[Archive] Is the Legion of Azgorh is Official?

Veshnakar:

From over at the warhammer forum…

Sleboda wrote:

Is there any indication as to how “official” this list is?

Should it be seen as the 4th 8th edition army book or is it just a lark?

I’m looking for info on any guidance GW may have written into the book, not opinions from TO’s etc. (No offense)
It’s official!! at the start of the rules section at the back of the book… It says the army list is official.

This is pretty big news that we have an “official” list we can now use. I am surprised no one has mentioned this on here sooner!

furrie:

its great news indeed

zhatan87:

I am surprised no one has mentioned this on here sooner!
Me too:o Can it be confirmed by someone here?

One of the best news here:hat off

Grimstonefire:

A quick scan, but I couldn’t see any mention of ‘official’.

Bolg:

If this is true I dont care how good or bad the list is and I will bring them to every tournament I can!!!

Thommy H:

There’s no such thing as “official”. Tournament organisers will decide for themselves what they will and won’t allow, as will your opponents.

KramDratta:

Unless GW (not Forgeworld) print it in White Dwarf or on their site, saying that this list replaces the Ravening Hordes list, then it won’t be official.

(I have a hard time getting TOs to accept Chaos Dwarfs, let alone a Forgeworld list that has no ‘official’ stamp from GW. Sad but true)

wallacer:

There's no such thing as "official".

Thommy H
Yes. Exactly.

It is a book released by Warhammer Forge, which is a part of Games Workshop. If you want to use it you can. As a matter of courtesy I would tell my oppponent i'm going to use it and as a matter of common sense I would check with a TO if their tournie would allow it.

Hashut’s Blessing:

Someone on here would’ve said it sooner (especially since several members have a book and one is a staffer!) if it were “official”. The only things ever listed as official are a smattering of items in WD/online.

zhatan87:

Someone on here would've said it sooner (especially since several members have a book and one is a staffer!) if it were "official".
So, no mention?... Pffffff... How could we make it allowed in tournaments, if they don't mention "official" list, even if it's said by FW...

Hashut’s Blessing:

Because it’s the organiser’s discretion - the army books prodyuced by GW don’t have to be included either. Technically, they’re not official.

Thommy H:

Exactly. Everything is at your opponent’s permission. Someone could refuse to play for any reason they wanted.

The only value “official” material has is that, in pick up games against strangers, you can use it without having to explain yourself. So if you plonk down a Dark Elf army, no one can say, “that’s not fair - I didn’t know what I was up against.” The Legion of Azgorh isn’t going to fall into this category, because FW books just aren’t common currency with most gamers. So you’ll need to ask.

Grimstonefire:

I think what people are hoping they should have done is to include somewhere that it is balanced for tournament play (the more direct way of saying it’s ‘official’, which is a bit of a strange way of putting it imo considering it is an ‘official’ GW product).

Which clearly was not going to happen, it being FW’s first warhammer list.

Thommy H:

What does that mean though? “It’s balanced” kind of implies that they would intentionally make rules that aren’t balanced. So it’s counter-productive to even use that kind of language. There are so many weird philosophies that are taken as read in the Warhammer community.

“Balanced” means this: in a scenario that doesn’t favour one side in particular with two armies of equal points value, the result is mostly down to luck and player skill. This is the essence of “tournament play” - that you can say, with reasonable confidence, that the eventual winner is determined by something other than which army they picked. And points values, in a fundamental sense, are what makes this possible, because they enable you to quantify an army and pit it against an equivalent force, even though they may be composed of wildly different units.

So when a points value is assigned to a unit, there’s no way you can be doing it with anything but balance in mind. That’s what they’re for. And I’m sure WF believe the points values they’ve chosen are good ones (and they may well be, for all we know at this early stage) or they wouldn’t have picked them. So I’m certain they’d make the assurance that the list is “balanced for tournament play” because all that means is “the points costs are fair”.

And it would still be utterly meaningless.

Sorry to get all ranty, but I just can’t work out where this mentality of “officialdom” comes from, and this obsession with tournament play. As if it’s the proper way to play Warhammer. As if GW give even the tiniest damn about such things. It’s toy soldiers, and the object of the game is to build and paint your toy soldiers and have fun with them, however it is that you do that. Tournaments can be fun too (I’m told), but to imply that it’s the only “real” way to enjoy Warhammer, and that the entire game should be fixated on them as the objective of the enterprise is just inane.

cornixt:


What does that mean though? "It's balanced" kind of implies that they would intentionally make rules that aren't balanced.

Thommy H
They are pretty happy to say that they haven't tested some rules enough to be able to claim balance though, so official would mean "we've tested these and they are balanced" and unofficial would mean "we have not tested these enough to know if they are properly balanced"
Unless GW (not Forgeworld) print it in White Dwarf or on their site, saying that this list replaces the Ravening Hordes list, then it won't be official.

