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.

Veteran Sergeant wrote: They should just release "official" rules for all of them. The game will never be hurt by variety.

They do! In the Imperial Armor books!

xruslanx wrote:
In the category of 'allowed armies', gw specifically exclude anything from forgeworld. You can choose to allow it if you want, or not. It's your choice. But don't pretend it's official when it's not.

But the FW-book says that it is 'official'.
Just like the supplements say they are 'official', those aren't allowed by that GW-tournament someone liked in this thread.

 tetrisphreak wrote:
We use FW at my local shop and nobody has really had any problems.

I just sneak some FW-things in my games.
And people are going all "Wow, that thing is strong.", but when they hear it's 150 points they all agreed it was overcosted for what it did.

Kangodo wrote:The difference is that Forge World is owned by Games Workshop, your houserules aren't.

... so?
That arguably doesn't prevent them from ban those units from their events, and it does not prevent a fair number of gaming stores to do the same.

Black Library is owned by GW as well, and the Codex writers give a rat's ass about what sort of fluff the freelancers come up with. In fact, according to an interview with Dan Abnett that's the whole reason for why the Black Library was founded - to give authors a chance to have a go at the setting without creating an inseparable connection to the core game. Now, why do you think Forge World exists as a separate subdivision with its own website?

Kangodo wrote:What is your standard for "I'll allow this in game of warhammer"?
Does it need a 40k-approved stamp? Forgeworld has it.
Does it need to be sold on the main site? That would suck for all my OOP-models.
Where do you draw the line?

- Personally? Basic army codices are the common ground. I'll also accept FW and will play against every unit at least once; I can always decide to not play such games after having checked if they are fun. The same goes for various other supplements such as Cityfight or Apoc. I'm not entirely closed to houserules, too, but there you'd need quite a bit of convincing. To reiterate: I have no problem with FW itself. I have a problem with how it is advertised here.
- In GW's opinion, there's arguably a difference between GW's "Chapter Approved" stamp and FW's "intended for 40k". The constant misquoting of "intended" as "approved for" is part of what makes you guys so hard to argue with, too. And kind of reveals an apparent need to work with flimsy arguments...
- As far as I'm aware, even in events/locations where FW rules are banned you can still bring the minis. This includes GW tournaments. For private games? I don't care where your minis are from, as long as they look the part and fit in.
- See answer to question #1.

Vaktathi wrote:GW tournaments have no bearing on what is "legal" or "official". Tournaments are their own thing, distinct and separate from normal play. What few events GW does run also does not allow allies, supplements, and double-force orgs. Most 40k events and tournaments are not run by GW. GW tournaments are run by their marketing department, the Design Studio does not write rules for these events and came right out and said they don't intend for 40k to be a tournament game. If you're using tournaments to judge what is "legal" outside of whatever specific tournament you're attending, then you're doing it wrong.

This is kind of putting the cart before the horse, though.

People in this thread claim that there is no difference between FW units and standard 40k Codex units. This implies that you could take a FW unit and show up at any tournament, event, local gaming store or a friend's house and simply expect it will be accepted. This is not the case. The codices only are the common ground here. Nothing else. Want to field an Apoc formation, a Cityfight list, or a FW army? Just ask before you go. It really is that simple and should not warrant this kind of debate and constant lawyering from the FW fans.

Now, there could, in theory, also be some LGS or events that ban a specific Codex army or unit, but I'd suppose that this is a much, much less common phenomena.

Kangodo wrote:But the FW-book says that it is 'official'.
Just like the supplements say they are 'official', those aren't allowed by that GW-tournament someone liked in this thread.

Black Library is an 'official' source of fluff, too.

But that aside, I think you actually make a very good analogy. You wouldn't just put a Spearhead formation on the table without first asking your opponent whether he's okay playing this ruleset, would you? So why do this with FW armies? That's the kind of attitude I don't get.
"I don't care how many points in models you own. Today I'm bringing my Apoc list!"

