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.

 Tyberos the Red Wake wrote:
The issue that many players have is that they don't see FW as "official" as GW stuff. But if a marine from FW is as official as a marine from GW (which GW themselves have stated via their official tournament rules) then surely FW rules are as official as GW rules?

Pretty much this.

But then again, I know a person who says that the FW exorcist doesn't count because it doesn't look enough like the rolling pipe organ that is the GW exorcist, meh.

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:
People probably would not be so hesitant to allow FW at competitive events if people were doing it for a reason beyond obtaining a competitive edge over what their chosen codex allows.

How is this any different than people taking codex armies for no reason beyond obtaining a competitive edge?

Would you really have fun playing against a list comprised of nothing but Thudd Guns, Sabre Platoons, Vultures, and Earthshaker batteries?

No, but I also wouldn't have fun playing against 4-5 Riptide Tau or re-rollable 2++ death stars either, and I don't see anyone arguing that we need to ban all codex armies because of those lists.

 Zweischneid wrote:
If this division is entirely invented by players, why is Forge World called Forge World and not just Games Workshop?

Why does GW sell their model kits and paints under the Citadel brand name instead of just Games Workshop? Why did they invent a whole new Finecast sub-brand for their new resin kits?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Chumbalaya wrote:
So, in the continuing crusade to shove FW down our throats Peregrine and the zealots are putting all their chips into the "FW is legal like homebrew" position now?

No, I'm not. Please don't just group everyone together into the "zealots" and ignore who is saying what. I'm "putting all my chips" into the fact that GW has said "this is part of the game", and now they've said it without even the small ambiguity that used to exist in previous statements.

Forgeworld makes very nice models, and Forgeworld is a subsidiary of Games Workshop. If you CHOOSE to use Forgeworld in your games, that's absolutely ok, that's exactly what they are designed for.

All that being said, Forgeworld has been around far longer then 6th edition. If GW wanted Forgeworld to be recognized as officially ok for 40k games, it would clearly state it in the rule book. It does not. In fact, it states that "Citadel" models are the recognized models of 40k. The fact that Forgeworld isn't mentioned at all in the 6th edition rulebook is a glaring omission that makes it clear they aren't officially recognized.

Further, aside from newly released models in the most recent codexes, there is an entire list of the 40k models and their stat lines in the back of the 6th edition rule book. There are no Forgeworld models included in that list. If it was the intention to make Forgeworld officially ok, those models would be listed as well.

Use them if you wish, even better if your community or play group embraces them, but conversely, please understand if we aren't interested in playing against them.

If the 7th edition rulebook comes out and mentiones by name that Forgeworld models and their rule sets are acceptable, there need not ever be another thread such as this. Until such time, using Forgeworld is the house rule, not the other way around.

anchorbine wrote:
Forgeworld makes very nice models, and Forgeworld is a subsidiary of Games Workshop. If you CHOOSE to use Forgeworld in your games, that's absolutely ok, that's exactly what they are designed for.

All that being said, Forgeworld has been around far longer then 6th edition. If GW wanted Forgeworld to be recognized as officially ok for 40k games, it would clearly state it in the rule book. It does not. In fact, it states that "Citadel" models are the recognized models of 40k. The fact that Forgeworld isn't mentioned at all in the 6th edition rulebook is a glaring omission that makes it clear they aren't officially recognized.

Further, aside from newly released models in the most recent codexes, there is an entire list of the 40k models and their stat lines in the back of the 6th edition rule book. There are no Forgeworld models included in that list. If it was the intention to make Forgeworld officially ok, those models would be listed as well.

Use them if you wish, even better if your community or play group embraces them, but conversely, please understand if we aren't interested in playing against them.

If the 7th edition rulebook comes out and mentiones by name that Forgeworld models and their rule sets are acceptable, there need not ever be another thread such as this. Until such time, using Forgeworld is the house rule, not the other way around.

Alright then, let's use that arguement on something else that is rather related: 6th Edition was written with the Devs knowing that they were going to make codex supplements. It was something the devs knew they were doing and were working on before 6th went live. So why aren't they in the rules? By your own claim those would have to be nothing more than house rules as well.

The fact is we have a clear cut rule that gives permission to those codex supplements to be used (once again, the bit about altering the army list), if those supplements can be "okay" under that rule, why can't FW which uses the same rule to be permissible? I don't understand how we can say "this is legal but that isn't" when they both appeal to the same rule to work.

