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.

Has anyone had any problems playing with people at their FLGS about playing with forge world models with the 40K stamp? I'm thinking about getting a nightwing and I want to see about using it in 40K games thanks!

The rules of the game as published by GW make it perfectly clear that "40k approved" FW units are part of standard 40k.

Some people dislike FW rules and impose a house rule that you can't use them.

The only way to find out whether you'll be allowed to use your Nightwing is to ask the people you play with whether they play by the rules of the game or by their own house rules. Polling a random internet forum is not going to help you.

Another one of these threads...

FW is a portion of GW. All FW is, is the resin model maker for GW (AKA not failcast). They also decided to make these models and give them rules.

They wouldn't make the models and give them rules if you weren't supposed to use them in the game. So yes, it's "officially" legal.

Some people house-rule no FW, but I haven't met anyone who isn't OK with it

The 40k rule book doesn't allow for third party miniatures for standard play (much less whatever third party rules accompany them). The only way you can add in stuff outside of what the 40k rulebook says is permissible, whether it's with non-citadel miniatures, or whether it's stuff from a fandex you wrote in your garage, is by getting your opponent's permission to play with them first.

Your local gaming group can set up house rules to automatically include non-40k stuff if you want, but you shouldn't go in expecting that unless you know for sure that's how they do it.

This will be interesting.

I'm wondering if there's ever been an official stance on this from GW to clear up the confusion?

Short version, I think, is just check with your FLGS in question and game on.

Im waiting for a lock haha


Anyway....has anyone tried actually calling or emailing, if you live near their HQ might as well just go to them directly, them to ask this exact question? I feel like this is just gonna continue until GW steps in and just says yay or nay.

I'm pretty sure GW has said yay before, but i could be mistaken

TheAngrySquig wrote:I'm pretty sure GW has said yay before, but i could be mistaken

If so, I'd like to see where.

I mean, you can't use WHFB units and rules in your 40k games by default. I'd certainly need to see a page number for where something like that would happen (like where the 40k rulebook talks about white dwarf, for example).

Well seeing as FW actually is a subsidiary of GW, I would be surprised if they said no. But I'm gonna have to do a bit of research.

Anyway, doesn't really matter if you house-rule it either way. This only really matters for "Official GW Tournaments" which never really happen in the States so that is irrelevant for us really

 Ailaros wrote:

I mean, you can't use WHFB units and rules in your 40k games by default.

If GW Published material stated "Intended for regular games of 40k" you sure could.

But I digress, this argument has been had a million times before, and always denatures into mindless repeated "I believe this." "No, you're wrong, I believe this instead."

The OP wasn't even about legality, so it'd really be the smart thing to not even touch legality.

To properly address the OP, all that needs to be said is: "Some FLGS's are more friendly to the use of FW stuff than others. It's case-specific, and best of luck if you endeavor to use yours."

/thread

The best bet for the OP is to just take it along to games. Don't act like a dick about it, and make sure you've got the rules to hand so people can review them, but don't go in asking for permission. That gives the other player a power of veto that they shouldn't have with an official model. Of course, the other player retains their innate power of veto, in that they can refuse to play against anything for any reason. But if you don't specifically ask them, you take away a lot of their perceived power. If they don't want to play against it, they need to find an acceptable reason rather than simply saying "No, you can't use that unit."

It's like getting your kids to eat veggies. You don't ask them if they want veggies, because they'll say no. You ask them if they want carrots, or beans. You present the situation as if the choice has already been made. As I said, this doesn't remove their ability to dig their heels in and refuse, but it does make it a lot less likely.

 Evertras wrote:
I'm wondering if there's ever been an official stance on this from GW to clear up the confusion?

They did.



It's in all the newer IA books.

Is it this time again already?

 Ailaros wrote:
The 40k rule book doesn't allow for third party miniatures for standard play (much less whatever third party rules accompany them).