Kangodo wrote:

Could you fix that quote? Because I did not say that.

Argh, sorry, fixed it!

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Veteran Sergeant wrote: They should just release "official" rules for all of them. The game will never be hurt by variety.

They do! In the Imperial Armor books!

Well, how about "official rules" that are official enough that they aren't "Well, if your opponent says it's okay"?

 Lynata wrote:
... so?
That arguably doesn't prevent them from ban those units from their events, and it does not prevent a fair number of gaming stores to do the same.

Nor does it prevent them from being legal anyway.

- Personally? Basic army codices are the common ground. I'll also accept FW and will play against every unit at least once; I can always decide to not play such games after having checked if they are fun. The same goes for various other supplements such as Cityfight or Apoc. I'm not entirely closed to houserules, too, but there you'd need quite a bit of convincing. To reiterate: I have no problem with FW itself. I have a problem with how it is advertised here.
- In GW's opinion, there's arguably a difference between GW's "Chapter Approved" stamp and FW's "intended for 40k". The constant misquoting of "intended" as "approved for" is part of what makes you guys so hard to argue with, too. And kind of reveals an apparent need to work with flimsy arguments...
- As far as I'm aware, even in events/locations where FW rules are banned you can still bring the minis. This includes GW tournaments. For private games? I don't care where your minis are from, as long as they look the part and fit in.
- See answer to question #1.

My problem is with the hate and bias against FW.
People have it in their minds that "everything from FW is overpowered" when in fact most units aren't even played because they are so bad or overcosted.
I can easily proof how everything from the Necron-FW section is 'meeh' at best.
But that doesn't stop people from wanting to ban it.
In my opinion the "FW is illegal" is just a childish excuse to ban all variety and comes from a refusal to play against new stuff.

And how do you treat Supplements like Farsight? They aren't codices.

 Veteran Sergeant wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Veteran Sergeant wrote: They should just release "official" rules for all of them. The game will never be hurt by variety.

They do! In the Imperial Armor books!

Well, how about "official rules" that are official enough that they aren't "Well, if your opponent says it's okay"?

The rules ARE official enough that you are not required to ask your opponent. It certainly recommends that you do so, in the spirit of sportsmanship and politeness. But it does not say that you must.

Are you just trying to be difficult and contrarian?

If so, you're succeeding. You're also succeeding at some other things too.

However, until the rules become legal at every tournament, they're not really official.

 Veteran Sergeant wrote:
Are you just trying to be difficult and contrarian?

If so, you're succeeding. You're also succeeding at some other things too.

However, until the rules become legal at every tournament, they're not really official.

I've seen tournaments posted that disallow flyers. Are flyers not legal now?

Kangodo wrote:Nor does it prevent them from being legal anyway.

It also doesn't magically make them as legal as the standard codices.
Just like only because something was printed in a Black Library novel doesn't mean it has to find its way into Codex fluff.

You've kind of dodged that question regarding an unsolicited use of other supplements like Cityfight, btw.

Kangodo wrote:My problem is with the hate and bias against FW. People have it in their minds that "everything from FW is overpowered" when in fact most units aren't even played because they are so bad or overcosted. I can easily proof how everything from the Necron-FW section is 'meeh' at best.
But that doesn't stop people from wanting to ban it. In my opinion the "FW is illegal" is just a childish excuse to ban all variety and comes from a refusal to play against new stuff.

Ironically, I feel at risk to start disliking FW. Not because of how it actually plays, but because of how some of its most ardent fans try to advocate its acceptance.
I don't want this as I actually really like some of FW's stuff, but it's hard not to be affected by their community's (or at least its most vocal members) output. Years ago, some very vocal Space Marine fans managed to make me dislike that army for several years (and that after I've started with them!), and I'm happy I've overcome that bias again. I'm trying hard not to fall into the next trap here.

