Forgeworld Becomes Official for Warhammer 40k


Forgeworld books for Warhammer 40k have previously said, "while this should be considered official, check with your opponent". This is about to change, and fundamentally alter how or what we are going to be seeing in our games. Like allies and double force organization, I am sure there will be resistance, but when this happens the game will fundamentally be changed and opened up for Forgeworld rules and models.


Yes, I know many of us already consider Forgeworld to be official, but this is the change that puts everyone on notice.

This is essentially part 2 of the conversation about the new Inquisition codex, but continues to the topic of how Official Forgeworld products are in 40k games.

Please remember that these are rumors.

so leaving where we left off.

via an anonymous source on Faeit 212
immediately afterward (codex Inquisition) we'll be seeing the Forgeworld forces of the space marines and inquisition to update all those rules as well. 

Also, while written to be polite, the sentence that says "while this should be considered official, check with your opponent" in the Forgeworld books is being changed. 

In the new forces of the SM and Inquisiton it says "these are official, but make sure your opponent knows the rules of any models chosen from this book." (quoting from memory so syntax may be slightly different)

So... Let's all welcome Forgeworld to the table. 

Post a Comment

150 Comments

  1. Unless GW itself (not FW; while owned by GW, they are still two separate entities) puts something out to those effects, FW will still be anathema in my neck of the woods...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Exactly. It needs to be stated by GW rather than FW, otherwise the "FW-haters" will never relent.

      Delete
    2. FW is not a separate entity, they aren't even "owned" by GW, they *ARE* GW, they're just a different design studio with a different sales channel, but they're not a separate organization. They're no different than say, Accounting, or Facilities.

      Delete
    3. They are a totally different brand.
      Branding matters.
      Ask any corporation.

      As above. Any change has to be from the official side of things - ie a GWS release.
      In reality if this is the route they want to take, then GWS should be releasing all the rules.

      OH BUT WAIT THEY AREN'T A RULES COMPANY!?!

      Delete
    4. A key point here is that GW does not allow FW at its official Warhsmmer World tournaments

      Delete
    5. Another key point that you all seem to be missing is that All FW products have stamped in then '(C) Games-Workshop'. They ARE GW products. You're just splitting hairs when you say they aren't the same company. Citadel models also have the same copyright stamp. So how are FW models Not GW's when they have the GW copyright stamped into them?...

      Delete
    6. Games workshop has actually allowed 40k approved stuff at lots of their official tournaments recently

      Delete
    7. Wait, are Citadel models official? I don't see anywhere in a Games Workshop-brand book that says Citadel-brand models are official.

      Guess we can't use regular 40k models to play 40k, since Games Workshop doesn't say Citadel models are official.

      Delete
    8. I was at an official tournament monday at warhammer world and my doubles partner was running red scorpions - 100% accepted.

      Delete
    9. I was at an official tournament monday at warhammer world and my doubles partner was running red scorpions - 100% accepted.

      Delete
    10. Someone pointed something out to me earlier: the only difference is that now you don't have to ask permission. To me, the permission shenanigans just represented a way for cry babies to take the easy way out of a tough opposing unit. You ALWAYS have the right to say "no, you can't use that" but that stupid rule let you do it without seeming like a bag with which one douches. Forgeworld doesn't even upset "balance" in a game with Screamerstars, Riptide spam, Jetbike councils, 5 FMC Daemon-prince spam backed by Turkeys, etc. This just lets us use the one or two 50-100$ models without having to feel like a douche just because it's different.

      Personally, I look forward to it. Vultures are so cool, and in many cases I find Forgeworld to be more balanced then some GW releases, because they only need to balance ONE unit, and take the time to play test.

      Delete
  2. The circle I game with already consideres FW official and there's no need to ask before fielding units from FW books just make sure your opponent knows what he/she is up against. In tournaments it will still be upto the organizer weather or not to allow the models.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. that seems to be what FW is out and out saying now

      Delete
  3. I organize tournaments here in WA state and I normally alternate between allowing them and then not. This I'll have to give some thought to.

    A lot of us play Horus Heresy so have a plethora of FW models... May just limit it in tournaments to one model or something

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. We must needs play a game, then...

      Delete
    2. Why not just allow 40k approved units? That don't have the experimental rule stamp.

      Delete
  4. The FW Chapter Tactics already says that statement. It didn't help.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Indeed. As well as move goal posts when you show them that the rulebook says you can alter the army list (which FW does). Their statement goes from "it's not in the rulebook" to "show me a rule that specifically says FW is legal by name".

      You just can't win with some people.

      Delete
  5. Well I have to admit I thinks this is long over due. I enjoy pitching myself against Forge World rules (much glory to be had) and when they pull there fingers out and release the model of Bran Redmaw and the Redmaw would like to use them in my army lists without anyone having a good moan about it or saying no I cant coz they dont have the sack to fight with honour and test there metal.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yeah what the hell happened to Bran Redmaw and the Redmaw? I was well up for fielding that guy and he is nowhere to be seen :(

      Delete
    2. Apparently the Wulfen scuplt was never finished (is STILL a WIP) and FW won't release one Bran without the other.

      Delete
  6. GW needs to release a statement saying it's legal; there's going to remain a huge swathe of people (larger than not) vocally denying its use in mainstream tournament play until GW just comes out and flat-out says it. The arguments that a wholly-owned but testing/design-independent subsidiary somehow can speak for the entirety of the company will continue to be ignored as [rightly] invalid.

    I would be happy if GW made a formal statement either way; it would make life easier for everyone.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. GW has conceded most of this stuff to independent tournament organizers, so wouldn't it really be up to those entities?

      I think they only need to say something official if it's for an event at one of their hosted Games Day spectacles.

      Delete
    2. If they said something official, it would make things easier and more predictable for organizers and attendees. That they will not / are not motivated to do so is independent of the simple value for those end users in them doing it.

      Delete
    3. While you are right in what you say. I think if FW and GW say its right then all places no matter where should follow it. Oh this is broken and that is broken. Everything can be beaten in 40k. Some are just harder than others to do it. I hate the chopping and changing of rules just to keep the moaners happy. I want to eat chocolate and not get fat but guess what.....

      Delete
    4. Well, that's what I'm saying; if GW comes out and says it's official, we no longer have to argue about whether it's well-designed.

      Truth is the comment "everything can be beaten" is utterly, completely irrelevant in a tournament setting. Hyper-extreme builds (like screamerstar / jetbike council) that can potentially roll any opponent other than the one or two hard counters generally take away (anecdotally, observationally and surveyed) from the fun of a tournament experience for a wide swathe of people, where they feel they're just "hoping" not to face "That" list. There are SOME "40k-approved" Forgeworld units that contribute to lists with a similar feel ... and it is from this that you get a lot of angst. Not that the lists are unbeatable, but that they require an almost onerous devotion to awareness and list consideration in order to have any shot against with your typical army or codex.

      Additionally, there's a massively disingenuous push from the community for FW on the grounds of it being "fun and cool," when in reality a great component of the push is due to allies, from WAAC-type players and mindsets who just hope that by forcing the allowance of highly powerful and key problem-solving FW IG units they'll be able to ally them into their "whatever codex they play" and suddenly beat face all over the meta / tournament sphere.

