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.

http://www.games-workshop.com/MEDIA_CustomProductCatalog/m3640318a_Warriors_code_V1.3.pdf

That is GW's tournament policy.

Of course, we don't have to use this if we choose not to, but this sets precedent that it's all in.

So do you want the D or the B(an)?!

It seems to be one or the other, now =)

Discuss.

Nope, thanks anyway GW.

Thank you GW !

Now i really need to watch the tournament threads.

 OverwatchCNC wrote:
Nope, thanks anyway GW.

Perfect response. This doesn't change anything about anything. More than the reaction to this, I'm interested in following this thread just to see how long it takes Blackmoor to point out that FW isn't listed as being allowed and using that as a justification to argue again that Reece should drop it.

It really doesn't change anything. Already many events from NOVA to LVO violate the policy and allow FW in some or all of their events (in their code, only FW models are allowed, while none of their rules are included).

I don't see the NOVA Narrative or the LVO, for example, following GW lead and banning Forgeworld rules.

*shrug*

Frankly GW's I guess trying to put TOs in a lose lose situation? It'd be nicer if they'd just say "Thanks for putting on the biggest and coolest events around that thousands of our attendees show up for and invest lots of money getting ready for!"

Is that just their official tourney rules, or are they telling you if you try and use other rules than this in a tournament you cant?

 tomjoad wrote:

 OverwatchCNC wrote:
Nope, thanks anyway GW.

Perfect response. This doesn't change anything about anything. More than the reaction to this, I'm interested in following this thread just to see how long it takes Blackmoor to point out that FW isn't listed as being allowed and using that as a justification to argue again that Reece should drop it.

You know Alan isn't the only one against FW inclusion. I am as well, and there are many others. He is just the most vocal about it because it drastically influences his attendance at tournaments and most of the westcoast ones are run, or influenced by, Reece now so FW is in.

I am not passionate enough about FW being included, nor a good enough player to place high enough at a GT for it to matter, that I will not attend a tournament because of it. Reece knows I am just as opposed to FW being included as Blackmoor, it's just how vocal we are about it that differs.

The person this will really get going is Peregrine. Just saying.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

MVBrandt wrote:
It really doesn't change anything. Already many events from NOVA to LVO violate the policy and allow FW in some or all of their events (in their code, only FW models are allowed, while none of their rules are included).

I don't see the NOVA Narrative or the LVO, for example, following GW lead and banning Forgeworld rules.

*shrug*

Frankly GW's I guess trying to put TOs in a lose lose situation? It'd be nicer if they'd just say "Thanks for putting on the biggest and coolest events around that thousands of our attendees show up for and invest lots of money getting ready for!"

Not to mention tournaments haven't required GW models only for a long, long time. So this document is pretty much moot from their own first few criteria onwards.

I wish there was an ignore button for GW corporate tournament announcements.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Orock wrote:
Is that just their official tourney rules, or are they telling you if you try and use other rules than this in a tournament you cant?

They can't do the latter so the point is moot.

 OverwatchCNC wrote:
The person this will really get going is Peregrine. Just saying.

Not really. We already know that GW's own events suck and their rules are irrelevant, so this just re-confirms my lack of interest in flying to the UK to play in a bad tournament.

MVBrandt wrote:
It really doesn't change anything. Already many events from NOVA to LVO violate the policy and allow FW in some or all of their events (in their code, only FW models are allowed, while none of their rules are included).

I don't see the NOVA Narrative or the LVO, for example, following GW lead and banning Forgeworld rules.

*shrug*

Frankly GW's I guess trying to put TOs in a lose lose situation? It'd be nicer if they'd just say "Thanks for putting on the biggest and coolest events around that thousands of our attendees show up for and invest lots of money getting ready for!"

For the purpose of the big tournaments this doesn't mean much. But for all those players that start the game at GW stores and are sluffed off to the FLGSes; it matters. Any FLGS that runs it's own tournaments without bothering to look up how Nova or Adepticon does it; it matters. Going forward this is what 40K is to any new player who hasn't found his way to Dakka, or the Bols blog roll.

