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.

Not Online!!! wrote:
Heck they could just sell the FW rules in GW stores as to boost sales and make at the same time more sales through that for FW, free advertisement.

The problem is that this goes against GW's business model for their stores: every rule has a plastic kit, every plastic kit has a rule. If you look through the codex and see something you like the employee can immediately sell you a plastic kit for it. If you see a kit on the shelf that looks interesting the employee can immediately sell you rules for it. The last thing they want is to have to tell some kid no, you really shouldn't buy that FW kit because resin is hard and don't you really want this space marine squad instead anyway. Or, worse, to have to deal with angry parents who are upset that the GW employee sold their precious kid a model kit that can't be thrown together in under 10 minutes. Keeping the FW rules out of the codices allows them to maintain the purity of their kid-farming operation in their retail stores and have a soft limit that only more experienced adult customers will encounter those products.

Not Online!!! wrote:

Ehhh, with CA they have done it. (As much as i hate it for beeing a ripoff)
Also their website, and the Erratas are at the same place.
Can't get anymore offical then that really now.

I have debunked this argument already. Just because it is in CA does not mean it is a non-optional part of play. GW releases updates to the "city of death" rulesets in CA and it's not ok to just assume you are playing "cities of death" without asking your opponent first. I mean to say that GW should release a statement saying you don't have to ask your opponent's permission to use your FW units... in the same way you don't have to ask your opponent's permission to use the Space Marine Codex.

Not Online!!! wrote:
Generally the last point comes down to etiquette no?
I mean Codex Armies are vastly superior to non codex armies, therefore i should not pick the most competitive IG soup list against a dude that walks in with a BW blitz now should i?
Again a pure FW army will perform significantly worse then GW armies. Granted most pure FW armies and conversions of IG using FW rules are taken because of the customability and personalization. Winning, atleast for me, is secondary... in fact i had recently a sm player complain about the fact that i got tabled by turn 3 playing my R&H. (DAMN YOU MARAUDERS "angrily shakes fist at models gravjumping")

Yes, definitely. I mean, I did literally say that you should bring Forgeworld units if it leads to a better game.

w1zard wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

Ehhh, with CA they have done it. (As much as i hate it for beeing a ripoff)
Also their website, and the Erratas are at the same place.
Can't get anymore offical then that really now.

I have debunked this argument already. Just because it is in CA does not mean it is a non-optional part of play. GW releases updates to the "city of death" rulesets in CA and it's not ok to just assume you are playing "cities of death" without asking your opponent first. I mean to say that GW should release a statement saying you don't have to ask your opponent's permission to use your FW units... in the same way you don't have to ask your opponent's permission to use the Space Marine Codex.

You would be correct, if the FW units were not under the matched play rules like the GW units in there and had a separete entry, which they don't, they are still under matched play and therefore an official part of matched play.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:
Heck they could just sell the FW rules in GW stores as to boost sales and make at the same time more sales through that for FW, free advertisement.

The problem is that this goes against GW's business model for their stores: every rule has a plastic kit, every plastic kit has a rule. If you look through the codex and see something you like the employee can immediately sell you a plastic kit for it. If you see a kit on the shelf that looks interesting the employee can immediately sell you rules for it. The last thing they want is to have to tell some kid no, you really shouldn't buy that FW kit because resin is hard and don't you really want this space marine squad instead anyway. Or, worse, to have to deal with angry parents who are upset that the GW employee sold their precious kid a model kit that can't be thrown together in under 10 minutes. Keeping the FW rules out of the codices allows them to maintain the purity of their kid-farming operation in their retail stores and have a soft limit that only more experienced adult customers will encounter those products.

Well, now there is the question to ask, what is their main target audience, recently it is becoming a lot less clear now is it?
What with all the new releases of certain books and their dabbling in the Horror category.

I'd wager however, that their main buyers, atleast of modells are somewhere inbetween 15-50. Not excactly kids.

w1zard wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

Ehhh, with CA they have done it. (As much as i hate it for beeing a ripoff)
Also their website, and the Erratas are at the same place.
Can't get anymore offical then that really now.

I have debunked this argument already. Just because it is in CA does not mean it is a non-optional part of play. GW releases updates to the "city of death" rulesets in CA and it's not ok to just assume you are playing "cities of death" without asking your opponent first. I mean to say that GW should release a statement saying you don't have to ask your opponent's permission to use your FW units... in the same way you don't have to ask your opponent's permission to use the Space Marine Codex.

Cities of Death affects how both armies are played.

Forge World only affects what possible options one player might take.

