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.

No but it does say you can take units from codices, codex supplements and dataslates, and in regards to Lords of War states "You’ll find a selection of Lords of War units in some codexes and in Warhammer 40,000: Escalation".

Ignoring their inability to pluralise the word codex, we can see that we do not, in fact, have permission to use Forge World units unless they are in said books.
That being said, allowing Forge World units is a perfectly reasonable house rule, considering they are written by a GW subsidiary and intended to be used in 40k, not to mention that the team writing them seems a lot more competent than the GW design team, if you want a tournament to allow Forge World just discuss it politely with the TO.

 PrinceRaven wrote:
No but it does say you can take units from codices, codex supplements and dataslates, and in regards to Lords of War states "You’ll find a selection of Lords of War units in some codexes and in Warhammer 40,000: Escalation".

Ignoring their inability to pluralise the word codex, we can see that we do not, in fact, have permission to use Forge World units unless they are in said books.
That being said, allowing Forge World units is a perfectly reasonable house rule, considering they are written by a GW subsidiary and intended to be used in 40k, not to mention that the team writing them seems a lot more competent than the GW design team, if you want a tournament to allow Forge World just discuss it politely with the TO.

If you have to resort to "house rules" to use official products produced by a company (FW isn't even a subsidiary, they're just a separate department like Accounting or Marketing), I'd suggest that the point of willful pedanticness has been reached.

Hey, I don't write the rules.
If I did Tyranids would be top tier.

What about that infamous "40k approved" stamp?

I'm all for allowing everything 40k approved in, lets me bust out my Rending Pony list.

Joking aside, what does the rulebook say about "40k approved" stamps?

GW - the publisher of 40k - published books saying units were 40k approved. The obstinance of many Aussies in this regard is mind boggling. The main Aussie forum, WAU is largely to blame I think.

40k Approved: Intended to be used in standard games of 40k and designed with that in mind.

1d4chan has a "40k approved" fandex for Tyranids, but I wouldn't treat that as a legal rules source any more than I would Forge World, and I would discuss with my opponent pre-game if they wanted to allow me to use them.
The 40k rulebook tells you what things are legal for 40k, and the GW design team have decided to not include Forge World "40k approved" units. I'm not sure why, you'd think they'd want people to buy Forge World stuff.

 PrinceRaven wrote:

1d4chan has a "40k approved" fandex for Tyranids, but I wouldn't treat that as a legal rules source any more than I would Forge World, and I would discuss with my opponent pre-game if they wanted to allow me to use them.

Wow.

You just compared FW to an id4chan fandex?

Really?

 kronk wrote:

 PrinceRaven wrote:

1d4chan has a "40k approved" fandex for Tyranids, but I wouldn't treat that as a legal rules source any more than I would Forge World, and I would discuss with my opponent pre-game if they wanted to allow me to use them.

Wow.

You just compared FW to an id4chan fandex?

Really?

Nearly a valid comparison when you read some of the Imperial Armour books.... Still, I'll take my R'Varna suits each dropping 4, 5" blasts each turn if that's the way we're going to go. If nothing else, it'll take care of the potential Daemon Factories out there.

Agnosto, you're using such a broad brush it's all over my screen and pants!

My group slowly relaxed towards FW; nowadays we use units from it without problem.

Just add it minature by miniature and people will be more accepting

 kronk wrote:

 PrinceRaven wrote:

1d4chan has a "40k approved" fandex for Tyranids, but I wouldn't treat that as a legal rules source any more than I would Forge World, and I would discuss with my opponent pre-game if they wanted to allow me to use them.

Wow.

You just compared FW to an id4chan fandex?

Really?

The Tyranid fandex is a book written by a group of people other than the GW design team who understand the game, competitive balance and the faction they are writing for much better than said team.
Sounds exactly like Forge World to me.

 PrinceRaven wrote:
40k Approved: Intended to be used in standard games of 40k and designed with that in mind.

Yes.


Intended to be used in standard game of 40K, which according to the rulebook (e.g. spirit of the game, etc..) all require mutual consent on what both (!) participants consider to be fun and most expedient to creating a fun afternoon.

"You-must-accept-me-playing-this,-because-it's-in-a-Codex/Supplement/whatever" is NOT standard 40K. Not even close.

 PrinceRaven wrote:
40k Approved: Intended to be used in standard games of 40k and designed with that in mind.

1d4chan has a "40k approved" fandex for Tyranids, but I wouldn't treat that as a legal rules source any more than I would Forge World, and I would discuss with my opponent pre-game if they wanted to allow me to use them.
The 40k rulebook tells you what things are legal for 40k, and the GW design team have decided to not include Forge World "40k approved" units. I'm not sure why, you'd think they'd want people to buy Forge World stuff.