 Peregrine wrote:
Everything GW publishes for standard 40k, including codices, supplements, Forge World, and White Dwarf, is part of the game. You can choose not to play with or against any of them, but don't pretend that your choice is anything but a house rule.

You may want to take a second look at your sig then. Turns out GW just published something, their tournament guidelines, that flies in the face of your own assertions.

This doesn't really mean jack diddly because those are for events at Warhammer World, so unless we all have to pack our bags and head to Nottingham, I think we're safe.

 CaulynDarr wrote:

MVBrandt wrote:
It really doesn't change anything. Already many events from NOVA to LVO violate the policy and allow FW in some or all of their events (in their code, only FW models are allowed, while none of their rules are included).

I don't see the NOVA Narrative or the LVO, for example, following GW lead and banning Forgeworld rules.

*shrug*

Frankly GW's I guess trying to put TOs in a lose lose situation? It'd be nicer if they'd just say "Thanks for putting on the biggest and coolest events around that thousands of our attendees show up for and invest lots of money getting ready for!"

For the purpose of the big tournaments this doesn't mean much. But for all those players that start the game at GW stores and are sluffed off to the FLGSes; it matters. Any FLGS that runs it's own tournaments without bothering to look up how Nova or Adepticon does it; it matters. Going forward this is what 40K is to any new player who hasn't found his way to Dakka, or the Bols blog roll.

I agree. That's why (again) it doesn't change anything.

That said, that's only really how local GW's will necessarily always do it. Many of the LGS in the NOVA area, for instance, often use NOVA formatted missions and rules. The same is no doubt true in other areas. AT the least, many LGS type environments often use pieces or entireties of many of the big/popular formats.

Either way you slice it, events that were using GW guidance as a baseline will continue to do so, events that weren't won't (B/c these guidelines are silly), and that's sorta "that."

Personally I am no fan of forgeworld, not for the models, but the shady way the company is running it. Oh hey, we are going to sell you big expensive detailed models, but there not REALLY our models. We are going to change the rules frequently, and make access to those rules very restricted, and spread them out over multiple books. Is your friend running a contemptor mortis dread with the old more advantageous rules from a previous edition and your not sure if they have been updated to be more balanced in the last few years? Guess you better take his word for it. We COULD add these units into the parent codex when it gets reprinted, but LOL why would we do that when you could buy TWO books to do the same thing.

Oh and we don't want the headaches of figuring out if the rules we made for them are remotely balanced, so to avoid any kind of problems your not allowed to use them. At our own companies functions. The company that made them. Because we don't play test and theres no way we can know if someone will come with some obscure list with units we made and just make the game look like the joke of tabletop rules gaming we all deny it is.

That's my problem with forgeworld.

 Orock wrote:
Personally I am no fan of forgeworld, not for the models, but the shady way the company is running it. Oh hey, we are going to sell you big expensive detailed models, but there not REALLY our models. We are going to change the rules frequently, and make access to those rules very restricted, and spread them out over multiple books. Is your friend running a contemptor mortis dread with the old more advantageous rules from a previous edition and your not sure if they have been updated to be more balanced in the last few years? Guess you better take his word for it. We COULD add these units into the parent codex when it gets reprinted, but LOL why would we do that when you could buy TWO books to do the same thing.

Oh and we don't want the headaches of figuring out if the rules we made for them are remotely balanced, so to avoid any kind of problems your not allowed to use them. At our own companies functions. The company that made them. Because we don't play test and theres no way we can know if someone will come with some obscure list with units we made and just make the game look like the joke of tabletop rules gaming we all deny it is.

That's my problem with forgeworld.

Exalted for good measure.

 Orock wrote:
Personally I am no fan of forgeworld, not for the models, but the shady way the company is running it. Oh hey, we are going to sell you big expensive detailed models, but there not REALLY our models. We are going to change the rules frequently, and make access to those rules very restricted, and spread them out over multiple books. Is your friend running a contemptor mortis dread with the old more advantageous rules from a previous edition and your not sure if they have been updated to be more balanced in the last few years? Guess you better take his word for it. We COULD add these units into the parent codex when it gets reprinted, but LOL why would we do that when you could buy TWO books to do the same thing.

