The thin red line... FWs inclusion in your army

[Polythemus]

Hey so since we are rubbing up against this a lot in a few threads i wanted to make a new thread that discusses the merits (or demerits) of forgeworld units in an army.

 

There are people on both sides of the argument when it comes to having fw units or not having forgeworld units in an army. There a few arguments and i'd like to open up a discussion of this very facet of the game.

 

Arguement 1 "forgeworld unbalances the game since not everyone has acess to the rules."

Having access to the rules is not incumbent upon both players at the start of the game. I for example have never played against demons who have gotten a white dwarf update. I dont buy white dwarf. Lots of people dont, so how would we know about these special rules? Well the internet in its "alternative" sources has all kinds of great wonderful peices of information, where one could pick these up, but i dont have to know them. 40k is a game where players are encouraged to form a narrative so i would just ask the player im playing against, "what are the rules for that?" viola problem solved. Forgeworld is exactly the same in this regard ask what it does, show the reference.

 

Arguement 2 "tournaments dont allow forgeworld so you cant use them." first there are tourneys that do allow them and there are those that do not. tournaments are independently organized and funded events for profit, by which a bunch of players come together and contrive some way of deciding who has the biggest best army of all. The people responsible for them set their own methods of rules, scoring, and paint jobs. They put them on so their views reflect what they think people will want and their own vlues as it pertains to the game. Decisions made by tournament organizers are as variable as there are grains of sand on the beach, and certainly not canon.

 

Argument 3 "forgeworld models are overpowered" fw models recieve a stamp of approval for 40k or otherwise. They are subject to the same playtesting standards as the new gw codex for dark angels was subjected to editing standards. ThAt is to say gw and forgeworld write the rules to the universe you play in and sometimes its not well thoughtout and imbalances occur. Does that mean that when a particular army or unit type seems to become powerful you ban it? Well you could but you also have to try and game plan for it as a general threat. You need to be able to deal with vehicles, infantry, flyers, death stars, 2+ save, hordes, closecombat monsters, tarpits, outflankers, MCs and scoring troops. Every unit falls into one or more of these types and every army has one. I certainly havent memorized them all and dont have to because i plan for general threat types and so should you because overpowered units will always exist. The helldrakes weapon was recently up dated to be a turret weapon, flamers have breath of chaos, blah ,blah, blah. We can all point to units that are very tough but we have to do the best we can when we can. no army can plan for everything. sometimes your gonna get tabled and often it aint by fw units.

 

Arguement 4 "forgeworld models arent in the codex so they arent official." forgeworld models do now come with the approved for use in 40k stamp or not. This is official. Many armies now take allies which are also not in their codex for use with their codex. There is another underlying question here which you may have guessed that i will adress last "well then why is there a distinction between forgeworld and games workshop?"

 

The distinction between games workshop and forgeworld is one of volume and method. Games workshop is responsible for making plastic and finecast kits which are used in conjunction with the source material and rulesets they create for their use. Forgeworld makes resin kits and the rulesets for their use. These are two groups of rule makers who know about each others products but only one acknowledges the other. Forgeworld resin models are for a niche market, who are willing to buy very expensive models (though flyers are making this buisness model a reality across the board). These models arent really mass produced to the volume of gw models. They are marketed as supplements to the gw line much like campaign of fire, or the imperial armor books with rulesets for those who want to expand byond the scope of games workshop presented universe. It is all still official but if you never have to actively use the models and still be in the 40k universe. As such when a opponent uses a model from forgeworld you dont have they are well with in their rights to use it as it is still part of the 40k universe even though you never knew about it before.

[GlauG]

An interesting thought that point 4 raises...  Do FW units which can be selected by a Codex: Dark Angels army get affected by rules which specifically only affect "models from Codex: Dark Angels", such as the sacred standards?  Though I only think this matters if any FW vehicles can take Hurricane Bolters...

[Bryan Blaire]

Oddly enough, Polythemus, I think I wrote the following as you posted this topic.

 

The Big Green Book itself says on page 91 (yes, it's talking specifically about Terrain and its uses, however, it really applies to the entire game system): "There's no right or wrong in such decisions provided you both agree. Remember: there's no such thing as a 'standard' Warhammer 40K game, because there's no such thing as a 'standard' Warhammer 40K gamer."

 

None of us can argue the validity or "official-ness" of Forgeworld units. FW says they are considered official. It's a statement, not a request to consider it so. We all can argue whether we each should feel comfortable playing with them and against them, that's a personal feeling though, and can't be right or wrong. There can be no forward progress in that argument.

 

What a TO decides to allow in a tournament does nothing to change the statement about the official nature of FW units. Even GW TOs are a single part of a much larger company and do not likely have the authority in their positions to make or change company policy or statements about the official nature of FW units.

