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.

 Lynata wrote:
GW doesn't run tournaments? Did I miss something? >_>

http://www.games-workshop.com/MEDIA_CustomProductCatalog/m160017a_Throne_of_Skulls_-_Warhammer_40,000_Pack.pdf

Ok, GW doesn't run tournaments unless you live within driving distance of Warhammer World. For the vast majority of 40k players there is no such thing as a GW tournament.

 Orkimedes1000 wrote:
i am betting you haven't been to an official GW tournament?

No, I haven't, because I live in the US where every single tournament is run by third-party groups, each of them with their own house rules.

i wasn't generalising when you can you them in reg games. you need your oppoonents permission to use it.

Just like you need your opponent's permission to use anything. What are you going to do, hold a gun to my head and force me to play against your orks even though I don't like that you brought so many boyz?

and also outside TO arrange whatever they feel is required to "make the game at that present time as enjoyable for one player and the next in equal measure, regardless of victory or defeat"

What's your point? Some TOs include FW stuff in their events, some ban it. But that has nothing to do with GW's official rules on the subject.

there is no rule i haven't read. in ANY rules editions. or expansions etc.

Then why did you post a pointless rant about how unfair it would be for someone to use a Warhound titan in a "normal" game when anyone who has read the relevant rules knows that it isn't possible to do that?

 Ratius wrote:

that is right. i know the rules. and i also know GW doesn't personally endorse or promote tournaments. if it is a tournament that is it is under GW's rules and conditions of tournament/s. i am betting you haven't been to an official GW tournament? i wasn't generalising when you can you them in reg games. you need your oppoonents permission to use it. and also outside TO arrange whatever they feel is required to "make the game at that present time as enjoyable for one player and the next in equal measure, regardless of victory or defeat"

Hmm? If GW dont run regular tourneys then: How do FW models/rules affect said tourneys?

If GW do run these tourneys but you need your opponents permission to run a Warhound or HH list, and he/shes says no?.....

Im really confused by your post.

1. GW do run Tourney's. just not in the capacity or scope that would work for all gamers in different social economic/geographic and or demographic groups or whatever reasoning (idk i do not work for GW)

2. too bad you have spent money on a miniature on an offical level is considered a shiny new center piece or in friendly games that means, in games run by your friends, including you. and if you both agree then you can use super heavies. in a official game in an actual GW store you cannot unless the Store manager allows it (and it is rare)

3. that is only normal. i was confused for the better part of my first 7 years in the hobby. sometimes people claim i still am.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Lynata wrote:
GW doesn't run tournaments? Did I miss something? >_>

http://www.games-workshop.com/MEDIA_CustomProductCatalog/m160017a_Throne_of_Skulls_-_Warhammer_40,000_Pack.pdf

Ok, GW doesn't run tournaments unless you live within driving distance of Warhammer World. For the vast majority of 40k players there is no such thing as a GW tournament.

 Orkimedes1000 wrote:
i am betting you haven't been to an official GW tournament?

No, I haven't, because I live in the US where every single tournament is run by third-party groups, each of them with their own house rules.

i wasn't generalising when you can you them in reg games. you need your oppoonents permission to use it.

Just like you need your opponent's permission to use anything. What are you going to do, hold a gun to my head and force me to play against your orks even though I don't like that you brought so many boyz?

and also outside TO arrange whatever they feel is required to "make the game at that present time as enjoyable for one player and the next in equal measure, regardless of victory or defeat"

What's your point? Some TOs include FW stuff in their events, some ban it. But that has nothing to do with GW's official rules on the subject.

there is no rule i haven't read. in ANY rules editions. or expansions etc.

Then why did you post a pointless rant about how unfair it would be for someone to use a Warhound titan in a "normal" game when anyone who has read the relevant rules knows that it isn't possible to do that?

the point is YOU can use it in a NORMAL game, just not in the Offical context "outside of friends". that is what GW explicitly conveyed when they were designing each of the expansions in this case Apocalypse and IA/ Forgeworld units read as warhound titan. there are 2 defintions of a normal game and i'll list both so we both can agree i didn't say or did say ok here goes:
1. friendly games with mates, at either persons house or gaming area.
2. within a GW store/FLGS and the manager agrees (or if considered, in tournaments)

what is pointless about me raising an issue within one? see below for my reasoning and also my acknowledgement of a bad example of FW product:

isn't this thread about our opinions on and why our opinions are such? the OP explained in a small text what he wanted this thread to be about. and that was "should FW HH list be allowed into 40k" while i do agree i did make a bad example. but it could be used equally because GW doesn't stock and stockists ie FLGS's don't stock FW HH. or FW. the only way to "play with the notion of buying" outside of 2nd owner/ebay is from FW direct. so bad example. i rolled a instead of a this time and it up.