And you're still falling back on someone yelling about FW being OP. That's not my beef at all. As I just pointed out, my reaction is more akin to a reflexive backlash against people who go "I have FW and I demand you let me play it wherever I want!" Because that's how all of this - the defensive attitude, the misquoting - comes across. The apparent inability to just being polite and asking instead of this feeling of entitlement.

tl;dr: This kind of argueing kind of works against a greater acceptance of FW, simply because people are more likely to say "no" out of principle when you try to shove your opinion down their throat. Psychology works that way sometimes.

Kangodo wrote:And how do you treat Supplements like Farsight? They aren't codices.

They're presented as official Codex add-ons, like the "Chapter Approved" WD articles, and written by the same team, so personally I'd treat them the same way.

[edit] To clarify, for me that means I'd ask first, just out of politeness, but here I would indeed expect acceptance. Similarly, I'd not refuse to play them even if the opponent didn't ask, but if might colour my perception of the other player.

I would also play an opponent who didn't ask whether it's okay to bring FW, but I'd perceive that as arrogant and it may influence my willingness to play him or her again later. Similarly, if I had an FW unit like the Repressor I mentioned earlier, I would not expect to meet as much acceptance as is the case with CA addons and would simply shrug and go "okay" and pick another unit to make up for it.

Forgeworld "40k approved" rules are fully official rules - they are made by a company owned by GW and GW officially authorizes you to use them.

At the same time, though, they aren't core rules, they are an add-on to the existing rules. They can be used in "standard" 40k games, as the rules say, but since they're an add-on, you should talk with your opponent beforehand.

No one ins our store seems to have a problem with forgeworld and we all see it as offical rules.

 Lynata wrote:
It also doesn't magically make them as legal as the standard codices.
Just like only because something was printed in a Black Library novel doesn't mean it has to find its way into Codex fluff.

You've kind of dodged that question regarding an unsolicited use of other supplements like Cityfight, btw.

The part where the FW-book says they are just as legal as standard codices is the part that makes them legal.
It only adds a line that says you can make a houserule to not use them, but that speaks for itself: You can also houserule that flyers cannot be taken, or that Tau cannot be played.
That doesn't make Tau or Flyers any less legal.

Yeah, sorry about that.. I was coming to that and then I had to eat.
Planet Strike and Cities of Death are expansions, the books tell you that it is a different game.
But Forge World doesn't provide an additional game-mode, it offers models for the original game.

"I have FW and I demand you let me play it wherever I want!" Because that's how all of this - the defensive attitude, the misquoting - comes across. The apparent inability to just being polite and asking instead of this feeling of entitlement.

Do you think it's weird that people 'demand' that others let them play it?
They are an official and legal choice in WH40k and you shouldn't have to ask permission for that.
To us/them it's the same as asking "Are you fine with me playing Blood Angels?"

In my opinion that's the opposite of what should happen.
The community shouldn't act as if "FW is banned" is the standard and you should ask your friends to allow it.
The community should accept them as a legal choice for WH40k and playgroups have the option to house-ban them.
That's why people are discussing it so heavily: They want "Forge World is legal" to be the standard in this community.
And it's hard to do that because the community is filled with players who copied a net-list that doesn't consider FW-units and people who are under the false impression that FW is "pay to win".

By asking people with FW-models to argue for the acceptance of their models you are putting a burden on them that they shouldn't have.
Why should I make arguments to allow FW in wh40k? They are legal according to Games Workshop.
If someone wants to ban them, he should be the one to convince everyone! Not the other way around.
Can you see why some people are annoyed?
People are expecting them to convince others that (perfectly legal) models should be allowed.

[edit] To clarify, for me that means I'd ask first, just out of politeness, but here I would indeed expect acceptance. Similarly, I'd not refuse to play them even if the opponent didn't ask, but if might colour my perception of the other player.

