The Case Against Allowing Forge World at Tournaments

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.

**mortetvie**

Peregrine wrote:
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".

Taking what you said can also be applied to prove my point:

Given that the statement "It is best to make sure they are happy to play a game using FW models before you start" is written by the people who have the power to decide what is and isn't a part of the 40k rules, I'd say that "its best to make sure" is the same as "fact." They clearly intend for FW models to be cleared with your opponent before a game. Even if its only to be polite, as you claim, they still said it and intended it to be the case.

**Peregrine**

Sidstyler wrote:
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.

That's fine. I'm still not going to support their events, and I'm still not going to say anything good about their decision. If they can make a profit despite excluding a non-trivial part of the community then I guess that's how they're going to do things.

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.

Is it really that hard to read?

If you are arguing that FW isn't official you are insane. It's published by GW, approved by GW, and it's stated explicitly with absolutely no ambiguity that it is 100% official and part of standard 40k. Whether or not you like FW's rules it's absolutely insane to say things like "FW is a third-party company" or whatever.

If you are arguing that FW is too expensive, unbalanced, etc, then you aren't insane (at least because of that). You're still (IMO) wrong, but it's a legitimate subject for people to disagree about.

See the difference?

Automatically Appended Next Post:

mortetvie wrote:
Given that the statement "It is best to make sure they are happy to play a game using FW models before you start" is written by the people who have the power to decide what is and isn't a part of the 40k rules, I'd say that "its best to make sure" is the same as "fact." They clearly intend for FW models to be cleared with your opponent before a game. Even if its only to be polite, as you claim, they still said it and intended it to be the case.

Sure, they want it to be the case that you're polite, but they've explicitly avoided using the "requires permission" language they've used in the past. It's a very deliberate choice NOT to make it a requirement to obtain your opponent's permission to use your FW units.

**Sidstyler**

Personally I think it's "insane" to keep insinuating that it's a cut-and-dry issue written in plain, clear english, when the language they use is almost the very definition of "ambiguous", hence why there's been a long-standing debate about FW. Should be considered official is not the same as saying it is official, using the word "should" is what creates the uncertainty, this is one of the reasons why FW's "officialness" is called into question in the first place, because they DON'T say it plain and clear, it ISN'T cut-and-dry. They don't speak as if they have any real authority over the game, it reads to me more like a suggestion than an unquestionable rule.

And any game of 40k is a contract between two-players, whether using FW or not, but the BRB doesn't feel the need to mention that you should inform your opponent of your desire to play 40k and make sure they're happy to play it with you before starting a game, and FW does.

Also, I've noticed everyone likes to keep quoting the one blurb from the FW books that supports their "pro-FW" argument, but how come no one's ever posted this before? It seems to spell out more clearly to me how FW "intends" for their units to be used in games.

The question of “is it official?” continues to come up regularly from 40k players about Imperial Armour models and rules. By the above question I take players to mean a) can they use their model and the rules for it in tournaments, b) use them without their opponent’s consent, like codex rules.

a) Tournaments are organized independently of Forge World, we have no say in the restrictions applied to tournaments (and quite right too). Therefore we (Forge World) cannot sanction the use of Imperial Armour models in tournaments. the decision must be made by the tournament organizer. Some tournaments allow all Forge World models; others ban the use of aircraft and/or super-heavy vehicles and gargantuan creatures (as these do affect game balance in smaller sized games usually played in tournaments). Others restrict players to Codex forces only. Any of these options are fine with Forge World, we have no axe to grind over which option is used.

That said, some confusion does exist because Forge World models being used that are actually just Codex equipment. There was one reported instance of a player complaining about his opponent’s use of our Emperor’s Children Dreadnought even though it complies with the standard codex rules – stating “that’s a Forge World model you can’t use it”. But it had Codex rules!

To explain further, some Forge World models are completely new, and have new rules, which we publish on our website, in the Imperial Armour Update book, or within Imperial Armour volumes. Other models do not need rules, as they already exist in the Codexes. So if you upgrade a Rhino with extra armour, and use the Forge World Rhino extra armour kit to do it, the standard rules apply, and therefore there is no problem with using these models in a tournament as they are just codex equipment.

b) Opponent’s consent. In the past we have talked about getting your opponent’s consent to use Forge World models. Of course, players don’t like this approach, because it gives the opponent sanction over their army. I agree with them, and find the issue of consent difficult. Armies do not get to choose what their opponent will field against them, they just have to deal with it. The very idea that some vehicles are legal and others are not seems odd to me. All the vehicles covered by Forge World exist in the 41st Millennium and, being a war torn universe, most find their way onto the battlefields. Now background descriptions might restrict their availability, but players should not.

