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.

So...the big argument is whether or not FW is legal and/or a part of a 40k game?

Aren't FW books sort of like the supplements being released for the codex's? Extra options for people who want them that are signed off on by the GW team?

Maybe I'm not seeing something.

Yes and no. GW explicitly tells us which are meant for standard play and which are not. There is no such distinction in the supplements (that I am aware of; I only have Iyanden).

 Frankenberry wrote:
Aren't FW books sort of like the supplements being released for the codex's? Extra options for people who want them that are signed off on by the GW team?.

Not quite. So far as anyone is aware, nobody from the regular GW design studio has anything to do with Forgeworld's rules design. So people don't see it as being as integrated into the normal 40K rules lattice which, as we all know, is incredibly delicately balanced and shouldn't be messed with by adding less-well-constructed 'outside' influences...

The other issue that some players have is that the only place that the Forgeworld books are listed as official is in the Forgeworld books.. While some are happy to take that as indication enough, others see it as not really any different to, say, me coming up with a home-brew codex and writing 'This is totes official and can be used in all your 40K games, and probably in Warmachine and Infinity as well' in the front. These players won't accept FW as 'official' material until they see something in writing from the regular GW studio.

 insaniak wrote:
the normal 40K rules lattice which, as we all know, is incredibly delicately balanced

 insaniak wrote:
The other issue that some players have is that the only place that the Forgeworld books are listed as official is in the Forgeworld books.

Which is handily answered by the fact that GW publishes the FW books.

I would like to say I haven't seen a lot of the rules for forgeworld, but I did see that new tau riptide everyone was talking about recently. If that's what it means to allow forgeworld rules (and I have no problem with forgeworld models proxing) then we are probably better off. I don't see how anyone can look at that and think its remotely balanced. And yes I saw it was experimental, but seriously, if they are starting its points value at 265, its never gonna get to the 500 points it SHOULD be to do what it does.

What do GW sponsored tournaments rule. Id say if gw dosent allow forgeworld at their official events (do they still do those, haven't been to a GT since 3rd edition) then that speaks volumes for what they think about the balance, or lack thereof.

 Orock wrote:
I would like to say I haven't seen a lot of the rules for forgeworld, but I did see that new tau riptide everyone was talking about recently. If that's what it means to allow forgeworld rules (and I have no problem with forgeworld models proxing) then we are probably better off. I don't see how anyone can look at that and think its remotely balanced. And yes I saw it was experimental, but seriously, if they are starting its points value at 265, its never gonna get to the 500 points it SHOULD be to do what it does.

So you don't know much about the rules but you're willing to advocate blanket bans based on one unit? The truth is that most FW units are weaker than average, and the Riptide variant is likely to get a significant nerf in its final rules. Judging FW rules as a whole based on some experimental rules (which are explicitly intended to get feedback on the unit) just doesn't make any sense.

What do GW sponsored tournaments rule. Id say if gw dosent allow forgeworld at their official events (do they still do those, haven't been to a GT since 3rd edition) then that speaks volumes for what they think about the balance, or lack thereof.

Some GW events ban FW rules. Some GW events ban non-FW rules. Some GW events limit how many points you can spend on allied detachments. All GW events require GW-only models and ban proxies. None of these rules are found in the standard 40k rules, and the community as a whole pretty much just ignores what GW does with their awful "tournaments". GW doesn't sponsor events outside of GW HQ anymore, so they're about as relevant to most of the community as some random FLGS event.

And no, it doesn't necessarily say anything about balance. GW's events are run by the sales department, not the game designers, and make no effort to balance the game. The most likely reason for the FW ban is a desire to focus on "core" product sales.

 insaniak wrote:
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?

The issue that many players have is that they don't see FW as "official" as GW stuff. But if a marine from FW is as official as a marine from GW (which GW themselves have stated via their official tournament rules) then surely FW rules are as official as GW rules?

Orock wrote:And yes I saw it was experimental, but seriously, if they are starting its points value at 265, its never gonna get to the 500 points it SHOULD be to do what it does.

Experimental rules are just that. They'll no doubt tweak it before it goes into a book.