1. GW do run Tourney's. just not in the capacity or scope that would work for all gamers in different social economic/geographic and or demographic groups or whatever reasoning (idk i do not work for GW)

2. too bad you have spent money on a miniature on an offical level is considered a shiny new center piece or in friendly games that means, in games run by your friends, including you. and if you both agree then you can use super heavies. in a official game in an actual GW store you cannot unless the Store manager allows it (and it is rare)

3. that is only normal. i was confused for the better part of my first 7 years in the hobby. sometimes people claim i still am.

Thats ok Orki!

I fully get your post now.
I was just a little confused with the back and forth comments.

in a official game in an actual GW store you cannot unless the Store manager allows it (and it is rare)

Didnt know that - very interesting.

So to clarify (mainly for me!).

No FW models can be used in offical GW tourneys (limited as they are) unless the TO (GW guy) authorises it?

 Ratius wrote:

No FW models can be used in offical GW tourneys (limited as they are) unless the TO (GW guy) authorises it?

Nothing can be used in any tournament unless the TO authorizes it.

firstly:

No, I haven't, because I live in the US where every single tournament is run by third-party groups, each of them with their own house rules. therefore in each country or region and/or area manager or owner of a stockist/FLGS make rules based on their own merit's it has nothing to do with GW because it is not an OFFICIAL event. it is in your area, but globally it is just another gaming convention. the rules that are affecting tournaments might say change from that where any other person in another country. the reasoning could be justified by different play style favored by each player on the basis of how they play 40k or wargaming in general.

Secondary:

Just like you need your opponent's permission to use anything. What are you going to do, hold a gun to my head and force me to play against your orks even though I don't like that you brought so many boyz?

no one would play you if you kept rejecting offers to play even if you didn't like it- meaning i have 1000 boyz and you don't like it, chances are your IG have 10000 chimera's leman russes and basilisk's, i'd like it just as much as you'd like fighting my 1000 example only orks and only fighting with a handful of Guardsmen and no support (like probably most of the time since you raised the topic and made an issue out of it)

it is only pointless when you cannot bring something back into the debate. did i make you think? then it wasn't pointless now was it?

it is only pointless when you cannot bring something back into the debate. did i make you think? then it wasn't pointless now was it?

Hey Orki,
I wanst having a go!
I see your point quite well

 Ratius wrote:

1. GW do run Tourney's. just not in the capacity or scope that would work for all gamers in different social economic/geographic and or demographic groups or whatever reasoning (idk i do not work for GW)

2. too bad you have spent money on a miniature on an offical level is considered a shiny new center piece or in friendly games that means, in games run by your friends, including you. and if you both agree then you can use super heavies. in a official game in an actual GW store you cannot unless the Store manager allows it (and it is rare)

3. that is only normal. i was confused for the better part of my first 7 years in the hobby. sometimes people claim i still am.

Thats ok Orki!

I fully get your post now.
I was just a little confused with the back and forth comments.

in a official game in an actual GW store you cannot unless the Store manager allows it (and it is rare)

Didnt know that - very interesting.

So to clarify (mainly for me!).

No FW models can be used in offical GW tourneys (limited as they are) unless the TO (GW guy) authorises it?

Ratius: it is ok i was confused in probably the same way when i first starting reading dakka dakka threads back in 2002 (or earlier memory is fuzzy) Dakka has alot of back and forth. don't feel shy in asking questions. this is a friendly forum and gaming community (for the most part, but not a insult on anyone on dakka, just some personality's clash, as do idea's of what is what. taking into account the rules are slightly different country to country in regards to grammar and wording- so it's easy to become confused even for diehard longfangs or longbeards who remember the good old days)

Ratius:

i don't feel insulted nor do i mean to insult anyone else. and from here on in i can only offer my hope of good faith in some other "residents" in helping you enjoy your time posting. if you require any information in relation to the hobby all you need is ask

My group has a little rule. If you are playing a 2500-4000 point game you can bring HH units and add 1 Lord of War slot for up to 3250 and 2 for 3251-4000 points. A bit OP? Maybe, but fun as hell.

