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.

Having faced Bran Redmaw before, he's not that scary, especially when you consider he has no armour save in his wulfen form. He dies pretty easily.

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.

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.

Rules-wise we're speaking the exact same language.
Indeed if you agree not to use FW models, then it's illegal to use them. However, I think it's just narrow-minded to refuse to play vs models that are as legal as the units from codices. When I try to use a Hell blade chaos fighter everyone goes haywire, but when I refuse to play vs total cheese armies, I'm a pussy for not playing against 'totally legit armies'.

[rant][loudly]HOLY CRAP THIS AGAIN! *shakes fist*[/loudly]

I am seriously tired of that "You must agree with your opponent and his army blabla" bull****! This has been a rule FOREVER. What the hell would you do if your opponent said "I am not going to play you if you use Wave Serpents!"? Would you tie him to the table, electrocuting him to force him to play with you?

How can some people be so...narrow-minded, failing to understand the BASIC principle of playing a game as in having your opponent WANT to play with you?

Jesus!

[/rant]

 Kriswall wrote:


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.

Two *very* different scenarios.

The 40K Rule Book gives the rules for playing 40K, it says you can use a codex such as the Codex:Tyranids. The 40K Rule Book *never* gives permission to use characters or anything from Forge World.
Forge World says its okay.... and if you want to say that is enough that is your option, but it is still *very* different than the situation with Tyranids.

If Forge World is such a part of "standard" 40K... why has that *never* been stated in *any* main rulebook, nor any codex, nor any FAQ....???


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Blacksails wrote:

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.

Please cite the rule, in the 40K Rule Book, where it allows use of Bran?

I can cite the rule that allows for Riptides, or Leman Russes, or Tyranids, or Space Wolves.

We might as well argue the 'legality' of whether or not an army can be pink.

Again, very different. The 40K Rule Book specifically says you can paint your army, even gives advice. It does *not* say you can use FW models.



I understand that many people believe that Forge World is a reliable source of "standard" 40K rules since it is also owned by GW. While I disagree, I can understand the argument. But it still puts models like Bran in a *very different* situation than a Riptide or Leman Russ.

coredump wrote:
I can cite the rule that allows for Riptides, or Leman Russes, or Tyranids, or Space Wolves.

Please do, because according the rule that has been quoted that "prevents" the use of Forgeworld, then if I do not agree to the use of Codex: Space Marines, then it is not legal for Space Marines to be used.

coredump wrote:




I understand that many people believe that Forge World is a reliable source of "standard" 40K rules since it is also owned by GW. While I disagree, I can understand the argument. But it still puts models like Bran in a *very different* situation than a Riptide or Leman Russ.

Some might say that it's a reliable source because they are made by GW and the books explicitely state that the models can be used for standard 40k. But that's just a possibility, of course.

 Happyjew wrote:

Please do, because according the rule that has been quoted that "prevents" the use of Forgeworld, then if I do not agree to the use of Codex: Space Marines, then it is not legal for Space Marines to be used.

I agree, I think the rule about 'both must agree' is a pedantic argument. That is not my point. There is nothing in the 40K Rule Book that 'prevents' use of FW... but there is also no permission to use them.... and that is my point.

The Rule Book talks about using a Codex, or Codex supplement; it mentions books like Escalation or Stronghold Assault.
It *never* talks about using Imperial Armor, it never talks about using FW rules, army lists, or models. (except a few specific allowances in Escalation), It never gives permission for any of that.

It *could* have quite easily... but doesn't. The "40K Approved" stamp came out during 5th edition, and was never mentioned in the 6E or 7E Rule Books, nor any Codex, nor any FAQ release. The 7E Rule Book talks about Lords of War, and specifically mentions codexes and Escalation... yet not a peep about FW or the list FW released.

The 40K Design Team are tasked with creating the rules for standard 40K, and they write the Rule Book... and they have *never* given allowance for using FW books/models/rules/armylists/etc.....


