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.

 Kaldor wrote:

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.

If I were to use your logic I can use Planetstrike rules in a standard game, Cities of Death, etc.

The criteria are not nonsensical and are not made up.
The reason you can't post them is because they don't exist.
The only allowance you have is a lil blurb that is meaningless until the Core Rulebook allows it.

Given by this point that FW kits aren't much more expensive then GW ones and they also look much better, I would say this is going to become a greater issue.

So in the Imperial Armour books when they say, for example in IA11, "An Eldar Wraithseer is a HQ choice for a Codex Eldar army..." that doesn't make it an inclusion to the codex? It tells you what codex to use it in, where it fits in the FOC, all relevant information for using it, and has the 40k approved stamp. I have to ask, why would they, Games Workshop, the makers of this game and the ones who wrote this rulebook you worship above all else, go to the trouble of specifically stating that these stamped entries are meant to be official and used in games of standard 40k, if they didn't really mean it just because it isn't in the BGB? Are you imagining them sitting around thinking, "Hey, lets put this info in that we definitely don't mean and don't want people to abide by?" No, they wrote it because that's how they, the ones who wrote the rules, want us to play.

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:

Where does it say Orks can't lose?

It doesn't. Nor does it say they can't win.

Don't have the book on me at the moment, but didn't it state somewhere in the fortifications section that more fortifications would later be published in White Dwarf? And doesn't that constitute a official endorsement for accepting rules from White Dwarf?

(realize the main focus of this debate is forgeworld, but it seems the validity of any unit updates placed in White Dwarf are also being considered unofficial by a select group of posters)

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:
If I were to use your logic I can use Planetstrike rules in a standard game, Cities of Death, etc.

If any of those stated that they were for use in standard games of 40K, you'd be correct.

The only allowance you have is a lil blurb that is meaningless until the Core Rulebook allows it.

The rulebook specifically allows it, by not excluding any official GW publications from containing official GW rules. If an official GW publication contains official GW rules, and the rulebook doesn't contradict it, then those rules are official. End of story.

"A Space Marine Contemptor Dreadnought is an Elites choice in a Codex Space Marines, Codex Dark Angels or Codex Black Templars army."


Funny, it's almost as if that says it's part of the Codex. As in, a book published by GW, with a statement that units marked with the "40k" stamp are intended for 40k, stating that a unit is part of a Codex. As such, being part of the Codex and all, it's legal. Regardless of whether the BRB mentions FW or not, as the unit is considered part of Codex: Whatever.

 Kaldor wrote:


The rulebook specifically allows it, by not excluding any official GW publications from containing official GW rules. If an official GW publication contains official GW rules, and the rulebook doesn't contradict it, then those rules are official. End of story.

This is an incorrect statement. You don't need the exclusion, you need permission. That's how rules sets work.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
"A Space Marine Contemptor Dreadnought is an Elites choice in a Codex Space Marines, Codex Dark Angels or Codex Black Templars army."


Funny, it's almost as if that says it's part of the Codex. As in, a book published by GW, with a statement that units marked with the "40k" stamp are intended for 40k, stating that a unit is part of a Codex. As such, being part of the Codex and all, it's legal. Regardless of whether the BRB mentions FW or not, as the unit is considered part of Codex: Whatever.

So you're telling me if I flip open my SM codex to the Elites section I'll find it there?
Or is it not actually in the codex?
It's also not an errata to the official codex.

Six pages without a lock, doing pretty well

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:


So you're telling me if I flip open my SM codex to the Elites section I'll find it there?
Or is it not actually in the codex?
It's also not an errata to the official codex.

So you're telling me if I flip open my SM codex to the Fast Attack section I'll find the Stormtalon there?
Or is it not actually in the Codex?
It's also not an errata to the official Codex.

Holy thread.

You know, just to piss half of this thread off, tomorrow I should offer to play my buddy in a game of 40K, and field my Chapter Approved Kroot Mercenaries army with Forgeworld Great Knarlocs with bolt-throwers and Knarloc riders in support roles.

Ermagherd!!!!!!!!!!!!! A whole army that was GW legal but not in a main rulebook or codex, with Forgeworld models! Ack!

Forgeworld models and rules are not legal for tournament play. How does that not say something to the rest of you?

I'm fine with playing with/against them in friendly games, but
A)I wouldn't field them without first asking my opponents FOR HIS PERMISSION to use them
B) I understand that they are *NOT* "normal" units.

Cheesedoodler wrote:
Forgeworld models and rules are not legal for tournament play. How does that not say something to the rest of you?

I'm fine with playing with/against them in friendly games, but
A)I wouldn't field them without first asking my opponents FOR HIS PERMISSION to use them
B) I understand that they are *NOT* "normal" units.