Oh and we don't want the headaches of figuring out if the rules we made for them are remotely balanced, so to avoid any kind of problems your not allowed to use them. At our own companies functions. The company that made them. Because we don't play test and theres no way we can know if someone will come with some obscure list with units we made and just make the game look like the joke of tabletop rules gaming we all deny it is.

That's my problem with forgeworld.

While lots and lots and lots of people have lots of problems with Forgeworld rules that are pretty widely variable, and while lots and lots and lots of people think FW rules are the greatest and should be legal everywhere, that's not really the thrust of this thread.

FW rules are just an example, b/c if you for some reason think these Warrior's Code rules are the "official" way GW thinks their game should be played in an organized way, any event that uses FW rules is not how GW thinks it should be done (while, simultaneously, any event that has a fortuned Revenant Titan standing on a skyshield and huddling within 9 void shields ... is totally legit and well reasoned!).

That said, your example is a good enough one. GW's own home events won't use FW rules ...

But whatever, they will use fortuned Revenants hiding inside void shield batteries. I don't know why anyone thinks those new options are good for almost ... anyone. I also don't know why tournaments want to legalize esca, then immediately and tacitly acknowledge it's not OK by banning half of it.

Good point, Orock. Definitely keep using the regular Codexes and digital releases that are definitely tested and balanced and everything. Thankfully, Forge World is clearly less fair than the "main" books.

MVBrandt wrote:

 Orock wrote:
Personally I am no fan of forgeworld, not for the models, but the shady way the company is running it. Oh hey, we are going to sell you big expensive detailed models, but there not REALLY our models. We are going to change the rules frequently, and make access to those rules very restricted, and spread them out over multiple books. Is your friend running a contemptor mortis dread with the old more advantageous rules from a previous edition and your not sure if they have been updated to be more balanced in the last few years? Guess you better take his word for it. We COULD add these units into the parent codex when it gets reprinted, but LOL why would we do that when you could buy TWO books to do the same thing.

Oh and we don't want the headaches of figuring out if the rules we made for them are remotely balanced, so to avoid any kind of problems your not allowed to use them. At our own companies functions. The company that made them. Because we don't play test and theres no way we can know if someone will come with some obscure list with units we made and just make the game look like the joke of tabletop rules gaming we all deny it is.

That's my problem with forgeworld.

While lots and lots and lots of people have lots of problems with Forgeworld rules that are pretty widely variable, and while lots and lots and lots of people think FW rules are the greatest and should be legal everywhere, that's not really the thrust of this thread.

FW rules are just an example, b/c if you for some reason think these Warrior's Code rules are the "official" way GW thinks their game should be played in an organized way, any event that uses FW rules is not how GW thinks it should be done (while, simultaneously, any event that has a fortuned Revenant Titan standing on a skyshield and huddling within 9 void shields ... is totally legit and well reasoned!).

Why do you have to out my new most broken strategy for clawing my way into the top brackets with the least amount of skill and work required!

 OverwatchCNC wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
Everything GW publishes for standard 40k, including codices, supplements, Forge World, and White Dwarf, is part of the game. You can choose not to play with or against any of them, but don't pretend that your choice is anything but a house rule.

You may want to take a second look at your sig then. Turns out GW just published something, their tournament guidelines, that flies in the face of your own assertions.

It's tournament guidelines for one location, a place that only runs only a couple major tournaments a year. The same place which, last week, said Escalation would not be included

Far as I'm concerned, once they shut down US events and stopped running US tournaments GW's opinion are mute. Just a bunch of brits trying to force rules on the colonies :p

No Escalation without representation!

 Vaktathi wrote:

 OverwatchCNC wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
Everything GW publishes for standard 40k, including codices, supplements, Forge World, and White Dwarf, is part of the game. You can choose not to play with or against any of them, but don't pretend that your choice is anything but a house rule.

You may want to take a second look at your sig then. Turns out GW just published something, their tournament guidelines, that flies in the face of your own assertions.

It's tournament guidelines for one location, a place that only runs only a couple major tournaments a year. The same place which, last week, said Escalation would not be included

It was still published by GW.

MVBrandt wrote:


I agree. That's why (again) it doesn't change anything.

