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.

So, the wording in the Farsight Enclaves (FSE) section of Mont'ka seems to indicate that I can pick single formations out of my Codex:Tau Empire (C:TE) Detachment (be it a Hunter Contingent or a CAD) and promote them to be an FSE Formation (with the drawbacks and benefits thereof). Am I correct?

And if so, can a Dawn Blade Contingent (Detachment) promote a component Formation to a C:TE Formation?

Note that there is no reference anywhere to the former Codex Supplement: Farsight Enclaves. It seems to no longer exist as a First-class codex. All Wargear, Warlord Traits, etc. have been republished in Mont'ka, so what you see below is all that defines "Farsight Enclaves" anymore. With this in mind, I'm of the opinion that FSE is now more like a Chapter Tactic and less like a Codex choice, and I wanted to double-check this with the community as widely as possible, as early as possible.

*edited*

Here is the current leaning of the Battlescribe team after reading the rules carefully and reading the internet comments so far:
- Codex Tau Supplement: Farsight Enclaves will be retired and no longer available as an "Army" choice.
- All Formations or Detachments will be able to select "Farsight Enclaves".
- Any selection of Farsight Enclaves will require Bonding Knife to be selected where available.
- All new Formations are allowed in a Tau Empire Army.
- The Dawn Blade Contingent will have "Farsight Enclaves Detachment" already pre-selected and enforced.
- If part of "a Farsight Enclaves formation or detachment", Signature Systems will be swapped with the FSE systems.
- Sorry, the new rules do not allow Riptides to take Signature Systems, not even the Earth Caste Array.

Here is the full text of the new rules. For the record, the three FSE Special Rules are:
- Crisis Suits are Troop Choices in an FSE Detachment or Formation.
- Preferred Enemy (Ork) in CC.
- Must take Bonding Knife Ritual, if possible.

unless I am mistaken, i think you are reading it wrong. You have to follow the exact choices in your 3rd picture.

notredameguy10 wrote:
unless I am mistaken, i think you are reading it wrong. You have to follow the exact choices in your 3rd picture.

Maybe its what you meant, but you can take a CAD or formation and call it FSE. They even give that written example in the second picture.

I am picking up my Mont'ka book Monday, so I will read it more carefully there. But from what I hear, those special rules essentially allow you to run everything the same as the suppplement before.

It also sounds like any tau formation.. however you can't take a "hunter contingent" and call it FSE because that's not a tau formation per say its a special detachment for tau empire.

Whereas it seems like a OSC not in a contingent could be from the FSE if chosen, with the binding knife tax also taken as required.

A separate note, since riptides are not "characters" by special rules, the wording on the pictures you posted makes me worried they can't take FSE relics??? I will have to read the relics page more closely for clarification.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Another note, what is the exact rule for "battlesuit spearhead"? Your paraphrased comment makes it sound like crisis suits in formations or the dawn blade have the objective secured rule possibly?

The pole selections are too confusing. Was it so hard to just have "Yes", "No", and "I don't know"?

For the record, it appears to any formation in the TE codex can be a FSE formation, but only those mentioned in the Mont'ka book can be selected for a Dawn Blade Contingent. I have no idea which pole selection matches that.

SJ

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
The pole selections are too confusing. Was it so hard to just have "Yes", "No", and "I don't know"?

For the record, it appears to any formation in the TE codex can be a FSE formation, but only those mentioned in the Mont'ka book can be selected for a Dawn Blade Contingent. I have no idea which pole selection matches that.

SJ

I agree. What are your thoughts on the hunter contingent being FSE? I feel like it was intended each contingent was meant for its own, whereas formation not in a contingent could be either no matter what the source.. at least to me lol

As written it seems pretty consistent:

-Any formation you take can be either a baseline Tau formation or FSE with the appropriate traits (all units that can take bonding knives must take bonding knives, etc)
-The Dawnblade Contingent represents an FSE contingent (implicitly: all formations within that contingent are FSE)
-The Hunter Contingent has no such restrictions, and therefore one or all composite formations therein may be FSE or Tau.

There's notably no Divergent Destiny or equivalent rule in the book (as far as I have seen...) meaning you're free to drag Aun'Va or Shadowsun into this too.

 Captain Joystick wrote:
As written it seems pretty consistent:

-Any formation you take can be either a baseline Tau formation or FSE with the appropriate traits (all units that can take bonding knives must take bonding knives, etc)
-The Dawnblade Contingent represents an FSE contingent (implicitly: all formations within that contingent are FSE)
-The Hunter Contingent has no such restrictions, and therefore one or all composite formations therein may be FSE or Tau.