Experimental rules are certainly not enough evidence to go making blanket conclusions about the entire FW range, though.

What do GW sponsored tournaments rule. .

Outside of a couple of hold-outs in the UK, GW don't have sponsored tournaments anymore.

Tyberos the Red Wake wrote: But if a marine from FW is as official as a marine from GW (which GW themselves have stated via their official tournament rules) then surely FW rules are as official as GW rules?

Saying 'you can use these models to represent models from the Marine codex' is not the same thing as saying 'you can use Forgeworld's rules'...

 insaniak wrote:

Orock wrote:And yes I saw it was experimental, but seriously, if they are starting its points value at 265, its never gonna get to the 500 points it SHOULD be to do what it does.

Experimental rules are just that. They'll no doubt tweak it before it goes into a book.

Experimental rules are certainly not enough evidence to go making blanket conclusions about the entire FW range, though.

What do GW sponsored tournaments rule. .

Outside of a couple of hold-outs in the UK, GW don't have sponsored tournaments anymore.

Tyberos the Red Wake wrote: But if a marine from FW is as official as a marine from GW (which GW themselves have stated via their official tournament rules) then surely FW rules are as official as GW rules?

Saying 'you can use these models to represent models from the Marine codex' is not the same thing as saying 'you can use Forgeworld's rules'...

it may not be enough to make blanket statements, but it sure dosent help their case. And if you and your group are trying to decide to allow or disallow things in games, typically the good has to outweigh the bad. Forgeworld may indeed have some fantastic units and ideas out there, but if it means I have to take the good with the bad, and this is an example of the bad, I don't think I would bother.

Again may be an over reaction to some, but I have hands down NEVER seen a more broken unit, and this is coming from a guy who lived thru the chaos 3.5 dex with uber demon princes, 4 heavy support iron warriors, 4th ed vehicle shenanigans, ect. Its absolutely the worst example of making something powerful to make a buck that I have ever seen in 40k at least.

 Orock wrote:
it may not be enough to make blanket statements, but it sure dosent help their case. And if you and your group are trying to decide to allow or disallow things in games, typically the good has to outweigh the bad. Forgeworld may indeed have some fantastic units and ideas out there, but if it means I have to take the good with the bad, and this is an example of the bad, I don't think I would bother.

Again may be an over reaction to some, but I have hands down NEVER seen a more broken unit, and this is coming from a guy who lived thru the chaos 3.5 dex with uber demon princes, 4 heavy support iron warriors, 4th ed vehicle shenanigans, ect. Its absolutely the worst example of making something powerful to make a buck that I have ever seen in 40k at least.

The only relevance it has to "the case", is it shows the Forgeworld seek community feedback when balancing their models. That's a fething awesome thing to do, and GW could take some pointers from them.

 Orock wrote:
... and this is an example of the bad, I don't think I would bother.

But that's just it... this isn't an example of the bad. It's an example of the experimental.

And as Yonan says, that's an indication of good things. GW could learn a thing or two from Forgeworld's design process.

 Orock wrote:
it may not be enough to make blanket statements, but it sure dosent help their case.

How does saying "here's our idea, tell us what you think" become a bad thing? It might not be balanced right now but by releasing it as experimental rules FW are openly admitting that it needs review and potential revision.

And if you and your group are trying to decide to allow or disallow things in games, typically the good has to outweigh the bad. Forgeworld may indeed have some fantastic units and ideas out there, but if it means I have to take the good with the bad, and this is an example of the bad, I don't think I would bother.

Well then you'd better not allow codex units, because then you have to deal with stuff like 4-5 Riptide Tau or entire units with re-rollable 2+ invulnerable saves.

Again may be an over reaction to some, but I have hands down NEVER seen a more broken unit, and this is coming from a guy who lived thru the chaos 3.5 dex with uber demon princes, 4 heavy support iron warriors, 4th ed vehicle shenanigans, ect. Its absolutely the worst example of making something powerful to make a buck that I have ever seen in 40k at least.