And while we're talking about rules, I'm pretty sure GW isn't know for their clear cut rules. If I recall correctly, this is the same set of forums that reached an impasse on how you're supposed to use Black Templar for the purposes as allies under RAW. Do we really expect them to come out and say anything about FW that is so cut and dry when they can't even clarify a core mechanic for one of their armies? They obviously believe what they wrote is sufficient and that we're likely all just thick for not getting it, but unless they come out and say "no, FW isn't really supposed to be used in anything" I don't see anything that contradicts the idea that FW is just as legal as a codex supplement for the same reasons the main rules allow codex supplements to modify an army list.

First and foremost I will say that I am a fan of Forgeworld and an advocate of its uses in all games of Warhammer because yes, I do find it silly that so many people say "OP" when they have never even given it a chance, played against it ect. Alot of it to be honest seems to be, "I read on a forum or heard someone say FW is OP so I am going to go along with that" as the general consensus of many people.

I run an Elysian list out of IA32E and I have yet to have recived a complaint about the army list being "OP" even though I have an absurd number of fliers. Experienced and good players (which my store is loaded with) have been able to counter my list by changing up their tactics a little and adapting to what they are facing, its what good players do. The fac that the GW logo is on the FW books and the fact that it uses models from the Warhammer 40k game to me means that it is and should be allowed standard. The only rule which I follow is this, I let my player know before the game that I am bringing a FW list, if my opponent is mature and asks what is it like, listens to what it is and looks through the book (which I think people playing FW lists NEED to have) and says I would rather not play it I will be more then happy to switch it out with an IG list. If a player immidiately says no, with no reason or cause then I just wont play them as to me it shows they are going with the herd in saying "all FW is OP" which is entirely false.

Now even I can admit that some things FW comes out with may be over the top and ridiculous. However more then a few units or items in the recent and old standards Codex's have been complained about for the same reasons and guess what, people eventually have found ways to either counter them or at least limit their impact in a game, the same goes for some of the FW units that people say are "OP". Alot of it I feel as well is because players, who are not used to playing against certain lists/units may get blindsided by them once, and instead of figuring out ways to beat it or adapting their strategies start the "that list/unit is OP!" chant and it should be banned. I think more players need to do their homework on the subject before saying its OP.

Now to other players who run FW lists, I have had alot of success in discussing the list i run out of IA32E with ALL my FLGS members and allowed them to read the book. As I mentioned above not a single one (and they are all great players as my store is insanely competitive) have cried OP, they just know that I love the Airborne/Air Cav theme and they have just adapted accordingly with their tactics and did their research which more people need to do IMO. And before someone says it, if you dont feel this way I respect your opinion and not trying to force you to accept FW, however if you have NEVER played against a FW list or unit (or even if you have) just realize that for the most part, FW units and lists are not all OP as I feel thats the biggerst misconception of the whole argument.

 Chumbalaya wrote:
So, in the continuing crusade to shove FW down our throats Peregrine and the zealots are putting all their chips into the "FW is legal like homebrew" position now?

Cool, I'm gonna go make a homebrew Codex that's totally legal. Don't want to play it? Fine, just admit you're using "house rules".

I swear, you people are the worst "advocates" for FW I've ever come across.

That makes PERFECT sense, especially when you fail to mention the official GW logo on all the FW books (which means its not "homebrewed" as you so claim) or the fact that in a few books (including the entire Chaos Dwarf army list for Fantasy, different game I know however its still FW and both Warhammer and Warhammer 40k go hand in hand) have been listed as "offical GW lists" also negates that fact. Now I am no zealot when it comes to FW as I try to respect everyons opinions, its ignorant statements like this however with no good solid information to back it up that come off as flame posts and give off the impression of "FW is OP" rant.

(*Sorry for the wall of text, just let my statement get the best of me! *)

anchorbine wrote:
If GW wanted Forgeworld to be recognized as officially ok for 40k games, it would clearly state it in the rule book. It does not. In fact, it states that "Citadel" models are the recognized models of 40k. The fact that Forgeworld isn't mentioned at all in the 6th edition rulebook is a glaring omission that makes it clear they aren't officially recognized.