Saying "you can't assuming FW is always active" makes no sense unless you also have rules like "you can't assume taking Primaris Marines are okay" or "you can't assume batallions are fine".

 kadeton wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:
Generally the last point comes down to etiquette no?
I mean Codex Armies are vastly superior to non codex armies, therefore i should not pick the most competitive IG soup list against a dude that walks in with a BW blitz now should i?
Again a pure FW army will perform significantly worse then GW armies. Granted most pure FW armies and conversions of IG using FW rules are taken because of the customability and personalization. Winning, atleast for me, is secondary... in fact i had recently a sm player complain about the fact that i got tabled by turn 3 playing my R&H. (DAMN YOU MARAUDERS "angrily shakes fist at models gravjumping")

Yes, definitely. I mean, I did literally say that you should bring Forgeworld units if it leads to a better game.

How dare you make fun of my bad rolls (1,1,1 with a cp reroll).

Not Online!!! wrote:
I'd wager however, that their main buyers, atleast of modells are somewhere inbetween 15-50. Not excactly kids.

Main buyers =/= main buyers in GW stores. At least in the US, where independent stores are common, there is little reason to ever go into a GW store unless you're a kid who doesn't know any better. Independent stores have more gaming space, a wider range of products, lower prices, etc. GW's goal with the retail stores is to sell starter boxes to kids (or, more accurately, their parents), they acknowledge that their retail stores aren't going to hold the attention of adults and/or veteran players and barely even try. Meanwhile the adults who may make up the majority of revenue are typically buying and playing at an independent store or a private club/home game and the "plastic kits only" rule doesn't apply to them.

Also, I'd dispute that a 15 year old is not a kid. They are.

Not Online!!! wrote:
You would be correct, if the FW units were not under the matched play rules like the GW units in there and had a separete entry, which they don't, they are still under matched play and therefore an official part of matched play.

Can you explain what you are talking about? There is no "matched play" section. The only sections are sections referring to the different publications. There is one for Imperial Armor but I don't see anything regarding "matched play" at all.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Cities of Death affects how both armies are played.

Forge World only affects what possible options one player might take.

Saying "you can't assuming FW is always active" makes no sense unless you also have rules like "you can't assume taking Primaris Marines are okay" or "you can't assume batallions are fine".

You taking FW in your army affects me too, because I have to play against it.

Again, supplementary book + supplementary models = suplementary and totally optional. This is not how I think but it is how a lot of people who don't like forgeworld think.

w1zard wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:
You would be correct, if the FW units were not under the matched play rules like the GW units in there and had a separete entry, which they don't, they are still under matched play and therefore an official part of matched play.

Can you explain what you are talking about? There is no "matched play" section. The only sections are sections referring to the different publications. There is one for Imperial Armor but I don't see anything regarding "matched play" at all.

The updated point value part, not matched play, my bad.

w1zard wrote:
You taking FW in your army affects me too, because I have to play against it.

Only in the same way that taking a tactical squad instead of a scout squad does. You don't ask me for special permission before taking the tactical squad, I don't have to ask you for special permission before taking the FW unit.

Not Online!!! wrote:

w1zard wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:
You would be correct, if the FW units were not under the matched play rules like the GW units in there and had a separete entry, which they don't, they are still under matched play and therefore an official part of matched play.

Can you explain what you are talking about? There is no "matched play" section. The only sections are sections referring to the different publications. There is one for Imperial Armor but I don't see anything regarding "matched play" at all.

The updated point value part, not matched play, my bad.

The updated point values are mandatory sure.

Just like the rules changes to the "cities of death" ruleset are mandatory.

That still doesn't mean that we are required to use the cities of death ruleset every game, it's just that if we want to we are required to use the updated rules.

Same goes for forgeworld units.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:

w1zard wrote:
You taking FW in your army affects me too, because I have to play against it.

Only in the same way that taking a tactical squad instead of a scout squad does. You don't ask me for special permission before taking the tactical squad, I don't have to ask you for special permission before taking the FW unit.

Because the scout squad is actually in the space marine codex, FW units aren't. The same way I don't have to ask for permission to play by rules in the core rulebook. However, if I wanted to play by rules in the "cities of death" book I do have to ask for permission because it is a supplementary rulebook. The same way if I want to use forgeworld units I have to ask permission because the datasheets are in a supplementary book.

And before you make the argument that codices are technically "supplementary" books to the indices... the core rules state that you have to use the codex versions of the datasheets except under very specific circumstances. Therefore codices = core rules.

This is the way that the anti-FW people generally think. It's what I used to think before I had my opinion swayed.

w1zard wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

w1zard wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:
You would be correct, if the FW units were not under the matched play rules like the GW units in there and had a separete entry, which they don't, they are still under matched play and therefore an official part of matched play.