That said, that's only really how local GW's will necessarily always do it. Many of the LGS in the NOVA area, for instance, often use NOVA formatted missions and rules. The same is no doubt true in other areas. AT the least, many LGS type environments often use pieces or entireties of many of the big/popular formats.

Either way you slice it, events that were using GW guidance as a baseline will continue to do so, events that weren't won't (B/c these guidelines are silly), and that's sorta "that."

I just preemptively feel bad for the 13 year old kid who gets a Baneblade for his birthday and decides to bring it to that tournament he just head about at the LGS. The nice salesman at the GW store said it was totally legal in any game of 40K. The rule book and official website even backs it up.

 OverwatchCNC wrote:
You may want to take a second look at your sig then. Turns out GW just published something, their tournament guidelines, that flies in the face of your own assertions.

Since when is a set of rules for tournaments part of the rules for the normal game? You realize that GW's events have always done things that aren't part of the normal rules, right? Like limiting how many points you can spend on allies for the first year or so of 6th? These rules are no more relevant to the rest of us than any other random TO's personal house rules.

just preemptively feel bad for the 13 year old kid who gets a Baneblade for his birthday and decides to bring it to that tournament he just head about at the LGS. The nice salesman at the GW store said it was totally legal in any game of 40K. The rule book and official website even backs it up.

Sucks for that kid then I suppose. There is absolutely no guarantee of people wanting to play against X unit, regardless of if GW says so.

If the mythical little timmy bought 6 Necron flyers at the beginning of 6th and gingerly skipped down to the LGS to play.. He'd probably be disappointed at a lack of opponents also.

He'll get over it, or he won't.

 OverwatchCNC wrote:
It was still published by GW.

But it was not published for standard 40k. It was published for specific events at a specific location and has nothing to do with the game played by the rest of us.

 Peregrine wrote:

 OverwatchCNC wrote:
It was still published by GW.

But it was not published for standard 40k. It was published for specific events at a specific location and has nothing to do with the game played by the rest of us.

Neither was the majority of FW.

 OverwatchCNC wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

 OverwatchCNC wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
Everything GW publishes for standard 40k, including codices, supplements, Forge World, and White Dwarf, is part of the game. You can choose not to play with or against any of them, but don't pretend that your choice is anything but a house rule.

You may want to take a second look at your sig then. Turns out GW just published something, their tournament guidelines, that flies in the face of your own assertions.

It's tournament guidelines for one location, a place that only runs only a couple major tournaments a year. The same place which, last week, said Escalation would not be included

It was still published by GW.

yes, but it's only relevant at Warhammer World, and even then only for Throne of Skulls events, interpreting it as being relevant to anything outside of that would erroneous.

I dunno, I'm just at the point were I just don't get the anti-FW feeling. I mean, we've got codex armies capable of making rerollable 2+ Invulnerable save deathstar units, ridiculous allies combinations, formations that don't take FoC slots and don't pay additional points imparting very powerful abilities, armies that can ally with slight variations of themselves, superheavy tanks and titans and flyers in normal sized games...and people still treat FW like it's some 3rd party homebrew and I'm looking around going "hey ahh...have you *SEEN* what GW's putting out these days?"

I mean, GW wouldn't make this stuff or employ people to create it at their HQ if they didn't want people to use it. The Warhammer World staff may just not want to have to deal with verifying lists including FW stuff and chose not to include as a unilateral decision on their part for their events, doesn't necessarily reflect GW's intended stance for use outside of there.

 OverwatchCNC wrote:
Neither was the majority of FW.

The statements in the books saying "this is for standard 40k" disagree with you. If you can't see the difference between a FW book saying "this is official and intended for standard 40k" and a GW tournament policy document that only applies to events at one GW store, well, I don't know what to say to you since you're obviously not looking for a constructive discussion.

 Vaktathi wrote:

 OverwatchCNC wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

 OverwatchCNC wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
Everything GW publishes for standard 40k, including codices, supplements, Forge World, and White Dwarf, is part of the game. You can choose not to play with or against any of them, but don't pretend that your choice is anything but a house rule.