The tournament argument is very analogous to a hypothetical video game situation: Bungie produces Halo 3 and puts out the game. After release, a small, separate section of Bungie reserved solely for expansion content but not a part of the original game development, produces a downloadable expansion of the game the adds fifteen new weapons and three new suits of Spartan armor for 35 bucks. One of these weapons, a sniper rifle, has an auto-aim adjustment built into the back end of the game engine and one of the suits of armor makes you invulnerable to the Covenant Energy Sword. The expansion is stated to be official by Bungie and is only available through their own exclusive in-game download system, but it is obviously not part of the core game. Not everyone buys the expansion because of the price and it becomes highly controversial because people say the armor you can get in the expansion nullifies one of the best ways to make a close quarters kill and the gun allows those without good first-person shooter skills to rise more quickly on the leader boards than those that don't choose to purchase the expansion. Bungie puts on a series of Halo 3 tournaments, but announces that they will not be using the expansion because they want to see people only play with the original game system.

 

-Would anyone really argue that the expansion isn't official?

-Is the expansion really completely broken and totally unusable because of one weapon and one suit of armor, while all the rest slots into the original game pretty well without over powering much, and possibly in some cases actually being underpowered to original game material?

-Would you play it at a friend's place simply because he had downloaded it, but you don't feel like spending your money on it because the original game has enough content for you to enjoy?

-Would you simply consider asking your friend not to play with those pieces that you've heard or experienced are overpowered?

-Would you ask your friend to swap sides and let you actually play with those pieces to determine for yourself whether they really are overpowered and give your friend a taste to see if he likes it?

-Would you still play in the Bungie tournament if they decided to use the expansion pack, even if you weren't directly familiar with it?

[Master Avoghai]

Indeed interesting post. I globally think the same and have further reflexions to submit.

 

Hey so since we are rubbing up against this a lot in a few threads i wanted to make a new thread that discusses the merits (or demerits) of forgeworld units in an army.

There are people on both sides of the argument when it comes to having fw units or not having forgeworld units in an army. There a few arguments and i'd like to open up a discussion of this very facet of the game.

Arguement 1 "forgeworld unbalances the game since not everyone has acess to the rules."
Having access to the rules is not incumbent upon both players at the start of the game. I for example have never played against demons who have gotten a white dwarf update. I dont buy white dwarf. Lots of people dont, so how would we know about these special rules? Well the internet in its "alternative" sources has all kinds of great wonderful peices of information, where one could pick these up, but i dont have to know them. 40k is a game where players are encouraged to form a narrative so i would just ask the player im playing against, "what are the rules for that?" viola problem solved. Forgeworld is exactly the same in this regard ask what it does, show the reference.

 

Your example is nice but we can go even further : I don't own the Necron codex nor the DE one... Simply because I don't play them, so I can consider I don't have access to the rules.

Some will say that when I play in a GW I can have a look to those, but I rarely play in a GW. I play at home so the problem is finally the same as FW books.

I have no problem with that as long as my opponent has the rules with him (books or a printed pdf) that we can consult in case of doubt.

 

 

Arguement 2 "tournaments dont allow forgeworld so you cant use them." first there are tourneys that do allow them and there are those that do not. tournaments are independently organized and funded events for profit, by which a bunch of players come together and contrive some way of deciding who has the biggest best army of all. The people responsible for them set their own methods of rules, scoring, and paint jobs. They put them on so their views reflect what they think people will want and their own vlues as it pertains to the game. Decisions made by tournament organizers are as variable as there are grains of sand on the beach, and certainly not canon.

 

Tournaments allow more and more FW models for several reasons

- The models are now playstested a lot. It was not the case at the beginning of FW, but now it's even better than GW products because FW often release a pdf temporary file to download and test and then release the final version in the new book allowing more and more playtesting by community.

- FW allow armies that don't get a GW flyer yet to get one (eldar for ex)

 

 

Argument 3 "forgeworld models are overpowered" fw models recieve a stamp of approval for 40k or otherwise. They are subject to the same playtesting standards as the new gw codex for dark angels was subjected to editing standards. ThAt is to say gw and forgeworld write the rules to the universe you play in and sometimes its not well thoughtout and imbalances occur. Does that mean that when a particular army or unit type seems to become powerful you ban it? Well you could but you also have to try and game plan for it as a general threat. You need to be able to deal with vehicles, infantry, flyers, death stars, 2+ save, hordes, closecombat monsters, tarpits, outflankers, MCs and scoring troops. Every unit falls into one or more of these types and every army has one. I certainly havent memorized them all and dont have to because i plan for general threat types and so should you because overpowered units will always exist. The helldrakes weapon was recently up dated to be a turret weapon, flamers have breath of chaos, blah ,blah, blah. We can all point to units that are very tough but we have to do the best we can when we can. no army can plan for everything. sometimes your gonna get tabled and often it aint by fw units.

 

that reminds me a debate I had about Named Characters on another forum. Some people remained with the "opponent allowance" tradition from v2 or v3 when special characters weren't playtested. Hence they want to forbid them because "they were overpowered" and at the time use the Lemartes/Mephiston Argument because we were just after the BA codex release.

I just replied that they were unit with a name. They were just an entry, now playtested as much as other entries. Then if they think that Lemartes is abused why then the troops assault squad are not? 