#hugs Orki!

 Orkimedes1000 wrote:
in this case Apocalypse and IA/ Forgeworld units read as warhound titan.

That's nonsense. FW makes a lot more than Apocalypse stuff, many of their units and army lists are just additions to normal 40k (different Leman Russ variants, etc).

but it could be used equally because GW doesn't stock and stockists ie FLGS's don't stock FW HH. or FW. the only way to "play with the notion of buying" outside of 2nd owner/ebay is from FW direct.

So what? Should we ban all of the other things that you can only order online directly from GW?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Orkimedes1000 wrote:
therefore in each country or region and/or area manager or owner of a stockist/FLGS make rules based on their own merit's it has nothing to do with GW because it is not an OFFICIAL event. it is in your area, but globally it is just another gaming convention. the rules that are affecting tournaments might say change from that where any other person in another country. the reasoning could be justified by different play style favored by each player on the basis of how they play 40k or wargaming in general.

And the point you still don't seem to understand is that there is no such thing as a universal tournament policy. Some events allow FW. Some don't. Some allow you to take orks. Some don't. Some allow you to take 9x flyers. Some don't. Etc.

no one would play you if you kept rejecting offers to play even if you didn't like it- meaning i have 1000 boyz and you don't like it, chances are your IG have 10000 chimera's leman russes and basilisk's, i'd like it just as much as you'd like fighting my 1000 example only orks and only fighting with a handful of Guardsmen and no support (like probably most of the time since you raised the topic and made an issue out of it)

Again, you're missing the point entirely. Saying "FW requires permission" is a meaningless statement because everything in this game requires permission. It doesn't matter what is in your list, before you start a game you have to show your opponent your army and have them agree to play against it. If they don't like it, whether because of your FW units or because they just don't enjoy playing against orks, they don't have to play against you.

Again, you're missing the point entirely. Saying "FW requires permission" is a meaningless statement because everything in this game requires permission. It doesn't matter what is in your list, before you start a game you have to show your opponent your army and have them agree to play against it. If they don't like it, whether because of your FW units or because they just don't enjoy playing against orks, they don't have to play against you.

Uhhm, not in a tournament though

If you bring Orks and I dont like playing Orks - well tough beep on me. Its a gak matchup but I have to fight on, otherwise, I might as well pack my army up game #1.

I still have to play you or I get booted from the tounrey. No?

 Peregrine wrote:

 Orkimedes1000 wrote:
in this case Apocalypse and IA/ Forgeworld units read as warhound titan.

That's nonsense. FW makes a lot more than Apocalypse stuff, many of their units and army lists are just additions to normal 40k (different Leman Russ variants, etc).

but it could be used equally because GW doesn't stock and stockists ie FLGS's don't stock FW HH. or FW. the only way to "play with the notion of buying" outside of 2nd owner/ebay is from FW direct.

So what? Should we ban all of the other things that you can only order online directly from GW?

did you read my post? and did you read the OP's original text? if you did then you'd know that regardless is i said a FW squat or a slann it'd matter just as little, the point still stands.

should we. can you reprhase the question because i'll misconstrue it. but here goes nothing. unless if it is stocked by games workshop either instore via a stockist or online via GW offical webpage. then the answer to your question is yes. yes they should ban them from being sold. before all the "cheap" bits companies released a ton of competition in the market GW has responded in part by increasing prices. you may disagree but that is the trend i have witnessed for the better part of the last decade


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ratius wrote:

Again, you're missing the point entirely. Saying "FW requires permission" is a meaningless statement because everything in this game requires permission. It doesn't matter what is in your list, before you start a game you have to show your opponent your army and have them agree to play against it. If they don't like it, whether because of your FW units or because they just don't enjoy playing against orks, they don't have to play against you.

Uhhm, not in a tournament though

If you bring Orks and I dont like playing Orks - well tough beep on me. Its a gak matchup but I have to fight on, otherwise, I might as well pack my army up game #1.