      So the conflict that arises is oriented not around the notion of "broken," but around dishonest/disingenuous arguments from suddenly-spawned FW proponents ... and the issues with some units that exacerbate the potential for un-fun matches for the majority of a tournament field.

      These issues would be instantly resolved if GW came out and said either:
      "FW units are not considered official in typical games of 40k, due to the fact they aren't playtested at all."
      OR
      "Despite the fact we do not playtest in concert with the FW studios, we trust them and consider their rules to be official for typical games of 40k."

      Both would address the well-publicized fact that FW units are not playtested with any regard for GW core game design activities, while also fully silencing the annoying debate, and thus pulling all pressure off players and TOs who either do or don't want to play with FW allowance.

      Delete
    5. I see where you are coming from my friend. But there is always dishonest people in any game and there is always people who will bend the rules as much as they can. That is just a fact of life. As for the play testing of FW rules its seems alot of they time they dont text run what they right much means alot of the time you have to build a list to battle it but isnt that the point. My list agains Space Marines is different to my list against ork or Chaos etc.

      Delete
    6. If that's true then how can you allow Supplements in for army builds? The digital books are released by Black Library, not GW. Black Library is a wholly owned, design independent subsidiary. How can you allow Citadel Miniatures to be used at your tournaments, Citadel is only a wholly-owned design independent subsidiary of GW. You cannot claim that FW is the only division of GW not acceptable for gaming in tournaments. Tournaments often use their own FAQ independently of the GW rule set.

      I'm not trying to seem like I'm attacking you, personally, Mike. I've just grown so very tired of this mindset. I like tournament play even though I SUCK at tournament play. I would still like to play the army that I saved my pennies to buy and paint over the last several years and look good on the bottom tables.

      Delete
    7. I like your mind set. If you loose at least you look good while doing it.

      Delete
    8. Mike sums up the situation pretty well. There are a lot of people who are against forgeworld until the unit they want comes out.

      On the subject of playtesting, I had a fairly long talk with Alan Bligh on the subject and he sounded pretty convincing about it. They do have a process that involves "real" game testing and mathhammer, and stuff somewhere in between where they do a "ok but what if that happened" type thing.

      But that said, the results are the important thing, not the process, and the results are sometimes off - to the point of "what were they thinking?!" So there are FW units which are flat out better than equivalent GW ones. The new land speeder is the same price as a GW land speeder with the same armament, but armour 11, twin linked, outflank, bla, bla, bla. So it's just obviously wrong.

      There's another side to the argument though - one that points out that the current meta isn't balanced anyway, so who cares? Screamer stars, wave serpents and the entire Tau codex are official. FW stuff isn't especially more broken than what exists already. It's not as if we have some kind of perfect system that we'd be worried about breaking. Adding more options may lead to more variety in tournament lists. More variety may well mean that "extreme" lists become less viable, as they have to deal with more variables. This could have the effect of making people take slightly more generalist lists and trying to win more on the table and less at army selection.

      I know... A man can dream though, right?

      Delete
    9. I don't feel personally attacked. Black Library is explicitly publishing GW codices, which it does differentiate from BL publications. The same can be said for Citadel Miniatures (and, that's actually irrelevant to most TOs ... we don't care what minis you use, since we aren't GW sponsored events).

      The ultimate point is that we have NO OFFICIAL STANCE (sorry, it's just true ... an operating component cannot speak for an entire company), and there's a majority of regular tournament attendees who do NOT want FW in their events nation/world-wide, and many of their reasons are as good if not better than the reasons of those who want them (ranging from familiarity to common use to power to unfair representation across codices, yada yada yada).

      I would LOVE for you to play your army ... and guess what, you CAN! Every major event out there allows FW in tournament-level events in some way or another. So, use 'em :) ... at NOVA, AdeptiCon, Feast, Bay, Whatever. Use 'em.

      Delete
    10. I dont have any FW models in my Vlka Fenryka army (but the fire raptor could be my first unless Bran Redmaw came out tomorrow) but I always let people us there FW models coz one they have payed for them and two most of the time they put your skill/luck to the test. Just wish everyone had that mind set. Its a game have a laugh. There is no better feeling than beating the odds. When all facts say you should loose and the odds say the same but the All-father blesses you and you come out on top. Hoo raa.

      Delete
    11. Often I find most people who don't want fw units in tournaments have never actually played them. Until I started seeing some on the table, I was scared of the uber op unit of doom and destruction that people complained about. Then I actually got to play against them. They weren't worse then what we already had. My point is in the argument of no forge world, the lack of forge world out there leads people to look at the internet and find where someone says unit X is op and that is all they know of forge world.

      Delete
    12. To true. There is some OP units out the but the term OP is over used.

      Delete
    13. Oh, I've played them. We brought several components of them to AdeptiTeam, had several pro-FW players saying "ok ok FW does need a ban list after all," and finished in 15th place despite forfeiting the entire last round due to significant-other illnesses for 2 of our 4 players.

      Saying all FW is OK is saying you've never gone up against a tweak-capable power gamer fielding them in the best ways; several of their units that are 40k-approved are wildly (and humorously) overpowered and abuse-able, with minimal #'s of "regular" counters without knowing you're going to have to deal with them in advance.

      This is similar to Jetbike Council and Screamerstar. But when people are increasingly crying for Comp due to units like that, adding even more units of that ilk isn't exactly a positive solution.

      Delete
    14. I guess my mind set is im always up for the challenge to test my skill so to speak. FW do need to play test there rules alot more but as the saying goes "if it bleeds you can kill it".

      Delete
    15. So what you are saying is punish the few people who power game at tournaments by condemning all of forge world for everyone? Some armies would do better with forge world. SoB would have a fun flyer. The diversity of the game would change. Sure the meta would shift because someone brings a new deathstar or uber unit, but happens with almost every new book anyways. With forge world, there may be more broken aspects, but there are also more options available for each army to be able to fight them. You won't have so many play unit X beat army Y.

      Delete
    16. I'm saying punish no one, and continue to offer a variety of events - some with FW, some with limited FW and some with unlimited FW, as larger cons like NOVA and AdeptiCon already do. This addresses the majority of surveyed gamers who would rather NOT have FW in their events, while providing meaningful opportunities to spend entire weekends gaming with portions or entireties of FW collections for those who do. There are also some events out there that don't allow them at all, and some that allow them in everything.

      I would stop throwing haterade on the community as a whole for not following one portion of the community's preference, and start appreciating the fact TOs out there providing gaming opportunities at personal expense are doing their best to address the needs of the many.

      Delete
    17. I want to know who these "majority of surveyed gamers" are. You keep throwing statements out Mike without backing any of them up.

      http://www.warseer.com/forums/showthread.php?382924-Does-your-environment-allow-you-to-use-Forge-World-books-and-units

      There is some evidence that 79% of of gaming groups want FW, whilst only 14% don't want it. Obviously a small sample, but better than your sweeping statements clearly designed to prove a point few other people actually follow, outside of the internets verbal few.

      Delete
  7. So this rumor is just the language that was at the beginning of the chapter tactics article? Yawn

    ReplyDelete
  8. While I'm big fan of Forge World and their Imperial Armour series, many players (especially those with WAAC approach to game or those hailing from highly competitive communities) still have their right to declare that FW/IA models shouldn't be allowed on tournaments and they have plenty of reasons for saying so.