No, your assumption that the core rulebook is the only source of approval is the problem here. GW is perfectly willing to publish supplements, FW books, and FAQs/errata that add to or change the core game even though those sources are not explicitly mentioned.

And you don't need to look very far to figure out why FW isn't in the core rulebook. FW model kits are for experienced hobbyists and not suitable for the children that make up a lot of GW's target market for the core game. Making FW take a bit of work to find makes it more likely that those experienced hobbyists will be the ones buying FW stuff and GW's customer service staff won't have to deal with complaints about "I bought my 12 year old a Thunderhawk".

Further, aside from newly released models in the most recent codexes, there is an entire list of the 40k models and their stat lines in the back of the 6th edition rule book. There are no Forgeworld models included in that list. If it was the intention to make Forgeworld officially ok, those models would be listed as well.

You realize that those summary pages are provided for convenience only and are not official rules, right?

If the 7th edition rulebook comes out and mentiones by name that Forgeworld models and their rule sets are acceptable, there need not ever be another thread such as this. Until such time, using Forgeworld is the house rule, not the other way around.

IOW, "If 7th edition comes out and GW does it the way I demand I'll change my house rule, until then I'm going to insist that if GW doesn't make things official using my policy then they aren't official".

It's weird that fantasy is quite quick to accept Chaos Dwarf List from Tamurkhan as accepted without an issue, but 40k has people fighting tooth and nail to try and keep forgeworld based models out of the standard 40k game.

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:
It's weird that fantasy is quite quick to accept Chaos Dwarf List from Tamurkhan as accepted without an issue, but 40k has people fighting tooth and nail to try and keep forgeworld based models out of the standard 40k game.

I have never had issues with using the models, THAT is ridiculous no matter what anyone thinks as they are allowed in every GW store I have played in, crying about the models why? Now the rules, even though I feel differently about it then some as I think they are/shold be allowed, really are the only thing I have ever had anyone ask questions or debate about.

I have visions of GW officials reading threads like this and just laughing their heads off. Maybe they leave it ambiguous for their own entertainment.

I guess FW can't really fail at balance any worse than GW, but there's just something about FW that just seems..... off. Maybe it's just lack of access to the books, who knows?

The few times I've played against people with FW stuff, they seemed annoyed that I wanted to know exactly how their FW stuff worked before we set up. I didn't much care for that, and told them to leave it at home next time.

I prefer to play without FW's influence. I don't know if that's a house rule, and I really don't care.

Without confusing correlation for causation, we can say that over the years that this debate has been going on GW has taken steps to clarify the matter. If anything, I can imagine them wondering how much more clear they need to be without disbanding the FW brand name.

Martel732 wrote:


The few times I've played against people with FW stuff, they seemed annoyed that I wanted to know exactly how their FW stuff worked before we set up. I didn't much care for that, and told them to leave it at home next time.

Not all of us who use FW lists are like this, I actually offer my book to fellow players who ask questions and talk about the army so they can better understand what they are getting into, think all FW players should do this in order to be a good sport and fill in their opponent. The only reason they may seem "annoyed" is because they might be tired of being refused to play with which my buddy can relate to and why he moved to my store.

anchorbine wrote:
Forgeworld makes very nice models, and Forgeworld is a subsidiary of Games Workshop. If you CHOOSE to use Forgeworld in your games, that's absolutely ok, that's exactly what they are designed for.

All that being said, Forgeworld has been around far longer then 6th edition. If GW wanted Forgeworld to be recognized as officially ok for 40k games, it would clearly state it in the rule book. It does not. In fact, it states that "Citadel" models are the recognized models of 40k. The fact that Forgeworld isn't mentioned at all in the 6th edition rulebook is a glaring omission that makes it clear they aren't officially recognized.

Further, aside from newly released models in the most recent codexes, there is an entire list of the 40k models and their stat lines in the back of the 6th edition rule book. There are no Forgeworld models included in that list. If it was the intention to make Forgeworld officially ok, those models would be listed as well.

Use them if you wish, even better if your community or play group embraces them, but conversely, please understand if we aren't interested in playing against them.

If the 7th edition rulebook comes out and mentiones by name that Forgeworld models and their rule sets are acceptable, there need not ever be another thread such as this. Until such time, using Forgeworld is the house rule, not the other way around.