I still have to play you or I get booted from the tounrey. No?

nope your not banned or booted. if there is time you might get re-matched up with someone else depending on 2 factors:
1. overall game time and avail game time in tournament setting
2. overall players, and if there are stragglers ie they have no opponent but they are still in the tournament ie odd man out.

there are many FW things you could bring but CSM/SM/Ork and IG appear to have the most heavy units in FW. in a "normal" game you could if your opponent agreed and you owned either proxies or the real deal then nothing stops you from using all titans. as it is not a "official game, as defined within the rulebook, rather an expansion or add on"

 Orkimedes1000 wrote:
did you read my post? and did you read the OP's original text? if you did then you'd know that regardless is i said a FW squat or a slann it'd matter just as little, the point still stands.

The OP asked whether Heresy armies should be allowed by default. That has nothing to do with your pointless rant about Warhound titans, which are not allowed in standard games even if you include Heresy armies.

unless if it is stocked by games workshop either instore via a stockist or online via GW offical webpage. then the answer to your question is yes. yes they should ban them from being sold.

Fortunately everything FW sells is available via the official GW webpage: http://www.forgeworld.co.uk/

before all the "cheap" bits companies released a ton of competition in the market GW has responded in part by increasing prices. you may disagree but that is the trend i have witnessed for the better part of the last decade

And what does that have to do with anything?

Fortunately everything FW sells is available via the official GW webpage: http://www.forgeworld.co.uk/

they also.....

have a link to http://www.blacklibrary.com/ (while one sells books and another sells miniatures the difference is BL books are displayed under the "books" tab, while forgeworld is only a weblink directing those who don't know about FW or those that do but to make it easier for the customer to view and then buy said product)

and you claim it is on their page. a LINK to FW is. but product is not directly sold via online or stockist or instore.

my rant as you put it is to put into perspective of WHY i disagree with it being a good idea. i could list the reasons of why it'd be good:

because i wouldn't have to wait 4+ weeks for an order, and i could in a standard game use said FW item.

tbh and frank i don't think that is a good enough reason to include them. if GW changes there stance and includes them i retract my stance on the matter.

 Orkimedes1000 wrote:
and you claim it is on their page. a LINK to FW is. but product is not directly sold via online or stockist or instore.

http://www.forgeworld.co.uk/ is a GW website just like http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/home.jsp

if GW changes there stance and includes them i retract my stance on the matter.

GW has explicitly stated that (non-Apocalypse) Imperial Armour (FW's non-Heresy stuff) units are part of standard 40k. That has already been decided, the question here is whether the Heresy rules should be treated the same way or not.

The really interesting question here might be why GW has chosen to distance themselves from Forgeworld by having them run a completely separate website.
In the case of Black Library, we know (thanks to an interview with Dan Abnett) that they established it because the products of both franchises distribute conflicting material.

Peregrine wrote:GW has explicitly stated that (non-Apocalypse) Imperial Armour (FW's non-Heresy stuff) units are part of standard 40k.

Ugh, that again.

"Intended for use in" and "part of" are still not the same thing. Why would you mislead people like that?

 Lynata wrote:
The really interesting question here might be why GW has chosen to distance themselves from Forgeworld by having them run a completely separate website.
In the case of Black Library, we know (thanks to an interview with Dan Abnett) that they established it because the products of both franchises distribute conflicting material.

Well, "GW does stupid things" is an obvious answer, but there's a legitimate reason in that the "separation" establishes a clear brand identity for FW as the "premium" product for dedicated collectors. It doesn't make it any harder to find for the people who are in their target market, and having a visually distinct website and everything makes it as obvious as possible that you're buying a special kit when you order that titan. It's a slightly more dramatic version of what GW does with having the special logo and different box style on all finecast models.

Peregrine wrote:"Intended for use in" and "part of" are still not the same thing. Why would you mislead people like that?

Because when the people declaring their intent are the ones who create the rules for the game "intended for" and "part of" are the same thing and you're just nitpicking the exact wording.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Orkimedes1000 wrote:
and you claim it is on their page. a LINK to FW is. but product is not directly sold via online or stockist or instore.

http://www.forgeworld.co.uk/ is a GW website just like http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/home.jsp

if GW changes there stance and includes them i retract my stance on the matter.

