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.

This again.

Peregrine wrote:Forge World has always been an official part of Games Workshop

It's a sub-division of that company - of course it was always an official part of GW, and I don't recall anyone disputing this - which I've already mentioned in the last thread you felt compelled to open in your Eternal Crusade here. Just like Black Library was always an official part of it, and just like Black Library novels don't have to have any relevance on what it says in a Codex.
Look: This has no relevance at all to how its material would or would not have to tie in with GW codices. I just don't see why you still don't get the difference between FW as a company being an official part of GW as a company, FW rules being an official FW product, and FW rules being an official part of GW's main game. But I suppose it is a matter of zeal and preferred interpretation, just like you were argueing there is no difference between something written for use in and being a part of.

Your conviction and endurance would be commendable, if the way you keep shoving this down everyone's throat didn't make you come across like someone who desperately wants to climb on a high horse, slapping anyone who dares to refuse playing against their FW army with a "SO you are refusing to play against an OFFICIAL GW ARMY" line to make you feel better.

If you'd only put half as much energy into actually trying to convince the critics that FW armies are fun to play against (and, imho more importantly, just cool to look at), I imagine you'd have a higher chance to convert your critics rather than these attempts to "force" people into acceptance.

Peregrine wrote:Anything stamped with Warhammer 40,00 for example is usable within the normal Codex selection and Force Organisation charts.

Just like anyone's houserules are. Again, no difference.

Peregrine wrote:This means that you are no longer allowed to complain about comparing "no-FW" house rules to "no-{codex army}" house rules, because that's exactly how GW sees it. There is nothing "optional" about FW rules beyond the usual fact that you can't hold a gun to someone's head and force them to play against you. You can talk all you want about whether you should or shouldn't have a "no-FW" house rule (just like you can propose all the limits on codex units you want), but the debate over what the standard rules of the game according to GW are is now over.

It's not over just because you say so. To quote from page 108 of the rulebook:

"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 lists or use their own systems as they wish."

In short: The default recommended game is the official Codices. If you want to go beyond that, fine, your choice. This option would include both homebrewed army lists as well as Forge World. The latter are, one might say, official optional suggestions to expand your game. It's all equally "legal" for games like these.*

So, if you think banning FW is a house rule, then so would be banning homebrewed army lists, or supplements, or CA articles, etc.

Peregrine wrote:And the difference isn't just that it's another claim, it's that it explicitly puts refusing to play against FW units on the same level as refusing to play against a codex army

Or a homebrewed army. So?

insaniak wrote:...absolutely nothing to those who want to hear it from the GW design studio rather than from Forgeworld.

Technically, it shouldn't make a difference - I assume GW would not allow FW to make statements "in its name" if they're not cool with it.
The problem is that these statements are still just wishy-washy vagueness - ambiguous comments to appease those for whom it's enough (-> seeing what they want to see), whilst still avoiding that precious "it's a fully integrated part of the main game" that would actually settle this for the critics.


*: This is actually the one thing I learned in the last debate - 40k as a game is way more open than I had first imagined. "Legal" is anything you and your opponent agree upon - including FW or homebrewed. That still does not make either be the default approach, though.

Anyways - this thread will go to places. /popcorn

 Lynata wrote:
*: This is actually the one thing I learned in the last debate - 40k as a game is way more open than I had first imagined. "Legal" is anything you and your opponent agree upon - ...

But that's the case for any game. You don't need written permission from the writer of the game to change the rules to suit yourself.

insaniak wrote:But that's the case for any game. You don't need written permission from the writer of the game to change the rules to suit yourself.

Technically, yes, but I guess it's "common sense" to stick to the rules as they are the one common ground - which is why the standard recommendation is to stick to the codices here.
But I suppose GW wanted to emphasise the "make your own game" bit, quite similar to their loose approach for the fluff. To be fair, they've always supported experiments, releasing alternate army lists in WD (both with and without CA stamps), or alternate units like the Ephrael Stern SoB Dread. Or their new digital supplements. FW's army lists are really nothing else, as per that statement.

In a way, it fits to their focus on producing miniatures, that they perhaps see the rules and army lists only as a necessary add-on to sell plastic?

