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.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Zweischneid wrote:

 Steve steveson wrote:
I don't think anyone was saying you have to play against anyone. .

Great. So why all the humdrum if people turn down your game? Accept it and move on.

Because they shouldn't turn it down for the wrong reasons. They should turn it down for legitimate reasons.

Who judges legitimacy? You? Why are you able to tell me how I feel?
And who cares why they turn it down - are you going to lecture them about it?

 Zweischneid wrote:
Great. So why all the humdrum if people turn down your game? Accept it and move on.

Because people think that it's some how "more legitimate" to turn down a game against FW units than to turn down a game against other units. FW players are expected to beg for a game and demonstrate how they're "just trying something new" or "not doing it to win" or whatever, but if you use a codex army it's considered TFG behavior for someone to refuse to play against you. And in the rare event that someone refuses to play against a codex-only list they'll almost always admit that it's just a case of personal preference, but if someone refuses to play against your FW army you can pretty much guarantee that they'll give you a long list of (completely absurd) excuses for how it's "not official" and how you have no right to expect to play a game with it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

rigeld2 wrote:
Who judges legitimacy? You? Why are you able to tell me how I feel?

Nobody is disputing your right to turn down a game because you don't enjoy it. "I don't like playing against beast hunter shells, I lose every time" is a legitimate reason. Making up stupid excuses about how FW is a separate company and no different than your fan codex, on the other hand, is not legitimate because it's based on not understanding the rules of the game (or blatant lying, take your pick).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

rigeld2 wrote:
And who cares why they turn it down - are you going to lecture them about it?

It matters because it doesn't happen in isolation. The context here is an environment in which refusing to play against a codex-only army is seen as TFG behavior and is a good way to ensure that nobody ever plays against you, but refusing to play against an army with FW rules is seen as a god-given right to defend the purity of "real 40k".

 Zweischneid wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Zweischneid wrote:

 Steve steveson wrote:
I don't think anyone was saying you have to play against anyone. .

Great. So why all the humdrum if people turn down your game? Accept it and move on.

Because they shouldn't turn it down for the wrong reasons. They should turn it down for legitimate reasons.

There are no wrong reasons.

Yes there are. Or, rather, there are impolite ones which make the forgeworld player feel insulted.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

rigeld2 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Zweischneid wrote:

 Steve steveson wrote:
I don't think anyone was saying you have to play against anyone. .

Great. So why all the humdrum if people turn down your game? Accept it and move on.

Because they shouldn't turn it down for the wrong reasons. They should turn it down for legitimate reasons.

Who judges legitimacy? You? Why are you able to tell me how I feel?
And who cares why they turn it down - are you going to lecture them about it?

I have a list of what I consider illegitimate reasons - if you have a problem with the list, feel free to elaborate:

1) Other people ban it, so you will too.
2) You've heard it is overpowered, and you don't like playing overpowered gak, so you ban it.
3) You've never tried it, and it is new and confusing, so you ban it.

"Well, if I was GW I wouldnt put "its ok to use forgeworld" in my GW books. I would put "its ok to use this in 40k" in my forgeworld books instead. "

Um... they do....


Automatically Appended Next Post:

zoat wrote:
I'm constantly baffled about this discussion simply because the only time FW being "legal" or not is relevant when trying persuade someone to take part in a game the don't want to play. And why would anyone wan't to do that?

I totally agree with Nobody_Holme:

When you play a game of 40k, YOU get to decide what is ok and not. If you don't want to face Tau, Chaos Space Marines or units Forge World made up, there is no rule forcing you to play. Just pick another opponent.

When you enter a tournament, the organizers get to choose what rules to use, possibly even overriding the printed rules. If you don't like that you don't get to play.


To put some more fuel on the fire:
=========================

I think the strongest argument for being careful when using Forge World rules is that I believe many casual 40k players will not even know Forge World exists and even fewer are aware that they print their own rules. If you get into the hobby by buying the rule book and a codex or two there are no references to Forge World. Heck, even if you go to www.games-workshop.com there are no references to Forge World!