Can you explain what you are talking about? There is no "matched play" section. The only sections are sections referring to the different publications. There is one for Imperial Armor but I don't see anything regarding "matched play" at all.

The updated point value part, not matched play, my bad.

The updated point values are mandatory sure.

Just like the rules changes to the "cities of death" ruleset are mandatory.

That still doesn't mean that we are required to use the cities of death ruleset every game, it's just that if we are required to use the updated rules.

Same goes for forgeworld units.

Nope, Cities of Death is a diffrent type or subtype of the game, that needs extra rules as described in the BRB and they get classified as EXPANSIONS, just like PLANETARY INVASION and SIEGE WARFARE and DEATH FROM THE SKY. (in my German one that is on p 238.)

Unlike matched play, which just requires an equal pts. limit and is restricted rules and scenario wise. p.212-235.
See. pts limit. IT does not matter what 40k army i bring, only that there is a pts limit of equal size for both players.
Ergo matched play--> specific scenarios with pts.

w1zard wrote:
Because the scout squad is actually in the space marine codex, FW units aren't.

So what? This is not a difference that matters in GW's rules. You're inventing a house rule and then insisting that people care about it.

The same way I don't have to ask for permission to play by rules in the core rulebook.

Codex rules are not the core rulebook.

However, if I wanted to play by rules in the "cities of death" book I do have to ask for permission because it is a supplementary rulebook.

No, you have to ask permission because it functionally requires it. You can't have a game where one player plays CoD and the other doesn't. Therefore both players must agree on whether or not CoD will be used in a game. You can have a game where one player uses FW rules and the other doesn't, just like taking a scout squad vs. a tactical squad. There is no functional reason to require permission, only a sense of entitlement to veto power.

The same way if I want to use forgeworld units I have to ask permission because the datasheets are in a supplementary book.

FW books and index books are the core rules. Codices are a supplementary book. So you actually have this backwards: you need special permission to use the supplementary codex book, but FW rules do not require any special permission.

the core rules state that you have to use the codex versions of the datasheets except under very specific circumstances.

They state no such thing. Please do not confuse the optional supplementary FAQ/errata document with the core rules. If you do not choose to play with the optional supplement then nothing it contains, including the note about using codex rules, applies.

This is the way that the anti-FW people generally think. It's what I used to think before I had my opinion swayed.

It's what they think, and it's completely irrational and unreasonable.

Not Online!!! wrote:

Nope, Cities of Death is a diffrent type or subtype of the game, that needs extra rules as described in the BRB and they get classified as EXPANSIONS, just like PLANETARY INVASION and SIEGE WARFARE and DEATH FROM THE SKY. (in my German one that is on p 238.)

Unlike matched play, which just requires an equal pts. limit and is restricted rules and scenario wise. p.212-235.
See. pts limit. IT does not matter what 40k army i bring, only that there is a pts limit of equal size for both players.
Ergo matched play--> specific scenarios with pts.

You are correct. But a lot of people see forgeworld units as an "expansion" because they come in a separate book.

w1zard wrote:
You are correct. But a lot of people see forgeworld units as an "expansion" because they come in a separate book.

That doesn't mean that we should pretend that this belief is anything other than irrational nonsense.

 Peregrine wrote:
They state no such thing. Please do not confuse the optional supplementary FAQ/errata document with the core rules. If you do not choose to play with the optional supplement then nothing it contains, including the note about using codex rules, applies.

https://i.redd.it/n3g7779rddyz.jpg

This is not optional if you are playing matched play. Please read the paragraph at the top. If you try to bring index Imperium conscripts vs me in a matched play battle I'm going to laugh and call you a cheater.

w1zard wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
They state no such thing. Please do not confuse the optional supplementary FAQ/errata document with the core rules. If you do not choose to play with the optional supplement then nothing it contains, including the note about using codex rules, applies.

https://i.redd.it/n3g7779rddyz.jpg

This is not optional if you are playing matched play. Please read the paragraph at the top. If you try to bring index Imperium conscripts vs me in a matched play battle I'm going to laugh and call you a cheater.

FW unit.
Codex --> no
Use index-- > index astra Militarum

so much non official it hurts that they can't be even used in official matched play....
Oh wait, it works

Not Online!!! wrote:

w1zard wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
They state no such thing. Please do not confuse the optional supplementary FAQ/errata document with the core rules. If you do not choose to play with the optional supplement then nothing it contains, including the note about using codex rules, applies.

https://i.redd.it/n3g7779rddyz.jpg

This is not optional if you are playing matched play. Please read the paragraph at the top. If you try to bring index Imperium conscripts vs me in a matched play battle I'm going to laugh and call you a cheater.