    Moreover: FW being official doesn't force Tournament Organizers to allow it. Fortifications are also official and many Tournament Organizers ban all or some of them. It's their right :)

    That being said, I am 100% for popularization of FW and allowing it to be used widely in all kinds of games (both friendly and competitive) as it makes game richer, less predictable, more interesting, less boring.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. We use FW in our tournaments and there have been absolutely zero issues. Tau, Eldar and Daemons are more powerful than anything in FW.

      Delete
    2. Irrelevant point; and, commentary from attendees to your events points to the contrary on "absolutely zero issues." It would be more fair to say that those who attend your events by and large are OK with or in favor of FW. Which is a good thing!

      Delete
    3. so M ike I have a question, given GW owns FW, and thus has a vested intrest in their financial success, what do you think they would say if you asked them if Forge world was offical? do you think they would agree, or claim they wheren't and their statements where BS?

      Delete
    4. It isn't really relevant what I think, as I shared above. What matters are the vast swathe of gamers out there, and in most areas casual or not, people struggle to find folks to play fw with. They also more often than not poll in opposition to its use. Until GW gives a hand, the biggest events will continue to offer a variety of options, some with and some without FW, as NOVA, adepticon, etc do now.

      Delete
    5. Ok fair enough, hahaha, Blackmoor had a problem with it which he was very vocal about but it was actually about a conversion, not the actual model. But in general terms everyone at our events had been for it.

      Delete
    6. Mike, you really think that given the anonymity of the internet anybody would fear to poll on any given subject? I find your statements in this page quite absurd.

      Delete
  9. We called this at the beginning of 6th and folks doubted. If this comes to pass it will be good to be vindicated =)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Nice call. But do you like it? I'd be interested in your opinion as big tournament organizer and player...

      Delete
    2. Love it, we enjoy more variety and toys on the table! Not everyone feels that way, though which is understandable.

      Delete
  10. I don't see a change in verbiage making a bit of difference.

    Until the day comes where the FW models/books and the Citadel models/books can be purchased side-by-side right from GW's web store AND independent retailers; they will continue to be considered "by permission only".

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Never agreed with the 'permission only'. Precedent doesn't make sense. FW requires permission, but GW-codex models don't? So we have to subject ourselves to the ridiculously powerful "official" lists, and have nothing to fight back with if our own codex would punish us for trying to hard-counter the more mainstream facebeaters? The only difference is who published the books/made the models, it's still the same game and the figures still fit into it.

      So, I have to listen if my opponent says "No, you can't use that FW model." while he busts out a list of top-tier 'official' models, leaving me potentially handicapped? Why can't I tell him he can't use some of those 'official' models in his steamroll-setup, then?

      Delete
    2. I see what you did there... FW books are sold at GW brick and mortar stores, so you left that one out.

      Delete
  11. FW labeling something as "official" has little bearing. It's official if people want it to be.

    ReplyDelete
  12. It will be refreshing to see a ruling on this. As a garage player it matters what is considered kosher and what isn't.

    Mike's point of FW not being playtested is valid. (even though generally I'm of the mindset of bring it and we'll see what happens.) I do wonder how much of the whining it actually curtails though.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. On a personal level, I'm of the "Bring it on" mindset; I'm also happy to abuse the horrible FW rules / broken units out there, as well as the codex identicals that are flat-out better for no particular reason (looking at things like the Hydra) and no points difference.

      As a gamer, it's like "HOLY CRAP ... SO MANY BROKEN ABUSE-ABLE UNITS!" As a TO, I hear that kinda talk from really most of the biggest FW pushers and think "well, balance is definitely not working to support the pro-FW argument ... what else is there?"

      Delete
    2. so basicly Mike you perfer to play only with broken rules and units that GW has provided us? :)

      Delete
    3. I personally play with all :-) ... I don't design my events based on personal opinion. NOVA allows fw on some events and not in others.

      Delete
    4. You have mentioned these broke as sin combos and units. What are they ?

      Delete
    5. 10 broken units is far better than 2 broken units.
      2 broken units can dominate battlefield, but when we have 10 broken units everything evens. Everyone can have their own broken unit :P and stand ground vs enemy broken unit.

      Delete
    6. There's not really a point to mentioning them; it's a bait to then respond with NO WELL THAT'S NOT BROKEN, IT HAS A COUNTER OR 5.

      Things like Thudd Guns and Ahazra Redth create situations where a large portion of TAC type armies can't deal with them, despite the fact each "overpowered' FW component is individually counterable. This equates to things like the Jetbike Council and Screamer Star, which fall apart to a select # of hard counters, but completely dominate the broader swathe of the present meta / the majority of codices and codex combos possible. For this reason they are not very fun for most people to play against or contemplate playing against, despite the fact they have [in some cases obvious] counters.

      The oft-made argument that every FW unit is either "not as broken" as a base 40k component or "come on easily countered by xyz" is an utterly irrelevant one for the above reasons.

      The arguments in general are to a degree irrelevant, b/c you're preaching to the choir in terms of wanting people to be able to play with all their rules. The problem you can't really argue against (with any # of cogent OR incoherent points) is that there's an even larger choir of people who are to varying shades of grey opposed to broad FW presence in events. TOs spend their time pondering the best way to provide varied opportunities and make the largest majority happy possible .... we really aren't all that concerned with what's broken or not.

      Sharing about those things helps reinforce WHY we consider every side of this relevant; when I see either pro or anti-FW arguers treating the other side like hypocrites or idiots ... I generally ignore those types of arguers.

      Someone talking shit at the other side as if it's a bunch of morons or asses is about as valuable as a modern day hardline Democrat or Republican. IN other words, not valuable at all to determining reasonable response.

      Delete
    7. Mike, I couldn't disagree with you more. The point of actually naming units is the difference between an actual fact based, thought out argument and expressing your OPINION as fact. It's proofs to back up your claims, because without proof that's all it is, claims and opinions presented as fact. And you are quick to wave your hand and call other people's facts and statements "irrelevant." Which is especially strange in regards to Reese, who actually has first hand knowledge and experience as a TO. Did he use a little hyperbole? Sure. Does that make his comment "irrelevant?" Not in any logical way.
      But you are correct in that this argument is irrelevant, because the FACT is that Forge World IS official. All the whining from the haters won't change that.

      Delete
    8. I actually did drop a few of the units by name; and, Reece and I are fairly close, and both of us substantial TOs on the International scale who allow FW to varying degrees in our events.

      That said, calling the other side a bunch of whiney haters makes your own input largely ineffective ... it's difficult for any TO to base their decisions on extreme commentary.

      Delete
    9. It's true that you did name a couple of units, but that was after stating, a couple of times, that to do so was irrelevant. And the point I was going for was that it IS relevant. I'm not trying to attack you, I have a lot of respect for you as a TO and, if I remember correctly, charity organizer. But throwing around the word irrelevant negatively impacts your input (and you a correct about me using "whiney haters," my bad letting my frustration at this silliness slip out). But hey, it seems we both have a lot of passion for the game, and that's all good. If we ever meet first round is on me ;D

      Delete
    10. I can concede you make a good point on the use of the word irrelevant; it's perhaps too incendiary.

      The point to make was broader, in the sense that there are a LOT of people whose opinions are certainly as valid as the next who believe many FW units are overpowered / too broadly potent against the scene as a whole without enough common counters from codex to codex, etc. Units believed to be on par with screamerstar and jetbike council (the only two truly "Bad" units in non-FW 40k) in terms of the challenges they present to the fun of a game against them.