Do you ask for permission when you want to play Necrons?
In my opinion people should expect FW-models in the same way as they can expect other models.
I wouldn't want to have a group where you bring FW to the game and suddenly hear they are not allowed.
I want a community where anti-FW people have to argue against FW instead of the other way around.

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

 Veteran Sergeant wrote:
Are you just trying to be difficult and contrarian?

If so, you're succeeding. You're also succeeding at some other things too.

However, until the rules become legal at every tournament, they're not really official.

I've seen tournaments posted that disallow flyers. Are flyers not legal now?

You too huh?

Well every population has its 10%.

 Veteran Sergeant wrote:
Are you just trying to be difficult and contrarian?

If so, you're succeeding. You're also succeeding at some other things too.

However, until the rules become legal at every tournament, they're not really official.

This is where you are mistaken, what a tournament allows or dis-allow means crap as to if something is 'official' or not. Tournaments do not dictate any beyond the doors of that venue. If that is the case, I guess the INAT FAQ was "official" before taking a break. Tournament fanboys need to keep tournament rules at the event (besides playtesting lists at LGS).

Kangodo wrote:The part where the FW-book says they are just as legal as standard codices is the part that makes them legal.

See, and here we are with the false claims again. Because I'm fairly sure you will fail to produce a quote that says "just as legal as standard codices".

Kangodo wrote:But Forge World doesn't provide an additional game-mode, it offers models for the original game.

Arguably not, else GW would treat them that way (assuming you're still referring to the additional rules, not the models).
In fact, in that case there wouldn't even be a division called Forge World and you'd have everything on games-workshop.co.uk, with rules presented in GW core publications.

Q1. IS FORGE WORLD PART OF GAMES WORKSHOP.
A1. Yes, but we operate as a small (but perfectly formed) separate division from the company that makes and sells the main Games Workshop range of products.
- FW website

I really don't see how there can be a debate about this. FW army books are another source of rules. There are also the main Codices, then there are Codex Supplements, Chapter Approved WD articles, other WD articles, and other house rules. It's a whole list of "module" categories. GW events, your local gaming store, and your club can use any and all combinations of these sources for their games. That doesn't change the fact that they remain different sources, and a player should be aware of this. Only the main Codices are the common ground, anything else is an optional addition. How hard can it be to just check how the people you regularly game with are handling this? And this really should be the only thing that matters.

Kangodo wrote:Do you think it's weird that people 'demand' that others let them play it? They are an official and legal choice in WH40k and you shouldn't have to ask permission for that. [...] The community should accept them as a legal choice for WH40k and playgroups have the option to house-ban them.

Exactly the sense of entitlement I was referring to. Thanks for providing this example, I guess.

And yes, I do think it is weird that people demand others to let them play it. Or perhaps not weird, just rude. A good game should have both players enter the match with confidence and excitement, and being comfortable with whatever additions to the standard armies are used is part of that.
Since you're still avoiding the comparison to Cityfight and Apoc, I can only assume that you would exert the same kind of entitlement to the usage of those additions.

Kangodo wrote:I wouldn't want to have a group where you bring FW to the game and suddenly hear they are not allowed.

And this is why I speak up when reading posts spreading misinformation about FW. Because new players shouldn't have this kind of rude awakening.

You can argue until you're blue in the face - it doesn't matter whether this is due to company policy, local tradition or simple dislike amongst individual gamers. At the end of the day, FW units are not treated the same as Codex units. Not at GW events, not at a number of stores, and not at a number of clubs. All you'd need to do is to inquire or ask before. But arguably you're too proud for that.

There's really nothing left for me to discuss. I've said my piece - but if you think that this is how you can convince the community to be more acceptive of Forge World, by lying into their face and demanding what you seem to perceive as a constitutional right, by placing your personal preferences over the enjoyment of your opponents and having the gall to openly declare you'd wish you could force them to play by your rules, then ... well, in my case, it's not working.