Screamers in their nuw version is abused, totally, and I'm a Tzeentch player. Just a no brainer unit. Ok so people allow them to be played and not a FW Damocles rhino which is obviously underpowered comparing to "standard" SM tanks?

 

 

Arguement 4 "forgeworld models arent in the codex so they arent official." forgeworld models do now come with the approved for use in 40k stamp or not. This is official. Many armies now take allies which are also not in their codex for use with their codex. There is another underlying question here which you may have guessed that i will adress last "well then why is there a distinction between forgeworld and games workshop?"

This is even more true that the status of FW has changed in the past few years. At the beginning, FW was a independant company that produced products under license. They paid GW to have the right to develop their product and use the iconography.

Now they are totally part of the GW society, the best proof is the email : forgeworld@games-workshop.com. Tony Cotrell is no longer the boss, he's a manager, a consultant but now he has somebody on top of him that belongs at GW.

 

 

I have no problem with FW models the only thing I ask to my opponents is to tell me some day before the game if they'll include a noticeable FW model. What I mean by "noticeable" is a model that introduce a new set of rules like a new flyer, a big vehicle or something like that... If it's a new version of a dread or of a LR I don't care.

[Onisuzume]

Arguement 1: And Dragowing and their ilk aren't unbalancing the game?

Arguement 2: Tournaments decide their own rules. If a tournament decides that special characters cannot be used, does that mean that special characters (regardless of source) aren't balanced for regular play?

Arguement 3: Varies on a per-case basis, but the same applies to units from codices.

Arguement 4: From at least Imperial Armour Volume 2, they've been trying to address the issue by first stating that all units except flyers and super-heavies are fit for regular play (mostly because flyers and super-heavies can be almost impossible to destroy without knowing you might face them).

 

Plus, we get these huge APPROVED FOR WARHAMMER 40,000 stamps on most units, while super-heavies get the apocalypse stamp instead.

And, in a friendly game, if they're unwilling to play a battle simply because of a FW model/unit, then I say they're playing against The Spirit of the Game (rulebook page 8). You're playing a game, if you can't have fun because of such a minor issue, go play a different game.

[Spaced Hulk]

Just to state the obvious, but there are also two distinct types of Forge World unit. There are the 'Standard 40K' ones: vehicles, squads, dreadnoughts and special characters that wouldn't look out of place in any 40K Codex. These really just expand the range of choices available to each player, and are no different to the new units that are added to each army with every Codex cycle. Considering some of the units & rules that exist in normal 40K, Forge World's additions are no more overpowered than anything you can get from an existing Codex, and generally tend to be pointed much more conservatively.

Then you've got the 'Big Stuff!': Titans, Super Heavy Tanks, Thunderhawk gunships etc. Choices that really change the dynamic of an army and are only really intended for Apocalypse games. Needless to say, if someone drops a Titan on the table in front of you without any warning, you've got a good reason to feel aggrieved. It's pretty obvious these aren't intended for normal games, even without the new stamps of approval system.

Unfortunately, I think some people immediately just think of the 'Big Stuff' whenever they hear Forge World mentioned, lumping everything the company does into a single category of 'unsuitable for normal 40K'. However, everything Forge World releases is intended to be used in the core game systems. Even the new Horus Heresy book uses the basic 40k rules. If the argument is that FW rules are overpowered, or not playtested enough, then realistically I think you need to ask: How well balanced is standard 40k anyway? I'd argue that first of all 40k is inherently unbalanced, as with a complex system with so many factions, there will always be the possibility for players to find powerful combinations of units and rules. Secondly, with the inclusion of Allies into the game, I think GW has acknowledged that games balance will always be very fragile and easily compromised, and has therefore given us all the ability to at least be on an equal footing. Allies really do level the playing field in 40k, as they allow you to counter weaknesses regardless of which codex you use (unless you're a Tyranid player, of course ). And with Allies so ingrained in 40k now, how can Forge Worlds rules be considered anymore detrimental to the game than (for example) including a trio of Vendetta's in a Space Marine army. If one is acceptable, surely so is the other?

Ultimately it all boils down to your gaming enviroment and who you're playing against. Personally I think it's a really good step forward that Forge World units are becoming more widely used and accepted in more tournaments, as anything which adds to the 40k universe is a good thing.

[Onisuzume]

If the argument is that FW rules are overpowered, or not playtested enough, then realistically I think you need to ask: How well balanced is standard 40k anyway?

Well, with some aspects, the Horus Heresy ruleset is more balanced than standard 40k.

Specifically, Cataphractii-clad Terminators not granting Relentless to squads they join, then standard 40k does (Orks, mostly).

[WatchCaptainAzrael]

Poly, frater... Why are you so concerned with what is fair for the enemies of the Lion to deal with? Did the Lion concern himself with fairness and balance in the Thramas crusade? No! He cheated with his own rules, and he used imbaOP wargear! And the Thramese are all the happier for it. We should all aspire to be like the Lion, cook our dice, bully referees and opponents, and fudge the prices in our lists.

