Hey guys, this stems from a game I played yesterday where my opponent asked why I was using the Farsight Supplement instead of the Mont'Ka Campaign Book. He was under the impression that the Mont'Ka book replaced the Farsight Supplement, however after reading through my own copy of the book it says nothing of the sort. When looking into it I came up with the conclusion that you can indeed still run the Farsight Enclaves Supplement and here is why.
-The Farsight Enclaves is a Supplement of Codex: Tau Empire, which means its legal to play even before Mont'Ka was released.
-Mont'Ka is a Campaign Book (Warzone Damocles) and not a Codex, therefore it does not invalidate the Farsight Enclaves Supplement.
-Mont'Ka has Special Rules in regards to running the Dawn Blade Detachment and new Formations that can be taken by the Tau, also rules for running the FSE if you choose to run them out of the Mont'ka Book.
-Raven Guard and White Scars Space Marines can choose to be run out of either the new Campaign Books or the standard Codex Space Marines, they are just different Detachments. Why would it not be the same for the Farsight Enclaves? The same goes for Blood Angels, Tyranids and every other force found in a Campaign Book.
Now based on this it seems pretty clear I can still field a CAD out of the Farsight Supplement as what is found in a Campaign Book (or Warzone Book) does not invalidate a Codex. Am I right in this assumption? I appreciate the feedback and thanks for posting!
gmaleron wrote: He was under the impression that the Mont'Ka book replaced the Farsight Supplement, however after reading through my own copy of the book it says nothing of the sort.
Do any of the codexes or expansions say that they replace a previous version?
GW apparently confirmed it in a written reply, also if you remember you didn't even have to buy the new Tau Codex, you could have picked up the Kyuon book to get you the new stuff!
Scott-S6 wrote: Do any of the codexes or expansions say that they replace a previous version?
None, otherwise you couldn't run the White Scars or Raven Guard out of Codex Space Marines (which you can still do) or Blood Angels out of Codex Blood Angels for example.
You might also want to point out that the supplement is still currently available for sale. It's not like we're discussing the viability of an out of print rules source. This is something you can buy from GW today.
I think the only issue that you are going to see, is the conflicting rules.
Since Mont'ka reprinted the rules for taking FSE in your army and some of these rules are clearly different than that of the FSE: Supplement rules.
Automatically Appended Next Post: For example.. under Montka you are not required to take a unit of 3 of crisis suits as troops. Simply, all crisis suits are now troops.
Scott-S6 wrote: Do any of the codexes or expansions say that they replace a previous version?
None, otherwise you couldn't run the White Scars or Raven Guard out of Codex Space Marines (which you can still do) or Blood Angels out of Codex Blood Angels for example.
But equally, when a new Space Marine codex comes out we know that it replaces the old one but the new codex doesn't say that.
As such, it's irrelevant that Mont'ka doesn't say that it supersedes Farsight Enclaves.
Grizzyzz wrote: I think the only issue that you are going to see, is the conflicting rules.
Since Mont'ka reprinted the rules for taking FSE in your army and some of these rules are clearly different than that of the FSE: Supplement rules.
Maybe, however since a Campaign Book does not in any case invalidate a Codex if I chose to run a CAD detachment out of the Farsight Supplement the CAD would use the rules found in the Supplement. Likewise if I ran a Dawnblade Detachment out of the Mont'Ka Book I would have to follow the rules found in the Mont'Ka book for the FSE, even though I do feel an FAQ is needed in that regard.
Scott-S6 wrote: But equally, when a new Space Marine codex comes out we know that it replaces the old one but the new codex doesn't say that.
As such, it's irrelevant that Mont'ka doesn't say that it supersedes Farsight Enclaves.
Except for the fact that Mont'Ka is not a Codex, it is a Warzone Damocles Book. The fact it is not a new Codex means that it would not make the current one irrelevant.
Scott-S6 wrote: But equally, when a new Space Marine codex comes out we know that it replaces the old one but the new codex doesn't say that.
As such, it's irrelevant that Mont'ka doesn't say that it supersedes Farsight Enclaves.
Except for the fact that Mont'Ka is not a Codex, it is a Warzone Damocles Book. The fact it is not a new Codex means that it would not make the current one irrelevant.
You're missing the point. You imply a significance to Mont'ka not saying that it replaces Farsight Enclaves but none of the codexes or expansions state that even when they clearly do replace a previous version. As such, this isn't evidence either way.
Ok so my other counterpoint... Sorry I am intentionally playing devils advocate here....
Kauyon and Montka bring new rules to the table. Such that they specifically override rules in the 6ed Tau codex.. which you can still use in combination with the new campaign books.
I view this then, that montka being 7ed would override specific rules where different from the FSE: supplement then.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Well the only thing with what I just said was Montka references codex tau empire .. rather then codex supplement FSE..
but then codex supplement FSE also references codex tau empire >_>
Scott-S6 wrote:Do any of the codexes or expansions say that they replace a previous version?
Only one I know of specifically was Codex: Space Marines 6th Edition in regards to Codex: Black Templar. It stated to treat all previous references to Codex: Black Templar as coming from to referenced Codex: Space Marines (Black Templar Chapter Tactics).
gmaleron wrote:Except for the fact that Mont'Ka is not a Codex, it is a Warzone Damocles Book. The fact it is not a new Codex means that it would not make the current one irrelevant.
Nor is Farsight Enclaves a codex.
Still, going by Codex: Imperial Guard and Codex: Eldar, I'd wait until we see the supplement's sale stop before calling FSE dead.
Of course, there are also the 'Hunter codices as well. Never fully replaced in name, but replaced in spirit by Codex: Grey Knights, Codex: Sisters of Battle/Adeptus Sororitas, Codex: Inquisition, and Codex: Assassins.
Still, if you want to use older books, check with the game organizers, some just may not allow it all.
The point im making is that it is not considered old and is still viable today, the Farsight Enclaves Supplement I mean. When Codex: Tau Empire got updated they said you could keep your current 6ed. Tau Codex and just pick up Kyuon for the new Units and Formations. And since the Farsight Enclaves Supplement States:
"A Farsight Enclaves army is chosen using the army list presented in Codex: Tau Empire. It also has a series of supplemental rules (presented below) that can be used in addition to the material found in Codex: Tau Empire. Note that you can only use the options from one codex supplement when choosing your army."
This means that you can still field the Farsight Supplement in 7th Edition, also because they have an FAQ for the Farsight Enclaves to be played in 7th Edition currently.
Grizzyzz wrote: Kauyon and Montka bring new rules to the table. Such that they specifically override rules in the 6ed Tau codex.. which you can still use in combination with the new campaign books. I view this then, that montka being 7ed would override specific rules where different from the FSE: supplement then.
What rules do they bring that override what is found in the Tau Codex? Because you can still use your current 6ed Tau Codex to this day, if you want to run any of the new units or Formations you would just have to pick up Kyuon Campaign book to get the rules, which was clearly stated in the release by GW and in the White Dwarf.
Scott-S6 wrote: You're missing the point. You imply a significance to Mont'ka not saying that it replaces Farsight Enclaves but none of the codexes or expansions state that even when they clearly do replace a previous version. As such, this isn't evidence either way.
Except there is, no one is questioning wether or not the Raven Guard or White Scars can or cannot be taken from the current Space Marine Codex, why should the Farsight Enclaves Supplement face that scrutiny when they are in the same situation as them? And with rules found in their Supplemental Book that allows them to be played in 7th Edition, including an FAQ.
Grizzyzz wrote: Kauyon and Montka bring new rules to the table. Such that they specifically override rules in the 6ed Tau codex.. which you can still use in combination with the new campaign books. I view this then, that montka being 7ed would override specific rules where different from the FSE: supplement then.
What rules do they bring that override what is found in the Tau Codex? Because you can still use your current 6ed Tau Codex to this day, if you want to run any of the new units or Formations you would just have to pick up Kyuon Campaign book to get the rules, which was clearly stated in the release by GW and in the White Dwarf.
Precisely what I mean. You can still use your current 6ed codex, but there are additional rules that apply to them.. For example, Fireteam and MCs and vehicles being taken in squads.
Given that the majority of GW publications don't tell you what rules are invalidated, I prefer to use an in print/out of print system for determining active rules.
If a publication is in print, and there are no other in print publication telling us to ignore certain rules, the rules are considered active and valid.
If a publication is out of print and was published under a previous edition of the core rules, the rules are to be considered inactive and invalid. As an example, the most recent Codex: Eldar is out of print, and was originally published for Warhammer 40k 6th Edition. I would consider it invalid. The Stormclaw campaign box is out of print, but was published for 7th Edition. I would consider it still valid. When a new edition of 40k comes out, it'll go invalid.
This is my system. There is no RaW to cover this, but my system seems to work pretty well.
The Farsight Enclaves book is still valid as it's still in print. If it goes out of print, it'll instantly become invalid as it was published for 6th Edition.
Scott-S6 wrote: You're missing the point. You imply a significance to Mont'ka not saying that it replaces Farsight Enclaves but none of the codexes or expansions state that even when they clearly do replace a previous version. As such, this isn't evidence either way.
Except there is, no one is questioning wether or not the Raven Guard or White Scars can or cannot be taken from the current Space Marine Codex, why should the Farsight Enclaves Supplement face that scrutiny when they are in the same situation as them? And with rules found in their Supplemental Book that allows them to be played in 7th Edition, including an FAQ.
Really? Way to dodge the point, yet again. You can't claim significance to the lack of a statement when that statement is never present, even when a book is being replaced.
Kriswall wrote: The Farsight Enclaves book is still valid as it's still in print. If it goes out of print, it'll instantly become invalid as it was published for 6th Edition.
Don't forget that they actually have an FAQ for the Farsight Enclaves to be played in 7th Edition as the book did come out in 6th if I am not mistaken. So if the book is in Print and has an updated FAQ I would think it is still viable to be played.
Scott-S6 wrote: Really? Way to dodge the point, yet again. You can't claim significance to the lack of a statement when that statement is never present, even when a book is being replaced.
Your not making any sense? No book was ever replaced. And I haven't dodged anything, I got when you said that "nothing is ever written that says its been replaced" however we are talking about how a Campaign Book (Warzone Book) does not mean you cannot run your army out of the armies intended Codex. It gives you options for different detachments and some new Formations.
Kriswall wrote: The Farsight Enclaves book is still valid as it's still in print. If it goes out of print, it'll instantly become invalid as it was published for 6th Edition.
Don't forget that they actually have an FAQ for the Farsight Enclaves to be played in 7th Edition as the book did come out in 6th if I am not mistaken. So if the book is in Print and has an updated FAQ I would think it is still viable to be played.
FSE is out of print in the UK. I would expect to see the digital version get pulled in the relatively near future.
Scott-S6 wrote: Really? Way to dodge the point, yet again. You can't claim significance to the lack of a statement when that statement is never present, even when a book is being replaced.
Your not making any sense? No book was ever replaced.
Let's make this really clear for you.
When a book comes out that DOES NOT replace a previous book it doesn't mention anything about replacing a previous version.
When a book comes out that DOES replace a previous book it doesn't mention anything about replacing a previous version.
This means that the fact the Mont'ka does not say that it replaces FSE doesn't add anything to the argument either way.
And, again, FSE is not a codex, it is a supplement.
Kriswall wrote: The Farsight Enclaves book is still valid as it's still in print. If it goes out of print, it'll instantly become invalid as it was published for 6th Edition.
Don't forget that they actually have an FAQ for the Farsight Enclaves to be played in 7th Edition as the book did come out in 6th if I am not mistaken. So if the book is in Print and has an updated FAQ I would think it is still viable to be played.
FSE is out of print in the UK. I would expect to see the digital version get pulled in the relatively near future.
Are you sure? Because you can still download the digital version which means it is still in print, and in the USA the Softback copy is still available. Also have to remember that there is rumors of a new Farsight Supplement coming in January which is why the Softback is sold out on the UK site.
When a book comes out that DOES NOT replace a previous book it doesn't mention anything about replacing a previous version.
When a book comes out that DOES replace a previous book it doesn't mention anything about replacing a previous version.
This means that the fact the Mont'ka does not say that it replaces FSE doesn't add anything to the argument either way.
I get what your saying and I have been understanding that, the point I am trying to make is that some people have said that Mont'Ka replaces the Codex which is why I brought the question up to begin with. And using the Space Marine Chapters that are also in the Campaign Books as examples (in regards to being able to be run out of their Codex or the Campaign Book) is what I was trying to point out. If they can do it why not the Farsight Enclaves? Not arguing your point, its why I brought the question up to begin with.
Kriswall wrote: The Farsight Enclaves book is still valid as it's still in print. If it goes out of print, it'll instantly become invalid as it was published for 6th Edition.
Don't forget that they actually have an FAQ for the Farsight Enclaves to be played in 7th Edition as the book did come out in 6th if I am not mistaken. So if the book is in Print and has an updated FAQ I would think it is still viable to be played.
