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.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
The rulebook also says to 4+ on any disagreement. So let's just pretend that we only apply what's actually written. Or we can have a game and I'll ask for a 4+ on literally everything you do.
Also, you're ignoring that - according to the actual rules and not CZ40k -

Just because you're wrong doesn't mean you need to start with the hyperbole. You only 4+ when you and your opponent disagree on the rules. You can try and dice off for everything but no one will play you.
Here's the actual facts: FW alters the army list by giving you more options to take in the army list. This is allowed by page 108. You can argue otherwise or not play me but one of us is following the rules and the other is not. And it isn't me.

Wow. I'm wrong because you say so.

feth this, I'm out. I thought I was debating with intelligent, polite people.

 Polonius wrote:
That's a difference, and I can sympathize with the argument that until the people in charge of 40k rules say FW dandy, FW's view is less persuasive.

I agree with Peregrine, so far as I understand him, that this is a distinction manufactured to suit the forgone conclusion that there must be a distinction. The fact of any distinction between GW and FW in the first place is almost certainly to do with historical/business reasons, as per the distinction between GW and Citadel, rather than anything to do with the rules' validity. To spin this out otherwise, especially in light of FW itself being ever more clear (again, I get the difference between "almost certainly" and "absolutely certainly") smacks of the rankest artifice and is not, as a matter of rules discussion, worthy of intelligent sympathy.

rigeld2 wrote:

 Furyou Miko wrote:
So, you're trying to tell me that my Sisters of Battle aren't kosher for standard 40k, since you can't buy their codex or their models in your local store?

No - they have a codex and so are by definition allowed.

Anyway, if it's an FLGS you're talking about, then that's the manager's decision not to sell them, not GW's decision. GW stores often do sell Imperial Armour books. I'll get a photo of the ones for sale in my local store tomorrow if you want.

Well - no, it's GW/FW's decision. Since they won't sell FW books at a discount a non-GW store will be guaranteed to lose money on any that they order (since they have to pay shipping). GW stores might not have to pay shipping (I'm not sure) but all of the local ones (more than one) have told me that they can't order them for the shelves anymore and they can't get me free shipping unless I'm over the FW price for free shipping (like they used to be able to).

But you can't buy their codex in the store. It's just as hard to get hold of as any Imperial Armour book... as are their models.

You're ignoring half your own argument for the sake of disputing mine, and that just doesn't work. Either the prerequisite for an army being official is "The ability to buy the army list in my FLGS" or it's not. Which is it?

 Purifier wrote:

 Polonius wrote:
I think a lot of the blowback you get in these threads isn't about stuff being "legal" or not, but simply an insulted reaction to being told that the way they play is lesser than somebody elses.

 ClockworkZion wrote:
You can argue otherwise or not play me but one of us is following the rules and the other is not.

aaand there you go.

I like how every other example from either side is skipped and they use me instead.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Furyou Miko wrote:
Zion is Schroedinger's Cultist?

Apparently. Also apparently I'm the only example of phrasing things that way.

 Peregrine wrote:

They sell supplements through the ipad store, which is a different source with a totally different business model. Yet somehow we don't see complaints about how Farsight Tau aren't "official" and you need special permission to use them.

Well, they are distributed through a different channel, but they are promoted on the main GW webpage:
http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/content/article.jsp?aId=22200010a

I couldn't find a link to FW on the webpage at all.

I guess I see a concious attempt by GW (as a whole) to keep FW distinct, which is why IMO a zealous approach to GW legality is ill advised.

Well, GW owns FW, they don't need to sue, so that's a bit of a silly point. I think GW execs are worried about the value of the brand, not the nature of the rules.

They wouldn't sue, but they would tell FW to stop doing it. And yes, it potentially hurts the value of the brand if you have people randomly adding statements about what is and isn't official.

Maybe, but I really doubt it. Nobody cares what if their rules are theoretically official, they care if they can actually use them.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Purifier wrote:

 Polonius wrote:
I think a lot of the blowback you get in these threads isn't about stuff being "legal" or not, but simply an insulted reaction to being told that the way they play is lesser than somebody elses.

 ClockworkZion wrote:
You can argue otherwise or not play me but one of us is following the rules and the other is not.

aaand there you go.

I like how every other example from either side is skipped and they use me instead.