      You see a lot of FW discussions where one side will try to "prove" this by putting out a unit like the Quad Launchers. The other side will then try to "prove" they aren't broken by making rather pointless arguments like "well you can charge them in combat and then they're just guardsmen lol!!!111"

      These discussions then fall apart into theoryhammer about playing the game of 40k, much of it on the more obvious side of things ... and much of it ignoring the fact MOST armies can't readily handle both getting to and applying the solution to these types of units (similar to screamer and jet stars).

      So ... I get the notion of irrelevant getting to you or being a poor word to use, but the word to use still needs to be something akin to it. In short, it's entirely subjective and entirely unprovable by either side. That it is a widely held opinion is what should matter, b/c we're trying to avoid getting into a situation where one vocal population group bullies another into having to play exclusively "their" way (aka, fully outlawing all FW, or fully allowing all FW, at all or most events).

      Delete
    11. And the beer's on me if I'm faster w/ the credit card.

      Delete
    12. Two wrongs don't make a right.

      You don't justify adding more "broken" stuff to the game by stating "well, there's already broken stuff there".

      It's a straight logical fallacy. "Hey, if we add twice as many horribly broken/un-fun unit/list combinations, that'll make it better for everyone!" lolwut?


      But really, besides makes that point everyone I go, the real point is and has been pointed out is that GW just needs to make a statement about the legitimacy of FW because TO's like myself, get very, very tired of having to mediate between the FW fanbois and the FW-haters. It's frustrating and depressing.

      Delete
    13. Pure comedy. Difficult to take you seriously Neil. As an obvious waac player your input is highly biased. Back when I listened to your podcast I remember you regaling us with stories of your multi psyfleman dread death cult assassin GK lists. How you crushed everyone and laughed (and bragged about it) on your podcast. I'm sure that was so very fun for your opponents.
      And GW has made the statement, it just seems like you want it on a big parchment scroll with a purity seal affixed. Maybe you should read ADB's comments elsewhere in this thread.

      Delete
    14. You see that's where you decide you'll just flame someone with a different opinion or style again. Stop that, I've seen your reasonable side!

      Delete
    15. I don't really think that could be defined as a flame at all. Now I will admit I haven't listened to Neil's podcast for about a year, but when I did it was clearly, to put it as mildly as I can, a podcast aimed at building "beatface" (their word, not mine) army lists. The fact of the matter is he did play the army I mentioned and did regale the listeners with the stories I mentioned. Is WAAC a flame? I didn't think so when I used it, it's my understanding that it is a descriptive for a certain type of player. And from the many episodes of The 11th Company I listened to I would certainly put Neil into that group. That's not an insult, that's how I perceived him from the way he presented himself episode after episode. And I stand by my statement that he has a bias against FW. I do think it's telling that so many on the anti-FW side make this underlying assumption that those who are "pro-FW" want it so they can spam the "broken" units. Is that because that's exactly what they would do? Because it couldn't be that we like it because they look awesome and adds diversity to the game. Sigh*
      Neil may be a great guy...or not. I couldn't say, never met him. I'd be happy to buy him a beer and chat. But everything I've heard from him is that he is a take no prisoner player who doesn't really approve of FW. And I have listened to him speak about FW and GW with a clear misunderstanding of their relationship. Once again I invite everyone to read what ADB has to say about it in this very thread

      Delete
    16. All I'll add, and it's probably lost in the mist of blogworld by now, is that the upsurge in FW push is directly and provably supported by a wide swathe of known "gamers" and not hobbyists (who've always been fairly pro-FW).

      Delete
  13. That is the dumbest thing I have heard. They make units that take away weaknesses that define the armies, their rules are poorly playtested, they do not have a good distribution system and discounts so stores can stock them, half their stuff is utter cheese, nobody has legal copies of the rules, you never know what people are showing is the most up to date. They are a nitch market... leave them there.

    ReplyDelete
  14. That is the dumbest thing I have heard. They make units that take away weaknesses that define the armies, their rules are poorly playtested, they do not have a good distribution system and discounts so stores can stock them, half their stuff is utter cheese, nobody has legal copies of the rules, you never know what people are showing is the most up to date. They are a nitch market... leave them there.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Thank god. I am so happy to see this happen. While GW sits around for years and years without new units, and new books Forgeworld is hard at work and its about time they've been brought officially into the fold. Screw the meta bring on Forgeworld!

    ReplyDelete
  16. This is not fix my biggest problem with Forgeworld. People not bring the rules. It is one thing if you forgot your books every once every few weeks. It is another that I see FW players NEVER having their book. They all go to the same one if the guy even bought them to get their rules. Take photos of the pages they need or things like that. The day someone with a FW army has the right book or pdf then I will be happy to play because if I have a question about their army we can look it up.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I bring pictures of the book. Why? Because it's not a codex or even the core rulebook. I'm not going to lug around even more books for a SINGLE UNIT per book on top of the 3+ cases and two other books I already have to have. I'll take a picture of it and just use that. If any of my opponents have an issue with it, I make them either suck it up or forfeit.

      Delete
    2. And that attitude is people's problem! If I have a question about your dex, and you forgot it, are you going to make me forfeit?

      Delete
  17. Currently my GW requires your opponent's okay to let you use Forgeworld, if this becomes official I refuse to play people with Forgeworld stuff. Some of the stuff is alright, but you're kidding yourself if you think that half of it isn't grossly overpowered. And people WILL gravitate towards the overpowered stuff.

    ReplyDelete
  18. It doesn't matter who says what about them being legal. What it boils down to is this: they are NOT readily available to FLGS, and as such those stores have no obligation to legalize them. We don't permit FW, except for 'counts as,' because it is blatantly unfair to those without massive wallets, and to the store, because some jerkwad with more money than brains will always show up with a completely broken FW army, that the store never saw a dime of, and make the game miserable for everyone else.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. My question for you then is what do you do about people who bring armies with them from other places, such as if someone moved to your city and had their army with them. Would you also ban those items from your store as well? Or perhaps someone who wanted 3rd party items in their force, because they have the aesthetic they want?

      I am all for getting what I can at the LGS, but someone who flat out denies the use of something I paid for (through them or otherwise) can stuff it. It is a shortsighted policy at best. There is rarely a time that I dont get something from my FLGS when I stop in, in no small part because I simply want them to thrive. If they said that, since the majority of my Tau army was bought on ebay used, I couldnt use them, screw it.

      Delete
    2. Drend, would you also ban Sisters of Battle armies because they are expensive, are not readily available rules and the models are not available for sale at your store? All the same arguments apply but I bet you allow them.

      Delete
    3. One of my local FLGS tried to ban Death from the Sky when it came out cause it was direct sale only. I pointed out to the owner a few of the tings that Moriar and Harley did above. I was told to go play some place else. I haven't been back. But I have 3 other stores in my area I can go play at that don't care. So they get my money. Banning things from your store just because people didn't buy them in your store isn't going to stop people from buying them, or using them. It is going to stop them from buying things from YOU.

