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.

 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 tend to think a lot of it comes from GW rather than forge world. If everything was ballencing out a bit better people could be more acomidaiting to dropping in new units. At least that's some of my thaghts with it.

 Polonius wrote:
I react to sweeping, conclusory, and absolute statements with disdain.

I get the point about tone. But to hairsplit a little back, would you consider it sweeping, conclusory, and absolute to declare "one is allowed to play Space Marines in 40k" and, if so, do you disdain it?

 Manchu wrote:
would you consider it sweeping, conclusory, and absolute to declare "one is allowed to play Space Marines in 40k" and, if so, do you disdain it?

That's allowable based on the main rulebook.

 Manchu wrote:

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

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

Would be nice if the main rule book would just have a little box that says all FW units marked with the 40k stamp are acceptable for use in standard 40k games. Hell even add it to the FAQ. But until GW says something, there will be people who argue against it.

 pretre wrote:
That's allowable based on the main rulebook.

But is a claim based on the BGB any less conclusory or sweeping by virtue of being from the BGB?

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

The Rule book has to say that FW products along side codex are also a source for legal rules in w40k games .

 Dannyevilguy wrote:
Would be nice if the main rule book would just have a little box that says all FW units marked with the 40k stamp are acceptable for use in standard 40k games. Hell even add it to the FAQ. But until GW says something, there will be people who argue against it.

That would end things once and for all.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Manchu wrote:

 pretre wrote:
That's allowable based on the main rulebook.

But is a claim based on the BGB any less conclusory or sweeping by virtue of being from the BGB?

No, but you're just trying to score points on Polonius now.

 Manchu wrote:

 Polonius wrote:
I react to sweeping, conclusory, and absolute statements with disdain.

I get the point about tone. But to hairsplit a little back, would you consider it sweeping, conclusory, and absolute to declare "one is allowed to play Space Marines in 40k" and, if so, do you disdain it?

Lol, good point. To respond to your clevernes with my own, I would say that people making sweeping announcments about things everybody agrees upon is often boring...

I guess making conclusory statement, about an issue in genuine controversy, is what rankles me. Especially when tied to one piece of evdience. I know we all like to look for a smoking gun or missing link, but the truth is usually hidden in a constellation of facts.

Makumba wrote:
The Rule book has to say that FW products along side codex are also a source for legal rules in w40k games.

So it would not be enough if a FW said that? For you, the BGB would have to also say it?

 Manchu wrote:

 pretre wrote:
That's allowable based on the main rulebook.

But is a claim based on the BGB any less conclusory or sweeping by virtue of being from the BGB?

No, but it is less absolute.

The statement "GW thinks we can play space marines" is more absolute than "the rulebook allows us to play space marines."

Kangodo wrote:
One of those traditions is that FW is banned and overpowered

That seems to be the assumption FW afficionados make a lot.
The real reason I see when I go places where it IS banned is because "12 books?... which one am I supposed to be reading?... Is that.. I don't get it, is my army in #1, #4 and #12?... Screw it, let's just stick to the codex system that makes sense."
And then since no one can be arsed to stick their nose into that hot mess, they know NOTHING about the army and so feel at a stark disadvantage to the guy fielding stuff that we have no idea how it works, so then it's easier to just say let's all play with the stuff we can all understand.

And please, FW afficionados, don't tell me that "it's actually easy, you see...." because it isn't. It isn't even close to easy ENOUGH for everyone. Could most people get into it? Yeah. Is everyone gonna invest that time when the army they want to play is in a crisp clear codex? No. Of course not.

Maybe if FW looked over how they release the units, the models wouldn't be used mostly for awesome looking counts-as.

I put the problem of the "FW isn't allowed here"-groups at the feet of FW's approach, and that's not gonna be fixed by a statement saying it's official. It can be as official as it wants when it's bigger to get into than people can be bothered with.

