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.

ZebioLizard2 wrote:
As I will say to him, there are little marks in the book. "For Standard Games of Warhammer 40k" with indications for basic game use, and apocalypse use if there can be a difference between them. Not "This is only suitable for non-standard games of warhammer 40k". That's what the apocalypse sticker is for.

It also says, very explicitly, the following "it is best to make sure they [your opponent] is happy to play a game using Forge World models before you start." They also always put 'standard' game and 'official' game in quotation marks or inversted commas in those references you make.

Now, looking quickly wiki, it says the following (emphasis mine):

Wikipedia wrote:
In English writing, quotation marks or inverted commas (informally referred to as quotes or speech marks)[1] are punctuation marks surrounding a quotation, direct speech, or a literal title or name. Quotation marks can also be used to indicate a different meaning of a word or phrase than the one typically associated with it and are often used to express irony.

Since we can assume it's not meant to indicate irony or a direct quote, the use of the word 'official' or 'standard' game is used as descriptive to separate it conceptually from Apocalypse, but not truly a standard game (without inverted commas) as this would denominate a game without FW models.

ZebioLizard2 wrote:
It's true meaning would be along the lines of you buy these parts from a different factory owned by someone else but produces parts for their company, it's the same parts, they may be different, they may have different specifications, but they are built for the same car. You are not going to tell someone who's bought some shiny new rims his Porsche is not a Porsche because he's using different parts for it will you?

actually yes. It would be a Porsche with modification. And if said person would try to sell his Porsche or get a guarantee service from Porsche, he would be obliged to notify people that they've used "non-standard" products by a different supplier.

It also says, very explicitly, the following "it is best to make sure they [your opponent] is happy to play a game using Forge World models before you start."

That's less a rule and more a guide line, such as the guideline "I can refuse to play you regardless of what you field if I don't feel like it" Which you can do of course, but to do it specifically because you believe there's a difference between Forgeworld and GW is silly.

The rule as you quoted, even stated they were "Official" and to be used within "Standard games" the only reasoning behind it is because they might be unknown! The rule itself says they are official models that is to be used within apocalypse or standard games. Which makes my "Don't challenge IG because they are unknown to me" on par with said rule.

actually yes. It would be a Porsche with modification. And if said person would try to sell his Porsche or get a guarantee service from Porsche, he would be obliged to notify people that they've used "non-standard" products by a different supplier.

Unless of course those parts are made by Porsche's owned subsidiary companies. In which case they can legally sell it as the same thing. The only time you would need to obligate "Non-Standard" Products is whenever you buy from an outside supplier that Porsche does not own. As outside companies they are considered outside the Porsche model frame, and thus they are considered "Non-standard" and not covered and must be declared before being sold, resold, or scrapped down for parts.

Which got a car salesmen here in trouble because he was selling Ford models that were using unregulated, outside unitsnot sold by Ford or its subsidiaries, and thus they weren't getting the money. However the lot also contained many ford models with various "specialist" parts owned by Ford and it's Subsidiaries, that were not taken back to the company and simply sold on the lot later.

As Forgeworld is an owned Subsidiary and they make parts directly for Warhammer 40k and it's variant game Apocalypse, there's no issue.

ZebioLizard2 wrote:

And here I thought only Elitist, Snobbish Forgeworld players played as rules-lawyers, but that's less a rule and more a guide line, such as the guideline "I can refuse to play you regardless of what you field if I don't feel like it" Which you can do of course, but to do it specifically because you believe there's a difference between Forgeworld and GW is silly. .

It's an unworthy argument, for sure. I've been saying for ages that one should use common sense> If one has a big fat Forgeworld Logo on the cover and the other has not, they are clearly different things. If they would have wanted them to be treated identically, they would have produced them identically. But you keep trying to sidestep this most obvious of points by astonishing feats of reality-denial.

