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 wrote:
At least people like Phil Kelly try to make balanced codex armies.

He did write Space Wolves, though.

And I wouldn't call Eldar, Dark Eldar, and Orks "balanced", really...personally I don't think he's any better than the rest of them.

Kelly has indeed dropped some proper howlers. Folk just like him I think because of Dark Eldar, which (unlike Space Wolves) produced good lists that actually matched the flavour of the army too and with nothing that really jarred (like say Ward allowing henchmen to take Razorbacks as dedicated transports and thus perhaps inadvertently opening the door to the Coteaz/msu henchemen spam that did well at the end of 5th). Oh, and possibly because Orks have lasted pretty well as a codex despite aging.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

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?

Good question. I don't think it's reasonable to do so. All 40K Approved FW or none would seem the most rational alternatives.

 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?

There is divided feeling on the Legion list (aka Chaos Dwarves) because it has some serious imbalances, plus the kind of army people make with it tends to be of the extremely irritating variety (ie Full Frontal Male Nudity Gunline with an unkillable monster rammed down your throat), but its generally been allowed at most events. The ravening hordes list was even worse to play against, though, and the fan made spank fest was worse, so the FW one is pretty widely accepted. Ironically, the add on stuff for the other books (toad cavalry for Chaos, land ship for empire, ect) is far less accepted and in fact I think our club is the only one I have ever heard of allowing it, despite the fact that it is way more tame than the Chaos Dwarf stuff. Most of the rest of the Fantasy FW stuff is essentially giant monsters for use with Storm of Magic (Fantasy version of Apoc), so its not really relavent to the discussion.

Of course, this is not really a good comparison because the bulk of the Fantasy community (US East Coast aside) uses some form of soft scores to curtail people's behavior, since the Fantasy community aknowledges the reality that the armies are not anywhere near balanced. The 40k community has gotten away with this, in part because I think its a younger more aggressive crowd dominated by WarMahordes/XBox mentality, where the idea of taking a fluffy list with intenional weaknesses is actually frowned upon, if not openly ridiculed. Most of the Fantasy community is sort of a gentleman's game sportsmanship crowd, where its accepted a novice might need to cheese up but a veteran is expected to dial it back a bit and rely on skill. There are exceptions on both sides, of course.

Anyhow, the basic point is that Fantasy has Comp so its easier to overlook the imbalances of FW (and the game in general) within it in a tournament setting. The 40k celebrity community worked really hard to ditch soft scores and now they are essentially in a mess of their own creation, as it pertains to FW and 6th edition balance issues.

RE Peregrine:
I am going to take a wild guess and say that the major reason no one allows FW within driving distance of him has more to do with him than the merrits of FW. The fact that on one hand he says that he is not into FW for AA, then turn around in the same post and chuckle about how spamming Sabres will be the end of flyiers in the game pretty much says it all. His blatant inabilty to ignore anything that conflicts with his personal agenda makes it like arguing religion with someone. I don't see how anyone can not understand how nigh unkillable twin linked tripple Las Cannon teams are a problem, even without fliers. As much as I actually kind of want to see FW used, he is the exact sort of person that makes me afraid of what it will do to the game, especially this early in the edition release since he is essentially trying to work the refs on this issue. Anyhow, putting him on ignore since he is not constructive to talk to and I have too much Larry David in me to stop myself from responding to the stupid.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
PS- Ward, for all his flaws, writes good rules that age well and result in multiple builds in an army working. He just should never be allowed near the fluff ever again.

Phail Kelly does work based on how interested in the army (see Beastmen the opposite version fo Cheeze Wolves) and his books generally end up boiling down to one or two workable builds.

Neither are anywhere near as bad as Cruddace at ruining armies, though. Even the IG was a disaster. Fifty units in that book and all you ever see are 5-7 of them used.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Sidstyler wrote:

 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.

