Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

rigeld2 wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
It says it's a Heavy Support choice for armies chosen from the Codices listed. The Heavy Support section is part of the Codex. If the unit in question is part of the Heavy Support choices, it's part of the Codex. For example, what's a Codex Black Templars army? It's the units selected from Codex: Black Templars. In this army, a Land Raider Achilles is a Heavy Support choice. As such, the LRA is a part of Codex: Black Templars.

So you're arguing that it's a codex update without any language saying that the codex is updated. Cool story bro.

Yes, I am, because you're the one who made up the qualification that it has to say "OFFICIAL UPDATE" or something like that. It says it's part of Codex: Black Templars. Just not the way you want it to say it. Now, do you mind attacking my point instead of dismissing it out of hand?

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
It says it's a Heavy Support choice for armies chosen from the Codices listed. The Heavy Support section is part of the Codex. If the unit in question is part of the Heavy Support choices, it's part of the Codex. For example, what's a Codex Black Templars army? It's the units selected from Codex: Black Templars. In this army, a Land Raider Achilles is a Heavy Support choice. As such, the LRA is a part of Codex: Black Templars.

So you're arguing that it's a codex update without any language saying that the codex is updated. Cool story bro.

Yes, I am, because you're the one who made up the qualification that it has to say "OFFICIAL UPDATE" or something like that. It says it's part of Codex: Black Templars. Just not the way you want it to say it. Now, do you mind attacking my point instead of dismissing it out of hand?

I did attack your point.
Page 108 in the BRB says to use the various codexes to build your army. The various White Dwarfs specifically state they're Codex updates. You're trying to take something that's implied (but not stated) as absolute permission - but you can't do that.

How is it merely implied? If it's a heavy suppor choice it's part of the FOC, if it's part of the FOC it's part of the Codex. If that weren't the case you'd be unable to ever take it (even if you were playing with FW), as it wouldn't be part of Codex: Black Templars, and it's only allowed to be in an army chosen from Codex: Black Templars (in this example).

rigeld2 wrote:
So you're arguing that it's a codex update without any language saying that the codex is updated. Cool story bro.

How the hell is "this is a 100% official heavy support choice for X army intended for standard 40k" NOT a codex update? The only problem here is that you're insisting that GW, a company with a long and glorious tradition of being sloppy in their rule writing, hasn't used the precise language that you demand they use.

As has been said before, there are legitimate (though wrong, in the end) arguments against FW. "They're not official" isn't one of them.

rigeld2 wrote:
Page 108 in the BRB says to use the various codexes to build your army. The various White Dwarfs specifically state they're Codex updates. You're trying to take something that's implied (but not stated) as absolute permission - but you can't do that.

And the FW books say "this is an additional unit for X army". You consult your codex for the army list, and the FW books give you permission to add various units to that army list. Just like you consult your codex for the army list, and the WD rules give you permission to add various units to that army list. It works the same in both cases, the only reason to argue otherwise is if you're starting from the assumption that FW has to be different.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
How is it merely implied? If it's a heavy suppor choice it's part of the FOC, if it's part of the FOC it's part of the Codex. If that weren't the case you'd be unable to ever take it (even if you were playing with FW), as it wouldn't be part of Codex: Black Templars, and it's only allowed to be in an army chosen from Codex: Black Templars (in this example).

I've bolded the assumption you made.

You're assuming that FOCs only exist in codexes (demonstrably false) and that they can only be used with BRB missions (demonstrably false). It's perfectly valid to say that it's a HS choice to be used with C:BT in the (Planetstrike or Cities of Death) expansion.

You haven't shown that it's a Codex Update.

rigeld2 wrote:
You're assuming that FOCs only exist in codexes (demonstrably false) and that they can only be used with BRB missions (demonstrably false). It's perfectly valid to say that it's a HS choice to be used with C:BT in the (Planetstrike or Cities of Death) expansion.

Except the note at the start of the book clearly states that the rules are intended for STANDARD 40k.

rigeld2 wrote:
Page 108 in the BRB says to use the various codexes to build your army. The various White Dwarfs specifically state they're Codex updates. You're trying to take something that's implied (but not stated) as absolute permission - but you can't do that.

Right.

And another GW publication states that the units listed therein are part of the codex in question.

What was your point again?