Anyhow, if you try to "trick" your way around the rather evident difference by harping on about these lines in the IA Apocalypse, it is worthwhile looking at them correctly. And I didn't invent the definition of inverted commas in the English Language either. I just looked them up. If the FW-authors used them (and their editors vetted them), I can only assume those inverted commas are used for a reason.

And claiming one is but a "guideline" while the other is a "rule" seems rather arbitrary. If "ask your opponents" is a guideline, than those notes about using the stuff in 'official' games which appears in the exact same sentence must also be a mere guideline as well.



And no, if you use VW parts on your Porsche, it' still an unofficial modification, even though they are both from the same (parent) company.

It's an unworthy argument, for sure. I've been saying for ages that one should use common sense> If one has a big fat Forgeworld Logo on the cover and the other has not, they are clearly different things. If they would have wanted them to be treated identically, they would have produced them identically. But you keep trying to sidestep this most obvious of points by astonishing feats of reality-denial.

Zeb does not see the big fat Forgeworld logo on here, do you? My astonishing feats of reality-denial must be erasing it, point it out to me. In fact by my count I see words at the bottom proclaiming New rules for Warhammer 40,000 And Warhammer 40,000 Apocalypse

Anyhow, if you try to "trick" your way around the rather evident difference by harping on about these lines in the IA Apocalypse, it is worthwhile looking at them correctly. And I didn't invent the definition of inverted commas in the English Language either. I just looked them up. If the FW-authors used them (and their editors vetted them), I can only assume those inverted commas are used for a reason.

Assuming hm, but no credit to your words aside from the fact that there's no evidence beyond your speculation that there's any difference between Forgeworld and Warhammer 40k original, not counting the Apocalypse Variant models.

And no, if you use VW parts on your Porsche, it' still an unofficial modification, even though they are both from the same (parent) company.

There are specialist companies that produce Porsche parts they make as subsidiary companies, and no I am not saying they are putting VW parts on a Porsche, I am saying that they are putting Specialist Porsche Parts on there that aren't produced by the main company but by one of it's many Subsidiaries, which by your logic would not be an actual Porsche due to it not being produced by the main company.

ZebioLizard2 wrote:
Zeb does not see the big fat Forgeworld logo on here, do you? My astonishing feats of reality-denial must be erasing it, point it out to me. In fact by my count I see words at the bottom proclaiming New rules for Warhammer 40,000 And Warhammer 40,000 Apocalypse

Alright. IA logo, not FW logo. Same things. It's pointedly and consciously different than this>



If they look identical to you, you might need an eye-check.

Every fan-dex is "new rules for Warhammer 40,000". Doesn't mean they are on equal grounds with the official rules. If I put together a Zweischneid PDF for Zweischneid's awsome tank, it will also say "for use with Warhammer 40K" quite evidently.

ZebioLizard2 wrote:

Assuming hm, but no credit to your words aside from the fact that there's no evidence beyond your speculation that there's any difference between Forgeworld and Warhammer 40k original, not counting the Apocalypse Variant models.

There is plenty of evidence. The fact that they are from different companies. The rules/guidelines printed inside the book. The fact that IA (unlike Codexes) are not explicitly mentioned in the BRB as source of player armies. Just because you choose to willfully ignore the evidence does not make it speculation.

ZebioLizard2 wrote:


There are specialist companies that produce Porsche parts they make as subsidiary companies, and no I am not saying they are putting VW parts on a Porsche, I am saying that they are putting Specialist Porsche Parts on there that aren't produced by the main company but by one of it's many Subsidiaries, which by your logic would not be an actual Porsche due to it not being produced by the main company.

No there aren't. There might be different companies in the supply chain (like a third company that prints GW books or perhaps external consultants who do webdesign for them), but they are sold as "offical Porsche parts". If they are not sold as such, there's good reason they are not and you will be required to disclose their use as deviation from 'offical parts'.

Every fan-dex is "new rules for Warhammer 40,000". Doesn't mean they are on equal grounds with the official rules. If I put together a Zweischneid PDF for Zweischneid's awsome tank, it will also say "for use with Warhammer 40K" quite evidently.