Scott-S6 wrote: Really? Way to dodge the point, yet again. You can't claim significance to the lack of a statement when that statement is never present, even when a book is being replaced.
Your not making any sense? No book was ever replaced.
I would agree with the bit about the FAQ. Given that there is an update to Farsight Enclaves for 7th Edition, I would effectively consider it + the FAQ to be a 7th Edition era publication. I didn't realize there was an FAQ. I have the iBooks version, which periodically auto updates... which makes tracking the changes a little challenging.
Kriswall wrote: The Farsight Enclaves book is still valid as it's still in print. If it goes out of print, it'll instantly become invalid as it was published for 6th Edition.
Don't forget that they actually have an FAQ for the Farsight Enclaves to be played in 7th Edition as the book did come out in 6th if I am not mistaken. So if the book is in Print and has an updated FAQ I would think it is still viable to be played.
FSE is out of print in the UK. I would expect to see the digital version get pulled in the relatively near future.
Are you sure? Because you can still download the digital version which means it is still in print, and in the USA the Softback copy is still available. Also have to remember that there is rumors of a new Farsight Supplement coming in January which is why the Softback is sold out on the UK site.
Yep, the physical book is gone in the UK and will not be returning.
Kriswall wrote: The Farsight Enclaves book is still valid as it's still in print. If it goes out of print, it'll instantly become invalid as it was published for 6th Edition.
Don't forget that they actually have an FAQ for the Farsight Enclaves to be played in 7th Edition as the book did come out in 6th if I am not mistaken. So if the book is in Print and has an updated FAQ I would think it is still viable to be played.
FSE is out of print in the UK. I would expect to see the digital version get pulled in the relatively near future.
Scott-S6 wrote: True, but when they decide that they won't be printing any more physical copies that usually means that the writing is on the wall.
It does, however it coincides with the rumors of an updated Farsight Enclaves Supplement.
Either it's going away and it will be clear that Mont'ka replaced it or we're going to get a new FSE supplement (which will, presumably, contain the exact same rules as Mont'ka) and it will be clear that FSE is replaced.
Lusiphur wrote: Out of curiosity, what rule are you trying to use from the Supplement that is not covered (or nerfed maybe) in Mont'ka?
I can't remember anything that would make a difference in a game.
I'd guess taking members of the Eight (other than Farsight) without taking all of them (which basically means you'll almost never take them).
That is one of them, also in the Farsight Enclaves Supplement it says Riptides can take Signature Systems like the Earth Caste Pilot Array which was designed for them. In the Mont'Ka book it doesn't say wether they can or cannot take Signture Systems so it leaves it up for debate. Personally I feel that a Signature System that is clearly designed for a particular unit that unit should be allowed to take it despite vague rules, however im doing this to basically avoid that drama. Its not the only reasons however, sometimes I want to just play a normal CAD with my Tau, especially in friendly games.
Lusiphur wrote: Out of curiosity, what rule are you trying to use from the Supplement that is not covered (or nerfed maybe) in Mont'ka?
I can't remember anything that would make a difference in a game.
I'd guess taking members of the Eight (other than Farsight) without taking all of them (which basically means you'll almost never take them).
That is one of them, also in the Farsight Enclaves Supplement it says Riptides can take Signature Systems like the Earth Caste Pilot Array which was designed for them. In the Mont'Ka book it doesn't say wether they can or cannot take Signture Systems so it leaves it up for debate. Personally I feel that a Signature System that is clearly designed for a particular unit that unit should be allowed to take it despite vague rules, however im doing this to basically avoid that drama. Its not the only reasons however, sometimes I want to just play a normal CAD with my Tau, especially in friendly games.
ECPA is a weird one but there's no debate - Riptides can't unless they're characters. It's either an error or they wanted to keep it for O'Vesa exclusively.
What's stopping you from taking a CAD with FSE using Mont'ka?
Scott-S6 wrote: ECPA is a weird one but there's no debate - Riptides can't unless they're characters. It's either an error or they wanted to keep it for O'Vesa exclusively.
What's stopping you from taking a CAD with FSE using Mont'ka?
Trust me its an Error, makes no sense to have a Signature System that benefits a particular unit and then have the unit be unable to take said Signature System. As far as im concerned from reading over my Mont'ka book it doesn't talk about running a standard CAD at all, it only goes into detail the Dawn Blade Contingent with rules for the FSE to be run in it.
As far as im concerned from reading over my Mont'ka book it doesn't talk about running a standard CAD at all, it only goes into detail the Dawn Blade Contingent with rules for the FSE to be run in it.
It says that you can make any formation or detachment an FSE detachment. That gives you crisis suit as troops and access to the FSE sig systems and warlord traits. Read P196 again.
If you wish, you can say that any Tau Detachment or Formation in your army is from the Farsight Enclaves.
Formations and Detachments from the Farsight Enclaves use the Warlord Traits and Tactical Objectives from these pages instead of those in Codex: Tau Empire, and also have the special rules below.
Trust me its an Error, makes no sense to have a Signature System that benefits a particular unit and then have the unit be unable to take said Signature System.
It would be clearly an error if it couldn't be used at all but O'Vesa is a riptide character and has it. Given the fluff that talks about how "it speaks to the bond between the two that he allows any other caste the great honour of piloting a battlesuit, much less a powerful XV104 Riptide" why would you be able to have other earth caste riptide pilots? I'm not convinced that it is an error.
As far as im concerned from reading over my Mont'ka book it doesn't talk about running a standard CAD at all, it only goes into detail the Dawn Blade Contingent with rules for the FSE to be run in it.
It says that you can make any formation or detachment an FSE detachment. That gives you crisis suit as troops and access to the FSE sig systems and warlord traits. Read P196 again.
If you wish, you can say that any Tau Detachment or Formation in your army is from the Farsight Enclaves.
Formations and Detachments from the Farsight Enclaves use the Warlord Traits and Tactical Objectives from these pages instead of those in Codex: Tau Empire, and also have the special rules below.
Trust me its an Error, makes no sense to have a Signature System that benefits a particular unit and then have the unit be unable to take said Signature System.
It would be clearly an error if it couldn't be used at all but O'Vesa is a riptide character and has it. Given the fluff that talks about how "it speaks to the bond between the two that he allows any other caste the great honour of piloting a battlesuit, much less a powerful XV104 Riptide" why would you be able to have other earth caste riptide pilots? I'm not convinced that it is an error.
Come on... use some common sense lol. They wouldn't give it a point value of 30 points and allow it to be taken as a signature system if Riptides shouldn't be allowed to take it. They would have just given it to O'vesa and not put it in the Sig Sys. It is clearly an error.
ECPA's main rule is specific to riptides only.
Riptides could take it in the previous codex
ECPA is exactly the same in this codex
Its obvious they made a mistake in not allowing riptides to equip it in this codex.
notredameguy10 wrote: Come on... use some common sense lol. They wouldn't give it a point value of 30 points and allow it to be taken as a signature system if Riptides shouldn't be allowed to take it. They would have just given it to O'vesa and not put it in the Sig Sys. It is clearly an error.
ECPA's main rule is specific to riptides only.
Riptides could take it in the previous codex
ECPA is exactly the same in this codex
Its obvious they made a mistake in not allowing riptides to equip it in this codex.
notredameguy10 wrote: lol that means absolutely NOTHING. Essentially nothing was updated in ANY codex (i believe a total of TWO things amongst ALL codexes)
Come on... use some common sense lol. They wouldn't give it a point value of 30 points and allow it to be taken as a signature system if Riptides shouldn't be allowed to take it. They would have just given it to O'vesa and not put it in the Sig Sys. It is clearly an error.
If there was a stated points cost for O'vesa including the ECPA then you might have a point but there isn't - so ECPA had to be given a points value so that you could build O'vesa.
Not mention - how does making it a signature system (which no riptide other than O'vesa can access) indicate that they want it to be available to all riptides? Surely it indicates the opposite?
Come on... use some common sense lol. They wouldn't give it a point value of 30 points and allow it to be taken as a signature system if Riptides shouldn't be allowed to take it. They would have just given it to O'vesa and not put it in the Sig Sys. It is clearly an error.
If there was a stated points cost for O'vesa including the ECPA then you might have a point but there isn't - so ECPA had to be given a points value so that you could build O'vesa.
Not mention - how does making it a signature system (which no riptide other than O'vesa can access) indicate that they want it to be available to all riptides? Surely it indicates the opposite?
Beat me to the punch! I agree, no points listed for O'Vesa, therefore you need the listed system and points cost in order to properly make your list with O'Vesa in it.
I am going with the impression they wanted to make the ECPA more rare, and another reason why you should $$$$ for all the parts to build your "Eight" formation to bring one.
As it stands, OP, you're arguing for a very specific binary answer when the question isn't binary at all. Even if you're technically correct and the FSE book is still good in leu of Mont'Ka by strict interpretation of the text presented in all books involved, the actual letter of the rule is that what the TO, store owner, or collective gaming community says goes, goes.
My local GW store was split right down the middle as to whether the FSE book was even permitted after Kauyon dropped but before Mont"Ka, and the tourney being organized at the time elected to ban the FSE book before the details to Kauyon were known (in anticipation of there being conflicts that ended up not happening)
Also, perhaps someone can help me out here. Where exactly does it say you can take an ECPA on a Riptide? I have both the new and old relevant books here and I don't see it.
Captain Joystick wrote: Also, perhaps someone can help me out here. Where exactly does it say you can take an ECPA on a Riptide? I have both the new and old relevant books here and I don't see it.
In FSE: Supplement, it states "characters in FSE may take sig systems. RIPTIDES ALSO HAVE ACCESS"
In Montka: "characters in FSE may take sig systems"
It is the leaving out that Riptides also have access that makes it RAW that out of Montka riptides cannot take ECPA; O'Vesa can but only in the Eight formation, again out of Montka.
Cool RaW FSE supplement is still legal. RaW FSE Supplement (like all 6th Ed Supplements) doesn't work as there is no way of making any given detachment a FSE detachment without using the Mont'ka rules.
Mont'ka clearly updates the FSE supplement and thus replaces it. Much like when the Assassins can subsumed into Codex Grey Knights (and later separated). If you want to play RaW games you can't puck and choose which RaW applies and which doesn't.
FlingitNow wrote: RaW FSE Supplement (like all 6th Ed Supplements) doesn't work as there is no way of making any given detachment a FSE detachment without using the Mont'ka rules.
Just be careful in this thread throwing that around some people will lash out. But to correct you.. Only Iyanden has really been completely 100% removed. All the SM supplements GW outright said were fine. FSE is only questionable because
1) GW hasn't removed it completely from its store.
2) GW hasn't said it was ok to use, in lieu of montka
Seems like the main issue is that it's still for sale directly from Games Workshop. If FSE had gone out of print when Mont'ka came out, we probably wouldn't be having this conversation.
I would consider the fact that it's still for sale a passive allowance to use the rules contained therein. Otherwise, we have to question EVERY currently available publication and say that we can't use it unless GW specifically tells us we can... which is clearly a ridiculous thing to do.
FlingitNow wrote: RaW FSE Supplement (like all 6th Ed Supplements) doesn't work as there is no way of making any given detachment a FSE detachment without using the Mont'ka rules.
Just be careful in this thread throwing that around some people will lash out. But to correct you.. Only Iyanden has really been completely 100% removed. All the SM supplements GW outright said were fine. FSE is only questionable because
1) GW hasn't removed it completely from its store.
2) GW hasn't said it was ok to use, in lieu of montka
I was talking RaW. RaW the FSE supplement doesn't work, most people will allow the RaI of being able to designate any TE detachment as a FSE detachment, however with Mont'kas release asking people to adhere to strict RaW (under it doesn't say I can't premise) to allow use of the supplement then jump straight to RaI to try to make it work is a bit rich to say the least.
FlingitNow wrote: Cool RaW FSE supplement is still legal. RaW FSE Supplement (like all 6th Ed Supplements) doesn't work as there is no way of making any given detachment a FSE detachment without using the Mont'ka rules.
How so? If they make a campaign book with Iron Hands or Imperial Fists, would that invalidate Sentinels of Terra and Clan Raccoon? Can you provide and actual quote from the book?
FlingitNow wrote: Mont'ka clearly updates the FSE supplement and thus replaces it. Much like when the Assassins can subsumed into Codex Grey Knights (and later separated). If you want to play RaW games you can't puck and choose which RaW applies and which doesn't.
Actually, you CAN pick and choose which RAW applies by using the books them come from, just the cohesiveness must be maintained. Otherwise, Codex: Dark Angels would update Codex: Blood Angels, Space Marines, and Space Wolves for every unit they have in common. If one wants to use the Mont'ka Formations and detachments, they must abide by the Mont'ka's rules and stipulations and changes. FSE doesn't have much of that, so can be run in CAD or AD.
Really, the only person's who determine the legality of a book are the game organizers, friendly or tournament. Whether you want to run all 3rd Edition codices or a 2nd Edition versus Dark Vengeance is all up to them.
