules do not say they are "part of core 40k", they say they are intended to be used there - which is still a difference, but thus fits nicely to the "Expansion" you mentioned.

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

Nah, the thread will just move in circles for 20 pages again before it gets locked.
And in another 2 months Peregrine will open the next one.

Just like how it charges $60+ for the variant Rhinos even though it's just the base sprue +1? Honestly, Gee Dubs, at least include the rest of the rhino so I feel like I am getting a Rhino+.

Ahhh, I gotcha. But then you are running into semantics. Is there a difference between being and intended to be? The devil is in what "Intention" means here since it could be construed to mean that they are meant to be part of or are meant to be used there. I would argue for the later since they are labeled "Expansion" instead of "Additions for Codex: Imperial Guard".

Hey, since when has dakka not been repetitive and cyclical? Just look at the WHFB Gen Discussion section. Take a shot every time a "What army should I start/Getting in Fantasy/How to start x" thread comes up (I am guilty of this as well to be fair).

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

There's a pretty big difference between whoever answers questions on the FW facebook page and GW's random "rules help" staff. Just to give one example some of the questions I asked them on facebook and their answers were put directly into the official IA1(2nd edition) FAQ. And I mean a literal copy/paste, without any modification. Whoever answered the facebook questions clearly had the authority to make a final ruling on the subject.

 Peregrine wrote:
There's a pretty big difference between whoever answers questions on the FW facebook page and GW's random "rules help" staff. Just to give one example some of the questions I asked them on facebook and their answers were put directly into the official IA1(2nd edition) FAQ. And I mean a literal copy/paste, without any modification. Whoever answered the facebook questions clearly had the authority to make a final ruling on the subject.

Really?

At one point, rulings from Yakface's INAT FAQ and Gwar!'s home-brewed FAQ were both pasted word for word into GW 40K FAQs. Should we therefore assume that Yakface and Gwar! also have the authority to make a ruling on 40K rules issues?


Without knowing just who it was that responded to you on Facebook, and what their job is at Forgeworld, you have absolutely no way of knowing if they are someone who has the authority to make rulings themselves, or if they just passed it on to the guys who do and they decided to print as is.

 insaniak wrote:
At one point, rulings from Yakface's INAT FAQ and Gwar!'s home-brewed FAQ were both pasted word for word into GW 40K FAQs. Should we therefore assume that Yakface and Gwar! also have the authority to make a ruling on 40K rules issues?

No, because they aren't GW employees.

Without knowing just who it was that responded to you on Facebook, and what their job is at Forgeworld, you have absolutely no way of knowing if they are someone who has the authority to make rulings themselves, or if they just passed it on to the guys who do and they decided to print as is.

Of course it isn't absolute proof that the person has that authority. If they made a statement that directly contradicted published rules/policies there would be good reason to be skeptical of it, but what they're saying here just confirms what GW has been saying in official sources. And the general impression you get from reading FW's responses on facebook is that the person posting responses to questions/comments is well-informed about what is going on within the company. It doesn't seem to be anything like GW's "rules help" people, where questions are answered by whatever janitor happens to have a moment of free time.

So, even if you don't consider it to be an official ruling at the same level as a published FAQ it's a pretty safe bet that this person is accurately presenting GW's attitude towards FW units.

I am with you on this Peregrine, however no matter what, even if they came out stating "FW is allowed no matter what in any game of 40k not including apocalypse only items" haters would still hate and try to find any excuse possible to say that its not allowed which is seeming the argument that is being made right now by the anti FW crowd.

 Peregrine wrote:
No, because they aren't GW employees.

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

Of course it isn't absolute proof that the person has that authority.

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

So, even if you don't consider it to be an official ruling at the same level as a published FAQ it's a pretty safe bet that this person is accurately presenting GW's attitude towards FW units.

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



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 gmaleron wrote:
I am with you on this Peregrine, however no matter what, even if they came out stating "FW is allowed no matter what in any game of 40k not including apocalypse only items" haters would still hate and try to find any excuse possible to say that its not allowed which is seeming the argument that is being made right now by the anti FW crowd.

This sort of nonsense adds nothing constructive to the discussion.

There is no 'hating' going on here. All that is being said is that Forgeworld don't have the authority to declare themselves an official part of the game. For the vast majority of players, a simple statement in the 40K rulebook allowing the use of Forgeworld rules would be more than sufficient.

Dismissing an opposing point of view as 'hating' is just looking for confrontation for the sake of it. Disagreeing that Forgeworld is official material doesn't make someone a 'hater'. It doesn't even make them 'anti-FW'. I'm not anti-FW. I have absolutely no problem with an opponent using FW units, and would love to see them in more tournaments.

I just disagree that a statement in a FW publication is sufficient to establish that FW rules are an 'official' part of the game.

 insaniak wrote:
There is no 'hating' going on here. All that is being said is that Forgeworld don't have the authority to declare themselves an official part of the game. For the vast majority of players, a simple statement in the 40K rulebook allowing the use of Forgeworld rules would be more than sufficient.

This statement from the very first post says otherwise to me...

 Peregrine wrote:
This means that you are no longer allowed to complain about comparing "no-FW" house rules to "no-{codex army}" house rules, because that's exactly how GW sees it. There is nothing "optional" about FW rules beyond the usual fact that you can't hold a gun to someone's head and force them to play against you. You can talk all you want about whether you should or shouldn't have a "no-FW" house rule (just like you can propose all the limits on codex units you want), but the debate over what the standard rules of the game according to GW are is now over.

 insaniak wrote:


There is no 'hating' going on here. All that is being said is that Forgeworld don't have the authority to declare themselves an official part of the game. For the vast majority of players, a simple statement in the 40K rulebook allowing the use of Forgeworld rules would be more than sufficient.

Dismissing an opposing point of view as 'hating' is just looking for confrontation for the sake of it. Disagreeing that Forgeworld is official material doesn't make someone a 'hater'. It doesn't even make them 'anti-FW'. I'm not anti-FW. I have absolutely no problem with an opponent using FW units, and would love to see them in more tournaments.

I just disagree that a statement in a FW publication is sufficient to establish that FW rules are an 'official' part of the game.

Dont take it the wrong way, I only mention it because I am tired of hearing the argument that FW is not GW when it has the GW logo, its models are made for the GW game systems and just IMO that it is in the end GW. There is a VERY thin line if any seperating GW from FW and I really cant accept the "its different" argument as it isnt, in fact it is very much like the supplement books that have been coming out. That and the argument of "all FW is OP" is utter nonsense and really that is the one that steams me up the most. Now if I cam off rude I do apologize, I only mention "hating" because I dont like taking the time to assemble an army, paint it to make it look good only to have someone say "not allowed" its utter garbage in my opinion and its why the majority of players at my FLGS are boycotting the tournaments until it is allowed, both FW and the Supplement books.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 Peregrine wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Not according to GW.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Peregrine wrote:

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

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

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

Peregrine wrote:

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

Not according to GW.

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

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

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

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

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

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

- Eddie

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That also describes supplements.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tyberos the Red Wake wrote:That also describes supplements.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 Lynata wrote:

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

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

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

 Lynata wrote:

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

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

 ClockworkZion wrote:


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

 Lynata wrote:


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

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

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

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

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

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

 gmaleron wrote:

 Lynata wrote:


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Automatically Appended Next Post:

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

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

Martel732 wrote:


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

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

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

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

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

That's what it looks like.

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

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

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

 ClockworkZion wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

anchorbine wrote:

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

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

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

 insaniak wrote:

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

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

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


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

100% this.

The facebook post changes nothing.

 Peregrine wrote:

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

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

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

Not according to GW.

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

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

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

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

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

 TheCustomLime wrote:

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

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

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

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


Automatically Appended Next Post:

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

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

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

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


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

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

Oh Snap!!!!!!!!!

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

Thank you for your very helpful contribution to the discussion.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Thank you for your very helpful contribution to the discussion.

I was merely congratulating Zion on a wonderful find. I think it shows distinctly that FW is indeed official. Also I contributed with a post in regards to the term "expansion". Just because the word expansion is used this doesn't make forge world any less official because as I pointed out "expansion" can be used to refer to the any installment of the World of Warcraft series. They are mentioned particularly as "expansions". This doesn't mean you get groups of WoW players grouping together to say that they are not playing it because it's unofficial.

The thing I don't like about this anti-FW attitude is the fact that it seems to be a blanket ban on all the FW products. Its not pointing to any particular unit and saying, I'm not playing that because I think its overpowered. They are pointing to the whole Forge-World range, no matter what item it is, and then saying that they are not playing against it. Against these types of players it doesn't matter if I would put on the table an underpowered and overcosted unit. The fact that it comes from Forge World is enough for those players to say they are not going to play against it and that it is unofficial in their eyes.

Its just downright disrespectful to do such a thing to a person who has spent their money on goods, to then be told they are not allowed to use them in a game they are designed for. There is no argument here in regards to the opposing player thinking it is overpowered and thus he will not have a fun game. Its just a statement of "I'm not playing against that" without any real reason behind it and hiding behind a fake reason of unofficialness.

I would much rather have a player say he won't play me because he considers some of my individual units to be OTT rather than have a player who is just going to blanket ban playing against any Forge World unit. There is more honesty and integrity behind former person than the latter. The unit they point out as being OTT can be a Forge World unit and I have no problem with that, but a blank out ban against all FW units in my opinion is just a rather unreasonable thing to do.

While I agree 100% with Peregrine's thesis, I disagree with the approach he's taken in both of these recent threads. We're never going to get widespread acceptance for FW at the table by holding down the opposition and making them cry uncle. It's only going to happen if we encourage our fellow FW collectors to show up at stores and tournaments with as much FW as they can as often as they can; to make sure we print up copies of all of our datasheets to hand our opponents at the beginning of the game to keep with them to reference; to show people that these units are fun, fluffy and a great part of the game. The models are amazing - we need to show up with them painted to a high quality. People love to play against beautiful armies; give people a reason to *want* to play against them. And make sure when we build our lists that we don't become TFG, using the units to break the codex we're playing with. If we do that, if we show our local scene what it is that draws us all to FW to begin with, it'll be accepted - and it will be the people demanding a special, gold embossed, engraved writ from the CEO of GW, enshrined in the rulebook, that FW is part of the game who will be the outliers. Not us.

This needs to be about showing people why they want to play with and against FW, not why they have to.

 DarthOvious wrote:
I would much rather have a player say he won't play me because he considers some of my individual units to be OTT rather than have a player who is just going to blanket ban playing against any Forge World unit. There is more honesty and integrity behind former person than the latter. The unit they point out as being OTT can be a Forge World unit and I have no problem with that, but a blank out ban against all FW units in my opinion is just a rather unreasonable thing to do.

This, this, this! Couldn't have said it better!