Sure, go for it, but unlike Forgeworld I'd love to see how you'd handle a "Cease and Desist" notice because you're reproducing and trying to claim their copyright should they catch wind should it become popular

I now want a Zweischneid PDF for said awesome tank, can I have one?

There is plenty of evidence. The fact that they are from different companies. The rules/guidelines printed inside the book. The fact that IA (unlike Codexes) are not explicitly mentioned in the BRB as source of player armies. Just because you choose to willfully ignore the evidence does not make it speculation.

A company owned directly by the previous company that has has been split into two by said parent company just to specifically sell models and books for both games (Warhammer fantasy and Warhammer 40k) I kind of wish I could do as you do and separate parent companies from their subsidiaries, maybe I could ignore the fact that Bioware is owned by EA, hmm..


I'm having loads of fun, it's why I can't stop discussing and debating with you at this point though.

ZebioLizard2 wrote:
A company owned directly by the previous company that has has been split into two by said parent company just to specifically sell models and books for both games (Warhammer fantasy and Warhammer 40k) I kind of wish I could do as you do and separate parent companies from their subsidiaries, maybe I could ignore the fact that Bioware is owned by EA, hmm..


I'm having loads of fun, it's why I can't stop discussing and debating with you at this point though.

Noone is separating companies. But separating products produced by a company. Also, Bioware and EA started out as separate companies. FW and GW did not. FW was consciously and purposefully created by GW. And they purpusefully use different designs, different production teams, etc.. . Doesn't make much sense to go through all that trouble if "it's all just the same in the end anyways".

Alright, I have an honest question.

I would never look down on anyone (publicly) for refusing to play my Armored Company out of Imperial Armor vol. 1. . .

. . . but I would wonder to myself "Why? What have I done wrong?"

So riddle me this, Batman:
Why would you refuse to play against ForgeWorld rules?

rigeld2 wrote:Please stop comparing not wanting to play with FW units to ... well ... *anything* like that.
Many people have real reasons they don't want to bring in FW units.
There's no rules forcing you to interact with FW units.

Theres no rules forcing you to interact with ANY units. You can refuse to play anyone for any reason you want.

But as I said, some reasons are more stupid than others

Unit1126PLL wrote:Alright, I have an honest question.

I would never look down on anyone (publicly) for refusing to play my Armored Company out of Imperial Armor vol. 1. . .

. . . but I would wonder to myself "Why? What have I done wrong?"

So riddle me this, Batman:
Why would you refuse to play against ForgeWorld rules?

Why would you refuse to play against Zweischeid's Awsome custom tank?

As said, I doubt anyone would refuse if proper courtesy is given as outlined in the FW-books, to let other people know with enough time ahead so they know what is coming. The argument is just "deploying" a FW unit "as if it wasn't any different" than a regular Rhino or other regular 40K unit.

I don't consider it GW stuff, unlike Forgeworld, there's no officiial mention that its approved either, so your tank can stay in its box.

Zweischneid wrote:

Unit1126PLL wrote:Alright, I have an honest question.

I would never look down on anyone (publicly) for refusing to play my Armored Company out of Imperial Armor vol. 1. . .

. . . but I would wonder to myself "Why? What have I done wrong?"

So riddle me this, Batman:
Why would you refuse to play against ForgeWorld rules?

Why would you refuse to play against Zweischeid's Awsome custom tank?

As said, I doubt anyone would refuse if proper courtesy is given as outlined in the FW-books, to let other people know with enough time ahead so they know what is coming. The argument is just "deploying" a FW unit "as if it wasn't any different" than a regular Rhino or other regular 40K unit.

Honestly, I wouldn't refuse to play against your tank if you had a copy of the rules. Hell, it might even turn out to be suitably epic!

So why wouldn't you play against Forge World rules again? I never did get a straight answer I don't think . . . if I missed it I'm sorry.

Unit1126PLL wrote:
So why wouldn't you play against Forge World rules again? I never did get a straight answer I don't think . . . if I missed it I'm sorry.