They are not legal for some tournaments. I've played official GW tournaments at Warhammer World that allow FW units and lists. Also, you have to ask your opponents permission to use your regular army too. Unless you force somebody to play?

 AegisGrimm wrote:
Holy thread.

You know, just to piss half of this thread off, tomorrow I should offer to play my buddy in a game of 40K, and field my Chapter Approved Kroot Mercenaries army with Forgeworld Great Knarlocs with bolt-throwers and Knarloc riders in support roles.

Ermagherd!!!!!!!!!!!!! A whole army that was GW legal but not in a main rulebook or codex, with Forgeworld models! Ack!

You can houserule, or even use a fandex if your friend is ok with it. By any and all means have fun with the game/hobby.

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:

 AegisGrimm wrote:
Holy thread.

You know, just to piss half of this thread off, tomorrow I should offer to play my buddy in a game of 40K, and field my Chapter Approved Kroot Mercenaries army with Forgeworld Great Knarlocs with bolt-throwers and Knarloc riders in support roles.

Ermagherd!!!!!!!!!!!!! A whole army that was GW legal but not in a main rulebook or codex, with Forgeworld models! Ack!

You can houserule, or even use a fandex if your friend is ok with it. By any and all means have fun with the game/hobby.

Course you can, but what does that have to do with his legal 40k army?

Ok. Can we agree with this?

Two possible scenarios if you have FW in your army and you meet a guy to play.

"Hey man, you okay with FW?"
"Nah, sorry"
"It's cool"
And you both find a new opponent

"Hey man, you okay with FW?"
"Yeah, sure. Can I see the rules real quick?"
"Sure *gives rules*"
And you both play a nice game of 40k with some FW sprinkled in.


At this point, I don't see an argument.

For casual games: If your both cool with it, go for it

For tournaments: Check the Tourny rules, or ask the TO. Some allow it, some don't (same with some fortifications). Some official, some not.

Regardless of what your opinion on the matter is, it doesn't mean jack if it really just comes down to asking if you can use it or not. Most people I have met will say yes, some don't. Oh well. They aren't ignorant asshats for denying something that's obviously a part of the game. And to people who think FW isn't a part of the game, they aren't ignorant asshats for thinking that.

tl;dr- It's all subjective, and no one should care anymore about this. Just ask.

According to some people, the first scenario means that the person saying no is afraid of change, TFG, and they will never offer to play that opponent again. Oh, and he's not playing 40k, he's playing random_dudes_namek

Cheesedoodler wrote:
Forgeworld models and rules are not legal for tournament play. How does that not say something to the rest of you?

I just played in a tournament with Forgeworld units.

There is no set universal "Tournament" standard or ruleset, because tournaments *ARE NOT NORMAL 40K*. The design studio came right out and said that 6th edition was not written nor intended for organized competitive play, and I challenge you to find a tournament running 6th edition that doesn't house rule at least some things, like terrain setup and the like.

Tournaments run by the rules of the TO, not the rules of the game as intended.

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:

 AegisGrimm wrote:
Holy thread.

You know, just to piss half of this thread off, tomorrow I should offer to play my buddy in a game of 40K, and field my Chapter Approved Kroot Mercenaries army with Forgeworld Great Knarlocs with bolt-throwers and Knarloc riders in support roles.

Ermagherd!!!!!!!!!!!!! A whole army that was GW legal but not in a main rulebook or codex, with Forgeworld models! Ack!

You can houserule, or even use a fandex if your friend is ok with it. By any and all means have fun with the game/hobby.

This is a nonsensical strawman equivocation. GW models with GW rules that expressly state that are for use with GW's Warhammer 40,000 game are not house rules or a fandex, nor anywhere close, and we both know it's dishonest and evasive to try and portray them as such. Stop it.

 Vaktathi wrote:

Cheesedoodler wrote:
Forgeworld models and rules are not legal for tournament play. How does that not say something to the rest of you?

I just played in a tournament with Forgeworld units.

There is no set universal "Tournament" standard or ruleset, because tournaments *ARE NOT NORMAL 40K*. The design studio came right out and said that 6th edition was not written nor intended for organized competitive play, and I challenge you to find a tournament running 6th edition that doesn't house rule at least some things, like terrain setup and the like.

Tournaments run by the rules of the TO, not the rules of the game as intended.

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:

 AegisGrimm wrote:
Holy thread.

You know, just to piss half of this thread off, tomorrow I should offer to play my buddy in a game of 40K, and field my Chapter Approved Kroot Mercenaries army with Forgeworld Great Knarlocs with bolt-throwers and Knarloc riders in support roles.