And I still want a book set in that campaign....

[Skalver]

Asking if you can or can't include them is asking the wrong question. You should be asking what can you do to make sure both you and your opponent have a fun game. The simple answer is to make sure you are both on the same page, it takes a minute to clear it with them first and is a lot less hassle than a twenty minute debate about rules followed by a begrudging game where your opponent feels like you tried to pull a fast one.

 

As for the officialness or not of the rules, I don't think it is very clear cut.

 

First, you are talking about a rulebook that is not sold on the main GW website, that is not referenced in the core rulebook or any of the codex books. Eyebrows may be rightfully raised when a book from a different (albeit subsidiary) company claims to be an official rulebook even though it is never referred to in any of the main books.

 

Secondly, newer books always trump older ones. The latest DA codex does not list any Forge World units in the army list. Even if we take forge world books as official, why should your opponent accept that units that were added in a supplement but left out of the latest codex are still legitimate choices for the army?

 

If the forge world army additions were official then - like any other official army addition - they should be trumped by a new codex and you need to ask your opponents permission to include some legacy units. If the forge world army additions are unofficial, then you need to ask your opponents permission anyway. You can't try and have the best of both worlds "oh, these units are official but also somehow immune to the standard thing whereby if it is left out of the new codex you can't use it anymore".

[march10k]

In general, I don't mind playing against FW units, although I myself only use FW models to represent codex units. Now, you want to slap down a super heavy flier in a normal game, I'll just not play against you because a thunderhawk coming in and blowing up my prime tank, dropping fifteen termies behind my aegis line, and then jetting off for another attack run, all before I'm allowed to shoot at it...well, that's just not balanced. If the rules allowed AAA to take a shot immediately on arrival...but pretty much anything short of that is fine. Sure, there's cheese. As a sisters player (OMR), I want to punch people in the face when they bring repressor spam, that's one of the few broken items that gives FW a bad name.

 

But the argument that "FW stuff is okay because FW says so..." Well that's just ignorant. That's like saying that Taiwan is part of the PRC because the PRC says so! You might say "well, FW and GW are both Citadel, so there's no difference between FW allowing FW models and the BGB allowing them." Sure, and the ROK and DPRK are both Korean. That certainly doesn't establish equivalency between the statements of Kim Jong-un and Park Geun-Hye!

[Bryan Blaire]

But the argument that "FW stuff is okay because FW says so..." Well that's just ignorant. That's like saying that Taiwan is part of the PRC because the PRC says so! You might say "well, FW and GW are both Citadel, so there's no difference between FW allowing FW models and the BGB allowing them." Sure, and the ROK and DPRK are both Korean. That certainly doesn't establish equivalency between the statements of Kim Jong-un and Park Geun-Hye!

I'm sorry, I think you have games confused with nations.

 

The hypothetical example I gave of an expansion being produced by a Bungie subsidiary team for Halo 3 was a much better example than two politically opposed countries that have a history of violence between them...

 

You can argue whether you want to play against FW models because of your own feelings on the subject, that is irrefutable, they are your feelings - and both Forgeworld and Games Workshop both say that you should be happy playing the game, so if it makes you unhappy, don't use them. Arguing that FW rules are somehow not official because of illogical political comparisons is off-base because there is no comparison. Try arguing something truly representing a similar situation...

 

Why doesn't everyone agree to not insult each other's education or intelligence...

[Polythemus]

...But the argument that "FW stuff is okay because FW says so..." Well that's just ignorant. That's like saying that Taiwan is part of the PRC because the PRC says so! You might say "well, FW and GW are both Citadel, so there's no difference between FW allowing FW models and the BGB allowing them." Sure, and the ROK and DPRK are both Korean. That certainly doesn't establish equivalency between the statements of Kim Jong-un and Park Geun-Hye!

I think that this arguement is fallacious for several reasons, some of which bryan already pointed out.

 

1. Nation states are composed of people who subject to there own ideas, motivations, governments, cultures, political systems, etc. Employees of companies are there for one reason, make money for said company. In this case fw are employees of citadel they are all subject to citadel/gw rules of conduct and all the rest and they all contribute to the development of the product that gw develops.

 

2.Forgeworld makes a relative distinction with regard to the model lines that it makes rule and models for, and what game system those models are compliant with. Some units can be used with40k, but those same units cant be used for wfb, or any other known gaming system.

Nation states are subject only to the rules of what is physically possible for its individuals to achieve, this means they have rules regarding but not limited to, crime, taxation, transportation, perpetuation of the public good.... I could go on. What nations seek to acheive is incumbent upon the individuals of that nation and their priorities, either through direct or indirect political means.

 

Suffice it to say that the realites of governmental systems and their poeples bear almost zero comparison to those of game companies. Forgeworld is a recognized subsidiary of games workshop, it exists as a seperate entity for purposes that only citadel knows fully, but that i have surmised above. Namely profit and scope of audience. When forgeworld speaks they are using citadels mouth. It is well known at this point that citadel is extremely litigous with its intellectual property, so if forgeworld was doing something improper then it is likely that citadel would either put a stop to it or sue their brains out. The fact that games work shop and citadel dont do this tells you they approve of the message being put out by forgeworld and the paying public. Forgeworld is official.