GW has explicitly stated that (non-Apocalypse) Imperial Armour (FW's non-Heresy stuff) units are part of standard 40k. That has already been decided, the question here is whether the Heresy rules should be treated the same way or not.

merely conjecture. you mentioned that their product or i am lead to presume that is your meaning, is listed directly on their website. at any rate it was designed to make me back pedal. when you didn't actually do your homework!

regardless if it is canon or not it isn't sold therefore it shouldn't be allowed. if they do in the future then i'll gladly accept that fact and move on. is there an actual reason on why it'd be a good thing?????


Automatically Appended Next Post:
It doesn't make it any harder to find for the people who are in their target market, and having a visually distinct website how do you figure that?

do you actually think everyone who is either new or is a veteran, but is too lazy to scroll to the bottom of the page and see a tiny weblink?

while BL and FW do need brand identifiers, the difference is BL has product as in official website of GW while FW does not.

it only has a tiny weblink in between BL and Investor relations.

if you consider this pointless then quit going on wild goose chases!!!!

Peregrine wrote:Well, "GW does stupid things" is an obvious answer, but there's a legitimate reason in that the "separation" establishes a clear brand identity for FW as the "premium" product for dedicated collectors. It doesn't make it any harder to find for the people who are in their target market, and having a visually distinct website and everything makes it as obvious as possible that you're buying a special kit when you order that titan.

Just because you don't like something does not make it stupid.
You are also implying that GW does not offer collectors items in their main studio catalogue, which is false.

GW sells other dedicated brands such as Citadel on their main website, too. If they just wanted to establish FW as a collectors brand, they could have done so without giving them their own website and online shop, seeing as this merely creates additional hassle for the customer should he or she wish to combine orders from multiple franchises.

Peregrine wrote:Because when the people declaring their intent are the ones who create the rules for the game "intended for" and "part of" are the same thing and you're just nitpicking the exact wording.

I am nitpicking the propaganda-like use of altered wording. "Intended for use in" means that the rules were written for a specific type of game - nothing more, nothing less.
If you believe it's the same why do you not use the original phrase?

Because when the people declaring their intent are the ones who create the rules for the game "intended for" and "part of" are the same thing and you're just nitpicking the exact wording.

while the first part is true,

the second half isn't and here is why,

"Intended" for can in the pretext given, the meaning: "intended for the standard game system",

while "part of" explains the reasoning behind what is and what isn't allowed to be part of either by total exclusion or partial. GW writes the rules. i don't but i sure follow them. why because it is their game and i have made it my hobby. either game as dictated by GW or rage quit. tbh it won't really affect GW's overall sales as i have found out many times. (but it is my crack so i keep coming back)

 Orkimedes1000 wrote:
either game as dictated by GW or rage quit.

I do. That's why I consider FW rules allowed by default.

 Orkimedes1000 wrote:
merely conjecture. you mentioned that their product or i am lead to presume that is your meaning, is listed directly on their website. at any rate it was designed to make me back pedal. when you didn't actually do your homework!

http://forgeworld.co.uk/ is GW's website.

regardless if it is canon or not it isn't sold therefore it shouldn't be allowed.

It is sold by GW on http://forgeworld.co.uk/

it only has a tiny weblink in between BL and Investor relations.

It also has http://forgeworld.co.uk/ which is part of GW's website, frequent mentions in GW's daily blog, etc. I'm sorry if this doesn't meet your personal standards for being easy enough to find, but your personal demands aren't what determine whether GW considers something official.

 Lynata wrote:
GW sells other dedicated brands such as Citadel on their main website, too. If they just wanted to establish FW as a collectors brand, they could have done so without giving them their own website and online shop, seeing as this merely creates additional hassle for the customer should he or she wish to combine orders from multiple franchises.

I didn't say it was a good idea, I said that it's a possible reason. Having a separate website helps to establish a brand identity for FW. You can debate all you want about whether or not that's a good idea, but it's still a reason that has nothing to do with legality in games.

I am nitpicking the propaganda-like use of altered wording. "Intended for use in" means that the rules were written for a specific type of game - nothing more, nothing less.

And when the person writing the rules for a specific type of game is the one who decides what is and isn't part of that type of game intent is the same as fact.

