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.

I noticed this too.

http://www.forgeworld.co.uk/New_Stuff/IMPERIAL_ARMOUR_VOLUME_ONE_SECOND_EDITION_IMPERIAL_GUARD.html

This is the Imperial Armor 1. See that symbol on the bottom right of the cover?

The one that says Warhammer 40k: Expansion?

Sure, it's also the same symbol on this book in the bottom left.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_dJPVdylod6k/TCwNEaE629I/AAAAAAAADmo/uNkv_D_JEAU/s1600/PS-cover.jpg

And this one

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51gtMEsorTL._SL500_AA300_.jpg

Are expansions legal? Yes? Saying no would really then make Planetstrike and Cities of Death illegal too


Can we just lock this thread? This isn't going anywhere

A simply astounding thread. I really don't know what GW can do to make it any clearer. And yet here we are, still looking for logical loopholes to discount a black and white statement from the company who's game we play...

Vaktathi wrote:Because Planetstrike and Apocalypse are not normal 40k play,

Exactly, because what is defined as 40k is what the rules say that 40k is. 40k is it's rules set. If it's not in the rules, it's not part of 40k. It's part of an expansion, perhaps, or some other game.

Vaktathi wrote:They're spelled out in the GW written, published, and copyright

So?

It doesn't matter who writes rules. If they're not in the rulebook, they're not part of the rules.

TheCaptain wrote:Calling an argument "fallacious" is just as erroneous as calling "strawman". It is a rebuttal of no substance.

Very well, then allow me to make a moral statement. I'm not swayed by illogical reasoning. You've got to do better than a fallacy in order to convince me of anything.

If you're convinced by fallacies, then you are free to do so. I don't see how this means that FW are legal for standard play.

sarpedons-right-hand wrote: I'm not sure I follow your argument here Ailaros...What are you saying exactly?

I'm saying that the definition of what is and isn't 40k can be found in the 40k rulebook, because what makes a game is what its rules say. The rulebook does not say you can use forgeworld stuff, therefore, forgeworld stuff is not part of 40k.

It really is that simple. Everything else that's being talked about, whether it's who earns profits by selling the rulebook, or what color the paper is, or what font they use, or any other outside information is irrelevant to the legality of units. Only the rules themselves can comment on that.

TheCaptain wrote:I refer to FW rules.

Yes you do, but those are FW rules, not 40k rules. In order to be 40k rules, they've got to be in the 40k rulebook. FW rules are not, and the 40k rulebook makes no mention of FW rules as being part of the 40k rules.

Trickstick wrote:Forge World products are an expansion to the 40k game system.

Exactly, but you can only use expansion stuff if you're playing the expansion. You can use FW stuff if you're playing the "siege of vraks" expansion, for example, but not in the regular game.

Kaldor wrote:Why would it have to be in the rulebook?

...because that's where the rules are.

If you and your opponents have to agree on what even are the rules for 40k every time you play, that would be rather strange and awful.

Also, can people please stop posting this picture?

Yes, I know what those words say. I'm saying that those words are irrelevant.

It really isn't a matter of me not being able to understand words written in english. If you're going to argue for said image being relevant, then argue for it being relevant. Don't just keep spamming the picture hoping that it will make your point any clearer, or your case more sound.

GW makes toy soldiers and toy vehicles to play a game...

FW makes toy soldiers and toy vehicles to play in that same game...

both are owned by the same company, both share the same rules, and have even been clarified in subsquent books and being able to play together on a toy by toy basis...

some people dont like that, and dont want to play with someone using different toys..

Its like trying to convince sombody that hates chocolate that it is actually very good, you will never convince them.

Just take your toys and play with people who enjoy those same toys.

so much gnashing and clashing over bits of plastic and resin.

Every time I open this thread I get a fresh aneurysm, but I don't have the willpower to stop.

How do you get 5 pages of opinion and conjecture when the stance is quite clearly written right there in that image?

 Ailaros wrote:

Vaktathi wrote:Because Planetstrike and Apocalypse are not normal 40k play,

Exactly, because what is defined as 40k is what the rules say that 40k is. 40k is it's rules set. If it's not in the rules, it's not part of 40k. It's part of an expansion, perhaps, or some other game.

And yet, nothing in the rules excludes Forgeworld stuff...

So?

It doesn't matter who writes rules. If they're not in the rulebook, they're not part of the rules.

How do you mean? Just because they aren't in the summary section? Lets not use Heldrakes or Mutilators then. Aside from that, what exactly do you mean, "not in the rulebook". The rulebook doesn't explicitely say which codex books you can use either.