Forge World is not a third-party company. They are a brand name used to sell GW products. Arguing that they should be excluded as third-party stuff makes about as much sense (that is, absolutely none at all) as arguing that Finecast models should be excluded because they are sold with a different brand name.

The only way you can add in stuff outside of what the 40k rulebook says is permissible, whether it's with non-citadel miniatures, or whether it's stuff from a fandex you wrote in your garage, is by getting your opponent's permission to play with them first.

GW, the people who actually decide what is permissible, disagree with you. That's why they publish additions to the game in FW books and WD issues, as well as online FAQs and errata. Your opinion otherwise does not matter.

(Yes, you can choose to house rule away those additions, but that doesn't change the fact that your policy is a house rule, not the standard rules of the game.)

 Ailaros wrote:
If so, I'd like to see where.

Every single book GW publishes under the "Forge World" brand name. But of course you know this already.

Well one can accurately set a watch to this at least.

Peregrine wrote:GW, the people who actually decide what is permissible

They do. So what?

The rules for a game can be found in the rulebook. If the same person owns a football team and a baseball team, it doesn't mean that they can just interchange players and rules as they like. Even if they can, they have to publish the changes as actual rules, in the rulebook. Which, in this case, they didn't.

Peregrine wrote:Forge World is not a third-party company. They are a brand name used to sell GW products.

And you can't use WHFB units and rules. I can't use Talisman units or rules.

A game is a self-contained unit. What other things the same company makes is irrelevant. We're playing a game called 40k, not a game called games workshop.

Peregrine wrote:GW, the people who actually decide what is permissible, disagree with you. That's why they publish additions to the game in FW books and WD issues, as well as online FAQs and errata.

Interesting that you brought that up, given that you believe...

Peregrine 489412 4991354 wrote:FAQs are not official, and you are free to ignore them if you disagree with them.

So, when a game company comments on the rules to a game you can ignore them, but when a game company makes stuff outside of the rules for the game they're mandatory?

I think the reason that things get derailed so quickly is because you use a strange and constantly shifting definition of what's official and what isn't. It's difficult to dialogue with or learn anything from a source that is inconsistent and doesn't use words in the same way that everyone else does.

Twisting words to win arguments is completely pointless. We're here to enrich, not to conquer. In this case, what we should learn from this is that if you're playing a game by the rules for the game, you can and cannot do certain things, and if you want to do them anyways, you have to ask permission.

 Ailaros wrote:
they have to publish the changes as actual rules, in the rulebook. Which, in this case, they didn't.

No, they don't.

Are you really suggesting that you'd refuse to play against Sisters of Battle?

 Ailaros wrote:
They do. So what?

The rules for a game can be found in the rulebook. If the same person owns a football team and a baseball team, it doesn't mean that they can just interchange players and rules as they like. Even if they can, they have to publish the changes as actual rules, in the rulebook. Which, in this case, they didn't.

That's a terrible analogy because the person who owns a football team is NOT the highest level of rules-deciding. The league sets the rules which the owners are bound by. An owner trying to change the rules would be the equivalent of a random 40k player (like you) declaring what is and isn't legal.

Whether you like it or not GW has set a policy that FW is legal, and that they are allowed to publish changes and additions to their rules in places other than the core rulebook.

And you can't use WHFB units and rules. I can't use Talisman units or rules.

A game is a self-contained unit. What other things the same company makes is irrelevant. We're playing a game called 40k, not a game called games workshop.

Oh FFS. Please tell me you aren't honestly that stupid and you're just trolling. Is it really that hard to see the difference between products published with an explicit "this is part of game X" label and products published with an explicit "this is part of game Y" label, and why the first set is part of game X and the second set isn't?

So, when a game company comments on the rules to a game you can ignore them, but when a game company makes stuff outside of the rules for the game they're mandatory?

