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.

.

Yes. Forgeworld Imperial Armour books are a part of "normal" 40k. Why wouldn't you be able to use him?

Because he's a space marine captain that can turn into a monstrous creature and tear things apart. I'm definitely not complaining it just seems so op.

Then don't use him if you think its OP.

Or do, because he may be OP.

I don't know the rules specifically for him, but I do know you're totally kosher using him in any game you want. It should tell you that he's an HQ choice for a Space Wolves army.

You might get some people refuse to play for reasons that have been hashed out on this board one too many times, but you're 100% good to use him.

He's like a wolf lord except... The Redmaw:
When Bran turns into a Wulfen he becomes The Redmaw until the end of the game. This form is tough, vicious and visceral.
WS7, BS-, S6, T6, W3, I6, A5, Ld8, Sv -
He loses ATSKNF, but gains in addition to IC, Acute Senses and Counter-Attack (ready for this?).. the following: Monstrous Creature, Fleet, Eternal Warrior, Feel No Pain, Furious Charge, Fearless.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
He also allows a unit he joins to outflank.

Sure, sounds reasonable.

No more ridiculous than dozens of other things already in the game.

Personally, I wouldn't have an issue. I'd be kind of excited if you had a really cool model for both forms nicely painted.

Forge World made an amazing model for him which they displayed at the 2011 UK Games Day but it was scrapped.

Here's his wulfen form.

Here's his Wolf Lord form.

Shame. Ah well. Wolves will get cool Legion stuff some day, which I'm sure will open up some cool conversion possibilities.

But yeah, you're good to run him in normal games.

 Kriswall wrote:
Yes. Forgeworld Imperial Armour books are a part of "normal" 40k. Why wouldn't you be able to use him?

From the Warhammer 40K 7th edition rulebook, under the heading 'Choosing Your Army':

An army is a collection of one or more units of Citadel miniatures, and can consist of any number of models. Before any game, players must agree how they are going to select their armies, and if any restrictions apply to the number and type of models they can use.

That's why he may not be able to use him.

It would be an extremely expensive endeavor anyway. I would have to buy the Imperial Armor book, a new wolf lord, and skin wolves from forge world. That's over $100 just to use one character.

 Ghaz wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:
Yes. Forgeworld Imperial Armour books are a part of "normal" 40k. Why wouldn't you be able to use him?

From the Warhammer 40K 7th edition rulebook, under the heading 'Choosing Your Army':

An army is a collection of one or more units of Citadel miniatures, and can consist of any number of models. Before any game, players must agree how they are going to select their armies, and if any restrictions apply to the number and type of models they can use.

That's why he may not be able to use him.

This is the same old argument. You and I agreeing not to use Tyranids when we play doesn't make them any less legal in standard 40k. Same with Forgeworld. Forgeworld IS a part of standard 40k, but as with ANYTHING, two players can make a house rule to remove anything.

Sorry, but the rulebook disagrees with you. It is a rule in black and white that both players must agree right there in the main rulebook. It is NOT a house rule. Both players must agree what is legal in their games. Just because something is published by Games Workshop for 40K doesn't automatically make it 'legal', especially in light of the fact that the main rulebook says otherwise.

 Ghaz wrote:
Sorry, but the rulebook disagrees with you. It is a rule in black and white that both players must agree right there in the main rulebook. It is NOT a house rule. Both players must agree what is legal in their games. Just because something is published by Games Workshop for 40K doesn't automatically make it 'legal', especially in light of the fact that the main rulebook says otherwise.

Then nothing is legal, making FW as legal as anything you decide it to be.

Therefore, you can use characters from FW just as much as you can use them from any codex. With Unbound being the way it is, I can't imagine someone honestly refusing a game on the basis of their HQ being a FW selection.

 Blacksails wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:
Sorry, but the rulebook disagrees with you. It is a rule in black and white that both players must agree right there in the main rulebook. It is NOT a house rule. Both players must agree what is legal in their games. Just because something is published by Games Workshop for 40K doesn't automatically make it 'legal', especially in light of the fact that the main rulebook says otherwise.

Then nothing is legal, making FW as legal as anything both players decide it to be.

Therefore, you can use characters from FW just as much as you can use them from any codex as long as both players agree.

Fixed the errors in your statement, but otherwise that is exactly what the rules are saying. It is up to both players to decide what's legal for their games.

 Ghaz wrote:
Sorry, but the rulebook disagrees with you. It is a rule in black and white that both players must agree right there in the main rulebook. It is NOT a house rule. Both players must agree what is legal in their games. Just because something is published by Games Workshop for 40K doesn't automatically make it 'legal', especially in light of the fact that the main rulebook says otherwise.

I disagree with the use of Tau Riptides in my games...
Are they illegal now? No they aren't.

Same argument goes for FW stuff. It's legal, but if someone doesn't want it in their game that's fine aswell, but you should realize that there is not one book supporting you in this claim and it is no more valid than me refusing to play against riptides.

I will not play anyone running a 2++ rerollable screamerstar.

That does NOT make them illegal to use.