FW unit.
Codex --> no
Use index-- > index astra Militarum

so much non official it hurts that they can't be even used in official matched play....
Oh wait, it works

That link was not in regard to forgeworld units.

Please read the post... it was in regard to Peregrine stating that it was optional and not a part of the core rules.

The argument against FW was that a lot of people consider FW indices an "expansion" much like the "cities of death" ruleset is. Regardless of how accurate that belief is.

w1zard wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

w1zard wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
They state no such thing. Please do not confuse the optional supplementary FAQ/errata document with the core rules. If you do not choose to play with the optional supplement then nothing it contains, including the note about using codex rules, applies.

https://i.redd.it/n3g7779rddyz.jpg

This is not optional if you are playing matched play. Please read the paragraph at the top. If you try to bring index Imperium conscripts vs me in a matched play battle I'm going to laugh and call you a cheater.

FW unit.
Codex --> no
Use index-- > index astra Militarum

so much non official it hurts that they can't be even used in official matched play....
Oh wait, it works

That link was not in regard to forgeworld units.

Please read the post... it was in regard to Peregrine stating that it was optional and not a part of the core rules.

I know, i made a jab at the people that say it is not possible to use FW units in matched play with their indexes.

Also above the armies in the indexes stands the following:
"This section conatains all of the datasheets that you will need in order to fight a battle with your (insert FW army) models. Each datasheet includes the charachteristics profiles of the unit it describes, as well as any wargear and abilites it may have. Some rules are common to several (insert FW army) units - these are described below and referenced on the datasheets."

w1zard wrote:
This is not optional if you are playing matched play. Please read the paragraph at the top. If you try to bring index Imperium conscripts vs me in a matched play battle I'm going to laugh and call you a cheater.

It is not optional if you are playing matched play with the optional FAQ/errata supplement, just like you might be required to use certain rule changes if you choose to use the newest version of the optional CoD supplement instead of an older version. If you are not playing with the optional FAQ/errata supplement (or CoD) you ignore those rules. You have no grounds for accusing someone of cheating just because they don't share your beliefs about which rules are "core" and which are "optional supplements".

Not Online!!! wrote:
Also above the armies in the indexes stands the following:
"This section conatains all of the datasheets that you will need in order to fight a battle with your (insert FW army) models. Each datasheet includes the charachteristics profiles of the unit it describes, as well as any wargear and abilites it may have. Some rules are common to several (insert FW army) units - these are described below and referenced on the datasheets."

That says nothing about whether or not the index in question is a supplementary expansion or a part of the core rules.

I know I'm being a but I'm just articulating the anti-FW argument.

w1zard wrote:
I know I'm being a but I'm just articulating the anti-FW argument.

Why do you insist on doing this? It is irrational nonsense, and you have already admitted that you don't believe it. Why are you so stubborn in defending a position you know to be wrong?

That says nothing about whether or not the index in question is a supplementary expansion or a part of the core rules.

Exactly, because the line between "supplementary expansion" and "core rules" does not exist the way you are attempting to draw it. GW does not separate army rules into core and supplement, they're all just army rules and equally part of the standard game. So why would GW make a statement addressing a question about some random player's house rules in official material?

 Peregrine wrote:

It is not optional if you are playing matched play with the optional FAQ/errata supplement, just like you might be required to use certain rule changes if you choose to use the newest version of the optional CoD supplement instead of an older version. If you are not playing with the optional FAQ/errata supplement (or CoD) you ignore those rules. You have no grounds for accusing someone of cheating just because they don't share your beliefs about which rules are "core" and which are "optional supplements".

Matched play IS the latest FAQ/erratas.

I don't get to ignore FAQs/erratas I don't like. Sure you can play without them, but then you are just playing narrative or house rules.

 Peregrine wrote:

w1zard wrote:
I know I'm being a but I'm just articulating the anti-FW argument.

Why do you insist on doing this? It is irrational nonsense, and you have already admitted that you don't believe it. Why are you so stubborn in defending a position you know to be wrong?

Because you haven't articulated a response against my argument that is going to convince the the anti-FW people that they are wrong.

w1zard wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:
Also above the armies in the indexes stands the following:
"This section conatains all of the datasheets that you will need in order to fight a battle with your (insert FW army) models. Each datasheet includes the charachteristics profiles of the unit it describes, as well as any wargear and abilites it may have. Some rules are common to several (insert FW army) units - these are described below and referenced on the datasheets."

That says nothing about whether or not the index in question is a supplementary expansion or a part of the core rules.

I know I'm being a but I'm just articulating the anti-FW argument.

