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.

and what does GW say? GW is GW and Forgeworld is Forgeworld. It doesnt matter if theyre the same designers. they have a different name and a different website.

if i own a pizza hut and subway it doesnt mean theyre the same thing.

And yes the GW site can put up errata for GW rules. If Forgeworld put up errata for the BRB or normal codex on the Forgeworld website i would say no and i wouldnt use it.

kb305 wrote:
and what does GW say? GW is GW and Forgeworld is Forgeworld. It doesnt matter if theyre the same designers. they have a different name and a different website.

Sorry, but GW disagrees with you. Forge World is just a brand name that GW sells certain products under, just like you buy Citadel models and paints, read White Dwarf magazine, etc. And GW has stated explicitly that Forge World rules are part of standard 40k, just like Citadel models are part of standard 40k.

And yes the GW site can put up errata for GW rules. If Forgeworld put up errata for the BRB or normal codex on the Forgeworld website i would say no and i wouldnt use it.

That's nice. You have a right to play by your own house rules, nobody is holding a gun to your head and forcing you to do it the way GW says. But that doesn't make your house rule any less of a house rule.

Rules as written: Anything in any Forge World book that has a '40k-approved' stamp is fine in casual games.

General opinion: Varies widely, between "NOT FAIR" and "...Well, if you WANT to handicap yourself..."

Truth of the situation: The vast majority of Forge World models, even those approved for 40k use, are underpowered and overpriced. However, there are people who don't like playing against units they aren't familiar with; they may ask you to avoid using Forge World units. If you're going to be playing a pick-up game, ask your opponent if they have anything against Forge World units. Simple as that.

Crimson wrote:FW is part of GW, FW designers are GW designers.

That's like saying that BL authors are GW employees. Technically, that might actually be true, seeing as they are contracted - but even then it still comes down to there being two different studios. GW has intentionally established Forgeworld as a separate division and brand. I see no reason why players should simply dismiss that very obvious difference by default. Just like Black Library novels should not be called "GW books".

Dan Abnett once talked about Black Library in an interview on the Ultramarines movie, mentioning how GW set it up as a separate division because the novel authors should have the freedom to write their stories outside the tighter constraints of the main studio's ideas for the game. Perhaps it is similar with Forgeworld? Going their own way, yet profiting from their tie with GW by circumventing licensing restrictions as well as sharing accomodations and tools? What else could it be?

Crimson wrote:I would assume that you might for example bring Avenger Strike Fighters, yes.

Okay, I guess then we just have different perspectives on the issue.

Crimson wrote:Normal 40K units then? I did not mean to twist your words.

That sounds better, yes. From how I see it, it's chiefly a matter of expectations. The FW people themselves have acknowledged as much in the introductions of their books.

Ironically, I think my own reservations against FW result mainly out of me not liking and thus blocking out (some of) the fluff they write. I suppose that's why I don't think I'd have a problem playing against FW units, or with an ally who uses some, whilst simultaneously refusing to ever see FW as being synonymous with GW. They may share the same office, but as it seems they still have different ideas on how things work - and even if that applies only to the background, there will come a day when it creeps into their unit design. In fact, one could say this has already happened, given subtle differences in DKoK and Elysian designs.
So ... I'm biased. Then again, I would assume that anyone who owns at least one FW unit is as well.

Crimson wrote:However, I do really think that refusing to play someone because they use FW rules is kinda dick move and I've little sympathy towards such attitude.

There we are in agreement. As I said, one should "try everything once".

Crimson wrote:Also, it is kinda ironic how now that DftS has arrived people have loudly complained about GW not releasing flyer rules for armies that lack flyers. But they have done so a while ago. It is called Imperial Armour Aeronautica. If people refuse to use rules that are published, then it is hardly GW's fault any more.

Well. Imperial Armour is Forgeworld, and thus still a different studio. Codex units should use Codex rules. If you want to bring in something from a non-GW source, I'd again expect to be informed beforehand. Similarly, I do believe people can indeed expect GW to deliver rules for any GW unit that may not already have them.

Peregrine wrote:The difference between my made-up rules and FW rules is that my made-up rules are not official, while FW rules are explicitly stated by GW to be part of standard 40k.