Could you post a link of where you have or got that Peregrine so I can show my FLGS owner? I know he will say no (he is even contemplating banning supplement books ) but it would be nice to have that so I could show other players who try to say "cant use FW because its not GW" nonsense. Am estatic they finally released a more official statement on the matter, now I will ONLY be running my Elysians out of IA32E as me and friends (which is most of the stores players) are boycotting tournaments at the store until FW and Supplement books are allowed in them.

 gmaleron wrote:
Could you post a link of where you have or got that Peregrine so I can show my FLGS owner? I know he will say no (he is even contemplating banning supplement books ) but it would be nice to have that so I could show other players who try to say "cant use FW because its not GW" nonsense. Am estatic they finally released a more official statement on the matter, now I will ONLY be running my Elysians out of IA32E as me and friends (which is most of the stores players) are boycotting tournaments at the store until FW and Supplement books are allowed in them.

Does he ban all of that in his store or just in tourneys? It's his right to do so but it still screwed up he won't let people play with the models they bought just because it doesn't have Games Workshop stamped on it everywhere.

You know, I have never seen people argue that just because a company doesn't explicitly state that it's subsidiaries are it's subsidiaries that they aren't part of the company before. It's like saying that just because Taco Bell doesn't have "Yum! Brand Foods" plastered everywhere makes them different companies. Or that Cadillac is a different company than GM. It's a strange argument certainly but I don't really see the point of it. Even if Forge World was a different company the Rulebook wouldn't ban it's use anymore than it would supplements. If it's player perception than how would statements by Forgeworld solve that? Of course FW would say that, they are the ones that want you to think that they are a part of Games Workshop. To them, a liar is going to maintain it's lies. Games Workshop has to say it.

 Lynata wrote:
Look: This has no relevance at all to how its material would or would not have to tie in with GW codices. I just don't see why you still don't get the difference between FW as a company being an official part of GW as a company, FW rules being an official FW product, and FW rules being an official part of GW's main game.

I don't "get" the difference because the difference only exists in the minds of certain players. You have invented this supposed difference between the two, while GW (the people who actually decide what is and isn't official) go on publishing things under whatever brand they feel like and saying "this is official".

But I suppose it is a matter of zeal and preferred interpretation, just like you were argueing there is no difference between something written for use in and being a part of.

The point you keep failing to understand is that when the people with the authority to determine what is and isn't part of the game say "this is intended for the standard game" that's the final word on the subject. GW's intent is law.

If you'd only put half as much energy into actually trying to convince the critics that FW armies are fun to play against (and, imho more importantly, just cool to look at), I imagine you'd have a higher chance to convert your critics rather than these attempts to "force" people into acceptance.

Not really. The biggest obstacle to FW acceptance is people like you spreading ridiculous ideas like "FW is just like my fan codex" in blatant defiance of GW's actual position on the subject. If you remove all the bad information about FW being "not official" then most people in my experience are happy to play against it.

In short: The default recommended game is the official Codices.

And you, as a player, are inventing a rule that GW can't modify that statement in other GW products. GW, on the other hand, has decided that they can add things to the standard game by saying "this is now part of the game", which is why we have IA books, supplements, and online FAQs/errata.

The problem is that these statements are still just wishy-washy vagueness - ambiguous comments to appease those for whom it's enough (-> seeing what they want to see), whilst still avoiding that precious "it's a fully integrated part of the main game" that would actually settle this for the critics.

There's nothing vague in the statement in the OP at all. According to GW all FW 40k rules are part of the game, and refusing to play against them is no different than refusing to play against a GK army. The only "ambiguity" in that is certain anti-FW people deliberately looking for any excuse they can find to avoid having to admit that they're wrong.

TheCustomLime wrote:Does he ban all of that in his store or just in tourneys? It's his right to do so but it still screwed up he won't let people play with the models they bought just because it doesn't have Games Workshop stamped on it everywhere.

I'd assume it's at least "just" the rules, not the models? Even the GW tournaments and events that do not allow FW rules still allow their models.

TheCustomLime wrote:You know, I have never seen people argue that just because a company doesn't explicitly state that it's subsidiaries are it's subsidiaries that they aren't part of the company before.

I don't think people actually say this - FW's website clearly states they are a part of GW, which is why I'm confused on why we needed yet another thread on the subject as this one features nothing new. The argument is about how a differently branded item sold via a separate catalogue behaves to the core company's main product - or, specifically, whether said differently branded item should be considered an integral and standard part of said main product (which is what Peregrine is crusading for), rather than an expansion (which is, by the way, how Forge World's own Facebook site advertises itself).