Isn't that a bit strange if Forge World books are part of the core game?

http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/wnt/blog.jsp?tag=ForgeWorld

http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/wnt/blog.jsp?pid=11800010-gws

http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/home.jsp What IS that link right after the Black Library one on the GW Home page?

It is not a matter of "literally" making or forcing someone do something they don't want to do. I went over that earlier on in the thread to give an extreme never happen example to demonstrate how a pushy person can appear.

It is more usually a matter of several people standing around a bloke who is hesitant about it (likely because they have no information on what is in front of him or even what it is beyond the guys around him telling his legal. This sort of peer pressure and making the bloke feel obligated to do something he doesn't really feel comfortable with or be "the bad guy".

This is why I point out that I feel it is always better to introduce the stuff to players just to show them what it is, see it used in games as examples, let them read the fluff and rules.Make them WANT to play with FW.

If the player WANTS to play with it, it wont matter if its legal or not because they will use it either way.

 EVIL INC wrote:
I went over that earlier on in the thread to give an extreme never happen example to demonstrate how a pushy person can appear.

No, you posted a paranoid fantasy about getting to "stand your ground" and self-defense someone to death. Your bizarre tinfoil hattery has nothing to do with this discussion, or any event that will ever happen in reality.

 EVIL INC wrote:
It is not a matter of "literally" making or forcing someone do something they don't want to do. I went over that earlier on in the thread to give an extreme never happen example to demonstrate how a pushy person can appear.

It is more usually a matter of several people standing around a bloke who is hesitant about it (likely because they have no information on what is in front of him or even what it is beyond the guys around him telling his legal. This sort of peer pressure and making the bloke feel obligated to do something he doesn't really feel comfortable with or be "the bad guy".

This is why I point out that I feel it is always better to introduce the stuff to players just to show them what it is, see it used in games as examples, let them read the fluff and rules.Make them WANT to play with FW.

If the player WANTS to play with it, it wont matter if its legal or not because they will use it either way.

No, my statement here is 100% accurate. Your tried to make a strawman out of it to support your own argument and it explode in your face.

The fact remains, if a person WANTS tp use FW they are more likely to be open to it then if someone ignores their wants or desires or is unwilling to actually educate the player.

 EVIL INC wrote:
No, my statement here is 100% accurate. Your tried to make a strawman out of it to support your own argument and it explode in your face.

Your "example" mentioned punching people for trying to "surprise" you with a Titan in a small points game if they were playing at your house. I still don't know what you were trying to "prove" in some of your posts.

Oh good, now we're back to the part of the "discussion" where EVIL INC quotes himself over and over again without actually responding to anything anyone else is saying.

 Peregrine wrote:
Oh good, now we're back to the part of the "discussion" where EVIL INC quotes himself over and over again without actually responding to anything anyone else is saying.

a) You're my hero
b) Check your thread about superheavies ;3
c) EVIL INC, please stop repeating yourself. Your point is continually defeated and then you think of a new one, and then use the defeated point to back it up e_e

Just making the point that you wish to ignore and distract readers from with "antics".

This statement that you wish to not be true and are fighting so hard to deny is. You are more likely to get players to play FW if you find ways to get them to WANT to play whether it is legal or not. Just coming at them with "its legal" is not the best way to do that. Why not address THAT statement as that nis the one I am making? You don't have to agree with it, just explain why you think it is false or not worthy of consideration

 EVIL INC wrote:
Just making the point that you wish to ignore and distract readers from with "antics".

This statement that you wish to not be true and are fighting so hard to deny is. You are more likely to get players to play FW if you find ways to get them to WANT to play whether it is legal or not. Just coming at them with "its legal" is not the best way to do that. Why not address THAT statement as that nis the one I am making? You don't have to agree with it, just explain why you think it is false or not worthy of consideration

Because when individuals reject playing against a FW player, they feel they have more of a right to it than rejecting a game against CSM or Nids or whatever. They feel it is more legal to reject a FW player or even FW units. It's a sense of, I'm correct in reality or something of the sorts.

