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.

rigeld2 wrote:
With a different supply chain and lots of other differences...

Which doesn't mean it isn't official Warhammer 40,000 product, it just means that it's done through different channels.

edit: Also, I was being told that the GW copyright is what makes it a GW book. I've shown that the GW copyright is on the DoW games and therefore is not alone evidence that it is a GW book.
And everywhere I've seen has Forgeworld being a separate company - where do you see that they're DBA? (I could be completely blind)

DBA is Doing Business As, when a company operates or performs some functions under a different name. My company does something similar we have software we sell under another name that integrates with our primary programs because under it's original name it didn't do as well because people didn't associate the brand name with that type of software and didn't trust it initially, however when they call in for support, deployment or training it all goes to the same place.

FW's offices are located at GW's headquarters, they operate mostly autonomously, but they're still all GW employees at a GW building and paid by GW selling GW products.

 Vaktathi wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
With a different supply chain and lots of other differences...

Which doesn't mean it isn't official Warhammer 40,000 product, it just means that it's done through different channels.

My company has plants in 15 states. Very few buy raw materials from the same manufacturing plant or even venders. Even fewer share common delivery companies or methods.

Try again.

rigeld2 wrote:
Is the Dawn of War series of video games a GW product?
Warhammer 40,000: Dawn of War -- Copyright © Games Workshop Limited 2008. (http://www.dawnofwargame.com/uk/home/agegate)

Yep. The source code for the game, however, is © THQ.

 Vaktathi wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
With a different supply chain and lots of other differences...

Which doesn't mean it isn't official Warhammer 40,000 product, it just means that it's done through different channels.

edit: Also, I was being told that the GW copyright is what makes it a GW book. I've shown that the GW copyright is on the DoW games and therefore is not alone evidence that it is a GW book.
And everywhere I've seen has Forgeworld being a separate company - where do you see that they're DBA? (I could be completely blind)

DBA is Doing Business As, when a company operates or performs some functions under a different name. My company does something similar we have software we sell under another name that integrates with our primary programs because under it's original name it didn't do as well because people didn't associate the brand name with that type of software and didn't trust it initially, however when they call in for support, deployment or training it all goes to the same place.

FW's offices are located at GW's headquarters, they operate mostly autonomously, but they're still all GW employees at a GW building and paid by GW selling GW products.

I'm aware of what DBA means. The FW wiki page says they're a separate company (not that I trust wikipedia to be 100% correct... or even 10%) and I seem to remember them starting as a separate company way back when. I can't find much else either way.

2 companies sharing the same building and employees isn't unheard of, especially when one owns the other. I used to work for a company that did that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
Is the Dawn of War series of video games a GW product?
Warhammer 40,000: Dawn of War -- Copyright © Games Workshop Limited 2008. (http://www.dawnofwargame.com/uk/home/agegate)

Yep. The source code for the game, however, is © THQ.

So... You're saying that DoW is a GW product. Cool story bro.

Sidstyler wrote:I'd like to know what counts as a legitimate concern then, since everything I've seen brought up so far has just been immediately written off.

Legitimate concerns about including FW at a tournament:

1) You're concerned that it will cause a drop in attendance.

Yeah, that's it.

Anything to do with Balance, Legitimacy, Officialness, Model Availability, Rules Knowledge, Finding the Rules, etc. - they're all just BS excuses by people who would rather live in fear of what might happen than try something that ends up being fun. They're all easily addressed. The only reason not to allow FW at a tournament is because you think too many people lost their big boy pants and would be scared to go to the event if it was allowed. And, while that's a legitimate concern, it's really only playing into that fear.

 Redbeard wrote:
they're all just BS excuses by people who would rather live in fear of what might happen than try something that ends up being fun. They're all easily addressed. The only reason not to allow FW at a tournament is because you think too many people lost their big boy pants and would be scared to go to the event if it was allowed.

Please stop with that kind of assertion. It's hardly fair nor warranted.

I agree with Redbeard in principle. When it really comes down to it, everyone has the same access to FW rules and products as they do to anything else GW sells. If you can afford to play 40k, you can afford to pay a little more for some extra rules. Especially since GW stores actually carry IA books and can direct order FW models.

So really it comes down to the TO worrying how allowing FW will effect attendence. Because people have preconcieved notions about FW, good and bad.

Let's ratchet down the pitch here, gents. Toy soldiers are toy soldiers whether of overpriced plastic or overpriced and slightly-less-accessible resin. Thanks.

rigeld2 wrote:


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
Is the Dawn of War series of video games a GW product?
Warhammer 40,000: Dawn of War -- Copyright © Games Workshop Limited 2008. (http://www.dawnofwargame.com/uk/home/agegate)

Yep. The source code for the game, however, is © THQ.

