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.

 washout77 wrote:
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.

I'd be willing to bet that if GW officially made FW legal in all 40k games(errata/faq/etc)(something in the core set of rules, not a FW campaign book), they'd increase their sales. At least their sales through FW.

If they'd add a nice/tidy errata/faq I'd certainly send some $$ their way.

They don't need to add every codex in a single book. A nice errata in the 40k 6th ed rulebook would definitely make it happen hands down.

The issue is, from GW's standpoint, they don't need such a statment, the game isn't designed to have such an "officialdom" and the FW books themselves generally spell it out.

Sloppy? Yes. Frustrating at times? Yes. Is it what we've come to expect from GW? Yes. This is after all a company that routinely (and completely inexplicably from any legitimate business reasoning) borrows money to pay shareholder dividends simply because a couple of the head guys get to double or triple their yearly income for it.

 Ailaros wrote:

But we're talking about 40k, not about games workshop. If I make my own rules, and then consider them legal for 40k are they? No.

The source doesn't matter.

This logic is ridiculous.

Why doesn't the source matter.

If the rules publisher of 40k publishes rules and says "These are for 40k." Then they are rules for 40k.

Fact.

No "Why can't i use fantasy units", no "Talisman rules, dawg", none of that. GW says 40k explicitly In FW rules. It's made simple, and any attempt at ignoring that is intentional ignorance for the sake of being stubborn.

 TheCaptain wrote:

 Ailaros wrote:

But we're talking about 40k, not about games workshop. If I make my own rules, and then consider them legal for 40k are they? No.

The source doesn't matter.

This logic is ridiculous.

Why doesn't the source matter.

If the rules publisher of 40k publishes rules and says "These are for 40k." Then they are rules for 40k.

Fact.

No "Why can't i use fantasy units", no "Talisman rules, dawg", none of that. GW says 40k explicitly In FW rules. It's made simple, and any attempt at ignoring that is intentional ignorance for the sake of being stubborn.

It's not really ignorance nor being stubborn.

As stated the only time the 40k rulebook makes mention of FW is in a campaign setting.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Vaktathi wrote:
The issue is, from GW's standpoint, they don't need such a statment, the game isn't designed to have such an "officialdom" and the FW books themselves generally spell it out.

That's your opinion, however as I doubt you can speak on GW's behalf that's not GW's standpoint.
In the rulebook you'll note several instances where it states codexes. It even goes as far mind you not word for word but I don't feel like looking it up again, that the codex contains all that armys rules and information.

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:

 TheCaptain wrote:

 Ailaros wrote:

But we're talking about 40k, not about games workshop. If I make my own rules, and then consider them legal for 40k are they? No.

The source doesn't matter.

This logic is ridiculous.

Why doesn't the source matter.

If the rules publisher of 40k publishes rules and says "These are for 40k." Then they are rules for 40k.

Fact.

No "Why can't i use fantasy units", no "Talisman rules, dawg", none of that. GW says 40k explicitly In FW rules. It's made simple, and any attempt at ignoring that is intentional ignorance for the sake of being stubborn.

It's not really ignorance nor being stubborn.

As stated the only time the 40k rulebook makes mention of FW is in a campaign setting.

GW publishes a new book, says "Hey guys, these are more rules for 40k. Regular 40k."

If you choose not to accept that statement at face value, you're being intentionally ignorant. It is all explicit and clear. Nowhere in the BGB does it say "Hey, ignore any books we release saying 'these are rules', they're all made of lies and sin."

The only thing explicitly stated is that FW stuff is official, in the opening of every FW book. Which are published by GW. Who make the rules for 40k. And get to decide what is and isn't rules.

As far as explicitly stating inclusion v. exclusion, FW has a statement of inclusion. GW has no such counterpoint. If you take GW as the maker of 40k rules, and they say "these are 40k rules", then they are rules until you are told otherwise.

 TheCaptain wrote:

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:

 TheCaptain wrote:

 Ailaros wrote:

But we're talking about 40k, not about games workshop. If I make my own rules, and then consider them legal for 40k are they? No.