If you're convinced by fallacies, then you are free to do so. I don't see how this means that FW are legal for standard play.

This is a non-answer and you know it. Simply stating something is a fallacy doesn't make it one and saying that you aren't convinced by them doesn't mean you're actually responding to fallacies.

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Ailaros wrote:

Vaktathi wrote:Because Planetstrike and Apocalypse are not normal 40k play,

Exactly, because what is defined as 40k is what the rules say that 40k is. 40k is it's rules set. If it's not in the rules, it's not part of 40k. It's part of an expansion, perhaps, or some other game.

And yet, nothing in the rules excludes Forgeworld stuff...
So I can bring planetstrike to a standard game, awesome.

So?

It doesn't matter who writes rules. If they're not in the rulebook, they're not part of the rules.

How do you mean? Just because they aren't in the summary section? Lets not use Heldrakes or Mutilators then. Aside from that, what exactly do you mean, "not in the rulebook". The rulebook doesn't explicitely say which codex books you can use either.
The rulebook allows the use of a Codex

If you're convinced by fallacies, then you are free to do so. I don't see how this means that FW are legal for standard play.

This is a non-answer and you know it. Simply stating something is a fallacy doesn't make it one and saying that you aren't convinced by them doesn't mean you're actually responding to fallacies.
As much as the rest where.

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:

Saying my logic is flawed is a tid harsh though. It almost feels like an attack on the person, not of the comment.

I assure you when I say "your logic is flawed" it is to be taken at face value.

Don't bother reading into it as a personal issue; there is none.

MarsNZ wrote:
How do you get 5 pages of opinion and conjecture when the stance is quite clearly written right there in that image?

Mostly because people aren't actually listening to what people are saying before they post stuff.

Vaktathi wrote:And yet, nothing in the rules excludes Forgeworld stuff...

We've been over this. Omission is not inclusion.

Just because a rules set doesn't explicitly ban something doesn't mean you can do it. Chess doesn't explicitly ban me teleporting a pawn from A2 to G7, but that doesn't mean that I can move my pawns however I want. I can only move the pawns in the ways that the rules allow for.

If the rules don't say you can do something, then you can't do it.

Vaktathi wrote:The rulebook doesn't explicitely say which codex books you can use either.

No, but it says you can use something that are identified as a codex. It also talks about white dwarf as well.

Doesn't talk about forgeworld rules or fandex rules, though.

Why is this even being argued?

Make a conclusion with the people you play with, and move on from there.

Since 40k isn't designed as a tourney system, it's a non-issue. The fact that fan-dexes and the like the exist are proof enough of that, and trying to argue semantics over the issue is irrelevant.

The game is designed largely so you can play how you want to; the rulebook goes on about making custom terrain, house rules and so on all on the principal of consensus.

FW is designed for standard 40k use, that's the purpose of it, that's why GW started that side of their business, but it's entirely up to the player whether or not to use them. I'd say GW encourages its use, otherwise why bother with the business, why advertise it in every WD, why suggest it's use for campaigns and such, but at the end of the day it's entirely your choice.

I use a fair number of FW units, and thoroughly enjoy the FW Armoured Company, and my group uses a bunch of FW stuff, and our tournaments cater to it. We've made the decision that we want to use it, our FLGS offers to do the shipping for us on bulk orders, and I feel it adds a lot of diversity.

Ailaros doesn't care for it, that's his perogative, and if the people he plays with are of the same mind, all the power to them. It means I'd be unlikely to play him, but that's not exactly of a high probability, so again, a non-issue. I'm not going to get in a huff about how people choose to play with their plastic or resin toys when it doesn't affect me.

And I can't help but notice no one has commented about disagreements within their own groups or areas. If you've got a local consensus, who gives a damn if someone else doesn't like FW stuff? I think it's a trifle pedantic to write it off when so much "standard 40k" is far more broken, but then to each his own.

A more useful discussion would be how to either convince people to accept one's use of a FW list or unit (no one has any right, however, to say no to a FW variant model; who gives a damn if your Vanquisher is the standard box or the FW version), or how or why to restrict FW units.

Just because it isn't in the core book isn't a sufficient justification in 40k; so much isn't in the book at release, and so much is left open, this isn't a cut and dry gaming system, it never has been, nor will it ever be, it's not the point of 40k.

This topic is really not going anywhere, just like this topic never goes anywhere. While each of you might think you're going to convince the other person magically one post, you're really not. It's the internet - people don't concede to arguments.

This is something you bring up with your own group or your direct opponent if in a pick up game. Threads on the internet about it just don't work.