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

Then you are at least consistent about this. /tiphat

In all honesty, I think both FW and homebrewed should find greater acceptance - the problem is that many players are "locked into" a mindset that only core GW products should even be considered for their games, foregoing the "invitation" that GW has put out about trying out different stuff. And this won't get better by sulky gamers stomping their feet on the ground and calling players who don't want to play with FW as "using unofficial houserules" and claiming that expansions are not optional. Both approaches are in violation of the spirit of the game.

The problem is that you are still defending Peregrine, whose stance seems more contrary to yours than mine.

Massawyrm wrote:This needs to be about showing people why they want to play with and against FW, not why they have to.

This. Exalted.

 insaniak wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

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

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

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

No, but a statement by Jervis Johnson about FW being considered part of standard 40k should. It's a statement from the studio about the validity of FW in games. Or are we moving goal posts again?

 Lynata wrote:
The problem is that you are still defending Peregrine, whose stance seems more contrary to yours than mine.

But while I agree with his sentiments about how FW is unfairly looked down on, I'm not defending him. I'm defending the idea that FW is a valid part of the game.

I've presented a written statement by Jervis Johnson from IA Vol 1 (that'd be the original, not the 2nd Ed), if someone wants to prove FW somehow went from being seen as valid (in 2000) to not (now, in 2013) I'm going to need to see a written statement from the studio that says they think FW isn't a part of the game.

And as far as I know, none exists or the anti-FW crowd would have force fed it to us by now.

 DarthOvious wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Thank you for your very helpful contribution to the discussion.

I was merely congratulating Zion on a wonderful find. I think it shows distinctly that FW is indeed official. Also I contributed with a post in regards to the term "expansion". Just because the word expansion is used this doesn't make forge world any less official because as I pointed out "expansion" can be used to refer to the any installment of the World of Warcraft series. They are mentioned particularly as "expansions". This doesn't mean you get groups of WoW players grouping together to say that they are not playing it because it's unofficial.

The thing I don't like about this anti-FW attitude is the fact that it seems to be a blanket ban on all the FW products. Its not pointing to any particular unit and saying, I'm not playing that because I think its overpowered. They are pointing to the whole Forge-World range, no matter what item it is, and then saying that they are not playing against it. Against these types of players it doesn't matter if I would put on the table an underpowered and overcosted unit. The fact that it comes from Forge World is enough for those players to say they are not going to play against it and that it is unofficial in their eyes.

Its just downright disrespectful to do such a thing to a person who has spent their money on goods, to then be told they are not allowed to use them in a game they are designed for. There is no argument here in regards to the opposing player thinking it is overpowered and thus he will not have a fun game. Its just a statement of "I'm not playing against that" without any real reason behind it and hiding behind a fake reason of unofficialness.

I would much rather have a player say he won't play me because he considers some of my individual units to be OTT rather than have a player who is just going to blanket ban playing against any Forge World unit. There is more honesty and integrity behind former person than the latter. The unit they point out as being OTT can be a Forge World unit and I have no problem with that, but a blank out ban against all FW units in my opinion is just a rather unreasonable thing to do.

Naturally you want people to play with the FW that you have got, which is completely understandable.

The thing is, when you buy a game or a unit, you don't buy the time of the people whom you need to be your opponents. You can't force them to play. You need to persuade them.

I have played against FW and have no basic objection, however I can see the reason why some people don't like them. Which is, that the FW items sometimes are unbalanced, and they are hidden in very expensive supplementary books that most players don't want. That attitude is not totally fair but it isn't crazy either.

My advice is to stop trying to pressurise the use of FW, and instead to introduce the models slowly into games with a clear explanation of their rules, so the other guy doesn't feel pressurised to play or surprised by some rule he didn't know about. That way, things go forwards by mutual agreement and both people will get a better outcome.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

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

If more people took this sentence to heart, FW would be more readily accepted.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

My advice is to stop trying to pressurise the use of FW, and instead to introduce the models slowly into games with a clear explanation of their rules, so the other guy doesn't feel pressurised to play or surprised by some rule he didn't know about. That way, things go forwards by mutual agreement and both people will get a better outcome.

Here is an idea that doesn't suck.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

Naturally you want people to play with the FW that you have got, which is completely understandable.

The thing is, when you buy a game or a unit, you don't buy the time of the people whom you need to be your opponents. You can't force them to play. You need to persuade them.

Absolutely, but then they need to persuade me of my time as well for that matter, so if their stance is stictly a no FW stance, then my stance is I can find better players to play against. Understand, if they want to point to particular units and give a reason why they think its overpowered in any way then thats fine, but anybody who wants to put a blanket ban on all FW stuff is just being unreasonable and so in that case I can be just as unreasonable as them and state that I will never play them either no matter what they may take in their list.

I have played against FW and have no basic objection, however I can see the reason why some people don't like them. Which is, that the FW items sometimes are unbalanced, and they are hidden in very expensive supplementary books that most players don't want. That attitude is not totally fair but it isn't crazy either.

Some FW units may be unbalanced but I think its an unfair representation to suggest that they are mostly unbalanced. You're talking to a guy who owns three Hazard Suits with Phased Ion Guns, sure they are a good unit with markerlight support, but in no way can they be considered unbalanced. So why should there be a blanket ban on Forge World when my Hazard Suits should be perfectly acceptable to use in a game of 40k?

Thats the point I am making. Complaints should be directed on a unit to unit basis, not just by banning a large section from the game altogether.

My advice is to stop trying to pressurise the use of FW, and instead to introduce the models slowly into games with a clear explanation of their rules, so the other guy doesn't feel pressurised to play or surprised by some rule he didn't know about. That way, things go forwards by mutual agreement and both people will get a better outcome.

As pointed out earlier people with FW units are being forced not to use them with this kind of attitude. It should be done on a unit by unit basis, NOT by blanket banning all Forge World stuff. Fair enough if the unit can be considered overpowered and so can make the game no fun for the other guy but there is no sense in just banning the lot. Its unreasonable to do so, and hints of immaturity when done. Its akin to somebody playing the game with one codex army and then saying they won't play against any other codex army other than his own because he considers them overpowered without giving a reason why.

If people don't want to play with you because you insist they must let you use FW models, refusing to play with them is not going to get them to play with you. They will get plenty of games with other people who don't want to play FW.

Whatever the principle of things, you really do need to understand these people's views and engage with them in a sympathetic way.

So I just wanted to make a rundown of the evidence that I've seen as presented by both sides here and in past threads (my notes are in parenthesis):

Pro-FW:
-Spirit of the Game (rules are a framework to support an enjoyable experience)
- Page 108 and it's sources of valid army lists in a normal game (codex, codex +extras (FW, supplements), or homebrew)
- Statement from Jervis Johnson in writing supporting FW for standard games from the first Imperial Armour book (showing that FW was always intended to be a part of normal games)
- Facebook post from GW Digital Editions stating that you can take FW with your army
- Facebook post from FW stating that you can take FW with your army

Anti-FW (these are summaries of arguments I've actually seen, not me playing strawman):
- "I don't want it forced on anyone." (which is impossible unless you hold someone at gunpoint)
- "It's not mentioned by name in the core rulebook." (codex supplements aren't either)
- "It's OP." (Just like how every other broken combination in the game is when put in the hands of players who want to abuse the system to win)
- "It's not legal/official/ect." (despite being in the WD, on the blog, sold at Games Day and Warhammer World it's somehow on par with a 3rd part product....right.)
- "GW doesn't use it in their events." (they have also banned allies, limited allies to 500 points, don't use random terrain placement, and generally don't play what could be called a "standard" game of 40k. The events are also run by the Sales Team not the developers and are as indicative of the game as tournaments are. That is to say, they aren't.)

I'm sorry anti-FW crowd but the arguments being made by your side lack the weight of evidence and come across (to me) as goal post moving ("no rule that says you can play FW" in 5th to "no rule that specifically says you can play FW by name" in 6th), or a lot of opinions and appeals to authority. You don't have a good argument here, you have quicksand for a basis of your claims.

And again, before anyone starts claiming I'm "forcing" anyone to play anything, I'm not. I'm just trying to get people to stop claiming FW options is less a part of the game just because it says "FW" on the book. It's frankly a bad claim and no one is coming out of things happy when they're told that the stuff they spend their time and money on is somehow less valid than the things you have despite it all coming from the same company.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
If people don't want to play with you because you insist they must let you use FW models, refusing to play with them is not going to get them to play with you. They will get plenty of games with other people who don't want to play FW.

I am not insisting anything here other than to give me a better reason for why you don't want to play with what I have on the table. I will listen to players who want to tell me that certain unit X is overpowered and thats fine. Who I will not entertain are players who blanket ban playing against FW stuff.

The point of my comment was to show that I can stoop to their level as well and then tell them that I will not play them irregardless of the content of their list, ya know, just cause I don't want to. Thats the point. Just saying "Its Forge World so I won't play" is just a really crappy and immature way to deal with things. Its about as constructive as making a hot water bottle out of chocolate.

Whatever the principle of things, you really do need to understand these people's views and engage with them in a sympathetic way.

However they are allowed to just blanket ban a whole part of the game just because they wanna? Without any real reason for doing so? So you expect me to reach out to them when they point out blank refuse to understand my side of things? No I don't think I'll be doing that. If you don't want to play the army I have on the table then state a proper reason for doing so. Otherwise I will be giving them duff reasons back to why I don't want to play with them. This is how it would go down in my eyes.

Player 1 - I don't want to play against you cause I don't play against Forge World. They are an unofficial part of the hobby.

Two Months later

Me to Player 1 - I don't want to play against you cause I don't play unreasonable jackasses.


On the other hand, if you give me a proper reason then this is how things will turn out differently:

Player 1 - I don't want to play against that R'Vana Riptide, its just too overpowered.

Me to Player 1 - Sure, I can enchange it for a normal Riptide with a couple of drones instead if thats OK with you.

Do you see how in the second scenario I was a lot more pleasant? Thats because they didn't just give me some sod off reason for not playing against my list. He pinpointed what unit he had a problem with and why.

 DarthOvious wrote:

 TheCustomLime wrote:

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

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

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

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

First, WoW expansions don't work the same way 40k Expansions do. You don't log on and say to yourself, "Hey, I am in the mood for WotLK today" unless you are leveled for it. It works as a progression towards the ultimate end of the game. 40k expansions are just add ons to the game to spice things up. To relate things to WoW, imagine Blizzard made an expansion that allowed for naval combat in WoW and it was totally optional. (Now, imagine if they made an optional expansion that added additional spells/classes. The community would explode from rage! )

Secondly, this isn't an argument over how "Official" it is. Forgeworld is official. The argument is whether you can just plop a Earthshaker carriage on the table without asking your opponent if it's cool to use it.

