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.

 Zweischneid wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:


That's fine with me. I feel that the pre-game discussion is necessary (with exception - if it's a friend and you know what to expect, sure). During that pregame discussion, I will not hesitate to mention that I am using a Forge World list. However, I would do the same were I playing Codex: Space Marines, and would expect a similar reaction to both admissions.

That defeats the point.

Of course reactions can be different.

You might meet somebody who will enjoy playing against your Forge World list, but turn down a game against Space Marines, maybe because that's the last 5 games he (or she) played.
Or you might meet somebody, who would enjoy playing against a Space Marines Codex, but is not happy with Forge World.

And I would be inclined to ask them "Why." If they say "because I've played Space Marines some more forever" I'll be like, man, that sucks, I get it. Or if they said "I didn't bring anything to break Armor 14" I'd be like, well, you should adjust your list, but whatever. I get it, have a good one.

If they say "because I don't like Forge World," THAT'S what drives me up the wall. It's literally saying "your army doesn't live up to my standards of 'what an army is' because I have an irrational (and in some cases, inexplicable) dislike of Forge World"

 Unit1126PLL wrote:


If they say "because I don't like Forge World," THAT'S what drives me up the wall. It's literally saying "your army doesn't live up to my standards of 'what an army is' because I have an irrational (and in some cases, inexplicable) dislike of Forge World"

If they don't like it they don't like it. You can't dictate taste.

 kronk wrote:

 Zweischneid wrote:


Depends. In my regular group, where we "know" how most people approach the game, the pre-game talk can be skipped.

Against a new opponent or in a new environment, yes, I would have (and strongly encourage) a pre-game chat. Not just about the Codex, but also about the "mode" of gameplay and the use of the Codex, Supplements, etc.. . (Screamerstar vs. 5 Riptides or a more casual story-driven game?).

I agree with Z for the most part. With my normal group of 6 players, we were forgeworld friendly, and didn't need that conversation.

Now that I've moved away, I've had the pre-game conversation on a number of points with new opponents, and not just FW. It's good manners.

1500 points?
Do you want to run tournament competitive lists, balanced take-all-comers, or want a more narrative game?
Forgeworld or no?
Do we want to tell each other what armies we're bringing or just show up with 1500 points?

It's a social game. Open your pie hole and have a conversation with your opponent.

Pretty much this.

I do think the only issue I see is when you stumble into a group that refuses to see FW as a legitimate part of the game, but that's really a whole other kettle of fish.

And you also need to decide if that's a group you'd have fun with, anyway.

 kronk wrote:
And you also need to decide if that's a group you'd have fun with, anyway.

True. I just feel bad for the guys who are stuck with that as the only gaming group (and no, before anyone accuses me of hyperbole, this has come up in past threads as a real issue that some players face).

 Zweischneid wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:


If they say "because I don't like Forge World," THAT'S what drives me up the wall. It's literally saying "your army doesn't live up to my standards of 'what an army is' because I have an irrational (and in some cases, inexplicable) dislike of Forge World"

If they don't like it they don't like it. You can't dictate taste.

I still would like to know their reasons, and try to convince them otherwise. I hate to draw the analogy, but it's honestly similar to what I feel like when I want to play Forge World.

"I would like to play at this store."
"You can't; you play Forge World are black."
"Why is that bad?"
"It just is; you can't dictate taste."

I know it's a stretch to compare racism to this, and I'm sorry to do it, but it really does bother me when people refuse to allow my army onto the table simply out of irrational dislike.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:


I know it's a stretch to compare racism to this, and I'm sorry to do it, but it really does bother me when people refuse to allow my army onto the table simply out of irrational dislike.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 kronk wrote:
And you also need to decide if that's a group you'd have fun with, anyway.

True. I just feel bad for the guys who are stuck with that as the only gaming group (and no, before anyone accuses me of hyperbole, this has come up in past threads as a real issue that some players face).

It's their hobby too. Just because it's different to yours, doesn't mean it's inferior. If a group decides to only ever play if dressed in pink bunny costumes, more power to them. It's a hobby. If that's not the place to be a bit irrational at times, what is?

And no, the comparison to racism doesn't hold. But I don't think we need to go there.

