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.

 EVIL INC wrote:
Which brings us back full circle to the attitude in which the subject is broached. As it is up to the individual TO and players how they run their games or if they will play, it doesn't matter how legal it is. They don't have to if they don't want to..

This is why I suggest introducing it to them in a polite and reasonable way. The use of demonstration games, discussions focused on merits rather than legalities, heck even play a few "team games and let them borrow a unit or two. There are a lot of ways to do it in a non-confrontational manner. Without GW support, it is an uphill battle overcoming years of ingrained attitudes.

Except by your own definition a while ago, this would be forcing it on the player.

 Yonan wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
What a realisaiton of FW legality DOES do is turn the onus around - instead of having to ask permission to use FW, the onus is on th eperson who doesnt like something to ask if they could play a game with out FW. Asubtle, but important, distinction.

Yes, a very important distinction. Replace "FW" with "flyers" and people will understand - they need to realize it's the same thing.

Exactly.

Evil - nope, missing the point. You are still "asking for permission" there. FW is exactly as legal as Tau, and considerable less offensive.

Oh, and for those thqat state the reason the 107 sells so well is it is overpowered -that would be why on GD I bought 2? Before the rules were out? What about the SIcaran pred? Same deal. Or what about one of their best selling tanks of all time - the Macharius vulcan? You know, that 400+ point 2SP BS3 tank firing 15 S6 Ap3 shots a turn (now 30, if it doesnt move!) - people CLEARLY bought that in *droves* due to the OP rules!

The Raptor is a beast in terms of guns - but its not great in actual play, as you pay a ton of points, cant fire the missiles without snapshotting everything else, and are exactly as survivable as a stormeagle....

Offtopic: If the R'varna rules do not change I will just on the principle buy 3 of them and 5 Riptides and run them all in one Farsight/Tau list. I don't care if I win or lose with them

That IS the point. TO can disallow riptides in a tourney if they so desire, they can disallow FW if they so desire, they can even disallow the wearing of baseball caps if they so desire. that is their right. by going to their events, you are not asking for permission to use FW models, you are asking for permission to take part in their event under their stipulations.

Likewise, when you ask for a game with another player, you are not asking for permission to use FW models. You are asking them if they will play you.

This is why I mention the attitude and manner in which you introduce people to FW. Ramming it down their throats using the "you have to play against it because its legal" approach against their will simply will not work. It means you will alienate players against FW and yourself. This is why introducing them to it in a polite manne where they will WANT to use it regardless of the legalities (it being legal being only an added bonus to using cool new stuff) will, I think, get you further faster.

xruslanx wrote:
The tournaments are run by red shirts who actively promote converted models and creativity.

What does promoting converted models and creativity have to do with whether GW's events are run by their game designers or some random sales staff with no authority to write rules for anything but their own events?

Warhammer world even sells forgeworld, so why the hell would the sales department *not* want to encourage the more expensive forgeworld?

Because GW's events exist to sell models, and their primary target market is kids playing battleforce armies in their local GW store. It's completely understandable if GW's event staff don't want to have to deal with some 15 year old whining about FW rules because they've never seen them when playing against all the other 15 year olds. Meanwhile the target market for FW kits, older experienced hobbyists, probably don't have much interest in GW's events (if they're even on the same continent) and are going to buy the same stuff regardless of what GW's occasional tournaments do.

Just sounds like another emotionally driven argument from perry.

Just sounds like another pathetic personal attack from xruslanx. Too bad you don't put half as much thought into your arguments as you put into acting arrogant and insulting people.

If you'd like to know why they ban fw rules, i'm sure you could email them.

Or I could just ignore them, because I don't give a about some random tournament in a completely different country that I will never have anything to do with.

EVIL INC wrote: by going to their events, you are not asking for permission to use FW models, you are asking for permission to take part in their event under their stipulations.

Actually it is not you asking permission. They are offering an event, under a set of rules. You decide if you wish to attend. Youre not asking can you attend a tournament they may run, and what are the rules, but accepting an offer they have created.

EVIL INC wrote:Likewise, when you ask for a game with another player, you are not asking for permission to use FW models. You are asking them if they will play you.

