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.

The faraight rumor/discussion thread was being entirely derailed by rules arguments and being heavily to blame I thought that I would go ahead and make a rules thread here. I'll participate in the arguing of course, but will also try to make this initial post bipartisan.

Issue the first; There is argument about weather or not the seven unique characters are unlocked only after selecting farsight or if they are an option to lists that omit his presence.

This rule is resolved via edit of the document july 23. He is required to take the seven

Issue the second; markerlights work for any units from codex tau empire. Since 'the seven' do not occur in that codex, an argument has been made that they cannot benefit from markerlights.

Issue the third; several parts of Supplement:Farsight reference 'army' in its rules ( usually to stop so specify limits and restrictions on models/war gear that can't be taken) ie: 'Farsight Army's may not include X character/x wargear'. Arguments have been made that 'Army' refers to a codex, and counter arguments say that army encompasses the whole of what is brought to the game. In one case, restrictions apply to only one detachment, while in another they apply across both detatchments.

For the second issue. Does the Farsight book have the same thing the Iyanden book does, that the army chosen using the supplement is considered as chosen from the main Codex? (I'm aware of the distinction with taking it separately as Allies as well.)

Worth bearing in mind, the supplement is just that - a secondary add-on book - it is NOT a Codex in its own right, and as such it isn't called one. The core rules refer multiple times to choosing your detachments from a Codex. If the supplement doesn't count as Codex: Tau Empire as well (solving the markerlights question), then you don't have permission to take "the seven" AT ALL.

 Super Ready wrote:
For the second issue. Does the Farsight book have the same thing the Iyanden book does, that the army chosen using the supplement is considered as chosen from the main Codex?

I don't think it really needs to. A codex supplement is by very definition just supplemental material for the codex.

I think the Markerlights thing stems from something I said in response to a question about cross-detachment Markerlights.

I expect that "supplement overrules BRB" is the principle here. "A Farsight Enclaves army is chosen using the army list presented in Codex: Tau Empire. It also has a series of supplemental rules (presented below) that can be used in addition to the material found in Codex: Tau Empire." I'm sure there's mention elsewhere about the book providing rules for taking a Farsight Enclaves army in games of 40k.

It's not a codex, and the rules in it are not the same as codex rules. The Commander Team is not chosen from Codex: Tau Empire, but can be taken in a Farsight Enclaves army (which is /not/ a Codex: Tau Empire army). Therefore the models that make up the Commander Team can only benefit from Markerlights if they are joined to Codex: Tau Empire units. Other units in a Farsight Enclaves army are still Codex: Tau Empire units, I would say, although I think one could argue that they're not.

Iyanden doesn't do what you're saying either. It has similar language. But all units in an Iyanden army are necessarily chosen from Codex: Eldar and are therefore, I would argue, Codex: Eldar units.

Consider what you'd be saying here if the Farsight supplement instead said "also you can make one choice from the Chaos Daemons codex which takes up a FOC slot in the Farsight Enclaves army exactly as if the army were Chaos Daemons". Surely that unit is still a Codex: Chaos Daemons unit and not a Codex: Tau Empire unit, and the army would not be a Codex: Tau Empire or Codex: Chaos Daemons army but rather a Farsight Enclaves army.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
On the others, I was participating extensively in the argument about the first. I think you have to really stretch to find that Farsight is required to take them. They don't take up a slot, so they can't be your mandatory HQ, but you can take any or all of the 7 Commanders in any list.

The supplement is just hopelessly confused about the word "army". I'm not sure that a consistent interpretation is possible, and it's certainly not desirable.

There are some posts in the other thread that would be very helpful here, namely the one with all of the quotes from the BRB which in my mind solidify "army" as your entire force and use detachment to describe the various portions. There is also a very good point made that if you take an IG primary detachment then ally orkz, the army doesn't become an orkz army, it's still IG. Therefore, if you take a Codex: Tau Empire army and ally Farsight Enclave, it's still a Tau Empire army and is still allowed the things that codex allows.

j.d.hart wrote:
There are some posts in the other thread that would be very helpful here, namely the one with all of the quotes from the BRB which in my mind solidify "army" as your entire force and use detachment to describe the various portions. There is also a very good point made that if you take an IG primary detachment then ally orkz, the army doesn't become an orkz army, it's still IG. Therefore, if you take a Codex: Tau Empire army and ally Farsight Enclave, it's still a Tau Empire army and is still allowed the things that codex allows.