FlingitNow wrote: Cool RaW FSE supplement is still legal. RaW FSE Supplement (like all 6th Ed Supplements) doesn't work as there is no way of making any given detachment a FSE detachment without using the Mont'ka rules.
How so? If they make a campaign book with Iron Hands or Imperial Fists, would that invalidate Sentinels of Terra and Clan Raccoon? Can you provide and actual quote from the book?
How do you use the FSE supplement? How do you know how to make a detachment into a FSE detachment (thus triggering all the rules in the supplement)?
FlingitNow wrote: Mont'ka clearly updates the FSE supplement and thus replaces it. Much like when the Assassins can subsumed into Codex Grey Knights (and later separated). If you want to play RaW games you can't puck and choose which RaW applies and which doesn't.
Actually, you CAN pick and choose which RAW applies by using the books them come from, just the cohesiveness must be maintained. Otherwise, Codex: Dark Angels would update Codex: Blood Angels, Space Marines, and Space Wolves for every unit they have in common. If one wants to use the Mont'ka Formations and detachments, they must abide by the Mont'ka's rules and stipulations and changes. FSE doesn't have much of that, so can be run in CAD or AD.
Really, the only person's who determine the legality of a book are the game organizers, friendly or tournament. Whether you want to run all 3rd Edition codices or a 2nd Edition versus Dark Vengeance is all up to them.
How do you know that you can use a CAD or an AD with the FSE Supplement? I know you can use them with Mont'ka as I have rules for that. What rules are you using to take a CAD or AD using the FSE supplement rules?
FlingitNow wrote: Cool RaW FSE supplement is still legal. RaW FSE Supplement (like all 6th Ed Supplements) doesn't work as there is no way of making any given detachment a FSE detachment without using the Mont'ka rules.
How so? If they make a campaign book with Iron Hands or Imperial Fists, would that invalidate Sentinels of Terra and Clan Raccoon? Can you provide and actual quote from the book?
How do you use the FSE supplement? How do you know how to make a detachment into a FSE detachment (thus triggering all the rules in the supplement)?
How did you do so before? What has changed to invalidate this previous method?
FlingitNow wrote: Mont'ka clearly updates the FSE supplement and thus replaces it. Much like when the Assassins can subsumed into Codex Grey Knights (and later separated). If you want to play RaW games you can't puck and choose which RaW applies and which doesn't.
Actually, you CAN pick and choose which RAW applies by using the books them come from, just the cohesiveness must be maintained. Otherwise, Codex: Dark Angels would update Codex: Blood Angels, Space Marines, and Space Wolves for every unit they have in common. If one wants to use the Mont'ka Formations and detachments, they must abide by the Mont'ka's rules and stipulations and changes. FSE doesn't have much of that, so can be run in CAD or AD.
Really, the only person's who determine the legality of a book are the game organizers, friendly or tournament. Whether you want to run all 3rd Edition codices or a 2nd Edition versus Dark Vengeance is all up to them.
How do you know that you can use a CAD or an AD with the FSE Supplement? I know you can use them with Mont'ka as I have rules for that. What rules are you using to take a CAD or AD using the FSE supplement rules?
How did I know I can use a CAD or an AD with the FSE Supplement before? What has changed to invalidated this previous method?
You couldn't use it before RaW but we could agree that the RaI was that you could designate any Tau CAD or AD as a FSE CAD or AD. You are unlikely to gain such a concession now, as you are trying to force an antiRaI strict RaW reading to use the Supplement at all. Essentially you can't have it both ways.
FlingitNow wrote: You couldn't use it before RaW but we could agree that the RaI was that you could designate any Tau CAD or AD as a FSE CAD or AD. You are unlikely to gain such a concession now, as you are trying to force an antiRaI strict RaW reading to use the Supplement at all. Essentially you can't have it both ways.
Sure you can. That's how house rules work. You can do whatever you want.
FSE worked before. FSE is still for sale. In a vacuum, FSE still works. Are we in a vacuum? Yes, because no subsequent publication references FSE or tells us to disregard any or all portions of it.
The fact that Mont'ka has similar rules isn't really relevant to this discussion. If you're building an army/detachment using the rules presented in FSE, use FSE as your reference. If you're building an army/detachment using the rules presented in Mont'ka, use Mont'ka as your reference. This isn't rocket science. Coteaz existed in two publications at the same time. Is it crazy to think that Farsight (and his Enclaves) could have rules in two publications at the same time?
FlingitNow wrote: You couldn't use it before RaW but we could agree that the RaI was that you could designate any Tau CAD or AD as a FSE CAD or AD. You are unlikely to gain such a concession now, as you are trying to force an antiRaI strict RaW reading to use the Supplement at all. Essentially you can't have it both ways.
Sure you can. That's how house rules work. You can do whatever you want.
FSE worked before. FSE is still for sale. In a vacuum, FSE still works. Are we in a vacuum? Yes, because no subsequent publication references FSE or tells us to disregard any or all portions of it.
The fact that Mont'ka has similar rules isn't really relevant to this discussion. If you're building an army/detachment using the rules presented in FSE, use FSE as your reference. If you're building an army/detachment using the rules presented in Mont'ka, use Mont'ka as your reference. This isn't rocket science. Coteaz existed in two publications at the same time. Is it crazy to think that Farsight (and his Enclaves) could have rules in two publications at the same time?
Yes by Houserules you can use FSE Supplement. I don't really get your point? RaW you can't use it, RaI you can't use it. If your opponent agrees to the houserule to use it go ahead.
FlingitNow wrote: You couldn't use it before RaW but we could agree that the RaI was that you could designate any Tau CAD or AD as a FSE CAD or AD. You are unlikely to gain such a concession now, as you are trying to force an antiRaI strict RaW reading to use the Supplement at all. Essentially you can't have it both ways.
Why could it not? You still have yet to answer this question, you just keep declaring it.
Spoiler:
A Farsight Enclaves army is chosen using the army list presented in Codex: Tau Empire. It also has a series of supplemental rules (presented below) that can be used in addition to the material found in Codex: Tau Empire. Note that you can only use the options from one codex supplement when choosing your army...
So, it looks like it uses whatever is in Codex: Tau Empire to build an army, with restrictions and benefits noted right after. So by using your standards, I cannot use Codex: Tau Empire to build an army?
Gaining such a concession is one thing, but you are stating this is RAW that FSE is illegal, and now WAS illegal. I'm still waiting for something to properly support this claim more than your declarations.
FlingitNow wrote: So how do I know a CAD that contains TE faction units is a FSE detachment? What rules determine how you turn a TE CAD into a FSE CAD?
Automatically Appended Next Post: This is not new stuff this all cane out the day 7th dropped.
"A Farsight Enclaves army is chosen using the army list presented in Codex: Tau Empire. It also has a series of supplemental rules (presented below) that can be used in addition to the material found in Codex: Tau Empire."
If I tell you I'm choosing my CAD using the Farsight Enclaves Supplement, it's a CAD that contains TE faction units and is a FSE detachment. I can't tell if you're purposefully trolling. You know it's a FSE detachment because you use... wait for it... spoken communication with your opponent.
FlingitNow wrote: So how do I know a CAD that contains TE faction units is a FSE detachment? What rules determine how you turn a TE CAD into a FSE CAD?
Automatically Appended Next Post: This is not new stuff this all cane out the day 7th dropped.
Try the day the FSE supplement dropped. There really isn't any difference in what they wrote then and now. How do you know a CAD is one Chapter Tactics or another (without obvious things like Unique Characters or Tactic Specific units)? The army is built that way and your opponent tells you.
As for TE versus FSE: Special Rules available to units, Crisis Suits changed Roles, certain Uniques became unavailable, and certain Wargear was required while new ones became available.
Where is it written that Mont'ka overrides the FSE supplement? All you've given is your declarations.
So of you choose a FSE Army all detachments within are FSE Detachments is that your claim?
As for knowing what detachments are/aren't FSE detachments I meant from a rules perspective. What rules have you used to determine if a detachment is a FSE detachment?
FlingitNow wrote: So how do I know a CAD that contains TE faction units is a FSE detachment? What rules determine how you turn a TE CAD into a FSE CAD?
Automatically Appended Next Post: This is not new stuff this all cane out the day 7th dropped.
Try the day the FSE supplement dropped. There really isn't any difference in what they wrote then and now. How do you know a CAD is one Chapter Tactics or another (without obvious things like Unique Characters or Tactic Specific units)? The army is built that way and your opponent tells you.
As for TE versus FSE: Special Rules available to units, Crisis Suits changed Roles, certain Uniques became unavailable, and certain Wargear was required while new ones became available.
Where is it written that Mont'ka overrides the FSE supplement? All you've given is your declarations.
Actually FSE worked fine with 6th Ed army building largely due to the quote you've given. In 6th you selected an ARMY that followed a FOC and could add an Ally to it. In 7th you simply select units, formations and detachments from any codex you wish.
Chapter Tactics is a good example as that is also a broken rule for the same reason (no rules tell you how to nominate which CT you are using they all deal with what happens once that choice is made).
Nothing declares Mont'ka overrides the FSE supplement. Just as nothing declares Codex: Craftworlds overrides Codex: Eldar.
FlingitNow wrote:So of you choose a FSE Army all detachments within are FSE Detachments is that your claim?
As for knowing what detachments are/aren't FSE detachments I meant from a rules perspective. What rules have you used to determine if a detachment is a FSE detachment?
FlingitNow wrote: So how do I know a CAD that contains TE faction units is a FSE detachment? What rules determine how you turn a TE CAD into a FSE CAD?
Automatically Appended Next Post: This is not new stuff this all cane out the day 7th dropped.
Try the day the FSE supplement dropped. There really isn't any difference in what they wrote then and now. How do you know a CAD is one Chapter Tactics or another (without obvious things like Unique Characters or Tactic Specific units)? The army is built that way and your opponent tells you.
As for TE versus FSE: Special Rules available to units, Crisis Suits changed Roles, certain Uniques became unavailable, and certain Wargear was required while new ones became available.
Where is it written that Mont'ka overrides the FSE supplement? All you've given is your declarations.
Actually FSE worked fine with 6th Ed army building largely due to the quote you've given. In 6th you selected an ARMY that followed a FOC and could add an Ally to it. In 7th you simply select units, formations and detachments from any codex you wish.
Incorrect as well. The FAQ changed "army" to "Detachment", so still the same concepts in play. So it seems this is only illegal in your head.
Chapter Tactics is a good example as that is also a broken rule for the same reason (no rules tell you how to nominate which CT you are using they all deal with what happens once that choice is made).
Going off memory, this is still incorrect, as it tells you to select a Chapter Tactics when choosing a Detachment, and has since Chapter Tactics was introduced.
Nothing declares Mont'ka overrides the FSE supplement. Just as nothing declares Codex: Craftworlds overrides Codex: Eldar.
So nothing is Written regarding your claim that Mont'ka overrides FSE by RAW, the Rules As Written.
So let me get this straight. Use of the FarSight Enclaves Supplement allows you to field a detachment (per the FAQ) of the Tau Empire Codex, which ceases to be the Tau Empire Faction and becomes the FarSight Enclaves Faction. Okay.
Now you say that the Mont'ka book allows you to, what exactly? It is no longer a Tau Empire Faction, but rather a Farsight Enclaves Faction.
If you use the Farsight Enclaves supplement, you cannot therefore use any of the rules found in Mont'ka because the initial faction is Farsight Enclaves, not Tau Empire. No Detachments, no Formations, nothing, period.
Where am I wrong in any of this?
My understanding of the limitations is that if you go this particular route, you can still have a Hunter Contingent. You cannot have a Dawnblade Contingent, a Riptide Wing, that Drone net thingy, or any other formation ever printed. You are limited to those listed on Pgs. 72 & 73 of the current Tau Empire Codex.
Looked at one way, this is favorable as it strips the Signature Systems that break Combined Firepower.
How am I wrong?
Oh, and saying that you can house rule the issue is sidestepping the issue. You can houserule anything. An argument by RaW is an entirely different can of worms.
You can have an army consist of a CAD made up of the supplement... And a DBC out of Montka. A CAD out of Montka, and a formation out of Kauyon that is taken as FSE paying the BKR tax for whatever you needed too.
Incorrect as well. The FAQ changed "army" to "Detachment", so still the same concepts in play. So it seems this is only illegal in your head.
Did it? You might want to check that. The FAQ is very specific about which instances of army are changed to detachment.
Going off memory, this is still incorrect, as it tells you to select a Chapter Tactics when choosing a Detachment, and has since Chapter Tactics was introduced.
Again you conveniently "forget" the truth. Nothing in the SM codex tells you how to select a CT for a detachment.
So nothing is Written regarding your claim that Mont'ka overrides FSE by RAW, the Rules As Written.
Lying is impolite and does not help your argument. I have been very clear in my argument about what is RaW and what isn't.
FlingitNow wrote: Again you conveniently "forget" the truth. Nothing in the SM codex tells you how to select a CT for a detachment.
Doesn't this:
"When choosing an army, you must make a note of which Chapter each unit with the Chapter Tactics special rule is drawn from. All models in the same Detachment or Formation must be drawn from the same Chapter."