DaPino wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:
Sorry, but the rulebook disagrees with you. It is a rule in black and white that both players must agree right there in the main rulebook. It is NOT a house rule. Both players must agree what is legal in their games. Just because something is published by Games Workshop for 40K doesn't automatically make it 'legal', especially in light of the fact that the main rulebook says otherwise.

I disagree with the use of Tau Riptides in my games...
Are they illegal now? No they aren't.

Same argument goes for FW stuff. It's legal, but if someone doesn't want it in their game that's fine aswell, but you should realize that there is not one book supporting you in this claim and it is no more valid than me refusing to play against riptides.

Do you actually have a rule to support your position? I do. Here it is again:

An army is a collection of one or more units of Citadel miniatures, and can consist of any number of models. Before any game, players must agree how they are going to select their armies, and if any restrictions apply to the number and type of models they can use.

Please provide an actual quote from the rulebook to back up your position.

My goal in playing is for both me and AND my opponent to have fun. It's really not a big deal if they don't want me to use him.

 Ghaz wrote:

Do you actually have a rule to support your position? I do. Here it is again:

Before any game, players must agree how they are going to select their armies, and if any restrictions apply to the number and type of models they can use.

He does. The same rule you are using... Thats his point. They all come under the same rule. Thats the whole point of the thread. The unit in question is no more or less legal than any other unit.

Can we stop this silly trying to justify bans on FW? They are just as legal, or not, as any other unit in the game. It is down to both players to decide what they want to play with and against.

First, its generally considered rude to post anything with the 'Fixed' and change someone's words. If you have a point to make, make it yourself instead of 'fixing' others peoples' posts.

Second, if you apply that 'rule' in a strict RAW sense, then nothing is legal unless agreed upon. And when nothing is legal, everything is legal.

So, to answer the original question of whether or not the OP can use Bran in a normal game, the answer is an resounding yes. The exceptions to this are if your opponent doesn't want to, but the same goes for literally anything, and that's a bit of an absurd thing to argue.

We might as well argue the 'legality' of whether or not an army can be pink. Or if I can use Leman Russ tanks in my Guard army. Within the other generally accepted methods of constructing an army, Bran is stated to be an HQ choice for a Space Wolves army, therefore you can take him as an HQ choice in a Space Wolves army. Your argument would be that Space Wolves are illegal because it requires your opponent's consent.

While technically true, its a bit absurd to apply it and ask explicit permission to paint your army pink or play Space Wolves.

To re-iterate, the short answer is yes. The long answer is yes, but like anything, your opponent can say no for any number of reasons.

Therefore its about as legal as anything else in the game, using the word legal in the loosest sense of the word as nothing is technically legal in the game.

People....
Anything which requires the consent of the individual players is outside of the preview of this Forum, for obvious reasons, in the same line as 'The Most Important Rule.'

JinxDragon wrote:
People....
Anything which requires the consent of the individual players is outside of the preview of this Forum, for obvious reasons.

Which is why the argument put forward by Ghaz is absurd, because technically, everything requires consent of both parties.

But everyone knows that, and its not an argument against using FW characters in games.

 Ghaz wrote:
Sorry, but the rulebook disagrees with you. It is a rule in black and white that both players must agree right there in the main rulebook. It is NOT a house rule. Both players must agree what is legal in their games. Just because something is published by Games Workshop for 40K doesn't automatically make it 'legal', especially in light of the fact that the main rulebook says otherwise.

No! Players must agree on what to use.
Agreeing to not use FW doesn't make FW illegal.
I get your point (I disagree with it), but you are using the wrong word.

I also think it's a stupid rule.
The first time someone denies me my FW-models, I will disagree with him using his regular army and point out that the BRB agrees with me.

 Ghaz wrote:

DaPino wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:
Sorry, but the rulebook disagrees with you. It is a rule in black and white that both players must agree right there in the main rulebook. It is NOT a house rule. Both players must agree what is legal in their games. Just because something is published by Games Workshop for 40K doesn't automatically make it 'legal', especially in light of the fact that the main rulebook says otherwise.

I disagree with the use of Tau Riptides in my games...
Are they illegal now? No they aren't.

Same argument goes for FW stuff. It's legal, but if someone doesn't want it in their game that's fine aswell, but you should realize that there is not one book supporting you in this claim and it is no more valid than me refusing to play against riptides.

Do you actually have a rule to support your position? I do. Here it is again:

An army is a collection of one or more units of Citadel miniatures, and can consist of any number of models. Before any game, players must agree how they are going to select their armies, and if any restrictions apply to the number and type of models they can use.

Please provide an actual quote from the rulebook to back up your position.

That's not how it works mate, you have to provide rulings why I wouldn't be able to use my citadel miniature. I don't have to provide a reason why I should be able. That's basic theory of proof. I don't have to prove I'm not guilty, you have to prove I am.
But if you seriously want to play that game. Imperial armor books are books published by GW and provide me with rules to play FW models (wich are 'citadel models') in a standard game of 40K.

First published in Great Britain in 2013 by Forge World, Games Workshop, Willow Road, Lenton, Nottingham, NG7 2WS

Picked right out of an imperial armor book.