Also, in game balance terms, rare and powerful equipment, monsters and characters are problematic. Players naturally want to use them, because a) they are cool models and b) the powerful rules mean they help win games. Of course, this means that these “uber-killers” turn up far too often in games.

As explained above, to compensate, opponents have to skew their army to counter the uber-killer. the game becomes just about stopping it, and this actually doesn’t make for a very entertaining battle because the game balance has been so badly thrown out by its presence. The use of the uber-killers can be easily fixed by considering the context. By this I mean the context within the game takes place. In stand-alone points-based games, the uber-killers of the 41st millennium have no place, but this does not mean they have no place in 40k in general. The solution is to play different styles of games, which will allow players to get hours of gaming fun from their large models.

As far as we are concerned, Codexes and the rulebook are official, everything else is up to the players to use or ignore at will. Want to play on a ruined city board using the Cities of Death rules variants? Fine. Want to play on a ruined city board without using the rules variants, just using the rules as published in the 40k rulebook? Also fine. The two things that matter are that both players know this before they start, and both players agree that’s the way they want to play the game. So is Cities of Death official? You can’t use it in a tournament! The Imperial Armour rules are just the same…

Ultimately, however you want to play the game, make sure everybody is having fun!

Warwick Kinrade
October 2007

**mortetvie**

mortetvie wrote:
Given that the statement "It is best to make sure they are happy to play a game using FW models before you start" is written by the people who have the power to decide what is and isn't a part of the 40k rules, I'd say that "its best to make sure" is the same as "fact." They clearly intend for FW models to be cleared with your opponent before a game. Even if its only to be polite, as you claim, they still said it and intended it to be the case.

Sure, they want it to be the case that you're polite, but they've explicitly avoided using the "requires permission" language they've used in the past. It's a very deliberate choice NOT to make it a requirement to obtain your opponent's permission to use your FW units.

Sure but it could also be argued that they explicitly avoided using the words "are official" and "are to be used in standard 40k games" because its a deliberate choice NOT to make it a requirement that FW be official

.

And the post above by SidStyler should be quoted for truth, thanks Sid for finding that, I think it makes the issue pretty conclusive.

**Sidstyler**

Peregrine wrote:
Whether or not you like FW's rules it's absolutely insane to say things like "FW is a third-party company" or whatever.

You're the one who can't read, then. I've never said FW was a third-party company. No one did. I've always acknowledged the fact that they are owned by GW.

Apparently you just don't understand what I actually said. I said FW publishing rules was comparable to BoLS doing the same, but that was more because of the fact that the FW design studio is a separate entity that's left to do its own thing, which is an indisputable fact about how FW operates, and my comparison to fan-made content is more to do with that fact than how the company is set up.

**Unit1126PLL**

Sidstyler wrote:
Peregrine wrote:
Whether or not you like FW's rules it's absolutely insane to say things like "FW is a third-party company" or whatever.

You're the one who can't read, then. I've never said FW was a third-party company. No one did. I've always acknowledged the fact that they are owned by GW.

Apparently you just don't understand what I actually said. I said FW publishing rules was comparable to BoLS doing the same, but that was more because of the fact that the FW design studio is a separate entity that's left to do its own thing, which is an indisputable fact about how FW operates, and my comparison to fan-made content is more to do with that fact than how the company is set up.

That last part isn't entirely true.

It's known that they have quite a bit of back-and-forth with the Design Studio. Unless you think IA: Aeronautica was written, proofed, tested, and published all in like, 3 weeks or whatever.

EDIT: I would go so far as to say that they have a bit more contact with the Design Studio than BoLS, for example.

**Peregrine**

Sidstyler wrote:
You're the one who can't read, then. I've never said FW was a third-party company. No one did. I've always acknowledged the fact that they are owned by GW.