Exactly the point - will you play 40k? Or do you want to play 40k, but no flyers? or would you like to play 40k, but please, no more Tau? The questions IS NOT would you like to play 40k WITH FW, because the *default* is that FW IS 40k.

EVIL INC wrote:This is why I mention the attitude and manner in which you introduce people to FW. Ramming it down their throats using the "you have to play against it because its legal" approach against their will simply will not work.

Again: noone has said you HAVE to play against it. STOP mis-characterising others arguments, as they have NOT said that. Strawman arguments are a great way to hit the ignore list for people.

However, IF you dont want to play against FW, it is up to *you* to alter the default, as FW is normal, standard, all inclusive 40k.

You dont seem to understand the difference in attitude, despite it being explained a few times. The default IS that FW is allowed. This isnt up for debate - the default game of 40k includes FW, same as it includes Tau, supplements, WD, digi-only codexes and FAQs.

Once you get over that mindset, and switch to it being assumed unless otherwise stated, you then treat FW no idfferently than anything else - which is, if you wish to know the rules as you havent faced it, of course you can look at them - here they are. Need me to explain anything? Etc. Exactly the same in fact as if you are playing someone who has been lucky enough to not play Tau, you explain everything that goes on.

FW is exactly the same as any other GW produced ruleset.

ClockworkZion wrote:IA2v1 says books are a source of rules that are meant for use in 40k with no stipulations on how those rules are made. Yes you can't use the IA books in WFB, but the fact remains that we have a lot more saying "this is real, official and legitimate to use in games" versus the claims that it never was.

A claim I have not defended here, did I? But you're just doing it again - throwing these references together even though they are talking about different things.
Back then, legality apparently meant something, else Jervis would not have worded his explanation in a way that binds FW legality to VDR use. Then you start throwing around quotes that do not mention VDR as a condition - without noticing that the text does not talk about legality at all, but simply about usage. Usage in the same context that we could use experimental or homebrewed rules. And then you're calling this proof.

ClockworkZion wrote:Fine. Don't subscribe, but don't go making accusations about it because you don't agree with it. Attack the idea not the person otherwise you just fail.

I think we are long past the ability to make this distinction here - you yourself have fallen victim to it in the way you react to critics of your arguments. And when you are calling out others, you are surprised at calling out yourself?

If you don't even notice how these debates have progressively become worse, then it really cannot be helped. This also means you'll have to live with the criticism leveled against your arguments in the very same way that you dish it out against others, though.

nosferato1001 wrote:What a realisaiton of FW legality DOES do is turn the onus around - instead of having to ask permission to use FW, the onus is on th eperson who doesnt like something to ask if they could play a game with out FW. Asubtle, but important, distinction.

As of 6th Edition, "legality" is a thing of the past. Anything is legal as long as all participants agree on it. The rulebook recommends using Codices, which is why I'm regarding this as a standard, but everyone has the option to expand or change your army list at will. Whether you are doing this by using Forge World or your own homebrewed rules is of no difference. It's still courteous to ask. Is "shifting the onus" really more important than preserving a friendly and mutually respectful atmosphere that has a much higher chance of resulting in a fun game?

Hell, when I was still playing I even asked if I could bring Sisters, and they are a Codex army. I must have been doing something wrong.

Peregrine wrote:Because GW's events exist to sell models, and their primary target market is kids playing battleforce armies in their local GW store. It's completely understandable if GW's event staff don't want to have to deal with some 15 year old whining about FW rules because they've never seen them when playing against all the other 15 year olds. Meanwhile the target market for FW kits, older experienced hobbyists, probably don't have much interest in GW's events (if they're even on the same continent) and are going to buy the same stuff regardless of what GW's occasional tournaments do.

So apparently, GW events exist to sell models, but GW's rulebooks, codices and FW army books don't.
Also, people who prefer "pure" Codex games are "whiny 15 year olds" whereas "older, experienced hobbyists" is the new blanket-term for FW enthusiasts.

This attitude is the reason for why these threads are not moving forward.

DarthOvious wrote:Alas it is the nature of debate. People can feel really strongly about the littliest of things. Myself included.

