Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

First of all, this question is not intended to start a "is FW legal?" thread

But I often read that people say "supplements are part of 40k, but expansions needs opponents prior consent" So you cant just show up with a cities of death army, or planetstrike army (expansions) to a 1500 match, without getting your opponents consent. But its legal to show up with a stompa, because escalation requires no such agreement beforehand.

At the same time, I believe the majority sees FW as legal, and requiring no prior consent with opponent, yet my FW books clearly says "expansions" on the front cover

Would it be correctly understood if its like this: supplements are fully part of the game, as are FW expansions, but GW expansions are not, and require opponents consent prior to game?

Everything requires your opponent's consent, just like everything he does requires your consent. If you can't use your pie holes to come up with a game you both agree on, just move on to the next player and shake his hand anyway!

My view is that GW produces an army list in the codex and a rule format in the rule book. That is the CORE of the game containing units, stats and rules to play with.

Any content produced by GW/FW/3rd parties that adds to that content or changes that content (or parts there of) is something that you should discuss with your opponent before using. Because at that point you're bringing something to the table from outside of the core game itself.

As such you're right to inform your opponent of the inclusion of the content; it gives them the right to accept or deny and also the option to use similar content.


Clearly if you're playing an expansion with adds to the core rules of the game that would be a pre-arranged component (since both players must use those revised rules adjustments or additions).




In the end people get all extreme about the legality of FW in games when talking about it online and the vast majority of people bringing FW models will generally ask before using them

 kronk wrote:
Everything requires your opponent's consent, just like everything he does requires your consent. If you can't use your pie holes to come up with a game you both agree on, just move on to the next player and shake his hand anyway!

QFT
Even the brb still requires your opponent's consent. Your opponent can always decline any game for whatever reason.

In general, you should always inform your opponent before the game if you bring any additional supplements or expansions beyond the brb and your codex.
There is no 'legal' difference between supplements and expansions. Neither is there a difference between FW and GW as they are one and the same company (GW) Forgeworld is just the name of a site GW uses to sell additional expensive resin models, alternative armies like the DKoK and the HH game.
In short, everything requires mutual consent. You should always discuss with your opponent beforehand on what game to play and what units and rules to use.

Aah true, although that wasnt exactly what I meant
I mean, if I were to plan a game with my buddy. Orks against SM. I wouldnt be required to ask if it was ok to field 19 grots and a runtherd, 3 big gunz, killa kans etc...He would know I played with C:Orks. Id like to surprise him with my grot force

But whats the difference between expansions and supplements then? I mean, supplements expands the game too, shouldnt they just be labelled expansions? or as Iron-Captain said: There is no ´legal´ difference between supplements and expansion?

If someone were to say: I challenge you to a w40k match 2000points of crazyness, no holding back gogogogo!!
I presume I could bring a double FOC, with allies, bunkers from SHA, a stompa from escalation, some of those units from battle formations, FW units, white dwarf flyers, but not "strategic whatever theyre called" from cities of death.

Id also like to hear from those persons that does make a distinction between expansions and supplements

The term "Expansion" doesn't appear on a single Forgeworld product until 2007, on the IA5: THE SIEGE OF VRAKS PART 1. Until that time, the books had no such delineation at all. In fact, within the books themselves, they refer to themselves as supplements. They were intended, from the beginning, to be part of the game as a whole.

The GW Expansions, however, are all fundamentally game changing in that they add extra rules, force orgs and styles of gameplay that are not simply additional units or army lists. They include rules like stratagems, the addition of free fortifications to an army, adding special rules to units or involve bonuses for winning games (like Planetary Empires) - and you'll note that the only GW Expansion to include units for armies is the original Apocalypse rulebook (released in 2007, the same year IA5 was released with the Expansion verbage). You should also note that the new version of Apoc contains no use of the word Expansion whatsoever.

The "consent" rule you're referring to is as new as the Expansion title - and it was a concession to the FLGSs of the time, which were a huge part of GWs business model. With FLGSs disappearing and online retailers here to stay, GW has abandoned its support of in store tournaments and thus has slowly been reuniting all of the pieces of the company to present one large all encompassing game that has half a dozen different ways to play. It's no coincidence that the same year GW abandoned prize support is the same year they created the 40k stamp in FW book and set about changing the language of the "consent" warning.

Britneyfan12 wrote:

If someone were to say: I challenge you to a w40k match 2000points of crazyness, no holding back gogogogo!!
I presume I could bring a double FOC, with allies, bunkers from SHA, a stompa from escalation, some of those units from battle formations, FW units, white dwarf flyers, but not "strategic whatever theyre called" from cities of death.

Eh it depends on the group really. "No holding back" isn't very specific at all and what it means to one person or even one group can mean very different at another gaming group or club. You'd have to specify what you mean for it to be fair to your opponent so that they know you mean expansion/FW/supplement units and not just core units.

In the end its all about communication and clarity. You shouldn't be banking on winning or playing by surprising your opponent with nasty things beyond their expected scope to predict. If you want a game with FW models just say "Hey lets game, and lets use FW models ok?" Same for expansion and supplement contents.

Escalation is an expansion, isn't it?
The way I understand it, a Supplement is a small modification to a specific Codex- for example see the Clan Raukann Supplement. It has a new Warlord traits table, new relics and a few minor changes to the FoC. I'd say that these Supplements are as standard as the Codices themselves- just tell your opponent what you're using as you would at any other time.

Expansions change the game's core ruleset- I can't say I know a thing about Planetstrike or Cities of Death, but I imagine that they change a lot of things.

These games require both players to say that they're playing such a game- otherwise it's just stupid.

Escalation is a bit different- it opens up some more options. I'd definitely make sure that your opponent is fine before you drop that Stompa on the table (It'll be fine- Orkz make their machines well!)

There's a definite distinction, but I would go with Supplements affecting a single Codex but Expansions 'expanding' the game for all Codices.

Agree?

Muulka wrote:
Escalation is an expansion, isn't it?

No. It is a supplement.

GW isn't very consistent with how they label stuff. FW "expansions" function much more like supplements in that they offer extra choices for an army or variant lists without changing the core rules of the game. What you really have is two types of books:

Supplement-type books only add new things to one player's army. Taking Farsight Tau has no effect on your opponent's choices and is functionally no different than choosing to take a Hammerhead instead of Broadsides in your codex Tau army. Likewise for choosing to take a FW Barracuda in your Tau list instead of the codex flyers. There's no need to get any agreement from your opponent (other than their basic right to refuse a game against anything they don't like), and the only difference between a "supplement" choice and a codex choice is what is printed on the cover of the book.

Expansion-type books change the core rules of the game for both players. Planetstrike changes the FOC for both players, introduces new stratagem choices for both players, changes the deployment rules significantly, and changes the mission objectives. There's no such thing as showing up with a "Planetstrike army" and playing against your opponent's normal army in a normal game. Same thing with the other expansions. Cities of Death, Apocalypse, Kill Team and Spearhead are all completely new game types that require you and your opponent to arrange a special game and bring appropriate armies.

So obviously the practical result is that if you show up to a random pickup game and just say "let's play a game of 40k" you can expect to use any supplement-type rules unless your opponent is TFG, but you shouldn't expect to play an expansion game.