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:
So I can bring planetstrike to a standard game, awesome.

forgeworld stuff works within the confines of the rulebook and existing armies, planetstrike does not.

The rulebook allows the use of a Codex

Does it define what a codex is or which ones?

We've been over this. Omission is not inclusion.

Just because a rules set doesn't explicitly ban something doesn't mean you can do it. Chess doesn't explicitly ban me teleporting a pawn from A2 to G7, but that doesn't mean that I can move my pawns however I want. I can only move the pawns in the ways that the rules allow for.

If the rules don't say you can do something, then you can't do it.

And the rules that say you can do it are in GW published books for Warhammer 40,000 called Imperial Armour.

Vaktathi wrote:The rulebook doesn't explicitely say which codex books you can use either.

No, but it says you can use something that are identified as a codex. It also talks about white dwarf as well.

I'll come check this thread out again when it gets restarted next month.

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:
Citation needed.

Um, ok. Here:

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:
Well than show me in the Vast 40k rulebook?

That's where you said it.

So I ask again. Why would you think it needs to be in the rulebook? Does the rulebook have an exclusionary list of approved sources? Does it say, "these, and only these sources are acceptable"?

 Ailaros wrote:

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.

Oh, good. I'll expect you to quote the list of acceptable sources stating (and this bit is important) that these are the only official sources, to the exclusion of all else.

I'll wait here.

Take as long as you need.

 Ailaros wrote:

Vaktathi wrote:Because Planetstrike and Apocalypse are not normal 40k play,

Exactly, because what is defined as 40k is what the rules say that 40k is. 40k is it's rules set. If it's not in the rules, it's not part of 40k. It's part of an expansion, perhaps, or some other game.
Also, can people please stop posting this picture?

Yes, I know what those words say. I'm saying that those words are irrelevant.

It really isn't a matter of me not being able to understand words written in english. If you're going to argue for said image being relevant, then argue for it being relevant. Don't just keep spamming the picture hoping that it will make your point any clearer, or your case more sound.

So:
You want to limit FW because it isn't made for standard games
The BRB says to use a codex
The FW book states that the units are intended to be used in a standard 40k game as part of the codex
It states that the models should be considered official, with a note to ask only because the other player might not expect it.

Suggesting that you ask doesn't make them any less official than the company printing the 'use this in regular 40k games because we intended it to be that way' in the FW books makes it less official than putting it in the BRB. It is relevant because the company that makes 40k it says so in text.

You still can't understand that the posted image states Games Workshop's intent for players to use these units as part of their codex following the rules from the BRB? If not, there isn't any other explanation to convince you because you are actively denying reality.

 snooggums wrote:
You still can't understand that the posted image states Games Workshop's intent for players to use these units as part of their codex following the rules from the BRB? If not, there isn't any other explanation to convince you because you are actively denying reality.

His point of contention is that because it's not from the primary design studio, and published under the brand Forgeworld, it's not an official publication. It's the equivalent of a fandex, or making rules up on the spot (by his own admission in this thread, as he has directly compared it to both of those). Regardless of the fact that it's published by Games Workshop.

I can't even begin to understand the mental hoops you jump through to come to that conclusion, but that's the only conclusion I can come to. Not from the studio - made up rules.

I'd have far less of a problem if he just said, very simply, 'No, I don't want to play them for my own reasons'. But trying to claim they're not official at all for anyone with such ridiculously bad and erroneous reasoning is just.... baffling.

 snooggums wrote:


So:
You want to limit FW because it isn't made for standard games
The BRB says to use a codex
The FW book states that the units are intended to be used in a standard 40k game as part of the codex
It states that the models should be considered official, with a note to ask only because the other player might not expect it.

Suggesting that you ask doesn't make them any less official than the company printing the 'use this in regular 40k games because we intended it to be that way' in the FW books makes it less official than putting it in the BRB. It is relevant because the company that makes 40k it says so in text.

You still can't understand that the posted image states Games Workshop's intent for players to use these units as part of their codex following the rules from the BRB? If not, there isn't any other explanation to convince you because you are actively denying reality.

The rulebook also states all the stats/info/etc are contained in your codex.
Last I checked the IA book is not your codex.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kaldor wrote:

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:
Citation needed.

Um, ok. Here:

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:
Well than show me in the Vast 40k rulebook?

That's where you said it.

So I ask again. Why would you think it needs to be in the rulebook? Does the rulebook have an exclusionary list of approved sources? Does it say, "these, and only these sources are acceptable"?

