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.

 Zagman wrote:
Supplements counts as its parent Faction. CADs are based upon Factions, not source material.

I suppose then you can have a Raaukan Iron Hands detachment and a Regular Iron Hands detachment. RAW supplements count as the parent factions for making detachments, but the supplements state that the supplement is a separate detachment. Am i interpreting this right?

There is nothing in the Supplements stating that they need to be separate Detachments to the mother Codex.

Detachment's are a concept formed in 7th, after current Supplements where written, so the best they contain is a meaningless Rule stating they can ally with each other. The concept that they can not be mixed also runs opposite to the Rules we do have, ones which state that a Detachment may consist of any number of Units from the same Faction and another stating that the mother Codex and Supplement Units are the same Faction. Those two Rules combined creates the loophole which gives permission to include "Supplement Units" within a "Vanilla Detachment" or, more likely, vise visa. The only thing preventing this from royally abused right now are the third Rules in this equation, the ones you get for running a "supplement Detachment," are Detachment specific but this might change in the future and I don't know every Supplement so there might be some Rules which are still open for abuse.

 ace101 wrote:

 Zagman wrote:
Supplements counts as its parent Faction. CADs are based upon Factions, not source material.

I suppose then you can have a Raaukan Iron Hands detachment and a Regular Iron Hands detachment. RAW supplements count as the parent factions for making detachments, but the supplements state that the supplement is a separate detachment. Am i interpreting this right?

To gain access to the Clan Raukaan Dreads, Techmarines, and Warlord Traits you would need to have a Claan Raukaan warlord who could only choose from the gifts of the Gorgon. Any Army list entry is choses from C: SM with Iron Hands as normal. You then could choose a C: SM Iron Hands HQ that was not Claan Raukaan as they are the same Faction and don't break the Chapter Tactics Rule. He would only be able to choose from the SM Special Items and would not allow you to choose multiple Techmarines. So, no mixing and matching war gear on a single HQ.

Basically to gain access to Clan Raukaan Special abilities you choose a Clan Raukaan Warlord. But, this doesn't stop you from choosing a vanilla Iron Hands HQ with access to their Special Wargear.

That is at least how it's been ruled for the BAO and is going to be ruled for Nova barring any major FAQ/Errata.

JinxDragon wrote:
There is nothing in the Supplements stating that they need to be separate Detachments to the mother Codex.

Except for the supplements special rules.

And no, Detachments are not new to 7th, they were there in 6th: Primary and Allied detachments.


So the rules in the supplements has been the same since they were originally written: A supplement detachment is a detachment drawn from the supplement.

Kel,
My mistake as I should of stated that the current method of how Faction dependent Detachments are handled is unique to 7th edition, so the supplements would have nothing to directly address the problems caused by this concept. The Rules you are referencing mention nothing about the Requirement that all Units in a Detachment belong to the same Faction. Nothing to addressing the matter, let alone stating that permission created by the Basic Rulebook has been over-turned, that the 'Supplement Detachment' must contain Units which belong only to that Supplement, like you continue to claim these Rules contain. I do see where they can greatly reduce the damage that might be caused by the concept of a 'Mixed Detachment,' but this is vastly different to an out-right ban, which I keep trying to bring to your attention.

Not having purpose within the Rules is not the same thing as being illegal within the Rules.

There seems to be a lot of confusion on this topic. I feel that there are some critical parts missed and more information will help us understand the proper way 7th edition has changed the game. Here are some bits of info that may help.

1- Detachments are not a new concept for 7th. The Combined Arms Detachment and the Allies Detachment on page 122 BRB are just some of the new ways you can build a Battle Forged Army (page 118). Other Codexes and publications have further ways to build your force.

Current Detachments available:

Codex Detachments (pg 118 BRB and in each codex with their own rules)
Supplement Detachments (pg 118 BRB and in each codex with their own rules)
Inquisitorial Detachment (Codex Inquisition), this is a Codex Detachment but also has additional rules so I list is separately
Example Detachment (pg 120 BRB) - this is the old style 2/3/6/3/3 we are familiar with
Combined Arms Detachment (pg 122 BRB)
Allies Detachment (pg 122 BRB)
Formation (pg 121 BRB)
Expansion Detachments - Siege War Attacker/Defender (Stronghold Assault) - NOTE THE FAQ!!! It clearly states these Detachments do NOT gain Command Benefits!!!
Others we have not seen yet (pg 118 BRB)
House Rule Detachments (pg 117 BRB) I made this term up for the sake of discussion but the concept is in the rulebook.