FlingitNow wrote: Again you conveniently "forget" the truth. Nothing in the SM codex tells you how to select a CT for a detachment.
Doesn't this:
"When choosing an army, you must make a note of which Chapter each unit with the Chapter Tactics special rule is drawn from. All models in the same Detachment or Formation must be drawn from the same Chapter."
?
You make note of which Chapter you are drawn from. Which Chapter you are drawn from is determined by your CTs, nothing tells you how to determine those CTs. It is a silly RaW argument, but that is still RaW.
You lost me there, FlingitNow. So what you are asking for is that the rulebook defines what making note means, otherwise you can't play the game by RAW? This here is the reason why YMDC turns into complete silliness.
Naw wrote: You lost me there, FlingitNow. So what you are asking for is that the rulebook defines what making note means, otherwise you can't play the game by RAW? This here is the reason why YMDC turns into complete silliness.
It doesn't need to define note unless it wants note to mean something other than the standard English definition. In normal English making a note of something isn't the same as choosing that. For instance if you make a note of my address you are not choosing where I live.
Naw wrote: You lost me there, FlingitNow. So what you are asking for is that the rulebook defines what making note means, otherwise you can't play the game by RAW? This here is the reason why YMDC turns into complete silliness.
It doesn't need to define note unless it wants note to mean something other than the standard English definition. In normal English making a note of something isn't the same as choosing that. For instance if you make a note of my address you are not choosing where I live.
Thanks for proving my point there. I however choose to take the context into account. You of course are free to play your marines without using any chapter tactics.
Now back to the topic, I'm not the only one who is confused by your comments instisting I suddenly could not field a CAD from the FSE supplement.
Grizzyzz wrote: I don't understand the issue you are having. Every detachment in your army, choose what chapter tactics make up that detachment.
Cool what rules tell you that you can do that?
Rudimentary reading comprehension? I really don't understand how you can read that and not think you're supposed to choose your chapter.
Which part gives permission to do that?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Now back to the topic, I'm not the only one who is confused by your comments instisting I suddenly could not field a CAD from the FSE supplement.
RaW you never could the same is true for all 6th Ed Supplements. If by suddenly you mean since the start of 7th Ed we have different definitions of suddenly...
-Warzone Damocles: Montka is NOT a Codex, therefore it does not invalidate the Farsight Enclaves Supplement.
-The Farsight Enclaves Supplement States " A Farsight Enclaves Detachment is chosen using the army list presented in Codex: Tau Empire. It also has a series of supplemental rules (presented below) that can be used in addition to the material found in Codex: Tau Empire. Note you can only use the options from one Codex Supplement when choosing your army.
-Codex: Tau Empire did not change, as stated in the WD released by GW. You could keep your current 6th Edition Codex: Tau Empire if you wanted, however if you wanted access to the new Formations and units you would have to buy Warzone Damocles: Kyuon. It specifically stated that in the WD.
Therefore according to how RAW you can still choose to field the FSE Supplement Book if you wish and run a Combined Arms Detachment of FSE out of it as it cannnot be replaced by a Campaign/Warzone book. If you wish to field a Dawn Blade Contigent you would have to use the rules for it found in the Mont'Ka book as it made up of a series of Formations. Since the FSE Forces found in the Supplement are listed as a Detachment (per the updated FAQ for it to be played in 7th Edition) you could still attach Formations from either the Tau Codex or either Campaign Books to this Combined Arms Detachment just like any army could. It is really that simple, GW has not come out and said that the Supplement is Illegal to run and there is nothing showing with how they went about the updated Tau hinting at it either. This also supports the rumors of a brand new Farsight Enclaves Supplement being released in January of next year, at that point and time if a new Supplement is released then and only then would it replace the current one.
FlingitNow wrote:[Lying is impolite and does not help your argument. I have been very clear in my argument about what is RaW and what isn't.
Convenient of you to clip the quote so you can present yourself as superior. Why are you lying in such a fashion?
Charistoph wrote:
Nothing declares Mont'ka overrides the FSE supplement. Just as nothing declares Codex: Craftworlds overrides Codex: Eldar.
So nothing is Written regarding your claim that Mont'ka overrides FSE by RAW, the Rules As Written.
Not sure how that changes anything? You've still lied about my argument which is still an impolite way to discuss.
You said nothing declares Mont'ka overrides the FSE supplement. That means nothing has been written to tell us to ignore the FSE supplement. If it is not Written, there is no Rules As Written to apply.
This is not lying, this is logic. I did not misquote you, which could be a form of lying, I used your words. If you intended them differently, than correct yourself.
You are taking a convention and calling it RAW, the same as calling Tradition as law.
If you can provide a quote from errata or book, that would be RAW, but you have not and called someone who quoted you properly a liar. Do you work in political journalism?
-The Farsight Enclaves Supplement States " A Farsight Enclaves Detachment is chosen using the army list presented in Codex: Tau Empire. It also has a series of supplemental rules (presented below) that can be used in addition to the material found in Codex: Tau Empire. Note you can only use the options from one Codex Supplement when choosing your army.
No it doesn't. That paragraph makes no mention of detachments.
You said nothing declares Mont'ka overrides the FSE supplement. That means nothing has been written to tell us to ignore the FSE supplement. If it is not Written, there is no Rules As Written to apply.
This is not lying, this is logic. I did not misquote you, which could be a form of lying, I used your words. If you intended them differently, than correct yourself.
You are taking a convention and calling it RAW, the same as calling Tradition as law.
If you can provide a quote from errata or book, that would be RAW, but you have not and called someone who quoted you properly a liar. Do you work in political journalism?
I've called someone who quoted then claimed I said the opposite of what I have said. I have NEVER stated that there is RaW that Mont'ka overrides the FSE Supplement. I in fact repeatedly stated the opposite. So why persist with this made up argument against something I have never posted? How is that going to help move the discussion forward or get us anywhere? Lying about what I have stated is lying which is rude and impolite and does not help the discussion. Please desist from this pattern of behaviour.
gmaleron wrote: -Warzone Damocles: Mon'tka is NOT a Codex, therefore it does not invalidate the Farsight Enclaves Supplement.
You keep saying this. Neither Mont'ka or FSE are codexes. Why does the statement that Montka is not a codex therefore say anything about whether or not it replaces another document that isn't a codex?
gmaleron wrote: GW has not come out and said that the Supplement is Illegal to run
You keep saying this as well but since GW (almost) never state this even when a codex or supplement is clearly being replaced the lack of this statement proves nothing.
gmaleron wrote: GW has not come out and said that the Supplement is Illegal to run
You keep saying this as well but since GW (almost) never state this even when a codex or supplement is clearly being replaced the lack of this statement proves nothing.
If you would read it all I explained and showed how there is no hint that they had any reason to discontinue it and RAW it is still playable since Codex: Tau Empire is still Codex: Tau Empire.
-The Farsight Enclaves Supplement States " A Farsight Enclaves DETACHMENTis chosen using the army list presented in Codex: Tau Empire. It also has a series of supplemental rules (presented below) that can be used in addition to the material found in Codex: Tau Empire. Note you can only use the options from one Codex Supplement when choosing your army.
No it doesn't. That paragraph makes no mention of detachments.
You need to read it again, it clearly dose thanks to the FAQ for 7th Edition.
gmaleron wrote: If you would read it all I explained and showed how there is no hint that they had any reason to discontinue it
Except for a newer version which is usually the only reason they need.
This is not a newer version, this is a Campaign book and Campaign books do not replace Codex's or Supplements. Your statement that GW has never verified this is false as well, they actually came out and said that the Iyanden one was Illegal and the Imperial Fist and Iron Hands Supplements were legal.
Grizzyzz wrote: I don't understand the issue you are having. Every detachment in your army, choose what chapter tactics make up that detachment.
Cool what rules tell you that you can do that?
It clearly states under chapter tactics, that when you take a detachment you choose your chapter for that detachment. Your army can be made of multiple detachments I e. CAD s, formations, allies, whatever.
You said nothing declares Mont'ka overrides the FSE supplement. That means nothing has been written to tell us to ignore the FSE supplement. If it is not Written, there is no Rules As Written to apply.
This is not lying, this is logic. I did not misquote you, which could be a form of lying, I used your words. If you intended them differently, than correct yourself.
You are taking a convention and calling it RAW, the same as calling Tradition as law.
If you can provide a quote from errata or book, that would be RAW, but you have not and called someone who quoted you properly a liar. Do you work in political journalism?
I've called someone who quoted then claimed I said the opposite of what I have said. I have NEVER stated that there is RaW that Mont'ka overrides the FSE Supplement. I in fact repeatedly stated the opposite. So why persist with this made up argument against something I have never posted? How is that going to help move the discussion forward or get us anywhere? Lying about what I have stated is lying which is rude and impolite and does not help the discussion. Please desist from this pattern of behaviour.
Lying is deliberately presenting misinformation. I'm taking information you have stated and the position you established to make this statement.
Let's look at your first post in this thread.
FlingitNow wrote:Cool RaW FSE supplement is still legal. RaW FSE Supplement (like all 6th Ed Supplements) doesn't work as there is no way of making any given detachment a FSE detachment without using the Mont'ka rules.
Mont'ka clearly updates the FSE supplement and thus replaces it. Much like when the Assassins can subsumed into Codex Grey Knights (and later separated). If you want to play RaW games you can't puck and choose which RaW applies and which doesn't.
If you weren't saying it, you sure were implying it on a very strong level. In the first paragraph you state it is legal, but then later on, you are stating that the only way to play FSE RAW is use Mont'ka.
But then, you didn't think there was a RAW method to play FSE in the first place, nor later on, so your judgement in this matter is suspect.
Can we not simply agree that per RAW Codex Supplement: Farsight Enclaves is simply still as legal as ever it was in 7th, which I think to any sensible person was probably the clear point of the thread?
You don't, because generally-accepted convention is that newer books supersede older where the rules refer to the same unit/faction/detachment.
The reality of course is that everything in this game is only as legal as your opponent is willing to play against, at the end of the day. You can't coerce someone into playing you on the basis that you're using the latest book with a completely legal Battle-forged list if they simply don't want to play it, for whatever reason.
Mr. Shine 674049 834142228b4d5cfe8bb4aac77957ba2adb866fd.jpg wrote:You don't, because generally-accepted convention is that newer books supersede older where the rules refer to the same unit/faction/detachment.
I agree the newer set of rules is the one you should follow, however this is a unique case because this is a Campaign / Warzone book. According to that logic then does that mean White Scars and Raven Guard can no longer be taken out of Codex Space Marines since they have updated / different rules in the Campaign book as well? Generally this is looked at not being the case as I have continually played people still running them out of the current Codex Space Marines so why shouldn't the same thing be extended to the Farsight Enclaves? In actuality they are exactly the same rule wise in both books except for Riptides not clearly being stated that they can take Signature Systems like they are in the FSE Supplement and you don't have to take all of The 8 in a single Formation, you can pick and choose. However that is easily ignored when you state where you're taking the Detachment from.
You said nothing declares Mont'ka overrides the FSE supplement. That means nothing has been written to tell us to ignore the FSE supplement. If it is not Written, there is no Rules As Written to apply.
This is not lying, this is logic. I did not misquote you, which could be a form of lying, I used your words. If you intended them differently, than correct yourself.
You are taking a convention and calling it RAW, the same as calling Tradition as law.
If you can provide a quote from errata or book, that would be RAW, but you have not and called someone who quoted you properly a liar. Do you work in political journalism?
I've called someone who quoted then claimed I said the opposite of what I have said. I have NEVER stated that there is RaW that Mont'ka overrides the FSE Supplement. I in fact repeatedly stated the opposite. So why persist with this made up argument against something I have never posted? How is that going to help move the discussion forward or get us anywhere? Lying about what I have stated is lying which is rude and impolite and does not help the discussion. Please desist from this pattern of behaviour.
Lying is deliberately presenting misinformation. I'm taking information you have stated and the position you established to make this statement.
Let's look at your first post in this thread.
FlingitNow wrote:Cool RaW FSE supplement is still legal. RaW FSE Supplement (like all 6th Ed Supplements) doesn't work as there is no way of making any given detachment a FSE detachment without using the Mont'ka rules.
Mont'ka clearly updates the FSE supplement and thus replaces it. Much like when the Assassins can subsumed into Codex Grey Knights (and later separated). If you want to play RaW games you can't puck and choose which RaW applies and which doesn't.
If you weren't saying it, you sure were implying it on a very strong level. In the first paragraph you state it is legal, but then later on, you are stating that the only way to play FSE RAW is use Mont'ka.
But then, you didn't think there was a RAW method to play FSE in the first place, nor later on, so your judgement in this matter is suspect.