"Intended to be used in" and "part of" are not the same. If you people want others to accept your agenda, you should stop making up things that aren't true.

I'll have you know my own made-up rules are also "intended to be used" in standard games of 40k.

Peregrine wrote:For the same reasons that each codex/rulebook has a different author.

That's nonsense, and I think you know so. Every Codex and rulebook from GW was written by members of the GW studio team. They would not need to set up a separate division if they already have a practice in place to deal with different people working on different books.

Peregrine wrote:Because GW's few tournaments (none if you don't live in the UK) have one and only one goal: increase sales. Someone must have decided that it would be better to increase sales of core products, so tournaments require core products only.

Nonsense as well. When GW and FW are the same, the money goes into the same coffers.

Also, "not require" is not the same as "not allow" ... again with the subtle twists in words?

Peregrine wrote:Who cares? In fact, why should anyone give about advance warnings of what army they're bringing? Where I play you just show up to 40k night with an army and the first information anyone gets about what army you're playing is when you hand them your list that you'll be using.

I think it is this "taken for granted" attitude that only serves to deepen my reservations - and the reason for why I post in threads such as these.
That, as well as pointing out blatant lies.

 Lynata wrote:
That's like saying that BL authors are GW employees. Technically, that might actually be true, seeing as they are contracted - but even then it still comes down to there being two different studios. GW has intentionally established Forgeworld as a separate division and brand. I see no reason why players should simply dismiss that very obvious difference by default. Just like Black Library novels should not be called "GW books".

That's a terrible comparison.

GW has not stated that BL books are "official standard 40k fluff" (if that even means anything).

GW HAS stated that FW rules are official and part of standard 40k.

If you want to bring in something from a non-GW source, I'd again expect to be informed beforehand.

Forge World is not a non-GW source.

Also, do you inform your opponents in advance that you will be using your non-GW models? You know, since they're a Citadel product, not a GW one?

"Intended to be used in" and "part of" are not the same. If you people want others to accept your agenda, you should stop making up things that aren't true.

I'll have you know my own made-up rules are also "intended to be used" in standard games of 40k.

You're joking, right?

When GW says "intended to be used" that makes it part of the game. GW is the one publishing the game, therefore GW's decisions about the game are the official facts.

When you say "intended to be used" it does NOT make it part of the game, because you have no authority to make statements about GW's game.

That's nonsense, and I think you know so. Every Codex and rulebook from GW was written by members of the GW studio team. They would not need to set up a separate division if they already have a practice in place to deal with different people working on different books.

There's no difference at all. GW has set up separate teams to work on different projects. The fact that it works out best to form a permanent team for their FW brand but temporary and constantly-changing teams for each codex doesn't have anything to do with whether or not they're official. It just means that different authors are assigned to different projects.

Nonsense as well. When GW and FW are the same, the money goes into the same coffers.

Yes, but one of them is something you purchase at home alone on the internet, while the other hopefully gets you into one of their retail stores where the used car salesmen can try to persuade you into buying a dozen other things in addition to the one kit you need for the upcoming tournament. If GW decides to use tournaments as a marketing effort to get people into their retail stores that doesn't mean anything about what the standard rules of the game are.

PS: GW also runs events where FW rules are permitted.

I think it is this "taken for granted" attitude that only serves to deepen my reservations - and the reason for why I post in threads such as these.

You're missing the point here.

I don't give ANY advance warning about what army I'm bringing. If I arrange a game in advance at all (instead of just showing up at 40k night with an army) we're just going to agree on a point total and a time/place. I could bring pure codex IG. I could bring IG with FW rules. I could bring my Tau. I could surprise you with a new space marine army I just bought that you didn't know about. And since you're doing the same there isn't any opportunity for "surprise, I'm not playing the list I told you about".

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:
https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B0VsFRrZtHE2bmFiSmxpeGJSb0E/edit?pli=1

Here's everything everyone can currently get in a normal game of 40k.

That does show the imbalance in FW units availability, Necron get 2, Tyranids get 3, Dark Eldar get 3, Eldar get 10 and Chaos Daemons get 7, Compare that to a whopping 35 that the imperial guard get(not counting other guard armies like Elysians), and 47 for C:SM.

