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.

BarBoBot wrote:FW is as legit as anything else GW makes.

As long as GW itself differentiates between its own rules and FW's, I would disagree with this assessment.

FW is GW, and the units in question are the ones that say "40k approved"

It is GW telling you it's ok to use in their game.

 BarBoBot wrote:
FW is GW, and the units in question are the ones that say "40k approved"

It is GW telling you it's ok to use in their game.

Nobody doubts that.

The thing people seem to have a problem with is not using them in their game. As if that were some kind of crime.

Given that they are marketed and released under a different brand, it's also ok to not use them in your game.

 BarBoBot wrote:
What?

If you went to Pizza Hut and they have KFC (which does happen here in the US), you order your KFC and know its legit because it IS KFC.

If (!) I order KFC, sure. But if I order pizza, I don't want KFC, no matter how "legit" it is

BarBoBot: As I have explained in my previous post, that depends on the game you intend to play - specifically the players agreeing on the army lists they use. A unit being "intended to be used" in 40k arguably doesn't automatically make it an integral part of the core game.

There are GW events and tournaments that specifically say "FW rules = no go", so I think it's somewhat misleading to claim there is no difference at all as long as GW themselves contradicts you with such categorical bans. Don't you think you may be evoking false expectations here? What do you do when someone actually follows this advice, only to find out he cannot actually use these units everywhere?

It's fairly simple. Gamers ought to ask around in whatever region they play - their friends, their club, or the LGS. If they're okay with FW, awesome, go ahead. Just don't expect it - this is actually true regardless of what the books say, for even if GW would come out and say something like "FW is an integral part of our core game" (which they have yet to do) then it could still simply be ignored by these gamers. What are you going to do then? Sue them in front of the great GW Court?
40k is a give and take of mutual respect and acceptance. I'm sure a lot of players would be more openminded about FW if we wouldn't see so many attempts to force it down their throats, and instead see more people advocating the benefits of voluntarily accepting FW into their game, such as more varied gameplay and the sweet models.

Show 1 post where anyone says they try to force FW down anyone's throats...

Have you read anything I posted? Several times I mentioned that players can refuse a game against FW or any other thing for any other reason.

It's your personal preference to decide if you want to or not. That does not change the fact that FW is GW and their rules are as official as anything found in a codex.

The units marked 40k approved are approved for standard 40k games. If you choose that you don't want to play against 40k approved FW units, your house ruling. The default from the makers of the game is that 40k approved units are allowed.

Also, FYI, I own zero FW models,(for now) but I play against them regularly. It's not game breaking...

This by far isn't the first thread on dakka about FW, and such topics tend to feature a lot of posts akin to "I don't want to have to ask" etc. I've gotten a bit tired of this, yet I'm stupid enough to still participate in them, if only to point out what I perceive to be a flaw in some posters' argumentation, and advocating an approach less based on rules and more on voluntary agreement.

Yes, FW is official. No, that does not make it an automatic part of the game. Again I refer to the rulebook - 40k does not care about what is official and what isn't. The recommended approach is the Codices. You are, however, free to change or expand your army list with whatever you like, as long as both players agree on it.

BarBoBot wrote:The units marked 40k approved are approved for standard 40k games. If you choose that you don't want to play against 40k approved FW units, your house ruling.

Just like it is your house ruling if you do not want to play against anyone's homebrewed army.
As per the rulebook, FW Army Books are closer to homebrewed than to Codices, as the former two are both part of the "it's okay if you want" category, yet the recommended approach remains "use the Codex".

How is FW akin to home brew armies?

It's a set of rules that accompany a model that's produced by GW, not some fan dex made by Joe Shmoe.

 BarBoBot wrote:
How is FW akin to home brew armies?

It's a set of rules that accompany a model that's produced by GW, not some fan dex made by Joe Shmoe.

Because it's their strawman of choice, they pick something they can "quote" even if it's so far wrong that it only makes their argument continue to look sillier and sillier.

