MordorMiniatures wrote:
I have never had anything from forge-world, I do not like the Idea of playing something that is not in my codex... I have never liked this Idea. If I won, I would feel as if I cheated (bringing illegal pieces)

What are your thoughts on this? People keep recommending buying stuff from forge-world. I just dont like the idea...

MordorMiniatures wrote:
Where does it say you can play those pieces in your codex?

MordorMiniatures wrote:
Where does it say you can play those pieces in your codex?

MordorMiniatures wrote:
Where does it say you can play those pieces in your codex?

MordorMiniatures wrote:
Where does it say you can play those pieces in your codex?

 Sigvatr wrote:
FW is incredibly lazy with rules updates which is a big problem for comp play. "40k approved" models can be used, it's up to the TO though.

Davor wrote:
FW saying "40K approved", not GW.

 azreal13 wrote:
That's because it's a stupid, circular argument where one group of people try and convince the other that their personal choice is wrong.

 kronk wrote:

 azreal13 wrote:
That's because it's a stupid, circular argument where one group of people try and convince the other that their personal choice is wrong.

Diet Dr. Pepper DOES taste better than regular Dr. Pepper.

Don't let them kill the dream!

 kronk wrote:

 azreal13 wrote:
That's because it's a stupid, circular argument where one group of people try and convince the other that their personal choice is wrong.

Diet Dr. Pepper DOES taste better than regular Dr. Pepper.

Don't let them kill the dream!

Davor wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:
FW is incredibly lazy with rules updates which is a big problem for comp play. "40k approved" models can be used, it's up to the TO though.

So can we use Davor rules? They are 40K approved as well. By that I mean, it's FW saying "40K approved", not GW. Yes same company. Then again, if it's the same company how come FW is not in the rule book but Citadel is? So far no one in the pro FW camp has answered this.

 azreal13 wrote:

 kronk wrote:

 azreal13 wrote:
That's because it's a stupid, circular argument where one group of people try and convince the other that their personal choice is wrong.

Diet Dr. Pepper DOES taste better than regular Dr. Pepper.

Don't let them kill the dream!

I think we can all agree that both taste better than the ill-fated Mr. Salt.....

 Sigvatr wrote:
FW is incredibly lazy with rules updates which is a big problem for comp play. "

 Swastakowey wrote:
So then why does it matter so much to some to fight against those who dont want FW rules? Its just as legal or illegal as my own house rules. The only thing FW has is more credibility than me, but less than GW.

So well, why the big deal?

 tyrannosaurus wrote:
Again conjecture, but I believe the only reason GW hasn't just completely amalgamated them is to pander to the delusion that they are separate companies.

Peregrine wrote:people repeating the same old bad (or blatantly false) arguments against FW rules

 Lynata wrote:

Peregrine wrote:people repeating the same old bad (or blatantly false) arguments against FW rules

Weren't you the one falsifying quotes to drive your argument?

 Peregrine wrote:

The result of all this is a situation where FW models and rules are indisputably part of the game, but you have to make a bit of an effort to go looking for them.

 Tannhauser42 wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

The result of all this is a situation where FW models and rules are indisputably part of the game, but you have to make a bit of an effort to go looking for them.

I would say it's even harder to find the current 7th Edition FAQs. I have to use Google every time I want to look them up, because GW made it damn hard to find on their website.

Anyway, yes, FW is perfectly "legal" to use, and helps create more variety in the game. It is best, however, to always have the current rules with you. Too many people have been burned playing against someone who was using out-of-date, experimental, barely remembered, or even wrong rules (that they got from "some website"). That is one of the reasons why Forgeworld got a bad reputation in the past, not because Forgeworld is bad, but because of the bad players.

 Lynata wrote:
Regardless of what you are trying to sell here, there still is a difference between "intended for use with" and "part of".
Just like there's a difference between "quoting" and "paraphrasing with subtle changes".

 Lynata wrote:
Especially now that FW is already just as legal as anything else, and it's all up to your opponent on whether or not you get a game. So instead of continuously attempting to force people to accept your army list/s, you'd be far better off trying to make them see why it could be a fun game. Otherwise you just keep sabotaging yourself, and your agenda.

KommissarKarl wrote:
As long as you're into Forgeworld because you think it looks cool, we're gravy. If you buy one or two very powerful pieces for your army that you've had no interest in before seeing how powerful their rules are...then you can leave that gak out son. I don't want to have to give GW £120 just to stop myself getting pasted every week.

 Lynata wrote:

Especially now that FW is already just as legal as anything else, and it's all up to your opponent on whether or not you get a game.