I would not refuse to play against Forge World rules. I would refuse to play against a player who would try to "rule-lawyer" his Forgeworld units into the game with condescending arguments and would make arrogant prejudgements about people who would opt to not play FW such as these>

Fear is the main reason.

Fear of the unknown
Fear of losing
Fear of having their cookie-cutter meta upset.

It's a question of character on the opposite player on how he opts to approach the subject, not of the rules themselves. Unfortunately in my (admittedly limited and personal) experience, FW tends to attract the worst sort of persons in the hobby: people who often exhibit "elitist" or "snobbish" behaviour on the false assumption their FW-models somehow make them "better" or more "advanced" fans of toy soldiers: and that those who would prefer a game without FW are not their equal, but rather ignorant fools that would need to be educated. So I've grown perhaps a bit too weary, not of FW, but of the sort of players that tend to flock to it.

Zweischneid wrote:

Unit1126PLL wrote:
So why wouldn't you play against Forge World rules again? I never did get a straight answer I don't think . . . if I missed it I'm sorry.

I would not refuse to play against Forge World rules. I would refuse to play against a player who would try to "rule-lawyer" his Forgeworld units into the game with condescending arguments and would make arrogant prejudgements about people who would opt to not play FW such as these>

Oh, that's unfortunate, then. There's a misunderstanding here - the FWphiles think that the only way to get through to the other side is by rules-lawyering. I don't know why they think that.

Zweischneid wrote:

Fear is the main reason.

Fear of the unknown
Fear of losing
Fear of having their cookie-cutter meta upset.

It's a question of character on the opposite player on how he opts to approach the subject, not of the rules themselves. Unfortunately in my (admittedly limited and personal) experience, FW tends to attract the worst sort of persons in the hobby: people who often exhibit "elitist" or "snobbish" behaviour on the false assumption their FW-models somehow make them "better" or more "advanced" fans of toy soldiers: and that those who would prefer a game without FW are not their equal, but rather ignorant fools that would need to be educated. So I've grown perhaps a bit too weary, not of FW, but of the sort of players that tend to flock to it.

So the real reason you won't play against Forge World models is that the people who use them are generally snobs? That's unfortunate - I try to not be a snob, and I would hope that to assume everyone who plays them is a snob is a bit of an over-generalization.

And to clarify - those of us who play with Forge World models don't believe they're better or more advanced fans of toy soldiers. They're just disappointed when they can't use the very expensive, very beautiful, and very reasonable model they've assembled and painted. Especially when Forge World itself stamps such models with labels such as "Warhammer 40k Approved" and "Official."

Yes the caveat is there that you should clarify with your opponent, but at least what goes through my head is "What kind of person would refuse to play this model? It's a beauty and has entertaining rules!"

I hope that helps you see my views as well as you have opened yours to me.

Unit1126PLL wrote:Oh, that's unfortunate, then. There's a misunderstanding here - the FWphiles think that the only way to get through to the other side is by rules-lawyering. I don't know why they think that.

That's a pretty broad brush. I'm a 'FWphile'. But I'm a big supporter of 'bring two lists, one without FW, and ask first'. There's no reason to get into a huge argument about the man-dollies.Just prepare for the eventuality that someone might not want to have them in a game.

I just get annoyed when people against Forgeworld make things up to justify their stance on not liking Forgeworld stuff.

-Loki- wrote:

Unit1126PLL wrote:Oh, that's unfortunate, then. There's a misunderstanding here - the FWphiles think that the only way to get through to the other side is by rules-lawyering. I don't know why they think that.

That's a pretty broad brush. I'm a 'FWphile'. But I'm a big supporter of 'bring two lists, one without FW, and ask first'. There's no reason to get into a huge argument about the man-dollies.Just prepare for the eventuality that someone might not want to have them in a game.

I just get annoyed when people against Forgeworld make things up to justify their stance on not liking Forgeworld stuff.

You're right - I even inadvertently included myself - it's too early in the morning. I should've said:

that's what some FWphiles think.