The source doesn't matter.

This logic is ridiculous.

Why doesn't the source matter.

If the rules publisher of 40k publishes rules and says "These are for 40k." Then they are rules for 40k.

Fact.

No "Why can't i use fantasy units", no "Talisman rules, dawg", none of that. GW says 40k explicitly In FW rules. It's made simple, and any attempt at ignoring that is intentional ignorance for the sake of being stubborn.

It's not really ignorance nor being stubborn.

As stated the only time the 40k rulebook makes mention of FW is in a campaign setting.

GW publishes a new book, says "Hey guys, these are more rules for 40k. Regular 40k."

If you choose not to accept that statement at face value, you're being intentionally ignorant. It is all explicit and clear. Nowhere in the BGB does it say "Hey, ignore any books we release saying 'these are rules', they're all made of lies and sin."

The only thing explicitly stated is that FW stuff is official, in the opening of every FW book. Which are published by GW. Who make the rules for 40k. And get to decide what is and isn't rules.

As far as explicitly stating inclusion v. exclusion, FW has a statement of inclusion. GW has no such counterpoint. If you take GW as the maker of 40k rules, and they say "these are 40k rules", then they are rules until you are told otherwise.

It certainly does call them campaign books though. Not regular game books.
Take it face value if you like, however the way it reads to me is that your 40k approved is approved for campaigns only if they are from the campaign books.

AegisGrimm wrote:I guess I'll post this too, just to get the point across. This:

"Standard 40k"

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:

It certainly does call them campaign books though. Not regular game books.
Take it face value if you like, however the way it reads to me is that your 40k approved is approved for campaigns only if they are from the campaign books.

I see no "Campaign book" designation.

I see "Intended to be used in standard 40k."

If you think otherwise, you are consciously deciding to read this the wrong way. Which is fine, and perfectly within your rights, but wrong nonetheless.

 TheCaptain wrote:

AegisGrimm wrote:I guess I'll post this too, just to get the point across. This:

"Standard 40k"

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:

It certainly does call them campaign books though. Not regular game books.
Take it face value if you like, however the way it reads to me is that your 40k approved is approved for campaigns only if they are from the campaign books.

I see no "Campaign book" designation.

I see "Intended to be used in standard 40k."

If you think otherwise, you are consciously deciding to read this the wrong way. Which is fine, and perfectly within your rights, but wrong nonetheless.

Considering it's listed in the Campaign book setting in the 6th Ed 40k rulebook I will think that way.
My being wrong is only your and a few others opinions.
Which means IMO as well as others, you are the one who is wrong.

I'm not sure how that linked picture saying it's standard and official can be interpreted any other way. Oh well. Not gonna bang my head on this one, personally.

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:
That's your opinion, however as I doubt you can speak on GW's behalf that's not GW's standpoint.

They came right out and said pretty much exactly what I said at the Design Studio's Open Day event a couple months back. That's not my opinion, it's theirs. FW books are GW publications with GW copyrights written by GW employees at GW headquarters and clearly state how such units are intended to be used, which is typically in conjunction with normal 40k games.

In the rulebook you'll note several instances where it states codexes. It even goes as far mind you not word for word but I don't feel like looking it up again, that the codex contains all that armys rules and information.

And at this point we're hinging on the word Codex. If, by codex, is it just the literal "Codex" meaning the book says codex, or by codex, is it defined by the definition of a collections of rules/statutes, in which case an Imperial Armour book would apply just as much.

And, if taken literally, the statement that all of an army's rules are to be found in their codex is incorrect, as codex books do *NOT* contain all of an army's rules and information. You won't find Storm Talon's in Codex Space Marines, you won't find Night Spinner rules in Codex Eldar, you won't find Dakkajets in Codex Orks, etc. Yet nobody challenges those. Furthermore, such FW units exist in the 40k universe, some previously were mainstream units that have flowed in and out between codex books and FW (LR Vanquishers, Rapier Laser Destroyers, Thudd Guns, etc) and have their place.


