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.

 Melissia wrote:
Yeah. Just gotta try to find a tournament that doesn't have craptastic house rules.



... good luck with that. Haven't found any local tournies that didn't have SOME houserule or other I hated.

Its part of the give and take I find. Usually when every edition gets updated I see online a lot of posters complaining about some rule or other. I usually find that every eidtion there are things that I like and things that I don't like. I still play the game and get on with it because my overall feeling of the game is still a pleasant one. Its the same for tournaments, you're not going to find one that matches your expectations perfectly, just go with the best you can find that matches your preferrences the closest.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Wilytank wrote:
...so what's the issue here?

"In a casual game, my opponent can run his Minotaurs chapter and there is nothing I can do about it! Tomorrow, I'll probably have to play against armored company IG and Contemptor dreads! This is how the world ends! Woe is me!"

At the end of the day you can just not play them. However people who don't want to play against FW want something official because they don't want to look like they are being pickey. They want a magical argument that says "that isn't official because it is uber cheese and you can only use it with your opponents permission".

Peregrine, I get the sense that you are TFG. In fact, I am certain of it.

Bottom line; the BRB also states that players are free to modify or throw out any rule they want. So it is really a moot point.

Net - Any player can decide if he want to play any particular game, against any particular opponent.

Any TO can decide how he wants to run his event, and with what rules.

Aftermath. wrote:
Peregrine, I get the sense that you are TFG. In fact, I am certain of it.

Bottom line; the BRB also states that players are free to modify or throw out any rule they want. So it is really a moot point.

Net - Any player can decide if he want to play any particular game, against any particular opponent.

Any TO can decide how he wants to run his event, and with what rules.

I think that Peregrine gets that point. The argument is over wether or not FW is considered official or not.

Oh geez, this again.

Can someone explain how this is something new? Forge World rules were always "official" in that they were a licensed product distributed by a professional company with explicit permission by the GW parent corporation.

Does this set them on the same level as codices? Nope. Not as long as this is not explicitly stated somewhere. Not as long as GW itself keeps banning FW's rules from its events.
http://www.games-workshop.com/MEDIA_CustomProductCatalog/m2730448a_Throne_of_Skulls_Rules_WHWorld_2013.pdf
http://www.games-workshop.com/MEDIA_CustomProductCatalog/m2670124a_WHW_Battle_Brothers_Event_Pack


If we really need to discuss the term "official" then we need to discuss what this means for other products, as it could greatly help to see what this term means to GW:

"Here's our standard line: Yes it's all official, but remember that we're reporting back from a time where stories aren't always true, or at least 100% accurate. if it has the 40K logo on it, it exists in the 40K universe. Or it was a legend that may well have happened. Or a rumour that may or may not have any truth behind it.
Let's put it another way: anything with a 40K logo on it is as official as any Codex... and at least as crammed full of rumours, distorted legends and half-truths."
- Marc Gascoigne, chief editor BL

"The same applies to transference from Black Library back into the gaming supplements. If the developers and other creative folks believe a contribution by an author fits the bill and has an appeal to the audience, why not fold it back into the ‘game’ world – such as Gaunt’s Ghosts or characters from the Gotrek and Felix series. On the other hand, if an author has a bit of a wobbly moment, there’s no pressure to feel that it has to be accepted into the worldview promulgated by the codexes and army books."
- Gav Thorpe, GW game designer, BL author

tl;dr: "official" =/= "part of"

Games Workshop wants us to take ownership of the game and expand it ourselves - this mindset applies to both background as well as rules, and in this context the BRB and codices represent the intended "common ground" whereas FW appears to be marketed more like a suggestion, an optional addition of what you could do yourself, but with professional artistry and commercially distributed, over a separate website with its own catalogue.