There's notably no Divergent Destiny or equivalent rule in the book (as far as I have seen...) meaning you're free to drag Aun'Va or Shadowsun into this too.

This.

 Captain Joystick wrote:
As written it seems pretty consistent:

-Any formation you take can be either a baseline Tau formation or FSE with the appropriate traits (all units that can take bonding knives must take bonding knives, etc)
-The Dawnblade Contingent represents an FSE contingent (implicitly: all formations within that contingent are FSE)
-The Hunter Contingent has no such restrictions, and therefore one or all composite formations therein may be FSE or Tau.

There's notably no Divergent Destiny or equivalent rule in the book (as far as I have seen...) meaning you're free to drag Aun'Va or Shadowsun into this too.

This is about what I've been able to settle on in the Tau group. And any formation mentioned in either book can be either a C:TE or FSE Formation although not necessarily part of a Hunter Contingent. (especially since they are mentioned in the book ahead of any FSE army rules)

 efalsken wrote:

 Captain Joystick wrote:
As written it seems pretty consistent:

-Any formation you take can be either a baseline Tau formation or FSE with the appropriate traits (all units that can take bonding knives must take bonding knives, etc)
-The Dawnblade Contingent represents an FSE contingent (implicitly: all formations within that contingent are FSE)
-The Hunter Contingent has no such restrictions, and therefore one or all composite formations therein may be FSE or Tau.

There's notably no Divergent Destiny or equivalent rule in the book (as far as I have seen...) meaning you're free to drag Aun'Va or Shadowsun into this too.

This is about what I've been able to settle on in the Tau group. And any formation mentioned in either book can be either a C:TE or FSE Formation although not necessarily part of a Hunter Contingent. (especially since they are mentioned in the book ahead of any FSE army rules)

Why not a Hunter Contingent? Where is that mentioned in the rules?

 FlingitNow wrote:
Why not a Hunter Contingent? Where is that mentioned in the rules?

Different Choices. While they share some Choices, they do not share all.

 FlingitNow wrote:

 efalsken wrote:

 Captain Joystick wrote:
As written it seems pretty consistent:

-Any formation you take can be either a baseline Tau formation or FSE with the appropriate traits (all units that can take bonding knives must take bonding knives, etc)
-The Dawnblade Contingent represents an FSE contingent (implicitly: all formations within that contingent are FSE)
-The Hunter Contingent has no such restrictions, and therefore one or all composite formations therein may be FSE or Tau.

There's notably no Divergent Destiny or equivalent rule in the book (as far as I have seen...) meaning you're free to drag Aun'Va or Shadowsun into this too.

This is about what I've been able to settle on in the Tau group. And any formation mentioned in either book can be either a C:TE or FSE Formation although not necessarily part of a Hunter Contingent. (especially since they are mentioned in the book ahead of any FSE army rules)

Why not a Hunter Contingent? Where is that mentioned in the rules?

The Hunter Contingent says specifically "Only these formations" can be taken as Core/Auxiliary formations. The new Dawn Blade Contingent also makes the same specification. While there is some overlap, they are not the same.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I have edited the originating post to summarize the current leading opinion. I will continue to do so as the discussion unfolds.

 efalsken wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:

 efalsken wrote:

 Captain Joystick wrote:
As written it seems pretty consistent:

-Any formation you take can be either a baseline Tau formation or FSE with the appropriate traits (all units that can take bonding knives must take bonding knives, etc)
-The Dawnblade Contingent represents an FSE contingent (implicitly: all formations within that contingent are FSE)
-The Hunter Contingent has no such restrictions, and therefore one or all composite formations therein may be FSE or Tau.

There's notably no Divergent Destiny or equivalent rule in the book (as far as I have seen...) meaning you're free to drag Aun'Va or Shadowsun into this too.

This is about what I've been able to settle on in the Tau group. And any formation mentioned in either book can be either a C:TE or FSE Formation although not necessarily part of a Hunter Contingent. (especially since they are mentioned in the book ahead of any FSE army rules)

Why not a Hunter Contingent? Where is that mentioned in the rules?

The Hunter Contingent says specifically "Only these formations" can be taken as Core/Auxiliary formations. The new Dawn Blade Contingent also makes the same specification. While there is some overlap, they are not the same.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I have edited the originating post to summarize the current leading opinion. I will continue to do so as the discussion unfolds.

Yes those formations are the only ones available to a Contingent. But why can't those formations be FE formations? Where does it say that?