Sorry, but you need to get some perspective about the whole thing. The new Riptide variant is too good but it's far from the worst balance mistake ever. In fact I'm not even sure whether its upgrade over the standard Riptide is worse than the Riptide existing in the first place.

So, wait. I can assume we all agree GW owns FW or has some part to play in it's running, right?

That being said, why is there a problem with someone playing a Minotaur SM army or running an Elysian army? I get that not everyone likes FW or buys their stuff, but everything supplied by them is 40k specific. Are the special FW rules game breaking or something?

Taking all of that into account, aside from an official note in the big rulebook from GW, why is it such a bad thing/stretch to assume FW is included in 40k?

(I only seek knowledge of each parties grievances. None of what I'm asking is meant as sarcasm.)

I hope this is the first step towards making FW more accepted in the community. In my local area FW is outright banned everywhere. We have a group of players that play in all stores within 30-50 miles & they carry their distain for FW products with them. You should see the reaction I get when I even bring up the subject. You would think I had drowned a kitten or something.

 Frankenberry wrote:
So, wait. I can assume we all agree GW owns FW or has some part to play in it's running, right?

GW owning FW is a fact regardless whether people agree or disagree on it. FW is a division of GW just like Acura is a division of Honda. Which is why it's kind of strange why people would ban FW. I can understand the reasons for it, but if you're gonna ban FW then ban supplements, Riptides, and other problematic GW products as well, because the reasons to ban FW apply just as much to them.

These threads always seem to go in circles.

Outside of tournament play, you and the person you are going to play against agree to limits of the game (if any). No matter what is published or what is said officially, you cant force the community or local gaming groups to play the way you want to. I feel like I am watching a child stamp his feet and yelling "you have to play me forge world is official! ".

So lets talk about the common perceptions people have about forge world and talk about how to change perceptions rather than smashing people in the face with the "its official" hammer.

1) People see FW rules/units as "pay to win". Drop some money on killer units and steamroller your way to resin paved victory.

2) Depth of catalog short comings. If everyone plays "codex only" you all have roughly the same amount of units (good and bad). A fear of FW is that certain armies have a very deep catalog of special units where other armies have next to nothing. The supposed balance of unit/counter unit does not exist because FW does not make the same number of units for every army.

3) Getting blindsided by special rules. A red scorpion and a minotaur look like space marine but the rules and HQs give them abilities and rules no other marine has. to make this worse FW books are not organized into a codex, so finding specific rules is harder.

So without being TFG how do you fix this, how do you show people FW isn't the boogy man?

the only thing I can think is to take baby steps. maybe an event with 10% army points can be forgeworld or a comp system.

 Lynata wrote:

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.

They might not let you use the rules in the Throne of Skulls tournament but they let you use the rules in store. That is what I was saying. Considering that GW don't let you use any other games or models from other companies in store and the fact that even some specialist GW games cannot be played in store (Space Hulk, etc) then I think this shows how official FW is.

 Mecha_buddha wrote:
Outside of tournament play, you and the person you are going to play against agree to limits of the game (if any). No matter what is published or what is said officially, you cant force the community or local gaming groups to play the way you want to. I feel like I am watching a child stamp his feet and yelling "you have to play me forge world is official! ".

Of course you can't force someone to play against you. The point here is to demolish (yet again) the idea that "no FW" is anything but a house rule. There are a substantial number of people who oppose FW out of a sincere belief that GW doesn't include it in the "standard" game, and that's mostly due to various myths spread about how the rules work. I have no problem with people just saying "I won't play with/against FW", as long as they stop confusing people about what GW's position is.

So without being TFG how do you fix this, how do you show people FW isn't the boogy man?

You have them read the rules. Point 1 is obviously absurd if you're at all familiar with the game. Point 2 is true but misleading, since most of that long list of IG/C:SM units is junk that nobody will ever use in a compettiive game. And point 3 is easily solved by showing your opponent your list and letting them see any rules they want to look at before the game even starts, which is something you should always do no matter what sources you've used for your rules. These three arguments are usually not sincere ones, they're just excuses to pretend that there's a reason beyond "I don't like it" for FW bans. If you find a way to address those concerns the people making those arguments will just fall back on the next reason.

the only thing I can think is to take baby steps. maybe an event with 10% army points can be forgeworld or a comp system.