Then maybe that part was addressed to someone who DID say that, and not to you?

Apparently you just don't understand what I actually said. I said FW publishing rules was comparable to BoLS doing the same, but that was more because of the fact that the FW design studio is a separate entity that's left to do its own thing, which is an indisputable fact about how FW operates, and my comparison to fan-made content is more to do with that fact than how the company is set up.

It's not even close to indisputable fact, it's indisputably WRONG. FW published their first 6th edition updates almost immediately after the book was released, and had their first 6th edition book on sale not long after that. To do these things (especially the book, which requires the final content to be done long before it goes on sale) they had to be working with the rest of GW and have access to their game design process for 6th edition. FW may not have to get individual approval for every single detail, but if they're allowed to keep operating like that it's because GW's management is happy with the results.

Really all this says is that GW doesn't have proper central oversight over what any of its different authors are publishing. Just like how Matt Ward decided to make C:SM Land Raiders have extra transport capacity and nobody realized he'd done it until the codex had been printed, even though it was against the opinion of the rest of the company and he was told to never do that again.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

mortetvie wrote:
Sure but it could also be argued that they explicitly avoided using the words "are official" and "are to be used in standard 40k games" because its a deliberate choice NOT to make it a requirement that FW be official .

Only if you're just arguing for the sake of arguing. TBH it's a sign of how weak the argument is when you have to resort to nitpicking like that.

**Sidstyler**

mortetvie wrote:
And the post above by SidStyler should be quoted for truth, thanks Sid for finding that, I think it makes the issue pretty conclusive.

I already know it won't, though. The reason why it hasn't been posted yet is probably because it's considered "outdated" by the pro-FW crowd, who will just argue that the new "40k approved" stamp overrides FW's previous stance on their inclusion in games completely.

Which is complete horsegak, and dare I say "insane", but oh well.

In any case I remain unconvinced that GW has had a sudden stance change on FW. The part I quoted above may be five years old but nothing in the 6th edition rulebook or otherwise suggests that it's invalidated. Tournaments are still organized independently of FW and thus FW/GW still have no say over them, a new "40k approved" stamp doesn't change the fact that both players must still agree to play the game that way in order for the game to happen at all, and I think Warwick Kinrade himself saying it should be up to the players is good enough evidence for me that I do, in fact, have a fething choice in the matter, and that I'm not playing "comped 40k" by refusing to play against FW as has been suggested.

You can continue to think whatever you want, but if we really aren't playing the game the way GW "intended" then I think they would have said as much. Instead they've done the opposite, they've given us their full blessing to play however the hell we want with whatever "official" rules GW has published, including Apocalypse, Cities of Death, etc. GW/FW haven't, can't, and won't officially sanction anything for use in tournaments.

Peregrine wrote:
TBH it's a sign of how weak the argument is when you have to resort to nitpicking like that.

And what of when you resort to flaming? IE, insinuating another poster is stupid, illiterate, slowed, and now "insane" as you have done several times?

I shouldn't even be fething listening to you at this point, much less humoring your bs by wasting my time responding to it.

**Peregrine**

Sidstyler wrote:
I already know it won't, though. The reason why it hasn't been posted yet is probably because it's considered "outdated" by the pro-FW crowd, who will just argue that the new "40k approved" stamp overrides FW's previous stance on their inclusion in games completely.

Of course it's outdated. It's from 2007. You know, back in fourth edition.

Which is complete horsegak, and dare I say "insane", but oh well.

Err, lol? It's "insane" to argue that GW's position has clearly changed since fourth edition, and that we should look at what has been published in modern 40k books?

What's insane is digging up a quote from two editions ago and insisting that it somehow magically overrules a contradictory statement from the current edition, and suggesting that there's no way that GW could have changed their position on the subject since fourth edition.

**Sidstyler**

So Warwick Kinrade has changed his mind and no longer thinks that two players should come to an agreement about which rules they plan to use before playing games, and now fully supports the "Ha, GOTCHA!" style of play people like you are arguing for?

So now GW does, indeed, officially sanction all of the rules they produce for tournaments that they themselves don't even organize and legally have no say over?

