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.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Thank you for your very helpful contribution to the discussion.

I was merely congratulating Zion on a wonderful find. I think it shows distinctly that FW is indeed official. Also I contributed with a post in regards to the term "expansion". Just because the word expansion is used this doesn't make forge world any less official because as I pointed out "expansion" can be used to refer to the any installment of the World of Warcraft series. They are mentioned particularly as "expansions". This doesn't mean you get groups of WoW players grouping together to say that they are not playing it because it's unofficial.

The thing I don't like about this anti-FW attitude is the fact that it seems to be a blanket ban on all the FW products. Its not pointing to any particular unit and saying, I'm not playing that because I think its overpowered. They are pointing to the whole Forge-World range, no matter what item it is, and then saying that they are not playing against it. Against these types of players it doesn't matter if I would put on the table an underpowered and overcosted unit. The fact that it comes from Forge World is enough for those players to say they are not going to play against it and that it is unofficial in their eyes.

Its just downright disrespectful to do such a thing to a person who has spent their money on goods, to then be told they are not allowed to use them in a game they are designed for. There is no argument here in regards to the opposing player thinking it is overpowered and thus he will not have a fun game. Its just a statement of "I'm not playing against that" without any real reason behind it and hiding behind a fake reason of unofficialness.

I would much rather have a player say he won't play me because he considers some of my individual units to be OTT rather than have a player who is just going to blanket ban playing against any Forge World unit. There is more honesty and integrity behind former person than the latter. The unit they point out as being OTT can be a Forge World unit and I have no problem with that, but a blank out ban against all FW units in my opinion is just a rather unreasonable thing to do.

While I agree 100% with Peregrine's thesis, I disagree with the approach he's taken in both of these recent threads. We're never going to get widespread acceptance for FW at the table by holding down the opposition and making them cry uncle. It's only going to happen if we encourage our fellow FW collectors to show up at stores and tournaments with as much FW as they can as often as they can; to make sure we print up copies of all of our datasheets to hand our opponents at the beginning of the game to keep with them to reference; to show people that these units are fun, fluffy and a great part of the game. The models are amazing - we need to show up with them painted to a high quality. People love to play against beautiful armies; give people a reason to *want* to play against them. And make sure when we build our lists that we don't become TFG, using the units to break the codex we're playing with. If we do that, if we show our local scene what it is that draws us all to FW to begin with, it'll be accepted - and it will be the people demanding a special, gold embossed, engraved writ from the CEO of GW, enshrined in the rulebook, that FW is part of the game who will be the outliers. Not us.

This needs to be about showing people why they want to play with and against FW, not why they have to.

 DarthOvious wrote:
I would much rather have a player say he won't play me because he considers some of my individual units to be OTT rather than have a player who is just going to blanket ban playing against any Forge World unit. There is more honesty and integrity behind former person than the latter. The unit they point out as being OTT can be a Forge World unit and I have no problem with that, but a blank out ban against all FW units in my opinion is just a rather unreasonable thing to do.

This, this, this! Couldn't have said it better!

ClockworkZion wrote:I've got a "Homebrew is Legal" article. OF COURSE I think it's just as valid in "standard" games as everything else.

Then you are at least consistent about this. /tiphat

In all honesty, I think both FW and homebrewed should find greater acceptance - the problem is that many players are "locked into" a mindset that only core GW products should even be considered for their games, foregoing the "invitation" that GW has put out about trying out different stuff. And this won't get better by sulky gamers stomping their feet on the ground and calling players who don't want to play with FW as "using unofficial houserules" and claiming that expansions are not optional. Both approaches are in violation of the spirit of the game.

The problem is that you are still defending Peregrine, whose stance seems more contrary to yours than mine.

Massawyrm wrote:This needs to be about showing people why they want to play with and against FW, not why they have to.

This. Exalted.

 insaniak wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Also here's a little bit from a much longer intro in IA Vol I by Jervis Johnson, showing that FW was intended from day one to be a place for rules that were considered legal for any game of Warhammer 40,000:
...