 TheCustomLime wrote:
Does he ban all of that in his store or just in tourneys? It's his right to do so but it still screwed up he won't let people play with the models they bought just because it doesn't have Games Workshop stamped on it everywhere.

A store ultimately provides gaming space to encourage people to spend money in the store. It's not at all uncommon for stores to refuse to let people use stuff that the store doesn't (in this case can't sell.

Many of GW's own stores have over the years had bans on using Forgeworld models.

You know, I have never seen people argue that just because a company doesn't explicitly state that it's subsidiaries are it's subsidiaries that they aren't part of the company before.

You're not seeing it now, either. You're just seeing people misrepresenting an opposing argument.

 insaniak wrote:
The fact that you regard non-acceptance of Forgeworld as a house rule doesn't mean that those that don't regard Forgeworld material as offical are scared of house rules. It just means that they don't regard Forgeworld rules as official.

At this point the support for FW material being official is so overwhelming that it is no longer possible to have an honest belief that it isn't official.

People aren't calling it 1999+1 to avoid admitting they are playing with a house rule. They're calling it 1999+1 because that's quicker and eaiser (at least amongst people who know what you're talking about) than saying '2000 points with a single FOC'. For the most part, they're well aware that allowing that point over is a house rule.

I guess you don't remember the "tournament community" congratulating themselves for being so clever and finding the loophole that would let them run 2000 point tournaments without having to use double FOC?

Actually, FW is JUST like a fan codex. One might say the actual codices are JUST like a fan codex. In fact, I'm pretty sure that I can write better books than GW or FW. I can do simple arithmetic

 insaniak wrote:
The difference being that GW have stated that Citadel models are used to play their games.

And GW have stated that FW rules are used to play their games.

At no point have I made any claims about what GW is 'obligated' to do. They are certainly under no obligation to make any statement about the status of Forgeworld's range... but until they do, people will regard Forgeworld as an unofficial offshoot, and no amount of insistence by that offshoot that they are, in fact, official will change people's minds.

People still insist that the earth is only 6-10,000 years old, and no amount of evidence will ever change their mind. That doesn't mean we need to respect such an utterly insane belief. Now, granted, believing that FW isn't "real GW" isn't the same kind of utter lunacy as young-earth creationism, but the fact that people stubbornly insist on believing it doesn't make it a legitimate belief to hold.

 Peregrine wrote:
At this point the support for FW material being official is so overwhelming that it is no longer possible to have an honest belief that it isn't official.

Forgeworld declaring themselves official is not exactly what some people are going to consider 'overwhelming support'...

I guess you don't remember the "tournament community" congratulating themselves for being so clever and finding the loophole that would let them run 2000 point tournaments without having to use double FOC?

I don't recall too many people seriously suggesting it was actually a 'loophole', no.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:
People still insist that the earth is only 6-10,000 years old, and no amount of evidence will ever change their mind.

Sure it would. It just needs to be the right evidence. Like, say, a statement in their rulebook that the earth is a fair bit older than that.

Peregrine wrote:I don't "get" the difference because the difference only exists in the minds of certain players.

So you are maintaining that

"company A is an official part of company B" is 100% equal to "the product of company A is a standard part of company B's product"?

Okay, I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree then. There's no point argueing with this kind of logic.

Peregrine wrote:The point you keep failing to understand is that when the people with the authority to determine what is and isn't part of the game say "this is intended for the standard game" that's the final word on the subject. GW's intent is law.

The point you keep failing to register is that I've never actually argued against FW being "intended for the standard game". That's just you not getting the difference between "written for" and "part of" again.

Peregrine wrote:And you, as a player, are inventing a rule that GW can't modify that statement in other GW products. GW, on the other hand, has decided that they can add things to the standard game by saying "this is now part of the game", which is why we have IA books, supplements, and online FAQs/errata.

Then stop creating these endless nonsense threads and find a statement akin to "this is now part of the game".

Peregrine wrote:There's nothing vague in the statement in the OP at all. According to GW all FW 40k rules are part of the game, and refusing to play against them is no different than refusing to play against a GK army. The only "ambiguity" in that is certain anti-FW people deliberately looking for any excuse they can find to avoid having to admit that they're wrong.

You mean refusing to play against any army. Or did I miss something and there is actually an army somewhere that you are forced to play?

