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.

Ive seen this mentioned in many places now and was wondering if anyone can point me to a place that confirms that Forgeworld models are legal in regular games now or not?

They´ve always been, although depending on your meta/house-rules they might not..

Forgeworld books have it. They tell you to ask your opponent because most don't know FW units and don't like being taken by surprise (and some FW units seem OP... )

Recent 40k books will give the "40k approved" stamp to units, these are allowed to be used. Of course, opponents may refuse to play against FW units and some TOs won't allow it. GW intends for them to be legal though.

This topic has come up a lot. Nothing changes. There is no consensus.

Keep checking on this thread, but all you'll get is a fanatic-to-jihad levels of pro-forgeworld people who will copy/paste the 40k seal as if by the pure power of regurgitation, people will agree with them.

And the people who disagree for lots of good, nuanced reasons won't bother typing, because they've already said their peace, and don't like getting barfed on.

Forge world is GW. The forge world units that say 40k approved are approved by GW. Case in point, a friend just recieved a forge world model he purchased. It says GW right on the resin.

Many people house rule that forge world can't be used. An opponent doesn't have to play against FW or even standard codex models if they choose not to, so its up to you to inform your opponent of the rules of said FW model so they can choose to play or not.

Forge World has always been legal, it's just always a good idea to let whoever you're playing know you have a Forge World unit or vehicle in your list, since they may be unfamiliar with it. Doubly so for their own army lists. A lot of TO's exclude Forge World for this reason, since it creates a level playing field.

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.

However, there will be many opponents, stores, and tournaments that ban Forge World anyway.

We just need to take it upon ourselves (or someone with juice needs to do it....like the folks who run Adepticon or NOVA Open) and make a list of the Forgeworld Units that aren't broken or mis-costed to heck and back and then we can all move forward...

....with REAL arguments on why their list is incorrect.

But seriously, when one can spend 150pts on a one artillary battery of 3 guns that can dish out 12 S5 AP5 Barrage Blasts at up to 60" range, I can see why people who don't like facing forgeworld units have a point. Not everything is unfair...some things just need a points tweak, but trying to fix that is a rabbit hole with no bottom.

And yet people don't say we should ban Taudar armies?

If it wouldn't kill a tournament, I would ban Taudar as a TO.

 Voidwraith wrote:
But seriously, when one can spend 150pts on a one artillary battery of 3 guns that can dish out 12 S5 AP5 Barrage Blasts at up to 60" range

Wave Serpents.

 Voidwraith wrote:
But seriously, when one can spend 150pts on a one artillary battery of 3 guns that can dish out 12 S5 AP5 Barrage Blasts at up to 60" range, I can see why people who don't like facing forgeworld units have a point. Not everything is unfair...some things just need a points tweak, but trying to fix that is a rabbit hole with no bottom.

But seriously, when one can get an entire unit with a re-rollable 2+ invulnerable save, plenty of speed, and enough offense to kill most threats you throw them at, I can see why people who don't like facing codex units have a point. Not everything is unfair...some things just need a points teak, but trying to fix that is a rabbit hole with no bottom.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ailaros wrote:
Keep checking on this thread, but all you'll get is a fanatic-to-jihad levels of pro-forgeworld people who will copy/paste the 40k seal as if by the pure power of regurgitation, people will agree with them.

And the people who disagree for lots of good, nuanced reasons won't bother typing, because they've already said their peace, and don't like getting barfed on.

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.

And the people who disagree for lots of good, nuanced reasons won't bother typing, because they've already said their peace, and don't like getting barfed on.

You can play your GI Joe tank with custom stats if you like. Its all up to who you play. Forgeworld is not Warhammer 40K, so including those pieces is entirely up to whoever has the final say in your game, be it your opponent or a TO.

Fragile wrote:
Forgeworld is not Warhammer 40K

Care to prove this statement? I don't have a personal agenda or anything, nor do I care that most people disallow FW, but that's straight up wrong.

