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.

 Peregrine wrote:
The main reason to include FW is very simple: the default rules for tournaments should be the actual rules of 40k as published by GW, not house rules imposing the TO's personal preferences about how the game should be. GW has explicitly stated that FW rules are part of standard 40k, so the default should be to include them, just like the default should be that every codex is allowed.

Just because you keep saying this does not make it true. Forgeworld has stamped certain units in rescent books, but that stamp has never gone on any alternate army lists and there are caveats in the section where they talk about it. There is literally no mention of Forgeworld in the entire 6th edition 40k rulebook on building armies and zero references to it in any codecii. There are a lot of good reasons to include forgeworld, but this is not one of them.

Back on topic: Again, if you guys want to include FW for reasons beyond "I hate flyers and I want some semblance of 5th back." then comp needs to come with it, or else its Sabrehammer 40k where in the grimdark future there are only Sabres (and the occasional Hyperios). That is of course unless you don't mind the same IG allies block being spammed all over the place, in which case carry on.

 Phazael wrote:
Forgeworld has stamped certain units in rescent books, but that stamp has never gone on any alternate army lists and there are caveats in the section where they talk about it.

Well, it's a good thing I'm not saying that the army lists are mandatory. However, once the 6th edition updates for them are published I expect that they'll get the same "part of standard 40k" approval that the individual units have.

There is literally no mention of Forgeworld in the entire 6th edition 40k rulebook on building armies and zero references to it in any codecii.

So what? As you said, there's no mention at all, so there's nothing that contradicts the explicit statement GW has given that FW is official and part of standard 40k, especially when those statements have been published after the 6th edition rulebook. If GW had changed their mind they would have removed the "this is part of standard 40k" statement from IA:Aeronautica and the pdf updates.

Back on topic: Again, if you guys want to include FW for reasons beyond "I hate flyers and I want some semblance of 5th back." then comp needs to come with it, or else its Sabrehammer 40k where in the grimdark future there are only Sabres (and the occasional Hyperios). That is of course unless you don't mind the same IG allies block being spammed all over the place, in which case carry on.

Err, no. Sabre spam is only appealing because everyone's afraid of flyerspam lists. If you remove the threat of flyerspam (for example, by bringing so many Sabre platforms that nobody takes flyers) the Sabres become a lot less appealing and leave the list. In the long run there's probably a balanced metagame with some of each.

 Blackmoor wrote:

 OverwatchCNC wrote:

Allan reasoned statements like that haven't been seen in this thread for pages. How dare you attempt to do so now!

The problem is that there is no correct answer to the question of whether or not there should be Forge World at tournaments. Both sides have some valid points, and everyone has their opinions.

At this point it is out of the players hands and into the hands of the Tournaments Organizers to decide if they want to have Forge World at their events or not. All the players can do is vote with their wallets. If you like Forge World then you should attend these events that allow it, and if you do not, then you should stay at home.

Agreed, but hopefully folks won't have to choose- as many of the larger events are now offering side events that allow FW, even if the main event doesn't


I think both Blackmoor's and muwhe's lists sum up the pros/cons of this issue quite well, so I'm going to quote both of them onto this page:

 Blackmoor wrote:
Can someone bullet-point the reasons why we should have forge world in tournament play?

For an example the anti-forge world would be:

Price: Makes an expensive game more expensive

Inaccessible Rules: You need to order the books from Forge World and are not readily available.

Confusion: Even TOs and people who use them are unaware of the nuances of their rules.

Balance: Only units that you will see at tournaments are the broken overpowered ones.

Access: Imperials get the lion’s share of the units and the best ones.

Perceived Imbalance: With allies 6th edition is balanced.

Irrational fear of Fliers: No proof that fliers are dominating without forge world.

muwhe wrote:


Off the top of my head ..