This is their third attempt at a slogan, since they can no longer hide behind "Opponents permission" as the catchall "THIS IS NOT LEGAL BECAUSE I SAY IT IS NOT"

BarBoBot wrote:How is FW akin to home brew armies?
It's a set of rules that accompany a model that's produced by GW, not some fan dex made by Joe Shmoe.

For the third time: because that's what the rulebook suggests.

The recommended approach is the GW Codices. You are not forced to limit yourself to these, however, and are free to expand or change your army list with whatever you like - this includes both homebrewed rules as well as what is published by FW.

The only one important part is that everyone agrees on what they field.

ZebioLizard2 wrote:Because it's their strawman of choice, they pick something they can "quote" even if it's so far wrong that it only makes their argument continue to look sillier and sillier.

Sort of like the "approved for 40k" quote, you mean?

 Lynata wrote:

BarBoBot wrote:How is FW akin to home brew armies?
It's a set of rules that accompany a model that's produced by GW, not some fan dex made by Joe Shmoe.

For the third time: because that's what the rulebook suggests.

The recommended approach is the GW Codices. You are not forced to limit yourself to these, however, and are free to expand or change your army list with whatever you like - this includes both homebrewed rules as well as what is published by FW.

The only one important part is that everyone agrees on what they field.

Except now you are trying to equate Homebrewed with Forgeworld, a strawman argument in order to support your view.

Of course I guess if you ignore the FAQ, White Dwarf, Supplements, and all those other legal things just like Forgeworld you'd at least be consistent.

Sort of like the "approved for 40k" quote, you mean?

Even though it is Approved for 40k, and allowed in actual games of Warhammer 40k.

Back when GW still sponsored tournaments did they allow FW? Just curious.

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:


Except now you are trying to equate Homebrewed with Forgeworld, a strawman argument in order to support your view.

Of course I guess if you ignore the FAQ, White Dwarf, Supplements, and all those other legal things just like Forgeworld you'd at least be consistent.

Sort of like the "approved for 40k" quote, you mean?

Even though it is Approved for 40k, and allowed in actual games of Warhammer 40k.

Not really.

If you include FW, but refuse homebrew, you are "drawing a line", in this case a line between "toys/rules-produced-by-people-that-share-the-same-accounting-department" vs. "toys/rules-produced-by-somebody-not-sharing-the-same-accounting-department"

Yet at the same time, you claim people are wrong if they draw a line elsewhere, notably the line between "toys/rules-produced-by-the-same-design-studio" vs. "toys/rules-produced-by-a-different-design-studio" (which may share the same accounting-department).

The "homebrew-argument", while admittedly a bit hyperbole, serves to illustrate the hypocrisy of people adamant about the former "line", but utterly intolerant of latter "line". Hence it's not a straw-argument and will continue to come up in these threads.

 Zweischneid wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

After all, FW and GW are one and the same thing, aren't they?

Just like Taco Bell, KFC and Pizza Hut are all the same thing (Yum! Brands).

Looking to play Warhammer 40K and having somebody deploy Forge World across the table is like ordering a peperroni pizza in a red-roofed pizza-joint and getting a bucket of Chicken with Guacamole.

Sure, it's the same company, and it's all "food stuff". Just not the flavour one was expecting.

No, that's a predetermined position that you created for yourself. The only reason someone would feel that forgeworld units being deployed in a 40k game would be unexpected is because they created a false version of reality for them self that the two things are separate. Reality just doesn't support this. It's like saying that playing a 40k game and seeing someone pull out a Tau army instead of a space marine army is somehow not 40k. Or that playing with Flyers is somehow "un40k". It's the same type of argument as saying FW is "un40k" or "unexpected" in a regular game of 40k. You are attempting to limit legal choices from legal armies based on your own made up opinion of the rules and their intent.

Locrian wrote:


No, that's a predetermined position that you created for yourself. The only reason someone would feel that forgeworld units being deployed in a 40k game would be unexpected is because they created a false version of reality for them self that the two things are separate. Reality just doesn't support this. It's like saying that playing a 40k game and seeing someone pull out a Tau army instead of a space marine army is somehow not 40k.