 Zweischneid wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:


I know it's a stretch to compare racism to this, and I'm sorry to do it, but it really does bother me when people refuse to allow my army onto the table simply out of irrational dislike.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 kronk wrote:
And you also need to decide if that's a group you'd have fun with, anyway.

True. I just feel bad for the guys who are stuck with that as the only gaming group (and no, before anyone accuses me of hyperbole, this has come up in past threads as a real issue that some players face).

It's their hobby too. Just because it's different to yours, doesn't mean it's inferior. If a group decides to only ever play if dressed in pink bunny costumes, more power to them. It's a hobby. If that's not the place to be a bit irrational at times, what is?

And no, the comparison to racism doesn't hold. But I don't think we need to go there.

Well, then how would you like me to demonstrate my feelings? I feel discriminated against because I've put thousands upon thousands of dollars into my army, and lovingly cared for it since third edition, through fourth (where it didn't even have rules for two years), through fifth, and now into sixth. There are people who are saying that my effort might as well have been pissing in the wind, because it's Forge World.

 Zweischneid wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:


I know it's a stretch to compare racism to this, and I'm sorry to do it, but it really does bother me when people refuse to allow my army onto the table simply out of irrational dislike.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 kronk wrote:
And you also need to decide if that's a group you'd have fun with, anyway.

True. I just feel bad for the guys who are stuck with that as the only gaming group (and no, before anyone accuses me of hyperbole, this has come up in past threads as a real issue that some players face).

It's their hobby too. Just because it's different to yours, doesn't mean it's inferior. If a group decides to only ever play if dressed in pink bunny costumes, more power to them. It's a hobby. If that's not the place to be a bit irrational at times, what is?

And no, the comparison to racism doesn't hold. But I don't think we need to go there.

I'm not claiming anyone way of playing is inferior, I'm saying I don't like people forcing the game into a little box and not letting it grow and flow naturally. 40k is a really big game when you look at everything it lets you do and when people cut parts of it off and claim they're somehow "less" or "not allowed" for one reason or another it bugs me.

But a lot of that probably has to do with my knee-jerk reaction to competitive play and what it does to the game as a lot of the limitations I've seen comes from that.

Anyone else cares to sit down?

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Zweischneid wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Zweischneid wrote:
/shrug

People know the quote. The problem is, a certain minority seems to confuse "official" with "appropriate-at-all-times-and-in-all-circumstances-in-all-games-without-exception".

That is not the case.

I haven't seen anyone arguing for that, Zwei. I usually see people asking for it to have the same perceived officiality as any given codex, which is what I personally am asking for.

There is no "perceived officiality"

All GW products are official. Kill Teams to Fantasy to Apocalypse.

But a common practice is that standard GW studio Codexes are used in most games, while things like Apoc, Kill Teams, Forge World, etc.. are played less often and would, among reasonable people, be preceded by a courtesy notice along the lines of "I am thinking about bringing some Forge World rules to the club tomorrow, you ok with this? If not, let me know!"

It's a common (but not universal) social convention in the 40K-gaming scene that has nothing at all to do with "official" / "not official"

The perception against which I am arguing is that FW rules are in the same category as Planetstrike / Cities of Death, where pre-game planning (beyond simply asking about lists) is necessary, because the FOC is different, the terrain is different, et cetera.

FW is so different to planetstrike and cities of death.
It's not an expansion that changes the entire game, it's a set of units you can include in your regular army list.
It's only an expansion is your playing an IA senario or such.
If your just adding a Tetra to your tau list there shouldn't be an issue

Brother Payne wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Zweischneid wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Zweischneid wrote:
/shrug

People know the quote. The problem is, a certain minority seems to confuse "official" with "appropriate-at-all-times-and-in-all-circumstances-in-all-games-without-exception".

That is not the case.

I haven't seen anyone arguing for that, Zwei. I usually see people asking for it to have the same perceived officiality as any given codex, which is what I personally am asking for.

There is no "perceived officiality"

All GW products are official. Kill Teams to Fantasy to Apocalypse.

But a common practice is that standard GW studio Codexes are used in most games, while things like Apoc, Kill Teams, Forge World, etc.. are played less often and would, among reasonable people, be preceded by a courtesy notice along the lines of "I am thinking about bringing some Forge World rules to the club tomorrow, you ok with this? If not, let me know!"