I own all the books. Nearly all of the rules got adjusted in some manner, if only minor. They priced down the Valks and Hydras, priced up the Manticore, and altered the options and costs of the Pirana, for example. In most cases the adjustments are minor point cost alterations or streamlining of rules, but sometimes a lot changes (vanilla SM Siege Dreads) before they are added to the main codecii. They occasionally screw the pooch on this (Valks/Vendettas being a little undercosted, ect), but its clear that when they bring something over they are actually playing with it in game a bit, because most of the changes tend to be fairly sensable.

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.

RiTides wrote: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.

On the topic of checking history.

You may want to also note; the date they joined, how many threads they have created, and their post per day rate.

Someone speaking in absolutes won't change their mind, and the chances of them being a troll just goes way up when you take into account some of the above factors. I name no names and this same statement can be applied to several users, minus the absolutes...

This thread DID become much more informative after the application of the Ignore feature.

I am confused on the difference between FW units and FW lists. Does that mean you can take certain units but you can't (for example) take a DKoK list in the events that allow FW stuff?

(Sorry if this is a dumb question, still trying to figure this out)

 BladeWalker wrote:
This thread DID become much more informative after the application of the Ignore feature.

I am confused on the difference between FW units and FW lists. Does that mean you can take certain units but you can't (for example) take a DKoK list in the events that allow FW stuff?

(Sorry if this is a dumb question, still trying to figure this out)

When you think FW list thing FW "Codex". They aren't quite the same but it is similar. A FW list has different HQs and Options than a standard "codex" list for the same army.

 Phazael wrote:

The 40k celebrity community worked really hard to ditch soft scores and now they are essentially in a mess of their own creation, as it pertains to FW and 6th edition balance issues.

To be fair, as unbalanced as 40k is and always has been, it hasn't had anything like the extremes of Fantasy since 2nd edition in the mid 90's. As off kilter as 40k's balance is, it's never had an equivalent like 7th Fantasy Daemons or the like.

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Phazael wrote:

The 40k celebrity community worked really hard to ditch soft scores and now they are essentially in a mess of their own creation, as it pertains to FW and 6th edition balance issues.

To be fair, as unbalanced as 40k is and always has been, it hasn't had anything like the extremes of Fantasy since 2nd edition in the mid 90's. As off kilter as 40k's balance is, it's never had an equivalent like 7th Fantasy Daemons or the like.

The thread about grey knights being the most op book gw has produced in a decade would disagree with your final assertion about daemons. I made that point about fantasy and daemons many times but was ignored.

Pretty much.

Forgeworld sort of does two things with Imperial Armor books ( outside of the model master and horus heresy books). They produce books that are of the “update” variety. These typically are pretty straight forward, contain a list of units ( typically across all races), unit background, rules and color plates etc.

Forgeworld also does Imperial Armor books that are “campaign books”. These are typically directed at a particular conflict, and include details about the forces involved, background, scenarios for playing out the campaign etc. Some of them contain “army lists” designed to create the feel of the forces .. forces of the Tyrant of Badab for instance. To my knowledge none of the army lists to date have been labeled as official for use in 40K or Apocalypse. Additionally, within these campaign books you will typically have outside of the army list units listed in a similar fashion to the update books.

Most event formats that allow Forgeworld allow the units and not the army lists.

muwhe wrote:
Pretty much.

Forgeworld sort of does two things with Imperial Armor books ( outside of the model master and horus heresy books). They produce books that are of the “update” variety. These typically are pretty straight forward, contain a list of units ( typically across all races), unit background, rules and color plates etc.

Forgeworld also does Imperial Armor books that are “campaign books”. These are typically directed at a particular conflict, and include details about the forces involved, background, scenarios for playing out the campaign etc. Some of them contain “army lists” designed to create the feel of the forces .. forces of the Tyrant of Badab for instance. To my knowledge none of the army lists to date have been labeled as official for use in 40K or Apocalypse. Additionally, within these campaign books you will typically have outside of the army list units listed in a similar fashion to the update books.

Most event formats that allow Forgeworld allow the units and not the army lists.