Finally, someone willing to discuss the topic.

I'll be honest, I used to be one of "THOSE GUYS", who were anti FW. People tried to convince me by saying "hey cmon, its legal, you'll like it", "its fun" and so on and so forth. It was not until people actually played a demo game, let me check out their models, offered to let me use their models in a practice game or two.
The first ones made me feel pressured as though I was some kind of jerk for not being open minded. the second group, invited me into their group, made me feel welcome, the atmosphere was a lot more open and inviting where I couldn't wait to try something FW.

This is why I say my way of introducing it is better (yes, I'm sure others will disagree but disagree and leave it at that without insults or attacks). because I found out firsthand that it worked better for me.

 EVIL INC wrote:
I'll be honest, I used to be one of "THOSE GUYS", who were anti FW. People tried to convince me by saying "hey cmon, its legal, you'll like it", "its fun" and so on and so forth.

This is how I got hooked on J-Class yachting. Now I'm completely destitute.

Yachting: not even once.

 Ouze wrote:

 EVIL INC wrote:
I'll be honest, I used to be one of "THOSE GUYS", who were anti FW. People tried to convince me by saying "hey cmon, its legal, you'll like it", "its fun" and so on and so forth.

This is how I got hooked on J-Class yachting. Now I'm completely destitute.

Yachting: not even once.

That got me to laugh. Well played.

Then again any time EVIL INC talks about what he thinks the "topic" of these threads is I end up laughing so I don't know how good or bad that is anymore.

Alright gents, let's keep the discussion on-topic and not make it personal please. Thanks!

So, for the sake of this thread, what is the argument against Forgeworld's legality? I believe it's the fact that some people may want to ban it for whatever reason.

There are no arguments about the legality of it. That was settled on the first page.

The problem where we run into arguments is in your follow up question...
1. Many do want to ban it. This can be for a variety of reasons ranging from "I read the rules, didn't like them, don't like the models, think it is op", to "its a rich mans company where they buy their wins but buying stuff the rest of us cant afford" (years ago, I was one of these), to "my gaming group is just too novice and are not prepared for it yet". There are also other reasons but those are the main ones I think.
2. The argument are about how to address the people who do not want to use it for one reason or another. When it comes down to it, players will do as they want and the same goes for TO. As an example, as a DM, year ago, I banned psionics from my games for the simple reason I just didn't want to fool with them and we had a player who wanted to be/do/everything overpower the gaming sessions with his super psycher. Was I wrong to ban it? Maybe and I don't care. The other players told me afterwards they were glad I did it.
3. Most here have the general idea that since it is legal everyone should be open to it and expect that. I feel that is just too high an expectation with many players and groups who have had zero exposure to it with no actual GW support.
4. I and a few others feel that a better way to broach the subject to players and organizations that are reluctant (your just not gonna reach EVERYONE no matter HOW nice ya are. lol) in a more pro-active way immersing them in it, letting them see it in action in demo games, setting up club orders, even if you are brave lending models to people to try out. the whole you catch more flies with honey approach.

Then you have many pages of us arguing over #3 and #4.

 TheCustomLime wrote:
So, for the sake of this thread, what is the argument against Forgeworld's legality?

Quite simply, the fact that Forgeworld rules are produced by Forgeworld, rather than by the GW Studio, and that no Studio publication makes any mention of Forgeworld being a legal part of the game.


All of the statements about Forgeworld being legal are made by Forgeworld. Which only counts for anything if you accept that Forgeworld has the authority to actually make that claim. There is no evidence to prove that they do have that authority.

 insaniak wrote:

 TheCustomLime wrote:
So, for the sake of this thread, what is the argument against Forgeworld's legality?

Quite simply, the fact that Forgeworld rules are produced by Forgeworld, rather than by the GW Studio, and that no Studio publication makes any mention of Forgeworld being a legal part of the game.


All of the statements about Forgeworld being legal are made by Forgeworld. Which only counts for anything if you accept that Forgeworld has the authority to actually make that claim. There is no evidence to prove that they do have that authority.