Really, the only thing you could argue as being "outdated" is when he mentions balance being thrown out, because obviously GW already did that themselves. I honestly don't think anything else has changed, though. I doubt that in five short years someone's outlook has changed that much that they went from a "It's all official, just make sure you both agree and have fun!" position, to "Take whatever the hell you want and if they CRY ABOUT IT then TOO FETHING BAD!"

**AlmightyWalrus**

How is playing with Forge World stuff equal to "gotcha"?

**Peregrine**

Sidstyler wrote:
So Warwick Kinrade has changed his mind and no longer thinks that two players should come to an agreement about which rules they plan to use before playing games, and now fully supports the "Ha, GOTCHA!" style of play people like you are arguing for?

Nice strawman. I'm not arguing for "HA GOTCHA", I'm arguing for the default being that we play 40k according to the rules of 40k, not house rules. I will bring FW units and I will not play against anyone who demands that I remove them from my list, but I will show my opponent all of the rules before the game begins and answer any questions they have about the rules.

So now GW does, indeed, officially sanction all of the rules they produce for tournaments that they themselves don't even organize and legally have no say over?

Obviously not, but that's not what we're talking about. Nobody is arguing that TOs should be thrown in prison for banning FW, we're arguing that they shouldn't do it.

Really, the only thing you could argue as being "outdated" is when he mentions balance being thrown out, because obviously GW already did that themselves.

Well, that and the fact that by "uber killers" he's talking about the various titans/superheavies/etc. Another version of that introduction involved a hypothetical "surprise, here's my Warhound in a 1500 point game". None of the standard 40k units FW has published in modern books are "uber killers".

(And of course this was also back when the use of special characters had more restrictions that they don't have anymore in modern 40k.)

I honestly don't think anything else has changed, though. I doubt that in five short years someone's outlook has changed that much that they went from a "It's all official, just make sure you both agree and have fun!" position, to "Take whatever the hell you want and if they CRY ABOUT IT then TOO FETHING BAD!"

Why is it so hard to understand? IA1, the first in the "modern" series of FW books was published in 2003, only four years earlier. It's not exactly hard to imagine that when your quote was written GW was less confident in FW's rules, but now five years later they've had enough success with FW to incorporate them as part of the standard game.

**Sidstyler**

Asking someone for a game of 40k and failing to mention you were using FW rules before the models hit the table mid-game. Hence "Surprise! Bet you didn't see that coming!", or "Ha, GOTCHA!"

I just assume this is how everyone plans to play the game, otherwise why argue so strongly that FW is as much a part of standard 40k as the codices or rulebook?

**Peregrine**

Sidstyler wrote:
Asking someone for a game of 40k and failing to mention you were using FW rules before the models hit the table mid-game. Hence "Surprise! Bet you didn't see that coming!", or "Ha, GOTCHA!"

Which isn't what anyone here is arguing for. I don't know how you play 40k, but before I ever start a game I go over my army list (especially anything that isn't 100% WYSIWYG) with my opponent and offer to let them see the rules for everything I've brought, whether it's codex, FW, my personal house rules, whatever. And I expect my opponent to do the same.

(Of course even if you don't like the army list I present you I'm not going to change it, this process is about making sure everyone is clear about what each model on the table represents, not getting approval for what you brought.)

I just assume this is how everyone plans to play the game, otherwise why argue so strongly that FW is as much a part of standard 40k as the codices or rulebook?

Because the argument for or against FW in tournaments depends on whether it's part of standard 40k. The pro-FW side argues that the default tournament rules should include everything in standard 40k, while the anti-FW side argues that FW isn't part of standard 40k so it should only be included in special events.

**Blood and Slaughter**

To be honest I think the 'Ha! Gotcha!' argument is pretty weak.

Any decent player will offer to go through his army and explain anything the opponent's unfamiliar with or, at the very least, will present his list and answer any queries. I can't see the 'Oh I'll be ambushed' or 'oh I don't have Forgeworld books' (I don't myself) holding any water.

In my view the best arguments against Forgeworld are that some models are overpowered/underpriced (but none really so overpowered/underpriced they wouldn't have made it into some current codices, like Space Wolves or IG for instance), or that increasing the number of available models gives more choice to some factions over others (which is fair enough as far as it goes but I know some Eldar players (well two, actually) who're crying out for FW flyers and would be more than happy to allow the other codices the FW options. I think both these are arguable though and essentially come down to mere opinion.