2- Yes, according to the Combined Arms Detachment wording with Factions (pg 118 BRB) you can mix the units from one Supplement with a Parent codex in the same detachment. This is another way you can build your army but it does NOT follow all the rules for Supplements, so if you mix units you will not gain the army specific rules, like Ork Hunters from Farsight Enclaves. Currently there are groups saying that you can still get the benefits but that is their house rules not RAW (which is OK! see below).

3- Fortifications and Lords of War currently are only available in a Combined Arms Detachment or a House Rule Detachment. (see BRB and supplement FAQs).

4- Command Benefits apply to only the two new Detachments shown on page 122 in the BRB. Using any other type of existing Detachment will not confer those rules. I expect to see new Detachments with Command Benefits in future books and the Orks will show us a lot! All previously published Detachments do not have Command Benefits and the first waves of FAQs did not upgrade them.

5- Ally with yourself through codex special rules still applies but you are in violation of the Restrictions for the Allied Detachment on page 122 BRB. The rules for Basic versus Advanced (pg 13 BRB) clears that up.

5- House Rules Detachments, like what BAO and others are doing are encouraged in the new rules (pg 117). I think it is essential for TO's to make their own Detachments (with requirements and benefits) so they may create the atmosphere they want for their events. The only issue I have here is that players must remember that there are many ways to play and "BrandedTournament Detachment" should be the proper way to list them instead of calling it a CAD to avoid confusion. As shown above, with so many types of Detachments, a clear label for the modified Detachment type will make things easier for players to discern variations.


I am currently working on drafting the MechaniCon '14 army list rules and will create a new way for players that choose to build their army without the BRB CAD and still be able to take a single Fortification or Lord of War. We are planning to allow 3 detachments (including our own Tournament Detachment) from 4 rules sources (each book used is a source) for an 1850 point army.

This is the draft but it will give you an idea of what I mean:

MechaniCon Grand Tournament Detachment

Force Org Chart

Compulsory:

1 HQ
2 Troops

Optional:

1 HQ
4 Troops
3 Elites
3 Fast Attack
3 Heavy Support
1 Fortification
1 Lord of War

Restrictions

This Detachment can only be chosen if it is your Primary Detachment (includes your Warlord). You may only choose one MechaniCon Grand Tournament Detachment when creating your army and may not take a Combined Arms Detachment as an additional Detachment.

All units must be taken from a single codex/supplement. This detachment will count as a MechaniCon Grand Tournament Detachment as well as the codex/supplement that is used to choose the units from.

Your Lord of War must have the same Faction (or have no Faction).

Command Benefits

Lord Commander - your Warlord can re-roll the result on the Warlord Trait table

Objective Secured - as per the rulebook, see page 122

 Kommissar Kel wrote:

JinxDragon wrote:
There is nothing in the Supplements stating that they need to be separate Detachments to the mother Codex.

Except for the supplements special rules.

And no, Detachments are not new to 7th, they were there in 6th: Primary and Allied detachments.


So the rules in the supplements has been the same since they were originally written: A supplement detachment is a detachment drawn from the supplement.

\


And yet Supplements contain no rules for a Supplement Detachment nor are we provided said rules within the BRB. Where exactly does this "supplement" detachment rule come from? pg reference?

What we do have is a CAD with its restrictions and permission to draw from multiple sources so long as they are the same faction and rules telling us that supplements belong to their parent faction.

It is either self defining(a detachment, any detachment, drawn from the supplement).

Or it is an undefined parameter that means you cannot use the supplements at all.

Those are literally our only 2 options, you either use a little sense and stop being a donkey with the RAW, or the RAW says you cannot use the rules at all.

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
It is either self defining(a detachment, any detachment, drawn from the supplement).

