So... my army composition is CAD Farsight Enclave with Allied Detachment Codex Tau.
Is it legal for me to take Commander Bravestorm from my Farsight Enclave detachment who has Iridium Armor with a Commander from the Codex Tau Detachment with Iridium Armor?
I'd appreciate any clarification and insight on whether or not this is legal or not possible.
Relics (or in this case signature systems) are one per army, not detachment and the one per army rule still applies even when its a special character that has it.
Additionally, unless you have a third non-Tau detachment from which to select your warlord and thus make your primary detachment, your current army is illegal as an Allied Detachment may not be chosen from the same faction as the primary detachment.
syypher wrote: Everything else is appreciated but it's legal.
If you think it's legal to take a primary Combined Arms Detachment from Codex: Tau Empire alongside an Allied Detachment chosen from Farsight Enclaves that is incorrect.
You may be confused by the line in Farsight Enclaves that states:
"In addition to following the Allies Matrix for Codex: Tau Empire, Farsight Enclaves detachments and Codex: Tau Empire detachments may ally together as Battle Brothers."
This line does not mean you may take a Codex: Tau Empire and Farsight Enclaves Combined Arms and Allied Detachment combination, but simply means that they function together as Battle Brothers when included in the same army.
Both Codex: Tau Empire and Farsight Enclaves detachments are of the Tau Empire faction, and the rules for an Allied Detachment state:
"All units chosen must have a different Faction to any of the units in your Primary Detachment (or no Faction)."
You may take a Combined Arms Detachment each of Codex: Tau Empire and Farsight Enclaves, but you may not have an Allied Detachment of either if your primary detachment is also from either.
syypher wrote: Everything else is appreciated but it's legal.
If you think it's legal to take a primary Combined Arms Detachment from Codex: Tau Empire alongside an Allied Detachment chosen from Farsight Enclaves that is incorrect.
You may be confused by the line in Farsight Enclaves that states:
"In addition to following the Allies Matrix for Codex: Tau Empire, Farsight Enclaves detachments and Codex: Tau Empire detachments may ally together as Battle Brothers."
This line does not mean you may take a Codex: Tau Empire and Farsight Enclaves Combined Arms and Allied Detachment combination, but simply means that they function together as Battle Brothers when included in the same army.
Both Codex: Tau Empire and Farsight Enclaves detachments are of the Tau Empire faction, and the rules for an Allied Detachment state:
"All units chosen must have a different Faction to any of the units in your Primary Detachment (or no Faction)."
You may take a Combined Arms Detachment each of Codex: Tau Empire and Farsight Enclaves, but you may not have an Allied Detachment of either if your primary detachment is also from either.
He's right. You can't take a FECAD and a TE AD together, assuming your Warlord is Tau Empire. The Allied Detachment restrictions prevent it.
I think you're confused, the term ally together as battle brothers clearly indicates Tau and FE can have allied detachments of each other. Using a rule from the BRB to say that's not what it means, does not work either as codex trumps rule book, so please use a different source for your reasoning on why it is not possible. The precedent already exists that supplements can ally with their main codex.
Thylath wrote: I think you're confused, the term ally together as battle brothers clearly indicates Tau and FE can have allied detachments of each other. Using a rule from the BRB to say that's not what it means, does not work either as codex trumps rule book, so please use a different source for your reasoning on why it is not possible. The precedent already exists that supplements can ally with their main codex.
No confusion at all. Tau Empire and Farsight Enclaves detachments can ally as Battle Brothers, per the supplement. This is an unnecessary statement. They are both Faction: Tau Empire. Of course they can ally as Battle Brothers.
The Allied Detachment has a restriction saying that you can't have an Allied Detachment with the same Faction as your Warlord. Nothing in the Farsight Enclaves Supplement overrides this restriction.
So...
Illegal List
Tau Empire Combined Arms Detachment (Warlord/Primary Detachment)
Farsight Enclaves Allied Detachment
Legal List
Space Marines Combined Arms Detachment (Warlord/Primary Detachment)
Tau Empire Combined Arms Detachment
Farsight Enclaves Allied Detachment
And I assume you were talking about Codex: Space Marines. If you have a different Chapter Tactics, you're allowed to get around the Allied Detachment restriction. If you have the same, you can't.
Illegal List
Space Marines (Iron Hands Chapter Tactics) Combined Arms Detachment
Clan Raukaan Allied Detachment
The above is illegal because they both have Chapter Tactics: Iron Hands.
Thylath wrote: I think you're confused, the term ally together as battle brothers clearly indicates Tau and FE can have allied detachments of each other. Using a rule from the BRB to say that's not what it means, does not work either as codex trumps rule book, so please use a different source for your reasoning on why it is not possible. The precedent already exists that supplements can ally with their main codex.
Incorrect. Alliance levels/ability to ally and the Allied Detachment are entirely different rules, so there is no conflict down that avenue. Codex trumps rulebook only when there is a conflict and the onus is on you to explain the conflict. No one is arguing a supplement may not ally with its parent codex, but that is not the same thing as choosing a detachment from the parent codex as the primary detachment and then taking an Allied Detachment of either the parent codex or its supplement.
Fragile wrote: Many tournaments allow self ally. It may be legal for his meta.
That is as may be the case but the OP stated it was legal, which is by the ordinary rules incorrect.
Y'all are applying rules that didn't exist to a 6th edition codex, when Codex: Tau came out there was only primary detachment and an ally (not allied detachment) per primary detachment. The rule existed then as it does now that the allies must be from a different codex than the primary detachment. Your saying the rule in the FE applies to CADs, which could not be possible as CADs did not exist in 6th edition. The rule is very specific in what it meant then and it means the same now. As there was no other types of detachments than the primary, allies means allied detachment. Which means that since GW hates to errata stuff, RAW it can only mean one thing. There is no RAI in this, sometimes you have to go back to when a book was written to figure out what the rule really means.
Thylath wrote: Y'all are applying rules that didn't exist to a 6th edition codex, when Codex: Tau came out there was only primary detachment and an ally (not allied detachment) per primary detachment. The rule existed then as it does now that the allies must be from a different codex than the primary detachment. Your saying the rule in the FE applies to CADs, which could not be possible as CADs did not exist in 6th edition. The rule is very specific in what it meant then and it means the same now. As there was no other types of detachments than the primary, allies means allied detachment. Which means that since GW hates to errata stuff, RAW it can only mean one thing. There is no RAI in this, sometimes you have to go back to when a book was written to figure out what the rule really means.
And then there is the fact that a New Rulebook will create / modify Rules to mean brand new things.
When that is the case, the old rules are replaced / discarded. You don't just continue to use them if they no longer work... Otherwise we'd all have super fun rules !
I would love to play Necron monoliths by their 5th Edition rules, and move the enemy out of the way
Your adding comments where there is none, my point is that the FE book says you can ally with Tau and vice versa, that can only mean one thing, that you can ally with Tau and vice versa, no caveats, no this because of that, the rule is clear in what it says and means, "In addition to following the Allies Matrix for Codex: Tau Empire, Farsight Enclaves detachments and Codex: Tau Empire detachments may ally together as Battle Brothers." This already gives a stipulations for following the allies matrix then goes out of the way to say they can then ally with each other. There is only one type of ally and that is an allied detachment if your doing that in addition to following the matrix.
Thylath wrote: There is only one type of ally and that is an allied detachment if your doing that in addition to following the matrix.
That's not correct.
The allied rules are not restricted to Allied detachments. You can take a CAD of FE and a CAD of Tau and be forced to use the Ally rules.
Thylath wrote: Your adding comments where there is none, my point is that the FE book says you can ally with Tau and vice versa, that can only mean one thing, that you can ally with Tau and vice versa, no caveats, no this because of that, the rule is clear in what it says and means, "In addition to following the Allies Matrix for Codex: Tau Empire, Farsight Enclaves detachments and Codex: Tau Empire detachments may ally together as Battle Brothers." This already gives a stipulations for following the allies matrix then goes out of the way to say they can then ally with each other. There is only one type of ally and that is an allied detachment if your doing that in addition to following the matrix.
"In addition to following the Allies Matrix for Codex: Tau Empire, Farsight Enclaves detachments and Codex: Tau Empire detachments may ally together as Battle Brothers." means 2 things:
1) Farsight Enclaves detachments follow the Allies Matrix for Codex: Tau Empire.
