Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Peregrine wrote:

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.

*Off topic* If you're going to throw "straw man" around, learn what it means. Debate 101, man.

If GW had wanted FW to be a park of 40k you really would think they would have added it in somewhere.

They even mention WD.

 kronk wrote:
*Off topic* If you're going to throw "straw man" around, learn what it means. Debate 101, man.

A straw man or straw person, also known in the UK as an Aunt Sally,[1][2] is a type of argument and is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.[3] To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by replacing it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the "straw man"), and to refute it, without ever having actually refuted the original position.[3][4]

And that's exactly what he did: he attacked an imaginary (and obviously unreasonable) position I don't hold instead of the argument I actually made.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:
If GW had wanted FW to be a park of 40k you really would think they would have added it in somewhere.

They did.

 Peregrine wrote:



Automatically Appended Next Post:

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:
If GW had wanted FW to be a park of 40k you really would think they would have added it in somewhere.

They did.

Well than show me in the Vast 40k rulebook? As in context to my sentence it's what I was talking about.

This has already been mentioned but yes FW is legal to play in Friendly 40k games, they just suggest that you ask your opponent about it first to be a stand up gamer. Anyone that complains about FW not being allowed in the game really to me makes no sense whatsoever. I play with a FW army list (Elysians from IA 8) and I can say though they are different from other Guard Armies they are not in any way shape or form overpowered.

Yes there are some UNITS that may be overstrength and a little ridiculous (the same thing can be said about many units in the official Codex's out there right now) and anyone using this as a basis for their argument clearly has never played against it and is following the lemmings off the cliff or is basing it off that single unit. Also people who say it wouldnt be fair to fight a titan in a friendly game....GW clearly states that its in Apocalypse only that you can take super heavies and titans so please no one say that. I dont see what the issue is with people with FW stuff but its quite clear:

Forgeworld units are legal to play with in 40k AND WHFB games, hell in the Tamurakhan book it even clearly states for the Chaos Dwarves: "This is to be treated as an official Warhammer list. Overall yes you can play with Forgeworld unless there is a house rule against it, END OF STORY wether you like it or not.

 gmaleron wrote:
This has already been mentioned but yes FW is legal to play in Friendly 40k games, they just suggest that you ask your opponent about it first to be a stand up gamer. Anyone that complains about FW not being allowed in the game really to me makes no sense whatsoever. I play with a FW army list (Elysians from IA 8) and I can say though they are different from other Guard Armies they are not in any way shape or form overpowered.

Yes there are some UNITS that may be overstrength and a little ridiculous (the same thing can be said about many units in the official Codex's out there right now) and anyone using this as a basis for their argument clearly has never played against it and is following the lemmings off the cliff or is basing it off that single unit. Also people who say it wouldnt be fair to fight a titan in a friendly game....GW clearly states that its in Apocalypse only that you can take super heavies and titans so please no one say that. I dont see what the issue is with people with FW stuff but its quite clear:

Forgeworld units are legal to play with in 40k AND WHFB games, hell in the Tamurakhan book it even clearly states for the Chaos Dwarves: "This is to be treated as an official Warhammer list. Overall yes you can play with Forgeworld unless there is a house rule against it, END OF STORY wether you like it or not.

If GW were to ever toss in a FAQ/errata to their Rulebooks I'd wholeheartedly agree with you. However no mention is ever made of FW.
In 40k it specifies that codexes contain "all" the information.

This actually makes for a great filter though. Ask someone if they are okay with you using forgeworld models if you show them the rules. If they say no, you would never want to play with that person anyway and you can now know to avoid them.

 Dannyevilguy wrote:
This actually makes for a great filter though. Ask someone if they are okay with you using forgeworld models if you show them the rules. If they say no, you would never want to play with that person anyway and you can now know to avoid them.

Wow. I'm about as pro-Forge World as there is, but you just told me that I should never play with you. That kind of attitude is not helpful in the slightest.

 Dannyevilguy wrote:
This actually makes for a great filter though. Ask someone if they are okay with you using forgeworld models if you show them the rules. If they say no, you would never want to play with that person anyway and you can now know to avoid them.

In a friendly game, I would always play against anything. Even if someone had a pts/rules thing that allowed current fantasy to play vs 40k. I would only insist on 1 thing, being allowed access to their Books so I can read what XX does. Not that I don't trust them, just that if I read it I get a better understanding than if they told me. Even if it was word for word.

 kronk wrote:

 Dannyevilguy wrote:
This actually makes for a great filter though. Ask someone if they are okay with you using forgeworld models if you show them the rules. If they say no, you would never want to play with that person anyway and you can now know to avoid them.

