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.

"Hey, do you mind playing a 40K game with the rules for Planetstrike added in?"

"Hey, wanna play a game of Kill team, using those rules?"

"Hey, do you mind if I use this entry from Apocolypse in this game?"

equals

"Hey, do you mind if I use some Forgeworld models/rules in this game of 40K?"

Very simple. Both are "Official" GW rules, but are not meant to be used in completely bog-standard games of 40K. That's why it helps when both players are setting down to a friendly game!

-Loki- wrote:So now you're arguing that the stats in the rulebook consist of everything needed to field a Sisters of Battle army?

No.

Furthermore, if there only being stats in the rulebook disqualified an army from being fieldable, then nobody could ever play any army.

-Loki- wrote:Want to point me to where GW sell the Sisters of Battle codex? I wouldn't mind owning a copy.

I don't know - GW's website is pretty terrible. I think I'd probably buy my SoB codex off of ebay, personally.

Where you buy your codices from isn't terribly relevant.

Peregrine wrote:The people who get to decide that have decided, by putting a "this is part of the game" statement on FW rules.

So? They can decide that red is the best color, and that apples are the best fruit. Doesn't have any impact on any of the products they produce.

Peregrine wrote: A set of rules is part of the standard game if and only if two things are true: it is published by someone with the authority to decide that it is legal (whether directly or under license) AND it says "this is part of the game". When GW publishes a statement saying "X is now part of 40k" they, as the creators and publisher of 40k, have the authority to make that statement and X becomes part of the game.

Actually, the only things that determine what the rules are are the rules themselves.

We play a game by certain rules because that's what the rules to the game are. It doesn't matter what "authority" any particular group of people claims to have. I can claim authority for my fandex units being legal until I'm blue in the face, but that won't make them so.

If you're really basing everything on an argument from authority fallacy, you're going to have to excuse me if I'm not convinced.

 King of the Elves wrote:
This got WAY off from the OP. My question is do most people at a FLGS have a problem with playing with FW models as long as they have the 40K stamp. That was my question, please answer it or take your other opinions elsewhere, or I will lock this thread.

I answered it in the very first reply you got:

FW units are part of the game.

Some people play the game according to the rules.

Some people have a house rule that FW units aren't allowed.

The only way to find out whether you can use your FW unit or not is to ask the people you are going to play with, polling random people on the internet doesn't help you at all.

 King of the Elves wrote:
This got WAY off from the OP. My question is do most people at a FLGS have a problem with playing with FW models as long as they have the 40K stamp. That was my question, please answer it or take your other opinions elsewhere, or I will lock this thread.

Please. Please lock this thread. I beg of you. Save us and the mods time. Please. (Although, your question WAS answered. This is stemmed off of that)

Yeah, I don't get it. Your topic has been answered, and the discussion now is relevant to the general discussion of forgeworld models in 40k.

If you're not interested in the subject, feel free not to read it.

 Ailaros wrote:
So? They can decide that red is the best color, and that apples are the best fruit. Doesn't have any impact on any of the products they produce.

Sigh.

GW has no authority to decide that apples are the best fruit.

GW DOES have the authority to decide what the rules for the games they publish are.

The fact that you don't like the decision they've made about those rules doesn't change that decision.

Actually, the only things that determine what the rules are are the rules themselves.

And the rules say that FW is part of the game. Deal with it.

We play a game by certain rules because that's what the rules to the game are. It doesn't matter what "authority" any particular group of people claims to have. I can claim authority for my fandex units being legal until I'm blue in the face, but that won't make them so.

You're right, you can say it all you want and it won't mean anything because you don't have any authority.

GW, on the other hand, DOES have the authority since they're the ones who create the rules.

If you're really basing everything on an argument from authority fallacy, you're going to have to excuse me if I'm not convinced.

Wrong again. Try learning what an appeal to authority fallacy is and how it is different from "X is the one who writes the rules, therefore what X says about their rules is the final word on the subject".


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 AegisGrimm wrote:
Very simple. Both are "Official" GW rules, but are not meant to be used in completely bog-standard games of 40K. That's why it helps when both players are setting down to a friendly game!

Actually GW has explicitly said that FW rules ARE part of a bog-standard game of 40k.

 King of the Elves wrote:
This got WAY off from the OP. My question is do most people at a FLGS have a problem with playing with FW models as long as they have the 40K stamp. That was my question, please answer it or take your other opinions elsewhere, or I will lock this thread.

It's going to depend entirely on your FLGS. While one FLGS might be completely fine with using everything from Forgeworld including their army lists, another FLGS might not even allow Forgeworld models that simply replace 40k models, like the Forgeworld Hive Tyrants. Ask the people at your FLGS, not us.