2) Farsight Enclaves detachments and Codex: Tau Empire are Battle Brothers.
It does not say "Farsight Enclaves detachments can be taken as Allied Detachments for Tau Combined Arms Detachment from the 7th Edition Rulebook"
The above simply means that Farsight Enclaves detachments and Codex: Tau Empire are Battle Brothers. Great. They are still of the same Faction (something that was "invented" in the 7th Edition Rulebook)
The fact that "Factions" were "invented", and this rule: "All units chosen must have a different Faction to any of the units in your Primary Detachment" mean that if your Primary is a Codex: Tau Empire Detachment, you simply cannot take Farsight Enclaves detachments as Allied Detachments. That's the Rules, sorry.
It has not been changed in any way is my point. The rules are exactly the same as they were, they changed some names and added some cool new tricks, but the rule is still the same as it was then as it is now.
Thylath wrote:It has not been changed in any way is my point. The rules are exactly the same as they were, they changed same names and added some cool new tricks, but the rule is still the same as it was then as it is now.
Thylath wrote:Not when the rule was written you couldn't. They did not exist.
So the rules are the same, but you can do different things now than you could then.
Erm.
Are you sure? Because to me, that means rule changed. And in fact, the Allies rules have changed rather significantly from 6th to 7th.
Thylath wrote: It has not been changed in any way is my point. The rules are exactly the same as they were, they changed same names and added some cool new tricks, but the rule is still the same as it was then as it is now.
"In addition to following the Allies Matrix for Codex: Tau Empire, Farsight Enclaves detachments and Codex: Tau Empire detachments may ally together as Battle Brothers." means 2 things: 1) Farsight Enclaves detachments follow the Allies Matrix for Codex: Tau Empire. 2) Farsight Enclaves detachments and Codex: Tau Empire are Battle Brothers.
This has not changed. You are right.
But an Allied Detachment has a brand new rule: "All units chosen must have a different Faction to any of the units in your Primary Detachment" Codex: Tau Empire and Farsight Enclaves have the same Faction.
They cannot use the an Allied Detachment if you only have Tau. They will have to be Combined Arms Detachments.
Old rule, "...all units in the allied detachment must be chosen from the same codex, and this must be a different codex to the one used for the primary detachment."
So the rules were the same as they are now, they also called them allied detachment back then, so must still mean allied detachment in the FE book now...
Thylath wrote: Old rule, "...all units in the allied detachment must be chosen from the same codex, and this must be a different codex to the one used for the primary detachment."
So the rules were the same as they are now, they also called them allied detachment back then, so must still mean allied detachment in the FE book now...
Except that's not the only rules covering allied detachments anymore.
And there are even more rules covering Allies.
Which means that when editions change there are side effects.
Show a side effect other than the ones already listed, because every rule listed existed when the codex was written and back then they were able to ally with each other.
Thylath wrote: Old rule, "...all units in the allied detachment must be chosen from the same codex, and this must be a different codex to the one used for the primary detachment."
So the rules were the same as they are now, they also called them allied detachment back then, so must still mean allied detachment in the FE book now...
No, because that rule has changed:
"...all units in the allied detachment must be chosen from the same codex, and this must be a different codex to the one used for the primary detachment."
"All units chosen must have a different Faction to any of the units in your Primary Detachment"
The above 2 are very different. The Rules have changed in the Rulebook, even if the Codex one is the same
Thylath wrote: Show a side effect other than the ones already listed, because every rule listed existed when the codex was written and back then they were able to ally with each other.
And they still can.
They just can't take an Allied Detachment. The entire rules for Allies changed between 6th and 7th.
I don't agree that it is different and no one I know plays it the way y'all are describing, but I guess that's why the 1st rule of the game exists. Thanks for the input though.
Thylath wrote: I don't agree that it is different and no one I know plays it the way y'all are describing, but I guess that's why the 1st rule of the game exists. Thanks for the input though.
You must support your point of view with rules from books, and these have indeed changed between 6th Edition and 7th Edition, changing how they are resolved in the process.
Nilok wrote: RAI, yes you can take Farsight as allies. Just not in an Allied Detachment RAW, no you can't since the rule does nothing currently. As that permission is now already in the core rules, making the FE rule redundant. Much like how 4th Edition made target locks redundant as it removed target priority.
Until there is a new edition Farsight or FAQ, there is no need to discuss it with your opponent.
Thylath wrote: I believe I did support my POV from the books, and don't believe they changed as much as you imply from 6th to 7th.
The main rules have, with the introduction of Factions which is what disallows you from using a Farsight Enclaves Allied Detachment with a Tau Empire Primary Detachment
Thylath wrote: All they did was take the term codex and change the name from codex to faction, read the rules for faction.
Sorry, but that's not strictly true. Do we have a 'Codex Space Marines' faction? No. We have an 'Imperium of Man' faction instead which shows that they did not just change the name from 'codex' to 'faction'. So again, your argument has no merit. There is nothing that allows you to run both a Primary and Allied Detachment from the same Faction
Thylath wrote: All they did was take the term codex and change the name from codex to faction, read the rules for faction.
No problem!
In the case of older publications, the Faction of all the units described in a codex is the same as the codex’s title. In the case of codex supplements, the Faction of all the units described in that publication is the same as the codex it is a supplement of.
Is FE a Codex Supplement? Don't bother answering - the answer is yes.
So FE is Faction: Codex: Tau.
And what do we know about the allied detachment?
All units chosen must have a different Faction to any of the units in your Primary Detachment (or no Faction).
Is Faction: Codex: Tau different from Faction: Codex: Tau?
Nilok wrote: RAI, yes you can take Farsight as allies. Just not in an Allied Detachment RAW, no you can't since the rule does nothing currently. As that permission is now already in the core rules, making the FE rule redundant. Much like how 4th Edition made target locks redundant as it removed target priority.
Until there is a new edition Farsight or FAQ, there is no need to discuss it with your opponent.
FTFY.
When a rule is completely broken by an edition change, sometimes it is best to use how it functioned previously to patch it, if it is not removed.
Previously the Farsight Enclaves used this specific rule which allowed them to be taken as allies. In 7e, a similar rule was added to the BRB as you know, but the Farsight version was left in even after an errata for 7e. This makes me believe that GW thinks it still does something.
I would be interested to hear your RAI on what the rule actually does.
When a rule is completely broken by an edition change, sometimes it is best to use how it functioned previously to patch it, if it is not removed.
Previously the Farsight Enclaves used this specific rule which allowed them to be taken as allies. In 7e, a similar rule was added to the BRB as you know, but the Farsight version was left in even after an errata for 7e. This makes me believe that GW thinks it still does something.
I would be interested to hear your RAI on what the rule actually does.
Lack of an FAQ/Errata is evidence of nothing but GWs poor attitude to FAQs and Errata. The rule allowed you to ally in 6th. In 7th the core rulebook already gives you this permission. So the rule is now a redundant reminder that you can ally Farsight Enclaves to Tau Empire as Battle Brothers. This is clear, the Allied Detachment is an entirely new rule as the detachment system is entirely new, the FE rule makes no mention of this new rule so there is no evidence that you can break it's rules.
Taking 1 extra troop choice tax is hardly a huge deal. The intent of the rule is clear it is reminding you that FE and TE can ally with each other as Battle Brothers.
When a rule is completely broken by an edition change, sometimes it is best to use how it functioned previously to patch it, if it is not removed.
Previously the Farsight Enclaves used this specific rule which allowed them to be taken as allies. In 7e, a similar rule was added to the BRB as you know, but the Farsight version was left in even after an errata for 7e. This makes me believe that GW thinks it still does something.
I would be interested to hear your RAI on what the rule actually does.
Lack of an FAQ/Errata is evidence of nothing but GWs poor attitude to FAQs and Errata. The rule allowed you to ally in 6th. In 7th the core rulebook already gives you this permission. So the rule is now a redundant reminder that you can ally Farsight Enclaves to Tau Empire as Battle Brothers. This is clear, the Allied Detachment is an entirely new rule as the detachment system is entirely new, the FE rule makes no mention of this new rule so there is no evidence that you can break it's rules.
Taking 1 extra troop choice tax is hardly a huge deal. The intent of the rule is clear it is reminding you that FE and TE can ally with each other as Battle Brothers.