To tie these two points together, WoW expansions are basically updates to the game that they charge for while 40k expansions are entirely optional. You basically need the former to progress while you can have a great time without the latter. Now, IA books are expansions. They say so right on the cover. Now, the preface that everyone likes to talk about says that these rules are intended for use in standard 40k. I at first didn't understand why this was different from, say, "These rules are standard 40k rules". The difference here is that the Forge world "Expansion" is a bunch of add ons for standard 40k matches instead of updates to the Codices. If they were the book would have said, "These rules are updates to the Imperial Guard codex and should be treated as part of said codex".

Now, you may be wondering if I am anti-FW. I actually love the company and their sexy big stupid models. Those LR variants (Stygies Vanquisher on a Mars Alpha Hull anyone?) are awesome. I've even played against a FW list and had a good time. I just think that people should educate their opponents on how IA is since they probably aren't familiar with the books.

ClockworkZion wrote:But while I agree with his sentiments about how FW is unfairly looked down on, I'm not defending him. I'm defending the idea that FW is a valid part of the game.

FW is as much a valid part of the game as house rules. It is not more, and not less. You seem to agree here, but this is not actually the purpose of this thread and the point OP is attempting to drive into our heads.

Though I'd actually agree FW should actually find more general acceptance than house rules (which it actually does, no?), I argue against the "standard inclusion" on principle - for one because this is what the rulebook as well as FW's own statement says, and secondly because I just can't agree with the tone this campaign is being conducted.

ClockworkZion wrote:I've presented a written statement by Jervis Johnson from IA Vol 1 (that'd be the original, not the 2nd Ed), if someone wants to prove FW somehow went from being seen as valid (in 2000) to not (now, in 2013) I'm going to need to see a written statement from the studio that says they think FW isn't a part of the game.

Actually, if we want to nitpick - the Vehicle Design Rules were at their time a standardised way for players to create their own vehicles. Let me hold up the mirror of my selective reading against your selective reading ->
1. Naturally there is no difference between FW using VDR to any other player doing the same. In this context, FW publications would not be their own rules, but rather a premade construction using GW core studio rules
2. The VDR are no longer current (though even if they were, according to the 6E Rulebook they would be optional modifications)
3. We are not at all certain whether or not FW is still designing its vehicles using the VDR (quite probably not )
4. FW rules these days are about more than just vehicles
5. Does Jervis Johnson's statement that "as long as IA rules conform to VDR, they are legitimate and could be used in any game of 40k" not automatically mean that IA rules not conforming to VDR are not legitimate and could not be used in any game of 40k?

I'd say your image actually hurts both our basic positions (that FW is fine and legal to use if both players agree) more than it supports your expanded one (that FW should be "automatically greenlit" for standard games).

In your "summary", you also missed a few points, namely that:
- players who do not like to play against FW should not be accused of "resorting house rules" to do so, supposedly devalueing their game
- codex supplements are indeed just optional expansions, too, unless this was specifically addressed by GW

I'd say it is quite possible to "force" someone to play you by appealing to their sense of using standard rules; this is what this thread attempts to achieve, no? Peregrine's entire campaign is focused on overriding other players' hesitation to accept FW into their game (however justified or unjustified it may be) by instituting a change in perception - not by making FW look more fun or interesting, but by proclaiming that by refusing to play FW units you are not playing according to the standard rules. This is what grinds my gears, and what compels me to spend so much time on posting against this even though I have nothing against FW units per se.
You could say it's similar to my "there is no canon" campaign even though I have purchased and keep purchased quite a number of Black Library books for the stories they tell.

tl;dr: "Play and let play"

I refuse to play riptides, there is nothing in the 40k rulebook that mentions them specifically by name so they are unofficial.

Could you imagine someone saying that haha. They would be laughed out of the room, same logic with forge world.

Ok now my actual opinion, you guys wanna refuse it, go ahead, wanna allow it, go ahead, but neither side of this argument is correct.

The image was posted because it counters an argument that's come up before: that Forgeworld was never supported by the studio. Additionally it also counters the idea that FW wasn't meant for standard games. It states both things, and there has not been a statement that contradicts this idea since.

ClockworkZion wrote:The image was posted because it counters an argument that's come up before: that Forgeworld was never supported by the studio. Additionally it also counters the idea that FW wasn't meant for standard games. It states both things, and there has not been a statement that contradicts this idea since.

But your image with this conditional endorsement was not referring to FW rules - it was referring to FW-published combinations of VDR-governed traits from GW core studio rules (which, on a sidenote, as per the 6E rulebook definition would be an optional expansion nowadays too).
And it should not have been necessary. There's no difference between a player or a FW employee using these rules to create a unit - the origin of the rules remains a White Dwarf article.

You are operating on Peregrine's turf now, argueing that this image says more than it actually does, by dismissing the condition that Jervis has attached to that sentence.
And you've dodged the question on what exactly this would mean for FW rules not conforming to VDR, which could well mean all of its current selection - if you argue that this statement is still valid (which you seem to do with the "not contradicted since"), then this is contraproductive to what you are trying to say here.

 Lynata wrote:

ClockworkZion wrote:The image was posted because it counters an argument that's come up before: that Forgeworld was never supported by the studio. Additionally it also counters the idea that FW wasn't meant for standard games. It states both things, and there has not been a statement that contradicts this idea since.

But your image with this conditional endorsement was not referring to FW rules - it was referring to FW-published combinations of VDR-governed traits from GW core rules.
And it should not have been necessary. There's no difference between a player or a FW employee using these rules to create a unit - the origin of the rules remains a White Dwarf article.

It was a condition for them to be a part of "regular games" of Warhammer 40,000. FW didn't abandon VDR until about 5th edition (I'm thinking the Guard codex) and instead seem to be still be making things in line with that the studio is doing, only for more points.

 Lynata wrote:
You are operating on Peregrine's turf now, argueing that this image says more than it actually does, by dismissing the condition that Jervis has attached to that sentence.

I mentioned that condition in my original post and how GW has abandoned VDR a long time ago in general. The fact of the matter is we have a positive endorsement of FW by the main studio. We also have Jervis' name as the author for their first 3 books. But people still argue that FW isn't "official", the point was to establish that it was endorsed from the beginning and that endorsement was never pulled.

 Lynata wrote:
And you've dodged the question on what exactly this would mean for FW rules not conforming to VDR, which could well mean all of its current selection - if you argue that this statement is still valid (which you seem to do with the "not contradicted since"), then this is contraproductive to what you are trying to say here.

You're missing my point I think. I'm pointing out that FW was published from the beginning as an official part of the standard game of 40,000. The studio has never came out since to say they view it any other way. That's all I'm saying.

I completely understand the pro-FW argument from this thread. At the same time, I personally don't think adding in the vulture and the like to the current meta really improves anything. Just gives GW/FW more monies.

Both of the groups I've played with have strictly prohibited FW, because of both cost and tourney variability. Maybe I just can't imagine using it at this point. It's a pretty conflicted point for me.

We are moving in circles, and you keep missing the condition included in that statement.

VDR are not FW rules. FW publishing vehicles made via VDR does not mean that FW's own original rules are similarly endorsed by the main studio just because the main studio at the time endorsed any vehicle made by VDR. You are talking about two different things, and ignoring the part where the condition you posted actually disqualifies FW's non-VDR rules, which is the opposite of what you are trying to achieve here.

People argue that FW is not an integral part of the standard game because as per the rulebook the suggested approach is to use the codices, and because FW itself advertises its books as an expansion that adds to the game.

Actually, if FW recosted GW models, I'd be a lot more inclined to roll with them. Like some entries stating when using FW models, base codex values are as follows: XXX.

I'm under the impression FW costs their models with the codices in mind, though I'm not sure how much the two different design teams talk to each other regarding future products.

As for any weird exceptions .. to be fair, it's not like point costs in GW codices always seems logical or fair either.

 Lynata wrote:
We are moving in circles, and you keep missing the condition included in that statement.

Didn't miss it. You're just ignoring when I say anything regarding it. I know it exists, but that's something that fell out of favor a long time ago. The thing I've been saying is we have the head of the design studio blessing off on FW, and even writing their first three books. That basically kills any arguements about "officialness".

 Lynata wrote:
VDR are not FW rules. FW publishing vehicles made via VDR does not mean that FW's own original rules are similarly endorsed by the main studio just because the main studio at the time endorsed any vehicle made by VDR. You are talking about two different things, and ignoring the part where the condition you posted actually disqualifies FW's non-VDR rules, which is the opposite of what you are trying to achieve here.

You're right, VDR where Jervis' rules. Guess what else where Jervis' rules? The first three IA books that were released.

 Lynata wrote:
People argue that FW is not an integral part of the standard game because as per the rulebook the suggested approach is to use the codices, and because FW itself advertises its books as an expansion that adds to the game.

108 proves that argument flawed as you've already agreed. You know as well that EVERYTHING adds to the game. Codexes add to the core rules for instance.

Go ahead and buy your forgeworld models. If you're being a dick about it, you don't get a game from me or anything in my FLGS. Enjoy. Forgeworld stuffs for fluff and fun is all good, but sadly most "needs forgeworld" players fall into the category of powergaming douche-bags.

I'm not sure that's a fair characterization. I could make the same argument for any Eldar player who plunks down his turn of the century Wave Serpent models.

However, FW is super expensive and I see it as putting diesel fuel on a fire.

 juraigamer wrote:
Go ahead and buy your forgeworld models. If you're being a dick about it, you don't get a game from me or anything in my FLGS. Enjoy. Forgeworld stuffs for fluff and fun is all good, but sadly most "needs forgeworld" players fall into the category of powergaming douche-bags.

Based on what?

I play two FW lists, an Armored Company (that has neither scoring or contesting units of any kind, making winning games...difficult), and a DKoK Assault Brigade, I run an FW decimator frequently with my CSM's. In fact they're most of what I've run for the last year for casual and tournament play. None of that would really exactly be considered "powergaming".

ClockworkZion wrote:The thing I've been saying is we have the head of the design studio blessing off on FW, and even writing their first three books. That basically kills any arguements about "officialness".

Seriously, I feel like people are only reading half my posts. I am not debating "officialness".

You're sounding more and more like Peregrine in this attempt to sweep uncomfortable details under the rug in favour of sweeping statements falsifying the actual wording.
What we actually have is the head of the design studio having in the past blessed off FW content as long as said content is created using specific GW studio rules (which, on a sidenote, are also no longer in effect). This is redundant information, since said GW studio rules were by themselves already blessing off anything created with them, and because the rules that are actually part of the current debate have nothing to do with VDR. The vehicles could have been published by Disney or Wallmart and it'd be the same.

What we do not have is, contrary to how you make it sound like, the head of the design studio blessing off actual original FW rules, which are the subject of this debate.

