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.

I always get confused with the use of Forgeworld models, can we use them or not? I am a black Templar player and I would like to use the Caestus Assault Ram. Its a fast attack choice for Black Templars.

I know TO have the final word on what you can bring at your LGS, and for other games, just ask your opponentfor permission. Since the Flyer rules came out, I was just curious if Black Templars had the ability to use this. To the best of my knowledge, we can not use stormtalon (unless we take it as an ally).

Yes, you can use them as long as they have the "40k approved" stamp and the model's rules allow your codex to use them.

As always, your opponent reserves the right to refuse you the game on any grounds. Ranging from, but not limited to, you are wearing a Pink Floyd T-shirt, your shoes don't match your belt, your army is not painted, your army is badly painted, your army is MLP themed, you did not bring an army list, you forgot your dice, he doesn't like your tattoo, you said something offensive about his dog, you are using Forge World models in your game, etc...

Awesome, thank you for the claitfication on that. Looks like I will also have to watch what I wear not too. I wonder if socks and sandles is too much? lol ha ha ha

Friends don't let friends wear socks with sandles.

Friends dump friends that wear black socks with sandles.

 Grey Templar wrote:
you are wearing a Pink Floyd T-shirt

I have it on good authority that this is never a good reason to refuse anyone a game.

ha ha ha, I would never do that... I just see it so often at gaming conventions. Its sad :( lol

 daedalus wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
you are wearing a Pink Floyd T-shirt

I have it on good authority that this is never a good reason to refuse anyone a game.

No, but it is a reason.

You don't need a good reason to refuse a game, you need a good reason to avoid being labled a duche.

Yes, FW is good to go. In fact, for many armies not wanting to use allies, it is currently the only way to include fliers/AA units.

Just ensure you bring a copy of the FW rule in question to show your opponent.

 Grey Templar wrote:
you are wearing a Pink Floyd T-shirt,

Well, crap. Looks like I won't be wearing one of my favorite shirts then

@OP

Nothing has changed. The Imperial Armour: Aeronautica contains the same requirement that all newer IA books does; player consent.

Do not let attempts at distraction fool you. Yes, all activities concerning a game of Warhammer 40K contains elements of "player consent" as it is a voluntary activity involving two (or more) people.

This does not change or belittle the single inescapable fact that the requirement for player consent concerning the use of IA units is explicitly spelled out.

Saying that; "People can refuse to play Orks, if they feel like it", and present that as an argument for the requirement for player consent being trivial, simply isn't a comparable argument.
The requirement for player consent concerning the use of IA units is perfectly clear.

The labels that tells us what kinds of game these units are intended for, does not change the player consent requirement either. Neither does the information on how to include a given unit in a given army.

Unit X is intended for use in games of standard 40K, it is a Fast Attack choice....and it requires player consent.
Nothing has changed.

Any arguments involving which tournaments allowing what is completely and utterly irrelevant.
Tournaments can, should and do change things such as missions, scenarios, win-conditions, codex admission and unit selections.
Presenting the argument that; "That tournament does this and therefore I am right" is asinine and inconsistent.

Nothing concerning IA has changed.



...

Steelmage99 wrote:
@OP

Nothing has changed. The Imperial Armour: Aeronautica contains the same requirement that all newer IA books does; player consent.

Do not let attempts at distraction fool you. Yes, all activities concerning a game of Warhammer 40K contains elements of "player consent" as it is a voluntary activity involving two (or more) people.

This does not change or belittle the single inescapable fact that the requirement for player consent concerning the use of IA units is explicitly spelled out.

Saying that; "People can refuse to play Orks, if they feel like it", and present that as an argument for the requirement for player consent being trivial, simply isn't a comparable argument.
The requirement for player consent concerning the use of IA units is perfectly clear.

The labels that tells us what kinds of game these units are intended for, does not change the player consent requirement either. Neither does the information on how to include a given unit in a given army.

Unit X is intended for use in games of standard 40K, it is a Fast Attack choice....and it requires player consent.
Nothing has changed.

Any arguments involving which tournaments allowing what is completely and utterly irrelevant.
Tournaments can, should and do change things such as missions, scenarios, win-conditions, codex admission and unit selections.
Presenting the argument that; "That tournament does this and therefore I am right" is asinine and inconsistent.