EDIT: Also, not all FW books are campaign setting books, and almost all of those are just elaborate setups for the army list and not supposed to be isolated to just those specific campaigns. The Death Korps of Krieg for instance were a Chapter Approved army mod for IG before showing up as a sub-variant IG doctrines list in the 2003 book before then being fully fleshed out in Imperial Armour 5 and 7.

Peregrine wrote: you don't get to decide what publishing methods GW is allowed to use for their games.

Indeed.

Of course, the rules themselves say which publishing methods constitute new rules. Those that aren't don't.

washout77 wrote:They endorse using FW Campaign Books

Indeed. There are many modules for doing lots of stuff to 40k games. They mention planetstrike on the preceding page, for example.

Unless you're playing the campaign, though, the rules don't count. I can't show up to a normal game and start using apocalypse rules (or whatever crazy campaign ideas I come up with) without getting the other player's permission first.

Vaktathi wrote: the game isn't designed to have such an "officialdom"

?

What makes a game different than just playing pretend or telling stories is that games have rules to restrict what people can do. A game IS its rules set, or else it's not actually a game.

If you want to play a game with different rules than those that are spelled out, that's fine, but you're playing a different game than everyone else.

TheCaptain wrote:If you choose not to accept that statement at face value, you're being intentionally ignorant.

It's actually because I'm not swayed by logical fallacy. Your argument has already been addressed and refuted.

Ailaros wrote:
Indeed. There are many modules for doing lots of stuff to 40k games. They mention planetstrike on the preceding page, for example.

Unless you're playing the campaign, though, the rules don't count. I can't show up to a normal game and start using apocalypse rules (or whatever crazy campaign ideas I come up with) without getting the other player's permission first.

Because Planetstrike and Apocalypse are not normal 40k play, they can't be played out of the rulebook without significant changes to missions, deployments, force organization charts, etc. Forgeworld spells out exactly which units are for normal play, what are for Apocalypse, etc.

Ailaros wrote:
What makes a game different than just playing pretend or telling stories is that games have rules to restrict what people can do. A game IS its rules set, or else it's not actually a game.

40k's rules are hardly strict, with even rules updates until recently having merely been "suggestions". 40k, from a game design standpoint, is a rather poor excuse for a ruleset in general, and ultimately, is a framework for people to play with their plastic toy soldiers, not designed to be a tight, strict ruleset for tactical simulation. That said, we do have a set of rules stating exactly how such models produced by GW under the name Forgeworld are to be used as we'll see below here...

If you want to play a game with different rules than those that are spelled out, that's fine, but you're playing a different game than everyone else.

They're spelled out in the GW written, published, and copyright Imperial Armour line of books for Warhammer 40,000 play that explicitely state as such within them

 Ailaros wrote:

TheCaptain wrote:If you choose not to accept that statement at face value, you're being intentionally ignorant.

It's actually because I'm not swayed by logical fallacy. Your argument has already been addressed and refuted.

Calling an argument "fallacious" is just as erroneous as calling "strawman". It is a rebuttal of no substance, and a copout.

Furthermore, saying something has been refuted merely because it has been inadequately addressed by opinion and interpretation is simply not true.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:

Considering it's listed in the Campaign book setting in the 6th Ed 40k rulebook I will think that way.
My being wrong is only your and a few others opinions.
Which means IMO as well as others, you are the one who is wrong.

"FW makes campaign books. All their books must be campaign books."

What? No.

Please lock thread

 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.

Depends on the group, for example in my group, I am playing the Death Korps 100% of the time, its my only army, and the whole gang just made a massive comon order at FW, so yes, plenty of FW around here, YMMV.

 King of the Elves wrote:
Please lock thread

I'll second this. Sorry your question got so off track. At least I finally got a sig.

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:

Considering it's listed in the Campaign book setting in the 6th Ed 40k rulebook I will think that way.
My being wrong is only your and a few others opinions.
Which means IMO as well as others, you are the one who is wrong.

"FW makes campaign books. All their books must be campaign books."

What? No.

Well hell, I think I'll wade in here with my 2 pence...