ClockworkZion wrote:You're right, VDR where Jervis' rules. Guess what else where Jervis' rules? The first three IA books that were released.

... so?
One man is not the studio.

ClockworkZion wrote:108 proves that argument flawed as you've already agreed. You know as well that EVERYTHING adds to the game. Codexes add to the core rules for instance.

The difference is that the codices are SINGLED OUT by the core book to be the ONE suggestion and the DEFAULT approach, and that EVERYTHING ELSE is a modification and thus NON-STANDARD.

I can caps, too.

And with this, I'm out. Lost cause etc.

I-I just want my Space Marine Battle Brothers...

 juraigamer wrote:
Go ahead and buy your forgeworld models. If you're being a dick about it, you don't get a game from me or anything in my FLGS. Enjoy. Forgeworld stuffs for fluff and fun is all good, but sadly most "needs forgeworld" players fall into the category of powergaming douche-bags.

Ah, I enjoy sweeping generalizations with no basis in any factuality.

While I agree with Peregrine's stance, I do feel like its the wrong way of going about bringing FW into common acceptance. But, this is the internet, and if the comment I quoted is any indication, there is only black and white and nothing in between.

 Blacksails wrote:

 juraigamer wrote:
Go ahead and buy your forgeworld models. If you're being a dick about it, you don't get a game from me or anything in my FLGS. Enjoy. Forgeworld stuffs for fluff and fun is all good, but sadly most "needs forgeworld" players fall into the category of powergaming douche-bags.

Ah, I enjoy sweeping generalizations with no basis in any factuality.

While I agree with Peregrine's stance, I do feel like its the wrong way of going about bringing FW into common acceptance. But, this is the internet, and if the comment I quoted is any indication, there is only black and white and nothing in between.

Well every other way has failed and the people who deny really use ANY excuse to prevent it from being used. So at this point it's one of the few that's working.

 Blacksails wrote:

 juraigamer wrote:
Go ahead and buy your forgeworld models. If you're being a dick about it, you don't get a game from me or anything in my FLGS. Enjoy. Forgeworld stuffs for fluff and fun is all good, but sadly most "needs forgeworld" players fall into the category of powergaming douche-bags.

Ah, I enjoy sweeping generalizations with no basis in any factuality.

While I agree with Peregrine's stance, I do feel like its the wrong way of going about bringing FW into common acceptance. But, this is the internet, and if the comment I quoted is any indication, there is only black and white and nothing in between.

This +1. Don't force people to play against it, but advocate for it by introducing it.

For instance, I brought a Contemptor Dread to a game with person new to the game. I had the book, showed him the cool rules for other units, then played the game with him. While it was a cool unit, it died fairly quickly to the common vehicle killers. At the end of the game, he, and the guys who had observed all wanted to look through the book. I explained to them the idea of Forgeworld as a sort of supplement to the game. By the end, 3 of the 5 guys wanted to add something to their army when they saved the money. The truth is, FW sells itself. Just bring it along and be nice about it and people will want it.

Martel732 wrote:
However, FW is super expensive and I see it as putting diesel fuel on a fire.

Martel732 wrote:Both of the groups I've played with have strictly prohibited FW, because of both cost...

You've mentioned cost a couple times. I'm actually going to disagree with this particular part of the argument. Forge World prices are usually ~$10 more than GW or in some cases are actually cheaper. In fact, Forge World used to sell GW plastic kits. Like Land Raiders, Hammerheads etc for their conversion sets. You could buy these independently. After one round of price increases, Forge World's GW products - INCLUDING SHIPPING - were cheaper than GW's own.

Forge World no longer sells GW plastic kits.

Let's compare a handful of units, both GW and FW variants and some FW analogues. Most prices are in Canadian, but I've included some USDs for comparison as well.

GW price for a Wave Serpent (CDN): 53.50 USD: 44.50
FW price for their Wave Serpent: 63.73 (same rules, just variant kit) USD: 61.12

GW price for a Falcon (6-model capacity gunboat): 59.50 USD 49.50
GW price for a Fire Prism (heavy gunboat): 59.50 USD 49.50
FW price for a Firestorm (6-model capacity gunboat with AA): 62.05 USD 59.50
FW price for their Falcon: 63.73 (same rules, variant kit)
FW price for a Warp Hunter (heavy gunboat): 65.40 USD 62.60

GW price for a Land Raider: 89.00 USD: 74.25
FW price for a Land Raider Helios: 86.38 USD: 83.83
FW price for a Land Raider Achilles: 102.27 USD: 98.08

GW price for a Predator: 69.25 USD: 57.75
FW price for their Predator: 67.07 USD: 64.32

GW price for a Whirlwind: 69.25 USD: 57.75
FW price for a Whirlwind: 68.75 USD: 65.94

GW price for a Dark Eldar Ravager: 59.50
FW price for a Dark Eldar Reaper: 67.07

GW Leman Russ: 59.50
FW Ryza-Pattern Leman Russ: 70.43

GW Leman Russ Conqueror: 59.50
FW Conqueror: 60.37

GW Executioner: 59.50
FW Executioner: 60.37
Exterminator, Vanquisher, etc.

So as far as Canada goes (and I believe we've had an Australian comment in one thread or another that FW books about about 1.30 more expensive than Codices for them) FW prices are right in line - in some instances they're even cheaper! - than GW's own. FW units when compared to GW counterparts tend to be about ~$10 more expensive. This is not an insurmountable obstacle to anyone who plays this hobby. When we use USD for prices, FW units again come out about ~10-15 dollars more expensive. I wouldn't call that 'super expensive'. You can either use the GW units which are cheaper, or pay a bit extra for a luxury of a luxury item, or if you want something special, depending on where you live you can save a couple dollars or pay about 15 more. It's not break the bank level of funds.

"What about shipping?" I hear you say. "Won't that throw off all your figures and increase the FW expense?" To which I reply, well then you have two options. Save up yourself or get some friends to go all in for an order sufficiently large enough for free shipping, or accept an extra handful of dollars on the price... which still hardly puts FW into the 'super expensive' camp. If you can afford to buy and play GW games, than Forge World is not so expensive that it will require a second mortgage.

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:
Well every other way has failed and the people who deny really use ANY excuse to prevent it from being used. So at this point it's one of the few that's working.

Well, I'd point out that this isn't working well either from the responses we've read. Now, there could numerous people reading this and not responding who we have no way of determining if this thread affected their views. The people who dislike FW will continue to do so, and those who enjoy FW already believe what this thread is pointing out.

The best way is to go into your stores and clubs with the models and books in hand, and offer to play a few games with a small selection of their units. Offer to let people play your army with FW. If you happen to own any FW models for an army someone else also uses, offer to let them use your model and book for the game to try it out.

The internet will always be a place of one side against the other, but the reality of it is that many gamers don't actively participate in the forums or read many online articles/blogs. The key to accepting FW is through demistifying it and slowly introducing it into your gaming circle.

There's always a chance you have a group who just flat out refuses FW. Not much you could do there, but that's life. Can't force people to play your way, the same people can't force you to play theirs. Two-lane road and all that.

I don't know, I enjoy what FW produces; probably the only thing keeping me in 40k to be honest. But I'm not as heated about it as others. I also don't live anywhere near anyone who has even heard of table top wargaming, so I don't have any real experience lately with people opposing FW. My old club was totally down with it.

 juraigamer wrote:
Go ahead and buy your forgeworld models. If you're being a dick about it, you don't get a game from me or anything in my FLGS. Enjoy. Forgeworld stuffs for fluff and fun is all good, but sadly most "needs forgeworld" players fall into the category of powergaming douche-bags.

The last three Xenos codexes are far more vulnerable to abuse by "powergaming douchebags" (especially allied together) than anything Forgeworld produces.

We hear stories of people refusing to play against them.

Martel732 wrote:
The only way FW is going to be accepted in my area is if their prices come down. Most of the reasons I've heard for why people won't accept FW is because of price and poor balancing.

QFT

if FW would just BALANCE things out, and not favor the IOM armies so much, and if the entry cost to get the books/models you want wasnt 500+$....

its basically pay to win, for certain armies like IG with all the rediculous artillary in FW, but yes it is 40k "legal"


fun games?
sure
competitive tournaments meant to assess skill, and not who has the most $ to buy all the best forgeworld models
why? what is the point? everyone will be playing IG with artillary + allies then... or be at a HUGE disadvantage.

all FW has to do is tone down, or properly cost some of the OP/undercosted stuff, or at least give EVERY army something uber good worth taking,

but no, IOM gets everything, my IG are not fun to play anymore when I take FW artillary as I feel like I get such an advantage with those units, I literally feel like I have an extra 300-500 pts when I play my "douche FW IG" list that just spams the best undercosted FW units...

im sure its even less fun for people to play me with that army...

all the standard codex spam is fine, easy to deal with with proper tactics/listbuilding, and doesnt make me feel like there is a huge gap in points between us.

Id rather deal with 5 riptides then forgeworld in the current state its in... riptides may rock, but they are costed/balanced way better then FW artillary for the IOM

I know you jumped ship on me here, but I'm still replying anyways as I feel there are things to address.

 Lynata wrote:

ClockworkZion wrote:The thing I've been saying is we have the head of the design studio blessing off on FW, and even writing their first three books. That basically kills any arguements about "officialness".

Seriously, I feel like people are only reading half my posts. I am not debating "officialness".

Welcome to my world. I never claimed you were arguing officialness, I was stating the reason I brought that picture up was to counteract those who do.

 Lynata wrote:
You're sounding more and more like Peregrine in this attempt to sweep uncomfortable details under the rug in favour of sweeping statements falsifying the actual wording.

Says the person who is trying to add words like "standard" to described 40k.

I'm not trying to sweep anything anywhere and even mentioned the VDR thing when I posted the picture. I was refering to the point of Jervis' message, not the wording. There is a difference between the two. And accusing people of lying doesn't make you have any moral high ground, it just rings of you trying to attack the person not what they're trying to say.

 Lynata wrote:
What we actually have is the head of the design studio having in the past blessed off FW content as long as said content is created using specific GW studio rules (which, on a sidenote, are also no longer in effect). This is redundant information, since said GW studio rules were by themselves already blessing off anything created with them, and because the rules that are actually part of the current debate have nothing to do with VDR. The vehicles could have been published by Disney or Wallmart and it'd be the same.

You're looking at the exact wording, I'm actually reffering to the message that is in that statement: that FW was being approved for regular play and the studio was supporting it. It doesn't matter what restrictions were in place or how it happened, but the fact that it did happen was important.

 Lynata wrote:
What we do not have is, contrary to how you make it sound like, the head of the design studio blessing off actual original FW rules, which are the subject of this debate.

Actually what we do not have is any member of the studio ever saying FW wasn't meant for use in the game, despite the naysayers. Even under specific restrictions we've had support for FW, but we've never had the inverse.