Nice job taking that post completely out of contest. What you dishonestly failed to mention is that at the time I said that GW's published statement was that their FAQs were not official rulings. At the time it was a true statement, and it's incredibly dishonest of you to quote it out of context without mentioning that fact.

Twisting words to win arguments is completely pointless. We're here to enrich, not to conquer. In this case, what we should learn from this is that if you're playing a game by the rules for the game, you can and cannot do certain things, and if you want to do them anyways, you have to ask permission.

Exactly.

If you're playing by the rules of the game as determined by the people who publish the game FW rules (as well as errata, WD additions, etc) are part of the game and may be used freely without restriction.

If you want to play a game with a special "no FW" house rule then you need to ask permission.


It's really that simple. The only reason there's any disagreement at all is that people like you are terrified of admitting that your house rule is just a house rule.

 Ailaros wrote:

The rules for a game can be found in the rulebook. If the same person owns a football team and a baseball team, it doesn't mean that they can just interchange players and rules as they like. Even if they can, they have to publish the changes as actual rules, in the rulebook. Which, in this case, they didn't.

That's a pretty bad analogy to be honest. In your analogy, we are talking two completely separate games and two unrelated things that can't be interchanged because a Baseball player can't play Football.

In our case, we are talking the core 40k Game, and the rules published BY GW under their subsidiary company Forge World. Both can be used for the core 40k game.
And to be honest, why do you bother entering these threads anymore? You are the only one that's usually against FW stuff. Everyone else usually understands that they are allowed, but they just don't want to use it. Just get it through your brain that most people disagree with you, and save the argument time. You don't come up with valid points, and most people arguing against you don't either. Why try? Im trying to save YOU breath.


To just end this, can we all agree on one thing. FW IS allowed at GW Official Events (from what I have seen, they allow it. Please cite me if im wrong, im curious), and otherwise it is a house-rule if you want to use FW or not. That's all that matters.


EDIT: Can we also get someone to lock this, or bury it? This comes up weekly, and it always boils down into a "YOUR WRONG, NO YOUR WRONG, NO YOUR WRONG" argument.

 Ailaros wrote:

Peregrine wrote:GW, the people who actually decide what is permissible

They do. So what?

The rules for a game can be found in the rulebook. If the same person owns a football team and a baseball team, it doesn't mean that they can just interchange players and rules as they like. Even if they can, they have to publish the changes as actual rules, in the rulebook. Which, in this case, they didn't.

So my Tyranids use the Instinctive Behaviour rule in the rulebook? Which page exactly is it on?

Your arguments about Forgeworld being illegal get more asinine every time you post about it. Forgeworld is legal - you, as a player, have a right to not play a person using a Forgeworld model or rules. That doesn't make them any less legal, insomuch as everything then would be illegal since you can rfuse to play against anything for any reason. It just means that you, as a player, don't like them. You don't have to try to foist your ideas of legality, as incorrect as they are, on others, when what you are really doing is simply stating an opinion and expecting people to take as rule.

Kaldor wrote:Are you really suggesting that you'd refuse to play against Sisters of Battle?

No, why should I?

Peregrine wrote:If you're playing by the rules of the game as determined by the people who publish the game FW rules are part of the game and may be used freely without restriction.

If you're playing by the rules of the game as they are written, FW rules aren't part of the game, and may not be used freely without permission.

The source doesn't matter.

Peregrine wrote:Is it really that hard to see the difference between products published with an explicit "this is part of game X" label and products published with an explicit "this is part of game Y" label, and why the first set is part of game X and the second set isn't?

I can see the difference. I'm saying that it's irrelevant.

Peregrine wrote:Whether you like it or not GW has set a policy that FW is legal, and that they are allowed to publish changes and additions to their rules in places other than the core rulebook.

Sure. Lots of people can publish lots of changes and additions to the rules to a game. There are lots of ways you can publish said add-ons as well. For example, the rulebook explicitly mentions a few, like FAQs and things in White Dwarf.