Wow. I'm about as pro-Forge World as there is, but you just told me that I should never play with you. That kind of attitude is not helpful in the slightest.

If someone is too competitive to face something new and interesting, even after they are shown what it is capable of, simply because they weren't able to prep their army list for it, they are not someone you want to play a game with. Personal opinion here obviously.
I see the game as fun crazy space combat, not a chance for me to beat someone down since I memorized their entire codex.

Maybe they just want to play a standard game because they are practicing for a tournament that doesn't allow FW. There are lots of reasons to not want to play FW, man. Don't assume they're "scared" of the unknown...

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:
Well than show me in the Vast 40k rulebook? As in context to my sentence it's what I was talking about.

Page 383, where it describes FW campaigns.

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:
In 40k it specifies that codexes contain "all" the information.

No it doesn't. Your quote on page 309 does not use the word "all". So there's no contradiction at all: the codex provides the information you need to play the army, the core units, army-wide rules, etc and is the starting point for a new player, while FW/WD add additional units to the army.

 Dannyevilguy wrote:

 kronk wrote:

 Dannyevilguy wrote:
This actually makes for a great filter though. Ask someone if they are okay with you using forgeworld models if you show them the rules. If they say no, you would never want to play with that person anyway and you can now know to avoid them.

Wow. I'm about as pro-Forge World as there is, but you just told me that I should never play with you. That kind of attitude is not helpful in the slightest.

If someone is too competitive to face something new and interesting, even after they are shown what it is capable of, simply because they weren't able to prep their army list for it, they are not someone you want to play a game with. Personal opinion here obviously.
I see the game as fun crazy space combat, not a chance for me to beat someone down since I memorized their entire codex.

Yep, you're as entitled to have fun as the next person. As long as you respect certain laws/civil rights, etc.

However you and I think of the game quite differently.
I'd still like to get a game in though, better to play than not.

 kronk wrote:
Maybe they just want to play a standard game because they are practicing for a tournament that doesn't allow FW. There are lots of reasons to not want to play FW, man. Don't assume they're "scared" of the unknown...

That depends on the reason they give for denying it.

"Sorry, I'm practicing for this upcoming tournament and I need to play against no-FW army with a tournament-style list"? Sure. I'll just try again later.

"No, I won't play against FW"? Not someone I want to have anything to do with.

I have yet to find a player who has refused to let someone use forge world rules at my FLGS. Even the store allows them in tournaments. Even though they are now official, people who think the rules are unfair can still refuse to play. If your opponent says "the rules for x are unfair, and I don't want you to use x" I doubt showing them a stamp of approval would changen their mind.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Beside I could refuse a game because you are using those overpowered Pyrovores. Just cause its official doesn't mean people must allow it.

It's astounding the mental hoops people go through to avoid Games Workshop product designed for use in normal Warhammer 40,000 play just because they're not in an (outdated) quick reference summary section of a rulebook or because it's sold through a different business channel of the same company for accounting/reporting reasons.

The mental gymnastics of intentional ignorance is both amusing and frustrating, watching the attempt of people trying to say an Imperial Guard tank from one box bought through Sales Channel A is fine but an Imperial Guard tank bought in a plastic bag from Sales Channel B is akin to being a different game or a 3rd party.

Especially given the design paradigm for the 6th edition ruleset of just being a cinematic framework for playing with such toy soldiers as opposed to a competitive tight ruleset for wargaming simulations, and many of the new rules and units being carried over from or inspired by said alternate sales channel.


A Leman Russ Annihilator or Eldar Hornet sold by a sub-department of Games Workshop as "Forgeworld" is clearly intended for use in Warhammer 40,000 games, says so right in its rules in its GW copyright book and there's no doubt of the originating company.

If you're talking stuff from say, Fantasy Flight Games RPG settings or the like, sure, fine, nobody will argue. But Forgeworld is not a 3rd party developing stuff for different game systems. This is people being wilfully obstinate and sticks in the mud because of lingering pre-conceived notions usually based on ignorance and unfamiliarity.