So a few quick questions to clear it all up.

1: Tau Hunter Contingent with Tau auxiliary (also gets the Tau Hunter Contingent rules)

2: FSE Hunter Contingent with Tau auxiliary (also gets FSE Hunter Contingent rules?)

3: Tau Hunter Contingent with FSE auxiliary (also gets Tau Hunter Contingent rules?)

4: FSE Hunter Contingent with FSE auxiliary (also gets FSE Hunter Contingent rules?)

5: Tau Dawn Blade Contingent with Tau auxiliary (also gets the Tau Dawn Blade Contingent rules?)

6: FSE Dawn Blade Contingent with Tau auxiliary (also gets FSE Dawn Blade Contingent rules?)

7: Tau Dawn Blade Contingent with FSE auxiliary (also gets Tau Dawn Blade Contingent rules?)

8: FSE Dawn Blade Contingent with FSE auxiliary (also gets FSE Dawn Blade Contingent rules?)

Which ones are correct/incorrect.
Is there any combination above where you can take the Tau detachment but have the Mont'Ka auxiliary, or vice versa?

Ooookay.

FlingitNow wrote:Yes those formations are the only ones available to a Contingent. But why can't those formations be FE formations? Where does it say that?

It's not that the factions are the problem, its the formations themselves. You can take an Armoured Interdiction Cadre in your Hunter Contingent and have them be either FSE or baseline Tau, but you can't take a Piranha Firestream Wing as part of that contingent because they're not listed as one of the auxiliary options in the Hunter Contingent.

efalsken wrote:
The Hunter Contingent says specifically "Only these formations" can be taken as Core/Auxiliary formations. The new Dawn Blade Contingent also makes the same specification. While there is some overlap, they are not the same.

Also worth noting: there are three formations in the Mont'Ka book that don't serve in either books' detachments.

Don't forget that the Eight have both baseline Tau and FSE signature systems. Apparently you can take the Eight as regular Tau empire too?

Buzzdady wrote:So a few quick questions to clear it all up.

1: Tau Hunter Contingent with Tau auxiliary (also gets the Tau Hunter Contingent rules)

2: FSE Hunter Contingent with Tau auxiliary (also gets FSE Hunter Contingent rules?)

3: Tau Hunter Contingent with FSE auxiliary (also gets Tau Hunter Contingent rules?)

4: FSE Hunter Contingent with FSE auxiliary (also gets FSE Hunter Contingent rules?)

5: Tau Dawn Blade Contingent with Tau auxiliary (also gets the Tau Dawn Blade Contingent rules?)

6: FSE Dawn Blade Contingent with Tau auxiliary (also gets FSE Dawn Blade Contingent rules?)

7: Tau Dawn Blade Contingent with FSE auxiliary (also gets Tau Dawn Blade Contingent rules?)

8: FSE Dawn Blade Contingent with FSE auxiliary (also gets FSE Dawn Blade Contingent rules?)

Which ones are correct/incorrect.
Is there any combination above where you can take the Tau detachment but have the Mont'Ka auxiliary, or vice versa?

My interpretation is:

1- Yes

2- Yes (FSE doesn't have any special Hunter Contingent rules though, its the same Hunter Contingent in the Tau codex and Kauyon)

3- Yes

4- Yes

5- No

6- No

7- No

8- Yes.

Don't forget you can also include other formations without them being part of the contingent.

Okay, so no base Tau Dawn Blade Contingents, and no mix and matching when you have a FSE Dawn Blade Contingent (well, at least the additional formations wouldn't receive the rules from the Contingent.)

Thanks Captain Joystick, all of your answers were spot on as I read it.

Basically:

1. In a Battle-Forged army list, you can have as many Detachments or Formations as you wish. Some Detachments can have sub-formations.
2. Any Formation or Detachment in your army list can opt-in as FSE.
3. If a Detachment opts as FSE, then all formations that may be a part of it must be FSE.
4. Dawn Blade Contingent is a Detachment that must be FSE. Therefore any formations taken as part of it must be entirely FSE.
5. Hunter Contingent is a Detachment of Formations. If it opts as FSE, then all formations must be FSE. But it doesn't have to. So you can have an FSE Hunter Contingent and a TE Heavy Retribution Cadre, or the other way around.
6. When a formation opts-into FSE, doesn't change the Formation's role in the detachment, only turns Crisis Suits into Troops. (not that it really maters outside of a CAD or Allied Detachment)
7. The allowed "Core", "HQ" and "Auxiliary" choices in the Hunter Contingent are not the same as the ones in the Dawn Blade Contingent. (Although there is some overlap) This is entirely separate from whether each is a TE or an FSE formation.
8. If their parent formation is FSE, anything that can normally select a Signature System from TE can select instead from FSE.
9. All formations listed in Mont'ka are Tau-Empire legal and usable with both FSE and a C:TE force, although not in a Hunter Contingent. (Note that you can be Battle-forged with just a pair of Formations, even if from completely different codexs or factions)