Oh, I'm not an Anti-FW person just because I feel compelled to argue against your crusade. That's just you trying to paint me as "the enemy". Quite the opposite, I'll happily play FW armies, because I find the minis beautiful and would be curious to see those rules in action at least once. I'd still expect the other person to ask nicely, though. Which I fear is what you would not do. You'd expect not having to ask, so that's where we have a problem.

 Lynata wrote:

TheCustomLime wrote:Does he ban all of that in his store or just in tourneys? It's his right to do so but it still screwed up he won't let people play with the models they bought just because it doesn't have Games Workshop stamped on it everywhere.

I'd assume it's at least "just" the rules, not the models? Even the GW tournaments and events that do not allow FW rules still allow their models.

TheCustomLime wrote:You know, I have never seen people argue that just because a company doesn't explicitly state that it's subsidiaries are it's subsidiaries that they aren't part of the company before.

I don't think people actually say this - FW's website clearly states they are a part of GW, which is why I'm confused on why we needed yet another thread on the subject as this one features nothing new. The argument is about how a differently branded item sold via a separate catalogue behaves to the core company's main product - or, specifically, whether said differently branded item should be considered an integral and standard part of said main product (which is what Peregrine is crusading for), rather than an expansion (which is, by the way, how Forge World's own Facebook site advertises itself).

Yeah, but the rules themselves are big investment (Stupid as hell but that Gee Dubs for you). People telling you that the $80 you spent is banned kinda hurts.

As for the second point, that what I got out of the whole thing. At least that's what the average anti-FW gamer thinks (Which I have no evidence to back up so... neehh. Then again, who does?). I believe Forgeworld's rules say that it is a part of the core gameplay but here is where it gets a little murky. The books have the word "Expansion" plastered on them so, by that logic, they are Expansions. But the rules say they are a part of the core of 40k. So, is it an expansion in that it adds onto the codices (Like the supplements) or that it's a "Forge World" expansion a la Planetstrike or Spearhead? I believe that is where a lot of the contention arises from.

Also, I believe the reason why is that in light of additional information the argument is worth reopening. Of course, since it's not really "New" information since Forgeworld has been saying this since 2011 (I think. It was new when I signed up). It's just sort of a clarification on a statement that the anti-FW people do not believe on the basis it's from FW. Does that make this thread pointless? Yes. But it is kinda fun to exercise the old noodle, don't you think?

Oh. there's no asking with me. If I see FW, I tell them to put it up or I walk. I live close to the FLGS, so it's no skin off my nose.

 Lynata wrote:
So you are maintaining that

"company A is an official part of company B" is 100% equal to "the product of company A is a standard part of company B's product"?

Only when company AB (because it's just two brand names used by the same company, just like Citadel or White Dwarf) says "this is a standard part of our products". Which is what we have here.

The point you keep failing to register is that I've never actually argued against FW being "intended for the standard game". That's just you not getting the difference between "written for" and "part of" again.

There is no difference when the person writing for is the person with the authority to decide what is and isn't part of the game. You're just nitpicking exact words instead of addressing the substance of the statement.

Then stop creating these endless nonsense threads and find a statement akin to "this is now part of the game".

Did you even read the OP, where a GW representative explicitly said that refusing to play against FW is no different than refusing to play against GK? Or any of the other statements saying similar things?

I'd still expect the other person to ask nicely, though.

Do you expect people to ask nicely before playing with their codex-only GK army?

TheCustomLime wrote:Yeah, but the rules themselves are big investment (Stupid as hell but that Gee Dubs for you). People telling you that the $80 you spent is banned kinda hurts.

There's a point to that, but I suppose this is just GW maximising its profits.
I mean, not gonna argue against the digital codices, but sheesh - for that price we used to get a real book with more content.

TheCustomLime wrote:I believe Forgeworld's rules say that it is a part of the core gameplay but here is where it gets a little murky. The books have the word "Expansion" plastered on them so, by that logic, they are Expansions. But the rules say they are a part of the core of 40k. So, is it an expansion in that it adds onto the codices (Like the supplements) or that it's a "Forge World" expansion a la Planetstrike or Spearhead? I believe that is where a lot of the contention arises from.

The contention primarily arises from people making wrong statements or even falsifying quotes. The rules do not say they are "part of core 40k", they say they are intended to be used there - which is still a difference, but thus fits nicely to the "Expansion" you mentioned.