That GW doesn't allow homemade models on its own turf is quite likely a business decision, given that up until a few years ago they still gave advice on how to convert things or create stuff by yourself using materials other than what they are selling. The spirit is still there, though, and there is obviously no rule in the BRB that these limitations need to apply to your games in your club. This applies to models just as well as any rules, regardless of whether they are from FW or you've written them yourself. What matters is that your opponent consents (though this should obviously be the case in any way as you cannot force someone to play you, not even with a 100% Codex army list).


This entire thread is nothing else than yet another attempt to twist some (perhaps intentionally) vague sentence to drive one's cause, just like Peregrine didn't see the difference between something being "written for" and "part of" 40k, and kept misquoting it as supposed evidence in various threads in the hopes that others would just believe him - even after it was pointed out that this was not what the original text said.

Peregrine wrote:[...] their actual policy of publishing new stuff and saying "this is part of the game now".

And I see he's doing it again.

I regard this in a similar manner to Polonius. Personally, I have no problem with the rules or models distributed by FW and would gladly play each army at least once to see if it's fun. However, I too feel compelled to this "kneejerk" reaction of immediate rejection as soon as certain people try to use such underhanded methods to force their opinion on others.

ClockworkZion wrote:108 also says you're allowed to alter the army list and even use something other than the army list to play your army, but it seems we ignore the rest of that sentence when we want to selective interpret things to restrict choices.

I don't think people are ignoring this as much as not seeing how this supposedly makes FW different from homebrewed army rules.

Yes, with opponent's consent we can play anything we want in 40k, but that isn't really news, and not what is being discussed here, is it? It's the usual suspects trying to force FW onto the sceptics again.

Furyou Miko wrote:Death Korps and Elysian Drop Troops are on the ally matrix.
They take up the same slot as Imperial Guard. It says so, right in their rules.

And the BRB's rules say you should use Codex: IG for them.

"Find the row for the codex of your primary detachment on the left side of the matrix."

DarthOvious wrote:Secondly, GW stores allow the use of FW models.

Models, yes. You can bring those to the events as well - they still ban the rules, though, and I think this is what is being debated here.


tl;dr: Nothing has changed, including the behaviour of the posters in this debate. Move along.

@Lynata: GW events are no different than tournaments in that they use what rules they see fit and damn the rest. It's not really indicative if FW is "legal" or not to play.

And you missed the fact that the same Codex Supplements require the same exact permissions in the rules to operate yet no one argues against those being legal.

ClockworkZion wrote:GW events are no different than tournaments in that they use what rules they see fit and damn the rest. It's not really indicative if FW is "legal" or not to play.

Are you saying that GW is biased against FW?

Your point still serves as a good example - "legal" apparently is what those involved agree upon.

ClockworkZion wrote:And you missed the fact that the same Codex Supplements require the same exact permissions in the rules to operate yet no one argues against those being legal.

Actually, the supplements are mentioned in the rules packs, as well as digital codices.

The Throne of Skulls pack lists them individually, whereas Battle Brothers says "any current and official list, except FW".

[edit] Or was that referring to normal games between players? If so, then yes, you would need permission. They are an alternate list, similar to the Ordo Hereticus Strike Force from Citadel Journal. They may just have greater acceptance, but I hear in some regions people are similarly accepting of FW.

 Lynata wrote:

ClockworkZion wrote:GW events are no different than tournaments in that they use what rules they see fit and damn the rest. It's not really indicative if FW is "legal" or not to play.

Are you saying that GW is biased against FW?

Your point still serves as a good example - "legal" apparently is what those involved agree upon.

Actually based on the rules anything you want to play is legal, and events/tournaments just choose the rulesets that they prefer for their events in the name of fun.

 Lynata wrote:

ClockworkZion wrote:And you missed the fact that the same Codex Supplements require the same exact permissions in the rules to operate yet no one argues against those being legal.

Actually, the supplements are mentioned in the rules packs, as well as digital codices.

The Throne of Skulls pack lists them individually, whereas Battle Brothers says "any current and official list, except FW".