      Delete
    4. We welcome new players all the time. Sisters are just fine, as they are available, and the rules are widely published, despite my abhorrence of "ebooks." In fact, we have a couple of players with old sisters armies. Coincidentally, death from the skies is also banned, as again, denying stores the ability to function is bad for business. If you want to play war machine, play war machine. If you are sticking war jacks on the table, you aren't playing 40k. Why should the rest if the world bow and capitulate to you because you think you are better? I don't see oversized wallets as better, nor do many others. If you want to play FW, I can point you to bug tournaments full of other people who play it. When a small store has to sacrifice space, with no return, they aren't obligated to do so. We don't do forgeworld because it has a host of inherent problems, and let's face it. Those problems are bad for business. The idea of an equal footing is important, and FW takes a massive dump on that idea.

      I love the idea that talking to one person who runs large scale competitive tournaments is supposed to make small shops wrong. It doesn't. That's like telling your mom and pop grocer that Walmart lets you do it, so they should to. It is asinine.

      Forge world products aren't fair to consumers. They aren't fair to gamers. They aren't fair to stores. Why should a store support YOU if you won't support them? If you are willing to drop $10,000 on a forge world army, and not spend a dime at the store, why should they let you take up space actual customers could be using?

      Delete
    5. Hold on, death from the skies, and FW is banned, cause u can't buy it in the FLGS, but sisters, (with all direct only models) are fine, even though u can't buy those there?? Am I totally off base there?

      Delete
    6. Right? and what about Finecast which is direct sales only now also. None of that in my (un)FLGS either says the owner...to no one because his clientele bailed on him. lol

      Delete
    7. Dread, pray tell: In what city is your store located? I don't want to accidentally walk in there and get booted for something you consider an offense to your ability to operate as a small business.

      I feel sorry for the folks in your neighborhood. I hope they have alternatives to your store where the ownership is a bit more reasonable, understanding and welcoming of the community that actually does support them, despite not buying everything they need from them...

      Delete
    8. Heres the thing, dread. Sure, forgeworld miniature sales are directly related to you not making money on the MODELS/BOOKS (caps for emphasis). However, all of the periphery items, such as paint, primer, sealants, brushes, basing materials, etc; as well as all of the non-FW models that often go into armies, are all yours if you arent too shortsighted to consider that. By allowing the interesting and unique models from forgeworld to be played, you can also invite more players who want more diversity. I legitimately miss the variety that could be included, assuming that the player across from me isnt there to simply stomp everyone around but play an interesting and challenging game.

      I for one am very proud of my FLGS owners. We are on very good terms, and can have open discussions about the merits of things like this. While they have very strong opinions about strictly going through online retailers (for very legitimate reasons, in my opinion), they also understand that sometimes it has to happen in order to further your end of the hobby. At the end of the day, it is more healthy for the store if there are more players with more diverse forces to play in the store, as it will draw even more players that will purchase items from the store itself (usually). As far as I know they have only ever outright banned one person (I believe), for the most part it is the player base that itself that pushed people out of the group for being dickish players who make everyone miserable.

      Delete
  19. I find the lack of logical thinking, ignorance and hypocrisy just flabbergasting. I actually love those people who say "I refuse to play against FW" because it helps filter out "those guys." Hurt the tournament scene? If you talk to Reese from Frontline Gaming, -you know, those guys that run a ton of huge tournaments on the west coast allowing FW- he can break down how it has made minimal impact on the top tables. Not bringing the rules? So this is exclusive to FW players? Can't afford the rules? The funny thing here is that I don't know anyone who buys all the codices and supplements but doesn't buy FW also.
    And the big complaint: broken rules and units. This one cracks me up the most. Broken compared to what? Regular codices? Because they are all so perfectly balanced; wave serpent spam, draigo wings, riptide spam, heldrake spam, 'cron air, daemon flying circus, et cetera, et cetera. Supplements? Even more of the same, look mom, four heldrakes, four riptides, pass me some more wraith-troops. Are some FW units overpowered? Of course there are some. But I would say way more are overpriced, some severely. And yeah, I actually have several FW books, so I just might have a little experience.
    I'm not tearing down the game, I love it. But it is, and always has been, so far from balanced that complaining about some other little unbalance is, at the very least, silly.

    ReplyDelete
  20. The biggest problem with FW for me is simply that FW is very unevenly balanced among the armies. This was worse before allies, but FW's catering to Imperial forces will slant the meta that way. Basically it will become, in competitive environments, ally IG or GTFO.

    If GW really wants to balance the game competitively and sell more models it needs to improve assault units or rules somehow.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You're never going to see total balance in 40K. What's the point of having 15 or 20 different types of armies (don't know how many codexes there are) if they're all going to be balanced vs each other?

      I think if you look at tournament rosters at any given point in time, you'll find some armies and builds in the top 8 consistently; but if you look across the whole roster, you're likely to see a pretty wide variety of armies, and different builds of those armies. This says to me that while there are some power gamers who play whatever is currently most likely to win vs most other power gamers' lists, a lot of folks still like to play what they like.

      Back to the topic of FW, I've always allowed my opponents to bring FW. It helps break up the monotony of playing against pretty much the same thing all the time, and forces me to think on my feet and not just fall back on what I already know what will (or won't) counter what's across the table from me. It adds some welcome variety and diversity to an already diverse universe.

      I haven't found that non-Aooc FW stuff is too OP. I agree with the other commenters who have pointed out that standard GW stuff can be much more OP than some FW stuff that someone wants to bring cuz it's a cool model...

      Back to the subject of variety, I was surprised to see that out of all the people who played 40K at this past Valhalla (there were a little over 40 folks there, including a bunch of wives who didn't game & others who played some other game than 40K) that there was a surprising number of Orks players. 4 or 5, at least, if I'm not mistaken. Isn't the Orks codex one of the 'worst' ones out these currently? Of course, Valhalla isn't a tournament environment, but it still struck me how many Orks players there were in that 'meta'. To my point, that people still play what they like, and continue to buy more and new stuff as time goes on...

      Delete
    2. GW is slanted towards the Imperium anyways, so I fail to see that side of the argument.

      I would honestly like to have a discussion on why you think assault must be improved though. I for one see a system in which everyone totes around weapons more than capable of punching holes through a body at great ranges, and as such close quarters assault is a really bad idea (at least, getting into it is). For that reason (realism-ish), I am perfectly happy with assault as it stands now.

      Please, what is your gripe?

      Delete
    3. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
  21. Just have to wait for a Chaos Legions supplement from FW...

    ReplyDelete
  22. I would just like to add this. For all the "Wallet Warrior" comments. Warhammer 40k Isn't exactly cheap. As it stands right now, It's maybe 10-20 bucks cheaper(American). My mindset matches Mr. Zondo (love your post btw). Adding my own thought..To me, if it makes the game a bit more fun, or different..who cares??? I get sick of playing against 3 riptides, and 6 wave serpents, and other lists that follow the same cookie cutter internet spams. If I spend 120$ ish on a Fire Raptor that is 40k approved, and my opponent says something along the lines of "o hell no, your a FW A hole I'm not playing if your going to use that." I simply smile and say "ok, go to the next table then" because it boils down to this.....It's Only a Game. Have fun with it. Just my two cents.

    ReplyDelete
  23. My local game shops ban Forgeworld from any official events. This isn't going to change their minds or the stigma against FW.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. yeah but did they ban because of FW content or because they cant retail FW because they don't sell to stores only direct online. We have a local shop that wont allow FW, and flat out told us its because he cant sell it.

