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.

So, I'm curious. I know FW is an offshoot of GW, but I still want to know; are most FW rules and units usable in GW tournies? Are they mostly accepted in friendly games?

I ask because I did not even know they exist, and I'd hate to buy some units, show up to play, and have the local gaming club be like "WUT?!? Can't use those!?!?"

Thanks!

There is no consensus. Sorry. And this thread could well go for 10 pages unless it gets sorted out quicksmart, with people arguing back and forth.

1) GW tournies
edited answer; I was incorrect, they do hold tournies still, and do not allow FW
2) groups
answer; depends on the group. Ask your guys in your local area to find out whats OK

Ask before you buy, definitely.

FW MODELS are quite often allowed by all sorts of folks. Want to use a FW Daemon prince model for your DP? Hell Yeah!

FW RULES/UNITS - Not so much. I like most of them personally, but I have a hard time finding folk who'll play against them.

It would help somewhat if FW covered all races equally.

SM/IG have crazy amounts of FW goodness.

Eldar and Tau do quite well of of FW

Orks are decently forgeworlded.

DE - No.

Daemons - Somewhat

CSM - Somewhat

Nids - Lots of big APOC beasties, and feth all else IIRC

There is no consensus, I'm afraid.

 ZakFaire wrote:
So, I'm curious. I know FW is an offshoot of GW, but I still want to know; are most FW rules and units usable in GW tournies? Are they mostly accepted in friendly games?

Consensus here will make little difference. If there is an event with a TO, that is the best person to ask.

In random, friendly fights to death ask your potential opponents.

In my opinion, the chance of them saying yes is based on at least 4 things, only 2 of which you have any control over.

1) Having printed copies (or very, very convenient electronic access) to the 6th ed rules for your IA unit
You will want this link http://www.forgeworld.co.uk/News/Downloads.html

2) How much of your army is uses FW models and rules. If you have a 1500 point IG list that includes 2 Thunderers (150 points each), that will be less of an issue than if you have 900 points of Manticore Platforms.

3) How different the FW rules for your IA models are compared to GW rules. Specifically, if they are significantly more powerful for the points cost than comparable GW units and/or they break or modify some GW that is rarely broken or modified.

4) That opponent's sense of what is appropriate in 40k game. There's a guy at our FLGS that never plays unique characters, and if you do, will complain about it the whole game. There's another guy who will never play Imperial forces (SM,SW,BA,DA,IG,GK) against Imperial forces. Xeno vs Xeno is fine to him, but he won't participate in "civil war"

In most tournaments, no to FW (in the Uk)

Most gaming groups will have people who wil play FW units, because the VAST majority are overcosted. Want to spend 400+ points on a tank that can just about kill a tactical squad, iof you roll well? Macharius vulcan. Looks frigging awesome though

Suggestion to keep friends: dont use the bad 4. Lucius pod with an ironclad (assault on landing), hades siege drill (soooo pretty, but deadly for 50 points) Caestus (not that bad, but a lot of people hate it) and the Land Raider Achilles (again, not that bad as that 6 man unit wont score inside and wont last long outswide) and noone will mind.

No other unit is even close to worth their points, competitively

The caetus is broken as it's an AV 13 flyer with a S8 AP1 melta large blast that also transports terminators. That's not even all, but that's stupid enough. The new heavy artillery rules are insane too - stick 3 crew in front, enjoy T7 W7 basilisk for 75 points. So yeah, forge world is good until you face one of these 2 which just aren't fun.

If you're going to an event, always ask the organiser. "The Internet said I could!" is not good enough, so there's no way we could give you a consensus.

As for friendly games, I find that most people are unsure about it only when they don't understand the rules. I suggest that you buy the rules and discuss them with your prospective opponents; that'll give you a pretty good idea of what's acceptable and what's not

I thought the whole "40K" seal was supposed to answer this. Anyhow, I think the tournament answer was given (ask the TO). For friendly play, I've always thought that FW rules are not that bad and if someone balks at using them, come up with a fair way to deal with it: they feel it is 50 points under costed? Give them that to add to their army. Or, you play with it in the first game and then let them use it in a rematch.

Homer

I thought the 40k seal ment it was approved too.

And Nids hhave the stonecrusher fex. Looking at that with the nerf to power weapons.