• Forgeworld books say they are “official” for use in games of 40k.
• Allowing Forgeworld produces more variety and diversity in armies.
• You enjoy the additional challenges and complexity of having more variety and diversity in the game.
• Your opponent / attendees want to play with them.
• You like to support a portion of the company that speaks, listens, and supports veteran hobbyists.
• The game is about playing with great looking models and Forgeworld produces fantastic models.
• Playing with Forgeworld models at events allows other people a chance to experience and enjoy them.
• The addition of Forgeworld models and rules brings additional visual and tactical interest to the meta that at times can grow old and stale.
• They are cool and fun!

Indeed, so it basically comes down to how people want to see events run and played...

I think that if the TOs are good and the tournament is a decent format and allows FW, that won't necessarily prevent people who don't want FW from playing, they'll just suck it up and play along but might not like the FW aspect if it gets out of hand.

On the other hand if the TOs are good and the tournament is a decent format but doesn't allow FW, I think the FW advocates will still play and have fun but oh well about using your FW toys.

All in all, there are many ways to play 40k and the BRB even says to feel free to modify the rules to have more fun if you want. The "most important rule" even says that not every situation is covered by the rules and the inclusion of FW is in this situation. Therefore, there is technically no ultimate right or wrong answer because there is no ultimate standard in determining if FW is appropriate...

I mean pg 360 talks about making up your own missions and 366 about making up your own special rules and so on. People are free to run tournaments how they want and as Blackmoore and Muwhe listed good reasons for either including or not including FW, it comes down to personal preference and saying how you individually would like the game to be played and to try and convince someone else that to play the game your way is the best way is silly. The point of the game is to ultimately have fun and for some PPL, FW is not fun, for others it is and that causes quite the impasse =/.

 mortetvie wrote:
On the other hand if the TOs are good and the tournament is a decent format but doesn't allow FW, I think the FW advocates will still play and have fun but oh well about using your FW toys.

Or stay home. No FW = I'm not playing in your event, and I'm probably not going to buy anything in your store. I'm not going to buy an entire new army just so some TO with delusions of grandeur can make his own house rules about what should and shouldn't be legal.

The "most important rule" even says that not every situation is covered by the rules and the inclusion of FW is in this situation.

Nope. FW is explicitly part of standard 40k according to the rules published by GW. You can argue all you want that it should be banned for whatever reason, but like it or not it's part of the game.

 Peregrine wrote:

 mortetvie wrote:
On the other hand if the TOs are good and the tournament is a decent format but doesn't allow FW, I think the FW advocates will still play and have fun but oh well about using your FW toys.

Or stay home. No FW = I'm not playing in your event, and I'm probably not going to buy anything in your store. I'm not going to buy an entire new army just so some TO with delusions of grandeur can make his own house rules about what should and shouldn't be legal.

The "most important rule" even says that not every situation is covered by the rules and the inclusion of FW is in this situation.

Nope. FW is explicitly part of standard 40k according to the rules published by GW. You can argue all you want that it should be banned for whatever reason, but like it or not it's part of the game.

This post is how I feel. I've invested thousands of dollars into an entire armored regiment (here), and it has progressed ridiculously much since then.

Each company is between 1500 and 2500 points, built so I can field a good list using a whole company of Imperial armor taken from the Armored Battlegroup army list.

I will not have a TO tell me that I cannot play my 1st Concordian Armored Regiment according to its TO&E only because they disallow a book / list because of the frankly spurious reasons given here.

Luckily for you, Unit11, there are plenty of events that allow FW. Most folks, however, are going to fall somewhere in the middle on this issue.

There will always be a few who are going to draw lines in the sand, whatever the issue may be. Personally, I'll happily continue to attend both types of events

 RiTides wrote:
Luckily for you, Unit11, there are plenty of events that allow FW. Most folks, however, are going to fall somewhere in the middle on this issue.

Unfortunately this doesn't seem to be the case, unless you're willing to spend hundreds of dollars on plane tickets to get to an event. I know every event I've seen within reasonable driving distance of where I live has banned FW rules.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 mortetvie wrote:
On the other hand if the TOs are good and the tournament is a decent format but doesn't allow FW, I think the FW advocates will still play and have fun but oh well about using your FW toys.

Or stay home. No FW = I'm not playing in your event, and I'm probably not going to buy anything in your store. I'm not going to buy an entire new army just so some TO with delusions of grandeur can make his own house rules about what should and shouldn't be legal.