Saying Allied Detachment is entirely new is a half truth. While it is true the specifics are new with the detachment system, Allied Detachments were created in 6e and found under the "Force Organisation Chart" and was the only way to take allies at the time of the Farsight Enclaves Supplement release.
When the Farsight Enclaves rule refers to allowing them to be taken as allies, they are specifically referring to the Allied Detachment, which is almost identical to the 7e Allied Detachment except for changing 'codex' to 'faction', and was meant to reflect the fluff that the Tau Empire and Farsight Enclaves are not a cohesive army.
Nilok wrote: Saying Allied Detachment is entirely new is a half truth. While it is true the specifics are new with the detachment system, Allied Detachments were created in 6e and found under the "Force Organisation Chart" and was the only way to take allies at the time of the Farsight Enclaves Supplement release.
When the Farsight Enclaves rule refers to allowing them to be taken as allies, they are specifically referring to the Allied Detachment, which is almost identical to the 7e Allied Detachment except for changing 'codex' to 'faction', and was meant to reflect the fluff that the Tau Empire and Farsight Enclaves are not a cohesive army.
Games Workshop decided to alter how the Allied Detachment functions, and introduce factions instead of codices, as well as changing how allies can be taken in general with other types of detachments. Who are you to say that in changing to 7th edition and not altering that line in the Farsight Enclaves rules they intended players to counter-intuitively decide they could ignore the clear restrictions on the Allied Detachment as per the 7th edition rules and just go with how it used to be in 6th edition?
When the Farsight Enclaves rule refers to allowing them to be taken as allies they are specifically referring to the allies rules, otherwise they would have amended it in the official update for 7th edition.
When the Farsight Enclaves rule refers to allowing them to be taken as allies, they are specifically referring to the Allied Detachment,
Nope if that's what they meant that is what they would have said. The rules on allies have changed. The Allied Detachment from the 7th Ed rulebook is an entirely new thing. There is no RaI support that the FE can use this type of detachment to ally with TE. This is just another case of poor naming on GWs part that is causing confusion with people that haven't read the full rules or are seeking some advantage. They should have called it the Auxiliary Detachment. The Allied Detachment is not inherently linked to allies any more than the CAD or FBSC.
When the Farsight Enclaves rule refers to allowing them to be taken as allies, they are specifically referring to the Allied Detachment,
Nope if that's what they meant that is what they would have said. The rules on allies have changed. The Allied Detachment from the 7th Ed rulebook is an entirely new thing. There is no RaI support that the FE can use this type of detachment to ally with TE. This is just another case of poor naming on GWs part that is causing confusion with people that haven't read the full rules or are seeking some advantage. They should have called it the Auxiliary Detachment. The Allied Detachment is not inherently linked to allies any more than the CAD or FBSC.
I apologize for not being clear enough, but I meant "they were specifically referring to the Allied Detachment in 6e". At the time, it was the only way you could take allies.
As I have said, the rule itself is broken and currently does nothing, but it is still there. So by using my best judgment on how it worked in the past, and how it was meant to represent the relationship they have with the Tau Empire and how their forces are deployed, I am saying that the rule as originally intended was to allow them to be taken in an allied detachment and suggesting a functional patch to the rule is to allow them to use the 7e Allied Detachment rule, which is the closest rule to the 6e version until Games Workshop finally does fix or remove the rule.
7e Allied Detachment isn't inherently linked to allies, but is functionally the closest rule to the 6e Allied Detachment which the Farsight Enclaves rule was referring to at the time of its publication.
If it is more clear, the RAI is that the rule was written specifically referring to the 6e Allied Detachment and my HYWPI is they can use the 7e Allied Detachment.
Games Workshop decided to alter how the Allied Detachment functions, and introduce factions instead of codices, as well as changing how allies can be taken in general with other types of detachments. Who are you to say that in changing to 7th edition and not altering that line in the Farsight Enclaves rules they intended players to counter-intuitively decide they could ignore the clear restrictions on the Allied Detachment as per the 7th edition rules and just go with how it used to be in 6th edition?
When the Farsight Enclaves rule refers to allowing them to be taken as allies they are specifically referring to the allies rules, otherwise they would have amended it in the official update for 7th edition.
It is my belief that if a rule is rendered nonfunctional by a rule change, but still remains in the game, a minimal patch should be applied to restore functionality of the rule. That job should done by Games Workshop, but they are woefully ineffective at it, which is why we have YMDC. The original functionality of the rule was to allow access to the 6e Allied Detachment, and the closest equivalent is the 7e Allied Detachment, which is why I suggested it.
When Games Workshop updated the 6e codices to 7e, it was to resolve the Psychic Phase with little checking elsewhere.
It does leave rules like this in a strange place, having a vestigial rule like this that was functional is not a sign of a well curated set of rules and can very well be argued both ways. As I said, I believe a rule is meant to do something, simply saying a rule rendered vestigial due to an edition change is just a reminder is, in my opinion, a lazy way to explain it away.
The original functionality of the rule was to allow access to the 6e Allied Detachment, and the closest equivalent is the 7e Allied Detachment, which is why I suggested it.
This is what we fundamentally disagree on. I believe the rule originally allowed you to field Tau Empire alongside Farsight Enclaves in the same army as battle brother allies. The only way to do this in 6th was with the AD, this is no longer the case in 7th so I don't assume that this rule has anything to do with the new 7th Ed Allied Detachment.
When the Farsight Enclaves rule refers to allowing them to be taken as allies, they are specifically referring to the Allied Detachment,
Nope if that's what they meant that is what they would have said. The rules on allies have changed. The Allied Detachment from the 7th Ed rulebook is an entirely new thing. There is no RaI support that the FE can use this type of detachment to ally with TE. This is just another case of poor naming on GWs part that is causing confusion with people that haven't read the full rules or are seeking some advantage. They should have called it the Auxiliary Detachment. The Allied Detachment is not inherently linked to allies any more than the CAD or FBSC.
I apologize for not being clear enough, but I meant "they were specifically referring to the Allied Detachment in 6e". At the time, it was the only way you could take allies.
As I have said, the rule itself is broken and currently does nothing, but it is still there. So by using my best judgment on how it worked in the past, and how it was meant to represent the relationship they have with the Tau Empire and how their forces are deployed, I am saying that the rule as originally intended was to allow them to be taken in an allied detachment and suggesting a functional patch to the rule is to allow them to use the 7e Allied Detachment rule, which is the closest rule to the 6e version until Games Workshop finally does fix or remove the rule.
7e Allied Detachment isn't inherently linked to allies, but is functionally the closest rule to the 6e Allied Detachment which the Farsight Enclaves rule was referring to at the time of its publication.
If it is more clear, the RAI is that the rule was written specifically referring to the 6e Allied Detachment and my HYWPI is they can use the 7e Allied Detachment.
Games Workshop decided to alter how the Allied Detachment functions, and introduce factions instead of codices, as well as changing how allies can be taken in general with other types of detachments. Who are you to say that in changing to 7th edition and not altering that line in the Farsight Enclaves rules they intended players to counter-intuitively decide they could ignore the clear restrictions on the Allied Detachment as per the 7th edition rules and just go with how it used to be in 6th edition?
When the Farsight Enclaves rule refers to allowing them to be taken as allies they are specifically referring to the allies rules, otherwise they would have amended it in the official update for 7th edition.
It is my belief that if a rule is rendered nonfunctional by a rule change, but still remains in the game, a minimal patch should be applied to restore functionality of the rule. That job should done by Games Workshop, but they are woefully ineffective at it, which is why we have YMDC. The original functionality of the rule was to allow access to the 6e Allied Detachment, and the closest equivalent is the 7e Allied Detachment, which is why I suggested it.
When Games Workshop updated the 6e codices to 7e, it was to resolve the Psychic Phase with little checking elsewhere.
It does leave rules like this in a strange place, having a vestigial rule like this that was functional is not a sign of a well curated set of rules and can very well be argued both ways. As I said, I believe a rule is meant to do something, simply saying a rule rendered vestigial due to an edition change is just a reminder is, in my opinion, a lazy way to explain it away.