The supplements aren't covered in the main rulebook though (at least not by name) which was rather the point since people like to harp that it has to be in the rulebook for FW to be legal. The codex supplements use the same rule to be a valid addition to the game, so it rings hollow to claim that FW is less valid because of it.

 Lynata wrote:
[edit] Or was that referring to normal games between players? If so, then yes, you would need permission. They are an alternate list, similar to the Ordo Hereticus Strike Force from Citadel Journal. They may just have greater acceptance, but I hear in some regions people are similarly accepting of FW.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
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.

You are wrong. I will offer nothing of substance to back up my assertion. You're also a hater and/or a WAAC tournament player, I guess (?).




That about cover it?

What are you talkin about?

ClockworkZion wrote:my point is that FW is a legitimate and legal addition to the game, it's really just up to the players on what they want to play. I can not and will not force people to play with or against anything, but I think we need to stop hiding behind this fake shield of "legality" when it's pretty clear that what the rules permit is anything you want as long as it's fun (again, Spirit of the Game).

This I can agree with.

I've really just developed an inherent allergy against all this "it's part of the main game now! you must play me!" talk coming from certain people.

 sing your life wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
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.

You are wrong. I will offer nothing of substance to back up my assertion. You're also a hater and/or a WAAC tournament player, I guess (?).




That about cover it?

What are you talkin about?

Just summing up the quarterly "Is FW Legal/Official/Whatever" conversations...

 kronk wrote:

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

I'll play you.

Well then have fun spending $2000+ to go to england just to play someone.

 sing your life wrote:

 kronk wrote:

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

I'll play you.

Well then have fun spending $2000+ to go to england just to play someone.

Nah. You seem lippy. I'll pass. Thanks, though!

"Only a Sith deals in absolutes" - Obi-Wan Kenobi (A horrible 3rd prequal.. forget the name.. or at least am trying to forget )

I imagine some of this boils down to GW's plausible deniability. If they don't officially sanction FW products in their books, then they are not held responsible for the complaints and questions that those rules generate. When you have a FW problem, who do you go to? FW because they publish the rules.

I love Forgeworld stuff, and I usually by lots of it but don't get to use the rules because of the 'not official chants'. Although, the GW I played at did allow FW rules and units for their escalation tournaments and so on.

Overall, as I think it's been stated, until there is a GW publication that says "Forgeworld rules are official in 40K" then you will still see the argument; however, no matter what side you stand on, I think none would be able to argue against that sort of statement.

Matt, even if it said that you'd still get arguments.

Haha, agreed. People argue about everything, but it would become more 'socially accepted' I'd wager if GW just came out and said it instead of dancing around the point.

I play it as legal, I let others play it as legal, and heck, I'll agree some of the stuff is crazy hard to understand without reading it over a few times, but that's all good, always willing to learn new units.

 Matt1785 wrote:

Overall, as I think it's been stated, until there is a GW publication that says "Forgeworld rules are official in 40K" then you will still see the argument; however, no matter what side you stand on, I think none would be able to argue against that sort of statement.

My group's setting is in 38k, so neener, neener!

38k, so the bore-us heresy era

I imagine it'd be funny to watch HH era minis get stomped by Sisters of Battle

Psst, I think the Heresy was M30.

M38 seems interesting.

http://wh40k.lexicanum.com/wiki/M38#.Umli4PkjL4S

Kronk is a pioneer...

 Lynata wrote:
Psst, I think the Heresy was M30.

To be fair, given that FW has horus heresy era rules...

 Melissia wrote:

 Lynata wrote:
Psst, I think the Heresy was M30.

To be fair, given that FW has horus heresy era rules...

But what options would we get for our "Lords of War" slot?

Melissia wrote:To be fair, given that FW has horus heresy era rules...

Yeah, I know - but I'm about as interested in those as I am in the novels. I much prefer that era as a time of legend in the past, a part of Imperial history and the founding myth, rather than something "physical", if you get my drift. The novels read as if someone took said myths literal, and FW's Primarchs seem much more powerful than GW's - probably because of the novels.