 Tyberos the Red Wake wrote:

Fragile wrote:
Forgeworld is not Warhammer 40K

Care to prove this statement? I don't have a personal agenda or anything, nor do I care that most people disallow FW, but that's straight up wrong.

Forgeworld is not GW. No more than Dewalt is Black and Decker. They are both owned by a similar parent company but produce their own products. Forgeworld's products are designed to be used by the 40k market, but you do not find them in the 40k codices or rules, hence they are not 40k.

I have yet to se anyone complain about a forgewold model so long as there is a normal model for it as well. For example, dreadnoughts different versions of terminaters and such. Now, stuff like titans, you might have a lil more trouble with.

Fragile wrote:
Forgeworld is not GW.

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.

Forgeworld's products are designed to be used by the 40k market, but you do not find them in the 40k codices or rules, hence they are not 40k.

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.

If you're playing friendly games, obviously it's fine as long as your opponent is cool with it (as with anything, really).

If you're in a tournament, it's at the TO's discretion.

That's all there is to it.

 Peregrine wrote:

Fragile wrote:
Forgeworld is not GW.

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.

Citation required. I can prove they are separate companies simply by their registry in the UK.

Forgeworld's products are designed to be used by the 40k market, but you do not find them in the 40k codices or rules, hence they are not 40k.

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.

Strange, my Warhammer 40k, 6th edition, which gives the rules to 40k, does not include FW. Nor do any Codices.

Every army in Warhammer 40k has its own Codex...

Show me the FW codex.

FW is an expansion of the 40k universe, with alternate toys you can play with. FW has permission to use GW's IP rights and can claim their models are 40k approved all they want, but until GW says that FW models are "40k approved" then there is no offical backing for that claim.

Good god. Not this gak again.

Fragile wrote:
Citation required. I can prove they are separate companies simply by their registry in the UK.

From IA:Apocalypse, the most recent FW book:

© The copyright in all text, artwork and images herein are the property of Games Workshop Limited 2013.

And there's other little details like everything I've bought from FW being shipped to me by GW, FW's website being hosted on a GW server and linked to from the main GW website, etc.

Strange, my Warhammer 40k, 6th edition, which gives the rules to 40k, does not include FW. Nor do any Codices.

And you're inventing a rule that all sources of 40k rules must be mentioned in the core rulebook. GW disagrees with you and publishes 40k rules in online FAQs/errata, codex supplements, and FW books, none of which are mentioned in the core rulebook.

Every army in Warhammer 40k has its own Codex...

Show me the FW codex.

What's your point? Every army has a codex. FW adds units to that codex.

FW is an expansion of the 40k universe, with alternate toys you can play with.

An expansion that is part of standard 40k. Choosing to play with it is no different than choosing to play with or against Tau.

FW has permission to use GW's IP rights and can claim their models are 40k approved all they want, but until GW says that FW models are "40k approved" then there is no offical backing for that claim.

Wrong again. FW doesn't have permission to use GW's IP, they are GW. And GW has said that rules published under their FW brand are part of the game.

 Peregrine wrote:
© The copyright in all text, artwork and images herein are the property of Games Workshop Limited 2013.

Yes, they are GW's IP.

What's your point? Every army has a codex. FW adds units to that codex.

No, FW creates their own units, nothing is "added" to a codex. And since armies need a codex, per the rulebook, show me a FW model in a 40k codex.

An expansion that is part of standard 40k. Choosing to play with it is no different than choosing to play with or against Tau.

You can play whatever you opponent agrees to, whip out that GI Joe tank.

FW has permission to use GW's IP rights and can claim their models are 40k approved all they want, but until GW says that FW models are "40k approved" then there is no offical backing for that claim.
Wrong again. FW doesn't have permission to use GW's IP, they are GW.And GW has said that rules published under their FW brand are part of the game.