I thought it was a perfect example of absolutism condensed into one scathing sentence

rigeld2 wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
The rulebook also says to 4+ on any disagreement. So let's just pretend that we only apply what's actually written. Or we can have a game and I'll ask for a 4+ on literally everything you do.
Also, you're ignoring that - according to the actual rules and not CZ40k -

Just because you're wrong doesn't mean you need to start with the hyperbole. You only 4+ when you and your opponent disagree on the rules. You can try and dice off for everything but no one will play you.
Here's the actual facts: FW alters the army list by giving you more options to take in the army list. This is allowed by page 108. You can argue otherwise or not play me but one of us is following the rules and the other is not. And it isn't me.

Wow. I'm wrong because you say so.

feth this, I'm out. I thought I was debating with intelligent, polite people.

Your argument was never polite or intelligent. Don't get upset when someone points out you're not referencing the whole rule about what constitutes a "legal army list" and then points out that only selectively enforcing it isn't following the rules.

Like I said on page 1 of this thread, 108 gives you a lot of freedom on how you build a list. This can not be applied to homebrew but FW and supplements. Codex army lists are not the only "legal" way to play and to claim that 108 says so is not just a lie, but a damned lie.

 Polonius wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

They sell supplements through the ipad store, which is a different source with a totally different business model. Yet somehow we don't see complaints about how Farsight Tau aren't "official" and you need special permission to use them.

Well, they are distributed through a different channel, but they are promoted on the main GW webpage:
http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/content/article.jsp?aId=22200010a

I couldn't find a link to FW on the webpage at all.

I guess I see a concious attempt by GW (as a whole) to keep FW distinct, which is why IMO a zealous approach to GW legality is ill advised.

Well, GW owns FW, they don't need to sue, so that's a bit of a silly point. I think GW execs are worried about the value of the brand, not the nature of the rules.

They wouldn't sue, but they would tell FW to stop doing it. And yes, it potentially hurts the value of the brand if you have people randomly adding statements about what is and isn't official.

Maybe, but I really doubt it. Nobody cares what if their rules are theoretically official, they care if they can actually use them.

FW are regularly promoted on the GW blog. Oh hey, Sons of Horus is the first picture on today's post! Look, FW models on GW! They also have a link to FW at the bottom of their website.

 Manchu wrote:

 Polonius wrote:
That's a difference, and I can sympathize with the argument that until the people in charge of 40k rules say FW dandy, FW's view is less persuasive.

I agree with Peregrine, so far as I understand him, that this is a distinction manufactured to suit the forgone conclusion that there must be a distinction. The fact of any distinction between GW and FW in the first place is almost certainly to do with historical/business reasons, as per the distinction between GW and Citadel, rather than anything to do with the rules' validity. To spin this out otherwise, especially in light of FW itself being ever more clear (again, I get the difference between "almost certainly" and "absolutely certainly") smacks of the rankest artifice and is not, as a matter of rules discussion, worthy of intelligent sympathy.

Really? You honeslty don't see the possbility that GW is conciously keeping FW seperate as a rules making organization?

I think keeping FW seperate does a lot of good: it simplifies things somewhat for new players, it allows a clear cut line in the sand that doen'st involve offical "advanced rules," and it allows for more creativity and less balance when crafting rules.

the simple nature of FW production (far more laborious and finnicky) and distribution are strong indicators that FW is not completely integrated. After all, there's no reason that GW couldn't distribute the books, if not the models, other than they choose not to. Why make that choice, if not to preserve the division.

 Polonius wrote:
I couldn't find a link to FW on the webpage at all.

Bottom of the page, same line as the Black Library link. They're also in the drop down country select box.

 Polonius wrote:
I couldn't find a link to FW on the webpage at all.

There's one at the bottom of the page. And the same blog that promoted the ipad supplements also promotes FW releases.

I guess I see a concious attempt by GW (as a whole) to keep FW distinct, which is why IMO a zealous approach to GW legality is ill advised.

There's a separation of sales, most likely so that kids don't get expensive resin kits they can't handle because their non-gamer parents don't know the difference between a plastic space marine kit and a FW space marine kit. In terms of rules there isn't any real separation, GW just publishes stuff and says "here, go play with it".

Maybe, but I really doubt it. Nobody cares what if their rules are theoretically official, they care if they can actually use them.