If you made a army from the list in the FW book for DKoK how much of it would be actually playable in a regular 40k game with the "approved for 40k" units? Do most of the units transfer over or would you have to counts-as and leave out quite a bit? Thanks for the info.

Phazael- You mention east coast fantasy, that's where I'm at and it drove me out of the game. It's a shame, because ranked units are cool... but the meta and gaming atmosphere for competitive fantasy players in my neck of the woods really, really sucks.

 OverwatchCNC wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Phazael wrote:

The 40k celebrity community worked really hard to ditch soft scores and now they are essentially in a mess of their own creation, as it pertains to FW and 6th edition balance issues.

To be fair, as unbalanced as 40k is and always has been, it hasn't had anything like the extremes of Fantasy since 2nd edition in the mid 90's. As off kilter as 40k's balance is, it's never had an equivalent like 7th Fantasy Daemons or the like.

The thread about grey knights being the most op book gw has produced in a decade would disagree with your final assertion about daemons. I made that point about fantasy and daemons many times but was ignored.

The GK book was pretty borked, and the same guy wrote both of them, but having played against the worst of both, **** 7th Fantasy Daemons. Right where they poop. That's not to say GK's don't have serious, major issues, but the underlying core ruleset differences mean that they're just too good for what they cost, no unlike several other 40k armies of the time, as opposed to Daemons who really just abused the core rules to a point where they were fundamentally broken.

If you made a army from the list in the FW book for DKoK how much of it would be actually playable in a regular 40k game with the "approved for 40k" units? Do most of the units transfer over or would you have to counts-as and leave out quite a bit? Thanks for the info.

Pretty much all of it in one form or another. It would depend on the list but I would think the majority would transfer especially if you built it with that consideration.

If you're partaking in this conversation please head over to:
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/482051.page
Look at all the options and then answer, please don't just select allowing or disallowing forgeworld just to spite the people in this thread, be honest! The poll could end up showing that this entire conversation is moot.

 Vaktathi wrote:

 OverwatchCNC wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Phazael wrote:

The 40k celebrity community worked really hard to ditch soft scores and now they are essentially in a mess of their own creation, as it pertains to FW and 6th edition balance issues.

To be fair, as unbalanced as 40k is and always has been, it hasn't had anything like the extremes of Fantasy since 2nd edition in the mid 90's. As off kilter as 40k's balance is, it's never had an equivalent like 7th Fantasy Daemons or the like.

The thread about grey knights being the most op book gw has produced in a decade would disagree with your final assertion about daemons. I made that point about fantasy and daemons many times but was ignored.

The GK book was pretty borked, and the same guy wrote both of them, but having played against the worst of both, **** 7th Fantasy Daemons. Right where they poop. That's not to say GK's don't have serious, major issues, but the underlying core ruleset differences mean that they're just too good for what they cost, no unlike several other 40k armies of the time, as opposed to Daemons who really just abused the core rules to a point where they were fundamentally broken.

This is a common meme, but objective reality tends to differ. First off, the DoC book was strong for a window of exactly 6th months. After that, it pretty much fell by the wayside to the DE > Skaven > VC > DE rock paper scissors that followed in the wake of those books. Also, the DoC release coincided with a brief window where GW ran some GTs and did not include any measure of comp in them, so the bandwagon Daemon players went out of their way to break the book. Finally, consider what existed before in the metagame for the longest time. You either played Brettonian Steamroller or Wood Elves, otherwise you got rolled. As bad as DoC were, I think you guys tend to forget how truely unstoppable those armies were in their prime and their dominance extended across an edition and a half. The major difference is the internet hate machine was not around when the DoC situation hit, so its not as enshrined in internet hyperbole. And really, 7th Ed DoC (or DE for that matter) have nothing on the long term stranglehold at the top that SW and IG have had in 40k, just looking at the RHQ listings on those armies for the last half decade.