Ermagherd!!!!!!!!!!!!! A whole army that was GW legal but not in a main rulebook or codex, with Forgeworld models! Ack!

You can houserule, or even use a fandex if your friend is ok with it. By any and all means have fun with the game/hobby.

This is a nonsensical strawman equivocation. GW models with GW rules that expressly state that are for use with GW's Warhammer 40,000 game are not house rules or a fandex, nor anywhere close, and we both know it's dishonest and evasive to try and portray them as such. Stop it.

I wholeheartedly agree with you Vaktathi, but many assume that since Tournaments are in some way more "official" than any game they may play at the local store or friends house, then these events have some kind of influance on the hobby at large.

I have played in Tourneys where codices are disallowed, altered, or outright ignored, special senarios are implemented and inforced, and even force org is curtailed, some have allowed FW some have not, hell I even played in one that was a marines only event.

So holding up TO as some kind of proof as to how this game is suppose to be played in a "regular " setting is the height of ignorance.

I love the elements that FW has brought to the greater 40k setting, and find nearly all of their offerings as both fun and exciting to play against as well as with.

Some people dont..oh well, I dont particularly enjoy playing against kids in the 10 or less age bracket, and I dont unless its a exceptional situation, so if so and so does not want to play against my FW inclusive force, no skin off my teeth, I will find someone that does.

But its a personal decision, not one enforced or endorsed by the makers of this hobby, the books have gone out of their way to even identify which units are designed for which style of 40k play..but hey, its a personal choice to ignore that as well.

All i can say is your loss to those that are refusing to play against this or that unit, for me its all part of the fun..personel choice.
:

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:

 AegisGrimm wrote:
Holy thread.

You know, just to piss half of this thread off, tomorrow I should offer to play my buddy in a game of 40K, and field my Chapter Approved Kroot Mercenaries army with Forgeworld Great Knarlocs with bolt-throwers and Knarloc riders in support roles.

Ermagherd!!!!!!!!!!!!! A whole army that was GW legal but not in a main rulebook or codex, with Forgeworld models! Ack!

You can houserule, or even use a fandex if your friend is ok with it. By any and all means have fun with the game/hobby.

Except I would not be doing any of that. That army is made completely of legal GW and FW units, or at least they are legal when using them in 4th edition games (though the only real thing stopping you from using a codex from an older edition in 6th edition games - at least one that has not been replaced by a new version - is that your now-overcosted troops will be massacred by comparatively cheaper units full of special abilities). The army contains no house rules, and is part of no fandex. Only made from GW publications that contain legal rules, but at the same time aren't part of the main rulebook or any of the standard codexes. I believe several players even used them in "official" tournaments back then.

This of course can be argued as an example that is not "current 6th edition", but the exact same example can be made of a Sisters of Battle WD codex army, with support from Forgeworld material that has been labelled as "40K official".

It's obvious that any game of 40K involves two forces whose makeup is only being allowed onto the table by agreement of both players involved. And of course the best bet is just to play friendly games with friends. Then you can all likely easily agree that if GW puts out a publication covering the rules for something in an army, and/or allows models and rules to be created that are very clearly under the blanket of their copyright protection (and we all know ho dogged their legal team is when these rules are broken), then that are meant to be played in games of 40K.

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.


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.

Your statements are false, and you are adding nonexistent words into Rulebook quotes.

It never states that all the info is in your codex. It merely says there is army info in codices.

Furthermore, FW publications go through the effort to, for extreme nitpicking purposes, say that X Unit is a part of Y CODEX.

Nowhere does it say you cannot do that in a GW publication. But in a GW publication (ie. FW books), it says you can.

Your logic is behind the idea that omission means exclusion.

That is just not the case. Especially when there is no gray area. BRB has no ruling on excluding things like FW books (official unit additions), and FW books say you can. So in contention is a descript, clear ruling from one source, vs. a lack of information on the matter from the BRB.

You are choosing to not understand for the sake of simplicity. Omission =/= exclusion. If something is omitted from mention in the BRB and then added in a subsequent GW publication and said to be a part of standard rules; not expansion rules like your beautiful strawman suggests, then I will take it to understand said publication as part of the standard rules.

Because I understand the concept of official publications.

"Hurr Fandexes are legal now too"
"Well theres FW stuff in the expansions section"
"Well its not in the rulebook"

None of these above three statements even have ground to stand on. Anyone still backing them merely refuses to see the reason presented several times over in this thread.

"Standard 40k" = "Standard 40k"

Simple. Can't include only part of the rules, unless you are playing a houseruled version.
If a GW publication states it is part of "Standard 40k", well, then it is. Face it.

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:
This is an incorrect statement. You don't need the exclusion, you need permission. That's how rules sets work.