That's kind of silly. 10% of an army's point total isn't enough to buy even single units at typical game sizes, and comp in general is a thoroughly broken idea.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Frankenberry wrote:
That being said, why is there a problem with someone playing a Minotaur SM army or running an Elysian army? I get that not everyone likes FW or buys their stuff, but everything supplied by them is 40k specific. Are the special FW rules game breaking or something?

The majority of the reason, once you clear up the obvious misconceptions like "FW is overpowered" or "FW is a separate company", seems to be that certain people are afraid of having changes in the metagame they've learned to play in. Adding FW might require them to change their list/tactics, or even buy FW units themselves. So it's simpler to just ban anything that threatens the metagame they're comfortable with.

You'll see this recurring theme in things like double FOC, where a loud minority of tournament players declared that it was broken and needed to be banned before the ink was even dry on the new rulebooks.

 Lynata wrote:

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.

You can't force a player to play against you and I certainly wouldn't argue against that. The issue is instead of those players just saying "I don't want to play forgeworld because I don't like it" they then insist that you can't use it because its an illegal force to use. They hide behind "legality" issues. However I will concede that they are player who do the opposite like you said.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 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.

I'll play you if you're anywhere near the Cheshire area.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Matt1785 wrote:
"Only a Sith deals in absolutes" - Obi-Wan Kenobi (A horrible 3rd prequal.. forget the name.. or at least am trying to forget )

I always found that statement ot be ironic since its an absolute statement in itself.

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.

I know what you mean. Its not like every FW unit is complete broken cheese or anything. I own a set of 3 Hazard Suits with Phased Ion Guns, a good unit but certainly not anything broken and they heavily rely on markerlight support to be effective.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Lynata wrote:

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.

Personally I think its unfamiliarity. Thats the biggest fear I have when I come up against FW units that I don't know. It means I don't know what they do, I don't know how to stop it and I don't know how to counter it. So its difficult to build a game plan with this in mind. However I use FW myself so I just learn to deal with it. I don't let that unfamiliarity scare me out of a game. Heck there are times where I can be unfamiliar with what a Codex unit can do from GW, so I don't let it get to me.

I will say that perhaps some others have different issues with FW but in my case this is what I feel is a big part of the issue at hand. You learn this when you take your FW units and the questions you get all centre around what the unit does, its states, special rules. I know it sounds like these are just simple questions but its the manner in which they ask them. They usually ask with a certain hint of emotion in their voice that screams they are worried about the unit rather than just clarrifying what the unit is and does.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Orock wrote:
I would like to say I haven't seen a lot of the rules for forgeworld, but I did see that new tau riptide everyone was talking about recently. If that's what it means to allow forgeworld rules (and I have no problem with forgeworld models proxing) then we are probably better off. I don't see how anyone can look at that and think its remotely balanced. And yes I saw it was experimental, but seriously, if they are starting its points value at 265, its never gonna get to the 500 points it SHOULD be to do what it does.

What do GW sponsored tournaments rule. Id say if gw dosent allow forgeworld at their official events (do they still do those, haven't been to a GT since 3rd edition) then that speaks volumes for what they think about the balance, or lack thereof.

Actually, I lost one of my few games with my Tau army with that Riptide in the list. It does have its weaknesses. Only AP3, so 2+ armour is fine with it. Can only go as high as S8 so AV14 shouldn't be too disabled against it. Its not enternal warrior so ID and remove from play abilities are deadly against it. Not to mention it costs 260pts standard, which is 80pts more than a normal Riptide. Give it feel no pain and interceptor and its now 300pts.

You want it to be 500pts but then a normal 100 odd pt Rune Priest can come along and JoTWW it and kill it out right in one go. I don't think so.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Orock wrote:

Again may be an over reaction to some, but I have hands down NEVER seen a more broken unit, and this is coming from a guy who lived thru the chaos 3.5 dex with uber demon princes, 4 heavy support iron warriors, 4th ed vehicle shenanigans, ect. Its absolutely the worst example of making something powerful to make a buck that I have ever seen in 40k at least.