This is why I don't like the FW stuff, it heavily favors some armies while leaving others out in the cold, if someone asks to use one I would ask to see the rules but would probably be fine with it. I just prefer that people ask and be willing to show the rules for a unit that does not come from their codex. One of my friends wanted flyers to help fight my Necron flyers( I wasn't spamming them, just fielding a couple because I got them before they were even flyers), I was perfectly fine with letting him use them because his codex lacked anti-flyer.

I can't see the pdf, but, does this includes the HH units, the different tank pattern? (A mars pattern Leman Russ Vanquisher is an alternate model, not a new choice for the army).

Looks like they are using(for the list in the file):
IA:x Imperial Armour Vol: X (x = the volume number)
2nd Imperial Armour
Apocalypse 2nd Edition
Imperial Armour Apocalypse 2
Imperial Armour Aeronatica
Forgeworld PDF download

Theres a download options see if that works better.

 TheAvengingKnee wrote:
That does show the imbalance in FW units availability, Necron get 2, Tyranids get 3, Dark Eldar get 3, Eldar get 10 and Chaos Daemons get 7, Compare that to a whopping 35 that the imperial guard get(not counting other guard armies like Elysians), and 47 for C:SM.

Except that's a misleading count, since it overlooks the fact that most of those IG and C:SM units are redundant compared to codex stuff, while Eldar/Tau get powerful game-changing upgrades from their few units. For example, in IA:Aeronautica IG get seven different flyers, but six of them are just weak "cool model" units that will never replace a Vendetta in a competitive list (and even the Vulture is kind of questionable). Tau, on the other hand, only get two flyers, but since their codex doesn't have one at all every Tau player that wants a flyer is going to be buying some Barracudas. So despite being out-numbered 6:2 in total units the Tau actually get a lot more out of IA:Aeronautica being legal.

And it's especially bad because the C:SM count is vastly inflated by a ton of Badab War characters getting counted individually, even though most of them are incredibly generic and rarely worth taking. The fact that FW threw together a bunch of fluff characters to give each Badab War chapter their own special character doesn't mean that C:SM are really getting 47 distinct options.

I just prefer that people ask and be willing to show the rules for a unit that does not come from their codex.

So do I. I also prefer that people ask and be willing to show the rules for a unit that does come from their codex. Bringing the rules for your army and making them available is just a basic "don't be TFG" thing.

Well for one duplicates show up ( the Caestus assault rame is there three times, and I am only at Dark Angels).

The rest I agree with.

Personally my army is a Siege Regiment, so I have very little options (since most things are for IG/Elysians).

To be honest it may be less that the other guard flyers aren't good and that the Vendetta is too good.

And look at the Necrons out of their 2 units, nobody would bring them in a competitive list, the archanthrites are ok but there are other things like scarabs that do there job way better. The Tomb Stalker is a joke.

 Bobthehero wrote:
Well for one duplicates show up ( the Caestus assault rame is there three times, and I am only at Dark Angels).

The rest I agree with.

Personally my army is a Siege Regiment, so I have very little options (since most things are for IG/Elysians).

As a side note when I said 47 for space marines I was only counting models listed under Codex: Space marines, not any of the chapters with their own codex.

 TheAvengingKnee wrote:
To be honest it may be less that the other guard flyers aren't good and that the Vendetta is too good.

That's exactly the point. IG may in theory get lots of FW units, but their codex units are already so good that very few of those 35 FW units are going to be even remotely relevant to a competitive IG player. So it's pretty misleading to quote the 35 number as if that's 35 real options and not just 30 cool models you can take if you want to make your list weaker.

And look at the Necrons out of their 2 units, nobody would bring them in a competitive list, the archanthrites are ok but there are other things like scarabs that do there job way better. The Tomb Stalker is a joke.

But who cares? Necrons are already a top-tier army, they don't NEED lots of FW options. The fact that they get no real benefit from FW doesn't hurt them because they're still winning games just fine.

(And of course the FW Necron book is coming soon, so expect more units.)