 RunningWithScissors wrote:
I have yet to find a player who has refused to let someone use forge world rules at my FLGS. Even the store allows them in tournaments. Even though they are now official, people who think the rules are unfair can still refuse to play. If your opponent says "the rules for x are unfair, and I don't want you to use x" I doubt showing them a stamp of approval would changen their mind.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Beside I could refuse a game because you are using those overpowered Pyrovores. Just cause its official doesn't mean people must allow it.

The overpowered nature of Pyrovores has never been contested. Matt Ward admits that Draigo must bow before them.

People can disallow whatever they want, doesn't make them right though. Unless it's Pyrovores.

Peregrine wrote: It's a fallacy because you don't say WHY X is true

And when the why is an appeal to authority, it's a fallacy.

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

Actually, only one source for what is or isn't a rule matters - the rulebook.

Peregrine wrote:It only says that codices are legal, not that they are the ONLY legal source of rules for standard 40k.

By this argument, ANYTHING could be legal, so long as it's not explicitly banned in the rulebook.

In fact, it's the other way around. The rules tell you what you are allowed to do, and if it doesn't say that you can do something, then you can't. I mean, you can't just move pawns wherever you want in a game of chess because the rules for the game tell you how you're allowed to move them. Because the rules don't explicitly ban a pawn from teleporting from one particular square to another doesn't mean you are free to do so.

Nerobellum wrote: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.

No, actually. I likewise play with a pretty stable group, and forgeworld minis are generally too expensive. The leagues that we run also generally follow the usual game rules, and the different things we do to alter them are explicitly stated beforehand (like different scenarios, or whatever).

The only time I've seen FW stuff is on a rare occasion when a non-regular shows up to play a pickup game.

kronk 495777 wrote:Wow. I'm about as pro-Forge World as there is, but you just told me that I should never play with you. That kind of attitude is not helpful in the slightest.

You would rather play games against people who make stuff up and get offended when you ask them where in the rules what they're saying can be found?

That's strange. I've had a lot of TFGs try and pull fast ones on me, and my only recourse is to insist that my opponents play by the rules as printed. If they throw a hissy fit about it, it's much more telling about who they are than who I am.

RunningWithScissors wrote: I doubt showing them a stamp of approval would changen their mind.

Probably not. In my case, I'd need more than a rubber stamp to accept non-rules as rules.

Vaktathi wrote:The mental gymnastics of intentional ignorance is both amusing and frustrating

I'm sorry that well-reasoned and logically sound opinions on things you disagree with frustrates you. I'm glad you're finding it entertaining at least.

 Ailaros wrote:

kronk 495777 wrote:Wow. I'm about as pro-Forge World as there is, but you just told me that I should never play with you. That kind of attitude is not helpful in the slightest.

You would rather play games against people who make stuff up and get offended when you ask them where in the rules what they're saying can be found?

That's strange. I've had a lot of TFGs try and pull fast ones on me, and my only recourse is to insist that my opponents play by the rules as printed. If they throw a hissy fit about it, it's much more telling about who they are than who I am.

I think you're getting some quotes mixed up or inferring something that isn't there. I can't possibly see how you got that from my post.

I was referring to not playing someone that had the attitude that anyone that says no to FW is someone not worth playing. That sentence was convoluted, but I refuse to fix it.

 Vaktathi wrote:
It's astounding the mental hoops people go through to avoid Games Workshop product designed for use in normal Warhammer 40,000 play just because they're not in an (outdated) quick reference summary section of a rulebook or because it's sold through a different business channel of the same company for accounting/reporting reasons.

The mental gymnastics of intentional ignorance is both amusing and frustrating, watching the attempt of people trying to say an Imperial Guard tank from one box bought through Sales Channel A is fine but an Imperial Guard tank bought in a plastic bag from Sales Channel B is akin to being a different game or a 3rd party.

Especially given the design paradigm for the 6th edition ruleset of just being a cinematic framework for playing with such toy soldiers as opposed to a competitive tight ruleset for wargaming simulations, and many of the new rules and units being carried over from or inspired by said alternate sales channel.

Thankfully, in my experience, it's fairly isolated to the Internet. Whenever I see people with Forgeworld models at the FLGS, or I get one of my own out, they're met with nothing but excitement.

 Ailaros wrote:
And when the why is an appeal to authority, it's a fallacy.

This is really not complicated.