If you want to do this, then fine. But please understand that it's a house rule and runs counter to the current rule set. There are "vestigial" rules all throughout older publications. Seeing a rule made redundant or useless by a new edtion isn't a new phenomenon.
pg 126 next to the allied matrix "In the case of older publications, the faction of all the units described in a codex is the same as the codex title. In the case of codex supplements, the Faction in that publication is the same as the codex it is a supplement of."
pg 122 under allied detachment "All units must have a different faction to any of the units in your primary detachment (or no faction)"
the ability to ally at various levels (battle brothers, desparate, etc...) indicate how trusted your ally is.
the allied detachment is simply other units not contained in your faction's codex. In the case of TE and FE as much as I would love the fluff to matter it doesn't and there are no units at all in the FE. They are taken out of the parent TE therefore according to the detachment rules they would be the same faction as those taken from TE.
pg 126 next to the allied matrix "In the case of older publications, the faction of all the units described in a codex is the same as the codex title. In the case of codex supplements, the Faction in that publication is the same as the codex it is a supplement of."
pg 122 under allied detachment "All units must have a different faction to any of the units in your primary detachment (or no faction)"
the ability to ally at various levels (battle brothers, desparate, etc...) indicate how trusted your ally is.
the allied detachment is simply other units not contained in your faction's codex. In the case of TE and FE as much as I would love the fluff to matter it doesn't and there are no units at all in the FE. They are taken out of the parent TE therefore according to the detachment rules they would be the same faction as those taken from TE.
Correct, which is why the special rule in the Farsight Enclave supplement about being able to ally with the Tau Empire in 6e, which used the Allied Detachment, have become vestigial and needs to either be removed or changed by Games Workshop.
pg 126 next to the allied matrix "In the case of older publications, the faction of all the units described in a codex is the same as the codex title. In the case of codex supplements, the Faction in that publication is the same as the codex it is a supplement of."
pg 122 under allied detachment "All units must have a different faction to any of the units in your primary detachment (or no faction)"
the ability to ally at various levels (battle brothers, desparate, etc...) indicate how trusted your ally is.
the allied detachment is simply other units not contained in your faction's codex. In the case of TE and FE as much as I would love the fluff to matter it doesn't and there are no units at all in the FE. They are taken out of the parent TE therefore according to the detachment rules they would be the same faction as those taken from TE.
Correct, which is why the special rule in the Farsight Enclave supplement about being able to ally with the Tau Empire in 6e, which used the Allied Detachment, have become vestigial and needs to either be removed or changed by Games Workshop.
Yes, you're correct. In a best case scenario they would issue an Errata and change the text. In reality, there is no need. The Supplement says that FE and TE can ally. The 7th Edition rule book also says that FE and TE can ally. I can't imagine GW issuing an Errata to remove a couple of sentences that 100% agree with the core rule book.
Did the Supplement phrasing used to mean something different in 6th Edition? Sure. Back then you couldn't ally with yourself. Now, every Faction can ally with itself. Farsight Enclaves is no longer special in that regard.
You also need to really separate the concept of two Factions allying with each other using detachments and formations and the Allied Detachment. Both concepts use the word ally, which can be confusing, but mean different things. It would have been less confusing had GW simply called the Allied Detachment something like "Aux Detachment".
It is worth noting also that the FAQ for Codex: Space Marines specifically allows for an Allied Detachment of Space Marines to be taken alongside a primary Space Marines detachment.
If they had intended the same for Tau Empire and Farsight Enclaves they would have written the same, given the existing wording in the original books is similar.
Does it change anything that the last FAQ changed them to a separate faction? And the only thing we are going by is the blurb on the cover of the Codex/line in the intro paragraph? The only thing tempestus is lacking is those same two things.
It just sucks that gw had one line of thinking in 6th edition, and now for 7th everything is a separate entity and they won't fix a historical error.
foto69man wrote: Does it change anything that the last FAQ changed them to a separate faction? And the only thing we are going by is the blurb on the cover of the Codex/line in the intro paragraph? The only thing tempestus is lacking is those same two things.
It just sucks that gw had one line of thinking in 6th edition, and now for 7th everything is a separate entity and they won't fix a historical error.
Which FAQ and which historical error?
Farsight Enclaves and Tau Empire have always been the same Faction. "Factions" have only ever existed in 7th Edition. Militarum Tempestus has also always been its own Faction, despite numerous people online seeming to think it's an AM Supplement. Any "Codex: Something" is "Faction: Something".
May 14..... Replace all instances of 'Farsight Enclave Army' with 'Farsight Enclave Detachment.' seems it is changing them to their own Detachment /faction.
And historical as in the few 6th edition mini-dexes got slapped with 'supplement' in their title, but all the 7th edition ones haven't. It's standard gw though...par for the course.
foto69man wrote: May 14..... Replace all instances of 'Farsight Enclave Army' with 'Farsight Enclave Detachment.' seems it is changing them to their own Detachment /faction.
That does no such thing. It just makes the rule make sense in 7th Edition. Likewise no mini dexes existed in 6th as supplements for instance the Knight codex and right at the end MT. If it has unit entries it is a mini codex and is titled codex. If it uses unit entries from another codex it is a supplement and there have been plenty of those in 7th.
FlingitNow wrote: That does no such thing. It just makes the rule make sense in 7th Edition. Likewise no mini dexes existed in 6th as supplements for instance the Knight codex and right at the end MT. If it has unit entries it is a mini codex and is titled codex. If it uses unit entries from another codex it is a supplement and there have been plenty of those in 7th.
And then we also have the Campaign books. Shield of Baal: Extreminatus introduced "Mephrit Dynasty" Necrons, but it's not a Supplement.
FlingitNow wrote: That does no such thing. It just makes the rule make sense in 7th Edition. Likewise no mini dexes existed in 6th as supplements for instance the Knight codex and right at the end MT. If it has unit entries it is a mini codex and is titled codex. If it uses unit entries from another codex it is a supplement and there have been plenty of those in 7th.
And then we also have the Campaign books. Shield of Baal: Extreminatus introduced "Mephrit Dynasty" Necrons, but it's not a Supplement.
No, but it is a Detachment which requires all models to have the Necron Faction.
Thylath wrote: Y'all are applying rules that didn't exist to a 6th edition codex, when Codex: Tau came out there was only primary detachment and an ally (not allied detachment) per primary detachment. The rule existed then as it does now that the allies must be from a different codex than the primary detachment. Your saying the rule in the FE applies to CADs, which could not be possible as CADs did not exist in 6th edition. The rule is very specific in what it meant then and it means the same now. As there was no other types of detachments than the primary, allies means allied detachment. Which means that since GW hates to errata stuff, RAW it can only mean one thing. There is no RAI in this, sometimes you have to go back to when a book was written to figure out what the rule really means.
Actually this whole argument is kind of a moot point with 7th Edition rules as they work now. In order to make things clear I'm going to take a couple of quick quotes from the 7th Ed book.
Factions pg 118(in my book): 2nd paragraph. --" In the case of older publications, the faction of all units described in a codex is the same as the codex's title. In the case of a codex's supplements, the faction is the name of the codex it is a supplement of."
Thus, yes, all FSE units are technically members of the Tau Empire faction.
Core Detachments pg 122: Both Combined Arms Detachment and Allied Detachment, Restrictions -- "All units chosen must have the same faction, or have no faction."
Core Detachments pg 122: Allied Detachment Restrictions -- "All units chosen must have a different faction to any of the units in your primary detachment, or no faction."
So no, you cannot take an allied detachment of Farsight Enclaves to your Tau Empire Combined Arms Detachment. Although, this doesn't mean that you need a whole new CAD to use them. Only the free slots in your Primary CAD. Thus, you can essentially mix and match your army however you want with the rules as they are written. Go ahead and bring your Crisis Suits as troops in your Tau Empire army and still run three riptides if you must. It'll still be battleforged.
GargoyleKing wrote: Although, this doesn't mean that you need a whole new CAD to use them. Only the free slots in your Primary CAD. Thus, you can essentially mix and match your army however you want with the rules as they are written. Go ahead and bring your Crisis Suits as troops in your Tau Empire army and still run three riptides if you must. It'll still be battleforged.
This is incorrect, unless you also wish to not be able to take Crisis Suits as Elites choices, be required to take the Bonding Knife Ritual and may not select signature systems from Codex: Tau Empire.
In which case you've taken a Farsight Enclaves detachment anyway.
So no, you cannot take an allied detachment of Farsight Enclaves to your Tau Empire Combined Arms Detachment. Although, this doesn't mean that you need a whole new CAD to use them. Only the free slots in your Primary CAD. Thus, you can essentially mix and match your army however you want with the rules as they are written. Go ahead and bring your Crisis Suits as troops in your Tau Empire army and still run three riptides if you must. It'll still be battleforged.