It's not a "false" reality created by people. It's a "false" reality created purposefully by Games Workshop PLC when they created a separate brand - Forge World - for the exact purpose of creating this distinction. You can't blame people for reading separate brands as.. well.. separate brands. It might be a "false" reality, an "illusion" (as all brands are), but this illusion is the only reason the Forge World brand exists.

 Zweischneid wrote:

Locrian wrote:


No, that's a predetermined position that you created for yourself. The only reason someone would feel that forgeworld units being deployed in a 40k game would be unexpected is because they created a false version of reality for them self that the two things are separate. Reality just doesn't support this. It's like saying that playing a 40k game and seeing someone pull out a Tau army instead of a space marine army is somehow not 40k.

It's not a "false" reality created by people. It's a "false" reality created purposefully by Games Workshop PLC when they created a separate brand - Forge World - for the exact purpose of creating this distinction. You can't blame people for reading separate brands as.. well.. separate brands. It might be a "false" reality, an "illusion" (as all brands are), but this illusion is the only reason the Forge World brand exists.

They are not separate brands, at all. They are different departments within a single brand.

It's the same as saying Digital Editions are not 40k.

In my opinion, this eternal debate is nonsensical.

Case 1: If you are in a tournament, ask the tournament organizer. That´s all. It is a real pain to organize such an event, so it is his decision, and his alone. Respect it. If you are unable to do that, organize your own tournament.

Case 2: If you are playing a casual game, ask the player you want to play with. This applies to Forgeworld, an army with three Riptides, an overpowered army, house rules, custom-made campaigns or even w40k as a whole. If your opponent does not want to play with you, respect it. You are not authorized to force people to play with you.

How is this possibly a debate? You want someone to organize an event exactly the way you want? You think you can force people to play with you?

ZebioLizard2 wrote:Except now you are trying to equate Homebrewed with Forgeworld, a strawman argument in order to support your view.
Of course I guess if you ignore the FAQ, White Dwarf, Supplements, and all those other legal things just like Forgeworld you'd at least be consistent.

I see you're not even reading my posts.

ZebioLizard2 wrote:Even though it is Approved for 40k, and allowed in actual games of Warhammer 40k.

Under the same conditions that homebrewed rules are? Sure.

Martel732 wrote:Back when GW still sponsored tournaments did they allow FW? Just curious.

They still do sponsor tournaments. That's why I've been saying people ought not to proclaim that the rules are 100% identical in terms of how GW treats them:
http://www.games-workshop.com/MEDIA_CustomProductCatalog/m2730448a_Throne_of_Skulls_Rules_WHWorld_2013.pdf
http://www.games-workshop.com/MEDIA_CustomProductCatalog/m2860630a_40K_Kill_Team_Pack_2013_(6).pdf

da001 wrote:In my opinion, this eternal debate is nonsensical.

Case 1: If you are in a tournament, ask the tournament organizer. That´s all. It is a real pain to organize such an event, so it is his decision, and his alone. Respect it. If you are unable to do that, organize your own tournament.

Case 2: If you are playing a casual game, ask the player you want to play with. This applies to Forgeworld, an army with three Riptides, an overpowered army, house rules, custom-made campaigns or even w40k as a whole. If your opponent does not want to play with you, respect it. You are not authorized to force people to play with you.

How is this possibly a debate? You want someone to organize an event exactly the way you want? You think you can force people to play with you?

This, so much. Exalted.

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

 Lynata wrote:

BarBoBot wrote:How is FW akin to home brew armies?
It's a set of rules that accompany a model that's produced by GW, not some fan dex made by Joe Shmoe.

For the third time: because that's what the rulebook suggests.

The recommended approach is the GW Codices. You are not forced to limit yourself to these, however, and are free to expand or change your army list with whatever you like - this includes both homebrewed rules as well as what is published by FW.