One will notice the 6E rulebook didn't say anything about Dataslates or Supplements either, and yet nobody tried to use this argument that you couldn't use them under 6th. Nobody knows why the core GW sales channel never seems to mention FW. They probably figured they didn't need to spell it out in crayon that books with "Games Workshop" printed on the cover and spine, written by people who work at Games Workshop, that say "Published by Games Workshop" and sporting a GW Copyright, that were clearly written for use with GW's "Warhammer 40,000" gaming system, and that have explicit statements saying as such, probably shouldn't be too much of an issue for people.

 agnosto wrote:


Nearly a valid comparison when you read some of the Imperial Armour books.... Still, I'll take my R'Varna suits each dropping 4, 5" blasts each turn if that's the way we're going to go. If nothing else, it'll take care of the potential Daemon Factories out there.

On what planet is 1d4chan and an actual GW publication anything alike? yeah, the R'varna puts out lots of pieplates, but it's hardly the most broken thing you'll encounter.

 PrinceRaven wrote:


The Tyranid fandex is a book written by a group of people other than the GW design team who understand the game, competitive balance and the faction they are writing for much better than said team.
Sounds exactly like Forge World to me.

Except the people at Forgeworld *ARE* GW, their products are published *BY* GW, are copyrighted by GW, have big fat GW logos on them, and are sold by GW staff.

It's not like Fantasy Flight Games where they make RPG material under license as a 3rd part, Forgeworld *IS* Games Workshop.

Do organizers get pedantic enough to ban infantry models, e.g., using FW beakies in one of my squads?

Vaktathi wrote:

 PrinceRaven wrote:
40k Approved: Intended to be used in standard games of 40k and designed with that in mind.

1d4chan has a "40k approved" fandex for Tyranids, but I wouldn't treat that as a legal rules source any more than I would Forge World, and I would discuss with my opponent pre-game if they wanted to allow me to use them.
The 40k rulebook tells you what things are legal for 40k, and the GW design team have decided to not include Forge World "40k approved" units. I'm not sure why, you'd think they'd want people to buy Forge World stuff.

One will notice the 6E rulebook didn't say anything about Dataslates or Supplements either, and yet nobody tried to use this argument that you couldn't use them under 6th.

Actually several people did and tournaments were quite divided on whether to allow them or not, just like FW.

Except the people at Forgeworld *ARE* GW, their products are published *BY* GW, are copyrighted by GW, have big fat GW logos on them, and are sold by GW staff.

I know, which is why I find it strange that in the history of 40k there has never once been a single rule or FAQ stating 40k approved FW units are legal in standard games of 40k. The explanations I can come up with are:
- The main design team is choosing to ignore FW, perhaps because of inner-company rivalries
- These units aren't supposed to be legal for standard games, and only be brought out for those special games like an important battle in a campaign.p
- They've just forgotten Forge Word actually does anything besides Horus Heresy and Apocalypse
-

PaperworkNinja wrote:Do organizers get pedantic enough to ban infantry models, e.g., using FW beakies in one of my squads?

It's the rules, not the minis, that are the issue.

 kronk wrote:
Agnosto, you're using such a broad brush it's all over my screen and pants!

I'll just put my paintbrush away...

vaktathi wrote:On what planet is 1d4chan and an actual GW publication anything alike? yeah, the R'varna puts out lots of pieplates, but it's hardly the most broken thing you'll encounter.

It's just the most broken thing that I own so point of reference. Before forgeworld made the Chaos Dwarf army, there was a community army book that was very balanced and even accepted at major indi tournaments. My point here is that one does not have to be a GW employee to write solid rules, in fact there's a strong argument to the contrary. I've been around long enough to see community rules vs. GW rules and I've seen quite a few "amature" products that were at least as good as what GW writers produce...

 PrinceRaven wrote:
Unless I'm missing something, (entirely possible given how new 7th edition is) the core rulebook still doesn't include Forge World books as legal rules sources.

It doesn't need to. The FW books (which are a GW product) say that they are legal rules sources. The idea that the core rulebook has to approve something was invented by certain anti-FW members of the community, not by GW. In reality everything GW publishes under their "Forge World" brand name is part of the standard game.

I, for one, don't show up to a pickup game with 5 FMCs and expect people to be cool with it, I communicate with my opponent what sort of list they can handle like a civilised human being, leading to a more even and enjoyable game for both players.