Unfortunately that is not how it works. The FE rules are triggered by a Farsight Enclaves Detachment. So if your CAD is a FE detachment then all of the FE rules apply to the whole detachment, if not then none of them do. So whilst FE & TE units have the same faction so can be freely used within a CAD, the issue you have is that there are essentially no FE units just a list of rules that effect a FE detachment. Hence why the FAQ changed all rules from "army" to "detachment".
You know this argument is kind of redundant in that the min force org for tau is 1HQ, 2 troops, you would have to take 2 of those to take FE detachment, and Empire detachment. Which is affectively the same thing as the 1hq 1 troops requirement of the allied detachment, which you're likely taking 2 troops of anyways..
NauticalKendall wrote: You know this argument is kind of redundant in that the min force org for tau is 1HQ, 2 troops, you would have to take 2 of those to take FE detachment, and Empire detachment. Which is affectively the same thing as the 1hq 1 troops requirement of the allied detachment, which you're likely taking 2 troops of anyways..
Sorry what? How us taking 2 HQs and 4 Troops the same as 2 HQs and 3 Troops? It also changes what you can take as optionals (4 HQs rather than 3, 12 Troops compared to 8, 6 Elites, FA & HS instead of 4).
This is incorrect, unless you also wish to not be able to take Crisis Suits as Elites choices, be required to take the Bonding Knife Ritual and may not select signature systems from Codex: Tau Empire.
In which case you've taken a Farsight Enclaves detachment anyway.
That actually does raise a question for me that I haven't considered in 7e, what specifically determines if you have a Farsight Enclaves detachment, what is the criteria?
This is incorrect, unless you also wish to not be able to take Crisis Suits as Elites choices, be required to take the Bonding Knife Ritual and may not select signature systems from Codex: Tau Empire.
In which case you've taken a Farsight Enclaves detachment anyway.
That actually does raise a question for me that I haven't considered in 7e, what specifically determines if you have a Farsight Enclaves detachment, what is the criteria?
Effectively we are not told how to nominate a Detachment as a FE Detachment. But we know that it must be made up of units with Faction: Tau Empire and we know that the FE rules apply to the entire detachment. Thus any detachment open to TE can be nominated a FE detachment as long as it follows the FE rules.
So for instance say you want to make a FBSC into a FE FBSC. Well all the units must take bonding, your Riptide can take the ECPA, no one can take TE signature systems and Crisis suits are troops. All good so far, however you must include a unit of 3 Crisis suits as troops, which is impossible to do so you cannot field a legal FE FBSC.
RAW I am correct. Because no matter the detachment, FE is a supplement of the TE codex. Thus, units from it can be included in a TE detachment. I would say that any units that come from the supplement, must still follow any restrictions. But they also may take advantage of all of the benefits of the publication they came from.
In battlescribe, I generally build it as a second allied detachment s because I want to rock a commander and squad anyways, but I see nothing that limits me from only taking one or the other.
This, of course still leaves the elites slot as it was. It's still a TE detachment. Just with units from it's suppliment.
Nilok wrote: That actually does raise a question for me that I haven't considered in 7e, what specifically determines if you have a Farsight Enclaves detachment, what is the criteria?
It's not explicitly defined, though we can draw the inference that it is a Tau Empire-factioned Combined Arms Detachment or other available detachment that fulfils the criteria given in Farsight Enclaves.
The point I was making in the post you quoted was that if you attempt to mix and match Farsight Enclaves and Tau Empire in a single detachment you run into the issue of either breaking the Farsight Enclave rules/requirements or ending up with it just being a Farsight Enclaves detachment by being forced to adhere to them.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
GargoyleKing wrote: RAW I am correct. Because no matter the detachment, FE is a supplement of the TE codex. Thus, units from it can be included in a TE detachment. I would say that any units that can, must still purchase follow any restrictions. But they also may take advantage of all of the benefits of the publication they came from.
In battlescribe, I generally build it as a second allied detachment s because I want to rock a commander and squad anyways, but I see nothing that limits me from only taking one or the other.
This, of course still leaves the elites slot as it was. It's still a TE detachment. Just with units from it's suppliment.
You're not correct.
Want to take a Codex: Tau Empire XV8 Crisis Team in your Tau Empire/Farsight Enclaves detachment? Okay, it's an Elites choice as per Codex: Tau Empire. Oh wait, drat, XV8 Crisis Teams are taken as Troops instead of Elites in a Farsight Enclaves Detachment.
Don't want to take any XV8 Crisis Teams in your Tau Empire/Farsight Enclaves Detachment? Oh damn, you must take at least one unit of three in a Farsight Enclaves Detachment.
Want to take Fire Warriors to fill out the rest of your troops? Okay, but wait, if it's also a Farsight Enclaves Detachment they must take the Bonding Knife Ritual.
Want to take Aun'Va and Commander Shadowsun in your Tau Empire/Farsight Enclaves Detachment? Oh wait, you're not allowed to in a Farsight Enclaves Detachment.
You're unable to mix and match because you either break the Farsight Enclaves rules or you're required to follow them and it just becomes a detachment chosen using the Farsight Enclaves rules.
GargoyleKing wrote: RAW I am correct. Because no matter the detachment, FE is a supplement of the TE codex. Thus, units from it can be included in a TE detachment. I would say that any units that can, must still purchase follow any restrictions. But they also may take advantage of all of the benefits of the publication they came from.
In battlescribe, I generally build it as a second allied detachment s because I want to rock a commander and squad anyways, but I see nothing that limits me from only taking one or the other.
This, of course still leaves the elites slot as it was. It's still a TE detachment. Just with units from it's suppliment.
RaW you are not correct due to the wording in FE. To get ANYTHING from there you need to have a FE detachment, there are no FE Units only TE Units. The FE Supplement simply applies rules to a detachment. If you want ANY of those rules they all apply to the entire detachment.
FE never anticipated 7th Edition. None of the 6th Ed publications did. But 7th made specific allowances for them in the rule I mentioned above. All pre-7th ed supplements are part of their codex's faction, and their units can be included together. RAW...
GargoyleKing wrote: FE never anticipated 7th Edition. None of the 6th Ed publications did. But 7th made specific allowances for them in the rule I mentioned above. All pre-7th ed supplements are part of their codex's faction, and their units can be included together. RAW...
So what happens when you select an XV8 Crisis Team as an Elites choice from Codex: Tau Empire, when Farsight Enclaves says XV8 teams are a Troops choices instead of Elites?
What happens when you don't want to take any XV8 Crisis Teams but Farsight Enclaves says you must include at least one made up of three members?
You either follow the Farsight Enclaves rules and it therefore becomes a Farsight Enclaves Detachment or you're simply breaking the rules and not following RAW.
GargoyleKing wrote: FE never anticipated 7th Edition. None of the 6th Ed publications did. But 7th made specific allowances for them in the rule I mentioned above. All pre-7th ed supplements are part of their codex's faction, and their units can be included together. RAW...
Do you care to add a quote for that bolded bit?
Because, by that logic, since I run Clan Raukaan (released in 6th), I can: run an Iron Hands detachment from Codex: Space Marines, take Dreads as Heavy & Elites without a Techmarine (because Clan Raukaan says I can), and take 2 Techmarines per HQ (because the supplement says I can). Additionally, I can take the Gifts of the Gorgon, again because my supplement says I can.
Although it also tells me it has to be in a Clan Raukaan detachment to do any of those things (similar to what FE says, I imagine).
I'm aware that my example is not the same as the topic, but I'm trying to give a similar example since I do not have the FE or TE books right now.
Not many codices were written for 7th, but without an FAQ or some explicit permission to actually take a supplement and its codex in the same detachment, you cannot do it.
As far as I know, no codex or supplement, allows you to take them in the same detachment as another codex/supplement. Only alongside it.
This is an incredibly misunderstood topic. GW attempted to add clarity by mentioning that codex overrides rulebook and advanced rules override basic rules, but since people do not understand what this actually means, by them putting that in the rules it has actually led to more confusion rather than less.
The first thing you have to understand is how rules for a game are written at their core.