If you believe it's the same why do you not use the original phrase?

Because I didn't feel like copy/pasting the exact wording just to protect against nitpicking.

Peregrine wrote:Having a separate website helps to establish a brand identity for FW.

And removing it from the main line. Yes.

Peregrine wrote:And when the person writing the rules for a specific type of game is the one who decides what is and isn't part of that type of game intent is the same as fact.

Except that none of the people writing the FW books are part of GW's core studio staff. They do not "get to decide what is and isn't part of that type of game".

But even if that were the case, there is still a difference between "intended for use in" and "part of". Compatibility isn't the same as affiliation.
GW's own Codex: Catachans, the Ordo Hereticus Strike Force in Citadel Journal, or White Dwarf's Blood Pact rules were also written with the intention of being used in standard games of 40k, yet they are barred from GW's own tournament.

Since I already made a comparison between Forgeworld and Black Library, let's look at the latter a second time. Its stories and fluff are also "intended for use" with the setting of 40k, yet they are quite obviously (and evidently, for here we have clear statements from the relevant people) not part of the studio's own vision for it. And just like Black Library has its own website because of this barrier between them, it could be the same for FW. You don't know. You simply assume and then use altered phrases in the hopes of forcing your personal preferences - in this case acceptance of Forgeworld - upon others. The latter part is what makes this so condemnable.

Peregrine wrote:Because I didn't feel like copy/pasting the exact wording just to protect against nitpicking.

But you did feel like copy/pasting the exact wording you already used in the last thread concerning the validity of FW rules?
After I already called you out for this there as well?

Interesting.

Look. It's real easy. If GW wanted to endorse FW in a way that its rulebooks were treated the same as any Codex, they could have chosen an appropriate wording.
And they could sell the Army Books on the official GW online shop.
Or, hell, they could incorporate FW minis into the GW army Codices right away, if you feel that they are "part" of this.
Unless you wish to claim that Forgeworld should also be established as a brand for collector rules rather than just minis now.

 Lynata wrote:
Except that none of the people writing the FW books are part of GW's core studio staff. They do not "get to decide what is and isn't part of that type of game".

They're acting with GW's approval. If the core studio didn't agree 100% with the statement then it wouldn't be published.

But even if that were the case, there is still a difference between "intended for use in" and "part of". Compatibility isn't the same as affiliation.

Of course it's the same. There's a difference between "intended for use in standard 40k" and "compatible with 40k". The key point here is standard 40k, FW rules are intended for use in standard games, not special FW-expansion games.

GW's own Codex: Catachans, the Ordo Hereticus Strike Force in Citadel Journal, or White Dwarf's Blood Pact rules were also written with the intention of being used in standard games of 40k, yet they are barred from GW's own tournament.

So what? Who cares what GW did years ago when they used to run tournaments?

And if you're referring to a modern tournament those rules are long obsolete, their removal from tournaments has nothing to do with what the original intent was, it's just because of the simple fact that they aren't updated for the current edition of the game.

Since I already made a comparison between Forgeworld and Black Library, let's look at the latter a second time. Its stories and fluff are also "intended for use" with the setting of 40k, yet they are quite obviously (and evidently, for here we have clear statements from the relevant people) not part of the studio's own vision for it.

That's a terrible comparison. GW has no "standard fluff" policy.

But you did feel like copy/pasting the exact wording you already used in the last thread concerning the validity of FW rules?
After I already called you out for this there as well?

Interesting.

I see, so now you're just going to nitpick the exact wording I use every time and hope to find some "inconsistency"?

Look. It's real easy. If GW wanted to endorse FW in a way that its rulebooks were treated the same as any Codex, they could have chosen an appropriate wording.

They did. GW has made it perfectly clear, they just haven't done it in the precise way that you want them to.

And they could sell the Army Books on the official GW online shop.

They do. http://forgeworld.co.uk/

Or, hell, they could incorporate FW minis into the GW army Codices right away, if you feel that they are "part" of this.

They could, but their decision to sell rules in different books does not change their legality. GW is not obligated to follow your preferred publishing method.

Peregrine wrote:They're acting with GW's approval. If the core studio didn't agree 100% with the statement then it wouldn't be published.