FW is a fully owned subsidiary company, get your facts straight. They are not legally GW. Perhaps you can cite the underlined part ?

I think GW doesn't clarify this just to come watch all the nerd battles over it.

Martel732 wrote:
I think GW doesn't clarify this just to come watch all the nerd battles over it.

Probably

In retrospect though, this should be more a YDMC than Tactics.

Fragile wrote:
Yes, they are GW's IP.

The point you just missed is that the entire FW book is the property of GW. The book has been copyrighted in the exact same way as my IG codex, other than the dates. That's not working with licensed IP, that's GW having complete ownership of everything published under the FW brand name.

No, FW creates their own units, nothing is "added" to a codex.

Wrong again. It very clearly says "X is a {FOC slot} choice in Y codex".

And since armies need a codex, per the rulebook, show me a FW model in a 40k codex.

You're inventing the rule that every unit must be published in the original printing of a codex. GW disagrees with you, which is why my Tau codex has a Farsight supplement, various FW units added to it, and online FAQs/errata.

Also, please note the difference between "every army has a codex" and "every single unit for an army is found in its codex and nowhere else".

(And if you just want FW models, not units, look at the IG codex sometime.)

You can play whatever you opponent agrees to, whip out that GI Joe tank.

That doesn't change the fact that some things are considered to be part of the standard game as provided by GW. And FW rules are included in that standard game.

FW is a fully owned subsidiary company, get your facts straight. They are not legally GW.

FW employees are paid by GW, all of their sales go through GW, their books are copyrighted by GW, etc. Some accountant/lawyer may have decided to set it up as a subsidiary company for legal/tax reasons, but that doesn't change the fact that FW operates as a brand name within the "main" GW.

Perhaps you can cite the underlined part ?

Whilst these rules should be considered official, in the name of good sportsmanship you should inform your opponent when using these Chapter Tactics as they may not be familiar with them.

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.

Note that there is a legal distinction between a subsidiary company and a dba.

Its a game, intended to be played casually between friends or people who will in time become friends, or even if you really want some strangers as a social activity for people who like little plastic (or resin, or metal) men (or women).

There are no laws about it, and its an appaling system for tournaments, so with anyone outside a tournament, what's allowed in is whatever you can agree upon, and in a tournament, its whatever that tournament's organiser has done to try to fix the system rules.

If you can't co-operate with others to make an agreement on what can be played with (looking at YOU, allaros, peregrine) then you don't get to play, and other more reasonable people do. If you will only play with one specific setup (be that all FW is go, no FW at all, or whatever), you get to play less.

If you don't have fun because of arguments about these rules, you're doing it WRONG.

best way to treat it if youre not in a meta where people are commonly using it, its an expansion to the normal game. Most of them arent that bad, and in the case of orks it actually makes the army crazy good and well rounded (nothing stupid broken, especially since lifta droppa got nerfed to hell and back lol) but sometimes you will face one that is just drastically undercosted, or should be apoc only for what it does. And of course, people will flock to those models immediately.

I'm constantly baffled about this discussion simply because the only time FW being "legal" or not is relevant when trying persuade someone to take part in a game the don't want to play. And why would anyone wan't to do that?

I totally agree with Nobody_Holme:

When you play a game of 40k, YOU get to decide what is ok and not. If you don't want to face Tau, Chaos Space Marines or units Forge World made up, there is no rule forcing you to play. Just pick another opponent.

When you enter a tournament, the organizers get to choose what rules to use, possibly even overriding the printed rules. If you don't like that you don't get to play.


To put some more fuel on the fire:
=========================

I think the strongest argument for being careful when using Forge World rules is that I believe many casual 40k players will not even know Forge World exists and even fewer are aware that they print their own rules. If you get into the hobby by buying the rule book and a codex or two there are no references to Forge World. Heck, even if you go to www.games-workshop.com there are no references to Forge World!

Isn't that a bit strange if Forge World books are part of the core game?