 

Now i dont know all forgeworld models, but i can bet that when they put out primarchs like angron they probably have something that says not for use in normal 40k battle but can use the 40k rules system. That is the kind of distinction that leads me to beleive they know the difference between overthe top when it comes to abilities and rules and that they playtest their stuff, and support it with free downloadable information. Something that gw could learn from...

[Skalver]

I like how you both ignore the stronger argument. If forgeworld rules are official they would be superceded by the codex like all other official codex additions meaning you need your opponents approval to use them as legacy units, if they are unofficial then you would need your opponents approval to use them anyway.

 

You would argue that not only are they official, but they are a special type of official that can never be superceded by a new codex. Anyone care to address those as concerns?

 

The only way I can see around those limitations is if you view forge world rules as an optional expansion, optional being the key word. If you take it as official you have to assume the same "codex trumps the past" standard as every other unit is held to.

[Bryan Blaire]

So, the 6th Ed FAQ by Forgeworld is meaningless? I mean, they do update the rules to match new versions, etc. Did no one notice that?

 

It's obviously an expansion, it says that right on the back of the book. Because it is an expansion, it isn't official? I would think that all the official expansions produced would say otherwise... You know, things like Planetstrike, Apocalypse, etc.

 

I like how the Bungie analogy is being ignored. Video games are almost an identical situation to this one. Do you mind addressing that, someone, anyone?

 

Does no one recognize that you and your opponent/gaming partner set the parameters for the game anyway? If you and your opponent agree that neither of you will be using Demon Princes, Dreadknights or any flyers, you aren't wrong or "not playing the game correctly," nor have you made anything unofficial. I've already posted one quote from the Big Green Book that specifically states that GW acknowledges that there is no such thing as a "standard" Warhammer 40K game. Do people disagree with GW on the subject of their own game?

[Skalver]

So, the 6th Ed FAQ by Forgeworld is meaningless? I mean, they do update the rules to match new versions, etc. Did no one notice that?

 

It's obviously an expansion, it says that right on the back of the book. Because it is an expansion, it isn't official? I would think that all the official expansions produced would say otherwise... You know, things like Planetstrike, Apocalypse, etc.

 

I like how the Bungie analogy is being ignored. Video games are almost an identical situation to this one. Do you mind addressing that, someone, anyone?

 

The bungie analogy is just that, an analogy. Just because company A does things one way has nothing to do with how company B does things and arguing that GW must work one way because Bungie work that way is a non argument whichever way you choose to interpret it. Could GW intend for things to be interpreted the same way as Bungie? Absolutely. Could they mean for things to be interpreted completely differently? Absolutely. Unless GW cite Bungie as an example of how things should or shouldn't be done then it is a non-argument.

 

As for the 6th edition FAQ, the DA codex is more recent, shouldn't that take precedence? Even then, why is there no entry in the 40k FAQ stating Forge World units are official, game legal, and usable whether or not they are listed in the codex books? It comes down to basic credence, if you accept Forge World's right to declare itself official then thats fine, it's official, if you don't accept Forge Worlds right to declare itself official then reasserting its officialness in a FAQ makes no difference.

[Bryan Blaire]

The bungie analogy is just that, an analogy. Just because company A does things one way has nothing to do with how company B does things and arguing that GW must work one way because Bungie work that way is a non argument whichever way you choose to interpret it. Could GW intend for things to be interpreted the same way as Bungie? Absolutely. Could they mean for things to be interpreted completely differently? Absolutely. Unless GW cite Bungie as an example of how things should or shouldn't be done then it is a non-argument.

And the rest that actually answers the question you asked? Or is the point conceded?

[Skalver]

 

The bungie analogy is just that, an analogy. Just because company A does things one way has nothing to do with how company B does things and arguing that GW must work one way because Bungie work that way is a non argument whichever way you choose to interpret it. Could GW intend for things to be interpreted the same way as Bungie? Absolutely. Could they mean for things to be interpreted completely differently? Absolutely. Unless GW cite Bungie as an example of how things should or shouldn't be done then it is a non-argument.

And the rest that actually answers the question you asked? Or is the point conceded?

 

That I was editing in as you replied, it is by no means conceded.

 

Also there is an inherent contradiction in your posts, on the one hand you argue that the forge world units are official, on the other you argue that there is no such thing as an official version of 40k, that it all depends on an agreement between players.  Which point are you arguing?

 

To be clear I come down very heavily on the latter side, I would argue that including any rules expansion outside that declared in the core rulebook is a matter of choice for the players. Expansions are optional. You can no more show up and declare you are using forge world units than you can show up and declare that you are using planetstrike rules for your game. It is an expansion, and that to me, almost by definition means it is optional.

[Bryan Blaire]

Okay, so expansions are unofficial, regardless of who they are produced by?