It's a common (but not universal) social convention in the 40K-gaming scene that has nothing at all to do with "official" / "not official"

The perception against which I am arguing is that FW rules are in the same category as Planetstrike / Cities of Death, where pre-game planning (beyond simply asking about lists) is necessary, because the FOC is different, the terrain is different, et cetera.

FW is so different to planetstrike and cities of death.
It's not an expansion that changes the entire game, it's a set of units you can include in your regular army list.
It's only an expansion is your playing an IA senario or such.
If your just adding a Tetra to your tau list there shouldn't be an issue

Yes, that is what I am saying.

Brother Payne wrote:

1. FW is so different to planetstrike and cities of death.
2. It's not an expansion that changes the entire game, it's a set of units you can include in your regular army list.
3. It's only an expansion is your playing an IA senario or such.
4. If your just adding a Tetra to your tau list there shouldn't be an issue

1. ...in your opinion.
2. ...in your opinion.
3. ...in your opinion.
4. ...in your opinion.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Zweischneid wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:


I know it's a stretch to compare racism to this, and I'm sorry to do it, but it really does bother me when people refuse to allow my army onto the table simply out of irrational dislike.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 kronk wrote:
And you also need to decide if that's a group you'd have fun with, anyway.

True. I just feel bad for the guys who are stuck with that as the only gaming group (and no, before anyone accuses me of hyperbole, this has come up in past threads as a real issue that some players face).

It's their hobby too. Just because it's different to yours, doesn't mean it's inferior. If a group decides to only ever play if dressed in pink bunny costumes, more power to them. It's a hobby. If that's not the place to be a bit irrational at times, what is?

And no, the comparison to racism doesn't hold. But I don't think we need to go there.

Well, then how would you like me to demonstrate my feelings? I feel discriminated against because I've put thousands upon thousands of dollars into my army, and lovingly cared for it since third edition, through fourth (where it didn't even have rules for two years), through fifth, and now into sixth. There are people who are saying that my effort might as well have been pissing in the wind, because it's Forge World.

apparently. And it sucks

 ClockworkZion wrote:

I'm not claiming anyone way of playing is inferior, I'm saying I don't like people forcing the game into a little box and not letting it grow and flow naturally. 40k is a really big game when you look at everything it lets you do and when people cut parts of it off and claim they're somehow "less" or "not allowed" for one reason or another it bugs me.

40K is only "big" if there are many varieties on how to play it. If you're definition of "big" is "there-is-only-one-way-and-that-is-the-everything-goes-way", than you misunderstood the concept.

Putting 10.000 spices all into one big pot isn't going to produce anything worthwhile. Selecting a different combination of 10 spices, including some favourite combinations you will go for again and again, as well as some more unusual ones you might use more rarely (and a few combinations that just don't do it for you personally, though they might for other people), is how 40K is a "really big" game.

 Zweischneid wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

I'm not claiming anyone way of playing is inferior, I'm saying I don't like people forcing the game into a little box and not letting it grow and flow naturally. 40k is a really big game when you look at everything it lets you do and when people cut parts of it off and claim they're somehow "less" or "not allowed" for one reason or another it bugs me.

40K is only "big" if there are many varieties on how to play it. If you're definition of "big" is "there-is-only-one-way-and-that-is-the-everything-goes-way", than you misunderstood the concept.

Putting 10.000 spices all into one big pot isn't going to produce anything worthwhile. Selecting a different combination of 10 spices, including some favourite combinations you will go for again and again, as well as some more unusual ones you might use more rarely (and a few combinations that just don't do it for you personally, though they might for other people), is how 40K is a "really big" game.

What is that supposed to mean?

 Zweischneid wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

I'm not claiming anyone way of playing is inferior, I'm saying I don't like people forcing the game into a little box and not letting it grow and flow naturally. 40k is a really big game when you look at everything it lets you do and when people cut parts of it off and claim they're somehow "less" or "not allowed" for one reason or another it bugs me.

40K is only "big" if there are many varieties on how to play it. If you're definition of "big" is "there-is-only-one-way-and-that-is-the-everything-goes-way", than you misunderstood the concept.