Thought for the Day:
Insomnia begets Heresy, Heresy begets Angry Forumgoers.

They shouldn't be called New Rules for WH40k (as per the front of the IA book above). They aren't. They are supplementary, alternative or an optional addon they are not intended for integration into the 5th ed RB.

The 5th ed RB and official Rule FAQ's (Black Templars for example) are the official 40k rules.

Anything else is an optional extra, they designed to be complimentary, additional, supplementary rules to the official 40k rules. Usually to add further interest for more experienced players, or to change dynamics, FOC, to have larger scale battles or special battles. They are not New 40k Rules, no new 40k Rule Book is released with all this incorporated because simply it is required.

Cities of Death is a different modified set of rules to the normal 40k Rules.

As is Planetstrike, as is FW IA releases or anything else that is supplementary and optional.

The crux of this is the lack of understanding of modified rulesets that supplement the Core rules of 40k. Everyone has the 40k Rule Books, it is the single defining feature of all these addon's.

It is nice to see some reasonable FW players for a change.

Generally however, this very thread is a testament to the crude vilifaction of people who would opt to not play FW.


Just from the first page>

H.B.M.C. wrote:

gmaleron wrote:As the title of the thread says why do people have a beef with taking Forgeworld lists/models in games?

The human condition:

1. People are afraid of things they don't understand (eg. they haven't read the FW rules, therefore they don't know what it does, therefore they are scared of it).
2. People are afraid of losing.

Combine the two and you have the reason why people dislike FW.

Erik_Morkai wrote:Fear is the main reason.

Fear of the unknown
Fear of losing
Fear of having their cookie-cutter meta upset.

wolf13 wrote:some people look for any advantage, and denying FW units is a good way to throw an opposing player off balance before the game even starts

zachjattack wrote:The reason why people hate Forgeworld is because people like to call everything a copy, or gay just because.

That is the reality one faces each and every time one dares voice the opinion to rather not play FW this time. It generally is an odd mix of "people who refuse FW are Noobs who don't understand it" and "people who refuse FW are inconsiderate WAAC-players with no love for the hobby who would deny FW to gain cheap advantages or fear loosing their "cookie-cutter list". In each case, the implication is that people who do use FW are a) more seasoned hobbyist with a greater understanding of the rules and b) more "mature" hobbyists who may look down on (presumed) WAAC-players or c) both of them together, as little sense as it makes.

And as pointed out, being "vetted" to be used with 40K doesn't mean its vetted to be used with 40K all the time and without exception and no prior notice. Different things.

mwnciboo wrote:They shouldn't be called New Rules for WH40k (as per the front of the IA book above). They aren't. They are supplementary, alternative or an optional addon they are not intended for integration into the 5th ed RB

You don't get to make that call. If they are branded new rules, then they are new rules. End. Of. Story.

Kaldor wrote:You don't get to make that call. If they are branded new rules, then they are new rules. End. Of. Story.

Planetstrike is also branded new rules.

mwnciboo wrote:They shouldn't be called New Rules for WH40k (as per the front of the IA book above). They aren't. They are supplementary, alternative or an optional addon they are not intended for integration into the 5th ed RB.

The 5th ed RB and official Rule FAQ's (Black Templars for example) are the official 40k rules.

Anything else is an optional extra, they designed to be complimentary, additional, supplementary rules to the official 40k rules. They are not New 40k Rules, no new BRB is released with all this incorporated.

Cities of Death is a different set of rules to the normal 40k Rules.

As is Planetstrike, as is FW IA releases or anything else that is supplementary and optional.

The crux of this is the lack of understanding of modified rulesets that supplement the Core rules of 40k. Everyone has the 40k Rule Books, it is the single defining feature of all these addon's.

Wait, where does it say Forge World is complimentary, additional, or supplementary to the official rules?

You yourself says that it reads on the cover "New Rules for Warhammer 40,000." This implies, to me, that they are indeed new rules for Warhammer 40,000. I fail to see the part where they are in the same class as planetstrike.