Well said. This is what I meant above. It should not take much effort from GW to come out and in plain text say that they endorse the use of FW. This also requires FW to get their sith together and publish proper catalog.

Naw wrote:
Well said. This is what I meant above. It should not take much effort from GW to come out and in plain text say that they endorse the use of FW. This also requires FW to get their sith together and publish proper catalog.

Perhaps GW doesn't feel the need to say "this brand of models and rules we make are completely valid in normal games". I don't see why we can't just accept things when we already have a rule that gives us all the permission we need. This kind of goal post moving, is getting ridiculious. Considering that previous arguments in 5th were "show me a rule that says you can take FW", and now that we have a rule that can completely support FW it moves to "show me a rule that explicitly says FW is a part of the game" next edition it'll be "show me a rule that says FW is meant for all forms of play and is completely legal" I don't think I'm off my rocker in saying that either. At the rate we're going we'll never meet a concensus because the goalposts on what is required to treat FW as valid keep moving.

We have a rule right now that says you can adapt your army list. The Imperial Armour books do just that by providing alternate units, FOC shifts, new rules, ect. So were is this need for more endorsement coming from? At this point I don't think I get it.

And why would FW need a catalog? I mean yeah, they send you one when you order stuff or if you request one, but they have a website, why would they need a catalog?

Well this thread's going about as well as expected.

I said this to someone earlier and I've yet to be convinced that it's not true:

People who don't want to use FW and won't allow people to use in their games are just afraid of losing, but are too proud to admit it.

 Manchu wrote:
Without confusing correlation for causation, we can say that over the years that this debate has been going on GW has taken steps to clarify the matter. If anything, I can imagine them wondering how much more clear they need to be without disbanding the FW brand name.

It really wouldn't be that hard to make it clearer... In the section of the rulebook where they mention needing a codex for your army, they add a note that they have an off-shoot company called Forgeworld that produces extra 40K material in the form of kits for more advanced modellers and rulebooks that include rules for using these models in games of 40K, and that these can in some cases be used with your codex, and in others to build new armies.

It's simply the lack of such a note in the core rulebook that some players disapprove of.

It doesnt help that the supplements come from GW which gives it "de facto" support. Unlike IA/FW rules coming from Forge World, even if they are a subsidiary of GW.

Until the day GW itself actually specifies FW units as usable for regular 40k games, my FW models will continue to be counts-as just to dodge the argument in my flgs.

 Peregrine wrote:


Why does GW sell their model kits and paints under the Citadel brand name instead of just Games Workshop? Why did they invent a whole new Finecast sub-brand for their new resin kits?
.

I don't know. But until we do it seems prudent to assume that they had good reasons for what they did, including for making "Forge World" Forge World, and not GW, and thus consciously have the Forge World rules set apart (in some ways, not all ways) from the rules published by GW-main by virtue of having a different brand.

This fight was to be expected. The real problem here is that we're in the middle of a massive paradigm shift in GW policy, being rolled out over the course of a few years. It wasn't very long ago that the company was still being run by a CEO who believed - and I'm not kidding or exaggerating in any way whatsoever - that "The internet is a fad." The law of the land was that if it was canon for the game, it had to be sold in stores. GW was pumping tons of money into prize support for GW sanctioned tournaments, they refused to digitally update codexes or rules for fear that fans without internet access wouldn't know about them, and anything store owners couldn't get their hands on was a nonstarter tournament-wise. And as we've seen since the early days of M:TG, an environment like that exists as a constant state of tournament prep. "If you can't use it in a tournament, I don't want to play against it." FW was always official - as in not homebrew - but listed as *Permission Only*.

But everything has changed. GW pulled their prize support and the sanctioning of tournaments years ago (outside of their own stores); they began offering a small, but growing, selection of Direct Order Only models; the 6e ruleset was deliberately anti-tournament and pro-narrative play (and check out pg 383 of The Big Rulebook for a ringing endorsement of FW Campaign books); GW offered its first direct order only supplement which added new units to codexes, followed shortly after by their first digital only supplement; they've gone from anti-digital to let's try it out digitally to see if we should print it; and they offered a limited edition set with the early release of a book the rest of us had to wait 5 months for. Their model has changed. They are no longer focusing on point of sale in stores, but are instead fishing from both ponds.