 

Do you disagree with GW on the concept of "there is no standard Warhammer 40K game?" (this is funny to me, because the FW stuff says "intended to be used in 'standard' games of Warhammer 40K")

 

I mean, they have no official standing, but you could have agreement to use house rules or fan produced Codexes in any game.

 

Do you disagree that Forgeworld books state: "First published ... By Forge World, Games Workshop, Willow Road, Lenton, Nottingham, NG7 2WS."? I mean, it does state published by GW (not GW Limited)...

 

Official doesn't mean "required to allow for play". You don't have to allow anything to be played. It is no less correct to ask someone not to use Draigo-wing builds because you find them over-powered than it is to ask someone not to play a Forge World unit because you aren't familiar with them or feel they are overpowered.

 

I've already said that they aren't Codex units (probably not here, but in other threads), that really has no bearing on their "official" status, because Fortifications and Allies aren't Codex units either...

 

Also there is an inherent contradiction in your posts, on the one hand you argue that the forge world units are official, on the other you argue that there is no such thing as an official version of 40k, that it all depends on an agreement between players. Which point are you arguing?

I'm not contradicting anything... It's officially produced to be used with 40K. There's no such thing as a standard 40K game. GW itself says the latter. I didn't say that, they did.

 

To be clear I come down very heavily on the latter side, I would argue that including any rules expansion outside that declared in the core rulebook is a matter of choice for the players. Expansions are optional. You can no more show up and declare you are using forge world units than you can show up and declare that you are using planetstrike rules for your game. It is an expansion, and that to me, almost by definition means it is optional.

Show up where, my own house, where I play 40K with friends, at the FLGS, where I play with people I'm acquainted with? At a tournament, where they tell you up front what rules are or aren't going to be used?

 

Those are three very different and distinct situations.

 

And yes, if there was no pre-defined agreement on what exactly you are using, you could very well show up to any game you wanted to play and say "I designed my army list using Planetstrike rules. That cool?" If it wasn't cool, be prepared to either find a new game/opponent or rework your list. It doesn't make your list any less official because you used Planetstrike.

[Skalver]

Okay, so expansions are unofficial, regardless of who they are produced by?

 

Do you disagree with GW on the concept of "there is no standard Warhammer 40K game?" (this is funny to me, because the FW stuff says "intended to be used in 'standard' games of Warhammer 40K")

 

I mean, they have no official standing, but you could have agreement to use house rules or fan produced Codexes in any game.

 

Do you disagree that Forgeworld books state: "First published ... By Forge World, Games Workshop, Willow Road, Lenton, Nottingham, NG7 2WS."? I mean, it does state published by GW (not GW Limited)...

 

Official doesn't mean "required to allow for play". You don't have to allow anything to be played. It is no less correct to ask someone not to use Draigo-wing builds because you find them over-powered than it is to ask someone not to play a Forge World unit because you aren't familiar with them or feel they are overpowered.

 

I've already said that they aren't Codex units (probably not here, but in other threads), that really has no bearing on their "official" status, because Fortifications and Allies aren't Codex units either...

 

Expansions are optional. Pretty much every expansion is marketed with the tagline "allows you to ..." not "forces you to let your opponent ...", a very important difference. The Apocalypse rules don't mean you can show up with your entire army for any game and expect your opponent to make up the shortfall in points with strategy cards. The planetstrike rules don't mean you can choose a full fast attack list and expect your opponent to play defender in a planetfall mission. Even then, the idea that your opponent should be forced to play with a ruleset he may have never even heard of is inherently ridiculous. 

 

I agree wholeheartedly, there is no such thing as a standard 40k game, and since no such thing exists trying to argue that forge world rules are part of a standard game is nonsensical.

 

House rules, tournament rules etc are all attempts to create a standard where none exists. If your LGS house rules that forge world units can be used (or not used as they choose) then that neither makes them standard or not, it simply defines what your local group has decided to use so that everyone plays on an equal footing. 

 

Do you deny that no book published directly by games workshop has declared forge world rules to be standard? Like I said, if you accept a subsidiary can declare rules to be official then fine, if you don't then it doesn't matter if they do so until they are blue in the face, they still don't have that right in your eyes. Suppose TSR published a book that changed the core rules of Magic: The Gathering, even if they declared it official would people just accept it or would they (rightfully) ask for a statement from Wizards of the Coast (of which TSR is a subsidiary) declaring that point before they took it as gospel?

 

So forge world rules are unofficial. It seems we are in agreement.

 

Fortifications and allies are expressly declared as existing outside an armies force organisation chart. Forge world units are additions to an armies force organisation chart. The codex book, almost by definition, is an updated version of the force organisation chart for a given army. Of course it doesn't affect things which exist outside that chart, but it is a stretch to argue that some things that existed within the previous version are somehow exempt from being replaced by the update.

 

There you go, every point addressed individually :)

[Interrogator Stobz]

 

So forge world rules are unofficial. It seems we are in agreement.

 

 

I think you missed Bryan's point, optional is different to official.

 

FW rules ARE an official optional supplement.