 Lynata wrote:

ClockworkZion wrote:You're right, VDR where Jervis' rules. Guess what else where Jervis' rules? The first three IA books that were released.

... so?
One man is not the studio.

No, but he was and is the head of the main design studio (as you mentioned only a few lines ago). His involvement and writer's credit for those books makes a rather strong argument for GW's involvement as well as how valid the studio sees them being.

 Lynata wrote:

ClockworkZion wrote:108 proves that argument flawed as you've already agreed. You know as well that EVERYTHING adds to the game. Codexes add to the core rules for instance.

The difference is that the codices are SINGLED OUT by the core book to be the ONE suggestion and the DEFAULT approach, and that EVERYTHING ELSE is a modification and thus NON-STANDARD.

I can caps, too.

There you go adding words to the game that don't exist. Codexes are never said to be a default, nor are they ever attributed as the only choice, just the easiest choice. Also I don't know any part of the rules that say that adapted codexes or homebrew are "non-standard" as there isn't a place that says that there is a set standard. You're accusing people of reading things "incorrectly" but keep doing it when it comes to the core rules of the game.

As I said, the core rules of the game are "standard". They're the rules you play when you play 40k. As long as you don't need to defer to another book for how to play the game itself (say Cities of Death, or Battle Missions) then you're playing "standard" 40k. The only things that FW brings to the table that break this standard are the Heresy Game (sold with the express point of stating that it's not meant for playing 40k with, and is basically a separate system that uses the 40k rules), Apoc (we have a game for that) and campaigns (alternate missions like the Altar of War books). Everything else uses the core rules and thus meets a definition of "standard". 108 contains a rule that says in a game of 40,000 you can play the army list out of a codex as is, adapt that army list or bring your own army list that you made. These are rules in the core rulebook of the game making them "standard" methods of play.

You can argue that you don't want to play them for a number of reasons, but arguing that they don't fall into some "standard" method of play that is written expressly to exclude them is frankly a dick move that is only being done to draw lines in the sand and then claim that it's the designer's intent.

 Eldarain wrote:

The last three Xenos codexes are far more vulnerable to abuse by "powergaming douchebags" (especially allied together) than anything Forgeworld produces.

You mean the one quad riptide netlist? That daemon prince/dogs/screamers netlist? Those eldar/tau or tau/eldar combo lists?

Lets be fair, those are simply the only thing people complain about. Normal tau/daemon/eldar players don't get flak. Besides, the only reason they are winning is everyone is busy running elite armies, and they are good at killing elite armies.

Also, don't forget the FAQ's have been lacking. The daemons thing comes from the grimore, which can be easily changed to max invul of a 3+. The moment people start running lots of stuff rather than few things, the riptide/wraith problem vanishes.

But forgeworld isn't the same. Forgeworld has good models, decent rules, but the issue comes from the fact there is no codex and X forgeworld model testing when the codex is created. FW stuffs have variant power, not equal to points and/or army allowance. If the problematic FW units that people take for powergaming purposes were changed to be in league with everything else, you can then run forgeworld all day. Until then, keep believing it's fair.

 easysauce wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
The only way FW is going to be accepted in my area is if their prices come down. Most of the reasons I've heard for why people won't accept FW is because of price and poor balancing.

QFT

Yes, because the prices that are fairly close to GW's are so out of reach that no one can possibly afford it. Oh wait.

 easysauce wrote:
if FW would just BALANCE things out, and not favor the IOM armies so much, and if the entry cost to get the books/models you want wasnt 500+$....

So basically if FW wasn't like GW then.

 easysauce wrote:
its basically pay to win, for certain armies like IG with all the rediculous artillary in FW, but yes it is 40k "legal"

Quaddrakes, Triptides and Screamerstars say "hi". There is plenty of "pay to win" in every game. Pretending that FW is the only possible source of this is silly.

And the artillery is only silly because of GW's core rules making them that way.

 easysauce wrote:
fun games?
sure
competitive tournaments meant to assess skill, and not who has the most $ to buy all the best forgeworld models

What's the point in doing this with 40k period? The game isn't written to be "competitive" or "test skill" it's written to be fun, cinematic and generally more casual than games you can play on your cellphone. You want a real test of skill write of a list (say Space Marines) and make a tournament around everyone running that. That's where you'll prove who is more "skillful" in the game.

 easysauce wrote:
why? what is the point? everyone will be playing IG with artillary + allies then... or be at a HUGE disadvantage.

I have the same problem with tournaments as a whole. As they stand they don't really prove diddly.

 easysauce wrote:
all FW has to do is tone down, or properly cost some of the OP/undercosted stuff, or at least give EVERY army something uber good worth taking,

I've yet to see a truely solid list on what constitutes what FW makes that is really "OP" that doesn't have the problem of being the main studio's fault. I mean Orks can bring Big Guns which are just as exploitive of the artillery rules as any of FW's IG guns but we all ignore those.....why the double standard on that one example that isn't even FW's fault?

 easysauce wrote:
but no, IOM gets everything, my IG are not fun to play anymore when I take FW artillary as I feel like I get such an advantage with those units, I literally feel like I have an extra 300-500 pts when I play my "douche FW IG" list that just spams the best undercosted FW units...

14 codexes, and what, 6 of them aren't IOM? I doubt FW is really the ones at fault for this.

And if you're dealing with douche players that's not FW's fault. That's the players fault for being a douche, and your's for not addressing it or refusing to place said douche.

 easysauce wrote:
im sure its even less fun for people to play me with that army...

Douche players enjoy being douches, so I'd say "no". But that applies to any list they can play using the least amount of possible creativity or skill.

 easysauce wrote:
all the standard codex spam is fine, easy to deal with with proper tactics/listbuilding, and doesnt make me feel like there is a huge gap in points between us.

Nice double standard there. "It's fine if someone is a douche with the regular stuff, but that other stuff is just too far!". Players who are douches shouldn't be supported regardless what they play with.

 easysauce wrote:
Id rather deal with 5 riptides then forgeworld in the current state its in... riptides may rock, but they are costed/balanced way better then FW artillary for the IOM

Your argument makes no sense. It's okay for people to be a douche in general, but they spend a few bucks extra to play Krieg and suddenly that's too far? I'm glad I'll never have to play against you because you've got a bad attitude about this game.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 juraigamer wrote:
But forgeworld isn't the same. Forgeworld has good models, decent rules, but the issue comes from the fact there is no codex and X forgeworld model testing when the codex is created. FW stuffs have variant power, not equal to points and/or army allowance. If the problematic FW units that people take for powergaming purposes were changed to be in league with everything else, you can then run forgeworld all day. Until then, keep believing it's fair.

FW does test rules, sometimes even publicly (experimental rules). They even have rules that get veto'd by the main studio and have to be adjusted to bring them into line with the game.

The problem with the community is that we have people who will take things for the sake of power gaming and that we have others drawing the line not at those players who do that, but at FW who isn't responsible for people being dicks.

Don't hate FW because people can be donkey-caves. Hate the donkey-caves for being donkey-caves.

 juraigamer wrote:

 Eldarain wrote:

The last three Xenos codexes are far more vulnerable to abuse by "powergaming douchebags" (especially allied together) than anything Forgeworld produces.

You mean the one quad riptide netlist? That daemon prince/dogs/screamers netlist? Those eldar/tau or tau/eldar combo lists?

Lets be fair, those are simply the only thing people complain about. Normal tau/daemon/eldar players don't get flak.

And how the hell is that not different to most people running FW stuff?

But forgeworld isn't the same. Forgeworld has good models, decent rules, but the issue comes from the fact there is no codex and X forgeworld model testing when the codex is created.

You're implying that GW does major playtesting and that the game is designed and intended with balanced and competitive play in mind, and that the fluff based allies rules don't already make a mockery of such things.

None of the above are true, partly by the Design Studio's open admission at their open day event last year.

FW stuffs have variant power, not equal to points and/or army allowance. If the problematic FW units that people take for powergaming purposes were changed to be in league with everything else, you can then run forgeworld all day. Until then, keep believing it's fair.

So...how does this also not apply exactly to Codex stuff that's also broken?

We've got an arbitrary double-standard here.

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

Well its not like it bothers anyone at our FLGS, right?

I don't think half these arguments against FW are very valid.

Pricing. Look at poor eldar. Bring 3 wraithknights and serpent spam. That is not going to be a cheap army. Wrath knight is over 100USD and a 60USD blight drone is too expensive?

GW will release models and rules that are super awesome/broken/cheating/whatever. Look at the top lists in tournaments, you will see the "op" units there. All sorts of FW stuff will look great on paper, but if it was as amazingly powerful as everyone thinks it is, EVERY competitive player and half the casual players would fork out $20 more (not much) for the super instant win button.

An annihilation barge has scary awesome firepower and is under 100pt. A wave serpent is right there with it, but this one is a transport too. When did transports become more dangerous than heavy tanks? FW didn't do that.

right, when GW says a str9 ap3 large blast template, on a fragile av 12 vehicle costs 125pts,
but forgeworld puts that same weapon, on a MUCH more durable artilary unit, that also does a LOT more damage due to being orderable, it only makes sense to charge 75 pts for that unit right?

right? thats "fair" and balanced, no one is shelling out 60+pounds per artillary are they?


the standard dex stuff actually IS costed and balanced, people who complaing about riptides/helldrakes/wraithknights just do not know how to counter them, they are costed FAIRLY or clost to it for what they do.

copare that to the above, one example of MANY, where compared to the baseline GW model, the performance goes up significantly, while the points cost goes down even more so. with absolutely no justification.

Events like NOVA, 11th Co, BFS, AdeptiCon are going without it for their GT's

the reason you dont see top finishers at all the big tournies like nova ect.... is not because they are not uber op units... its because they are NOT ALLOWED... with good reason, they are not balanced for comp play,

stop saying "deeep but riptides helldraks wraithknights"

who cares about those? they are costed fairly for what they do, they are powerful, competitive, and balanced.

FW literally takes units, makes them cost less points, gives them upgrades, and the FW crowd goes "looks fair to me!"

is all FW like that? nope, but enough of it is, and disproportionatly so in IOM's favor

here are the very valid reasons why nova doesnt allow FW at the GT

With regard to NOVA, it was a fairly large internal discussion with a lot of back and forth ... here's what pushed us to having FW be in the Trios and Narrative, but not the GT or Invitational:

1. Evidence came out over the year from UK testers that was fairly definitive as to the subject of playtesting - FW isn't playtested, or even involved in the balancing/playtesting process (such as / whatever it is).
1a. The game is increasingly balanced for all levels of play, with each new updated codex ... lending more credence to NOT including (in the more competitive formats of the GT and Invitational) non-tested/balanced rules.