You may want to take a second look at your sig then. Turns out GW just published something, their tournament guidelines, that flies in the face of your own assertions.

It's tournament guidelines for one location, a place that only runs only a couple major tournaments a year. The same place which, last week, said Escalation would not be included

It was still published by GW.

yes, but it's only relevant at Warhammer World, and even then only for Throne of Skulls events, interpreting it as being relevant to anything outside of that would erroneous.

I dunno, I'm just at the point were I just don't get the anti-FW feeling. I mean, we've got codex armies capable of making rerollable 2+ Invulnerable save deathstar units, ridiculous allies combinations, formations that don't take FoC slots and don't pay additional points imparting very powerful abilities, armies that can ally with slight variations of themselves, superheavy tanks and titans and flyers in normal sized games...and people still treat FW like it's some 3rd party homebrew and I'm looking around going "hey ahh...have you *SEEN* what GW's putting out these days?"

I think nothing is happening to the game to make the majority of those leery of FW any less leery, and things are happening that are making people even leery about non-FW stuff.

No one is denying there's a large, large # of players who really want FW in events ... which is why nearly every major event allows them in various ways (from "some at-con events" to "all at-con events").

But when GW releases its OWN HQ Tourney rules and doesn't even include 'em, it's not engendering confidence.

I think we can all agree very few people will be happy if tournaments worldwide start mimicking the warriors' code, so this is another post of GW POSTED SOMETHING OFFICIAL, BOYS that's utterly pointless.

Reece, got enough threads yet?

 tomjoad wrote:
Good point, Orock. Definitely keep using the regular Codexes and digital releases that are definitely tested and balanced and everything. Thankfully, Forge World is clearly less fair than the "main" books.

At least GW dosent pretend they don't exist. And local tournaments more and more are putting reasonable restrictions in place for broken stuff, like our store has a 0-2 on any unit not troops, to try and cut down on cheese. I would love it if we could just cherry pick as a democracy and vote for every single unit, FW or GW, to be banned or restricted for competitive play. But since we cant, and one persons opinion on a forgeworld unit might differ from anothers, the easiest thing to do is restrict it all from competitive play.

The day the TO's get together, give gw the finger, and come up with a definitive list of banned/restricted/allowed units as a whole (as in FW AND GW units), I will gladly wish forgeworld blanket bans a bon voyage.

 Peregrine wrote:

 OverwatchCNC wrote:
Neither was the majority of FW.

The statements in the books saying "this is for standard 40k" disagree with you. If you can't see the difference between a FW book saying "this is official and intended for standard 40k" and a GW tournament policy document that only applies to events at one GW store, well, I don't know what to say to you since you're obviously not looking for a constructive discussion.

You're also not looking for a constructive discussion. Your position is "if you aren't using FW at all events and in all formats and in all ways, you're not playing the game right." It's a frustrating point of view for most TOs and others, since no amount of middle ground will satisfy. And look, I don't think you HAVE to look for constructive discussion with anyone, but to decry someone for what you perceive not to be when it isn't something you practice (namely, there's no possible give in your outlook prior to entering into any discussion involving FW) personally seems a little backwards. In other news I'm a big fan of not listening to GW's own prescriptions for what to play or how, and instead just putting on a wide variety of events that give all player types the opportunity to enjoy and play around with their hobby models!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Orock wrote:

 tomjoad wrote:
Good point, Orock. Definitely keep using the regular Codexes and digital releases that are definitely tested and balanced and everything. Thankfully, Forge World is clearly less fair than the "main" books.

At least GW dosent pretend they don't exist. And local tournaments more and more are putting reasonable restrictions in place for broken stuff, like our store has a 0-2 on any unit not troops, to try and cut down on cheese. I would love it if we could just cherry pick as a democracy and vote for every single unit, FW or GW, to be banned or restricted for competitive play. But since we cant, and one persons opinion on a forgeworld unit might differ from anothers, the easiest thing to do is restrict it all from competitive play.

The day the TO's get together, give gw the finger, and come up with a definitive list of banned/restricted/allowed units as a whole (as in FW AND GW units), I will gladly wish forgeworld blanket bans a bon voyage.

W.I.P.