Now obviously, no one in GW uses the Vehicle Design Rules anymore, but that doesn't change the fact that FW was created to create new and additional rules for the game AND that they where intended for regular games of 40k.

Being based on the VDR doesn't make them a regular part of the game, since the VDR were optional rules.

No, but a statement by Jervis Johnson about FW being considered part of standard 40k should. It's a statement from the studio about the validity of FW in games. Or are we moving goal posts again?

 Lynata wrote:
The problem is that you are still defending Peregrine, whose stance seems more contrary to yours than mine.

But while I agree with his sentiments about how FW is unfairly looked down on, I'm not defending him. I'm defending the idea that FW is a valid part of the game.

I've presented a written statement by Jervis Johnson from IA Vol 1 (that'd be the original, not the 2nd Ed), if someone wants to prove FW somehow went from being seen as valid (in 2000) to not (now, in 2013) I'm going to need to see a written statement from the studio that says they think FW isn't a part of the game.

And as far as I know, none exists or the anti-FW crowd would have force fed it to us by now.

 DarthOvious wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Thank you for your very helpful contribution to the discussion.

I was merely congratulating Zion on a wonderful find. I think it shows distinctly that FW is indeed official. Also I contributed with a post in regards to the term "expansion". Just because the word expansion is used this doesn't make forge world any less official because as I pointed out "expansion" can be used to refer to the any installment of the World of Warcraft series. They are mentioned particularly as "expansions". This doesn't mean you get groups of WoW players grouping together to say that they are not playing it because it's unofficial.

The thing I don't like about this anti-FW attitude is the fact that it seems to be a blanket ban on all the FW products. Its not pointing to any particular unit and saying, I'm not playing that because I think its overpowered. They are pointing to the whole Forge-World range, no matter what item it is, and then saying that they are not playing against it. Against these types of players it doesn't matter if I would put on the table an underpowered and overcosted unit. The fact that it comes from Forge World is enough for those players to say they are not going to play against it and that it is unofficial in their eyes.

Its just downright disrespectful to do such a thing to a person who has spent their money on goods, to then be told they are not allowed to use them in a game they are designed for. There is no argument here in regards to the opposing player thinking it is overpowered and thus he will not have a fun game. Its just a statement of "I'm not playing against that" without any real reason behind it and hiding behind a fake reason of unofficialness.

I would much rather have a player say he won't play me because he considers some of my individual units to be OTT rather than have a player who is just going to blanket ban playing against any Forge World unit. There is more honesty and integrity behind former person than the latter. The unit they point out as being OTT can be a Forge World unit and I have no problem with that, but a blank out ban against all FW units in my opinion is just a rather unreasonable thing to do.

Naturally you want people to play with the FW that you have got, which is completely understandable.

The thing is, when you buy a game or a unit, you don't buy the time of the people whom you need to be your opponents. You can't force them to play. You need to persuade them.

I have played against FW and have no basic objection, however I can see the reason why some people don't like them. Which is, that the FW items sometimes are unbalanced, and they are hidden in very expensive supplementary books that most players don't want. That attitude is not totally fair but it isn't crazy either.

My advice is to stop trying to pressurise the use of FW, and instead to introduce the models slowly into games with a clear explanation of their rules, so the other guy doesn't feel pressurised to play or surprised by some rule he didn't know about. That way, things go forwards by mutual agreement and both people will get a better outcome.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

FW is a valid option to play, just don't be a dick about it.

If more people took this sentence to heart, FW would be more readily accepted.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

My advice is to stop trying to pressurise the use of FW, and instead to introduce the models slowly into games with a clear explanation of their rules, so the other guy doesn't feel pressurised to play or surprised by some rule he didn't know about. That way, things go forwards by mutual agreement and both people will get a better outcome.

Here is an idea that doesn't suck.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

Naturally you want people to play with the FW that you have got, which is completely understandable.

The thing is, when you buy a game or a unit, you don't buy the time of the people whom you need to be your opponents. You can't force them to play. You need to persuade them.