The only one important part is that everyone agrees on what they field.

Except now you are trying to equate Homebrewed with Forgeworld, a strawman argument in order to support your view.

Of course I guess if you ignore the FAQ, White Dwarf, Supplements, and all those other legal things just like Forgeworld you'd at least be consistent.

. . . I'm not sure you understand what a "strawman argument" is. A strawman argument is when you say your opponent is making an argument that they are not, and then provide a counter-argument to that fictitious argument.

It's an argument that often provokes the phrase, "Stop putting words in my mouth," or "I never said that," or similar things from your opponent.

Home brew rules are made by anyone.

FW(which IS GW) has rules written by people paid to write them specifically for 40k and/or apocalypse.

Saying that home brew rules are on par with FW is laughable. Roll on the floor laughable.

Not really. The actual 40K rules are on par with homebrew rules. Inferior, in fact.

 BarBoBot wrote:
Home brew rules are made by anyone.

FW(which IS GW) has rules written by people paid to write them specifically for 40k and/or apocalypse.

Saying that home brew rules are on par with FW is laughable. Roll on the floor laughable.

Heh, I remember the first homebrew army list I wrote. I basically took the fluff from Hammer's Slammers and made a fluff-matching 40k army out of it.

So basically, hover vehicles and pretty much everybody's weapons were AP 2, because, well, their primary weapons are a type of plasma beam weapon or something that basically wrecks everything.

I think I made the basic trooper about 6pts or so...

BarBoBot wrote:FW(which IS GW) has rules written by people paid to write them specifically for 40k and/or apocalypse.
Saying that home brew rules are on par with FW is laughable. Roll on the floor laughable.

Not really. It depends on what the book says, doesn't it?
Have you considered that perhaps GW - which seems to chiefly regard itself as a model-selling company - has merely created the Forge World studio to offer a professional approach to this officially supported homebrewed aspect of the game? And that perhaps this is why it's a separate studio with a separate website and a separate catalogue?

Anyways, as with the last threads, I predict this will be moving in cycles. I think we at least ought to agree on the points that da001 has raised, though, no?

. . . I'm not sure you understand what a "strawman argument" is. A strawman argument is when you say your opponent is making an argument that they are not, and then provide a counter-argument to that fictitious argument.

Actually I had the wrong word in head, I was meaning Logical Fallacy.

To put this to bed, you can turn down the game if you want or play it. It is a only a game. The TOs make as they see fit. me i don't play against Supplements cause in my eyes they are expansions. i use some forge world models, Wraithseer, Hornets, Warp Hunters, Firestorm and Contempter Dreads(Only for AA for my Dark Angels and the one to proxie for my Blood angels Dread). I try and my armies fluffy. But most improtany win or (most when i lose) i have fun and get a few laughs,

DeadWingman

 Lynata wrote:

BarBoBot wrote:FW(which IS GW) has rules written by people paid to write them specifically for 40k and/or apocalypse.
Saying that home brew rules are on par with FW is laughable. Roll on the floor laughable.

Not really. It depends on what the book says, doesn't it?
Have you considered that perhaps GW - which seems to chiefly regard itself as a model-selling company - has merely created the Forge World studio to offer a professional approach to this officially supported homebrewed aspect of the game? And that perhaps this is why it's a separate studio with a separate website and a separate catalogue?

Anyways, as with the last threads, I predict this will be moving in cycles. I think we at least ought to agree on the points that da001 has raised, though, no?

Im sorry, but who raised that point? Below is my first post in this thread, the 6th post on the very first page....thanks for actually reading the thread

 BarBoBot wrote:
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.

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

. . . I'm not sure you understand what a "strawman argument" is. A strawman argument is when you say your opponent is making an argument that they are not, and then provide a counter-argument to that fictitious argument.

Actually I had the wrong word in head, I was meaning Logical Fallacy.

Ahh.