      Delete
  24. So what about the FW Sons of Horus army shown in the back of the Black Legion supplement?

    ReplyDelete
  25. So the tables have turned I now see blowhards ralling aginst the use of Forge World units for a change. Much like Forge World unit/army users used to complain because many places or people would not let them play with there FW units/armys. I say FW has done more than enough to make it perfectly clear that their rules are 40k approved, Wether you like it or not! To those who say FW players do not carry around the books I say they DO NOT NEED TO. At this point amost ALL UNITS HAVE BEEN UPDATED VIA PDF... Available To any and ALL who bother to visit there website.

    So I say LET THE META BURN... GW dose and DO NOT CARE ABOUT BALANCE AND BEING GEARED TOWARDS TOURNAMENTS....





    ReplyDelete
  26. Those arguing that FW products should not be permitted because they are not available through local FLGS, does that mean that half the GW products should not be permitted as well?

    At our local FLGS there are like 3 different units available for IG players. You have to order everything online. How is that different from FW? What about armies like SoB which have "0" products in GW stores? Should those be banned as well?

    I don't understand the overwhelming resistance against FW products. Do some of them have controversial rules that probably need revision? Yes. How is that any different from the Tau Riptide? It isn't.

    GW should just make a announcement tomorrow saying "Its legal" so we can move on & overcome this silly division in the community.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Hey, why aren't you running ______?!" "What do you mean?" "Oh! _______ is a Forge World Space marine vehicle that's pimp!" "What? What's Forge World?" "Oh, it's basically a place you buy another book for to open up even more options for the army codex you've already bought!" "So it's a supplement?" "No, dude! It's just more stuff for your codex!" "..that I need to buy another book for?" "Yeah! You should grab ______...and ______ and ______ too!"

      That's my issue with Forge World. I'll buy a supplement as it's a different way to play my army. I just have to buy MORE rules for the $125 worth of books I already invested to start playing.

      Delete
    2. This is a totally legitimate reason & I agree with you. If GW does intend to make FW official it would be in its best interest to make the FW units rules apart of existing codices.

      Delete
  27. The biggest issue is they do not have a US distributor and they do not give discounts to store. This means no stores can stock them. They are horribly expensive and a novelty. 99% of the people have illegally downloaded books and never have the rules with them. Since the stores do not sell them, you can not look up the rules there. Some stores will not let you use them because you did not buy them or can not buy more at their store. They would be promoting the sales of something they can not sell. That is like letting people bring McDonalds into Burger King to eat. Then if you have access to the books you can not find the rules anyways because they do not have a glossary saying the most recent rules for this unit is found in this book on page blah. They also do not play-test the rules well. About half the stuff starts out OK, but then they add 2-3 extra rules for free that break it. 40k has enough balance issues and there are a good dozen really cheesy lists floating around, but you add FW and now you have tons of cheese lists. Next thing you know you can't play unless you have a cheese list... If I wanted that I would still play Warmachine. They call it synergy... I call it power gaming with cheese lists.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Horribly expensive? Bull****. Barely more expensive than GW in most cases, and cheaper if you're from Australia.

      Delete
    2. I do not live in Australia and if you want cheaper prices then call up a US store that ships overseas. They can not do it online, but over the phone or e-mail is 100% legal. WarWeb would likely do it if you called them. Shipping overseas might be $20 or so, but I think they still do the 20% off for GW stuff for phone orders. Australian to US dollars is almost 1-1. You could get 3 Night Scythes shipped for likely under $150. I think Spiky Bits does this too....

      http://www.spikeybits.com/servlet/the-Warhammer-40k/Categories?ncat=Warhammer+40k

      For me... I have a Necron army and the Necron codex along with about 7000 points in Necron. I spend about $600 on all of this (combining warriors with Immortal and Lychguard boxes to get much cheaper Immortals, Lychguard, Lords and Crypteks). My local shop orders it through GW and gets a 45% discount. They pass on a 20% discount to the club members. I add a Night Scythe to my army for $45.50 retail or a total of $36.40. Now to get the Necron Night Shroud (yes it is a little bigger).... it costs $112.46. Well I don't have the rules in my codex, so I need an Imperial Armour book for another $77.12.. Add $22.75 for shipping and I am at $212.33 (not sure if there is any tax or sir charges to my credit card). I think paying 6x as much is a bit steep for one model.

      Of course I could get it through my local store for 20% off and no shipping... oh wait.. they do not offer discounts to stores or have a US distributor. Even if I just illegally download the book the it is roughly $125. I might as well get a Chinese reproduction for $40 shipped to go with that illegally downloaded book, just so I can add more cheese in my army!

      Delete
  28. While I always accept FW if a player brings it, I also expect him to be able to provide me with the rules.

    At the same time, FW tend to have crap rules, that is either over powered, or just plain meaningless. (I am looking at you Silas Alberecs Hellslayer)
    So I hope that when the become Officially official that they also make better more balanced rules, and don't just try and one up the standard rules.

    ReplyDelete
  29. It probably wont change anything, unless better balanced rules. My big regional tournament already bans all fortifications, restricts flyers and downgrades all allies, to even the field, get away from flyer spam and boring fortified gunlines.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Uggh, that's a horrible way to play the game. "Just ban stuff we don't want to deal with". Place proper terrain on those tournament tables and you don't need to worry about a lot of those issues, which a couple good line of sight blocking terrain would do quite nicely.

      Delete
  30. Err, I'd just like to point out this isn't an official announcement, its an anonymous source, and faeit posted a similar rumour over a year ago, that never happened, this might not happen, the sky is not falling..... Worry if/when GW say it, and remember, outside of a tournament you can always refuse to play someone, its your choice!

    ReplyDelete
  31. I'm fine with Forge World if the units are common knowledge. If they do become 100% official, they need to just update the Forge World site so I don't have to buy 800 more books to know what I'm up against and what's going on. Forge World "codices" aren't for sale at any stores I know, so I can't just browse them like I do new army codices and whatnot. I don't want hidden information, and I want to be able to build my army against threats I'm aware of. Just telling me a models rules before it hits the table isn't helping me pre-Tournament design my army to better acclimate to given challenges - especially ones that I'm not aware of existing in the first place. That's not fun, or fair..really.

    ReplyDelete
  32. It's been official since forever. People have always taken polite phrasing to justify their incorrect opinions on what's official.

    To GW, it's all official, and always has been, Like it or not, that's the literal truth. To see it being heralded now as something new to adapt to (or worse, that it's still not official) is the very definition of missing the point.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I just gave myself PTSD flashbacks to the time I foolishly tried to explain that simple policy to 3++.

      Oh, the rage. Oh, the resistance.

      Delete
    2. Ok friends, since we are having lots of love and hugs lets give ADB a big group hug (and if it makes him uncomfortable keep hugging til he quits squirming, lol).
      And then pop a beer, sit back, and watch the FW naysayers say things like "His statement isn't official, and he is just a BL author and not an official of GW Prime, and until they print an official statement in an official source with an official stamp it isn't official"

      Delete
    3. Exactly.

      Every interaction I've had with GW on the issue (whether it's in-person at events like GD, in-store, customer service, or even their Twitter account) has always been the same answer: Forgeworld is 100% official. Just be nice and make sure your opponent can have a read of the rules so he knows what he's up against.