If a game's rules don't say that it's allowed, though, then it's not allowed. FW units have the same standing as fandex units, regardless of who comes up with the add-ons or what they say. If I make up some rules and say it's official 40k, that doesn't make them so, and the same is true for whatever gaming company wants to come up with them.

In this case, FW units are voluntary expansions like apololypse or planetstrike. You can't just start busting out rules from other places, regardless of source, and expect to be able to play with them in the core game.

Peregrine wrote:at the time I said that GW's published statement was that their FAQs were not official rulings. At the time it was a true statement

So your vendettas can't outflank now? Great.

And, I'd note, FAQs were legal at the time. You were trying to say that it didn't matter because FAQs aren't errata. This is actually rather important to the conversation about what you mean when you say words. You were arbitrarily picking and choosing what non-rulebook things should be followed and what should be without really fleshing out why. Just like now.

 Ailaros wrote:

Kaldor wrote:Are you really suggesting that you'd refuse to play against Sisters of Battle?

No, why should I?

Because they don't have a currently available codex nor rules in the rulebook.

 Ailaros wrote:

Kaldor wrote:Are you really suggesting that you'd refuse to play against Sisters of Battle?

No, why should I?

Well, you're suggesting that rules not published in the rulebooks are illegal. Which would, of course, cover Sisters of Battle as they have no codex. Are they illegal too?

 Ailaros wrote:

Kaldor wrote:Are you really suggesting that you'd refuse to play against Sisters of Battle?

No, why should I?

Third times the charm!

Because the only SoB codex right now is from WD

I guess I'll post this too, just to get the point across. This:




Means exactly what it says. Such Forgeworld units in a40K game are considered legal by GW. They suggest, though, that you get a friendly agreement with your opponent before you field them, or at least make the rules readily available to them so they aren't "Snookered" by rules they don't know about.


Of course, that last part is entirely subjective. Some players are going to be dicks about it and refuse because they don't like FW stuff because of some percieved quality of FW to make game-breaking rules. But then again, those players are also the ones that would refuse to play armies that only have White Dwarf codexes, or they wil refuse to play you because they don't like how your army doesn't fit "their" image of how that army should look, etc, etc, etc.

Hell that last FW caveat can just as easily apply to any perfectly legal army I am facing, if I wanted to be nasty about it, by using the theory that "I'm not familiar with the Necron rules, you can't use them". (Not that I personally would).

In short, play with friends who don't mind Forgeworld stuff, and you won't have a problem, same as anything with this game.

-Loki- wrote:Because they don't have a currently available codex nor rules in the rulebook.

What?

I'm looking at page 411 of my rulebook, and right there are stats for sisters of battle units. Also, page 195 is really confusing if sisters of battle don't exist.

Last I checked, they still had a codex, and still had models, whether you could buy them directly from GW or not.

Furthermore, the rule book talks about changes to the rules in white dwarf. It's on page 309. Tell me, on what page is the word "forgeworld" printed?

AegisGrimm wrote:Such Forgeworld units in a 40K game are considered legal by GW.

But we're talking about 40k, not about games workshop. If I make my own rules, and then consider them legal for 40k are they? No.

The source doesn't matter.

*Sigh*

Much like anything that's this much fuss in 40K, it's mainly because this is 2012, not the 90's. At least to me, the game is much more crabby lately.

 Ailaros wrote:

-Loki- wrote:Because they don't have a currently available codex nor rules in the rulebook.

What?

I'm looking at page 411 of my rulebook, and right there are stats for sisters of battle units. Also, page 195 is really confusing if sisters of battle don't exist.

So now you're arguing that the stats in the rulebook consist of everything needed to field a Sisters of Battle army?

 Ailaros wrote:
Last I checked, they still had a codex, and still had models, whether you could buy them directly from GW or not.

Want to point me to where GW sell the Sisters of Battle codex? I wouldn't mind owning a copy.