M38, on the other hand, that I could get used to! Generally, I am of the opinion that the other millennia deserve to be fleshed out more. M36 and the Age of Apostasy would be cool as well. You'd have Proto-Sisters and Frateris Templars as new armies. I'd also like to read more about this "Nova-Terra Interregnum".

Gameplaywise, there's probably be few differences, but on occasion you could have an army that does not exist anymore in M41, or special rules for those that do because something had changed over the millennia.

 Lynata wrote:

Melissia wrote:To be fair, given that FW has horus heresy era rules...

Yeah, I know - but I'm about as interested in those as I am in the novels. I much prefer that era as a time of legend in the past, a part of Imperial history and the founding myth, rather than something "physical", if you get my drift. The novels read as if someone took said myths literal, and FW's Primarchs seem much more powerful than GW's - probably because of the novels.

M38, on the other hand, that I could get used to! Generally, I am of the opinion that the other millennia deserve to be fleshed out more. M36 and the Age of Apostasy would be cool as well. You'd have Proto-Sisters and Frateris Templars as new armies. I'd also like to read more about this "Nova-Terra Interregnum".

Gameplaywise, there's probably be few differences, but on occasion you could have an army that does not exist anymore in M41, or special rules for those that do because something had changed over the millennia.

GW has primarchs? I only know about Daemon Prince Angron...

-Shrike- wrote:GW has primarchs? I only know about Daemon Prince Angron...

That's the one I meant. I took his rules as a rough indicator for their "power levels".
Sorry if I was evoking a false hope there for a moment.

rigeld2 wrote:
Really? I can go to my FLGS and buy any of the FW books?
Wow that's news. Thanks for telling me!
Oh - you meant over the internet? Oh. But that's more difficult than just going down the street and buying them like I do for my other GW products. It's like your statement was incorrect or something.

I have the same access to the Wave Serpent right now as I do a FW product.....

...just sayin'.

Finding the ability to keep up on each obscure rule in each Codex isn't easy either. I don't see this as any different from FW units, all it takes is to ask for clarification before a game starts. Done and done.

And it also requires people to actually pay attention when you do that...

Having just read through those Chapter Tactics and Special Characters that FW have updated makes them seem like a great addition. It would be saddening to see people thrash against what is simply an addition to an offical Codex. Variety people!

 Medium of Death wrote:
Variety people!

Which seems to be the real issue. Some of us really like variety as it keeps the games from locking into set builds and stale match-ups, others prefer those set builds so they can build to handle those said builds. It's all in what you want in a list I think.

ClockworkZion wrote:

Medium of Death wrote: Variety people!

Which seems to be the real issue. Some of us really like variety as it keeps the games from locking into set builds and stale match-ups, others prefer those set builds so they can build to handle those said builds. It's all in what you want in a list I think.

You make it sound as if anyone who doesn't like variety would have a competitive mindset and be interested only in easy wins. Perhaps they just don't ... like (excessive) variety?

Case in point, look at how many people are sceptical against Centurions just because they're something new and because it changes the face of an army that people have become used to.

Anytime you change something, add something, or remove something it can turn people off because they may like how it felt before this change. This has nothing to do with "building to win", just with humans being creatures of habit.

 Lynata wrote:

ClockworkZion wrote:

Medium of Death wrote: Variety people!

Which seems to be the real issue. Some of us really like variety as it keeps the games from locking into set builds and stale match-ups, others prefer those set builds so they can build to handle those said builds. It's all in what you want in a list I think.

You make it sound as if anyone who doesn't like variety would have a competitive mindset and be interested only in easy wins. Perhaps they just don't ... like (excessive) variety?

Someone is reaching. I was aiming more for "predictability" in the meta there not "easy wins". I've seen that complaint before so it's not unfounded to say that some of the people who are most against it don't like how much it screws with the potential meta.