The "most important rule" even says that not every situation is covered by the rules and the inclusion of FW is in this situation.

Nope. FW is explicitly part of standard 40k according to the rules published by GW. You can argue all you want that it should be banned for whatever reason, but like it or not it's part of the game.

This post is how I feel. I've invested thousands of dollars into an entire armored regiment (here), and it has progressed ridiculously much since then.

Each company is between 1500 and 2500 points, built so I can field a good list using a whole company of Imperial armor taken from the Armored Battlegroup army list.

I will not have a TO tell me that I cannot play my 1st Concordian Armored Regiment according to its TO&E only because they disallow a book / list because of the frankly spurious reasons given here.

Is there an FAQ that allows one of those vehicles to be a character/warlord? If not, it's not 6th edition legal.
That's not a "spurious" reason - 6th edition has introduced a lot of things that don't work quite right with an all vehicle army. I'd say your "codex" has been outdated. Be annoyed at FW for not updating it, not at TOs for following the rules.

rigeld2 wrote:
Is there an FAQ that allows one of those vehicles to be a character/warlord? If not, it's not 6th edition legal.

Wrong. It says that you must nominate one, not that you must include one. It doesn't say anything about what happens if you are unable to nominate one, and it would be reasonable to assume that if you are absolutely unable to nominate a warlord that you simply don't have a warlord.


Of course this is kind of a reason to allow FW units but not FW army lists for now. Since they've said they're going to be updating the lists for 6th edition it wouldn't be unreasonable to argue that the FW army lists are incomplete in some way, so they shouldn't be allowed until the 6th edition updates are released. However, this is a temporary problem, and shouldn't have any effect on the general debate over whether to allow FW or not, just like the common policy of not allowing a new codex that was released right before an event doesn't really have much to do with the decision to allow it in general or not.

what forge world book is the most current? how does it work? where to i get the model stats?

 Peregrine wrote:

The "most important rule" even says that not every situation is covered by the rules and the inclusion of FW is in this situation.

Nope. FW is explicitly part of standard 40k according to the rules published by GW. You can argue all you want that it should be banned for whatever reason, but like it or not it's part of the game.

You sound so sure, yet a lot of people are arguing it. It is possible that you could be wrong?

 TheContortionist wrote:
what forge world book is the most current?

IA:Apocalypse, IA:Apocalypse 2, IA:Aeronautica, and the downloads section on FW's website. That will cover all 40k-approved units.

how does it work

Each unit says what army it is added to, how many points it costs, and what FOC slot it occupies. For example, "A squadron of 1-3 Warhound titans is a troops choice in an Imperial Guard or Tau army." Then you take it just like any other choice in your army list.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Blackmoor wrote:
You sound so sure, yet a lot of people are arguing it. It is possible that you could be wrong?

People are arguing because they don't want it to be true. It is explicitly stated in perfectly clear terms that the rules are official and part of standard 40k. The only "ambiguity" is that some people can't stand the fact that the old "opponent's permission required" rule was changed to "part of standard 40k" and won't accept that it's official without a personal hand-delivered signed and notarized letter from GW's CEO stating that FW is official.

I remember what I wanted to ask...

How is Forge World seen in the Warhammer Fantasy Community? Do they accept it? Do they embrace Warhammer Forge Units?

if it is not too much trouble can you go to the page the books are on and link them for me? i want to get these books but have no idea, still, which ones. I know this one http://www.forgeworld.co.uk/New_Stuff/IMPERIAL_ARMOUR_AERONAUTICA.html but what are the other two?

 Peregrine wrote:
[

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Blackmoor wrote:
You sound so sure, yet a lot of people are arguing it. It is possible that you could be wrong?

People are arguing because they don't want it to be true. It is explicitly stated in perfectly clear terms that the rules are official and part of standard 40k. The only "ambiguity" is that some people can't stand the fact that the old "opponent's permission required" rule was changed to "part of standard 40k" and won't accept that it's official without a personal hand-delivered signed and notarized letter from GW's CEO stating that FW is official.