Did you bother to even read the quote? I never stated nor implied RaW was that Mont'ka overrides FSE Supplement. In that very post I point out the opposite (that you need to use a little common sense to realise that Mont'ka overrides FSE much like you need common sense toeven be able to use FSE in the first place, hence the comment about picking and choosing when to apply strict RaW). Basic comprehension here.
gmaleron wrote: GW has not come out and said that the Supplement is Illegal to run
You keep saying this as well but since GW (almost) never state this even when a codex or supplement is clearly being replaced the lack of this statement proves nothing.
If you would read it all I explained and showed how there is no hint that they had any reason to discontinue it and RAW it is still playable since Codex: Tau Empire is still Codex: Tau Empire.
-The Farsight Enclaves Supplement States " A Farsight Enclaves DETACHMENTis chosen using the army list presented in Codex: Tau Empire. It also has a series of supplemental rules (presented below) that can be used in addition to the material found in Codex: Tau Empire. Note you can only use the options from one Codex Supplement when choosing your army.
No it doesn't. That paragraph makes no mention of detachments.
You need to read it again, it clearly dose thanks to the FAQ for 7th Edition.
If I make a note that my army uses Chapter Tactics: Crustacean Overlords you're going to have to take my word for it, because there's no rule that lets you appeal (except Rule 1, but y'know...). I'm not choosing a Chapter Tactic, I'm noting one as being inherent in the army list I'm writing.
Your statement that GW has never verified this is false as well, they actually came out and said that the Iyanden one was Illegal and the Imperial Fist and Iron Hands Supplements were legal.
Reading comprehension is apparently a problem. I said that GW had (almost) never specified. There are a few examples where they did specify but in the vast majority of cases of books being superseded there is no comment or pronouncement.
No it's up to the one that claims that a Campain Book replace a codex supplement to prove this claim.
Actually - gmaleron is the person making the assertion (he's said repeatedly from him first post in this thread that a campaign book cannot replace a supplement) so it's on him to provide some kind of evidence.
Scott-S6 wrote: Reading comprehension is apparently a problem. I said that GW had (almost) never specified. There are a few examples where they did specify but in the vast majority of cases of books being superseded there is no comment or pronouncement.
No need to be childish because even then you're wrong. With the Codex's that have Supplements that have been redone during 7th Edition/ recently (Eldar, Space Marines and Tau) all have had their Supplements addressed so no its not only a few, its all of them. And I have to double check when I get home as I am at work currently but a good indicator is how it's labeled on the Games Workshop site. Warzone Damocles Kauyon is listed under "Expansions" not under "Codexs or Supplements".
And hypothetically if you were right that would mean according to your argument that the Imperial Guard, White Scars and Raven Guard can no longer be taken out of Codex Space Marines or Codex Astra Militarium since their updated rules are in Warzone Damocles: Kauyon and Mont'ka. That would also mean that Codex: Blood Angels and Codex: Tyranids would have to take the rules out of their Warzone: Baal book since it came out after their respective Codexs were released. That doesn't make any sense at all, what makes more sense is that these are new and optional Detachments and Formations being added on to already existing rules.
And right back at you, prove it that campaign / warzone book rules supersede and are considered "new/updated rules when compared to current and valid Codex and Supplement rules. You demand proof supporting my argument I demand the same.
Page 129 of the Farsight Enclaves says this, right at the beginning of "The Army of the Farsight Enclaves". The FAQ which was updated for 7th Edition states "Replace all instances of " Farsight Enclaves Army" with "Farsight Enclaves Detachment".
Grizzyzz wrote: Regardless of books. Let's assume both a legal.
How do you then enter a game with an FSE force. And not have your opponents question you since montka and the supplement provide different rules?
You have a 30 second conversation with your opponent and tell them which rules source you're using.
How do I put down a Tactical Squad and not have my opponent question me since Blood Angels and Space Marines provide different rules? Same answer. I tell him which rules I'm using.
Scott-S6 wrote: Reading comprehension is apparently a problem. I said that GW had (almost) never specified. There are a few examples where they did specify but in the vast majority of cases of books being superseded there is no comment or pronouncement.
No need to be childish because even then you're wrong. With the Codex's that have Supplements that have been redone during 7th Edition/ recently (Eldar, Space Marines and Tau) all have had their Supplements addressed so no its not only a few, its all of them. And I have to double check when I get home as I am at work currently but a good indicator is how it's labeled on the Games Workshop site. Warzone Damocles Kauyon is listed under "Expansions" not under "Codexs or Supplements".
And hypothetically if you were right that would mean according to your argument that the Imperial Guard, White Scars and Raven Guard can no longer be taken out of Codex Space Marines or Codex Astra Militarium since their updated rules are in Warzone Damocles: Kauyon and Mont'ka. That would also mean that Codex: Blood Angels and Codex: Tyranids would have to take the rules out of their Warzone: Baal book since it came out after their respective Codexs were released. That doesn't make any sense at all, what makes more sense is that these are new and optional Detachments and Formations being added on to already existing rules.
And right back at you, prove it that campaign / warzone book rules supersede and are considered "new/updated rules when compared to current and valid Codex and Supplement rules. You demand proof supporting my argument I demand the same.
Page 129 of the Farsight Enclaves says this, right at the beginning of "The Army of the Farsight Enclaves". The FAQ which was updated for 7th Edition states "Replace all instances of " Farsight Enclaves Army" with "Farsight Enclaves Detachment".
So your first part is just ludicrous as you can't use Mont'ka for guard WITHOUT the AM Codex. So stop trying that ludicrous argument as that is not remotely similar. Also note how you're comparing Codexes rather than Supplements. If there was say a Cadian supplement then yes you could argue it would have been replaced by Mont'ka.
As for the part addressing me please quote the entire FAQ as it does not effect the paragraph you have mentioned it specifies in which sections that army is replaced by Detachment...
FlingitNow wrote: So your first part is just ludicrous as you can't use Mont'ka for guard WITHOUT the AM Codex. So stop trying that ludicrous argument as that is not remotely similar. Also note how you're comparing Codexes rather than Supplements. If there was say a Cadian supplement then yes you could argue it would have been replaced by Mont'ka.
As for the part addressing me please quote the entire FAQ as it does not effect the paragraph you have mentioned it specifies in which sections that army is replaced by Detachment...
Really imagine that, you cant use the Farsight Enclaves Supplement WITHOUT Codex: Tau Empire, and I notice you did not address the White Scars, Blood Angels or Raven Guard with their special rules found in their Campaign books, does that mean they have to run their rules from the Campaign Book over the Codex as well? Its not ludicrous, what's ludicrous is the fact that you have yet to provide any proof or fact backing up your statements. And yes it does effect the paragraph are you serious?
" A Farsight Enclaves Detachment is chosen using the army list presented in Codex: Tau Empire. It also has a series of supplemental rules (presented below) that can be used in addition to the material found in Codex: Tau Empire. Note you can only use the options from one Codex Supplement when choosing your army."
Tell me how it does not effect the paragraph when it clearly effects the paragraph and the army as a whole?
Also from Warzone Damocles Mont'ka:
"This Chapter describes several new Formations that enable you to field your Tau miniatures in specific combinations on the battlefield, reflecting the diverse makeup of Tau Cadres. In addition, it presents a new Detachment, wargear and rules that can be used to reflect the organization and fighting practices of the Tau armies from the Farsight Enclaves."
Nowhere in there does it say that you cannot utilize the FSE Supplement Book or the rules found in it. This is just like the White Scars and the Raven Guard who have a similar entry written in Kauyon, so according to your logic if the Farsight Enclaves have to run their armies out of the updated Warzone Book (which it says that nowhere in it) then the White Scars and Raven Guard would have to as well. Bottom line the Farsight Enclaves Supplement has rules that allow it to be run in 7th Edition and there is nothing stating anywhere that you can not continue to do so, who knew that wanting to run a few members of the 8 outside of the Formation would cause such drama.
Actually the White Scars, BAs etc is exactly same as AM as they are CODEXES and you NEED to use the codex to use the campaign book. The campaign books function as Supplements in that way.
On the paragraph what section is it in? Battlesuit Spearhead? Ork Hunters? Ta'lissera Bond? Farsight's Commander Team? Divergent Destiny?
If it is not in one of those sections it is not effected by the FAQ.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Nowhere in there does it say that you cannot utilize the FSE Supplement Book or the rules found in it. This is just like the White Scars and the Raven Guard who have a similar entry written in Kauyon, so according to your logic if the Farsight Enclaves have to run their armies out of the updated Warzone Book (which it says that nowhere in it) then the White Scars and Raven Guard would have to as well. Bottom line the Farsight Enclaves Supplement has rules that allow it to be run in 7th Edition and there is nothing stating anywhere that you can not continue to do so, who knew that wanting to run a few members of the 8 outside of the Formation would cause such drama.
If there was such a thing as Supplement White Scars or Supplement Ravenguard you'd have a point. But there isn't so you don't. You do understand codexes and supplements are different right?
FlingitNow wrote:Did you bother to even read the quote? I never stated nor implied RaW was that Mont'ka overrides FSE Supplement. In that very post I point out the opposite (that you need to use a little common sense to realise that Mont'ka overrides FSE much like you need common sense toeven be able to use FSE in the first place, hence the comment about picking and choosing when to apply strict RaW). Basic comprehension here.
Did you?
FlingitNow wrote:Mont'ka clearly updates the FSE supplement and thus replaces it. Much like when the Assassins can subsumed into Codex Grey Knights (and later separated). If you want to play RaW games you can't puck and choose which RaW applies and which doesn't.
You believe that it clearly updates it, but without any direct written word, it is not clear, it is assumed. Then you say that in RAW games you can't pick and choose, implying that by RAW, Mont'ka replaces FSE.
And no, common sense was not need to be able to use FSE in the first place, that is only an assumption on your part.
FlingitNow wrote:
gmaleron wrote: Page 129 of the Farsight Enclaves says this, right at the beginning of "The Army of the Farsight Enclaves". The FAQ which was updated for 7th Edition states "Replace all instances of " Farsight Enclaves Army" with "Farsight Enclaves Detachment".
As for the part addressing me please quote the entire FAQ as it does not effect the paragraph you have mentioned it specifies in which sections that army is replaced by Detachment...
Let's see:
Spoiler:
AMENDMENTS
Page 50 - Battlesuit Spearhead, Ork Hunters, Ta'lissera Bond, Farsight's Commander Team and Divergent Destiny
Replace all instances of 'Farsight Enclaves army' with 'Farsight Enclaves Detachment'.
Signature Systems also replaces 'your army' with 'a Farsight Enclaves Detachment.
The introductory paragraph of The Army of the Farsight Enclaves:
Spoiler:
A Farsight Enclaves army is chosen using the army list presented in Codex: Tau Empire. It also has a series of supplemental rules (presented below) that can be used in addition to the material found in Codex: Tau Empire. Note that you can only use the options from one codex supplement when choosing your army.
And the Rulebook:
Spoiler:
ARMY SELECTION METHODS There are many ways to choose an army, and they all have their strengths...
...
The two main ways of organising an army are the Unbound method and the Battleforged method. Both players need not use the same method.
...
Battle-forged Armies A player using the Battle-forged method must organise all the units they want to use into Detachments. Detachments are made up of units that conform to various requirements. For example, one common type of Detachment requires the use of at least one HQ unit and two Troops units; another might require that only units from Codex: Orks be included. As a reward for adhering to these requirements, each Detachment grants its own Command Benefits to the units within it, which can really enhance their effectiveness in battle.
...
DETACHMENTS Armies are usually structured organisations; even the Orks organise their warriors into mobs and warbands, though perhaps not with quite the same vigour as the Astra Militarum organises its squads, platoons, companies and regiments.
As discussed above, there are many ways to forge a collection of Citadel miniatures into an army ready to crush your enemies in games of Warhammer 40,000. This section focuses on the Battle-forged method. If you opt to choose an army using this method, your units are organised into Detachments and many gain special rules and in-game advantages.
...
There is no limit to the number of Detachments a Battle-forged army can include and you can use any mixture of Detachments you have available, within the restrictions of the rules that follow. However, all of the units in your army must belong to a Detachment and no unit can belong to more than one Detachment. If you choose to use a Battle-forged army, you must tell your opponent what units belong to what Detachments and what Command Benefits each will receive (if any) before you start deploying your army.
...
In order to organise their army into Detachments, a player will often need to use additional information found in their units’ Army List Entries, such as Faction and Battlefield Role.
FACTIONS
All units belong to one of the many Factions that are fighting in the 41st Millennium. This will often be represented on the unit’s Army List Entry with a symbol, the key for which can be found to the right. A unit’s Faction applies regardless of how you choose your army, but is especially relevant to Detachments because many state that you can only include units of a particular Faction. Factions are also used when including Allies,
and some special rules will apply only to specific Factions. Note that Fortifications are an exception in that, unless otherwise stated on their datasheet, they do not have a Faction.
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.