 Peregrine wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
You're assuming that FOCs only exist in codexes (demonstrably false) and that they can only be used with BRB missions (demonstrably false). It's perfectly valid to say that it's a HS choice to be used with C:BT in the (Planetstrike or Cities of Death) expansion.

Except the note at the start of the book clearly states that the rules are intended for STANDARD 40k.

The people who keep making this argument always forget about the second part of the statement they are quoting, which states that FW models/rules require your opponent's permission. Codex models/rules and official codex additions found in WD do not have this restriction, which sets them apart.

 helium42 wrote:
The people who keep making this argument always forget about the second part of the statement they are quoting, which states that FW models/rules require your opponent's permission. Codex models/rules and official codex additions found in WD do not have this restriction, which sets them apart.

That's not what the second part of that statement says.

This entire thread has basically become cyclical between the same people not to mention the insinuation that people who disagree with FW being allowed are now apparently illiterate.

I almost regret ever writing a rebuttal to Reece's article. If a Mod were to deem this lockable due to cyclical arguments and personal attacks and insults I wouldn't shed a tear over it or anything.

As a last statement on this until I bow out, lock or not, I don't think banning FW across the board is the answer. I want to see a mix of events allowing a mixed level of FW. Some core rules and codices only, some "40k Approved" units only, and some full force FW allowance. Also, my arguing against allowing FW in all events doesn't make me illiterate. I am far from illiterate and I do take offense at being called so; either directly or as a member of a group who holds a certain belief.

 OverwatchCNC wrote:
This entire thread has basically become cyclical between the same people not to mention the insinuation that people who disagree with FW being allowed are now apparently illiterate.

Except that's not what's being said at all. The objection is to people who claim that FW isn't official, using some pretty desperate (and pathetic) rationalizations. People are free to object to FW for other reasons (unbalanced rules, for example) without being illiterate. They're still wrong, but at least they aren't making factually stupid claims.

 Peregrine wrote:
Who cares if it uses those exact words?

This is one of those funny things about game design...you have to use the exact words, no matter how "obvious" it may seem to the one designing the rules. If you intentionally leave holes in rules because you just assume the players will all "get it", then you're just opening yourself up to debates like this one because one can not always easily interpret the designer's intent. Indeed some would argue that it's outright impossible to determine the "intent" behind a rule and that the only way to play correctly is how it's been written (and in this case, it's not specifically written that FW rules are tournament legal, merely "official", which could mean any number of things but definitely not that they are 100%, without a doubt, legal in tournaments).

It's not necessarily because people are stupid, or illiterate, as has been constantly suggested in this thread and others, either. I am not "stupid" just because I read the same piece of information that you did and came to a completely different conclusion, it's because GW have intentionally left room for doubt. You guys are treating this as if I'm just making some factually absurd claim like the sky is actually green, but that's not the case. The only reason I've come to the conclusion I have is because of the language GW has chosen to write their rules with, not a lack of understanding on my part. It is not "obvious", it is not a "no-brainer".

You see the word "official" and assume that means "legal for use in all games, including tournaments". I disagree, since GW has not specifically addressed tournament play when writing these rules it's still open for debate. "Official" in this case simply means that they are GW models/rules designed to be used with the 40k ruleset, as opposed to one of their other rulesets (so no bringing your Crassus armored assault transport to a game of Warhammer Fantasy) or games produced by another party entirely. It's not proof that the unit is sanctioned for tournament play, it's more or less GW just putting their stamp on it and saying "We own this!", similar to what rigeld2 pointed out before with games like Space Marine and Dawn of War having the GW logo slapped on them. I see it more as a statement that they own the imagery, names, devices, etc. and not much more than that.

It's entirely possible for companies to produce "official" rules and products for their games, while at the same time restricting or banning their use in organized or competitive play...Magic: The Gathering is one of them. Technically every card ever produced is "official" (unless they're part of the "Collector's Edition" which is specifically mentioned as not being legal for tournament play), and "legal" in games being played at your kitchen table, but when you agree to play in an event using rules from a specific format then you agree to abide by those rules, and they clearly state which modern sets are legal and which cards are banned/restricted. You can't use cards like Chrome Mox or Jace, the Mind Sculptor when playing Standard, even though these are official cards that Wizards have printed in the past, and are legal in other formats. I'm pretty sure if you look around you can find other examples from other games...I'm not 100% familiar with Battletech or how competitive play works for that game but I'm pretty sure they don't allow anything and everything that's ever been produced in tournaments, either, even if it's all technically "official". From what I can tell they even ban the use of some map sheets because the terrain printed on them is unbalanced.