      I guess it's a "fear of the unknown" thing that's got people up in arms?

      Delete
    4. Oh Gosh, please find some way to get GW to make some comment somewhere public to this effect! It would make the lives of us humble TOs so much easier if the masses had to see it stated clearly ... that so many people are missing the point is still SO MANY PEOPLE missing the point (if that's what's happening).

      Delete
    5. They have, though. That's the point. The company's made it abundantly clear. "GW" has made the comment through every avenue it's chosen: it's plain across White Dwarf; it's mentioned on Forge World's Facebook page every time it's asked; it's at every single signing and seminar and open day from countless staff in every department; it's in every single Forge World rulebook... FW *are* GW. The Black Library is GW. The "separate company" thing is massively misunderstood.

      People set the boundary on this themselves, saying "I think the company works like X because I believe Internet Meme Y" so they start on incorrect foundations, and then move on to "The only way I'll be convinced is if GW issue a statement". GW *has*, countless times. People just choose not to believe the parts of the company that actually communicate with the public, and insist a statement must come from some mythical entity that doesn't actually exist.

      Clever stuff, really. To set the goal lines in a place the other side of the argument (and the truth) will never reach. It's no different from saying that you'll only believe in dinosaurs if God sits you down personally and tells you they were real. The fossils and other evidence isn't good enough, but that's all reality will provide, because that's how the Earth works.

      Delete
    6. You're in a sense preaching to the choir; I think most TOs, in fact, believe the intent is clear. The problem lies with the wide # of "foot voters" out there who firmly believe it is in no way official. We could use [yes yes, I know even more] clarification from GW to help out.

      And I'm with you ... just knowing there's a point you can go to where denial is pointless. That point needs to be gotten to [sadly].

      Delete
    7. I think the people who "want an official statement" beyond what's already been given countless times already are expecting a great big announcement on the home page of the GW website, similar to how Apple or Amazon announce new iPads/Kindles.

      So they're looking for something that's never (realistically) going to happen before they'll accept it.

      Can't win!

      Delete
    8. @ADB: The central problem with the FW issue a lot of other issues is that GW does not understand that they are playing a different game than their customers. They assume that because they understand that FW is part of GW and it is the same company (obviously) that they shouldn't have to say it.

      They assume that everyone gets the RAI of rules so often don't think that they need to be written as tightly as possible.

      They assume that it is good enough to just roll off if there's a dispute because that's how they would do it.

      If they understand that clarity would benefit the customer base immensely on these type of issues and actually outright said things like 'FW books are as official as normal codexes' then we wouldn't have these problems.

      Delete
  33. FINALLY.

    I love Forge World stuff, I've owned several Tau & Eldar FW units for a few years and I have no problem scanning the rules, printing out the unit's page and bringing it along as an option for games.

    The people who complain about FW usually fall into three catagories:

    1) those who can't afford it and are "if I can't use it neither can you" children

    2) those who have been up against old FW units once and lost

    3) those who don't like risking a loss vs 'unknown' units which have usually been blown out of all proportion by people from 1 & 2

    IMO, most Forge World units are balanced against their points cost, some cost more than they are worth and a few are under and it's these last few that give a gammy rep. As for the nay-sayers, #1 I couldn't care less about because if they're that unreasonable and selfish then they're going to be no fun to play anyway, while #2 & #3 are often chilled out by just showing them the rules and/or the unit(s) in action.

    The vast majority are not insanely OP for their cost AND THE NEW 6E CODICES ARE DESIGNED WITH FW UNITS IN MIND. This last point is often overlooked and stems from GW's policy of not pinching FW units, I think the last one was the Sky Ray and that's not exactly new anymore.

    This is the EXACT reason that the 6E Chaos Marine codex had no drop-pod. The Dreadclaw serves that role and GW expect people to use it. (Well, when the new equivalent is available).

    ReplyDelete
  34. You might be surprised to hear that people in the UK really aren't as bothered, I have friends all over the country and between us we play in over a dozen clubs and numerous tournaments and never have FW issues. The only thing seems to be that you can't have crappy proxies. So if you then consider that the EU follow suit eg. GT's allow FW, then from GW's point of view its a very small part of their market that has a problem with FW, so why bother doing anything about it? And the vast majority of people I know and see on the web who have a lot of FW do so because of the models not the rules, so I seriously doubt it affects their sales.

    I would point out that this isn't my point of view, just what I think their stance is and I could be completely wrong.

    I'm in the opinion that they should start playtesting through the hardcore clubs again and release a statement saying FW is completely legal.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. All I would add to this is that ALL of the rules could use some more "hardcore playtesting." Or just maybe it's not about "unbalanced rules" but more about a small, select group of players... just sayin'

      Delete
    2. That's the thing. GW has released that statement, but the fanbase mistake it as "Forge World is a different company, so they don't count."

      GW have released the statement countless times. With the 40K Approved stamps. With Forge World stuff being on almost every page and in almost every army in White Dwarf for months. With every Imperial Armour book since #2 saying "Consider these official, but be nice if an opponent hasn't read the rules, so ask permission." Because of that misunderstanding becoming so entrenched, FW changed it in recent updates to "inform your opponent you're using these rules" with no "ask" at all.

      That's how GW chose to release the statement. It's the same as Black Library being canon. To GW, it's all the same, it's all canon, it's all official. But because people apply their misunderstandings to how the company functions, you get this meme about needing "GW" to release a statement.

      They did. They have. It's clear as day. People just don't realise what GW is, and take their misconceptions as truth.

      Delete
    3. I think the biggest misunderstanding is the triumvirate of "companies" that make up GW.

      They're just departments, in the same building. Their designers all go to the same range meetings. Their top brass all talk, all plan, all discuss stuff.

      There's a lot more communication than people seem to believe.

      Delete
    4. It's great to see you saying this, as someone "in the know." If I say this it is easy for others to dismiss it as my opinion

      Delete
    5. I agree its not all players, and those WAAC players should be the ones to playtest all the rules, they do tend to spot things quickly. Even if they are unpleasant to play against.

      I also think its a bit ridiculous that people think that a company of this size wouldn't interact within its different departments. FW released the new marine updates at the same time the new codex came out. Black library released several books featuring marines with new chapter tactics. The Fall of Orpoheus came out not long after the Necron codex, the Taros 2nd ed came out with the Tau codex and the FW's apocalypse 2nd ed with GW's apocalypse book.

      Delete
  35. Here is my issue, and it has nothing to do with liking or not liking FW. I am feeling overwhelmed by all the codex supplements and now all FW is legit too? This is crazy. If the accelerated codex drop isn't mind blowing enough, now we have to contend with supplements and FW models, ALL of which have their own special rules. Just letting your opponent know what you have as you begin the game isn't enough. Often reading a rule with a quick once-over and seeing it play it on the table are entirely different propositions. The game is changing so rapidly right now, I often feel that I don't have a good grasp of what is going. It is far too expensive to buy every codex and supplement that drops. An already convoluted game is being made more so by the volume of new information being dropped on us on a weekly basis. I notice that a lot of people don't even know their codex very well and frequently misrepresent the rules/abilities. This is easy to correct when you have a chance to get up to speed, but with the pace of new information I often feel like once I go home and start to theory-hammer how to counter something, I find they weren't playing it right. I'm not trying to be a whiner, but it is beginning to ruin the game for me. For me the fun part is learning to strategize well, something that is becoming increasingly difficult.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. THe honest and easy solution to that problem, mate, is to play the game more. It's as simple as that. I know it's "not always that simple" with spare time often being a rare thing so I kinda know where you're coming from but if you're not experiencing a rule or army enough to know about it then you need to gain more experience.