 Peregrine wrote:


Sorry, but GW disagrees with you. Forge World is just a brand name that GW sells certain products under, just like you buy Citadel models and paints, read White Dwarf magazine, etc. And GW has stated explicitly that Forge World rules are part of standard 40k, just like Citadel models are part of standard 40k..

You people keep saying this, but can never provide a link to where its been said. Page number in the brb?

davou wrote:
You people keep saying this, but can never provide a link to where its been said. Page number in the brb?

It's at the start of every recent FW book.

And no, the fact that it isn't in the main rulebook doesn't matter. GW isn't bound by your requirement that everything be in a single rulebook, and can print other rules that say "this is now part of the game" even without a main rulebook statement.

Keep in mind davou runs Tetra (right... right?)

davou wrote:


You people keep saying this, but can never provide a link to where its been said. Page number in the brb?

The Rulebook does not have a page in regards to the Errata and FAQ being allowed to be used so according to this logic they should not be allowed as well.

Seriously dont get why people dont like Forgeworld, it is not a different game and it even has the GW stamp in their books on top of being allowed to be 40k friendly as it says so in the FW books and you can call Gamesworkshop and they will tell you that. I knew this was going to happen again @ the start of this thread and its comments like these that annoy me. Give me a legitimate reason what is wrong with FW units and lists, the "its a different game argument" does not cut it as it is not true.

davou wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:


Sorry, but GW disagrees with you. Forge World is just a brand name that GW sells certain products under, just like you buy Citadel models and paints, read White Dwarf magazine, etc. And GW has stated explicitly that Forge World rules are part of standard 40k, just like Citadel models are part of standard 40k..

You people keep saying this, but can never provide a link to where its been said. Page number in the brb?

GW shouldn't HAVE to put every single detail in the BRB. The BRB is not an end all book that tells every single detail about the game. GW can publish things under their subsidiaries and call it official (and thus, they have say in if it's legal or not. In this case, GW has said it is legal by speaking through it's subsidiary company).

 gmaleron wrote:

davou wrote:


You people keep saying this, but can never provide a link to where its been said. Page number in the brb?

The Rulebook does not have a page in regards to the Errata and FAQ being allowed to be used so according to this logic they should not be allowed as well.

Seriously dont get why people dont like Forgeworld, it is not a different game and it even has the GW stamp in their books on top of being allowed to be 40k friendly as it says so in the FW books and you can call Gamesworkshop and they will tell you that. I knew this was going to happen again @ the start of this thread and its comments like these that annoy me. Give me a legitimate reason what is wrong with FW units and lists, the "its a different game argument" does not cut it as it is not true.

Yeah, scroll up. bob the hero watches me field tetras like, weekly. I personally like the things they add to the game (like anti flier and some cheap patches like the tetras). But, the argument isnt thats its another game; its that the regular agreement between warhammer players is to play warhammer. Springing a suppliment on them without prior agreement would be like me showing up with pieces to electronic star-wars battleship when you asked to play battleship. Its a sweet change to regular battleship that I had when I was little, but the rules are kinda cheaty if you weren't in the know.

Its a fun suppliment, but people are well within their rights to not want to play supplimental material, at least untill GW DIRECTLY says otherwise (and believe me, I've emailed them after each FAQ issueance to do just that).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 washout77 wrote:

davou wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:


Sorry, but GW disagrees with you. Forge World is just a brand name that GW sells certain products under, just like you buy Citadel models and paints, read White Dwarf magazine, etc. And GW has stated explicitly that Forge World rules are part of standard 40k, just like Citadel models are part of standard 40k..

You people keep saying this, but can never provide a link to where its been said. Page number in the brb?

GW shouldn't HAVE to put every single detail in the BRB. The BRB is not an end all book that tells every single detail about the game. GW can publish things under their subsidiaries and call it official (and thus, they have say in if it's legal or not. In this case, GW has said it is legal by speaking through it's subsidiary company).

I'd settle for a blurb on their website too, or mention in a standard codex? Maybe a hint about this intention in the FAQ's?

People are just butthurt because they either don't have as many selections available to their codex as they want, can't afford them, or don't want anything upsetting the current competitive power structure.

Fact: Forge World is in fact owned by Games Workshop and the normal codex designers and Forge World designers consult with each other.

