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.

insaniak wrote:The only place that GW have actually stated that Forgeworld stuff is 'legal' for 40K is in Forgeworld publications, which some people feel is not actually sufficient.

Technically, the 40k rulebook(s) state that anything is "legal", as long as the opponent agrees. This can be anything from codex units to the FW Squiggoth to my homebrewed SoB Novices.
In a way, you could see the official publications as "suggestions" on what to use, and it just seems that different players place different levels of non-existing authority on these publications, with army codices being the most common denominator, followed by WD articles, followed by Forgeworld and Citadel Journal, followed by homebrewed. In the end, just like with the "canon", it comes down to what you make of it. GW just wants to sell miniatures and for the players to have a fun time.

 Lynata wrote:
Technically, the 40k rulebook(s) state that anything is "legal", as long as the opponent agrees.

That would be the case even if the 40K rulebook didn't say it. As it is and has been in every single game ever created.

Forge World rules may be legal, but Forge World Miniatures are illegal. It clearly says in the rule book Citadel Miniatures. No mention of Forge World miniatures at all.

So yes FW minis are illegal.

And I do hope so people see the smiley face and not ignore it and go off in a tantrum.

To avoid drama I decline all fw stuff except as cool proxies. Our whole area has no fw and that's how we like it

We have a similar thing going on in our meta, except only Forgeworld is allowed and none of the codices are.

The funny thing is that the rules of the game don't highlight either of our metas as being "the right one".

 Orock wrote:
To avoid drama I decline all fw stuff except as cool proxies. Our whole area has no fw and that's how we like it

How exactly is enforcing a policy of "that stuff you might want to use is banned" supposed to avoid drama? By shunning all the players who might want to use rules you don't approve of and limiting your group to people who are willing to obey your rules?

A lot of areas work that way, not always to that extent, but such things for a club that may only be 10 or 15 people is not unusual.

 Psienesis wrote:
A lot of areas work that way, not always to that extent, but such things for a club that may only be 10 or 15 people is not unusual.

I know it can be common, but it's a terrible policy to have unless you're obsessed with having everyone around you agree with you and willing to drive off anyone who doesn't.

Its funny how the on the first page people were saying it was ok to play with forge world model and it wasn't illegal, just need to ask your opponent if it's ok with him. Now, 2 in a row are saying its completely illegal... (by the way's what the citadel book you are talking about? what page?)

Hi's there any good source of information or people that like FW are saying its ok and people who doesn't liked it are saying its completely illegal?

Funny how different people see things...

I wish all who have respond to this post are seeing why i am asking if its a "special" demand or if its ok to play FW without having problems with some player out their...

Peregrine wrote:
How exactly is enforcing a policy of "that stuff you might want to use is banned" supposed to avoid drama? By shunning all the players who might want to use rules you don't approve of and limiting your group to people who are willing to obey your rules?

You say they like it's a bad thing.

If that's the way that the players in his area like to play, then having a clear policy in place is the best way to avoid misunderstandings.

At this point in 40k, nothing is 'illegal'.

Between Unbound, LoW being standard, and other army building nonsense, I don't think anyone can truly argue anything is 'illegal'.

All you're seeing are people talking about preferences and norms in their own groups, which is largely irrelevant to your situation.

Do what you want, but be fully aware your opponent will also do what they want, which could well be turning down the game if they so desire.

It's almost like the forward of every single Imperial Armour book, including the one that contains the rules for the Squiggoth specifically answer your question (see the attached pic below).

So ask your opponent if he's okay playing a game using Forge World models, and if he is, then you can 'surprise' him with your Big Squiggoth.

No need to ask anyone online, the rules are in the book you need to have to use the model.

Thanks Yakface, now i am 100% happy with the answer!

... but don't be surprised if it's the last game with that player and that model on the table.

 insaniak wrote:
You say they like it's a bad thing.

If that's the way that the players in his area like to play, then having a clear policy in place is the best way to avoid misunderstandings.

I say it like its a bad thing because it is a bad thing. It's a clear policy, but clarity doesn't make up for it being a terrible policy. It only avoids conflict when everyone in the group coincidentally doesn't use any FW rules in their armies, in which case no policy is needed (just like you don't need to have a "no orks" policy just because nobody plays orks right now). The policy only becomes relevant when someone decides they want to use FW rules, in which case you have three choices: you can abandon the policy and let them play the army they want to use, you can force them to comply and deal with having an unhappy player who thinks you're all TFG, or you can shun them from the group and preserve the purity of your "FW sucks" club. If you choose the first option your policy was pointless, if you choose the second or third option you've created pointless conflict just so you can have veto power over everyone's army.