 Ailaros wrote:

-Loki- wrote:Because they don't have a currently available codex nor rules in the rulebook.

What?

I'm looking at page 411 of my rulebook, and right there are stats for sisters of battle units. Also, page 195 is really confusing if sisters of battle don't exist.

Last I checked, they still had a codex, and still had models, whether you could buy them directly from GW or not.

True on the RB part. Searching GW's website, I haven't been able to find the codex though....my search for a codex though has constantly redirected me to the WD one however....

Also, I can't remember where I read this so excuse me, but in the new WD book they changed the stats of units to balance things (as they ones in the RB weren't too good).

And just the stats can't let you field them, so without that WD dex thats kinda useless

 Ailaros wrote:
No, why should I?

Because they are not a codex or part of the core rulebook, so by your own argument they are not part of the game. There is no consistent standard for legality that includes SoB but excludes FW.

If you're playing by the rules of the game as they are written, FW rules aren't part of the game, and may not be used freely without permission.

The people who get to decide that have decided, by putting a "this is part of the game" statement on FW rules. The fact that you wish it was otherwise doesn't change anything.

I can see the difference. I'm saying that it's irrelevant.

Of course it's relevant. A set of rules is part of the standard game if and only if two things are true: it is published by someone with the authority to decide that it is legal (whether directly or under license) AND it says "this is part of the game".

FW rules are part of the game because both requirements are met.

WHFB rules are not part of the game because the "this is part of the game" half is missing.

Your fanxdex is not part of the game because you don't have the authority to declare that it is.

Sure. Lots of people can publish lots of changes and additions to the rules to a game. There are lots of ways you can publish said add-ons as well. For example, the rulebook explicitly mentions a few, like FAQs and things in White Dwarf.

And GW had declared beyond any dispute that one of the methods in which they publish additions to the game is through their Forge World brand.

If a game's rules don't say that it's allowed, though, then it's not allowed.

The game's rules DO say that it's allowed.

FW units have the same standing as fandex units, regardless of who comes up with the add-ons or what they say. If I make up some rules and say it's official 40k, that doesn't make them so, and the same is true for whatever gaming company wants to come up with them.

Please stop trolling.

You know perfectly well that FW is just a brand name used by GW, not a separate company.

In this case, FW units are voluntary expansions like apololypse or planetstrike. You can't just start busting out rules from other places, regardless of source, and expect to be able to play with them in the core game.

GW's official statements say otherwise.

So your vendettas can't outflank now? Great.

Of course they can, but not because I reject the FAQ as unofficial. Vendettas can outflank because the FAQ doesn't say what you think it does.

And, I'd note, FAQs were legal at the time. You were trying to say that it didn't matter because FAQs aren't errata. This is actually rather important to the conversation about what you mean when you say words. You were arbitrarily picking and choosing what non-rulebook things should be followed and what should be without really fleshing out why. Just like now.

Oh FFS, does your dishonesty have no limits?

In 5th edition by GW's own statements FAQs were not official. Their policy was very simple:

Errata = official changes (typo corrections, etc).

FAQs = our suggested answers to ambiguous situations, but feel free to come up with your own solution

You dishonestly quoted me talking about GW's OLD policy when what I said was true, not the current policy where I would not have said that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ailaros wrote:
But we're talking about 40k, not about games workshop. If I make my own rules, and then consider them legal for 40k are they? No.

The source doesn't matter.

Why is this so difficult for you to understand?

When GW publishes a statement saying "X is now part of 40k" they, as the creators and publisher of 40k, have the authority to make that statement and X becomes part of the game.

When you publish a statement saying "Y is now part of 40k" you have no authority to make that statement, and we just ignore you.

This got WAY off from the OP. My question is do most people at a FLGS have a problem with playing with FW models as long as they have the 40K stamp. That was my question, please answer it or take your other opinions elsewhere, or I will lock this thread.