But that's a very different situation. In that case you're talking about potential balance issues that could make the game a one-sided massacre that few people enjoy, that's not at all like a case of begging for approval just because your list includes units that your opponent irrationally dislikes. Asking for permission to use your FW units is more like people expecting you to beg and negotiate to be allowed to use tactical squads.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 PrinceRaven wrote:
I know, which is why I find it strange that in the history of 40k there has never once been a single rule or FAQ stating 40k approved FW units are legal in standard games of 40k. The explanations I can come up with are:

Here's an alternative explanation: GW's target market is young children buying stuff in GW's own retail stores, and their fundamental rule for deciding what is and isn't included in a "main GW" product is "can the kid buy a plastic kit for it in our retail store". FW products are only available through an alternate ordering system (which doesn't count towards each store employee's sales numbers), and require a level of modeling skill that their main target customer doesn't have. The last thing GW wants is for the parents to buy their kid a Thunderhawk for their birthday and have to deal with angry demands for a refund.

You can also apply this explanation to things like GW removing the rules for generic forests/rivers/hills/etc from 7th edition: why provide rules for water terrain if there's no official Citadel™ SkullRiver™ kit and Citadel™ Lake™ Of™ Blood™ to sell?

 Peregrine wrote:

 PrinceRaven wrote:
Unless I'm missing something, (entirely possible given how new 7th edition is) the core rulebook still doesn't include Forge World books as legal rules sources.

It doesn't need to. The FW books (which are a GW product) say that they are legal rules sources. The idea that the core rulebook has to approve something was invented by certain anti-FW members of the community, not by GW. In reality everything GW publishes under their "Forge World" brand name is part of the standard game.

But you see, since the rulebook doesn't say they are a legal rules source, you cannot use the rules from them that say they are a legal rules source, as you do not have permission to use any of their rules.
I can't get the guy who runs the local GW to write up a "Kitty Bio-Titan" dataslate, put a 40k approved sticker on it and call it a legal unit, just because it came from Games Workshop, there is a book that tells you the rules for what is legal, and it is called the rulebook. The idea that the rulebook has to approve things is a fundamental aspect of how the game is designed, not an invention.

I, for one, don't show up to a pickup game with 5 FMCs and expect people to be cool with it, I communicate with my opponent what sort of list they can handle like a civilised human being, leading to a more even and enjoyable game for both players.

But that's a very different situation. In that case you're talking about potential balance issues that could make the game a one-sided massacre that few people enjoy, that's not at all like a case of begging for approval just because your list includes units that your opponent irrationally dislikes. Asking for permission to use your FW units is more like people expecting you to beg and negotiate to be allowed to use tactical squads.

True, but the point is that you should discuss what sort of game you'd like to have with your opponent beforehand, there a few people I've met that wouldn't allow you to use a Forge World unit if you went over the rules with them beforehand. And of course in a tournament what the TO says, goes, I can't imagine any "but it's a legal unit" whining will let you use FW unit in a non-FW tournament.
And for all you know there could be someone out there that refuses to play against tactical squads.

 PrinceRaven wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 PrinceRaven wrote:
Unless I'm missing something, (entirely possible given how new 7th edition is) the core rulebook still doesn't include Forge World books as legal rules sources.

It doesn't need to. The FW books (which are a GW product) say that they are legal rules sources. The idea that the core rulebook has to approve something was invented by certain anti-FW members of the community, not by GW. In reality everything GW publishes under their "Forge World" brand name is part of the standard game.

But you see, since the rulebook doesn't say they are a legal rules source, you cannot use the rules from them that say they are a legal rules source, as you do not have permission to use any of their rules.
I can't get the guy who runs the local GW to write up a "Kitty Bio-Titan" dataslate, put a 40k approved sticker on it and call it a legal unit, just because it came from Games Workshop, there is a book that tells you the rules for what is legal, and it is called the rulebook. The idea that the rulebook has to approve things is a fundamental aspect of how the game is designed, not an invention.

I, for one, don't show up to a pickup game with 5 FMCs and expect people to be cool with it, I communicate with my opponent what sort of list they can handle like a civilised human being, leading to a more even and enjoyable game for both players.

But that's a very different situation. In that case you're talking about potential balance issues that could make the game a one-sided massacre that few people enjoy, that's not at all like a case of begging for approval just because your list includes units that your opponent irrationally dislikes. Asking for permission to use your FW units is more like people expecting you to beg and negotiate to be allowed to use tactical squads.

True, but the point is that you should discuss what sort of game you'd like to have with your opponent beforehand, there a few people I've met that wouldn't allow you to use a Forge World unit if you went over the rules with them beforehand. And of course in a tournament what the TO says, goes, I can't imagine any "but it's a legal unit" whining will let you use FW unit in a non-FW tournament.
And for all you know there could be someone out there that refuses to play against tactical squads.

you do realise the 7th ed book says to use rules from any GW publication, which FW is apart of yeah?