Absolutely, but then they need to persuade me of my time as well for that matter, so if their stance is stictly a no FW stance, then my stance is I can find better players to play against. Understand, if they want to point to particular units and give a reason why they think its overpowered in any way then thats fine, but anybody who wants to put a blanket ban on all FW stuff is just being unreasonable and so in that case I can be just as unreasonable as them and state that I will never play them either no matter what they may take in their list.

I have played against FW and have no basic objection, however I can see the reason why some people don't like them. Which is, that the FW items sometimes are unbalanced, and they are hidden in very expensive supplementary books that most players don't want. That attitude is not totally fair but it isn't crazy either.

Some FW units may be unbalanced but I think its an unfair representation to suggest that they are mostly unbalanced. You're talking to a guy who owns three Hazard Suits with Phased Ion Guns, sure they are a good unit with markerlight support, but in no way can they be considered unbalanced. So why should there be a blanket ban on Forge World when my Hazard Suits should be perfectly acceptable to use in a game of 40k?

Thats the point I am making. Complaints should be directed on a unit to unit basis, not just by banning a large section from the game altogether.

My advice is to stop trying to pressurise the use of FW, and instead to introduce the models slowly into games with a clear explanation of their rules, so the other guy doesn't feel pressurised to play or surprised by some rule he didn't know about. That way, things go forwards by mutual agreement and both people will get a better outcome.

As pointed out earlier people with FW units are being forced not to use them with this kind of attitude. It should be done on a unit by unit basis, NOT by blanket banning all Forge World stuff. Fair enough if the unit can be considered overpowered and so can make the game no fun for the other guy but there is no sense in just banning the lot. Its unreasonable to do so, and hints of immaturity when done. Its akin to somebody playing the game with one codex army and then saying they won't play against any other codex army other than his own because he considers them overpowered without giving a reason why.

If people don't want to play with you because you insist they must let you use FW models, refusing to play with them is not going to get them to play with you. They will get plenty of games with other people who don't want to play FW.

Whatever the principle of things, you really do need to understand these people's views and engage with them in a sympathetic way.

So I just wanted to make a rundown of the evidence that I've seen as presented by both sides here and in past threads (my notes are in parenthesis):

Pro-FW:
-Spirit of the Game (rules are a framework to support an enjoyable experience)
- Page 108 and it's sources of valid army lists in a normal game (codex, codex +extras (FW, supplements), or homebrew)
- Statement from Jervis Johnson in writing supporting FW for standard games from the first Imperial Armour book (showing that FW was always intended to be a part of normal games)
- Facebook post from GW Digital Editions stating that you can take FW with your army
- Facebook post from FW stating that you can take FW with your army

Anti-FW (these are summaries of arguments I've actually seen, not me playing strawman):
- "I don't want it forced on anyone." (which is impossible unless you hold someone at gunpoint)
- "It's not mentioned by name in the core rulebook." (codex supplements aren't either)
- "It's OP." (Just like how every other broken combination in the game is when put in the hands of players who want to abuse the system to win)
- "It's not legal/official/ect." (despite being in the WD, on the blog, sold at Games Day and Warhammer World it's somehow on par with a 3rd part product....right.)
- "GW doesn't use it in their events." (they have also banned allies, limited allies to 500 points, don't use random terrain placement, and generally don't play what could be called a "standard" game of 40k. The events are also run by the Sales Team not the developers and are as indicative of the game as tournaments are. That is to say, they aren't.)

I'm sorry anti-FW crowd but the arguments being made by your side lack the weight of evidence and come across (to me) as goal post moving ("no rule that says you can play FW" in 5th to "no rule that specifically says you can play FW by name" in 6th), or a lot of opinions and appeals to authority. You don't have a good argument here, you have quicksand for a basis of your claims.

And again, before anyone starts claiming I'm "forcing" anyone to play anything, I'm not. I'm just trying to get people to stop claiming FW options is less a part of the game just because it says "FW" on the book. It's frankly a bad claim and no one is coming out of things happy when they're told that the stuff they spend their time and money on is somehow less valid than the things you have despite it all coming from the same company.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
If people don't want to play with you because you insist they must let you use FW models, refusing to play with them is not going to get them to play with you. They will get plenty of games with other people who don't want to play FW.