1) GW tournies
answer; They don't technically run tournies anymore I'm pretty sure, so there you go

Not strictly true. Warhammer World in Nottingham runs regular Throne of Skulls and Doubles tournaments. These have varied prizes and include ones for best general overall as well as best general for each army.

However they do not allow models to use Forgeworld rules, which personally I think is a great shame -- and I speak as someone who owns no models that require Forgeworld rules -- but there you go. It's doubly strange in that presumably the 'approved for 40K' stamp on FW rules (as opposed to the 'experimental stamp' has no real standing. And triply in that GW tend to want to promote playing for the sake of the game rather than being overly competitive and so you'd thing FW units would be something they'd encourage.

 Gloomfang wrote:
I thought the 40k seal ment it was approved too.

And Nids hhave the stonecrusher fex. Looking at that with the nerf to power weapons.

The 40k seal actually means it is usable in regular games of 40k as opposed to apocalypse level games. It has nothing to do with "official" approval. Merely a notation of power level in general.

Skriker

Ask your local tournament organizer(s), not random people on the interwebs.

The GW run Throne of Skulls that was just ran in Memphis did not allow FW models.

Aycee

 Skriker wrote:

 Gloomfang wrote:
I thought the 40k seal ment it was approved too.

And Nids hhave the stonecrusher fex. Looking at that with the nerf to power weapons.

The 40k seal actually means it is usable in regular games of 40k as opposed to apocalypse level games. It has nothing to do with "official" approval. Merely a notation of power level in general.

Skriker

Umm no, the quote specifically:


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

Yes, be polite and dont spring new rules on people, but they are as legal and valid as any codex rulebook or White Dwarf article.

To tournament organizers, yes they sometimes say yes or no: more so are saying yes going forward however its always up to whomever is running whatever.

Or, to put it another way:

'they are official, but if your opponent prefers not to play against them you are SOL'

The 'official updates' like the ork Bommas and the Stormtalon are much more likely to be accepted, as the WD actually lists them as an official update to the codex. I've yet to run across someone who has an issue with them, whereas the FW units get the cold shoulder.

Aycee71 wrote:
The GW run Throne of Skulls that was just ran in Memphis did not allow FW models.

Aycee

Didn't know they didn't allow them. The regular tournaments they have at the factory store allow them and the TOs are the same people. Last tourny I played there a few months back a guy had a Red Scorpions army with an Achilles, that Librarian commander with the psyarmour, and a Contemplator and Mortis pattern dreadnaught.

And yes I missed it. Yes I practically could have walked there. No I am not happy about it.

 Ascalam wrote:
'they are official, but if your opponent prefers not to play against them you are SOL'

Same could be said about anything.

You're right, though. Players are more likely to accept something that's in a codex or WD, even if it has that 40k stamp. It's an annoying circle: often players who don't like FW feel that way because they don't have enough exposure to the rules, but then disallowing the rules means fewer people are going to purchase FW products, thus meaning less exposure to the rules...

Personally, I say that if you have the rules and an appropriate model (it doesn't even have to be the actual FW model, just as long as it's roughly the same size/shape and with appropriate armament), then I don't mind facing it. Hell, often I'll play against armies where I'm not wholly familiar with the rules anyway, so this isn't much different.

 lazarian wrote:
Umm no, the quote specifically:


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

Yes, be polite and dont spring new rules on people, but they are as legal and valid as any codex rulebook or White Dwarf article.

To tournament organizers, yes they sometimes say yes or no: more so are saying yes going forward however its always up to whomever is running whatever.

You are free to quote the book, but your quote doesn't change the fact that my answer is the correct one. All the symbol guarantees in the books is that they unit can be used in a standard, non-apocalypse 40k games. The rules in the FW books are not as legal and valid as any codex, because your opponent still has the ability to veto their use in a standard 40k game. If they were truly and fully "official" your opponent would not have the ability to keep you from playing them. I prefer the uncluttered accuracy of my own post on the subject because it gets to the heart of the matter.

Skriker


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Cheexsta wrote:
Personally, I say that if you have the rules and an appropriate model (it doesn't even have to be the actual FW model, just as long as it's roughly the same size/shape and with appropriate armament), then I don't mind facing it. Hell, often I'll play against armies where I'm not wholly familiar with the rules anyway, so this isn't much different.

