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.

 Lynata wrote:
You make it sound as if anyone who doesn't like variety would have a competitive mindset and be interested only in easy wins.

I don't think that's necessarily an inaccurate assessment of many of the lesser kinds of competitive players.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 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?

Extra Avenger Strike Fighters. (They're a Lord of War choice for the Marines, after all).

On a related note, sacred Emperor, have you seen what Mantis Warriors do?! Awesome!

 Furyou Miko wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 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?

Extra Avenger Strike Fighters. (They're a Lord of War choice for the Marines, after all).

On a related note, sacred Emperor, have you seen what Mantis Warriors do?! Awesome!

They also have access to Titans, Super Heavies and Primarchs.

I propose that we get a Living Saint who counts as a Gargantuan Creature!

 Lynata wrote:
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

GW's "tournaments" are run by their sales team, not by their game designers. The rules about no FW in certain events are no more relevant than the FW-only rule for the Heresy events.

And let's not forget that GW's "tournaments" at the beginning of 6th all had a limit of only 500 points of allies, but somehow nobody wanted to cite that rule as something we need to apply to normal games. Apparently the rules for GW HQ's events only matter when they say "no FW".

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:

Sorry, but that's just silly. Those quotes are talking about canon policy for the fiction, not what is and isn't an official rule. Those are two very different things.

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.

Except for the part where FW rules say "these are part of the standard game".

 Lynata wrote:
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.

Sure, people were annoyed about them (though TBH that had more to do with how ugly the models are than the fact that they were new). But how many people were saying that they would not play against Centurions?

Melissia wrote:I don't think that's necessarily an inaccurate assessment of many of the lesser kinds of competitive players.

Some, sure. Perhaps even many.
I just didn't like that it sounded like a rather sweeping, generalist statement.

ClockworkZion wrote:Someone is reaching. I was aiming more for "predictability" in the meta there not "easy wins".

Same mindset, no? And when you think I was reaching with that, then I say you are reaching if you believe that is the only reason one may not like FW.

Really, it could be anything from what you have said, to fear of it being OP (regardless of whether it's justified or unjustified), to actual bad experience with it or its players, to not liking the fluff, all the way to simply not enjoying how it changes the look and feel of an army. Focusing on the one possibility that paints the other side in the most negative light possible just sounds a bit biased, s' all.

This is my kneejerk reaction again.

Peregrine wrote:And let's not forget that GW's "tournaments" at the beginning of 6th all had a limit of only 500 points of allies, but somehow nobody wanted to cite that rule as something we need to apply to normal games. Apparently the rules for GW HQ's events only matter when they say "no FW".

You don't "need" to apply anything to your normal games. And when GW's events introduce additional limits, then obviously because they aim to steer the games into a specific direction. This could be a narrative, or balancing, or some sort of interesting mission they've come up with. What would they gain from banning FW, though? Why are they doing this? What is their reasoning? You should try to answer those questions in your mind.

Peregrine wrote:Sorry, but that's just silly. Those quotes are talking about canon policy for the fiction, not what is and isn't an official rule. Those are two very different things.

How are they different? It's a perfect example of what they mean when they say something like "this is official", and I think you are misunderstanding the meaning of this term.

"Official" doesn't mean anything by itself. Any product published by GW, FW, or BL is "official", as is any product distributed under license.

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/official

Peregrine wrote:Except for the part where FW rules say "these are part of the standard game".

Citation needed.

You are doing it again, Peregrine. Stop misquoting stuff. It doesn't work in your favour - quite the opposite.

Peregrine wrote:Sure, people were annoyed about them (though TBH that had more to do with how ugly the models are than the fact that they were new). But how many people were saying that they would not play against Centurions?

Not many, because everyone still thinks that IT'S THE LAW. This goes back to what I and some other posters have been saying about the vagueness of "legality". But of course codices are generally treated with more acceptance as they represent the common ground, the basis. In the end, it's up to the players.

 Lynata wrote:

ClockworkZion wrote:Someone is reaching. I was aiming more for "predictability" in the meta there not "easy wins".

Same mindset, no? And when you think I was reaching with that, then I say you are reaching if you believe that is the only reason one may not like FW.