Again, I realize that some folks assert that since FW is part of GW, their rules should also be considered 'standard'. But that is a far *far* different stance than trying to treat Bran and Riptides as in the exact same situation.

Just to make sure: your argument is that you know better what's part of 40k than GW themselves?

 Sigvatr wrote:
Just to make sure: your argument is that you know better what's part of 40k than GW themselves?

How do you read my posts and still come up with a question like that? Are you purposely trying to twist my words?

Where, just where, did I say anything about what *I* thought??


Again, and again, I reference the 40K Rule Book, and the 40K Design Team.... *they* are the ones that are responsible for developing and writing the rules, they are the ones that write the Rule Book, and *they* have *NEVER* given permission for using FW models. There have been dozens and dozens of oppotunities.. yet it has *never* happened.

So to turn this around... do you think you know better than the 40K Design Team??

I asked this because on the one hand, we got people claiming that they found a reason for why FW must not be used in regular games...

...and on the other hand, we have GW directly stating themselves that you may use them in regular 40k..

I don't see how the latter can possibly be up for debate.

If your group is okay with FW then yeah. Unless it's specified to be 30k, it's free to use in regular 40k!

 Sigvatr wrote:
...and on the other hand, we have GW directly stating themselves that you may use them in regular 40k..

Wow, really? Did I miss something? Did GW make an official statement outside a FW book that FW is 100% 40k legal? 0.o

Are you claiming that FW isn't GW?

 Sigvatr wrote:
Are you claiming that FW isn't GW?

I'm claiming that I don't recall FW being officially, explicitly allowed as an expansion/addition to 40k in any non-FW book. They didn't even bother to make a smallest mention of it in 7th ed BRB which, according to Dakka community, should be all about selling more stuff and imminent profit. Until non-sub faction GW(aka the Games Workshop Design Studio) bothers to mention it as an integral, everyday part of regular 40k, it'll be as much of an optional 'expansion' as Apocalypse.

I don't want to argue about it, I won't get into an argument regarding the fact whether FW is officially integral to regular 40k or not. Unless it's set in stone and officially aknowledged by the main GW studio/company, it's totally optional, I don't care about people's interpretations.

FW has 40k approved stamps in their books, and the unit entries explicitly state how to include them in your list.

FW being GW, makes it as official as anything else. To argue otherwise with the state of the game being what it is is patently absurd.

FW is as legal as anything made by GW to be played in games of 40k.

I'm just baffled there are still people who are legitimately trying to make a claim that FW isn't 'legal' for 40k. Seriously, we have Unbound as a rule (if it can be called as such), but people still draw the line at FW for unknown reasons.

The 40k approved stamps and explicit rules on how to include them in your force are good enough for me and many others. I don't need 'permission' to use a certain type of models, but then again, all mine are 3rd party, so I guess my army is 'illegal'.

It is simple. but you refuse to listen to the other side.

GW as determined that a group of people have been assigned the responsibility to develop and write the rules for WH40K. That group is the 40K Design Team. They release the Rule Book for 40K. Like all rule books... it tells you how to play 40K.

It does *not* mention anything about using FW models or rules. There has been many years and many many publications where they have had a chance to do so. It would have made a *lot* of sense to at least mention them in the LoW section, or the army building section, or probably a dozen different places just in the BRB. But the group that GW has tasked with writing the rules has said that the codex and supplements are okay... but have very consistently skipped over ever saying you can also use rules/models/etc from FW.

Now, I understand that since GW owns FW, that means that FW also has the authority to determine what is 'standard' 40K. I do not think that necessarily follows. There are a *lot* of companies that are owned by the same parent company.... some of those companies are even direct competitors. It does not mean that one company can decide policy for another company, even if they are both owned by the same parent company.


BUT.... that is beside the point. The issue I was addressing, is that you can *not* compare the situation with Bran to be the same as the situation with the Riptide or the Nid codex. Even if you feel they are both okay with standard 40K, they are two very different situations.