You put forth your opinion like it is a certainty without acknowledging ambiguity.

Here are the 2 arguments:

#1. There is no mention of Forge World in the rules for Warhammer 40k or any of the codexs, nor are any Forge World products sold by Games Workshop stores or website and allowed in any Games Workshop run events.

#2. Forge World is owned by Games Workshop and anything they produce has the approval of Games Workshop. They listed the units that approved for games of 40k and made them official. Games Workshop has never said that they are unofficial, and their response is play the way you want to play.

You Peregrine (If that is your real name) live in a world were only option #2 exists without the possibility of option #1. I live in a world were both exist, and I have to choose one.

Anyone know the rules behind conversions in tournaments?

Can one use FW bits for conversions?

Can one still use the DKoK as IG?

Sry, TL: DR, I am tired and I'm only here for those questions.

Peregrine, when you say "people are arguing against it because they don't want it to be true," you assume to know every single person's motivation for arguing something eh? Its frustrating reading your posts sometimes because you come across as the ultimate FW fanboy who can't ever be wrong. Seriously, people have a legitimate argument against forgeworld being 40k legal and you keep going back to "the books say they are 40k legal" but that specific language isn't used in the sense that you are using it and doesn't prove your point.

Indeed, the FW books say "this unit is intended to be used in 'standard' games of warhammer 40,000 within the usual limitations of codex selection and force organization charts. As with all our models, these sould be considered 'official'..."

but you gloss over the part that says:

"'...but owing to the fact that they may be unknown to your opponent, its best to make sure they are happy to play a game using Forge World models before you start."

FW only says that it INTENDS for the models to be used in regular 40k games, which offers a legitimacy on a completely different level than regular codex units. FW clearly admits that the fact that FW models/rules are not widely known/available is a legitimate reason for your opponent not to be obligated to play against FW models...Codex units on the other hand cannot be objected to by an opponent with any legitimacy.

To reiterate, FW lacks the amount of legitimacy that standard codex units have in that you never need an opponent's permission to bring codex units. Therefore, if you need opponent's permission before playing someone with FW, it doesn't make sense to build an army around FW only to not be able to use it if your opponent doesn't want to play against FW in any tournament or game...That is why tournaments say either flat out "yes" or "no" to FW being allowed so that the opponent's permission aspect is no longer an issue.... in essence the TOs are forcing opponent's to give permission simply by showing up to the tournament.

@ Dimitri, you can use anything to stand in as regular 40k codex units. So FW tanks can be used as Codex tanks where applicable and so on...You can use an Achilies landraider for a regular landraider and a contemperator (sp?) dreadnought as a regular 40k one.

@Blackmoore, from what I can tell, warhammer forge units are not as big of a ballance issue as 40k ones are since every army has a means to deal with large things and so on...warhammer forge items really pale in contrast to anything 40k related because Warhammer is such a different game.

Let's try not to feed the troll(s) guys. I know I started the thread but I have stopped responding to the nonsense.

Oh but the trolls look so hungry sometimes....when they stand on the corner of posts holding out signs that say "will troll for food..."

Have pity!

 Blackmoor wrote:
You Peregrine (If that is your real name) live in a world were only option #2 exists without the possibility of option #1. I live in a world were both exist, and I have to choose one.

Except option 1 is a nonsense option. It's entirely based on your assumption that not saying anything about FW in one context is the same as contradicting themselves about FW legality, an assumption that is not supported at all by the printed rules. The truth is that FW is part of GW just like Citadel is part of GW, and the idea that FW would say "our stuff is legal" without that being GW's policy is just laughably insane.

And no, GW's policy in their own events doesn't matter here, since the tournament community has been perfectly happy to ignore how GW runs their own events when it's a debate over comp, scoring, allies limits, etc. It's actually pretty funny that people will rant about how bad a job GW does of running tournaments, but then suddenly when it's time to discuss FW legality GW's events are the source of all wisdom.

 mortetvie wrote:
Its frustrating reading your posts sometimes because you come across as the ultimate FW fanboy who can't ever be wrong. Seriously, people have a legitimate argument against forgeworld being 40k legal and you keep going back to "the books say they are 40k legal" but that specific language isn't used in the sense that you are using it and doesn't prove your point.