Really, it could be anything from what you have said, to fear of it being OP (regardless of whether it's justified or unjustified), to actual bad experience with it or its players, to not liking the fluff, all the way to simply not enjoying how it changes the look and feel of an army. Focusing on the one possibility that paints the other side in the most negative light possible just sounds a bit biased, s' all.

This is my kneejerk reaction again.

If you want to claim it's the same mindset, all the power to you, but my intention was stating that there is a resistance to change, especially how much change FW can bring. We've seen that explicitly stated in these threads before that some people just don't like how much FW changes stuff.

I wasn't trying to focus on any one possibility, just limiting myself to a specific complaint I've actually seen raised instead of conjecture is all.

I think you're kneejerk reactions seem biased towards trying to make me look like I'm an ass who just wants to talk badly about people who don't like FW, but that might just be a perception thing.

It was biased, but only because I really perceived your post to come along in that similarly biased manner that I complained about.

Maybe it was just a misunderstanding. We were of one mind earlier, after all, and I still don't have anything against FW per se, just the way it is occasionally "advertised" here.

(okay, and some of FW's fluff, but that doesn't have to do anything with their models or rules)

 Lynata wrote:
You don't "need" to apply anything to your normal games.

No, but it's a pretty hilarious double standard when GW HQ's tournament rules only matter to anyone outside of GW HQ when they ban FW. When they impose limits on allies, using non-GW models or proxies, etc, those rules don't matter. It's almost like nobody really holds GW HQ up as an example of a well-run tournament, and the "this is how GW does it" argument is just looking for evidence to justify the conclusion.

And when GW's events introduce additional limits, then obviously because they aim to steer the games into a specific direction. This could be a narrative, or balancing, or some sort of interesting mission they've come up with. What would they gain from banning FW, though? Why are they doing this? What is their reasoning? You should try to answer those questions in your mind.

What they gain is simplicity (GW's event staff are probably about as well trained as their rule "experts") and focusing on "core" product lines. Remember, GW's events are run by their sales department, not by their game designers.

How are they different? It's a perfect example of what they mean when they say something like "this is official", and I think you are misunderstanding the meaning of this term.

They're different because fluff is something you do by yourself, while rules are something you do with other people. What GW considers "canon" in the 40k fiction is left open-ended because there are no real consequences if two people have different personal opinions about what books should count. That's different from official rules, where what is "official" forms the common ground that two players have to start from.

You are doing it again, Peregrine. Stop misquoting stuff.

Stop nitpicking the exact words every time I don't copy/paste the entire rulebook statement. If you can't address the substance of the argument instead of just nitpicking the exact words then don't post at all.

But of course codices are generally treated with more acceptance as they represent the common ground, the basis.

Not according to GW. According to GW the common ground is codices, supplements, FW, and anywhere else they decide to publish standard-40k rules.

In the end, it's up to the players.

And I'm not disputing the fact that the players have the right to decide what to include in their games. My entire point here is that, according to GW, FW is part of the game and not including it is a house rule. I just want people to stop pretending that their house rules are GW policy and misleading other people into accepting their house rules without question.

Peregrine wrote:They're different because fluff is something you do by yourself, while rules are something you do with other people.

"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 list or use their own system as they wish."
- 6E Rulebook, p.108

There is no difference at all between the fluff or the rules. It is up to the players and how they come to an arrangement regarding their game. The Codex is the standard, and the common ground, but there is no specific requirement to use it.
Also notice how, in this sentence, Forge World is not singled out as a specific alternative, but instead grouped in with other homebrewed "custom" rules.

Peregrine wrote:Stop nitpicking the exact words every time I don't copy/paste the entire rulebook statement. If you can't address the substance of the argument instead of just nitpicking the exact words then don't post at all.

No. I won't let you get away with lying to the community in the hopes of convincing other players with falsified quotes.

This is the fourth thread I've pointed it out, and I find it conspicuously consistent that you keep using the very same wording "part of the normal game" rather than what is actually said in the book. This isn't just a mistake anymore, this is intentional misleading.

Peregrine wrote:Not according to GW. According to GW the common ground is codices, supplements, FW, and anywhere else they decide to publish standard-40k rules

I know you like to believe this, but as you can see above this is still not the case.