Can you give me a page quote from the rulebook that says this?

Look, I'll save us all some time. You can't. Because it doesn't exist. The rules don't prohibit official additions in any form, and Imperial Armour books are an official addition to standard games published by Games Workshop.

 TheCaptain wrote:


Your statements are false, and you are adding nonexistent words into Rulebook quotes.

It never states that all the info is in your codex. It merely says there is army info in codices.

Furthermore, FW publications go through the effort to, for extreme nitpicking purposes, say that X Unit is a part of Y CODEX.

Nowhere does it say you cannot do that in a GW publication. But in a GW publication (ie. FW books), it says you can.

Your logic is behind the idea that omission means exclusion.

That is just not the case. Especially when there is no gray area. BRB has no ruling on excluding things like FW books (official unit additions), and FW books say you can. So in contention is a descript, clear ruling from one source, vs. a lack of information on the matter from the BRB.

You are choosing to not understand for the sake of simplicity. Omission =/= exclusion. If something is omitted from mention in the BRB and then added in a subsequent GW publication and said to be a part of standard rules; not expansion rules like your beautiful strawman suggests, then I will take it to understand said publication as part of the standard rules.

Because I understand the concept of official publications.

"Hurr Fandexes are legal now too"
"Well theres FW stuff in the expansions section"
"Well its not in the rulebook"

None of these above three statements even have ground to stand on. Anyone still backing them merely refuses to see the reason presented several times over in this thread.

"Standard 40k" = "Standard 40k"

Simple. Can't include only part of the rules, unless you are playing a houseruled version.
If a GW publication states it is part of "Standard 40k", well, then it is. Face it.

Well it's not in the rulebook. There's plenty of backing there.
It's not in an errata, yep still pretty solid there.


Also if you'll go as far to say I'm quoting false rules, do show me where I have quoted falsely or don't bother accusing.
As I quote rules with this " ending with this " and than either BGB/BRB and pg#.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kaldor wrote:

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:
This is an incorrect statement. You don't need the exclusion, you need permission. That's how rules sets work.

Can you give me a page quote from the rulebook that says this?

Look, I'll save us all some time. You can't. Because it doesn't exist. The rules don't prohibit official additions in any form, and Imperial Armour books are an official addition to standard games published by Games Workshop.

Can you give me a pg quote from the rulebook that allows you to use FW?

Wait, what you can't. IA books are Expansions, not additions, nit picky I know but after all it does say so on their front cover.

Would a line saying 40k approved suffice?

Tiarna Fuilteach wrote:
Would a line saying 40k approved suffice?

Not unless it's in the GW rulebook. Regardless of being in any other official publication, that is still a fandex or house rule.

 -Loki- wrote:

Tiarna Fuilteach wrote:
Would a line saying 40k approved suffice?

Not unless it's in the GW rulebook. Regardless of being in any other official publication, that is still a fandex or house rule.

For any of our listeners just tuning in, that was sarcasm, folks, because for a lot of people it somehow isn't.

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:
Wait, what you can't. IA books are Expansions, not additions, nit picky I know but after all it does say so on their front cover.

This proves you are beyond hope in any of these discussions.

You will continue to refuse fact, and the thread will be locked. None of the denying party will accept the fact these are official GW licensed expansions until the thread is locked and will continue in the next thread, and then in the next.

 -Loki- wrote:

Tiarna Fuilteach wrote:
Would a line saying 40k approved suffice?

Not unless it's in the GW rulebook. Regardless of being in any other official publication, that is still a fandex or house rule.

If it really isn't that big of a deal, why can't GW just come out with a general statement not in a FW book that FW stuff is ok in whatever "standard" 40k is? Seriously, just a simple sentence outside of a FW source saying FW is ok would be fine. They could even just add it to BRB FAQ or something and it would really save tons of hassle over this very issue.

 Evil Lamp 6 wrote:

 -Loki- wrote:

Tiarna Fuilteach wrote:
Would a line saying 40k approved suffice?

Not unless it's in the GW rulebook. Regardless of being in any other official publication, that is still a fandex or house rule.

If it really isn't that big of a deal, why can't GW just come out with a general statement not in a FW book that FW stuff is ok in whatever "standard" 40k is? Seriously, just a simple sentence outside of a FW source saying FW is ok would be fine. They could even just add it to BRB FAQ or something and it would really save tons of hassle over this very issue.

See this thread as to why that'll never happen:
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/494652.page

rigeld2 wrote:
See this thread as to why that'll never happen:
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/494652.page

Yeah, I've already posted in that thread too. I guess I'll just keep to wishing in one hand and gakking in the other and see which one fills up first.