In any case, I just don't think this is quite as cut-and-dry as you guys are trying to make it sound, and I think some of you guys are resorting to just straight-up bullying to try and get your way. "Official" is not the same thing as "tournament legal", that's really the end of the argument as far as I fething care.

 Peregrine wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
You're assuming that FOCs only exist in codexes (demonstrably false) and that they can only be used with BRB missions (demonstrably false). It's perfectly valid to say that it's a HS choice to be used with C:BT in the (Planetstrike or Cities of Death) expansion.

Except the note at the start of the book clearly states that the rules are intended for STANDARD 40k.

Which does not mean "these rules are sanctioned for use in tournaments". Really, "standard" 40k kinda means feth all in the end. What is "standard" 40k? I define it as 40k being played with the BRB and official codices. Clearly we can't even agree on this as you define it as BRB, codices, and all the garbage FW puts out on top of that.

GW, if they wanted, could very clearly define "standard" 40k for us, but I guess they get too big of a kick out of watching the fat, lonely nerds rip each other's throats out over a stupid, piece of gak game to use their authority to make an official decision. List FW and WD updates as not only being "official" but specifically tournament legal in the BRB, done. I guess the idea here is they don't want to take away the option from event organizers to run their events however they see fit, but I don't see how you still can't give TO's the final word on what is and isn't allowed while also making an actual decision.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Now, do you mind attacking my point instead of dismissing it out of hand?

You first.

My point is that without official word from GW, FW rules are not tournament legal. FW rules say they are "official" for use in games of 40k, but "official for use" does not necessarily mean "tournament legal". If the IA books said "These rules are official for use in games of 40k and completely tournament legal" then there would be no room for argument. If GW themselves mentioned FW rules or even WD codex updates in the BRB and specifically mentioned them as being legal in all games and that they were officially sanctioned for tournament use, then the argument against FW in tournaments wouldn't really have any legs to stand on. Since that's not the case, the debate continues as to whether or not FW should be legal in tournaments, and that's a debate that literally will never have an end since it's not as "obvious" as you all claim.

As it's been said before, it's up to the TO's at this point, since GW has effectively washed their hands of the competitive scene and refuses to acknowledge that it even exists, let alone make any decisions regarding competitive play. And TO's can literally restrict or ban whatever they want at their discretion, whether or not it really seems "fair" to us. Could a TO ban Codex: Necrons if he felt it was warranted? Yeah, though that would probably hurt attendance and maybe hinder sales at his store. Likewise one could argue that a blanket FW ban is also not fair, but in the end that alienates much fewer players (You can still play with your IG, and maybe even proxy some codex units with your FW models if you wish, you just can't use the FW Elysians or DKoK lists...whereas if IG were just banned flat-out you couldn't use anything at all). You don't have to play in events or shop at stores that don't allow FW, but considering that many stores have had a "no FW" policy through multiple editions, and continue to survive regardless, I doubt they'll care about continuing to not receive your business.

Yes, it says "official" in the FW books, but what does "official" really mean in this context? That it's merely produced by GW and not a third party like Chapterhouse? That it's part of the 40k universe and as such they own it, along with everything else (well, supposedly, we don't really know yet if GW actually do own all their copyrights or not)? Legal in all games, including tournaments? How do you arrive to that conclusion without the word "tournament" ever being brought up? Haven't TO's statistically always been able to modify the rules to their heart's content anyway? Haven't the players for that matter, with the core rules giving everyone permission to modify, change, add or omit anything? Should we even really care what GW says when GW has effectively washed its hands of the competitive scene and refuses to even acknowledge the fact anymore that people do want to play their game competitively, unless it's Jervis aiming to mock said players for "doing it wrong" in his personal bs White Dwarf column every month?

Personally I don't fething care anymore, but I've taken the opposite approach that Redbeard apparently has. Instead of saying "Screw it!" and opening the flood gates, allowing anything and everything in all games of 40k, I think we should rein in the bs and start banning gak left and right. To hell with "playing 40k the way it's written", if 40k is really so inherently broken then it shouldn't be. Right?

 Sidstyler wrote:
FW rules say they are "official" for use in games of 40k, but "official for use" does not necessarily mean "tournament legal".

That's exactly what it means. There is no distinction between official rules, and tournament rules. If the rules are official, then they are official. End. Of. Story.