 Lynata wrote:
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:

No we don't. GW explicitly says which FW rules are "official"/"intended to be used in 'standard' games of Warhammer 40,000" in FW books. Anyone can choose not to play against someone using FW models just like anyone can choose not to play against someone using something from a Codex.

 Lynata wrote:

Peregrine wrote:They're different because fluff is something you do by yourself, while rules are something you do with other people.

"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 list or use their own system as they wish."
- 6E Rulebook, p.108

Sigh. Once again you keep inventing the rule that GW can not publish additional things which are added to the codices. For example, the Farsight supplement or the FW Barracuda if you're a Tau player.

There is no difference at all between the fluff or the rules.

Err, lol. Did you somehow manage to miss the part where I explained the difference between a non-interactive thing (fluff) and an interactive thing that players have to agree on (rules)?

Also notice how, in this sentence, Forge World is not singled out as a specific alternative, but instead grouped in with other homebrewed "custom" rules.

Along with supplements and FAQs. Could this be because GW is willing to say "codex" in the basic rules and then say "this is in addition to your codex" in additional rules later?

This is the fourth thread I've pointed it out, and I find it conspicuously consistent that you keep using the very same wording "part of the normal game" rather than what is actually said in the book. This isn't just a mistake anymore, this is intentional misleading.

And once again you refuse to address the substance of the argument and just declare that if I don't copy/paste the exact statement every time I refer to it I must be lying about something. If you can't do more than pointless nitpicking then don't post at all.

 Lynata 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 list or use their own system as they wish."
- 6E Rulebook, p.108

There is no difference at all between the fluff or the rules. It is up to the players and how they come to an arrangement regarding their game. The Codex is the standard, and the common ground, but there is no specific requirement to use it.
Also notice how, in this sentence, Forge World is not singled out as a specific alternative, but instead grouped in with other homebrewed "custom" rules.

Speaking of misleading statements, I think your's is one here. FW, Homebrew, Comp, Codex Supplements, tournament restrictions, GW special events, anything you can thing of that isn't sold as a "Codex" falls under this category. If we're going to try and lump things together let's be completely honest and state the fact that all of these use the same rule to be considered "legal". To claim that anyone of those is more or less official than anything else in this game (speaking only from a general gameplay standpoint) is misleading, and frankly a bit rude.

Now you can choose to play with or without any of those things, but they are still "legal" as far as the rules are concerned and to act as if FW is the only thing on that list outside of homebrew is frankly a bit of a stretch at least and intentionally misleading at worst.

Even the GW events at Warhammer World fall under this as they do things outside of the basic, standard rules (as mentioned, the 500 pt limit on allies, and as it's been pointed out before in other threads, the restriction from using double-FOC) thus making them alterations of the rules (Spirit of the Game again!). Does it make those events less valid? No because the rulebook still supports them just like it supports any other way you choose to play. The fact is that everything is official and it's up to the players to choose what they will and won't play with and against, but we really need to drop this pre-tense of something not being official or permitted by the rules when they're pretty clear that the only limitations that exist aren't a part of them.

Manchu wrote:No we don't. GW explicitly says which FW rules are "official"/"intended to be used in 'standard' games of Warhammer 40,000" in FW books. Anyone can choose not to play against someone using FW models just like anyone can choose not to play against someone using something from a Codex.

How is this different from what I've been saying?

Peregrine wrote:Sigh. Once again you keep inventing the rule that GW can not publish additional things which are added to the codices. For example, the Farsight supplement or the FW Barracuda if you're a Tau player.

This doesn't change what it says in the rulebook, does it?
Unlike you, I have not invented anything.

Peregrine wrote:Did you somehow manage to miss the part where I explained the difference between a non-interactive thing (fluff) and an interactive thing that players have to agree on (rules)?

Did you miss the part that you are currently using a medium that makes fluff interactive? And how is this relevant in any way? The bottom line is that players need to agree on stuff, and this doesn't change just because you keep repeating that "part of the standard game" misquote.

Peregrine wrote:Along with supplements and FAQs. Could this be because GW is willing to say "codex" in the basic rules and then say "this is in addition to your codex" in additional rules later?

No. FAQs clarify things in the codex and thus serve as errata. Supplements are not a part of the codex, they are supplements.