**Lukus83**

I don't have a personal beef with Forgeworld, but in our area it's rarely used and is banned from tournament play. Personally I'm glad this is the case in our area. In a casual game I don't mind mixing it up occasionally and letting some dude across the table test out his new Foreworld unit, but by and large the rules and models are deemed inaccessible (price and availiability over here) and I would have issue with someone pulling out a unit that I was unfamiliar with and had little to no experience vs in a tournament game.

GW make the rules but ultimately the T.Os that run tournaments and they accommodate the players first and foremost. A T.O that listens to his what his player base wants is successful. If that involves banning Forgeworld or incorporating house rules then so be it.

**Sidstyler**

Blood and Slaughter wrote:

In my view the best arguments against Forgeworld are that some models are overpowered/underpriced (but none really so overpowered/underpriced they wouldn't have made it into some current codices, like Space Wolves or IG for instance)

Actually, if we can take a break from questioning each others sanity for a moment (lol), I've been curious about this and thought I'd go ahead and ask someone who actually has Imperial Armour books to reference...

When Imperial Armour units get ported over into codices (like the Tau piranha or the IG valkyrie), is it always a straight-up copy-and-paste job or do points costs, statlines, wargear options, etc. ever get adjusted in the process? I always suspected that a little bit of "re-balancing" happened and that the unit wasn't literally ported over without any change, but without being able to look it up myself (and I sure as hell wouldn't waste my money on "outdated" books like IA3 in order to test the theory) I've never really been able to find out.

Also, this whole stupid debate inspired me to shoot an e-mail off to GW about it (the only link I saw to send them rules queries anymore was on the erratas and FAQ's page, so that's where I went). Probably a waste of time, I know, if I ever get an answer it probably won't actually answer the question, if they even read it at all since it's a question about FW product and not GW, but still, I did it for gaks and giggles mainly. I'm also aware that whatever they tell me probably won't mean anything whatsoever to anyone and will never get taken seriously (IIRC the old hotline they had for rules questions was infamous for giving you one answer one day and then telling you the complete opposite the next...completely unreliable and kinda stupid, probably why they don't have one anymore I guess).

**Peregrine**

Sidstyler wrote:
When Imperial Armour units get ported over into codices (like the Tau piranha or the IG valkyrie), is it always a straight-up copy-and-paste job or do points costs, statlines, wargear options, etc. ever get adjusted in the process?

The Piranha (at least in IA3) was a copy/paste into the codex, but IA3 was released right before the codex and included rules that were about to be published in the new codex (the IA3 FAQ even said "don't worry about it yet, you'll see soon") so it probably was a literal copy/paste.

The Valkyrie got about a 50 point reduction (depending on weapons, you used to get the door HBs by default but had to buy the wing weapons at a high price) and +1 front/side armor but lost the really old flyer rules. And of course it also gained the absurdly powerful Vendetta, which was way beyond anything FW had published with the Valkyrie or Vulture.

The Hydra went from 200 points to 75 points and gained the ability to ignore cover saves.

The Leman Russ variants got cheaper and gained better stats (exterminator got 2x TL ACs instead of one, executioner got 3x plasma shots instead of one, etc), except for the poor vanquisher which used to be a lot more expensive but have a coax gun and the ability to fire the standard blast shot as well as the anti-tank one.

It's late and I can't think of the other FW units that were brought into a codex, but if you tell me what they are I can look them up. But the general trend is that the unit either stays the same or gets a significant boost in power when it gets moved into the codex. I can't think of anything besides the LR vanquisher where the FW version of the rules is more powerful than the GW one.

**rigeld2**

Unit1126PLL wrote:
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.

Except vehicles cannot be characters and therefore cannot be warlords, implication or not. Bjorn had to have a special exemption.

And it's not okay with me for you not to have a warlord - unless I automatically get Slay the Warlord that is.
Again, get frustrated with FW for not updating your army, not with me or a TO for wanting to enfore the rules.
I'm sure no one else has ever had a codex become outdated. Ever.

**Peregrine**

rigeld2 wrote:
And it's not okay with me for you not to have a warlord - unless I automatically get Slay the Warlord that is.