"Appeal to Authority" basically is the issue. We're appealing to the authority that players are giving to the team that writes the codexes but refusing to acknowledge that employees in the same company who are paid to write rules under a different brand name are equally qualified to determine legality.

For 'funsies" here's the link to the announcement for IA2v2 from the GW main site's daily blog:

All the units include a full set of rules, updated for the current edition of Warhammer 40,000, enabling you to use them in your battles.

Yup. Totally not meant for play in regular games that is. I don't understand how anyone could see it any other way.

Of course this will get written off by the appeal to authority fallacy because once again, it's not "the main studio".

Why not crack open the rulebook and see what "the main studio" said about the game? Page 8 and Spirit of the Game perhaps, and how the ruleset is only a framework for an enjoyable experiance and we're supposed to add to it? Or page 108 and where it says a legal army list comes from the army list in the codexes, can be an altered army list, or your own creation (so codex, codex + stuff not in the codex (FW, Codex Supplements, Dataslates, Formations) and homebrew.

Yup. The developers clearly don't want us to ever deviate from the strict guidelines of the codex and try playing something new, or different.

You can refuse to play an opponent who is wanting to use Forgeworld stuff in the same vein that you can refuse to play against an Ork player because you don't like Stormboyz being fielded against you. Because no one can force you to play a GAME.

I believe that Forgeworld is "official" in the definition that "official" is whatever you and your friends deem fun to put on the table against each other. Forgeworld stuff? Kroot Merc armies? Counts-as?

Player 1: "Hey I wanna try fielding Post Heresy Terminators in my Chaos army, like I used to be able to in 2nd edition. You mind if I use this single squad in my army - I think it fit's the fluff in this whole Red Corsairs/Renegades- type army I'm building."

Player 2: *Shrugs* "That's cool. Sounds like a cool idea for an army to me."

Fielding a Forgeworld tank in your Eldar army falls under the exact same situation. Being extreme either way- either refusing just "because", or trying to force the other player to accept your FW stuff, is completely unacceptable when viewing how 40K should be played.

Aegis, I'm with you with one caveat: forcing people to not be allowed to play FW stuff because you don't like FW, against other people who aren't you is just as unacceptable.

It's also the only thing I'm arguing against. We have players who seem to think it's okay to ban FW in places, and then cry "I'm being forced against my will" when the people who want FW to be allowed are looking to play it in general, and not exactly against the person who doesn't like it.

Of course this is outside of tournaments because those don't follow the standard rules of the game anyways, so you're agreeing to whatever homebrew rules the TO decides which is different than agreeing to play the game outside of that event.

Aegis, I'm with you with one caveat: forcing people to not be allowed to play FW stuff because you don't like FW, against other people who aren't you is just as unacceptable.

Absolutely. Of course this is the internet, so first a guy will think that Ork Warbosses are OP, and then crisscross a forum demanding that everyone should be banned from using Ork Warbosses, whether he will ever meet any of them or not.

The game is about whatever kind of fun two opponents decide they want to have- together. Either both people playing are happy with what's being put on the table, or neither has to play. The extremists on either side of the FW argument don't seem to think that is important. Somehow they think that both people should be getting their way exclusive of each other, which is....odd.

There are, however, unacceptable reasons for not liking Forge World, which I listed above and have not yet seen a response to. Utilization of any of those reasons for not wanting to play against Forge World units insults me and my lovingly crafted army. At best it's impolite, and at worst it's offensive.

 ClockworkZion wrote:
"Appeal to Authority" basically is the issue. We're appealing to the authority that players are giving to the team that writes the codexes but refusing to acknowledge that employees in the same company who are paid to write rules under a different brand name are equally qualified to determine legality.

Well, yes, because they're writing those rules under a different brand name, with nothing ever having been said about just what that means.

So it is left up to the players to guess as to just what the relationship is between the two. GW could end that debate in a heartbeat by simply adding a statement about Forgeworld to the rulebook.