Forge World make '28mm miniatures - a range of variant models for Warhammer 40,000, including variations on existing models as well as larger resin pieces'

That's from the Wikipedia entry. True enough, not always 100% accurate but I'd say 90% or so.

I'm not sure I follow your argument here Ailaros...What are you saying exactly? That an officially licenced GW business (Forge World) are not being allowed to use Thier models in games of 40k? Because that's just a bit of wilful blindness and/or stubbornness on your part surely? After all, it does state in the IA Books, in clear and easy to read black and white no less, that you are allowed to use these certain units in games of 'standard' 40k, with your opponents permission of course.
I don't know about you Ailaros, but that reads pretty simply to me. Games of 'standard' 40k mean no 'Cities Of Death' and no 'Apocolypse' but what that does mean is that in 'standard' games of 40k, that's games played with missions and rules from the 6th ed main rule book, with your opponents permission, you can use certain units from IA books. What would be the point in people collecting a DKoK force, for example, when they cannot use them in 'standard' games of 40k? I'm afraid that your argument, whilst eloquently put, just does not make sense...

 sarpedons-right-hand wrote:
Well hell, I think I'll wade in here with my 2 pence...

Forge World make '28mm miniatures - a range of variant models for Warhammer 40,000, including variations on existing models as well as larger resin pieces'

That's from the Wikipedia entry. True enough, not always 100% accurate but I'd say 90% or so.

Yep they make models, for 40k, doesnt say anything about the ruleset.

Also worth noting other companies make 28 mm models for 40k.
Albeit it's probably slightly illegal, there are also recasters.

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:

 sarpedons-right-hand wrote:
Well hell, I think I'll wade in here with my 2 pence...

Forge World make '28mm miniatures - a range of variant models for Warhammer 40,000, including variations on existing models as well as larger resin pieces'

That's from the Wikipedia entry. True enough, not always 100% accurate but I'd say 90% or so.

Yep they make models, for 40k, doesnt say anything about the ruleset.

Also worth noting other companies make 28 mm models for 40k.
Albeit it's probably slightly illegal, there are also recasters.

This is true, but did you read all of my post? Or just the first few sentences? Because I went on to say 'certain units can be use in 'standard' 40k, not 'Cities of Death' or 'Apocolypse'......That clarifies the ruleset thing quite nicely.

I third this thread being locked. There isn't much else to argue besides throwing around terms like "strawman" or "fallacy" and repeating yourself. Besides, the question was already answered: "It says it's legal for standard 40k. Ask if your gaming group is okay with it, though".

By the way, gamers have the right to refuse anything they don't want to play against. As legal as Forge World may be you can't force it down people's throats if they don't want to play against it. I have the right to refuse to play against Tau if I don't like them. Does that make me a "TFG"? Who knows but it's my right as a human being. It's supposed to be fun, after all.

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:

Considering it's listed in the Campaign book setting in the 6th Ed 40k rulebook I will think that way.
My being wrong is only your and a few others opinions.
Which means IMO as well as others, you are the one who is wrong.

"FW makes campaign books. All their books must be campaign books."

What? No.

Did I say that all they make is campaign books? No.
Are you putting text in my mouth? Yes

 TheCaptain wrote:

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:

Considering it's listed in the Campaign book setting in the 6th Ed 40k rulebook I will think that way.
My being wrong is only your and a few others opinions.
Which means IMO as well as others, you are the one who is wrong.

"FW makes campaign books. All their books must be campaign books."

What? No.

Did I say that all they make is campaign books? No.
Are you putting text in my mouth? Yes

You said FW stuff is listed in the Campaign books in the 6th ed 40k rulebook, so you'll consider them campaign books.

Literally did not put anything in your mouth. Ever. Ever. You said it yourself.

Own up to it, guy. Your words.

Edit: I fully support the locking of this thread as well.

It's become the same as always; same 4-5 people insisting that clear and concise, specific ruling is neither clear, concise, nor specific enough for their arbitrary standards.