KramDratta
The list isn't a replacement for the RH list, it is an alternative. See the list discussion threads.

Thommy H:

They are pretty happy to say that they haven't tested some rules enough to be able to claim balance though, so official would mean "we've tested these and they are balanced" and unofficial would mean "we have not tested these enough to know if they are properly balanced"

cornixt
Yeah, but they're not going to release some slick, polished hardback and then stamp "WORK IN PROGRESS" all over it, are they? It's not an unreasonable assumption that this is intended to be a finished product, and therefore the rules are as stable as they can be. There shouldn't really need to be a big announcement at the start that these are "official". What would that even mean anyway? Since "official" is always an arbitrary standard, what gives Forge World the authority to impose it at all?

As I said, all "official" really means is that you can't object to an army being trotted out without appearing contrary. I could refuse to play against Lizardmen or Ogre Kingdoms for some arbitrary reason of my own invention, but people would think me a bit odd. If I baulked at someone rocking up with a Legion of Azgorh though, it wouldn't seem quite so strange. A lot of people don't like playing against Forge World units because they don't trust them as much as they do the main GW studio - and there are sound reasons for that. If you're someone who thinks a certain standard is important on the gaming table (which is not necessarily the same as being a tournament gamer), the line has to be draw somewhere.

"FW are part of GW" or "it says it's official" are pointless distinctions. You and your opponent decide what you want in your games.

Grimstonefire:

Perhaps in the authors ending comments he could have said ‘and I encourage tournament organisers to allow the use of these rules’ etc.

This too he wasn’t going to do, because the list is designed for ‘friendly’ games as most FW lists are.

Thommy H:

But why does that matter? What do tournaments have to do with “official”? See, this is the crux of my issue: tournaments are events, organised by individuals, because a Warhammer battle is inherently a competitive enterprise and therefore it is considered a worthwhile exercise to formalise that competition every now and again.

It’s like, if you and your friends play [popular computer game] and most of the time you just mess around, playing endless matches against one another or online, but now and again when it’s a national holiday and everyone has nothing better to do, maybe you all get together and say “today, we’re going to have a popular computer game tournament!” and it provides a context for the whole day’s gaming. And the winner gets bragging rights, or doesn’t pay for any drinks that night, or whatever.

This is the level we’re talking about here. It’s a way of giving a bit of context to the competition that’s part of almost all games. But, like our hypothetical computer game, it’s not necessarily optimised for that kind of play, and the designers didn’t build it on the assumption that that’s what would be done with it. It’s not a sport, and the reason it’s fair isn’t because being fair is important - it’s because being fair makes it a more fun experience for everyone involved.

Balance, in Warhammer (and in popular computer games, actually…) exists so that the contest, whatever form it takes, has a point. If there’s no way for one side to win, it’s not technically a game: it’s a trick, a riddle, an exercise in “ah, I see what you did there: whoever goes first almost always wins!” (which is the case in many children’s games, which are generally designed to occupy and teach young minds, not supply a satisfactory gaming experience). So it bothers me when people see tournaments as the be all and end all of the Warhammer experience - as if everything else is just practice for that, or not doing it “properly”. Tournament legality isn’t a measure of anything except what is legal in a particular tournament. Points costs exist to allow you to play the kind of game you want to play. If they don’t work and aren’t fair, the resulting game will be less fun (as has been the case with some “broken” armies in the past) and it’s necessary to return to the drawing board.

Fun is what matters. A satisfying gaming experience is what matters. Tournaments are one way to do that, for some people, but it’s not the only way to do things and, for a variety of reasons, it’s not often the best way to do things. If you have players of demonstrably different skill levels for example (say when playing against a child), maybe a better game would be had by all if the youngster got more points to play with? Or, to prevent our once-more-hypothetical whippersnapper feeling patronised, maybe rebalance the scenario in a more subtle way - with terrain or unit choices that favour him, for example.

There are a thousand different ways to play Warhammer, and points costs are an excellent way of letting you pick the right one, because they’re a useful overall guide of a unit’s basic “quality”. They allow you to think in terms of a single variable for the forces involved (“how big”), and concentrate on balancing the other factors to give you the game you want. They’re not there to transform Warhammer into a serious competition.

cornixt:

But why does that matter? What do tournaments have to do with "official"?

Thommy H
It really comes down to "All these guys think this is balanced enough to play against/with" which is just a confidence factor. GW books used to all automatically get the full confidence, although this was somewhat shaken by 7th edition where there was a clear power gap between some armies. Forgeworld simply hasn't got enough history - it's not proper GW and many of their web-published rules are clearly not thought through. Since there is no real such thing as official (or legal, as used to be another common term for it), you're left with player confidence. And having tournaments use it means that we get more confidence, and therefore less hassle when we get our army out to play a random guy.

Thommy H:

Yeah, I get that. It was more of a philosophical, shaking my fist at the sky, “why must it be this way?”