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.

Naw wrote:

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

GW can hire a town crier to walk into my FLGS and proclaim whatever they want. Anybody can still decide not to play against FW units.

The matter is put to rest. But people can still decide not to play against something that they don't want to play against.

It's not even a hypothetical. GW has clarified the issue and here we still are.

 Manchu wrote:
It's not even a hypothetical. GW has clarified the issue and here we still are.

Pretty much. And when this thread dies we'll be here again in a few months. It's almost as if someone feel the need an excuse to say "no, I don't feel like playing against FW stuff" instead of just being open about it.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
It's not even a hypothetical. GW has clarified the issue and here we still are.

Pretty much. And when this thread dies we'll be here again in a few months. It's almost as if someone feel the need an excuse to say "no, I don't feel like playing against FW stuff" instead of just being open about it.

look who started this thread.

xruslanx wrote:
look who started this thread

But also look at why. We're seeing FW get more and more clear about this even as some customers insist that it remains somehow ambiguous.

xruslanx wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
It's not even a hypothetical. GW has clarified the issue and here we still are.

Pretty much. And when this thread dies we'll be here again in a few months. It's almost as if someone feel the need an excuse to say "no, I don't feel like playing against FW stuff" instead of just being open about it.

look who started this thread.

It frankly doesn't matter who started this thread this time because it's just a continuation of the same long standing debate that's been going on forever. There is an invisible line drawn in the sand that divides the community: some will always be for Forgeworld and some will always be against it but honestly I don't care what side you're on as long as your honest.

Our rules give us a lot of freedom in the game and yet we have people who insist it is somehow less legal or official than a codex. We have had a few people, myself included, who have posted proof that the lines on what "legal" and "official" parts of the game are rather broad only to see goal posts moved and people try and use GW tournaments as examples of why that's not true (despite never accepting that same argument when it's applied to other things, like allies). It's misleading and dishonest to say that GW doesn't permit FW in the game or that it somehow is less valid than a codex. If you don't want to play with or against something that's fine, but to claim that something isn't a "legal", "official" or otherwise "valid" part of the game is frankly just low and I can't help but look down at people who would continue to claim things that have been show to be untrue.

tl;dr: play what you want, but don't claim that something is or is not legal in this game because the only limitations that really exist are the ones the players impose, not the developers.

 d-usa wrote:

Naw wrote:

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

GW can hire a town crier to walk into my FLGS and proclaim whatever they want. Anybody can still decide not to play against FW units.

The matter is put to rest. But people can still decide not to play against something that they don't want to play against.

Can you give me one good reason why not to play against FW?

Because, only non-conformists play FW. The same non-conformists who use proxies, don't paint their models, and wear t-shirts and jeans when they play. All in all, they are having fun the wrong way.

 Manchu wrote:
It's not even a hypothetical. GW has clarified the issue and here we still are.

They have? That is news to me.

 Happyjew wrote:
Because, only non-conformists play FW. The same non-conformists who use proxies, don't paint their models, and wear t-shirts and jeans when they play. All in all, they are having fun the wrong way.

I don't know, I recall Jervis Johnson writing a fairly strong article about there being no wrong way to have fun in this game.

Naw wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
It's not even a hypothetical. GW has clarified the issue and here we still are.

They have? That is news to me.

The most straightforward point is on 108 it permits you to play an army list, to alter the army list or play your own system. What does FW do? It alters the army list through different options, units and sometimes taking something (Guard) and shaking it all up (Krieg, Elysians). It's not even listed as something you need to request as you choose the army list after agreeing on points (according to GW's methodology for the pre-game that is), so you've already agreed to play, agreed on a points limit so then you build your choose how to build your list a part that does not require a special agreement by the rules. Granted, you still need to not be an ass, but the 6th Edition ruleset doesn't require permission from your opponent to alter your army list or plunk down a homebrew codex.

Naw wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
It's not even a hypothetical. GW has clarified the issue and here we still are.

They have? That is news to me.

I'm glad I could bring you the news. If you'd like the specifics take a look at pages 4 or 6 of recently published/republished IA books.