This is ultimately the crux of the Forge World discussion/argument. People complain about forge world due to lack of access/exposure or just inaccurate rumors, but using the models is no different than facing an army using a codex that you don't have a copy of yourself. Both are easily remedied by having the codex and unit rules at hand, but that doesn't matter to some people.

Skriker

You cannot force me to play your SM / Orks / Chaos, same as I cannot force you to play FW

Every game is a social contract, and being "in a codex" is no g'tee that your opponent will want to play you

But there is a difference between the following questions:
"Want to play a game against $CODEX?"
and
"Want to play a game against $CODEX plus some Forgeworld units?"

Saying there isn't is being dishonest.

As meaningful a difference, for 99.9% of units, as saying "$Codex" and "$Codex with green painted marines"

Or playnig a codex youve never played before

Fear of the unknown is a killer with FW, and the assumption that they are OP

nosferatu1001 wrote:
As meaningful a difference, for 99.9% of units, as saying "$Codex" and "$Codex with green painted marines"

Not according to the FW books, but you're welcome to your own opinion.

Or playnig a codex youve never played before

Fear of the unknown is a killer with FW, and the assumption that they are OP

There it is again - the assigning of negative motivation to people who don't want to play against FW units. I just don't get it.
Not that I care overall. I would opt not to mostly because my LGS cannot carry anything FW and I play/buy there almost exclusively.

Apart from where it says, in the FW books, that they are considered "Official"

So no difference at all to a codex.

Every game is a social contract between two people, and the other person is free to denyyou a game for any reason they wish, and all are as valid as any other.

You may not get it, however it is, over the last few years, the number one reaction to FW units I have seen from people. By a vast majority.

When you actually show people the rules theyre generally happy, or wonder why youve paid so many points for that fairly appalling tank that just so happens to look amazingly pretty.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Apart from where it says, in the FW books, that they are considered "Official"

So no difference at all to a codex.

Every game is a social contract between two people, and the other person is free to denyyou a game for any reason they wish, and all are as valid as any other.

You may not get it, however it is, over the last few years, the number one reaction to FW units I have seen from people. By a vast majority.

When you actually show people the rules theyre generally happy, or wonder why youve paid so many points for that fairly appalling tank that just so happens to look amazingly pretty.

Yes gaming is a "social contract", but the typical codex does not include *any* verbage that says it is considered official, BUT you still need your opponent's approval to play with the units in the codex. *That* is the difference and that is what makes the Forge World books different from the baseline Codex books. It doesn't matter why someone doesn't want to play against Forge World units, it is just that they have the option to make you exclude such things from it for a game, whereas they will get laughed at by their peers at an event if they expect people to not use something from their codex just because they don't like the rules for it.

If Forge World units were universally allowed and accepted the rulebook would clearly state that the rules are OFFICIAL and would NOT say the rules are CONSIDERED official, but you need your opponent's permission to use them.

Skriker

 Skriker wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Apart from where it says, in the FW books, that they are considered "Official"

So no difference at all to a codex.

Every game is a social contract between two people, and the other person is free to denyyou a game for any reason they wish, and all are as valid as any other.

You may not get it, however it is, over the last few years, the number one reaction to FW units I have seen from people. By a vast majority.

When you actually show people the rules theyre generally happy, or wonder why youve paid so many points for that fairly appalling tank that just so happens to look amazingly pretty.

Yes gaming is a "social contract", but the typical codex does not include *any* verbage that says it is considered official, BUT you still need your opponent's approval to play with the units in the codex. *That* is the difference and that is what makes the Forge World books different from the baseline Codex books. It doesn't matter why someone doesn't want to play against Forge World units, it is just that they have the option to make you exclude such things from it for a game, whereas they will get laughed at by their peers at an event if they expect people to not use something from their codex just because they don't like the rules for it.

If Forge World units were universally allowed and accepted the rulebook would clearly state that the rules are OFFICIAL and would NOT say the rules are CONSIDERED official, but you need your opponent's permission to use them.

Skriker

@Skriker: You're splitting hairs between "official" and "considered official". They mean the same thing. Also the forgeworld forward passage doesn't say you require opponent's permission - it says that it's considered good form to allow your opponent to see the rules for the models before the game so they're familiar with them, the same as anyone should do with a new codex or an opponent who has never faced your army before.