Peregrine wrote:And once again you refuse to address the substance of the argument and just declare that if I don't copy/paste the exact statement every time I refer to it I must be lying about something. If you can't do more than pointless nitpicking then don't post at all.

I have addressed the substance of the argument. You seem intent on derailing it with made-up "quotes", forcing me to intervene just like I intervene when people post made-up rules about "canon".

This "nitpicking" wouldn't be necessary if you would simply argue with the facts as they are, rather then taking the short route and producing your own. So, if you dislike being called out like this, just refrain from posting things that aren't true?
You opened this thread. You started argueing with quotes. So don't get upset when someone points out when you've made them up. Your own arguments obviously place great weight on such wording, so accept that it goes both ways and that you will be held responsible if they do not actually say what you claim they do.

ClockworkZion wrote:Speaking of misleading statements, I think your's is one here. FW, Homebrew, Comp, Codex Supplements, tournament restrictions, GW special events, anything you can thing of that isn't sold as a "Codex" falls under this category. If we're going to try and lump things together let's be completely honest and state the fact that all of these use the same rule to be considered "legal". To claim that anyone of those is more or less official than anything else in this game (speaking only from a general gameplay standpoint) is misleading, and frankly a bit rude.

How is this misleading or dishonest? I've replied to you in an earlier post that I apply the same logic to the supplements.
To quote myself: "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."

ClockworkZion wrote:Now you can choose to play with or without any of those things, but they are still "legal" as far as the rules are concerned and to act as if FW is the only thing on that list outside of homebrew is frankly a bit of a stretch at least and intentionally misleading at worst.

It is Peregrine, not me, who is placing FW above Homebrewed and advocates automatic acceptance on the same level as codices. I have always said nothing more than that you should ask your opponent whether or not he is fine with playing an FW army. I am argueing against this mindset ->

Kangodo wrote:
They are an official and legal choice in WH40k and you shouldn't have to ask permission for that.

... which seems typical of a lot of FW fans on this forum (frankly, I think it gives them a bad image, similar to how some posters are making Space Marines look bad), and which leads me to the aforementioned kneejerk reaction.

 Lynata wrote:

Manchu wrote:No we don't. GW explicitly says which FW rules are "official"/"intended to be used in 'standard' games of Warhammer 40,000" in FW books. Anyone can choose not to play against someone using FW models just like anyone can choose not to play against someone using something from a Codex.

How is this different from what I've been saying?

Let's find out: Are FW rules less official than a codex? Can you use (some) FW rules in standard games of 40k just like anything from a codex?

If the players agree on it, sure. There's no difference to homebrewed rules.

They are not "part of the standard game", though, as is occasionally claimed - they are an optional add-on, as I've said earlier, and as the rulebook implies.

 Lynata wrote:
It is Peregrine, not me, who is placing FW above Homebrewed and advocates automatic acceptance on the same level as codices.

Let's be clear, it's GW not Peregrine who says some FW rules are intended for play in "standard" (exact quote) games of Warhammer 40,000. There is no similar statement about homebrew rules.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Lynata wrote:
They are not "part of the standard game", though, as is occasionally claimed

As claimed by GW in FW books.

Manchu wrote:Let's be clear, it's GW not Peregrine who says some FW rules are intended for play in "standard" (exact quote) games of Warhammer 40,000. There is no similar statement about homebrew rules.

Anyone writing homebrew rules could add this line to them and it wouldn't be in conflict.

"Intended for standard games of Warhammer 40,000" means that a ruleset was written for playing it with the rulebook of the relevant edition. Not Cityfight, not Apocalypse. And anyone could write these.

Manchu wrote:As claimed by GW in FW books.

To you as well: Citation needed.

 Lynata wrote:
Citation needed.

Do you own any of the more recent FW books? Check out page 4 or 6 of any of them (including second editions of older books).

 Lynata wrote:
"Intended for standard games of Warhammer 40,000" means that a ruleset was written for playing it with the rulebook of the relevant edition. Not Cityfight, not Apocalypse. And anyone could write these.

But not just anyone did. Employees of GW did. And GW published them. And only GW can call them "official," which it also did.

 Lynata wrote:
Anyone writing homebrew rules could add this line to them and it wouldn't be in conflict.