Or it is an undefined parameter that means you cannot use the supplements at all.

Those are literally our only 2 options, you either use a little sense and stop being a donkey with the RAW, or the RAW says you cannot use the rules at all.

I'll use Farsight Enclaves as an example as I am most familiar with it...


Or "a Farsight Enclaves Detachment" simply means a Faction Tau Empire detachment, either CAD or AD, with one or more units selected from the Farsight Enclaves and is not mutually exclusive. Farsight Enclave is Faction Tau Empire. If Supplements are to overrule the BRB here is needs to be explicitly defined as the BRB has currently opened CADs and ADs up to anything within the Faction specifically mentioning how to handle Supplements. "a Farsight Enclaves Detachment" does not preclude me from choosing another Faction Tau Empires unit ie Commander and selecting from its listed options. Just as selecting a "Farsight Enclaves Detachment" doesn't stop me from including Tau Empires Forgeworld etc. If something is in multiple sources, we get to choose where it comes from so long as we abide by those restrictions.

A Tau Empire CAD can't include a Farsight Enclaves Commander or Riptides with ECPA unless it also has a 3 man suits squad with bonding knives from the Farsight Enclaves as well.


"donkey with the RAW". Don't be insulting. And might I remind you I'm siding with the ruling that is being adopted so far for the major tournaments that are coming up.

We are told explicitly that Supplements belong to their parent Factions and that CADs and ADs only requirements is Faction dependent. You cannot dispute that fact. 6th Ed supplements were designed for 6th with 6th Edition's definitions of Detachments. No where in the FAQ/Errata for supplements have we been given a 7th Ed Detatchment FOC with Restrictions and Command Benefits. We are however, told that we can make a CAD or AD out of anything from one particular Faction.

No that cannot be what it means at all as there are no Units in the FE supplement.

You cannot even field any of the eight until it is already a FE detachment, and all rules concerning units require all the units within a FE detachment.

You are pulling your distinction from nowhere and beyond not having rules support, you break several rules.

A Tau Empire CAD can't include a Farsight Enclaves Commander or Riptides with ECPA unless it also has a 3 man suits squad with bonding knives from the Farsight Enclaves as well.

And you cannot have a 3 man crisis team as troops unless it is already a FE detachment.

Also that whole distinction you are making with a TE CAD, that is exactly the same as a FE CAD, which would be a FE Detachment as it is a detachment drawn from FE Supplement.

CADs and ADs themselves are Faction dependent, the rules for Supplements have their own requirements outside those rules, just like every other codex that has unit restrictions, requirements, and bonuses.

Here's what I think:

Quote from the Crimson Slaughter:
"These pages present all the rules alterations and additions to those given in Codex: Chaos Space Marines..."

- The supplement acknowledges that it is a supplement, something that ADDS rules and alterations to the Codex: Chaos Space Marines. It is effectively a part of the same Codex.

Quote from the Crimson Slaughter:
"A Crimson Slaughter army is chosen using the army list presented in Codex: Chaos Space Marines. It also has a series of supplemental rules (presented below) that can be used in addition to those found in Codex: Chaos Space Marines. "

- The supplement acknowledges that the army lists presented in the Codex: Chaos Space Marines are legal selections for a Crimson Slaughter army.
- As previously indicated, supplements self-acknowledge that they are additions to the Codex: Chaos Space Marines.
- All units mentioned in any supplement are effectively considered part of the same Codex army list.

Quote from the Crimson Slaughter:
"All models in a Crimson Slaughter detachment have the Fear special rule. "

- No specification is listed that determines what a Crimson Slaughter detachment is but it states that one must be had to have the special rule.
- Other special rules are worded similarly with "When choosing a Crimson Slaughter detachment".