I dissagree; that point about IG with Ork was a play on semantics and had no grounding in the rules of the game. An IG force with Orks allied in is just that, an IG force with Ork allies. You couldn't get around things like prefered enemy Orks by claiming that The force was an IG one could you?

Whats more, the book has actual rules that define army on page 109

If you wish,your army can include one allied detachment for each primary detachment in your army

This to me says army should be considered the sum total of its parts, rather than the individual parts (detachments) that make it up. Granted of course, the game designers used a poor choice of words, given that in fluffier areas of the book they refer to things like your available collection of miniatures as 'army' as well; but at best that means that the word is used for many things, and the rule still activates in the case of a force that contains a detachment selected from suppliment:Farsight Enclaves


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 insaniak wrote:

I don't think it really needs to. A codex supplement is by very definition just supplemental material for the codex.

It would have been very handy in this case, given that the book allows to ally with itself.

The rule states that neither Shadowsun or Aun Vs can be included in farsight enclave] army. If a primary Codex: Tau Empire army is a Farsight Enclave army simply because they have an attached Enclave allied force than and Allied Ork and Imperial guard force should both be considered Orks and Imperial Guard.

You guys are failing to see the big picture here.

By stating that Codex: Tau Empire and Enclave forces can be allied together as battle brothers, that makes the Farsight Enclave supplement in effect a codex of its own, that draws most of its units from another codex. While on a much greater scale this isn't unprecedented. Harlequins for the Elder and Dark Elder, and Acolytes from the Sisters and Grey Knights and I also believe that there is crossover between Chaos daemons and Space Marines.

You can not run Shadowsun or Aun Va in an army comprised of only Enclave units.

valace2 wrote:
By stating that Codex: Tau Empire and Enclave forces can be allied together as battle brothers, that makes the Farsight Enclave supplement in effect a codex of its own.

That has no support in the rules. It is simply an exception to the rule that you can't ally with your own codex. It does it make it a codex in it's own right.

valace2 wrote:
The rule states that neither Shadowsun or Aun Vs can be included in farsight enclave] army. If a primary Codex: Tau Empire army is a Farsight Enclave army simply because they have an attached Enclave allied force than and Allied Ork and Imperial guard force should both be considered Orks and Imperial Guard.

You guys are failing to see the big picture here.

By stating that Codex: Tau Empire and Enclave forces can be allied together as battle brothers, that makes the Farsight Enclave supplement in effect a codex of its own, that draws most of its units from another codex. While on a much greater scale this isn't unprecedented. Harlequins for the Elder and Dark Elder, and Acolytes from the Sisters and Grey Knights and I also believe that there is crossover between Chaos daemons and Space Marines.

You can not run Shadowsun or Aun Va in an army comprised of only Enclave units.

You make a big wall of words but supply zero rules;

where does it say that farsight enclaves count ass a codex?

Moreover; what makes you think the intention was for a detachment to be considered an 'army' when the Enclaves book uses the words detatchment to reference both the tau dex and the enclaves 10 lines down?




Boththe dex and the suppliment are considered detatchments when allied together, army is reserved for the whole force except in cases of fluff.

 Ghaz wrote:

valace2 wrote:
By stating that Codex: Tau Empire and Enclave forces can be allied together as battle brothers, that makes the Farsight Enclave supplement in effect a codex of its own.

That has no support in the rules. It is simply an exception to the rule that you can't ally with your own codex. It does it make it a codex in it's own right.

I beg to differ.

the army of the farsight enclaves: Alterations and additions to the rules given in Codex: Tau Empire that will help you transform your collection of Citadel miniatures into a cadre of hardened Fire caste warriors from the [i]farsight Enclaves

Basically saying that this supplement allows you to create a new type of force using the units found in another codex.

A Farsight Enclaves army is chosen using the army list presented in Codex Tau Empire. It also has a series of supplemental rules(presented below) that can (poor wording should be must or has to) be used in addition to the material found in Codex Tau Empire. Note that you can only use the options from one codex supplement (meaning either standard or Enclave Tau) when choosing your army.

Again meaning you can not intermingle them together in the same detachment.

in addition to following the allies Matrix for Codex: Tau Empire. Far sight Enclave detachments and Codex:Tau Empire detachments may ally together as Battle Brothers.

Sounds pretty darn separate to me.

A Farsight Enclaves army cannot include Aun'Va or Commander Shadowsun

If an army is classified by the sum of its part an Imperial Guard force with Ork allies should suffer from the same preferred enemy the Orks do, as it is an Ork army.