 Phazael wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

 OverwatchCNC wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Phazael wrote:

The 40k celebrity community worked really hard to ditch soft scores and now they are essentially in a mess of their own creation, as it pertains to FW and 6th edition balance issues.

To be fair, as unbalanced as 40k is and always has been, it hasn't had anything like the extremes of Fantasy since 2nd edition in the mid 90's. As off kilter as 40k's balance is, it's never had an equivalent like 7th Fantasy Daemons or the like.

The thread about grey knights being the most op book gw has produced in a decade would disagree with your final assertion about daemons. I made that point about fantasy and daemons many times but was ignored.

The GK book was pretty borked, and the same guy wrote both of them, but having played against the worst of both, **** 7th Fantasy Daemons. Right where they poop. That's not to say GK's don't have serious, major issues, but the underlying core ruleset differences mean that they're just too good for what they cost, no unlike several other 40k armies of the time, as opposed to Daemons who really just abused the core rules to a point where they were fundamentally broken.

This is a common meme, but objective reality tends to differ. First off, the DoC book was strong for a window of exactly 6th months. After that, it pretty much fell by the wayside to the DE > Skaven > VC > DE rock paper scissors that followed in the wake of those books. Also, the DoC release coincided with a brief window where GW ran some GTs and did not include any measure of comp in them, so the bandwagon Daemon players went out of their way to break the book. Finally, consider what existed before in the metagame for the longest time. You either played Brettonian Steamroller or Wood Elves, otherwise you got rolled. As bad as DoC were, I think you guys tend to forget how truely unstoppable those armies were in their prime and their dominance extended across an edition and a half. The major difference is the internet hate machine was not around when the DoC situation hit, so its not as enshrined in internet hyperbole. And really, 7th Ed DoC (or DE for that matter) have nothing on the long term stranglehold at the top that SW and IG have had in 40k, just looking at the RHQ listings on those armies for the last half decade.

I can assure you the internet hate machine existed before 2008, I remember it well from GW's own forums when they existed, from 4chan, from Warseer, and other places, it didn't just materialize 4 years ago .

You also have to take into account that daemons had an edition change much closer to their release date, that finally knocked a good deal of the oomph out of them, much sooner than those 40k armies just got theirs.


Also, just on a personal level, I've never had so little fun with a game against GK, IG or SW's as I did against Daemons. 7E psychology was ultra abusive with the Daemon book.

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Phazael wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

 OverwatchCNC wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Phazael wrote:

The 40k celebrity community worked really hard to ditch soft scores and now they are essentially in a mess of their own creation, as it pertains to FW and 6th edition balance issues.

To be fair, as unbalanced as 40k is and always has been, it hasn't had anything like the extremes of Fantasy since 2nd edition in the mid 90's. As off kilter as 40k's balance is, it's never had an equivalent like 7th Fantasy Daemons or the like.

The thread about grey knights being the most op book gw has produced in a decade would disagree with your final assertion about daemons. I made that point about fantasy and daemons many times but was ignored.

The GK book was pretty borked, and the same guy wrote both of them, but having played against the worst of both, **** 7th Fantasy Daemons. Right where they poop. That's not to say GK's don't have serious, major issues, but the underlying core ruleset differences mean that they're just too good for what they cost, no unlike several other 40k armies of the time, as opposed to Daemons who really just abused the core rules to a point where they were fundamentally broken.

This is a common meme, but objective reality tends to differ. First off, the DoC book was strong for a window of exactly 6th months. After that, it pretty much fell by the wayside to the DE > Skaven > VC > DE rock paper scissors that followed in the wake of those books. Also, the DoC release coincided with a brief window where GW ran some GTs and did not include any measure of comp in them, so the bandwagon Daemon players went out of their way to break the book. Finally, consider what existed before in the metagame for the longest time. You either played Brettonian Steamroller or Wood Elves, otherwise you got rolled. As bad as DoC were, I think you guys tend to forget how truely unstoppable those armies were in their prime and their dominance extended across an edition and a half. The major difference is the internet hate machine was not around when the DoC situation hit, so its not as enshrined in internet hyperbole. And really, 7th Ed DoC (or DE for that matter) have nothing on the long term stranglehold at the top that SW and IG have had in 40k, just looking at the RHQ listings on those armies for the last half decade.