Putting 10.000 spices all into one big pot isn't going to produce anything worthwhile. Selecting a different combination of 10 spices, including some favourite combinations you will go for again and again, as well as some more unusual ones you might use more rarely (and a few combinations that just don't do it for you personally, though they might for other people), is how 40K is a "really big" game.

What about the people that own only one spice, and spent thousands of dollars in making that spice REALLY AWESOME, only to be told that it's not welcome?

Unit1126PLL wrote:Why not?

Because the argument always boils down to:

You: It says its official, so it's official.

Me: So if I made a fandex and called it official, it would be official?

You: No, FW is part of GW, and only GW has the authority to say what is official.

Me: Do you want to make an argument not based solely on an argument from authority fallacy?

You: No.

At which point, if argument from authority fallacies are on the table, I could say that FW isn't official because God Himself told me in a vision that it wasn't, and nobody has a higher authority than the Almighty. Of all the arguments (well, argument) I've heard for including FW as official, it's never expanded to the point of a real discussion from what amounts to a religious belief grounded in a fallacy. There are plenty of more sophisticated arguments for why FW isn't official (for example, a game is defined by its rules, and the rules defines what the game is, and the rules don't say that FW publications are part of the rules), but solid, reasoned dialogue from the other side never gets above the level of "40k is a social contract", which isn't really a reason for FW as much as it is for ANY extra-game rules you bring in, including fandexes.

The reason why these topics never go anywhere is because one side has gotten sick of the other side speaking fallacious gibberish and so has stopped listening, at which point the thread invariably turns into an echo chamber for the true faithful, and they wonder why they can't extend their influence out of their own group.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:


What about the people that own only one spice, and spent thousands of dollars in making that spice REALLY AWESOME, only to be told that it's not welcome?

Well. What do you want me to say?

You can't force people to like a spice. If I cannot stand garlic, the most awesome garlic in the world won't convince me. Hell, I might pity you and eat it nonetheless, but is that really the kind of experience you are looking for?

The solution would be to find people who do truly enjoy your flavour of things, rather than trying to cow people into chocking on it for the sake of your pleasure.

What if I told you I was comfortable with making the appeal to authority, and then told you that it wasn't a fallacy to do so in this instance?

from Wikipedia:

"Fallacious examples of using the appeal include:
1) cases where the authority is not a subject-matter expert
2) cases where there is no consensus among experts in the subject matter
3) any appeal to authority used in the context of deductive reasoning.

In the context of deductive arguments, the appeal to authority is a logical fallacy, though it can be properly used in the context of inductive reasoning."

1) GW is an expert on it's game system (arguably the only expert)
2) All branches of GW except for Marketing and Sales are in unanimous agreement about the legality of Forge World.
3) I am not making a deductive proof. I am stating my reasons why it appears to me that Forge World is legal.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Zweischneid wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:


What about the people that own only one spice, and spent thousands of dollars in making that spice REALLY AWESOME, only to be told that it's not welcome?

Well. What do you want me to say?

You can't force people to like a spice. If I cannot stand garlic, the most awesome garlic in the world won't convince me. Hell, I might pity you and eat it nonetheless, but is that really the kind of experience you are looking for?

The solution would be to find people who do truly enjoy your flavour of things, rather than trying to cow people into chocking on it for the sake of your pleasure.

Or, I could ask why you don't like garlic. If you have a good reason (I've eaten it for the last 10 millenia) then sure. If it's that 1) Someone else doesn't like it (tournaments, in this case) or 2)I've heard it's terrible but never tried it or 3) It's new and confusing and I'm afraid of it, then you're just being a child who doesn't want to eat his healthy brocoli for all the wrong reasons.

Besides, your analogy falls apart because spices don't cost thousands of dollars and don't have statements on them that imply (if not outright state) you can use them in whatever stew you want.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:


1) GW is an expert on it's game system (arguably the only expert)
2) All branches of GW except for sales are in unanimous agreement about the legality of Forge World.
3) I am not making a deductive proof. I am stating my reasons why it appears to me that Forge World is legal.

There is no such thing as "legal" in gaming.

Legal, if you are with definitions, pertains to the law, which is
the system of rules which a particular country or community recognizes as regulating the actions of its members and which it may enforce by the imposition of penalties.