 Manchu wrote:

Naw wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
It's not even a hypothetical. GW has clarified the issue and here we still are.

They have? That is news to me.

I'm glad I could bring you the news. If you'd like the specifics take a look at pages 4 or 6 of recently published/republished IA books.

Unfortunately that is FW material so it is no good

I don't have an issue about FW stuff, so don't yell at me.

Naw wrote:
Unfortunately that is FW material so it is no good

Can you tell me why "it is no good"?

Naw wrote:

 Manchu wrote:

Naw wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
It's not even a hypothetical. GW has clarified the issue and here we still are.

They have? That is news to me.

I'm glad I could bring you the news. If you'd like the specifics take a look at pages 4 or 6 of recently published/republished IA books.

Unfortunately that is FW material so it is no good

I don't have an issue about FW stuff, so don't yell at me.

Then look at page 108 of the BGB under The Army List and please then note the permissions it gives you to alter your the codex army list or to replace it with your own system, both things that FW does in giving on different army lists or new unit options.

Naw wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

Naw wrote:

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

GW can hire a town crier to walk into my FLGS and proclaim whatever they want. Anybody can still decide not to play against FW units.

The matter is put to rest. But people can still decide not to play against something that they don't want to play against.

Can you give me one good reason why not to play against FW?

I can give you an unlimited number of reasons:

Whatever reason that particular person thinks is good enough for not wanting to play against them.

Is there one good reason why not to play against unpainted armies?
Is there one good reason why not to play against Grey Knights?
Is there one good reason why not to play against Helldrake spam?

Yet there are people refusing to play against these kind of things.

Naw wrote:
Unfortunately that is FW material so it is no good

FW is GW. "Forge World" is nothing more than a brand name Games Workshop sells certain products under, just like Citadel models and paints. The division between the two and the assumption that if a FW book says something it isn't as official as if a "real GW" book says something are entirely invented by players.

 d-usa wrote:

Naw wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

Naw wrote:

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

GW can hire a town crier to walk into my FLGS and proclaim whatever they want. Anybody can still decide not to play against FW units.

The matter is put to rest. But people can still decide not to play against something that they don't want to play against.

Can you give me one good reason why not to play against FW?

I can give you an unlimited number of reasons:

Whatever reason that particular person thinks is good enough for not wanting to play against them.

Is there one good reason why not to play against unpainted armies?
Is there one good reason why not to play against Grey Knights?
Is there one good reason why not to play against Helldrake spam?

Yet there are people refusing to play against these kind of things.

I had to give up after reading from page 1 to page 4. My head is just spinning so I went to page 9 (last page at the time.)

Are people now saying that I have to play something if I don't want to? If someone didn't have any FW, and just had a SM army, and if for what ever reason I am in no mood to play it (say all I played against is SM) that I have to play this person? I have every right to say no thank you. (not that I will just using it as an e.g.)

Anyone can refuse anyone anything, if they don't want to play against it. There is no rule saying YOU HAVE TO PLAY AGAINST your potential opponent.

FW is just as legal against anything. Hell you can have your GW minis go up against PP minis and have fun.

One more thought. I thought when you played 40K, you had to use Citidel mins. Is FW Citidel miniatures or a different company of GW?

Davor wrote:
I had to give up after reading from page 1 to page 4. My head is just spinning so I went to page 9 (last page at the time.)

Shame, you miss finer details and context that way.

Davor wrote:
Are people now saying that I have to play something if I don't want to?

No one has said that, in fact many of us who support the legality of FW have explicitly stated that isn't the case. Our only argument is that the statements of FW not being "official" or "legal" are full of it.

Davor wrote:
If someone didn't have any FW, and just had a SM army, and if for what ever reason I am in no mood to play it (say all I played against is SM) that I have to play this person? I have every right to say no thank you. (not that I will just using it as an e.g.)

Again, no one is saying this. This is what happens when you skip the entire conversation.

Davor wrote:
Anyone can refuse anyone anything, if they don't want to play against it. There is no rule saying YOU HAVE TO PLAY AGAINST your potential opponent.

Again, no one is arguing this.

Davor wrote:
FW is just as legal against anything. Hell you can have your GW minis go up against PP minis and have fun.