So... You're saying that DoW is a GW product. Cool story bro.

It is. The source code, however, isn't.

rigeld2 wrote:

 Redbeard wrote:
they're all just BS excuses by people who would rather live in fear of what might happen than try something that ends up being fun. They're all easily addressed. The only reason not to allow FW at a tournament is because you think too many people lost their big boy pants and would be scared to go to the event if it was allowed.

Please stop with that kind of assertion. It's hardly fair nor warranted.

It is both fair and warranted.

I do not believe that anyone can honestly tell me, outside the scope of trying to win an argument on the internet, that they actually believe that FW models are not legal in games of 40k, in spite of all the evidence to the contrary. This is the sort of thing that if someone tried to tell me this in person, they'd be unable to look me in the eye. They'd be sheepishly staring at their feet, while I'd have the book open in front of me with the text that says it's legal.

I do not believe that anyone honestly believes that GW games are balanced, that they're the epitome of competitiveness. Certainly not after 6th ed was released.

These are simply not positions that would be taken by any reasonable person. So, why do people keep taking these positions?

To try and persuade Tournament Organizers not to include FW in their events.

Why? What's the real underlying motive here. It's not to preserve the sanctity of the competitive game. It's not to preserve the aesthetic appeal of the games. Why do a set of people want to tell other people that they can't play with some of their toy soldiers?

It's either envy, or it's fear. Envy that maybe someone can't afford the FW book/model themselves, so no one else should be able to use them. And I'd almost believe that, if it wasn't that the rest of the game was also expensive. The opportunity cost for buying (non-apocalylpse) FW is not that much. To add a handful of FW items to an army instead of GW models is a less expensive upgrade than buying resin bases. (And, I acknowledge, not everyone buys resin bases... and some people make do with what models they can get ahold of on the cheap. But there's plenty of GW models (and armies) that those people also have to do without. - $74 for the new Chaos Flier....)

So I'm not really digging the envy explanation, which leaves fear, and that one makes a lot of sense. It's change. Most people deal poorly with change. People have written books about handling change (See: Who Moved My Cheese). You spent money on an army. Some FW model does bad things to your army. Now you have to contend with that being in the game. Fear. Someone might bring a unit that you haven't seen before, you might need to adjust on the fly. What if you can't? Fear. It's unknown, the unknown is always scary. You might play Xenos. Someone else (Imperials) may get more than you. You'll be weaker by comparison, you might lose more games... Fear.

It's not an unfair or unwarranted explanation of what's going on. What's unfair and unreasonable is that people wish to force their fears onto others, to keep FW out of events so that they don't have to change their armies to deal with the change. But Change is part of the GW game. Rules change, codexes change, and armies change with them. It's not that bad.

rigeld2 wrote:
I'm aware of what DBA means. The FW wiki page says they're a separate company (not that I trust wikipedia to be 100% correct... or even 10%) and I seem to remember them starting as a separate company way back when. I can't find much else either way.

FW's own Frequently Asked Questions section on their website addresses this, it is asked "Is Forge World part of Games Workshop?" and their answer is "Yes, we just do our own things".

Funny you should bring that book up Redbeard. Its a reading assignment I just got in my sales class.

 Redbeard wrote:
I do not believe that anyone can honestly tell me, outside the scope of trying to win an argument on the internet, that they actually believe that FW models are not legal in games of 40k, in spite of all the evidence to the contrary. This is the sort of thing that if someone tried to tell me this in person, they'd be unable to look me in the eye. They'd be sheepishly staring at their feet, while I'd have the book open in front of me with the text that says it's legal.

I own multiple Forge World models and do not consider Forge World legal in standard games of 40k. They are not listed as legal in the main rulebook. They are not allowed in GW events. They have a history of being "opponent's permission" only. Until the GW design studio itself (not FW) comes out and says that Forge World rules are acceptable in standard 40k, I do not consider Forge World legal.

Redbeard wrote:I do not believe that anyone honestly believes that GW games are balanced, that they're the epitome of competitiveness. Certainly not after 6th ed was released.

I have played in many tournaments of both 5th and 6th edition-- I think 6th edition is more balanced than 5th edition and that people who think it isn't are failing to adapt.

Redbeard wrote:It's not an unfair or unwarranted explanation of what's going on. What's unfair and unreasonable is that people wish to force their fears onto others, to keep FW out of events so that they don't have to change their armies to deal with the change. But Change is part of the GW game. Rules change, codexes change, and armies change with them. It's not that bad.