Then I'm ignoring them anyway, because GW says I can ignore anything I fething want to in the "official rules". I'm "forging my narrative", end of story.

 Sidstyler wrote:
This is one of those funny things about game design...you have to use the exact words, no matter how "obvious" it may seem to the one designing the rules.

Except GW has a long tradition of not using exact words. The entire "FW isn't official" case is based on the assumption that GW always uses exact words in every single situation, so the fact that they didn't use the exact phrase that the anti-FW crowd wants to see is proof that they didn't want FW rules to be official. It's complete because over and over again GW fails to use such precise language, and it ends up being little more than a refusal to accept FW without a personal signed and notarized letter from the CEO of GW.

GW has made their position clear, and any claim otherwise is complete nonsense.

You see the word "official" and assume that means "legal for use in all games, including tournaments".

You're right. GW doesn't say a thing about tournaments. However, that point is that:

1) The anti-FW crowd uses "FW is not official" as a reason why FW should not be allowed.

and

2) One of the best arguments for allowing FW is that the default tournament rule should be that all official GW products for the current edition of 40k are legal. House rules should be minimized, and just like comp-heavy tournaments were a stupid idea we shouldn't ban FW units that people have paid money for and invested time and effort in building. It's just sad that the same people who argue against comp-heavy tournaments turn around and argue for FW bans based on the same reasoning the comp tournament organizers use.


And yes, third-party TOs have a right to disagree and ban FW units. However, the response should be to laugh at how pathetic they are, just like we laughed at people who ran comp-heavy tournaments until they stopped doing it.

It's not proof that the unit is sanctioned for tournament play, it's more or less GW just putting their stamp on it and saying "We own this!", similar to what rigeld2 pointed out before with games like Space Marine and Dawn of War having the GW logo slapped on them. I see it more as a statement that they own the imagery, names, devices, etc. and not much more than that.

Except that's a stupid comparison. The Space Marine game is official GW IP. Forgeworld rules are official 40k rules, and it explicitly states that they're meant to be part of the standard game of 40k.

Which does not mean "these rules are sanctioned for use in tournaments". Really, "standard" 40k kinda means feth all in the end. What is "standard" 40k? I define it as 40k being played with the BRB and official codices. Clearly we can't even agree on this as you define it as BRB, codices, and all the garbage FW puts out on top of that.

Congratulations on missing the context of that quote. He argued that you can't prove that FW didn't mean "X is a heavy support choice for Y army in Planetstrike" when they wrote the rules, which is stupid when the book clearly states that it's talking about standard 40k, not Planetstrike or some other expansion.

And standard 40k includes FW because GW has explicitly stated that FW rules are part of standard 40k. End of discussion.

I will not play in any event banning FW. I have made my stand.

Hate to jump in, however.
A thread about a FW tank caused me to do some digging. I got out a year 2000 Imperial Armour book. This is not IA1, but an imperial vehicle guide softcover that GW produced in association with ForgeWorld (my other FW books say produced by FW, or produced by FW for GW) and it says.
"As noted in the introduction all of the vehicles in this book can be used in games of 40k as part of an imperial guard army, even if they are not included in in codex imperial guard. Each vehicle used counts as one of the choices for the army, of the type indicated below, with the points cost indicated in the rules that follow." The introduction, by Jervis Johnson, talks about the joys of being a tread head, and that He would rather drive an m1 Abrams than Michelle Pfeiffer. Nothing about asking your opponents permission. Looks like the FW crew is softer on the position than GW was at the time.

Wait....rather drive an m1 than have a hot date with Michelle is what it said.

 Sidstyler wrote:
Then I'm ignoring them anyway, because GW says I can ignore anything I fething want to in the "official rules". I'm "forging my narrative", end of story.

Absolutely, go for it. Just don't act like there's some kind of special justification for ignoring FW and not codexes. They're the same, and ignoring one is the same as ignoring the other.

 skkipper wrote:
I will not play in any event banning FW. I have made my stand.

lol, I like that...like this has legit turned into a war and now the spilling of blood is all but inevitable. Choose your sides and make a stand!

feth that, this is a game, I'm not going that damn far. I'm not even saying that FW shouldn't be allowed at all, I actually like the idea of multiple types of events, with some that allow them and others that don't. I just want to be able to have the choice to play against it or not. I wouldn't mind running two different lists myself, one with FW and one without. I just disagree with the idea that not allowing FW is the same as banning a codex, it's not the same in my opinion and I won't be convinced otherwise.