I am not insisting anything here other than to give me a better reason for why you don't want to play with what I have on the table. I will listen to players who want to tell me that certain unit X is overpowered and thats fine. Who I will not entertain are players who blanket ban playing against FW stuff.

The point of my comment was to show that I can stoop to their level as well and then tell them that I will not play them irregardless of the content of their list, ya know, just cause I don't want to. Thats the point. Just saying "Its Forge World so I won't play" is just a really crappy and immature way to deal with things. Its about as constructive as making a hot water bottle out of chocolate.

Whatever the principle of things, you really do need to understand these people's views and engage with them in a sympathetic way.

However they are allowed to just blanket ban a whole part of the game just because they wanna? Without any real reason for doing so? So you expect me to reach out to them when they point out blank refuse to understand my side of things? No I don't think I'll be doing that. If you don't want to play the army I have on the table then state a proper reason for doing so. Otherwise I will be giving them duff reasons back to why I don't want to play with them. This is how it would go down in my eyes.

Player 1 - I don't want to play against you cause I don't play against Forge World. They are an unofficial part of the hobby.

Two Months later

Me to Player 1 - I don't want to play against you cause I don't play unreasonable jackasses.


On the other hand, if you give me a proper reason then this is how things will turn out differently:

Player 1 - I don't want to play against that R'Vana Riptide, its just too overpowered.

Me to Player 1 - Sure, I can enchange it for a normal Riptide with a couple of drones instead if thats OK with you.

Do you see how in the second scenario I was a lot more pleasant? Thats because they didn't just give me some sod off reason for not playing against my list. He pinpointed what unit he had a problem with and why.

 DarthOvious 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.

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?

World of Warcraft expansions are still an official part of the World of Warcraft game, so I don't think anybody can use the word expansion to try and discredit FW as being unofficial in any way.

First, WoW expansions don't work the same way 40k Expansions do. You don't log on and say to yourself, "Hey, I am in the mood for WotLK today" unless you are leveled for it. It works as a progression towards the ultimate end of the game. 40k expansions are just add ons to the game to spice things up. To relate things to WoW, imagine Blizzard made an expansion that allowed for naval combat in WoW and it was totally optional. (Now, imagine if they made an optional expansion that added additional spells/classes. The community would explode from rage! )

Secondly, this isn't an argument over how "Official" it is. Forgeworld is official. The argument is whether you can just plop a Earthshaker carriage on the table without asking your opponent if it's cool to use it.

To tie these two points together, WoW expansions are basically updates to the game that they charge for while 40k expansions are entirely optional. You basically need the former to progress while you can have a great time without the latter. Now, IA books are expansions. They say so right on the cover. Now, the preface that everyone likes to talk about says that these rules are intended for use in standard 40k. I at first didn't understand why this was different from, say, "These rules are standard 40k rules". The difference here is that the Forge world "Expansion" is a bunch of add ons for standard 40k matches instead of updates to the Codices. If they were the book would have said, "These rules are updates to the Imperial Guard codex and should be treated as part of said codex".

Now, you may be wondering if I am anti-FW. I actually love the company and their sexy big stupid models. Those LR variants (Stygies Vanquisher on a Mars Alpha Hull anyone?) are awesome. I've even played against a FW list and had a good time. I just think that people should educate their opponents on how IA is since they probably aren't familiar with the books.

ClockworkZion wrote:But while I agree with his sentiments about how FW is unfairly looked down on, I'm not defending him. I'm defending the idea that FW is a valid part of the game.

FW is as much a valid part of the game as house rules. It is not more, and not less. You seem to agree here, but this is not actually the purpose of this thread and the point OP is attempting to drive into our heads.

Though I'd actually agree FW should actually find more general acceptance than house rules (which it actually does, no?), I argue against the "standard inclusion" on principle - for one because this is what the rulebook as well as FW's own statement says, and secondly because I just can't agree with the tone this campaign is being conducted.

ClockworkZion wrote:I've presented a written statement by Jervis Johnson from IA Vol 1 (that'd be the original, not the 2nd Ed), if someone wants to prove FW somehow went from being seen as valid (in 2000) to not (now, in 2013) I'm going to need to see a written statement from the studio that says they think FW isn't a part of the game.