One more thought. I thought when you played 40K, you had to use Citidel mins. Is FW Citidel miniatures or a different company of GW?

FW is the same company, it's just a different "brand" under that company, like Citadel is.

Davor wrote:
Anyone can refuse anyone anything, if they don't want to play against it. There is no rule saying YOU HAVE TO PLAY AGAINST your potential opponent.

And nobody is disputing that. What we want people to stop doing is pretending that their personal "I don't want to play against FW" policy is just following the rules as provided by GW.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Davor wrote:
I had to give up after reading from page 1 to page 4. My head is just spinning so I went to page 9 (last page at the time.)

Shame, you miss finer details and context that way.

Davor wrote:
Are people now saying that I have to play something if I don't want to?

No one has said that, in fact many of us who support the legality of FW have explicitly stated that isn't the case. Our only argument is that the statements of FW not being "official" or "legal" are full of it.

Davor wrote:
If someone didn't have any FW, and just had a SM army, and if for what ever reason I am in no mood to play it (say all I played against is SM) that I have to play this person? I have every right to say no thank you. (not that I will just using it as an e.g.)

Again, no one is saying this. This is what happens when you skip the entire conversation.

Davor wrote:
Anyone can refuse anyone anything, if they don't want to play against it. There is no rule saying YOU HAVE TO PLAY AGAINST your potential opponent.

Again, no one is arguing this.

Davor wrote:
FW is just as legal against anything. Hell you can have your GW minis go up against PP minis and have fun.

One more thought. I thought when you played 40K, you had to use Citidel mins. Is FW Citidel miniatures or a different company of GW?

FW is the same company, it's just a different "brand" under that company, like Citadel is.

Thanks for the summery. Greatly appreciated. Getting a headache so have to stop reading the internet for now, another reason I couldn't read it all. Guess will go back and read again and enjoy the finer details I missed.

^ Enjoy is probably the wrong word to use in this conversation.

People probably would not be so hesitant to allow FW at competitive events if people were doing it for a reason beyond obtaining a competitive edge over what their chosen codex allows.


Peoples' problem with FW isn't that the legitimacy is ambiguous, it's that the balance is typically worse than what you get in the regular codices and, unless you buy all of the obscure IA books, you aren't going to be able to plan for all of the possible permutations. Would you really have fun playing against a list comprised of nothing but Thudd Guns, Sabre Platoons, Vultures, and Earthshaker batteries?


I have no problem with people using FW in friendly pickup games, but house rule or not, I don't play in tournaments that allow FW.

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:
People probably would not be so hesitant to allow FW at competitive events if people were doing it for a reason beyond obtaining a competitive edge over what their chosen codex allows.


Peoples' problem with FW isn't that the legitimacy is ambiguous, it's that the balance is typically worse than what you get in the regular codices and, unless you buy all of the obscure IA books, you aren't going to be able to plan for all of the possible permutations. Would you really have fun playing against a list comprised of nothing but Thudd Guns, Sabre Platoons, Vultures, and Earthshaker batteries?


I have no problem with people using FW in friendly pickup games, but house rule or not, I don't play in tournaments that allow FW.

Yes because standard IG Vendetta, Heldrakes, Riptides, are so much weaker then the very small list people keeping putting out for FW.

Plus, Vultures and Earthshakers are OP? First I've heard of this.

 Peregrine wrote:


FW is GW. "Forge World" is nothing more than a brand name Games Workshop sells certain products under, just like Citadel models and paints. The division between the two and the assumption that if a FW book says something it isn't as official as if a "real GW" book says something are entirely invented by players.

If this division is entirely invented by players, why is Forge World called Forge World and not just Games Workshop?

Not saying that this is related to this particular subject, but nobody would start up a separate brand in the first place, if no separation of some kind was intended.

 Zweischneid wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:


FW is GW. "Forge World" is nothing more than a brand name Games Workshop sells certain products under, just like Citadel models and paints. The division between the two and the assumption that if a FW book says something it isn't as official as if a "real GW" book says something are entirely invented by players.