As for Unbound... it *is* in the 40K Rule Book... which is a lot more than anyone can say about allowing FW models....




PS. There is a 'new' argument creeping into the thread. Basicallly, that is it silly to disallow FW when the BRB already has so many crazy rules (ala unbound). That is a fine argument for HIWPI, but that still doesn't mean that is what the rules say.

The rules in the FW books explicitly state that they are 40k approved and lay out the rules for how to include them.

FW is owned by GW. When FW says its legal, its the same thing as GW saying its legal.

The point about how the rules for list building are so crazy now is that there's hardly any real standard for 'legal' ways to build an army anymore. While its not RAW, I think anyone would be hard pressed to even attempt to hold anyone to a semblance of a RAW argument for disallowing FW.

The stamp and rules are plenty permission and a solid ground for RAW for including them.

I don't have my book with me, but I remember that the 6th ed book made no explicit mention that supplements were a 'legal' option. Is that still the case for 7th?

Wow.

If we're specifically talking about Bran Redmaw, then we should be talking about Imperial Armour Vol 11 - The Doom of Mymeara.

Let me grab my copy. Hmmm... Credits and Acknowledgements page... "The copyright in all text, artwork and images herein is the property of Games Workshop Limited 2011" and "First published in Great Britain in 2011 by Forge World, Games Workshop, Willow Road, Lenton, Nottingham, NG7 2WS"

Now, It's important to remember that Forgeworld is NOT a seperate entity from Games Workshop. They are one and the same. It's like saying the HR department at my company is a different entity and so can't make policies that apply to the IT department. Same company. Feel free to read the Annual Report if you don't believe me. It's listed under the sales segments region. GW considers Forgeworld just a different sales source, much like North America versus Europe. Same company.

So, I have here in my hands a book published by Games Workshop with Games Wokshop claiming copyright.

Let me flip a couple of pages forward... Introductions page... Under the "Classifying The Entries In This Book" section... "3. Warhammer 40,000 Unit: This unit is intended to be used in "standard" games of Warhammer 40,000, within the usual limitations of Codex selection and force organization charts. As with all our models these should be considered "official", but owing to the fact that they may be unknown to your opponent, it's best to make sure they are happy to play a game using Forge World models before you start."

Hmmm... so I have a book written by Games Workshop and copywritten by Games Workshop with a specific note that marked models are to be considered "official" in "standard" games of 40k? Sure seems pretty straightforward to me. It's not relevant that the BRB doesn't specifically say that I can use Forgeworld models. The Forgeworld books, which are published by Games Workshop, just like the BRB, says I can. How is this not enough for some people? I'm genuinely perplexed.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
And the Apocalypse argument is deflection. Apocalypse is clearly an optional expansion. Noone is contesting that.

coredump wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:


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.

Two *very* different scenarios.

The 40K Rule Book gives the rules for playing 40K, it says you can use a codex such as the Codex:Tyranids. The 40K Rule Book *never* gives permission to use characters or anything from Forge World.
Forge World says its okay.... and if you want to say that is enough that is your option, but it is still *very* different than the situation with Tyranids.

If Forge World is such a part of "standard" 40K... why has that *never* been stated in *any* main rulebook, nor any codex, nor any FAQ....???


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Blacksails wrote:

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.

Please cite the rule, in the 40K Rule Book, where it allows use of Bran?

I can cite the rule that allows for Riptides, or Leman Russes, or Tyranids, or Space Wolves.

We might as well argue the 'legality' of whether or not an army can be pink.

Again, very different. The 40K Rule Book specifically says you can paint your army, even gives advice. It does *not* say you can use FW models.



I understand that many people believe that Forge World is a reliable source of "standard" 40K rules since it is also owned by GW. While I disagree, I can understand the argument. But it still puts models like Bran in a *very different* situation than a Riptide or Leman Russ.

Did you even read the fething thread? I've given arguments multiple times on how the BRB provides ruling that allows FW citadel models.