It is NOT a fallacy to point out that the creator of a product has control over future revisions/additions/etc to that product and can decide that there is a new "official" version of that product, or add content to the product in future releases, or even remove content from it. Seriously, what you're saying is about as stupid as arguing that 6th edition isn't official because the 5th edition rulebook doesn't say it is.

Actually, only one source for what is or isn't a rule matters - the rulebook.

That is your opinion.

GW's opinion is that the source for what is or isn't a rule in the game they publish includes the core rulebook and any additional material they publish with a "this is part of 40k" statement.

Sorry to disappoint you but you don't get to decide what publishing methods GW is allowed to use for their games.

By this argument, ANYTHING could be legal, so long as it's not explicitly banned in the rulebook.

Anything which GW publishes with a statement saying that it is legal. Stop ignoring that requirement and pretending that I'm saying silence on the subject is sufficient.

I likewise play with a pretty stable group, and forgeworld minis are generally too expensive.

And now we see the real reason here. Your wallet can't afford FW stuff, and your ego won't allow you to admit that "no FW" is just your personal house rule and not part of GW's version of 40k.

I've had a lot of TFGs try and pull fast ones on me, and my only recourse is to insist that my opponents play by the rules as printed.

So we're in agreement then: the rules as printed say that FW is part of the game. Deal with it.

Edited by Mannahnin

 -Loki- wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
It's astounding the mental hoops people go through to avoid Games Workshop product designed for use in normal Warhammer 40,000 play just because they're not in an (outdated) quick reference summary section of a rulebook or because it's sold through a different business channel of the same company for accounting/reporting reasons.

The mental gymnastics of intentional ignorance is both amusing and frustrating, watching the attempt of people trying to say an Imperial Guard tank from one box bought through Sales Channel A is fine but an Imperial Guard tank bought in a plastic bag from Sales Channel B is akin to being a different game or a 3rd party.

Especially given the design paradigm for the 6th edition ruleset of just being a cinematic framework for playing with such toy soldiers as opposed to a competitive tight ruleset for wargaming simulations, and many of the new rules and units being carried over from or inspired by said alternate sales channel.

Thankfully, in my experience, it's fairly isolated to the Internet. Whenever I see people with Forgeworld models at the FLGS, or I get one of my own out, they're met with nothing but excitement.

This has generally been my experience as well, and every Forgeworld stuff doesn't have any issues being used in tournaments and leagues around where I live anymore.

Ailaros wrote:
I'm sorry that well-reasoned and logically sound opinions on things you disagree with frustrates you. I'm glad you're finding it entertaining at least.

Because equating Forgeworld with a 3rd party or that Forgeworld units that couldn't be anything but 40k units are somehow akin to trying to use Warhammer Fantasy units in 40k. You're going out of your way to basically sit there and go "lalalalalala can't hear you!".

There's nothing logical about that, you're forcing an equivocation that just doesn't exist. Just because it's not in the rulebook summary doesn't mean anything, you won't find Maulerfiends, Helldrakes or Hades Autocannons in there either. Just because it's sold through Forgeworld doens't mean it's a 3rd party model. It's very plainly spelled out who the rules are from, who the models are made by, and in what game they're intended to be used and how.

This thread.

It's like a fatality car accident. You don't want to look, but you kinda have to look...

Maybe this will help (or it will add more fuel to the fire. People have very strong opinions on this topic).

http://theindependentcharacters.com/blog/?p=1984

Speaking purely from a local perspective, I only know a single group which won't allow FW units in tournament games, but encourages their use in regular games, especially Apoc. In fact, they're notorious for duping new players into agreeing to big games, and then throw 4 titans at them without bothering to explain what said titan does. Real charming WAAC group, as the FW ban for tourneys only really extends to FW stuff the leadership doesn't like or finds difficult to counter.

To rules lawyer, however, it says right in the Apoc rulebook that FW is an excellent source of additional models, formations and army lists for Apocalypse games.

And then you can consider that every WD includes ads for FW models and book releases.

And then the GW website advertises them in their daily blog from time to time.

In fact, at the single GW store in the province, FW gets a lot of attention; lots of the display pieces owned by the staff of FW, and their tourneys tend to include a lot of FW. The staff regularly recommend to people trying to add a flavor piece, or central model to their army to look at FW.

I really think the dislike for FW is a holdover from a previous era; many FW units and elements have been imported into the standard codexes, and they've become increasingly integrated and balanced for regular 40k use.

