Wildfire Posted January 8, 2010 Share Posted January 8, 2010 Wildfire & Grey Mage: Unfortunately, both wrong in different ways: unlike a 'home brew' codex, forge world prublications are made with GW endorsement/permission, and utilise the extant copywrites owned by GW, and this is recorded in their publications, so that fails that misguided argument. I suppose that total support is why we see so many IA stuff in GTs, right? No, you can claim that all you want, but it's fortunately it's not true. Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/188961-venerable-with-infernocanon/page/2/#findComment-2239410 Share on other sites More sharing options...
LPetersson Posted January 8, 2010 Share Posted January 8, 2010 Wildfire & Grey Mage: Unfortunately, both wrong in different ways: unlike a 'home brew' codex, forge world prublications are made with GW endorsement/permission, and utilise the extant copywrites owned by GW, and this is recorded in their publications, so that fails that misguided argument. I suppose that total support is why we see so many IA stuff in GTs, right? No, you can claim that all you want, but it's fortunately it's not true. This kinda brings me back to what I asked in my first comment on this issue. Namely, is IA models/rules allowed in Tournaments? And if so, Which ones? You say they are allowed in the GTs? Where do you find the rules for this tournament? I would quite like to see this for myself... Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/188961-venerable-with-infernocanon/page/2/#findComment-2239438 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wildfire Posted January 8, 2010 Share Posted January 8, 2010 That was sarcasm, actually. They're not allowed in GTs. In fact the only tourneys I've ever heard of are the Adepticon tourneys. Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/188961-venerable-with-infernocanon/page/2/#findComment-2239482 Share on other sites More sharing options...
LPetersson Posted January 8, 2010 Share Posted January 8, 2010 That was sarcasm, actually. They're not allowed in GTs. In fact the only tourneys I've ever heard of are the Adepticon tourneys. And GTs are GWs own tournaments? I don't know, hence why I'm asking... If GTs are GWs own tournaments and they don't allow IA models/rules in their own tournaments, that pretty much settles the matter IMO... Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/188961-venerable-with-infernocanon/page/2/#findComment-2239511 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wildfire Posted January 8, 2010 Share Posted January 8, 2010 GT = Grand Tournament. They're the the biggest tourneys that GW puts on. But even the small local tourneys I've seen don't allow IA units. Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/188961-venerable-with-infernocanon/page/2/#findComment-2239513 Share on other sites More sharing options...
nurglespuss Posted January 8, 2010 Share Posted January 8, 2010 Wildfire - how can you say its not true, when its black and white, staring you in the face, 100% accurate, with no ambiguity or possibility of a counter argument? I think I'll just chalk it up to victory via fact and common sense, and say again: unlike a 'home brew' codex, forge world publications are made with GW endorsement/permission, and utilise the extant copywrites owned by GW, and this is recorded in their publications, so that fails that misguided argument. I am not refering to tournaments in any way (and haven't in my posts in anyway done so). In a normal game of 40k, there is no need for players to ask for permission, this rule has been specifically retconned to allow for more open play. As much as I dislike it I'll use RAW in this case: permission - not required, copywrite - used by forge world, with GW permission, limitations? none, tournaments - up to the organisers. Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/188961-venerable-with-infernocanon/page/2/#findComment-2239639 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wildfire Posted January 8, 2010 Share Posted January 8, 2010 Simple. Forge World is not GW. What they say does not count. They may share resources, or whatever, but until I see in the BRB that all IA stuff is legal for use in 40k, it's not. Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/188961-venerable-with-infernocanon/page/2/#findComment-2239727 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grey Mage Posted January 8, 2010 Share Posted January 8, 2010 Wildfire - how can you say its not true, when its black and white, staring you in the face, 100% accurate, with no ambiguity or possibility of a counter argument? I think I'll just chalk it up to victory via fact and common sense, and say again: unlike a 'home brew' codex, forge world publications are made with GW endorsement/permission, and utilise the extant copywrites owned by GW, and this is recorded in their publications, so that fails that misguided argument. I am not refering to tournaments in any way (and haven't in my posts in anyway done so). In a normal game of 40k, there is no need for players to ask for permission, this rule has been specifically retconned to allow for more open play. As much as I dislike it I'll use RAW in this case: permission - not required, copywrite - used by forge world, with GW permission, limitations? none, tournaments - up to the organisers. Because its not Nurglepuss. Forgeworld Rules are unofficial in every way- because at no point in any GW printed material have they ever been made official. For years White Dwarf printed material that was unofficial alongside material that was- and its always been clearly stated when it was. In a normal game of 40k you cannot just drop in FW rules willy nilly. Lesser Gnarloc Riders are not part of the Tau Codex just because the Tauros Campaign was printed, and just so- C:SM still has 12 capacity DPs despite the statements in IA Update. If your gaming group has stated you can bring them whenever, more power to you. That still doesnt make it official in any way shape or form. FW may be endorsing you to just bring them, but that doesnt make it anything different than bringing a carnifex with your sisters of battle- unless you asked at some point, its cheating. Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/188961-venerable-with-infernocanon/page/2/#findComment-2239799 Share on other sites More sharing options...
nurglespuss Posted January 9, 2010 Share Posted January 9, 2010 Nope, sorry but your both wrong, there is nothing to stop you using them in pick up games. Its the designe purpose of the altered use ruling, pure and simple, and as it shares GW copywrite, it is a 'legal' GW publication i.e. it may br produced by forge world, but is supported by GW. As for the idea that the rule would be printed in the main rule book, or a codex, thats not going to happen is it? why? because that is not the purpose of those books. Suck it up and take the hit, i see black and white, printed, and clear, you see ambiguity or confusion where there is none. its cheating And this bit Grey Mage? really? its broken no extant rule, how can it possibly be cheating? You mearly wish it to be considered cheating, which you have no ability to enforce, or provide evidence for. Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/188961-venerable-with-infernocanon/page/2/#findComment-2240293 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grey Mage Posted January 9, 2010 Share Posted January 9, 2010 And you have yet to provide any evidence showing that GW has stated that FW has the authority to declare that it is official, or any statement from GW saying it is. Black Library Publications has GW copywrite in it, but you cant take stormbirds without opponents consent, despite descriptions of them. Heck, apocalypse formations have rules that are clearly written and have GW copywrite on them... and you cant take those either in regular 40k games. 40k is a permissive rules set- if it doesnt say you can, then RAW you cannot. So yes, it would be cheating. Just like having a Bloodthirster leading my SWs into a planet strike game with genestealers in my heavy support slots would be cheating. This: In the past we have advised people to seek permission but this seems an unsatisfactory solution. Of course you need your opponents permission to play ny game, unless you intend to force people to play you. Eldar players don't feel they need permission to field an avatar, although each craftworld has just one, only woken in dire need. Using opponents permission system I believe too often people object feeling their opponent is getting an unfair advantage, which is nonsense. By all means ask permission, but how is it different to organising any game? Your opponent is, by agreeing to play you, giving you permission to use miniatures in your collection... Is absolute drivel, and merely says to go ahead with it and see what happens. Its like telling a 12 year old who wants a candy bar that the shop clerk gives them away anyways so he should just go take one- in the end the kid is still stealing, just cause you told him so doesnt change squat. Nothing in what Stinkenheim posted, or that Ive seen in any IA book yet made states they are official GW rules to be used whenever you like however you like. Until you can give me that... your wrong. Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/188961-venerable-with-infernocanon/page/2/#findComment-2240672 Share on other sites More sharing options...
nurglespuss Posted January 9, 2010 Share Posted January 9, 2010 I'm afraid not Grey Mage, your counter-argument is non-existent on this one, you are wrong. Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/188961-venerable-with-infernocanon/page/2/#findComment-2240916 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.