But so you can have a FSE Hunter contingent and use their signature systems, and a TE retaliation cadre as an auxiliary and get the TE signature systems for that commander, correct?

 efalsken wrote:

2. Any Formation or Detachment in your army list can opt-in as FSE.
3. If a Detachment opts as FSE, then all formations that may be a part of it must be FSE.

This.

I thought it was you could have a detachment with the composite formations making it up being either FSE or Tau. I re-read it to make sure and found I was wrong: while your army can have a mix of Tau and FSE, the detachment must be one homogeneous faction.

So while you can have an FSE Hunter Contingent, with all the formations composing it being FSE, the only way then to have say a Tau Empire commander with Tau Empire signature systems is to have another formation in the army that isn't part of the Hunter Contingent.

 Captain Joystick wrote:

 efalsken wrote:

2. Any Formation or Detachment in your army list can opt-in as FSE.
3. If a Detachment opts as FSE, then all formations that may be a part of it must be FSE.

This.

I thought it was you could have a detachment with the composite formations making it up being either FSE or Tau. I re-read it to make sure and found I was wrong: while your army can have a mix of Tau and FSE, the detachment must be one homogeneous faction.

So while you can have an FSE Hunter Contingent, with all the formations composing it being FSE, the only way then to have say a Tau Empire commander with Tau Empire signature systems is to have another formation in the army that isn't part of the Hunter Contingent.

There's nothing that says a Detachment has to be all of the same Sept (for lack of a better word to use). The rule says any formation or detachment can be said to be FSE. It doesn't say the same is true for TE. So all things start out as TE and then can be converted to FSE, as I read it. I will implement Battlescribe with FSE selectable at the Force/Detachment/Contingent level, but it will be optional. If selected, then all child Formations will require the FSE selection, but if unselected, then the component formations can opt to be an FSE formation. (Dawn Blade Contingent will default to FSE-selected)

I certainly won't be complaining if you run it that way.

I just imagine it may become a sticking point later. Seems that part of the book can be interpreted either way.

It's not that the factions are the problem, its the formations themselves. You can take an Armoured Interdiction Cadre in your Hunter Contingent and have them be either FSE or baseline Tau, but you can't take a Piranha Firestream Wing as part of that contingent because they're not listed as one of the auxiliary options in the Hunter Contingent.

Well obviously you can only select the options available to each contingent that goes without saying. I was talking about why can't the formations in a Hunter Contingent be designated FE? As was claimed.

It's not too difficult.

- Hunter Contingent and Dawn Blade do NEVER mix up.
- If you want to use Hunter Contingent bonus, you only get it with Hunter Contingent sub-formations. A Drone-net VX1-0 will NEVER combine fire in the game.
- If you imagine each formation as being a closed box and Hunter Contingent/Dawn Blade as containers, this will get simpler:

Container Hunter Contingent:
- Hunter Cadre box
- Optimised Stealth Cadre box
- Armoured Interdiction Cadre box

- Drone-net VX1-0 box
- Riptide Wing box

This means the formations inside the Hunter Contingent container will get combined fire and other shenanigans; Drone-net and Riptide Wing will not (they can have Farsight rules (ta'lissera bond, PE (Orks in CC)) or not). However, those inside Hunter Contingent will NEVER have FSE rules.

Likewise:

Container Dawn Blade:
- Retaliation Cadre box
- Piranha Firestream Wing box
- Drone-net VX1-0 box

- Heavy Retribution Cadre box
- Ethereal Council box

Heavy Retribution Cadre could have FSE rules, or not. However, those inside Dawn Blade will NEVER have access to TE SigSystems and such, just like anhy FSE detachment.

Yeah Vector Strike has it correct.

The problem I see with allowing a formation taken in a C:TE Hunter Contingent to be a FE formation is that units taken as part of a Hunter Contingent count as being part of both their formation and their detachment, so they would simultaneously be a FE unit and a C:TE unit. I think any formation taken as part of the Hunter Contingent must be from the same faction as the Hunter Contingent (either from the Tau Empire or the Farsight Enclaves).