Perhaps they agree because it is not, as you claimed, the same person making said statement, thus removing the condition you yourself have posed for making "intended for use" equal to "part of"?

Peregrine wrote:Of course it's the same.

By what logic is "I'm designing these rules to be used in standard games of 40k" possibly the same as "these rules are an integral part of standard games of 40k"? I just can't understand you here.

Let's just assume the hypothetical situation that next month's White Dwarf would publish mini-rules for some odd unit. No "Chapter Approved" stamp, no anything.
Would this unit, in your mind, suddenly become "part of standard 40k" just because of that?

Peregrine wrote:That's a terrible comparison. GW has no "standard fluff" policy.

As per Dan Abnett's interview, apparently it has. That was the very reason they created the Black Library. GW just doesn't care whether you prefer the fluff in their own books or the things in a BL novel. Just like GW does not care whether you use a Codex or FW rules when playing 40k with a friend. As far as the players/readers are concerned, they are all free to pick what they like.

Peregrine wrote:I see, so now you're just going to nitpick the exact wording I use every time and hope to find some "inconsistency"?

I "nitpick" your manipulative and repeated use of a supposed GW statement which was never made. You can easily avoid it simply by using the correct wording when making such claims, instead of evoking the appearance that you are twisting words in an effort to propagate your cause. After all, when it's really the same to you, it'd make no difference ...

Peregrine wrote:They do. http://forgeworld.co.uk/

That is the Forgeworld shop. While the company is a subsidiary of GW, it does not make the FW shop the same, just like the BioWare store is not the EA store. What were you saying about "establishing brand identity" up there...?

Peregrine wrote:They could, but their decision to sell rules in different books does not change their legality.

As per GW, that apparently depends:

"Warhammer 40,000: 1,500 points chosen from any army list in an in-print Warhammer 40,000 Codex."
http://www.games-workshop.com/MEDIA_CustomProductCatalog/m2540053a_US_Throne_of_Skulls_Info_Pack_2012

"You may use any current and in print Warhammer 40,000 Codex book, as well as any current and official updates in White Dwarf, eg. Codex: Sisters of Battle and the Chaos Daemons update.
Rules from Forge World’s productions are not in use at Kill Team. However, you may use the models where they appropriately represent a Codex entry (eg. Contemptor Dreadnought as a Dreadnought, of Death Korps of Krieg as Imperial Guardsmen)."
http://www.games-workshop.com/MEDIA_CustomProductCatalog/m2860630a_40K_Kill_Team_Pack_2013_(6).pdf

Arguably, if the rules for FW units would be printed in a Codex, they could have been fielded in the above instances. In this, their legality is indeed different simply because they are not part of the Codex armies.

Where legality is not different is in games between friends, where everyone needs to consent to play the other's army anyways. Of course, this does not only go for GW or FW units but also any homebrewed rules..


You know what ... I suppose there's no real point in continueing the debate, given that your definition of "intended for use with" is so very different from mine. If it ever had a point, that is. I've achieved what I set out to (-> correcting falsified statements), so I'll withdraw and let the thread run its course instead of making the both of us push it further and further away from the original topic.

Manchu wrote:Assuming that, do you think that lists from that book should be used in 40k games?

If you are going to say that FW modules are necessary core components of the rules, and not modules, then there is no serious answer except for "yes".

Saying that some things that FW produces is in and some of it is out doesn't make sense.

 Ailaros wrote:

Manchu wrote:Assuming that, do you think that lists from that book should be used in 40k games?

If you are going to say that FW modules are necessary core components of the rules, and not modules, then there is no serious answer except for "yes".

Saying that some things that FW produces is in and some of it is out doesn't make sense.

No, it makes perfect sense because not only have FW not included the "this is part of standard 40k" statement in the Heresy rules, they've explicitly stated that it is NOT part of standard 40k and you need to ask your opponent to agree to a special non-standard game to use the Heresy rules. It's just like how the Apocalypse-only rules FW publishes aren't magically part of standard 40k just because FW published some other rules that are.

 Lynata wrote:
]By what logic is "I'm designing these rules to be used in standard games of 40k" possibly the same as "these rules are an integral part of standard games of 40k"? I just can't understand you here.

The key point is that the designer has the authority to decide what is and isn't part of standard 40k. It's simple:

If you or I write something intended for standard 40k our intent is meaningless. It might be useful to some people as a statement about compatibility, but it's just our wishful thinking as far as legality is concerned.