I think the change brought by allowing Forge World eliminates or diminishes much of the interesting change brought on by 6th edition itself, most notably flyers.

 Vaktathi wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
I'm aware of what DBA means. The FW wiki page says they're a separate company (not that I trust wikipedia to be 100% correct... or even 10%) and I seem to remember them starting as a separate company way back when. I can't find much else either way.

FW's own Frequently Asked Questions section on their website addresses this, it is asked "Is Forge World part of Games Workshop?" and their answer is "Yes, we just do our own things".

That doesn't mean they aren't a separate company. The rest of that answer, however, tells me why I was remembering that:
"We are not connected with the US company that used the same name many years back for production of resin Warhammer 40,000 vehicles under licence."
So thanks for pointing it out.

For those of you reading this that have not read one of the newer Imperial Armour books below are 2 images from the book IA: Aeronautica page 2 & IA: Aeronautica page4

Link to “FORGE WORLD IMPERIAL ARMOUR SIXTH EDITION VEHICLE UPDATES” <-actual Title of Document

http://www.forgeworld.co.uk/Downloads/Product/PDF/v/vehicle6thupdates.pdf


So back to the point of this Thread, it is up to the TOs to decide if they want to restrict FW from their Tournaments. They do need to understand though, that they are restricting legal units and it is the same as choosing to restrict All Named Characters, limiting the points of Allies or restricting the number of Flyers a Player can field. All of these are within the TOs rights and it is also up to the Players to decide if they want to go to a Tournament with or without these restrictions.

Like I posted earlier I’m for FW (ie No Restricted Units) for Tournaments. I have played in a few now and I have had a BLAST in all of them, both using some FW and Playing against FW units.

*Personal Note - “Don’t be a hater, let my friends and I play with our TOYS.”

** read my prior post on here for more on my views on this subject

 Redbeard wrote:

Sidstyler wrote:I'd like to know what counts as a legitimate concern then, since everything I've seen brought up so far has just been immediately written off.

Legitimate concerns about including FW at a tournament:

1) You're concerned that it will cause a drop in attendance.

Yeah, that's it.

Anything to do with Balance, Legitimacy, Officialness, Model Availability, Rules Knowledge, Finding the Rules, etc. - they're all just BS excuses by people who would rather live in fear of what might happen than try something that ends up being fun. They're all easily addressed. The only reason not to allow FW at a tournament is because you think too many people lost their big boy pants and would be scared to go to the event if it was allowed. And, while that's a legitimate concern, it's really only playing into that fear.

A tournament organizer must consider his potential players and what they expect. If players in an area play games with FW models often then he might lean toward including FW models in the tournament. If the players don't use FW models often then it's a good idea to exclude them from the tournament. It isn't about being afraid of maybe having fun, which is a silly and assertion and sad passive aggressive jab at those against, but it is about catering to the meta.

 Redbeard wrote:
I do not believe that anyone can honestly tell me, outside the scope of trying to win an argument on the internet, that they actually believe that FW models are not legal in games of 40k, in spite of all the evidence to the contrary. This is the sort of thing that if someone tried to tell me this in person, they'd be unable to look me in the eye. They'd be sheepishly staring at their feet, while I'd have the book open in front of me with the text that says it's legal.

It'd be great if your side wouldn't ignore half of that paragraph every single time. Thanks.

It's not an unfair or unwarranted explanation of what's going on. What's unfair and unreasonable is that people wish to force their fears onto others, to keep FW out of events so that they don't have to change their armies to deal with the change. But Change is part of the GW game. Rules change, codexes change, and armies change with them. It's not that bad.

Its not an unfair potential explanation.
It's an unwarranted and unfair assertion that anyone who disagrees with you must have "lost their big boy pants"

Yes, I guess when it comes down to it, I dislike allowing Forgeworld because of unit envy. Nids get Stonecrusher Carnifexes (yay?), Malanthropes (yay?) and ... what else really? Am I missing a really useful unit?
Between allies and native units every other codex gets access to at least a dozen new useful units.
Ultimately I don't care one way or the other, I'll just end up griping.

