Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Wasn't sure where to ask this but long story short, I've tried on multiple occasions to email Forgeworld regarding products, rules, and other things only to be met with silence.

What i want to know is, is it 40k legal to use a Forgeworld special character in a Codex Formation.
For example, instead of Varro Tigurius in the Librarius Conclave formation(Codex: Space Marines), would I be able to use Severin Loth instead?
I know it gives pretty clear guidelines within yhe codex, but I saw on 1d4chan a mention of someone emailing Forgeworld about this exact thing and them allowing it.

Anyone got proof of this? Or know better? Any help would be greatly appreciated, thank you.

Yes to your questions, i was the one that emailed FW and edited the 1d4chan page

FW replied saying that any badab war character may be taken IN PLACE of a Codex: Space Marines Special Character in Formations (I.E Loth replacing Tigarius in a Librarius Conclave)

 commander dante wrote:
Yes to your questions, i was the one that emailed FW and edited the 1d4chan page

FW replied saying that any badab war character may be taken IN PLACE of a Codex: Space Marines Special Character in Formations (I.E Loth replacing Tigarius in a Librarius Conclave)

Unfortunately simply saying "oh FW emailed me and says it works" isn't actually good evidence that that's how it's suppose to work.

By strict RAW you can't take FW characters because formations are very specific about what units can be taken in them so if it doesn't say it you can't take it.

 CrownAxe wrote:

 commander dante wrote:
Yes to your questions, i was the one that emailed FW and edited the 1d4chan page

FW replied saying that any badab war character may be taken IN PLACE of a Codex: Space Marines Special Character in Formations (I.E Loth replacing Tigarius in a Librarius Conclave)

Unfortunately simply saying "oh FW emailed me and says it works" isn't actually good evidence that that's how it's suppose to work.

By strict RAW you can't take FW characters because formations are very specific about what units can be taken in them so if it doesn't say it you can't take it.

Well then, it seems you are Incorrect...

 commander dante wrote:

 CrownAxe wrote:

 commander dante wrote:
Yes to your questions, i was the one that emailed FW and edited the 1d4chan page

FW replied saying that any badab war character may be taken IN PLACE of a Codex: Space Marines Special Character in Formations (I.E Loth replacing Tigarius in a Librarius Conclave)

Unfortunately simply saying "oh FW emailed me and says it works" isn't actually good evidence that that's how it's suppose to work.

By strict RAW you can't take FW characters because formations are very specific about what units can be taken in them so if it doesn't say it you can't take it.

Well then, it seems you are Incorrect...

Oh boy a screenshot of an email. You certainly couldn't have typed that yourself, that would be really hard to do /sarcasm

Look man there is a reason than one of the tenants on YMDC is "emails from GW/FW aren't sources for the rules"

 commander dante wrote:
Well then, it seems you are Incorrect...

Loads of issues with that:

a) it's screenshot. 100% fakeable. I could fake that myself and wouldn't even require photoshop
b) it's only on you. That means nobody else can use it unless they get same reply from them AND their opponents gets one as well. There's no such ruling on any public source. So currently it's on your email box. That's not going to do much good for others.
c) notice the wording. "We think it's perfectly acceptable..." That ain't official errata. That's their OPINION. That's good for house rules for which above problems don't even exists. But that's not official change to rules. It's just their opinion. Now if they get around to publishing official FAQ/Errata that states otherwise like they mentioned in the email that they plan to do it's different. Until then we have unknown guy in forum showing screenshot(which are fakeable) that gives FW's opinion on how they think it's fair. Not even a rule. Just an opinion.

At this point, it's a pretty definite no.

Yah I'll have to go with majority ruling here, that's just a tad too sketchy to take as ruling. Not a big issue, Tiggy is a boss psyker lol

Anyways, thanks everyone, I appreciate it.

I don't know how to delete the post, and don't really care to, but we can consider this discussion over.

I'd say yes, Forgeworld has sent multiple people emails saying it's fine, it makes sense intuitively and honestly none of them are all that powerful that it's game breaking.