[edit] The above was intended for Peregrine, of course.

 Yonan wrote:
The "FW isn't official" argument is over now anyway isn't it? The 7th ed rulebook now states to use rules "from any games workshop product" or something to that effect doesn't it?

 Ghaz wrote:

 Yonan wrote:
The "FW isn't official" argument is over now anyway isn't it? The 7th ed rulebook now states to use rules "from any games workshop product" or something to that effect doesn't it?

No.. It says that all methods of army construction require the agreement of both players. That includes Forgeworld.

 Yonan wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:

 Yonan wrote:
The "FW isn't official" argument is over now anyway isn't it? The 7th ed rulebook now states to use rules "from any games workshop product" or something to that effect doesn't it?

No.. It says that all methods of army construction require the agreement of both players. That includes Forgeworld.

Yes - Under "Choosing your own army" - "The rules for your citadel miniatures are found in a wide range of Games Workshop publications, such as codexes, codex supplements and dataslates."

Forgeworld books are GW publications. The "official" argument is over. The "permission" argument is the same as always, whether you use FW or codex: tyranids you should discuss it with your opponent first.

 Swastakowey wrote:

 Yonan wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:

 Yonan wrote:
The "FW isn't official" argument is over now anyway isn't it? The 7th ed rulebook now states to use rules "from any games workshop product" or something to that effect doesn't it?

No.. It says that all methods of army construction require the agreement of both players. That includes Forgeworld.

Yes - Under "Choosing your own army" - "The rules for your citadel miniatures are found in a wide range of Games Workshop publications, such as codexes, codex supplements and dataslates."
Forgeworld books are GW publications. The "official" argument is over. The "permission" argument is the same as always, whether you use FW or codex: tyranids you should discuss it with your opponent first.

Nobody is arguing against it. Not that I can see

 Formosa wrote:
Wow, I honest to God thought this argument was dead when g dub released its throne of skulls pack that declared fw legal at their tournys, well except for legion stuff, but that's only a matter of time too.

 Yonan wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:

 Yonan wrote:
The "FW isn't official" argument is over now anyway isn't it? The 7th ed rulebook now states to use rules "from any games workshop product" or something to that effect doesn't it?

No.. It says that all methods of army construction require the agreement of both players. That includes Forgeworld.

Yes - Under "Choosing your own army" - "The rules for your citadel miniatures are found in a wide range of Games Workshop publications, such as codexes, codex supplements and dataslates."

Forgeworld books are GW publications. The "official" argument is over. The "permission" argument is the same as always, whether you use FW or codex: tyranids you should discuss it with your opponent first.

 Yonan wrote:
The ability to use house rules is official. The house rules themselves are not official.
The ability to use forgeworld is official. The forgeworld 40k approved rules are also official.

That is the distinction that needs to be made here.

 Swastakowey wrote:
Unbound is treated like a more official house rule really. Which is just an alternate style of play. Which is pretty much forge world rules.

 Swastakowey wrote:
But doesnt change the fact that its the same as unbound for example (which I also said). Unbound is treated like a more official house rule really. Which is just an alternate style of play. Which is pretty much forge world rules.

 Yonan wrote:

 Swastakowey wrote:
But doesnt change the fact that its the same as unbound for example (which I also said). Unbound is treated like a more official house rule really. Which is just an alternate style of play. Which is pretty much forge world rules.

Unbound isn't treated as less official or as a house rule, it's treated with the scorn it deserves for being bad rule writing and is therefore largely ignored. It being bad doesn't have anything to do with how official it is - it being written by GW as part of the 40k rules is what makes it official. Unbound is a pointless comparison to FW. FW is functionally identical to codices and dataslates in that it provides new FoCs and new units for use.

 Swastakowey wrote:
Both change how people play and what options are available.

 Yonan wrote:
That's how GW should write rules, clear definitive statements ; ) All of which I agree with, so I'll scrub you off the "non-official" list, but the other guys still stand ; p

 Swastakowey wrote:

 Yonan wrote:
That's how GW should write rules, clear definitive statements ; ) All of which I agree with, so I'll scrub you off the "non-official" list, but the other guys still stand ; p

Yea, the point I made originally to you was im fairly sure no one is arguing against FW being official. I personally would call it no different to a house rule (which ironically is also a house rule) but im sure many players feel that way (hence the no FW stance commonly found) but yea just wanted to clarify mate.

 TheCustomLime wrote:
I don't get the discrimination against Forgeworld. It's not any better or worse in terms of balance compared to GW codices and produces pretty models. Is it because they come in different packaging?