For every advantage FW may give a player, it often comes with something equally potent to hurt hem, often high point costs, risks in the unit's use, or they're highly specialized, and thus only really good at one or two roles.

The only place I'd consider FW units decidedly better are their selection of fliers, as they've got a large range of them, as they've been staples of Apoc since it's release. Though I think every single flier they have, save the Caestus, is inferior to the Vendetta, but that's another beast entirely.

The only thing that should be kept separate are the Horus Heresy rules, as they've publicly stated while it uses the same basic ruleset, it's not balanced against 40k armies, as it's supposed to be a wholly distinct expansion.

 Ailaros wrote:

TheAngrySquig wrote:I'm pretty sure GW has said yay before, but i could be mistaken

If so, I'd like to see where.

I mean, you can't use WHFB units and rules in your 40k games by default. I'd certainly need to see a page number for where something like that would happen (like where the 40k rulebook talks about white dwarf, for example).

I think the fact that the units in the Imperial Armour books have Warhammer 40k approved stamps, is where.

 Evertras wrote:
This will be interesting.

I'm wondering if there's ever been an official stance on this from GW to clear up the confusion?

Short version, I think, is just check with your FLGS in question and game on.

There *IS* an official stance from Games Workshop: FW models are NOT legal for use in the Grand Tournaments. If its not listed in one of their published codices, it is not legal for official play. Our FLGS has a ban on them in their tournaments for that reason alone.

That said. most people are fine with them, and we use a bunch when we play friendly non-tourney games. There *are* a few FW models that people would accuse of being "Op" (I'm looking at you, Vulture), but by and large they're fine, just different. You just have to ask your opponent if he is ok with you using them first.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 -Loki- wrote:


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

If anyone wants an SoB codex, go pick up Codex: WhichHunters. It's still legal for official play. They also have it available on their webiste as a PDF.
LINK
http://www.games-workshop.com/MEDIA_CustomProductCatalog/m1050291a_Codex__Witch_Hunters


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ascalam wrote:
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.

^^ THIS. THIS. THIS. 1000 times THIS!.

If you ask first, and come prepared with a printout of the rules for the model in question it is unlikely they'll say no. It is your opponents choice whether or not you get to use them! If you jump down my throat with the attitude that some of these posters have "THEY'RE PART OF THE GAME AND THEY'RE LEGAL AND I'M USING THEM AND THERE IS NOTHING YOU CAN DO ABOUT IT AND WAH WAH WAH!" Then no, I'll choose not to play against you...


My thoughts on the matter have always been this: If Games Workshop had always intended them to be official and used in everyday normal games, why aren't they allowed to be used at tournaments? Why do I have to go to FW's website to buy them? Why aren't they a part of the "normal" 40k product line? Why aren't the rules for said models in the army codices? Clearly and obviously they are "different" in some way; they are apart from the "normal" 40k models. You can't deny this! I feel like FW models are like the "Beta" test for crazy new units, and after they have been around and played with a bit GW makes the decision whether or not to pick them up and add them to their "normal" line (Example: Eldar flyers, Ork Flyers, IG and SM flyers).

I apologize in advance if any of these appears rude, I do not mean it to be taken as such.

Cheesedoodler wrote:

 Evertras wrote:
This will be interesting.

I'm wondering if there's ever been an official stance on this from GW to clear up the confusion?

Short version, I think, is just check with your FLGS in question and game on.

There *IS* an official stance from Games Workshop: FW models are NOT legal for use in the Grand Tournaments. If its not listed in one of their published codices, it is not legal for official play. Our FLGS has a ban on them in their tournaments for that reason alone.

You are making one big assumption here, one which is incorrect, and that is that Grand Tournaments are the arbiter of "Official" play. They are not and you will not find GW holding this stance either nor will you find it in the rulebook anywhere. There isn't even a unified Grant Tournament ruleset as different countries play different points levels (or lack Grand Tournaments altogether as I believe the US does, it's all indie events) and have allowed different armies at different times (e.g. Chapter Approved Armored Companies and Kroot Merc lists were legal in US GT's until 2007 when they got rid of all chapter approved stuff, they dropped it in the UK in 2005 or 2006). Also, GT's are put on and run by the marketing department of GW to push core sales channels which does not include Forgeworld.

Additionally, the Design Studio stated at their Open Day event that the 6th edition ruleset was written to provide a narrative framework to create a use for the models GW sells, not be a ruleset for organized competitive play, so events like GT's are already outside of what one would consider "normal" 40k.