 Dugg wrote:
For those of you reading this that have not read one of the newer Imperial Armour books below are 2 images from the book IA: Aeronautica page 2 & IA: Aeronautica page4

Link to “FORGE WORLD IMPERIAL ARMOUR SIXTH EDITION VEHICLE UPDATES” <-actual Title of Document

http://www.forgeworld.co.uk/Downloads/Product/PDF/v/vehicle6thupdates.pdf


So back to the point of this Thread, it is up to the TOs to decide if they want to restrict FW from their Tournaments. They do need to understand though, that they are restricting legal units and it is the same as choosing to restrict All Named Characters, limiting the points of Allies or restricting the number of Flyers a Player can field. All of these are within the TOs rights and it is also up to the Players to decide if they want to go to a Tournament with or without these restrictions.

Like I posted earlier I’m for FW (ie No Restricted Units) for Tournaments. I have played in a few now and I have had a BLAST in all of them, both using some FW and Playing against FW units.

*Personal Note - “Don’t be a hater, let my friends and I play with our TOYS.”

** read my prior post on here for more on my views on this subject

I don't put models or rules from FW books on the same level as those from codexes. The part about asking player permission to use them pretty much sums up why. Nobody is telling you and your friend not to play with your toys, or trying to keep you from organizing events with FW included. But at the same time, don't try to force them on others who may not want to use FW rules/models in their games either.

FYI, for a rules based argument, page 108 of the BRB:

BRB page 108 wrote:CODEXES
Each of the races or space-born empires in Warhammer 40,000 has a codex - a book that contains rules, background and collecting information for that army. Within the pages of each codex, you'll find everything you need to know about that faction. An important part of this is the army list,which will let you transform your collection of Citadel miniatures into a Warhammer40,000 army.

Are the IA books codexes?

 helium42 wrote:

 Dugg wrote:
For those of you reading this that have not read one of the newer Imperial Armour books below are 2 images from the book IA: Aeronautica page 2 & IA: Aeronautica page4

Link to “FORGE WORLD IMPERIAL ARMOUR SIXTH EDITION VEHICLE UPDATES” <-actual Title of Document

http://www.forgeworld.co.uk/Downloads/Product/PDF/v/vehicle6thupdates.pdf


So back to the point of this Thread, it is up to the TOs to decide if they want to restrict FW from their Tournaments. They do need to understand though, that they are restricting legal units and it is the same as choosing to restrict All Named Characters, limiting the points of Allies or restricting the number of Flyers a Player can field. All of these are within the TOs rights and it is also up to the Players to decide if they want to go to a Tournament with or without these restrictions.

Like I posted earlier I’m for FW (ie No Restricted Units) for Tournaments. I have played in a few now and I have had a BLAST in all of them, both using some FW and Playing against FW units.

*Personal Note - “Don’t be a hater, let my friends and I play with our TOYS.”

** read my prior post on here for more on my views on this subject

I don't put models or rules from FW books on the same level as those from codexes. The part about asking player permission to use them pretty much sums up why. Nobody is telling you and your friend not to play with your toys, or trying to keep you from organizing events with FW included. But at the same time, don't try to force them on others who may not want to use FW rules/models in their games either.

True! If I'm playing a pickup game and someone doesn't like something in my list or says they don't think they have a way to deal with it I will take it out. Rule#1 "Have Fun!"

rigeld2 wrote:
Are the IA books codexes?

No.

 Kingsley wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
Are the IA books codexes?

No.

So are there errata changing page 108 of the BRB?

Irrelevant conversation, gents.

The original post in this thread is should FW be allowed in tournaments.

Let me say that again. This thread is about should FW be allowed in tournaments.

If the TO says yes, then yes. If the TO says no, then no. That's all there is to it. Done.

Vote with your wallets. If you don't want to play with or against FW units, then don't attend that tournament, tell the TO or Store Owner why, and buy your models elsewhere.

Vote with your wallets. If you do, attend the tournament, tell the TO or Store Owner you appreciate it, and buy your models there.

I don't see much to be gained from continuing this conversation. It's all been said at this point.

Right, no Stormtalons, Ork Bommas or updated Daemons then. They're not in the Codex after all.

rigeld2 wrote:

It'd be great if your side wouldn't ignore half of that paragraph every single time. Thanks.

No one ignored anything. The part that you seem to think we're ignoring doesn't actually say anything about the models being invalid. It says that it's polite to make sure your opponent is happy. That line applies equally to non-FW stuff, as far as I'm concerned.

Yes, I guess when it comes down to it, I dislike allowing Forgeworld because of unit envy. Nids get Stonecrusher Carnifexes (yay?), Malanthropes (yay?) and ... what else really? Am I missing a really useful unit?

Those big spore mines are pretty cool.

Between allies and native units every other codex gets access to at least a dozen new useful units.

Sounds like you're more upset about allies than FW.

Ultimately I don't care one way or the other, I'll just end up griping.