I guess so. All of us. Else we would not have discussions like these, or at least not in the way they are being conducted now.

At least you remain tact- and respectful, though, so thank you for that. A debate like this would probably be much more constructive and enjoyable if certain posters from both sides of the argument would be cut out of the talks.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

EVIL INC wrote: by going to their events, you are not asking for permission to use FW models, you are asking for permission to take part in their event under their stipulations.

Actually it is not you asking permission. They are offering an event, under a set of rules. You decide if you wish to attend. Youre not asking can you attend a tournament they may run, and what are the rules, but accepting an offer they have created..

actually, it IS you asking permission to take part in an offered event under their rules. they have the right to disallow what they want to and to disallow players who do not wish to follow their rules..

nosferatu1001 wrote:

EVIL INC wrote:Likewise, when you ask for a game with another player, you are not asking for permission to use FW models. You are asking them if they will play you.

Exactly the point - will you play 40k? Or do you want to play 40k, but no flyers? or would you like to play 40k, but please, no more Tau? The questions IS NOT would you like to play 40k WITH FW, because the *default* is that FW IS 40k.

Exactly the point is correct. Players have the right to turn down anything they want. If they don't want to play you because you have FW models is their right. If they don't want to play against a riptide spam army, they don't have to play you. THAT is the "default". now, as I suggested, you introduce them to it politely and in a way that they will WANT to play against all new stuff they have never seen before, you will get further than you would by hammering them with the "you HAVE to play me because it's legal" argument. You use that, you will get all the games you want to play, by yourself. Treating other players with dignity and respect goes a lot further.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

EVIL INC wrote:This is why I mention the attitude and manner in which you introduce people to FW. Ramming it down their throats using the "you have to play against it because its legal" approach against their will simply will not work.

Again: noone has said you HAVE to play against it. STOP mis-characterising others arguments, as they have NOT said that. Strawman arguments are a great way to hit the ignore list for people.

 Tyberos the Red Wake wrote:
Forge World has been legal ever since they had the "40k Approved" stamps on various units. But they used to have an addendum that said you should ask for your opponent's permission.

Recently, they removed this, and Forge World is just plain legal, with or without permission, but now they suggest you show your opponent the rules before the game to make sure he knows them.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Voidwraith wrote:

Keep checking on this thread, but all you'll get is a fanatic-to-jihad levels of anti-forgeworld people who will copy/paste the same old arguments about "not official" and whining about "need their WAAC abuse to win" as if by the pure power of regurgitation, people will agree with them..

 Peregrine wrote:

Yes it is. Forge World is a brand name used by Games Workshop to publish certain products, just like Citadel model kits and paints or White Dwarf magazine. The "separation" between the two has been invented by certain players, not by GW.
...
You find them in the 40k rules because they are 40k rules. The rule that everything for 40k must be in a codex or the core rulebook has been invented by certain players, not by GW.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Forgeworld is legal, and has been since at least IAv1 if I recall. My copy of IAv1:2E says it is official right at the beginning.
There's little more clarification required than GW dba Forgeworld saying it is legal.

Your right, not a SINGLE person has brought up legalities in the conversation regarding seeing FW use. (which one of the lil smileys is the eyeroll?) Those quotes are just from the very first page of the eleven we have gone on. You notice that those who are trying to get FW accepted, I am one of the few who even mention the manner in which it is approached. When addressing it to other players, I don't use the whole" its legal" thingor eve mention it. I focus on the coolness of the models and how it can expad the fun of the game. As I said, without GW support in this, it will be a hard uphill battle to overcome ingrained prejudices that have developed over the years.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
However, IF you dont want to play against FW, it is up to *you* to alter the default, as FW is normal, standard, all inclusive 40k.

You dont seem to understand the difference in attitude, despite it being explained a few times. The default IS that FW is allowed. This isnt up for debate - the default game of 40k includes FW, same as it includes Tau, supplements, WD, digi-only codexes and FAQs.