Fortunately, one option will always be open to any gamer regardless of perceived legality. The option to say "no" to a match. And this you'll never change, regardless of how strongly you argue for your position, and regardless of how much you try to twist what the books actually say. So if I were you, I'd start thinking about a more diplomatic approach if you want people to be more open-minded.

Even Forgeworld puts "standard" and "official" in quotes in their books, and you'll get people claiming otherwise.


I mean, here's the thing, I could care less about whether or not people use the things, but I'd have to try really really hard. But when Forgeworld puts a disclaimer in their own book, well, it's not official, no matter how much huffing and puffing you do about it.

Stop clawing at semantics. It's not very dignified.

 Lynata wrote:

Kangodo wrote:The part where the FW-book says they are just as legal as standard codices is the part that makes them legal.

See, and here we are with the false claims again. Because I'm fairly sure you will fail to produce a quote that says "just as legal as standard codices".

Well, I don't know if this counts or not, but per IA12, page 6

Warhammer 40,000 Unit: This unit is intended to be used
in "standard" Warhammer 40,000 games, within the usual
limitations of Codex selection and Force Organisation
charts. As with all of our models these should be
considered 'official', but as they may be unknown to your
opponent, it's best to make sure they are happy to play a
game using Forge World models before you start.

At my FLGS there's a league on Thursday night and Sunday after noon. They are ran by 2 different guys. Sunday is whatever you want, and Thursday is zero forgeworld. It is really, really annoying. I have a bunch of repressors that on Thursday nights are rhinos.

When I confronted the TO, he goes:

"Oh, I only banned forgeworld because a lot of the flyer rules are confusing and not everyone has the books and models."
So i asked him, "Oh, ok. I was only asking because of all of my repressors."
To which he replied, "I didn't even consider those, there's nothing wrong with them."
Happily, I said, "Good, so I can play them as repressors and not rhinos then."
"No. I banned forgeworld."

There you go. That's the logic of people who oppose forgeworld.

 deviantduck wrote:
At my FLGS there's a league on Thursday night and Sunday after noon. They are ran by 2 different guys. Sunday is whatever you want, and Thursday is zero forgeworld. It is really, really annoying. I have a bunch of repressors that on Thursday nights are rhinos.

When I confronted the TO, he goes:

"Oh, I only banned forgeworld because a lot of the flyer rules are confusing and not everyone has the books and models."
So i asked him, "Oh, ok. I was only asking because of all of my repressors."
To which he replied, "I didn't even consider those, there's nothing wrong with them."
Happily, I said, "Good, so I can play them as repressors and not rhinos then."
"No. I banned forgeworld."

There you go. That's the logic of people who oppose forgeworld.

That's not about logic. It's about slippery slope. If he allows one exception, he then has to consider all the exceptions everybody wants and then suddenly he's got a giant list of what can and can't be used and spends a ton of time trying to figure out what can and can't be used.

Or, he can just say "No Forgeworld" and it's simple. He runs the tournament. It's his call how much effort he wants to put into it.

Banning FW repressors? Aren't those in the actual codex? The models come from FW, but the rules are GW codex.

Happyjew wrote:Well, I don't know if this counts or not, but per IA12, page 6 [...]

No, because "this unit intended to be used in..." is not the same as "this unit is as legal as a standard Codex unit". I specifically pointed this out earlier, and I'll repeat: my houserules are intended to be used in standard games of 40k, too, and that doesn't make them as legal as a Codex unit either.

As for the models, I don't think anybody is disputing that they are an official product. That's kind of a redundant information. Black Library novels are official, too.

deviantduck wrote:When I confronted the TO, he goes:
"Oh, I only banned forgeworld because a lot of the flyer rules are confusing and not everyone has the books and models."
So i asked him, "Oh, ok. I was only asking because of all of my repressors."
To which he replied, "I didn't even consider those, there's nothing wrong with them."
Happily, I said, "Good, so I can play them as repressors and not rhinos then."
"No. I banned forgeworld."
There you go. That's the logic of people who oppose forgeworld.