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:

 TheCaptain wrote:

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:

Considering it's listed in the Campaign book setting in the 6th Ed 40k rulebook I will think that way.
My being wrong is only your and a few others opinions.
Which means IMO as well as others, you are the one who is wrong.

"FW makes campaign books. All their books must be campaign books."

What? No.

Did I say that all they make is campaign books? No.
Are you putting text in my mouth? Yes

You said FW stuff is listed in the Campaign books in the 6th ed 40k rulebook, so you'll consider them campaign books.

Literally did not put anything in your mouth. Ever. Ever. You said it yourself.

Own up to it, guy. Your words.

Edit: I fully support the locking of this thread as well.

It's become the same as always; same 4-5 people insisting that clear and concise, specific ruling is neither clear, concise, nor specific enough for their arbitrary standards.

Did I use the word all? I surely did not. So yes you are putting text into my mouth.
Fairly certain Apoc and Apoc reloaded are FW books as well aren't they?
They're clearly not campaign books beings the BGB says they're apoc.

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:
Did I use the word all? I surely did not. So yes you are putting text into my mouth.

Please stop insisting I'm doing anything with your mouth. I know what I am doing, and it does not involve your mouth in the slightest. Only your flawed logic, and your nitpicking of the word "all".

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:

 TheCaptain wrote:

AegisGrimm wrote:I guess I'll post this too, just to get the point across. This:

"Standard 40k"

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:

It certainly does call them campaign books though. Not regular game books.
Take it face value if you like, however the way it reads to me is that your 40k approved is approved for campaigns only if they are from the campaign books.

I see no "Campaign book" designation.

I see "Intended to be used in standard 40k."

If you think otherwise, you are consciously deciding to read this the wrong way. Which is fine, and perfectly within your rights, but wrong nonetheless.

Considering it's listed in the Campaign book setting in the 6th Ed 40k rulebook I will think that way.
My being wrong is only your and a few others opinions.
Which means IMO as well as others, you are the one who is wrong.

Allow me to simplify it.

-I refer to FW rules.
-You say "Considering its listed in the Campaign book setting in the 6th ed 40k rulebook I will think that way"
-So either you were not specific enough in saying "some FW books are campaign books" or you meant all of them, and then later doctored your unspecific opinion after I pointed out it's flaws.
-Your refusal to understand the statement "intended for standard games of 40k" as "intended for standard games of 40k" is also concerning.

Your logic is flawed. This is not a debate, nor an argument. It is a statement.

Allow me to simplify it.

-I refer to FW rules.
-You say "Considering its listed in the Campaign book setting in the 6th ed 40k rulebook I will think that way"
-So either you were not specific enough in saying "some FW books are campaign books" or you meant all of them, and then later doctored your unspecific opinion after I pointed out it's flaws.
-Your refusal to understand the statement "intended for standard games of 40k" as "intended for standard games of 40k" is also concerning.

Your logic is flawed. This is not a debate, nor an argument. It is a statement.

People need to stop arguing this topic from a RAW perspective, when it is completely a HWYPI issue.

Forge World products are an expansion to the 40k game system. My new book (IA1e2) even has "Warhammer 40,000 Expansion" printed on the front. If you equate this to an expansion for a computer game, some people will like it whilst others just want to play the vanilla version. Both are fine and correct. The problem only arises when both sides try to insist that their views are correct and that the other side is wrong.

I know that people will be arguing over this issue for a long time, I just wish that all of the name calling and wonky "logical fallacy" stuff was not present.

Also, why all of the calls to lock the thread? If you don't like a thread then don't keep looking at it, just let is fizzle out on its own. You wouldn't hear a conversation that you didn't like and go up to the people and say "stop talking about this". Some people obviously want to discuss this (although not as civilized as some might hope). Locking the thread just causes another one to pop up in a few days anyway.

I would really like to see this argument carried out face to face, it would probably be an engaging discussion.

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:

 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.

Why would it have to be in the rulebook? You just made that requirement up.

 Kaldor wrote:

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:

 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.

Why would it have to be in the rulebook? You just made that requirement up.

Citation needed.