You just consider it broken without having played against it. Lets have a look at some of GWs stunts in their codices.

1) 2++ rerollable saves

2) T10 monsterous creactures using Iron Arm

3) Flying monsterous creactures using iron arm.

Do I need to list more? I'm not sure how killing this Riptide is going to be incredibly hard to do. Just look at Eldar with all their Baldestorm Weapons and Monofilament Weapons. Rolling 6s to wound with AP2 or better irregardless of toughness. Say goodbye to that Riptide.

I worked out that a few units of Dire Avengers with a guide/prescience on them could kill a doomed hirophant titan, easy as pie. Now these units might be tough to deal with using a random army list but if your army list just so happens to have the right counter then you will kill them no problem.

Main reason there not allowed over in my area is the availability of the models. Would be different I think if they had a US branch and the models were easier to get. Other wise theres no way to balance the game easily. TO's in my area refuse forgeworld for that reason alone.

 Mecha_buddha wrote:
These threads always seem to go in circles.

Outside of tournament play, you and the person you are going to play against agree to limits of the game (if any). No matter what is published or what is said officially, you cant force the community or local gaming groups to play the way you want to. I feel like I am watching a child stamp his feet and yelling "you have to play me forge world is official! ".

That's an incredibly misleading statement. No one here has said anyone has to play anyone they don't want too. In fact, I believe I've several times that I can not and will not force anyone to play games they don't want to play.

We have however have been saying that FW is a legitimate and legal part of the game and that claiming otherwise is misleading, and frankly a bit of an insult. No one appreciates being told their stuff is somehow less valid than someone else's just because it's made by a subsidiary. People have been hiding behind a shield that isn't there instead of being honest about why they won't play it.

 Mecha_buddha wrote:
So lets talk about the common perceptions people have about forge world and talk about how to change perceptions rather than smashing people in the face with the "its official" hammer.

So you mean the "reasons" that get banded about and when people get proven wrong about them they move the goalposts to try and say it's still true?

 Mecha_buddha wrote:
1) People see FW rules/units as "pay to win". Drop some money on killer units and steamroller your way to resin paved victory.

Even if this was true, I've yet to see anyone who can really argue that FW is worse than GW on this one. It's rather clear that neither of them intend for the spamming of their powerful options (triple or quadruple Baledrakes anyone?) and singling FW out as the sole party who has this problem is frankly false. The thing is that the only things FW has that have a tendency (and even then, not everything does) to fall into this category are the "Experimental Rules" which are basically in an open beta form of a unit's rules so they can get feedback and make the final version better to play with.

 Mecha_buddha wrote:
2) Depth of catalog short comings. If everyone plays "codex only" you all have roughly the same amount of units (good and bad). A fear of FW is that certain armies have a very deep catalog of special units where other armies have next to nothing. The supposed balance of unit/counter unit does not exist because FW does not make the same number of units for every army.

I will admit that there is an issue here, but there is a flipside: through FW just about every army gains flyers and/or counters to flyers. And a good number of the options available no one ever takes. I mean when's the last time you saw someone argue they wanted the Load Lifter Sentinel, or the Space Marine Tarantulas? We can sit and list all the broken options in every codex for FW but for every one of those there is at least one in a codex.

 Mecha_buddha wrote:
3) Getting blindsided by special rules. A red scorpion and a minotaur look like space marine but the rules and HQs give them abilities and rules no other marine has. to make this worse FW books are not organized into a codex, so finding specific rules is harder.

FW is addressing the organization issue, but can we really say this blindsiding is only a FW model? How many people can honestly say they know every rule of every codex and never, ever forget one? I can't say I do, and the solution to the FW problem is the same as the GW problem: ask to see the rule for yourself so you know what it does. It's really not that hard, especially since people should have their books with them when they play (I honestly won't play people who don't bring their books because there are too many things to try and just remember off the top of your head and it's frankly just better to have your books on hand).

 Mecha_buddha wrote:
So without being TFG how do you fix this, how do you show people FW isn't the boogy man?