Isn't it more fair and consistent this way? Personally, I'd say that banning units based on source origin is a more sensible approach than banning indidivual units. Obviously, the TO's intentions were focused on individual units, but other gamers may have concerns about other FW units, or are perhaps just uncomfortable about the idea in general.

Have you actually inquired in your group how many people prefer this compromise with the two days, or are you just talking about your own preferences and don't care what your opponents think because "this is the logic of people who promote forgeworld"? (see, such classification goes both ways)

MWHistorian wrote:Banning FW repressors? Aren't those in the actual codex? The models come from FW, but the rules are GW codex.

Nope. The Chapter Approved 5E Codex has a short advertisement about the Repressor at the end, but it's not part of the army list, and the issue does not contain any rules.

Sadly.

 Lynata wrote:
See, and here we are with the false claims again. Because I'm fairly sure you will fail to produce a quote that says "just as legal as standard codices".

Happyjew gave the text and I posted an image.
As with all of our models these should be considered 'official'
What more do you expect?
They are books from the same company with a big text saying: "THESE MODELS ARE OFFICIAL!"

Exactly the sense of entitlement I was referring to. Thanks for providing this example, I guess.

Yes. I am just as entitled to using FW as you are entitled to using Codex: Blood Angels-models.
There is NO difference between a C:BA and FW-model now that FW has the big "THIS IS OFFICIAL!"-stamp in it.

And yes, I do think it is weird that people demand others to let them play it. Or perhaps not weird, just rude.

So you also think it's weird that I "demand" to use my Blood Angels and Necrons?

and being comfortable with whatever additions to the standard armies are used is part of that.

FW isn't an addition to the standard army. The FW book tells us they are a part of the standard army.

Since you're still avoiding the comparison to Cityfight and Apoc, I can only assume that you would exert the same kind of entitlement to the usage of those additions.

I've explained that. Those are expansions.
Warhammer: Cities of Death and Warhammer: Planetstrike are not the same as Warhammer: 40k
The books say that, they say they are a different game!

And this is why I speak up when reading posts spreading misinformation about FW. Because new players shouldn't have this kind of rude awakening.

And new players shouldn't be lied to and be told that FW is a separate thing that shouldn't be expected in a game.

At the end of the day, FW units are not treated the same as Codex units.

Seems like the arguing is working.
Because compared to a year ago most people see FW as a standard option and every day less and less people are complaining about it.
So they are treated the same as Codex units.

Fortunately, one option will always be open to any gamer regardless of perceived legality. The option to say "no" to a match. And this you'll never change, regardless of how strongly you argue for your position, and regardless of how much you try to twist what the books actually say. So if I were you, I'd start thinking about a more diplomatic approach if you want people to be more open-minded.

Well, yes, that is being changed.
A year ago players needed to beg their group to allow Forge World, forum posts have shown that this is happening less.
Most people with Forge World-units don't need to argue anything, it is being accepted.

by lying into their face

What the feth?

by placing your personal preferences over the enjoyment of your opponents

No, I simply follow the official rules unless people house-rule stuff.
House-rules need a unanimous vote to pass.
And Forge World-units are official, so getting rid of them needs a unanimous vote.

you'd wish you could force them to play by your rules

No, force them to play by the official rules, unless they have house-rules.

So in short: You shouldn't have to beg your group to use Forge World-units since they are official.

What about the part where the book says "make sure they [your opponent] are happy"? I mean, that part's in the book too.

Seems like the words "can" and "make sure" would rule out anything that involves the word "force".



I mean, I understand that people get hot and bothered over this issue. But the reality of it is that as long as Forgeworld is kept a distinct entity from Games Workshop, then the models still face that "Will they/Won't they" type situation, no matter what you actually want to be the case.

Yeah, the original book has that too.
It's called "the most important rule" and tons of hints that it might be more fun to make things cinematic.

