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.

 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.

Because other than in faceless depths of the internet discussion forums, this is never a problem, merely point to the proper IA books entry on said FW unit and most any sensible person will see the logic to it, with out GW having to lead them by the nose and tell them "yes its ok with your BRB too" I guess they assume one statement in one place should suffice...how naive they are

Sometimes I think the makers of the game give the players more credit for common sense then they should..but we do keep buying the plastic crack.

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:
Can you give me a pg quote from the rulebook that allows you to use FW?

Why would I need one? The page is in Imperial Armour, not the rulebook. Are you saying there is a rule or limitation in the rulebook which would prohibit Imperial Armour from making additions to the standard 40K game?

I think that's exactly what you're saying, and I know for a fact that's not true. Why do you insist it's true?

 Kaldor wrote:

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:
Can you give me a pg quote from the rulebook that allows you to use FW?

Why would I need one? The page is in Imperial Armour, not the rulebook. Are you saying there is a rule or limitation in the rulebook which would prohibit Imperial Armour from making additions to the standard 40K game?

I think that's exactly what you're saying, and I know for a fact that's not true. Why do you insist it's true?

Especially seeing as they are both written by the SAME PEOPLE for the SAME GAME

Soo'Vah'Cha wrote:Because other than in faceless depths of the internet discussion forums, this is never a problem, merely point to the proper IA books entry on said FW unit and most any sensible person will see the logic to it, with out GW having to lead them by the nose and tell them "yes its ok with your BRB too" I guess they assume one statement in one place should suffice...how naive they are

Sometimes I think the makers of the game give the players more credit for common sense then they should..but we do keep buying the plastic crack.

Indeed, how naive of GW to assume what I or anyone may consider common sense or not. It still would make many people happy, myself included, if they would just come out and say it one way or another, and again I stress, outside of a FW book itself.

Kaldor wrote:...Imperial Armour from making additions to the standard 40K game?

That right there. I would argue that "making additions to the standard 40K game" at that point is no longer "the standard 40K game" precisely because one is "making additions" to it.

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:

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

Omission does not guarantee exclusion. Fact.

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.

Hah. So you're basing your stance on what you've demonstrated as incomplete knowledge.

Neither IA:Aeronautica, nor either of IA:10 say "Expansion".

Your logic would dictate that these three books be allowed.

But you'll change your stance again to a new fallback.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:

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#.

Sorry, no.

The burden of proof is on you; You make a bold, sweeping claim that the rulebook says "ALL" of the rules for an army are in codices. I'd like to see where you found such statement.

It doesn't exist. Don't bother.

 TheCaptain wrote:
The burden of proof is on you; You make a bold, sweeping claim that the rulebook says "ALL" of the rules for an army are in codices. I'd like to see where you found such statement.

This. The word "all" is not used in the statement in question. It is simply a note to new players that the first thing they need to buy is the codex for their army, not a complete listing of all legal sources of rules for 40k.

 Evil Lamp 6 wrote:
That right there. I would argue that "making additions to the standard 40K game" at that point is no longer "the standard 40K game" precisely because one is "making additions" to it.

So when the new Dark Angels codex comes out early next year and makes an addition to the standard game does that mean we're no longer playing "standard" 40k, and now it's some weird expansion version called "DA 40k"?


Anyway, the anti-FW people need to take a step back and think for a second about how ridiculous they sound. Seriously, you are arguing that you know better than GW about how they run their game. You can talk all you want about how you don't have the exact core rulebook statement that you require for something to be "official", but your requirement simply does not match GW's policy. You can have any house rules that you like, including FW bans, but please stop embarrassing yourselves by going on and on about how it's a "fallacy" to say that GW decides the rules for their own game.

 Peregrine wrote:
So when the new Dark Angels codex comes out early next year and makes an addition to the standard game does that mean we're no longer playing "standard" 40k, and now it's some weird expansion version called "DA 40k"?