Still no definition of what turns a Detachment containing Tau Empire Faction units into a Farsight Enclaves Detachment. Still no way to make that designation. Note how Mont'ka does have such a rule. Now with some common sense we can infer that as FSE uses the Tau Empire units that any detachment containing TE faction units can be designated a FSE Detachment and thus triggers all the FSE rules. However nothing states that so we use common sense. Just as nothing states that Codex: Craftworlds updated and replaced Codex: Eldar so we use some common sense. So either we take the common sense route and you can't use FSE as it was clearly updated by Mont'ka. Or we use the pure RaW aporoach in which case FSE was not updated by Mont'ka but is also unfortunately unusable due to having no RaW way to make a FSE detachment.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
gmaleron wrote: ^^ Key phrase in there is Replace all instances of 'Farsight Enclaves army' with 'Farsight Enclaves Detachment'.
Only in the sections it tells you to do that! You can't take half a sentence and apply it. Otherwise at the start of the game were you deploy 2nd I'll declare myself the winner as you have no models on the table...
FlingitNow wrote: Still no definition of what turns a Detachment containing Tau Empire Faction units into a Farsight Enclaves Detachment. Still no way to make that designation. Note how Mont'ka does have such a rule. Now with some common sense we can infer that as FSE uses the Tau Empire units that any detachment containing TE faction units can be designated a FSE Detachment and thus triggers all the FSE rules. However nothing states that so we use common sense. Just as nothing states that Codex: Craftworlds updated and replaced Codex: Eldar so we use some common sense. So either we take the common sense route and you can't use FSE as it was clearly updated by Mont'ka. Or we use the pure RaW aporoach in which case FSE was not updated by Mont'ka but is also unfortunately unusable due to having no RaW way to make a FSE detachment.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
gmaleron wrote: ^^ Key phrase in there is Replace all instances of 'Farsight Enclaves army' with 'Farsight Enclaves Detachment'.
Only in the sections it tells you to do that! You can't take half a sentence and apply it. Otherwise at the start of the game were you deploy 2nd I'll declare myself the winner as you have no models on the table...
just give it up already jeez lol. As of right now they still sell FSE codex. That should be indication enough that it is still usable.
FlingitNow wrote: Still no definition of what turns a Detachment containing Tau Empire Faction units into a Farsight Enclaves Detachment. Still no way to make that designation. Note how Mont'ka does have such a rule. Now with some common sense we can infer that as FSE uses the Tau Empire units that any detachment containing TE faction units can be designated a FSE Detachment and thus triggers all the FSE rules. However nothing states that so we use common sense. Just as nothing states that Codex: Craftworlds updated and replaced Codex: Eldar so we use some common sense. So either we take the common sense route and you can't use FSE as it was clearly updated by Mont'ka. Or we use the pure RaW aporoach in which case FSE was not updated by Mont'ka but is also unfortunately unusable due to having no RaW way to make a FSE detachment.
How is it Common Sense if it is an opinion? It can be easily argued that its "common sense" that these are just new Formations and unique detachments for a currently exisiting army (which makes sense why the Campaign Books are listed under "Expansions" on GW). There is no proof of Campaign/Warzone Books negating Codex or Supplement Options otherwise White Scars and Raven Guard would be in the same position as the Farsight Enclaves as well as Tyranids and Blood Angels. It makes more "common sense" that these are different options to run an army, not a direct replacement otherwise the armies mentioned would be as adversely effected as the Farsight Enclaves. Also it was "Codex: Eldar Craftworlds" that replaced Codex: Eldar, not a Campaign Warzone book which is what the discussion topic origionates from so that logic does not apply here, it was a Codex replacing a Codex.
FlingitNow wrote: Only in the sections it tells you to do that! You can't take half a sentence and apply it. Otherwise at the start of the game were you deploy 2nd I'll declare myself the winner as you have no models on the table...
Funny thing is that "section" is also the same section that has the the quote I provided...sorry your wrong again.
Grizzyzz wrote: Regardless of books. Let's assume both a legal.
How do you then enter a game with an FSE force. And not have your opponents question you since montka and the supplement provide different rules?
You have a 30 second conversation with your opponent and tell them which rules source you're using.
How do I put down a Tactical Squad and not have my opponent question me since Blood Angels and Space Marines provide different rules? Same answer. I tell him which rules I'm using.
Exactly.. thanks for solving the entire debate of this thread as it stands right now
The really funny part is that ALL of these things, codices, supplements, and campaign books, are all nothing but expansions of the Warhammer 40,000 game system.
But yeah, Kriswall's point is perfectly valid. Communication is key in this.
You believe that it clearly updates it, but without any direct written word, it is not clear, it is assumed. Then you say that in RAW games you can't pick and choose, implying that by RAW, Mont'ka replaces FSE.
And no, common sense was not need to be able to use FSE in the first place, that is only an assumption on your part.
Nice try at again lying about my argument. It clearly updates the FSE supplement just as Codex: Craftworlds clearly updates Codex: Eldar. Yet neither states it. The point on using RaW is you have to use it or commonsense. You can't claim common sense to allow the FSE to work when RaW it doesn't then flip to hardline RaW to claim Mont'ka doesn't replace it...
I also note how you clipped my post to remove context too...
You believe that it clearly updates it, but without any direct written word, it is not clear, it is assumed. Then you say that in RAW games you can't pick and choose, implying that by RAW, Mont'ka replaces FSE.
And no, common sense was not need to be able to use FSE in the first place, that is only an assumption on your part.
Nice try at again lying about my argument. It clearly updates the FSE supplement just as Codex: Craftworlds clearly updates Codex: Eldar. Yet neither states it. The point on using RaW is you have to use it or commonsense. You can't claim common sense to allow the FSE to work when RaW it doesn't then flip to hardline RaW to claim Mont'ka doesn't replace it...
I also note how you clipped my post to remove context too...
And i also love how you just ignored the last 4 posts that all mention that GW still sells FSE codex... lol
FlingitNow wrote: Nice try at again lying about my argument. It clearly updates the FSE supplement just as Codex: Craftworlds clearly updates Codex: Eldar. Yet neither states it. The point on using RaW is you have to use it or commonsense. You can't claim common sense to allow the FSE to work when RaW it doesn't then flip to hardline RaW to claim Mont'ka doesn't replace it...I also note how you clipped my post to remove context too...
It is a Codex updating a Codex, this is completely different. Since when has any Campaign or Warzone Book ever replaced a Codex or a Supplement? Answer the question where is your proof, and according to your logic does that mean White Scars and Raven Guard have to be taken out of Kauyon only now because of the rules they have in there? You are the one lacking Common Sense here, despite all the evidence we have proven to the contrary (and you continually ignore) you continue to try and has an assumption as "common sense".
FlingitNow wrote: Only in the sections it tells you to do that! You can't take half a sentence and apply it. Otherwise at the start of the game were you deploy 2nd I'll declare myself the winner as you have no models on the table...
Yeah, those are the best kind of games!
notredameguy10 wrote: just give it up already jeez lol. As of right now they still sell FSE codex. That should be indication enough that it is still usable.
How is it Common Sense if it is an opinion? It can be easily argued that its "common sense" that these are just new Formations and unique detachments for a currently exisiting army (which makes sense why the Campaign Books are listed under "Expansions" on GW). There is no proof of Campaign/Warzone Books negating Codex or Supplement Options otherwise White Scars and Raven Guard would be in the same position as the Farsight Enclaves as well as Tyranids and Blood Angels. It makes more "common sense" that these are different options to run an army, not a direct replacement otherwise the armies mentioned would be as adversely effected as the Farsight Enclaves. Also it was "Codex: Eldar Craftworlds" that replaced Codex: Eldar, not a Campaign Warzone book which is what the discussion topic origionates from so that logic does not apply here, it was a Codex replacing a Codex.
Sorry but how are White Scars etc even remotely comparable to the situation being discussed? Those are codexes that are having rules added to them by the Campaign supplement, those rules don't function without the codex. The fact you keep repeating this tired debunked argument without even attempting to consider the pounts raised against it illustrates that you know the argument has no weight. Thus if you repeat it again I'll have to assume you are trolling and take that as your concession.
Funny thing is that "section" is also the same section that has the the quote I provided...sorry your wrong again.
So what section is that quote in? What sections does the FAQ cover?
FlingitNow wrote: Sorry but how are White Scars etc even remotely comparable to the situation being discussed? Those are codexes that are having rules added to them by the Campaign supplement, those rules don't function without the codex.
sorry, can you step back and consider what you just said? THEY ARE PRECISELY THE SAME THING!!!
FlingitNow wrote: Sorry but how are White Scars etc even remotely comparable to the situation being discussed? Those are codexes that are having rules added to them by the Campaign supplement, those rules don't function without the codex.
sorry, can you step back and consider what you just said? THEY ARE PRECISELY THE SAME THING!!!
Sorry what? In one case we have a campaign book that gives new rules for a codex but requires the codex in order to function. In the other we have a Codex that was being added to by a supplement and now have a campaign book that adds to the codex in the same way and regarding the same subject (Farsight Enclaves). You don't need the Farsight Enclaves book to utilise Mont'ka and Mobt'ka makes no reference to it. I'm not sure why you think it does?
Of course when it comes to Space Marines its a double standard why am I not surprised, it is the same scenario with an extra step. The Farsight Enclaves book as I've stated multiple times uses the rules and list found in Codex: Tau Empire which still exists. There is nothing that invalidates it in the Campaign Book therefore there is nothing stopping me from taking a Detachment (which FAQ fixed for 7th) from the Supplement which is still available for purchase in all GW stores. Also it is not the same, Mont'ka adds a new Detachment and Formations for the Farsight Enclaves which still needs Codex: Tau Empire to function. Biggest reason here is if it was invalidated they would not keep selling it or have it available to purchase, its not that hard to understand.
gmaleron wrote: Of course when it comes to Space Marines its a double standard why am I not surprised, it is the same scenario with an extra step. The Farsight Enclaves book as I've stated multiple times uses the rules and list found in Codex: Tau Empire which still exists. There is nothing that invalidates it in the Campaign Book therefore there is nothing stopping me from taking a Detachment (which FAQ fixed for 7th) from the Supplement which is still available for purchase in all GW stores. Also it is not the same, Mont'ka adds a new Detachment and Formations for the Farsight Enclaves which still needs Codex: Tau Empire to function. Biggest reason here is if it was invalidated they would not keep selling it or have it available to purchase, its not that hard to understand.
How is it a double standard? The campaign book rules function as supplements function not as Codexes function. The Campaign book gives full rules on how to field FSE detachments, it is not rocket science to work out that this thus supercedes old FSE detachment rules.
RaW FSE Supplement doesn't work. So if you want to use it at all you need to use common sense, pleading common sense for your supplement to work then switching to hardline RaW to ignore the fact that it has been updated in a Campaign Supplement is abut rich to say the least. Either go RaW and no FSE Supplement detachments can ever exist, or go RaI and the FSE Supplement gas been superceded by Mont'ka. Either way no FSE Supplement.
Grizzyzz wrote: So what is the actual issue that this is even relevant?
Everything you can do in FSE you can do better in Montka.
The one caveat being in montka the ECPA is not accessible, but I mean.. not that big of a deal.
It's mainly you can take the 8 sperately is why I'm interested. And false Flingit there is nothing RAW saying you can't use it, you have not provided anything stating that it isn't legal. It is YOUR ASSUMPTION its Common Sense, its not the written law. It also makes perfect sense that the rules in the campaign book are things you add on to the current supplement like they add on to the space marine codex for the white scars and raven guard. It is a different detachment, the Supplement has not been updated nor replaced, unless you have something that proves it (which I know you don't as of yet). Also makes no sense why it would be available for sale on GW if it wasn't legal.
Grizzyzz wrote: The one caveat being in montka the ECPA is not accessible, but I mean.. not that big of a deal.
Except that it apparently was to the OP.
Does no one find it funny that you can now take Shadowsun and\or Aun'va in a FSE Detachment? The FSE Supplement had rules specifically forbidding it (Divergent Destiny), but my understanding of Mont'ka is that it is another 'mistake' in the new rules. After all if form followed fluff, no Ethereals or Shadowsun need apply to a FSE list.
OP, if the Farsight Enclaves Supplement has not been replaced, then by all means use it. Just keep in mind though - Pg.50 of the Farsight Enclaves Supplement, the bold bit, last sentence; 'Note that you can only use the options from one codex supplement when choosing your army.' What this means, if you use your train of thought about the Mont'Ka book, namely that it functions as a supplement, is made illegal to use by the quoted sentence in the FSE Supplement.
GW Customer Service is unreliable and completely unofficial when it comes to rules. Ask another sales rep and you're likely to get a totally different answer.
The FSE Supplement is clearly a 6th Edition ruleset that worked well enough with the 6th edition TE codex and the 7th edition BRBCAD and AD.
With the release of the 7th Edition Codex as well as the Campaign books these rules showed their age and needed updating so that the FSE can work with all the new formations.
The Mont'ka rules are obvious 7th edition updates to the 6th edition supplement rules and these new rules contain both buffs and nerfs (or as they are commonly referred to on this forum: obvious errors in need of a FAQ to fix).
You should use either the Mont'ka book or the FSE Supplement and not both at once, otherwise what you are telling your opponent is, you want to use the buffs found in the 7th edition rules while ignoring the nerfs by using the 6th edition version of those rules.