I can assure you the internet hate machine existed before 2008, I remember it well from GW's own forums when they existed, from 4chan, from Warseer, and other places, it didn't just materialize 4 years ago .

You also have to take into account that daemons had an edition change much closer to their release date, that finally knocked a good deal of the oomph out of them, much sooner than those 40k armies just got theirs.


Also, just on a personal level, I've never had so little fun with a game against GK, IG or SW's as I did against Daemons. 7E psychology was ultra abusive with the Daemon book.

A bit of anecdotal evidence here. My first 13 games of Fantasy were part of a competitive league at our FLGS, during 7th ed with VC in full ascendance. I played a Khornate Daemon list because I wanted a fluffy army that didn't need to shoot or worry about magic. I lost 2 games my first and the championship match against the stores best player. 7th ed CD were just plain broken, I never played Fantasy again.

Yeah, 7th ed DoC also killed fantasy for me. 8th ed changes might've toned them down a bit, but made the game less fun in other ways. I'm no longer a fantasy player :-/

We've kind of lost the plot here about forgeworld I think, though

 carlosthecraven wrote:
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?

Because:

1) The army lists do not have the "40k approved" stamp. All the same arguments about being official, published by GW, etc, are true, but it doesn't explicitly say that they're for standard 40k (instead of just for use in the fluff campaign in that book) like it does with the units.

2) FW have stated that they are revising all of the army lists for 6th and will be releasing updates for them. Therefore the current lists go in the category of "obsolete rules", just like we wouldn't use a 2nd edition codex in a 6th edition tournament. There are obviously problems that FW sees with them (like the no warlord issue with the armored company), so they shouldn't be used until they updates are done.

The second one is the much larger issue, IMO. Once FW get the 6th edition updates published and says they're ready for use then I will be strongly in favor of including them in tournaments.

 Phazael wrote:
The fact that on one hand he says that he is not into FW for AA, then turn around in the same post and chuckle about how spamming Sabres will be the end of flyiers in the game pretty much says it all.

Err, what? I didn't "chuckle" about the end of flyers, in fact I made it clear that it will NOT be the end of flyers. It's a very simple process:

Right now there is a strong fear (whether justified or not) of flyerspam lists, so there is a desire to spam a ton of AA (Sabres, Hydras, mandatory aegis/quad gun, etc) wherever you can.

The result of AA spam lists is that flyerspam will become much less popular since everyone has lists full of counters to it.

The result of THAT is that AA spam will also become less popular because the AA units aren't that great when there aren't a lot of flyers to kill.

The final result is that flyers will come back into the game, but exist in a balance with AA units where there are some of each.


This is just basic metagaming, and all the complaints about AA spam are just missing the fact that it's just early in the metagame process and the situation isn't going to stay like that forever.

I don't see how anyone can not understand how nigh unkillable twin linked tripple Las Cannon teams are a problem, even without fliers.

Because they're not nigh unkillable if you've built your list with 6th edition concepts in mind (for example, attacking units from the back to change the wound allocation order), and they're also extremely expensive compared to the HWS they replace. They're great if you're worried about flyers, but if they aren't necessary for AA then they're really not that impressive.

 Peregrine wrote:

 carlosthecraven wrote:


Err, what? I didn't "chuckle" about the end of flyers, in fact I made it clear that it will NOT be the end of flyers. It's a very simple process:

Right now there is a strong fear (whether justified or not) of flyerspam lists, so there is a desire to spam a ton of AA (Sabres, Hydras, mandatory aegis/quad gun, etc) wherever you can.

The result of AA spam lists is that flyerspam will become much less popular since everyone has lists full of counters to it.

The result of THAT is that AA spam will also become less popular because the AA units aren't that great when there aren't a lot of flyers to kill.