Well, that explains a lot. If you don't care, why are you taking part in the debate?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 kronk wrote:
I don't see much to be gained from continuing this conversation. It's all been said at this point.

I dunno, I still have half-an-hour before I get to leave work. I could repeat it again to pass the time. After that, I'm out, at least until Tuesday

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Right, no Stormtalons, Ork Bommas or updated Daemons then. They're not in the Codex after all.

Specifically stated as Official updates to the codexes. Not units that can be used in 40k like Forgeworld. Actual, physical updates to the codex. There is a difference.

As a side not I'm cool with forgeworld. All the extra AA means that flyers would go away and my 5th edition armies would be back to performing excellently. Down with flyers and 6th edition

rigeld2 wrote:
FYI, for a rules based argument, page 108 of the BRB:

BRB page 108 wrote:CODEXES
Each of the races or space-born empires in Warhammer 40,000 has a codex - a book that contains rules, background and collecting information for that army. Within the pages of each codex, you'll find everything you need to know about that faction. An important part of this is the army list,which will let you transform your collection of Citadel miniatures into a Warhammer40,000 army.

Are the IA books codexes?

Does it matter if they're codexes? Let's see, breaking this down:

Each of the races or space-born empires in Warhammer 40,000 has a codex - a book that contains rules, background and collecting information for that army.

Sister of Battle do not have a codex, a book. So, one sentence in, and we see that this is already false.

Within the pages of each codex, you'll find everything you need to know about that faction.

Everything I need to know. Except how many hull points my vehicles have, what psychic powers my guys can take, what unit type my models are, and well, quite a lot of other info too. So, sentence two, also false.

An important part of this is the army list,which will let you transform your collection of Citadel miniatures into a Warhammer40,000 army.

Ah, maybe the key part is the army list. I can find those in IA books too. Maybe IA books are codexes.

rigeld2 wrote:

 Kingsley wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
Are the IA books codexes?

No.

So are there errata changing page 108 of the BRB?

Can you explain exactly what you mean by this? It doesn't mention IA books being official neither does it mention Forge World Products being Codices/ Codexes at any point. Or are you by extrapolation of the fact that they produce Official licensed stuff for GW it is therefore Official and should be treated as a Codex?

If so I've got some Official Fantasy Flight games stuff based in the 40k Universe is that to be considered Official as well?

Bottomline, FW stuff gets bloody silly in all games, Apocalypse Bombardment templates and super-heavy vehicles in a standard Skirmish game of 1500 points/ 1750 points or 2000points. I love some tourney's with and some without, I don't see the need to make it official and have FW throughout all Tourney games.

If we don't draw a line, people will be saying "I want Apocalypse rules in Standard Tourneys, so I can have Warhounds and Titanhammer Squads, or a Massive Leman Russ Squadron - Emperors Fist etc etc or a Thunderhawk Gunship or this FoC . People have got to be more reasonable, no one forces you to pay top dollar for FW resin stuff, it's nice, but it's pretty stupid to bitch about not getting to use it. Kind of like buying a Ferrari and then moaning about the Fuel and Insurance Costs.

Jesus Redbeard. The words "This Official Codex for Sisters of Battle" on the first page of the article tells you this is their official codex. You're reaching bro.

Hulksmash wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Right, no Stormtalons, Ork Bommas or updated Daemons then. They're not in the Codex after all.

Specifically stated as Official updates to the codexes. Not units that can be used in 40k like Forgeworld. Actual, physical updates to the codex. There is a difference.

As a side not I'm cool with forgeworld. All the extra AA means that flyers would go away and my 5th edition armies would be back to performing excellently. Down with flyers and 6th edition

Hulk as usual you come up wi better points than I do. Adding in all the FW would definitely leave us with a 5.5 system since the assault nerf would still be in effect but my GK wouldn't mind a return to 5th either, I never used a lot of storm ravens until 6th.

Hulksmash wrote:Jesus Redbeard. The words "This Official Codex for Sisters of Battle" on the first page of the article tells you this is their official codex. You're reaching bro.

At this point I feel both sides are reaching quite a bit. If anything I hope that this thread makes TOs and players think really hard about how they want to integrate FW and if they want to goo to events that integrate it. Over the 18 pages of storm I stirred up I have come to cement my opinion that FW should be allowed at some events, but I wouldn't want them at all events. I would like to be able to choose whether or not I want to play in FW allowed events or core rules only events. Honestly I always have said when I want to play with my Baneblades and FW models I will organize an apocalypse game, I have always felt those rules and models we better suited for that arena.