No, I didn't say that. Codexes are explicitly part of whatever "standard 40k" is. FW/IA books are not IMO.

Peregrine wrote:Anyway, the anti-FW people need to take a step back and think for a second about how ridiculous they sound. Seriously, you are arguing that you know better than GW about how they run their game. You can talk all you want about how you don't have the exact core rulebook statement that you require for something to be "official", but your requirement simply does not match GW's policy. You can have any house rules that you like, including FW bans, but please stop embarrassing yourselves by going on and on about how it's a "fallacy" to say that GW decides the rules for their own game.

I hate to quote myself, but I feel as though it is very relevant:

Evil Lamp 6 wrote: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?

Why is it that some people keep missing that the Forgeworld books themselves says to ask for permission?

The perceived/guessed-at motivation behind a decision to not give that permission is completely and utterly irrelevant.

The books themselves tells us to seek that permission, and as such also includes the possibility that said permission is NOT granted.

Any arguments about who publishes said books, any "stamps", misdirections concerning WD publications or any personal feelings when denied permission are worthless....actually less than worthless.
Some are deliberate attempts to influence the decision by childishly implying that a person that does not enjoy a game of 40K with Imperial Armour rules included is being unreasonable, stupid, afraid and other made-up characteristics.

 Evil Lamp 6 wrote:
No, I didn't say that.

You did. You said that as soon as we add something new on top of the current "standard" 40k we are no longer playing "standard" 40k. A new codex is an addition just like a FW book is.

Codexes are explicitly part of whatever "standard 40k" is. FW/IA books are not IMO.

In your opinion. In GW's opinion FW books are part of standard 40k, which is why they all contain a statement explicitly saying "this is part of standard 40k".

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?

Because GW isn't obligated to run their game the way you insist just because you nitpick over and over again and won't accept FW rules without a notarized letter hand delivered by the CEO of GW himself. They've answered the question already, and that's all there is to it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Steelmage99 wrote:
Why is it that some people keep missing that the Forgeworld books themselves says to ask for permission?

Because they don't.

Some are deliberate attempts to influence the decision by childishly implying that a person that does not enjoy a game of 40K with Imperial Armour rules included is being unreasonable, stupid, afraid and other made-up characteristics.

That's not true at all.

People who prefer not to play against FW rules and admit that they're using a house rule are just fine, just like people who decline to play their "fluff" list against Necron flyerspam and get tabled over and over again.

People who try to pretend that their house rule isn't a house rule are not.

 TheCaptain wrote:

Sorry, no.

The burden of proof is on you; You make a bold, sweeping claim that the rulebook says "ALL" of the rules for an army are in codices. I'd like to see where you found such statement.

It doesn't exist. Don't bother.

That would be the 6th edition 40k rulebook page number 108.

Now show me where I quoted the rulebook falsely.
In a manner of slum talk, put up or shut up.

Can we lock this? Or sticky it so that these threads stop cropping up nearly weekly?

 TheCaptain wrote:

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:

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

Omission does not guarantee exclusion. Fact.

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.

Hah. So you're basing your stance on what you've demonstrated as incomplete knowledge.

Neither IA:Aeronautica, nor either of IA:10 say "Expansion".
IA 10 is the badab war? Correct me if I'm wrong but that's a campaign book.
IA Aeronautica I don't own, nor have access to so I'll gladly take your word for it.

Your logic would dictate that these three books be allowed.

But you'll change your stance again to a new fallback.
Wars are won or lost on multiple fronts.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:

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#.

Sorry, no.

The burden of proof is on you; You make a bold, sweeping claim that the rulebook says "ALL" of the rules for an army are in codices. I'd like to see where you found such statement.

It doesn't exist. Don't bother.

You accused me of falsely quoting rules, I've yet to see proof of such. Don't make statements you refuse to back up .

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:

 TheCaptain wrote:

Sorry, no.