That will always sound shady to your opponent no matter how you phrase your rules argument for doing so.
It's the closest thing to "official" you're going to get from GW. Either responses from GW staff are official or they aren't, and if they aren't then I'm not really sure who we should listen to, because you sure as feth don't have any more authority than GW itself does. And I'm not really keen to listen to you if your argument is that I have to go out and buy a $75 book that's completely useless to me for everything other than those precious few pages with supposedly updated content for my $50 FSE book that's barely even two years old, and still works just fine today if you apply a little bit of common sense when you're using it. If I'm not interested in the new "Taucurion" and FSE-themed formations (which, let's be honest, I wouldn't be "allowed" to use anyway, just like the ones in my new Tau Empire book that was also a huge waste of money) then there's really no reason for me to buy Mont'ka.
As far as I'm concerned, the fact that it's still available for purchase on GW's website, more than a month after the updated Tau Empire codex and the release of both of the Tau campaign supplements, is all the proof one needs that it's still legal and not "replaced" by the Mont'ka book. If it was truly invalid now after the release of Mont'ka then GW would have removed it from sale, as was the case with the Iyanden supplement and every other codex that's received an update since the beginning. GW are dicks, but one thing they don't do is continue to sell outdated rules content without telling anyone it's outdated.
So far the only possible explanation I've seen offered up for this is that there's still fluff content in the FSE supplement that wasn't reprinted and GW didn't want to take that away from us...all I have to say to that is "lol", since they never gave a feth about that before so why now? They never gave a gak about retconning, changing, or just flat-out removing fluff from newer codices whenever it suited them, so I'm not about to buy this fantasy that GW couldn't bear to rob the world of fluff bits in the FSE book, and thought the only possible solution was to keep selling a $41 book that was completely useless and out of date, just for the background in it. Also, I noticed Clan Raukaan was no longer available either, and I'm pretty sure that book also had fluff content in it that wasn't reprinted in the updated Space Marines codex, so I really don't think that's the case with FSE.
Grizzyzz wrote: So what is the actual issue that this is even relevant?
Everything you can do in FSE you can do better in Montka.
The one caveat being in montka the ECPA is not accessible, but I mean.. not that big of a deal.
Right, which makes me wonder why the feth everyone is so stubbornly opposed to letting us use the old one. I already wasted money on the updated Tau Empire book that was a 96% copy/paste job of the old one, I'm not going to blow close to $100 on a campaign book that is utterly useless to me for everything except a few precious pages of supposedly "updated" rules content for a $50 supplement I already bought barely two years ago, which as far as I'm aware of, is just a new "Taucurion" variant and a couple formations I don't really give a feth about. Considering no one will let me run the "Taucurion" or the formations in the updated Tau Empire codex that I already bought on account of them being "OP", I see absolutely no reason to waste my money on the new campaign supplement only to be told that I can't use it anyway and that I'm WAAC for even trying. feth that.
Lusiphur wrote: You should use either the Mont'ka book or the FSE Supplement and not both at once
Was anyone actually arguing that, though? I don't think the issue here is anyone trying to use both FSE and the Mont'ka book, but rather which of the two is legal. The argument is that Mont'ka "replaced" FSE so you can't use the old FSE book anymore, even though the FSE book is still currently available on GW's site alongside the new Mont'ka book.
carldooley wrote: The FSE Supplement had rules specifically forbidding it (Divergent Destiny), but my understanding of Mont'ka is that it is another 'mistake' in the new rules. After all if form followed fluff, no Ethereals or Shadowsun need apply to a FSE list.
I don't think it was a mistake (divergent destiny) given that in the campaign both TE and FSE are present.
Sidstyler wrote: It's the closest thing to "official" you're going to get from GW. Either responses from GW staff are official or they aren't, and if they aren't and if they aren't then I'm not really sure who we should listen to, because you sure as feth don't have any more authority than GW itself does.
They're not official, nor are they consistent. GW sales reps have no more insight into the rules than an average player. GW has an avenue for official rules clarifications via their FAQs, not their sales reps waiting for someone to call and ask the right question.
Just want to clarify though the ECPA is a small part I am primarily interested in being able to take the 8 separately and not be forced to take the Formation as a whole.
As far as I'm concerned, the fact that it's still available for purchase on GW's website, more than a month after the updated Tau Empire codex and the release of both of the Tau campaign supplements, is all the proof one needs that it's still legal and not "replaced" by the Mont'ka book. If it was truly invalid now after the release of Mont'ka then GW would have removed it from sale, as was the case with the Iyanden supplement and every other codex that's received an update since the beginning. GW are dicks, but one thing they don't do is continue to sell outdated rules content without telling anyone it's outdated.
For me personally I found montka better then Kauyon. At least for content I use. I play FSE and DBC. I really only use OSC out of Kauyon
It's mainly you can take the 8 sperately is why I'm interested. And false Flingit there is nothing RAW saying you can't use it, you have not provided anything stating that it isn't legal. It is YOUR ASSUMPTION its Common Sense, its not the written law. It also makes perfect sense that the rules in the campaign book are things you add on to the current supplement like they add on to the space marine codex for the white scars and raven guard. It is a different detachment, the Supplement has not been updated nor replaced, unless you have something that proves it (which I know you don't as of yet). Also makes no sense why it would be available for sale on GW if it wasn't legal.
Yes it is my assumption that Mont'ka replaces FSE. Like it is my assumption that Codex: Craftworlds replaces Codex: Eldar.
However RaW FSE can never be used as proven in this thread. There are simply no rules that allow you to make a FSE detachment only rules that tell you want happens when you do. This is the issue with all 6th Ed codexes that RaW they don't work in 7th Ed unless you use a little common sense.
It's mainly you can take the 8 sperately is why I'm interested. And false Flingit there is nothing RAW saying you can't use it, you have not provided anything stating that it isn't legal. It is YOUR ASSUMPTION its Common Sense, its not the written law. It also makes perfect sense that the rules in the campaign book are things you add on to the current supplement like they add on to the space marine codex for the white scars and raven guard. It is a different detachment, the Supplement has not been updated nor replaced, unless you have something that proves it (which I know you don't as of yet). Also makes no sense why it would be available for sale on GW if it wasn't legal.
Yes it is my assumption that Mont'ka replaces FSE. Like it is my assumption that Codex: Craftworlds replaces Codex: Eldar.
However RaW FSE can never be used as proven in this thread. There are simply no rules that allow you to make a FSE detachment only rules that tell you want happens when you do. This is the issue with all 6th Ed codexes that RaW they don't work in 7th Ed unless you use a little common sense.
I love that in every single thread you are in you can NEVER admit you are wrong. And once again, you refuse to acknowledge the fact that GW still sells FSE, meaning it is legal.
Every single post you have given is merely HYWPI, not RAW
I love that in every single thread you are in you can NEVER admit you are wrong. And once again, you refuse to acknowledge the fact that GWstill sells FSE, meaning it is legal.
Every single post you have given is merely HYWPI, not RAW
I do admit I am wrong when I am wrong. In fact I'm one of the people that is most willing to do so on YMDC. In this case RaW FSE doesn't function. That is indisputable RaW as proven in this thread. If you want to discuss HYWPI or intent I'm going to suggest using the Mont'ka version of the Farsight rules which are up to date and function within 7th Ed.
So why exactly FSE doesnt work? because there is no sentence that tells you something like " If you want to use a FSE Detachment you have to do this n that?"
As far as i know the FSE Sup tells you something like " A FSE Detachment uses TE Codex with this aditional rules... "
I cant find my FSE Sup Book so i cant make a exact quote...
I love that in every single thread you are in you can NEVER admit you are wrong. And once again, you refuse to acknowledge the fact that GWstill sells FSE, meaning it is legal.
Every single post you have given is merely HYWPI, not RAW
I do admit I am wrong when I am wrong. In fact I'm one of the people that is most willing to do so on YMDC. In this case RaW FSE doesn't function. That is indisputable RaW as proven in this thread. If you want to discuss HYWPI or intent I'm going to suggest using the Mont'ka version of the Farsight rules which are up to date and function within 7th Ed.
Except, once again for the 6th time now, you have ignored the fact that GW STILL SELLS FSE. IF THEY STILL SELL ITIT IS STIlL LEGAL. I don't know how difficult that is to understand
FSE is obviously legal. It's still in print and still available from Games Workshop. SOME of the rules it contains were modified/reprinted in Mont'ka, but not all of them. How one makes a FSE Detachment is SUPER OBVIOUS to everyone who has played with FSE since 7th Edition came out.
I think FlingItNow is just arguing to argue at this point. I think it's sort of like the Psyker IC thing. He might be the guy who can't go to sleep until everyone agrees with him that the rules are broken.
You're missing his point. He's staying that Farsight Enclaves doesn't function at the detachment selection level, as the FAQ only replaces 'army' with 'detachment' for the paragraphs AFTER the supplement tells you a Farsight Enclaves army (not corrected to detachment) is chosen using the army list in Codex: Tau Empire, i.e. the rules tell you how to take a Farsight Enclaves army, but not a detachment.
Still, at a glance it seems entirely functional per RAW to me if all detachments (therefore your 'army') are selected using the Farsight Enclaves supplement rules, so you may be wrong in claiming the Farsight Enclaves supplement doesn't work at all per RAW, FlingItNow.
Mr. Shine wrote: You're missing his point. He's staying that Farsight Enclaves doesn't function at the detachment selection level, as the FAQ only replaces 'army' with 'detachment' for the paragraphs AFTER the supplement tells you a Farsight Enclaves army (not corrected to detachment) is chosen using the army list in Codex: Tau Empire.
Still, at a glance it seems entirely functional per RAW to me if all detachments (therefore your 'army') are selected using the Farsight Enclaves supplement rules, so you may be wrong in claiming the Farsight Enclaves supplement doesn't work at all per RAW, FlingItNow.
I'm not sure the Farsight Enclaves Army section works at all in 7th. But I can see the argument for having an army where all detachments are FSE fulfills that paragraph. However I'm still not convinced there is enough verbiage to even begin making that first FSEs detachment.
Whilst I agree with Kriswall it is "obvious" how it is supposed to work, it isn't RaW. So we're on intent/HYWPI which is fine but then trying to use hardline RaW to get you to that point is inconsistent and feankly a bit much. I'm happy to play the common sense way that Mont'ka replaces FSE, or I'm happy to use the RaW that FSE doesn't work. I don't see a valid reason for trying to claiming anything else is a sensible interpretation.
As for GW selling out of date books, The ET books were available in stores for a while after AoS dropped and indeed have come back online for Christmas. GW are happy to sell books that provide a rich background to their armies and/or additional ways to play like the missions. So the FSE book is still useful for many things just no longer valid for creating a FSE detachment.
Mr. Shine wrote: You're missing his point. He's staying that Farsight Enclaves doesn't function at the detachment selection level, as the FAQ only replaces 'army' with 'detachment' for the paragraphs AFTER the supplement tells you a Farsight Enclaves army (not corrected to detachment) is chosen using the army list in Codex: Tau Empire.
Still, at a glance it seems entirely functional per RAW to me if all detachments (therefore your 'army') are selected using the Farsight Enclaves supplement rules, so you may be wrong in claiming the Farsight Enclaves supplement doesn't work at all per RAW, FlingItNow.
I'm not sure the Farsight Enclaves Army section works at all in 7th. But I can see the argument for having an army where all detachments are FSE fulfills that paragraph. However I'm still not convinced there is enough verbiage to even begin making that first FSEs detachment.
Whilst I agree with Kriswall it is "obvious" how it is supposed to work, it isn't RaW. So we're on intent/HYWPI which is fine but then trying to use hardline RaW to get you to that point is inconsistent and feankly a bit much. I'm happy to play the common sense way that Mont'ka replaces FSE, or I'm happy to use the RaW that FSE doesn't work. I don't see a valid reason for trying to claiming anything else is a sensible interpretation.
As for GW selling out of date books, The ET books were available in stores for a while after AoS dropped and indeed have come back online for Christmas. GW are happy to sell books that provide a rich background to their armies and/or additional ways to play like the missions. So the FSE book is still useful for many things just no longer valid for creating a FSE detachment.
So you are saying that using the FSE in the last 1+ years in 7th has been illegal? Really? lol
Mr. Shine wrote: You're missing his point. He's staying that Farsight Enclaves doesn't function at the detachment selection level, as the FAQ only replaces 'army' with 'detachment' for the paragraphs AFTER the supplement tells you a Farsight Enclaves army (not corrected to detachment) is chosen using the army list in Codex: Tau Empire.
Still, at a glance it seems entirely functional per RAW to me if all detachments (therefore your 'army') are selected using the Farsight Enclaves supplement rules, so you may be wrong in claiming the Farsight Enclaves supplement doesn't work at all per RAW, FlingItNow.
I'm not sure the Farsight Enclaves Army section works at all in 7th. But I can see the argument for having an army where all detachments are FSE fulfills that paragraph. However I'm still not convinced there is enough verbiage to even begin making that first FSEs detachment.