So I have:
The rule you're trying to use:

An army is a collection of one or more units of Citadel miniatures

.
- Citadel miniatures, which the phrase you quoted says I can use.
- A book that says I can use said models in a normal game of 40K (imperial armor books).

And you have:
- A rule that says that you have to agree with your opponent what you can play which applies to GW models as much as FW models. It does not prohibit the use of FW models, it says that you cannot be forced to play a game if you don't want to play against that army. So if anyone tells me I can't play my FW model, I can just as easily tell them not to play one of their GW models.

I don't need to use 1 sentence from the BRB to use a forgeworld model, just as you don't need a rule from the rulebook to use your codex units. As long as I have a book, published by GW (or a company they own such as citadel/forge world) that says that I can play the unit.

It's something you need to find out about in your locale.
I'd like to run Dark Eldar with 2 Combined Armies Detachments, because I don't want to ally.
Is it legal? Sure.
How about 3? How about 5?
They are all legal.
Do I expect to be able to run 5-10 CAD's in a normal game? No.

So like many things, forge world, point values played, mission type, how terrain is set up, and which books and expansions are used need to be worked out.

As the Original Poster may I ask you all to stop arguing like children? I am perfectly fine to ask my opponent for permission. Besides I will most likely use Ragnar because he gives huge bonuses to other units.

Random Dude wrote:

He loses ATSKNF, but gains in addition to IC, Acute Senses and Counter-Attack (ready for this?).. the following: Monstrous Creature, Fleet, Eternal Warrior, Feel No Pain, Furious Charge, Fearless.

What errata makes him a Monstrous Creature?

DaPino wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:

DaPino wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:
Sorry, but the rulebook disagrees with you. It is a rule in black and white that both players must agree right there in the main rulebook. It is NOT a house rule. Both players must agree what is legal in their games. Just because something is published by Games Workshop for 40K doesn't automatically make it 'legal', especially in light of the fact that the main rulebook says otherwise.

I disagree with the use of Tau Riptides in my games...
Are they illegal now? No they aren't.

Same argument goes for FW stuff. It's legal, but if someone doesn't want it in their game that's fine aswell, but you should realize that there is not one book supporting you in this claim and it is no more valid than me refusing to play against riptides.

Do you actually have a rule to support your position? I do. Here it is again:

An army is a collection of one or more units of Citadel miniatures, and can consist of any number of models. Before any game, players must agree how they are going to select their armies, and if any restrictions apply to the number and type of models they can use.

Please provide an actual quote from the rulebook to back up your position.

That's not how it works mate, you have to provide rulings why I wouldn't be able to use my citadel miniature. I don't have to provide a reason why I should be able. That's basic theory of proof. I don't have to prove I'm not guilty, you have to prove I am.
But if you seriously want to play that game. Imperial armor books are books published by GW and provide me with rules to play FW models (wich are 'citadel models') in a standard game of 40K.

First published in Great Britain in 2013 by Forge World, Games Workshop, Willow Road, Lenton, Nottingham, NG7 2WS

Picked right out of an imperial armor book.

So I have:
The rule you're trying to use:

An army is a collection of one or more units of Citadel miniatures

.
- Citadel miniatures, which the phrase you quoted says I can use.
- A book that says I can use said models in a normal game of 40K (imperial armor books).

And you have:
- A rule that says that you have to agree with your opponent what you can play which applies to GW models as much as FW models. It does not prohibit the use of FW models, it says that you cannot be forced to play a game if you don't want to play against that army. So if anyone tells me I can't play my FW model, I can just as easily tell them not to play one of their GW models.

I don't need to use 1 sentence from the BRB to use a forgeworld model, just as you don't need a rule from the rulebook to use your codex units. As long as I have a book, published by GW (or a company they own such as citadel/forge world) that says that I can play the unit.

Sorry, but once again, the rules are black and white. Players must agree on how they're going to select their armies. That is an all-inclusive statement. There is no rule excluding Forge World or even the codices from that statement. Being published by Games Workshop is not an exception to the rule. It simply puts in the rules what GW and Forge World has said all along and that is both players get to decide on how they choose their armies. If two people can't agree, then it's probably for the best that the game doesn't take place because neither player is going to be happy.

Kangodo wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:
Sorry, but the rulebook disagrees with you. It is a rule in black and white that both players must agree right there in the main rulebook. It is NOT a house rule. Both players must agree what is legal in their games. Just because something is published by Games Workshop for 40K doesn't automatically make it 'legal', especially in light of the fact that the main rulebook says otherwise.

No! Players must agree on what to use.
Agreeing to not use FW doesn't make FW illegal.
I get your point (I disagree with it), but you are using the wrong word.

I also think it's a stupid rule.
The first time someone denies me my FW-models, I will disagree with him using his regular army and point out that the BRB agrees with me.

It does make Forge World illegal for that game. It's still an official Games Workshop product, but if you and your opponent agree not to use Forge World units and your opponent then proceeds use Forgeworld units then he does have an illegal army, just as he would in a tournament that has a rule forbidding Forge World units.

So at the OP's request, that is all I have to say on the matter in this thread. If you want to begin another thread, be my guest but the rule is crystal-clear.