HoundsofDemos wrote:
I'd say yes, Forgeworld has sent multiple people emails saying it's fine, it makes sense intuitively and honestly none of them are all that powerful that it's game breaking.

Oh cool, so we CAN have the Forgeworld Riptides in the Riptide Wing Formations? YAY! \sarcasm.
be wary. while you may be trying to get a toe in the tent, there may be an elephant behind you waiting for the same chance.

I'd be fine with the above. I'd rather be inclusive and get things on the table then exclude them. 40k is breakable with out forgeworld, so if someone wants to game the system their gonna do it either way.

HoundsofDemos wrote:
I'd be fine with the above. I'd rather be inclusive and get things on the table then exclude them. 40k is breakable with out forgeworld, so if someone wants to game the system their gonna do it either way.

TBH, I don't really care one way or the other; the last 40k game I played was over a year ago. But again, be cautious of the laws of unintended consequences.

I have been told several things by FW in person and conventions that I wish they would just put on a FAQ. ex: You can use any Riptide variant in place of a Riptide like an Rvarna.

tneva82 wrote:

 commander dante wrote:
Well then, it seems you are Incorrect...

Loads of issues with that:

a) it's screenshot. 100% fakeable. I could fake that myself and wouldn't even require photoshop
b) it's only on you. That means nobody else can use it unless they get same reply from them AND their opponents gets one as well. There's no such ruling on any public source. So currently it's on your email box. That's not going to do much good for others.
c) notice the wording. "We think it's perfectly acceptable..." That ain't official errata. That's their OPINION. That's good for house rules for which above problems don't even exists. But that's not official change to rules. It's just their opinion. Now if they get around to publishing official FAQ/Errata that states otherwise like they mentioned in the email that they plan to do it's different. Until then we have unknown guy in forum showing screenshot(which are fakeable) that gives FW's opinion on how they think it's fair. Not even a rule. Just an opinion.

Wow, More Salt than the Red Sea
Sounds like someone thinks FW is OP...

And Speaking Of Riptides....


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And if you "Disagree" with the Screenshots, Call/Email FW yourself, they'll just tell you the same thing

Bottom line is, it's just something you're going to have to houserule with your opponent at the end of the day. If someone asked me nicely I'd probably be ok with it.

If someone tried to force it on me....I probably just wouldn't play them.

The official answer is no. There are no current FAQs or Erratas allowing you to use FW characters in Codex Formations. From a pure rules standpoint, it's not allowed.

The unofficial answer is probably yes. There is a fair amount of circumstantial evidence that FW is planning on releasing an FAQ to allow this in the future. It's reasonable to assume a Formation that calls for a Librarian and allows all Codex named Librarians will be FAQ'd to also allow all FW named Librarians. If you're playing in an event, ask the event organizer. Show them the circumstantial evidence if you feel it will help. If you're playing outside an event, ask your opponent. Most reasonable players will probably say yes. A Librarian, theoretically speaking, is a Librarian.

Do remember that you can't include models from multiple Chapters in a single Formation, so you couldn't have Tigurious AND Loth in the same Conclave, as an example.

See?
It really comes down to if your opponent agrees with it
But if they said no AND Fielded a super OP Taudar-Curion against me i would just go home, no one needs that

 Kriswall wrote:
There is a fair amount of circumstantial evidence that FW is planning on releasing an FAQ to allow this in the future.

That would be fantastic if it was true.

Unfortunately FW is taking a long time to FAQ/errata. At this point, I wouldn't hold my breath! I sometimes play the Talon Strike force with raptor chapter tactics, FW said it was fine, but until they errata it officially, I pass it by opponents for the green light in friendly games. I don't think it would be allowed at most tournaments.

 commander dante wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

 commander dante wrote:
Well then, it seems you are Incorrect...