2. None of us could remember ever really playing pick-up games at local game stores, social game nights, or local GW's where anyone - especially casual players - was even routinely aware of FW, much less interested in playing with FW rules. The push to use them was coming almost exclusively [at least on our radar] from more tournament-savvy people (though not exclusively from competitive minded people).

3. MOST gamers, even those who advocated FW heavily, weren't even aware of the existence of half or more of the units they wanted to legalize. As a result, many of the arguments about balance fixated on Sabres, Boarding Flyers (w/e their name is, I always forget), etc., and they consistently wound up stammering when faced with units like Quad Guns, or the (can't remember his name) Shrouding/Disordered + Nullzone/Divination 160 point libby, etc.

4. Arguments about "balancing" flyer-heavy armies were rendered somewhat pointless by the broad lack of consistent tournament-wining success by flyer-heavy armies.

"the standard dex stuff actually IS costed and balanced, people who complaing about riptides/helldrakes/wraithknights just do not know how to counter them, they are costed FAIRLY or clost to it for what they do. "

Demonstrably untrue. Exhibit A: Wave Serpent.

serpants are balanced, you just dont know how to deal with them... i have played a huge amount of serpant spam, with 0 issues.

its call krak grenades or shooting that ignores cover, try it.

heck because they use their sheilds as weapons everytime, my lascannons, that dont ignore cover, from my IG army, burns through serpant spam easily...

what is your response to FW artillary, that has comparable units in normal dexes, yet is MORE powerful, MORE durable, but 40% less points?

 easysauce wrote:
serpants are balanced, you just dont know how to deal with them... i have played a huge amount of serpant spam, with 0 issues.

its call krak grenades or shooting that ignores cover, try it.

heck because they use their sheilds as weapons everytime, my lascannons, that dont ignore cover, from my IG army, burns through serpant spam easily...

what is your response to FW artillary, that has comparable units in normal dexes, yet is MORE powerful, MORE durable, but 40% less points?

Not to derail the subject but, just because you can deal with something with your army, or even some armies, if you build directly to counter it does not mean that it isn't game breaking. Some armies do not have answers anywhere in their codex for WS spam. Some do. That isn't game balanced, that is poor rules in a game that we all accept to have poor rules.

On topic, I think the biggest reason my gaming group doesn't allow FW is that the rules are not as readily available to players as say, the codices are. Most people are exposed to the armies of this game at least once in awhile so they have some experience against them or can take a look at a store copy of a codex.

Using a single FW unit in a game with the book? Alright, not SO bad but still...it may have been FAQed. Using an entire FW army? I am not going to read through your entire codex and it;s FAQs to make sure you aren't trying to cheat me. Sorry, that is what it really boils down to. I don't trust people enough to take their word at what their codex does. I know I can call BS on somethings, but if someone slips in a little change that is believable, like a S5 weapon being S6 or something like that? Chances are I wont call them on it and I again, don't want to read an entire codex to make sure you aren't cheating me.

krak grenades and str 7+ shooting is hardly a rare counter to serpent spam...

every army has them, or similar things, and a real TAC list has ways to deal with av 12-14, even if that armor gets a cover save... my 150pt lemen russ in a ruin is "broken" too then cause who can possibly deal with av14 with a 4+ cover save?

again, much less game breaking the FW units like artillary...

if FW took the serpant, reduced its points by 40%, and made it into a t7 monster with 3 wounds instead of a vehicle, and upped the fire power a bit,
thats where we are with FW artillary right now.
as it is serpants are NOT broken, they are just NEW and people are not used to them.

Had a game last night against an anti forge world player, he said "are you useing that crazy fw rules bs"
To which I replied
"you mean to say, "do I have anything that can compete with 3 riptides you have there", in which can no I'm not"

He quit when I fired my medusa at him commander that was sitting (to me) in a broadside unit, he tells me that the commander wasn't part of the broadside unit, so I say I'm going to re do the shot as (within 3") it looked like it was, first shot was a hit by the way, he rages about how op forge world lists are blah blah and quits, didn't even get to resolve the shot.
Told him to grow up and learn the rules

 gwarsh41 wrote:
I don't think half these arguments against FW are very valid.

Pricing. Look at poor eldar. Bring 3 wraithknights and serpent spam. That is not going to be a cheap army. Wrath knight is over 100USD and a 60USD blight drone is too expensive?

Hell, even worse, it's cheaper to buy DKoK infantry than it is to buy Dire Avengers

 easysauce wrote:
right, when GW says a str9 ap3 large blast template, on a fragile av 12 vehicle costs 125pts,
but forgeworld puts that same weapon, on a MUCH more durable artilary unit, that also does a LOT more damage due to being orderable, it only makes sense to charge 75 pts for that unit right?

It's only more durable if you're trying to shoot it to death from across the table. It's immobile, Ld7 (hooray fallback tests and psychic attacks) and is nothing but a handful of T3 5+sv Ld7 A1 dudes in an assault. Psychic powers, morale tests, and CC utterly wreck this unit and it cannot move to avoid any of them.

As you were mentioned against the Heldrakes and whatnot, you're don't know how to fight it.

the standard dex stuff actually IS costed and balanced

In what universe and who's say-so?

 easysauce wrote:
krak grenades and str 7+ shooting is hardly a rare counter to serpent spam...

again, much less game breaking the FW units like artillary...

if FW took the serpant, reduced its points by 40%, and made it into a t7 monster with 3 wounds instead of a vehicle, and upped the fire power a bit,
thats where we are with FW artillary right now.
as it is serpants are NOT broken, they are just NEW and people are not used to them.

I disagree. The Wave Serpent and Vendetta are just as bad as the broken FW stuff. Lists tailored for wave serpents don't count as "dealing with them". Build a list for an unknown opponent then come talk to me about Wave Serpents.

GW stuff is actually playtested, and goes through a balanceing process, had you actually read my above post you would find

1. Evidence came out over the year from UK testers that was fairly definitive as to the subject of playtesting - FW isn't playtested, or even involved in the balancing/playtesting process (such as / whatever it is).
1a. The game is increasingly balanced for all levels of play, with each new updated codex ... lending more credence to NOT including (in the more competitive formats of the GT and Invitational) non-tested/balanced rules.

having krak greneades, or str 7+ shooting is not list tailoring,

Martel732 wrote:

I disagree. The Wave Serpent and Vendetta are just as bad as the broken FW stuff. Lists tailored for wave serpents don't count as "dealing with them". Build a list for an unknown opponent then come talk to me about Wave Serpents.

I am specifically talking about tounament lists I have been playing against that have serpant spam... I am not "tailoring"; to beat serpant spam with my tourny list, and I have no clue who I face in those games... stop saying I am, because you are just arguing with yourself at that point, or just deluding yourself as to what I am actually saying here...

so hows that for your "come talk to me when you are not tailoring"

WTF man, im talking about a tac list I had, not tailoring... get it right instead accuse me of tailoring to win, because I have KRAK GRENADES?!?!? that is the only thing I had to kill them besides DK's and coteaz... thats not tailoring, thats USING WHAT IS ALREADY AVAIABLE

stop pretending that krak grenades, and literally any str7+ shooting weapon is some rare thing that no one takes....

 easysauce wrote:
GW stuff is actually playtested, and goes through a balanceing process, had you actually read my above post you would find

1. Evidence came out over the year from UK testers that was fairly definitive as to the subject of playtesting - FW isn't playtested, or even involved in the balancing/playtesting process (such as / whatever it is).
1a. The game is increasingly balanced for all levels of play, with each new updated codex ... lending more credence to NOT including (in the more competitive formats of the GT and Invitational) non-tested/balanced rules.

As previously mentioned FW is play tested too (by the FW team, just like GW's main studio conducts their own play testing), they even do open play testing with their experimental rules AND the main studio has a say on if something needs to be adjusted before they print it. Your argument is full of more holes than the Titanic.

 easysauce wrote:
krak grenades and str 7+ shooting is hardly a rare counter to serpent spam...

every army has them, or similar things, ...

Yeah, I take krak grenades on all of my gaunts...

 insaniak wrote:

 easysauce wrote:
krak grenades and str 7+ shooting is hardly a rare counter to serpent spam...

every army has them, or similar things, ...

Yeah, I take krak grenades on all of my gaunts...

And my Sisters have plenty of autocannons.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

 easysauce wrote:
krak grenades and str 7+ shooting is hardly a rare counter to serpent spam...

every army has them, or similar things, ...

Yeah, I take krak grenades on all of my gaunts...

And my Sisters have plenty of autocannons.

And my CSM will easily be able to get up close to a Wave Serpent to hit it with grenades! Those legs will carry them to victory against those grav vehicles.

 Vaktathi wrote:


, Ld7 (hooray fallback tests and psychic attacks)

Now as much as I like FW, if you play the Death Korps, you don't have to take LD tests ever, so charging is one of the option, pinning works, and the noise marine are the bane of my big guns.

I know right? So much S7 shooting and krak grenades for nids. Also my SoB who, while having Exorcist which will be the primary target for the Eldar player and do not ignore cover, have such great ways to deal with AV 12 SKIMMERS that can out shoot the entire army. My Chaos Daemons do so great considering, as we all know, people ONLY play Screamstar or FMC spam which are obviously the only two list you can play in the codex. My CSM can do decently against Serpent spam, I'll grant you that...except I have probably two or three things that can deal with Wave Serpents which means I might kill a couple of them but the Eldar player has to spend so few points fielding those things they still have plenty left for me to go through. My Eldar can counter with MOAR WAVE SERPENTS but I don't think that is much fun. I like my psychology list with Vauls Support Batteries, Night Spinners, and Hemlocks.

No one, or no one SHOULD be saying, is saying that WS spam is unbeatable, the point is if you want to play a TAC list chances are you can't beat WS spam.

I don't understand how people freely state that 40k is unbalanced, rules take a back seat to sales, but then when you agree with them and point out specifics everyone gets all up in arms about it when THEIR army is the one that is dominating. This game IS unbalanced, it IS broken, but we play it despite that, so why deny it when people tell it like it is?

 easysauce wrote:
GW stuff is actually playtested, and goes through a balanceing process, had you actually read my above post you would find

1. Evidence came out over the year from UK testers that was fairly definitive as to the subject of playtesting - FW isn't playtested, or even involved in the balancing/playtesting process (such as / whatever it is).
1a. The game is increasingly balanced for all levels of play, with each new updated codex ... lending more credence to NOT including (in the more competitive formats of the GT and Invitational) non-tested/balanced rules.

having krak greneades, or str 7+ shooting is not list tailoring,

Martel732 wrote:

I disagree. The Wave Serpent and Vendetta are just as bad as the broken FW stuff. Lists tailored for wave serpents don't count as "dealing with them". Build a list for an unknown opponent then come talk to me about Wave Serpents.