About the tangent - what irks me is the Fantasy community is hugely enthusiastic about Forgeworld involving themselves in that game. The Chaos DWarf list, the new monsters in Monstrous Arcana, the upcoming Dwarf and Goblin book. Even rules - a lot of tournaments are now allowing the Chaos Dwarf list from Tamurkhan. People frequently talk about house rules to allow monsters from Monstrous Arcana in non-Storm of Magic games.

The 40k community? Not only polarised, but polarised in about half a dozen different ways. Everything is fine. Nothing is fine. Only replacement models are fine. Replacement models aren't fine, but new individual units are fine. Sometimes it just makes you want to never engage the community. Get some enthusiasm back, it's meant to be fun

About the tangent - what irks me is the Fantasy community is hugely enthusiastic about Forgeworld involving themselves in that game. The Chaos DWarf list, the new monsters in Monstrous Arcana, the upcoming Dwarf and Goblin book. Even rules - a lot of tournaments are now allowing the Chaos Dwarf list from Tamurkhan. People frequently talk about house rules to allow monsters from Monstrous Arcana in non-Storm of Magic games.

The 40k community? Not only polarised, but polarised in about half a dozen different ways. Everything is fine. Nothing is fine. Only replacement models are fine. Replacement models aren't fine, but new individual units are fine. Sometimes it just makes you want to never engage the community. Get some enthusiasm back, it's meant to be fun

that's what I think is funny, and yet saddening at the same time.

Well, to be fair, the 40K community is just about to the point that if a players army doesn't look how other players think it should, some of them will vocally anounce how they would refuse to play against that person on that basis alone.

I'm happy to play against FW as a rule, though i do reserve the right to not do so if the other guy is being a dick about it.

Anyone who tells me i HAVE to accept his units is getting a no-go from me just for that. If they ASK if i'm ok with FW units i'll generally say yes.

It would help if FW supported each faction equally though.

How many FW units have DE or Necrons got, for example, compared to IG, SM , Tau, Eldar ..

 Ascalam wrote:
How many FW units have DE or Necrons got, for example

Blame GW for that. Because of the complete re-designs they were working on they wouldn't let FW do anything with either army. But now that Necrons are going to be the enemy in the next FW book I expect that there will be more Necron units.

Peregrine wrote:GW has no authority to decide that apples are the best fruit.

GW DOES have the authority to decide what the rules for the games they publish are.

Try learning what an appeal to authority fallacy is and how it is different from "X is the one who writes the rules, therefore what X says about their rules is the final word on the subject".

GW can do whatever it wants because its games workshop?

So yes, you're going to make an argument of authority fallacy. I'm disappointed.

Well, I'm sure someone will come along who is capable of forming a logical argument.

-Loki- wrote:what irks me is the Fantasy community is hugely enthusiastic about Forgeworld involving themselves in that game.

The 40k community? Not only polarised, but polarised in about half a dozen different ways.

Well, to be fair, fantasy has things better balanced and settled in general. Also, the 40k community is much, much more competitive than the WHFB community is. Just go to the other side of the forum and ask which WHFB army is considered top tier, and watch how long it takes for you to get shouted down for even suggesting the idea of tiers.

Plus, you do also have to take into account the difference between ideas and actions, and between the internet and real life. I don't believe that FW stuff is legal for 40k games because that is apparently the only logical position to take. That doesn't mean that I'll refuse to play a game against someone who brings in FW stuff. I've already done it on a couple rare occasions where someone has actually brought FW stuff to the local gaming store.

That said, I resent the idea of people being able to force FW stuff down your throat, or saying that FW stuff of your army is exactly the same as stuff from your codex, because they're not. Furthermore, to deride people who are just following the rules, rather than what one wishes the rules were is pretty base behavior. The kind of behavior I don't like to see in communities in which I'm a part.

Cool for Necrons.

DE have been out a while now though. I guess they'll get their turn eventually, even if it takes a decade or so

 Ailaros wrote:
GW can do whatever it wants because its games workshop?

No, GW can do whatever they want with the games they publish. Seriously, why is it so hard to understand that the author of a game has the authority to write it however they like?

So yes, you're going to make an argument of authority fallacy. I'm disappointed.

No, you're just going to incorrectly label it a fallacy. Whether it's because you're afraid of admitting that you're wrong and just need an excuse or because you genuinely don't know what an appeal to authority fallacy is, who knows.