But it's not just theory. If GW gets complaints from people who are buying FW stuff and being told it isn't legal that's bad for their brand image, and they'd tell FW to stop putting the "this is official" statement on their rules. The fact that FW keeps doing it is pretty clear proof that GW management is ok with it.

I'm getting this general gist - 'you can't use forge world because it's too expensive and there are too many sources to keep on top of them all for it to be considered fair.'
Ok may I remind you how rediculously expensive GW models are anyway? And there are THIRTEEN (i think I got that right), core codices, not to mention other supplements. So if you are a dedicated gamer you will have come across characters and units which you are not totally used to. Also you will have already invested a substantial amount into the hobby. So I don't really see these arguments being valid.
Furthermore, just a friendly piece of advice to those saying that if you cannot buy it at your local gw store it is not accessible... stop buying from your local gw store - its 30% cheaper elsewhere! Imagine you're army 30% larger. Bet you could get plenty of fw models with what you save ;-).

 Purifier wrote:
I thought it was a perfect example of absolutism condensed into one scathing sentence

Which was a follow up to being told that "we're not playing CZ40k" because the person I was replying to didn't want to admit the rest of a rule was just as important as the part he was claiming. I was already being damned for it so I went in without the gloves on.

 Polonius wrote:
You honeslty don't see the possbility that GW is conciously keeping FW seperate as a rules making organization?

Careful, that's a different question. The question to hand is whether rules published by FW are invalid for play in 40k simply as a matter of being published by FW.

-Shrike- wrote:
]
FW are regularly promoted on the GW blog. Oh hey, Sons of Horus is the first picture on today's post! Look, FW models on GW! They also have a link to FW at the bottom of their website.

Ah, there it is. I thought I had seen it at one point.

 Peregrine wrote:
And the same blog that promoted the ipad supplements also promotes FW releases.

Not to mention the monthly catalog, WD.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Purifier wrote:
I thought it was a perfect example of absolutism condensed into one scathing sentence

Which was a follow up to being told that "we're not playing CZ40k" because the person I was replying to didn't want to admit the rest of a rule was just as important as the part he was claiming. I was already being damned for it so I went in without the gloves on.

I think that sort of validates my observation.

 Manchu wrote:

 Polonius wrote:
You honeslty don't see the possbility that GW is conciously keeping FW seperate as a rules making organization?

Careful, that's a different question. The question to hand is whether rules published by FW are invalid for play in 40k simply as a matter of being published by FW.

Well, my first post in this thread is that I'm leery of any viewpoint that refuses to even acknowledge the possbility that another view could be valid.

I feel both validated in my leeriness, and glad that we have such well thought out arguments for a purely theoretical discussion.

 Manchu wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
And the same blog that promoted the ipad supplements also promotes FW releases.

Not to mention the monthly catalog, WD.

And at Games Day, and it's sold at Warhammer World and they do their events there too...

It's almost as if they're supported by the rest of GW.

I love the forge world stuff even though I don't buy it. I like the variety it adds to games. AWESOME.

 Purifier wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Purifier wrote:
I thought it was a perfect example of absolutism condensed into one scathing sentence

Which was a follow up to being told that "we're not playing CZ40k" because the person I was replying to didn't want to admit the rest of a rule was just as important as the part he was claiming. I was already being damned for it so I went in without the gloves on.

I think that sort of validates my observation.

That both sides do the same thing?

So can I use my Mortis dreads now?

 sing your life wrote:
So can I use my Mortis dreads now?

I'll play you.

Poly Ranger wrote:
I'm getting this general gist - 'you can't use forge world because it's too expensive and there are too many sources to keep on top of them all for it to be considered fair.'
Ok may I remind you how rediculously expensive GW models are anyway? And there are THIRTEEN (i think I got that right), core codices, not to mention other supplements. So if you are a dedicated gamer you will have come across characters and units which you are not totally used to. Also you will have already invested a substantial amount into the hobby. So I don't really see these arguments being valid.
Furthermore, just a friendly piece of advice to those saying that if you cannot buy it at your local gw store it is not accessible... stop buying from your local gw store - its 30% cheaper elsewhere! Imagine you're army 30% larger. Bet you could get plenty of fw models with what you save ;-).

"It's already taking up almost all of your time and money, might aswell take the rest of both too"

That's one way to look at it.