Without being able to put it on the table and prove that not everything is broken? You can try talking about it, but then you get threads like this where any evidence is quashed be people sticking their fingers in their ears, claiming it's not an "official" or "legal" way to play.

 Mecha_buddha wrote:
the only thing I can think is to take baby steps. maybe an event with 10% army points can be forgeworld or a comp system.

Comp is a failed system as it just leads to players still breaking things, just in different ways. Baby steps though like the 10% rule, or maybe a "1 unit can be FW" and then expanding on it each time until people can bring a full FW army if they wish might work. Just be warned that there will always be players who gravitate to what they see as the strongest options they can taken over everything else, and it's not FW's fault anymore than it's GW's that they do this. It's just a fact that some people will always play this way, FW or not.

Meh, anybody can refuse to play against anything that he or she doesn't want to play against. Nobody can be forced to play against your army no matter where your rules come from. Both players agree to a game or they don't.

[/caring]

I don't understand not liking FW, it's like buying a FPS then when an expansion comes out refusing to play it and only playing the old games with the units and tactics you know.

I mean it's their prerogative but I'd rather experience something new then play the same Taudar spam over and over

I like FW. They have some cool models and cool rules.

I just don't like that some people act as if you can force other people to play against their FW stuff just because FW/GW put a little sentence in their books.

Anybody can walk away and refuse to play against FW stuff, just like they can walk away and refuse to play a helldrake spam list, or they can walk away and refuse to play a guy that plays with unpainted models.

That is not what's being argued.

What is being argued is that refusing to play against (some) FW rules is exactly like refusing to play against Codex entries.

So I think you're actually on board.

8 pages in and people are still arguing that forgeworld has anything to do with rules. Of course you can ban forgeworld, just like you can ban eldar or people wearing t-shirts.

xruslanx wrote:
just like you can ban people wearing t-shirts.

They better not be wearing t-shirts. This is a serious game, and it should be taken seriously. All player must wear appropriate attire: suit and tie. Women (who of course do not play) who show up to support their loved ones are required to wear dresses.

xruslanx wrote:
8 pages in and people are still arguing that forgeworld has anything to do with rules. Of course you can ban forgeworld, just like you can ban eldar or people wearing t-shirts.

As a matter of fact, I have done that. Unfortunately it does not work.

That being said, I don't understand why GW can't make an official statement about FW. That should put this matter to rest.

I used to be anti-FW, but that was more because of how they catalog everything. I don't even know what is out there for me to buy. And I think some of their units are over the top (and thus are spammed, as usual..).

 Happyjew wrote:

xruslanx wrote:
just like you can ban people wearing t-shirts.

They better not be wearing t-shirts. This is a serious game, and it should be taken seriously. All player must wear appropriate attire: suit and tie. Women (who of course do not play) who show up to support their loved ones are required to wear dresses.

LOL - they could also wear a nice shirt and a vest and a pocket watch, THEN they could be the king of SWAG like Matt Ward and forge a narrative!

 Eiluj The Farseer wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:

xruslanx wrote:
just like you can ban people wearing t-shirts.

They better not be wearing t-shirts. This is a serious game, and it should be taken seriously. All player must wear appropriate attire: suit and tie. Women (who of course do not play) who show up to support their loved ones are required to wear dresses.

LOL - they could also wear a nice shirt and a vest and a pocket watch, THEN they could be the king of SWAG like Matt Ward and forge a narrative!

I wouldn't mind that. Who wouldn't want their games to look classy?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Naw wrote:

xruslanx wrote:
8 pages in and people are still arguing that forgeworld has anything to do with rules. Of course you can ban forgeworld, just like you can ban eldar or people wearing t-shirts.

As a matter of fact, I have done that. Unfortunately it does not work.

That being said, I don't understand why GW can't make an official statement about FW. That should put this matter to rest.

I used to be anti-FW, but that was more because of how they catalog everything. I don't even know what is out there for me to buy. And I think some of their units are over the top (and thus are spammed, as usual..).

GW probably doesn't see the need to say anything about FW. I mean this is the same company who has stated in the past they don't expect people to spam units.