When you start writing rules for a game, you have a completely blank slate...nothing in that game world exists at all. So in order for anything to exist or do anything in your game world, you have to give it permission to do so. For example, models don't move on their own, so you have to create rules that tell players exactly when and how they can move their models. This is why people typically call rules a 'permissive' thing, because without permission to do something within the game you cannot do it. Or otherwise known as rule #1:
1) Rules are ultimately permissive. If the rules don't give you permission to do something, you can't do it.
However, that's not the end of the story, because you'll also notice in the rules a whole lot of 'restrictions', where the rules tell you what you CAN'T do within those permissive actions the rules allow you to do. Really, a more accurate way to describe game rules would be to say that they are 'permissive with restrictions'.
By their very nature, restrictions must override permissions, or else game rules do not function. For example, if you have a permission that says: 'models in the movement phase can move 6 inches', then this is a permission that generally allows models to move in the movement phase. However later if I later add a restriction that says: 'models that have gone to ground cannot move in the movement phase', by its very nature, this restriction overrides the permission and tells you that a model which has gone to ground cannot move in the movement phase despite the general permission that allows models to move 6" in the movement phase. Or to simply this into rule #2:
2) Restrictions always override permissions, where the two conflict.
So with those 2 core rules in place, let's look at the concept of specific vs. general. Again, this concept is core to the idea of how rules HAVE to work in order for anything to make sense. Games Workshop doesn't need to actually mention this fact in their rules, as it is a basic necessity for game rules, but they did anyway. But what does it all mean?
3) Specific overrides general, although remembering that restrictions still override permissions.
Its very simple, when two rules contradict each other, the one that is more specific must take precedence. When GW talks about advanced rules taking precedence over basic rules, this simply means something like: the basic rules for movement say that models move 6" in the movement phase. But then in the advanced rules they'll say stuff like: 'models using a jump pack in the movement phase move 12 inches'.
If the advanced rules didn't take precedence over the basic rules, then all models would move 6 inches in the movement phase, as advanced rules would be unable to override this basic tenant no matter what. In other words, 'advanced' really just means 'specific', while 'basic' really just means 'general'.
However, this does not mean that advanced rules always override basic rules, as restrictions still take precedence over permissions. For example, an advanced rule may say: 'models with jump packs are able to move 12" in the movement phase', but if a model has gone to ground, then the basic rules restriction against a model being able to move in the movement phase still overrides the advanced rules permission that the model can move 12" in the movement phase.
It is also even possible for a 'basic' rule to be specific enough to override an 'advanced' rule. For example, an advanced rule may say that jump pack models can move 12" in the movement phase, but if there happened to be a 'basic' rule which actually spelled out that jump pack models can only move 6" when moving into difficult terrain (just an imaginary example here), then that 'basic' rule would still take precedence over the 'advanced' rule because it was specific enough to actually mention that it applies to jump pack models.
Finally, when GW says that codexes take precedence over the rulebook, again this is a case of generally speaking, the codexes being more 'advanced' than the advanced rules in the rulebook. Meaning, if the advanced rules in the rulebook say that Jump Pack models move 12" in the movement phase but a codex says that a special unit moves like a Jump Pack model, but up to 18", then clearly the codex rule has to take precedence over the rulebook for the whole thing to work.
But just as before, restrictions still override permissions (even if the restriction is in the rulebook and the permission is in a codex) and it is possible for rules in the rulebook to be more specific than even a codex and therefore take precedence over the codex rules.
So please, please, please do not parrot the terms: 'codex > rulebook' and 'advanced > basic' without understanding that these concepts are not absolute. They ONLY apply when the rules between two sources actually contradict, not when one is a permission and the other is a restriction.
This is an incredibly misunderstood topic. GW attempted to add clarity by mentioning that codex overrides rulebook and advanced rules override basic rules, but since people do not understand what this actually means, by them putting that in the rules it has actually led to more confusion rather than less.
The first thing you have to understand is how rules for a game are written at their core.
When you start writing rules for a game, you have a completely blank slate...nothing in that game world exists at all. So in order for anything to exist or do anything in your game world, you have to give it permission to do so. For example, models don't move on their own, so you have to create rules that tell players exactly when and how they can move their models. This is why people typically call rules a 'permissive' thing, because without permission to do something within the game you cannot do it. Or otherwise known as rule #1:
1) Rules are ultimately permissive. If the rules don't give you permission to do something, you can't do it.
However, that's not the end of the story, because you'll also notice in the rules a whole lot of 'restrictions', where the rules tell you what you CAN'T do within those permissive actions the rules allow you to do. Really, a more accurate way to describe game rules would be to say that they are 'permissive with restrictions'.
By their very nature, restrictions must override permissions, or else game rules do not function. For example, if you have a permission that says: 'models in the movement phase can move 6 inches', then this is a permission that generally allows models to move in the movement phase. However later if I later add a restriction that says: 'models that have gone to ground cannot move in the movement phase', by its very nature, this restriction overrides the permission and tells you that a model which has gone to ground cannot move in the movement phase despite the general permission that allows models to move 6" in the movement phase. Or to simply this into rule #2:
2) Restrictions always override permissions, where the two conflict.
So with those 2 core rules in place, let's look at the concept of specific vs. general. Again, this concept is core to the idea of how rules HAVE to work in order for anything to make sense. Games Workshop doesn't need to actually mention this fact in their rules, as it is a basic necessity for game rules, but they did anyway. But what does it all mean?
3) Specific overrides general, although remembering that restrictions still override permissions.
Its very simple, when two rules contradict each other, the one that is more specific must take precedence. When GW talks about advanced rules taking precedence over basic rules, this simply means something like: the basic rules for movement say that models move 6" in the movement phase. But then in the advanced rules they'll say stuff like: 'models using a jump pack in the movement phase move 12 inches'.
If the advanced rules didn't take precedence over the basic rules, then all models would move 6 inches in the movement phase, as advanced rules would be unable to override this basic tenant no matter what. In other words, 'advanced' really just means 'specific', while 'basic' really just means 'general'.
However, this does not mean that advanced rules always override basic rules, as restrictions still take precedence over permissions. For example, an advanced rule may say: 'models with jump packs are able to move 12" in the movement phase', but if a model has gone to ground, then the basic rules restriction against a model being able to move in the movement phase still overrides the advanced rules permission that the model can move 12" in the movement phase.
It is also even possible for a 'basic' rule to be specific enough to override an 'advanced' rule. For example, an advanced rule may say that jump pack models can move 12" in the movement phase, but if there happened to be a 'basic' rule which actually spelled out that jump pack models can only move 6" when moving into difficult terrain (just an imaginary example here), then that 'basic' rule would still take precedence over the 'advanced' rule because it was specific enough to actually mention that it applies to jump pack models.
Finally, when GW says that codexes take precedence over the rulebook, again this is a case of generally speaking, the codexes being more 'advanced' than the advanced rules in the rulebook. Meaning, if the advanced rules in the rulebook say that Jump Pack models move 12" in the movement phase but a codex says that a special unit moves like a Jump Pack model, but up to 18", then clearly the codex rule has to take precedence over the rulebook for the whole thing to work.
But just as before, restrictions still override permissions (even if the restriction is in the rulebook and the permission is in a codex) and it is possible for rules in the rulebook to be more specific than even a codex and therefore take precedence over the codex rules.
So please, please, please do not parrot the terms: 'codex > rulebook' and 'advanced > basic' without understanding that these concepts are not absolute. They ONLY apply when the rules between two sources actually contradict, not when one is a permission and the other is a restriction.
Alright, that argument I'll accept. Although, by disproving me, he has also proven this threads creator. FE does say that it can be taken as an allied detachment to a Tau Empire detachment. (Counting the GW errata). This is both an advanced rule, and a specific rule. Which overrides the general restriction in the base rulebook stating that allied detachments cannot be taken with the same faction as the primary detachment.
FE does say that it can be taken as an allied detachment to a Tau Empire detachment. (Counting the GWerrata).
Incorrect FE makes no mention of the Allied Detachment. Read the rest of the thread this is clearly covered. Also conflict is irrelevant in both cases as there is no conflict in the rules.
FE allows you to ally with with TE, BrB allows you to ally TE & FE but not using Allied Detachment. No conflict.
Rulebook allows you to mix units from FE & TE in the aame detachment. FE has no units only rules that apply to a detachment. No conflict.
Well for one mark you are very wrong. Farsight's Commander Team is a FE specific unit. So, conflict. Conflict resolved as noted above.