Super heavies and gargantuan creatures are the only things that unbalance our already unbalanced game.

As completely pathetic as these threads are (one has even recently popped up on my local area Facebook page) people just need to get the hell over it. If I want to run a 300 point Spartan in an 1850 point game, I am damn well gonna do it, and if someone tells me that they don't want me using it, then i won't game with them.

Simple as that, am not going to ask if its ok, it's just going to be in my list which I will give to my opponent before the game starts.

To date i have never had a problem running anything short of a super heavy in a regular game. As for tournaments, they can bite me I have no use or desire to be anal raped by Screamers/flamers or Mindshackle Scarabs and Necron Airforces.

davou wrote:
Its a fun suppliment, but people are well within their rights to not want to play supplimental material, at least untill GW DIRECTLY says otherwise (and believe me, I've emailed them after each FAQ issueance to do just that).

GW has told you directly. Every single IA book contains a note from GW telling you directly. The fact that you want to be told in a different way doesn't change the fact that GW has set the rules for the game and made FW part of standard 40k.

Now, of course you can choose to reject that and substitute your own house rule, but you shouldn't pretend that it's anything but a house rule.

Well doesn't this look familiar.

Really guys, this arguement serves no purpose. Again.

Seriously, I've been on this site only a few months, and we're on, what, the third FW debate?

And, from what I'm reading, no one here has any issues on the subject within their own groups, either they like FW and encourage it's use, tolerate it, or ban it outright, but the key is, their groups agree. So much the better.

My group doesn't use the White Dwarf daemon updates due to how broken they are, we all agree, including the two daemon players, therefore, regardless of GW's intention, we're content and happy with the state of things. That's the end goal after all, no? to have fun, enjoy yourselves, regardless of how that looks.

 Peregrine wrote:

davou wrote:
Its a fun suppliment, but people are well within their rights to not want to play supplimental material, at least untill GW DIRECTLY says otherwise (and believe me, I've emailed them after each FAQ issueance to do just that).

GW has told you directly. Every single IA book contains a note from GW telling you directly. The fact that you want to be told in a different way doesn't change the fact that GW has set the rules for the game and made FW part of standard 40k.

Please. This.

If you are denying that FW is a part of GW, then you are outright wrong. FW is a part of GW, and that part of GW is saying "Hey guys, this is part of 40k. Please use it as you see fit."

If you decide that part of GW isn't the part of GW you want to hear it from, well, that's on you. That makes you picky, which is fine. It does not, however, detract from the validity of the statement.

Peregrine wrote:That's a terrible comparison.
GW has not stated that BL books are "official standard 40k fluff" (if that even means anything).
GW HAS stated that FW rules are official and part of standard 40k.

Seriously. Stop lying.
"Intended to be used in" and "part of" are not the same thing, and this will not change regardless how often you repeat it.

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

Peregrine wrote:Forge World is not a non-GW source.

Forge World is Forge World.
Games Workshop is Games Workshop.

I can see you're doing a lot of propaganda work here, but really, for the sake of not confusing people, you should at least acknowledge that there's a certain advantage in not throwing everything into a single box, simply so that people know what exactly you are talking about at any given moment.
Forge World and Black Library are both sub-divisions of Games Workshop, but they are first and foremost their own established brands. And just like you wouldn't say that, for example, the "Dawn of War Omnibus is a GW novel", you should also not say that "Imperial Armour is a GW book". Because it was written by the Forge World staff. Because "FW book" means that the vast majority will instantly know what you're talking about, whereas "GW book" will have people assume you're talking about a Codex. You're trying to get FW books just as established as codices, I can see that, but for the moment this still is not the case.

Peregrine wrote:Also, do you inform your opponents in advance that you will be using your non-GW models? You know, since they're a Citadel product, not a GW one?

Nice try, but models =/= rules.

You can actually use Forge World models in GW tournaments, by the way. Just not their rules.

Peregrine wrote:When GW says "intended to be used" that makes it part of the game. GW is the one publishing the game, therefore GW's decisions about the game are the official facts.

"Intended to be used" means that they were written for that specific sort of game.

Peregrine wrote:When you say "intended to be used" it does NOT make it part of the game, because you have no authority to make statements about GW's game.