Which brings us to FW. Until last year FW was a marginally profitable collectors arm of the company meant to keep longtime players on the hook by offering a steady stream of new units and narrative play books. But with Horus Heresy exploding in popularity, FW came into its own. And that large new playerbase ordering things online didn't stop at just ordering new marines - they started dabbling in the other offerings. So how does a company in the middle of redefining itself make a section like that more profitable?

They bring it all into the fold and make it part of the game.

That's what we're seeing. GW isn't beholden to storefronts anymore as the sole point of sale for their games. They are a company that wants to sell things to an army of fans who always want something new to buy. They're only now realizing that they've ignored a viable revenue stream for far too long.

The argument here is understandable. The second FW is accepted as law of the land *everything* changes in the meta. There are 9 new functionally different army lists, new units that invalidate certain choices in each codex and make armies that have fallen by the wayside shine. Updating your army to meet the meta isn't what a lot of people want to do. On the other side of the argument are those of us who have long been on the FW train and are thrilled we can start showing up with our favorite armies without being treated like the kid asking if he can change the rules. This new single mention isn't the silver bullet changing everything; but it *is* the announcement that everything is changing. FW fits into their new model, so expect from here on out for the company policy to be what we're seeing now.

Massawyrm wrote:
This fight was to be expected. The real problem here is that we're in the middle of a massive paradigm shift in GW policy, being rolled out over the course of a few years. It wasn't very long ago that the company was still being run by a CEO who believed - and I'm not kidding or exaggerating in any way whatsoever - that "The internet is a fad." The law of the land was that if it was canon for the game, it had to be sold in stores. GW was pumping tons of money into prize support for GW sanctioned tournaments, they refused to digitally update codexes or rules for fear that fans without internet access wouldn't know about them, and anything store owners couldn't get their hands on was a nonstarter tournament-wise. And as we've seen since the early days of M:TG, an environment like that exists as a constant state of tournament prep. "If you can't use it in a tournament, I don't want to play against it." FW was always official - as in not homebrew - but listed as *Permission Only*.

But everything has changed. GW pulled their prize support and the sanctioning of tournaments years ago (outside of their own stores); they began offering a small, but growing, selection of Direct Order Only models; the 6e ruleset was deliberately anti-tournament and pro-narrative play (and check out pg 383 of The Big Rulebook for a ringing endorsement of FW Campaign books); GW offered its first direct order only supplement which added new units to codexes, followed shortly after by their first digital only supplement; they've gone from anti-digital to let's try it out digitally to see if we should print it; and they offered a limited edition set with the early release of a book the rest of us had to wait 5 months for. Their model has changed. They are no longer focusing on point of sale in stores, but are instead fishing from both ponds.

Which brings us to FW. Until last year FW was a marginally profitable collectors arm of the company meant to keep longtime players on the hook by offering a steady stream of new units and narrative play books. But with Horus Heresy exploding in popularity, FW came into its own. And that large new playerbase ordering things online didn't stop at just ordering new marines - they started dabbling in the other offerings. So how does a company in the middle of redefining itself make a section like that more profitable?

They bring it all into the fold and make it part of the game.

That's what we're seeing. GW isn't beholden to storefronts anymore as the sole point of sale for their games. They are a company that wants to sell things to an army of fans who always want something new to buy. They're only now realizing that they've ignored a viable revenue stream for far too long.

The argument here is understandable. The second FW is accepted as law of the land *everything* changes in the meta. There are 9 new functionally different army lists, new units that invalidate certain choices in each codex and make armies that have fallen by the wayside shine. Updating your army to meet the meta isn't what a lot of people want to do. On the other side of the argument are those of us who have long been on the FW train and are thrilled we can start showing up with our favorite armies without being treated like the kid asking if he can change the rules. This new single mention isn't the silver bullet changing everything; but it *is* the announcement that everything is changing. FW fits into their new model, so expect from here on out for the company policy to be what we're seeing now.

Nice to see someone who actually did their homework! I dont deal with it much at my store (besides the FLGS owner who doesnt allow FW in tournaments because he does not get money out of it or so he claims...just saying I am buying all my Valks and tanks from him, its a bull and stupid excuse ). But when GW says (as far as I am concerned they have already made it clear FW is allowed) in "clearer" terms for everyone else it will be a good day!