TheCustomLime wrote:Also, I believe the reason why is that in light of additional information the argument is worth reopening. Of course, since it's not really "New" information since Forgeworld has been saying this since 2011 (I think. It was new when I signed up). It's just sort of a clarification on a statement that the anti-FW people do not believe on the basis it's from FW. Does that make this thread pointless? Yes. But it is kinda fun to exercise the old noodle, don't you think?

Nah, the thread will just move in circles for 20 pages again before it gets locked.
And in another 2 months Peregrine will open the next one.

Peregrine wrote:Only when company AB (because it's just two brand names used by the same company, just like Citadel or White Dwarf) says "this is a standard part of our products". Which is what we have here.

Lies.

It's an Expansion. See the link I provided above. It's from your own source.

Peregrine wrote:There is no difference when the person writing for is the person with the authority to decide what is and isn't part of the game.

Yet did the person with this authority decide it? No. Feel free to show me that statement to prove me wrong.

Peregrine wrote:Did you even read the OP, where a GW representative explicitly said that refusing to play against FW is no different than refusing to play against GK? Or any of the other statements saying similar things?

Did you even read your own statement where a GW representative explicitly said that refusing to play against FW is no different than refusing to play against ANY army?

Peregrine wrote:Do you expect people to ask nicely before playing with their codex-only GK army?

Nope. Because the 6E Rulebook says codices are standard.

 insaniak wrote:
Forgeworld declaring themselves official is not exactly what some people are going to consider 'overwhelming support'...

Only because of this invented "difference" between FW and "real GW".

Sure it would. It just needs to be the right evidence. Like, say, a statement in their rulebook that the earth is a fair bit older than that.

That's actually a very good comparison. Young-earth creationists demand a statement in their "rulebook" and ignore the overwhelming evidence that they are wrong, and because of this we laugh at their shameful ignorance and stupidity. Meanwhile the anti-FW crowd acts the same way: as long as they don't have the exact statement they want they cling to their beliefs and reject all other evidence.

 Peregrine wrote:
Did you even read the OP, where a GW representative explicitly said that refusing to play against FW is no different than refusing to play against GK?

I saw a re-post of a comment purporting to be from a GW representative on Facebook.

I didn't see anything from someone who is actually a part of the GW design studio.


From my experience, most players stopped accepting rules judgements from random GW representatives in the late 90s, once it became widely understood that random GW people have no greater insite into the rules of the game than the janitor at Costco..

As with any Games Workshop games you are essentially entering into a social contract with your gaming opponent.

That right there says that BOTH PLAYERS have an equal say in what rules will be used in a game. It is NOT a house rule. Official =! you get to dictate what rules are used in the game no matter what your opponent says.

 Lynata wrote:
It's an Expansion. See the link I provided above. It's from your own source.

That's nice. You as a player are inventing the rule that expansions can not add to the standard game. GW, on the other hand, is happy to release expansions/supplements for the standard game as well as expansions/supplements that provide new game types.

Yet did the person with this authority decide it? No. Feel free to show me that statement to prove me wrong.

See the statements GW has published? That's the answer. You're just making the absurd claim that some rogue pro-FW zealot is publishing unauthorized claims under the GW name, and somehow GW management isn't stopping them.

Did you even read your own statement where a GW representative explicitly said that refusing to play against FW is no different than refusing to play against ANY army?

Well, now we agree. FW is just like any other army. You can refuse to play a game, but that doesn't mean your refusal is anything more than your personal preference not to play against certain armies/units/people/whatever.

Nope. Because the 6E Rulebook says codices are standard.

And now we're back to you inventing the rule that only the sources given in the core rulebook are standard, and GW can't add additional standard sources in other books.

 Peregrine wrote:
That's actually a very good comparison. Young-earth creationists demand a statement in their "rulebook" and ignore the overwhelming evidence that they are wrong, and because of this we laugh at their shameful ignorance and stupidity.

The thing is, they ignore that 'overwhelming evidence' because in their understanding the contrary evidence that they have is from a higher authority. So that 'overwhelming evidence' is nothing of the sort, because it's not actually coming from a source that they trust to have the right information.

Meanwhile the anti-FW crowd acts the same way: as long as they don't have the exact statement they want they cling to their beliefs and reject all other evidence.

Yes, that's what is happening. 'Evidence' from a source that someone does not believe to be in a position to provide said evidence is not evidence. It's someone making a statement that they are unable to back up with authority.