Nothing concerning IA has changed.



...

The difference being that FW is now going through the same path that special characters did. They were less inclined to be used now they are an integral part of the army.

All caveats apply, be polite and make sure your opponent is fully aware. There is not a single element of FW as or more powerful than many combinations found in the last 4-5 GW codices, only ignorance shrouds their uses.

lazarian wrote:The difference being that FW is now going through the same path that special characters did. They were less inclined to be used now they are an integral part of the army.

That really doesn't compare. GW may have designed an army with SCs in mind, but they sure as hell didn't design it with FW products in mind. That flyers might make an army easier to play won't change this, even if said army would otherwise have a disadvantage.

I could also make up my own units of what I consider integral. But just like FW, these too would require specific consent. Saying something like "I play IG" and then showing up with FW tanks is not how it works.

Just ask politely instead of assuming/expecting it. It's rather likely your opponent won't mind, anyways.

Everything is "ask player consent". If someone showed up playing Tyranids with allies, a game can still be played. If someone shows up with a Dragio army and say SW with lots of JotWW, a can could still not be played because the opponet can simply still refuse to play.

So it's always ask first at a flgs. It can be a perfectly legal codex only army and people can still refuse to play it.

So all the people saying FW is legal now, it's not. Anyone can refuse to play it, so what you gonna do when someone refuses to play your legal army? Nothing just go onto someone else who will.

Yes, anyone can refuse to play an army with Forge World in it. But its just as much of a dick move as saying "I'm not playing against your Draigowing/Runepriest/Longfang list of cheese", even though by your standards the second one is legal and the first is not.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Yes, anyone can refuse to play an army with Forge World in it. But its just as much of a dick move as saying "I'm not playing against your Draigowing/Runepriest/Longfang list of cheese", even though by your standards the second one is legal and the first is not.

This. FW is good to go. All the new books have a 'standard 40k games approved' stamp.

lazarian wrote:

The difference being that FW is now going through the same path that special characters did. They were less inclined to be used now they are an integral part of the army.

Imperial Armour units might very well be going down that same path, and I do hope that they will continue all the way to their natural conclusion of inclusion in standard games.....but they aren't there yet so, so far, nothing has changed.

Grey Templar wrote:Yes, anyone can refuse to play an army with Forge World in it. But its just as much of a dick move as saying "I'm not playing against your Draigowing/Runepriest/Longfang list of cheese", even though by your standards the second one is legal and the first is not.

No, it is not comparable. The Imperial Armour rules tell you to seek your opponents permission. This naturally and logically includes the possibility of said permission not being given, with the conclusion that the unit in question cannot be used in this particular game.
The text in Imperial Armour: Aeronautica does NOT even contain the paragraph that tells us that; "Most people wouldn't mind giving said permission" that previous publications have had....placing equal weight and validity to both of the possible outcomes.

Blacksails wrote:
This. FW is good to go. All the new books have a 'standard 40k games approved' stamp.

Which we all know is completely and utterly irrelevant. The stamp is not an approval OF use. It is an instruction in HOW to use. The same applies to the directions given on how, specifically, to include a given unit in a given army.


----------------------------------------------


All we need is for the Games Designers to tell us that Imperial Armour units are approved and balanced for use in standard games of Warhammer 40K, carrying equal weight as those units picked from the Codexes.
Such a statement could be included in the main rulebook FAQ for instance. GW has NOT chosen to do so....yet.

Actually FW is a go everywhere regardless of your intent. These rules are a part of the hobby, whole cloth. Moving the goalpost on this by requiring specific approval from different sources changes little. To the comment on seeking opponents permission it actually doesn't hold water. The notation is as follows from their most recent publication Imperial Armor: Aeronautica.

"This unit is intended to be used in 'standard' games of Warhammer 40,000, within the usual limitaions of Codex selection and force organisation charts. As with all our models these should be considered 'official, but owing to the fact they may be unknown to your opponent, it's best to make sure they are happy to play a game using Forge World models before you start."

Notice it isn't required to get opponents permission, just nice to do so to avoid hurt feelings. It is thrown into the same realm as the following rule from the main rulebook.