With that said, it does say to ask in the book. But I want to put FW in a third category - not a supplement, not implicit in standard 40k, but simply FW.

Zweischneid wrote:It is nice to see some reasonable FW players for a change.

Generally however, this very thread is a testament to the crude vilifaction of people who would opt to not play FW.


Just from the first page>

H.B.M.C. wrote:

gmaleron wrote:As the title of the thread says why do people have a beef with taking Forgeworld lists/models in games?

The human condition:

1. People are afraid of things they don't understand (eg. they haven't read the FW rules, therefore they don't know what it does, therefore they are scared of it).
2. People are afraid of losing.

Combine the two and you have the reason why people dislike FW.

Erik_Morkai wrote:Fear is the main reason.

Fear of the unknown
Fear of losing
Fear of having their cookie-cutter meta upset.

wolf13 wrote:some people look for any advantage, and denying FW units is a good way to throw an opposing player off balance before the game even starts

zachjattack wrote:The reason why people hate Forgeworld is because people like to call everything a copy, or gay just because.

That is the reality one faces each and every time one dares voice the opinion to rather not play FW this time.

And as pointed out, being "vetted" to be used with 40K doesn't mean its vetted to be used with 40K all the time and without exception and no prior notice. Different things.

I understand your post - it is frustration on the FWphile side of things because we can't seem to see the rationality of not playing against Forge World.

As for the second part of your post, I'm afraid I only slightly understand, so I'm going to try to put it in my own words to see if I have it:
"Being made to fit well into the standard 40k system doesn't mean it DOES fit well into the 40k system all the time and without exception or prior notice."

40k 5th Edition is the Rule set.

You cannot buy another book and get the complete rules, because it is not a complete ruleset. You need the 5th 40k book to play. This is without question. It is definitive.

This is why I use the term supplementary, IA books/Apoc etc are not standalone they require the 40k rulebook in order to play but add additional items in (such as Structure points, and the extra damage tables etc).

If you went to a regular (non Apoc or CoD et al )40k Tournament and said "Oh no, what do you mean I cannot use my Ork Mega-dread it's in the Apocalypse book". You would be asked to leave or worse mocked.

At GT's and other tournaments it is laid out clearly what rules are to be used, what codices and also what additional rules and new FAQ's are to be used. It is often the case that new Codex's are not allowed despite them being released. This was the case last autumn when the New Necron stuff came out, now it is integrated, but at release it was too new and the Tournament rules had already been written.

I love FW stuff, look at my Ironhands on my Pics. However there is a time and a place, you want to play FW units, arrange with the player before hand, go to an APOC/ CoD game but don't bitch about the fact that you cannot use additional rules all the time on the core rule set.

Unit1126PLL wrote:

mwnciboo wrote:They shouldn't be called New Rules for WH40k (as per the front of the IA book above). They aren't. They are supplementary, alternative or an optional addon they are not intended for integration into the 5th ed RB.

The 5th ed RB and official Rule FAQ's (Black Templars for example) are the official 40k rules.

Anything else is an optional extra, they designed to be complimentary, additional, supplementary rules to the official 40k rules. They are not New 40k Rules, no new BRB is released with all this incorporated.

Cities of Death is a different set of rules to the normal 40k Rules."

Being a different set of rules does make it "new rules", or not? Where is the difference?

mwnciboo wrote:40k 5th Edition is the Rule set.

You cannot buy another book and get the complete rules, because it is not a complete ruleset. You need the 5th 40k book to play. This is without question. It is definitive.

This is why I use the term supplementary, they are not standalone.

If you went to a 40k Tournament and said "Oh no, what do you mean I cannot use my Ork Mega-dread it's in the Apocalypse book". You would be asked to leave or worse mocked.

At GT's and other tournaments it is laid out clearly what rules are to be used, what codices and also what additional rules and new FAQ's are to be used.

Wait are the codexes supplements then? Because you need them beyond the 40k BRB.