It's not about fanboyism, it's about simple facts.

FW being official and part of standard 40k is not open to dispute. It's written in plain English in GW books, with absolutely no ambiguity.

FW being reasonable for tournaments is open to dispute. There are valid (though IMO wrong) arguments against it (money, balance, etc) that have some degree of personal preference involved, but officialness is not one of them.

but you gloss over the part that says:

"'...but owing to the fact that they may be unknown to your opponent, its best to make sure they are happy to play a game using Forge World models before you start."

Because it says that you SHOULD make sure that they're happy, not that you MUST. It's a note about being polite, not a rule.

FW clearly admits that the fact that FW models/rules are not widely known/available is a legitimate reason for your opponent not to be obligated to play against FW models...Codex units on the other hand cannot be objected to by an opponent with any legitimacy.

Where is the word "legitimate" used in that sentence? And where is the word "permission" used?

And no, it's not implied, because it could just as easily be read as "some people irrationally hate our product, so you'll save your sanity if you just identify them right away and don't bother playing against them".

According to your reasoning, "intended" to be used in 40k games is not the same as actually being used in 40k games and "should" be considered official is not the same as actually being official so if you want to interpret things the way you are doing you defeat your own argument...I guess by your logic and interpretation of the "plain English written" we can agree that FW was INTENDED to be used in 40k but not necessarily and it SHOULD be official but not necessarily, its just to appease FW fans who:

"irrationally [love] our product, so you'll save your sanity if you just identify them right away and don't bother playing against them".

And its a clear and logical inference that when FW says that "due to a lack of knowledge or familiarity with the rules/units, opponent's may not want to play against FW units," that it's a legitimate reason for someone to not want to play against FW units... Considering how GW is all about including everyone in the hobby, GW would have you put your FW models aside to promote happiness, peace, prosperity and make the hobby world a better place. Seriously, its in the BRB.

Also in the BRB it says that when people can't agree on a rule, to just D6 it so roll a D6 right now and on a 4+ FW is legit, on a 1-3 its not and we can call it a day.

On the warlord note, we've been alright allowing me to nominate one of my command tanks as a warlord.

If this isn't ok with you, then I won't have a warlord.

BTW, it implies that warlords can be vehicles if you roll a 6 on the "personal traits" table.

 mortetvie wrote:
According to your reasoning, "intended" to be used in 40k games is not the same as actually being used in 40k games and "should" be considered official is not the same as actually being official so if you want to interpret things the way you are doing you defeat your own argument...

Except one is a statement of designer's intent ("for standard 40k"), one is a statement that it's polite to state in advance that you have FW rules and not show up with a last minute surprise. It's not the same at all.

And its a clear and logical inference that when FW says that "due to a lack of knowledge or familiarity with the rules/units, opponent's may not want to play against FW units," that it's a legitimate reason for someone to not want to play against FW units...

It doesn't say "legitimate" or "not legitimate", it just says that you might find yourself in that situation so you should resolve it before beginning the game instead of, say, waiting until turn 2 when your unit arrives from reserve to say "by the way, here's my FW unit you didn't even know existed, and it just killed your stuff".

Also in the BRB it says that when people can't agree on a rule, to just D6 it so roll a D6 right now and on a 4+ FW is legit, on a 1-3 its not and we can call it a day.

Or here's a better solution: on a 1+ we play by the rules and include FW units, on any other result I go find something better to do than put up with an opponent who knows better than GW about what should be included in the game. I have a very simple policy on that: I bring an army to 40k night which may or may not include FW models, and you either play against it or don't play me at all. And I will never attend a tournament or other event that does not allow FW units even if my desired army list doesn't include them.

who knows better than GW about what should be included in the game

Although my personal view is that not allowing Forgeworld 40K Approved stuff is a bit reactionary and I'd actually like to see Forgeworld 40K Approved embraced more (despite as I said earlier not owning any models that need FW rules myself), it's only fair to point out that GW UK do not allow 40K Approved models in their own tournaments at Warhammer World.

