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

 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.

Also this little tidbit confirming from GW:

http://www.spikeybits.com/2015/11/the-farsight-supplement-question-answered-by-gw-2.html

 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.

 gmaleron wrote:
Also this little tidbit confirming from GW:

http://www.spikeybits.com/2015/11/the-farsight-supplement-question-answered-by-gw-2.html

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.

My view of this questions is simple.

The FSE Supplement is clearly a 6th Edition ruleset that worked well enough with the 6th edition TE codex and the 7th edition BRB CAD 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.

 Sidstyler wrote:


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.

 FlingitNow wrote:

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...

 FlingitNow wrote:

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 IT IT IS STIlL LEGAL. I don't know how difficult that is to understand

Arguing with FlingItNow is wasted effort.

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.

 FlingitNow wrote:

 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

Well whetther FSE can be taken legally or not.. montka most certainly can. So no issues anymore.

notredameguy10 wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:

 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.

 Ghaz wrote:

 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.

Just tossing it out there. GW also came out right away and said the marine supplements were valid..

 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.

 gmaleron wrote:

 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.