Nothing in the hobby of playing Warhammer 40K can ever be enforced (other than things that are obviously already against law, such as stealing or violence), since mutual consent is required to play. Hence the concept of "legal" does not apply.

These debates never convince anyone to switch camps.

 Zweischneid wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:


1) GW is an expert on it's game system (arguably the only expert)
2) All branches of GW except for sales are in unanimous agreement about the legality of Forge World.
3) I am not making a deductive proof. I am stating my reasons why it appears to me that Forge World is legal.

There is no such thing as "legal" in gaming.

Legal, if you are with definitions, pertains to the law, which is
the system of rules which a particular country or community recognizes as regulating the actions of its members and which it may enforce by the imposition of penalties.


Nothing in the hobby of playing Warhammer 40K can ever be enforced (other than things that are obviously already against law, such as stealing or violence), since mutual consent is required to play. Hence the concept of "legal" does not apply.

1) GW is an expert on it's game system (arguably the only expert)
2) All branches of GW except for sales are in unanimous agreement about the officiality of Forge World.
3) I am not making a deductive proof. I am stating my reasons why it appears to me that Forge World is official.

Fix'd!

 Unit1126PLL wrote:


Besides, your analogy falls apart because spices don't cost thousands of dollars and don't have statements on them that imply (if not outright state) you can use them in whatever stew you want.

No analogy is ever perfect (though there are spices that cost thousands of dollars).

That said, you CAN use "the Forge World spice" in whatever stew you want. All that people ask is that if you cook for two, you ask the other person if they are happy with it before chucking it in? Is that so hard?

 Zweischneid wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:


Besides, your analogy falls apart because spices don't cost thousands of dollars and don't have statements on them that imply (if not outright state) you can use them in whatever stew you want.

No analogy is ever perfect (though there are spices that cost thousands of dollars).

That said, you CAN use "the Forge World spice" in whatever stew you want. All that people ask is that if you cook for two, you ask the other person if they are happy with it before chucking it in? Is that so hard?

No, not at all. What's hard is being categorically refused across an entire community. Like, I live in America and I own a certain spice. In every part of America, there's a social taboo to using the spice, for no good reason. What do I do then?

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Well, then how would you like me to demonstrate my feelings? I feel discriminated against because I've put thousands upon thousands of dollars into my army, and lovingly cared for it since third edition, through fourth (where it didn't even have rules for two years), through fifth, and now into sixth. There are people who are saying that my effort might as well have been pissing in the wind, because it's Forge World.

Then let me ask you something: does this apply only to Forgeworld?

Imagine you meet a nice beautiful girl and you ask her: "hey! want to play a 2000 points game of warhammer 40000?" and she is like "what? never heard of it" and you explain it and she is like "no no thanks".

She is saying that all your effort might as well have been pissing in the wind. She probably thinks you are a freak. She cares nothing about the money you spent. She is so insensitive! This person you have just met SHOULD dedicate a time to your hobbies, shouldn´t she? After all your efforts. You deserve it. She is indeed discriminating you. She MUST explain her reasons so you can start a discussion with her that will, no doubt, eventually turn in your favor.

See my point?
You cannot force people to like the things you like. Some people like Forgeworld, other people like BDSM, other people like Death Metal... In any social interaction, you must allow the other part to have an opinion. And you deserve no explanation if the opinion does not match yours.

If you want to use Forgeworld ask your opponent about it. If the opponent is fine, then go ahead. If your opponent says NO, then it is NO. The other player is not forced to give you an explanation, admire your efforts or the money you invested, or even care about your feelings on the matter. It is rude to keep insisting. And if the other person has a not-too-weak will, it should be useless too.

 da001 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Well, then how would you like me to demonstrate my feelings? I feel discriminated against because I've put thousands upon thousands of dollars into my army, and lovingly cared for it since third edition, through fourth (where it didn't even have rules for two years), through fifth, and now into sixth. There are people who are saying that my effort might as well have been pissing in the wind, because it's Forge World.

Then let me ask you something: does this apply only to Forgeworld?