 Psienesis wrote:
... but don't be surprised if it's the last game with that player and that model on the table.

If your opponent ragequits and refuses to play again because you used a FW unit then you should be happy that you don't have to play against that person again.

Well, if you showed up at my house with a "little" surprise like a Squiggoth, I'd be more than happy to play you. I might tweak my list a little bit if it was more fluff than crunch, just to even the odds, but I wouldn't say no.

Same thing goes for anything really, I think what the OP really wanted to know was whether or not such a surprise would be considered to be in bad taste. I think the answer is no, resoundingly. If you planned this little caper in order to drop an unexpected power-list on someone the results would be different, but shocking your friends with a new toy on the battlefield is nothing to worry about. Taking it to the LGS? Maybe you wanna let people know about it...

The way I see it, the rules passage I quoted HERE is GW's answer. Forge World is just as valid a source of 'official' rules as the main rulebook and the codices, but it is up to the players to decide what is 'legal' and what is 'illegal' for that specific game. Established groups may have an understanding as to what is expected to be 'legal' or 'illegal' by agreeing to a game.

 Peregrine wrote:
The policy only becomes relevant when someone decides they want to use FW rules, in which case you have three choices: you can abandon the policy and let them play the army they want to use, you can force them to comply and deal with having an unhappy player who thinks you're all TFG, or you can shun them from the group and preserve the purity of your "FW sucks" club.

...or they accept that the group has rules against using Forgeworld and just save their Forgeworld units for games played elsewhere.

In the same way that I accept that some venues have rules against the use of non-GW models, and so would not use my non-GW models in those venues. I'm not going to get bent out of shape about it and start calling people names over it. It's a game of toy soldiers.

Players are perfectly entitled to impose or ignore whatever rules they want within their own groups. Whether or not you personally agree with those rules doesn't have to enter into it in the slightest.

 insaniak wrote:
...or they accept that the group has rules against using Forgeworld and just save their Forgeworld units for games played elsewhere.

That's assuming that the person has a complete non-FW army (not everyone who uses FW rules has one) AND is willing to put up with pointless arbitrary restrictions on what they can bring to a game AND can find enough games elsewhere to be satisfied. If either of those things isn't true then it's very easy for resentment and TFG feelings to happen. For example, I don't have a non-FW army so if you say "no FW" to me what you're really saying is "you're not welcome here". I'm not going to play against you, and even if I can find games elsewhere I'm still going to think you're TFG.

Players are perfectly entitled to impose or ignore whatever rules they want within their own groups. Whether or not you personally agree with those rules doesn't have to enter into it in the slightest.

Of course it has to enter into it, assuming I'm in the area and want to join the 40k community. If a group of players has decided to make the local community their personal "FW sucks" club then it has a huge impact on my enjoyment of the game. They obviously have a right to do it, but I'm still going to think they're a bunch of TFGs.

 Peregrine wrote:
The policy only becomes relevant when someone decides they want to use FW rules, in which case you have three choices: you can abandon the policy and let them play the army they want to use, you can force them to comply and deal with having an unhappy player who thinks you're all TFG, or you can shun them from the group and preserve the purity of your "FW sucks" club.

I'm never quite sure why we talk in such absolutes in these discussions. There are options beyond "abandon all policies", "someone is shunned" and "everyone is TFG".

It's amazing, I know, but there is actually the possibility that people can negotiate mutually enjoyable games

I've only had the opportunity to play one game against an opponent that pulled out a FW model before asking if it was ok.

It was the fire raptor. In a 1000 point game. Although I wasn't expecting to face *any* flyers, and I knew it would tear my army apart, I figured what the hell and just like that picture of the fish jumping into the gators mouth I went for it.

Ultimately, it was a slaughter. But it was a very close one and I had fun.

That said a number of people don't like those kinds of surprises and are more than happy to just say no. So have a backup list just in case.

know how many arguments we get from people that sound like "well forgeworld unit A is ok, but B is bullcrap, you cant use that one" zero. By not allowing any you don't have to listen to someone bitch about "waaa my flying tau monstrous creature is just as balanced as those imperial guard wearing gasmasks" you don't have to make special rules for tournaments. and nobody walks away butthurt because they spent 2000 dollars on forgeworld cheese that nobody wants to play against. And as for regular codex cheese, guess what? The guy who always showed up with 7 wave serpents? He stopped getting games, and got the picture. Now he shows up with much more toned down lists, and actually get games. If your playing in a tournament, you have to expect BS. But unbound was completely removed after 2 tournaments, one where 3 lists showed up with 2 transcendent ctan each, and the next when 4 people showed up for the tournament total after revealing it would be another unbound allowed.