I don't. I merely repeat what the books actually say, because you keep twisting words in an attempt to manipulate your audience. Just like your attempt to achieve a replacement of the term FW with GW. Would anybody here consider to do this with Black Library, I wonder?

Peregrine wrote:There's no difference at all. GW has set up separate teams to work on different projects. The fact that it works out best to form a permanent team for their FW brand but temporary and constantly-changing teams for each codex doesn't have anything to do with whether or not they're official. It just means that different authors are assigned to different projects.

Now what was that about "no authority to make statements about GW's game", again?

Peregrine wrote:Yes, but one of them is something you purchase at home alone on the internet, while the other hopefully gets you into one of their retail stores where the used car salesmen can try to persuade you into buying a dozen other things in addition to the one kit you need for the upcoming tournament. If GW decides to use tournaments as a marketing effort to get people into their retail stores that doesn't mean anything about what the standard rules of the game are.

You're not making sense. If GW would use its tournaments as a marketing effort (to which there is certainly some truth) they could just as well promote ALL their assets instead of just some of them. It's not like this would be an either/or issue where the customer would totally lose interest in GW retailers if they'd offer an alternative - though even if that were the case, the end result only nets GW even more money as FW is ( a ) more expensive in general and ( b ) doesn't lose them money to the retailers.

It's like you're trying to explain the ice cream man not having chocolate because he wants to sell vanilla.

Besides, why would they allow Forge World models, then? Given that the majority of rules are free to download on FW's website. Or are you really trying to tell me that it's the books with which FW makes most of their money? Please.

Peregrine wrote:PS: GW also runs events where FW rules are permitted.

You mean the local stores?

Peregrine wrote:You're missing the point here. I don't give ANY advance warning about what army I'm bringing. If I arrange a game in advance at all (instead of just showing up at 40k night with an army) we're just going to agree on a point total and a time/place. I could bring pure codex IG. I could bring IG with FW rules. I could bring my Tau. I could surprise you with a new space marine army I just bought that you didn't know about. And since you're doing the same there isn't any opportunity for "surprise, I'm not playing the list I told you about".

I'm getting the point just fine. You apparently "don't get" that there is a number of people who regard the Codex lists as a common basis, and anything else as an optional add-on that requires the opponent's consent. If that's how you roll, fine. I would probably still play you, even. But I wouldn't like it and you would make a bad first impression. Not that you'd care in my particular case, but I would assume I am not the only one who thinks that way.

Lynata, are you actually implying that FW isn't a part of GW?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Lynata wrote:

Peregrine wrote:That's a terrible comparison.
GW has not stated that BL books are "official standard 40k fluff" (if that even means anything).
GW HAS stated that FW rules are official and part of standard 40k.

Seriously. Stop lying.
"Intended to be used in" and "part of" are not the same thing, and this will not change regardless how often you repeat it.

Well...referring to their rules, verbatim, they say "These should be considered Official."

I don't really think there is any way to wrongly interpret that. It's a clear-cut statement.

Here it comes ago....

Darrett wrote:
People have an issue with forgeworld because historically it has been a pay for performance option. The models and rulesets are expensive, and were often significantly overpowered. This hasn't been the case for quite some time, but the idea sticks.

Gw is now more expensive then fw.....

Darrett wrote:
People have an issue with forgeworld because historically it has been a pay for performance option. The models and rulesets are expensive, and were often significantly overpowered. This hasn't been the case for quite some time, but the idea sticks.

Well that's true if you have no idea what you're talking about.

Forgeworld models have always been cautiously costed and skewed to overpriced. Super heavies were not only significantly overpriced but also had a lot of restriction on them as to when you could use them (one such was only games above 2000pts, and only when it was agreed that multiple detachments were allowed, which people tend to conveniently forget when cirticising old FW rules).

Historically, when GW have taken FW units and incorporated them into official codicies, they've gotten both significantly cheaper and significantly better. Some examples - the Trygon, went from being a rather weak Gargantuan Creature (same restrictions as super heavies) to a rather powerful monstrous creature, for a nice price drop. The Leman Russ Executioner got a price drop and its main weapons rate of fire was tripled for that inconvenience.