I am specifically talking about tounament lists I have been playing against that have serpant spam... I am not "tailoring"; to beat serpant spam with my tourny list, and I have no clue who I face in those games... stop saying I am, because you are just arguing with yourself at that point, or just deluding yourself as to what I am actually saying here...

so hows that for your "come talk to me when you are not tailoring"

WTF man, im talking about a tac list I had, not tailoring... get it right instead accuse me of tailoring to win, because I have KRAK GRENADES?!?!? that is the only thing I had to kill them besides DK's and coteaz... thats not tailoring, thats USING WHAT IS ALREADY AVAIABLE

stop pretending that krak grenades, and literally any str7+ shooting weapon is some rare thing that no one takes....

So are these Wave Serpents driving right up to you without firing and letting you assault them with krak greandes? Because I'm having a hard time understanding how an infantry model with a 6" move catches a fast skimmer that can move 12" and fire two weapons at full BS. It's hard enough to get enough ASM with krak grenades within range *and have enough survivors for it to matter". Have you done the math on how many S7 shots it takes to bring down a Wave Serpent? It's borderline nuts. These are not solutions. The Wave Serpent is absolutely broken for its points *when used correctly*.

"No one, or no one SHOULD be saying, is saying that WS spam is unbeatable, the point is if you want to play a TAC list chances are you can't beat WS spam. "

Pretty much this. Broken is winning 70% - 80% of games against very good players who know what they are doing. Not unbeatable. Broken is invalidating huge swaths of the meta by just existing.

 Bobthehero wrote:

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

Well its not like it bothers anyone at our FLGS, right?

Not even a bit, but It may once I get you all trained up in tournament style

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

 easysauce wrote:
krak grenades and str 7+ shooting is hardly a rare counter to serpent spam...

every army has them, or similar things, ...

Yeah, I take krak grenades on all of my gaunts...

And my Sisters have plenty of autocannons.

Loyalist marines have a decided lack of autocannons as well. At least compared to CSM or Guard.

 Bobthehero wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

, Ld7 (hooray fallback tests and psychic attacks)

Now as much as I like FW, if you play the Death Korps, you don't have to take LD tests ever, so charging is one of the option, pinning works, and the noise marine are the bane of my big guns.

To be fair to FW, Krieg was made Fearless when it had more of a drawback, unlike now.

You know what else works on those guns? Focus fire. The guns themselves can't go to ground so can never have a 2+ cover save (hi Aegis!), and by focusing fire models the models with the nice cover save can't take the wounds.

To make it work, shoot at the unit twice. First with weaker weapons (frag, bolters, cow launchers), and then when the unit goes to ground unload with the stuff that has AP3 or better, or is at least S7 or both.

This doesn't work on Krieg, but Krieg can't go to ground anyways.

To be fair, this artillery being described doesn't sound fair at all. That's why it seems like FW just adds diesel fuel to the fire GW already started.

Martel732 wrote:
To be fair, this artillery being described doesn't sound fair at all. That's why it seems like FW just adds diesel fuel to the fire GW already started.

FW didn't write the artillery rules that made them so "broken" or "OP", GW did. And FW isn't forcing anyone to take them, much less fill their HS slot with 9 of them.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And I was wrong about Krieg being Fearless. That doesn't exist as a rule for them in IA 12. They can regroup as normal (even if under 25%) if they're in 6" of an Officer though. Not really the same thing.

So yeah, pinning and leadership tests are still options.

 Bobthehero wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:


, Ld7 (hooray fallback tests and psychic attacks)

Now as much as I like FW, if you play the Death Korps, you don't have to take LD tests ever, so charging is one of the option, pinning works, and the noise marine are the bane of my big guns.

This is not correct, you don't take Fear or 25% shooting Morale tests, you still take Ld tests from combat, psychic powers, pinning, etc.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
To be fair, this artillery being described doesn't sound fair at all. That's why it seems like FW just adds diesel fuel to the fire GW already started.

FW didn't write the artillery rules that made them so "broken" or "OP", GW did. And FW isn't forcing anyone to take them, much less fill their HS slot with 9 of them.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And I was wrong about Krieg being Fearless. That doesn't exist as a rule for them in IA 12. They can regroup as normal (even if under 25%) if they're in 6" of an Officer though. Not really the same thing.

So yeah, pinning and leadership tests are still options.

Maybe FW could issue points updates then when the rules drop, then? Maybe some oneupmanship on their part would make them more attractive. I still think the codices should be on the web and the points costs for all units be updated every month based on performance data.

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Bobthehero wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:


, Ld7 (hooray fallback tests and psychic attacks)

Now as much as I like FW, if you play the Death Korps, you don't have to take LD tests ever, so charging is one of the option, pinning works, and the noise marine are the bane of my big guns.

This is not correct, you don't take Fear or 25% shooting Morale tests, you still take Ld tests from combat, psychic powers, pinning, etc.

Yeah, forgot to type ''agaisn't shooting'' oops.

Martel732 wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
To be fair, this artillery being described doesn't sound fair at all. That's why it seems like FW just adds diesel fuel to the fire GW already started.

FW didn't write the artillery rules that made them so "broken" or "OP", GW did. And FW isn't forcing anyone to take them, much less fill their HS slot with 9 of them.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And I was wrong about Krieg being Fearless. That doesn't exist as a rule for them in IA 12. They can regroup as normal (even if under 25%) if they're in 6" of an Officer though. Not really the same thing.

So yeah, pinning and leadership tests are still options.

Maybe FW could issue points updates then when the rules drop, then? Maybe some oneupmanship on their part would make them more attractive. I still think the codices should be on the web and the points costs for all units be updated every month based on performance data.

See, here's the thing though, GW doesn't care about the balance that much. They aren't making a competitive, balanced game. They freely admit this. They do not intend Warhammer 40,000 to be a tight, competitive ruleset, but rather a dramatic framework with which to play with the models they make.

To GW, it's just not something they're shooting for with their product.

Martel732 wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
To be fair, this artillery being described doesn't sound fair at all. That's why it seems like FW just adds diesel fuel to the fire GW already started.

FW didn't write the artillery rules that made them so "broken" or "OP", GW did. And FW isn't forcing anyone to take them, much less fill their HS slot with 9 of them.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
And I was wrong about Krieg being Fearless. That doesn't exist as a rule for them in IA 12. They can regroup as normal (even if under 25%) if they're in 6" of an Officer though. Not really the same thing.

So yeah, pinning and leadership tests are still options.

Maybe FW could issue points updates then when the rules drop, then? Maybe some oneupmanship on their part would make them more attractive. I still think the codices should be on the web and the points costs for all units be updated every month based on performance data.

If they did that, what would be the point of having Imperial Armour books if they're constantly invalidated?

FW often updates stuff (the IA Krieg Siege list is available for free for instance) and provides updates that aren't yet in a book for free (like the updated Repressor!).

Oh and that Siege list? The basic Platoon Squad is 20 points more than the IG version. That's 2ppm average more expensive for the +1WS and their rule about ignoring Fear and Shooting casualties. What was this about being undercosted again?

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
To be fair, this artillery being described doesn't sound fair at all. That's why it seems like FW just adds diesel fuel to the fire GW already started.

FW didn't write the artillery rules that made them so "broken" or "OP", GW did. And FW isn't forcing anyone to take them, much less fill their HS slot with 9 of them.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
And I was wrong about Krieg being Fearless. That doesn't exist as a rule for them in IA 12. They can regroup as normal (even if under 25%) if they're in 6" of an Officer though. Not really the same thing.

So yeah, pinning and leadership tests are still options.

Maybe FW could issue points updates then when the rules drop, then? Maybe some oneupmanship on their part would make them more attractive. I still think the codices should be on the web and the points costs for all units be updated every month based on performance data.

If they did that, what would be the point of having Imperial Armour books if they're constantly invalidated?

FW often updates stuff (the IA Krieg Siege list is available for free for instance) and provides updates that aren't yet in a book for free (like the updated Repressor!).

Oh and that Siege list? The basic Platoon Squad is 20 points more than the IG version. That's 2ppm average more expensive for the +1WS and their rule about ignoring Fear and Shooting casualties. What was this about being undercosted again?

What would be the point indeed? Trying to codify these point values at the time of publishing is actually quite futile and foolish. They need real time updates.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Vaktathi wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
To be fair, this artillery being described doesn't sound fair at all. That's why it seems like FW just adds diesel fuel to the fire GW already started.

FW didn't write the artillery rules that made them so "broken" or "OP", GW did. And FW isn't forcing anyone to take them, much less fill their HS slot with 9 of them.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And I was wrong about Krieg being Fearless. That doesn't exist as a rule for them in IA 12. They can regroup as normal (even if under 25%) if they're in 6" of an Officer though. Not really the same thing.

So yeah, pinning and leadership tests are still options.

Maybe FW could issue points updates then when the rules drop, then? Maybe some oneupmanship on their part would make them more attractive. I still think the codices should be on the web and the points costs for all units be updated every month based on performance data.

See, here's the thing though, GW doesn't care about the balance that much. They aren't making a competitive, balanced game. They freely admit this. They do not intend Warhammer 40,000 to be a tight, competitive ruleset, but rather a dramatic framework with which to play with the models they make.

To GW, it's just not something they're shooting for with their product.

Since when are one-sided battles dramatic?

Martel732 wrote:
Since when are one-sided battles dramatic?

When the underdog wins.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Since when are one-sided battles dramatic?

When the underdog wins.

That's not a one-sided battle, by definition. I'm talking about the statistically probably outcome of many of GW's "dramatic" matchups. It's also not a good dramatic system when the models on the table can't deliver the fluff from the codex.

Seriously though, I don't think people understand how little GW's concern for real "balance" is. In 3rd they had a mission called "Meathgrinder". One player was the defender and put their entire army in the middle of the board. The other player could deploy pretty much everywhere else. The point of the game as the defending player was to not get tabled. If you managed that you won, otherwise you lost.

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Seriously though, I don't think people understand how little GW's concern for real "balance" is. In 3rd they had a mission called "Meathgrinder". One player was the defender and put their entire army in the middle of the board. The other player could deploy pretty much everywhere else. The point of the game as the defending player was to not get tabled. If you managed that you won, otherwise you lost.

There's a reason I only own one army and will only ever own one army. I refuse to play their little "poorly play-tested codex of the quarter" game. It's also a reason I've probably logged 5 X more hours in the last 4 month playing Starcraft than 40K.

Martel732 wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Seriously though, I don't think people understand how little GW's concern for real "balance" is. In 3rd they had a mission called "Meathgrinder". One player was the defender and put their entire army in the middle of the board. The other player could deploy pretty much everywhere else. The point of the game as the defending player was to not get tabled. If you managed that you won, otherwise you lost.