And a Strawman Argument is actually a type of Logical Fallacy. ^_^

BarBoBot wrote:Im sorry, but who raised that point? Below is my first post in this thread, the 6th post on the very first page....thanks for actually reading the thread

My argument was about your claim that GW itself wouldn't make a difference between its Codices and FW rules.

I'm glad to see that we still agree on what all of this means in practice, though, as per the applications mentioned by da001. This at least means we have a common ground after all, even if we seem to disagree as per the wording. For what it's worth, the latter seems to be a case of principles, but as long as it doesn't affect reality, no harm done.

 Ailaros wrote:
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.

The arguement goes both ways when it comes to that behaviour, but I'm so glad we can white wash everyone on a single side of the argument as being like that.

Back on the topic of the thread at hand:

The thing is FW was made to feature cool models (mostly tanks) and give you rules to play those with. In IA1 (version 1) Jervis Johnson had even said that the studio was treating it as legal for normal games. We're well past the point of it really being fair to anyone to try and put that cat back in the bag.

For all the hemming and hawing about how the studio apparently doesn't see FW as legal I've never seen anyone present evidence to support it.

And before someone brings up tournaments, when you can show me that the rulebook has rules on timelimits, brackets, prize support and rounds we'll talk about the Warhammer World events and how they're apparently a yardstick for use to judge legality by.

Beyond that, FW in tournaments is the TO's choice, just like allies, special characters, points limits and double FOC. In casual games whatever you agree to play with your opponent is legal for that game. That's about as far as legality goes in this game. I mean this is the same edition that tells players that they can homebrew a legal army list.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Fragile wrote:
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.

Someone needs a look through the Apocalypse book then because that's a book by the GW main studio that has FW options in it.

@BarBoBot: your point was the same but your wording was different though. What about this wording?

Most players will agree, but then you find stuff like this, taken from Bell of Lost Souls: http://www.belloflostsouls.net/2013/11/the-convoluted-mess-of-40ks-quick.html
Quote: "There is a rumor that Forge World plans to setup a shop in the US and at that time it will no longer require consent. Forge World has recently released the rules for Space Marine chapters and characters from their Badab campaign which do not require consent."

Really? "Do not require consent"? So I can pick a player and actually force him/her to play? Wow, imagine the possibilities. If this rumor ends being true, I will fly to Russia to force Vladimir Putin to play with me! I will table him with my Bloodslaughterers and upload it on Youtube.

Zweischneid said something relevant here:

 Zweischneid wrote:

The important part is to understand that by insisting on "legal" as a lever to bully yourself into games an opponent would not truly enjoy (though he may concede if you press the issue) means you're not only behaving like an donkey-cave, you're also hurting the diffusion of Forge World more broadly. If, on the other hand, you drop the "legal"-speak and make a positive case for Forge World not based on "legal", but on enrichment of the game, you contributing far more towards bringing the community to that place of "FW as common as Rhinos" that you want to see in the future.

^This. It somehow freaks me out all this talk about "legality"...

Off topic: about House Rules.
I think the game is intended to be house ruled. Read pages 339-400 of the Rulebook. Players are supposed to create their own custom-made chapters, campaigns, missions, whatever. This is a game that encourages creativity, not blindly following some fixed set of "official rules accepted by all players" that, in fact, have never existed and will never exist. And that´s good. Making new stuff is an important part of the hobby for me, perhaps the most important.

And I am yet to find someone who would not "fix" this or that rule. Terrain and missions are the main targets, but background issues are often raised too.

Martel732 wrote:
Not really. The actual 40K rules are on par with homebrew rules. Inferior, in fact.

Also, this. Seriously. The amount of hard work, creativity, play testing and respect for the established background you can find in some fan-made Codexes is way beyond many GW´s "professional" works.

On topic again: what really baffles me is when someone who uses Forgeworld because it enriches the game (and not because he is a powergamer) then refuses to play house-rules, all of them, claiming that they are not "official". Do you want to enrich the game or not?

Can we agree however that "experimental rule" FW should not be allowed on the table except in friendly games?