And Tourneys are a whole new ball game - I totally agree that if FW isn't allowed at a tourney then don't bring it.

No because you cannot fight 40k without a codex can you? The BRB references the Codex for FOC, Units, characters etc. It does not reference CoD, Apocalypse, IA et al.

It seems like your clutching at straws here.

As another example, Flames of War you can because 3rd Edition (Hardback) Rule book comes with force lists, but you can buy other lists from Intel books (like a codex). But then other games such as Bagration Campaigns, Firestorm Campaigns add extra over and above the core ruleset and are fought in a different way.

At my local club, we happily play for fun, but it is extremely bad form to turn up with a big FW unit and say deal with that. Some of the Khorne Players love their brass Scorpions etc, I like playing them, but I also say okay, well I want to change my FOC so I have an extra Heavy or Elite slot? Or maybe change my Landraider to an achilles or something. Some units are too powerful to be fielded in standard games. but you cannot turn up and dick move someone buy sticking a gargant down and then saying to 4 Tactical Squads in Rhino's "Deal with that Space Mongs". It's a root to a smack in the mouth and being a social pariah WAAC tool.

Being polite, well adjusted, fair and sportsmanlike is about give and take. This is a social hobby, so like many things you must compromise and accept things you might not necessarily like to. Like the law on the minimum age to drink alcohol or to vote, or anything else. Life is about rules and being a gentleman is about being reasonable and rational.

mwnciboo wrote:No because you cannot fight 40k without a codex can you? The BRB references the Codex for FOC, Units, characters etc. It does not reference CoD, Apocalypse, IA et al. It seems like your clutching at straws here.

Flames of War you can because 3rd Edition comes with force lists.

But my point is:

A codex is not the BRB, nor is it a supplement.

Planetstrike is a supplement, not a codex or the BRB.

Imperial Armor is 'new rules,' not a codex, supplement, or the BRB. Hence the third category I called for earlier.

I think what the FW users are trying to say here is that, of course, we can't force you on gunpoint to play against FW units, but really I see no reason why you wouldn't play against somebody with FW, If I play against somebody I'll ask him if he minds playing with FW, but if he doesn't want to, unless he gives me a good reason I'm not going to play him at all.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

mwnciboo wrote:No because you cannot fight 40k without a codex can you? The BRB references the Codex for FOC, Units, characters etc. It does not reference CoD, Apocalypse, IA et al.

You can indeed fight without a codex. Using IA lists.

You cannot fight core 40k without a codex. e.g BRB + Codex

You can fight 40k with supplementary rules, e.g BRB + IA

What you are arguing is cyclic logic, self reinforcing in the face of facts.

mwnciboo wrote:You cannot fight core 40k without a codex. e.g BRB + Codex

You can fight 40k with supplementary rules, e.g BRB + IA

What you are arguing is cyclic logic, self reinforcing in the face of facts.

jgehunter wrote:

mwnciboo wrote:No because you cannot fight 40k without a codex can you? The BRB references the Codex for FOC, Units, characters etc. It does not reference CoD, Apocalypse, IA et al.

You can indeed fight without a codex. Using IA lists.

Yes, you can actually play 40k without a codex. Just use the IA lists ....

.... to reiterate.

It's not 40k, it's 40k + additional rules.

There is subtle but distinct difference you are failing to recognise.

A Computer game is played and enjoyed. Someone from another company decides to modify it and add extra's into the game under license. Is it still the same game? Or a Modified version? If you bought the Original Game what would you expect to receive the original or the modified one? If you were describing them are they the same or different? Are they near identical yes, but they have differences and do not share the same name or attributes.

You can play the original, but then if you moan about it not being as good as the modified one, play that one. You wouldn't expect developers to go back to the original game and modify to the 3rd party company's requirements.

FW is a third Party, i know it's ridiculous but it is a separate entity despite being on the same site et al.

If it was Core 40k then people would play IA at GT's they don't because it's not in the strictest sense Core 40k 5th edition, it is a supplementary book and units made by a third party.