The burden of proof is on you; You make a bold, sweeping claim that the rulebook says "ALL" of the rules for an army are in codices. I'd like to see where you found such statement.

It doesn't exist. Don't bother.

Allow me to cite it for you again.

Please do, but not "again" because you never did.

 Peregrine wrote:

Steelmage99 wrote:
Why is it that some people keep missing that the Forgeworld books themselves says to ask for permission?

Because they don't.

How is "make sure they are happy to play a game using Forge World models" not asking for permission?

 Peregrine wrote:
You said that as soon as we add something new on top of the current "standard" 40k we are no longer playing "standard" 40k. A new codex is an addition just like a FW book is.

No, I did not say that. And a new codex does not equal a FW book. Yes both add things to the "current standard 40k", but only one those is accepted to be a part of that standard, the other is not, IMO.

Peregrine wrote:In your opinion. In GW's opinion FW books are part of standard 40k, which is why they all contain a statement explicitly saying "this is part of standard 40k".

In your opinion, unless you are GW.

Peregrine wrote:Because GW isn't obligated to run their game the way you insist just because you nitpick over and over again and won't accept FW rules without a notarized letter hand delivered by the CEO of GW himself. They've answered the question already, and that's all there is to it.

GW does have a certain obligation to make clear to their customer base what exactly is and is not part of their games. I can never touch a FW book and play 40k just fine because there is no explicit need for FW to be a part of "standard 40k". I do however require the BRB and my army's codex to play 40k. It is clear from these threads that do keep coming up that there is a divide in the community so it is not clear what GW's intent is, despite what is published in a FW book or not (please do not post the same pic again, we've all seen it and read it).

So based on what your telling me jdjamesdean@mail.com that if it's not in an official codex or in the BRB it's not a legal unit, so going strictly by the letter of your statement Storm Talon's and the ork flyers are illegal units as are the new Chaos Daemon's units and rules changes as they are not in a codex nor are they in the BRB and therefore illegal.

Please, show me the mental gymnastics at work within your own explanation that allow these obviously 40k legal units into the game while still excluding all Forge world products.

 motyak wrote:
Can we lock this? Or sticky it so that these threads stop cropping up nearly weekly?

yes lock, and sticky it

and trim that scraggly beard

Orktavius wrote:
So based on what your telling me jdjamesdean@mail.com that if it's not in an official codex or in the BRB it's not a legal unit, so going strictly by the letter of your statement Storm Talon's and the ork flyers are illegal units as are the new Chaos Daemon's units and rules changes as they are not in a codex nor are they in the BRB and therefore illegal.

Please, show me the mental gymnastics at work within your own explanation that allow these obviously 40k legal units into the game while still excluding all Forge world products.

you can simply read back a few pages, pretty sure Ailaros already gave answers to these.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:

 TheCaptain wrote:

Sorry, no.

The burden of proof is on you; You make a bold, sweeping claim that the rulebook says "ALL" of the rules for an army are in codices. I'd like to see where you found such statement.

It doesn't exist. Don't bother.

Allow me to cite it for you again.

Please do, but not "again" because you never did.

Actually I did. You must have simply missed it.

Steelmage99 wrote:
How is "make sure they are happy to play a game using Forge World models" not asking for permission?

Because the same thing applies to codex armies just as much. It's not a special level of permission like the old "need permission" statement or the adjacent Apocalypse label which clearly says you need to ask to play a special game to use them outside of Apocalypse. It's just a reminder that, while most people are fairly well informed about Orks and know if they want to play against them or not, they might not be as familiar with FW rules and you should show them the book and let them form an opinion before the game.

Anyway, note that it says "it's best" to do that, not that you "must" do that. It's a statement about being polite, not a mandatory rule that must be followed.

 Evil Lamp 6 wrote:
And a new codex does not equal a FW book. Yes both add things to the "current standard 40k", but only one those is accepted to be a part of that standard, the other is not, IMO.