If I'm coming off as being a lot more hostile than that then I apologize, but I'm not so fething opposed to the idea that I'll legit fight someone over it. I've already said before in other threads that in casual play I don't really care. Hell, I'll even play against your fething titan in a 2000 point game so long as you don't plonk it down on the table all like "You HAVE to play against this, the rules say so and if you refuse I win by default!"

Peregrine wrote:It's just sad that the same people who argue against comp-heavy tournaments turn around and argue for FW bans based on the same reasoning the comp tournament organizers use.

Argued. Comp wasn't needed during 5th edition since it seemed a small, tiny little effort was being made to try and streamline the game more for competitive play, but now that they kicked out Alessio and did a complete 180 that's all out the window. As Redbeard alluded to before, the game was always unbalanced, but now it's just inherently broken and nothing short of heavy bans and restrictions is going to "fix" it.

I'm a fan of "out-of-the-box" gaming myself, I don't like the idea of sitting down to a game and having to make a dozen different house rules, or having to be pressured by fellow gamers into restricting myself or following some stupid "code of honor" some neckbeard invented. But if the core game is so broken that it's almost literally unplayable then I don't see any other option: either comp out the gak that doesn't work or just don't play the game. For now I've opted for the latter, but I have an awful lot of money tied up in models that are sitting around gathering dust.

 Sidstyler wrote:
I just disagree with the idea that not allowing FW is the same as banning a codex, it's not the same in my opinion and I won't be convinced otherwise.

It's exactly the same. Both FW and the codex are official and part of standard 40k, and TOs have the right to ban both of them in their events. You have a right to your personal opinion, but it's no different than someone else who has a personal opinion that they hate orks and should have a variety of tournaments with different policies on allowing orks.

Hell, I'll even play against your fething titan in a 2000 point game so long as you don't plonk it down on the table all like "You HAVE to play against this, the rules say so and if you refuse I win by default!"

Terrible analogy. Titans aren't part of standard 40k, and demanding to use one in a standard game is being TFG. FW, on the other hand, is part of standard 40k and it's reasonable to expect to be allowed to use any standard 40k army in a standard game of 40k.

Argued. Comp wasn't needed during 5th edition since it seemed a small, tiny little effort was being made to try and streamline the game more for competitive play, but now that they kicked out Alessio and did a complete 180 that's all out the window. As Redbeard alluded to before, the game was always unbalanced, but now it's just inherently broken and nothing short of heavy bans and restrictions is going to "fix" it.

And banning FW is a tiny effort to fix the game, and not even a useful one since it applies equally to the most powerful FW units and the most terrible ones.

Until we see legitimate "heavy bans and restrictions", including codex units (or entire codices) with FW units done case-by-case like every other unit, the whole "balance 40k" excuse is just an excuse to remove rules you personally don't like. Just singling out FW while happily playing in events with equally broken stuff is just plain hypocrisy.

 Sidstyler wrote:
Comp wasn't needed during 5th edition since it seemed a small, tiny little effort was being made to try and streamline the game more for competitive play, but now that they kicked out Alessio and did a complete 180 that's all out the window. As Redbeard alluded to before, the game was always unbalanced, but now it's just inherently broken and nothing short of heavy bans and restrictions is going to "fix" it.

I've played in a lot of tournaments in both 5th and 6th edition, and I disagree. "6th edition is broken/uncompetitive" is an Internet meme with little grounding in reality. Now that the new FAQs have well and truly eliminated the silly edge cases, 6th edition is quite balanced.

 Sidstyler wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Now, do you mind attacking my point instead of dismissing it out of hand?

You first.

My point is that without official word from GW, FW rules are not tournament legal. FW rules say they are "official" for use in games of 40k, but "official for use" does not necessarily mean "tournament legal". If the IA books said "These rules are official for use in games of 40k and completely tournament legal" then there would be no room for argument. If GW themselves mentioned FW rules or even WD codex updates in the BRB and specifically mentioned them as being legal in all games and that they were officially sanctioned for tournament use, then the argument against FW in tournaments wouldn't really have any legs to stand on. Since that's not the case, the debate continues as to whether or not FW should be legal in tournaments, and that's a debate that literally will never have an end since it's not as "obvious" as you all claim.