Then complain to GW and demand an FAQ to resolve it, because right now it's perfectly legitimate to interpret that rule as stating that you must nominate a warlord from the possible choices in your list, but NOT that you must include one in your army list in the first place. It never actually says that it is illegal to have a list with no warlord (if you can figure out a way to do it), and it certainly doesn't say what happens if you create a list with no warlord.

**rigeld2**

Page 111 says you must nominate a warlord as part of building your army. If you do not it is not a legal army. Please find permission to field an army without a warlord.

**kronk**

Before people get any more wrapped up in trying to have a rational discussion with certain posters, take a look at their posting history.

If someone always comes off as if they are speaking from a self-assumed position of authority without regards to others ideas and opinions, then you're probably wasting your time.

**Peregrine**

rigeld2 wrote:
Page 111 says you must nominate a warlord as part of building your army. If you do not it is not a legal army. Please find permission to field an army without a warlord.

It says you must nominate a warlord. It also says that the warlord is your HQ character with the highest leadership. It does NOT say that you must include at least one HQ character, or anything about what happens if you attempt to nominate a warlord and fail to find a valid choice. Since the nomination process very clearly happens after your list is chosen (otherwise you don't have a final set of characters to choose from yet) it is possible to enter the nomination process with a list which contains no valid option. So, one of two things must happen:

1) The game can not continue. You don't lose, you don't get kicked out of the game for bringing an illegal list, it just stalls at the "nominate a warlord" step and can never progress beyond it. You sit there waiting until either the heat death of the universe, until you and your opponent agree to change the rule and continue, or one player concedes defeat and leaves the game.

or

2) The nomination attempt fails, no warlord is selected, and you continue the game without a warlord (gaining no warlord trait benefits, not having a target for "slay the warlord", etc).

Either interpretation is valid since there is no explicit statement about what to do in the event that you enter the warlord selection step without any valid warlord candidates, and RAI offers no help since the most likely explanation for the ambiguity is that GW simply didn't realize that it was possible to build a legal army that contained no valid warlord choices.

**muwhe**

Blackmoor wrote:
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?

Allan,

Well considering that most Warhammer events in the US prior to Warhammer Forge allowed the fan made Chaos Dwarf material. Yes, you heard correctly… can anyone imagine if 40K events allowed fan made Adeptus Mechanicus lists or other fan made material at major events. Warhammer events have taken to allowing the Warhammer Forge units including AdeptiCon. A lot of it is a non-issue as a significant number of the Warhammer Forge units are monsters designed to be used in games of Storm of Magic.

I will also point out that Warhammer World has in the past held and hosted plenty of events that allow Forgeworld. So strictly claiming that Forgeworld is allowed or not allowed in Games Workshop events is inaccurate.

More generally I will make a couple more comments on these two concerns.
• Inaccessible Rules
• Confusion

This is the same reasoning used in the past by GW to not produce Errata/FAQ documents , or publish rules and updated material in White Dwarf. It was better to live with “bad” rules then to raise the standard and expect players to have to download FAQ documents, or carry around chapter approved White Dwarf articles along with a codex and a rulebook. It is the reason that you don’t see point adjustments in these documents or why Games Workshop is constantly behind the curve with electronic media and embracing the internet as a tool to enhance the game through content delivery. How balanced can a game be when you are still leveraging material from 2-3 editions ago, written by staff with a different design philosophy that have long left a company?

It is reasoning that I reject. I don’t think the sky would fall if they printed and re-costed some material to bring it in line with current design standards. All that however, creates accessible issues and confusion for a portion of the player base that is an unavoidable consequence. But, I think the majority of the players can handle downloading the current rules for a codex and they can acquire a White Dwarf article that has an update or a new unit. Just as I think the majority of players can handle the inclusion of Forgeworld units. Because I think the benefits to the game play experience are significant.

It appears Games Workshop management has started to move in a new direction. They have ramped up production of FAQ documents covering more material and being produced at a more frequent rate. They have started to include rule content again in the White Dwarf and are in the infancy of publishing IBook material. All of which I embrace, support and hope they continue because it is good for the game.

**Blood and Slaughter**

Personally I'd say that there are three scenarios for the Warlord conundrum (though i don't think it's a conundrum at all):

You have only HQs with leadership values. Choose one that has the highest.