Oh, guys, I already said that I don't want to discuss our opinions on that. I know people have different ones and no matter how reasonable you think you are(or I think I am) neither will convince the other otherwise. Let's just drop the topic and agree that unless it's mentioned in a BRB or Codex as a non-optional piece of the game, it'll be in the same category as Apocalypse, Planetstrike, Death from the Skies and other 'expansions' that have to be agreed upon by both players.

DaPino wrote:
Did you even read the fething thread? I've given arguments multiple times on how the BRB provides ruling that allows FW citadel models.

Except that you fething didn't.

You only stated your opinion and interpretation.

coredump wrote:
It is simple.

It really is. Since this is YMDC, let's go back to RAW.

RAW, there is explicit permission by GW to use 40k approved units.

If you want to make a valid argument (and your personal opinion isn't...far from it), tell us the exact page / para where it is said that you may not.

Kierych - page 116 boxout. States GW publications. Fw books are a gw publication

Proven, beyond doubt

 Sigvatr wrote:

coredump wrote:
It is simple.

It really is. Since this is YMDC, let's go back to RAW.

RAW, there is explicit permission by GW to use 40k approved units.

If you want to make a valid argument (and your personal opinion isn't...far from it), tell us the exact page / para where it is said that you may not.

Well, RAW it's said in a book that is, at best, an expansion for 40k, not an integral part of it.

To be honest it kinda baffles me. I've just went through my 7th ed BRB and the step-child of wishful thinking that could even remotely make FW legal is that units come from various Games Workshop publications.. but then they explicitly mention dataslates, supplements and codexes.. I really don't get it why didn't they even bother to put in "or Imperial Armour books". Makes me kinda wonder - aren't FW books considered Forge World publications then? I mean, I know that FW belongs to GW, but even the slowed Stronghold Assault and Escalation(which are mandatory and regular additions to standard 40k) are aknowledged in the BRB while FW books aren't.

There are three problems with FW regarding it's legality:
1 - lack of any mention by name in GW(in other words - non FW) publications;
2 - FW books getting obsolete in very weird order(Imperial Armour books with various numbers turning obsolete while, say, lower numbers may still be up to date and legal) and all those expansions;
3 - the.. community. People already whine that they have to pay for dataslates to have 'complete' Codexes. Now think what'd happen if GW told them that anything FW makes is ALSO a part of their Codex as long as it gets a stamp. Know what Dakka would be filled with? "OH, SO NOW WE HAVE TO BUY EXPENSIVE BRB, A CODEX, DATASLATES AND IMPERIAL ARMOUR BOOKS OF WHICH WE WON'T USE LIKE 80% AS WE ONLY HAVE TO BUY THEM TO FIELD TWO UNITS? GEE(dubs), THANKS OBAMA!". See the reasoning? As it is now it's perfectly optional and legal for use as long as it's agreed upon, just like Planetstrike, Cities of Death and Apocalypse. People don't feel like they -have to- buy IA books(which can get confusing with those obsolete tomes) to have a complete faction list while they can, after agreeing upon using it with friends, expand their forces with optional things from FW should they feel the need to use them.

To me the IA books saying "This unit is 40k legal!" is more like FW saying "so, see, guys, we've polished the rules for it, it should be balanced and if you decide to play using our rules, we vouch that they'll do okay and won't break your game unlike some of our more volatile designs that otherwise could be more suitable for Apocalypse". Of course I don't mind using FW but I wouldn't try to shove my opinion on it's legality down my opponent's throat if he didn't feel too comfortable about playing with FW units. If someone says he doesn't want to play with FW rules I'll replace my Avenger with a Vendetta until GW in pure, non sub-company publication says that they're 100% legal and fit in the 40k format as long as their respective FW book marks them as such and my opponent can't do jack bit about it. Just like they did with Stronghold Assault and Escalation.

Edit: hah, just went over that same paragraph a moment ago and commented on it in this post, Nosferatu.