Quote from the Crimson Slaughter:
"Any character in your Crimson Slaughter detachment that can select Chaos Artefacts cannot select from those listed in Codex: Chaos Space Marines, but can instead select from the Relics of the Crimson Slaughter, presented opposite, at the points cost shown. "

- Distinction is made between a Crimson Slaughter and a Codex: Chaos Space Marines detachment. This conflicts mildly with the statement that all contents are part of the same Codex.
- Crimson Slaughter artifacts would be considered part of the Codex as well, and therefore excluded from being selected if that were the case.
- Conflict is resolved by the conjunction clause which specifies that although all Chaos Artifacts in the Codex (including Crimson Slaughter ones) are banned, selections made from Relics of the Crimson Slaughter are permitted (overrules the previous prohibition). Therefore Crimson Slaughter artifacts only can be selected in a Crimson Slaughter Detachment.

Quote from the Crimson Slaughter:
"A Crimson Slaughter detachment can ally with a Codex: Chaos Space Marines detachment as Battle Brothers (and vice versa)."

- Another distinction is made between a Crimson Slaughter and a Codex: Chaos Space Marines detachment. Despite their contents belonging to the same Codex, they are somehow different.

Conclusion:
- The rules prohibit taking normal Chaos Artifacts in a Crimson Slaughter detachment.
- The rules only grant permission for certain special rules to be used in a Crimson Slaughter detachment.
- Nowhere does it prohibit taking Crimson Slaughter material UNLESS it's being taken in a Crimson Slaughter detachment.
- The previous two statements have a minor conflict that is resolved through the permissions listed. No permission for a special rule to apply to a non-Crimson Slaughter detachment.
- Crimson Slaughter artifacts and units can be taken in any Codex: Chaos Space Marines army detachment, provided none of the special rules are taken.

This means:

- You MAY take Crimson Slaughter artifacts in a Combined Arms detachment. Strategems and special rules may NOT be used because of the Crimson Slaughter detachment requirement.
- You MAY take any Supplement-specific units (if any existed) in a normal Combined Arms detachment as they belong to the Codex: Chaos Space Marines now (like the artifacts).
- You MAY mix Black Legion, Crimson Slaughter, and normal Codex units in the same Combined Arms detachment as they are all from the same faction and codex. However --
- You MAY NOT use the special supplement rules listed in the Black Legion and Crimson Slaughter books because you are using a Combined Arms detachment.

And the kicker:
- You MAY gain access to the special rules if you create a Crimson Slaughter detachment. Being that such a detachment has no rules listed, it does not benefit from the Combined Arms bonuses and none of its troops have Objective Secured. Additionally the only limit seems to be that the Codex: Chaos Space Marines army list is all that applies as far as restrictions for choosing your army. There is effectively no limit on what you can take in one. However, since there is no specific rule that overrides the basic FOC, it can be presumed that the FOC still applies. It's little better than an "Example" detachment.

Alternatively:
- You MAY use the special rules if you are permitted to take a Combined Arms detachment and rename it as a Crimson Slaughter detachment. No specific rule allows us to do this though...

We are told in FE...

"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 section has not been changed by FAQ. It tells us that Farsight Enclave has an army lists equal to that of Codex: Tau Empire with certain changes and modifications. This means that we have two army lists, one from Tau Empire, and one from Farsight Enclaves. Granted, they are virtually identical, but some have additional rules that are associated and each are separate entries.

The BRB tells us, "In the case of codex supplements, the Faction of all the units is described in that publication is the same as the codex it is a supplement of."

This means that all of the units in the Farsight Enclave, which is identical to that of Tau Empire with additional rules, are members of the same faction, Tau Empire, and exist as separate choices.

Under Army List Entries in Different Publications, "There are a few units whose Army List Entries are presented in more than one Games Workshop Publication.... In these instances, the unit's Faction is determined by whichever codex it was chosen from."

While referencing Factions and like models its shows us how to treat multiple publications with different Army List entries with the same name. Fore example a Commander chosen from Tau Empire and an Commander chosen from Farsight Enclave.

A CAD's only restriction is the units must belong to the same Faction and must abide by the FOC restrictions.

We are also told, bolded for emphasis by GW, that, "A unit's Faction applies regardless of how you choose your army."

Under The Warlord we are told that "The model you choose as your Warlord also determines your primary Detachment."

This tells us to use our Warlord to determine what table we roll from for Warlord Traits.


When creating a CAD Faction is what matter. We aren't building armies outside of Codices anymore, we are building CADs based off of FActions.