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.

From the new C:SM chapter tactics update:

Whilst these rules should be considered official, in the name of good sportsmanship you should inform your opponent when using these Chapter Tactics as they may not be familiar with them.

See anything missing here? That part about "make sure your opponent is happy" has been removed and replaced with "don't be TFG, show your opponent your rules". Now any ambiguity that may have once existed is gone. FW rules are part of the game, and your house rule against them is no less of a house rule than your house rule about having no more than one flyer per army.

Oh dear.

Quick, where's the popcorn?

Seems to be talking only about chapter tactics, not "hurr durr I need my forgeworld uber units"

So yea, nothing to see here folks.

Tthe main rule book actually mentions that you can play with things other than an army list from a codex (to include a modified army list).

For anyone who doubts me, just flip back to page 108 in the main rulebook and look under the section that says "The Army List":

The Rules wrote:With the points limit agreed, players need to pick their forces. The best way to do this is to make use of the army list in the relevant codex, although, of course, players are free to either adapt the army lists or use their own system as they wish...

Seeing as FW materials change the army list I'd say that's all the proof you need. Coincidentally it also works for homebrew as well.

in the name of good sportsmanship you should inform your opponent when using these Chapter Tactics as they may not be familiar with them.......

so heres this giant enemy TAU XV107 R'VARNA BATTLESUIT.

Peregrine, it doesn't matter.

You're never going to convince the nutjobs, so why bother continuing to try?

 juraigamer wrote:
Seems to be talking only about chapter tactics, not "hurr durr I need my forgeworld uber units"

Which just happens to be the most recent release. Unless you're going to argue that using new C:SM chapter tactics is part of the normal game but every other option requires special permission (which is obviously absurd, so please don't) this clarifies the "officialness" policy and confirms that the "make sure your opponent is happy" line was about not surprising your opponent with new rules halfway through the game, not giving them veto power over your army.

Also, the "I need my forgeworld uber units" straw man is pretty ridiculous when GW is printing codex armies with 4-5 Riptides or rerollable 2++ demons.

 Furyou Miko wrote:
Peregrine, it doesn't matter.

You're never going to convince the nutjobs, so why bother continuing to try?

Because every once in a while you need an excuse to make popcorn, sit back and watch the chaos unfold?

 Furyou Miko wrote:
You're never going to convince the nutjobs, so why bother continuing to try?

Because now there is absolutely no room for disagreement or pretending that "no FW" is anything but a house rule.

 Peregrine wrote:
Now any ambiguity that may have once existed is gone.

Un-likely.

What C:SM Chapter Tactics thingy are you talking about anyways...

 Peregrine wrote:

 Furyou Miko wrote:
You're never going to convince the nutjobs, so why bother continuing to try?

Because now there is absolutely no room for disagreement or pretending that "no FW" is anything but a house rule.

But at that point, you're just trying to force them to admit they're using a house rule. You're not going to convince them to start using Forge World, so it's just an argument for the sake of an argument.

 Furyou Miko wrote:
Peregrine, it doesn't matter.

You're never going to convince the nutjobs, so why bother continuing to try?

It's post like this that so polarises this subject.

But realy, buy and play with what you want . And be a nice and understanding player when people disagree with what they desire to play with also.

 pretre wrote:
What C:SM Chapter Tactics thingy are you talking about anyways...

http://www.forgeworld.co.uk/Downloads/Product/PDF/F/FWchaptertactics.pdf

 Furyou Miko wrote:
[But at that point, you're just trying to force them to admit they're using a house rule. You're not going to convince them to start using Forge World, so it's just an argument for the sake of an argument.

It matters because no-FW house rules don't exist in isolation. When people pretend that their house rule is official GW policy it influences what other people think, and you get people banning FW because they've been told that GW doesn't consider it part of the game. I don't care if someone wants to have that house rule for their own games, just as long as they admit that it's a house rule.

See anything missing here?

The part where it says anything at all about FW ....

I actually don't even care - I'll play against FW if someone has it, but really, this is stretching it.

Tycho wrote:

See anything missing here?

The part where it says anything at all about FW ....

I actually don't even care - I'll play against FW if someone has it, but really, this is stretching it.

Exactly.
It doesn't say anything at all about Forge World units, just these Chapter Tactics.

Apple Fox: This issue is not so much about what happens during in-person encounters. Rather, this issue is conceptual. It's about the wording of the rules themselves.

Personally, I thought this was entirely resolved when FW started labeling specific entries as usable in 40k and others as not. I don't see much room for "as long as you opponent agrees" in that practice.

 thenoobbomb wrote:
It doesn't say anything at all about Forge World units, just these Chapter Tactics.

You realize that those are FW rules, right?

 Peregrine wrote:

 thenoobbomb wrote:
It doesn't say anything at all about Forge World units, just these Chapter Tactics.