And for the second, both the codex and the sup were written as 6th Edition rules and that needs to be taken into account, not that it isn't very clear in it's wording.
ALLIES
In addition to following the Allies Matrix for Codex: Tau Empire, Farsight Enclaves detachments and Codex: Tau Empire detachments may ally together as battle brothers.
This does two things. It allows detachments from either book to be taken as allies for the other, and it states that they treat each other as Battle Brothers.
In 6th, there was no such thing as multiple cad's. Only primary and allies detachments. And battlebrothers was important. Now, they are still the same faction, but it still allows each to take the other as an allied detachment. I repeat, TE detachment can ally with FE detachment. Ally being the key word here.
GargoyleKing wrote: Well for one mark you are very wrong. Farsight's Commander Team is a FE specific unit. So, conflict. Conflict resolved as noted above.
And for the second, both the codex and the sup were written as 6th Edition rules and that needs to be taken into account, not that it isn't very clear in it's wording.
ALLIES
In addition to following the Allies Matrix for Codex: Tau Empire, Farsight Enclaves detachments and Codex: Tau Empire detachments may ally together as battle brothers.
This does two things. It allows detachments from either book to be taken as allies for the other, and it states that they treat each other as Battle Brothers.
In 6th, there was no such thing as multiple cad's. Only primary and allies detachments. And battlebrothers was important. Now, they are still the same faction, but it still allows each to take the other as an allied detachment. I repeat, TE detachment can ally with FE detachment. Ally being the key word here.
6th Edition rules only need to be taken into consideration if we're playing 6th Edition... which we aren't.
Here is what we know under 7th Edition.
1. "Codex Tau Empire" (TE) is Faction: Tau Empire (Per the 7th Ed BRB)
2. "Farsight Enclaves: A Codex Tau Empire Supplement" (FE) is Faction: Tau Empire (Per the 7th Ed BRB)
3. Models with the same Faction may ally together as Battle Brothers (Per the 7th Ed BRB)
4. TE Models and FE Models may ally together as Battle Brothers (Per FE; Now redundant as the 7th Ed BRB says the same thing)
5. Allied Detachments (AD) cannot be your Primary Detachment (Per the 7th Ed BRB)
6. Your Warlord can never be chosen from an AD (Per the 7th Ed BRB)
7. All Units in an AD must have the same Faction, or have no Faction (Per the 7th Ed BRB)
8. All Units in an AD must have a different Faction from all Units in your Primary Detachment, or have no Faction (Per the 7th Ed BRB)
There is NO permission in FE to avoid the AD restrictions (number 5-8 above).
The permission in FE for TE and FE units to ally as Battle Brothers is redundant as this permission is also granted in the BRB. Same Faction models/units/detachments are always assumed to ally together as Battle Brothers.
This leaves us with two situation.
Situation #1 - Legal, breaks no rules
Combined Arms Detachment (Space Marines)(Primary Detachment - Warlord is in here)
Combined Arms Detachment (Tau Empire)
Allied Detachment (Farsight Enclaves)
Situation #2 - Illegal, violates AD restriction #8 above
Combined Arms Detachment (Tau Empire)(Primary Detachment - Warlord is in here)
Allied Detachment (Farsight Enclaves)
So, you see, you can have a TE CAD and an FEAD together in the same army assuming your Primary Detachment contains no Tau Empire units. You can't have a TE or FEAD if your Primary Detachment contains Tau Empire units.
I really think a lot of this confusion stems from people assuming "can ally with" means "can take an Allied Detachment". This is simply not the case. Try to get past the way things worked in 6th Edition. We're no longer playing 6th Edition.
We are basically arguing about how an outdated source book interacts with a new rules set. If you feel like playing the game like this, enjoy. The disparity in rules sets and wording leaves at least a little room for translation errors. It's just a matter of who is making the errors in this case. And since GW doesn't clarify well, how about we agree to disagree.
Just don't expect me to play with you if you micro analyze every wording disparity.
GargoyleKing wrote: We are basically arguing about how an outdated source book interacts with a new rules set. If you feel like playing the game like this, enjoy. The disparity in rules sets and wording leaves at least a little room for translation errors. It's just a matter of who is making the errors in this case. And since GW doesn't clarify well, how about we agree to disagree.
Just don't expect me to play with you if you micro analyze every wording disparity.
So unless your opponent allows you to do something clearly against the rules you won't play them? Great attitude.
You need to calm down, then read how you build an army in 7th Ed and you'll notice allies and the Allied Detachment are not the same thing (or even particularly related). This was all covered in detail in the first 2 pages including any RaI argument. RaW and RaI clearly match up here no AD TE/FE if your primary is the other one.
Also note the Farsight bodyguard are not a FE unit. Check the rules again they are a bunch of TE units with specific wargear and extra rules that they ONLY get from being taken in a FE detachment. Heck there's no points nor profiles for any of them in the codex! Once again please read the relevant rules. There are no FE units just a list of rules that effect FE detachments.
GargoyleKing wrote: We are basically arguing about how an outdated source book interacts with a new rules set. If you feel like playing the game like this, enjoy. The disparity in rules sets and wording leaves at least a little room for translation errors. It's just a matter of who is making the errors in this case. And since GW doesn't clarify well, how about we agree to disagree.
Just don't expect me to play with you if you micro analyze every wording disparity.
So unless your opponent allows you to do something clearly against the rules you won't play them? Great attitude.
You need to calm down, then read how you build an army in 7th Ed and you'll notice allies and the Allied Detachment are not the same thing (or even particularly related). This was all covered in detail in the first 2 pages including any RaI argument. RaW and RaI clearly match up here no AD TE/FE if your primary is the other one.
Also note the Farsight bodyguard are not a FE unit. Check the rules again they are a bunch of TE units with specific wargear and extra rules that they ONLY get from being taken in a FE detachment. Heck there's no points nor profiles for any of them in the codex! Once again please read the relevant rules. There are no FE units just a list of rules that effect FE detachments.
Actually, the Farisight Bodyguard ICs do have names, points and profiles in the FE book. They just don't have Army List Entries. They're basically a footnote inside a special rule. I have the iBooks Interactive Edition. I have to click on one of the rules to get the profiles to pop up.
Having said that, Farsight Enclaves isn't a Faction, so there is no such thing as a Farsight Enclaves Unit.
Also, 99% of these sorts of threads are based upon a handful of individuals holding onto 6th Edition and not understanding that allies and Allied Detachments are two very, very different things. Army list building in 7th Edition just works very differently.
Yes, a unit full of independant characters some of which would never be allowed to be such. It doesn't matter regardless, the point of mentioning it was to point out that his statement was incorrect. They still can't be brought into a TE detachment, as was the whole point I'd begun with. This is still a unit that is exclusive to the FE and by saying it isn't, you invalidate your credibility as well. There may not be any profiles or data sheets, but the unit does clearly use some FE specific upgrades and rules.
As for the other, I simply refuse to play with somebody who wants to rules lawyer his way through a game to his own advantage. This was obviously a hot topic in the first place, judging by the hub-bub before I stepped in to say anything. So, the point is obviously something that can be left up to a certain degree of interpretation.
They obviously meant for TE to ally with FE or they would not have added the Allies rule into the book in the first place. So, don't try to tell me it's RAI. If anything, I'd sight GW for poor rules wording in the first place, as they made allowances for older publications and forgot to errata the restrictions of the older publications as well.
So, I'll give you no mixing codex and supplement units for a faction army. But, you can't have your cake and eat it too. FE and TE can take each other as allies.
I understand that. I'm not ignorant thank you very much. But, the point that I am making doesn't seem to be sinking in. Thy lath said it better.
Y'all are applying rules that didn't exist to a 6th edition codex, when Codex: Tau came out there was only primary detachment and an ally (not allied detachment) per primary detachment. The rule existed then as it does now that the allies must be from a different codex than the primary detachment. Your saying the rule in the FE applies to CADs, which could not be possible as CADs did not exist in 6th edition. The rule is very specific in what it meant then and it means the same now. As there was no other types of detachments than the primary, allies means allied detachment. Which means that since GW hates to errata stuff, RAW it can only mean one thing. There is no RAI in this, sometimes you have to go back to when a book was written to figure out what the rule really means.