 Swastakowey wrote:
True, but I had the same problem when I tried sisters of battle. People loved the models but the rules took people some getting used to! So while it may not be right, it is how it is.

And I said before, its FW/GW fault that FW is treated the way it is. So yea your pretty bang on.

 Yonan wrote:

 Swastakowey wrote:
True, but I had the same problem when I tried sisters of battle. People loved the models but the rules took people some getting used to! So while it may not be right, it is how it is.

And I said before, its FW/GW fault that FW is treated the way it is. So yea your pretty bang on.

Oh I don't deny GWs fault in the matter. It's just one more example of why we always lambaste them. FW adds so much to the game, and not only that it's in their own best interests to address this clearly long ago. But they didn't... it boggles the mind.

 Yonan wrote:

 Swastakowey wrote:
True, but I had the same problem when I tried sisters of battle. People loved the models but the rules took people some getting used to! So while it may not be right, it is how it is.

And I said before, its FW/GW fault that FW is treated the way it is. So yea your pretty bang on.

Oh I don't deny GWs fault in the matter. It's just one more example of why we always lambaste them. FW adds so much to the game, and not only that it's in their own best interests to address this clearly long ago. But they didn't... it boggles the mind.

 Klerych wrote:
Truth is - people have different opinions. It'd be good to make sure your opponent has nothing against FW as it's quite different than using Escalation or Stronghold Assault which both are mentioned by name and claimed to be integral part of the game in 40k rulebook while I don't remember any mention of FW stuff there.

So yeah, most FW things are okay and usable on the table, but some of them are somewhat broken as they can bring ill interaction with some aspects of the game. A good example of that would be the wasp walker for Eldar and Kill Team rules. They prohibit you from taking a war walker squadron because it's in heavy support.. but here comes FW with their Fast Attack wasps that are even better than regular War Walkers and suddenly can be taken in a Kill Team list.

 Swastakowey wrote:

 Tannhauser42 wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

The result of all this is a situation where FW models and rules are indisputably part of the game, but you have to make a bit of an effort to go looking for them.

I would say it's even harder to find the current 7th Edition FAQs. I have to use Google every time I want to look them up, because GW made it damn hard to find on their website.

Anyway, yes, FW is perfectly "legal" to use, and helps create more variety in the game. It is best, however, to always have the current rules with you. Too many people have been burned playing against someone who was using out-of-date, experimental, barely remembered, or even wrong rules (that they got from "some website"). That is one of the reasons why Forgeworld got a bad reputation in the past, not because Forgeworld is bad, but because of the bad players.

I would blame FW for that one.

Their rules are not clear cut. As in, you cant just bring up a page and it have a list of what book you need for the unit you are looking at. They dont even tell you the right rules you need sometimes. I was told to get an old and outadted book for my Malcador and they didnt even point me in the right direction to find the erratas and so on to keep it inline with the current rules.

 Klerych wrote:
A good example of that would be the wasp walker for Eldar and Kill Team rules. They prohibit you from taking a war walker squadron because it's in heavy support.. but here comes FW with their Fast Attack wasps that are even better than regular War Walkers and suddenly can be taken in a Kill Team list.

 Sidstyler wrote:

 Formosa wrote:
Wow, I honest to God thought this argument was dead when g dub released its throne of skulls pack that declared fw legal at their tournys, well except for legion stuff, but that's only a matter of time too.

Personally I thought the argument died when GW fethed the game up so badly that everyone who cared about FW legality stopped playing.

 Peregrine wrote:
As if allies and unbound don't do this already?

 azreal13 wrote:

KommissarKarl wrote:
As long as you're into Forgeworld because you think it looks cool, we're gravy. If you buy one or two very powerful pieces for your army that you've had no interest in before seeing how powerful their rules are...then you can leave that gak out son. I don't want to have to give GW £120 just to stop myself getting pasted every week.

What, because it's wrong for people to want to win a game?

This really is a statement that could only be made in relation to 40K. Any other game, take what you like, within the rules, because it's cool, because you feel it's effective, because you like the feel of the unit or it suits your playstyle.

Nowhere else would you get a player declaring they have an issue with an otherwise officially published ruleset because players might use it because it's too good.

Not to mention there's "official" units which are demonstrably more OP than pretty much anything FW produces, and that FW actively produce draft rules for public consumption (and available for free) before revising the finished version when it makes it into a book.

Frankly, if GW proper was run more like FW, them there'd likely be far fewer dissatisfied players (and ex-players) than there are currently.