Once you get over that mindset, and switch to it being assumed unless otherwise stated, you then treat FW no idfferently than anything else - which is, if you wish to know the rules as you havent faced it, of course you can look at them - here they are. Need me to explain anything? Etc. Exactly the same in fact as if you are playing someone who has been lucky enough to not play Tau, you explain everything that goes on.

FW is exactly the same as any other GW produced ruleset. .

Earlier in the very post I am addressing you claimed that to point out that people are hanging their hat on the lagalies was a "strawman". Then, later in the same post, you demonstrate that there is no strawman by doing the very thing I am addressing. As I said, there are many ways to get people to WANT to play against or allow it without having to resort to the "its legal" argument.
1. Approach it in a polite manner.
2. have a FW demonstration. maybe set up a few demo games where FW models are used and before/after the game, display the models and rules that go with it in an open question and answer forum type environment.
3. Loan some to be used (under supervision of course along with the understanding of "you break it you bought it") to let people get the feel of them.
4. Start a local group order
5. Run your own tournaments where it is allowed. Maybe have prizes be credit on the upcoming group order.
6. Honest and open discussions where the difference between the different "types' of FW models are clearly delineated (normal 40k vs apoc only)
7. Allow others to play against you with armies that don't have FW models.

I understand that Adepticon is one of the larger 40k and gaming conventions in North America. Here are their thoughts on Forgeworld.

"Forge World/Imperial Armor units are NOT allowed in the Warhammer 40K Championships; however players may still use their Forge
World models to represent a unit from their codex."

Feast of Blades - 2013, another very large hobby gathering.

"No Forgeworld (of any kind)"

The argument of whether or not it's "Official" is rather moot, when major tournaments veer away from it.

anchorbine wrote:
I understand that Adepticon is one of the larger 40k and gaming conventions in North America. Here are their thoughts on Forgeworld.

"Forge World/Imperial Armor units are NOT allowed in the Warhammer 40K Championships; however players may still use their Forge
World models to represent a unit from their codex."

Feast of Blades - 2013, another very large hobby gathering.

"No Forgeworld (of any kind)"

The argument of whether or not it's "Official" is rather moot, when major tournaments veer away from it.

Yes, because tournaments are the only way to play 40k.

Why are tournaments cited as a source on how Forgeworld is to be played? I believe this is called "Appeal to Authority".

anchorbine wrote:
I understand that Adepticon is one of the larger 40k and gaming conventions in North America. Here are their thoughts on Forgeworld.

"Forge World/Imperial Armor units are NOT allowed in the Warhammer 40K Championships; however players may still use their Forge
World models to represent a unit from their codex."

Feast of Blades - 2013, another very large hobby gathering.

"No Forgeworld (of any kind)"

The argument of whether or not it's "Official" is rather moot, when major tournaments veer away from it.

Adepticon allows FW rules for their Team events (and IIRC another event, don't remember everything that goes on there), while numerous other tournaments, such as the Broadside Bash, Kingdom Con, etc do allow Forgeworld in their events.

Each tournament out there uses its own rules, standards, and in many cases missions and deployment types. There is neither a unified tournament standard, nor does tournament play have any bearing on play outside of tournaments.

Evil - you are adept at failing to read others posts, even when they highlight the exact phrase they're talking about.

I stated no one said you HAVE TO PLAY THEM because they are legal. No one HAS stated that. I didn't even say the word "legal". You seem to have this odd obsession with people being somehow forced to play the game. It's entirely bizarre.

The straw man is that you are claiming people are saying you HAVE to play against FW, when no one has said that. We HAVE, CORESCTLY, stated that FW is 100% legal. This is indisputable.

When you offer an event, with a rules pack, and I accept, I have agreed to abide by the rules pack. Not a single person here has stated they would berate a tTO to use FW if the TO has stated no FW. no one.

re-read the thread, including your own pposts. You will see that I am spot on. I see page after page after page of people talking about w people have to play because it is legal. I quoted several saying exactly that from only the very first page. I didn't even bother quoting the next 10 ages that were more of the same.

There has been VERY little talk of finding ways to try to convince people to WANT to play with/against FW. You may disagree with me on this and you have the right to think as you want but I feel that introducing it to them in one or ll of the ways I mentioned would forward the FW interest more than ramming 'its legal" down their throats.
So far, you are the only one using strawman arguments but as I said, that is your right. .