As it's been said before, it's up to the TO's at this point, since GW has effectively washed their hands of the competitive scene and refuses to acknowledge that it even exists, let alone make any decisions regarding competitive play. And TO's can literally restrict or ban whatever they want at their discretion, whether or not it really seems "fair" to us. Could a TO ban Codex: Necrons if he felt it was warranted? Yeah, though that would probably hurt attendance and maybe hinder sales at his store. Likewise one could argue that a blanket FW ban is also not fair, but in the end that alienates much fewer players (You can still play with your IG, and maybe even proxy some codex units with your FW models if you wish, you just can't use the FW Elysians or DKoK lists...whereas if IG were just banned flat-out you couldn't use anything at all). You don't have to play in events or shop at stores that don't allow FW, but considering that many stores have had a "no FW" policy through multiple editions, and continue to survive regardless, I doubt they'll care about continuing to not receive your business.

Yes, it says "official" in the FW books, but what does "official" really mean in this context? That it's merely produced by GW and not a third party like Chapterhouse? That it's part of the 40k universe and as such they own it, along with everything else (well, supposedly, we don't really know yet if GW actually do own all their copyrights or not)? Legal in all games, including tournaments? How do you arrive to that conclusion without the word "tournament" ever being brought up? Haven't TO's statistically always been able to modify the rules to their heart's content anyway? Haven't the players for that matter, with the core rules giving everyone permission to modify, change, add or omit anything? Should we even really care what GW says when GW has effectively washed its hands of the competitive scene and refuses to even acknowledge the fact anymore that people do want to play their game competitively, unless it's Jervis aiming to mock said players for "doing it wrong" in his personal bs White Dwarf column every month?

Personally I don't fething care anymore, but I've taken the opposite approach that Redbeard apparently has. Instead of saying "Screw it!" and opening the flood gates, allowing anything and everything in all games of 40k, I think we should rein in the bs and start banning gak left and right. To hell with "playing 40k the way it's written", if 40k is really so inherently broken then it shouldn't be. Right?

Of course TOs are allowed to ban whatever they wish, it's their tournaments. This entire thread is more or less all of us voicing opinions on why they should/shouldn't ban Forge World units. I don't think you'll find a single instance of anyone in this thread claiming that TOs aren't allowed to make their own rules. We're pointing out that we think it's not what they should be doing, but they're free to ban whatever they want regardless.

 Sidstyler wrote:
My point is that without official word from GW, FW rules are not tournament legal.

And even with official word from GW, they're not "tournament legal", because the TO makes the rules. There is no distinction between "legal" and "tournament legal" except if the TO creates such a difference (different missions, comp, time limits and, in my opinion, Forge World units being banned). We've already argued whether or not we have official word from GW or not to death I'd expect.

Again, there's NO ONE, in this entire thread, that is disputing that TOs get to decide how they want to run their tournament. We're pointing out that Forge World units are entirely official, created by Games Workshop and meant to be used in "standard 40k" and as such "official". You disagree and both sides offer their arguments, but in the end we're all arguing for how we'd like the TOs to rule, not to force anyone to do anything.




As for the illiterate part, while excessive, it'd help if people actually read what the start of the book actually says. I suspect that's the part that makes people frustrated. Especially when we (the "pro-Forge World" side) are accused of wilfully ignoring it, when it doesn't actually say what the argument claims it does.

This post is pretty nonconstructive at this point, it's still the same ol' same ol' run with the same people arguing are they LEGAL are they UNOFFICIAL and trying to spin words at this point with walls of text that do nothing except to please their own side because it certainly aint convincing anyone at this point.

I myself believe there's no official difference.

Saying

"I want to play a game of 40k"

And whipping out a few Contemptor dreads or using the Mortis Dreadnought is normal.

I love FW and have wanted them in tournies for years.

That being said, FW's version control is such an absolute clusterfeth, I could totally understand any TO that didn't want to go through the rigmarole of figuring out the current version of the rules for everything.

This thread is a joke lol.....

Actually, if you go back to the earlier discussion it was pretty darn useful, with several TOs of major GTs (of Adepticon, Nova Open, Mechanicon...) sharing their thoughts.

I agree it's become a bit repetitive now. To me, this is a grey issue, neither black or white, as evidenced by ardent support on both "sides". Which is why it's up to each individual TO. That, at least, is something all the TOs I mentioned weighing in on this agreed on.