If you follow that logic, just bear with me, then you would have to kick out all codexes aswell right?
That part is necessary and is found in each codex, in differing lines written thematically.

w1zard wrote:
Matched play IS the latest FAQ/erratas.

Only if you choose to use the optional errata/FAQ supplement. The core rules do not include any statement that matched play requires you to do so.

I don't get to ignore FAQs/erratas I don't like. Sure you can play without them, but then you are just playing narrative or house rules.

Then you also don't get to ignore FW rules you don't like, as they are part of the standard game just like the FAQs/errata. If you refuse to allow FW rules then you are playing by house rules, not standard 40k.

Not Online!!! wrote:

w1zard wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:
Also above the armies in the indexes stands the following:
"This section conatains all of the datasheets that you will need in order to fight a battle with your (insert FW army) models. Each datasheet includes the charachteristics profiles of the unit it describes, as well as any wargear and abilites it may have. Some rules are common to several (insert FW army) units - these are described below and referenced on the datasheets."

That says nothing about whether or not the index in question is a supplementary expansion or a part of the core rules.

I know I'm being a but I'm just articulating the anti-FW argument.

If you follow that logic, just bear with me, then you would have to kick out all codexes aswell right?
That part is necessary and is found in each codex, in differing lines written thematically.

No, because... https://i.redd.it/n3g7779rddyz.jpg says you must use the codices. The legitimacy of the codices comes from the core rules, not the codices themselves.

w1zard wrote:
Because you haven't articulated a response against my argument that is going to convince the the anti-FW people that they are wrong.

A signed and notarized statement from GW that FW rules are part of the standard game will not convince the anti-FW crowd that they are wrong, because their belief is based in irrational nonsense that has nothing to do with reality. Any time GW does something they demand as a sign of "officialness" they just move the goalposts and demand something else. The fact that someone else is determined to defend an absurd position to the death does not obligate you to continue doing so despite knowing that the position is wrong.

w1zard wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

w1zard wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:
Also above the armies in the indexes stands the following:
"This section conatains all of the datasheets that you will need in order to fight a battle with your (insert FW army) models. Each datasheet includes the charachteristics profiles of the unit it describes, as well as any wargear and abilites it may have. Some rules are common to several (insert FW army) units - these are described below and referenced on the datasheets."

That says nothing about whether or not the index in question is a supplementary expansion or a part of the core rules.

I know I'm being a but I'm just articulating the anti-FW argument.

If you follow that logic, just bear with me, then you would have to kick out all codexes aswell right?
That part is necessary and is found in each codex, in differing lines written thematically.

No, because... https://i.redd.it/n3g7779rddyz.jpg says you must use the codices. The legitimacy of the codices comes from the core rules, not the codices themselves.

Look again at that picture now would you.
Step one: Do you have a codex? no.
Step two: Use the datasheet in the Index. I.e. Index astra militarum, index for xenos if you play Ork, etc.

w1zard wrote:
No, because... https://i.redd.it/n3g7779rddyz.jpg says you must use the codices. The legitimacy of the codices comes from the core rules, not the codices themselves.

Again, that image is not from the core rules. It is from an optional expansion. Codices are only included in the game if you choose to use them, whether by including them directly or by choosing to use the optional FAQ/errata supplement that says to use them. If you only play by the core rules then neither the codices nor that page exist.

 Peregrine wrote:

w1zard wrote:
Matched play IS the latest FAQ/erratas.

Only if you choose to use the optional errata/FAQ supplement. The core rules do not include any statement that matched play requires you to do so.

So according to you, I can ignore the entirety of CA 2017 and every FAQ and errata that GW have come out with and still be playing "matched" play and every opponent who doesn't like that is an unreasonable feth-head?

That is not a valid argument and you know it. GW FAQs and erratas are modifications to the core rules.

 Peregrine wrote:
A signed and notarized statement from GW that FW rules are part of the standard game will not convince the anti-FW crowd that they are wrong, because their belief is based in irrational nonsense that has nothing to do with reality. Any time GW does something they demand as a sign of "officialness" they just move the goalposts and demand something else.

I think you have an irrational hatred against people who don't like FW if you seriously think this is true.

Not Online!!! wrote:
Look again at that picture now would you.
Step one: Do you have a codex? no.
Step two: Use the datasheet in the Index. I.e. Index astra militarum, index for xenos if you play Ork, etc.

That page only applies to the FW indices if they aren't an expansion. Otherwise we would all be playing cities of death every game.

The mentality of the anti-FW people is that "I don't have to play against FW if I don't want to, its a supplementary expansion, and my opponent needs my permission to use it".