There's a reason I only own one army and will only ever own one army. I refuse to play their little "poorly play-tested codex of the quarter" game. It's also a reason I've probably logged 5 X more hours in the last 4 month playing Starcraft than 40K.

I currently only play Sisters but I do want to get into other armies eventually because they look cool. But I'm getting my entire Sisters collection painted before I even consider that.

Martel732 wrote:
Since when are one-sided battles dramatic?

I don't disagree, but that's how GW views their ruleset.

I don't know where the argument has gone but the last two pages have been completely off topic.

Topics are overrated. Besides, to OP nature or NOT OP nature of FW units is of direct relevance.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
I don't know where the argument has gone but the last two pages have been completely off topic.

So about those Red Sox.

Seriously though, the topic was broached by the argument against FW being seen as "legal" is their supposed OP nature. Pointing out why that's wrong is still in line with the nature of the discussion.

 ClockworkZion wrote:


Oh and that Siege list? The basic Platoon Squad is 20 points more than the IG version. That's 2ppm average more expensive for the +1WS and their rule about ignoring Fear and Shooting casualties. What was this about being undercosted again?

Its actually 1ppm because they have Krak grenades as standard, which are 1ppm.

 ClockworkZion wrote:
FW didn't write the artillery rules that made them so "broken" or "OP", GW did.

You creating a division between the two entities that doesn't actually exist in real life. Forgeworld is Games Workshop, remember?

 insaniak wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
FW didn't write the artillery rules that made them so "broken" or "OP", GW did.

You creating a division between the two entities that doesn't actually exist in real life. Forgeworld is Games Workshop, remember?

Sorry I mean the "FW" brand dev team didn't break the game with broken artillery rules but the "GW" brand dev team did. Is that better?

Same company, but they are two different groups of people responsible for things here. the group who does stuff branded as "FW" didn't write 6th edition, but they did work with the group that wrote the stuff branded as "40k 6th Edition" to update their stuff. I'm not trying to pretend they're different companies, just trying to keep it simple to track whom I'm speaking about.

Everyone loves car comparisons, so... does Porsche make official announcements regarding Lamborghini? Ferrari regarding Dodge? I'd imagine not. It's not really that different with FW and GW, at least from a customer's point of view. They come off as different brands (and just in case people don't know, Porsche and Lamborghini are both owned by VW, and the other two by Fiat). With different books and models. If they wanted them to be unequivocally official and one and the dame, the differentation wouldn't exist to begin with, at least on the rules level. There just wouldn't be a reason for that. As it is, different product lines, different design teams, different brands, thus differing player opinions. Especially with no statement on the matter under the GW brand rather than FW.

And once again for the record I'm not against FW - I don't really care of my opponents want to use them, they're welcome to it. Official GW stuff is broken enough as is. Locally though they're not allowed in tournaments, part of why I don't have any (the other primary reason being price).

Also, never-ending argument so I'm not sure why I even bother... I guess I'll just blame boredom.

 Bobthehero wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:


Oh and that Siege list? The basic Platoon Squad is 20 points more than the IG version. That's 2ppm average more expensive for the +1WS and their rule about ignoring Fear and Shooting casualties. What was this about being undercosted again?

Its actually 1ppm because they have Krak grenades as standard, which are 1ppm.

Fair enough. They're still more expensive than regular Guardsmen.

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Same company, but they are two different groups of people responsible for things here. the group who does stuff branded as "FW" didn't write 6th edition, ...

And this is why people won't accept Forgeworld's word alone that their material is 'official', in a nutshell.

 tvih wrote:
If they wanted them to be unequivocally official and one and the dame, the differentation wouldn't exist to begin with, at least on the rules level.

But they aren't the same. GW sells high-end resin kits under their Forge World brand, standard plastic kits under their Citadel brand, and garbage under their Citadel Finecast brand. By putting "Forge World" on the book or model kit you know that you're getting a high-end product for the dedicated hobbyist, just like putting Finecast on a model kit informs you that you're getting a piece of that will go straight in the trash. This has nothing to do with whether some of those brands are more "official" than others, it's about establishing brand identity for the model kits.

Especially with no statement on the matter under the GW brand rather than FW.

Again, this is a requirement invented by certain players. There is no statement from GW that only "real GW" is allowed to make a ruling on the subject and anything said under a different brand name is somehow less official.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 insaniak wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Same company, but they are two different groups of people responsible for things here. the group who does stuff branded as "FW" didn't write 6th edition, ...

And this is why people won't accept Forgeworld's word alone that their material is 'official', in a nutshell.

That's a terrible reason. Do you reject a new codex because its author didn't work on 6th edition? Having different teams working on different books does not make some of them more or less official than others, it just means that every book doesn't require every author to be involved.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 easysauce wrote:
GW stuff is actually playtested, and goes through a balanceing process

Actually from what we've seen GW doesn't playtest, at least if you only consider the kind of professional playtesting that makes a good game. They might play some random casual games with cool scenario rules, but they don't do MTG-style playtesting that will settle the fine points of balance and rule issues. When you have stuff like 4-5 Riptide Tau, rerollable 2++ death stars, a YMDC forum full of arguments about how basic rules work, etc, it's pretty clear that GW did not do even basic playtesting and find these issues.

 Peregrine wrote:
But they aren't the same. GW sells high-end resin kits under their Forge World brand, standard plastic kits under their Citadel brand, and garbage under their Citadel Finecast brand. By putting "Forge World" on the book or model kit you know that you're getting a high-end product for the dedicated hobbyist, just like putting Finecast on a model kit informs you that you're getting a piece of that will go straight in the trash. This has nothing to do with whether some of those brands are more "official" than others, it's about establishing brand identity for the model kits.

Oh yes, that's clearly a distinction GW will want to make. "So this GW brand here is for crap, while FW is the good stuff!" FW models may be high end - though I've heard quite a few bad experiences with actually building certain kits such as Storm Eagles - and even their books may be good in terms of fluff, but apparently the rule side of things doesn't seem any better than GW's. So why even have a separate identity on the rules if they're all the same anyway? It just doesn't make sense to have a brand distinction just for the sake of having a brand distinction, if it's actually meaningless. For models with different production techniques and whatnot, OK, have a separate brand. But it just doesn't add up for the books. Or hell, even the fluff since it's all official and in the same universe.

Again, this is a requirement invented by certain players. There is no statement from GW that only "real GW" is allowed to make a ruling on the subject and anything said under a different brand name is somehow less official.

What is it that everyone keeps saying about a permissive ruleset? It's just being applied to this, as well.

 tvih wrote:
Oh yes, that's clearly a distinction GW will want to make. "So this GW brand here is for crap, while FW is the good stuff!"

You understand the concept of selling based on low prices, right? GW's Citadel plastic kits are sold as good kits for the basic stuff in your army, at a price the average player will pay. FW kits are sold as expensive high-end stuff for the dedicated hobbyist that is willing to pay $50 for special shoulder pads for their space marines.

So why even have a separate identity on the rules if they're all the same anyway?

For two reasons. The rules exist to sell the model kits, so GW sells the rules for FW kits under the FW brand name. Also, the IA books that contain most of the rules for FW units are different from the books sold under the GW brand name (fluff about single campaigns vs. an army's general fluff, etc), so again, selling them under a different brand name makes sense.

What is it that everyone keeps saying about a permissive ruleset? It's just being applied to this, as well.

That doesn't make any sense. A permissive ruleset just means that you can only do X if the rules say you can do X. However, in this case the rules do say X and you're just arguing that the rules aren't really the rules because they aren't delivered in the form you want.

 tvih wrote:
What is it that everyone keeps saying about a permissive ruleset? It's just being applied to this, as well.

Which takes us to page 108 in the core rulebook which says you can play an army list from a codex, an altered army list (which is what FW stuff does) or something of your own creation (which is homebrew). The permission to do it is there, but then we get people tacking on new qualifiers like "there must be a rule AND that rule needs to mention FW by name".

 TheCustomLime wrote:

First, WoW expansions don't work the same way 40k Expansions do. You don't log on and say to yourself, "Hey, I am in the mood for WotLK today" unless you are leveled for it. It works as a progression towards the ultimate end of the game. 40k expansions are just add ons to the game to spice things up. To relate things to WoW, imagine Blizzard made an expansion that allowed for naval combat in WoW and it was totally optional. (Now, imagine if they made an optional expansion that added additional spells/classes. The community would explode from rage! )

WoW expansions are official though, plus the bit in bold is unsupported conjecture which has already been proved wrong.

Secondly, this isn't an argument over how "Official" it is. Forgeworld is official. The argument is whether you can just plop a Earthshaker carriage on the table without asking your opponent if it's cool to use it.

As pointed out you can't actually put any list down on the table without your opponent being cool with it. This means nothing.

To tie these two points together, WoW expansions are basically updates to the game that they charge for while 40k expansions are entirely optional. You basically need the former to progress while you can have a great time without the latter. Now, IA books are expansions. They say so right on the cover. Now, the preface that everyone likes to talk about says that these rules are intended for use in standard 40k. I at first didn't understand why this was different from, say, "These rules are standard 40k rules". The difference here is that the Forge world "Expansion" is a bunch of add ons for standard 40k matches instead of updates to the Codices. If they were the book would have said, "These rules are updates to the Imperial Guard codex and should be treated as part of said codex".

The whole point of what I said is that the word expansion =/= unofficial. That is all.

Now, you may be wondering if I am anti-FW. I actually love the company and their sexy big stupid models. Those LR variants (Stygies Vanquisher on a Mars Alpha Hull anyone?) are awesome. I've even played against a FW list and had a good time. I just think that people should educate their opponents on how IA is since they probably aren't familiar with the books.

I am more than happy to let my opponents know what my units can do.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 juraigamer wrote:
You mean the one quad riptide netlist? That daemon prince/dogs/screamers netlist? Those eldar/tau or tau/eldar combo lists?

Lets be fair, those are simply the only thing people complain about. Normal tau/daemon/eldar players don't get flak. Besides, the only reason they are winning is everyone is busy running elite armies, and they are good at killing elite armies.

Also, don't forget the FAQ's have been lacking. The daemons thing comes from the grimore, which can be easily changed to max invul of a 3+. The moment people start running lots of stuff rather than few things, the riptide/wraith problem vanishes.

But forgeworld isn't the same. Forgeworld has good models, decent rules, but the issue comes from the fact there is no codex and X forgeworld model testing when the codex is created. FW stuffs have variant power, not equal to points and/or army allowance. If the problematic FW units that people take for powergaming purposes were changed to be in league with everything else, you can then run forgeworld all day. Until then, keep believing it's fair.

Can I ask you a question? I play Tau. Would you rather play against a Riptide & Broadsides or would rather play against Hazard Suits with Phased Ion Guns and a couple of Remora Drones? The reason why I ask is because I consider the former to be way more powerful than the latter.