 Orock wrote:
know how many arguments we get from people that sound like "well forgeworld unit A is ok, but B is bullcrap, you cant use that one" zero. By not allowing any you don't have to listen to someone bitch about "waaa my flying tau monstrous creature is just as balanced as those imperial guard wearing gasmasks" you don't have to make special rules for tournaments. and nobody walks away butthurt because they spent 2000 dollars on forgeworld cheese that nobody wants to play against. And as for regular codex cheese, guess what? The guy who always showed up with 7 wave serpents? He stopped getting games, and got the picture. Now he shows up with much more toned down lists, and actually get games. If your playing in a tournament, you have to expect BS. But unbound was completely removed after 2 tournaments, one where 3 lists showed up with 2 transcendent ctan each, and the next when 4 people showed up for the tournament total after revealing it would be another unbound allowed.

So let me get this straight: you solved the codex balance issues by people refusing to play against the overpowered stuff, but you can't solve the much less severe balance issues with FW rules without a blanket ban? It sounds like the issue here isn't the potential for overpowered armies that aren't fun to play against, it's that you don't know very much about game balance and would rather veto your opponent's army choices and/or shun them from the community than learn how the rules work.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
I'm never quite sure why we talk in such absolutes in these discussions. There are options beyond "abandon all policies", "someone is shunned" and "everyone is TFG".

It's amazing, I know, but there is actually the possibility that people can negotiate mutually enjoyable games

There are absolutes because that's just how it works. I have a FW army, I can not play a non-FW army because I don't have the models or rules for it (and even if I did, I'm not giving you veto power over my choices). There are two possibilities here: you accept the army that I brought, or you claim veto power and we don't play. There is no compromise position because I don't have a second army list to compromise with. And if you refuse to play a game just because you don't like which official and current GW products I took my rules from then I'm going to think you're TFG, just like if you refused to play a game against a pure codex C:SM army because you don't like tactical squads.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

clively wrote:
That said a number of people don't like those kinds of surprises and are more than happy to just say no. So have a backup list just in case.

Would you give the same advice about surprising someone with the new (codex) Land Raider kit you just bought? And would you think the other player is being reasonable if they refused to play because they didn't think you were going to bring a LR?

Psienesis: Its a Squiggot, come down, it wont be my last game... I dont field i Titan, i field an overpriced MC... Jesus...

Thanks Darkcloath, you understand the spirits of my idea, having fun for me and my oppenant!

i can say i am happy, all this started because of a SQUIGGOTHS!!! I love Orksssssss!

 Peregrine wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
I'm never quite sure why we talk in such absolutes in these discussions. There are options beyond "abandon all policies", "someone is shunned" and "everyone is TFG".

It's amazing, I know, but there is actually the possibility that people can negotiate mutually enjoyable games

There are absolutes because that's just how it works. I have a FW army, I can not play a non-FW army because I don't have the models or rules for it (and even if I did, I'm not giving you veto power over my choices). There are two possibilities here: you accept the army that I brought, or you claim veto power and we don't play. There is no compromise position because I don't have a second army list to compromise with. And if you refuse to play a game just because you don't like which official and current GW products I took my rules from then I'm going to think you're TFG, just like if you refused to play a game against a pure codex C:SM army because you don't like tactical squads.

It's rarely that black and white. I'd hazard a guess and say you might be one of the few exceptions who has an entire FW army and no other army. Even then, DKOK can be used as IG, you might not be able to use your entire collection but I'm almost certain you can make some sort of IG army out of your DKOK.

There's always room for discussion. If your opponents genuinely don't want to try and discuss something and just shoo you away based on the models without even discussing how they might be used, ok, they might be dicks... so why are you wanting to play against dicks in the first place? If you're the one unwilling to have a discussion then you can label yourself TFG as much as you can label them TFG's.

I'm not saying that the result of the discussion is always going to be one which results in a game, but to pretend that it's black and white is a bit disingenuous.