Both are equally accepted by the people who write the rules to the game, which is why the FW book says "this is part of standard 40k", not "this is an optional expansion".

In your opinion, unless you are GW.

In GW's opinion, as given by their statement saying that it's part of standard 40k. We don't have to guess what GW thinks about it, we just have to read what they've told us.

GW does have a certain obligation to make clear to their customer base what exactly is and is not part of their games. I can never touch a FW book and play 40k just fine because there is no explicit need for FW to be a part of "standard 40k".

I can never touch a codex and play 40k just fine, does that mean that codices are not part of standard 40k?

I do however require the BRB and my army's codex to play 40k.

Only if you want to play that army.

Anyway, the same point applies to WD units like the Dakkajet or the entire SoB army. If FW books aren't standard 40k neither are those.

It is clear from these threads that do keep coming up that there is a divide in the community so it is not clear what GW's intent is, despite what is published in a FW book or not (please do not post the same pic again, we've all seen it and read it).

It's perfectly clear what GW's intent is because they've told us what it is. The only "problem" is that certain members of the community stubbornly dislike FW and refuse to accept GW's statement on the subject. It's no more "ambiguous" than the "ambiguity" about using double FOCs in 2000+ point games, where the community insists on 1999+1 tournaments to avoid it.

I know he did but I want your version of BS as your write it with a far less petulant neckbeard attitude :<

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:
Actually I did. You must have simply missed it.

You didn't, because the statement you cited does not use the word "all" that you claim it does.

My opinion about FW stuff is similar to my opinion about the MTG Portal sets were prior to October 2005. The Portal sets for MTG were released as a starter set level meant to introduce new players into the game of MTG without many of the complications that were present in MTG (I both do and do not miss the whole spell batches thing). Portal was not part of "regular" MTG but its own thing despite being released by WotC and within the MTG brand. They were not usable in "normal" MTG games without opponents' permission/knowledge/etc. It wasn't until WotC themselves came out almost a decade after release and after "updating" many of the cards from the Portal sets were they allowed without question in games of MTG, just as any other cards would be. I see several parallels between FW and Portal as they relate to their respective systems (aside from FW being for introducing new players to the game). So until GW comes out and makes clear that yes FW stuff is meant for "standard 40k", and again this is important, outside of a FW book, then I will continue to keep my opinion of FW stuff as it stands now.

 Peregrine wrote:

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:
Actually I did. You must have simply missed it.

You didn't, because the statement you cited does not use the word "all" that you claim it does.

While that is true, it pretty much says the same thing.

"you'll find everything you need to know about that faction" pg 108 BGB

Kind of funny that I never quoted all, however that quote kinda says the same thing with a different use of words.


Now kindly show me where I quoted the BGB falsely.
I use quotations and citations, it shouldn't be too difficult to find if it ever happened.

I might have loosely used the word (all) . In fact IIRC I know which reply you're speaking of in which I stated it wasn't word for word...

 Evil Lamp 6 wrote:
My opinion about FW stuff is similar to my opinion about the MTG Portal sets were prior to October 2005.

Then you're wrong. WOTC specifically said that Portal was NOT legal. There was no ambiguity at all, tournament formats explicitly banned them, the Portal rulebook explicitly stated that it was a simplified "starter" version of MTG and not part of the standard game, etc.

GW, on the other hand, has specifically said that FW IS legal and part of the standard game. The situations are not even remotely similar.

While that is true, it pretty much says the same thing.

"you'll find everything you need to know about that faction" pg 108

Except that:

1) It's obviously false because even if you exclude WD releases along with FW you still need the online FAQs/errata to play the game, so it's not "everything" in a literal sense. It's everything you need to start playing (or decide on an army, etc), not every single word that has ever officially been said about the subject.

2) It's not a specific ruling on exactly which rules are and aren't legal, it's just a statement saying "newbies go buy a codex".

 Peregrine wrote:

Steelmage99 wrote:
How is "make sure they are happy to play a game using Forge World models" not asking for permission?

