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.

 motyak wrote:
Interesting, I didn't read it that way, but I guess it could be. Except for the fact that Lynata's links showed allies in use.

Why am I not surprised that GW doesn't even follow their own rules...

Anyway, the basic point remains. Whether or not GW's current tournament rules ban allies or not the simple fact is they have imposed limits on allies in the past. They are obviously willing to run their tournaments under house rules that directly contradict the core rulebook, but somehow the "no FW" rule is taken as a statement about the standard rules of the game instead of just another house rule (like the allies limit).

Peregrine wrote:Why am I not surprised that GW doesn't even follow their own rules...

They do. It seems you just don't read their various writings as they are intended to be understood. Or rather, you read what you want to see.

Peregrine wrote:Anyway, the basic point remains. Whether or not GW's current tournament rules ban allies or not the simple fact is they have imposed limits on allies in the past. They are obviously willing to run their tournaments under house rules that directly contradict the core rulebook, but somehow the "no FW" rule is taken as a statement about the standard rules of the game instead of just another house rule (like the allies limit).

Because the statement "a current and official list", in combination with the ban on FW rules, would seem to render it not a houserule, but instead that FW lists are simply not considered "current and official lists" by GW's core studio. If FW would have been regarded as an exception, it would have been worded "some current and official lists" or something like that.

Or rather, FW rules would be published with a Chapter Approved stamp. Or get called codices right away. Yet they are published under a different brand identity, with a different book title, with none of their units part of a standard Codex or the rulebook. Now why is that, we wonder.
Indeed, even some random White Dwarf article such as the Night Spinner in WD #365 is considered more "current and official list" than FW stuff.

You stick to your idea, I'll stick to mine.

So why would you accept a Chapter Approved stamp, something which has been completely obsolete and unused for years, as a sign of FW being 100% official at all times and yet you don't consider the 40k Approved stamp which appears on so many FW rule sheets to be of the same authority?

 Lynata wrote:
They do. It seems you just don't read their various writings as they are intended to be understood. Or rather, you read what you want to see.

Sorry, but if I see a tournament rule saying A codex (singular) I'm going to assume that it means one codex. And I'm not going to be amused if the TO lets people bring armies from multiple codices while I'm stuck with my legal one-codex army.

Because the statement "a current and official list", in combination with the ban on FW rules, would seem to render it not a houserule, but instead that FW lists are simply not considered "current and official lists" by GW's core studio.

No it wouldn't, just like the 2012 rules that had a 500 point cap on allies did not somehow suggest that 500 point allied detachments were the correct way to play.

In fact, we can conclude the exact opposite from that statement if we want to look for hidden meanings. If FW lists and units were not "current and official" then the explicit ban on them would be redundant. The fact that there is a separate "no FW" rule suggests that "current and official" is not sufficient to ban them.

Or rather, FW rules would be published with a Chapter Approved stamp. Or get called codices right away. Yet they are published under a different brand identity, with a different book title, with none of their units part of a standard Codex or the rulebook. Now why is that, we wonder.

This is your policy, not GW's. You have a right to play with a house rule that "chapter approved" is the only way to add to a codex, but GW doesn't agree with your limit.

Also, FW units are not part of any codex for financial reasons. GW realized that it's more profitable to invent entirely new units (with expensive models) instead of just using ones that exist already. Why make a plastic Barracuda to replace the resin one when you can make a new plastic flyer and keep selling the Barracuda as well? This of course has nothing to do with which rules are official, it's simply a business choice.

Do we really need the legality argument again guys?

Let it go. Some people will accept Forgeworld is lega, some people won't. If you're concerned, ask the people you play against before dropping money on a Forgeworld model.

I think we can all just agree that this debate never ends. And given that neither FW or GW have come out and definitively said anything, I think they're having a laugh at our expense.