"Intended for standard games of Warhammer 40,000" means that a ruleset was written for playing it with the rulebook of the relevant edition. Not Cityfight, not Apocalypse. And anyone could write these.

Seriously? Do you really not see the difference between GW saying "this is intended for standard games" and a random player saying it? When the people who decide what is and isn't part of the game intend for something to be part of the game then that intent is reality. When some random fan says the same thing it's just some random fan making claims they can't back up.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Lynata wrote:
This doesn't change what it says in the rulebook, does it?
Unlike you, I have not invented anything.

You've invented the rule that GW can never revise that "build your army with a codex" statement to include other sources. For example, by publishing the Farsight supplement and saying "you can now build your army using this".

Did you miss the part that you are currently using a medium that makes fluff interactive? And how is this relevant in any way? The bottom line is that players need to agree on stuff, and this doesn't change just because you keep repeating that "part of the standard game" misquote.

The point you keep missing is that there is no obligation to agree on fluff, while there is an obligation to agree on rules. A statement about "official" fluff only matters if you're a 40k author working with the 40k license, a statement about "official" rules matters if you're trying to play the game.

No. FAQs clarify things in the codex and thus serve as errata. Supplements are not a part of the codex, they are supplements.

This is your personal invention. According to your interpretation of the rulebook statement FAQs are not part of the standard game because they aren't mentioned in the core rulebook statement. Their only "officialness" is given in the FAQ itself, and you've already made it very clear that you don't consider such statements to have any value.

I have addressed the substance of the argument. You seem intent on derailing it with made-up "quotes", forcing me to intervene just like I intervene when people post made-up rules about "canon".

You've addressed nothing. You just nitpick the exact words and declare that if it isn't an exact quote it must somehow be a lie.

Manchu wrote:Do you own any of the more recent FW books? Check out page 4 or 6 of any of them (including second editions of older books).

Were you trying to win this argument by claiming it's true until someone can disprove it? You've made a claim, you should back it up when called out on it.



If you were referring to this, then you should note that this is not the same thing as "part of the standard game". You're making the same mistake as Peregrine.

Manchu wrote:But not just anyone did. Employees of GW did. And GW published them. And only GW can call them "official," which it also did.

And what does this change? Nothing. They're still not part of a codex, so the rulebook's wording applies.

Peregrine wrote:When some random fan says the same thing it's just some random fan making claims they can't back up.

How could this player make a claim they "cannot back up"? It is the creator who decides what game his or her unit is intended to be used with. Nobody else can decide this, as nobody else has control over the creator's intent.

You've invented the rule that GW can never revise that "build your army with a codex" statement to include other sources. For example, by publishing the Farsight supplement and saying "you can now build your army using this".

The fact is that they did not revise this statement. You are making this up.
Twist: You could build your army with homebrewed rules, too, and it'd be just as okay in the eyes of GW.

The point you keep missing is that there is no obligation to agree on fluff, while there is an obligation to agree on rules.

No, there isn't. People who do not agree on rules just won't have a game. They do not have to agree to anything.

This is your personal invention. According to your interpretation of the rulebook statement FAQs are not part of the standard game because they aren't mentioned in the core rulebook statement.

Incorrect. FAQs clarify things the codex already contains. They serve as an arbitrator, not an addition.

You just nitpick the exact words and declare that if it isn't an exact quote it must somehow be a lie.

Things don't have to be a 100% exact quote, but there is a fairly big difference between something being "intended to be used in" and "part of".
Anyone could make up the former. Only GW could state the latter.


I see we are moving in circles, however, so I will butt out of this. We won't make any progress here and I've already done my self-imposed duty of calling out your standard misquote. There is no sense in continueing this debate further as I'm sure we all have better things to do.

 Lynata wrote:
If you were referring to this, then you should note that this is not the same thing as "part of the standard game". You're making the same mistake as Peregrine.

Neither Peregrine nor I are making a mistake. The fact that you post the citation itself and argue against it is simply evidence of your misunderstanding.

 Lynata wrote:
And what does this change? Nothing. They're still not part of a codex, so the rulebook's wording applies.

Whether they are part of the codex or not is immaterial. GW itself published the clarification. The stuff marked as 40k in FW books is by GW's own account just as "official" as anything in a codex.