Peregrim wrote:
The problem I see with allowing a formation taken in a C:TE Hunter Contingent to be a FE formation is that units taken as part of a Hunter Contingent count as being part of both their formation and their detachment, so they would simultaneously be a FE unit and a C:TE unit. I think any formation taken as part of the Hunter Contingent must be from the same faction as the Hunter Contingent (either from the Tau Empire or the Farsight Enclaves).

Only detachments can be designated a FE detachment, not the formation. While a formation, if taken alone, can be a detachment, any formation taken as part of the Hunter Contingent would be the detachment type (TE or FE) of the Hunter Contingent.

 Grizzyzz wrote:

Another note, what is the exact rule for "battlesuit spearhead"? Your paraphrased comment makes it sound like crisis suits in formations or the dawn blade have the objective secured rule possibly?

Crisis Suits as troops.

 Nilok wrote:

Peregrim wrote:
The problem I see with allowing a formation taken in a C:TE Hunter Contingent to be a FE formation is that units taken as part of a Hunter Contingent count as being part of both their formation and their detachment, so they would simultaneously be a FE unit and a C:TE unit. I think any formation taken as part of the Hunter Contingent must be from the same faction as the Hunter Contingent (either from the Tau Empire or the Farsight Enclaves).

Only detachments can be designated a FE detachment, not the formation. While a formation, if taken alone, can be a detachment, any formation taken as part of the Hunter Contingent would be the detachment type (TE or FE) of the Hunter Contingent.

Formations are detachments. In a Hunter Contingent, everything is either TE or FSE (no mix), while in a Dawn Blade everything must be FSE. IN fact, there's absolutely NO REASON to go FSE with Hunter Contingent, unless you want their Signature Systems and Warlord Traits (which are, frankly, worse than baseline Tau).

Nothing stops you to add a FSE formation (either from codex or Mont'ka) to a TE Hunter Contingent army, but it won't be part of the Contingent itself.

 Vector Strike wrote:

 Nilok wrote:

Peregrim wrote:
The problem I see with allowing a formation taken in a C:TE Hunter Contingent to be a FE formation is that units taken as part of a Hunter Contingent count as being part of both their formation and their detachment, so they would simultaneously be a FE unit and a C:TE unit. I think any formation taken as part of the Hunter Contingent must be from the same faction as the Hunter Contingent (either from the Tau Empire or the Farsight Enclaves).

Only detachments can be designated a FE detachment, not the formation. While a formation, if taken alone, can be a detachment, any formation taken as part of the Hunter Contingent would be the detachment type (TE or FE) of the Hunter Contingent.

Formations are detachments. In a Hunter Contingent, everything is either TE or FSE (no mix), while in a Dawn Blade everything must be FSE. IN fact, there's absolutely NO REASON to go FSE with Hunter Contingent, unless you want their Signature Systems and Warlord Traits (which are, frankly, worse than baseline Tau).

Nothing stops you to add a FSE formation (either from codex or Mont'ka) to a TE Hunter Contingent army, but it won't be part of the Contingent itself.

The Hunter Contingent is not an army, it is a detachment. If you had the points for it, you could have two Hunter Contingents. It would simply be a Tau army.

You actually brought something interesting to my attention, which was probably not your intention, as there is an exception in the Hunter Contingent rule that allows a unit to be part of more than one detachment. Since it is a member of both detachments, it must follow the rules of its own detachment, and its parent detachment.

However, with the FE being a modification of the TE, there is a possibility that a TE Hunter Contingent could have FE formation, but due to the writing of the rules for FE, you could not have a FE Hunter Contingent with TE formations.

I would have to reread the Mont'ka FE rule to double check if that even works.

 Nilok wrote:

However, with the FE being a modification of the TE, there is a possibility that a TE Hunter Contingent could have FE formation, but due to the writing of the rules for FE, you could not have a FE Hunter Contingent with TE formations.

I would have to reread the Mont'ka FE rule to double check if that even works.

I believe that is correct.

A Dawn Blade contingent and all its glory is FE.

A Hunter Contingent is a TE detachment. Under Mont'ka it states "you can say that ANY Tau Detachment or Formation is from the FE". This implies that you can say the Hunter Contingent is FE, but as you stated, all of the auxiliaries are then FE by default same as the DBC. If you opted to take the HC as TE, then you can pick and choose whether the auxiliaries are FE or not.

So to clarify:

If I am taking a hunter contingent, is there any way at all to take ECPA on a Riptide other than taking a Riptide Wing Formation as a FE Formation?