 

His point is also that any part of the game is an optional agreement between players/TOs. Regardless of officiality. For example: In my house if you turn up with a RW Derpspeeder you auto lose and get dreadsocked; BUT, if you turn up with a styling mini from FW like Culln and want to play him I am FORCED to allow it by the rule of cool.

Different strokes after all; consider that fair warning about the Derpspeeder too ;)

 

:D

S

[Bryan Blaire]

Expansions are optional.

Agreed.

 

Would you agree that said optional expansions are official if they are published by Games Workshop?

 

Pretty much every expansion is marketed with the tagline "allows you to ..." not "forces you to let your opponent ...", a very important difference. The Apocalypse rules don't mean you can show up with your entire army for any game and expect your opponent to make up the shortfall in points with strategy cards. The planetstrike rules don't mean you can choose a full fast attack list and expect your opponent to play defender in a planetfall mission. Even then, the idea that your opponent should be forced to play with a ruleset he may have never even heard of is inherently ridiculous.

Who said "forced"? I believe I have been the one that stated that any game of 40K required, by its very nature, agreement to even play. Are you arguing with someone else over a different topic, because I'm confused where "forced" came into it. You quoted me, but I didn't say that.

 

You also keep saying "show up". Since I may have edited my discussion on that topic earlier and it got missed, here it is:

Show up where? My own house, where I play 40K with friends who do routinely show up with new things like a new Codex or Expansion I'm not familiar with and want to have a go at it, with an army list already prepared? At the FLGS, where I play with people I'm acquainted with, and so have some idea about what expansions and armies/units they will/won't play (there was one guy that wouldn't play against Demons and was somewhat uncomfortable about Chaos, but didn't seem to have a problem with the inherent violence about the rest of the game, but we didn't press him on it, it was his thing)? At a tournament, where they tell you up front what rules are or aren't going to be used?

 

Those are three very different and distinct situations.

 

And yes, if there was no pre-defined agreement on what exactly you are using, you could very well show up to any game you wanted to play and say "I designed my army list using Planetstrike rules. That cool?" If it wasn't cool, be prepared to either find a new game/opponent or rework your list. It doesn't make your list any less official because you used Planetstrike.

 

I agree wholeheartedly, there is no such thing as a standard 40k game, and since no such thing exists trying to argue that forge world rules are part of a standard game is nonsensical.

Okay, so since we now agree that there is no such thing as a standard game, can we get back to the discussion on whether the Forge World units as stated are "official units suitable for standard sized games of Warhammer 40K" (meaning non-Apocalypse games in this situation, as this is a quote from page 3 of Imperial Armor: Apocalypse, 2nd Edition)?

 

House rules, tournament rules etc are all attempts to create a standard where none exists. If your LGS house rules that forge world units can be used (or not used as they choose) then that neither makes them standard or not, it simply defines what your local group has decided to use so that everyone plays on an equal footing.

Why does "standard" keep coming up when it seems that the intent is to say "official"? Those are two different words.

 

Official = prescribed or recognized as authorized; in this instance, I would connotatively suggest it means: produced by a company with the right to produce rules and models for use in the game and declared as such, whether through subsidiary, original manufacturer or licensing agreement

Standard = Used or accepted as normal or average

 

Now, again, we already agreed there is no such thing as a standard game of 40K, so there is no need to belabor that point.

 

Do you deny that no book published directly by games workshop has declared forge world rules to be standard?

I'll go one further and say that even Games Workshop says that there is no such thing as a standard game of 40K at all. You honestly don't really need the rule book if you and your opponent agree to play 40K another way, such as by flipping coins.

 

Like I said, if you accept a subsidiary can declare rules to be official then fine, if you don't then it doesn't matter if they do so until they are blue in the face, they still don't have that right in your eyes. Suppose TSR published a book that changed the core rules of Magic: The Gathering, even if they declared it official would people just accept it or would they (rightfully) ask for a statement from Wizards of the Coast (of which TSR is a subsidiary) declaring that point before they took it as gospel?

Well, first things first, when debating, if you invalidated a type of argumentation for an opposing view (such as the use of an analogous hypothetical), then it is invalid for you to use as well. I refer to this:

The bungie analogy is just that, an analogy. Just because company A does things one way has nothing to do with how company B does things and arguing that GW must work one way because Bungie work that way is a non argument whichever way you choose to interpret it. Could GW intend for things to be interpreted the same way as Bungie? Absolutely. Could they mean for things to be interpreted completely differently? Absolutely. Unless GW cite Bungie as an example of how things should or shouldn't be done then it is a non-argument.

So, following your logic, your supposition about anything from TSR/Wizards of the Coast has no bearing or argumentative merit for the purposes of this discussion.