 Manchu wrote:

Makumba wrote:
The Rule book has to say that FW products along side codex are also a source for legal rules in w40k games.

So it would not be enough if a FW said that? For you, the BGB would have to also say it?

I think that as long as there is a divide between GW and FW, having FW say it's legal only applies if you feel that FW stuff is legal! Having GW allow it makes it clearer what's allowed.

 Polonius wrote:
making conclusory statement about an issue in genuine controversy

Yes, that right there is the heart of the matter -- whether there is a genuine controversy in the first place.

 Manchu wrote:

 Polonius wrote:
making conclusory statement about an issue in genuine controversy

Yes, that right there is the heart of the matter -- whether there is a genuine controversy in the first place.

And by "genuine," I meant that there are supportors and authority on both sides. You can find a crank to argue against anything, but the anti-FW crowd is not insignifcant.

But they are pretty cranky.

 Manchu wrote:
But they are pretty cranky.

Ba dum ching!

 Manchu wrote:

Makumba wrote:
The Rule book has to say that FW products along side codex are also a source for legal rules in w40k games.

So it would not be enough if a FW said that? For you, the BGB would have to also say it?

yep because the game is w40k and what is legal or not is decided by the main rulebook , not by outside source supplements.

But they are pretty cranky.

Come to europe outside of UK and check who is cranky trying to play his FW army.

Like a codex?

Makumba wrote:
yep because the game is w40k and what is legal or not is decided by the main rulebook , not by outside source supplements.

Citation needed.

 Manchu wrote:
Like a codex?

nope , because the rule book says that the source for rules are codex and the codex are made by GW , the same firm that makes the game and not an outside source sister firm .

I can buy ammo here for my sports rifle . They are made in a factory in china , they fit perfect , they don't damage anything . The factory is used to produce legal ammo too , that costs more , but on off hourse they produce identical ones that are cheaper. I can't use the ammo in any event . I know because I was disqualified once for taking the wrong ones with me .

Isn't a codex 'an outside source supplement' in relation to the rulebook?

Makumba wrote:
the same firm that makes the game and not an outside source sister firm

Oh Polonius, is this what you meant by "not insignificant"?

Ahhhh too slow......

I'll be putting the link in my sig. when this thread gets locked.

Poly Ranger wrote:
Isn't a codex 'an outside source supplement' in relation to the rulebook?

... which the rule book allows you to use on page 108.
What codexes does FW publish? (hint: none)

 Manchu wrote:

Makumba wrote:
the same firm that makes the game and not an outside source sister firm

Oh Polonius, is this what you meant by "not insignificant"?

I was actually just noting the mean spirted nature of these threads, when you post something that is frankly more than a bit mean.

I think that as long as FW rules are only available by expensive mail order books, it's not totally out of line for people to want more than a few minutes before a game reading over some rules.

 Polonius wrote:
I think that as long as FW rules are only available by expensive mail order books, it's not totally out of line for people to want more than a few minutes before a game reading over some rules.

Prepare to be countered with "Just pirate them." or "with the internet it's not a big deal to order from forgeworld - it's your fault you're uninformed"

 Polonius wrote:
I think that as long as FW rules are only available by expensive mail order books, it's not totally out of line for people to want more than a few minutes before a game reading over some rules.

Absolutely. But, again, we're not really discussing an actual in-person in counter but rather the meaning of a rule set.

rigeld2 wrote:
... which the rule book allows you to use on page 108.
What codexes does FW publish? (hint: none)

So are you going to cite the rule that says "only codices are permitted and we will never publish additional rules that are just as legal as a codex"? Because it sounds like you're assuming GW is using your personal legality policy without any evidence to support it.

rigeld2 wrote:
Prepare to be countered with "Just pirate them." or "with the internet it's not a big deal to order from forgeworld - it's your fault you're uninformed"

The argument cannot be that FW doesn't count because the books are too expensive. Therefore, no need to hypothesize bad arguments against it.