 Peregrine wrote:

 mortetvie wrote:
According to your reasoning, "intended" to be used in 40k games is not the same as actually being used in 40k games and "should" be considered official is not the same as actually being official so if you want to interpret things the way you are doing you defeat your own argument...

Except one is a statement of designer's intent ("for standard 40k"), one is a statement that it's polite to state in advance that you have FW rules and not show up with a last minute surprise. It's not the same at all.

Way to twist words only when its convenient for you. You specifically took the word "should" and said that it was not a must and merely an optional thing and I did the same to point out how your logic ultimately invalidated your argument. The opposite of what you are saying could very well be argued by your logic and interpretation of the words, that it was the designer's intent that FW units should be played with opponent's permission and not otherwise...I mean, did you have a personal talk with FW or Ms. Fox to determine what you are claiming? You don't realize that you are merely pulling out of the words what you want to see and not what is actually there.

 Blood and Slaughter wrote:
Although my personal view is that not allowing Forgeworld 40K Approved stuff is a bit reactionary and I'd actually like to see Forgeworld 40K Approved embraced more (despite as I said earlier not owning any models that need FW rules myself), it's only fair to point out that GW UK do not allow 40K Approved models in their own tournaments at Warhammer World.

But it's also fair to point out that "what GW UK does in their Warhammer World events" has never mattered at all to anyone who isn't playing in those events. The tournament 40k community is happy to rant about how badly GW runs their own events when the subject is comp, soft scores, etc. The only time anyone seems to give GW's own events any respect or authority is when they're quoting a "no FW" rule, which is laughably inconsistent.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 mortetvie wrote:
Way to twist words only when its convenient for you.

Oh FFS, this isn't complicated. The statement says two things:

1) This is official and part of standard 40k.

2) Not everyone is familiar with these rules and some people just dislike our product, so since this is a two-player game in which both players have to agree you should tell them you're using FW rules before the game begins.

In a sane world this is a very simple thing to handle. It's official, but unless you're holding a gun to their head your opponent can refuse to play against you (just like they can refuse to play against you for many other reasons). Only in the insane minds of the anti-FW crowd does an statement about being polite and avoiding conflict turn into a direct contradiction of "these rules are official and part of standard 40k".

Correction, it says these rules are INTENDED to be, but that doesn't mean that they ARE . Like YOU said... SHOULD does not mean MUST so the units don't necessarily HAVE to be official. Just going based off what you said and all =).

 mortetvie wrote:
Correction, it says these rules are INTENDED to be, but that doesn't mean that they ARE . Like YOU said... SHOULD does not mean MUST so the units don't necessarily HAVE to be official. Just going based off what you said and all =).

Given that the statement is written by the people who have the power to decide what is and isn't part of the 40k rules I'd say that "intent" is the same as "fact".

 Peregrine wrote:
And I will never attend a tournament or other event that does not allow FW units even if my desired army list doesn't include them.

Most tournaments have had a "no FW" policy for many, many years, and I've never heard of said policy negatively affecting attendance. The NOVA Open for example hasn't allowed FW since it's creation and it keeps getting bigger every year.

People can keep saying they will refuse to attend events that don't allow FW, but assuming that they already haven't been this whole time, I personally don't think it's going to make any more of a difference. I highly doubt allowing FW would really boost attendance that much in any case, hence why more TO's probably haven't changed their minds.

 Peregrine wrote:
In a sane world this is a very simple thing to handle. It's official, but unless you're holding a gun to their head your opponent can refuse to play against you (just like they can refuse to play against you for many other reasons). Only in the insane minds of the anti-FW crowd does an statement about being polite and avoiding conflict turn into a direct contradiction of "these rules are official and part of standard 40k".

If the pro-FW crowd can't make their point without constantly resorting to personal attacks then I don't see any point in continuing this pointless "discussion". It's gotten to the point now where, apparently, if you don't like FW you're "insane". Really? Toy soldiers. Come the feth on.