'Alterations and additions' not 'a whole new codex'.

If an army is classified by the sum of its part an Imperial Guard force with Ork allies should suffer from the same preferred enemy the Orks do, as it is an Ork army.

This is a huge fallacy; firstly, IG and Ork units appear in disparate codices.

Second, its an appeal to consequence. The IG-ork question is obvious, but even if there was room for contention(there isn't), it would have no bearing on this issue since preferred enemy does not make mention of 'army'. IG with Ork allies would be just that, and army with an IG main detachment and Ork allies.

Third, this terrible argument entirely offers no rules found in any books. Worse still, its ignored the quote about an army being the sum of its detatchments entirely.

Per the News thread, it appears that GW has revised the digital Farsight Enclaves book to make clear that the Commander Team requires Farsight (and that Farsight be your Warlord). Edit: This is mentioned in the OP edit - oops.

 davou wrote:

Second, its an appeal to consequence. The IG-ork question is obvious, but even if there was room for contention(there isn't), it would have no bearing on this issue since preferred enemy does not make mention of 'army'. IG with Ork allies would be just that, and army with an IG main detachment and Ork allies.

The big problem here is that there really aren't any other rules I can think of that depend on the "army" being of a certain type. Most rules talk about types of units, where "Codex: X unit" presumably refers to units chosen from Codex: X. Or they're even vaguer and just apply to "all Orks" or similar. "Army" seems to be consistently used elsewhere to talk about the entire force, including allies, and it's hard to see what counts as a "Farsight Enclaves army" if not all and only armies with Farsight Enclaves primary detachments. But this makes a mess of the Farsight Enclaves rules.

I have another issue for you -- Can riptide's take the Earth Caste Pilot Array? Because it's a signature system, Riptide's can't take signature systems. Yet it's clearly designed for them.

Before someone brings it up, I don't think it's meant soley for the O'Vesa special character, either.

Sir_Prometheus wrote:
I have another issue for you -- Can riptide's take the Earth Caste Pilot Array? Because it's a signature system, Riptide's can't take signature systems. Yet it's clearly designed for them.

Before someone brings it up, I don't think it's meant soley for the O'Vesa special character, either.

It says Riptides in the Enclaves can use signature systems.

 davou wrote:
The faraight rumor/discussion thread was being entirely derailed by rules arguments and being heavily to blame I thought that I would go ahead and make a rules thread here. I'll participate in the arguing of course, but will also try to make this initial post bipartisan.

Issue the first; There is argument about weather or not the seven unique characters are unlocked only after selecting farsight or if they are an option to lists that omit his presence.

This rule is resolved via edit of the document july 23. He is required to take the seven

The wording on this is exceedingly unclear. All of the eight are listed exactly the same way and they're all considered independent characters. It says you "may" replace Farsight's codex team with any of the eight. But it doesn't say they can't be purchased alone, but it also doesn't really give them a way of being purchased. You kind of assume they're HQ, but they really don't have a normal codex entry. What makes this confusing is that they're listed the same way Farsight is, so can we assume that they're HQ slots that are purchasable the same way he is? Can we assume they're not?

Please give me the exact wording where this issue is concretely settled. I'm not saying you're wrong (though I'm hoping you are because I want to take five Riptides without wasting points on Farsight), but I am very confused and would love to know what the concrete proof is that you have to take Farsight to take other members of the eight.

According to MVB in the NOVA thread, the digital supplements have been updated with the following:

"When choosing a Farsight Enclaves army with Commander Farsight as its Warlord, you may take Farsight’s Commander Team instead of Farsight’s XV8 Crisis Bodyguard Team. "

So you must indeed purchase farsight and he must be your warlord to unlock the team.

 hyv3mynd wrote:
According to MVB in the NOVA thread, the digital supplements have been updated with the following:

"When choosing a Farsight Enclaves army with Commander Farsight as its Warlord, you may take Farsight’s Commander Team instead of Farsight’s XV8 Crisis Bodyguard Team. "

So you must indeed purchase farsight and he must be your warlord to unlock the team.

This doesn't sound conclusive at all to me. All it says is that you can take them as a retinue (but doesn't even spell that out as clearly as it should). That being said, I still think it's extremely unclear in both directions as it never really puts any of these characters into the army list. GW desperately needs to clarify this. They really should have written this the same way they write all their codexes, putting models into force org slots and the such.

Also could someone link the NOVA thread? I'm having trouble finding it.