 EVIL INC wrote:
re-read the thread, including your own pposts. You will see that I am spot on.

No, you're not. Everyone other than you can see this.

 EVIL INC wrote:
re-read the thread, including your own pposts. You will see that I am spot on. I see page after page after page of people talking about w people have to play because it is legal. I quoted several saying exactly that from only the very first page. I didn't even bother quoting the next 10 ages that were more of the same.

No, not a single quote you posted has someone saying that you have to play against FW. They are discussing the legality aspect but even you should be able to understand the difference between that and "having to" play against it. You always have the option of not playing against it.

here ilittle excersize in math for you. As you are so much more intelligent than anyone else here I'm sure you will be able to do this.
Go through the thread and count the umber of posts where people mention that FW is legal. Write the number down
Now, go through the thread and count the number of posts where people give ideas that may help non-FW 40k players WANT to se or play against FW models. write the number down.
I'm willing to bet that your first number will be higher than your second.

 EVIL INC wrote:
here ilittle excersize in math for you. As you are so much more intelligent than anyone else here I'm sure you will be able to do this.
Go through the thread and count the umber of posts where people mention that FW is legal. Write the number down
Now, go through the thread and count the number of posts where people give ideas that may help non-FW 40k players WANT to se or play against FW models. write the number down.
I'm willing to bet that your first number will be higher than your second.

And exactly what relevance does that have to what you were trying to prove?
Oh - none. You're shifting to goalposts to avoid saying you were wrong. Again.

No, that is the point I have been making all along. You tried to change the issue and backpedal tossing out strawmen when you saw that you were wrong. no need for that, we all are on occasion. I admit it when I am, I'm sure you can be adult enough to if you try hard enough.
BTW what numbers did you come up with. I'm still willing to bet the former number was greater than the latter.

 EVIL INC wrote:
No, that is the point I have been making all along. You tried to change the issue and backpedal tossing out strawmen when you saw that you were wrong. no need for that, we all are on occasion. I admit it when I am, I'm sure you can be adult enough to if you try hard enough.
BTW what numbers did you come up with. I'm still willing to bet the former number was greater than the latter.

Exactly the point is correct. Players have the right to turn down anything they want. If they don't want to play you because you have FW models is their right. If they don't want to play against a riptide spam army, they don't have to play you. THAT is the "default". now, as I suggested, you introduce them to it politely and in a way that they will WANT to play against all new stuff they have never seen before, you will get further than you would by hammering them with the "you HAVE to play me because it's legal" argument. You use that, you will get all the games you want to play, by yourself. Treating other players with dignity and respect goes a lot further.

No Strawman - unless you think someone else typed the words above (especially the bolded ones).
You are pretending people are pushing others to play them because it's legal. No one is saying that.
People are saying that declining to play because it's not legal is incorrect. But no one is saying that you should force someone to play a game because the rules are legal.

I was one of the people that said it was legal.

What I meant by that is you should be able to go to a game and expect to be able to field your Forge World rules to the same degree that you could expect any legal mainstream codex rule.

I did not mean that if the opponent refused I would take them outback and shoot them because they're not part of some kind of Forge World mafia enforcement scheme. If they want to turn down the game, fine. Just as long as they don't leave thinking that FW is somehow less "legal" or "valid" than a mainstream codex.

I know that FW tanks and models are legal if the opponent agrees to it...but what about FW attachments,tank turrets or weapons? (i expect that it is the same as tanks and models)
But would custom non OP rules be ok as you dont know the proper rules? (not gonna ask for the hammerhead missile turret rules)

Krieg!!! wrote:
I know that FW tanks and models are legal if the opponent agrees to it...but what about FW attachments,tank turrets or weapons?

Nope, they are illegal in most countries, even if both you and your opponent agree to use them in a casual game.

I heard of a friend of mine who found in the Internet someone willing to test the Tau "Remote Sensor Tower" from Imperial Armour III. They met in a basement for a 1000 points game. Unfortunately, the other guy was from the Interpol, Tau department. My friend managed to flee but was wounded. A manhunt was called and they finally shot him down in the airport while trying to flee to Venezuela. He was dumb, he refused to dump his models and a police dog detected the unmistakeble smell of Forgeworld resin.