40k is a game that requires discussion simply because the rules are so poorly written. Sometimes that discussion will go down the path of army selection.

For someone who is so negative with GW's rules I'm surprised you're not more open to the idea of discussion and compromise.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
Even then, DKOK can be used as IG, you might not be able to use your entire collection but I'm almost certain you can make some sort of IG army out of your DKOK.

Yeah, maybe I could manage to get a 750 point codex army, if I could borrow a copy of the codex and my models didn't have to be perfectly WYSIWYG. It would probably suck, it wouldn't include most of my favorite models/units, and I wouldn't have any fun using it, but hey, at least it doesn't have any FW rules!

so why are you wanting to play against dicks in the first place?

Because I didn't know they were TFGs? If I just show up to 40k night at the local store I don't know in advance that the local players are TFGs who demand veto power over their opponent's army and insist on enforcing their own house rules. I'm certainly not going to want to play against them after the "no FW" conversation, but by then it's too late to avoid them entirely.

For someone who is so negative with GW's rules I'm surprised you're not more open to the idea of discussion and compromise.

I'm not open to discussion and compromise because this isn't a situation where poorly-written rules require a compromise. There is nothing ambiguous or broken about the published rules, the only issue is that certain players have invented their own rules and insist that everyone else follow them.

 Peregrine wrote:
If I just show up to 40k night at the local store I don't know in advance that the local players are TFGs who demand veto power over their opponent's army and insist on enforcing their own house rules.

If you are walking into a new venue populated by an established group and not expecting them to enforce their own house rules, you're going to be fairly assured of running into problems.

the only issue is that certain players have invented their own rules and insist that everyone else follow them.

That's not an issue. It's exactly how GW tells us to play their games.

 Peregrine wrote:
Because I didn't know they were TFGs? If I just show up to 40k night at the local store I don't know in advance that the local players are TFGs who demand veto power over their opponent's army and insist on enforcing their own house rules. I'm certainly not going to want to play against them after the "no FW" conversation, but by then it's too late to avoid them entirely.

You make it sound worse than it is. At any point during a conversation in which you discuss the use of FW and possible compromises, you can decide the people are dicks and say "actually, nah, don't worry, I'll just play someone else".

There's no need to pre-emptively label anyone who disagrees with you as "TFG".

For someone who is so negative with GW's rules I'm surprised you're not more open to the idea of discussion and compromise.

I'm not open to discussion and compromise because this isn't a situation where poorly-written rules require a compromise. There is nothing ambiguous or broken about the published rules

I disagree. I think the complete lack of limitations on what you can take at different points levels is a fundamentally broken system. I don't necessarily think that a blanket ban on FW is a great idea, but whatever, if that's what people want to do I don't really care, I can kind of understand why they might feel that way.

The rules rather explicitly talk about introducing your own limitations or allowances to create the game you want to play. While I wish 40k with a more solid set of core rules that you can build on, it's the other way around, so you're pretty much always going to be discussing things with your opponent, and sometimes that discussion will have to be on army construction... it's not black and white, it's discussion.

It only becomes black and white when you pre-emptively think everyone who disagrees with you is "TFG".

the only issue is that certain players have invented their own rules and insist that everyone else follow them.

...what exactly is wrong with people insisting you play by the rules THEY like when you are actually playing against them??

I would find it just as annoying when people insist on playing by the RAW when I think the RAW suck.

People can't force you to do play by their rules when you aren't even playing against them. I feel like you're making a mountain out of mole hill.

 Psienesis wrote:
... but don't be surprised if it's the last game with that player and that model on the table.

I take it you're not one of those people who reads things already posted in a thread before responding? It's been mentioned numerous times that op is using a Squiggoth which is an overpriced MC, he's not using a Gargantuan Squiggoth.

Here you go: http://s123.photobucket.com/user/MrChaos_album/media/IMG_1073.jpg.html

 Zande4 wrote:

 Psienesis wrote:
... but don't be surprised if it's the last game with that player and that model on the table.

I take it you're not one of those people who reads things already posted in a thread before responding? It's been mentioned numerous times that op is using a Squiggoth which is an overpriced MC, he's not using a Gargantuan Squiggoth.

Here you go: http://s123.photobucket.com/user/MrChaos_album/media/IMG_1073.jpg.html

Even if it was the G.Squiggoth isn't exactly a good monster either, it's..pretty adequate last time I saw it on the table, depending on what you use it for, but GW's WS2 or WS3 is just killer at times for monster type creatures.