There is no "right" answer to this for all events, and trying to force things to be otherwise is not cool, imo. It will be a case by case thing, just like scenarios are at GTs these days. No "one size fits all".

I do think we'll gradually see more FW acceptance, particularly if/as they consolidate rules to make them easier to find and to know what the current version for a unit is.

The Adepticon link listing every unit and the book or PDF update that it's current rules are found in is invaluable for this.

My opinion certainly opened to More (but not necessarily full) FW use in tournies because of this thread. But it also highlighted the challenges for me, and the reasons a TO may want to disallow, or at least limit, FW use. Will be interesting to see how events trend this next year!

Sidstyler wrote:
This is one of those funny things about game design...you have to use the exact words, no matter how "obvious" it may seem to the one designing the rules.

I agree with you. Games Workshop, however, does not. Moving on.

You see the word "official" and assume that means "legal for use in all games, including tournaments". I disagree, since GW has not specifically addressed tournament play when writing these rules it's still open for debate.

GW has never specifically addressed tournament play. GW tournaments, in the past, have been run by the sales arms of their company, not by anyone connected to the game studio. As with everything GW does, whatever rules they've put in place for any event have been done to drive specific sales. The 'ard boyz series was run by the north american sales team, specifically to drive sales at the independent stores, which is why rounds were not held at GW stores. Does that mean that GW's stance on tournaments is that they're only for independent stores? No - it means nothing, other than that event was designed to help independent stockists.

It's entirely possible for companies to produce "official" rules and products for their games, while at the same time restricting or banning their use in organized or competitive play.

Yes, but GW doesn't make those distinctions, and doesn't produce official tournament rules, regardless of how much some of us would like them to. WotC is a model company in this regard. GW is... less than a model company.

Personally I don't fething care anymore, but I've taken the opposite approach that Redbeard apparently has. Instead of saying "Screw it!" and opening the flood gates, allowing anything and everything in all games of 40k, I think we should rein in the bs and start banning gak left and right. To hell with "playing 40k the way it's written", if 40k is really so inherently broken then it shouldn't be. Right?

Isn't this debate how the Moirae Schism started?

People get disturbingly militant about stuff that doesn't really matter, we have already established if you want to use it you can at certain tournaments and not at others. It keeps everyone happy.

I am not in favour of a Bi-partisan "BAN ALL FORGE WORLD" or "ALLOW ALL FORGEWORLD". Just a take it or leave it approach, people are really spazzing out here over toy soldiers. It's actually quite amusing when you think about how unreasonable and entrenched everyones position is becoming?

Anyway Guilliman wrote the 1st ever Codex, so it's his fault

 skkipper wrote:
I will not play in any event banning FW. I have made my stand.

I run a retail store in southern California, our next 40K tourney is coming up in November and we have to weigh in on allowing FW or not. My stance on this will most likely not be becuase FW is OP or unbalanced but simply because it is a product that GW will not allow me to sell. I don't see a reason for me to support something that I cannot sell and support the store with.

Now may player base may change my mind if they come back (and some may post here or PM me) that they prefer to play in tournaments with FW.

I know some may come back and argue that I sell GW and that is enough, and I shouldn't not allow FW just because I can't sell that particular product line. And running tournamnets allowing FW will still get me a lot of additional regular GW sales. But it does get a little stickier than that.

Believe it or not, a big chunk of GW players are not familiar with Forgeworld. And we will have to keep explaining to them what those models are. The players will have to explain what they do. And on top of that, there is an even larger GW player base that is familiar with FW that doesn't realize that we cannot sell it. (Trust me I get asked all the time about ordering FW product) So I have to keep explaining that over and over again, and when asked why we can't sell it, I have no real answer for that.

But like I said my player base will determine our stance. If they enjoy FW and like tourneys using them, we will support the players and allow it.

Jon

Anyone who says 6th edition is balanced is intellectually dishonest and just trying to win an argument, It is incapable of being balanced simply because of the design of the allies matrix. If the codexes were balanced on their own in 6th, then the addition of allies imbalances them as it gives some too much and others not enough. If the codexes are imbalanced and the allies balances them, then we wouldn't have whole codexes without battle brothers or the worst codex ever with no allies.

All this talk of preserving the 6th edition balance is a lie... it is about preserving relational meta which benefits specific people and playstyles. Not wanting to play something which is confusing or new is one thing but claming imbalance is sheneanigans.