Actually, if we want to nitpick - the Vehicle Design Rules were at their time a standardised way for players to create their own vehicles. Let me hold up the mirror of my selective reading against your selective reading ->
1. Naturally there is no difference between FW using VDR to any other player doing the same. In this context, FW publications would not be their own rules, but rather a premade construction using GW core studio rules
2. The VDR are no longer current (though even if they were, according to the 6E Rulebook they would be optional modifications)
3. We are not at all certain whether or not FW is still designing its vehicles using the VDR (quite probably not )
4. FW rules these days are about more than just vehicles
5. Does Jervis Johnson's statement that "as long as IA rules conform to VDR, they are legitimate and could be used in any game of 40k" not automatically mean that IA rules not conforming to VDR are not legitimate and could not be used in any game of 40k?

I'd say your image actually hurts both our basic positions (that FW is fine and legal to use if both players agree) more than it supports your expanded one (that FW should be "automatically greenlit" for standard games).

In your "summary", you also missed a few points, namely that:
- players who do not like to play against FW should not be accused of "resorting house rules" to do so, supposedly devalueing their game
- codex supplements are indeed just optional expansions, too, unless this was specifically addressed by GW

I'd say it is quite possible to "force" someone to play you by appealing to their sense of using standard rules; this is what this thread attempts to achieve, no? Peregrine's entire campaign is focused on overriding other players' hesitation to accept FW into their game (however justified or unjustified it may be) by instituting a change in perception - not by making FW look more fun or interesting, but by proclaiming that by refusing to play FW units you are not playing according to the standard rules. This is what grinds my gears, and what compels me to spend so much time on posting against this even though I have nothing against FW units per se.
You could say it's similar to my "there is no canon" campaign even though I have purchased and keep purchased quite a number of Black Library books for the stories they tell.

tl;dr: "Play and let play"

I refuse to play riptides, there is nothing in the 40k rulebook that mentions them specifically by name so they are unofficial.

Could you imagine someone saying that haha. They would be laughed out of the room, same logic with forge world.

Ok now my actual opinion, you guys wanna refuse it, go ahead, wanna allow it, go ahead, but neither side of this argument is correct.

The image was posted because it counters an argument that's come up before: that Forgeworld was never supported by the studio. Additionally it also counters the idea that FW wasn't meant for standard games. It states both things, and there has not been a statement that contradicts this idea since.

ClockworkZion wrote:The image was posted because it counters an argument that's come up before: that Forgeworld was never supported by the studio. Additionally it also counters the idea that FW wasn't meant for standard games. It states both things, and there has not been a statement that contradicts this idea since.

But your image with this conditional endorsement was not referring to FW rules - it was referring to FW-published combinations of VDR-governed traits from GW core studio rules (which, on a sidenote, as per the 6E rulebook definition would be an optional expansion nowadays too).
And it should not have been necessary. There's no difference between a player or a FW employee using these rules to create a unit - the origin of the rules remains a White Dwarf article.

You are operating on Peregrine's turf now, argueing that this image says more than it actually does, by dismissing the condition that Jervis has attached to that sentence.
And you've dodged the question on what exactly this would mean for FW rules not conforming to VDR, which could well mean all of its current selection - if you argue that this statement is still valid (which you seem to do with the "not contradicted since"), then this is contraproductive to what you are trying to say here.

 Lynata wrote:

ClockworkZion wrote:The image was posted because it counters an argument that's come up before: that Forgeworld was never supported by the studio. Additionally it also counters the idea that FW wasn't meant for standard games. It states both things, and there has not been a statement that contradicts this idea since.

But your image with this conditional endorsement was not referring to FW rules - it was referring to FW-published combinations of VDR-governed traits from GW core rules.
And it should not have been necessary. There's no difference between a player or a FW employee using these rules to create a unit - the origin of the rules remains a White Dwarf article.

It was a condition for them to be a part of "regular games" of Warhammer 40,000. FW didn't abandon VDR until about 5th edition (I'm thinking the Guard codex) and instead seem to be still be making things in line with that the studio is doing, only for more points.