If this division is entirely invented by players, why is Forge World called Forge World and not just Games Workshop?

Not saying that this is related to this particular subject, but nobody would start up a separate brand in the first place, if no separation of some kind was intended.

Because of tax purposes, do you honestly think they would make a separation just for different games despite making models for the same system?

Black Library. They are even putting out supplements for 40k. The only difference is that they show a clear relationship with GW design and work together. Forge World is the same type of subsidiary as Black Library only they do their own thing for the same game.

So, in the continuing crusade to shove FW down our throats Peregrine and the zealots are putting all their chips into the "FW is legal like homebrew" position now?

Cool, I'm gonna go make a homebrew Codex that's totally legal. Don't want to play it? Fine, just admit you're using "house rules".

I swear, you people are the worst "advocates" for FW I've ever come across.

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:


Because of tax purposes, do you honestly think they would make a separation just for different games despite making models for the same system?

If they are the same company, there should be no tax-related effects for having different brands.

And I don't know what GW is doing or what they are thinking.

What I do know, is that people (consumers) think in "brands", not in companies. They form "emotional bonds" with brands, not companies. That is the entire and only purpose of brands (at least for most companies).

People identify with Cadillac or Chevrolet, not with "GM", and they may well look down on "the other". One women may prefer to wash her hair with Wella and the other one with Pantene, while their boyfriends probably use the more manly "Wash & Go", even though they are all Proctor & Gamble (and probably all contain the same stuff, more or less).

What I am saying is that modern consumers "think" in brands. That's what we're told. That's how we're "imprinted" day in and day out by companies and consumer habits indefinitely more powerful than GW.

So as long as GW retains the separation of brands, people will "see" them as different things, no matter how many statements of "official" they print.

Now, maybe GW is just fubar on this and their "Forge World" brand is working at cross-purposes of what they want to do. Or they really do want to have "Forge World" as a different brand, precisely so it is perceived by customers as a different brand, because that is the point of having a separate brand.

 Chumbalaya wrote:
So, in the continuing crusade to shove FW down our throats Peregrine and the zealots are putting all their chips into the "FW is legal like homebrew" position now?

Name calling doesn't strengthen your arguement.

 Chumbalaya wrote:
Cool, I'm gonna go make a homebrew Codex that's totally legal. Don't want to play it? Fine, just admit you're using "house rules".

And making a homebrew army is a completely legitimate and legal way to play the game. I get you're trying to just mock people through parody but the thing is that you're mentioning a valid method of play which just weakens your claim. Here's the deal: want to play something? Cool, it's a legal way to play.

The only thing I've been claiming is that the rules support just about anything you want to do with the rules. The claims that FW isn't a valid game type because it's not mentioned by name or that it doesn't say "codex" on the books is frankly untrue and that's the only point I've been trying to make. If you don't want to play something that's completely okay, just don't claim that it's not a legitimate part of the game. Or is that somehow too much to ask that we act decently to each other and stop belittling other people's chosen way to play by declaring it to be somehow less official than what everyone else plays?

 Chumbalaya wrote:
I swear, you people are the worst "advocates" for FW I've ever come across.

I was going to do a witty retort this but frankly I'm past the point of name-calling and acting like a child on the internet. Play what you want, that's cool, just stop pretending that you're somehow playing a better or higher form of the game because you eschew certain legal avenues of play.

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:
People probably would not be so hesitant to allow FW at competitive events if people were doing it for a reason beyond obtaining a competitive edge over what their chosen codex allows.


Peoples' problem with FW isn't that the legitimacy is ambiguous, it's that the balance is typically worse than what you get in the regular codices and, unless you buy all of the obscure IA books, you aren't going to be able to plan for all of the possible permutations. Would you really have fun playing against a list comprised of nothing but Thudd Guns, Sabre Platoons, Vultures, and Earthshaker batteries?


I have no problem with people using FW in friendly pickup games, but house rule or not, I don't play in tournaments that allow FW.

Then why are Tau players allowed to spam Riptides? If you ban FW because IG players spam Sabres and disallow innocent players to bring their fun and fluffy Badab War chapter, then you should ban Tau because Tau players spam Riptides.