If GW writes something intended for standard 40k then intent is the same as fact.

Let's just assume the hypothetical situation that next month's White Dwarf would publish mini-rules for some odd unit. No "Chapter Approved" stamp, no anything.
Would this unit, in your mind, suddenly become "part of standard 40k" just because of that?

No, because, unlike FW rules, there's no statement saying "this is for standard 40k". Since GW also publishes things like special scenario units/rules that aren't meant for general use outside of a specific scenario we can't assume that the unit is supposed to be part of the standard game.

Peregrine wrote:As per Dan Abnett's interview, apparently it has. That was the very reason they created the Black Library. GW just doesn't care whether you prefer the fluff in their own books or the things in a BL novel. Just like GW does not care whether you use a Codex or FW rules when playing 40k with a friend. As far as the players/readers are concerned, they are all free to pick what they like.

Except that's still a horrible comparison. There's no NEED to have two people agree on 'standard fluff' because fluff is something you do by yourself. Rules, on the other hand, involve at least two players and so GW has to say what is and isn't official/standard. And with FW they have stated that it is part of the standard game.

I "nitpick" your manipulative and repeated use of a supposed GW statement which was never made. You can easily avoid it simply by using the correct wording when making such claims, instead of evoking the appearance that you are twisting words in an effort to propagate your cause. After all, when it's really the same to you, it'd make no difference ...

Or you could stop nitpicking. The intent of the statement is perfectly clear.

That is the Forgeworld shop. While the company is a subsidiary of GW, it does not make the FW shop the same, just like the BioWare store is not the EA store. What were you saying about "establishing brand identity" up there...?

FW is a brand name used by GW to sell various products, just like Citadel and White Dwarf. The fact that some parts of their webpage have a different design doesn't mean they aren't part of the same company.

As per GW, that apparently depends:

And your point is?

Throne of Skulls US is a tournament that no longer exists. And not only does it no longer exist, it obviously contains house rules like not allowing more than 500 points of allies. If you're going to insist that the "no FW" rule in ToS matters then I expect you to play all of your games under the "500 points of allies" restriction.

Kill Team is a special variant game, not standard 40k, so it is irrelevant.

The points are way off and I think if you played Eldar or Orks against a HH list then it will be a slaughter, do it if you want but make a custom scenario.

 DiRTWaL wrote:
The points are way off and I think if you played Eldar or Orks against a HH list then it will be a slaughter, do it if you want but make a custom scenario.

Having actually faced CSM, Necrons, Space Wolves, Orks, Eldar, and Daemons with an HH list, there is literally nothing unbalancing. The HH armylist is very balanced and frankly fantastically written.

FW has come out and said HH lists aren't meant for standard 40k play, but they are perfectly balanced for use against them (with some exceptions I can't offer an opinion on having not used them, namely the Lord of War detachment".)

TLDR: The points aren't way off. They're quite fine, actually.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Lynata wrote:

Peregrine wrote:They do. http://forgeworld.co.uk/

That is the Forgeworld shop. While the company is a subsidiary of GW, it does not make the FW shop the same, just like the BioWare store is not the EA store. What were you saying about "establishing brand identity" up there...?

FW is the brand GW sells their resin stuff under.

Just like Citadel is the brand GW sells finecast, pewter, and plastic stuff under.

They're both GW.

I don't get how people keep manufacturing a difference between being a part of GW and being GW.

TheCaptain wrote:I don't get how people keep manufacturing a difference between being a part of GW and being GW.

That may be because said difference was artificially created by GW opting to create separate websites for some parts of their company but not others.
For example, Citadel, the very brand you mentioned, does not have a Citadel website but is distributed on the main GW online store. Citadel also sells resin minis, so you are incorrect about that being a unique trait of Forgeworld.
And then we have statements such as the interview with Mr. Abnett (the one about the Ultramarines movie) where he explains why GW opted to create Black Library instead of simply distributing the novels under their main brand.

So ... yes, there are differences between GW and "GW", if you will.

The Heresy Betrayal FAQ specifically says that you can use the army list (excluding Lord of War units) in regular games of 40k, you should simply use the normal 40k Force Org chart.