 Lynata wrote:

TheCustomLime wrote:Yeah, but the rules themselves are big investment (Stupid as hell but that Gee Dubs for you). People telling you that the $80 you spent is banned kinda hurts.

There's a point to that, but I suppose this is just GW maximising its profits.
I mean, not gonna argue against the digital codices, but sheesh - for that price we used to get a real book with more content.

TheCustomLime wrote:I believe Forgeworld's rules say that it is a part of the core gameplay but here is where it gets a little murky. The books have the word "Expansion" plastered on them so, by that logic, they are Expansions. But the rules say they are a part of the core of 40k. So, is it an expansion in that it adds onto the codices (Like the supplements) or that it's a "Forge World" expansion a la Planetstrike or Spearhead? I believe that is where a lot of the contention arises from.

The contention primarily arises from people making wrong statements or even falsifying quotes. The rules do not say they are "part of core 40k", they say they are intended to be used there - which is still a difference, but thus fits nicely to the "Expansion" you mentioned.

TheCustomLime wrote:Also, I believe the reason why is that in light of additional information the argument is worth reopening. Of course, since it's not really "New" information since Forgeworld has been saying this since 2011 (I think. It was new when I signed up). It's just sort of a clarification on a statement that the anti-FW people do not believe on the basis it's from FW. Does that make this thread pointless? Yes. But it is kinda fun to exercise the old noodle, don't you think?

Nah, the thread will just move in circles for 20 pages again before it gets locked.
And in another 2 months Peregrine will open the next one.

Just like how it charges $60+ for the variant Rhinos even though it's just the base sprue +1? Honestly, Gee Dubs, at least include the rest of the rhino so I feel like I am getting a Rhino+.

Ahhh, I gotcha. But then you are running into semantics. Is there a difference between being and intended to be? The devil is in what "Intention" means here since it could be construed to mean that they are meant to be part of or are meant to be used there. I would argue for the later since they are labeled "Expansion" instead of "Additions for Codex: Imperial Guard".

Hey, since when has dakka not been repetitive and cyclical? Just look at the WHFB Gen Discussion section. Take a shot every time a "What army should I start/Getting in Fantasy/How to start x" thread comes up (I am guilty of this as well to be fair).

 insaniak wrote:
From my experience, most players stopped accepting rules judgements from random GW representatives in the late 90s, once it became widely understood that random GW people have no greater insite into the rules of the game than the janitor at Costco..

There's a pretty big difference between whoever answers questions on the FW facebook page and GW's random "rules help" staff. Just to give one example some of the questions I asked them on facebook and their answers were put directly into the official IA1(2nd edition) FAQ. And I mean a literal copy/paste, without any modification. Whoever answered the facebook questions clearly had the authority to make a final ruling on the subject.

 Peregrine wrote:
There's a pretty big difference between whoever answers questions on the FW facebook page and GW's random "rules help" staff. Just to give one example some of the questions I asked them on facebook and their answers were put directly into the official IA1(2nd edition) FAQ. And I mean a literal copy/paste, without any modification. Whoever answered the facebook questions clearly had the authority to make a final ruling on the subject.

Really?

At one point, rulings from Yakface's INAT FAQ and Gwar!'s home-brewed FAQ were both pasted word for word into GW 40K FAQs. Should we therefore assume that Yakface and Gwar! also have the authority to make a ruling on 40K rules issues?


Without knowing just who it was that responded to you on Facebook, and what their job is at Forgeworld, you have absolutely no way of knowing if they are someone who has the authority to make rulings themselves, or if they just passed it on to the guys who do and they decided to print as is.

 insaniak wrote:
At one point, rulings from Yakface's INAT FAQ and Gwar!'s home-brewed FAQ were both pasted word for word into GW 40K FAQs. Should we therefore assume that Yakface and Gwar! also have the authority to make a ruling on 40K rules issues?

No, because they aren't GW employees.

Without knowing just who it was that responded to you on Facebook, and what their job is at Forgeworld, you have absolutely no way of knowing if they are someone who has the authority to make rulings themselves, or if they just passed it on to the guys who do and they decided to print as is.