However, I didn't even understand that Forgeworld was anything but awesome replacement models until I was a few hundred euros into this hobby. I don't think I'm alone in this. So we've invested into something thinking we saw the whole picture, and we liked that picture. Then comes these 12 books, and you're like "maaaan, I already worked my way through that heavy ass rulebook!"

It's a lot to take in, and the fact that you thought it was the best 1½ weeks of your life getting into this stuff doesn't mean everyone else will agree.

I think the arguments are perfectly valid and disagree completely with what you are saying.

Also: Sponsoring our FLGS is a large part of this hobby for a lot of us. They lend us store space for games and we show loyalty back.

 Polonius wrote:
I'm leery of any viewpoint that refuses to even acknowledge the possbility that another view could be valid

I quite agree. I prefer an argument that demonstrates a viewpoint's lack of actual rather than potential validity. Hence I conclude that the purported distinction between 40k and this other game people think FW publishes is meaningless rather than arguing from that conclusion.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Purifier wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Purifier wrote:
I thought it was a perfect example of absolutism condensed into one scathing sentence

Which was a follow up to being told that "we're not playing CZ40k" because the person I was replying to didn't want to admit the rest of a rule was just as important as the part he was claiming. I was already being damned for it so I went in without the gloves on.

I think that sort of validates my observation.

That both sides do the same thing?

Of course. Polo's quote didn't take any sides and I wholeheartedly agree with him. I took yours because I thought it was the sharpest core of what Polo was talking about. It was short, concise and the aim of it seemed not to prove a point but to simply say "you're wrong, prrrrrrt!"

 Purifier wrote:
and the aim of it seemed not to prove a point but to simply say "you're wrong, prrrrrrt!"

Pointing out that someone is wrong is not necessarily a bad thing. Now this prrrrrt stuff, that's another matter.

 Purifier wrote:
Of course. Polo's quote didn't take any sides and I wholeheartedly agree with him. I took yours because I thought it was the sharpest core of what Polo was talking about. It was short, concise and the aim of it seemed not to prove a point but to simply say "you're wrong, prrrrrrt!"

Only the non-contextual part of the post you used though. In full context I'm arguing that his stated interpretation of the rules are incorrect and why I belive so, out of context I'm just being an ass.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Purifier wrote:
Of course. Polo's quote didn't take any sides and I wholeheartedly agree with him. I took yours because I thought it was the sharpest core of what Polo was talking about. It was short, concise and the aim of it seemed not to prove a point but to simply say "you're wrong, prrrrrrt!"

Only the non-contextual part of the post you used though. In full context I'm arguing that his stated interpretation of the rules are incorrect and why I belive so, out of context I'm just being an ass.

True, but in context you still were. You weren't just being an ass in context, but you still sorta were.

Polonius wrote:

 Manchu wrote:

 Polonius wrote:
That's a difference, and I can sympathize with the argument that until the people in charge of 40k rules say FW dandy, FW's view is less persuasive.

I agree with Peregrine, so far as I understand him, that this is a distinction manufactured to suit the forgone conclusion that there must be a distinction. The fact of any distinction between GW and FW in the first place is almost certainly to do with historical/business reasons, as per the distinction between GW and Citadel, rather than anything to do with the rules' validity. To spin this out otherwise, especially in light of FW itself being ever more clear (again, I get the difference between "almost certainly" and "absolutely certainly") smacks of the rankest artifice and is not, as a matter of rules discussion, worthy of intelligent sympathy.

Really? You honeslty don't see the possbility that GW is conciously keeping FW seperate as a rules making organization?

I think keeping FW seperate does a lot of good: it simplifies things somewhat for new players, it allows a clear cut line in the sand that doen'st involve offical "advanced rules," and it allows for more creativity and less balance when crafting rules.

the simple nature of FW production (far more laborious and finnicky) and distribution are strong indicators that FW is not completely integrated. After all, there's no reason that GW couldn't distribute the books, if not the models, other than they choose not to. Why make that choice, if not to preserve the division.

There is a very simple reason that Forge World production is not completely integrated with GW production (the rules are, by the way - both are published by Games Workshop PLC):

Taxes.

Forge World is a separate company from Games Workshop for tax purposes. It has most of the same Board of Directors. It's based on the same Industrial Park. It uses the same printing presses and ISBN licence. It's registered as a separate company.