Edit 2: goddamn typos

 Klerych wrote:
[...]

I don't care a single bit for your entire post.

Page and para where it says that FW is forbidden and directly conflicts with the explicit permission to use FW given by GW.

Otherwise, either state that you don't want to allow FW (which is completely different from being allowed to) or drop out of any RAW discussion.

"such as", meaning non exhaustive.

Explicit allowance to use any gw publication, and every one of my ia books is a gw publication.

 Sigvatr wrote:

 Klerych wrote:
[...]

I don't care a single bit for your entire post.

Page and para where it says that FW is forbidden and directly conflicts with the explicit permission to use FW given by GW.

Otherwise, either state that you don't want to allow FW (which is completely different from being allowed to) or drop out of any RAW discussion.

Where is the explicit permission to use FW? Nowhere in the 40k rulebook, as pointed out previously. There is explicit permission to use Forgeworld publications in the WW Throne of Skulls Warriors' Code, page 3, but I can see no explicit permission to use FW in the 7th edition rulebook, and there are a lot of pages in it.

Beyond the rules as written, of course there is an etiquette. Despite the people who regard 40k as an olympic support, people are supposed to enjoy themselves. If you want to use a FW character, no that's not unreasonable, as long as you tell your oppo first and give him/her opportunity to field something equivalent

 Hivefleet Oblivion wrote:


Where is the explicit permission to use FW? Nowhere in the 40k rulebook, as pointed out previously. There is explicit permission to use Forgeworld publications in the WW Throne of Skulls Warriors' Code, page 3, but I can see no explicit permission to use FW in the 7th edition rulebook, and there are a lot of pages in it.

Do you neither got a page / para that directly conflicts with the direct permission by GW to use FW models?

 Sigvatr wrote:
I don't care a single bit for your entire post.

Wow, way to sound like a total douche, man.

 Sigvatr wrote:
Page and para where it says that FW is forbidden and directly conflicts with the explicit permission to use FW given by GW.

Otherwise, either state that you don't want to allow FW (which is completely different from being allowed to) or drop out of any RAW discussion.

I wasn't actually trying to prove anything. My post was all about my subjective opinion and more of loud thinking about conflicting things. You're saying that your Forge World IA book is legal because it says so as FW is a GW sub-company, thus making it a GW publication in your eyes. I'm saying that the non-FW books published by the parent company don't make a single goddamn mention of -anything- FW, thus making it vague and optional rather than a mandatory part of the game, stamped or not. And if they would be 100% regular 40k legal the BRB would have a small paragraph or even a sentence mentioning them like "units approved for 40k in FW-published books can be used in regular 40k games in addition to the ones from their respective faction's codex". Otherwise it's an optional spin-off rule set to me. Your opinion, my opinion, we both think we're right, no point going to be made, further discussion redundant. You get nothing, good day, sir.

Kierych - again, fw is not a separate company. Every. Single. One. Of my ia books is copywritten by gw, meaning they are a gw publication.

You have your opinion, but it is factually incorrect.

Fact #1 - Forgeworld is a department within Games Workshop, just like the Design Studio. (Source: GW Annual Report Sales Segment Section)

Fact #2 - I have explicit permission in the BRB to use Games Workshop Publications. (Pg 119? No one seems to be contesting this.)

Fact #3 - As Forgeworld is a department within Games Workshop (just like the Design Studio, 'Forgeworld Publications' ARE Games Workshop Publications.

Therefore, I have explicit permission to use Games Workshop publications originating withing the Forgeworld design studio in much the same way I have explicit permission to use Games Workshop publications originating withing Black Library's Digital Editions design studio. These are all different design departments within what is a relatively small corporate structure.

It is important to note that Forgeworld isn't owned by Games Workshop. That implies that it is a seperate legal entity. It is not. It is the same company. Saying this is, at best, misleading and clouding the issue. It is best to think of Forgeworld as the specialty design studio down the hall from the main one... you know, those guys who still work with physical sculpts and resin casting.