Does it? *goes to check rulebook*


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Hmm, this is new, turns out I was missing something after all.
"The rules for your Citadel miniatures are found in a wide range of Games Workshop publications, such as codexes, codex supplements and dataslates"

Of course, now we have a different issue, Forge World rules are legal, but you can't use their miniatures because they aren't "Citadel miniatures".
I vote we pretend the "citadel miniatures" part of the rule doesn't exist.

Anyways, hooray, Forge World is legal in 7th ed.

Page 357 "digital book"

"this book is, however only the start of your journey.... and there are a host of GW publications that supplemand and expand upon this book. these provide you with extra material you can incorporate into your games - detailing additional units you can deploy and missions you can play - ..."

so they are saying look to any GW publication for extra units rules or missions,


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 PrinceRaven wrote:
Does it? *goes to check rulebook*


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Hmm, this is new, turns out I was missing something after all.
"The rules for your Citadel miniatures are found in a wide range of Games Workshop publications, such as codexes, codex supplements and dataslates"

Of course, now we have a different issue, Forge World rules are legal, but you can't use their miniatures because they aren't "Citadel miniatures".
I vote we pretend the "citadel miniatures" part of the rule doesn't exist.

Anyways, hooray, Forge World is legal in 7th ed.

and well yes you can ignore that, they also say re the terrain, that you dont need the citadel version of them and just use the same dataslate/rules as they have...
so i see it can be carried over to other things as well.

and i like your quote better... its another one i saw but can never find.

It's in the army selection section.

Thought it was somewhere like that

 agnosto wrote:

 kronk wrote:

 PrinceRaven wrote:

1d4chan has a "40k approved" fandex for Tyranids, but I wouldn't treat that as a legal rules source any more than I would Forge World, and I would discuss with my opponent pre-game if they wanted to allow me to use them.

Wow.

You just compared FW to an id4chan fandex?

Really?

Nearly a valid comparison when you read some of the Imperial Armour books.... Still, I'll take my R'Varna suits each dropping 4, 5" blasts each turn if that's the way we're going to go. If nothing else, it'll take care of the potential Daemon Factories out there.

how are you dropping 4 pie plates a turn with each r'varna? from my understanding if the guns are charged for 4 shots they cannot shoot in the subsequent turn.

I use FW all the time in my games and honestly my experience is that they are generally more balanced then GW stuff. The R'varna is hardly overpowered, especially when I bring my Vanguishers with Beast Hunter shells through a Armored Group Battalion ally.

Some of you guys are missing a big part of this conversations. This topic isn't in no way, shape, or form talking about pick up games. This discussion strictly the tournament scene and allowing forge world models. Talking about pick up games is not contributing to the discussion.

I feel like if the forge world model has the 40k approved stamp (meaning the unit was designed to be played in a non apocalyptic setting) then it should be allowed in a tournament.

Saying forge world isn't a GW publication is silly, we all know GW owns them. GW doesn't add this stuff in a regular codex because they would lose money. That's why they release the FW books. They dont want to put all their eggs in one basket, so they spread out the rules. It's the same for supplements and data slates.

If supplements are being used in tournaments than FW books and units should be as well. It's basically the same thing IMO.

They're a bit different than supplements since they're written by a different team, but I get you're saying. As arulesfrom a GW publication they are legal, but a TO has ultimate authority over what is and is not allowed in a tournament. 7th edition out of the box is next to unplayable competitively so expect plenty of limitations for tournaments.

FW is a good addition to the game, IMO. Here in Houston, it's extremely normal to allow FW in pickup games and tournaments. The more you play it, the less "extreme" it becomes.

For those of you comparing 1d4chan 'dexes to FW books, I really don't know what to say..... That's absolutely absurd. I'm tired of hearing, "R'varna OP", that thing got its balls kicked in with its update. "Sabres are too good", sure, if people could actually afford them.

Name 1 tournament in the last 6 months (that has allowed FW) where an army using FW won. The game is not about who uses the more OP units, it's about the player behind the army. Hell, I've seen people run Flying Circus and win big tournaments. Before anyone says, "Flying Circus OP", it's an outdated list. The lists that will be dominating now are not Daemon Factory, but armies that win because they player is good. FW has no impact on this.

TLDR; FW is good, people need to actually play with them first before assuming they are "OP!!!!".

Lucarikx

The game is not about who uses the more OP units, it's about the player behind the army.

I don't believe you, name 1 tournament in the last six months that wasn't won by someone running an abusive list.