I'll edit this in a bit to reflect the relevant information and pg citations.

However it roughly states that all the info on your army is in your codex. Having it come from a non codex source is not in your codex.

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:

 snooggums wrote:


So:
You want to limit FW because it isn't made for standard games
The BRB says to use a codex
The FW book states that the units are intended to be used in a standard 40k game as part of the codex
It states that the models should be considered official, with a note to ask only because the other player might not expect it.

Suggesting that you ask doesn't make them any less official than the company printing the 'use this in regular 40k games because we intended it to be that way' in the FW books makes it less official than putting it in the BRB. It is relevant because the company that makes 40k it says so in text.

You still can't understand that the posted image states Games Workshop's intent for players to use these units as part of their codex following the rules from the BRB? If not, there isn't any other explanation to convince you because you are actively denying reality.

The rulebook also states all the stats/info/etc are contained in your codex.
Last I checked the IA book is not your codex.

Someone that plays a pretend war game should have no trouble pretending that the units meant to be used as part of Codex selection and the force org chart are 'in the codex'.

/thread

 snooggums wrote:

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:

 snooggums wrote:


So:
You want to limit FW because it isn't made for standard games
The BRB says to use a codex
The FW book states that the units are intended to be used in a standard 40k game as part of the codex
It states that the models should be considered official, with a note to ask only because the other player might not expect it.

Suggesting that you ask doesn't make them any less official than the company printing the 'use this in regular 40k games because we intended it to be that way' in the FW books makes it less official than putting it in the BRB. It is relevant because the company that makes 40k it says so in text.

You still can't understand that the posted image states Games Workshop's intent for players to use these units as part of their codex following the rules from the BRB? If not, there isn't any other explanation to convince you because you are actively denying reality.

The rulebook also states all the stats/info/etc are contained in your codex.
Last I checked the IA book is not your codex.

Someone that plays a pretend war game should have no trouble pretending that the units meant to be used as part of Codex selection and the force org chart are 'in the codex'.

Than you can house rule it that way.
However the Warhammer 40k rules do not support what you're saying.

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:


Than you can house rule it that way.
However the Warhammer 40k rules do not support what you're saying.

Page 108, BRB second column The Army List:

"With the points limits agreed, players need to pick their forces. The best way to do this is to make use of the army list in their relevant codex, although, of course, players are free to either adapt the army list or use their own system if they wish. If you're using the codex...."

Do you have a house rule that players must use the codex, or the units listed in the codex?

Seriously though, you know that denying FW is just a personal preference and you want to try to justify it instead of simply owning up to the fact that you don't like it. Games Workshop the company has said that the units are intended for use in regular games, so saying that the rule book doesn't explicitly state the same thing as the FW books is like saying that the FAQs are invalid because the BRB doesn't say that the FAQs take precedence over the BRB.

just because I'm curious....and maybe a bit of a troll....are you saying that if Games Workshop, the creators and legal owners of the warhammer 40k game and universe were to tomorrow create a brand new Army book called I dunno "fish people of Alpha Centauri" it would not be a legal codex because it's not mentioned in the core rule book?

For that matter....does this mean every rulebook since Rogue trader is invalid because it wasn't mentioned in the initial rulebook?

On top of that, does this mean I have to ignore that section of the big rulebook that says that codex trumps rulebook? Cause pretty much every entry in the Games Workshop published under the forgeworld name books state clearly that the rules entries are now part of the original codex's force org. chart no different from White Dwarf updates. I'm only asking because from how your saying it, apparently my Ork jets are now illegal units and I should not be allowed using them in standard 40k games.

Just trying to be as unhelpful as possible to your obviously delusional reality....that being said if in that reality there is a room filled with money and many beautiful ladies I'm there.

 snooggums wrote:

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:


Than you can house rule it that way.
However the Warhammer 40k rules do not support what you're saying.

Page 108, BRB second column The Army List:

"With the points limits agreed, players need to pick their forces. The best way to do this is to make use of the army list in their relevant codex, although, of course, players are free to either adapt the army list or use their own system if they wish. If you're using the codex...."

Do you have a house rule that players must use the codex, or the units listed in the codex?

Seriously though, you know that denying FW is just a personal preference and you want to try to justify it instead of simply owning up to the fact that you don't like it. Games Workshop the company has said that the units are intended for use in regular games, so saying that the rule book doesn't explicitly state the same thing as the FW books is like saying that the FAQs are invalid because the BRB doesn't say that the FAQs take precedence over the BRB.