If anyone wants an SoB codex, go pick up Codex: WhichHunters. It's still legal for official play. They also have it available on their webiste as a PDF.

Codex Witch Hunters has been out of print for nearly 2 years and has been superceded by a newer list that was published in White Dwarf in late 2011 and never again made available. Just because they never took the Witch Hunters PDF down doesn't mean it's still the list to use, I don't believe there's any way to find it either on their normal page without googling "codex witch hunters", which anyone who started playing in the last couple years would have no idea to search for as they're now just "Sisters of Battle".
..

My thoughts on the matter have always been this: If Games Workshop had always intended them to be official and used in everyday normal games, why aren't they allowed to be used at tournaments?

Again, because primarily they are run by the marketing group to push core sales channels.

You couldn't use Special Characters in GT's either for years. It wasn't because they weren't "Official", but because they'd broken the ever loving hell out of such characters in 2nd edition and it took them two editions to get over it.

Why do I have to go to FW's website to buy them? Why aren't they a part of the "normal" 40k product line?

Because they're a separate business division that has their own sales channels and accounting issues that allows them the autonomy to more fully explore the 40k universe than what GW's core design studio can managing 50 something product lines between 40k, WHFB and LotR/Hobbit. They also have different production facilities and distribution methods due to the differences in production methods and, again, the differences in sales channels. One will notice a link to the Forgeworld page is available through the primary GW website however.

Why aren't the rules for said models in the army codices? Clearly and obviously they are "different" in some way; they are apart from the "normal" 40k models.

Apart in a way yes, but mainly because the core design studio can't or doesn't want to do everything, GW as a business wanted to try anyway and created Forgeworld to do it, and GW is a business that has different operations and different sales channels and have very good reasons for not mixing the two in certain ways. The codex books push the plastic and metal lines (now mostly Finecast) for the beginners and short term players. Forgeworld does high detail, large scale resin, and is one of GW's avenues for more veteran players to engage in.

It doesn't mean Forgeworld is any less "Official". It doesn't mean these things don't exist in the 40k universe. Just because it's not in a Codex but rather an Imperial Armour doesn't suddenly mean it's some 3rd party fanfic unit. No, they are GW models with GW rules in GW copyright books.

You can't deny this! I feel like FW models are like the "Beta" test for crazy new units, and after they have been around and played with a bit GW makes the decision whether or not to pick them up and add them to their "normal" line (Example: Eldar flyers, Ork Flyers, IG and SM flyers).

In some ways yes, it is a beta test, but so are many codex books. That has no bearing on officialdom however. When FW puts out "test" rules, they publish them as PDF's and label them as such.



A lot of this boils down to the differences in production. It's not feasible to push Forgeworld with everything else because of the difference in production practices and costs, not to mention, until very recently, scale of the models. Most GW kits are plastic kits that cost tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars to create the initial moulds for and are then used in large injection moulding machines for years on end run for many hours a day producing at rates determined by forecasted demand. FW units are cast to order typically with moulds that are much cheaper to make but have to be replaced more often with more expensive input material and a more time consuming production process, making the entire operation from production to sales very different.

This alone accounts for much of the difference in treatment at stuff like GT's and the way in which they are presented.

Also, just a quick note, I believe towards the back of the 40k BRB it has a whole page JUST for Forge World.

They endorse using FW Campaign Books, like Aeronautica and things. They specifically use the examples of the Imperial Armoor 9 Part 1 and 10. Guess what? Those books have special rules in them. That apparently aren't part of the game.

 washout77 wrote:
Also, just a quick note, I believe towards the back of the 40k BRB it has a whole page JUST for Forge World.

They endorse using FW Campaign Books, like Aeronautica and things. They specifically use the examples of the Imperial Armoor 9 Part 1 and 10. Guess what? Those books have special rules in them. That apparently aren't part of the game.

Oddly enough they're found explicitly in the "Campaign" section, which is directly after the "Expansion" section.
No I don't believe their meant to be a standard part of 40k, or else they'd be listed elsewhere in the book.
The Title is Forge World Campaign Systems.

Haha, why doesn't GW just make a mega book that has every single codex and expansion in it including the rules for the core game. It will cost $200.

Wait. Then they don't make money.

Edit: Then again, Battlefront does this with FoW. For $60 you get army lists, rules, fluff, and hobby stuff. And they are doing pretty well off.