Well, to be fair, fantasy has things better balanced and settled in general. Also, the 40k community is much, much more competitive than the WHFB community is. Just go to the other side of the forum and ask which WHFB army is considered top tier, and watch how long it takes for you to get shouted down for even suggesting the idea of tiers.

Wait, are we talking about the same WHFB where the players laugh when 40k players complain about balance issues because they had armies that broke the game entirely?

That said, I resent the idea of people being able to force FW stuff down your throat, or saying that FW stuff of your army is exactly the same as stuff from your codex, because they're not.

They are exactly the same. The fact that you dislike this doesn't make it any less true.

Furthermore, to deride people who are just following the rules, rather than what one wishes the rules were is pretty base behavior. The kind of behavior I don't like to see in communities in which I'm a part.

Well then you'd better remove yourself from the community because YOU are the one arguing based on what you wish the rules were.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ascalam wrote:
DE have been out a while now though. I guess they'll get their turn eventually, even if it takes a decade or so

Well, don't forget that publishing an entire new book with new models isn't exactly a fast process, and we've seen a couple random DE releases without an entire book devoted to them. Would you rather FW rush out some DE stuff just for the sake of "equality" in model count, or would you rather have them take their time and do it right?

 Ailaros wrote:
The kind of behavior I don't like to see in communities in which I'm a part.

Then please, leave. No one is forcing you to stay. We all disagree with you, and you are angry because of it. Oh well. What are we, children? If people anger you, then ignore them and move on.

/thread

AKA: How is this not locked

Peregrine wrote: the author of a game has the authority to write it however they like?

Yeah, argument from authority, sorry.

The game is the game. The authority of who wrote it is irrelevant.

washout77 wrote:We all disagree with you, and you are angry because of it.

I'm not angry in the slightest.

I don't get NEARLY as emotionally invested in my opinions as others do.

Furthermore, my comments were directed not at people who like forgeworld, but people who engage in derisive behavior.

GW can do whatever it wants because its games workshop?

So yes, you're going to make an argument of authority fallacy. I'm disappointed.

Well, I'm sure someone will come along who is capable of forming a logical argument.

First of all, that's not even what Argument From Authority means.

Second, your setting up straw-men to burn and everyone's getting sick of the burning smell. It's quite obvious at this point.

Well, to be fair, fantasy has things better balanced and settled in general. Also, the 40k community is much, much more competitive than the WHFB community is. Just go to the other side of the forum and ask which WHFB army is considered top tier, and watch how long it takes for you to get shouted down for even suggesting the idea of tiers.

Third, this is a Red Herring fallacy

Plus, you do also have to take into account the difference between ideas and actions, and between the internet and real life. I don't believe that FW stuff is legal for 40k games because that is apparently the only logical position to take. That doesn't mean that I'll refuse to play a game against someone who brings in FW stuff. I've already done it on a couple rare occasions where someone has actually brought FW stuff to the local gaming store.

Fourth: Arguing from Ignorance

That said, I resent the idea of people being able to force FW stuff down your throat, or saying that FW stuff of your army is exactly the same as stuff from your codex, because they're not. Furthermore, to deride people who are just following the rules, rather than what one wishes the rules were is pretty base behavior. The kind of behavior I don't like to see in communities in which I'm a part.

Fifth: Moralistic Fallacy

Can you make one argument that isn't one long fallacy?

 Ailaros wrote:
The game is the game. The authority of who wrote it is irrelevant.

Honestly, you should have just quit the game when 6th arrived. You've gone from offering a lot of useful insight on how to play an under-appreciated army style in 5th to flailing around for new "best unit ever" options and arguing that the published rules of 40k don't contain things you don't like because GW isn't allowed to decide what rules they publish. Just quit while you still have some dignity left.

 Ailaros wrote:

Peregrine wrote: the author of a game has the authority to write it however they like?

Yeah, argument from authority, sorry.

The game is the game. The authority of who wrote it is irrelevant.

Wait... if the authority of who wrote it is irrelevant... does that mean I can just say the Leman Russ still has Lumbering Behemoth because I can disregard Games Workshop's authority to change the rules? Awesome!

I still stick with the old gun, the often used gun. The gun that people like to joke over and QQ about.

The gun that is the Warhammer 40k rulebook, the gun that allows you to use codexes and the units on those pages.

The one that makes no mention of the FW you speak of.

Yes I know it makes no mention of FAQ's either.
Odd though as the SoB is a codex. It's just in a magazine.

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:
The one that makes no mention of the FW you speak of.

Book X says nothing.

Book Y says "this is part of the game".

Conclusion: book Y is part of the game.