Actually FW is an expansion of 40k. If you're playing regular 40k you may not use FW stuffs.
That's actually not the subsection I was talking about, but admittedly this rulebook is a mess.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Orktavius wrote:
just because I'm curious....and maybe a bit of a troll....are you saying that if Games Workshop, the creators and legal owners of the warhammer 40k game and universe were to tomorrow create a brand new Army book called I dunno "fish people of Alpha Centauri" it would not be a legal codex because it's not mentioned in the core rule book?

For that matter....does this mean every rulebook since Rogue trader is invalid because it wasn't mentioned in the initial rulebook?

On top of that, does this mean I have to ignore that section of the big rulebook that says that codex trumps rulebook? Cause pretty much every entry in the Games Workshop published under the forgeworld name books state clearly that the rules entries are now part of the original codex's force org. chart no different from White Dwarf updates. I'm only asking because from how your saying it, apparently my Ork jets are now illegal units and I should not be allowed using them in standard 40k games.

Just trying to be as unhelpful as possible to your obviously delusional reality....that being said if in that reality there is a room filled with money and many beautiful ladies I'm there.

It would be legal as long as it's a "codex" not an IA:Volume yadda yadda expansion of 40k.
Actually every entry in a FW book doesn't do diddly beings it's not actually in a codex. It's from an IA book.

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:
I'll edit this in a bit to reflect the relevant information and pg citations.

However it roughly states that all the info on your army is in your codex. Having it come from a non codex source is not in your codex.

If you want to argue that an official publication from GW, that lists it's units as official for standard games, is in fact NOT official because of some specific clause in the rulebook, you'll need to do a bit better than 'it roughly states'.

Where does it say in the rulebook that information for army lists can only come from codexes? Where is the exclusionary list that states "these, and only these, are sources of the rules as we, GW publish them"?

 Kaldor wrote:

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:
I'll edit this in a bit to reflect the relevant information and pg citations.

However it roughly states that all the info on your army is in your codex. Having it come from a non codex source is not in your codex.

If you want to argue that an official publication from GW, that lists it's units as official for standard games, is in fact NOT official because of some specific clause in the rulebook, you'll need to do a bit better than 'it roughly states'.

Where does it say in the rulebook that information for army lists can only come from codexes? Where is the exclusionary list that states "these, and only these, are sources of the rules as we, GW publish them"?

Where does it say that bolters can't be AP2?
Where does it say Orks can't lose?

I don't need to show you were it excludes. You would need to show where it is included in the base rules. Something that will outweigh the rulebook. The rulebook says Codex>BGB there is diddly squat about IA:Volumes> ninny

"Within the pages of each codex, you'll find everything you need to know about that faction." pg 108 BGB

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:
I don't need to show you were it excludes. You would need to show where it is included in the base rules. Something that will outweigh the rulebook. The rulebook says Codex>BGB there is diddly squat about IA:Volumes> ninny

I did. Here, I'll do it again.



This is an official GW statement, about official GW rules, in an official GW publication.

Now, if you want to insist that these rules are NOT official, because of some clause in the rulebook, then I want to see that clause. Show me where, in the rulebook, it limits any and all future rules publications or alterations to the ones listed. Show me where it mentions anything at all about 'base rules' or any kind of rule hierarchy about what outweighs what. Because I looked, and I can't find it.

Take as long as you want.

can a admin please lock this thread.

 Kaldor wrote:

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:
I don't need to show you were it excludes. You would need to show where it is included in the base rules. Something that will outweigh the rulebook. The rulebook says Codex>BGB there is diddly squat about IA:Volumes> ninny

I did. Here, I'll do it again.



This is an official GW statement, about official GW rules, in an official GW publication.

Now, if you want to insist that these rules are NOT official, because of some clause in the rulebook, then I want to see that clause. Show me where, in the rulebook, it limits any and all future rules publications or alterations to the ones listed. Show me where it mentions anything at all about 'base rules' or any kind of rule hierarchy about what outweighs what. Because I looked, and I can't find it.

Take as long as you want.

That's nice you didn't meet the criteria I laid out though.

Might wanna re-read the post.

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:
That's nice you didn't meet the criteria I laid out though.

Might wanna re-read the post.

No no, I read it.

It's just that your criteria are nonsensical, and made up. There are no 'core rules' to be a part of, and there is no 'weight' to them for me to outweigh. The rulebook does not prohibit future additions to the game. Imperial Armour books are official additions to the game.

If you want to argue that Imperial Armour books are not official additions to the game, because the rulebook prohibits official additions to the game, then I want to see where in the rulebook it prohibits official additions to the game.

Please, take as long as you need.