"The Spirit of the Game
Warhammer 40,000 may be somewhat different to any other game you have played. Above all, it's important to remember that the rules are just the framework to support an enjoyable game. Whether a battle ends in victory or defeat, your goal should always be to enjoy the journey. What's more, Warhammer 40,000 calls on a lot from you, the player. Your job isn't just to follow the rules, it's also to add your own ideas, drama and creativity to the garne. Much of the appeal of this game lies in the freedom and open-endedness that this allows; it is in this spirit that the rules have been written. "

Again play nice, that includes letting your opponent play with their very expensive toys they just bought online in an attempt to have a good game by all. Everything is opponent consent in the name of player enjoyment over specific rulings or disavowing.

 lazarian wrote:
To the comment on seeking opponents permission it actually doesn't hold water. The notation is as follows from their most recent publication Imperial Armor: Aeronautica.

"This unit is intended to be used in 'standard' games of Warhammer 40,000, within the usual limitaions of Codex selection and force organisation charts. As with all our models these should be considered 'official, but owing to the fact they may be unknown to your opponent, it's best to make sure they are happy to play a game using Forge World models before you start."

Sure. And if they are not happy to play a game using Imperial Armour units, then you will of course also honour the spirit of the game and play on without the unit and enjoy the game regardless, right?

Steelmage99 wrote:

 lazarian wrote:
To the comment on seeking opponents permission it actually doesn't hold water. The notation is as follows from their most recent publication Imperial Armor: Aeronautica.

"This unit is intended to be used in 'standard' games of Warhammer 40,000, within the usual limitaions of Codex selection and force organisation charts. As with all our models these should be considered 'official, but owing to the fact they may be unknown to your opponent, it's best to make sure they are happy to play a game using Forge World models before you start."

Sure. And if they are not happy to play a game using Imperial Armour units, then you will of course also honour the spirit of the game and play on without the unit and enjoy the game regardless, right?

In exactly the same form and fashion if you plop down 5+ necron flyers expect someone to in EQUAL measure to walk away.

You didn't answer my question, which in kinda telling in and of itself.

Steelmage99 wrote:
You didn't answer my question, which in kinda telling in and of itself.

no I answered in exact form with another question.

I have multiple lists for any of armies when I go to my FLGS. One with FW one without, one without my strongest options (I currently play tau so I have a no battlesuit list). My regular opponents are aware of what I have and certainly can ask me to play whatever. New players will be shown my rules and ask if they want to play, exactly as requested. I choose my list based on the answer, my weakest list usually reserved for newer players or people I have never seen. I have never forced FW models on anyone, much less the stronger choices of my books.

The point remains and you are still not admitting it. FW models are the current game rules, the only prohibition is identical to the prohibition to any army choice.

I do not recognize your point as I find it faulty and without merit.

Imperial Armour units (I wish you would stop calling it Forgeworld Models as that is only a source of confusion) are NOT part of the current standard game rules.
Neither the rulebook nor the codexes makes any mention of Imperial Armour.
GW tells us what is part of the game....

And GW has their official stamp of approval on Imperial armour books. Imperial armour even explicitly states that the unit entries inside are official gamesworkshop products. They simply say you should be kind and let your opponent know.

GW has TOLD US that forgeworld is part of the game. You refuse to accept that. I am sure you have your own reasoning but you have no ruling to back it up other than your own personal feeling.

As for your original question on would I play on without the unit to honor the spirit of the game. The answer is no. I will simply find a different opponent. You have already shattered the "spirit of the game" by turning down my legal list. I am not going to change it, go home, grab different models, come back, and then ask if this new list is ok.

That players reason for not wanting to play me was forgeworld. My reason for not wanting to play them is they are acting like an idiot. Both hold equal merit on why a game can be declined.

Steelmage99 wrote:
I do not recognize your point as I find it faulty and without merit.

Imperial Armour units (I wish you would stop calling it Forgeworld Models as that is only a source of confusion) are NOT part of the current standard game rules.
Neither the rulebook nor the codexes makes any mention of Imperial Armour.
GW tells us what is part of the game....

And here is where we apparently disagree. FW/Imperial Armour/whatever is part of GW, used in sanctioned tournaments and discussed in their current rulebooks, websites and publications. Just a few of the elements you appear to be ignoring.