I will miss him.

The worst part is that the other guy was using three Heldrakes. Can you believe it?

 EVIL INC wrote:
here ilittle excersize in math for you. As you are so much more intelligent than anyone else here I'm sure you will be able to do this.

Insult, reported

evil missing the point wrote:Go through the thread and count the umber of posts where people mention that FW is legal. Write the number down
Now, go through the thread and count the number of posts where people give ideas that may help non-FW 40k players WANT to se or play against FW models. write the number down.
I'm willing to bet that your first number will be higher than your second.

Again, you are either trolling or just don't understand the difference between "legal" and "have to play against"

You made the claim that people had stated you HAVE TO play against FW, because it is legal. That is a lie, and is a straw man fallacy.

Retract it

saying that you are intelligent is an insult? The mods will laugh at you. Now if I had called you stupid, THAT would be in insult. But report away at my compliments. lol
You need to re-read. There IS indeed a difference between legal and have to play against. your one extreme or the other using your strawman arguments is what we are having an issue with.
Hammering someone with "its legal" to (read this part carefully) "convince others to play against you" will not help you convince them NEAR as much as exposing them to it in a more friendly, non-oppositional manner. the ideas is to make them WANT to play you because you have interested them in the models and the new horizons the FW stuff can give them rather than feel they should out of an obligation to because it is legal.

 TheCustomLime wrote:
Why are tournaments cited as a source on how Forgeworld is to be played? I believe this is called "Appeal to Authority".

LOL Right. Appeal to self-appointed authority.

The BAO allows FW so what does that say?

Anyone with the resource can start making tournaments with their own rules. That does not constitute an authority in any way.

 Erik_Morkai wrote:

 TheCustomLime wrote:
Why are tournaments cited as a source on how Forgeworld is to be played? I believe this is called "Appeal to Authority".

LOL Right. Appeal to self-appointed authority.

The BAO allows FW so what does that say?

Anyone with the resource can start making tournaments with their own rules. That does not constitute an authority in any way.

Good point. this is why I mentioned running tourneys where it is allowed (but not required) as an idea for helping to introduce it. I have yet to see a shop that would not let you run a tourney, most would JUP at the chance to bring in the extra revenue without having to do the hassle work and the pain in the rear work of judging. I would even suggest starting a FW order and giving credit on that order as prizes.

Evil - and on ignore. I've tried to demonstrate your straw man, and now I assume you are simply trolling.

You stated people were making the claim that you HAVE TO play against FW, as it is legal.

No one made that claim. You constructed it out of thin air, and tried to then attack it. That is a straw man argument fallacy. When called on it, you pretended, more than once, that you hadn't made that argument, and tried to lie and say it was about legality. It wasn't. It still isn't.

So , ignore is the only rational action to take.

Ahhh Good. That means I will not have to see your trolling and strawman arguments after I give reasonable replies. since you will not see this (lol, I know you will still read it despite your saying you wont), I will repeat my statement that you so disagree with...

Goalposts would be more of a blood bowl issue. You might see someone model a football field to be played on (I remember seeing years ago where someone built a marine army based on a football team, they might have done it but I have never played 40k on that sort of terrain.

I will stick with my original and only stance (my earlier posts held the same stance but I had given extreme "never happen' exmples to demonstrate how browbeating "it's legal" onto people with could make them feel and you were well aware of this only purposely taking it literally to "support" your strawman argument) but my actual stance is the same as it has always been...

Hammering someone with "its legal" to "convince others to play against you" out of a sense of responsibility or duty will not help you convince them NEAR as much as exposing them to it in a more friendly, non-oppositional manner. the ideas is to make them WANT to play you because you have interested them in the models and the new horizons the FW stuff can give them rather than feel they should out of an obligation to because it is legal.

He doesn't disagree with it.
But that's not what you originally said. You've shifted the goalposts and insulted people who pointed it out. Again.
It's like a habit - you can't admit you were in the wrong.