Imagine you meet a nice beautiful girl and you ask her: "hey! want to play a 2000 points game of warhammer 40000?" and she is like "what? never heard of it" and you explain it and she is like "no no thanks".

She is saying that all your effort might as well have been pissing in the wind. She probably thinks you are a freak. She cares nothing about the money you spent. She is so insensitive! This person you have just met SHOULD dedicate a time to your hobbies, shouldn´t she? After all your efforts. You deserve it. She is indeed discriminating you. She MUST explain her reasons so you can start a discussion with her that will, no doubt, eventually turn in your favor.

See my point?
You cannot force people to like the things you like. Some people like Forgeworld, other people like BDSM, other people like Death Metal... In any social interaction, you must allow the other part to have an opinion. And you deserve no explanation if the opinion does not match yours.

If you want to use Forgeworld ask your opponent about it. If the opponent is fine, then go ahead. If your opponent says NO, then it is NO. The other player is not forced to give you an explanation, admire your efforts or the money you invested, or even care about your feelings on the matter. It is rude to keep insisting. And if the other person has a not-too-weak will, it should be useless too.

I disagree. I've said repeatedly, "if they have a good reason, then no problem." I won't force people to play with me if they don't know what the game is. But what bothers me is refusal to play without having a good reason.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:


No, not at all. What's hard is being categorically refused across an entire community. Like, I live in America and I own a certain spice. In every part of America, there's a social taboo to using the spice, for no good reason. What do I do then?

You certainly don't try to "legislate" a social taboo away.

Social Taboo is a good analogy actually. It fits the informal, social and institutional character of the Forge World / GW divide in the community. It's a question of habit, perception and tradition.

Hence why trying to go at it with "legal" and "rational" arguments will always fail and, more often than not, produce the opposite result of what you're aiming for.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
What if I told you I was comfortable with making the appeal to authority, and then told you that it wasn't a fallacy to do so in this instance?

from Wikipedia:

"Fallacious examples of using the appeal include:
1) cases where the authority is not a subject-matter expert
2) cases where there is no consensus among experts in the subject matter
3) any appeal to authority used in the context of deductive reasoning.

In the context of deductive arguments, the appeal to authority is a logical fallacy, though it can be properly used in the context of inductive reasoning."

1) GW is an expert on it's game system (arguably the only expert)
2) All branches of GW except for Marketing and Sales are in unanimous agreement about the legality of Forge World.
3) I am not making a deductive proof. I am stating my reasons why it appears to me that Forge World is legal.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Zweischneid wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:


What about the people that own only one spice, and spent thousands of dollars in making that spice REALLY AWESOME, only to be told that it's not welcome?

Well. What do you want me to say?

You can't force people to like a spice. If I cannot stand garlic, the most awesome garlic in the world won't convince me. Hell, I might pity you and eat it nonetheless, but is that really the kind of experience you are looking for?

The solution would be to find people who do truly enjoy your flavour of things, rather than trying to cow people into chocking on it for the sake of your pleasure.

Or, I could ask why you don't like garlic. If you have a good reason (I've eaten it for the last 10 millenia) then sure. If it's that 1) Someone else doesn't like it (tournaments, in this case) or 2)I've heard it's terrible but never tried it or 3) It's new and confusing and I'm afraid of it, then you're just being a child who doesn't want to eat his healthy brocoli for all the wrong reasons.

Besides, your analogy falls apart because spices don't cost thousands of dollars and don't have statements on them that imply (if not outright state) you can use them in whatever stew you want.

Lmao
I like where this is going. I am in full support of your arguments

 Zweischneid wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:


No, not at all. What's hard is being categorically refused across an entire community. Like, I live in America and I own a certain spice. In every part of America, there's a social taboo to using the spice, for no good reason. What do I do then?

You certainly don't try to "legislate" a social taboo away.

Social Taboo is a good analogy actually. It fits the informal, social and institutional character of the Forge World / GW divide in the community. It's a question of habit, perception and tradition.

Hence why trying to go at it with "legal" and "rational" arguments will always fail and, more often than not, produce the opposite result of what you're aiming for.

Yes, the way you try to defeat a social taboo is by grassroots resistance. That is what I am trying to foster. It's why it feels like discrimination - it's not something against which struggling is easy (like law is, because law has respect for argumentation).