This is slightly anecdotal but completely factual - I recently received my Commander R'Alai model from Forgeworld UK a few weeks ago. On the return address, plain as day, was a GAMES WORKSHOP address. The two companies are one and the same, the rules say the models are official and even partitions which ones should be reserved for Apocalypse and which ones are balanced for regular play. People who refuse to play vs Forgeworld Models have just heard horror stories of cheese/unbalance, and probably have not even tried a game with them yet. Reecius said in his article which favored use of Forgeworld that people who refuse to allow them in games are fearful and/or ignorant. I tend to agree with that statement. Once a few games with them have been played most players will see that they are not overpowered, just different. And prettier.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Skriker wrote:

 lazarian wrote:
Umm no, the quote specifically:


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

Yes, be polite and dont spring new rules on people, but they are as legal and valid as any codex rulebook or White Dwarf article.

To tournament organizers, yes they sometimes say yes or no: more so are saying yes going forward however its always up to whomever is running whatever.

You are free to quote the book, but your quote doesn't change the fact that my answer is the correct one. All the symbol guarantees in the books is that they unit can be used in a standard, non-apocalypse 40k games. The rules in the FW books are not as legal and valid as any codex, because your opponent still has the ability to veto their use in a standard 40k game. If they were truly and fully "official" your opponent would not have the ability to keep you from playing them. I prefer the uncluttered accuracy of my own post on the subject because it gets to the heart of the matter.

Skriker

And to this I say: What about the dakkajet? What about Sisters of Battle? Nightspinner? All of these units and more have been introduced via White Dwarf, another publication from Games Workshop that states the models are sanctioned for standard games of 40K and belong to a specific codex. Who are you (or anyone who's not a part of GW) to tell us which units we can and cannot use as 'legal' models? I say they fall all under the GW umbrella which makes them fair GAME to PLAY with.

 tetrisphreak wrote:

And to this I say: What about the dakkajet? What about Sisters of Battle? Nightspinner? All of these units and more have been introduced via White Dwarf, another publication from Games Workshop that states the models are sanctioned for standard games of 40K and belong to a specific codex. Who are you (or anyone who's not a part of GW) to tell us which units we can and cannot use as 'legal' models? I say they fall all under the GW umbrella which makes them fair GAME to PLAY with.

The WD updates specify that they are Codex updates.
The FW books imply that they are, but don't say that, and the digital SM codex doesn't have any of the FW units in it while it does have the StormTalon.

rigeld2 wrote:

 tetrisphreak wrote:

And to this I say: What about the dakkajet? What about Sisters of Battle? Nightspinner? All of these units and more have been introduced via White Dwarf, another publication from Games Workshop that states the models are sanctioned for standard games of 40K and belong to a specific codex. Who are you (or anyone who's not a part of GW) to tell us which units we can and cannot use as 'legal' models? I say they fall all under the GW umbrella which makes them fair GAME to PLAY with.

The WD updates specify that they are Codex updates.
The FW books imply that they are, but don't say that, and the digital SM codex doesn't have any of the FW units in it while it does have the StormTalon.

Your points are valid but i feel they are a bit nitpicky in this situation. The Forgeworld units have lines of text on their datasheets that say "X is a Y choice in a Z army" which does not really Imply, but rather flat-out state, they belong to a codex as well.

 tetrisphreak wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 tetrisphreak wrote:

And to this I say: What about the dakkajet? What about Sisters of Battle? Nightspinner? All of these units and more have been introduced via White Dwarf, another publication from Games Workshop that states the models are sanctioned for standard games of 40K and belong to a specific codex. Who are you (or anyone who's not a part of GW) to tell us which units we can and cannot use as 'legal' models? I say they fall all under the GW umbrella which makes them fair GAME to PLAY with.

The WD updates specify that they are Codex updates.
The FW books imply that they are, but don't say that, and the digital SM codex doesn't have any of the FW units in it while it does have the StormTalon.

Your points are valid but i feel they are a bit nitpicky in this situation. The Forgeworld units have lines of text on their datasheets that say "X is a Y choice in a Z army" which does not really Imply, but rather flat-out state, they belong to a codex as well.

That's the implication that it's a codex update - the WD updates flat out state "This is a codex update". There is a difference. To assert otherwise is disingenuous.

All I can say is "agree to disagree" in that regard.