The 6th Ed Rulebook had the same basic don't ally with your supplements rule. But this one allowed for it with the Allies rule. If it was not meant to ally with the codex, the rule would not have been added. This is merely a poor way to say... "Go ahead."
GargoyleKing wrote: We are basically arguing about how an outdated source book interacts with a new rules set. If you feel like playing the game like this, enjoy. The disparity in rules sets and wording leaves at least a little room for translation errors. It's just a matter of who is making the errors in this case. And since GW doesn't clarify well, how about we agree to disagree.
Just don't expect me to play with you if you micro analyze every wording disparity.
Games Workshop explicitly changed the wording from "ally" to "take an Allied Detachment" for the official 7th edition update for Codex: Space Marines but made no such change to the wording for Farsight Enclaves in its update.
If they had intended Tau Empire and Farsight Enclaves to take an Allied Detachment of the other when one was the primary detachment then they would have said so. They have not so they did not.
GargoyleKing wrote: I understand that. I'm not ignorant thank you very much. But, the point that I am making doesn't seem to be sinking in. Thy lath said it better.
Y'all are applying rules that didn't exist to a 6th edition codex, when Codex: Tau came out there was only primary detachment and an ally (not allied detachment) per primary detachment. The rule existed then as it does now that the allies must be from a different codex than the primary detachment. Your saying the rule in the FE applies to CADs, which could not be possible as CADs did not exist in 6th edition. The rule is very specific in what it meant then and it means the same now. As there was no other types of detachments than the primary, allies means allied detachment. Which means that since GW hates to errata stuff, RAW it can only mean one thing. There is no RAI in this, sometimes you have to go back to when a book was written to figure out what the rule really means.
The 6th Ed Rulebook had the same basic don't ally with your supplements rule. But this one allowed for it with the Allies rule. If it was not meant to ally with the codex, the rule would not have been added. This is merely a poor way to say... "Go ahead."
In 7th they changed how allies work completely - you're aware of this.
But what you refuse to accept is that maybe GW wrote the new ally/allied detachment rules with supplements like this in mind.
I don't know why you refuse to accept it, but there you go.
Actually, the Farisight Bodyguard ICs do have names, points and profiles in the FE book. They just don't have Army List Entries. They're basically a footnote inside a special rule. I have the iBooks Interactive Edition. I have to click on one of the rules to get the profiles to pop up.
Having said that, Farsight Enclaves isn't a Faction, so there is no such thing as a Farsight Enclaves Unit.
Also, 99% of these sorts of threads are based upon a handful of individuals holding onto 6th Edition and not understanding that allies and Allied Detachments are two very, very different things. Army list building in 7th Edition just works very differently.
No points costs or profiles in the official hard back rules. But yes they are referenced in the eBook copy. And the rest of your post is 100% accurate.
So, if they changed Space Marines, good for them. But you don't get credit for going halvsies. If a rule has no meaning then you should remove it. They haven't, thus, it's still up in the air.
Besides, you have to realize that different people write different codex's, or did. And almost certainly, they did the same with the updated errata. One guy thought to fix something, while another didn't know something needed fixing.
Honestly, I don't care. I play the game to have fun. And if a Tourney or some jerk wants to make a deal about it, I can just take my toys and go home. I have other ways to enjoy life.
GargoyleKing wrote: So, if they changed Space Marines, good for them. But you don't get credit for going halvsies. If a rule has no meaning then you should remove it. They haven't, thus, it's still up in the air.
Besides, you have to realize that different people write different codex's, or did. And almost certainly, they did the same with the updated errata. One guy thought to fix something, while another didn't know something needed fixing.
Honestly, I don't care. I play the game to have fun. And if a Tourney or some jerk wants to make a deal about it, I can just take my toys and go home. I have other ways to enjoy life.
So if I wanted to play my marines as T10 and costing 1point per model, you'd be fine with that? Or are you some jerk who wants to make a deal about it, I can just take my toys and go home.
GargoyleKing wrote: Yes, a unit full of independant characters some of which would never be allowed to be such. It doesn't matter regardless, the point of mentioning it was to point out that his statement was incorrect. They still can't be brought into a TE detachment, as was the whole point I'd begun with. This is still a unit that is exclusive to the FE and by saying it isn't, you invalidate your credibility as well. There may not be any profiles or data sheets, but the unit does clearly use some FE specific upgrades and rules.
As for the other, I simply refuse to play with somebody who wants to rules lawyer his way through a game to his own advantage. This was obviously a hot topic in the first place, judging by the hub-bub before I stepped in to say anything. So, the point is obviously something that can be left up to a certain degree of interpretation.
They obviously meant for TE to ally with FE or they would not have added the Allies rule into the book in the first place. So, don't try to tell me it's RAI. If anything, I'd sight GW for poor rules wording in the first place, as they made allowances for older publications and forgot to errata the restrictions of the older publications as well.
So, I'll give you no mixing codex and supplement units for a faction army. But, you can't have your cake and eat it too. FE and TE can take each other as allies.
Besides, the cake is a lie. `;~}
I 100% agree with you that FE and TE can ally with each other. Both the 7th Edition BRB and the FE book say so. Neither book says you can take a Tau Empire/Farsight Enclaves Allied Detachment with a Tau Empire/Farsight Enclaves Primary Detachment. If you think you can, one of two things is happening. Either you don't understand the changes that occurred between 6th and 7th Edition or you do understand the differences but have decided to ignore the new rules and stick with the old ones.
Flingit, I am not making stuff up here. Only seeing a slightly different rules interpretation than you are. If you can't handle mine, don't play against me. Just please drop the jerk crap.
And for the rest of you, fine. Do as you like. I'm done arguing about the same 3 sentences of text back and forth with no conclusion in sight. You read it one way, others read it another. We're done here.
GargoyleKing wrote: Flingit, I am not making stuff up here. Only seeing a slightly different rules interpretation than you are. If you can't handle mine, don't play against me. Just please drop the jerk crap.
And for the rest of you, fine. Do as you like. I'm done arguing about the same 3 sentences of text back and forth with no conclusion in sight. You read it one way, others read it another. We're done here.
It is not that you read the sentences differently. It is that you are making stuff up and not actually offering up anything in return. You can play by whatever rules your group agree to but it says a lot about you as a gamer if you refuse to play others and pack up your toys because they won't play by your made up rules. If GW want FE to work like marines they would have FAQd them the same way when they released the first batch of 7th Ed FAQs. SMs were the only ones to get this different FAQ and none of the Supplements got that change. Why would GW waste ink removing a rule that works perfectly fine as a redundant reminder in the new edition.
GargoyleKing wrote: So, if they changed Space Marines, good for them. But you don't get credit for going halvsies. If a rule has no meaning then you should remove it. They haven't, thus, it's still up in the air.
Besides, you have to realize that different people write different codex's, or did. And almost certainly, they did the same with the updated errata. One guy thought to fix something, while another didn't know something needed fixing.
Honestly, I don't care. I play the game to have fun. And if a Tourney or some jerk wants to make a deal about it, I can just take my toys and go home. I have other ways to enjoy life.
You're missing the point that the rule does have meaning. It may be redundant to state again as it's already in the core rules, but that doesn't make it meaningless. The meaning of allying in 7th has changed. The fact they have not removed it means you have to take the new meaning to ally as per 7th edition, not apply the 6th edition equivalent.
It's a pointless "out" to claim you don't care when you're on an internet forum debating its merits as much as anyone else here. You have no moral high ground here, I'm sorry.
Well, I do have a small hope that the reason they haven't FAQ'd anything in the Tau Codex and Farsight Enclaves is the same reason they didn't for Necron's CCB Phase Shifter, the codex in close enough to release that they don't want to dedicate any resources to it.
Who knows, Maybe the Farsight Enclaves will be turned into a special detachment/formation in the main codex.
Nilok wrote: Well, I do have a small hope that the reason they haven't FAQ'd anything in the Tau Codex and Farsight Enclaves is the same reason they didn't for Necron's CCB Phase Shifter, the codex in close enough to release that they don't want to dedicate any resources to it.
Who knows, Maybe the Farsight Enclaves will be turned into a special detachment/formation in the main codex.
With the Iyanden-like formation inside the Eldar's new FOC, I believe that will be the case as well. With the limitation that you cannot field Aun'Va/Shadowsun in the core/command cadre formation.
I fear the Seven dwarfs - sorry, commanders - will be gone, though.
That doesn't make them separate Factions.