Whilst I agree with Kriswall it is "obvious" how it is supposed to work, it isn't RaW. So we're on intent/HYWPI which is fine but then trying to use hardline RaW to get you to that point is inconsistent and feankly a bit much. I'm happy to play the common sense way that Mont'ka replaces FSE, or I'm happy to use the RaW that FSE doesn't work. I don't see a valid reason for trying to claiming anything else is a sensible interpretation.
As for GW selling out of date books, The ET books were available in stores for a while after AoS dropped and indeed have come back online for Christmas. GW are happy to sell books that provide a rich background to their armies and/or additional ways to play like the missions. So the FSE book is still useful for many things just no longer valid for creating a FSE detachment.
So you are saying that using the FSE in the last 1+ years in 7th has been illegal? Really? lol
As well as Chaos Space Marines (and all the supplements for that book) and Chaos Daemons, apparently, since they too use the old verbiage in regards to force selection. Ironically the only book that was even kinda addressed was FSE according to the FAQs I'm looking at right now, but that's still not good enough apparently. For some reason though common sense prevails in those cases and no one's told they aren't allowed to "legally" field their CSM or Daemons army, yet with regards to FSE the only logical thing to do is force everyone to buy a new $75 book that has almost the exact same content copy/pasted over but with some new formations thrown in to "update" it.
Because feth Tau, that's why.
Also, the End Times books you're talking about are strictly background, there's no rules content in them as per the product description. It's not the same case as the FSE supplement which, personally, I refuse to believe is being kept around strictly for the background content. If that was the case then why remove Iyanden when Codex: Craftworlds was released? There was background material unique to that book as well, as I'm assuming there was with Clan Raukaan which is also no longer available. It's not consistent and makes no fething sense.
Bottom line is there's more evidence to suggest that FSE is intended to still be legal than not. The fact that it's still available for sale is the biggest and most obvious one, because GW typically does not continue to sell outdated codices or supplements once an update has been published: see Codex: Craftworlds, for example, and how both Codex: Eldar and Iyanden were removed when Craftworlds was released, making Craftworlds the only available source for rules for fielding an Eldar army (and thus no "assumptions" needed to be made as to which was the current, "legal" version of the rules that should be used for fielding an Eldar army). And again, GW has never continued to sell books that were outdated purely for anyone interested in the background content, and has literally only done that just now in the case of End Times for Warhammer, which is an obvious special case as every ET release had a strict fluff book as well as a rules book to go with it. All they did was throw out the rules book and sell the fluff book so people could read the story.
Just so we're clear Sid, Iyanden wasn't removed overnight or right when the Eldar book came out.
They stopped doing print runs of it a year or more in advance and sold through the stock.
Farsight, as far as I've anecdotally seen, did not really sell well. I know of four copies floating around in my local gaming group--one of which was bought when it first came out in the limited edition format and the rest bought a regular edition later on, but still over a year in advance of this current Tau book. It's not unbelievable that they're just keeping it around in the softback format for fluff because it does include a lot of stuff that hasn't been published elsewhere.
Sidstyler wrote: It's the closest thing to "official" you're going to get from GW. Either responses from GW staff are official or they aren't, and if they aren't and if they aren't then I'm not really sure who we should listen to, because you sure as feth don't have any more authority than GW itself does.
They're not official, nor are they consistent. GW sales reps have no more insight into the rules than an average player. GW has an avenue for official rules clarifications via their FAQs, not their sales reps waiting for someone to call and ask the right question.
So you, as a player, then decide what is official and what isn't? Now that your stance on this is clear, would you also argue that the FSE is no longer valid inspite of still being sold? What in your mind could be more official than that?
I guess I don't remember then, as I was thinking it was either listed as no longer available right before or pulled right after the new codex dropped.
Well then I dunno. I guess I personally just won't use FSE then until GW prints a standalone update for it or I can get the campaign book for about half retail. Because I don't really need the campaign book for anything but the FSE rules, and have no use for only half a campaign, either.
If it was really such a poor seller though then there's no telling whether GW actually will update it or not, as printing the content from Mont'ka over again might not be seen as being worthwhile.
Mr. Shine wrote: You're missing his point. He's staying that Farsight Enclaves doesn't function at the detachment selection level, as the FAQ only replaces 'army' with 'detachment' for the paragraphs AFTER the supplement tells you a Farsight Enclaves army (not corrected to detachment) is chosen using the army list in Codex: Tau Empire, i.e. the rules tell you how to take a Farsight Enclaves army, but not a detachment.
Still, at a glance it seems entirely functional per RAW to me if all detachments (therefore your 'army') are selected using the Farsight Enclaves supplement rules, so you may be wrong in claiming the Farsight Enclaves supplement doesn't work at all per RAW, FlingItNow.
If we agreed to what he is saying it means that every single list with FSE was illegal until the Mont'ka book came out. And we know that isn't true. If FlingitNow really was one of those who admit they were wrong, now would be a good time to do so.
As well as Chaos Space Marines (and all the supplements for that book) and Chaos Daemons, apparently, since they too use the old verbiage in regards to force selection. Ironically the only book that was even kinda addressed was FSE according to the FAQs I'm looking at right now, but that's still not good enough apparently. For some reason though common sense prevails in those cases and no one's told they aren't allowed to "legally" field their CSM or Daemons army, yet with regards to FSE the only logical thing to do is force everyone to buy a new $75 book that has almost the exact same content copy/pasted over but with some new formations thrown in to "update" it.
Because feth Tau, that's why.
Yes feth Tau they are the only ones that have to use up to date rules and the only ones that have to buy new books to access them...
Iyanden was on sale in stores after Craftworlds came out. The same with Farsight as others have pointed out.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
If we agreed to what he is saying it means that every single list with FSE was illegal until the Mont'ka book came out. And we know that isn't true.
Why do we "know that isn't true"? Particularly as I've proven it is true. However the intent of how the book was supposed to work was so clear no one bothered following the RaW. Like they don't for Clan Raukaan, Sentinels etc. So do you actually have any argument against the points raised because it is now long past the time for you to admit you are wrong.
FlingitNow wrote: Yes it is my assumption that Mont'ka replaces FSE. Like it is my assumption that Codex: Craftworlds replaces Codex: Eldar. However RaW FSE can never be used as proven in this thread. There are simply no rules that allow you to make a FSE detachment only rules that tell you want happens when you do. This is the issue with all 6th Ed codexes that RaW they don't work in 7th Ed unless you use a little common sense.
It has not been proven at all in this thread, in fact there are many more things proving how RAW it can be taken on top of other factors that have been presented. An argument of "common sense" does not hold up in this case as at that point it is a matter opinion and does not mean you are automatically correct because you say so. And again you are ignoring the fact there is an FAQ that updated the book for use in 7th edition so the book is available to be used, and has been and can be continued to be used in 7th edition. Comparing a Codex replacing another Codex is not the same as a Warzone Campaign Book replacing a Supplement.
Grizzyzz wrote: Just tossing it out there. GW also came out right away and said the marine supplements were valid..
If I remember correctly the announced it via the digital version of the Space Marine Supplements, however it is annoying that GW hasn't just come out and said it either way or another, much like their lack of updating anything unfortunately.
It has not been proven once in this thread, in fact there are many more things proven how RAW it can be taken on top of other factors that have been presented. And again you are ignoring the fact there is an FAQ that updated the book for use in 7th edition so the book is available to be used, and has been and can be continued to be used in 7th edition. Comparing a Codex replacing another Codex is not the same as a Warzone Campaign Book replacing a Supplement.
I'm not ignoring the FAQ. The fact you repeatedly lied about its content illustrates you know it is not relevant to the case. If you want to prove me wrong please quote the rule that tells you how to designate a TE detachment as a FSE one? Anything at all about how to make a FSE detachment from the supplement?
FlingitNow wrote: I'm not ignoring the FAQ. The fact you repeatedly lied about its content illustrates you know it is not relevant to the case. If you want to prove me wrong please quote the rule that tells you how to designate a TE detachment as a FSE one? Anything at all about how to make a FSE detachment from the supplement?
When have i lied? Now you are accusing me falesly to try and further your argument, grow up a little maybe? No need to get so upset over a disagreement over a game, its immature. Already explained according to what is stated in the Farsight Enclaves Supplement it clearly states that it uses the rules and army list entry found in Codex: Tau Empire and it was FAQ'd to say "replace all instances of army with Detachment". And its the Farsight Enclaves Supplement so how are you getting that you cant take a Detachment from a Supplement for the Farsight Enclaves? Makes absolutely 0 sense.
FlingitNow wrote: I'm not ignoring the FAQ. The fact you repeatedly lied about its content illustrates you know it is not relevant to the case. If you want to prove me wrong please quote the rule that tells you how to designate a TE detachment as a FSE one? Anything at all about how to make a FSE detachment from the supplement?
When have i lied? Now you are accusing me falesly to try and further your argument, grow up a little maybe? No need to get so upset over a disagreement over a game, its immature. Already explained according to what is stated in the Farsight Enclaves Supplement it clearly states that it uses the rules and army list entry found in Codex: Tau Empire and it was FAQ'd to say "replace all instances of army with Detachment". And its the Farsight Enclaves Supplement so how are you getting that you cant take a Detachment from a Supplement for the Farsight Enclaves? Makes absolutely 0 sense.
Has pointed out repeatedly hence I know you are again lying about the FAQ. Only in certain sections does detachment replace army according to the FAQ. The section you repeatedly misquoted was not covered by the FAQ. The FAQ sections only deal with rules that apply once you have a FSE detachment and not how you create one. Being willfully dishonest in an argument is impolite and does not help the discussion. I would like to ask you to please stop lying in future so we can try to engage in a productive discussion.
FlingitNow wrote: Has pointed out repeatedly hence I know you are again lying about the FAQ. Only in certain sections does detachment replace army according to the FAQ. The section you repeatedly misquoted was not covered by the FAQ. The FAQ sections only deal with rules that apply once you have a FSE detachment and not how you create one. Being willfully dishonest in an argument is impolite and does not help the discussion. I would like to ask you to please stop lying in future so we can try to engage in a productive discussion.
So you tell me to stop lying when you are the one lying and spreading falsehoods? Way to be a hypocrite, i have not lied at all so I would appreciate you stop trying to make me look bad because you are losing an argument, it is very immature. The FAQ itself states the following:
"Battlesuit Spearhead, Ork Hunters, Ta'lissera Bond, Farishgt Commander Team and Divergent Destiny. Replace all instances of "Farsight Enclaves Army" with Farsight Enclaves Detachment."
Now when going into said Special Rules it is stated above this entry that these are the Special Rules that you put into effect when putting together and deciding to run an Army/Detachment out the Farsight Enclaves Supplement. They updated it since Detachments was the key word change when 7th Edition was released and its pretty cut and dry. In the future I would recommend not trying to make lame and unexcused attempts to belittle an individuals character just because they disagree with you, and again you have yet to provide any concrete proof, "common sense" doesnt work here as it can go both ways.
FlingitNow wrote: Has pointed out repeatedly hence I know you are again lying about the FAQ. Only in certain sections does detachment replace army according to the FAQ. The section you repeatedly misquoted was not covered by the FAQ. The FAQ sections only deal with rules that apply once you have a FSE detachment and not how you create one. Being willfully dishonest in an argument is impolite and does not help the discussion. I would like to ask you to please stop lying in future so we can try to engage in a productive discussion.
Check the difference between "lying" and "being mistaken".
FlingitNow wrote: Has pointed out repeatedly hence I know you are again lying about the FAQ. Only in certain sections does detachment replace army according to the FAQ. The section you repeatedly misquoted was not covered by the FAQ. The FAQ sections only deal with rules that apply once you have a FSE detachment and not how you create one. Being willfully dishonest in an argument is impolite and does not help the discussion. I would like to ask you to please stop lying in future so we can try to engage in a productive discussion.
+1
The FAQ's Amendments, first point, 'Page 50 -- Battlesuit Spearhead, Ork Hunters, Ta'Lissera Bond, Farsight's Commander Team and Divergent Destiny.
Replace all instances of 'Farsight Enclaves army' with Farsight Enclaves Detachment'.'
Note, it does not replace 'Farsight Enclaves Army' in the bolded bit at the top, and the Signature Systems entry.
carldooley wrote: +1 The FAQ's Amendments, first point, 'Page 50 -- Battlesuit Spearhead, Ork Hunters, Ta'Lissera Bond, Farsight's Commander Team and Divergent Destiny. Replace all instances of 'Farsight Enclaves army' with Farsight Enclaves Detachment'.' Note, it does not replace 'Farsight Enclaves Army' in the bolded bit at the top, and the Signature Systems entry.
Which is what I said if you read above, and these are all the Special Rules required for taking a FSE Detachment in 7th Edition, otherwise it would have been illegal to play the entire time up until the debate in question.
some people will lash out. But to correct you.. Only Iyanden has really been completely 100% removed. All the 