 Zweischneid wrote:
I don't know. But until we do it seems prudent to assume that they had good reasons for what they did, including for making "Forge World" Forge World, and not GW, and thus consciously have the Forge World rules set apart (in some ways, not all ways) from the rules published by GW-main by virtue of having a different brand.

Or instead of speculating about what GW's reasons could be we could just go with what they've said. It's especially a good idea because the most likely reason for the separation has to do with marketing the different model kits, not the rules.

Ok then...so I'm going to do this for peregrine and then hopefully he can move on with his life.

I like every TO and every tournament everywhere run my tournament with house rules....

There I said it now move on...tournaments cannot be played without house rules because there are no official tournament rules, GWs faqs are not comprehensive, the missions are generally not tournament friendly, there is not time limit In The rule book.....need I go on?

So as a TO I have admitted to being a dirty house ruler, please move on with your life and the rest of us can do the same using or not using FW as we see fit.

Well, you just missed the point completely. I have no problem with house rules. What I have a problem with is people presenting their house rules as if they were official rules provided by GW.

 Manchu wrote:
Without confusing correlation for causation, we can say that over the years that this debate has been going on GW has taken steps to clarify the matter. If anything, I can imagine them wondering how much more clear they need to be without disbanding the FW brand name.

Games Workshop doesn't *need* to clarify anything, the status quo is fine. Sure it's a little weird that some people want to actually *force* people to play against their FW-cheese but in the real world that won't ever happen.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:
Well, you just missed the point completely. I have no problem with house rules. What I have a problem with is people presenting their house rules as if they were official rules provided by GW.

Banning FW is not a houserule as your choice of opponent takes place outside of the rules.

xruslanx wrote:
Games Workshop doesn't *need* to clarify anything, the status quo is fine. Sure it's a little weird that some people want to actually *force* people to play against their FW-cheese but in the real world that won't ever happen.

Yeah, because the only reason anyone wants to play with FW units is "cheese", in a game where you have plenty of codex "cheese" to use if you want it.

Oh wait, you're the guy who thinks that playing non-GW games is like having sex with your dog. That explains it.

 Peregrine wrote:

xruslanx wrote:
Games Workshop doesn't *need* to clarify anything, the status quo is fine. Sure it's a little weird that some people want to actually *force* people to play against their FW-cheese but in the real world that won't ever happen.

Yeah, because the only reason anyone wants to play with FW units is "cheese", in a game where you have plenty of codex "cheese" to use if you want it.

You ignored my point. I said cheese because I know that you specifically use cheese which is why you want FW. But that doesn't change what I said - no clarification is or was required. People who are okay with playing against FW will do so, people who don't will not.

Also you need to stop going on about sex with animals it's a bit weird.

xruslanx wrote:
I said cheese because I know that you specifically use cheese which is why you want FW.

I guess now you're tired of ignoring everyone's argument so you've moved on to making stuff up? Feel free to browse the army pictures in my signature and see how many "cheese" units I have. But I'm sure you'll just ignore that like you ignore every other inconvenient argument.

Also you need to stop going on about sex with animals it's a bit weird.

You're right, it is weird. Which is why I was surprised when you said it on a public forum.

 Peregrine wrote:

xruslanx wrote:
I said cheese because I know that you specifically use cheese which is why you want FW.

I guess now you're tired of ignoring everyone's argument so you've moved on to making stuff up? Feel free to browse the army pictures in my signature and see how many "cheese" units I have. But I'm sure you'll just ignore that like you ignore every other inconvenient argument.

I don't think this conversation is going anywhere

xruslanx wrote:
I don't think this conversation is going anywhere

That's usually what happens when you decide to try "make stuff up to 'discredit' the other person" as a strategy in an argument.

no, because there is no argument. You have no rule basis for enforcing forgeworld because the selection of opponents takes place outside of the rules.

 Peregrine wrote:
It's especially a good idea because the most likely reason for the separation has to do with marketing the different model kits, not the rules.

"Most likely"? Perhaps. But "most likely" isn't knowing. It may also be the other way around. It's a possibility at least. Or they may fully intent a separation of both (!) models and rules. Again, it's a possibility. It seems a bold claim to make, putting yourself up on that pedestal as the one prophet who truly knows what GW truly intents (and that's not even accounting for the fact that GW occasionally does make decisions that aren't ... um ... smart).