 

However, there are a couple of other points that can be addressed. TSR as a company is defunct, as of 1997, however, Wizards of the Coast continued to produce Dungeons & Dragons material under the TSR branding until 2000. TSR can't produce anything. Wizards of the Coast is also now owned by Hasbro. A better analogy for you to try and apply (if you hadn't already invalidated the use of analogous hypotheticals by stating that they have no bearing on the discussion) would have been: Wizards of the Coast produces an expansion of the Hasbro game Battleship adding a third dimension to the game and declares that this expansion is official, even using the Hasbro trademarked "Battleship" lettering on the expansion package, and no legal action is taken against Wizards of the Coast and it is even shown inside the cover of the expansion rules as "Produced by Wizards of the Coast, Hasbro, yadda yadda address here". Then we would have a good analogy for the situation and could use it to discuss, except that as you have pointed out, analogous hypotheticals are irrelevant to this discussion.

 

So forge world rules are unofficial. It seems we are in agreement.

No, you have correctly argued that the rules are not standard, because there is no "standard" 40K game, per GW's own statement and your prior agreement. You haven't really provided any evidence that they aren't official yet.

 

Fortifications and allies are expressly declared as existing outside an armies force organisation chart. Forge world units are additions to an armies force organisation chart. The codex book, almost by definition, is an updated version of the force organisation chart for a given army. Of course it doesn't affect things which exist outside that chart, but it is a stretch to argue that some things that existed within the previous version are somehow exempt from being replaced by the update.

Unless I'm mistaken, you are talking about Army Lists from the Codexes, not the Force Organization Chart. I've yet to see a Codex adjust the Force Org Chart, that is usually done by expansions.

 

Now, as to your point about "They aren't in the new Army List found in the Codex": So? Neither are Fortifications or Allies, nor are the rules for a C:SM army or C:BT army to use the Storm Raven, and yet those all seem to willingly be allowed (my guess is because the rules are familiar and expected, but not because anyone can say with a straight face that none of the above options are over-powers in certain combinations). Well, I guess we'll see regarding the C:SM and C:BT, I've not gotten to see if those actually got Errata'd into the Codexes directly, or if an Errata was only made for the Big Green Book, because if only the BGB, then they are still not actually "in the Codex" which is the predication for the argument for invalidation (ie, it's not in the new Codex, therefore not a valid unit choice).

 

Edit: Well, it looks like the C:SM FAQ does now state an exception to add the Storm Raven for both the C:SM and C:BT, but as of 7:53 AM GMT the same hadn't been FAQ'd into the C:BT itself, so technically for the C:BT, it still isn't directly in their own Codex (get your act together GW, there are too many rules lawyers now for you guys to get this sloppy!).

 

There you go, every point addressed individually :)

Thank you thank you!

 

I think you missed Bryan's point, optional is different to official.

FW rules ARE an official optional supplement.

His point is also that any part of the game is an optional agreement between players/TOs. Regardless of officiality. For example: In my house if you turn up with a RW Derpspeeder you auto lose and get dreadsocked; BUT, if you turn up with a styling mini from FW like Culln and want to play him I am FORCED to allow it by the rule of cool.

Different strokes after all; consider that fair warning about the Derpspeeder too ;)

:D

S

Yeah, pretty much spot on. Official is one thing, standard is another, agreed upon and optional are other things. Guess that's the TL;DR version. Add to it "I didn't say forced to allow, I said official." People keep saying "They aren't official" like this stuff is coming from an unaffiliated group like Chapterhouse Studios.

 

Remind me to not go near you if I ever possess an non-converted Derpspeeder. I hate getting dreadsocked.

[Interrogator Stobz]

You've already been warned, just don't do it.

[John_f]

There are two main reasons I dont like FW models used in my games:

 

1) People tend to rely on these models as a crutch. They stop playing the game and only play their FW model. Usually these models are expensive both in points and in money and usually they are better then their codex counterparts, to a bigger or lesser extent. And that makes them an autoinclude in every single battle.

 

2) they tend to start a balance of terror in gaming groups. A Pandoras box if you like. When the first FW models hit the boards, all the other gamers feel the urge to up the ante and get their own superior FW model. Its expensive, and its not promoting cretivity or strategy.

[Interrogator Stobz]

1) No more than an allied unit used to fill a gap in an armies ability, a crutch is a support. You usually cannot stop playing you usual models so that is silly and a DKoK army IS the usual army, still playing the game though :P . Yes they are expensive and that is how they are balanced, they actually cost less in money for me in NZ due to GWs' RoW policy. They can be better but are usually costed to match, they are not all better sometimes just different. They will get auto-included if the army really needs them, otherwise same as other units...player choice.

 

2) Creativity is exactly what it is promoting, a bit like a real world arms race, technology gets improved etc.etc. and it requires a change in strategy therefore even more creativity.

 

If you haven't guessed, I love FW stuff; I often lend my books to my mates so they can know the rules and maybe purchase something for me to fight :D

 

stobz

[facmanpob]

Stobz, if I ever manage to get down under to the land of sheep and hobbits to visit my cousin, I'll remember not to pack any RW .... No one wants a dreadsocking while on holiday! ;)

 

Re: FW - my tuppence - Official? Yes. Optional? Yes. Do I have a problem with it? Not a chance. Rule of cool wins for me every time! :)