 Lynata wrote:
If you were referring to this, then you should note that this is not the same thing as "part of the standard game". You're making the same mistake as Peregrine.

When the people with the power to decide whether or not something is part of the standard game intend for something to be part of the standard game then it is. You're just nitpicking the exact word and missing the substance of the statement.

And what does this change? Nothing. They're still not part of a codex, so the rulebook's wording applies.

Only if you invent a rule that GW can never revise the rulebook statement to say "and also this". Which they have obviously done by having FAQs that update the game, codex supplements that add new variant armies, and FW books that add new units to existing armies.

How could this player make a claim they "cannot back up"?

By saying "this is official". They can say it all they want, but that doesn't make it true.

GW, on the other hand, gets to say that kind of thing and make it true.

The fact is that they did not revise this statement. You are making this up.

Only by your invented rule.

Twist: You could build your army with homebrewed rules, too, and it'd be just as okay in the eyes of GW.

So what? The question is what is official and part of the standard game (codex, supplement, FW, FAQs/errata), not whether or not you can change the standard rules and add your own.

Incorrect. FAQs clarify things the codex already contains. They serve as an arbitrator, not an addition.

Really? So when GW issued errata to completely change how the "look out sir" rule works that was just clarifying something? Of course it wasn't, it changed the rule. By your standard that change isn't part of the standard game (because it isn't a codex). By GW's rules it is part of the standard game because they have no problem publishing stuff in non-codex sources and making it part of the game.

Things don't have to be a 100% exact quote, but there is a fairly big difference between something being "intended to be used in" and "part of".
Anyone could make up the former. Only GW could state the latter.

And guess what: GW did state the latter.

 Peregrine wrote:
You're just nitpicking the exact word and missing the substance of the statement.

It's not even nitpicking. It's pretending words have some meaning beyond what is plain even in an expression that explicitly clarifies the company's intention.

 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.

Lol. Something that the book lists as an option is NOT a house rule. You have the option of using allies, doesn't mean that not using allies is an add-on.

xruslanx wrote:
Lol. Something that the book lists as an option is NOT a house rule. You have the option of using allies, doesn't mean that not using allies is an add-on.

You don't seem to understand that "not using X in your own army" and "not allowing your opponent to use X" are two very different things. Not taking an allied detachment (or FW unit) in your own army is just a choice you make in army construction. Telling your opponent that you won't play them if they take an allied detachment (or FW unit) is a house rule.

Not that I'd really expect a good argument from someone who thinks that playing a non-GW game is like having sex with your dog.

 Peregrine wrote:

xruslanx wrote:
Lol. Something that the book lists as an option is NOT a house rule. You have the option of using allies, doesn't mean that not using allies is an add-on.

You don't seem to understand that "not using X in your own army" and "not allowing your opponent to use X" are two very different things. Not taking an allied detachment (or FW unit) in your own army is just a choice you make in army construction. Telling your opponent that you won't play them if they take an allied detachment (or FW unit) is a house rule.

It's only a rule if you regard the social interaction before a game as being a part of the rulebook. You don't do that, do you?

"What army are you playing?"

"Carcharodons. Here are their official chapter tactics from Forge World."

"I'm sorry, but you can't use Forge World rules."

"Okay. I am playing a custom space marine chapter. They're called the Carcharodons. Here are their custom chapter tactics that I totally made up myself as per page 108 of the main rulebook."

feth the police!

The GW Throne of Skulls 2013 PDF actually allows Forge World models. Most players would allow them as counts-as as well, even in world-famous GTs and GW stores. Now, why would FW's products as a company be allowed (models) and at the same time not allowed (rules)?

- Removed by insaniak. Please see Dakka's Rule #1 -

 Tyberos the Red Wake wrote:
Now, why would FW's products as a company be allowed (models) and at the same time not allowed (rules)?

Because using a resin Space Marine in MkIII armour instead of a plastic Space Marine in MkVII armour doesn't really have any impact on the game, while using different rules to those in the Space Marine Codex does?

Yes, keep in mind that GW does not intend all rules published under the FW imprint to be used in standard games of 40k. They specifically mark the ones that are. So far as I understand, and can tell from my copy of Betrayal, none of the HH rules are so intended.