Forgeworld has a handful of good standard 40k units. One I would put in the 'too good for its cost' category (the Ceastus). Across its entire range. Compare that to multiple units per codex that fall into the 'too good for its cost' category GW do (and always have), it's hard to take anyone seriously when they say FW are, or ever were, a 'pay for performance' option.

Here is the last 12 page argument, just read these, learn from history, or we are only doomed to repeat it. Prepare the merry go-rounds, because this is going to go in circles.

 Lynata wrote:
"Intended to be used in" and "part of" are not the same thing, and this will not change regardless how often you repeat it.

Yes they are. You are nitpicking an exact choice of word, the meaning of the statement is perfectly clear. When a person with the authority to make the decision intends for something to be part of standard 40k then that something is part of standard 40k.

Forge World is Forge World.
Games Workshop is Games Workshop.

Not true at all. Forge World is a brand name that Games Workshop sells certain products under, just like Citadel is a brand name that Games Workshop sells certain products under. They are not a separate company.

I can see you're doing a lot of propaganda work here, but really, for the sake of not confusing people, you should at least acknowledge that there's a certain advantage in not throwing everything into a single box, simply so that people know what exactly you are talking about at any given moment.

Of course there's a reason why brand names exist. However, GW has stated that certain rules published under the Forge World brand are part of standard 40k, just like GW has stated that the models and paints sold under the Citadel brand name are the standard models for 40k. The fact "Forge World" means "expensive awesome resin models" does not in any way contradict this statement.

Nice try, but models =/= rules.

And your point is?

You were arguing that because of the "FW" brand name on the package certain rules need special permission. By that standard you need special permission to use your Citadel models.

Just like your attempt to achieve a replacement of the term FW with GW. Would anybody here consider to do this with Black Library, I wonder?

Of course. Black Library is a brand name that certain Games Workshop products are sold under. They are AFAIK not an independent company.

It's like you're trying to explain the ice cream man not having chocolate because he wants to sell vanilla.

Sigh. This is really not complicated.

FW sales are entirely online, and fairly fixed. If you're a dedicated hobbyist who wants to invest in expensive new models you probably already know what you want and are going to buy it.

"Core" product sales often take place in the retail stores where the used car salesmen can try to get you to buy more stuff, and are often (especially under GW's "NEW CUSTOMERS NOW" business model) aimed at customers who are still in the process of building an army and not yet set on a specific purchase.

By running "core only" events GW increases traffic into their retail stores where they can sell you the item you want AND sell you a few that you didn't come in there to buy.

Besides, why would they allow Forge World models, then? Given that the majority of rules are free to download on FW's website. Or are you really trying to tell me that it's the books with which FW makes most of their money? Please.

The majority of FW rules are not available for free online.

And they allow models because otherwise you have very unhappy customers who can't use their Leman Russ model because it has a FW turret, and not even GW is stupid enough (yet) to demand that they buy a plastic Leman Russ kit to replace it.

Peregrine wrote:PS: GW also runs events where FW rules are permitted.

You mean the local stores?

No, I mean at warhammer world, the only place where GW runs events of any kind. Some WHW events ban FW, some allow FW.

I'm getting the point just fine.

No, you're missing the point entirely. You proposed a ridiculous "bait and switch" scenario where I tell you in advance I'm playing IG, but then show up with my DKoK army. This is a silly situation because I'm not going to ever say "I'm bringing my IG", I'm going to keep my choice of army to myself until we exchange lists at the start of the game. So you will never show up to a game with me with mistaken expectations about what army I'm playing.

Warwick Kinrade said it best in the foreword to the old Imperial Armour Apocalypse book:

As far as we are concerned Codexes and the rulebook are official, everything else is up to the players to use and ignore at will. Want to play on a ruined city board using the City of Death rules variant? Fine. Want to play on a ruined city board without using the rules variants, just using the rules as published in the 40K rulebook? Also fine. The only thing that matters is that both players know this before they start, and both players agree that's the way they want to play the game. So is City of Death official? You can't use it in a tournament! The Imperial Armour rules are just the same...

"Official" doesn't mean that you don't need your opponent's consent.