Because the same thing applies to codex armies just as much. It's not a special level of permission like the old "need permission" statement or the adjacent Apocalypse label which clearly says you need to ask to play a special game to use them outside of Apocalypse. It's just a reminder that, while most people are fairly well informed about Orks and know if they want to play against them or not, they might not be as familiar with FW rules and you should show them the book and let them form an opinion before the game.

We know beyond a shadow of a doubt that it does indeed apply to Forge World models because we are explicitly told so. The fact that it, somewhat implied, might also apply to codex armies does not exclude it from applying to Imperial Armour armies/units.
Nothing of what you have said changes that Forge World tells us to "make sure they are happy to play a game using Forge World models".

Anyway, note that it says "it's best" to do that, not that you "must" do that. It's a statement about being polite, not a mandatory rule that must be followed.

That is a distinction that is strictly in your opinion.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:


GW, on the other hand, has specifically said that FW IS legal and part of the standard game. The situations are not even remotely similar.

You keep saying this. Could you please show me where that is?

Steelmage99 wrote:
That is a distinction that is strictly in your opinion.

It's a statement that's written in plain English. Compare it to two other similar statements:

The statement about Apocalypse units goes out of its way to be very clear that you MUST get permission to use them in a "normal" game of 40k, and that you and your opponent must both agree to do something special that isn't part of the standard game.

The old statement about FW models in general explicitly used the word "permission", much like special characters used to require permission from your opponent.

Combined with the "this is part of the standard game" statement this so-called "permission" requirement is very obviously meant to be something different from the old "permission" rule.

 Peregrine wrote:

While that is true, it pretty much says the same thing.

"you'll find everything you need to know about that faction" pg 108

Except that:

1) It's obviously false because even if you exclude WD releases along with FW you still need the online FAQs/errata to play the game, so it's not "everything" in a literal sense. It's everything you need to start playing (or decide on an army, etc), not every single word that has ever officially been said about the subject.

2) It's not a specific ruling on exactly which rules are and aren't legal, it's just a statement saying "newbies go buy a codex".

1) With the exception of Erratas I agree. With the C:Chaos Daemons update though they even had proper pg #'s on them IIRC, been a while since I broke them out.

2)Really so now you'll say that everything is in fact not everything and obviously GW was mistaken when they wrote it. What they're truly trying to imply by saying everything is actually "some".

Thanks but no thanks.

At this point though I am done arguing on this topic.
It's obvious we'll never see eye to eye on the subject, I think you're in the wrong and you I.
I'll just gladly leave it in the case of, let your respectable Game Store owners/TO, club reps, etc make the call for your area.
In the end what they say is better than RAW regardless.

Please don't reply to this as an attempt to "win" the argument unless you really need it. In which case feel free,

Steelmage99 wrote:
You keep saying this. Could you please show me where that is?

You've seen the quote posted over and over again here, from the beginning of every FW book since IA:Apocalypse 2.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:
1) With the exception of Erratas I agree.

Then you concede defeat on this subject. If you require errata in addition to the printed codex then the printed codex can not be "everything" required to play an army. And once we no longer have a literal "everything", the only question is which sources of rules are part of the standard game in addition to the codex. And GW helpfully provides an answer at the beginning of every FW book.

 Peregrine wrote:

Steelmage99 wrote:
You keep saying this. Could you please show me where that is?

You've seen the quote posted over and over again here, from the beginning of every FW book since IA:Apocalypse 2.

That is a statement from Forge World in a Forge World book. That is nowhere near same as "GW has explicitly stated that....".

Steelmage99 wrote:
That is a statement from Forge World in a Forge World book. That is nowhere near same as "GW has explicitly stated that....".

Forge World IS GW. The aren't a separate company, they're a brand name used by GW to sell their line of high-end resin models and Imperial Armour books, just like the standard plastic kits you buy under the Citadel brand name aren't from some other company.