You realize that those are FW rules, right?

Yes. They're saying that you are allowed to use those Chapter Tactics no matter what because they're official.

It doesn't say anything about, say, a Death Korps regiment, or one of those fancy HH tanks.

 thenoobbomb wrote:
It doesn't say anything about, say, a Death Korps regiment, or one of those fancy HH tanks.

Yes, because those haven't been updated yet. The argument that this one rules document is official but everything else isn't is just absurd. This is the new policy.

 Furyou Miko wrote:
But at that point, you're just trying to force them to admit they're using a house rule. You're not going to convince them to start using Forge World, so it's just an argument for the sake of an argument.

Many, if not most, people are uncomfortable with house-rules. All they want to do is play by the status quo.
If that status quo allows FW in games, they won't complain.
If that status quo does not allow them, they will not allow them.

By proving that the rules allow Forgeworld, you can change the status quo and you will find less opposition when you want to play this expensive hobby.

 Peregrine wrote:

 thenoobbomb wrote:
It doesn't say anything about, say, a Death Korps regiment, or one of those fancy HH tanks.

Yes, because those haven't been updated yet. The argument that this one rules document is official but everything else isn't is just absurd. This is the new policy.

It's the new policy, indeed, and I expect this to be put in the rules when it is updated. I know it's rather pricky, but until those rules haven't been updated yet, it doesn't count for them.

 Peregrine wrote:
This is the new policy.

Or perhaps it was always the policy and FW just saw from this kind of thread that it desperately required clarification.

Kangodo wrote:
If that status quo allows FW in games, they won't complain.

I'm afraid the internet does not bear you out on this one.

 Manchu wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
This is the new policy.

Or perhaps it was always the policy and FW just saw from this kind of thread that it desperately required clarification.

Kangodo wrote:
If that status quo allows FW in games, they won't complain.

I'm afraid the internet does not bear you out on this one.

I think, as always, Peregrine makes the crucial error of being "almost certainly correct," while shouting that he is "completely certainly correct."

I agree that this is strong evidence of how FW sees itself being used. But that doens't make it 100% so.

 Manchu wrote:
Apple Fox: This issue is not so much about what happens during in-person encounters. Rather, this issue is conceptual. It's about the wording of the rules themselves.

Personally, I thought this was entirely resolved when FW started labeling specific entries as usable in 40k and others as not. I don't see much room for "as long as you opponent agrees" in that practice.

That's actuly what I was trying to say, to annoyed and it's 4am allmost. The rules always seemed to be official, realy shouldn't it be weather they have value in the community's themselves.
Tournaments will use what rules give the best environment for them, ones I go to dont use them due to general availability of rules mostly.

 Peregrine wrote:
The argument that this one rules document is official but everything else isn't is just absurd.

That's an absurd thing to say. It states this in this one and not in the others. If anything, saying that because one book has an officiallity policy everything does no matter what it says is the absurd statement.

That said, I'm quite happy to play Forgeworld and my group does to a very minor extent without any complaining. (no full armies but an odd vehicle or armament.)

If GW wanted to make forgeworld feel 101% legit, all they'd have to do was to add Death Korps and Elyssian Drop Troops and those bull space marines (am I missing anyone?) to the ally matrix. That, I think, would have sealed the deal for most anyone.

 Polonius wrote:
But that doens't make it 100% so.

One wonders just how much more explicit FW will have to be.

 Manchu wrote:
I'm afraid the internet does not bear you out on this one.

That's why I play against people and not against the internet.

The hardest thing is to break habits and tradition.
One of those traditions is that FW is banned and overpowered and you have to 'beg' your opponent for permission.
Seeing as they are 'banned by tradition' they are less likely to allow it.

Sure, this won't fix the problem in a month.
But within a year or two nobody will be shocked if you bring FW-models and rules.

 Manchu wrote:

 Polonius wrote:
But that doens't make it 100% so.

One wonders just how much more explicit FW will have to be.

I meant more generally. And even if they are meant for "standard play," plenty of groups will still ban or discourage them

I'm not even arguing against content, just tone. It's a kneejerk habit of mine: I react to sweeping, conclusory, and absolute statements with disdain.

Kangodo wrote:
That's why I play against people and not against the internet.

Good point. Hence:

 Manchu wrote:
This issue is not so much about what happens during in-person encounters. Rather, this issue is conceptual. It's about the wording of the rules themselves.

 Manchu wrote:

 Polonius wrote:
But that doens't make it 100% so.

One wonders just how much more explicit FW will have to be.

I don't think FW being explicit helps. FW could say anything they wanted and people would still argue. GW (I know, I know) itself has to do it.

If GW wanted to end this once and for all, they could put up an allies matrix and an official statement on their website saying 'The following FW units and books are official 40k units and usable in all 40k games.'