You have HQs with leadership values and ones without. Choose one with a leadership value that is the highest leadership.

You have only HQs without leadership values. Choose one.

Edit: though of course that only works if the HQ's in question are characters as well as having no leadership value. Is there an HQ that is a vehicle and not a character?

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Warhammer World has in the past held and hosted plenty of events that allow Forgeworld

But it's notable that Throne of Skulls and Doubles tournaments at WHW do not allow Forgeworld. So clearly (and in my view unfortunately) GW themselves don't regard 40K Approved Forgeworld as automatically eligible to be fielded.

**RiTides**

Nice post, muwhe!

And see below, guys. It's easy... Don't feed the trolls! Anyone painting this issue as one-sided / black and white (on either side of the issue!) is just yanking your chain and looking for a response. Best thing is just not to give it to them.

kronk wrote:
Before people get any more wrapped up in trying to have a rational discussion with certain posters, take a look at their posting history.

If someone always comes off as if they are speaking from a self-assumed position of authority without regards to others ideas and opinions, then you're probably wasting your time.

**Blood and Slaughter**

I think it really boils down to the fact that traditionally Forgeworld has not been allowed in tournaments as a general rule and that the relative lack of people fielding FW models in casual play has tended to reinforce a preconception that certain FW models are overpowered and so allowing them in will unbalance the game -- much like there are still people I know who cling to the idea that special characters unbalance the game and shouldn't be allowed. Of course Special characters now no longer require opponent's consent at all and in my view it's time Forgeworld was treated the same way. yes, that would allow in half a dozen or so powerful units that are concentrated in the hands of imperial codices. but I can't see any of them being as powerful for its points as a Vendetta. What their inclusion would do though is shake up the metagame considerably. And folk don't like that as a rule. Change is unsettling.

**rigeld2**

Peregrine wrote:
rigeld2 wrote:
Page 111 says you must nominate a warlord as part of building your army. If you do not it is not a legal army. Please find permission to field an army without a warlord.

It says you must nominate a warlord. It also says that the warlord is your HQ character with the highest leadership. It does NOT say that you must include at least one HQ character, or anything about what happens if you attempt to nominate a warlord and fail to find a valid choice. Since the nomination process very clearly happens after your list is chosen (otherwise you don't have a final set of characters to choose from yet) it is possible to enter the nomination process with a list which contains no valid option.

So you're ignoring the fact that it's in the "Choosing your Army" section, before Allies are discussed, before Fortifications are discussed, so before your list is finalized...
You nominate your Warlord during list building. If you do not have a Warlord it is an illegal list.

Out of curiosity, does the armored company have the 40k approved stamp?

**carlosthecraven**

Hi

I have been following this thread with some interest. During my 5 years of tournament organizing I have not allowed Forgeworld.

There are a variety of reasons for this, many of them beaten soundly to death already, both pro and con. My interest now is that one of the significant ones is no longer valid - adding flyers to the game added siginificant confusion and time delays to the game that is constrainted to a limited time period, or created a matchup that people could not handle because they weren't prepared for it (who's fault that belongs to is debatable). I don't want a player, or worse yet, the leader of a group of players, to walk away feeling like they got a raw deal because of Forgeworld, and deciding not to return. Now that flyers are standard, a re-evaluation of the stance is appropriate.

However, as a player, I have never not attended an event because of FW being allowed or not allowed. It is a non-factor.

I do have a specific question for Peregrine - how can you reasonably argue that Forge World Units are acceptable and yet Forge World Army Lists are not?

Your stance ought to be "all in or all out." From your position ALL of Forgeworld is intended for standard play (aside from Apoc Only which is clearly identified). Given that your stance is partial inclusion, I find it difficult to take your position on forgeworld units seriously.

From my point of view, if a line should be drawn between GW and FW, it is not more reasonable to draw that line between studio branches rather than units and lists within a given branch?

Please adequately defend why you make the distinction you do. Anyone else wanting to weigh in on the units VS lists issue is welcome.

Cheers,
Nate

**mortetvie**

trololol?

In all seriousness, I look at certain FW units and wonder why there is nothing in a respective codex similar and I think that it has to do with how FW focuses on cool ideas, not necessarily practical application and balance. At least people like Phil Kelly try to make balanced codex armies.