Of course it isn't absolute proof that the person has that authority. If they made a statement that directly contradicted published rules/policies there would be good reason to be skeptical of it, but what they're saying here just confirms what GW has been saying in official sources. And the general impression you get from reading FW's responses on facebook is that the person posting responses to questions/comments is well-informed about what is going on within the company. It doesn't seem to be anything like GW's "rules help" people, where questions are answered by whatever janitor happens to have a moment of free time.

So, even if you don't consider it to be an official ruling at the same level as a published FAQ it's a pretty safe bet that this person is accurately presenting GW's attitude towards FW units.

I am with you on this Peregrine, however no matter what, even if they came out stating "FW is allowed no matter what in any game of 40k not including apocalypse only items" haters would still hate and try to find any excuse possible to say that its not allowed which is seeming the argument that is being made right now by the anti FW crowd.

 Peregrine wrote:
No, because they aren't GW employees.

Do you have any evidence that the person handling Forgeworld's facebook page is a GW employee?

Of course it isn't absolute proof that the person has that authority.

Really? I could have sworn that you just said that they clearly did have that authority.

So, even if you don't consider it to be an official ruling at the same level as a published FAQ it's a pretty safe bet that this person is accurately presenting GW's attitude towards FW units.

No, it's a safe bet that this person is accurately presenting Forgeworld's attitude towards Forgeworld units. On account of them apparently being something to do with Forgeworld, rather than a member of the GW design studio.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 gmaleron wrote:
I am with you on this Peregrine, however no matter what, even if they came out stating "FW is allowed no matter what in any game of 40k not including apocalypse only items" haters would still hate and try to find any excuse possible to say that its not allowed which is seeming the argument that is being made right now by the anti FW crowd.

This sort of nonsense adds nothing constructive to the discussion.

There is no 'hating' going on here. All that is being said is that Forgeworld don't have the authority to declare themselves an official part of the game. For the vast majority of players, a simple statement in the 40K rulebook allowing the use of Forgeworld rules would be more than sufficient.

Dismissing an opposing point of view as 'hating' is just looking for confrontation for the sake of it. Disagreeing that Forgeworld is official material doesn't make someone a 'hater'. It doesn't even make them 'anti-FW'. I'm not anti-FW. I have absolutely no problem with an opponent using FW units, and would love to see them in more tournaments.

I just disagree that a statement in a FW publication is sufficient to establish that FW rules are an 'official' part of the game.

 insaniak wrote:
There is no 'hating' going on here. All that is being said is that Forgeworld don't have the authority to declare themselves an official part of the game. For the vast majority of players, a simple statement in the 40K rulebook allowing the use of Forgeworld rules would be more than sufficient.

This statement from the very first post says otherwise to me...

 Peregrine wrote:
This means that you are no longer allowed to complain about comparing "no-FW" house rules to "no-{codex army}" house rules, because that's exactly how GW sees it. There is nothing "optional" about FW rules beyond the usual fact that you can't hold a gun to someone's head and force them to play against you. You can talk all you want about whether you should or shouldn't have a "no-FW" house rule (just like you can propose all the limits on codex units you want), but the debate over what the standard rules of the game according to GW are is now over.

 insaniak wrote:


There is no 'hating' going on here. All that is being said is that Forgeworld don't have the authority to declare themselves an official part of the game. For the vast majority of players, a simple statement in the 40K rulebook allowing the use of Forgeworld rules would be more than sufficient.

Dismissing an opposing point of view as 'hating' is just looking for confrontation for the sake of it. Disagreeing that Forgeworld is official material doesn't make someone a 'hater'. It doesn't even make them 'anti-FW'. I'm not anti-FW. I have absolutely no problem with an opponent using FW units, and would love to see them in more tournaments.

I just disagree that a statement in a FW publication is sufficient to establish that FW rules are an 'official' part of the game.

Dont take it the wrong way, I only mention it because I am tired of hearing the argument that FW is not GW when it has the GW logo, its models are made for the GW game systems and just IMO that it is in the end GW. There is a VERY thin line if any seperating GW from FW and I really cant accept the "its different" argument as it isnt, in fact it is very much like the supplement books that have been coming out. That and the argument of "all FW is OP" is utter nonsense and really that is the one that steams me up the most. Now if I cam off rude I do apologize, I only mention "hating" because I dont like taking the time to assemble an army, paint it to make it look good only to have someone say "not allowed" its utter garbage in my opinion and its why the majority of players at my FLGS are boycotting the tournaments until it is allowed, both FW and the Supplement books.