 Lynata wrote:
You are operating on Peregrine's turf now, argueing that this image says more than it actually does, by dismissing the condition that Jervis has attached to that sentence.

I mentioned that condition in my original post and how GW has abandoned VDR a long time ago in general. The fact of the matter is we have a positive endorsement of FW by the main studio. We also have Jervis' name as the author for their first 3 books. But people still argue that FW isn't "official", the point was to establish that it was endorsed from the beginning and that endorsement was never pulled.

 Lynata wrote:
And you've dodged the question on what exactly this would mean for FW rules not conforming to VDR, which could well mean all of its current selection - if you argue that this statement is still valid (which you seem to do with the "not contradicted since"), then this is contraproductive to what you are trying to say here.

You're missing my point I think. I'm pointing out that FW was published from the beginning as an official part of the standard game of 40,000. The studio has never came out since to say they view it any other way. That's all I'm saying.

I completely understand the pro-FW argument from this thread. At the same time, I personally don't think adding in the vulture and the like to the current meta really improves anything. Just gives GW/FW more monies.

Both of the groups I've played with have strictly prohibited FW, because of both cost and tourney variability. Maybe I just can't imagine using it at this point. It's a pretty conflicted point for me.

We are moving in circles, and you keep missing the condition included in that statement.

VDR are not FW rules. FW publishing vehicles made via VDR does not mean that FW's own original rules are similarly endorsed by the main studio just because the main studio at the time endorsed any vehicle made by VDR. You are talking about two different things, and ignoring the part where the condition you posted actually disqualifies FW's non-VDR rules, which is the opposite of what you are trying to achieve here.

People argue that FW is not an integral part of the standard game because as per the rulebook the suggested approach is to use the codices, and because FW itself advertises its books as an expansion that adds to the game.

Actually, if FW recosted GW models, I'd be a lot more inclined to roll with them. Like some entries stating when using FW models, base codex values are as follows: XXX.

I'm under the impression FW costs their models with the codices in mind, though I'm not sure how much the two different design teams talk to each other regarding future products.

As for any weird exceptions .. to be fair, it's not like point costs in GW codices always seems logical or fair either.

 Lynata wrote:
We are moving in circles, and you keep missing the condition included in that statement.

Didn't miss it. You're just ignoring when I say anything regarding it. I know it exists, but that's something that fell out of favor a long time ago. The thing I've been saying is we have the head of the design studio blessing off on FW, and even writing their first three books. That basically kills any arguements about "officialness".

 Lynata wrote:
VDR are not FW rules. FW publishing vehicles made via VDR does not mean that FW's own original rules are similarly endorsed by the main studio just because the main studio at the time endorsed any vehicle made by VDR. You are talking about two different things, and ignoring the part where the condition you posted actually disqualifies FW's non-VDR rules, which is the opposite of what you are trying to achieve here.

You're right, VDR where Jervis' rules. Guess what else where Jervis' rules? The first three IA books that were released.

 Lynata wrote:
People argue that FW is not an integral part of the standard game because as per the rulebook the suggested approach is to use the codices, and because FW itself advertises its books as an expansion that adds to the game.

108 proves that argument flawed as you've already agreed. You know as well that EVERYTHING adds to the game. Codexes add to the core rules for instance.

Go ahead and buy your forgeworld models. If you're being a dick about it, you don't get a game from me or anything in my FLGS. Enjoy. Forgeworld stuffs for fluff and fun is all good, but sadly most "needs forgeworld" players fall into the category of powergaming douche-bags.

I'm not sure that's a fair characterization. I could make the same argument for any Eldar player who plunks down his turn of the century Wave Serpent models.

However, FW is super expensive and I see it as putting diesel fuel on a fire.

 juraigamer wrote:
Go ahead and buy your forgeworld models. If you're being a dick about it, you don't get a game from me or anything in my FLGS. Enjoy. Forgeworld stuffs for fluff and fun is all good, but sadly most "needs forgeworld" players fall into the category of powergaming douche-bags.

Based on what?