-Recent unit updates, like the Ork Dakkajet or do not currently have their rules listed in their purchasable codecies. Same thing with the recent daemon updates, are they also invalid since many FLGS cannot currently obtain these items? What about the current rules for the Sisters of Battle? The rulebook nor codices state that a Stormtalon is a legal model, you have to do a bit of digging for that.

- Page 383 of the current rulebook discusses Forgeworld and Imperial armor.

- Every issue of White Dwarf, their in house publication, discusses Forge World at least in advertisment. US issue 389 p.82 for instance.

-GW is a fierce defender of their IP and possible infringement. They have under no circumstance asked for FW (an in house company) to remove the specific notice on accompanying products about their legality. 'Sneeze' metaphorically about various elements and you will receive communication from an attorney. Its one of the guiding elements of disagreement for some on here.

- GW does not state which rules are legal, it is only assumed current army books are legal while outdated information is replaced. Every book before 6th edtion (read every codex) is currently out of date and GW makes no mention of what version of the rules to purchase in their rulebook. If you show up to a table with a kroot mercenary army from 3rd edtion with its intended rules they are legal.

-FW is an in house element of GW and it is solely responsible for its content. This isn't Chapterhouse or some other hobby site making rules, this is the same company one and the same.

So again baring being incredibly obtuse.... it is abundantly clear these objects are game legal. You may decline to play them as you would an Eldar player (or whatever army) however to claim illegitimacy falls very short.

Finally if you deny their intentions in this matter what is your reasoning for them to post on all recent ForgeWorld books the blurb about being fully game legal? Are they rogue elements trying to disrupt the design team? Enlighten me please as to why you feel this way. Why would FW libel GW so completely in print this way?

the newer forge world books, the aronoutica book specificly, state that you have to show your oponent the rule as its polite but that they are normal force organisation slots
so depending on how much of a dick they are ie. if they ask you politly not to use it or have a hissy fit then your in your rights to ask them to not use a unit thats in their codex

granted that'll just end up in you not getting a game but the cetus is in the aeronautic book so its completely game legal

*Shakes head*

*Walks away*

Steelmage99 wrote:
*Shakes head*

*Walks away*

Your the one who claimed my argument has no merit, now you try to make a show of 'not participating' with this. Regardless my points still stand, not liking FW is a defensible argument for a number of reasons, trying to hide the obvious truth of their validity via acting frustrated and 'flip the table' is not.

lazarian wrote:And here is where we apparently disagree. FW/Imperial Armour/whatever is part of GW, used in sanctioned tournaments and discussed in their current rulebooks, websites and publications. Just a few of the elements you appear to be ignoring.

I'll point out that the same goes for Black Library novels, yet GW doesn't really give a grot's ass on what strange stories they may tell. Perhaps there is a reason that Forgeworld, just like the Black Library, stands apart from the actual GW design team? Either way, I have yet to see a rulebook or Codex that says that Forgeworld units should automatically be considered part of a faction's army list - rather than an optional add-on. Do correct me if I'm wrong.

That said, what is GW's stance on Forgeworld models in an official GW Tournament? I honestly don't know.

 lazarian wrote:

Steelmage99 wrote:
*Shakes head*

*Walks away*

Your the one who claimed my argument has no merit, now you try to make a show of 'not participating' with this. Regardless my points still stand, not liking FW is a defensible argument for a number of reasons, trying to hide the obvious truth of their validity via acting frustrated and 'flip the table' is not.

I apologize if I have given the impression that I am angry and "flipping tables".

I have long ago promised myself that the second the argument is being presented that Forgeworld IS GW (when GW is obviously used to mean the Design Studio), I will amicably leave the discussion.

Steelmage99 wrote:

 lazarian wrote:

Steelmage99 wrote:
*Shakes head*

*Walks away*

Your the one who claimed my argument has no merit, now you try to make a show of 'not participating' with this. Regardless my points still stand, not liking FW is a defensible argument for a number of reasons, trying to hide the obvious truth of their validity via acting frustrated and 'flip the table' is not.

I apologize if I have given the impression that I am angry and "flipping tables".

I have long ago promised myself that the second the argument is being presented that Forgeworld IS GW (when GW is obviously used to mean the Design Studio), I will amicably leave the discussion.

I disagree but fair enough and I will also leave it at that.