Loads of issues with that:

a) it's screenshot. 100% fakeable. I could fake that myself and wouldn't even require photoshop
b) it's only on you. That means nobody else can use it unless they get same reply from them AND their opponents gets one as well. There's no such ruling on any public source. So currently it's on your email box. That's not going to do much good for others.
c) notice the wording. "We think it's perfectly acceptable..." That ain't official errata. That's their OPINION. That's good for house rules for which above problems don't even exists. But that's not official change to rules. It's just their opinion. Now if they get around to publishing official FAQ/Errata that states otherwise like they mentioned in the email that they plan to do it's different. Until then we have unknown guy in forum showing screenshot(which are fakeable) that gives FW's opinion on how they think it's fair. Not even a rule. Just an opinion.

Wow, More Salt than the Red Sea
Sounds like someone thinks FW is OP...

Nope. I'm personally all for FW models. Rulewise they are generally more balanced than GW proper.

HOWEVER rulewise there's absolutely NOTHING that allows you to put that so for example tournaments(non tournaments you can more easily agree prehand) unless tournament organizer has specifically allowed it you are not going to be able to do it.

Simply random guy having email from FW saying their OPINION isn't enough.

If you want it to be changed start requesting FW to release that FAQ they have been promising. Until then you have only their house rule suggestion.

I'm going to predict that when they release the faq it'll only be for fw marines and the marine codex formations.

If they release it..seems like FW have allot of work on their plate and not enough resources to update/FAQ.

 commander dante wrote:
See?
It really comes down to if your opponent agrees with it
But if they said no AND Fielded a super OP Taudar-Curion against me i would just go home, no one needs that

For a specific game, anything is acceptable with player agreement. For an average game, where the opponent is unknown, you need to come up with a solution that you think most reasonable players will be happy with. My friend Jon might be OK with me using custom rules to include my 1980's He-Man action figures in a game this Tuesday... but I don't think most reasonable players would allow that. That's an extreme example, because most players would probably think that's unreasonable. It's not really something that needs to be debated.

Also, yeah. If an opponent drops down an army that is game legal, but that you know won't be enjoyable AT ALL to play against, it's perfectly acceptable to pack up and leave. That's my main issue with 40k right now. There are so many army builds that aren't enjoyable AT ALL to play against, but are perfectly legal.

 commander dante wrote:

See? It really comes down to if your opponent agrees with it

You know that this is on the same lv as claiming that you can bring a Trex toy with home-brew stats to game of 40k right?

 oldzoggy wrote:

 commander dante wrote:

See? It really comes down to if your opponent agrees with it

You know that this is on the same lv as claiming that you can bring a Trex toy with home-brew stats to game of 40k right?

Maybe. But also true. In the end everything in the game requires opponents agreement. You can do NOTHING in the game without opponent agreeing to it.

I would say no as you would currently need to go by the rules within the book that has the formation.

Now use of Forgeworld gets touchy because the units that they make are generally OP or at least much more efficient than regular codex units. You'll be lucky to have an opponent that will play against Forgeworld units but the limitation would likely be to keep them in a CAD or Ally to avoid additional headaches from formation shenanigans.

I'm going to echo the guys saying ask your opponent/TO. That's really the best way to do it.

 Bach wrote:
I would say no as you would currently need to go by the rules within the book that has the formation.

Now use of Forgeworld gets touchy because the units that they make are generally OP or at least much more efficient than regular codex units. You'll be lucky to have an opponent that will play against Forgeworld units but the limitation would likely be to keep them in a CAD or Ally to avoid additional headaches from formation shenanigans.

I take it you haven't played against much Forgeworld, because other than a few stand outs they're really not OP.

 Imateria wrote:

 Bach wrote:
I would say no as you would currently need to go by the rules within the book that has the formation.

Now use of Forgeworld gets touchy because the units that they make are generally OP or at least much more efficient than regular codex units. You'll be lucky to have an opponent that will play against Forgeworld units but the limitation would likely be to keep them in a CAD or Ally to avoid additional headaches from formation shenanigans.

I take it you haven't played against much Forgeworld, because other than a few stand outs they're really not OP.

Frankly GW codex have the lion's share of OP stuff.