The final result is that flyers will come back into the game, but exist in a balance with AA units where there are some of each.


This is just basic metagaming, and all the complaints about AA spam are just missing the fact that it's just early in the metagame process and the situation isn't going to stay like that forever.

I agree. People are looking to overcompensate on both ends. Eventually flyerspam will be dialed back a bit to more reasonable level. People will stop wasting too much points in AA and things will even out.

I do not see one unit being that bad that justifies throwing out a whole line of official product.

Flyerspam is actually quite clunky to use - I have an Elysian Drop Troop Army and can run up to eight flyers all crammed with veterans......it isn't fun to play and isn't fun to transport.

I prefer to run a couple of flyers supported by drop troops on foot (well grav chute lol)....

Also for what it's worth - I run the IA8 Elysian list fairly regularly at my gaming group and they normally get smashed to pieces lol Nobody really minds playing them, I would probably do better with the normal guard codex.

You know it's funny that nobody has pointed out that FW has declared its units "official" but GW has not. Just because FW says it doesn't make it so. If I publish rules that are an adjunct to 40K and say that they are "official" does that mean that TOs have to use them? Of course not, I don't have the power to tell GW what is or is not official. So until GW actually says that FW models are official in an official GW format (be it White Dwarf, and army codex or, whatever) then FW can scream till it's blue in the face but it's still not official.
And yes, I know that GW owns FW but just because its a subsidary does not grant it the same status as another part of the company. Ford used to make Lincolns and Mercury cars but dealers had to keep seperate dealerships for each brand name. If the people who make decisions at GW state that FW is acceptable then it is but FW can't say that for them.

Leo_the_Rat wrote:
You know it's funny that nobody has pointed out that FW has declared its units "official" but GW has not.

Not sure if sarcasm. There have been whole pages of discussion on this subject.

Leo_the_Rat wrote:
You know it's funny that nobody has pointed out that FW has declared its units "official" but GW has not. Just because FW says it doesn't make it so. If I publish rules that are an adjunct to 40K and say that they are "official" does that mean that TOs have to use them? Of course not, I don't have the power to tell GW what is or is not official. So until GW actually says that FW models are official in an official GW format (be it White Dwarf, and army codex or, whatever) then FW can scream till it's blue in the face but it's still not official.

FW is a GW brand and everything in that book, including the "this is official" statement, is approved by GW.

Your personal rules are NOT published by GW, so your claim has no authority.

Edited by AgeOfEgos

And yes, I know that GW owns FW but just because its a subsidary does not grant it the same status as another part of the company. Ford used to make Lincolns and Mercury cars but dealers had to keep seperate dealerships for each brand name. If the people who make decisions at GW state that FW is acceptable then it is but FW can't say that for them.

The people who make decisions at GW have stated that FW is acceptable by publishing a statement saying "this is acceptable" in a FW book. Your idea that FW is a separate entity that can make statements about what is "official" or not without having it approved by the rest of GW simply doesn't match the reality of the situation.

Let's remember we are discussing on whether we should allow another person's particular type of toy soldiers to intermix with our toy soldiers--on a toy soldier battlefield. Let's aim to keep it friendly and objective please.

 Peregrine wrote:


The people who make decisions at GW have stated that FW is acceptable by publishing a statement saying "this is acceptable" in a FW book. Your idea that FW is a separate entity that can make statements about what is "official" or not without having it approved by the rest of GW simply doesn't match the reality of the situation.

Can you show me a place in an official GW publication or statement that says that FW is acceptable? Until then all you can show is, at best, that FW says that their rules are accepted by GW. Unless you are an insider into how GW operates its subsidiaries no one can say how much control GW exercises over FW directly or indirectly. There are plenty of business models that allow different divisions of the same company to, more or less, control their own destinies.