I play two FW lists, an Armored Company (that has neither scoring or contesting units of any kind, making winning games...difficult), and a DKoK Assault Brigade, I run an FW decimator frequently with my CSM's. In fact they're most of what I've run for the last year for casual and tournament play. None of that would really exactly be considered "powergaming".

ClockworkZion wrote:The thing I've been saying is we have the head of the design studio blessing off on FW, and even writing their first three books. That basically kills any arguements about "officialness".

Seriously, I feel like people are only reading half my posts. I am not debating "officialness".

You're sounding more and more like Peregrine in this attempt to sweep uncomfortable details under the rug in favour of sweeping statements falsifying the actual wording.
What we actually have is the head of the design studio having in the past blessed off FW content as long as said content is created using specific GW studio rules (which, on a sidenote, are also no longer in effect). This is redundant information, since said GW studio rules were by themselves already blessing off anything created with them, and because the rules that are actually part of the current debate have nothing to do with VDR. The vehicles could have been published by Disney or Wallmart and it'd be the same.

What we do not have is, contrary to how you make it sound like, the head of the design studio blessing off actual original FW rules, which are the subject of this debate.

ClockworkZion wrote:You're right, VDR where Jervis' rules. Guess what else where Jervis' rules? The first three IA books that were released.

... so?
One man is not the studio.

ClockworkZion wrote:108 proves that argument flawed as you've already agreed. You know as well that EVERYTHING adds to the game. Codexes add to the core rules for instance.

The difference is that the codices are SINGLED OUT by the core book to be the ONE suggestion and the DEFAULT approach, and that EVERYTHING ELSE is a modification and thus NON-STANDARD.

I can caps, too.

And with this, I'm out. Lost cause etc.

I-I just want my Space Marine Battle Brothers...

 juraigamer wrote:
Go ahead and buy your forgeworld models. If you're being a dick about it, you don't get a game from me or anything in my FLGS. Enjoy. Forgeworld stuffs for fluff and fun is all good, but sadly most "needs forgeworld" players fall into the category of powergaming douche-bags.

Ah, I enjoy sweeping generalizations with no basis in any factuality.

While I agree with Peregrine's stance, I do feel like its the wrong way of going about bringing FW into common acceptance. But, this is the internet, and if the comment I quoted is any indication, there is only black and white and nothing in between.

 Blacksails wrote:

 juraigamer wrote:
Go ahead and buy your forgeworld models. If you're being a dick about it, you don't get a game from me or anything in my FLGS. Enjoy. Forgeworld stuffs for fluff and fun is all good, but sadly most "needs forgeworld" players fall into the category of powergaming douche-bags.

Ah, I enjoy sweeping generalizations with no basis in any factuality.

While I agree with Peregrine's stance, I do feel like its the wrong way of going about bringing FW into common acceptance. But, this is the internet, and if the comment I quoted is any indication, there is only black and white and nothing in between.

Well every other way has failed and the people who deny really use ANY excuse to prevent it from being used. So at this point it's one of the few that's working.

 Blacksails wrote:

 juraigamer wrote:
Go ahead and buy your forgeworld models. If you're being a dick about it, you don't get a game from me or anything in my FLGS. Enjoy. Forgeworld stuffs for fluff and fun is all good, but sadly most "needs forgeworld" players fall into the category of powergaming douche-bags.

Ah, I enjoy sweeping generalizations with no basis in any factuality.

While I agree with Peregrine's stance, I do feel like its the wrong way of going about bringing FW into common acceptance. But, this is the internet, and if the comment I quoted is any indication, there is only black and white and nothing in between.

This +1. Don't force people to play against it, but advocate for it by introducing it.

For instance, I brought a Contemptor Dread to a game with person new to the game. I had the book, showed him the cool rules for other units, then played the game with him. While it was a cool unit, it died fairly quickly to the common vehicle killers. At the end of the game, he, and the guys who had observed all wanted to look through the book. I explained to them the idea of Forgeworld as a sort of supplement to the game. By the end, 3 of the 5 guys wanted to add something to their army when they saved the money. The truth is, FW sells itself. Just bring it along and be nice about it and people will want it.