It's just annoying that some people expect FW-players to write an essay to why they should be allowed.
Why is it my job to convince a group of people that if you look at the math, FW units are not overpowered?

It's a "Forge World-awareness"-discussion and I like what it has done so far!
Only a few weeks ago someone said: "I think Forge World shouldn't be allowed."
And instead of the usual "Agree" people were actually answering with: "Why not?"
That is what people want to accomplish, that players don't mindlessly follow something and instead ask questions.
I really don't mind if people want to ban Forge World, but I want them to have a reason for it that goes beyond "Because it's FW."

Kangodo wrote:Happyjew gave the text and I posted an image.
As with all of our models these should be considered 'official'
What more do you expect?
They are books from the same company with a big text saying: "THESE MODELS ARE OFFICIAL!"

As I've just pointed out, this is a redundant point to make. Everyone can see that these units are official products; they're being sold on Forge World's website, after all. What you fail to see is that official is not "same as standard Codex".
You're trying to make the same argument as if someone were to come and say "this Black Library novel is official, that means its contents override what it says in the Codex fluff". That is not how it works.

And this is even before we delve into petty semantics and point out that "model =/= rules". GW is quite happy with you using Forgeworld models as stand-ins even where FW rules have been banned.

"What I expect" is a quote for the claim that has been made. That there is a Forge World book that says its contents are "just as legal as a Codex". So far, all I see is desperate and wild interpretation and attempts at twisting words.
No, actually, I don't expect anything to that nature. I've seen these arguments made before. All of them.

Kangodo wrote:There is NO difference between a C:BA and FW-model now that FW has the big "THIS IS OFFICIAL!"-stamp in it.

Arguably, Games Workshop does not agree with you. Whilst it is entirely correct that tournaments and other official events from GW must not be taken as a sign of legality (although I would deem it questionable that events clearly intended to feature the basic gameplay of 40k are not supposed to reflect this), they at the very least reveal one simple truth: GW categorises Forgeworld material differently than Codices. So, whilst your Codex Blood Angels will always be part of the Codex list, your FW unit will always be categorised as a FW unit, regardless of whether it is allowed or not. To see and acknowledge this difference is an important step for understanding what you are argueing against.

Kangodo wrote:FW isn't an addition to the standard army. The FW book tells us they are a part of the standard army.

Again with the word-twisting.

Kangodo wrote:And new players shouldn't be lied to and be told that FW is a separate thing that shouldn't be expected in a game.

"What you can expect in a game" is listed in the Codices. Forge World is a separate division, with a separate team of designers, a separate franchise, and its books are a separate product sold over a separate channel.

 Lynata wrote:

Kangodo wrote:And new players shouldn't be lied to and be told that FW is a separate thing that shouldn't be expected in a game.

"What you can expect in a game" is listed in the Codices. Forge World is a separate division, with a separate team of designers, a separate franchise, and its books are a separate product sold over a separate channel, while maintaining official balanced rules and models to be viewed equally, and used equally, in addition to its counterpart, GW, for the same game of Warhammer 40, without prejudice, fear, or exclusion.

I went ahead and added the implied part of your sentence.

Putting words in someone's mouth will neither yield to a productive outcome nor will it show any respect for the opposing side - especially if you know that this is not what he wants to say.

Oh well, this discussion ceased to be productive on page 2.

I'll just pack my stuff and leave for other threads. As far as I'm concerned, I achieved the two things I came here to do with the first post - I just have difficulties letting go of a debate, even when it has clearly turned into a repetitive cycle. Mea culpa.

They already are in 40k.

If you meant "accepted for casual play", all of them. I mainly just want to be able to run an Armored Company, but nothing I've seen from FW is any more broken than what's already in the regular codexes.

I can see not wanting to play against Horus Heresy maybe, but that's about it. I'd be willing to give it a try as long as I get a heads up about what units do before the game.