 Kasrkinlegion wrote:

 hyv3mynd wrote:
According to MVB in the NOVA thread, the digital supplements have been updated with the following:

"When choosing a Farsight Enclaves army with Commander Farsight as its Warlord, you may take Farsight’s Commander Team instead of Farsight’s XV8 Crisis Bodyguard Team. "

So you must indeed purchase farsight and he must be your warlord to unlock the team.

This doesn't sound conclusive at all to me. All it says is that you can take them as a retinue (but doesn't even spell that out as clearly as it should). That being said, I still think it's extremely unclear in both directions as it never really puts any of these characters into the army list. GW desperately needs to clarify this. They really should have written this the same way they write all their codexes, putting models into force org slots and the such.

Also could someone link the NOVA thread? I'm having trouble finding it.

Na, that's plenty clear. There's no force org or permission to take them in other ways because you may not take them in other ways. They are unlocked only by selecting Farsight as a HQ, and only if he is in the primary detachment.

 davou wrote:
Na, that's plenty clear. There's no force org or permission to take them in other ways because you may not take them in other ways. They are unlocked only by selecting Farsight as a HQ, and only if he is in the primary detachment.

What makes it unclear to me is that Farsight is in the same appendix, listed the same way as the rest of them. If Farsight is selectable, why aren't the others selectable. Now I don't necessarily think that because they're in the appendix, they're necessarily selectable. But it's certainly not clear what status they all have.

I also think it's kind of stupid that you can only take Farsight as an HQ and no one else. This may indeed be GW's intention, but it would be far more interesting if these guys could all be potential warlords. Makes sense that Farsight's personal crew of face wreckers would be out leading a detachment on their own. After all, you could technically take a Cadre Fireblade as Farsight Enclave Warlord. Doesn't make sense that he can be a warlord, but a named buddy of Farsight can't. Again, that doesn't mean GW didn't intend it this way as we all know their rules writing skills have issues.

Rules should be read with a clinical detachment - not what you like or don't like... That's probably where most problems stem from.

 Dozer Blades wrote:
Rules should be read with a clinical detachment - not what you like or don't like... That's probably where most problems stem from.

Yeah I get that... it's still not clearly written.

 Kasrkinlegion wrote:

 davou wrote:
Na, that's plenty clear. There's no force org or permission to take them in other ways because you may not take them in other ways. They are unlocked only by selecting Farsight as a HQ, and only if he is in the primary detachment.

What makes it unclear to me is that Farsight is in the same appendix, listed the same way as the rest of them. If Farsight is selectable, why aren't the others selectable. Now I don't necessarily think that because they're in the appendix, they're necessarily selectable. But it's certainly not clear what status they all have.

I also think it's kind of stupid that you can only take Farsight as an HQ and no one else. This may indeed be GW's intention, but it would be far more interesting if these guys could all be potential warlords. Makes sense that Farsight's personal crew of face wreckers would be out leading a detachment on their own. After all, you could technically take a Cadre Fireblade as Farsight Enclave Warlord. Doesn't make sense that he can be a warlord, but a named buddy of Farsight can't. Again, that doesn't mean GW didn't intend it this way as we all know their rules writing skills have issues.

You have permission to select Farsight as a HQ in the codex proper, using enclaves does not remove that option. Having him listed in the enclaves book is a formality. Farsight is a valid HQ choice because he's given as one in the core codex, the seven are not given as an option in any instance excepting the one listed in the quote above.

Make an army with Farsight as your warlord, and the seven are unlocked as a replacement for his bodyguard detachment.

Indeed it could be written better, but they did manage to edit the book in two days... And those edits gave the rules clear enough to be indisputable. There's absolutely no reason to even suspect they wanted the seven to be allowable as an individual HQ choice, and even less to think that they intended them to be warlords... One of them is pretty much a drone inside of a broadside kit...

Exactly davou - it is written clearly enough now which is good enough if you stop to think about it, otherwise there would be no need for the change to the wording.

A Farsight Enclaves army is chosen using the army list presented in Codex Tau Empire. It also has a series of supplemental rules(presented below) that can (poor wording should be must or has to) be used in addition to the material found in Codex Tau Empire. Note that you can only use the options from one codex supplement (meaning either standard or Enclave Tau) when choosing your army.

Again meaning you can not intermingle them together in the same detachment.

That last part is telling you that you cannot use two supplements - in short, you would not be able to use options from Iyanden along with another (to be released) Craftworld supplement in an Eldar army.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
An "army" as per page 109 consists of...

Primary detachment
Allied detachment (optional)
Fortification (optional)