      Delete
    2. Applying basic combined-arms tactics actually works out quite well in 40k. I understand its not exactly a "military simulation" but it does still reward using the same theories nicely. Yes, some things are different due to different abilities, but the impact of these abilities and differences is largely mitigated by sound battleplan.

      I also have some trouble with knowing what everything does, sometimes even in my own book, at least when its not commonly used by me. The key here is to simply agree how it will work for the duration of the game, then improve understanding later on. As the codex pace slows, the meta will stabilize and the rules will become more explored. In the meantime, see the first part of my post, and learn yourself some new tactics.

      Delete
    3. I don't disagree with either of you in principal. Reality is actually difficult to pull off.

      "Play more" is not a viable option when there is a new codex and 2 supplements each month to keep of. Maybe you can play that much in your life, but not me. That would mean 3 games a month just to learn the new books/models without normal play time and that is assuming you actually have those specific new codexes that 1, have a player, and 2, has the same play schedule as you.

      Basic combined-arms is OK in real life sims where you have a basic idea of what weapons you are going to face. When there are new items being dropped all the time (grav weapons) that overrule the overarching principles of the game things change rapidly (ie. Allies struggled against Luftewaffe jets late in the war and Japan had no answer to the Atomic bomb, the ironclad completely changed naval warfare during the Civil War, etc). Combined-arms simulations can work in real life b/c there is no maximum point value your are restricted to bringing. In 40K one unit can change the game, especially when you it's something completely new.

      Delete
    4. The thing about using my advice is that you have to understand how/why/where/when to use any given tactic. You must also be prepared to go over, in detail, every move of the game after the fact to learn, adapt, and ultimately overcome your opponent.

      However, to simply give a hypothetical reaction to your grav weapons argument:

      I run Tau, usually with around 50ish firewarriors, 4 crisis suits (1 hq and a unit of 3), a unit or two of pathfinders (one with 3 railrifles and a devilfish for hunting things) and a hammerhead or two, pending points. The basic idea is for 4 firewarrior squads to advance, covering each other, while the 5th squad sits in the back and holds my backfield objective, the rest of the force taking out its own targets of opportunity. Side note: the meta where I am at does not seem to be particularly "hardcore"

      So, in a basic game, I typically have the tools required to handle any given threat. One hammerhead is built for strong anti-tank, another is a MEQ hunter, the RR pathfinders go hunting TEQs, and the crisis suits go hunting whatever I want dead. Firewarriors do what they do best and provide a large contingent of semi-expendable troops that gather a lot of attention, for some reason. If I were to be presented with a new/unfamiliar unit mid-game, such as grav weapons, I ask to read the rules, quickly familiarize myself with their abilities, and promptly develop an experimental strategy to deal with them based on the target prioritization developed for each unit in the army. If it doesnt work I try something else next time. I dont often alter my list, in part because I dont have the ability to throw money at new units, and also because I feel like my list plays the way I want to. I wouldnt take it to a tournament, however. :p

      Delete
  36. Or maybe a statement in the BRB or a codex or a FAQ saying that 'in addition to units listed in the codex, you may take units from Forgeworld books marked with the '40k Approved' symbol.'
    At present the GW (as opposed to FW) rulebooks do not have any such statement.

    Also maybe if the GW run 40k tournaments like Throne of Skulls allowed FW units......

    ReplyDelete
  37. If GW want forge world to be considered 'legal' the world over, there are a few VERY simple things they can do.

    1) Make them available. We already have a games workshop distributor here. Use it. It isn't hard. Make sure the products are out and available.

    2) Make it ALL ONE GAME! Stop with the delineation and ridiculous 'special rules' that cause extra expense and confusion! Make sure ALL of it is sold at the retailers! My store would love to carry FW. There is some out right cool shit. Hiding it behind the internet doesn't help the issue.

    3) Make it clear. No matter how much players whine about how it 'is right here in this book I didn't bother to buy, and that nobody we know of has' things will not change. Know what would make it clear? The damn rule book mentioning it. Which it doesn't. FW is a SPECIALTY product. Not a main line one.

    Are there FW items I'd like to have? Sure. Just about everything labeled as Emperor's Children. Does that mean I'm going to overspend then throw a temper tantrum when I'm told I can't use them? No. I'm going to act like an adult, rather than pissing in everyone else's wheaties. Ignorant? Stupid? No, sir, I'm aware of the situation. I'm aware of the arguments. I've come to a logical conclusion that is shared not only by the majority of players, but by enough game stores to make it an issue for you. We aren't playing "Forge World model game." We are playing "Warhammer 40k." Follow the same rules I have to.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Like I said above you really need to see what Aaron Dembski-Bowden has to say above. In case you don't know, he is a writer for Black Library. And he has some insights on the subject that run counter to your opinion

      Delete
    2. GW has WD every month, FAQ's whenever they want, new codexes very other month. Anytime they want to make it clear that FW is to be considered part of 'standard 40k' they can do it in one sentence.
      They haven't.

      Delete
    3. Yes, they have, and that's the point everyone is missing. It says so *in the FW books*! "40,000 Approved". From the same company, as Aaron has so clearly pointed out...

      Delete
    4. "Everything labelled Emperor's Children..."

      I can agree with that dream. And a fellblade. I'd love a fellblade.

      Delete
  38. My problem with fw rules are as follows:

    1) As far as I am aware, they are play tested with their own environment (e.g. elder in ia 11 are design to play within that book). This lead to thing being called overpowered in standard 40k.

    2) people who buy the model and cheap out on the book. If you can't afford to play the model, don't. (more a problem with people that fw)

    3) It feels cheap, almost like cheating (almost... before everyone tells me that fw is legal) if you can't win with your own codex and have to fine a nasty unit elsewhere.

    4) then there's all the other issues like worldwide distribution, some people not affording it, etc

    My opinion is that fw should be kept to fw games and apocalypse or counts as. I have some cataphractii armour converted to dw knight, some phoenix terminators ready to convert to this, the models they make are amazing, I just feel the rules should stay as an add on than standard 40k

    ReplyDelete

  39. As someone who lives in Nottingham UK, and who's local is Warhammer World (GW's HQ) I can tell you that GW = FW = BL is 100% true.

    It's all the same building.

    I do find it hilarious watching all these "theory's" online from people who really know nothing

    But the quality/testing and availability of FW rules and minis does make it look like a 3rd party at times.

    Look at these two contact pages for GW, BL, and FW
    http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/conte ... 10&start=1
    http://www.forgeworld.co.uk/Home/Contact.html
    http://www.blacklibrary.com/Home/Returns-Policy.html

    Also the GW site provides links to FW and BL

    It's the same address!
    Even look at the bottom of the BL site:
    "Black Library is a division of Games Workshop"


    Oh and all 3 have the same company number: 01467092
    and VAT (tax) numbers: 580853421

    There - legally defining proof.

    ReplyDelete
  40. Umm thudd guns some of the most broken things in the game...Never had a problem with FW before facing those..

    ReplyDelete