 Peregrine wrote:

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:
The one that makes no mention of the FW you speak of.

Book X says nothing.

Book Y says "this is part of the game".

Conclusion: book Y is part of the game.

The rulebook that allows you to play the game.

Says nothing.

Outside book says "something about it"

Check the rulebook again, it's not a codex so the rulebook has priority.

Rulebook wins.

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:
Check the rulebook again, it's not a codex so the rulebook has priority.

Could you show me the part in the rulebook where it says "this book and the codices are the only legal sources for rules, anything else we publish is not part of the game even if we say it is"? Because "says nothing about the subject" and "says X is not allowed" are two very different things.

ZebioLizard2 wrote:First of all, that's not even what Argument From Authority means.

Just because I brought up logical reasoning doesn't mean that you're going to be constructive by misusing a bunch of them on just one of my comments.

An argument from authority is a syllogistic fallacy. It goes thus.

Games Workshop has authority over 40k.
Games Workshop has a subsidiary say stuff about 40k.
Said stuff is therefore correct.

Except it's not, it's a fallacy. It doesn't matter WHO wrote the rules. Not even one bit. The rules are the rules.

TheCustomLime wrote:Wait... if the authority of who wrote it is irrelevant... does that mean I can just say the Leman Russ still has Lumbering Behemoth because I can disregard Games Workshop's authority to change the rules? Awesome!

The rules say that certain things are a part of the game, including FAQs. Unfortunately, the lumbering behemoth change is still part of the rules, because the rules allowed for it.

When the rules say you can use forgeworld stuff, then forgeworld stuff will also be legal as well.

Peregrine wrote:Could you show me the part in the rulebook where it says "this book and the codices are the only legal sources for rules? Because "says nothing about the subject" and "says X is not allowed" are two very different things.

They're not. Just because something is ommitted doesn't mean it's allowed.

As for the other part, I'd point you to page 2, where the only miniatures that are defined as legal are those produced by citadel, and page 309 discusses codices being legal.

Also well because I can.

There's this. 30+ pages of this topic >.<

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/477448.page

 King of the Elves wrote:
Has anyone had any problems playing with people at their FLGS about playing with forge world models with the 40K stamp? I'm thinking about getting a nightwing and I want to see about using it in 40K games thanks!

My group is firmly and happily in the Pro Forge World Camp. You can find 32 pages of Pros and Cons in this thread.

As for your local GW or FLGS, ask the store manager/owner of the players there. Not random people on the internet.

I almost want to watch someone field a Tomb Stalker or something against Ailaros. Just to see what happens.

Well, that other thread is for if forgeworld should be allowed at tournaments. Tournaments already screw around with the 40k rules anyways, so it's a rather moot point to this discussion.

And if someone brought along a tomb stalker and wanted to play a game with me, I'd play. Well, unless they were a jerk, or smelled really bad, or something. There's nothing personal about the arguments I'm making about forgeworld legality.

Nerobellum wrote:
I almost want to watch someone field a Tomb Stalker or something against Ailaros. Just to see what happens.

I doubt he'd be a dick about it. If he doesn't want to play against Forge World, he shouldn't have to. Anyone has the right to turn down a game.

 Ailaros wrote:
It goes thus.

No it doesn't.

An appeal to authority fallacy is an argument of the form "X is true because Y said so". It's a fallacy because you don't say WHY X is true, you just insist that we trust Y's opinion on the subject without question.

That's entirely different from pointing out that GW is the entity with the authority to decide what the rules they publish do and do not include.

When the rules say you can use forgeworld stuff, then forgeworld stuff will also be legal as well.

The rules do say it.

The only "problem" here is that Ailaros 40k doesn't say it.

They're not. Just because something is ommitted doesn't mean it's allowed.

Nice straw man.

It's allowed because, of the sources which do say anything about the subject, the only statement is that it is allowed.

As for the other part, I'd point you to page 2, where the only miniatures that are defined as legal are those produced by citadel, and page 309 discusses codices being legal.

Nothing on page 309 is relevant. It only says that codices are legal, not that they are the ONLY legal source of rules for standard 40k.

 Ailaros wrote:
Well, that other thread is for if forgeworld should be allowed at tournaments. Tournaments already screw around with the 40k rules anyways, so it's a rather moot point to this discussion.

And if someone brought along a tomb stalker and wanted to play a game with me, I'd play. Well, unless they were a jerk, or smelled really bad, or something. There's nothing personal about the arguments I'm making about forgeworld legality.

A good attitude

That said, does anyone encounter FW units that often? I play with the same group of guys every week, so I don't see much new.