Leo_the_Rat wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:


The people who make decisions at GW have stated that FW is acceptable by publishing a statement saying "this is acceptable" in a FW book. Your idea that FW is a separate entity that can make statements about what is "official" or not without having it approved by the rest of GW simply doesn't match the reality of the situation.

Can you show me a place in an official GW publication or statement that says that FW is acceptable?

Any Forgeworld Rulebook? Really, is it that hard?

I mean, hell, the HH book has a big bold "GAMES WORKSHOP" logo on the spine, with a gigantic "copyright of GW" statement in there, saying it was published by GW, etc. To even find the word "Forgeworld" you have to start looking at the fine print in the legal stuff page.


This is very different to an actual 3rd party product, like Fantasy Flight Games' 40k roleplay books, which prominently display Fantasy Flight Games logo and plainly state they are published under license. One will notice no such "published by license" exists in FW books because there's no need for it, there's no 3rd party to license to, it's GW releasing stuff under a different name is all.

Until then all you can show is, at best, that FW says that their rules are accepted by GW.

You are making the mistaken distinction that, time and again in this thread has been disproven, that FW and GW are separate entities. They are not. FW isn't a 3rd party, they aren't a distinct company or even a subsidiary, they're an internal division of GW that they Do Business As (DBA).

Unless you are an insider into how GW operates its subsidiaries no one can say how much control GW exercises over FW directly or indirectly. There are plenty of business models that allow different divisions of the same company to, more or less, control their own destinies.

We don't need to. We know FW isn't even it's own company, and all of their products are published as GW works, not Forgeworld works.

The plain and simple truth is that GW does not care to outright spell it out because outside of tournaments it shouldn't be relevant because everything is permission anyways, and Tournaments are a play format they don't design their game for anyway. The degree of interactivity with the primary design studio is irrelevant, it's GW produced material intended for use with their games.

At this point it's people looking outside the game, game universe, and rules and instead looking for business relationships to determine gameplay "officialdom", at which point we could argue that because none of this was done by Priestly it's all fanfic.

Let me direct you to 8th page of the 6th ed Rulebook. Read, "The Spirit of the Game" section and there is all you need. The TO decides so this is a completely opinion based question and there is no RIGHT answer, just the majority's decision.

IMO there are 400pt death star units that are far far more powerful then any 600 pt Apoc tank. SP are 3xHP so unless it's armor 14, it's easier to blow then a land raider most of the time.

Have fun, allow everything "40k' approved", and allow the lists since most of the can be duplicated anyway just by spamming with the double force org. (this is an official rule that is avoided by most TOs, decide to not use, just like we can allow forge world, even apoc)

This whole discussion seems to be hinged on the fact that the rules aren't readily accessible. I'm going to go out on a limb here and assume if you have a computer the rules are all a click away or so. Just saying. In reality, the argument is moot.
I'm still going to fold against the codex only IG guy 90% of the time. Coming up against an FW unit (or army list) isn't that big of a deal. Someone wants to spend all of that money they can knock themselves out, my obliterators can still shoot them last I checked.
Getting ready to scratch build some blight drones for myself as well, and will run them every chance I get. It is, as they say, what it is.

 Sharkvictim wrote:
This whole discussion seems to be hinged on the fact that the rules aren't readily accessible. I'm going to go out on a limb here and assume if you have a computer the rules are all a click away or so. Just saying. In reality, the argument is moot.
I'm still going to fold against the codex only IG guy 90% of the time. Coming up against an FW unit (or army list) isn't that big of a deal. Someone wants to spend all of that money they can knock themselves out, my obliterators can still shoot them last I checked.
Getting ready to scratch build some blight drones for myself as well, and will run them every chance I get. It is, as they say, what it is.

Actually the bigger issue is play balance. Fw has a lot of artillery that was competitively priced in 5th ed, the thing is it's really under priced in 6th ed under the new artillery rules. For the cost of 1 of your oblits with mon dkok can buy a t7 4w basilisk cannon that comes with 4 guardsmen that are also t7 and have a point left over, and like oblits dkok artillery also can come in squads of 3.