\Yup. Totally not meant for play in regular games that is. I don't understand how anyone could see it any other way.

The issue isn't whether or not they are meant for regular games. It's whether or not they are an 'official' part of the game, or something added on by a third party.

The fact that Forgeworld publishes their rules under a different name to the guys who write the actual game is what leads people to see them as a third party.

Of course this will get written off by the appeal to authority fallacy because once again, it's not "the main studio".

Indeed. And again, that's something that GW could easily address. For whatever reason, they choose to not do so.

Yup. The developers clearly don't want us to ever deviate from the strict guidelines of the codex and try playing something new, or different.

Nobody said that. All they are saying is that the developers didn't bother to make it clear just what standing Forgeworld is considered to have compared to the normal codexes.

 AegisGrimm wrote:
Fielding a Forgeworld tank in your Eldar army falls under the exact same situation.

But the point is that it shouldn't fall under that situation because that Eldar tank is part of the standard rules of the game. Nobody says "hey, I'd like to use a squad of dire avengers in my Eldar army, is that ok with you?", they just say "want to play a game of 40k?" and assume that their army is ok. The same should be true of FW rules: they're included by default when you say "let's play a game of 40k", and you shouldn't expect veto power over your opponent's army if they bring them.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 insaniak wrote:
Well, yes, because they're writing those rules under a different brand name, with nothing ever having been said about just what that means.

Yes, but who exactly is making the assumption that it means anything at all? The players. GW, meanwhile, publishes new rules under whatever brand they feel like as if it's all just more GW stuff. There's no big debate over whether the latest allied formations are legal or not, or if they're released in the appropriate method, they're just published with a "here, have fun guys".

The fact that Forgeworld publishes their rules under a different name to the guys who write the actual game is what leads people to see them as a third party.

Do you also think that Citadel model kits are a third-party product? Do you think that the new formation rules are third-party products because they're published under the Games Workshop Digital Editions brand?

Different Brand name, same company and same company logo on the spines of the books, Insaniak. Not to mentioned marketed by "GW" the company "for use in 40k". And yet we keep turning to this idea that the devs have to bless off on it for it to count.

Oh, and Jervis wrote the original IA1 and IA2, and in IA2 it says the rules are for use in games of 40k (IA1 had a requirement for VDR, but that was dropped in the intro of IA2).

Oh and Jervis did write this as well back in the first issue of the rebooted WD:



Yes, one of the devs doesn't get the kind of limitations people put on the game for other people. Did he say FW? No, but can everything he said in that article be applied to how people treat FW? Absolutely.

Or am I going to be told now that it doesn't count because it doesn't say FW specifically despite it all being the same company, the same logo on the spine, just a different "product line" (not unlike how the paints and models are "Citadel" and the the rules just say "Warhammer 40,000". Face it, GW likes dividing things into brands and product lines)?

Aegis: Fielding a Forgeworld tank in your Eldar army falls under the exact same situation.

But the point is that it shouldn't fall under that situation because that Eldar tank is part of the standard rules of the game. Nobody says "hey, I'd like to use a squad of dire avengers in my Eldar army, is that ok with you?", they just say "want to play a game of 40k?" and assume that their army is ok. The same should be true of FW rules: they're included by default when you say "let's play a game of 40k", and you shouldn't expect veto power over your opponent's army if they bring them.

I agree that Forgeworld stuff is a legal part of 40K, and should be played as such. I am in the Pro-FW "camp" just not one of the extremists. But I also agree that a game of 40K is a social contract made for enjoyment's sake.

 Peregrine wrote:
Do you also think that Citadel model kits are a third-party product?

No, but then I also don't have a problem with people using Forgeworld.

Someone asked what people were basing their objections on, and I answered that question. It wasn't a statement of personal opinion.

@Peregrine

I think what would really solve that issue is if Forgeworld had a greater presence in the FLGS and GW stores. At least sell their books or something. So far they are just an enigmatic presence that players have been told let people take "OP" combos that utterly break the game. At least that's the gist of it.